Monsanto ‘bullied scientists’ and hid weedkiller (Roundup) cancer risk, – By VT /Senior Editors

As ill California man’s landmark case begins, attorney attacks Roundup maker’s response to researchers’ findings

19
1153
Thank you Republicans.  50 million dead and counting….(ed)

Monsanto has long worked to “bully scientists” and suppress evidence of the cancer risks of its popular weedkiller, a lawyer argued on Monday in a landmark lawsuit against the global chemical corporation.

“Monsanto has specifically gone out of its way to bully … and to fight independent researchers,” said the attorney Brent Wisner, who presented internal Monsanto emails that he said showed how the agrochemical company rejected critical research and expert warnings over the years while pursuing and helping to write favorable analyses of their products. “They fought science.”

Wisner, who spoke inside a crowded San Francisco courtroom, is representing DeWayne Johnson, known also as Lee, a California man whose cancer has spread through his body. The father of three and former school groundskeeper, who doctors say may have just months to live, is the first person to take Monsanto to trial over allegations that the chemical sold under the Roundup brand is linked to cancer. Thousands have made similar legal claims across the US.

 

The case is significant in part because the judge has allowed Johnson’s lawyers to present scientific arguments. The suit centers on glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, which Monsanto began marketing as Roundup in 1974, presenting it as a technological breakthrough that could kill almost every weed without harming humans or the environment.

Read more at UK Guardian

 
SOURCE

Study confirms the next generation of RNA interference GM foods may seriously compromise the genetic integrity of our species – By Sayer Ji (greenmedinfo.com)

GMO foods

A new study titled, “Detection of dietetically absorbed maize-derived microRNAs in pigs,” adds fuel to the fire of the growing controversy surrounding the EPA’s recent and conspiculously underreported approval of Monsanto/Dow’s RNA interference (RNAi) corn – a new type of genetically modified organism comprised of a multitude of genetically engineered traits (and therefore health risks) destined to make it to people’s dinner tables by the end of this decade.

The Biotech/Chemical industry’s new RNAi corn was quietly rubber stamped by the EPA on June 15th of this year under the premature, and likely patently false assumption that the RNA interference molecules in the maize can not directly affect the gene expression of those animals or humans who eat it.

The ongoing controversy relates to a fundamental difference of opinion on the age old aphorism: ‘you are what you eat.’ The GMO side answers NO, rejecting the idea. To them, food isn’t imbued with any unique, biologically meaningful properties beyond the fact that it is a source of energy (calories) and bodily building-blocks (biochemicals such as carbs, fats and proteins, and a few key minerals and vitamins). Therefore, they contend that GMO food is substantially equivalent to conventional food, and therefore carries with it no additional safety concerns. Ironically, their marketing and lobbying efforts say otherwise: they claim their newly created genetically modified organisms are so exceptionally unique that they warrant receiving the patents they need to maintain market exclusivity. Essentially they want to have their Roundup-ready cake and eat it to.

The other side – what should be called the the pro-Real Science, and pro-Safety side – not only says YES to the concept that we are what we eat, but also understands intimately that food is a source of biologically/genetically indispensable information (like the software to our bodies’ hardware), and that our co-evolutionary fates are, and always have been bound in intextricable co-dependency. Therefore when we tinker with its genetic/epigenetic properties we are tinkering with the genetic/epigenetic core of our species.

And so, this highly charged controversy has found itself playing out – at times looking like a full scale battle – within scientific journals. The key issue hinges on whether or not small interfering molecules known as microRNAs found in traditionally consumed foods such as corn are capable of inhibiting and/or altering gene expression in the animals and humans who consume them. Preliminary human research published in Nature from 2012 by Zhang et al revealed that, indeed, food RNAs can survive digestion intact and affect the expression of physiologically important gene targets within the human body. Since then, a barrage of opposing research has emerged. One side, finding that RNA interference molecules like miRNA are prime emissaries of the cross-kingdom relationship between plants and animals, and the other – mostly funded by the very corporations who benefit from the conclusion – that these are biologically inactive nucleic acids, with neither benefit or risk.

Ironically, Monsanto’s own research shows that there are potentially hundreds of overlaps between these RNA interference molecules as found in common food and feed staples such as corn and soybean and mammalian genes. The implication is that these foods can significantly affect the expression of dozens of gene pathways essential for the the health of animals. Whereas Monsanto researchers concluded, counterintuitively, that since these (non-GMO) foods have formed the basis for the human diet for hundreds if not thousands of years, presumably with no observed deleterious side effects, that the GMO form of them must be safe as well – not unlike their debunked argument for “substantial equivalency” between conventional foods and their older generation transgenic GMOs, which have received FDA/EPA approval due to the same, highly suspect logic.

Regardless, the key question is still whether RNA interference molecules can and do survive mammalian digestion and affect gene expression. The latest study adds to an increasingly robust body of science that has concluded the answer is a likely YES. Here is the full study abstract:

“MicroRNAs are a class of small RNAs that are important in post-transcriptional gene regulation in animals and plants. These single-stranded molecules are widely distributed in organisms and influence fundamental biological processes. Interestingly, recent studies have reported that diet-derived plant miRNAs could regulate mammalian gene expression, and these studies have broadened our view of cross-kingdom communication. In the present study, we evaluated miRNA levels in cooked maize-containing chow diets, and found that plant miRNAs were resistant to the harsh cooking conditions to a certain extent. After feeding fresh maize to pigs (7 days), maize-derived RNAs could be detected in porcine tissues and serum, and the authenticity of these plant miRNAs were confirmed by using oxidization reactions. Furthermore, in vivo and in vitro experiments demonstrated that dietary maize miRNAs could cross the gastrointestinal tract and enter the porcine bloodstream. In the porcine cells, we found that plant miRNAs were very likely to specifically target their endogenous porcine mRNAs and influence gene expression in a fashion similar to that of mammalian miRNAs. Our results indicate that maize-derived miRNAs can cross the gastrointestinal tract and present in pigs, and these exogenous miRNAs have the potential to regulate mammalian gene expression.”

More specifically, the researchers identified 18 distinct maize miRNAs in intensely cooked maize containing diets (e.g. high temperature and pressure, and apparent starch dextrinization and protein denaturation), albeit at concentration levels that were 1/30 that found in fresh maize. Next they assessed the survival of these so-called exogenous miRNAs in pigs by measuring the relative expression levels of 18 maize miRNAs in the blood and solid tissues of three adult female pigs who were given fresh maize feed and water ad libitum for 7 days, by polymerase chain reaction technology. The researchers found 16 of the 18 maize miRNAs in detectable quantities in the blood and solid tissue of the animals. Interestingly, the researchers also discovered that all 5 tested maize miRNAs in porcine serum packaged in porcine exosomes, which they hypothesized enabled them to escape being broken down by enzymes within cellular compartments called nucleases (which break down nucleic acids like RNAs), enabling them to go from the gut to the bloodstream for systemic tissue distribution. As we have reported previously, exosomes are potentially universal epigenetic messengers within biological systems, used to transfer genetic/epigenetic information between individuals (inter-individual), and between species (inter-species), and ultimately across the entire biosphere of the planet, in what amounts to real time information transfer (versus the glacial pace of single nucleotide changes associated with classical protein-coding genetics).

Finally, in order to confirm the possibility that maize miRNAs are able to regulate target porcine messenger RNAs (mRNAs), and therefore inhibit/alter gene expression, the researchers performed in silico analysis of the porcine target genes for the microRNA zma-miR164a-5p, which they stated, “exhibited a relatively high level in porcine blood and tissues.” Their results suggested that “dietetically absorbed maize miRNAs are very likely to specifically target endogenous porcine miRNAs and influence gene expression in a fashion similar to mammalian miRNAs.” [bold emphasis added]

The research presented here has certain limitations. For instance, while a match and interference relationship between maize miRNA and porcine mRNA can be made, the degree to which the interference is significant depends largely on copy number. And so, the number of copies of zma-miR164a-5p, or any other biologically significant plant miRNA, will depend on a wide range of factors, namely, the concentration of that miRNA in the food being eaten, the quantity of that food, the microbiome and digestive condition of the host, etc.

That said, the identification of a cross-kingdom affect where ingested plant miRNA can survive digestion, accumulate in physiologically significant quantities in the host body, and interact with mammalian gene or messenger RNA targets is a vastly important finding by itself. Especially, when one considers that Monsanto/Dow’s new genetically altered RNAi corn may contain hundreds of novel new type of RNA which may target hundreds of different mammalian genetic elements. Until this is known (if it is even possible to known in its vast complexity), the precautionary principle requires that these ‘foods’ not be released into the food chain because the unintended, adverse effects may far outweigh the purported benefits to the exposed populations.

About the author

Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.

Pentagon Falsifies Paperwork To Keep Syrian Rebels Armed With Quasi-Covert Program – by Whitney Webb

 

On July 19, the Trump administration announced that it would end the CIA’s covert program aimed at arming and training terrorist-linked “moderate rebels” in Syria, sparking hope among some Trump supporters that he was finally enacting the anti-interventionist rhetoric of his campaign.

However, a recently released report shows that the Pentagon has picked up the slack left by the end of the CIA’s program — pumping billions of dollars worth of weapons into the hands of Syrian “rebels,” while attempting to mask the paper trail and their suppliers’ ties to organized crime.

The report, published Tuesday by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN), provides conclusive evidence that the Pentagon plans to provide up to $2.2 billion in weapons to Syrian “rebel” groups, particularly Kurdish militant groups like the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). While the Pentagon has been arming “rebels” since 2015, the Department of Defense began requesting increased funding for the program once the CIA covert arms program was ostensibly slated to shut down

While the Pentagon has been arming “rebels” since 2015, the Department of Defense began requesting increased funding for the program once the CIA covert arms program was ostensibly slated to shut down.

The Pentagon has requested an additional $322.5 million for the financial year ending October 2017 and $261.9 million for the following 12 months. For fiscal years 2017 and 2018, the budget for the program has been set at $584 million while another $900 million has been earmarked to continue the program through 2022.

 

Working the Balkan arms pipeline

Weapons were shipped from Eastern-Europe via Silk Way airlines, who offered security-free diplomatic flights to clients ranging from Saudi Arabia, Israel to US Central Command.

The program utilizes the Pentagon’s so-called “Balkan arms pipeline,” a network first exposed by Bulgarian journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva. The arms-supply chain involves the U.S. purchasing vast amounts of Soviet-Era weaponry from Eastern Europe, from which it is then shipped to air bases in Turkey and Kuwait, via the Azerbaijan commercial airline Silk Way, and later sent into Syria. The BIRN/OCCRP report adds, notably, that several of the Pentagon’s weapons suppliers in these countries share links to organized crime organizations and other unsavory actors.

In addition, the report details how this Pentagon program to arm “rebels” has essentially sidestepped long-established checks on international weapons trafficking that are intended to curb illicit deals. Many of these safety checks are included in the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty, which the U.S. has yet to ratify but ostensibly supports.


