Google censuur en toch echt nieuws volgen? Gebruik een andere browser naast die van Google, of dump Google helemaal!!

Whitney Webb publiceerde op 25 augustus jl. een artikel op MintPress News, een bericht over het nieuwe censuur beleid van Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft en Twitter.

Webb geeft in het artikel de alternatieven waarmee je de censoren en geheime onderzoekers (geheime diensten) van de overheid en het bedrijfsleven kan omzeilen, zo kan u uw eigen ‘Virtual Private Network’ (VPN) opzetten, waarmee u zelfs uw IP-adres geheim kan houden.

Google heeft de laatste maanden diverse onafhankelijke mediaorganen geblokkeerd, die niet het algemene westerse politieke (neoliberale) beleid volgen en zich verzetten tegen de enorme berg leugens in de reguliere westerse massamedia……… Google en anderen doen dit in de strijd tegen ‘fake news’, waarbij men voor het gemak even vergeet dat vooral diezelfde massamedia verantwoordelijk zijn voor het brengen van nepnieuws, ofwel ‘fake news……….’ Anders gezegd: Google verzet zich tegen ‘fake news’, door juist de alternatieve media te blokkeren, die ditzelfde ‘fake news’ dag in dag uit aan de paal nagelen!!

‘Fake news’ (of nepnieuws zo je wilt) in de westerse massamedia >> neem de berichtgeving voor en tijdens de illegale oorlogen tegen: Afghanistan, Irak, Libie en nu weer Syrië…….. Om over het tot voor kort lange zwijgen door die media over de oorlog tegen Jemen nog maar te zwijgen… (wat ik nu dus niet doe..) De smerige oorlog en genocide die de reli-fascistische dictatuur van Saoedi-Arabië tegen de sjiitische bevolking van Jemen voert/uitvoert, dit met behulp van een arabische coalitie, aangevuld met de hulp van de VS en Groot-Brittannië……. (en met de stilzwijgende goedkeuring die de meerderheid van westerse politici, als de mislukte PvdA sierkwast Koenders, aan deze oorlog en genocide geven….. Die goedkeuring geven ze door te zwijgen!)

Of wat dacht je van de totaal foute en valse berichtgeving in de westerse massamedia t.a.v. de fascistische apartheidsstaat Israël……

Hier het bewuste artikel van Webb dat ik overnam van Anti-Media, doe er je voordeel mee!

Your
Guide to Avoiding Internet Censorship of Independent News Journalism

August
25, 2017 at 10:43 am

Written
by 
Whitney
Webb

There
are lots of good strategies for beating both corporate and government
Internet censors and snoops. These range from alternatives to Google,
Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter — to direct subscriptions to
authors and pubs — to setting up your own VPN. All are worth the
effort.

(MPN) —
While Google’s
Information Age dominance
 has
long been recognized to have some unsavory consequences, the massive
technology corporation has, in recent months, taken to directly
censoring content and traffic to a variety of independent media
outlets across the political spectrum — essentially muting the
voices of any site or author who does not toe the establishment line.

This
new offensive has coincided with Google efforts to clamp down on
“fake news” and “extremist” content, which – on its
subsidiary, YouTube – led to
 the
categorical blocking
 of
videos portraying war crimes and other disturbing events of the
Syrian conflict and Israel’s occupation of Palestine. Other
independent media figures, such as 
Luke
Rudowski and Carey Wedler
,
on the popular video streaming service, saw 
many
of their videos
 demonetized.

Though
the crackdown on YouTube was more obvious, the Google search engine –
the most popular in the world – is now burying or blocking
independent media sites from its search results.

Conservatives have
long claimed
 that
Google was selectively targeting their content due to the personal
political bias of the company’s executives — but now, since
Google announced its new guidelines, numerous progressive,
transparency, and anti-war websites that act as watchdogs to the
establishment have seen their traffic diminish substantially.

Counterpunch,
World Socialist Website, MintPress News, Democracy Now, American
Civil Liberties Union and Wikileaks are
 just
a handful
 of
the sites that have seen massive drops in their returns from Google
searches. The World Socialist Website alone experienced a 67 percent
decrease in returns from Google following the implementation of
Google’s new algorithm targeting so-called “fake news.”
MintPress News, however, has suffered the steepest decline, having
seen a 76 percent decrease in traffic from Google since the new
algorithm was put into effect.

Why has Google changed its search system to push down publications (left & right) critical of Washington DC?

273 replies3,658 retweets3,623 likes



Google
has its reasons for choosing to censor viewpoints that clash with or
even raise questions about the official narrative. Google shares deep
connections with the U.S.’ political powerbrokers, notably with the
CIA, which 
originally
helped fund
 Google
into existence with the intention of controlling the flow of
information.

Understandably
— in light of its deep connections to those who stand the most to
lose from the actual free flow of information — Google has emerged
as a leader of the “fight” against so-called “fake news.” The
concept of “fake news” took on sudden weight following last
November’s U.S. presidential election: in the tweets and rants of
newly-elected President Donald Trump, media predictions of a Clinton
victory were ridiculed as “FAKE NEWS,” while Clinton supporters
also wound up blaming “fake news” for Clinton’s loss in the
election.

In
short order, the term became a term of derision and dismissal applied
to any and all disagreeable reporting. With the “fake news” net
cast so wide, the ground was fertile for a campaign against the
official story-challenging work of independent media — dependent
for its reach, to a far greater extent than its mainstream media
counterparts, upon the good graces of monster Internet traffic cops
such as Google.

The
following guide offers a variety of solutions and options for those
concerned with Google’s overreach and its decision to become the
Internet’s unelected “Ministry of Truth.”

Dumping
Google Search

Dominating over
80%
 of
global searches made on the Internet, Google’s chokehold on the
flow of information is undeniable. Now that its algorithm has been
shown to target news sites critical of the establishment on both
sides of the aisle, finding an alternative becomes an essential task
irrespective of one’s political leaning.

However,
don’t expect other brand name search engines like Microsoft’s
Bing or Yahoo to come to the rescue, as these too
 have
been caught
 censoring
search results in the past. Microsoft, in particular, is very
untrustworthy, given its
 eager
participation
 in
the NSA’s PRISM surveillance program — where it illegally shared
the Internet user data, including search queries, of U.S. citizens
without their knowledge.

Given
its willingness to cooperate with the government against the interest
of American citizens, Microsoft would be perhaps more willing even
than Google to censor access to so-called “fake news.”

Yahoo
is little better, as it too was an early adopter of the PRISM
surveillance program, second only to Microsoft. Like Microsoft,
they
 willingly
cooperate
 with
government censorship efforts – as well as the
 outing
of dissidents
 –
in other countries.

Thankfully,
as far as search engines go, there are other options available that
not only respect your privacy but also offer fairer searches,
including some features that even Google doesn’t offer.

DuckDuckGo

Of
all the viable Google alternatives, 
DuckDuckGo is
the most well-known, having been promoted by PCMag.com, the Guardian,
and The New York Times as a “long-term” threat to Google’s
search dominance. It was even one of the top 50 sites of 2011,
according to Time magazine.

However,
the “mainstream” accolades are, in this case, well-deserved.
DuckDuckGo is best known for its motto 
the
search engine that doesn’t track you,” complete with 
Tor
browser
 functionality. While
this is a clear boon for privacy enthusiasts – or anyone concerned
about illegal NSA spying – it also results in search results that
are not filtered based on your search history. In other words, users
are more likely to be presented with search results that challenge
their existing ideas.

DuckDuckGo
also boasts 
an
impressive search algorithm
 that
excludes Google results but includes results from other well-known
search engines, mixed with the data obtained by DuckDuckGo’s
own
 web
crawler
 bot.
The results are filtered for spam and re-ordered using its trademark
“Instant Answers” platform, which places high-quality answers
above other results and advertisements. The “Instant Answers”
platform gathers answers provided by top popular websites, like
Wikipedia, in addition to
 community-built answers.

For
those tech-savvy users who don’t trust the spam filtering or even
the “Instant Answer” platform, these functions — as well as
DuckDuckGo itself — is open-source and also offers
 DuckDuckHack,
where users can create their own plug-ins for use in DuckDuckGo and
even help improve the search engine overall.

For
less savvy tech users, DuckDuckGo conveniently functions like any
other search engine, in addition to providing several features
 even
Google doesn’t offer.
 It
also has a search app for both iPhone and Android, as well as
plug-ins for Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox, and offers support in
several languages.

Ixquick/StartPage

Ixquick is
an American/Dutch meta-search engine, meaning it
 simultaneously
searches
 multiple
databases and other search engines
,
including Google, across the Internet. It uses a “star system” to
rank search results, placing a star next to each result for every
search engine that ranks that result as one of its 10 best for a
given search. A five-star result, for example, means that five search
engines considered that result to be among the 10 most relevant.

Ixquick
— which has now merged with its subsidiary, StartPage — also
tackles the issue of privacy by not storing user-specific details
such as cookies or past search results. Like DuckDuckGo, Ixquick
offers unfiltered search results generated by Google’s
“personalized” searches. Privacy enthusiasts may recognize
Ixquick as the default search engine for the Tor browser.

Ixquick
is supported in 17 languages and offers a plug-in for Mozilla
Firefox. They also offer a privacy-minded, encrypted email server
called 
StartMail.

Gibiru

Gibiru,
like the aforementioned search engines, prides itself on offering
maximum privacy. It avoids tracking its users by providing anonymous
and encrypted searches. It describes itself as “the preferred
Search Engine for Patriots” and offers non-personalized, anonymous
web results while emphasizing the disdain of its developers for the
NSA. Part of what sets Gibiru apart is its claim to offer
“uncensored” searches, as their web crawlers intentionally
include pages that Google has blocked or buried in its search
results.

Gibiru
also has a unique feature called “Uncensored News.” In addition
to aggregating results from other search engines, Gibiru adds its own
algorithm that specifically looks for results from independent media
outlets, particularly those that tend to “promote ‘alternative’
views from the mainstream.”

Recognizing
that mainstream media results are picked up by Google and Bing,
Gibiru does not use its bandwidth searching through these results.
Even up-and-coming independent media sites can gain inclusion in
Uncensored News results by communicating with the Gibiru team.

Gibiru
offers both a toolbar and a plugin for Mozilla Firefox.

Subscribe
directly to your favorite pages

Though
the above search engines can assist in more accurate and less
censored internet searches, the best way to get news you trust is
directly from the source. Anyone who reads independent media
eventually develops preferences for certain sites and authors whose
content they consistently find reliable and interesting.

If
you are concerned with Google’s clampdown on independent media, the
most surefire way to ensure your access to the sites you enjoy is by
subscribing directly to them via email. Most independent media pages
offer you the option to subscribe to their mailing lists, where you
receive their top stories on a daily basis. Some pages charge for
subscriptions, but most – such as
 MintPress
News’ Daily Digest
 –
are free and allow you to unsubscribe at any time. Some websites,
including MintPress,
 also
offer apps
 for
Android or iPhone, which allow users direct and convenient access to
the content of those pages.

If
you are concerned that all of the newsletters and stories of the
pages you want to follow will clutter your email, there are several
good options. Some mail servers allow you to label certain types of
incoming mail, and creating a specific label for “news” can
streamline the process of following all of your favorite pages in one
place. Alternatively, you can create an email account dedicated to
news in order to keep it separate from email accounts more focused on
work or socializing.

In
some cases, however, your favorite writers may not regularly publish
in the same place, making their work difficult to follow via email
subscription. Many authors have either their own web pages dedicated
to their work or publish on websites such as 
Medium —
a site offering both free and premium membership options, that hosts
the writings of many big names in independent news from across the
political spectrum.

Signing
up for Medium allows you to follow any writer you like, even
mainstream ones – a boon, for instance, if you like a certain
writer at, say, The Wall Street Journal but don’t trust the paper
as a whole. Certain popular writers in independent media — such
Nafeez Ahmed’s
 Insurge
Intelligence
 —
even publish some of their biggest stories exclusively on Medium.

Dump
social media for news

The Wrath Of Facebook: ‘God’ Smote With 30-Day Ban For Criticizing US Military Spending

Facebook’s moderation system, which combines an automated flagging system with limited human oversight, has consistently drawn criticism, once banning a satirical account which criticized U.S. military spending.(AP/Czarek Sokolowski)

Though
some may value their Facebook account for keeping in touch with
friends and family, the social media giant is quickly becoming
unreliable for receiving news content posted by your friends as well
as the people or pages you follow. Facebook and Twitter have each
been caught censoring on several occasions and both now openly patrol
for “fake news” and “hate speech” — burying stories that
users would otherwise see, based on the recommendations of Facebook
or Twitter-approved flaggers. Many of these flaggers have been found
to publish “fake news” themselves or have a strong bias against
particular viewpoints, particularly those critical of conservative
politics.

Just
as with Google, Facebook and Twitter users can no longer be sure that
their newsfeeds contain the news they want to read, just as content
creators and publishers can no longer expect the same scope and reach
they once enjoyed on social media.

Unfortunately,
the alternatives to Facebook and Twitter are few and lack the large
user communities that make a social network successful. However,
there are two notable sites that are attempting to change that.

One
of those sites is Steemit.
 Steemit is
a social media platform that runs a blogging and social network
website built on top of a blockchain database. Steemit now boasts a
decently sized community, though it hardly compares to Facebook in
terms of daily users. Part of its success has been due to the 
site’s
commitment to paying users for creating and curating popular content
on the site
.
Per the site’s system, users receive digital points (“Steem”)
depending on the success of their posts, which they can exchange for
more tangible rewards or payment via online exchanges. With $1 of
Steem
 now
worth
 just
over $4 USD, some people have found using Steemit to be both socially
and economically beneficial.

Another
potential Facebook competitor is 
Minds —
an
 open
source, encrypted, and community-owned social network site that
values free speech
 and
doesn’t bow to government or advertiser pressure. It hosts
individual user profiles and blogs and creates an unfiltered
newsfeed for its users.

Members
can even be paid for posting their content if it garners a
significant number of views and upvotes. Although at present the
Minds community is tiny compared to that of Facebook, it may in years
to come become a more popular alternative, as Facebook continues to
disappoint.

Avoiding
outright censorship if and when It happens

While
censorship has
 long
been a reality
 in
countries like China, Western governments like to tout themselves as
being the guardians of freedom and the free flow of information. But
many of these governments, particularly the United States, have come
to realize in recent years that they are
 on
the losing side
 of
the “information war,” as trust in the corporate-owned media and
the government itself has sunk to historic lows.

Though
Western governments have, so far, outsourced censorship to technology
companies like Google and Facebook, there is little reason to believe
that these governments will refrain from demanding the outright
censorship of information that doesn’t toe the official line.

Take,
for example, the recent rhetoric of U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May
who, in the wake of the Manchester bombing, has pushed for censoring
“extremist propaganda” online. May’s assertion
 concerned
internet watchdog groups
,
who likened her proposals to China’s widespread censorship of the
Internet.

If
official government censorship comes to your country – or if you
suspect that it is already there – the easiest workaround is
setting up a virtual private network, or VPN. A VPN allows you to use
your computer as though it were connected to a network other than the
one you actually use. In the event of government censorship in your
country, a VPN allows you to virtually connect to a network set up in
another country where such censorship is not in effect. Using a VPN
has the added bonus of greater Internet privacy — as effective VPN
protocols encrypt your traffic, helping to protect you from
government surveillance as well as censorship.

VPNs
are provided by VPN service providers, not all of whom are created
equal. VPN providers with good reputations include Strong VPN,
SurfEasy, and TunnelBear.  Of these, TunnelBear is the least
expensive – offering a free service – and SurfEasy the most
expensive at $11.99 per month. However, the Opera browser now
includes SurfEasy’s VPN services for free. A comprehensive guide on
how to choose the best VPN service provider for your needs can be
found
 here.

By Whitney
Webb
 / Creative
Commons
 / MintPress
News
 / Report
a typo

==================================================

Zie
ook: 

Google manipuleerde VS presidentsverkiezingen van 2016 en censureert niet alleen linkse/alternatieve sociale media


Facebook
stelt perstituee van New York Times aan als censuur-agent…… ha!
ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

May,
premier GB, wil als reactie op de aanslagen in Londen en Manchester,
de mensenrechten buiten werking stellen en censuur op het internet
doorvoeren……….

Boris
Johnson wil (sociale) media controleren en censureren…….

Washington
Post medewerkers is verboden grote adverteerders te bekritiseren…..
Of hoe miljonairs en miljardairs de voorheen onafhankelijk pers
beheren

Censuur teistert het internet: video over aanslag Las Vegas verwijderd door YouTube…………. 

White Helmets nogmaals ontmaskert als terreurorganisatie: de oprichter is een Britse ex-huurling…….

Whitney Webb publiceerde gisteren op MintPress News een artikel over de White Helmets, ik kreeg het artikel via Anti-Media.

James Le Mesurier, een ex-huurling (huurlingen zijn bijna zonder uitzondering psychopaten), heeft de White Helmets in 2013 opgericht, zoals al eens eerder op deze plek gesteld*.

Niet vreemd dus dat de White Helmets i.p.v. een hulporganisatie te zijn, een organisatie is die ten dienste staat van terreurorganisaties in Syrië, terreurgroepen die de democratisch gekozen regering Assad bevechten, middels een ongehoorde terreur op de burgerbevolking. Overigens begon e.e.a. met een door de VS opgezette en gefinancierde opstand, waarvoor de VS in 2006 de eerste stappen zette….. De VS heeft voorts terroristen van Al Qaida en IS, na de geslaagde VS coup tegen het bewind van Khadaffi, uit Libië vervoerd richting Syrië en hen van wapens en training voorzien…. Waarom vraagt u? Simpel, de vader van Assad en later Assad zelf, weigerden een gaspijpleiding over hun grondgebied richting (West-) Europa………**

Het slimme aan de zaak is de opzet van de White Helmets als hulporganisatie, die de beschikking heeft over professionele apparatuur waarmee ze video’s maken en deze naar het westen doorspelen. Artsen die video’s van deze W.H. zagen, stellen dat de leden van deze terreurorganisatie niet eens begrijpen wat ze moeten doen, als ze bijvoorbeeld zogenaamd een kind willen redden, de getoonde handelingen zijn contraproductief, handelingen waarvoor men ook overduidelijk al gedode kinderen gebruike…….. Met andere woorden: als die handelingen op een gewond kind zouden worden uitgeoefend, is het bijna zeker dat zo’n kind zal overlijden!!

Ook dat is niet vreemd, daar de White Helmets een militaire training onder supervisie van Le Mesurier hebben ondergaan……. Waar de White Helmets, naast het maken van bedrieglijke video’s, wel goed in zijn, is bijvoorbeeld het assisteren bij executies van burgers, door de door het westen als zogenaamde ‘gematigde rebellen’ aangeduide terreurgroepen, die op IS na, allen gelieerd zijn aan Al Qaida (of al-Nusra, zoals men deze terreurgroep in Syrië noemt)…… Terreurgroepen die zonder uitzondering door Saoedi-Arabië worden voorzien van geld en wapens (die op hun beurt uit o.a. de VS en Groot-Brittannië komen……)

Le Mesurier richtte de White Helemts op in Turkije en kreeg daar in eerste instantie $ 300,000 .– voor van de VS, Groot-Brittannie en Japan (plus Nederland*) , een bedrag dat hij in korte tijd wist op te pompen tot 123 miljoen dollar!!

Lees dit uitvoerige verslag van Whitney, met o.a. een bijdrage van de geweldige journalist Vanessa Beeley:

James
Le Mesurier: The Former British Mercenary Who Founded The White
Helmets

August
1, 2017 at 9:43
 am

Written
by 
Whitney
Webb


(MPN)
– 
Over
the past two years, enlightening information has been revealed that
thoroughly and unequivocally debunks the “humanitarianism” of the
White Helmets in Syria, sometimes referred to as the Syrian Civil
Defense.

Since
they were founded in 2013, much of Western media has sought to
elevate the White Helmets as the “bravest” and most heroic of
Syrians. They have been the subject of a 
Netflix
documentary
,
which won an Oscar, and has consistently been plastered across TV
screens in surprisingly well-produced videos showing them removing
children from rubble in war-torn areas claimed by Syria’s “rebels.”

However,
missing from this unambiguously positive coverage has been the
group’s ties to terrorist groups 
like
al-Qaeda
,
their 
doctoring
of footage
,
their role 
in
executing civilians
 and
their use of children – both dead and alive – 
as
props
 for
producing 
pro-intervention
propaganda
.
Also absent is how the White Helmets have received 
over
$123 million
 from
2013 to 2016 from the U.S. and UK governments, as well as Western
NGOs and Gulf state monarchies.

While
numerous articles have been devoted to dispelling the propaganda that
surrounds the group and detailing their shady ties to known terrorist
organizations like Syria’s al-Qaeda branch Al-Nusra Front,
significantly less attention has been focused on how the group was
created, particularly on the man who founded them – James Le
Mesurier, a British private security specialist, and former British
military intelligence officer.

Le
Mesurier’s role in founding the White Helmets and propagating its
mythology to a Western audience

was
exposed in 2015 thanks to the work of independent journalist Vanessa
Beeley.

Beeley,
who spoke to MintPress News at length for this report, notes that it
was Le Mesurier’s “‘realization that humanitarian aid was more
effective at maintaining war than an army” that
spurred his creation of the organization in order “to maintain
public support for another costly war in a country that is, in
reality, posing little to no threat to mainland America” or its
allies.

James
Le Mesurier: from mercenary to “humanitarian”

Though
mainstream narratives
 have
suggested
 that
the White Helmets were trained by the Red Cross, the White Helmets
were
 actually
founded
 in
March 2013 by Le Mesurier. He, like many officers in the British
military, attended the Royal Military Academy, where he graduated at
the top of his class, receiving the Queen’s Medal.


He later
served
 in
the British Army and operated in a variety of theaters. Most notably,
Le Mesurier served as intelligence coordinator for Pristina City in
Kosovo soon after the NATO intervention that led to NATO 
being
accused
 of
war crimes for its targeting of thousands of civilians and media.

By
2000, Le Mesurier left the army and went to work for the United
Nations as he had “
realized
humanitarian aid was more effective

than an army in theaters of war during his time with the British
military. He, again, served in a variety of locations, 
focusing
on
 “delivering
stabilization activities through security sector and democratization
programs.” According to Le Mesurier, “stabilization activities”
refers to the “framework for engagement in ‘fragile’ states”
or, in other words, destabilized nations.

Prior
to his founding of the White Helmets, Le Mesurier
 served
as
 Vice
President for Special Projects at
 the
Olive Group
,
a private mercenary organization that has since merged with
Blackwater-Academi into what is now known as Constellis Holdings.
Then, in 2008, Le Mesurier left the Olive Group after he was
appointed to the position of Principal at Good Harbor Consulting,
chaired by
 Richard
A. Clarke
 –
a veteran of the U.S. national security establishment and the
counter-terrorism “czar” under the Bush and Clinton
administrations.

After
joining Good Harbor, Le Mesurier
 became
based
 in
Abu Dhabi, where he specialized in risk management, emergency
planning, and critical infrastructure protection. He trained a UAE
gas field protection force and “ensured the safety” of the 2010
Gulf Cup in Yemen, a regional soccer tournament. But following this
work, Le Mesurier claims to have become dissatisfied, wanting to have
a more direct impact on the communities he worked in.

He told Men’s
Journal
 in
2014 that it was the idea of using his military training to benefit
civilians that truly enthused him: “the idea of being a civilian
carrying a weapon and guiding a convoy in a conflict zone — that
leaves me cold.”

White
Helmets founded through Western funding

When
it came to time to found the White Helmets in March 2013, Le Mesurier
seemed to have simply been in the right place at the right time.
According to his own account, he founded the group in Turkey 
after
being “compelled”
 by
Syrians’ wartime stories.

Despite
founding the White Helmets in Turkey, he raised $300,000 in seed
funding provided by the UK, the U.S. and Japan, which Le Mesurier
apparently had no trouble scrounging up. The $123 million dollars
that was funneled soon after to the organization by the U.S. and UK
governments, along with

Western
NGOs and Qatar, dispels all notion of the organization’s alleged
“impartiality” and “non-partisan” stance on the Syrian
conflict 
stated
on their website.

He
then used it to train 25 “vetted” Syrians “to deal with the
chaos erupting around them.” By September of that year, more than
700 “vetted” individuals were believed to have undergone training
under Le Mesurier’s supervision.

However,
Le Mesurier’s ties to British military intelligence, mercenary
groups and involvement in “stabilization activities” and
“democratization programs” suggest that his convenient appearance
in Istanbul, Turkey is perhaps not too coincidental. As Beeley noted
in an interview with MintPress: “there are very few coincidences in
the multi-spectrum, hybrid war that has been waged against Syria by
the U.S. coalition since 2011.”

Indeed,
the White Helmets were founded when the West was losing on both the
propaganda and military front regarding the push for regime change
and foreign intervention in Syria. More specifically, as Beeley told
MintPress, the group’s founding took place just after “the Syrian
government had raised concerns about a terrorist chemical weapon
attack in Khan Al Asal against the SAA [Syrian Arab Army].”

It
should come as no surprise then that, since their founding, the White
Helmets have been instrumental in blaming the Syrian government for
any and all subsequent chemical weapons attacks in Syria, acting as
both witnesses and responders to events that 
were
later proven
 to
be the work of the armed opposition in Syria 
or
staged
.
As a result, Beeley argued that it’s well within reason to
speculate that the White Helmets were explicitly founded with this
purpose in mind.

However,
it is Le Mesurier himself who shed light on why the White Helmets
were formed at such a crucial point for the foreign-funded
opposition. As Le Mesurier
 noted
in a speech
delivered
on June 2015, in “fragile” (i.e. destabilized) states, security
actors – such as mercenaries or foreign armies – have the lowest
level of public trust. However, Le Mesurier states that in contrast,
those professions with the highest level of public trust in such
situations are firefighters, paramedics, rescue workers and other
similar types of first responders.

Le
Mesurier discusses the White Helmets in June 2015:

Le
Mesurier, however, is not the only figure linked to the British
military to take such a perspective. UK Admiral Sir Philip Jones,
Chief of Naval Staff, 
stated
last year
 that
“the hard punch of military power is often delivered inside the kid
glove of humanitarian relief.” It is for this reason that military
actions sponsored by the United States and its allies for the past
few decades have often been framed as “
humanitarian
interventions
.”

Thus,
the White Helmets were seen as a chance to reclaim the trust that the
Syrian opposition fighters had lost, as news of their affiliation
with terrorist groups began to spread.

In
reclaiming that trust in Western audiences, the White Helmets have
done nothing to ease the burden of war in Syria, but have fomented it
by underpinning the very propaganda that has kept the conflict raging
on for over six years, as well as undermined the ability of the
Syrian and Russian governments to secure diplomatic alternatives to
continued fighting.

Indeed,
despite their claim of “impartiality,” the White Helmets 
were
instrumental
 in
Western attempts to bolster international support for Western
intervention and a “no-fly zone” in Syria. However, such
intervention will bring much more devastation to Syria, something the
White Helmets profess to want to end.

Training
the White Helmets

While
the White Helmets have successfully been framed as a
professionally-trained first responder group active in Syria, there
is plenty of evidence suggesting that their training was entirely
different. First responders and doctors in other countries have been
skeptical about the “aid” the White Helmets have delivered.

For
instance, Dr. Leif Elinder, a Swedish pediatrician,
 told
the Indicter
 that
“after examination of the video material [of the White Helmets], I
found that the measures inflicted upon those children, some of them
lifeless, are bizarre, non-medical, non-lifesaving, and even
counterproductive in terms of life-saving purposes of children.”

Other
medical doctors have stated that other procedures conducted by the
White Helmets as seen in the previously mentioned Netflix documentary
were performed so poorly they would have killed the children, who
were already deceased when the footage was taken.

In
addition, first responder groups
 have
also found flaws
 with
the White Helmet’s trained rescues.

Questions
have been raised such as: how did the White Helmets know the bodies
would be exactly where they found them?; Why are no attacks heard or
seen in White Helmet videos – only the “aftermath”?; and why
have the White Helmets chosen to
 “recycle”
footage
 of
the people they are allegedly helping?

Thus,
if the White Helmets were not actually trained in first aid – as
the above suggests – what did Le Mesurier and his team actually
train them to do?

According
to Beeley, Le Mesurier trained the White Helmets as a military group,
as they have been found “working side by side with the Nusra Front
and other extremist groups such as Nour Al Din Zinki in East Aleppo,
where their ‘humanitarian’ centers were invariably alongside
Nusra Front or even in the same building.”

Noting
the White Helmet’s lack of paramedic expertise and the numerous
photographs showing them carrying weapons, she added that this
“confirms that their role has been as military and logistical
support for their Nusra Front colleagues.”

However,
the training received by the White Helmets likely did not stop there.

Beeley
strongly believes that they were given extensive training in the
production of propaganda – specifically, trained in camerawork and
video production in order to produce videos for the media. She noted
that “the sheer number of cameras on site at any one of their
rescue productions demonstrates that they are well versed in
publicity craft.”

Furthermore,
Beeley suggested that the White Helmet’s footage used in their
documentary also proves this point:

The
Oscar-winning Netflix documentary that recorded their exploits was
based entirely on footage taken by the White Helmets themselves and
supplied to the producers of the movie who did not leave Turkey and
were therefore unable to verify the authenticity of the footage. The
quality of video supplied suggests that the White Helmets were using
sophisticated equipment and had been well trained in its use.

Thus,
this training has enabled the White Helmets to accomplish two major
goals for the governments and organizations that have orchestrated
its rise to prominence.

First,
as Beeley pointed out, it has facilitated “further proxy military
intervention and to incite pseudo-humanitarian outrage from the
International community and western public.”

Second,
it has allowed the atrocities of the extremist factions that work
with the White Helmets to be camouflaged by the “humanitarianism”
of the group, which has been instrumental in allowing foreign
governments to continue arming and funding these extremist, terrorist
organizations with complete impunity.

Le
Mesurier, for his part, has apparently become tired of the limelight
– perhaps as a result of the thorough debunking of the
terrorist-linked organization he fostered. Though still listed as an
employee of Good Harbor, Le Mesurier 
has
removed himself
 from
the site of MayDay Rescue, a White Helmets-linked organization he
founded, and all mention of him 
has
been erased
 from
the White Helmets website.

By Whitney
Webb
 /
Republished with permission / 
MintPress
News
 / Report
a typo

Bij dit bericht horen 2 video’s die ik niet weet over te nemen, zie daarvoor het origineel. (zet wel de Google adblocker aan [werkt goed], de pagina zit bomvol reclames)

*  Zie: ‘White Helmets >> terreurorganisatie, opgezet door Brits ex-officier en o.a. betaald door Nederland………..

** De VS wil dat de EU alle banden met Rusland doorsnijdt en ook de gasleveringen uit dit land stopzet. Niet voor niets nam de VS onlangs nieuwe sancties tegen Rusland, waarbij vooral de EU de klos is en zal moeten afzien van gas uit Rusland. Zo kan de VS haar zwaar gesubsidieerde schaliegas peperduur aan EU landen leveren…….

Zie ook:

White Helmets terreurgroep wordt vandaag met open armen ontvangen in Tweede Kamer…..‘ (zie ook de andere links over de White Helmets in dat bericht)

EXPOSED: Syria’s White Helmets are Al Qaeda’s ‘Civil Defence’

WHO ARE THE ‘WHITE HELMETS?’ DO WE REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING IN SYRIA?

SYRIA: The White Helmet Propaganda Heist – Vanessa Beeley Speaks to Rhymes Media Group

EXPOSED: The White Helmets – Al Qaeda with US funding

Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) laat weten hoe White Helmets vips rekruteren met Saoedisch geld….

VN stelt dat minstens 2 miljard mensen op aarde niet beschikken over veilig drinkwater……..

De VN Gezondheidsorganisatie (WHO) kwam onlangs met een rapport uit, waarin wordt geconcludeerd dat minstens 2 miljard mensen op onze kleine aarde geen toegang hebben tot veilig drinkwater………

Echter zoals de schrijver van het volgende artikel, Whitney Webb stelt, de VN heeft in feite maar een beperkt gebied gecontroleerd, zo ontbreken bijvoorbeeld de cijfers van India en China……. Erger nog: dit rapport legt niet de vinger op de wond en verzwijgt oorzaken voor het ontbreken van veilig drinkwater, zoals oorlogen en bedrijven die watervoorzieningen beheren en daar woekerwinsten op maken…..*

Zo wordt in het rapport met geen woord gerept over de situatie in de Gazastrook, waar door het illegaal stopzetten van elektriciteitsleveringen door Israël (mede de schuld van Egypte en de Palestijnse ‘leider’ Abbas) tevens de watertoevoer is geblokkeerd, wat voorts betekent dat de sanitaire voorzieningen niet meer werken (en er kans op een cholera uitbraak bestaat….)…..

Overigens speelt de fascistische apartheidsstaat Israël wel een heel bijzondere rol: ook op de West Bank zorgt Israël dat de Palestijnen zeker in de zomermaanden  afhankelijk zijn van tankwagens met water, daar Israël water uit de Jordaan trekt voor de zwembaden en de akkers van de illegale nederzettingen op de in feite nog steeds bestaande illegale bezetting van dit gebied. Immers als Israël het op haar heupen krijgt, zoals zo vaak gebeurt, heeft de Palestijnse Autoriteit geen bliksem te vertellen op de West Bank……..

Ook de genocide op de sjiieten in Jemen door Saoedi-Arabië en haar partners in oorlogsmisdaden (waaronder de VS en Groot-Brittannië), is gepaard gegaan met het vernielen van drinkwatervoorzieningen, de oorzaak dat op 13 juli jl. al 300.000 mensen waren besmet met cholera**, waar dagelijks 7.000 besmettingen aan toe worden gevoegd………

UN
Reveals Billions of People Lack Clean Drinking Water but Fails to
Explain Why

July
27, 2017 at 7:51 am

Written
by 
Whitney
Webb

A
new UN report has found that two billion people around the world do
not have access to clean drinking water. However, the report covers
just a small part of the global population and fails to address the
impact that war and corporate profiteering have had on drinking water
access.

(MPN) — According
to a new
 report issued
by the UN World Health Organization (WHO), approximately two billion people
around the world lack access to safe, clean drinking water.

The
report, titled “Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and
Hygiene,” found that while some countries have made significant
progress in providing access to drinking water for their citizens,
the quality of that water still falls short. And despite recent
progress, as many as 400 million people still depend on distant water
sources, while 159 million others still rely on untreated water from
lakes and streams. Global sanitation issues were also addressed in
the report, including open defecation, which has dropped from 20
percent in 2000 to less than 12 percent currently.

However,
the data used in drafting the report only covers a fraction of the
global population, suggesting that the actual number of people
lacking access to clean drinking water is likely much higher.
According to Al-Hassan Adam, international coordinator at End Water
Poverty,
 the
current data used
 in
the report “only reflects 35 percent of the global population
across 92 countries. Big countries like China and India have been
left out.”

In
addition to the massive gap in its data set, the report also fails to
note several leading factors that have caused many communities
throughout the world – in both developed and developing nations –
to struggle to gain access to safe drinking water.

For
instance, the effects of war were hardly mentioned in the report,
despite the effect it has had on drinking water access in several
countries. In Yemen, the Saudi-led Coalition’s
 repeated
bombing of civilian infrastructure
 has
made access to clean, safe drinking water difficult for a significant
part of the population, helping to feed a cholera epidemic that is
now believed to be
 the
worst in recorded history
.

Yemen’s
case is not an issue of “development,” but rather the war crimes
committed against it.

The
current situation in Gaza is similar, as Israel and Egypt’s illegal
blockade of the coastal enclave, as well as their ongoing war
efforts, have damaged infrastructure, while current reductions in
electricity from Israel have made it impossible
 to
maintain running water
 and
keep sewage treatment facilities in operation. However, these war
crimes are not mentioned in the UN report.

By Whitney
Webb
 /
Republished with permission / 
MintPress
News
 / Report
a typo

==================================

*  Vandaar ook dat het van het grootste belang is, dat zaken als de watervoorziening nooit geprivatiseerd mogen worden. De ellende die dat oplevert zie je nu in Griekenland, waar de waterbedrijven voor een grijpstuiver zijn verkocht aan (buitenlandse) investeerders……… De Griekse regering heeft haar staatseigendommen, zoals de watervoorziening over moeten dragen aan het Europees Stabiliteitsmechanisme (ESM), die naar goeddunken deze eigendommen mag verkopen voor een appel en een ei……… Dit in een land waar de grote onderlaag door de EU dictatuur aan de bedelstaf is geraakt, waar mensen hun huis moeten opgeven, daar ze de kosten niet meer kunnen betalen, hetzelfde land waar de terminaal en chronisch zieken, alsmede kankerpatiënten hun medicatie niet meer krijgen, simpelweg daar ze het geld niet hebben dit te betalen. U snapt dat de watervoorziening in Griekenland waar op veel plaatsen een watertekort is, straks voor velen een te groot deel van hun inkomen zal opslokken, waar deze mensen letterlijk geen cent meer kunnen missen….. Leve de EU…….. NEXIT NU!!!

** Zie: ‘Jemen 300.000 cholera patiënten en de valse berichtgeving door de westerse reguliere media…….‘ (zie ook de artikelen onder de vele ‘links’ in dat bericht)

Al Qaida de bondgenoot van de VS in de strijd tegen…… terrorisme! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Met het schaamrood op de kaken moet is vaststellen een belangrijk artikel aangaande de bewapening van terreurgroepen door de VS te hebben laten liggen.

In dit artikel van Whitney Webb o.a. aandacht voor het enorme aantal wapens, inclusief chemische wapens (als Sarin gas), dat de VS in Syrië leverde aan de door haar gesteunde terreurgroepen (in het westen aangeduid als ‘gematigde rebellen)…… Daarnaast stopte de VS honderden miljoenen dollars in deze terreurgroepen…….. Militaire training was eveneens een manier van hulpverlening aan psychopathische moordenaars en verkrachters…………….

Lees hoe de VS willens en wetens enorme terreur tegen het Syrische volk heeft gesteund, zelf heeft uitgeoefend en uitoefent op dit volk, zogenaamd in het belang van de strijd tegen terreur…….

Ook vind je hier een uitleg over de terreurgroepen in Syrië en hoe die in feite allen gelieerd zijn aan Al Qaida Syrië of ook wel al-Nusra genaamd……. Jammer dat Webb geen kritiek levert op het Syrian Observatory of Human Rights (SOHR), een propagandaorgaan van de zogenaamde gematigde rebellen, dat ook door de reguliere afhankelijke (massa-) media wordt geciteerd……

How
Al-Qaeda Became an American Ally in the ‘War on Terror’

July
3, 2017 at 9:30 am

Written
by 
Whitney
Webb

Nearly
16 years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States is
inexplicably finding itself in bed with al-Qaeda, its alleged sworn
enemy. The group’s efforts to terrorize the population of Syria
have been rewarded with U.S. arms, training and other military aid.

(MPN) — Despite
ostensibly being the United States’ “Public Enemy No. 1”
following the 9/11 attacks, the international terror group al-Qaeda
has instead been a beneficiary of U.S. military aid in the post-9/11
world, particularly in Syria. With the Syrian conflict well into its
sixth year, al-Qaeda’s active branch in that war, widely known as
Jabhat al-Nusra or the al-Nusra Front, has continually received arms
and military protection from the United States, an outcome that is
clearly counterproductive to the U.S.’ global “War on Terror.”

Yet,
while the arming and propping up of al-Qaeda in Syria may not serve
the U.S.’ fundamental goal of eradicating terrorism, it certainly
has helped the U.S. political establishment pursue a decades-old goal
of regime change in regionally strategic Syria.

Gareth
Porter, an award-winning independent investigative journalist, and
historian told MintPress News that such tactics are part of the U.S.
government’s long-standing “bureaucratic habit of mind that
really privileges short-term advantages against state adversaries
over the long term, fundamental interests of the American people.”

In
this case, U.S. counter-terrorism efforts have been usurped by the
government’s broader geopolitical interests in reshaping the Middle
East. While Washington politicians and bureaucrats may be content
with having helped extend Syria’s “civil war” to their benefit
and the benefit of their allies, this reality has had the ugly
consequence of the U.S. willfully
 sponsoring
terrorists who torture civilians to death
,
regularly conduct mass executions, kidnap children and mutilate the
bodies of their victims.

U.S.
funneled Libyan arms, chemical weapons to “rebels”

The
U.S.’ arming of al-Nusra began when the conflict in Syria was in
its infancy. In September 2011, the Obama administration began
providing logistical assistance to anti-Assad forces – namely the
Free Syrian Army, Syrian Revolutionaries Front, the Democratic Forces
of Syria and related groups – who were then supported by U.S.
allies Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. These groups received 
an
estimated $1 billion
 from
the CIA every year from 2012 until the program was scaled back in
2015. In addition, the U.S. government 
gave
another $500 million
 to
the “rebels” in 2014 which was intended to train thousands of
opposition fighters – an operation that turned out to be 
remarkably
ineffective
.

A
year later, the CIA initiated weapon shipments to these
foreign-funded “rebels”
 by
funneling weapons
 that
once belonged to the fallen Gaddafi regime in Libya to
anti-government militias in Syria.

As
Gareth Porter details in his recent piece “
How
America Armed Terrorists in Syria
,”
the CIA continued to connect U.S. regional allies directly arming the
opposition with weapons from Libya and former Soviet bloc countries,
resulting in an estimated 8,000 tons of weapons being poured into
Syria in less than four months, from December 2012 to mid-March 2013.
The quantity of weapons that flooded into Syria from 2011 until that
time undoubtedly dwarfs this figure.

In
addition, the U.S. secured more than just conventional arms being
shipped to Syria. For instance, Pulitzer Prize-winning
journalist
 Seymour
Hersh exposed
 how
the Gaddafi regime’s chemical weapon stores were also sent to
foreign-backed opposition forces in Syria, including sarin gas. Hersh
has suggested that former Secretary of State 
Hillary
Clinton approved the chemical weapon transfers
.

While
the U.S. was not directly arming al-Nusra specifically at this time,
the terror group’s effectiveness at combating the Syrian
government, along with their ruthlessness, quickly made them the
darlings of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who were funding the “rebels”
with their own money and with U.S. assistance.

By
late 2012, the U.S. was well-aware that most of the arms it was
sending into the country were going to Syria’s al-Qaeda offshoot.
As
 the New
York Times
 reported
 in
October 2012, U.S. officials acknowledged off the record that “most”
of the arms shipped to Syrian “rebels” with U.S. support had
ended up in the hands of “hardline Islamic jihadists.”

However,
internal government communications reveal that the government knew
that such “jihadists” were al-Nusra. A
 now-declassified
U.S. government internal report
 from
2012 stated that the “the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI
[al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in
Syria.” However, no efforts were taken to halt the U.S.-supported
flow of arms to such groups, which continued years after this
surprisingly frank admission.

Other
evidence from that same year has suggested that this “oversight”
was intentional. For instance, 
a
2012 email
 written
by Jacob Sullivan and sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
stated that “AQ [al-Qaeda] is on our side in Syria,” implying a
tacit alliance of sorts between the U.S. government and known
terrorist elements that dominated the Syrian armed opposition.

PDF
embed

Despite
the true nature of the foreign-funded opposition being well-known to
U.S. officials, the arming of these so-called “rebel” groups only
became more rampant in the years that followed, with the
U.S.
 supplying
them
 with
heavy weaponry, such as
 anti-tank
missiles
 and anti-aircraft
weapons
,
while also providing them
with
training
.

The
advantage of such substantial support from the U.S. and its regional
allies has only led to the rapid growth and strengthening of
al-Nusra, enabling them to out-compete and eventually absorb nearly
all groups belonging to the U.S.-backed “moderate rebels” active
within Syria.

As
al-Nusra’s influence grew, many “moderate” groups who shared
similar ideas began to work alongside the terror group and eventually
became part of it or directly allied with it. Among the first to do
so were U.S.-supported groups such as Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh
al-Islam, whose cooperation and close relationship with al-Nusra
 has
been documented
 by
the pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR).

But
the U.S. had no complaints when Jaysh al-Islam
 led
the Syrian opposition
 at
peace talks in Geneva in 2016. In addition, the U.S.
 has
consistently refused
 to
add al-Nusra collaborators to the UN terrorist list, prompting
 some
journalists to call
 such
a refusal an “unwitting U.S. admission” regarding who really
leads the “rebellion” in Syria.

According
to
 the
Russian Defense Ministry
,
the vast majority of Syrian opposition groups supported by the U.S.
form “an integral part” of al-Nusra front. Even the mainstream
press in the United States has admitted that most “rebel” groups
have been overtaken by al-Nusra. For instance, in
February,
 the Washington
Post
quoted
 an
official with the U.S.-backed Fastaqim rebel group as saying
“Al-Qaeda is eating us” and that al-Qaeda’s influence and power
led his group chose to join the al-Nusra affiliated group Ahrar
al-Sham.

As
University of Oklahoma Center for Middle East Studies Director Joshua
Landis 
told
Sputnik last year
:

The
United States has placed itself in a very difficult situation because
many of the rebel groups that it wants to become principal holders of
state power in Syria work hand and glove with Al-Qaeda.”

Supporting
al-Qaeda from the shadows

While
the arming of Syrian “rebels” that are either members of or
affiliated with al-Nusra should be controversial enough, the U.S.
government has also managed to aid the terror group in other ways,
offering them protection and covert tools to bolster their ranks.

The
U.S. State Department and the U.S. military 
have
long justified
 the
presence of U.S. military personnel and assets within Syria as being
directly aimed at fighting terrorists within that nation, namely
Daesh (ISIS). However, on repeated occasions, the U.S. has worked to
protect al-Nusra 
by
asking the Russian military
 and
Syrian government to avoid targeting the terror group.

Such
requests have led Russia to call the U.S.’ commitment to fighting
al-Nusra into question, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey
Lavrov
 stating
in October
 last
year that the Russian government “doesn’t see any facts that the
U.S. is seriously battling al-Nusra.”

However,
the words of al-Nusra members themselves paint an even more
disturbing picture of direct U.S. involvement in aiding the group.
 In
an interview
 with
German newspaper 
Koelner
Stadt-Anzeiger
,
an al-Nusra unit commander named Abu Al Ezz stated that when al-Nusra
was under siege from the Syrian and Russian governments that “we
had officers from Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and America
here…Experts in the use of satellites, rockets, reconnaissance, and
thermal security cameras.”

When
asked to confirm the presence of U.S. instructors within its ranks,
Al Ezz replied “the Americans are on our side,” echoing a 2012
email exchange between Hillary Clinton and her advisor Jacob Sullivan
regarding al-Qaeda in Syria.

Perhaps
this explains why the “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” introduced by
Hawaiian Democratic Senator Tulsi Gabbard, which would bar federal
agencies from using taxpayer-backed funds to provide weapons,
training or any other type of support to terrorist cells such as
al-Qaeda, Daesh or any other group associated with them,
was
only supported by 2 percent
 of
U.S. congressmen.

U.S.’
history of flirting with terrorist groups for geopolitical gain

While
the strategy of arming al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists and extremists
in Syria may seem bizarre, it is actually part of a long-standing
U.S. government practice that led to the terror group’s founding in
the first place. Indeed, al-Qaeda is the textbook example of the U.S.
creating and arming a terror group for political purposes.

Under
the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the U.S. government
 sent
billions of dollars in military aid
 to
the mujahideen in Afghanistan as part of a U.S.-supported “jihad”
against the Soviet Union. These extremist fighters, led by Osama bin
Laden, would soon become known as al-Qaeda. Gareth Porter told
MintPress that the creation of al-Qaeda under the Reagan
administration “set the precedent for the U.S. to support jihadi
forces where and when it is deemed to serve broader U.S. political
and diplomatic aims.”

Years
later, al-Qaeda’s relationship with the U.S. is best described as a
love-hate affair. As
 Garikai
Chengu wrote
 in Counterpunch in
2014: “Depending on whether a particular al-Qaeda terrorist group
in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State
Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group.
Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim
extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.”

However,
al-Qaeda is just one example of the U.S.’ aiding and abetting of
terror groups in order to realize broader geopolitical aims targeting
“enemies” of the U.S. political establishment. Latin America, for
instance, is rife with examples of how the U.S. trained and funded
terror groups to destabilize or topple leftist governments,
particularly in
 Nicaragua and El
Salvador
 in
the 1970s and 1980s.

Colombia
is another example that bares an uncanny resemblance to the U.S.’
policy in the Syrian conflict. Colombia, the U.S.’ closest ally in
South America,
 has
received over $4 billion
 in
U.S. military assistance since 2000. Much of that assistance has gone
to elements of the military – including right-wing paramilitary
groups – that the U.S. State Department had “vetted” and
“determined had complied with human rights requirements.”

While
that vetting was taking place, Colombia reported a surge in the
Colombian military murdering civilians in cold blood, resulting in
329 civilians killed in 2007.
 The Los
Angeles Times
 reported
 that
47 percent of those murders had been conducted by the very army units
previously “vetted” by the State Department.

Iraq
is another example where, for civilians, the line between “rebel”
terrorist and “army” terrorist is becoming increasingly thin.
There, the U.S. recently doubled down, promising to continue sending
aid to elements of the Iraqi Security Forces that have documented
carrying out human rights violations and war crimes. Many of the more
notorious units within the Iraqi Security Forces 
were
trained by
 former
U.S. special forces operative James Steele, who first made a name for
himself training U.S.-backed paramilitary forces that terrorized El
Salvador in the 1980s.

The
U.S.’ well-documented history of supporting and using terror groups
to fulfill geopolitical goals is so convincing that even Lt. General
William Odom, director of the National Security Agency under Ronald
Reagan,
 has
noted that
 “By
any measure, the U.S. has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate
was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every
version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in
violation.”

Today,
little has changed, especially given the true nature of U.S.
involvement with the “moderate” opposition in Syria. Now, the
Trump administration has taken to inventing chemical attacks to blame
on the Syrian government 
before
they even happen
,
again hoping to justify Western intervention in Syria.

The
timing couldn’t be better, as only 
Western
intervention
 is
guaranteed to save Syria’s struggling al-Qaeda “rebels” and
create the next failed state in the Middle East.

By Whitney
Webb
 /
Republished with permission / 
MintPress
News
 / Report
a typo

======================================

Toevoeging op 16 december 2017: intussen heeft de VS ‘Al Qaida Syrië’ van de zwarte lijst met terreurorganisaties gehaald!! 

Plus de volgende links:

Zie ook: ‘CIA erkent dat Israël samen met Saoedi-Arabië ‘vecht tegen terreur’, die ze NB zelf hebben georganiseerd……..

VS centraal commando werkt in Syrië samen met IS en verklaarde Rusland de oorlog………

CIA 70 jaar: 70 jaar moorden, martelen, coups plegen, nazi’s beschermen, media manipulatie enz. enz………

 

Van Baalen (VVD EU topgraaier) het is moeilijk te zien wie je moet steunen: Al Qaida, Al Qaida of Al Qaida……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

 

CIA valt nogmaals door de mand als wapenleverancier van IS…….

Washington Post medewerkers is verboden grote adverteerders te bekritiseren….. Of hoe miljonairs en miljardairs de voorheen onafhankelijk pers beheren

De medewerkers van de Washington Post is het verboden om op wat voor manier dan ook kritiek te uiten op de adverteerders van deze krant…….. Kortom de krant de ooit faam verkreeg door het onderzoek naar de Watergateschandaal is in handen en onder redactie van de grote bedrijven…….

Niet alleen dat, ook de CIA mag niet langer bekritiseerd worden, daar de eigenaar van de Post, topgraai miljardair Jeff Bezos zaken doet met de CIA……… Vandaar ook dat de WaPo vorig jaar de berechting van Edward Snowden bepleitte, terwijl het eerder NB zelf uit WikiLeaks had gepubliceerd…..

Lees dit ontluisterende relaas en u zult gegarandeerd nog beter begrijpen, waarom het fout is, dat mediaorganen in handen zijn van grote investeerders en supergraaiers. In Nederland is het overigens niet veel beter, vandaar ook dat je maar al te vaak ziet dat men kritiekloos uitermate foute standpunten van bijvoorbeeld de inhumane neoliberale regering Rutte als zaligmakend neerzet. Zelfcensuur in de reguliere westerse media is aan de orde van de dag en dat is niet voor niets……..

Het is nu zelfs al zo zot, dat de WaPo en de New York Times mogen beslissen van wat wel of niet als nepnieuws moet worden gezien…….

Washington
Post Staff Banned From Criticizing Corporate Advertisers

July
17, 2017 at 9:26 am

Written
by 
Whitney
Webb

A
new policy at the Washington Post will punish its employees for using
social media to make critical statements about the paper’s
corporate advertisers. The policy was approved by Jeff Bezos, the
billionaire head of Amazon who purchased the newspaper in 2013.

(MPN) — The Washington
Post
’s
journalistic decline over the past several years has been remarkable,
especially following the newspaper’s
 2013
purchase
 by
Amazon founder and billionaire Jeff Bezos, the world’s
 second-richest
man
 after
Bill Gates.

In
the face of controversies concerning the use of
 anonymous
and often inaccurate
 sources
and
 the
publication of false news
 in
order to foment anti-Russia hysteria, the 
Post is
now set for another scandal thanks to a new Bezos-approved
company-wide policy that seeks to prevent employee criticism of the
newspaper’s corporate backers and advertisers.

The
policy, which took effect in May,
 now
prohibits 
Post employees
 from
using social media in such a way that “adversely affects The Post’s
customers, advertisers, subscribers, vendors, suppliers or partners.”
According to the policy, the paper’s management team reserves the
right to take disciplinary action against violators “up to and
including termination of employment.”

A
clause of the policy
 cited
by the 
Washingtonian
 also
encourages employees to rat out other employees for potentially
violating the policy: “If you have any reason to believe that an
employee may be in violation of The Post’s Social Media Policy […]
you should contact the Post’s Human Resources Department.”

Adam Troudart @AdamT4U

The Washington Post threatens to ‘terminate’ employees who disparage advertisers on  | via @thedrumhttp://ow.ly/F5vW30dbmJi 

Photo published for The Washington Post threatens to ‘terminate’ employees who disparage advertisers on social media


The Washington Post threatens to ‘terminate’ employees who disparage advertisers on social media

The Washington Post has unveiled a new social media policy which threatens the ultimate sanction against any employee found to be bad mouthing advertisers on social media.

thedrum.com


The Post confirmed
the existence of the policy and its more controversial clauses and
provisions to the 
Washingtonian,
though the paper’s management later attempted to soothe the nerves
of rattled journalists
 by
assuring them
 that
“no one would get in trouble for such social media activity […]
But that’s the way the policy is written.”

While
the Post’s own journalists are sure to feel the
heat from this new policy, several of the newspaper’s corporate
advertisers and backers are likely relieved that critical content
targeting them or their products will now be absent from the social
media activity of the paper’s employees – and likely its
reporting as well.

This
new policy offers a simple loophole to corporations that wish to
avoid criticism from the Post, as becoming a sponsor
of the paper would quickly put an end to any unfavorable coverage.

Among
the 
Washington
Post’s
 advertisers
are corporate giants like
 GlaxoSmithKline, Bank
of America
 andKoch
Industries
.
With the new policy, social media posts criticizing
 GlaxoSmithKline’s
habit
 of
making false and misleading claims about its products, inflating
prices and withholding crucial drug safety information from the
government will no longer be made by 
Post employees.

The
policy also suggests that criticisms of Bank of America, one of the
nation’s
 most
lawless banks
 and a
key player
 in
provoking the 2008 financial crisis, will go unvoiced, as well those
regarding
 the
toxic empire
 that
is Koch Industries,
 an
integral part
 of
the U.S. fracking industry.

Another Washington
Post
 sponsor, though unofficially, is the U.S. Central
Intelligence Agency.

Four
months after purchasing the 
Post,
Jeff Bezos
 landed
a $600 million contract
 with
the CIA for Amazon Web Services, a web hosting service that now
serves the entire U.S. intelligence community.

xileen worcester⚘ @xileenie

Jeff Bezos Is Doing Huge Business with the CIA, While Keeping His Washington Post Readers in the Dark @alternethttp://www.alternet.org/media/owner-washington-post-doing-business-cia-while-keeping-his-readers-dark 

Photo published for Jeff Bezos Is Doing Huge Business with the CIA, While Keeping His Washington Post Readers in the...


Jeff Bezos Is Doing Huge Business with the CIA, While Keeping His Washington Post Readers in the…

News media should illuminate conflicts of interest, not embody them.

alternet.org


Long
before this latest policy was put into effect, some had speculated
that the connections between the CIA and the 
Post were
already affecting its reporting. For example, last year,
the 
Post openly
called for the prosecution
 of
Snowden, despite having previously used the whistleblower’s leaks
for their Pulitzer Prize-winning report on illegal NSA spying.

The
CIA
 has
long called
 for
Snowden to be tried for treason within the United States for leaking
details of the NSA’s domestic spying program.

While
criticism of the CIA is not technically prohibited by the new policy,
former 
Post reporters
have suggested that making such criticisms could endanger one’s
career. As former 
Post writer
John Hanrahan
 told
Alternet in 2013
:
With 
Post employees
severely limited in what they can post on social media and discuss in
their writing, this new policy will only continue to erode trust in
the mainstream media, especially in light of the benefits it may
bring to its corporate and government backers.

Post
reporters and editors are aware that Bezos, as majority owner of
Amazon, has a financial stake in maintaining good relations with the
CIA — and this sends a clear message to even the hardest-nosed
journalist that making the CIA look bad might not be a good career
move.”

With Post employees
severely limited in what they can post on social media and discuss in
their writing, this new policy will only continue to erode trust in
the mainstream media, especially in light of the benefits it may
bring to its corporate and government backers.

By Whitney
Webb
 /
Republished with permission / 
MintPress
News
 / Report
a typo

===============================

Zie ook: ‘How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth‘ (een artikel op ICH, met ‘een mooie rol’ voor de afhankelijke Washington Post en New York Times. Onder dat artikel kan u klikken voor een vertaling)

Facebook stelt perstituee van New York Times aan als censuur-agent…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!      

May, premier GB, wil als reactie op de aanslagen in Londen en Manchester, de mensenrechten buiten werking stellen en censuur op het internet doorvoeren……….        

Boris Johnson wil (sociale) media controleren en censureren…….

Censuur teistert het internet: video over aanslag Las Vegas verwijderd door YouTube…………. 

Google censuur en toch echt nieuws volgen? Gebruik een andere browser naast die van Google, of dump Google helemaal!!

Syriërs keren terug naar door ‘vreselijke dictator’ Assad gecontroleerd gebied………

In de reguliere westerse (massa-) media wordt continu gelogen over Syrië en wat men in die media ‘dictator Assad’ noemt. Assad die NB in 2014 met een grote meerderheid van stemmen werd gekozen tot president, dit in verkiezingen die door internationale waarnemers als eerlijke verlopend werden bestempeld!!

Anti-Media bracht gisteren een artikel van MintPress News, waarin wordt gemeld, dat bijna 500.000 gevluchte Syriërs terugkeren naar door het bewind van Assad gecontroleerde gebieden. Me dunkt ‘het teken, dat ze Assad een smerige, bloederige dictator vinden……’

Andrej Mahecic, woordvoerder van de hoge commissaris voor vluchtelingen bij de VN (UNHCR), heeft bekend gemaakt, dat sinds het begin van dit jaar 440.000 Syrische vluchtelingen, die in Syrië zijn gebleven, terug zijn gekeerd naar hun woonplaats in door reguliere Syrische troepen gecontroleerd gebied. Daarnaast zijn er in dezelfde tijd 31.000 Syrische vluchtelingen die naar het buitenland waren gevlucht, teruggekeerd naar alweer door het Syrische leger gecontroleerd gebied. Voorts zijn er sinds 2015 vanuit het buitenland 260.000 vluchtelingen teruggekeerd naar (nogmaals) door het Syrische leger gecontroleerd gebied…..

De westerse praatjes, dat het merendeel van de Syriërs zijn gevlucht voor het wrede regime van  Assad, is een smerige leugen in de propagandaoorlog die de westerse massamedia en het merendeel van de westerser politici, onder aanvoering van NB de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde, de VS, voeren tegen de regering Assad, Rusland en Iran……….

Vergeet niet dat het (ongedeelde) Syrië onder Assad, van voor de door de VS en anderen geregisseerde en gefinancierde opstand van 2011, een land was waar een groot aantal geloven, zonder enige probleem ‘onder hetzelfde dak leefden…..’ Iets dat in de door Assad gecontroleerde gebieden nog steeds zo is!!

Het agressieve westen moet zich als de donder terugtrekken uit Syrië, voordat het land opgedeeld kan worden, een opdeling die de wens is van: de VS, Saoedi-Arabië (na de VS de nr. 2 terreurstaat), Israël (na de VS en S-A de nr. 3 terreurstaat), Egypte en de Golfstaten (zonder Qatar). Als dit niet gebeurd is er niet alleen de kans op een internationaal conflict van enorm formaat, maar zal Syrië de zoveelste ‘failed state made in USA’ zijn……..

Hier het artikel van Anti-Media:

Over
500,000 Syrian Refugees Return To Government-Controlled Areas Of
Syria

July
4, 2017 at 8:52 am

Written
by 
Whitney
Webb

(MPN) — DAMASCUS
(Analysis) – 
 Crucial
to the Western narrative of the Syrian conflict is the assertion that
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a 
brutal
dictator
 who
has taken to 
killing
his own people 
over
the course of Syria’s six-year-long conflict. This allegation has
been the crux of the “humanitarian” justification for foreign
military intervention in Syria that would seek to depose Assad’s
government, a justification frequently used by the U.S. and its
allies prior to an invasion or the toppling of an extant regime.

While
this narrative has been pervasive in media coverage of the Syrian
conflict, it is now being debunked by the very Syrian refugees that
the media purported were fleeing Assad in the first place.

According
to 
a
recent statement
 from
Andrej Mahecic, a spokesman for the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees, an estimated 440,000 displaced Syrians who remained in the
country have returned to their homes since the year began. In
addition, 31,000 refugees in neighboring countries also returned to
Syria in the first half of the year, with 260,000 having returned to
Syria from other nations since 2015.

UNA-USA San Diego @UNASanDiego

UN Refugee Agency: Almost 500,000 Syrian refugees have returned home. Find out why: http://htl.li/RfjO30de1Yj  

Syrian refugee children in a camp for displaced in Jordan. Photo: February 2016


Syria war: Almost 500,000 refugees return in 2017 – UN – BBC News

The UN calls this a “notable trend”, but warns conditions for a safe return “are not yet in place”.

bbc.com

Though Mahecic noted that these refugees represent only a “fraction” of the five million Syrian refugees living in neighboring countries, what is notable is that nearly all of those who have decided to come back are settling in areas of Syria controlled by the government or where the Syrian government has made major territorial gains against ISIS and US-backed militants like al-Nusra Front in recent months – namely Aleppo, Hama, Homs and Damascus.


       Even
with the conflict in Syria still raging, thousands of the displaced
are eagerly returning to their homes under the control of the Syrian
government. This may seem strange, as the U.S. media
 has
long suggested that
 most
refugees were fleeing Assad, not foreign-backed terrorists like Daesh
(ISIS) and Al-Nusra. 

Of
course, this assertion was based on “polls” of refugees conducted
by the Syria Campaign, 
a
USAID-funded organization
 that
has long pushed for U.S. military intervention in Syria.

This
begs the question: why would refugees choose to return to territory
controlled by the person they supposedly sought to flee, as the
mainstream media portrays?

These
latest figures from the UN suggest that many refugees were not
fleeing their government, but rather the violence caused by a
foreign-funded insurgency intended to topple the popular Assad
government.
 As Middle
East Eye
 noted
 in
2015, prior to the outbreak of the conflict, Assad was widely
popular, though his popularity allegedly evaporated as the 2011
Saudi- and U.S.-funded uprising began.

Did
Assad’s popularity with the Syrian people ever really go away?
Western media reports containing interviews with the handful of
Syrians who support Assad as dictator claim it is so. But the
evidence has long suggested that the majority of Syrians have
continued to approve of their president throughout the conflict.

Indeed,
there is plenty of evidence that the “popular uprisings” against
the Assad government in 2011
 were
staged
 on
behalf of foreign mercenaries largely backed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar
and Turkey – governments that have long sought to remove Assad from
power. Assad’s popularity prior to the outbreak of violence likely
remained unchanged after the fact.

Polling
within Syria has consistently shown this to be true. Even polls
funded by anti-Assad nations like Qatar
 have
also found
 that
the majority of Syrians continue to overwhelmingly support Assad.
Indeed, when elections were last held in 2014, the Western media
could not hide the large crowds that came to vote, as the
population 
re-elected
Assad
,
who won with 88 percent of the vote. By contrast,
 voter
turnout was 55.7 percent
 in
the last U.S. Presidential election, suggesting that Assad has a
stronger democratic mandate than U.S. President Donald Trump.

Six
years into the conflict, video footage, and photographs clearly show
that Assad and his wife regularly
 walk
among the Syrian people
 in
Damascus with little to no security detail. The Assads
 even
drive their own cars
 –
without security – through the countryside.

maytham @maytham956

President  druving his car and passing by a check point at ine of the villages of Mesyaf in the countryside of 

This
seems like a difficult feat for a “hated” and “feared”
dictator to perform on a regular basis. By contrast, some Western
leaders
 can
hardly spend a few minutes
 among
their constituents – even with a massive security detail in tow –
without being sped away for their own protection.

Even
U.S. politicians who have traveled to Syria have come back
acknowledging Assad’s popularity. For instance, Virginia State
Senator Richard Black has cited internal reports from U.S.
intelligence which state that, were an election in Syria to be held
today, Assad 
would
likely be reelected
 with
90 percent of the vote, including in areas occupied by terrorists.

By Whitney
Webb
 /
Republished with permission / 
MintPress
News
 / Report
a typo

VS is grootste producent van vluchtelingen, aldus VN rapport……….

De VN berekende dat vorig jaar 65 miljoen mensen (!!!) op de vlucht zijn geslagen vanwege een ‘dodelijk conflict’ (‘dodelijk conflict’, lees: illegale oorlog door VS begonnen of door VS veroorzaakte chaos, bijvoorbeeld middels een staatsgreep; waar de VS niet wordt genoemd in het VN rapport…..)………

De UNHCR die e.e.a. uitzocht verduidelijkte het cijfer, door voor te rekenen, dat er elke 3 seconden iemand moet vluchten…….. UNHRC voorzitter Filippo Grandi vindt dit onaanvaardbaar, echter wat hij niet vermeldde is wie er verantwoordelijk is voor de grote vluchtelingenstromen en dat is zowel direct als indirect de VS…….

De landen waarvan de meeste vluchtelingen komen (waar een flink aantal vluchtelingen ook in eigen land bleven, waar ze veelal alsnog niet veilig zijn) zijn Syrië, Afghanistan en Irak met respectievelijk 12, 4,7 en 4,2 miljoen vluchtelingen!! Afghanistan en Irak werden direct illegaal aangevallen door de VS, waar de oorlog in Syrië het gevolg is van manipulaties van de VS (en haar coalitiegenoten), waartoe de eerste stappen al in 2006 werden gezet………

De VS en landen als Saoedi-Arabië en Israël hebben terreurgroepen in Syrië van geld, wapens, voertuigen, training en medische zorg voorzien. Terreurgroepen die de laatste 6 jaar grote misdaden begingen (en nog begaan) tegen de Syrische bevolking, waardoor die op de vlucht zijn geslagen……

Colombia is het tweede land, wat betreft het aantal mensen die zijn gevlucht, maar liefst 7,7 miljoen mensen verlieten daar huis en haard……. Ook in Colombia is de VS voor een groot deel verantwoordelijk voor de reden waarom mensen vluchtten. Dit door de oorlog tegen drugs, waar de VS o.a. rechtse doodseskaders steunt en als het even kan grote delen van het loerwoud vergiftigd, zodat daar geen cocaïne kan worden geteeld en landbouwgrond onbruikbaar is geworden….. Dit nog naast het volproppen van het leger met VS wapens, waar Bill Clinton ‘Plan Columbia’ (Eng.) introduceerde. Hiermee werd het geweld in Colombia verder opgezweept en verdwenen mensenrechten naar de achtergrond, gevolg: vluchtelingen……..

Ook in Soedan heeft de VS enorme ellende veroorzaakt, de afscheiding van Zuid-Soedan is één op één ingegeven door de VS….. De reden daarvoor: Zuid-Soedan bezit grote olievoorraden, waarvoor China tegen de zin van de VS contracten had afgesloten met wat nu Noord-Soedan is…… Intussen zijn 3,3, miljoen Zuid-Soedanezen op de vlucht geslagen……

Grandi roept de wereld op te voorkomen dat mensen op de vlucht moeten slaan en roept op tot het aanpakken van het vluchtelingenprobleem. De schrijver van het hieronder geplaatste artikel, Webb stelt terecht dat Grandi beter eens op de oorzaak kan wijzen:de ‘onlesbare’ zucht naar verovering, macht en winst door het militair-industrieel complex in de VS (waar ter verduidelijking ook het politieke leiderschap toebehoort)….

UN
Report Reveals Nations Producing Most Refugees Were Targets of US
Intervention

June
22, 2017 at 7:19 pm

Written
by 
Whitney
Webb

A
UN report has shown that more than 65 million people were forced to
leave their home countries last year, becoming refugees due to deadly
conflict. The top nations from which refugees fled have one thing in
common, they were all targets of US intervention.

(MPN) — A
United Nations
 report has
shed light on the world’s burgeoning crisis of displaced peoples,
finding that a record 65.6 million were forced to vacate their homes
in 2016 alone. More than half of them were minors.

The Office
of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
 (UNHCR),
which drafted the report, put the figure into perspective, stating
that increasing conflict and persecution worldwide have led to “one
person being displaced every three seconds – less than the time it
takes to read this sentence.”

UN
High Commissioner Filippo Grandi called the figure “unacceptable”
and called for “solidarity and a common purpose in preventing and
resolving the crisis.”


However,
what the UN report failed to mention was the role of U.S. foreign
intervention, indirect or direct, in fomenting the conflicts
responsible for producing most of the world’s refugees.

According
to the report, three of the nations producing the highest number of
refugees are 
Syria
(12 million refugees created in 2016), Afghanistan (4.7 million) and
Iraq (4.2 million).

Watch
the UNHCR’s New Global Trends Report:

The
conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are known to be
 the
direct result of U.S. military invasions
 in
the early 2000s, as well as the U.S.’ ongoing occupation of those
nations. Decades after invading both countries, the U.S.’
destabilizing military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan
 has
continued to increase
 in
recent years, with the Trump administration most recently
announcing
 plans
to send thousands
 of
soldiers to Afghanistan in the coming months. It is worth noting
that 
each U.S.
soldier in Afghanistan
 costs
U.S. taxpayers $2.1 million.

While
the U.S. has yet to directly invade Syria, 
the
U.S. role in the conflict is clear
 and
Syria’s destabilization and the overthrow of its current
regime 
have
long been planned
 by
the U.S. government.

The
U.S. and its allies, particularly 
Israel and Saudi
Arabia
,
have consistently funded “rebel” groups that have not only
perpetuated the Syrian conflict for six long years, but have
also 
committed
atrocity after atrocity
 targeting
civilians in Syrian cities, towns, and communities – 
a
major factor
 in
convincing Syrians to leave their homes.

Tulsi Gabbard 

@TulsiGabbard

The U.S. must stop supporting terrorists who are destroying Syria and her people.https://youtu.be/LHqpneMd9OM 

The
report ranks Colombia as the world’s second-largest producer of
refugees, with 7.7 million Colombians displaced in 2016. Like Syria,
the U.S. has not directly invaded Colombia, but is
 known
to have extensively funded paramilitary groups
,
also known as “death squads,” in the country since the 1980s,
when then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan declared a “war on drugs”
in Colombia.

U.S.
efforts 
have
long helped fuel
 the
civil war between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
and pro-government, U.S.-funded paramilitary groups. This conflict
has lasted for more than half a century.


In
2000, then-President Bill Clinton’s administration funded
 the
disastrous “Plan Colombia”
 with
$4 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds, ostensibly to fight drug
trafficking and insurgents. Almost all of this money was used to fund
the Colombian military and its weapon purchases. “Plan Colombia”
ultimately intensified armed violence, military deployments, human
rights abuses by the Colombian military, and – of course – the
internal displacement of Colombians. The legacy of U.S. policy in
Colombia and its continuing support of the nation’s right-wing,
neo-liberal regime have ensured that the chaos continues into the
present.

Ben Norton 


 @BenjaminNorton

In a destructive decades-long war that has been fueled & prolonged by billions of dollars from the US’ Plan Colombia https://twitter.com/JuliaCarmel__/status/840208328684904449 

Tailfoot McWalshy @BuglegsMcWalshy

@BenjaminNorton Clinton ran on Plan Colombia and its sponsoring right wing death squads. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8557396 

         Photo published for Sorry, Hillary, Plan Colombia Has Been a Drug War Disaster

Photo published for Sorry, Hillary, Plan Colombia Has Been a Drug War Disaster


Sorry, Hillary, Plan Colombia Has Been a Drug War Disaster

This week Hillary Clinton again revealed a blind spot for the drug war and a

huffingtonpost.com

In
addition to the above, U.S foreign policy is also to blame for the
conflict in South Sudan, where the UN report found was home to the
fastest-growing displacement of people in the world. In 2011, the

U.S.
pushed South Sudan to secede from Sudan, as South Sudan holds the
vast majority of Sudan’s oil reserves — the largest oil reserves
in all of Africa. The U.S.’ push for the creation of an independent
South Sudan
 dislodged
Chinese claims
 to
Sudanese oil, as the Chinese had previously signed oil contracts with
the (now Northern) Sudanese government.

But
when nation-building efforts went awry and civil war broke out just
two years later,
 some
analysts suggested
 that
the conflict only started when South Sudan’s president began to
cozy up to China. According to the UN report, approximately 3.3
million people in South Sudan have fled their homes since the war
began.

Grandi
has called on the world’s nations to help prevent and resolve the
global refugee crisis. But he would also do well to point out the
common cause uniting many of the world’s worst conflicts – the
U.S. military-industrial complex’s insatiable lust for conquest,
power and profit.

by Whitney
Webb
 /
Republished with permission / 
MintPress
News
 / Report
a typo

=====================================

Zie ook:

Afghanistan: VS gaat terreur vergroten

VS gaf sinds 2001 meer dan 5,9 biljoen dollar uit aan oorlogen, ofwel: $ 5,933.000.000.000…….

VS bombardeert ziekenhuis Artsen zonder Grenzen in Kunduz, 9 medewerkers van deze organisatie kwamen om het leven……..
       

VS bombardeerde het Artsen zonder Grenzen ziekenhuis in Kunduz niet per ongeluk………. Ofwel: VS terreur op grote schaal, over een lange periode!!

Artsen zonder Grenzen ziekenhuis: tijdens bombardement werden vluchtenden vanaf relatief korte afstand beschoten……. Vergissing??

VS standrechtelijke executies: voor de zoveelste keer niet-verdachten slachtoffer drone-aanval >> 15 Afghaanse politieagenten vermoord….

Afghaanse oorlog in het 17de jaar: Taliban nu sterker dan eerder sinds de VS de oorlog van 2001 begon

Ten Broeke (VVD) steunt beslissing Trump de illegale oorlog in Afghanistan te laten voortduren en zo meer terreur te creëren……..

Afghanistan: de VS stelt de papaverteelt veilig voor de komende jaren………..

VS test grootste niet-nucleaire bom in testgebied….. Afghanistan!!‘ (o.a. Afghanistan is een testgebied voor de wapenfabrikanten en daaronder versta ik ook de fabrikanten van rollend, varend en vliegend oorlogstuig)

Military-Industrial Complex Stock Prices Surge After Trump’s Afghan War Speech

Luchtmacht VS gooide in augustus meer dan 500 bommen op Afghanistan……….

Trump gaat oorlog in Afghanistan winnen…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

6 Reasons Why Trump’s Afghanistan “Policy” Is Not a Deep State Plot

14 Times Trump Warned Against Doing What He Just Did in Afghanistan

=========================================

Hier nog een paar voorbeelden van VS terreur:

VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII……..‘ (tot het jaar 2000)

VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen……….

List of wars involving the United States

VS: openlijke militaire oefening met terreurgroep in Syrië……

Bang voor Amerika

NAVO gaat VS helpen in Zuid-Amerika terreur uit te oefenen: Colombia lid van de NAVO………

VS commando’s vechten o.a. in Midden- en Zuid-Amerika, aldus het VS ministerie van oorlog………

VS heeft Rusland al 3 keer met oorlog gedreigd, de laatste 2 keer in de afgelopen 1,5 week……‘ (bericht van 5 oktober 2018)

Israëlische terreur in Negev: dorp voor 114de keer ‘gebulldozerd’

Anti-Media meldde eergisteren, dat het Palestijnse Bedoeïenendorp al-Araqib voor de 114de keer werd gebulldozerd…… U denkt wellicht, 114 keer, is dat niet wat overdreven, maar zelfs één keer zou één keer teveel zijn!!

De Palestijnse bedoeïenen wonen al een paar duizend jaar in de Negev, maar als het de fascistische apartheidsregering van Israël behaagd, verklaart het bedoeïenen dorpen als niet bestaand en dus illegaal. Dit terwijl illegale Israëlische nederzettingen in het gebied mogen worden uitgebreid, sterker nog, deze worden niet zelden gebouwd op de plek waar eerst een Palestijns bedoeïenendorp werd vernietigd door de fascistische Israëlische overheidsdiensten………

Al vaker gemeld op deze plek, Israël, haar politie en het Israëlische leger gebruiken nazi-Duitse methoden als vergelding, iets dat begin negentiger jaren zelfs werd toegegeven door officieren uit het Israëlische leger…… Nog een staaltje nazi-Duitse terreur: de bewoners van al-Araqib worden verantwoordelijk gesteld voor de kosten van het bulldozeren van hun huizen, deze kosten zijn nu al ruim de half miljoen dollar gepasseerd……….

Al-Araqib is één van de 35 dorpen, die Israël niet erkend als bestaand……. Lees het artikel Whitney Webb over deze onverdraaglijke gang van zaken. Zoals gewoonlijk is ook voor deze vorm van Israëlische terreur amper of geen aandacht bij de politiek en de reguliere (‘onafhankelijke’) media in ons land

Israeli
Bulldozers Demolish Palestinian Village for 114th Time in Seven Years

June
19, 2017 at 8:04 pm

Written
by 
Whitney
Webb

Israeli
bulldozers flattened a village inhabited by the ancient Palestinian
Bedouins, a tribe that has lived on the land for thousands of years.
Israeli authorities have systematically run the indigenous Bedouins
off of their land to pave the way for Jewish-only settlements.

(MPN) — Israel
Land Authority (ILA) officials, along with Israeli police and several
bulldozers, 
raided
and then demolished
 the
Bedouin village of al-Araqib in the Negev region this week.

The
demolition marked the 114th time that the ILA has destroyed the
village, with the first time taking place in 2010 and the most recent
prior to Wednesday’s demolition taking place
 just
last month
.

Most
of the structures that were demolished on Wednesday were tin homes
that village residents had built over the course of the last month in
order to continue living in the area.

But
while the residents of al-Araqib are grappling with the most recent
demolition that has wiped out their village, Israeli Jewish
communities in the region continue to expand on Palestinian land.

Last,
year, the ILA approved five new Jewish-only residential settlements
in the Negev, two of which are located where “unrecognized”
Palestinian Bedouin villages currently stand.

Several
rights groups have argued that the demolition of Bedouin villages is
directly related to the expansion of illegal Jewish
settlements,
 describing
the policy
 as
a means of removing the indigenous Palestinian population in order to
create even more settlements for Jewish-only Israelis.

Since
Israel’s inception in 1948, white Jewish-only settlements have been
built on indigenous Palestinian land after the indigenous population
has been ethnically cleansed in order to accommodate European Jews in
beginning their new lives in Israel.

The
historic Palestinian Bedouins have lived in the villages since they
were
 forcibly
transferred to the sites
 by
an Israeli military order issued in 1956. However, the Bedouins
significantly predate the state of Israel, as they have lived in the
area for thousands of years as the original Arab ethnic group of the
Middle East.

ILA
officials have been repeatedly accused by residents of carrying out
demolitions with little consideration for the village’s residents.
Indeed, instead of providing any resources for the now-homeless
villagers, al-Araqib’s residents
 have
been ordered
 by
the Israeli government to pay for the cumulative cost of the 114
demolitions that have been carried out since 2010, a figure which
stands at more than 2 million shekels, or roughly $541,000.

However,
the Palestinian Bedouins – despite the constant destruction of
their homes – have remained defiant, refusing to relocate.
Following last month’s demolition, al-Araqib resident Sayyah
al-Turi
 told
the Ma’an News Agency
 “All
demolition crimes will not scare us or stop us from rebuilding our
homes and holding on to our lands. We will stay here despite the
injustice and criminal demolitions, we will not submit to their plans
of uprooting and displacing us.”

Al-Araqib
is one of 35 Bedouin villages that the Israeli government considers
“unrecognized,” even though
more
than half
 of
the estimated 160,000 Bedouins living in the Negev region reside in
such villages. The “unrecognized” classification also prevents
Bedouins living in these villages from developing or expanding their
communities. It has also led to Israeli authorities
 refusing
to connect
 the
villages to national water and electric grids and refusing to offer
their residents healthcare and educational services, despite the fact
that the Bedouins are technically Israeli citizens.

Settlement
activity on the rise

However,
the Israeli demolition of Palestinian housing has become more
prominent in 2017, as pushes to expand Israeli settlements and the
demolition of indigenous Palestinian homes have both spiked since the
year began.

The
Israeli NGO Peace Now
 reported
earlier this month
 that
the number of settlements approved in the first half of 2017 is
nearly triple the number that was approved in all of 2016, with 7,721
housing units approved since January compared to 2,657 over the
entire course of last year.

Demolitions
of Palestinian homes within Israel have also picked up in the first
half of the year, beginning with a deadly 
pre-dawn
demolition raid
 on
the Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran in January. A new Jewish-Israeli
town called “Hiran” is set to take the village’s place.

The
push to expand illegal settlements at all costs has recently brought
international condemnation against the Israeli government, with 
the
United States
, the
United Kingdom and Japan
 condemning
the expansion of illegal settlements, saying this phenomenon is “not
conducive” to the peace process.

However,
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems less than concerned
with such statements, as evidenced by his comments at a ceremony
celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War earlier this
month. At the ceremony, Netanyahu
 promised
an audience
 of
Jewish settlers that he was “doing whatever is needed to protect
the Jewish settlement enterprise.”

It
will likely take more than stern words from foreign governments to
convince the Israeli government to abandon its illegal activities,
which have compounded the suffering of indigenous Palestinians who
are losing their land to modern-day colonization.

By Whitney
Webb
 /
Republished with permission / 
MintPress
News
 / Report
a typo

===================================

Zie ook:

Palestijnse bedoeïenen: vergeten en verjaagd‘  MO (Mondiaal Nieuws) 17 oktober 2013.

De geschiedenis van de Palestijnse Bedoeïenen in de Negev-Naqab‘ (Een Ander Joods Geluid, 15 juni 2017)

Israëlische terreur: man wordt gedwongen z’n huis te slopen op de dag van z’n bruiloft…….

Volkskrant nepnieuws weersproken: geen bewijs voor Russische hacks en manipulaties! NSA klokkenluider gepakt na ‘fout’ van The Intercept……..

Een behoorlijk stinkende zaak mensen,  Reality Leigh Winner, een ‘contractor’  voor de NSA heeft geheime documenten gelekt over een ‘Russische cyberaanval en Russische vispogingen (‘phishing’) in e-mails aan lokale VS verkiezingsbeambten’.

De reguliere mediaorganen in binnen en (westers) buitenland slaan zich op de knieën van pret, als zou nu dan toch eindelijk het bewijs boven tafel zijn gekomen, de ‘smoking gun’ zo u wilt, dat Rusland de VS verkiezingen heeft gemanipuleerd……

Volgens The Intercept, die de gelekte documenten ontving, blijkt uit de documenten dat er ‘vanuit Rusland’ minstens één grote cybveraanval is uitgevoerd, en zouden er kort voor de presidentsverkiezingen in de VS, meer dan 100 Russische ‘phishing emails’ zijn verzonden naar lokale verkiezingsbeambten………  

Echter in de documenten die vrijgekomen zijn, wordt niet eens gesproken over een cyberaanval tegen de VS, er is alleen informatie vergaard (wat je ‘spionage’ zou kunnen noemen), er is nooit een gevaar geweest voor bepaalde accounts en ook zijn de verkiezingen in de VS nooit in gevaar gekomen…… Voorts wordt erop gewezen, dat de cyberspionage (daar zou zoals eerder gesteld, wel sprake van zijn ) werd gedaan met technieken, die niet worden gebruikt door het Russische leger, die als dader werd en wordt aangewezen door de geheime diensten in de VS……

Weer blijkt dat de VS geen greintje bewijs heeft voor Russische inmenging bij de verkiezingen

Eén ding is zeker, The Intercept heeft (weer) een uiterst dubieuze rol gespeeld, de klokkenluider had nooit bekend mogen worden. Ik vraag me af, of er niet ‘een beetje opzet in het spel is’, gezien de reacties in de westerse pers……….

Lees het volgende artikel van Anti-Media, waarin ook de smerige rol ter sprake komt van The Intercept en oordeel zelf:

The
Intercept Has A Source Burning Problem

June
8, 2017 at 9:07 am

Written
by 
Whitney
Webb

(MPNLong
having built its reputation on reports derived from classified
information provided to them by leakers, 
The
Intercept
 now
finds itself in the unpleasant position of having burned – or outed
– one of its anonymous sources.

The
leaker, Reality Leigh Winner, allegedly gave The
Intercept
 classified NSA documents pertaining to an
investigation of Russian military intelligence hacking within the
U.S. and now faces years in prison under the Espionage Act. While
outing Winner could have been the result of negligence, the FBI
affidavit explaining why the bureau arrested Winner shows it went
beyond mere negligence.

According
to
 FBI
documents
,
a reporter at the paper
 sent
the leaked documents
 to
a contractor working for the National Security Agency (NSA) – the
very agency they had been taken from – a full week before 
The
Intercept
 published
the story. The alleged intention was to let the NSA itself verify the
documents, an unusual move for a news outlet that 
was
originally intended
 to
have exclusive publication rights over the Snowden leaks that exposed
NSA surveillance. Upon being contacted, the NSA asked that 
The
Intercept
 redact
parts of the document and 
The
Intercept
 complied
with some of those requests.

The
FBI warrant
 also
notes that the reporter in question – who is unnamed in the
document – contacted a government contractor with whom he had a
prior relationship and revealed where the documents had been
postmarked from – Winner’s home of Augusta, Georgia – along
with Winner’s work location. He also sent unedited images of the
documents that contained security markings that allowed the document
to be traced to Winner.

While
the reporter’s identity remains unknown, the published report has
four authors – two of whom have been known to burn sources before.
Journalists Richard Esposito and Matthew Cole once found themselves
involved in a case against CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou.
Kiriakou
 specifically
singled out Cole
 as
having not only misled him, but having played a likely role in
incriminating him. Kiriakou spent nearly two years in prison for
exposing the CIA’s torture program.

John Kiriakou 

@JohnKiriakou

.@theintercept should be ashamed of itself. Matthew Cole burns yet another source. It makes your entire organization untrustworthy.

WikiLeaks,
a publishing organization committed to transparency that maintains
the confidentiality of its sources, has sharply condemned 
The
Intercept
’s
role in Winner’s arrest. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
 wrote
that
 “If
the FBI affidavit is accurate, the reporter concerned must be named,
shamed and fired by whomever they work for to maintain industry
standards.” “Source-burning reporters are a menace,” he
continued. “They chill trust in all journalists, which impedes
public understanding.”

WikiLeaks
is
 now
offering a $10,000 reward
 for
information “leading to the public exposure & termination” of
the responsible reporter.

WikiLeaks 

@wikileaks

WikiLeaks issues a US$10,000 reward for information leading to the public exposure & termination of this ‘reporter’: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/871924646148534273 

The
Intercept
 responded
to the situation in a statement
,
stating:

While
the FBI’s allegations against Winner have been made public through
the release of an affidavit and search warrant, which were unsealed
at the government’s request, it is important to keep in mind that
these documents contain unproven assertions and speculation designed
to serve the government’s agenda and as such warrant skepticism.
Winner faces allegations that have not been proven. The same is true
of the FBI’s claims about how it came to arrest Winner.”

The
paper’s most prominent journalist, Glenn Greenwald, has 
distanced
himself
 from
the article and claimed that he does not edit the paper – even
though 
his
bio lists him
 as
a “founding co-editor.”

Slothrop @gnocchiwizard

@ggreenwald the article in question relied heavily on that exact fallacy to generate publicity. big fan of yours since 04, but this is very troubling.

Glenn Greenwald 

@ggreenwald

@gnocchiwizard I didn’t write the article, & I don’t edit the Intercept. I don’t control other journalists. My views on it are here https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/871832554604818432 

The
Intercept’s corporate dark side

This
latest debacle for 
The
Intercept
 may
be proving the organization’s long-time critics right. The short
history of the publication shows that it was hardly set up to serve
the public interest. The paper was founded by Pierre Omidyar, a
billionaire and major owner of both eBay and PayPal, who 
gave
the project more than $50 million
 in
seed money.

This
alone should have been enough to complicate its mission “to hold
the most powerful governmental and corporate factions accountable.”

Its
first hires were Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, and Laura Poitras –
all of whom were involved in publishing the Snowden revelations, as
well as other leaks. Greenwald and Poitras were the only journalists
with the full Snowden cache and those secrets now belong to a single
billionaire running a for-profit media company.

Omidyar’s
connections to the U.S. political establishment are numerous and
concerning. One of his foundation’s microcredit projects to “help”
farmers in India led to
 an
epidemic of farmer suicides
 that
gained international headlines, as farmers became unable to pay the
foundation back. His network has also funded regime change operations
with USAID, most recently in Ukraine. In addition, Omidyar
 was
well-connected to the Obama White House
,
which stood to lose the most from the mass publication of the Snowden
cache. One of Omidyar’s main companies, PayPal,
 is
said to be implicated
 in
some of the NSA documents that have still been withheld.

Omidyar’s
influence on 
The
Intercept
 has
also been established. Former 
Intercept writer Ken
Silverstein wrote
 that,
at the paper, “a cult of personality existed around him [Omidyar]
internally that disrupted the whole organization” and that “the
company’s culture centered on Omidyar.”

This
background makes it less surprising that 
The
Intercept
 has
been caught publishing partisan stories that back U.S. establishment
objectives, such as articles
 supporting
U.S.-led regime change efforts
 in
Syria and the very piece that outed Winner.

Outing
a source only to perpetuate the “Russian hacker” narrative

The
Intercept
 piece
at the center of the controversy is particularly troubling. Titled
Top-Secret
NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election
,”
it asserts that “Russian military intelligence executed a
cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent
spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just
days before last November’s presidential election, according to a
highly classified intelligence report obtained by 
The
Intercept
.”

However, the
NSA report
 that The
Intercept
 published
in tandem with the article provides no evidence for that claim, as it
does not even mention of a cyberattack by “cyber espionage
operations,” indicating that no one was attacked and only that
information was collected. It also presents no proof that any
accounts were compromised, nor were the U.S. elections. Even worse is
that the document itself states that techniques were used by this
cyber espionage actor that distinguish it from known Russian military
intelligence operations, meaning the act in question may not have
been carried out by Russian intelligence.

In
addition, the piece quotes cyber security expert Bruce Schneier.
However, Schneier is a well-known Clinton supporter and argued that
Russia hacked the Democrats as far back
 as
last July
,
a claim for which there is still no evidence. 
The
Intercept
 piece
fails to mention this aspect of Schneier’s background.

Essentially, The
Intercept
 piece
– which could lead to hard prison time for one very unfortunate
whistleblower – does not accurately interpret the classified
information at its core and instead seeks to propagate the “Russian
hacker” narrative still being peddled by the parts of the U.S.
establishment that are still bitter over Hillary Clinton’s loss.
Given Omidyar’s cozy ties with the Obama White House and 
the
left-leaning slant
 of The
Intercept
’s current
editor Betsy Reed
,
this could be more than coincidence.

While The
Intercept
 is now making headlines for outing a source, the
bigger message is that the paper has revealed itself as being part of
the system of establishment journalism it purports to stand against.

By Whitney
Webb
 /
Republished with permission / 
MintPress
News
 / Report
a typo

==========================

Zie ook: ‘Arrestatie in VS voor lekken van inlichtingen naar de media‘, een artikel van de NOS, waarin wordt gesteld dat Glenn Greenwald één van de oprichters is, van The Intercept, dat is echter niet waar. Als u het artikel van Anti-Media hebt gelezen, zal het u opvallen dat het NOS artikel behoorlijk rammelt en concludeert dat er inderdaad Russische hacks en manipulaties hebben plaatsgevonden, waar nog wel wordt gesteld, dat dit verder geen invloed heeft gehad

Veel verder gaat de Volkskrant (die de ‘smoking gun al lang geleden vond’), in dit flutblad dat in het (recente) verleden al een gigantisch aantal nepnieuwsberichten heeft gepubliceerd, durfde Michael Persson op 6 juni jl. het volgende te zeggen:

Het aan The Intercept gelekte document is een gedetailleerd schema van een aanval van Russische hackers op Amerikaanse fabrikanten van stemcomputers. De Amerikaanse inlichtingendienst NSA concludeert, zo valt te lezen, dat de Russische militaire inlichtingendienst GROe achter de phishingoperatie zat. 



Dat is nieuw: de Russische aanvallen op de electorale infrastructuur waren bekend, maar de conclusie dat ook dit een door het Kremlin gecoördineerde actie was is nog niet eerder (openbaar) getrokken. Overigens is er is nog steeds geen aanwijzing dat die infiltratiepogingen effect hebben gehad op de verkiezingsuitslag.

Ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! De eerdere claims van Russische bemoeienis (‘de Russische aanvallen op de electorale infrastructuur waren bekend’), waar geen flinter bewijs voor werd geleverd, zijn voor de Volkskrant en ‘journalist’ Persson feiten, waar de documenten die nu gelekt zijn aan worden toegevoegd als bevestiging……. Dit terwijl de documenten die naar The Intercept werden gelekt, volkomen fout worden uitgelegd door de Volkskrant en in feite het tegenovergestelde bewijzen……… Gelukkig stelt ook Persson, dat de zogenaamde Russische hacks geen invloed hebben gehad op de verkiezingen……. Hier de link naar het volledige Volkskrant artikel van Michael Persson.

Vreemd dat de westerse reguliere media niet massaal met grote koppen komen, waarin wordt gesteld, dat de (zogenaamde) Russische hacks geen invloed hebben gehad op de VS presidentsverkiezingen. Immers dit werd en wordt nog steeds wel volgehouden door diezelfde media (waar de Volkskrant wel een heel vreemde draai maakt, zoals u kon lezen). Ach ja, als je dergelijke zaken eerder prominent als (nep-) nieuws bracht, ga je dat natuurlijk niet op de voorpagina onderuit halen……….

Lees wat betreft de VS, de vereniging van terreurstaten, die werkelijk alles en iedereen hacken en manipuleren, plus eerdere maffe uitlatingen van Persson: ‘VS luisterde 1,8 miljoen Nederlandse telefoongesprekken af

Mijn excuus voor de belabberde vormgeving.

Julian Assange maakt gehakt van VS oproep hem te arresteren

CIA topgraaier Pompeo, gaf in zijn eerste openbare toespraak Wikileaks (en daarmee Assange) onderuit de zak. Wikileaks zou een vijandige niet-staatsgebonden inlichtingenorganisatie zijn….. Dit terwijl Wikileaks tezelfdertijd de Vault 7 documenten betreffende de smerige zaken van de CIA naar buiten bracht, Documenten waaruit juist blijkt, dat de CIA een uiterst agressieve organisatie is, die onder en boven de wet staat en met haar arsenaal aan cyberoorlog middelen voor elk land (bedrijf of zelfs persoon) op aarde een gevaar is (zoals de geschiedenis van de CIA uit en te na heeft bewezen)……

CNN berichtte uit ‘betrouwbare bron’ dat procureur-generaal van het departement van justitie, Jeff Sessions, bezig is uit te zoeken, hoe Assange te arresteren……..

Wat betreft Pompeo en zijn CIA is het wel duidelijk dat ze de oorlog hebben verklaard aan klokkenluiders en sites als Wikileaks, dit is dan ook het uitgangspunt voor de reactie die Assange gaf op het e.e.a.

Volgens Assange heeft de bevolking van de VS het grondwettelijk recht op openheid en transparantie wat betreft het opereren van haar overheid, met zijn reactie hoopt Assange daarvoor de ogen te openen bij deze bevolking.

Terecht stelde Assange, dat Pompeo de VS vergelijkt met een dictatuur, doordat hij stelde dat Wikileaks wel de VS aanvalt, maar niet dictaturen waar de vrijheid van meningsuiting niet bestaat, terwijl Pompeo nu juist die vrijheid van meningsuiting wil aanpakken…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Nogmaals: de VS bevolking heeft zelfs het grondwettelijk recht te weten, hoe haar regering te werk gaat……. Assange zei bovendien dat Pompeo met een kulargument komt, daar Wikileaks wel degelijk hele dossiers heeft gepubliceerd over buitenlandse machthebbers…..

Assange spreekt over de ‘Pompeo doctrine’, waarmee hij de bedoeling van Pompeo en zijn CIA noemt: het aanpakken van onafhankelijke onderzoeksjournalistiek en mensenrechtenorganisaties, die hij precies als Wikileaks het zwijgen wil opleggen…….

Lees hier het artikel van Webb dat Anti-Media gisteren publiceerde over deze zaak:

Julian
Assange Responds To U.S. Calls For Arrest

Julian Assange Responds To U.S. Calls For Arrest

April
27, 2017 at 11:02 am

Written
by 
Anti-Media
News Desk

(MPNIn
his first speech as CIA Director, Mike Pompeo delivered a strong
invective against the pro-transparency organization
WikiLeaks,
 accusing
the group
 of
acting as a “non-state hostile intelligence service.” The
aggressive rhetoric came amid Wikileaks’
 latest
series of releases
,
known as “
Vault
7
,”
which detail how the CIA has lost control of its cyber-warfare
arsenal, as well as outline the agency’s attempts to infect
consumer technology products with spyware.

While
Pompeo’s statements regarding WikiLeaks have made headlines since
he took the CIA position, much has happened in the two weeks since
his remarks. Within a week, CNN – citing anonymous “intelligence
community” sources – announced that the Justice Department, led
by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, was 
seeking
the arrest
 of
Wikileaks editor Julian Assange. According to the report, the
department had found a way to legally charge Assange for the
publishing of classified information.

Sessions
all but confirmed the CNN report soon after stating that
 arresting
Assange was a “priority.”
 Trump,
who only six months ago
 stated
his “love” for WikiLeaks
 during
a campaign speech,
 told
the Associated Press
 a
day later that arresting Assange is “OK with me.”

Assange
had yet to fully respond to the charges until just recently,
responding to the Trump administration’s stance on WikiLeaks only
in tweets. But on Tuesday, Assange gave voice to his position on the
increasing aggressiveness of the Trump administration in
 a
full-length op-ed
 for
the 
Washington
Post
 titled
“The CIA director is waging war on truth-tellers like WikiLeaks.”

With
his editorial, Assange seeks to remind American citizens that they
have a constitutional right to receive honest information about their
government – information that is provided by WikiLeaks and hidden
by government authorities. Assange notes that such attempts to keep
the public in the dark are similar to “attempts throughout history
by bureaucrats seeking, and failing, to criminalize speech that
reveals their own failings.”

Assange
paid particular attention to Pompeo’s assertions that WikiLeaks is
“hostile” for focusing on the “democratic” United States as
opposed to “autocratic regimes in this world that actually suppress
free speech and dissent.” Assange noted that this statement was
quite ironic, comparing the U.S. to autocratic regimes that stifle
free speech.

In
fact, Pompeo finds himself in the unsavory company of Recep Tayyip
Erdogan of Turkey (257,934 documents published by WikiLeaks); Bashar
al-Assad of Syria (2.3 million documents); and the dictatorship in
Saudi Arabia (122,609 documents),” Assange wrote.

The
greatest warning within Assange’s editorial, however, focuses on
the “Pompeo doctrine” laid out in the CIA director’s speech, a
doctrine that “ensnares all serious news and investigative human
rights organizations,” as these groups, like WikiLeaks, seek to
expose government wrongdoing and incompetence. Assange concluded “the
world cannot afford, and the Constitution does not permit, a muzzle
placed on the work that transparency organizations do to inform the
American and global public.”

Assange’s
editorial largely focused on Pompeo’s speech, skimming over the
recent statements by Attorney General Sessions and President Trump.
But 
Session’s
comments
 reveal
that leaks of classified information in general are not necessarily
as problematic as leaks published specifically by WikiLeaks.

We
are going to step up our effort and already are stepping up our
efforts on all leaks,” Sessions said at a news conference last
Thursday. “This is a matter that’s gone beyond anything I’m
aware of. We have professionals that have been in the security
business of the United States for many years that are shocked by the
number of leaks and some of them are quite serious,” he added.

However,
many of these “unprecedented” leaks that have taken place since
the Trump administration came to power were given not to WikiLeaks,
but to the 
Washington
Post
 and
the 
New
York Times
,
organizations that have not been targeted for legal action by
Sessions.

The
leaks 
published
by the 
Post and
the 
Times
 resulted
in major controversy for the Trump administration and cost former
National Security advisor Michael Flynn his job while also putting
Sessions himself in the crosshairs. WikiLeaks’ “Vault 7”
releases, which have exposed negligence and wrong-doing on the part
of the CIA, are the only releases they’ve provided this year that
have explicitly targeted the U.S. government. But they are the only
organization that has come under threat.

Perhaps
what Sessions meant to say last Thursday was that the Justice
Department is stepping up its efforts to contain leaks published by
WikiLeaks. Leaks published by other media outlets, like 
the
CIA-connected 
Washington
Post
,
are apparently not worth their time


By Whitney
Webb
 /
Republished with permission / 
MintPress
News
 / Report
a typo

==============================

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden.