The perpetrators behind 9/11: Following the money

On the fourteenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks upon the United States, events that forever changed American democracy, there are those within the U.S. government who continue to cover up who and what were actually behind these terrorist attacks.

Both the Obama and Bush administrations have stymied the public release of 28 key pages from the U.S. Congress’s “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001”. The report was issued in December 2002. Since that time, the then-Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, former Democratic Senator Bob Graham of Florida, has been joined by a bi-partisan group of senators and representatives in calling for the release of the 28 pages. When a portion of the report was released in 2003, the Bush administration insisted the 28 pages remain classified.

The issue has arisen as an issue in the 2016 presidential race with Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul calling for the 28 pages to be released while Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, a former federal prosecutor who knows much more about 9/11 than he is willing to admit, has argued for the pages to remain classified. Christie has even called for Paul to be put on trial in a Joe McCarthy-like witch hunt if there is ever another terrorist attack on America. Also arguing against release is Republican Representative Peter King of New York who said he has read the 28 pages and believes they must remain classified. Joining King is Republican South Carolina Senator and 2016 presidential candidate Lindsey Graham who said releasing the pages would harm U.S. relations with its allies in the Middle East. Graham refused to name those so-called “allies”.

The FBI knows the identities of those “allies”. In addition to Saudi Arabia, they include Kuwait and Qatar. Kuwait became a significant base of operations for Osama bin Laden and his “Al Qaeda” support network. Kuwait was the headquarters for an Islamic “charity” Lajnat al Dawa al Islamiyah, a group designated by the Treasury Department as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) organization. Lajnat gave financial support to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged “Al Qaeda’s” chief planner of the 911 attacks. Members of the Qatar royal family also harbored top Al Qaeda fugitives, including Osama Bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri. Kuwait and Qatar also host major U.S, military bases in the Gulf region.

It can be understood why Peter King would take such a position on the 28 pages. King was a longtime supporter of funding terrorist groups in Ireland, including the Provisional Wing of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the “Real IRA”, an even more violent group that carried out a deadly bombing of civilians in Omagh, Northern Ireland in 1998. King’s reticence in releasing the 28 pages is understandable since they explain how the 9/11 terrorists were funded through an interwoven network of Saudi bank accounts and secret Muslim financiers, the same sort of network that King once used to help finance IRA terrorists in Ireland.

As for Lindsey Graham, he is a retired colonel in the Air Force Reserve’s Judge Advocate General Corps and he presumably has had access to information about the total collapse of the Air Force’s defense system on the east coast of the United States on 9/11. The principal job of military lawyers like Graham is to cover up incompetence or other malfeasance at high ranks within their respective services.

A decade ago, a list of organizations that were investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and were on the National Security Agency’s watch list for suspicious money transfers and transactions relating to the 9/11 attacks was leaked. The 28-pages in the Congressional report remain classified because the Central Intelligence Agency had assigned case officers and “NOCs” – non-official cover clandestine agents — to work with officials and employees of many of the organizations on the list. The CIA is among the agencies that is adamantly opposed to releasing the 28-pages and making them public because of its involvement with many of the businesses and groups prior to and after 9/11.

The following banks are on the list:

The list also includes the following Islamic charities:

• Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc.

• Benevolence International Foundation

• International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO)

• Muslim World League

• Muwafaq Foundation

• Rabita Trust for the Rehabilitation of Stranded Pakistanis

• SAAR Foundation

• Sanabel al Kheer, Inc.

• Wafa Humanitarian Organization

• World Assembly of Muslim Youth

The following Saudi officials are on the list:

• Turki al Faisal al Saud (the former chief of Saudi intelligence and ambassador to the U.S. and U.K.)

• Mohammed bin Faisal al Saud (chairman of the board of the King Faisal Foundation)

• Sultan bin Abdul Aziz al Saud (late Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia).

• Bandar bin Sultan bon Abdulaziz al Saud (the Saudi ambassador in Washington on 9/11)

Release of the 28 pages has also been stymied by certain proactive congressional members of the Israel Lobby. The reason for that can be explained by the presence on the list of suspicious elements that were involved in supplying airport concessions on 9/11. Many of the supplied concessions are located within the secure parts of airports, including Newark and Dulles International Airports, where two of the four hijacked planes had originated on 9/11. The security applied to airport concessionaires was managed by aviation security companies with links to Israel. As one official who read the 28 pages confided on deep background, the embarrassing links to Israel are found in the footnotes found within the 28 pages.

The American public has been conditioned to accept the findings of the 9/11 Commission at face value even though the two commission chairmen, former Republican Governor Thomas Kean of New Jersey and former House of Representatives Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Lee Hamilton have publicly complained that important information was withheld by the Bush administration and that the commission was lied to by government officials about what transpired on 9/11. They have, along with Commission member Max Cleland, the former Democratic senator from Georgia, for a new 9/11 Commission, one that will not be interfered with by government pressure and non-cooperation.

The Pentagon has even pressured Hollywood against producing any truthful films about 9/11.

The Pentagon censors clearly do not care for any film or documentary that questions the official story of the 9/11 attack. They quickly turned down a request by National Geographic for military footage on a documentary on Ali Muhammad, the American Central Intelligence Agency operative and U.S. Special Forces drill sergeant who also worked for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

In 2005, a National Geographic special on Al Qaeda, a prequel to a program called “Inside 9/11,” received no support to film the U.S. Army Land Information Warfare Agency (LIWA) in Fort Belvoir, Virginia and a recruiting station because LIWA no longer existed. LIWA was the home of the controversial Able Danger operation, which reportedly was keeping track of many of the 9/11 hijackers and their money movements and communications prior to the September 11, 2001 attack.

And, if the Pentagon’s presence in Hollywood is not overbearing enough, consider that the CIA also maintains an “Entertainment Industry Liaison” in Tinseltown. Its mission statement is to “give greater authenticity to scripts, stories, and other products in development. That can mean answering questions, debunking myths, or arranging visits to the CIA to meet the people who know intelligence — its past, present, and future”. It does not mean assisting movie production companies in portraying what actually occurred before, during, and after 9/11. That is because the official story is that 19 Arab hijackers armed only with box cutters managed to, in a few hours, defeat a command, control, communications, and intelligence system that cost the United States trillions of dollars to build. That is worthy fodder for any Hollywood fantasy movie. Unfortunately, the U.S. government continues to insist that the American people buy this “Alice in Wonderland” nonsensical story.

Read More

Veteran Intelligence Professionals Challenge CIA’s “Rebuttal” on Torture

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Veteran Intelligence Professionals Challenge CIA’s “Rebuttal” on Torture

Former CIA leaders responsible for allowing torture to become part of the 21st Century legacy of the CIA are trying to rehabilitate their tarnished reputations with the release of a new book, Rebuttal: The CIA Responds to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Study of Its Detention and Interrogation Program. They are pushing the lie that the only allegations against them are from a partisan report issued by Democrats from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

We recall the answer of General John Kimmons, the former Deputy Director of Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was asked if good intelligence could be obtained from abusive practices. He replied: “I am absolutely convinced the answer to your first question is no. No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that.”

But the allegation that the CIA leaders were negligent and guilty was not the work of an isolated group of partisan Democrat Senators. The Senate Intelligence report on torture enjoyed bipartisan support. Senator John McCain, for example, whose own encounter with torture in North Vietnamese prisons scarred him physically and emotionally, embraced and endorsed the work of Senator Feinstein. It was only a small group of intransigent Republicans, led by Saxby Chambliss, who obstructed the work of the Senate Intel Committee.

Indeed, some of us witnessed firsthand during the administration of President George W. Bush that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence were virtually paralyzed from conducting any meaningful oversight of the CIA and the U.S. Intelligence Community by the Republican members of these committees. Instead, they pursued the clear objective of protecting the Bush administration from any criticism for engaging in torture during the “War on Terror.”

It is curious that our former colleagues stridently denounce the work of the Senate Intelligence Committee but are mute with respect to an equally damning report from the CIA’s own inspector general, John Helgerson, in 2004.

Helgerson’s report, “Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities (September 2001-October 2003),” was published on May 7, 2004, and classified Top Secret. That report alone is damning of the CIA leadership and it is important to remind all about the specifics of those conclusions. According to the CIA’s own inspector general:

–The Agency’s detention and interrogation of terrorists has provided intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension of other terrorists and warned of terrorist plots planned in the United States and around the world. . . . The effectiveness of particular interrogation techniques in eliciting information that might not otherwise have been obtained cannot be so easily measured however.

–In addition, some Agency officials are aware of interrogation activities that were outside or beyond the scope of the written DOJ opinion. Officers are concerned that future public revelation of the CTC Program is inevitable and will seriously damage Agency officers’ personal reputations, as well as the reputation and effectiveness of the Agency itself.

–By distinction the Agency-especially in the early months of the Program-failed to provide adequate staffing, guidance, and support to those involved with the detention and interrogation of detainees . . .

–The Agency failed to issue in a timely manner comprehensive written guidelines for detention and interrogation activities. . . .Such written guidance as does exist . . . is inadequate.

–During the interrogation of two detainees, the waterboard was used in a manner inconsistent with the written DOJ legal opinion of 1 August 2002.

–Agency officers report that reliance on analytical assessments that were unsupported by credible intelligence may have resulted in the application of EITs without justification.

The CIA’s Inspector General makes it very clear that there was a failure by the CIA leaders, who include Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Deputy Director of Central Intelligence John McLaughlin, Counter Terrorism Center Chief Cofer Black, Counter Terrorism Center Chief Jose Rodriguez and the Director Directorate of Operations James L. Pavitt. Lack of proper guidance and oversight created fertile soil for subsequent abuses and these men were guilty of failing to properly do their jobs.

We do not have to rely solely on the report of the CIA’s Inspector General. In addition, the Report by the Senate Armed Services Committee on Detainee Treatment reached the same conclusions about the origins, evils, harm to U.S. policy and intelligence collection of “enhanced interrogation,” a euphemism for “torture” first used by Nazi Germany during World War II.

Indeed, all independent analyses of the enhanced interrogation program have concluded it constituted torture, was ineffective, and contrary to all American laws, ideals, and intelligence practices. [Background here and here.]  We also have the testimony and record of Ali Soufan, an Arabic-speaking FBI Agent, who was involved with several interrogations before torture was used and who achieved substantive results without violating international law.

The sworn testimony of FBI Agent Ali Soufan, who is the only U.S. Government employee to testify under oath on these matters, completely contradicts the authors of Rebuttal:

“In the middle of my interrogation of the high-ranking terrorist Abu Zubaydah at a black-site prison 12 years ago, my intelligence work wasn’t just cut short for so-called enhanced interrogation techniques to begin. After I left the black site, those who took over left, too – for 47 days. For personal time and to ‘confer with headquarters’.

“For nearly the entire summer of 2002, Abu Zubaydah was kept in isolation. That was valuable lost time, and that doesn’t square with claims about the ‘ticking bomb scenarios’ that were the basis for America’s enhanced interrogation program, or with the commitment to getting life-saving, actionable intelligence from valuable detainees. The techniques were justified by those who said Zubaydah ‘stopped all cooperation’ around the time my fellow FBI agent and I left. If Zubaydah was in isolation the whole time, that’s not really a surprise.

“One of the hardest things we struggled to make sense of, back then, was why U.S. officials were authorizing harsh techniques when our interrogations were working and their harsh techniques weren’t. The answer, as the long-awaited Senate Intelligence Committee Report now makes clear, is that the architects of the program were taking credit for our success, from the unmasking of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the mastermind of 9/11 to the uncovering of the ‘dirty bomber’ Jose Padilla. The claims made by government officials for years about the efficacy of ‘enhanced interrogation’, in secret memos and in public, are false. ‘Enhanced interrogation’ doesn’t work.”

The former CIA officers who have collaborated on this latest attempt to whitewash the historical record that they embraced and facilitated torture by Americans, are counting on the laziness of the press and the American public. As long as no one takes time to actually read the extensively footnoted and documented report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, then it is easy to buy into the fantasy that the CIA officers are simply victims of a political vendetta.

These officers are also counting on a segment of the American people – repeatedly identified in polling results – that continues to believe torture works. Such people have no proof that it works (because there is none that it works consistently and effectively), they simply believe it instinctively or because of people such as this book’s authors’ arguments to that effect.

That is why it is so important that the truth be told and this book and its arguments be debunked. Americans must learn the realities of torture – that it rarely if ever works, that it dehumanizes the torturer as well as the tortured, that it increases the numbers and hostility of our opponents while providing no benefit, and that it seriously diminishes America’s reputation in the world and thus its power.  Torture is wrong and the men who wrote this book are wrong.

The book, Rebuttal, is a new incarnation of the lie extolling the efficacy of torture. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, a time of perceived crisis and palpable fear, the leaders of the CIA decided to ignore international and domestic law. They chose to discard the moral foundations of our Republic and, using the same justifications that authoritarian regimes have employed for attacking enemies, and embarked willingly on a course of action that embraced practices that in earlier times the United States had condemned and punished as a violation of U.S. laws and fundamental human rights.

As former intelligence officers, we are compelled by conscience to denounce the actions and words of our former colleagues. In their minds they have found a way to rationalize and justify torture. We say there is no excuse; there is no justification. The heart of good intelligence work — whether collection or analysis — is based in the pursuit of truth, not the fabrication of a lie.

It is to this end that we reiterate that no threat, no matter how grave, should serve to justify inhuman behavior and immoral conduct or torture conducted by Americans.

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

Fulton Armstrong, National Intelligence Officer for Latin America (ret.)

William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)

Tony Camerino, former Air Force and Air Force Reserves, a senior interrogator in Iraq and author ofHow to Break a Terrorist under pseudonym Matthew Alexander

Thomas Drake, former Senior Executive, NSA

Daniel Ellsberg, former State Department and Defense Department Official (VIPS Associate)

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)

Larry C Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF Intelligence Agency (Retired), ex Master SERE Instructor

John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer

Karen Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.)

Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

James Marcinkowski, Attorney, former CIA Operations Officer

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)

Todd Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)

Scott Ritter, former Maj., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq

Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)

Ali Soufan, former FBI Special Agent

Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Lawrence Wilkerson, Colonel (USA, ret.), Distinguished Visiting Professor, College of William and Mary

Valerie Plame Wilson, CIA Operations Officer (ret.)

Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat 

Read More

US, Colombia: Conspiracy against Venezuela

“Airtec Inc. has been awarded a contract for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) services in support of the U.S. Southern Command. The deal is expected to be completed in September 2018. The contractor will provide ISR services utilizing a Bombardier DHC-8/200.

According to José Vicente Rangel, a Venezuelan journalist, the aircraft will be equipped with cutting-edge equipment to effectively survey the border areas of Venezuela.”

The US special services have applied a lot of effort to incite tensions in the “conflict zone” on the border between the two states. There are forces in the ranks of Colombian political and military leadership that are ready to help Washington in its subversive operations against the “main regional adversary”. Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, a henchman of tycoons’ families, has said many a time that he supports further progress in the “special relationship” with Washington, including military ties. Santos believes that the deployment of seven US military facilities on Colombian soil is a step on the way of engaging Colombian military in NATO activities. Bogota is an integral part of the US plan to restore its dominant position in the region.

Colombia is used to undermine the process of Latin American and Caribbean integration. Nicolas Maduro, the President of Venezuela, displays great tolerance against the backdrop of hostile actions undertaken by Colombia. American supervisors apply no special effort to conceal their involvement. The intention is evident – the opposition is trying to prove tha Maduro’s government is unable to get the national economy back on track and fill Venezuelan stores to meet the legitimate demands of consumers for essentials. Internal sabotage is assisted by the activities of smugglers operating in Colombian territory.

Joint efforts are required to fight smuggling but Colombian border guards do nothing to interrupt the criminal activities often headed by former paramilitares (paramilitaries), the militants of AUC (the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia). According to Venezuelan counterintelligence, their leaders collaborate with Colombian power structures.

AUC fighters have recently staged a provocation near the border area. They laid an ambush for a Venezuelan patrol in pursuit of smugglers. Shots were fired and three servicemen were seriously wounded. President Maduro immediately introduced the state of emergency in one of the areas near the Colombian border (the state of Táchira) and sealed the border for an uncertain period of time. Police and military reinforcements were sent out to find the attackers. Venezuela launched operations to pinpoint the paramilitares strongpoints – the bunkers serving as prisons for kidnapped people and stashes of smuggled goods. Thirty five militants have been arrested so far. The interrogations provided information on the scale of crimes perpetrated by paramilitares in Venezuela, including even existence of secret burial places. Maduro said the findings about the activities of criminals and armed formations reveal the horrible truth and he, as president, has an obligation to do away with this evil in Venezuela.

His tough stand is justified. The economic war against Venezuela has come to the point when essentials, foodstuffs, hygiene stuffs and medicals evaporate from the stores located in the vicinity of border areas. Everything is taken out of the country – clothes, shoes, car parts, tires and oil production equipment. Filling stations run out of fuel. Gasoline prices areextremely low in Venezuela. It takes only 2 USD to fill a tank. That’s why great quantities of Venezuelan fuel are transported to Colombia along the whole length of the countries’ border. According to official data, the small town of San Cristobal, Táchira’s capital, “has consumed” more gas than Caracas. It has gone far enough. The situation has reached the point when gas smuggling brings more profit to Colombian paramilitares than drug trafficking!

Smuggling thrives because there is a great difference in the prices of consumer goods (Venezuela allocates subsidies to bring the prices down). The rate of bolivar, the Venezuela’s currency, is used for large-scale scams. The Colombian city of Cúcuta has become the center of financial and economic subversive activities. It boasts around three thousand currency exchange shops. The general strategy is to devalue the bolivar. It results in impoverishment of people and increasing discontent in Venezuela.

Cúcuta has always played an important part in conspirators’ plans. The US Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central Intelligence agencies are active there. This is the place where radical cells of Venezuelan opposition get instructions. The leaders of three groups formed especially for anti-Venezuelan activities – El Centro de Pensamiento Primero Colombia» (the Center of Thought Foundation – Colombia First), FTI Consulting (Forensic Technologies International) and La Fundación Internacionalismo Democrático (the Democratic Internationalism Foundation) – hold their meetings there. The anti-Venezuelan conspiracy is led by former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who was recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency in mid-80s. The Agency used damaging information. He was number 82 on the list of drug dealers prepared by the US Drug Enforcement Administration. During all eight years of his tenure President Uribe was involved in subversive activities against Hugo Chavez trying to isolate the “Bolivarian regime” in the Western Hemisphere. With good reason the Venezuelan intelligence agencies consider him to be the key figure in the US-led plot to overthrow the “Maduro regime”.

The Sanchez government of Colombia enjoys the support of Western media, especially by the New York Times and theWashington Post. Their editorials say essentially the same thing. They spread the idea that the “border problem” with Colombia has been “invented by Maduro” and this entire hullabaloo is raised with the purpose to ratchet up the Venezuelan President’s support before the parliamentary election. Not a word is said about five and half million Colombians residing in Venezuela, part of them as refugees who fled the civil war, the activities of paramiltares, drug traffickers and smugglers operating on Colombian soil. Venezuela’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has hit the nail right on the head when it disclosed the purpose of these publications. According to the Ministry, it’s all part of another plot staged by US media against Venezuela and its Bolivarian revolution.

Roy Chaderton, the Venezuelan Ambassador to the Organization of American States, said such Columbian media outlets as El Tiempo, RCN and Caracol radio stations and TV channels, as well as CNN Spanish language broadcasts, incite hatred towards Venezuela and its people. According to him, this hatred campaign could lead to a war. This scenario was avoided because Venezuelan leaders adopted quite different behavior patterns giving “positive signs” to Colombia. The Ambassador called on all the diplomats accredited with the Organization of American States not to trust Colombian media outlets waging a war of the fourth generation.

The US State Department made a statement regarding the closure of the border. It emphasized the humanitarian aspect of the problem and recommended to normalize the situation with the help of regional organizations. It said US diplomats were ready to contribute toward launching a dialogue. But there are different types of diplomats. For instance, according to Contrainjerencia, a respectable website, Kevin M. Whitaker, the US Ambassador to Colombia, served as the head of CIA station in Venezuela in 2006. It’s hard to believe that Whitaker and the like will really do anything positive. They have a quite different missions to carry out. 

Read More

Iraq War Veteran Blows the Whistle on Shameless Propaganda Being Taught at Police Academies

The War on Cops is a grossly inaccurate response to recent police killings which are on track for another year that will rival the safest on record. Gunfire deaths by police officers are down 27 percent this year, according to the Officer Down memorial page, and police killings in general are at a 20-year low, given current numbers for 2015. Police deaths in Barack Obama’s presidency are lower than the past four administrations, going all the way back to Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

Not a single iota of evidence supports a War on Police, but it has become a battle cry among some in the academy.

Over 80 percent of police departments in the United States are facing issues with low recruitment numbers. As an Iraq War veteran I sought to solidify my chance of employment working in law enforcement by attending a local police academy. I enjoyed serving my country as military police and will do such now as a sworn police officer back home.

What are they telling us in a post-Michael Brown academy? The culture of police brutality is infrequently addressed, but what is continually mentioned is the notion that there is a War on Police. 

“The Obama Administration and Eric Holder are undermining the police. We have officers dying left and right and he’s dicking off in Alaska,” says one of my instructors, referring to the president’s trip to Alaska last week.

I understand as a law enforcement professional—and as someone capable of fairly reading mountains of data—that the Drug War has been unfairly used as a tool of oppression against the black community. It is why the American public overall has shown they have less confidence in police in recent times.

But there is no War on Police. This Us vs. Them mentality still prevails even in fresh academy cadets. Perhaps some of these people will become future jackbooted, truncheon wielding oppressors. Or perhaps they will encounter the reality that betrays the fear they are taught.

Now watch the following recruitment video for the Portsmouth, Virginia police department.

Meanwhile, a Portsmouth officer was recently indicted after fatally shooting 18-year-old William Chapman after he was caught shoplifting.

This looks like a scene from Gaza, not the America we imagine.

Please tell me. Who has declared war on who?

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Read More

China: Head Transplant Team Selected for 2017 Operation

Body from executed prisoner?

Via: Independent:

The likely date and location for the first-ever human head transplant have been set, after the controversial Italian doctor that will lead the surgery said that he has selected his team of surgeons.

Radical Italian surgeon Sergio Canavero has drawn fascination and criticism after he announced plans to cut off a man’s head and put it onto another body. Many had expected that the planned operation would probably never happen – but a team has now been appointed to lead the operation.

…

Since Ren refused to say where the donated body might be found, some have worried that the donated body might be taken from an executed prisoner.

In China – where the huge population and a low number of donations have led to a high demand for organs – an industry of forced donations and a black market for the sale of organs have flourished.

Canavero has said that China is keen to be involved in the procedure as a way of demonstrating its keenness for scientific research to the world, likening the race to complete the transplant to the space race. 

Read More

Russian Tanks, Artillery Massing Near Syrian Airfield, US Officials Tell Reuters

While the build up of Russian military forces in Syria has hardly been unexpected or a surprise, as it is a repeat of what happened in the summer of 2013 when in response to foreign provocations the Assad regime was once again on the edge of collapse and only Russian intervention prevented the fall of Syria to 'western' forces, the question has emerged in the past week: just how much of the military build up is real and verifiable, and how much is a function of the western media euphoria now intent on scapegoating the upcoming land invasion into Syria by US-supported al Nusra (and ISIS) forces as a retaliation for Russian military build up which in itself is a reaction to the now-confirmed western strategy to oust Assad.

In many this is a mirror image of the recent debate: is Russia retaliation to the NATO build up on its borders, or is NATO amassing forces on the Russian border to deter Russian expansion. The answer naturally depends on one's bias and no amount of proof or factual evidence can sway opinion one way or another.

The latest report from Reuters is precisely such an example: in it we read that "Russia has positioned about a half dozen tanks at a Syrian airfield where it has been steadily building up defenses." The sources of this material escalation: two U.S. officials...  speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the matter. Just like the "sources" on all Greek developments over the past 5 years.

Reuters also notes that "one of the U.S. officials said seven Russian T-90 tanks were seen at the airfield near Latakia, a stronghold of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The two U.S. officials said Russia had also positioned artillery there" adding that "the two U.S. officials said Russia had also positioned artillery, which they said appeared."

T-90 stock photo

We can only hope the "anonymous" US officials will soon provide photographic evidence of their claims.

One irony is that both Moscow and Washington say their enemy is Islamic State, whose Islamist fighters control large parts of Syria and Iraq. But Russia supports the government of Assad in Syria, while the United States says his presence makes the situation worse, which promptly eliminates ISIS as the proximal cause for any military action in the middle east and confirms that the only fulcrum issue is the political future of Syria with the latest conflict merely yet another proxy war waged on behalf of commodities.

The second irony is that the events of the summer/fall of 2015 in Syria are a replica not only of the Syrian showdown of 2013 when nobody was hiding their military intentions, or inventory for that matter, in the Syrian region but also of the summer of 2014 when the US was accusing Russia, and Russia was correspondingly denying, that Russian troops/equipment were present in east Ukraine.

That particular escalation point fizzled out, however since it was all a grand rehearsal for the Syrian Showdown 2.0, this time we expect that the tit-for-tat build up, both in the press and on the battlefield to continue as both sides play coy for media purposes, until finally it becomes clear that an armed showdown over the future of the Qatar gas pipeline is virtually inevitable.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent Syrian refugees continue to flow out of the country to avoid becoming collateral damage in what is almost assured to become a shooting war, and after receiving a warm welcome in Europe if only for a few months, have now found themselves non grata in the German promised land which has shut its borders to the Syrians. This happens as they have also found their "closest and richest neighbors" namely Saudi Arabia, want nothing to do with them.

Which now leaves the "noble" US as the last and only willing recipient of hundreds of thousands of Syrian migrants. Perhaps they can all find shelter at the White House? 

Read More

Who’s to Blame for Syria Mess? Putin!

Official Washington’s new “group think” is to blame Russia’s President Putin for the Syrian crisis, although it was the neocons and President George W. Bush who started the current Mideast mess by invading Iraq, the Saudis who funded Al Qaeda, and the Israelis who plotted “regime change,” says Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Sen. Lindsey Graham may have been wrong about pretty much everything related to the Middle East, but at least he has the honesty to tell Americans that the current trajectory of the wars in Syria and Iraq will require a U.S. re-invasion of the region and an open-ended military occupation of Syria, draining American wealth, killing countless Syrians and Iraqis, and dooming thousands, if not tens of thousands, of U.S. troops.

Graham’s grim prognostication of endless war may be a factor in his poll numbers below one percent, a sign that even tough-talking Republicans aren’t eager to relive the disastrous Iraq War. Regarding the mess in Syria, there are, of course, other options, such as cooperation with Russia and Iran to resist the gains of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda and a negotiated power-sharing arrangement in Damascus. But those practical ideas are still being ruled out.

Russian President Vladimir Putin. (Russian government photo)

Official Washington’s “group think” still holds that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “must go,” that U.S. diplomats should simply deliver a “regime change” ultimatum not engage in serious compromise, and that the U.S. government must obstruct assistance from Russia and Iran even if doing so risks collapsing Assad’s secular regime and opening the door to an Al Qaeda/Islamic State victory.

Of course, if that victory happens, there will be lots of finger-pointing splitting the blame between President Barack Obama for not being “tough” enough and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin who has become something of a blame-magnet for every geopolitical problem. On Friday, during a talk at Fort Meade in Maryland, Obama got out front on assigning fault to Putin.

Obama blamed Putin for not joining in imposing the U.S.-desired “regime change” on Syria. But Obama’s “Assad must go!” prescription carries its own risks as should be obvious from the U.S. experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Ukraine. Ousting some designated “bad guy” doesn’t necessarily lead to some “good guy” taking over.

More often, “regime change” produces bloody chaos in the target country with extremists filling the vacuum. The idea that these transitions can be handled with precision is an arrogant fiction that may be popular during conferences at Washington’s think tanks, but the scheming doesn’t work out so well on the ground.

And, in building the case against Assad, there’s been an element of “strategic communications” – the new catch phrase for the U.S. government’s mix of psychological operations, propaganda and P.R. The point is to use and misuse information to manage the perceptions of the American people and the world’s public to advance Washington’s strategic goals.

So, although it’s surely true that Syrian security forces struck back fiercely at times in the brutal civil war, some of that reporting has been exaggerated, such as the now-discredited claims that Assad’s forces launched a sarin gas attack against Damascus suburbs on Aug. 21, 2013. The evidence now suggests that Islamic extremists carried out a “false flag” operation with the goal of tricking Obama into bombing the Syrian military, a deception that almost worked. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Collapsing Syria-Sarin Case.”]

Even earlier, independent examinations of how the Syrian crisis developed in 2011 reveal that Sunni extremists were part of the opposition mix from the start, killing Syrian police and soldiers. That violence, in turn, provoked government retaliation that further divided Syria and exploited resentments of the Sunni majority, which has long felt marginalized in a country where Alawites, Shiites, Christians and secularists are better represented in the Assad regime. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Hidden Origins of Syria’s Civil War.”]

An Obvious Solution

The obvious solution would be a power-sharing arrangement that gives Sunnis more of a say but doesn’t immediately require Assad, who is viewed as the protector of the minorities, to step down as a precondition. If Obama opted for that approach, many of Assad’s Sunni political opponents on the U.S. payroll could be told to accept such an arrangement or lose their funding. Many if not all would fall in line. But that requires Obama abandoning his “Assad must go!” mantra.

So, while Official Washington continues to talk tough against Assad and Putin, the military situation in Syria continues to deteriorate with the Islamic State and Al Qaeda’s affiliate, the Nusra Front, gaining ground, aided by financial and military support from U.S. regional “allies,” including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Sunni-led Persian Gulf states. Israel also has provided help to the Nusra Front, caring for its wounded troops along the Golan Heights and bombing pro-government forces inside Syria.

President Obama may feel that his negotiations with Iran to constrain its nuclear program – when Israeli leaders and American neocons favored a bomb-bomb-bombing campaign – have put him in a political bind where he must placate Israel and Saudi Arabia, including support for Israeli-Saudi desired “regime change” in Syria and tolerance of the Saudi-led invasion of Yemen. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “On Syria, Incoherence Squared.”]

Privately, I’m told, Obama agreed to — and may have even encouraged — Putin’s increased support for the Assad regime, realizing it’s the only real hope of averting a Sunni-extremist victory. But publicly Obama senses that he can’t endorse this rational move. Thus, Obama, who has become practiced at speaking out of multiple sides of his mouth, joined in bashing Russia – sharing that stage with the usual suspects, including The New York Times’ editorial page.

In a lead editorial on Saturday, entitled “Russia’s Risky Military Moves in Syria,” the Times excoriated Russia and Putin for trying to save Assad’s government. Though Assad won a multi-party election in the portions of Syria where balloting was possible in 2014, the Times deems him a “ruthless dictator” and seems to relish the fact that his “hold on his country is weakening.”

The Times then reprises the “group think” blaming the Syrian crisis on Putin. “Russia has long been a major enabler of Mr. Assad, protecting him from criticism and sanctions at the United Nations Security Council and providing weapons for his army,” the Times asserts. “But the latest assistance may be expanding Russian involvement in the conflict to a new and more dangerous level.”

Citing the reported arrival of a Russian military advance team, the Times wrote: “The Americans say Russia’s intentions are unclear. But they are so concerned that Secretary of State John Kerry called the foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, twice this month and warned of a possible ‘confrontation’ with the United States, if the buildup led to Russian offensive operations in support of Mr. Assad’s forces that might hit American trainers or allies.

“The United States is carrying out airstrikes in Syria against the Islamic State, which is trying to establish a caliphate in Syria and Iraq, as well as struggling to train and arm moderate opposition groups that could secure territory taken from the extremists.”

Double Standards, Squared

In other words, in the bizarre world of elite American opinion, Russia is engaging in “dangerous” acts when it assists an internationally recognized government fighting a terrorist menace, but it is entirely okay for the United States to engage in unilateral military actions inside Syrian territory without the government’s approval.

Amid this umbrage over Russia helping the Syrian government, it also might be noted that the U.S. government routinely provides military assistance to regimes all over the world, including military advisers to the embattled U.S.-created regime in Iraq and sophisticated weapons to nations that carry out attacks beyond their own borders, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Clearly, the Times believes that what is good for the U.S. goose is not tolerable for the Russian gander. Indeed, if Russia’s assistance to the Syrian government leads to a “confrontation” with U.S. forces or allies, it is Russia that is held to blame though its forces are there with the Syrian government’s permission while the U.S. forces and allies aren’t.

The Times also defends the bizarre effort by the U.S. State Department last week to organize an aerial blockade to prevent Russia from resupplying the Syrian army. The Times states:

“The United States has asked countries on the flight path between Russia and Syria to close their airspace to Russian flights, unless Moscow can prove they aren’t being used to militarily resupply the Assad regime. Bulgaria has done so, but Greece, another NATO ally, and Iraq, which is depending on America to save it from the Islamic State, so far have not. World leaders should use the United Nations General Assembly meeting this month to make clear the dangers a Russian buildup would pose for efforts to end the fighting.”

Given the tragic record of The New York Times and other mainstream U.S. media outlets promoting disastrous “regime change” schemes, including President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and President Obama’s bombing campaign in Libya in 2011, you might think the editors would realize that the best-laid plans of America’s armchair warriors quite often go awry.

And, in this case, the calculation that removing Assad and installing some Washington-think-tank-approved political operative will somehow solve Syria’s problems might very well end up in the collapse of the largely secular government in Damascus and the bloody arrival of the Islamic State head-choppers and/or Al Qaeda’s band of terrorism plotters.

With the black flag of Islamic terrorism flying over the ancient city of Damascus, Sen. Graham’s grim prognostication of a U.S. military invasion of Syria followed by an open-ended U.S. occupation may prove prophetic, as the United States enters its final transformation from a citizens’ republic into an authoritarian imperial state.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon andbarnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includesAmerica’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here. 

Read More

European Border Controls Return; Is the Schengen Free Movement Treaty Dead?

The Schengen Agreement represents a territory in Europe where the free movement of persons is guaranteed. 26 nations signed the treaty.

The signatory nations abolished internal borders in lieu of a single external border. Common rules and procedures apply to visas, asylum requests and border controls. 

The treaty has been under pressure with a huge wave of migrants pouring into Germany, Sweden, Hungary, Italy, and Greece from Syria and other countries. 

Last week I noted Denmark Cancels All Trains From Germany.

Today, reader Olivier pinged me with this comment "An Austrian rail company spokesman said trains from Austria to Germany have stopped running."

Confirmation comes from Spiegel article Stopped Trains from Austria to Germany: Refugee Crisis. Trains were not stopped heading the other direction.

"Temporarily" Halted Trains 



The above train information from http://bit.ly/1Y3FbS8. 

Border Controls Return

Supposedly this is a "temporary" measure until border controls can be reinstated.

Olivier offered this opinion: "I am afraid the Schengen Treaty is dead ("lettre morte", as they say in French). Speaking for myself that was one of the more tangible benefits of the European construction. If that is no more, it's one less reason to hang on to the EU."

Definition of Temporary 

Temporary did not last long. A couple hours later the Guardian reported: Germany Reinstates Controls at Austrian Border. 

Germany introduced border controls on Sunday, and dramatically halted all train traffic with Austria, after the country’s regions said they could no longer cope with the overwhelming number of refugees entering the country.

Interior minister, Thomas de Maizière, announced the measures after German officials said record numbers of refugees, most of them from Syria, had stretched the system to breaking point. “This step has become necessary,” he told a press conference in Berlin, adding it would cause disruption.

Asylum seekers must understand “they cannot chose the states where they are seeking protection,” he told reporters.

All trains between Austria and Bavaria, the principal conduit through which 450,000 refugees have arrived in Germany this year, ceased at 5pm Berlin time. Only EU citizens and others with valid documents would be allowed to pass through Germany’s borders, de Maizière said.

The decision means that Germany has effectively exited temporarily from the Schengen system. It is likely to lead to chaotic scenes on the Austrian-German border, as tens of thousands of refugees try to enter Germany by any means possible and set up camp next to it. 

The move comes amid extraordinary scenes at Munich’s main train station over the weekend and a growing backlash inside Germany over the decision last week by Merkel, to allow unregistered refugees to enter the country. The numbers exceeded all expectations.

On Saturday, 13,015 refugees arrived at the station on trains from Austria. Another 1,400 came on Sunday morning. The city’s mayor, Dieter Reiter, said Munich was “full”, with its capacities completely exhausted. Some refugees slept on the station concourse on Saturday night.

Numbers Exceed All Expectations

The only expectations that were exceeded were the expectations of complete economic illiterates. I predicted this well in advance as did anyone else with so much as an ounce of common sense.

EC president Jean-Claude Juncker and Keynesian fools who stated immigration would pay for itself are on top of the list of illiterates.

The Fence

Maizière said Germany had reintroduced border controls for reasons of security but added pointedly that they were also “a signal to Europe”. 

Germany, Austria and France support Juncker’s proposal which would see 160,000 asylum seekers shared out across all 28 EU states. The refugees would be allocated to each country on the basis of its size and wealth. 

There has been implacable opposition from other EU states including Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland and Romania. On Sunday, the Czech prime minister, Bohuslav Sobotka, said: “I think it is impossible to retreat. Our position is firm.” 

Budapest is racing to complete a fence on its border with Serbia, where 4,330 people crossed on Saturday. On Tuesday, it introduces tough laws which make crossing the border punishable with jail. 

Greek authorities said on Sunday that 28 people drowned, half of them children, when their wooden smuggling boat capsized in the Aegean sea. The incident happened before dawn off the Greek island of Farmakonisi. The Greek coastguard pulled 68 people out of the water. Another 30 managed to swim to land. 

The CSU, the Bavarian sister party to Merkel’s Christian Democrat CDU, has accused the chancellor of making an “unparalleled historical mistake” in opening Germany’s borders. On Sunday, Christoph Hillenband, the president of Upper Bavaria, said the system for dealing with refugees was close to collapse, with 63,000 people arriving in Munich since late August.

As I have stated on numerous occasions: "There is an unlimited demand for free services, free food, and free shelter". Recent drownings, passport theft, and passport forgery is proof enough.

Upping quotas as Merkel proposes is not the answer, because as we have seen, numbers will easily surpass expectations.

Read More

Australia Has A New Prime Minister: Ex-Goldman Partner Turnbull Overthrows Tony Abbott

Former Cabinet Minister Malcolm Turnbull is set to become Australia’s sixth prime minister in just eight years after beating Tony Abbott in a Liberal Party ballot on Monday. 

The vote caps a tumultuous stretch for Australian politics which has a seen a series of politcal coups and counter-coups dating back to 2007. Here’s Reuters

Australia is facing the prospect of its fifth leader in eight years after Prime Minister Tony Abbott on Monday was challenged by his popular communications minister after months of speculation and poor showings in opinion polls.

Malcolm Turnbull, a multi-millionaire former tech entrepreneur, said he would seek the leadership of the ruling Liberal Party after being urged "by many people over a long period of time" to run amid criticism of Abbott's performance.

"Ultimately, the prime minister has not been capable of providing the economic leadership our nation needs," Turnbull told reporters at parliament house in Canberra.

"We need a different style of leadership."

Kevin Rudd, elected with a strong mandate in 2007, was deposed by his deputy, Julia Gillard, in 2010 amid the same sort of poll numbers that Abbott is now facing. Gillard was in turn deposed by Rudd ahead of elections won by Abbott in 2013.

"If Abbott were overthrown, he will be the shortest reigning first-term prime minister to be overthrown," Rod Tiffen, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Sydney, told Reuters.

"It's pretty amazing to think that we will have had two prime ministers overthrown in their first terms, which hasn't happened since World War Two. This shows the degree of instability within parties that we now have."

And here’s BBC with what you need to know about Turnbull:

Who is Malcolm Turnbull?

• Served as Minister for Communications under Mr Abbott, before resigning to launch a leadership challenge
• Many in his party dislike his support for climate change action and gay marriage
• Led the Liberal Party in opposition from 2008-2009 - but lost a leadership challenge to Mr Abbott by one vote
• Previously worked as a successful lawyer and businessman - defending former British spy Peter Wright in the "Spycatcher" case in the 1980s

The punchline: Turnbull was Chairman of Goldman Sachs Australia from 1997-2001.

The other punchline, from Bloomberg ca. 2014, is that Turnbull's son was executive director of SSG at Goldman: 

 

 

Alex Turnbull, a former executive director of Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s special situations group, is planning a Singapore-based hedge fund, said people with knowledge of the matter.

 

Turnbull, son of Australian Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, will be the chief investment officer of Keshik Capital Pte, said the people who asked not to be identified as the information is private. The fund, which will be focused on Asia with the flexibility to invest globally, may start as early as January and will invest in equity and credit, including convertible bonds, they added.

 

Keshik is at least the third hedge-fund startup tapping Asian opportunities in recent years involving a former member of the Goldman Sachs unit that invests in distressed debt and companies with its own capital. The Special Situations Group, known as SSG, is part of Goldman Sachs’s investing and lending operation, which generated $4.3 billion of pretax earnings last year, the most of the New York-based bank’s four business segments.

 

His reward: starting "his" own hedge fund, Keshik Capital, at the ripe old age of about 31, not even a decade out of college.

 

Read More

Stunning Video Emerges As 1000s Flee California Wildfires After Governor Calls 'State Of Emergency'

As if the drought was not disheartening enough, wildfires are now raging across many parts of northen and southern California focing Governor Jerry Brown to call a state of emergency. Nowhere is the crisis more evident than in NorCal's Lake County where, as The LA Times reports, the untamed wildfireforced chaotic evacuations, is consuming hundreds of homes and businesses, and has outrun the efforts of a growing army of firefighters to corral it. However, as the following clip shows,one car-driver ran the gauntlet and managed to outrun "the worst tragedy Lake County has ever seen," in a scene right out of a disaster movie.

As Reuters reports,

A swiftly spreading wildfire destroyed hundreds of homes and forced thousands of residents to flee as it roared unchecked through the northern California village of Middletown and nearby communities, fire officials said on Sunday.

The so-called Valley Fire, now ranked as the most destructive among scores of blazes that have ravaged the drought-stricken Western United States this summer, came amid what California fire officials described as "unheard of fire behavior" this season.

A separate fire raging since Wednesday in the western Sierras has leveled more than 130 buildings and was threatening about 6,400 other structures, with thousands of residents under evacuation orders there, too, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) reported.

Governor Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency in both areas, and mandatory evacuations were expanded as shifting winds sent flames and ash from the Valley Fire toward a cluster of towns in the hills north of Napa Valley wine country.

As the following clip shows, locals had no time to prepare as they ran the gauntlet to survival...

"Middletown is basically gone," said one local evacuee.

"I saw flames all around ... The wind was insane. I have never been so scared,"she said.

Mark Donpineo, 54, said he and two friends were trapped by the fire for four hours Saturday evening at a golf course in Hidden Valley Lake, taking cover in a culvert until the flames had passed.

"We got some towels, wetted them down and basically saw the fire coming. You could hear explosions of propane tanks, the ridge was totally on fire, trees were blowing up," he said.

Meanwhile, Cal Fire reported that 81 homes and 51 outbuildings had been lost in the four-day-old Butte Fire, which has charred more than 65,000 acres in the mountains east of Sacramento but was 20 percent contained.

As of Sunday, firefighters were battling nearly three dozen large blazes or clusters of fires in California and six other Western states, according to the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho.

Sheriff Brian Martin described the fire as “the worst tragedy Lake County has ever seen.”

Read More