Related | Journalist Interrogated For Linking CIA Weapons Shipments To Syrian Jihadists


Patrick Wilcken, an arms researcher at Amnesty International, told BIRN that the Pentagon’s actions are undermining the treaty in its entirety.

 

Masking the recipients

Syrian militants are seen with a Serbian made MO2 Coyote machine gun, a weapon which was shipped to Syria via Saudi Arabia and Turkey on diplomatic flights a few months earlier.

The specific “sidesteps” the Pentagon has been taking involve the alleged removal of documentation regarding who or what groups ultimately receive the purchased weapons. By removing this documentation, the Pentagon enables weapon transfers to any armed group within Syria it chooses – including Syrian rebels – without providing documentation as to who received what.

“The Pentagon is removing any evidence in their procurement records that weapons are actually going to the Syrian opposition,” Ivan Angelovski, who co-wrote the report, told Foreign Policy. Indeed, when the report authors contacted authorities in Romania, Bulgaria, and other nations involved in the program, several of the governments responded that they had granted export licenses for the weapons where the U.S., not Syria, was listed as the final destination. They claimed to have been unaware that the weapons were destined for Syria.

Thus, the Pentagon’s alteration of documentation is, in fact, illegal, given the U.S.’ membership in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which requires that end-user certificates include the final destination country.

 

Exhausting the Balkan weapons’ supplies

A visitor looks at assault rifles made by the Serbian company Zastava Arms, during a defense fair, in Belgrade, Serbia. (AP/Darko Vojinovic)

Furthermore, the report notes that the arms transfers are so massive that they are fundamentally altering the economies of the Eastern European nations that are supplying the weapons. The report notes that factories in Serbia and Bulgaria have been drastically increasing arms and ammunition production in order to keep up with demand. In order to meet the increasing demand to be generated by the program over the next several years, Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic promised in July to turn “meadows and forests” into arms factories and almost double Serbia’s arms exports to $750 million by 2020.

Increased production alone has proven insufficient, however, with the Pentagon being forced to lower its standards for weapons and ammunitions to meet demand, while also forcing the U.S. to procure even more arms from “non-traditional” countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Vietnam.

While the U.S. has ostensibly accepted that Syria’s government will remain in power and even reclaim most, if not all, of its territory, it seems the Pentagon – along with its regional ally, Israel – are unwilling to let the billions already spent on arming the Syrian “rebels” go for naught, spending billions more in hopes that the situation will finally favor their long-standing goal of regime change.

Top photo | Free Syrian Army militants clean their weapons and check ammunition at their base on the outskirts of Aleppo, Syria. (Khalil Hamra/AP)

Agents of Terror on Government Payroll – Part II: Ali Mohamed – By Sibel Edmonds (Newsbud)

Editor’s note: Read this article and extrapolate to many other alleged ‘Muslim terror masterminds’. Most likely, all of them were, in one way or another, assets of US intelligence agencies, tasked with creating the ‘reality’ of a terror threat to the USA in order that the US government could respond by invading and occupying nations around the world as part of the long war against Russia and China and securing the Middle East in particular for the ‘new American century’.

A Notorious Terrorist, a Major in Egypt’s Army Intelligence, a CIA Operative, a Member of the Elite Green Berets & an FBI Informant

Let’s say a script writer approaches a Hollywood production company with a proposal for a realisticspy-action thriller that features a dark action hero who is a Major in the Egyptian Army’s Military Intelligence Unit, who is selected by an Elite Special Forces Unit in the United States Army, simultaneously gets recruited by the CIA as an operative, teaches courses at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, and is on the FBI Payroll. Then he triple crosses the Elite U.S. military Forces, the CIA and the FBI, uses his U.S. military information to train al-Qaeda and other radical Muslim militants, becomes Bin Laden’s bodyguard (all this while he is still on the payroll of the U.S. military, the CIA and the FBI), blows up U.S. embassies around the world (while still on the triple payroll) – is the most dangerous man in the world according to the U.S. Justice Department. Then he gets caught, is tried and indicted in a secret U.S. court behind closed doors, yet manages to evade sentencing, skips jail, and continues his terror operations around the globe.

What do you think the production company’s response would be? An unrealistic, far-fetched delirium, probably imagined and written while under some sort of psychedelic drug?

What if I were to tell you that everything in the script above, and some more, is a well-documented, government-confirmed, real life case?

Meet Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed. One of the highest-ranking Al Qaeda terrorists. A man known to and marketed by the U.S. government and Mainstream media as a notorious Triple Agent Terrorist. A man described by U.S. Justice Department Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, as the most dangerous man in the world I’ve ever met.

Are you dizzy yet? Let’s breakdown Ali Mohamed’s background in a more orderly fashion:

Mohamed was a Major in the Egyptian Army’s Military Intelligence Unit.

He enlisted in the U.S. Army and was selected by U.S. Army Special Forces, who sent him to Special Warfare School and encouraged him to pursue a doctorate in Islamic Studies and teach courses on the Middle East.

He was highly educated and spoke fluent English, French, and Hebrew in addition to his native Arabic.

In 1984 the CIA recruited him to be a junior intelligence officer.

The FBI publicly used him as an informant for years.

While in the United States, working for at least three government agencies, including the U.S. Army, he helped train a number of Jihadis, including El Sayyid Nosair and Mahmud Abouhalima, who assisted Ramzi Yousef in his 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.

During the 1980s, while in these three U.S. government entities, he was involved in the training of Anti-Soviet forces, which included members of the mujahideen, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and terrorist members responsible for the bombings of two U.S. embassies.

In 1992 he made at least 58 trips to Afghanistan to participate in the training of terrorist cells, while under the surveillance of the CIA, and the FBI.

In 1998 he was charged with the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In 2000, he pleaded guilty to five counts of conspiracy to kill nationals of the United States and to destroy U.S. property.

Although indicted, secretly, behind closed court doors, Ali Mohamed was never sentenced.

Just as in the case of Awlaki, all court sessions and documents, all reports and all investigations pertaining to Ali Mohamed are highly classified and not available to even those with TS clearance. Unlike Awlaki, who was fried and turned into ashes by a U.S. drone, Mohamed was allegedly jailed in a high-security prison, and has not been interviewed or seen by any outsiders. Because he is nowhere near any U.S. jail! He has been continuing his work and travel for CIA-NATO Operation Gladio B.

Okay, now let’s begin laying out the facts with links, documents and witnesses…

Early Years …

Ali Mohamed was born in Kafr El Sheikh, Lower Egypt, in 1952. His father was a career soldier in the Egyptian Army. Following in his father’s footsteps, Mohamed attended the Cairo Military Academy after his graduation from high school in 1970, and then went on to attend university near his hometown, obtaining two bachelor’s degrees and a master’s degree in psychology from the University of Alexandria. In addition to his native Arabic, in the course of his post-secondary education he learned and became fluent in English, Hebrew and French. He joined the Egyptian Army around 1971, eventually rising to the rank of major:

He worked as an intelligence officer in the Egyptian Special Forces, with duties including the recruitment and training of intelligence assets. He was also frequently assigned to protect Egyptian diplomats abroad, and he volunteered for a number of clandestine special operations, including a raid on a Libyan prison. In 1981, while Islamist members of his Egyptian Army unit carried out the assassination of President Anwar Sadat in Cairo, Mohamed took part in a foreign officer training exercise at Fort Bragg, North Carolina; at the end of the four-month course he was given a diploma bearing a green beret.

Pretty speedy rise so far, but wait, it will get better.

The Egyptian Army deemed Mohamed too religious and potentially radical and eventually discharged him in March of 1984.For the next 18 months, on the orders of Zawahiri, Mohamed worked for the Egyptian national airline as a counterterrorism security advisor, a position that enabled him to acquire sensitive information about air piracy countermeasures.

Mohamed’s next assignment from Zawahiri was to infiltrate a security agency of the U.S. government. In early 1984, following the kidnapping of its Beirut station chief, the CIA began to significantly increase its efforts to recruit Middle Eastern

assets. Thus, when Mohamed – who had already been contacted by the CIA while at Fort Bragg in 1981 – approached the Cairo office of the CIA offering his services, the Cairo station chief sent out an Agency-wide cable to see if there were any operations into which Mohamed could be inserted. The Bonn station responded, and Mohamed was sent to Hamburg, Germany.

Mohamed was subsequently placed on a State Department watch list intended to bar him from entering the United States. When it learned that Mohamed was seeking a visa in 1985, the CIA says that it warned other federal agencies at that time as well not to allow him entry. Mohamed was allowed entry, however, and moved to the U.S. in September of 1985. According to a 1995 Boston Globe report, his entry into the country was made possible by “clandestine CIA sponsorship.”

That’s right. Despite being on the so-called Watch List, Mohamed sailed into, more like flew into, the United States, thanks to the cover and protection provided him by the United States Central Intelligence Agency-CIA.

Joining the Elite U.S. Army Forces and Beyond …

In 1995, after Mohamed’s name publicly surfaced at the trial of Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, the Boston Globe reported that:

Mohamed had been admitted to the U.S. under a special visa program controlled by the CIA’s clandestine service. This will contradict the CIA’s later claims of disassociating themselves from Mohamed and attempting to stop him from entering the U.S..”

As soon as he arrived he married an American Woman, became a U.S. Citizen, and lo and behold, in 1986, he joined the U.S. Army as an enlisted man:

He was posted to Fort Bragg, N.C., home of the elite Special Forces. There he worked as a supply sergeant for a Green Beret unit, then as an instructor on Middle Eastern affairs in the John F. Kennedy special warfare school.

Here is what Mohamed’s commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Anderson, had to say about his supposed infiltration of elite U.S. military forces:

I think you or I would have a better chance of winning Powerball, than an Egyptian major in the unit that assassinated Sadat would have getting a visa, getting to California … getting into the Army and getting assigned to a Special Forces unit …That just doesn’t happen!

Anderson repeatedly wrote detailed reports urging Army intelligence to investigate Mohamed — and have him court-martialed and deported — but the reports were ignored. Or were they, really?

It was equally unthinkable that an ordinary American GI would go unpunished after fighting in a foreign war!

Anderson astutely concluded that all this convinced him that Mohamed was “sponsored” by a U.S. intelligence service. “I assumed the CIA,” he said.

According to court records and Intelligence sources, for almost as long as Ali Mohamed was a notorious terrorist, he was also in contact with (and employed by) U.S. intelligence.

In 1990, FBI agents raided the home of El Sayyid Nosair, the Egyptian born Islamic militant, right after his arrest in the shooting of Rabbi Meir Kahane:

Among the many items found in Nosair’s possession were sensitive military documents from Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The documents, some of which were classified Secret, contained the locations of U.S. military Special Operations Forces exercises and units in the Middle East, military training schedules, U.S. intelligence estimates of Soviet forces in Afghanistan, a topographical map of Fort Bragg, U.S. Central Command data and intelligence estimates of Soviet force projection in Afghanistan. Appended throughout the documents were Arabic markings and notations believed to be that of Ali Mohammed. Some documents were marked “Top Secret for Training otherwise unclassified”. Other documents were marked “sensitive.”

An FBI prepared inventory contains the entire listing of materials seized from Nosair’s residence. Beyond the U.S. military documents, the raid on Nosair’s residence produced a veritable treasure trove of terrorist documents, publications and materials. Included were actual plans for destroying skyscrapers in New York.

According to Steven Emerson, a terrorism expert and author who has written about the case, Mohamed by the early 1990s had also established himself as an FBI informant:

He agreed to serve (the FBI) and provide information, but in fact he was working for the bad guys and insulating himself from scrutiny from other law enforcement agencies.

Simultaneously A CIA-FBI-Pentagon-Al Qaeda Man …

In 1991, Mohammed was the person in charge of Osama Bin Laden’s move from Afghanistan to the Sudan:

From his base in Santa Clara, Mohammed soon emerged as a top aide to Osama Bin Laden. Federal officials say that Mohammed traveled regularly to and from Pakistan and Afghanistan, having helped oversee Bin Laden’s terrorist bases in Khost and other terrorist camps in Afghanistan.

Mohammed helped Bin Laden set up his new home and terrorist base in Khartoum, Sudan where 2000 “Arab Afghans” the name given to the Arab veterans of the Afghanistan jihad – were headquartered in Bin Laden terrorist camps. Mohammed continued to travel between the terrorist camps in Afghanistan, Bin Laden’s base in the Sudan and the United States.

Even the discredited 9/11 Commission’s final report concluded that the WTC bombing had been crafted in Afghanistan during the summer of 1992, when Ramzi Yousef and Ali Mohamed were both in the region:

Yousef’s support network when he arrived in the United States consisted almost entirely of figures with links to Ali Mohamed. But when the Brooklyn cell was finally indicted in 1993, Ali A. Mohamed was not one of the defendants. He wasn’t a witness. Through a tangle of intrigues, negotiations and apparent investigative oversights, Mohamed escaped prosecution until after the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa.

“Mohamed escaped prosecution until after the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa” — But Mohamed did escape sentencing. He’s never been sentenced, and he’s not in prison.

Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew Mohamed intimately. In 1994 he had named him as an unindicted co-conspirator in the New York landmark case, yet allowed him to remain free:

This was because, as Fitzgerald knew, Ali Mohamed was an FBI informant, from at least 1993 and maybe 1989.Thus, from 1994 “until his arrest in 1998 [by which time the 9/11 plot was well under way], Mohamed shuttled between California, Afghanistan, Kenya, Somalia and at least a dozen other countries.”

In 1993 Ali Mohamed had been detained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Canada, when he inquired at an airport after an incoming al Qaeda terrorist who turned out to be carrying two forged Saudi passports. Mohamed immediately told the RCMP to make a phone call to the United States, and the call secured his release. We’ve since been told that it was Mohamed’s West coast FBI handler, John Zent, “who vouched for Ali and got him released.” This release enabled Ali to go on to Kenya, take pictures of the U.S. Embassy, and deliver them to bin Laden for the Embassy bombing plot.

Fitzgerald and his FBI counterpart on the Bin Laden task force, John Cloonan, learned shortly after 9/11 that Mohamed “knew every twist and turn of” the 9/11 plot. Within days of 9/11 Cloonan rushed backed from Yemen and interviewed Ali, whom the Feds had allowed to slip into witness protection, and demanded to know the details of the plot. At that point Ali wrote it all out – including details of how he’d counseled would-be hijackers on how to smuggle box cutters on board aircraft and where to sit, to affect the airline seizures.

Interestingly this same Patrick Fitzgerald has described Ali Mohamed as “the most dangerous man I’ve ever met”!

Despite all this, for over four years Mohamed moved freely in and out of the United States as an unindicted conspirator. Further, he was allowed to plea-bargain, and was never sentenced for any of his well-established and documented criminal and terrorist activities:

Peter Lance has charged that Fitzgerald had evidence before 1998 to implicate Mohamed in the Kenya Embassy bombing, yet did nothing and let the bombing happen. In fact, the FBI was aware back in 1990 that Mohamed had engaged in terrorist training on Long Island; yet it acted to protect Mohamed from arrest, even after one of his trainees had moved beyond training to an actual assassination.

Since 2002 no one knows what happened to Mohamed and/or where he is, the general belief is that he is in the U.S and has not been sentenced in payment for providing information about Al-Qaeda and their senior hierarchy.

Mohamed’s relationship with the CIA and FBI is wrapped in secrecy. His plea agreement is sealed, as are many of the court documents and much of the testimony:

Mohamed was expected to testify — but did not — at the trial where the four others were convicted. Mohamed and his lawyer have declined all interview requests.”

Since his arrest in 1998, Mohamed has been hidden away in a federal “witness protection” program, with most of his court records sealed. As Benjamin Weiser of the New York Times put it:

Ali Mohamed has been buried “under a cloak of secrecy rarely seen in the public courts.”

In an interview with the National Geographic Channel, Ali Mohamed’s defense attorney makes a very chilling prophecy. “I think the most likely thing that will happen,” says attorney David Ruhnke, “is he’ll be released and he’ll be given a new name, a new identity, and he’ll pick up a life some place.”

“Mohamed has made some kind of deal with the government, that will surely have him out of prison on some date certain that he knows about,” says attorney David Ruhnke.

To recap, the terms of Mohamed’s deal with the government, including not being sentenced, have never been made public. All classified. All secret.

For almost two decades Ali Abdelsaoud Mohamed served Osama bin Laden and his number one lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri as their highest al-Qaeda operative in the United States. During this period Mohamed traveled to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, and many other ‘hot-spot’ countries and provided al-Qaeda with top-level intelligence, planned terrorist events, assisted in fundraising, and trained al-Qaeda terrorists – including bin Laden himself.

The most amazing thing about Ali Mohamed is not his linguistic, educational or IQ pedigree, but his story, and his high-level backers within the FBI, CIA and the U.S. Military. He carried out his deadly role as globe-trotting spy master and terrorist while working with, and inside, the very U.S. government organizations that are supposedly at war with terrorists like him: the CIA, the U.S. Army Special Forces, and the FBI. And the fact that he was able, and allowed to, carry out all his terror operations for nearly two decades, in spite of numerous. tip-offs from foreign governments and warnings from personnel within these agencies. The most troubling and important question being:

How is it that this notorious terror operative and facilitator happened to be on the payroll of three U.S. government agencies before, during and after the September 11 attacks? Whether with the Pentagon’s Special Forces, the CIA, or the FBI, wouldn’t, and shouldn’t, he be considered The U.S. Government’s Man? And if that’s the case, whose attack did we suffer on September 11, 2001?

Comment: Previously: Agents of Terror on Government Payroll – Part I: Anwar Al-Awlaki

The Conflict In Syria Was Always Israel’s War Because Israel has staked first its survival and ultimately its growth into a dominant regional power on the disunity of its neighboring nations – By Whitney Webb

ISRAELHONDURASCRIMES

4 Comments

AddThis Sharing Buttons

Share to SkypeSkypeShare to RedditRedditShare to MoreMore502

After years of fomenting the Syrian conflict from the shadows, the U.S. has recently seemed to back away from its push to militarily intervene in the embattled nation, instead choosing to focus its saber-rattling and destabilization efforts on other theaters. The consequence of this has seemingly been the winding down of the long-running conflict, now entering its seventh year.

Buoyed by Russia, Iran and Lebanon, the Syrian government led by President Bashar al-Assad has managed to retake vast swaths of territory, all while surviving and growing stronger over the course of a largely foreign-funded onslaught. As a result, many of the governments that were instrumental in funding and arming the so-called “moderate” opposition have begun to extricate themselves, unwilling to further test the resilience of Assad or the Syrian people.

With some anticipating the long-awaited conclusion of the Syrian conflict, recent threats from Israel’s government to assassinate Assad by bombing his residence seemed to appear out of the blue. According to the Jerusalem Post, a senior Israeli official accompanying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a recent visit to Russia warned the Kremlin that if Iran continues to “extend its reach” in Syria, Israel would bomb the presidential palace in Damascus.

 

Israel’s comments should come as no surprise, however, as the foreign-funded and manufactured conflict in Syria was always Israel’s war. The only real surprise is Israel’s growing isolation in pushing for the further escalation of the conflict.

 

WikiLeaks sheds light on the origins of the war

Though it has successfully avoided being labeled a major player in the effort to oust Assad, Israel has long been the mastermind of the plan, which stems in large part from the long-standing hostilities between the two nations as well as Israel’s own regional ambitions. State Department diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks have shown that in 2006, five years before the conflict in Syria manifested, the government of Israel had hatched a plan to overthrow the Assad government by engineering sectarian strife in the country, creating paranoia within the highest-ranks of the Syrian government, and isolating Syria from its strongest regional ally, Iran.

Israel then passed this plan along to the United States, which would then involve Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt in fomenting the “breakdown” of the Assad regime as a way of weakening both Iran and Hezbollah — with the effect of empowering both Israel and the Gulf monarchies, two seemingly disparate forces in the region that are becoming increasingly allied.


Related | As Syria Nears Victory Against Rebels, Israel Begins To Panic


Leaked emails belonging to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton further reveal Israel’s role in covertly creating the conflict and its clear role in securing the involvement of the U.S. and other nations in executing its plan for Assad’s removal. One email, forwarded by Clinton to her advisor Jacob Sullivan, argues that Israel is convinced that Iran would lose “its only ally” in the region were Assad’s government to collapse.

It further stated that “The fall of the House of Assad could well ignite a sectarian war between the Shiites and the majority Sunnis of the region drawing in Iran, which, in the view of Israeli commanders would not be a bad thing for Israel and its Western allies.” This possible sectarian war was perceived as a potential “factor in the eventual fall of the current government of Iran.”

Another Clinton email released by WikiLeaks stated”

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad,”

Adding

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly.”

The email also notes:

A successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States” and states that “arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach.”

Read the full Wikileaks release below:

Stated plainly, the U.S.’ decision to spend over $1 billion until 2015 to arm Syria’s terrorist-linked “rebels” — and to invoke the assistance of Wahhabi terrorism exporters like Saudi Arabia and Qatar in funneling weapons and funds to these same groups — was spurred by Israel, which not only drafted the original blueprint for the Syrian conflict but guided U.S. involvement by exerting its powerful influence over the foreign policy of that country.

 

Aiding the Rebels

Two men, not specified which group of rebels, ride a motorcycle towards an abandoned UN base at Syria's Quneitra border crossing between Syria and the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, Monday, Nov. 28, 2016. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)

Israel did more, however, than covertly instigate and guide the funding of opposition “rebels” — having secretly funded and aided opposition groups, including ones with overt terrorist affiliations, over the course of the six-year-long conflict.

Israeli involvement in direct funding and aiding the Syrian “rebels” was suspected for years before being officially made public by the Wall Street Journal in June of this year. The report revealed that Israel, since the beginning of the conflict, had been “supplying Syrian rebels near its border with cash as well as food, fuel, and medical supplies for years, a secret engagement in the enemy country’s civil war aimed at carving out a buffer zone populated by friendly forces.” Israel has also frequently brought wounded “rebels” into Israel for medical treatment, a policy it often touts as a “humanitarian effort.”

These “friendly” forces were armed groups that formed part of or were allied with al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch, known for committing atrocities against thousands of Syrian civilians and slaughtering religious and ethnic minorities. Since 2013, al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups have dominated the “eight-square-kilometer separation zone on the Golan.” Israel has stated officially that these fighters are part of the U.S. coalition-supported Free Syrian Army (FSA). However, it has long been known that the vast majority of the groups comprising FSA have pledged allegiance to the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front, and that those who still fight under the FSA banner meet with al-Nusra on a daily basis.

Netanyahu looks at a Syrian rebel fighter being treated in an IDF field hospital. (Photo: Kobi Gideon/GPO)

Israel’s support for terrorist groups went far beyond medical treatment, food supplies and cash. The Israeli army was also found to have been in regular communication with these terrorist groups and even helped “pay salaries of fighters and buy ammunition and weapons.” In addition, when the positions of the “rebel” groups it funded, armed and paid were in danger of being overtaken by Syrian government forces, Israel stepped in to directly bomb Syrian targets. For instance, in June, Israel attacked several Syrian military positions after claiming a stray mortar had landed within the boundaries of the Golan Heights, part of Syria that has long been occupied by Israel. However, the attack tellingly coincided with Syrian army advancements against the “rebel” groups that Israel has long cultivated as part of the so-called “buffer zone.”

Furthermore, Israel has launched attacks inside Syria “dozens and dozens of times,” according to a recent admission by Netanyahu. Earlier this year, Israel also threatened to “destroy” Syrian air defenses after the Syrian army fired missiles at Israeli warplanes striking targets within Syria.

Also very telling has been Israel’s position on Daesh (ISIS). In June of last year, Israel’s military intelligence chief, Major General Herzi Halevi, openly stated that Israel does not want to see Daesh defeated in Syria — expressing concern about the offensives against Daesh territory and lamenting their “most difficult” situation. Prior to Halevi’s comments, Israeli officials had regularly noted that Daesh conquering the whole of Syria would be preferable to the survival of the Assad government. These comments have been echoed by Israeli and NATO-affiliated think tanks, one of which called Daesh “a useful tool in undermining” Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and Russia — despite Daesh’s barbaric tactics, war crimes, enslavement of women and ethnic cleansing efforts.

 

Israel’s larger geopolitical agenda

An old Israeli tank sits in a position in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights near the border with Syria,Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2015.

Though Israel’s support of Wahhabi terrorists like Daesh (ISIS) and al-Nusra may seem counter-intuitive, Israel’s overarching purpose in expelling Assad from power is based on strategic geopolitical and economic goals that Israel is determined to meet at any cost. While Israel frequently mentions Iran as the pretext for its involvement in Syria, the strongest motivators for Israel’s participation in the destruction of its northern neighbor are oil and territorial expansion.

One of Israel’s clearest reasons for being interested in the destabilization of Syria is its ability to assert further control of the Golan Heights, an area of Syria that Israel has illegally occupied since 1967 and annexed in 1981. Despite filling the area with illegal settlements and military assets, Israel has been unable to convince the international community, and even its close allies such as the U.S., to recognize its sovereignty over the territory. However, the conflict in Syria has proven beneficial to this end, allowing Israel to send even more settlers into the Golan, an estimated 100,000 over five years.


Related | Nearly 3,500 Israeli Settlement Homes Built On Private Palestinian Land


Israel is largely interested in gaining control over the Golan for economic reasons, owing to the occupied territory’s oil reserves, which are estimated to contain “billions of barrels.” Under the cover of the Syrian conflict, the Israeli branch of an American oil company — whose investors include Dick Cheney, Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch — has been drilling exploratory wells throughout the region, as the Heights’ uncertain territorial status prevents Israel from financially exploiting the resource.

Despite the prohibitions of international law, Israel is eager to tap into those reserves, as they have the potential to “make Israel energy self-sufficient.” Israel has even offered, per the Galant plan, to “rebuild” Syria with billions in U.S. taxpayer dollars in exchange for the Golan Heights — though the plan received a tepid reception from all involved parties other than Israel itself.

As its stands, Assad’s removal and replacement with a government friendly to Israeli and Western interests is Israel’s only real means of claiming the Golan Height’s energy resources for itself.

 

Pawns blocking Israel’s endgame

An Iraqi Kurd reads a copy of the magazine Israel-Kurd on a street in Irbil, Iraq in 2009. (Azad Lashkari/Reuters)

Aside from the oil and the territory it seeks to gain in the Golan Heights, Israel is also seeking to expand well beyond that territory in order to more widely exert its influence and become the region’s “superpower.” This ambition is described in the Yinon Plan, a strategy intended to ensure Israel’s regional superiority in the Middle East that chiefly involves reconfiguring the entire Arab world into smaller and weaker sectarian states. This has manifested in Israel’s support for the partition of Iraq as well as Syria, abetted by its support for the establishment of a separatist Kurdish state within these two nations.


Related | Israel Calls For Partition Of Iraq, Creation Of New Kurdish State


This goal, in particular, largely explains Israel’s obsession with curbing Iranian influence in the Middle East, whether in Syria or elsewhere. Iran – more than any other nation in the region – is the most likely to threaten the “superpower” status that Israel seeks to gain for itself, as well as Israel’s loss of monopoly as the region’s only nuclear power.

Given Israel’s compound interests in seeing the removal of Assad and the partition of Syria, it is hardly surprising that Israeli political rhetoric has reached new heights of saber-rattling as Tel Aviv becomes increasingly concerned that the conflict it masterminded could backfire. Prior to the explosive comments regarding Israeli threats to bomb Assad’s residence, an anonymous Israeli government minister blamed the U.S. for backing out of Syria, a move he argued sacrificed Israeli interests:

The United States threw Israel under the bus for the second time in a row. The first time was the nuclear agreement with Iran, the second time is now that the United States ignores the fact that Iran is obtaining territorial continuity to the Mediterranean Sea and Israel’s northern border [through Syria].”

Not only that but Israel has recently vowed to “nullify” the ceasefire deal brokered between Russia and the U.S. with Syrian and Iranian support if it fails to comply with Israel’s needs — an ultimatum based on rather subjective terms given that “Israel’s needs” are hardly static. Israel’s response again shows the perception among officials in Tel Aviv that the Syrian conflict is of primary importance to Israeli geopolitical interests.

Furthermore, given that the response suggested so far by Israeli officials – on more than one occasion – has been to assassinate Syria’s democratically-elected President – the contemplated means of Israel “nullifying” the ceasefire deal will likely have explosive implications. Israel — apparently refusing to accept that the conflict it orchestrated is not going, and may not end, as planned — is now willing to escalate the situation militarily, with or without allies, resorting to dangerous brinkmanship with global implications.

Top photo | Israeli tourists watch smoke rising near the Syrian-Israeli border as the fighting Syrian army fights to regain control of the Quneitra border crossing from rebel groups. (Atef Safadi/EPA)

Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.

4 Comments

AddThis Sharing Buttons

Share to SkypeSkypeShare to RedditRedditShare to MoreMore502

Monsanto: It Ain’t Glyphosate, it’s the Additives! – By Author: F. William Engdahl


 

463423423423

Famously corrupt and unscrupulous, Monsanto Corporation has now been discovered in covering up the highly toxic effects of the secret additives it combines with glyphosate in Roundup, the world’s most-used herbicide. The IARC, an agency of the World Health Organization, released a report in March, 2015 that declared the chemical glyphosate to be “probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).” They were not provided tests that included the effects of glyphosate combined with specific trade secret additives. Monsanto is desperate to hide the true carcinogen in its Roundup weed-killer.

Glyphosate is the largest component of Monsanto Roundup, the world’s largest weed-killer and the toxin mandated in every Monsanto Genetically Manipulated (GMO) planting. But what Monsanto refuses to disclose is what additives it uses, otherwise termed surfactants or adjuvants, ostensibly to give the glyphosate a “turbo” weed-killer effectiveness boost.

Since late 2016 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has been hearing a case brought by a group of plaintiffs against Monsanto, claiming the firm falsified test results and refused to test the actual commercial mix sold as Roundup, a mix which contains far more deadly chemicals than glyphosate, especially when combined with glyphosate, in order to show its best-selling Roundup to be harmless in recommended doses and non-carcinogenic.

It’s the Surfactants!

On June 30, 2017, attorneys from Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, lawyers for the plaintiffs, released online court documents provided by Monsanto to the Court in the ongoing California case against Monsanto. Those Monsanto secret documents reveal the criminal company collusion to cover up the truth about its Roundup weed-killer.

Among the damning emails from the Monsanto internal documents is an email exchange marked Confidential, dated November 22, 2003, from Donna R. Farmer, PhD., then chief toxicologist at Monsanto responsible for glyphosate products worldwide. Farmer states bluntly, “The terms glyphosate and Roundup cannot be used interchangeably nor can you use “Roundup” for all glyphosate-based herbicides any more. For example, you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.” (emphasis added-w.e.)

Another confidential Monsanto email dated December 14, 2010, more than seven years after Donna Farmer’s 2003 admission, states that “With regards to the carcinogenicity of our (Roundup-w.e.) formulations, we don’t have such testing on them directly, but we do have such testing on the glyphosate component.” It’s a bit like telling someone you held an African Black Mamba, the world’s fastest and one of the world’s most toxic snakes, and nothing happened to you, so the Black Mamba can be certified as safe for a household pet.

What Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer refers to as “the formulation” is the major ingredient, glyphosate, in combination with various surfactants or adjuvants, allegedly used to bind the weed-killer Roundup more efficiently to target weeds in the region of spraying of crops such as GMO corn or soybeans. Monsanto calls the component in Roundup called glyphosate the “active ingredient,” implying, falsely, that the added chemicals are merely passive or inert and harmless.

No tests done

To date the entire global public debate on glyphosate in the USA, the EU and in the rest of the world has been a very sly “red herring,” put out by Monsanto to take attention away from the vastly more toxic cocktail that is sold today as Roundup weed-killer, the world’s most widely used weed-killer. Roundup is far more than only glyphosate, as the email from Donna Farmer admits. Monsanto has deliberately turned the public and legal debate to focus only on glyphosate, as if the rest of their toxic cocktail was just some sugar candy. Are their trade secret additives including chemicals such as formaldehyde? We don’t know. Do they include known carcinogens such as N-ethyl-NNG? We don’t know. Monsanto refuses to tell the public.

The Monsanto secret email exchanges, now public as a result of the California court case, reveal dramatically the collusion of senior US Government officials at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Monsanto to conceal the fact that the EPA never was in possession of the other components of Roundup aside from glyphosate.

Those surfactants are mostly classified as “trade secret” by Monsanto and have not even been made known to the US Government agency responsible for guarding the environmental health of the population, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), yet EPA officials have never made a public issue of the fact.

Among the Monsanto confidential emails released by attorneys in the California law suit on June 30, 2017 is one dated March 5, 2013. In it Monsanto admits internally, “We do not conduct sub-chronic, chronic or teratogenicity studies with our formulations. The long-term exposure has been assessed according to the regulatory requirements in chronic and carcinogenicity studies conducted with the active ingredient glyphosate.” (emphasis added-w.e.). Teratogenic testing is testing to determine if a drug or chemical contains an agent that can disturb the development of the human embryo or fetus. Teratogens can halt the pregnancy or produce a congenital malformation or birth defect.

On its website, Monsanto gives a picture of serious compliance with government safety testing standards. It states, “Like all pesticides, glyphosate is routinely reviewed by regulatory authorities to ensure it can be used safely. In the U.S., that’s the job of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and like other regulatory authorities around the world, the EPA’s process is comprehensive and based on the best available science.” (emphasis added-w.e.).

Note that they are careful to say “glyphosate,” and not Roundup. As the California EPA and Monsanto email exchanges reveal, Monsanto is being sly here, as they have not managed over 40 years to give detailed information on all the additives or adjuvants contained today or earlier in its Roundup herbicide. Curiously, they state, “Click here to learn more about the EPA’s current “registration review” underway for glyphosate.,” however as of August 28, 2017 there is no link to any EPA “registration review.” Oops, sorry…

In simple English, Monsanto admits its fraud that it only used tests of the possible carcinogenicity of its so-called “active ingredient” glyphosate. Never did they submit tests of the true Roundup cocktail actually used commercially. The entire EU and US EPA “glyphosate debate” is a hoax, a nefarious fraud.

‘Two Thousand times more toxic’ than glyphosate alone

Independent scientific tests by toxicologists have revealed that it is precisely the added ingredients, the so-called surfactants or Roundup’s “formulations,” in chemical combination with the far less toxic glyphosate base, that are highly toxic and probable carcinogen.

In a peer-reviewed scientific paper published on February 26, 2016 in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, a team of toxicologists led by Gilles-Eric Séralini of the Institute of Biology, University of Caen in Normandy, France and András Székács, Director of the Agro-Environmental Research Institute of Hungary’s National Agricultural Research and Innovation Centre, tested the most commonly used glyphosate-based herbicides including Monsanto Roundup. They tested the complete cocktail, including the co-formulants and formulations used in combination with the glyphosate.

What they found should put our hair on end. Instead, it has been swept under the rug by the US Government and the Commission of the EU as well as by a German government eager perhaps to appease the giant German Bayer AG, the prospective new owner of Monsanto.

The Seralini group study demonstrated for the first time that endocrine disruption by Glyphposate-Based Herbicides (GBH) could not only be due to the declared active ingredient, glyphosate, but also to the co-formulants or additives. But it gets much worse than that.

Seralini’s group tested the endocrine disruption of co-formulants in six glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH), the most used pesticides worldwide including Roundup.

Their study concluded, “The endocrine-disrupting effects of all these compounds were measured on aromatase activity, a key enzyme in the balance of sex hormones, below the toxicity threshold. Aromatase activity was decreased both by the co-formulants alone…and by the formulations, from concentrations 800 times lower than the agricultural dilutions…; while G (glyphosate) exerted an effect only at 1/3 of the agricultural dilution…These results could explain numerous in vivo results with GBHs not seen with G alone; moreover, they challenge the relevance of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) value for GBHs exposures, currently calculated from toxicity tests of the declared active ingredient alone.

Their tests further concluded that the compounded herbicides using glyphosate as base, but including undisclosed “formulations” or surfactants or co-formulants, were vastly more toxic than glyphosate tested alone. They write, “All co-formulants and formulations were comparably cytotoxic well below the agricultural dilution of 1%.” Depending on the product, the tests revealed that glyphosate, in combination with co-formulants, could be up to 2000 times more toxic to cells than glyphosate alone.

Yet Monsanto has never revealed its trade secret co-formulants, neither to the US Government as it is compelled to by law, nor to the public.

The Seralini study concludes that “The declared active ingredients of pesticide formulations are not applied in their isolated form in agricultural use. Other substances (co-formulants) are also added, in order to modify the physico-chemical properties or to improve penetration or stability of the declared active ingredients. The identity of the co-formulants, declared as inert, is generally kept confidential. Moreover, they are not used in medium or long term in vivo toxicity tests of pesticides on mammals for the establishment of their acceptable daily intake.”

By the criteria used in war crimes tribunals after 1945 Monsanto knew or should have known that its Roundup total formulation products were more toxic that glyphosate alone and that independent, reliable safety studies of Roundup and full disclosure of all of Roundup’s additives, the so-called “inert” ingredients was necessary.

Whatever the legal outcome of the California legal case, the plaintiffs and their attorneys at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman have done a major service to mankind by releasing the confidential Monsanto documents.

The attorneys have sent copies of all documents so far to the EPA Office of Inspector General, presently investigating whether there was illegal collusion between EPA and Monsanto; the California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which recently listed glyphosate as a substance known to the state of California to cause cancer and is soliciting comments from Baum Hedlund and others to advise about whether glyphosate should be given a safe-harbor; and to the European Parliament members, who recently sent a letter to the judge overseeing the MDL litigation, requesting documents as the EU considers whether it will renew registration of glyphosate for sale in Europe.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/30/monsanto-it-ain-t-glyphosate-it-s-the-additives/

THE END OF ISIS IS NEARING; RUSSIAN BOMBERS STRIKE LETHAL BLOW NEAR DZ – By Ziad Fadel

PRESIDENTALASSADSYRIA

DAYR EL-ZOR:  I had a beautiful photo showing the devastation wrought by a series of Russian Air Force sorties over a large convoy of ISIS vultures heading from Al-Mayaadeen to Dayr El-Zor City, but, as always, technical problems prevented me from pasting it.  In any case, the Russian Ministry of Defense has announced what amounts to an aerial ambush sprung by the RuAF killing a minimum of 200 ISIS weasels with hundreds reportedly wounded and 20 pickups armed with 23mm cannons destroyed and one lowly tank turned into so much base metal.  This could be the turning point for the doomed Caliphate as more and more of its members sneak out of positions or defect to other groups.  How the mighty have fallen.

The ISIS and Al-Qaeda terrorists must sense today that God does not support them or he would have turned the tide against their enemies a long time ago.  They must also know that their leaders were just mini-Hitlers who, having swept away the Iraqi Army early on in the war to establish their counterfeit Caliphate, wound up turning their every fortified citadel into one Berlin after another.  Without allies to pay salaries – their allies having nearly gone broke – the average terrorist thug despairs at his future and the utopian world he dreamed of inhabiting with his noisome, shabby family.  It’s over now – completely over.

As Canthama wrote in the Comments section the day before yesterday, the ISIS position in Lebanon is becoming increasingly desperate.  Nobody is resupplying.  Nobody is paying salaries.  Supporters in Lebanon among the militant Sunnis of Tripoli or Sidon have all figured out that God is not on the side of the jihadists.  That was a fantasy.  And there is no sensible way to resupply the besieged vultures anyways since all roads have been closed by the Lebanese Army.

All that’s left are American dreams of a foothold in Syria.  The dream of two rump states blocking Iranian projections of power has fizzled.  All that’s left is an unsatisfying Kurdish state north of the Baghdad-Damascus Highway.  The army the U.S. was training at Al-Tanf has started to dissolve – no more salaries, no more guns……back to the camps.

 

 

 

 

 

Read more at https://syrianperspective.com/2017/08/the-end-of-isis-is-nearing-russian-bombers-strike-lethal-blow-near-dz.html#moptmTaMokmhMa5B.99

When Washington Decides Democracy Is Dangerous: Stoking Opposition In Venezuela And Syria – By Ramiro S. Fúnez

The opposition “movements” in Venezuela and Syria have a great deal in common: both are seeking the demise of democratically-elected governments; both resort to violence and acts of terrorism; both are tools of U.S. and Western imperialism, and both are failing.

A Venezuelan protester holds a poster that reads in Spanish "Against Imperialist aggression, respect Venezuela" during a protest outside the National Assembly in Caracas Venezuela. (AP/Howard Yanes)

QUITO (Analysis)– If you’ve been following international news in recent years, you know that two countries, in particular, have served as punching bags for establishment pundits: Venezuela and Syria.

Sure, other countries on mainstream media’s target list — including Russia, China, Cuba, Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) — have also been persistently bombarded with hit pieces. But then these sovereign nations have always been under attack since declaring their independence from Washington’s imperialist grip.

What distinguishes recent corporate news attacks against Venezuela and Syria from media treatment of the countries mentioned above, however, is the role of their respective Western-backed opposition “movements.” Claiming to fight for “democracy” and “freedom,” protesters from both countries have participated in violent actions aimed at overthrowing their democratically-elected governments — Venezuela since 2014 and Syria since 2011.

 
Advertisment

This hasn’t been the case, at least in recent years, in Russia, China, Cuba, Iran and the DPRK.

In Venezuela, right-wing opposition groups have attempted to topple the socialist government of President Nicolas Maduro and the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela. They hope to follow the path of Brazil and Argentina, where social programs for the poor have been slashed and neoliberal austerity reigns.

In Syria, Wahhabi-aligned opposition groups have waged relentless war against President Bashar al-Assad and the incumbent Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. They hope to follow the path of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, where the rights of religious minorities have been stripped and Western-imposed sectarianism presides.

Though seemingly different in appearance, opposition groups in Venezuela and Syria are much alike in essence. Consider the following four examples of their similarity.

 

Syrian & Venezuelan opposition both blindly unquestioned by Western media

Not a day goes by when corporate news outlets don’t echo the indictments of Venezuelan and Syrian opposition members who claim their governments are “authoritarian regimes.”

A screenshot of a CNN May 6, 2017 report covering opposition protests in Venezuela.

Not only do these publications intentionally ignore the fact that the Venezuelan and Syrian governments were legitimately chosen to lead their nations in internationally recognized elections; they also unquestionably uphold the political positions of the opposition groups as the general sentiment of the entire country, failing to mention that a majority of citizens oppose their violence.

In Venezuela, for example, Maduro fairly defeated opposition leader Henrique Capriles during the 2013 presidential election, which U.S. election observer Daniel Kovalik described as “transparent, inherently reliable, well-run and thoroughly audited.” Almost 80 percent of the country’s population participated. Moreover, a May 2017 survey, conducted by Monitor Pais and published by polling firm Hinterlaces, revealed that almost two-thirds of Venezuelans reject opposition protest violence.

And in Syria, Assad resoundingly defeated presidential candidate Hassan al-Nouri during the 2014 presidential election, which several international observers also confirmed was transparent and legitimate. The Baathist leader received 88.7 percent of votes. Over 73 percent of the country’s population participated, along with millions of Syrian refugees around the world.

Firyal Sheikh El-Zour, 50, draws blood from her thumb with a syringe to use to mark a ballot, in Damascus, Syria, June 3, 2014. (AP/Dusan Vranic)

A poll conducted a year later by ORB International found that 47 percent of Syrians believed that Assad had a positive influence in Syria, compared to 35 percent for the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and 26 percent for the Syrian Opposition Coalition, according to analyst Stephen Gowans.

The FSA is a Syrian militant group that claims to be the “armed wing” of the country’s Western-backed opposition. It was formed in 2011 by renegade members of the Syrian Arab Army. The FSA has frequently been accused of supporting Daesh and other Wahhabi terrorist groups.

Yet Venezuelan and Syrian opposition claims that these elections and poll results were “rigged” are uncritically regurgitated by mainstream media, serving the interests of their imperialist overlords in the Global North who seek regime change.

 

Doing the dirty work of Washington and Wall Street

Contrary to popular belief, Venezuelan and Syrian opposition leaders are not impoverished, working-class activists who act on their own will. They are well-funded saboteurs armed and trained by bureaucrats in Washington and their wealthy handlers on Wall Street.

Let’s start with Venezuela.

President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Marco Rubio meet with Lillian Tintori, wife of US-backed Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez. (White House Photo)

Since 2009, the U.S. Department of State has allocated at least $49 million to the South American country’s right-wing opposition, according to publicly-available budget documents released by the State Department.

Washington has claimed the funds support “democracy practitioners” and help “efforts to preserve and expand democratic space through programs that strengthen and promote civil society, citizen participation, independent media, human rights organizations, and democratic political parties.”

Yet almost all of those funds have gone directly to opposition parties like Primero Justicia (Justice First) and Voluntad Popular (Popular Will), both of which helped organized violent protests that resulted in the deaths of at least 43 people in 2014 and 124 people this year.

Now, Syria.

Senator John McCain in Syria with members of the U.S.-backed rebel group Northern Storm.

Four years ago, former U.S. President Barack Obama secretly began funding Wahhabi-linked Syrian opposition militants, whom he described as “moderate rebels.” The allocation of funds, which Obama claimed would be used to “degrade and destroy” the Daesh terrorist group (ISIS), didn’t become public until 2014, when the U.S. Congress gave final approval to train and arm the FSA.

According to Foreign Policy magazine, ironically one of many mainstream media publications that blindly supported the so-called Syrian “revolution,” the United States has spent over $500 million on financing the opposition since Obama took office in 2009.

WikiLeaks, however, reported that Washington has financed Syrian opposition members and institutions since 2006 under former President George W. Bush.

 

Syrian & Venezuelan opposition both engage in terrorism

Perhaps one of the most striking similarities between the Venezuelan and Syrian opposition, and an inconvenient truth for their apologists, is their use of terrorist acts. These acts, intended to strike fear in the minds of those who oppose their interventionist agendas, are rarely reported in corporate news outlets.

Not only has the Venezuelan opposition utilized “guarimbas,” or street blockades created with ignited trash, to wreak havoc in cities across the country; they have also torched public buses, incinerated tons of government-subsidized food intended for hungry citizens, launched grenades over government buildings, attacked hospitals and nurseries, and, perhaps most disturbingly, immolated supporters of the socialist government.

A protester wearing a gas mask and carrying a golf club walks to join fellow protesters, past a burning public transportation bus in Caracas, Venezuela, May 13, 2017. The anti-government protest movement that has drawn masses of people into the streets nearly every day since March, continued on Saturday. (AP/Fernando Llano)

The last example is epitomized by the case of Orlando Figueroa, a 21-year-old Afro-Venezuelan who was drenched in gasoline and lit on fire on May 20 by a white Venezuelan opposition protester for “being Chavista.” Enzo Franchini Oliveros, identified as Figueroa’s murderer, was assisted by other demonstrators who have not yet been detained.

Figueroa, who worked as a parking attendant and came from humble working-class roots, died several days later. At least 23 people have been burned alive by opposition protesters, according to Red58.org, a Venezuelan watchdog media group that exposes right-wing violence.


Related | What The Media Isn’t Telling You About Opposition Leaders In Venezuela


Similar terrorist tactics have also been used in Syria by the Wahhabi-linked militants. Like their Venezuelan counterparts, Syrian opposition protesters have torched public infrastructure and killed civilians accused of “being Assadists.” Their violent military campaigns against pro-government, anti-imperialist citizens have also claimed hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.

Two terrorist acts committed by the Syrian opposition, however, stand out as the most gruesome.

The first involved Abu Sakkar, a former FSA fighter who cut out the heart of a fallen Syrian Arab Army soldier in 2013 and ate it in front of other “moderate rebels.” The incident was recorded on video. The second involved members of the U.S.-funded terrorist group Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement, which beheaded a young child near Aleppo in 2016. This act was also recorded on video.

US backed Al-Zenki Syriab rebels display a captured 10 year-old boy shortly before he is decapitated.

These incidents, to the discomfort of pro-imperialist liberals who defend these criminals as “freedom fighters” and “revolutionaries,” demonstrate that both the Venezuelan and Syrian opposition commit acts of terrorism that are largely overlooked.

 

Withering opposition movements

For years, Washington and its propagandists in mainstream media have predicted that Maduro and Assad will eventually be forced out of power through “democratic uprisings” in both countries. This delusional fantasy has yet to come true.

Instead, confident forecasts that both leaders “will step down” have mutated into hopeful suggestions that “they should step down.” U.S. media pundits and policymakers alike remain baffled at the fact that Obama left office before Maduro and Assad did.

What’s the reason for this? It’s not because they have “consolidated their grip on power,” as both liberals and conservatives characterize it. Rather, it’s because millions of Venezuelans and Syrians have recognized that U.S. intervention does not offer them a future. All one needs to do is take a look at Iraq and Afghanistan, which the United States has left in ruins by supporting “pro-democracy efforts.”

An image of President Barack Obama wearing fake ears and the slogan "Obama go home" on a street wall in Caracas, Venezuela. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro regularly sets social media afire with support, with heavily trending anti-U.S. campaigns such #ObamaYankeeGoHome and #ObamaRepealTheExecutiveOrder, which denounced U.S. sanctions on members of Maduro’s administration. (AP/Ariana Cubillos)

Citizens of both Venezuela and Syria have affirmed that they — not bureaucrats in Washington or wealthy elites on Wall Street — will be the molders of their own destiny.

In Venezuela, for example, over eight million people participated in the country’s July 30 National Constituent Assembly vote, electing 545 candidates to help rewrite the Constitution. The democratic process, which was undertaken and implemented in accordance with the country’s laws, is intended to bring together broad sectors of society in order to secure peace and stability.

Since the National Constituent Assembly vote took place, opposition leaders have remained divided on whether to participate in upcoming regional elections. Opposition protests have also lost popularity among swaths of citizens who are tired of violence and yearn for peace and stability.

And in Syria, Assad’s government has successfully liberated dozens of Daesh and rebel-held areas that had been living under the gun for years. The Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party has also been able to restore electricity, running water and other important infrastructure in areas that were previously destroyed by the Syrian opposition and Saudi-backed terrorists.

With help from Russia and Iran, Syria has also been able to create four safe zones across the country, which serve as an important first step toward re-establishing peace and unity in the Middle Eastern nation.

What remains clear is this: the Venezuelan and Syrian oppositions, which were born together as twin faces of modern imperialism, are also destined to wither away alongside one another.

Australia – Goodbye Internet Privacy, Hello Police State – By Ryan Jones (Sott.net)

It hasn’t been a Good News Week over the last seven days in Australia. You all remember us, right? We may be on the other side of the world, way down under, and not very significant politically, but as a vassal of the American empire, what happens down here is usually pretty indicative of what’s happening in the rest of the “international community”. So let’s see what this latest week had in store for us.

On Friday morning, the 14th of July, the prime minister of the ‘Lucky Country’ informed the multiverse that math was no longer relevant in Australia. Here’s the quote:

Malcolm Turnbull: “Well the laws of Australia prevail in Australia I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.

Apparently, laws written by politicians and enforced by judges and juries, can somehow overrule basic mathematical concepts such as “1+1=2”, proven in the early 20th century and documented in the Principia Mathematica by Whitehead & Russell, and intuitively known by humans for millennia if not longer. Clearly, Malcolm Turnbull has joined the neocon “reality creator” club, where a person can just “act” and the rest of us can then “judiciously” study the ‘reality’ they just supposedly created. The laws of government trump those that govern reality. Obviously.

The larger agenda behind this bizarrely stupid comment concerns the security agencies of the “Five Eyes” governments and their desire to remove the last vestiges of privacy from the Internet, and thus hopefully achieve “full spectrum dominance” in the face of an empowered Eurasia.

On Friday, the government unveiled plans to introduce legislation this year that would force internet companies to assist law enforcement in decrypting messages sent with end-to-end encryption.The package will also contain authority for the Australian Federal Police to “remotely monitor computer networks and devices”, a power currently possessed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and force handset makers to help authorities break into devices they sell.

End-to-end encryption is exactly what the name suggests – encryption that secures the communication from the point of transmission from one participant to the point of reception for all others, and vice versa. If the communication is facilitated by intermediaries, all those intermediaries will see will be encrypted data, with no way for any of them to obtain the information in the communication. Popular software such as “Signal”, “Telegram”, and even Apple’s proprietary iMessage software use end-to-end encryption to preserve the integrity and privacy of the information their users receive and transmit.

The complex mathematics that encryption is based upon make it very difficult to ‘unscramble’ a ‘scrambled’ message via automated, sequential calculation in a reasonable amount of time – unless you have the ‘password’ (or ‘key’) that simplifies the ‘unscrambling’ (decryption) process. As the computation capabilities of modern computers have rapidly increased over the last few decades, encryption methods have needed to change in order to prevent unauthorised decryption from becoming something that could be accomplished quickly. There are also ways to analyse cryptographic methods (algorithms) in order to find ‘short-cuts’ through the mathematics that don’t require massive repetitions of calculations in order to decrypt encrypted messages. This is commonly referred to as ‘breaking’ or ‘cracking’ the algorithm. MD5 and SHA-1 are examples of two common, long-standing cryptographic functions that have been made insecure by advances in mathematical knowledge. The debate over whether ‘uncrackable’ cryptography is a fantasy is a long-standing one, and beyond the scope of this article.

Regardless of what Australian PM “Trumble”, as he was famously called by Sean Spicer (or “Truffles” as he’s also known in Australia) may think, what they are attempting to achieve is insanely difficult. Australian Attorney­ General (and apparent flaming psychopath) George Brandis stated to the prime minister that he was informed by the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) intelligence agency that the government’s plan to bust encrypted messages is possible:

“Last Wednesday, I met with the chief cryptographer at GCHQ … and he assured me this was feasible. What the government is proposing to do is to impose upon the companies an obligation conditioned by reasonableness and proportionality.” Brandis said that if the companies that are compelled by these laws disagree, then he will see them in court.

Clearly, the tech giants aren’t impressed, because only a few hours after this statement, Facebook issued a response saying: “Weakening encrypted systems for them [police] would mean weakening it for everyone” and “[there is] a protocol in place to respond to [law enforcement] requests where we can.” Apple declined to even comment on the matter. Having stood up to the FBI over national-security-related bullying in the San Bernardino false-flag terror case, it’s unlikely that Apple (or any other major tech company) will even pause stride at the Trumble government’s announcement.

That being said, is there any truth to the GCHQ chief cryptographer’s advice to Brandis? It would be stupid to assume that Brandis did not first check with Australian security agencies (ASIO, and possibly the ASD) to verify the claims made by GCHQ before the government potentially opened themselves to a public fight that could make them look like clueless retards and put the final nail into the coffin of their government. This means we can reasonably conclude that the Aussie ‘deep state’ is in accord with its UK kindred, and most likely the rest of the “Five Eyes” group as well. And who invented these near-ubiquitous encryption algorithms? The NSA of course – part of the infamous US ‘deep state’!

What it all boils down to is this: if the government and tech companies can bypass encryption, that essentially means the encryption is not really encryption. And when one person or organization can bypass it, someone else can too. And that defeats the purpose of encryption entirely, which is to protect the privacy of the average citizen. If you think privacy isn’t important, next time you’re talking to a friend or family member on the phone, imagine if the conversation was being automatically listened to by a government official. How does that make you feel?

So, if the Masters of Encryption need to show the Tech Giants who the real ‘boss’ is by publicly humiliating them through triggering their ‘secret weapon’ of flawed encryption of their own creation, surely they risk a) causing massive disruption to the infrastructure of the Internet (and any commerce that depends on it) and b) losing a key strategic advantage in surveillance technology – after all, the “190 Eyes” of the rest of the world will immediately shift to a different technology to secure their systems, and may become opaque to the “Five”.

Thus, if they intend to do so, they must see a benefit to be had after emerging from such chaos. And if such a benefit exists, why have they not put this strategy into motion already? There are several converging factors to consider here:

  1. The US Petrodollar is collapsing, and as a result, so is the US economy.
  2. The US is being militarily stymied in its quest for resource dominance in the Middle East.
  3. Russian and Chinese high-tech industries are beginning to catch up to (and even exceed) those in the US.
  4. Years of cyber attacks against Russian infrastructure have been yielding no results, and Russian cyber security may actually be superior to US cyber warfare capabilities.
  5. The current US Trump Administration is openly defiant of attempts to have democratic processes and leadership roles in the US manipulated in the customary way.
  6. Solar Systemic Changes producing a global climate shift have been underway for decades, and the effects of drastic climate rebalancing may soon become more palpable to all across the world, potentially causing mass social upheaval in the most inequitable countries.

Another data point is what the Australian PM did next. On Monday morning, the 17th, he announced:

changes to the “call out” powers which will empower the military to join local police in confronting terror threats and grant special forces the ability to shoot-to-kill. […] Australian barrister and spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance Greg Barns likened the new military powers legislation to “martial law”, when military control is imposed over civilian government during war. “Martial law, from Malcolm Turnbull, who last week said the Liberal Party stood for freedom”. Former Department of Defence secretary Paul Barrett also took to social media to warn Australians of his concerns over what he interpreted as “very dangerous legislation”.

© The Sydney Morning Herald

Announced in front of heavily-armed, gas mask-clad Special Forces troops (the photos speak for themselves), not even two days after the shooting death of an Australian woman by trigger-happy police in the US, the new laws take all the worst aspects of militarized policing directly from France & the US, effectively giving Australian troops legal immunity if they were ever ordered to kill Australian citizens.

Not surprisingly, the Australian mainstream media responded with… nothing. Or rather, just brief reports of the main facts before pointedly moving on to other stories. Even most of the alt-media was fairly quiet. Or course, they didn’t have much time to reflect upon it, because with a “one-two” that would have made Muhammad Ali proud, Trumble was back in front of the cameras the next day to announce the formation of Australia’s new Gestap… err… “Department of Home Affairs”. It seems “Home Office” and “Homeland Security” were already taken.

Actually, “Home Affairs” is an appropriate name, because it reflects the kind of adulterous relationship the Australian government has with its ex (the UK government) and legal partner (the US government). Australia will happily bend over whenever the US asks, but it seems like it just has to run back to the UK every so often for a bit of that “stiff upper lovin’ “, as former avowed Republican Turnbull did just the previous week. I guess he and his compadres needed some advice.

The new ministerial portfolio of ‘Home Affairs’ is a merger of oversight responsibilities for no less than six existing agencies – the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Border Force, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, and the Office of Transport Security.

The entity placed in charge of this new behemoth security apparatus was none other than former Minister for Immigration, Peter Dutton. Overseas readers may be familiar with his name – he has been responsible (in recent years) for destroying Australia’s international reputation and overseeing the crushing of all hope of refugees in the Australian deterrence… sorry… ‘detention’ centres of Manus Island & Nauru, a role where he committed such devoted acts of service as:

As David Donovan at Independent Australia writes:

“…there simply couldn’t be a better person for the role of running Australia’s new Austasi. As a former Queensland drug cop who quite unsuspiciously became extremely wealthy soon after leaving the force, there is no reason whatsoever to fear he may use his position for his own benefit. Perish the thought! His incorruptibility is, as we all know, legendary. And, of course, he will be firm but fair – as shown by his sensitive and not at all human rights abusing tenure overlooking Australia’s overseas refugee holiday camps.”

Sarah Smith, also at Independent Australia, writes:

“Refugee advocates have long-warned that what the Government sees fit to do to refugees, they are capable of doing to Australians. Still, we were not joined in the streets by millions protesting the detention and deportation of people who – just like them – called Australia home. The protests numbered only in the thousands and, when this was seen to be insufficient to sway the government to end their inhumane policies, the numbers did not grow. So perhaps it is fitting that on this, the four year anniversary of a decision that has caused suicides, deaths from medical negligence, physical and psychological impairment, and has been described as “inhuman” by the United Nations, we are now party to a new decision. A decision that will affect all of us and, if it doesn’t personally cost us our liberty or our lives, has the potential to do so for our families, our friends, our teachers, our students, our neighbours and our colleagues.”

Ominously, these rapid-fire blitzkriegs on freedom in Australia were marked by another set of seemingly unrelated events. Two sitting senators for the Green party, widely recognised as excellent, intelligent individuals and each unique among their peers in the Upper House of the Australian Parliament, were forced to resign suddenly when it was discovered that they held dual citizenship of Australia and a second country.

Section 44 of the Australian Constitution forbids dual-national citizens from taking up a post as an elected Member of Parliament in Australia, so there was no legal uncertainty about the situation. Normally such details are checked by multiple people (assistants, lawyers, etc.) in major political parties, but the oversight has cost them and their country dearly. Both were the co-deputy leaders of their party. Richard Di Natale, leader of the Greens, the party that represents the environment in Australian politics, temporarily stands alone while new deputies are appointed and replacement Senators found for the vacated seats.

Significantly, one of the former senators, Scott Ludlam, was considered to be one of the most knowledgeable politicians in Parliament regarding the Internet and Information Technology – he announced his retirement the same day that Malcolm Turnbull (widely viewed as one of the primary saboteurs of the Labor-party­-designed National Broadband Network) announced that the Laws of mathematics were irrelevant when it came to law in Australia.

The other former senator, Larissa Waters, made headlines not long ago by becoming the first Australian MP to breastfeed her baby daughter, Alia Joy Waters, while delivering an address to the Senate. She was generally applauded for this courageous act.

Malcom Turnbull’s placing of Peter Dutton in a position of such power is an egregious mistake that he will live to regret. Andrew Lobaczewski, in his seminal work Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes made the following observation about leaders of totalitarian regimes, but the main point applies just as well to the government of Australia:

“An observer watching such a union’s [the current Australian LNP government] activities from the outside and using the natural psychological world view will always tend to overestimate the role of the leader and his allegedly autocratic function. The spellbinders and the propaganda apparatus are mobilized to maintain this erroneous outside opinion.”

Many Australians fervently believe that their Prime Minister holds absolute power as the head of government, and to a certain extent, the mainstream media support this current delusion. Since 2009 though, awareness is creeping in that political parties in Australia have the power to ‘chop and change’ their leader at will, and this has been observed numerous times since Kevin Rudd was deposed as PM in 2010 – he ousted Julia Gillard a few years later, then Tony Abbott was dispatched similarly after winning government for the LNP. Media (even mainstream media) speculation has been rife that Turnbull’s current grip on power is shaky at best, but no obvious usurper has been identified yet.

“The leader, however, is dependent upon the interests of the union, especially the elite initiates, to an extent greater than he himself knows. He wages a constant position-jockeying battle; he is an actor with a director. In macrosocial unions, this position is generally occupied by a more representative individual not deprived of certain critical faculties; initiating him into all those plans and criminal calculations would be counterproductive.”

One of the reasons Turnbull was able to seize power from Abbott was that he was able to convince the majority of the LNP that he represented a ‘moderate’, ‘rational’, and ‘sensible’ approach compared with the idiotic extremism of Tony Abbott, a man who humiliated his country and even more so himself, by threatening to “shirtfront” Vladimir Putin at the G20 meeting of 2015 when it was held in Brisbane. Arguably, that was the foolhardy move that finished Abbott’s short-lived career as Australian PM.

Turnbull has always been considered a ‘leftist among conservatives’ in the LNP, based on his Republican movement background, ‘scientific’ approach to climate change (according to the mainstream perspective), and superficial grasp of technology issues. Although this gave him (and the government) a large popularity boost when he took over from Abbott, he has repeatedly been manipulated into making bad decisions that have possibly eroded his ability to truly assert himself as a leader strong enough to control the extremist elements in his ponerized party. With this latest series of announcements, he seems to have crossed a certain threshold of delusion, and appears to be embracing (and publicly expounding) pathological ideas.

In conjunction with part of the elite, a group of psychopathic individuals hiding behind the scenes steers the leader, the way Bormann and his clique steered Hitler. If the leader does not fulfill his assigned role, he generally knows that the clique representing the elite of the union is in a position to kill or otherwise remove him.

Turnbull appears to be quite aware of this now. His pronouncements and press conferences have taken on the tone of someone who is saying what he believes he should say, rather than what he thinks. Unfortunately, his delusions and lack of knowledge are blinding him to the fact that only those with bonafide psychopathy are considered to be candidates for the ‘elite’ within a pathocracy, and so he will never be told the full story. He will be used as a puppet, and discarded once he is no longer of value to them. Perhaps he has been held hostage to the nutjobs within his party for so long now that he has developed some sort of political ‘Stockholm Syndrome’. In any case, his critical thinking abilities seem to have atrophied to the point where it is unlikely he will ever achieve what he had hoped to by becoming prime minister.

And the spider, Peter Dutton, appears to have received the ‘nod’ from the elites within the party to proceed with the hidden agenda of ‘reforming’ Australia’s security apparatus and bending it to their will, so that Australian citizens will soon wake up to find themselves in a similar sort of situation as their UK siblings – spied upon at every turn, intimidated into self-censorship, blasted continually with propaganda, and manipulated into proceeding down the path that is planned for them: focusing their attention on the goals and outcomes that the so-called ‘elites’ desire, one of which is to continue to turn public opinion against both Russia and China.

But Russia has already called the empire’s bluff militarily. The likelihood of an all-out ‘scorched earth’ nuclear war has come and gone with Hillary Clinton. Faced with the failure of their keystone ‘regime change’ foreign policy in Syria, Iran, and North Korea (by which they attempted to contain, isolate, besiege, and dominate Russia & China), the Project for a New American Century, and the neoconservatives behind it, are finished. With the recent death of Zbigniew Brezinski, one of the masterminds of anti-Russian geopolitical strategy is gone. Is it simply coincidence that John McCain, one of the chief neocon warmongers in the US government, was just diagnosed with brain cancer? There have been renewed calls for Tony Blair to be held accountable for war crimes in Iraq, and John Howard receives criticism every time he makes a public appearance in Australia.

So what is the empire’s ‘Plan B’?

Thus we return to the subject of encryption, and the converging factors that point to a reaction by the “Five Eyes” into making final preparations to ‘pull the trigger’ on their Information ‘secret weapon’: to remove effective encryption capabilities for private citizens while simultaneously creating vulnerabilities in systems all around the world that could be quickly exploited to further a coordinated agenda. What comprises such an agenda might be highly speculative, but consider that with the moves in the West toward cashless economies, an automated workforce, and militarised police states, a situation noted by many alt-­media commentators and writers may be plausible: that a ‘global economic reset’ is in the works. And consider that without encryption, or more specifically, the commercial confidence that encryption enables, blockchain-based virtual currencies such as BitCoin will become useless.

Given the sudden development of an economic collapse, the U.S. ‘deep state’ would only need to activate such a plan, and not only would it disrupt global encrypted communications using the trojan protocols, but the financial consequences would be magnified many times over, and it could all be blamed upon ‘cybercrime activity by mysterious hacker groups’ with ridiculous names and unlikely origins. Note how many sets of military-grade cyber-weaponry have made it into the public domain over the last few years via ‘leaks’.

While such a ‘bigger picture’ is highly speculative, the prognosis for Australia is, sadly, less speculative. Rather than embracing the opportunities offered by an ascendant Eurasia, the Turnbull government, in thrall to its security agencies (and those of the UK and the USA), has once again doubled-down on the failed policies of a dying empire. Rather than foreswearing the “Five Eyes” and charting their own course, it seems Australian politicians are too addicted to power and cheap spy novels to make sensible and rational decisions.

Perhaps, after a little more time, experience and of course suffering, the Australian people will understand the nature of the creatures that currently occupy their Parliament, and choose to do something about it.

Famine Plagues Somalia, Yemen Amid US Military Adventurism, Empire Building – By Roqayah Chamseddine

In Somalia, a U.S.-led “war on terror” has led to a rise in extremism that has exacerbated the country’s famine, while in Yemen, a Saudi blockade has prevented much-needed food from reaching its people. And yet, many in the West remain unaware of their plight.

A Somali woman walks through a camp of people displaced from their homes elsewhere in the country by the drought, shortly after dawn in Qardho, Somalia Thursday, March 9, 2017. (AP/Ben Curtis)

SYDNEY — In a part of the world where little attention is given beyond the briefest of news flashes, there is an ongoing famine impacting countless lives. Spurred in part by both drought and war, a famine is now casting its long shadow over millions of people across the Middle East and many parts of Africa.

Foreign interventionism, U.S. arms manufacturing and humanitarian aid that often comes too little and too late have helped twist a knife in wounds made by war and colonialism. This endless, man-made cycle continues to unleash devastating consequences.

Somalia, where the U.S. has been waging a covert drone war, is no stranger to famine. Between 2011 and 2012, over 260,000 died, half of them children under the age of 5, making it the worst famine in the last 25 years. Data from Somalia’s Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit (FSNAU) shows that 4.6 percent of the total population and 10 percent of children under 5 died in southern and central Somalia alone during that time.



The report argues that a combination of events led to the devastating famine, starting with weather conditions, which were the driest seen in the eastern Horn of Africa in 60 years. The organization found that “the result was widespread livestock deaths, the smallest cereal harvest since the 1991-94 civil war, and a major drop in labor demand, which reduced household income.”

In addition, the amount of humanitarian aid delivered to southern Somalia in 2010 and 2011 was exceptionally low, “especially compared to 2008-2009, when food aid accounted for a significant proportion of national cereal supply.” Not mentioned in FSNAU’s report is the U.S.-led “war on terror” and wider counter-terrorism policies, which have brought about the rise of extremist groups like al-Shabaab.

These groups have used humanitarian aid as tools in their arsenal, largely due to not being able to trust Western aid. Madeleine Bunting, the associate editor for The Guardian, argues that “al-Shabaab’s suspicion is rooted in the experience of a decade of devious U.S. manipulation. Somalia has been the war on terror’s sideshow.”

The theft of resources and the wider impact of British colonialism in Somalia have left a mark on the country. In recent times, the United States has continued to pillage Somalia for resources while clamping down with military might. In 1993, during the Clinton presidency, images of famine and war were used by the administration to convince Americans that their support of U.S. military efforts was necessary – a kind of “humanitarian imperialism” that continues today.

U.S. Marines load ammunition and weapons on a truck in Mogadishu, Somalia's, Bakara Market December 2006. A Marine stands holding a M60 machine gun, left, pointing it at a crowd of Somali civilians standing at the right. (Photo/Expert Infantry via Flickr)

“We went [to Somalia] because only the United States could help stop one of the great human tragedies of this time,” Clinton said. “In a sense, we came to Somalia to rescue innocent people in a burning house.” What Bill Clinton didn’t disclose was that the United States was one of the primary reasons why the house was on fire to begin with, and military efforts would not be putting out the flames.

In 2014, Somalia’s petroleum ministry accused the Norwegian oil company DNO of exploiting Somalia. In an official statement, the ministry argued that small [oil] companies “are destabilizing the country and destroying the international community’s effort to build the peace and the security of the country.” The ministry went on to accuse DNO of “introducing armed militiamen in areas already in conflict and thereby stoking old feuds which resulted in internal displacement and harming the innocent and the most vulnerable people.”

25-year-old Liban Adam, a Minnesota resident, and community organizer, told MintPress that the last two years have been especially difficult on the people of Somalia, compelling Adam, and other community members to start donation campaigns for famine relief. They managed to raise $200,000 in March.


Related: The Hunger Games: How Modern Imperialism Creates Famine Around the World


“This last famine affected half of the population of Somalia, and this includes many families living in rural and urban settings. The impact from the lack of rain and emergency planning led to livestock not having enough food, and people not seeing crop output. It was a ripple effect and it touched many families in a personal way,” Adam said.

The reaction from the Somali diaspora has been swift and energized, with their mobilization efforts in Minnesota helping to provide aid to thousands by way of food distribution, water programs and medical emergency kits. Through organizations like The Somali Care Foundation, Adam and other members of his community are helping many victims of famine and hunger. “We aim to teach families to be sustainable and show them how they can move forward by themselves. We will continue to the find best solutions to help and fight poverty in any country that needs help,” he said.

Adam explained that members of Somalia’s diaspora community are mobilizing in any way that they can, “from collecting funds from events to spreading the message to popular singers and talking about the issues with those around them. In that moment there was a genuine sense of unity to fight against the famine, despite our differences,” he said.

 

Yemenis feeling brunt of Saudi blockade of food aid

In Yemen, Saudi coalition forces have killed entire families in bombing raids, right at the tail end of a war that is in its third year. Fuad Rajeh, a resident of Yemen’s city of Sana’a, told MintPress that what he’s witnessed in Yemen can only be described as the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.

“People are dying from hunger or committing suicide because of it. In Sana’a, families are living in harsh conditions: many have one meal a day, and some can’t find a meal for days,” he said. The overall situation in Yemen is “catastrophic” in Rajeh’s words, and it is impacting everyone “without exception.”

According to Rajeh, nearly 21 million people across the country, or more than two-thirds of the population, are in desperate need of some kind of assistance. The United Nations has found that some 9.8 million Yemenis currently require immediate assistance in order to stay alive, while 10.8 million require humanitarian assistance “to stabilize their situation and to prevent them from slipping into acute need.”

UN humanitarian needs infograph Yemen

In Taiz and Hodeidah, two of Yemen’s most densely-populated cities, the situation is steadily worsening. Due to the ongoing war and Saudi-led blockade, these cities are not receiving enough aid, including food and medical supplies. In Hodeidah, which is home to Yemen’s main port, war threatens to disrupt food access, as the port is the point of entry for almost 80 percent of the country’s food imports. Residents are now forced to starve to death, with little chance of escape.

Rajeh, a 39-year-old journalist and translator, has seen the impact of the war and famine first-hand. “My family is struggling like other families,” he admitted. “The war has affected everyone and every family in Yemen without exception. Everyone is suffering.”

Rajeh added that basic services in Yemen are collapsing, with many places having lacked food, water, medicine, electricity and security since April 2015. The country’s agricultural industry has also been heavily impacted by the war, as airstrikes that have targeted farms and wells have further compounded the nation’s suffering.

In regards to medicine, there are acute shortages of many pharmaceutical products, especially for those with chronic illnesses. The cost of medicine and other related products has increased dramatically. “Yemen’s health care system is collapsing,” Rajeh said.

“Less than 45 percent of the country’s hospitals are operational at the moment and are coping with huge challenges on top of which is a lack of medicine and other medical requirements and staff.” But despite warnings from relief agencies, Saudi Arabia and its allies, including the U.S., have continued to assist in the blockade and bombing of Yemen, with the U.S. providing arms. By blocking vital naval ports, Saudi Arabia is facilitating a famine that is unlike any other in recent memory.


Related: The Politics Of The Forgotten Humanitarian Crises In Yemen And Gaza


Author and investigative journalist Gareth Porter argues that Saudi Arabia has been intentionally “choking off access to food and fuel for most of Yemen’s population” so as to increase pressure on the local resistance. Saudi Arabia’s tactics have included targeting emergency services, such as hospitals, and agricultural infrastructure that is already under pressure.

“The consequences of the blockade on the nutrition and health of the civilian population were bound to be devastating,” he writes. All the while, the previous U.S. administration was well aware of Saudi Arabia’s tactics and the current administration has renewed arms deals with the Kingdom. Despite Saudi Arabia’s flagrant human rights violations, they’ve managed to gain a 3-year seat at the United Nation’s Human Rights Council, giving the Kingdom a chance to influence the self-described “principle human rights body.”

The sinister mix of warfare and drought has led to fast-spreading crop destruction, which has produced long-term agricultural impacts, including food shortages and starvation. All of this has resulted in the deaths of countless people who, for much of the outside world, do not exist. But as Rajeh and others explained, the impact this has had on these people has been immediate and unmeasurable.

The consequences of arms dealing and global warfare in Somalia, Yemen and other oft-forgotten countries serves as a prescient warning – should this continue, as many aid organizations believe it will, the results will be far more catastrophic for those most in need.

%d bloggers like this: