Sunday, February 21, 2016

Turkey’s Syrian policy has destroyed Turkey’s international position if nothing less

Turkey’s Perilous Crossroad

Turkey is at a dangerous crossroad, having plunged down the bloody route of “regime change” in Syria and getting drawn deeper into conflicts with Kurds, Iran and Russia. Can President Erdogan return to the more peaceful path he once followed, asks ex-CIA official Graham E. Fuller.

By Graham E. Fuller

What does Turkey need to do to overcome its present foreign policy fiasco, one of the worst in modern Turkish history? The irony of all this is that those directly responsible for this mess — the team of Recep Tayyip Erdogan (now president) and Ahmet Davutoglu, (former foreign minister and now prime minister) — is exactly the team that one decade ago had made extraordinary steps in creating a new, creative and successful foreign policy.

What went wrong? And how can Ankara now climb back out of the deep hole that it has dug for itself? The answer is simple: Erdogan and Davutoglu  should return to their original successful principles of a decade ago, now recklessly abandoned. The overwhelmingly most urgent task is for Ankara to get out of Syria.

Today's Turkey blends the ancient with the modern.
Today’s Turkey blends the ancient with the modern.
Turkey’s Syrian policy has done more to destroy Turkey’s international position than any other single factor. But let’s be clear: Ankara is not primarily responsible for the present disaster in Syria. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is. But Erdogan has huely exacerbated the problem, encouraged radical jihadist elements fighting in Syria, helped stir up sectarian passions, and mishandled the Syrian Kurds.
All these policies have damaged relations with countries that really matter for Turkey: Iran, Iraq, Russia, China, the U.S., the European Union, Kurdish communities, and of course relations with Syria itself. 

Instead Ankara has opened a dubious, dangerous and futureless coalition with Saudi Arabia. 

And it has created a damaging confrontation with Russia in which Turkey is already the loser.
What should Ankara now do?
  1. Acknowledge the reality that Assad is not going to fall anytime soon — even though that was a reasonable assumption after the outbreak of an uprising against him in 2011. Turkey must abandon the obsessive effort to overthrow him. Russia, the U.S., the E.U., China, Egypt and even large numbers of Syrians now correctly believe that what might come after Assad is likely to be far worse than Assad. Turkey has little to gain and much to lose in continuing this fruitless struggle.
  2. Work with the major powers to bring about a peaceful solution in Syria: working with the U.S., Russia and the E.U., and rejecting Saudi Arabia’s absurd vision of a massive international Sunni army seizing control of Damascus.
  3. Return to Ankara’s earlier policy of standingabove sectarian strugglein the region. Turkey is predominantly Sunni, but it has large Shi’ite and Alevi (quasi-Shi’ite) populations. Turkey has not really sought to be the champion of Sunni Islam for several hundred years. Indeed, Turkey gained respect and clout when it sought to act impartially between Sunni and Shi’a groups a decade ago. It should play no favorites in that capacity now.
  4. Work to improve its relations withIran. Iran’s role in the region is growing steadily. It is vital to Turkey strategically and economically. It is a democracy in the making. Relations were seriously damaged when Turkey went all out to overthrow Assad, an ally of Tehran.
  5. Work closely withIraqto help overcome sectarian problems — not simply as a supporter of Sunnis in Iraq. Turkey does not benefit from a divided Iraq. Nor does Iran, which would prefer to exert its influence in a united and stable Iraq. Turkey is well equipped to help bring sectarian reconciliation about in Iraq, with its excellent economic relations with Baghdad and shared interests in the wellbeing of Iraqi Kurdistan.
  6. Back away from strategic ties with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia rejects everything that Turkey claims to value: moderate Islam, religious and ethnic tolerance, non-sectarianism, non-intervention, democracy, globalizing markets, cultural attractiveness and soft power. Saudi Arabia, however, seeks only to draw Ankara in to be a Sunni champion and ally against Assad, against Iran, against the Iraqi Shi’ites and the Zaydi Shi’ites in Yemen.
  7. Cooperate with the other Gulf States — as long as it is on anon-sectarian basis. Ties with Qatar, in particular, could be productive.
  8. Place priority on restoring Turkish relations with Russia. Stop trying to drag NATO into unwise confrontations with Russia. The reality is that Moscow’s entry into the Syrian equation has all but eliminated Ankara’s options and freedom of action there. And Ankara cannot defeat Russia diplomatically. Furthermore, like it or not, Moscow is in fact well-positioned to forge a political settlement in Syria.
If Turkey undertakes the policy shifts outlined above, its relations with Moscow will automatically improve.
  1. Devote priority to close relations with all Kurdish elements in the region. Turkey, through the wisdom of its earlier policies, had won over the Iraqi Kurds as a close ally. But Erdogan has allowed his earlier path-breaking rapprochement with the Kurdish nationalist movement in Turkey, the PKK, to collapse. Ankara has refused to deal with the Syrian Kurdish movement, one of the few effective fighting groups against ISIS in Syria. It may be sliding into a general war against the Kurds which it might be able win on the battlefield but will assuredly lose politically.
Growing Kurdish power in the entire region is a reality — it has been on an upward curve for the last 25 years, invariably benefitting from each regional conflict to achieve greater de facto autonomy and world awareness. If Ankara is determined to stop Kurdish progress towards greater autonomy — anywhere in the region — it will only alienate the Kurds; above all such a posture will only hasten the emergence of greater Kurdish political, economic and cultural demands. Efforts to block this process of Kurdish emergence will not only fail, but will guarantee an uglier and more dangerous relationship for Turkey and the entire regional Kurdish reality long into the future.

Ironically, handled right and granted broader autonomy, most Kurds will inevitably look to Turkey as a regional protector, economic entrepôt and cultural magnet — as long as  Ankara does not alienate them. Where else could the Kurds look for valuable geopolitical ties in the region?

Ankara deserves great credit for having moved generously and humanely to accommodate more than 2½ million Syrian refugees inside Turkey. When Syrian domestic violence finally begins to end, many Syrians will go back home, but not all. This could be a problem for Turkey, but also a benefit.

The Ottoman tradition included an important role for Arabs within imperial rule. Today Turkey can only be enriched and strengthened through the acquisition of new Turkish Syrian citizens who can facilitate Turkish entree into the Arab world. Turkey is, after all, multinational already with huge numbers of other ethnic groups, from the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Balkans. A stronger Arab voice and expertise will only add to Turkey’s regional clout, economic access, and skills.

Finally Turkey should cooperate with Washington where it can, but only to the extent that Washington’s own policies in the region are wise and productive. Since 9/11 (and arguably even much before) U.S. policies in the Middle East have been disastrously bad, failing and destructive. Ankara would not cooperate.

President Obama in recent times, however, has dialed back the level of U.S. intervention and aggressiveness, especially now in Syria. If Ankara can undertake all these policy shifts its relations with Washington will much improve. That is assuming the next American president approaches the Middle East with wisdom — for which there is little guarantee.

All this also assumes that Erdogan will act wisely and not sacrifice Turkey’s foreign policy interests to his own reckless and divisive drive for greater personal power. Erdogan’s personal interests are not synonymous with the Turkish national interest.

Erdogan had once embraced and implemented Ataturk’s wise adage: Peace at home and peace abroad. Now he has abandoned those principles and is left with neither.

Graham E. Fuller is a former senior CIA official, author of numerous books on the Muslim World; his latest book is Breaking Faith: A novel of espionage and an American’s crisis of conscience in Pakistan. (Amazon, Kindle)

America’s Slide toward Failed State | By Paul R. Pillar

America’s Slide toward Failed State
February 20, 2016

The blanket refusal of Senate Republican leaders to consider President Obama’s choice to succeed Justice Scalia reflects a descent of the United States toward the kind of dysfunctional failed state that Washington normally upbraids, says ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.

By Paul R. Pillar

We Americans, usually quick to judge other societies by American standards, can become more self-aware by reversing the direction of the comparison and thinking of what the attributes of other nations might highlight about our own deficiencies.

Such comparisons can work in either of two ways. One is to observe how far the United States has fallen behind others in endeavors at which others excel and set the standards. Investment in transportation infrastructure, for example. Ride a train in Switzerland after riding one in the United States and the point becomes clear.

U.S. Supreme Court with Justice Antonin Scalia, seated second from left.

The other sort of comparison is to examine the troubles of other countries that are deeply troubled, with an eye toward identifying underlying problems that might also be found in the United States even though the United States has not gone as far down the troubled path — at least not yet. There is no shortage of countries, from Syria to Somalia to South Sudan, that we commonly label as politically unstable and that present grief for their own citizens, challenges for U.S. policymakers, and fodder for foreign policy pundits.

An attempt to identify underlying problems can come up with many things, involving the structure of civil society, ethnic divisions, and the like. But two very fundamental necessities for stable liberal democracy are in short supply in those trouble lands. One is the acceptance as legitimate of interests and viewpoints different from one’s own. Such acceptance does not preclude continued sharp differences. Recognized legitimacy is not the same as agreement.

Opposing political positions can grow out of different interests or different views about the best way of pursuing a shared interest. Either way, what is required is acknowledgment that one’s own side in a political contest does not necessarily have a monopoly on what is just, wise or moral, and that those on the other side have as much right to be part of the contest and of the give-and-take that feeds into national policy.

The other big necessity is a commitment to the entire political system that is greater than commitment to any of the particular interests or objectives that get pursued through that system. This does not just mean an avowing of patriotism; expressions of nationalist sentiment are easy to come by even in troubled and unstable nations. What is needed is acknowledgment and genuine belief that the health and smooth functioning of the entire system are of paramount importance and that without them those more parochial interests could not be effectively pursued anyway.

The Republican posture of keeping the U.S. Supreme Court short-handed for a year, and thereby screwing up not just one but two terms of the court, solely to deny an appointment to the incumbent president and to try to hand that power to a hoped-for Republican successor, is the latest and most salient of several episodes that indicate a growing shortfall in the United States of these two essential conditions for stable liberal democracy.

There have been other episodes occurring with increasing frequency in recent years. These include blanket rejection, begun even before Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, of anyone Barack Obama would nominate as an appellate judge. They include automatic opposition to the President’s most important legislative initiatives, as seen most vividly with health care, on which the opposition has become an obsession pursued without regard to the conceptual origins of the particular legislation or its actual effects once enacted. And they include the use of extortion, with threats involving default on debt or shutdown of government, in pursuit of some matter involving the budget or a social issue.

This pattern exhibits a lack of the first requirement involving an acceptance of the opposing side’s legitimacy. The outlook involved has been clear on an issue such as abortion, in which an opposing side get defined as not just wrong but as immoral. The outlook also has been applied personally to Barack Obama more than to any other U.S. president in modern times.

Suffusing through much of the reflexive opposition to his policies, and punctuated by the birther nonsense, has been a sense that he is somehow, well, not quite one of us and not quite a real American — that he is less a legitimate occupant of the Oval Office and more of a transient interloper there. To what extent this attitude is due, as many African-American supporters of Mr. Obama believe, to his race is impossible to determine definitively, but the attitude is too obvious to ignore.

The pattern also exhibits a shortfall in the second key requirement of stable liberal democracy, the greater value that must be placed on the political whole than on any more parochial interests. This shortfall is obviously present with the extortionate tactics involving damage to the nation’s credit rating or to the operation of the entire government, as it is now with tactics threatening to cripple the Supreme Court.

All of this goes beyond the damage that is due to intensified partisanship, which also has become worse in the United States over the past couple of decades and is bad enough just by itself. We are talking here about something more fundamental, and something that is alike in kind to what underlies the instability in any number of politically unstable countries on other continents.

The corresponding problem in the United States, though alike in kind, has not become alike in degree to those archetypical unstable countries from the Third World — again, not yet. But the trend is in the wrong direction, and those who care about the health of American democracy ought to be worried about that trend.

American citizens who do care — and at least as much, those who have been participating in some of the disturbing episodes mentioned above — ought to look at those unstable countries abroad and think the following thoughts.

First, there but for the grace of wise forefathers and other lucky circumstances of America go we.

Second, the critical ingredients of successful and stable liberal democracy are precious, not all that common in the world, and vulnerable to being lost. It may sound oxymoronic but is nevertheless true that political stability is fragile.

And finally, we need to ask ourselves continually what is more important: whatever specific policy issue has gotten people’s dander up at the moment, or having a political system — healthy and effective as well as free — that enables us to argue and compete about such issues at all.

Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies. (This article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest’s Web site. Reprinted with author’s permission.)

German media: the Terrorists in Syria asked the UN to protect them from Russia

German media: the Terrorists in Syria asked the UN to protect them from Russia

Russian airstrikes in Syria forced the "Front EN-Nusra" to seek help at the UN, writes Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten with reference to Reuters. The Syrian opposition had asked for "two to three-week truce" and as a pre-condition demanded not to attack the terrorist group. The militants went on this step to take a breather and regroup, preventing its complete destruction, I'm sure the author of the article.

RIA Novosti

To promote their interests in Syria U.S. and Saudi Arabia have long supported the "Frente al-Nusra", quoted by Inotv article Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten. They supply the group with arms and money. While Western politicians constantly trying to make the terrorists from this organization in a more favorable light, enrolling them in the ranks of the "moderate Syrian opposition". And although the "Front EN-Nusra" officially refused from the goals of al-Qaeda, he did so solely in order to participate in the Syria section, the author notes.

However, the military operation, Russia inflicted a serious damage to the militant group, continues publication. With the support of the Russian aviation of the Syrian army clears more areas. The authorities of Damascus is not going to negotiate with terrorists.

The difficult situation has forced the "Front EN-Nusra" on the original course: to try to achieve in the UN truce. About it reports Reuters with reference to anonymous sources, "close to the negotiations". News Agency reports that the Syrian opposition had asked for "two to three-week truce", "cessation of the siege", and "humanitarian access". 

According to an unnamed source, the initiative is ready to support all parties to the conflict, with the exception of the "Islamic state". The cessation of attacks on the "Front EN-Nusra" is put forward as a pre-condition for the ceasefire.

It is clear that this proposal is a trap for Russia, emphasizes DWN. The militants want to regroup and to prevent its complete destruction. But the Russians will not do, because, unlike the Western coalition, they fight against the terrorists decisively, says the German journalist.

Оригинал новости RT на русском:

The Hague weeps: how the USA have protected themselves from court for war crimes

The Hague weeps: how the USA have protected themselves from court for war crimes

February 15, first Deputy permanent representative of the Russian Federation to the UN, Pyotr Ilyichev has submitted to the Council a list of violations of international law by the US and other Western countries in the conduct of military operations abroad. Despite the extensive list of crimes the Americans and their partners always managed to avoid responsibility in international courts. How is it possible, despite the presence of norms providing responsibility for war crimes, says lawyer Ilya Craft.
Let's agree at once: international crimes are those that fall under international jurisdiction. Are considered crimes against the peace and security of mankind, apartheid, genocide, war crimes.
International law (e.g. the UN Charter) provides for the authorities of any state sovereignty, including the right to exercise the court over its nationals on its territory.
However, things change when it comes to international crimes committed by state authorities or someone under his cover. In this case, come into force the international conventions and courts. Such offenders may be convicted either international courts or international tribunals. Unlike a court, the Tribunal is not functioning on a regular basis and is created for consideration of a number of cases sharing common characteristics (territory, criminals, victims).
Unlike the international court of justice, which acts after the signing of an international Treaty, the Tribunal shall be convened by the resolution of the UN Security Council, which claims and the Statute of the Tribunal. Thus were created the tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

However, according to the UN Charter, the Tribunal could only be established by the unanimous will of the countries - permanent members of the security Council. It is easy to guess that in this situation the USA and the Western allies, members of the security Council, can easily block the creation of any Tribunal, aimed at the investigation of their crimes.
The principal international judicial organ is the international criminal court (ICC) in the Hague, established under the Rome Statute of 1998. The ratifying States recognize the ICC's jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction over him of the crimes committed by nationals or on the territory of these States.
Of the 193 member States of the UN Rome Statute ratified by 121 States. Russia signed the document but has not yet ratified it.
As for the U.S., having joined in 2000, they two years later withdrew its signature under the document, declaring it not relevant to national interests and violate the sovereignty. Since the USA is one of the most vocal opponents of the international court of justice, which brings to naught the possibility of a civil liability of States for committing international crimes.
In addition, the authorities of the States adopted the Law on the protection of American officials abroad, which explicitly prohibits the authorities any cooperation with international courts, in which the United States is not involved. Prohibited the extradition of U.S. citizens on request of the court, conduct investigations on the territory of America. The same law authorizes the use of military force (!) for the release of an American citizen, detained in the territory of another state on a warrant of the international court of justice. De facto American citizens are granted criminal immunity provided as "soft" and "hard" power.
Similarly, include American power and the International court of justice. In 1986, the court found that the US starting a war in Nicaragua, "committed acts that violated the following international legal obligations of States not to interfere in the Affairs of another state, not to use force against another state, not to infringe on the sovereignty of another state". Was recovered huge compensation, but the States refused to pay. As a result, Washington refused to recognize the decisions of the International court of justice.
The government of Yugoslavia also tried unsuccessfully to initiate legal proceedings against US and other NATO countries on charges of genocide. However, the United States upon ratification of the Convention has made a reservation according to which its application "in each case requires the specific consent of the country." No consent of the defendant – not the court for the crime.
In its internal law for the States strictly follow the principle of the primacy of national interests and the secondary norm of international law. Formally, under article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, international Treaty and domestic Federal law have equal legal force.
But there it is clarified that the norms of international law must be made to the legislation of the country by a separate law. And in the case of competition of national and international law applies the act, which was published later. Thus, the American authorities can easily stop the legal effect of any international Treaty, simply issuing a contradicting domestic law.

#UNSC fails to halt #Turkey's military actions in #Syria as #US & #France Veto Peace Plan

UNSC fails to rein in Turkey over military actions in Syria 

By Leith Fadel - 21/02/2016 0 

Western powers Friday rejected a Russian bid at the United Nations to halt Turkey’s military actions in Syria, as France warned of a dangerous escalation in the nearly five-year conflict. The emergency Security Council meeting came as US Secretary of State John Kerry cautioned there was “a lot more work to do” for a ceasefire to take hold in Syria, following talks in Geneva between American and Russian officials. 

Meanwhile President Barack Obama, in a phone call with Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, urged the Ankara government and Kurdish YPG forces to “show reciprocal restraint” in northern Syria. The elusive truce was meant to begin Friday, but failed to materialize as fighting raged in Syria with Kurdish-led forces backed by US-led air power seizing a key town from the ISIL Takfiri group. Russia has urged the UN to press Turkey to halt its shelling of Kurdish forces in the country’s north. Moscow presented a draft resolution that “strongly demands” an immediate end to cross-border shellings and plans — supported by Turkey — for foreign ground intervention in Syria. 

But the text failed to garner support from key council members with at least six countries including veto-wielding France and the United States rejecting it outright during a closed-door meeting, diplomats said. Turkey is pressing for a joint ground operation in Syria with its international allies, claiming it is the “only way to stop the war.” Turkish Ambassador Yasar Halit Cevik said his country was facing “national security threats emanating from Syria” in reference to the Kurdish militias it is targeting in the country’s north. 

Amid the surge in fighting, UN peace envoy Staffan de Mistura said a new round of peace talks scheduled for February 25 was unlikely. In his call with Erdogan, Obama stressed that Kurdish YPG forces “should not seek to exploit circumstances in this area to seize additional territory, and urged Turkey to show reciprocal restraint by ceasing artillery strikes in the area,” a White House statement said. Obama, in an apparent reference to Russia, also “urgently called for a halt to actions that heighten tensions with Turkey and with moderate opposition forces in northern Syria, and undermine our collective efforts in northern Syria to degrade and defeat ISIL.” 

French President Francois Hollande said Ankara’s escalating involvement in the conflict was creating a risk of war between Turkey and Russia. “Turkey is involved in Syria… There, there is a risk of war,” Hollande told France Inter radio. Russian and US officials met on Friday in Geneva to try to hammer out the details of the proposed ceasefire, but have yet to outline any concrete proposals. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the US Secretary of State John Kerry that the Turkish provocative actions against Syria violate the Syrian sovereignty. 

Monday, February 1, 2016

This is why Hillary Clinton will be hand appointed the Presidency illegally

This is why Hillary Clinton will be hand appointed the Presidency illegally

High-Level Officials Eager to Spill the Beans About What REALLY Happened on 9/11 … But No One In Washington or the Media Wants to Hear

9/11 Commission Admits It Never Got The Facts … But No One Wants to Hear From the People Who Know What Happened

9/11 Commission: We Never Got All of the Facts

9/11 Commissioners admit that they never got to the bottom of 9/11. For example:
Indeed, 9/11 Commissioners and other officials say that the true facts were hidden from them, or covered up (you don’t have to get bogged down in reading this section – you can skip ahead to the next, if you like; this is just documenting that the 9/11 Commission report is in no way the last word on 9/11):
  • The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” And he said: “It’s almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened
  • A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials, and who has for years been a tireless anti-war advocate and critic of imperial foreign policy (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”
  • Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11
  • Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) says “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence”

High-Level Officials Want to Explain 9/11 … But Are Being Gagged

There are high-level officials who can tell us why 9/11 happened … but they are being ignored or gagged.
As Senator Patrick Leahy said that Congress doesn’t want to know what happened:
The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?
And the people who can explain what happened are being gagged.

FBI Translator – “The Most Gagged Person” In History

For example, former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds – President of the National Security Whistleblower Coalition – who has been deemed credible by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General, several senators (free subscription required), and a coalition of prominent conservative and liberal groups – has fought for years to testify about what she knows about 9/11, and has repeatedly asked to be subpoenaed (so as to avoid violation of her oath of secrecy as a government employee).
The ACLU described Edmonds as:
The most gagged person in the history of the United States of America.
And famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg says that Edmonds possesses information “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers”.
Not a single politicians or prosecutor has been willing to issue a subpoena.
Edmonds also made the following offer:
If anyone of the major networks — ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX — promise to air the entire segment, without editing, I promise to tell them everything that I know,” about everything mentioned above, she told us.
“I can tell the American public exactly what it is, and what it is that they are covering up,” she continued. “I’m not compromising ongoing investigations,” Edmonds explained, because “they’ve all been shut down since.”
Not a single major network has let Edmonds say what she knows.
Indeed, Ellsberg says that the government has ordered the media not to touch Edmonds:
Ellsberg seemed hardly surprisedthat today’s American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take [former FBI translator and 9/11 whistleblower Sibel] Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations.
As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who “sat on the NSA spying story for over a year” when they “could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome.”
There will be phone calls going out to the media saying ‘don’t even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,’” he told us.
* * *
“I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to ‘How do we deal with Sibel?’” contends Ellsberg. “The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn’t get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told ‘don’t touch this . . . .‘”

Other Whistleblowers Being Silenced

Edmonds also says that she has been contacted by two high-ranking military officers who would like to shed light on 9/11, but – due to their oaths of secrecy – can only do so if subpoenaed. No one in Washington wants to issue a subpoena.

High-Level Military Intelligence Officer: No One In Washington Wants To Know

Similarly, a high-level military intelligence officer says that his unit – tasked with tracking Bin Laden prior to 9/11 – was pulled off the task, and their warnings that the World Trade Center and Pentagon were being targeted were ignored.
Moreover, he says that he has information that can shed light on 9/11, and that he has repeatedly tried to get this information to the Obama administration and Congress, but that no one in the administration or Congress wants to hear about it. As just one example, Nancy Pelosi’s office demanded that he not even email any information which he has about 9/11.
He is still working in military intelligence, and so he can only publicly speak about 9/11 if he is subpoenaed. He is therefore asking that he be subpoenaed … but no one wants to look into it:
There are numerous other whistleblowers with key information about 9/11. But no one in the government or media wants to hear what they know.
9/11 was one of the most important events in American history, as 10 years of war in numerous countries – costing trillions of dollars – and the crackdown on liberties like freedom of speech have all been justified by that one event. And yet the politicians in D.C. and the corporate media don’t want to hear from the people who can explain the gross incompetence (or worse) which occurred on that day.

BBC Now Admits: Armed Nazis Led “Revolution” in Kiev, Ukraine

BBC Now Admits: Armed Nazis Led “Revolution” in Kiev, Ukraine

Author: Tony Cartalucci

Like the West’s support of sectarian terrorists across the Middle East, including Al Qaeda, it has found the most despicable elements in Ukrainian society to lead “revolution” for the sociopolitical reordering of Eastern Europe. As the dust settles and the West’s proxy regime finds itself safely entrenched in Kiev, Ukraine – the Western media can now finally recuperate some of its lost legitimacy after months of denying the obvious – that armed Neo-Nazis led the so-called “Euromaidan” uprising.

A BBC Newsnight short titled, “Neo-Nazi threat in new Ukraine,” reveals xenophobic Jew-hating nationalists, armed and leading the mobs in Kiev, directly contradicting months of Western media narratives portraying the rabble as aspiring for “freedom,” “democracy,” and “closer ties with the West,” with the most absurd example being the “I am Ukrainian” propaganda reel.

Far from a “pro-democracy” uprising, the “Euromaidan” was yet another case of Western engineered regime change leveraging the good intentions of the ill-informed to mask the covert backing of ugly armed extremists, just as it had done all across the similarly engineered “Arab Spring” in 2011.

In light of the BBC’s report, confirmed intercepted phone conversations between the EU and Estonia regarding the Ukrainian opposition’s hiring of snipers deployed against both police and protesters takes on a new degree of veracity with deepening implications. It also reframes US Senator John McCain’s taking to the stage in Kiev, side-by-side with these overt Nazis as an abhorrent, shameful act bordering on treason and material support of terrorism.

The BBC’s exposure of armed Nazis in Kiev leading the mobs and the overthrow of an elected government, with the overt backing and blessing of the West exposes the Western narrative as outright fabrications. A prime example of this narrative was the Daily Beast’s article, “Putin’s Crimea Propaganda Machine,” which ironically attempts to twist accusations of skewing reality around onto Russia. In it, it states:

Russia invaded Ukraine over the weekend, justifying its incursion by claming it needed to protect Crimea’s ethnic Russian population from supposed neo-Nazi extremists. This was pure propaganda, of course—Vladmir Putin has been keen to annex land that used to be part of Russia, as he did in Georgia in 2008, and seems to think that the Ukrainian army will and should immediately surrender to the Russian one.

Still, Putin needed a story to spin, no matter how full of holes, and thus the neo-Nazi claims. But as it turns out, Crimea’s streets are not exactly paved with extremists—a fact that has proven troublesome for Russian state TV channels looking to find token far-right bogeymen.

While the Daily Beast claims Russian state TV is having trouble finding Neo-Nazi extremists in Crimea, it appears the BBC is falling all over them in Kiev. Their existence in the capital of Ukraine, the fact that they are confirmed to be armed and poised to seize and consolidate greater power, is an overt threat to both the people of Kiev, and the rest of the Ukrainian population, and is cause of grave concern for Ukraine’s neighbors – considering the Nazis’ blood-soaked, genocidal origins.

In this light, we see precisely what Russia is attempting to counter, but is being wholly condemned by the West for standing up against. For the West, its ability to ally itself with the most abhorrent ideologies ever conceived by mankind indicates that the supposed principles its society is based upon are merely facades behind which it couches its true ambitions – hegemonic expansion, no different than the violent extremist helping-hands it regularly finds itself collaborating with around the world.

The West Drawing the Long Knives Already?

The BBC’s sudden “honesty” regarding brigades of armed Nazis infesting western Ukraine, however, is not the result of the British state propaganda arm examining its journalistic conscience, but rather an attempt to throw off extremist thugs that will only, from now on, become a liability for the West’s ambitions in the Eastern European nation.

The West would most likely prefer to replace armed Neo-Nazis with NATO forces, professional mercenaries, and a proxy force of Ukrainians trained and led by Western special forces and intelligence operatives.

Just as the West has done in Afghanistan, where it used sectarian extremists and terrorists to wage a proxy war against the Soviet Union in the 1980’s, only to end up turning on their “allies” from 2001 onward – the West will use the Neo-Nazis of Kiev only for as long as absolutely necessary before turning on them and dumping them. The BBC’s short piece exposing the repugnant nature of the forces that in fact led the so-called “Euromaidan” uprising is perhaps the first step toward achieving this goal.

Those watching the Ukrainian crisis closely will want to monitor the posture the West takes regarding their fascist armed, militant proxies, and be aware of preparations the West might be making to replace them with a more professional, as well as presentable, armed front to consolidate and hold gains made during the violence and chaos that has consumed Kiev for the past several months.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
First appeared: