Liveleak.com Rss Feed -

Sweet subaru WRX and a sweet EVO 8

WrxboostinWrx — Fri, 10 May 2013 14:15:00 -0400

At my job people got all sorts of nice cars from GTR s on the lot to cobra mustangs. In this instance it's two bad ass Japanese cars. The Wrx has custom black paint on the hood scoop, fenders, fog lamp covers, and trunk lid molding. As well as blacked out emblems. The EVO not to sure about. But still looks real nice to

US & Israel Duplicit In Attemted Downfall Of Syria !

omniradar — Wed, 08 May 2013 10:00:05 -0400

It is quite a long piece, but very informative indeed. Was the Syria Chemical Weapons Probe "Torpedoed" by the West? By Adam Larson Global Research, May 02, 2013 Region: Middle East & North Africa Theme: US NATO War Agenda In-depth Report: SYRIA: NATO'S NEXT WAR? Since the perplexing conflict in Syria first broke out two years ago, the Western powers' assistance to the anti-government side has been consistent, but relatively indirect. The Americans and Europeans lay the mental, legal, diplomatic, and financial groundwork for regime change in Syria. Meanwhile, Arab/Muslim allies in Turkey and the Persian Gulf are left with the heavy lifting of directly supporting Syrian rebels, and getting weapons and supplementary fighters in place. The involvement of the United States in particular has been extremely lackluster, at least in comparison to its aggressive stance on a similar crisis in Libya not long ago. Hopes of securing major American and allied force, preferrably a Libya-style "no-fly zone," always leaned most on U.S. president Obama's announcement of December 3, 2012, that any use of chemical weapons (CW) by the Assad regime - or perhaps their simple transfer - will cross a "red line." And that, he implied, would trigger direct U.S. intervention. This was followed by vague allegations by the Syrian opposition - on December 6, 8, and 23 - of government CW attacks. Nothing changed, and the allegations stopped for a while. However, as the war entered its third year in mid-March, 2013, a slew of new allegations came flying in. This started with a March 19 attack on Khan Al-Assal, a contested western district of Aleppo, killing a reported 25-31 people. Dramatic imagery run by state news agency SANA and from a Reuters photographer showed people - including children - suffering breathing problems, some already deceased. The Syrian government and related sources were the first to report it, blaming "terrorists" as usual. In an equally predictable answer, rebels accused the Syrian military of launching the attack. Syria demanded an investigation into the event by the United Nations, and everyone else agreed. A team was assembled, but then in early April Syria blocked them, for reasons that come across as mysterious. Soon, the world was hearing unprecedent recognition that perhaps Obama's "red line" had been crossed - not by "terrorists" but by the Assad regime - somewhere, at some times since December. The deadly nerve agent sarin is increasingly specified for reasons that aren't entirely clear. All this has kicked off a renewed drive for intervention based on intelligence assessments of WMD dangers, evoking widely-noted memories of the bogus U.S. case for war on Syria's ally Iraq one decade ago. Although the latest developments cast doubt on the imminence of outright military involvement - yet again - the danger persists, and the purported reasons deserve scrutiny. It's only been six weeks since this saga began, but they were weeks of the whirlwind sort. Considering where all the twirling has left us - horribly confused, if not on the brink of war - I offer this article towards unspinning the record to discover just what happened in that time. Three Highlighted Chemical Weapons Allegations At the start of the six weeks was the March 19 incident in Khan al-Assal, Aleppo and Syria's dramatic charges over it. But before considering that or the investigation saga, it might be useful to briefly outline the three reported attacks forced now into question, as they are confused. The investigation model now prevailing, first prposed by the Bristish and French governments on March 21, involved three incidents singled out; Khan al-Assal and a same-day incident in the Damascus area, as well as another one in the city of Homs, on December 23, 2012. The opposition Local Coordination Committees (LCC), drawing on front-line fighters, reported the incident at Otaybah (Ateiba) near Damascus, in their daily summary of March 19. (interestingly, this mentions two CW incidents, while failing to mention the Aleppo incident. In its place they mentioned a possible gas attack in Baba Amr, Homs, which no one else has repeated since). The LCC said "fierce shelling with chemical rockets targeted Ateibeh town today," causing "a large number" of people to suffer breathing problems, nausea, and "hysteria," as well as causing the death of some "martyrs." The number of fatalities is not stated, here or anywhere easily found. Otaybah is reported to have been a rebel-held area, but very near Syrian military positions, adding plausibility to the report. Also of interest is that SANA and the Syrian government had nothing immediately to say on the incident there. There would be further CW allegations in the east Damascus suburbs: Aadra March 24, Jobar April 6, and Otaybah again April 9, at least. All came with some evidence but slim details, and are sure to increase interest in investigating there. One or more of these sites would allegedly yield soil samples with possible traces of sarin gas (see below). The December Homs Attack listed in the Anglo-French letter was talked about at the time, in many dramatic news reports. A handful of videos from a clinic in the Al-Bayada district show patients gasping horribly for breath. All victims seem to be rebel fighters in civilian dress. The death toll was said to be six, with as many as 100 people exposed. People took this charge seriously, but it was dismissed by mid-January as not a CW attack. CNN reported then on a State Department investigation that found it was probably a riot-control gas used in the wrong concentration. Further, CNN hear that Turkey also looked into this case "but found the claims to be unsubstantiated." The methodology was not explained, and the dismissal is not certain. Now the incident is back in the limelight, thought by the British and French to require urgent scrutiny. Khan Al-Assal But however important those other cases are, all this investigation drama began immediately after the well-documented incident in Aleppo. Little about the event is agreed on by both sides, but where the strike happened is one commonality. Khan al-Assal has been in rebel hands, but almost everyone agrees to consider it government-held by the 19th (aside from a rebel-occupied police academy). Channel 4's Alex Thomson heard that authorities only re-established full control two days before the attack (he also heard it was a predominately Shi'ite district.) Rebels say the regime hit its own area either on accident, or to make it look like rebels did it. That Syrians were killed in moderate numbers is not contested. The early reports specified 25-26 fatalities, with some rebel estimates lower, and the government tally later adjusted to 31. In the images publicized, some victims are civilians, including women and children, and some are fighting age males in Syrian army uniforms. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), an opposition group but with a variety of sources, reported a "rocket" (no mention of gas) causing 26 fatalities - ten civilians, 16 soldiers. SANA said the rocket hit "in a region populated by civilians," but only 300 meters from a Syrian Arab Army post. No one disputes the date. This itself is a clue, coming as it does after several events that invited a crossing of Obama's "red line." From March 15-18, the rebellion's second anniversary passed, the U.S. treasury freed citizens to finance Syria's opposition, NATO reminded everyone they were prepared for war, and a U.S. citizen from Texas was elected prime minister of the Syrian National Coalition. When Ghassan Hitto was chosen on March 18, the Syrian-American Council "said the decision should assuage the Obama administration's concerns about who would lead Syria should President Bashar al-Assad be deposed." Why Damascus would decided to test Obama's chemical ultimatum on the morning of the 19th, of all times, is difficult to understand. Further, the approximate time of that test is one more undisputed point: around 7:30-8:00 am by all accounts. But just about everything else is disagreed. Various chemical agents have been suggested by rebels and their supporters, but sarin is not one of them; the later talk of that seems to surround soil from one of the Damascus area attacks. However, an industrial accident has been suggested, along with "super strength tear gas" and something with "traces of cyanide." Israeli DEBKA file heard from "Western military sources" an educated guess that chlorine, phosphorous, and a nerve agent (BZ or Agent 15) were used in "the Scud B rocket which exploded in the Aleppo neighborhood of Khan al-Assal." Perhaps most intriguingly, the U.S.-based Syrian Support Group intriguingly cited "echothiophate" for both March 19 attacks, Damascus and Aleppo. Widely used as a treatment for the eye ailment glaucoma, this could be a clue that president Bashar Al-Assad, a former eye doctor, personally made the poison choice. Besides these, there seem to be no other concrete guesses as to what hit Khan al-Assal. The way the gas was delivered comes across in opposition reports, vaguely, as something rebels don't have. At least two alleged witnesses cite fighter jets, one specifying that they missed their target by about 5 km. The more widely accepted explanation is a surface-to-surface missile, probably a Scud. But this too has problems; CNN spoke to "a senior State Department official" who said there was no radar or satellite data to "indicate there was a launch of a missile at the time Syrians say the alleged attack occurred." That's the same time rebels say an alleged Scud was launched, so whether he meant to or not, the official contradicted the rebel claim here. In contrast, the government claims a smaller homemade rocket, armed with a chlorine and saline warhead, was fired on their forces. Supporting the chemical claim, the first reports had noted that residents said they could smell chlorine in the area following the attack. And consider that the launch of a smaller projectile like this should probably not show up in the data CNN referred to, meaning that clue (if it's even true) does not coflict with the government version, the way it does the rebel one. One issue working against the Damascus version is the two firing locations specified. First SANA reported the rocket came from Kafr Dael (Kafr Taal on Wikimapia, 13 km west of Khan al-Assal). Later Alex Thomson heard that al-Bab, 47 km northeast, was the suspected origin. While no more than one of those can be correct, either is entirely plausible. Rockets that could reach from al-Bab are rare, but one improvised model launched on video, near Damascus in February, was said by its handlers to have a range of 60 kilometers. This, or some equivalent weapon, could work from either specified locale the following month. As for the chlorine, it's known to be held by rebels in large amounts. CNN's Aryn Baker related how the reported smell of the attack stood out to "the owner of Syria's only chlorine-gas manufacturing plant," Mohammad Sabbagh. He had fled to Lebanon, and spoke to Baker in Beirut. He says the plant, just east of Aleppo, was taken over by Jabhat al-Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria) in August 2012. "There is no other factory in Syria that can make this gas, and now it is under opposition control," he says." He hears that the plant is not operating now, but Sabbagh "has no idea what has happened, if anything," to the one-ton tanks of chlorine gas, roughly 400 of which once stored there. Sabbagh is supported in his account by a head of the Aleppo Chamber of Industry. Passing through Beirut, he told Baker "we warned back then that chemical components were in the hands of terrorists, but no one listened." At play then are: plenty of chlorine, rockets with range, expertise obtainable to serious terrorist networks, and many basing areas within range of loyalist-held Khan al-Assal. Given all that, it's little comfort to hear as a denial, from opposition spokesman Louay Meqdad,"we have neither long-range missiles nor chemical weapons. And if we did, we wouldn't use them against a rebel target." Syria, in contrast, swears if they had CW, they would never use them against their own people at all. As we examine the battle over an investigation, it should be noted from the start that the case for a rebel attack in Aleppo is stronger and clearer than most realize. In fact it seems clearer by a healthy margin than the version rebels have so far offered. Yet that narrative and that attack in general have been effectively sidelined, in favor of whole other alleged attacks. Conflicting Urgencies at the U.N.: The Battle Over Scope Both initial versions of the gas attack on Khan Al-Assal, reported by the warring Syrian parties, came with moral denunciation of the perpetators on the other side, and these were echoed by outside supporters along unsurprising lines. Russia's foreign ministry, for example, said "the use of chemical weapons by the armed opposition ... (is) a new and extremely alarming and dangerous turn." They added "we are extremely, seriously concerned by the fact that weapons of mass destruction have gotten into militants' hands." The demand for an investigation began with Syria's government, the day after the attack. Their representative at the U.N., Dr. Bashar Al-Ja'afari, on the 20th requested the Secretary-General to form a "mission to investigate the use by the terrorist groups operating in Syria of chemical weapons yesterday against civilians." He specified that the effort should be "technical" "independent," and "neutral." Russia supported that, with deputy foreign minister Gennady Gatilov saying "we expect that the UN secretary general will promptly react to Syria's request." Iran backed the call, and continued pressing various nations and leaders, with little success, to condemn the attack as an opposition one. Western powers always publicly doubted rebels were behind the incident, but agreed it was worthy of investigation; every party was clear that they wanted the truth. Both sides agreed on using terms like "impartial" and "urgent" to describe their solutions, yet the best approach was consistently disagreed on. Both Russia and Syria complained on the 20th, the same day Syria first asked for a probe, that the UK and France had blocked it, in a "stalling" measure. The Western powers used the stall to explain, in a letter from France and the UK on the 21st, why the U.N. should instead "launch an urgent investigation into all allegations." In particular, they added the Otaybah attack, Reuters heard, "and one in Homs in December." On hearing a demand to investigate the Otaybah incident, representative al-Ja'afari said he'd never heard of it, proposing that it "was set up on purpose to torpedo the investigation on the real use of chemical weapons which took place in Aleppo." Russia's U.N. envoy Vitaly Churkin voiced suspicion that "this was really a way to delay the need for immediate, urgent investigation of allegations pertaining to March 19 by raising all sorts of issues." This "unjustified step" of widening the probe, Russia's foreign ministry warned (perhaps with some hyperbole) "wrecks the investigation of concrete information." U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon first seemed favorable to Syria's position; he announced on March 21 that "I am of course aware that there are other allegations of similar cases involving the reported use of chemical weapons," but the probe would focus on "the specific incident brought to my attention by the Syrian government." However, he announced on the 25th that it might be broadened, and asked for more information from everyone. Reuters was given letters between U.N. Disarmament director Angela Kane and Syria's Ja'afari, discussing the investigation's terms. In one, Kane said Aleppo would be the main focus, but "we must remain mindful of the other allegations that chemical weapons were used elsewhere in the country." It was apparently the U.N. end that leaked the conversation; an April 6 letter had Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem complaining to Secretary-General Ban that the leaks "left the impression of a lack of seriousness on the part of the (U.N.) secretariat on cooperation in good faith." That too was shared with Reuters. Syria's stern and narrow insistence on its initial request is clearly part of the impasse that resulted. Given the risks of war, it would seem unwise to refuse cooperation, and the exact reasons they didn't are not widely or clearly understood. There is the pride issue, and other considerations, like signs of bad faith (leaking letters), and of deeper duplicity. For example, it was promised that the Khan al-Assal portion of the probe would be handled "initially" and/or "primarily." But a Western diplomat told Reuters on March 27 that the U.N. team would be based in Beirut, Lebanon. That's clear across Syria from Aleppo, but quite near the sites around Damascus and Homs, which were the "primary" interests, it seems. Rather than blocking the investigation they requested, Damascus held open the door to Khan Al-Assal this whole time. Foreign minister Moualem even modified the offer on April 6, as a Reuters reported suumed it up, "the inspectors should go first to Aleppo and if they are seen to be impartial, the possibility of visiting Homs could be discussed." The Jerusalem Post reported that "Western delegations" didn't like this; they "said the Syrian response of April 6 was unacceptable and that the chemical weapons team must have assurances now that it can visit both Aleppo and Homs." (And also the Damascus area, presumably.) Whatever suspicion about what would happen afterwards, one site could be agreed to by all and investigated without delay. As the U.S. representative to the U.N., Susan Rice, said on the 21st, as Aleppo seemed to be the priority: "the United States supports an investigation that pursues any and all credible allegations ... as swiftly as possible." But Secretary-General Ban re-affirmed in a public statement of April 9 that it could wait. He said: "It is a matter of principle that when there is an allegation, whether it is one or two or multiple allegations, all these allegations should be investigated. Only then will we be sure that there was or there were uses of chemical weapons. Without that nobody can be sure." He does not explain why investigators needed to knowing what happened at x number of other sites in order to know what happened in Aleppo. But without bending to that inexplicably holistic philosophy, and its growing list of interlocking allegations, Syria would get no U.N. investigation at all. Perhaps for dramatic effect, as Ban noted, "an advance team was in Cyprus, ready to go to Syria within 24 hours. ... All we are waiting for is the go-ahead from the Syrian government ... to determine whether any chemicals weapons were used, in any location." It was quite an impasse. Syria's request, it could be argued, had been torpedoed. Rejecting Regime Change Maneuvers Besides the issue of which incidents to study, the Russian foreign ministry felt there was a shift from Syria's request for help to increasingly invasive demands on the government. They stated that the shift came "under pressure from Western members of the (security) council," and might represent "attempts to drag this issue out and turn an investigation under the aegis of the United Nations ... into an additional element of pressure for regime change." Russia said that for geopolitical balance, all permanent five (P5) members of the Security Council (US, UK, France, Russia, China) should send experts for the probe. Secretary-General Ban answered by banning scientists from all P5 members, as well as from other involved parties, like Gulf Arab states and Turkey. Syra thought they should have a say in staffing the investigation, but the U.N.'s Ban reserved the right. However, Ban decided the probe would instead be staffed by varied scientists from elsewhere, selected by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). As nice as that sounds, the OPCW's director-general is Ahmet "Uz"umc"u, a Turkish career diplomat with possibly compromising links to his belligerent nation. According to his Wikipedia entry, "Uz"umc"u was previously Turkey's consul in Aleppo, as well as ambassador in Israel and the permanent representative of Turkey to NATO. This could hardly help Syria to feel anything other than threatened; the selected scientists would be, in effect, deciding if they could turn up justification for the US/NATO to openly join in the war against Syria, waged most fiercely so far from Mr. "Uz"umc"u's home nation. From the outset, there were signs that the West and the U.N.'s leadership intended the requested investigation(s) to lead into Iraq-style inspections of Syria's closely-watched CW stockpiles. Ban Ki Moon insisted that the investigation would require "unfettered access" to locales not clearly defined, and cryptically noted "It is my hope that the mission would contribute to ensuring the safety and security of chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria." He didn't specify how a narrow, blame-free, technical mission to investigate what happened in one or even three locations would help make Syria's alleged CW more secure. That it would become a sneak inspections regime in the Iraq vein, however, might explain that strange hope. Syria's decision-makers can hardly have missed these further clues that this was the plan: 1) The investigation, staff, mandate, etc. was to be negotiated between Syria and, specifically, the U.N.'s office for Disarmament Affairs. 2) Swedish scientist Ake Sellstr"om was put in charge. He had previously been a chief inspector for UNSCOM, the U.N. inspection team of the 1990s, and worked with UNMOVIC in 2002, which found no basis for the claims on which the war on Iraq was launched anyway. 3) The "investigators" as originally tasked were increasingly referred to as "inspectors." More important yet were signs of invasive intent. Ban specified, publicly even, that the U.N. would have to investigate "in any location." Russia's foreign ministry announced on April 6, as a Reuters report summed up, that the U.N. "was seeking overly broad access for investigators to facilities and individuals (note: not crime scenes) in Syria and wanted to use aircraft for transportation. "This approach brings to mind the line taken over an investigation into the presence of chemical weapons in Iraq, which was based on deliberately false data and led to well-known consequences," it said, ... "We consider such actions unacceptable and inadmissible by any party and moreover by the leadership of the U.N. Secretariat."" While the full details remain unclear, Russia's accusations in this area remained dramatic and troubling. Foreign ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich told RT on April 27 that: "The management of the UN Secretariat demanded that Damascus agree to the establishment of a permanent mechanism for inspection throughout Syrian territory with unlimited access to everywhere. ... The proposed scheme of inspections is similar to those used at the end of the last century in Iraq, which, unlike Syria, was under UN sanctions." Syria's information minister, Omran al-Zouabi, told RT that one of the goals of the investigation as configured "is to repeat Iraq's scenario, to pave the way for other investigation inspections. To provide, based on their results, maps, photos of rockets and other fabricated materials to the UN, which as we know, opened the way to the occupation of Iraq." It was just after all of this was established that access was explicitly denied. Just as Ban and the West made it most clear by April 8/9 that the inspection must be all-or-nothing, Damascus announced, essentially, that it would have to be nothing. Syria's foreign ministry on April 8th said Ban has "suggested a supplementary mission to deploy throughout Syrian territory" and placed "additional tasks" that would constitute a "violation of Syrian sovereignty." He did so, they said, under "pressure exercised by states known for their support for the shedding of Syrian blood," and which intended to kill the investigation. And so, they announced, "Syria cannot accept these maneuvers from the UN's Secretariat-General, taking into account the truth of the negative role it played in Iraq." Most Western media reports blame the impasse on Syria. They did in fact block the U.N. team's entry into Syria. However, as this article shows, there were several questionable actions (and alleged actions) by the other side determining what the "no" came in response to. And most reports cite the scope of attacks to investigate as the only dispute. But these inexplicably invasive aspects seems to be the straws that broke the camel's back, and were laid more quietly, right before the audible snap. Therefore, they deserve more scrutiny and explanation. Consider this: if the government had been demanded to surrender and disband before any inspection, no one could blame them for refusing. That extreme example set one end of the scale on which Damascus' decision was made. On one end is a design to force Syria to reject its own investigation in a way that can be easily blamed on them alone. On the other end is a regime so desperate to conceal its patterns of abuse that it blocked the most reasonable of demands. U.S. State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell took this view, saying "if the regime has nothing to hide they should let the UN investigators in immediately so we can get to the bottom of this." After strongly suggesting they did have something to hide, Ventrell threatened that all options - including military ones - remained open. Sarin After the Failure: Confusion Yields to "Confidence" To be clear, the investigation was not quite fatally sabotaged. In lieu of in-country investigation, the U.N. says Sellstr"om's team was working on Cyprus, investigating what they could from there. Spokesman Martin Nesirky told a press briefing "you need to be able to go into Syria to be able to do that investigation properly on site, but in the meantime ... information is available without actually visiting Syria." Hypothetically, this could still expand into something more substantial, but past events leave little room to suspect it will. For more on-the-ground work, independent alleged investigations took over. British intelligence MI6 secured soil samples from Aleppo, the Sunday Times reported, and gave it to analysts at Porton Down military research institute. They dismissed the incident there as from "super strength tear gas," after looking at videos but before studying the dirt. This cursory guess effectively played the incident down, while Syria was pursuing an investigation. After the 8th, the mood of the science changed. The Times of Israel reported on the 13th that other soil MI6 collected, from "a neighborhood on the outskirts of Damascus," shows signs of "some kind of chemical weapon." The scientists wouldn't say which, but specified "it can't definitively be said to be Sarin nerve agent," suggesting perhaps that it was. Perhaps based on this, Britain and France wrote separately to the UN on or before April 18, more sure than ever that the Syrians were using chemical weapons, repeatedly, since December. Rebels have offered help quite publicly, with Free Syrian Army spokesman Louay Mekdad, offering to collect "testimony" and physical samples. The Americans might be trying get their own samples in the more clandestine manner of MI6, according to rebel commander "Majid," from the eastern Damascus suburbs where four recent CW attacks have been reported. He told the New York Times that the CIA wanted him to collect soil samples there, but he was actually in Jordan, and said it would take a while before he could get back on his home turf to help. In Israel, numerous actors in the military and intelligence arenas made a coordinated surprise push on April 23, recorded in a detailed report by the New York Times. This included information sent to Washington, "briefings earlier on Tuesday," where "the Israelis said they believed that the attacks March 19 involved the use of sarin gas," and dramatics dropped on Defense Secretary Hagel during his visit. Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, Israel's senior military intelligence analyst, said that Syria "has increasingly used chemical weapons. ... without any appropriate reaction," which "might signal that this is legitimate." General Brun cited "different signs" of this, including photographs of people "foaming at the mouth." An anonymous Israeli military official also told the Times' David E. Sanger that the Israeli opinion was based "mainly on what he described as publicly available photographs of victims, but said there was also corroborating "direct evidence" that he would not detail." Israel's intent here was clearly to influence the US into action (or at least into greater threat of it); the unnamed official said "if somebody would take any reaction" against Syria, maybe it would deter them from using it again." And the ominous inverse is that a failure to act would all-but guarantee a repetition. American officials refused to be instantly convinced, and made a few good points in explaining why. With British-French-Israeli collusion to attack a resistant Arab nation, and the U.S. holding back, President Obama almost seemed to be channeling Eisenhower in the Suez crisis. But it was apparently short-lived. On the 25th, CNN reported, the White House and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that U.S. analysts now felt, "with varying degrees of confidence," that Syria has used chemical weapons including at least sarin, "on a small scale." The report noted there was still caution, especially over "chain of custody" issues, but this is the closest the Obama administration has come to saying its red line is crossed. Questioning the "Confidence" As we hover at this dangerous juncture, questions emerge. An informative April 25 report from McClatchy news service heard from unnamed but authoritative sources that the U.S. intelligence findings for sarin "were of "low or moderate" confidence," and that investigators "found trace amounts of a byproduct in soil, but there are also fertilizers that give out the same byproduct," the person said. "It's far from conclusive." This is especially so, as the chain of custody is far from certain and that the opposition forces likely involved in collection are notoriously dishonest. The Telegraph reported on senior members of UK parliament saying better evidence will be needed to escalate, and noted that the Ministry of Defence "said it would not publish details of the tests, an indication that it did not have full confidence in what it had found, analysts said." On the basic logic front, Max Fisher helpfully pointed out for a Washington Post blog "three important caveats" as we speak of red lines. One was on the danger of intervention Syria would face, noting "it's hard to imagine that using a "small amount" of chemical weapons would do the regime forces enough good to merit the risk." He also cited chemical weapons expert Ralf Trapp asking "why would the regime just put it on a grenade here or a rocket launcher there? It's just not the way you'd expect a military force to act." The picture of does fit, however, with a false flag provocateur. Let's consider again those who suffer little to no such risk - unknown opposition brigades who may have been behind the last Aleppo gas attack - alongside a mid-April repeat in Aleppo's sprawling Sheikh Maqsoud district. This time it looks better in that rebels had just conquered Sheikh Maqsoud for the first time, and were absorbing some attacks. Rebel sources blame a regime helicopter, not one of their own mortars, for dropping the unidentified gas early on the morning of April 13. The attack reportedly poisoned 16 people non-fatally, and killed two women and two young children. The CW victims "foaming at the mouth," as cited by Israel's General Brun , might refer to a horrible photo from this incident, released by the SOHR, of an apparently dead woman with mucous bubbling out of her mouth and nose. Brun said that image was consistent with sarin exposure, and the Centers for Disease Control (U.S.) cites runny nose, drooling, and more as signs of low-level exposure. But Mohammad Sabbagh's stolen chlorine should have effects at least as consistent, as it did in World War I: "a profuse exudation of a thin, light yellow, albuminous fluid by the bronchial mucous membrane." It would seem some enabled party was again gassing people in Aleppo, perhaps with regime "tear gas" again, just as the threat of discovering the truth there evaporated like the morning fog. The U.S. embrace of sarin use was apparently based on the "intelligence" Israel had sent - opinions, public images, and something secret - plus tests of unreliable samples yielding traces that could be fertilizer byproducts. This possibly fake "best guess" thrives in the climate of ignorance following the all-but fatal sabotage of the U.N. investigation. (That this unsound approach is applied to issues of war and national soverignty - at the United Nations, even - is a related problem with its own complex causes we shall not try to address here.) Growing "confidence" is troubling; that word is the origin of the "con" part of a "con job," where the confidence of the lie tricks the victim into giving away something unwarranted (belief, first and foremost). Perhaps this war drive is not so dissimilar from the deceit-greased build-up to war in Iraq ten years ago. Added here is the twist, perhaps a charade, of the U.S. being dragged into it reluctantly by allies. But that a mighty nation allows itself to be dragged into echoing the sarin rumors suggests, as does so much else, that they are not truly averse to this endeavor. The moral load of any possible war against Syria will also have to include the potential disgrace of punishing the victims of real-life, deployed and used weapons of mass destruction. Much credible evidence suggests the documented chemical warfare so far has been by the rebels, against soldiers and supporters of the same government slated to be blamed. Then it's slated to be attacked by what might well be the real criminals, enabled with air support, with the intent of total victory. To borrow Israeli general Brun's statement, it's not hard to see how this rewarding of terrorism "might signal that this is legitimate" and encourage more of the same - at least, so long as it suits Western interests. Postscript Syria's Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi seems at least reasonably justified in saying, as SANA reported on April 26, "the Western sides ... want now to hide behind this "fabricated and false" talk to justify their silence on failing the investigation mission requested by Syria and to exonerate the terrorists." Al-Zoubi was speaking to RT, who quoted him as saying the West's aims include, first, "to cover those who are really behind use of chemical weapons in Khan al-Assal," where many or most of the dead were government soldiers. And on that same day, there was an unconfirmed report from the Bazreh neighborhood of Damascus, that entrenched rebels gassed attacking army soldiers. Breaking News (Syria) reports medical sources for an unstated number of "martyrs, who have died due to inhalation of chemical gases," which causes an exudation of "white substance from their noses and mouths."

Horror Film GIF Compilation

noxomus — Sun, 05 May 2013 21:31:37 -0400

Best viewed before going to sleep . . . . thought you'd like to know :D Music: Smokers Blend 3000 - Overooped by Nightmares On Wax Someone on reddit had the patience to do this..... not all of them are from movies. Some are just little short films ans such.Title Sequence - Unknown 1. Unknown (Creepy Girl) 2. Baby Take a Bow (Shirley Temple - Not a horror movie) 3. I wanna say The Orphan but not really sure 4. Unknown (Zombie girl) New Evil Dead? 5. Unknown (Body rising) 6. Mama (short film) 7. Mama (Feature film) 8. Unknown (Woman ripping off own head) 9. Nosferatu (original silent) 10. Unknown (Girl with pigtails and corpse rising) 11. Aphex Twin music Video - Come to Daddy 12. American Horror Story - Season 1 13. Shirley Temple again 14. Unknown (Woman looking out window) 15. Evil Dead remake 16. Unknown (I'm pretty sure I've seen it, but I'd just be guessing at this point.) 17. Sinister 18. Jacob's Ladder 19. Jacob's Ladder 20. Jacob's Ladder 21. Resident Evil 4 22. Unknown (Skinless face) 23. Unknown (Boobs and scary face) 24. Evil Dead 2? 25. Evil Dead ? 26. Unknown (Motherly ghost passing doorway) 27. Grave Encounters 28.Unknown - Possible Grave Encounter or VHS (Bloody hand prints on wall) 29. Pet Cemetery 30. Jacob's Ladder 31. Insidious 32. Unknown (Bug escaping eye) 33. Unknown (shakey head in cage) 34. Unknown (girl and spiders on bed) 35. Unknown (Nekkid girl in woods transforming) 36. Bedfellows (A Daywalt short film) 37. Unknown (ugly doctors) 38. Unknown (Ghost in fog) 39. Unknown (overhead of a girl tied to bed) 40. Unknown (Hag eating girl in bed) 41. Shirley Temple again 42. Unknown (Twitchy woman entering room) 43. Unknown (Girl in mirror - Pretty sire this is just all there is to it, possibly made for the gif) 44. Insidious 45. Buffy the TV series - Episode titles Hush 46. Attack the Block 47. Unknown - (Man crabwalking with head backwards) 48. The Ring 49. Crabwalking again, still unknowng 50. Unknown (twitchy ghost in room) 51. Unknown (Monster girl) 52. Nightmare on Elm Street remake 53. Don't Be Afraid of the Dark 54. Unknown (Girl with crawling darkness) 55. Shirley Temple again 56. Grave Encounters 57. Unknown (land mine) 58. Unknown (eyes rolling back) 59. Jacob's Ladder 60. Unknown (women? growing) 61. Unknown (bats on face) 62. Unknown (woman's face transforming) 63. Unknown (little undead girl) 64. 65. Grave Encounter 66. A Die Artwoord or Yolandi Music Video (or possible a promo shot) 67. One Hour Photo 68. Unknown (Rapidly decaying gentleman) 69. Unknown (Stumpy women being shut in cellar) 70. Insidious? 71. Mono Lisa Portrait (changes image as you move) Not a movie but a prop. 72. Unknown (Crucified goat head man) 73. Again with the Shirley Temple 74. Unknown Another poster made these corrections 1. Silent Hill Revelations 3. Girl with runny makeup - Orphan16. Tall monster grabbing a girl - 2 (pretty sure, but could possibly be )24. Hand grabbing at a foot - Original Evil Dead35. Jennifer's body (never actually saw it, but Megan Fox w/ that mouth.. I assume it is.)37. 3 creepy doctors - The Lords of Salem47. crab-walking dude - Legion (again, never saw but I'm pretty sure you see that creature in the trailer)72. Crucified Goat head man - Altered States (Must see for those who haven't)74. Death - Monty Python's the Meaning of Life (Never seen it, but recognized the image)

Soviet war time song - James Kennedy(english translation)

ACRA — Sat, 04 May 2013 09:46:11 -0400

German Orlov and The Red Banner Northern Fleet Jazz Band - James Kennedy The captain of the destroyer is James Kennedy! The pride of the Fleet of Englishmen is James Kennedy! You are that person, in whom girls are enamored, James Kennedy, The girls of your country are whispering: Jimmy, Jimmy, Only at a sea, Only at a sea, - And it is undoubtedly true! - Only at a sea, Only at a sea, A seaman can be happy! The admiral called James: "James Kennedy! I heard that you are not a coward, James Kennedy. A valuable cargo entrusted to you, James Kennedy. You will go in USSR, to our friends, James Kennedy!" Only at a sea, Only at a sea, - And it is undoubtedly true! - Only at a sea, Only at a sea, A seaman can be happy! It is a storm and a fog at a sea. James Kennedy! But the captain is valiant, James Kennedy! He is leading the cargo through storms, James Kennedy! And he sings even during a storm, James Kennedy! Suddenly he sees a German periscope. James Kennedy! And he shouts: "Engine, stop!" James Kennedy! He beats the German very exactly. James Kennedy! And Frits screamed already at the sea's bottom: "James Kennedy!" Only at a sea, Only at a sea, - And it is undoubtedly true! - Only at a sea, Only at a sea, A seaman can be happy! He hears an evil howling from the top, James Kennedy! There is a "Messershmitt" over his head, James Kennedy! But play is easy and now, James Kennedy! He shot off tail of the German plane, James Kennedy! Only at a sea, Only at a sea, - And it is undoubtedly true! - Only at a sea, Only at a sea, A seaman can be happy! He was wounded twice but he arrived, James Kennedy! He leaded the cargo in the Soviet port, James Kennedy! "Oh, you fought very gamely, sir, James Kennedy!" "I am the British officer James Kennedy!" Only at a sea, Only at a sea, - And it is undoubtedly true! - Only at a sea, Only at a sea, A seaman can be happy! And he is ready to go back James Kennedy! The friend of the Soviet seamen, James Kennedy! Everyone shouts: "Happy sailing, James Kennedy! Never forget, James Kennedy!" Only at a sea, Only at a sea, - And it is undoubtedly true! - Only at a sea, Only at a sea, A seaman can be happy! And under the hail of enemy bullets James Kennedy Is going in Murmansk and in Liverpool, James Kennedy! And the British officer James Kennedy Carries the order of USSR, James Kennedy! Only at a sea, Only at a sea, - And it is undoubtedly true! - Only at a sea, Only at a sea, A seaman can be happy! ps. I could not find pics only from Arctic convoys and add photos with all allied sailors - Canadians, British, Americans and from different places... .

THE UTTER INSANITY OF OBAMA AND THE CIA STARTING WORLD WAR 3 IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!!!!!

True Prophet — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:43:21 -0400

THE UTTER INSANITY OF OBAMA AND THE CIA STARTING WORLD WAR 3 IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!!!!! MUST READ DOCUMENTS Benghazi CIA Compound Attack Explained- Behind the Lies to Start World War 3 http://www.scribd.com/doc/116766999/Benghazi-CIA-Compound-Attack-Explained-Behind-the-Lies-to-Start-World-War-3 Benghazi Explained- Interview With an 'Intelligence Insider' http://www.scribd.com/doc/116756604/Benghazi-Explained-Interview-With-an-Intelligence-Insider Chaffetz- State Dept Hiding Benghazi Survivors http://www.scribd.com/doc/116756607/Chaffetz-State-Dept-Hiding-Benghazi-Survivors WHITE HOUSE INSIDER- 'Barack Obama - The Butcher of Benghazi' http://www.scribd.com/doc/116767020/WHITE-HOUSE-INSIDER-Barack-Obama-%E2%80%93-The-Butcher-of-Benghazi Documents Released Pertaining to Security at the Bengazi CIA Villa http://www.scribd.com/doc/116759802/Documents-Released-Pertaining-to-Security-at-the-Bengazi-CIA-Villa Photos of Bengazi CIA Villa Before and After the 9-11-12 Attack http://www.scribd.com/doc/116759271/Photos-of-Bengazi-CIA-Villa-Before-and-After-the-9-11-12-Attack Benghazi CIA Compound Attack Explained- Behind the Lies to Start World War 3 Please comment on this article at Canada Free Press By Douglas J. Hagmann 2 December 2012: Author's note: This is a special supplement of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. It is important to note that the information contained in this series was developed from interviews that spanned over 100 hours. My source requested that the following information be written separately due to its importance. DH: You told me that you wanted to talk about the lies behind Benghazi, said it is critical for everyone to understand the reason for the lies. and asked that we do this separately. Go ahead. II: It's about the lie, and once you understand it, it becomes extremely revealing. It's about what the public has been told from the very beginning. Do you realize that a lot of people, especially Obama's associates and supporters do not believe that they've been lied to? Do you understand that much of the public does not believe that they were lied to? Like a lot of us, you're in this thing so deep that we forget not everyone even believes they've been lied to. They're certainly not going to hear about it in the media. To understand how deep this goes, how important it is, and why it is so important, we've got to go back to the very beginning. Think back to when we were first told that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty, Tyrone Woods were killed in Benghazi. The media reported that Stevens and the others were killed in an attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. Every major media outlet identified the location of the attack as an American consulate, much like this Reuters report and this from The Washington Times. But there was no U.S. consulate in Benghazi, so where did this information originate? DH: Didn't the administration call it a consulate? II: Exactly. Our embassies and consulate offices are directly under the control of the U.S. State Department. They are areas of sovereign territory. Consulate offices are like satellite offices to each embassy, and they are located in convenient geographic locations in other countries to assist people with routine or minor matters, saving them a trip to the actual embassy. Consulates are easily identifiable and all have U.S. flags flying prominently for easy identification. A listing of U.S. embassies and consulate offices in other countries can be found on the State Department web site. Just about everyone working at State knows the locations of the embassies and consulates, as do most of our leaders in the executive branch. So from the outset, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama certainly knew, without any doubt, that there was no consulate or diplomatic mission in Benghazi. None. In fact, on August 27, 2012, just 15 days before the attack in Benghazi, Ambassador Chris Stevens ceremoniously opened the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli with the U.S. State Department issuing press releases and official statements. Tripoli was the only diplomatic mission in Libya - period. And it was just established. So one of the very first lies was to deliberate misidentify or improperly characterize the compound in Benghazi as a consulate. Was there an American flag flying outside of this compound? No. Was any diplomatic legitimate business being conducted at this compound? No. But they called it a consulate to draw attention away from the fact this was a CIA base of operations. It was located in a relatively rural area, and it consisted of a residence and a separate "annex" located about 1800 feet away. By car, the annex was just over a mile away. It was difficult to find, too. People coming from Tripoli to this compound often got turned around, even with the help of a GPS. So the very first thing everyone must understand is that the administration, including Barack Obama and others in the executive branch, and the State Department, including Hillary Clinton (her official statement identified the compound as a mission, suggesting a 'diplomatic mission') knew that this compound served no legitimate diplomatic purpose. That's the first lie. DH: We now know that it was a CIA compound located in a somewhat rural area and not identifiable as U.S. owned or operated. II: Correct. So think about this. The compound was unmarked, operationally discreet, located in a rural area and difficult to find. How did a few hundred protesters suddenly gather at this location on the evening of 9/11? How did they know where to go, if this was not an embassy or consulate? More to the point, how is it possible that anyone in any official capacity in this administration could realistically describe the attack in terms of a protest gone bad, even at the first reports of trouble? They could not. This was a deliberate lie to the American people. So how is it that U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, five days after the attack and after much of the initial dust settled, appeared on five national news shows and still attributed the murders of Americans as a result of protests? Who told her to do that? And, she continued to blame the murders on an obscure internet video. Why? DH: They have since publicly reclassified the description of the location. II: They had to because they could not continue to call the CIA operations center an embassy or consulate. But they have yet to offer any reasonable explanation for what happened there. Barack Obama has yet to look the family members of Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, or Glen Dougherty in the eyes and tell the truth. He has yet to tell Americans the truth about the events of 9/11, and the reason for the lies, which continue through today. No one has stepped up to tell the truth. We have only seen denials reinforced by distractions., They continue to lie to this day. Who are they lying to and what is the logical reason for the lies? They are only lying to the American people. All other governments know what's going on. And most importantly, the reason they are continuing to lie is to cover up their plans as they are moving forward with their agenda. Everyone must understand how important this is. The Obama plan continues. No one is stopping them or this agenda. And in case you have any questions about what this agenda is, let me explain it clearly and concisely. Obama, Clinton, their foreign policy advisors and the people involved in this agenda intend to start a war that will make Afghanistan and Iraq look like a small police action by comparison. They are going to start a war that will likely grow from a regional war to a global war, or WW III. Afghanistan 'imploded' when attacked, as did Iraq. Syria will not, it will explode . Do the American people understand this? Until now, everyone has been focused on the 'little lies.' The security, the misidentification of the CIA compound, the timeline, and on and on. They want us to focus on the little lies so they can pull off the BIG LIE . The big lie being told is that the U.S. is merely providing minimal support, including humanitarian aid to the Syrians so they can defend themselves from Assad. That's the big lie that covers up what they are really doing in the region. The CIA compound in Benghazi was a logistics hub for weapons, but not only weapons from Libya. Weapons ordered by and destined for other countries, like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other countries, knowing the plan, were allowing the weapons to be diverted, with Libya acting as the central shipping hub. When Assad falls and U.S. troops are called in for ground support, who will they be fighting? The Syrian army? No, they will be fighting the Iranian army, the Russian army and the Chinese army. Why? Because Iran, Russia and China all have a stake in the region. Putin called Syria his red line in the sand, and stated that WW III will start in Syria, not Iran. Benghazi is a moving target of little lies that serve as cover for the big lie. Are Americans onboard? http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/7210#more-7210 Statement by Secretary Clinton on the Attack in Benghazi Press Statement Hillary Rodham Clinton Secretary of State Washington, DC September 11, 2012 I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack. This evening, I called Libyan President Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government's full cooperation. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind. In light of the events of today, the United States government is working with partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions, and American citizens worldwide. http://statedept.tumblr.com/post/31380336590/statement-by-secretary-clinton-on-the-attack-in Libyans burn U.S. Consulate in Benghazi; U.S. official killed Egyptian protesters climb the walls of the U.S. Embassy during a protest in Cairo on Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012. (AP Photo/Nasser Nasser) By Ashish Kumar Sen - The Washington Times Tuesday, September 11, 2012 A U.S. official was killed and others injured when an armed mob attacked the U.S. Consulate in Libya's eastern port city of Benghazi on Tuesday. The building has burned down, according to multiple sources in Libya. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton condemned "in the strongest terms" the attack. Mrs. Clinton confirmed that one State Department officer had been killed. "We are heartbroken by this terrible loss," she said. Mrs. Clinton spoke on the phone with Libyan National Assembly President Mohamed Yousef Al-Megariaf to coordinate protection of Americans in his country. The mob in Benghazi was angry over a video reportedly produced in the U.S., which they said was insulting to Islam's prophet, Muhammad. "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," Mrs. Clinton said. The U.S. deplores "any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. ... But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind," she added. Earlier, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland blamed "a group of militants" for the attack. "We are working with the Libyans now to secure the compound," she said in a statement on Tuesday night. "We condemn in strongest terms this attack on our diplomatic mission," she added. In Egypt's capital, Cairo, protesters stormed the U.S. Embassy and tore down the flag. This is the second time the U.S. mission in Benghazi has been attacked. In June, a bomb exploded outside the U.S. diplomatic mission soon after the U.S. confirmed the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a Libyan-born cleric and al Qaeda operative, in a drone attack in Pakistan. Al Qaeda leader confirmed al-Libi's death in a message delivered on Tuesday to mark the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. The revolution against Moammar Gadhafi's regime first started in Benghazi in February of 2011. The uprising quickly spread across Libya and toppled the 42-year-old dictatorship of Gadhafi, who was killed in the custody of rebels in his hometown of Sirte on Oct. 20 last year. About the Author Ashish Kumar Sen Ashish Kumar Sen is a reporter covering foreign policy and international developments for The Washington Times. Prior to joining The Times, Mr. Sen worked for publications in Asia and the Middle East. His work has appeared in a number of publications and online news sites including the British Broadcasting Corp., Asia Times Online and Outlook magazine. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/11/libyans-storm-burn-us-consulate-benghazi/ Obama vows to track down ambassador's killers . . inShare 0 . Share this . . Email . Print Related News . Intrepid U.S. envoy Stevens nurtured Libyan democracy Wed, Sep 12 2012 . Smoke, confusion and a missing ambassador in Libya attack Wed, Sep 12 2012 . Obama vows justice after U.S. envoy killed in Libya Wed, Sep 12 2012 . U.S.-trained engineer picked as Libya's next premier Wed, Sep 12 2012 . Top U.S. military officer calls pastor over film Wed, Sep 12 2012 . U.S. evacuates staff from Benghazi, cuts Tripoli embassy staff Wed, Sep 12 2012 . New York police add security in wake of Libya protests Wed, Sep 12 2012 By Matt Spetalnick and Hadeel Al Shalchi WASHINGTON/BENGHAZI, Libya Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:49pm EDT WASHINGTON/BENGHAZI, Libya (Reuters) - President Barack Obama branded the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans an "outrageous attack" on Wednesday and vowed to track down the perpetrators, while ordering a tightening of diplomatic security worldwide. The ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and the other Americans were killed after Islamist gunmen attacked the U.S. consulate and a safe house refuge in Benghazi on Tuesday night. The attackers were part of a mob blaming America for a film they said insulted the Prophet Mohammad. The violence in the eastern city, a cradle of Libya's U.S.-backed uprising against Muammar Gaddafi last year, came on the anniversary of al Qaeda's attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Another assault was mounted on the U.S. embassy in Cairo in which protesters, who included Islamists and teenage soccer fans, tore down and burned a U.S. flag. U.S. government officials said the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance and there were indications that members of a militant faction calling itself Ansar al Sharia - which translates as Supporters of Islamic Law - may have been involved. They also said some reporting from the region suggested that members of Al-Qaeda's north Africa-based affiliate, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, may have been involved. "It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack," one U.S. official said. However, some U.S. officials cautioned against assuming that the attacks were deliberately organized to coincide with the September 11 anniversary. The violence in Benghazi and Cairo threatened to spread to other Muslim countries on Wednesday. A U.S. official said Washington had ordered the evacuation of all U.S. personnel from Benghazi to Tripoli and was reducing staffing in the capital to emergency levels. Police fired teargas at angry demonstrators outside the U.S. embassy in Tunisia and several hundred people gathered in front of the U.S. embassy in Sudan. In Morocco, a few dozen protesters burned American flags and chanted slogans near the U.S. consulate in Casablanca. Obama vowed on Wednesday to bring the Benghazi killers to justice. He called the attack "outrageous and shocking" but insisted it would not threaten relations with Libya's new elected government. U.S. SECURITY STEPPED UP WORLDWIDE The president said he had ordered an increase in security at U.S. diplomatic posts around the globe. A U.S. official said a Marine anti-terrorist security team was being sent to Libya to boost security there. The attacks could alter U.S. attitudes towards the wave of revolutions across the Arab world, which toppled secularist authoritarian leaders in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia , bringing Islamists to power. The violence could also have an impact on the closely-fought U.S. presidential election campaign. Mitt Romney , Obama's rival in the November vote, criticized the president's response to the crisis. He said the timing of a statement from the U.S. embassy in Cairo denouncing "efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims" made Obama look weak as protesters were attacking U.S. missions. He said it was "disgraceful" to be seen to be apologizing for American values of free speech. Obama's campaign accused Romney of scoring political points at a time of national tragedy. Images of ambassador Stevens purportedly taken after he died circulated on the Internet. One image showed him being carried, with a white shirt pulled up and a cut on his forehead. Libya's Deputy Interior Minister Wanis Al-Sharif said U.S. staff were rushed to a Benghazi safe house after the initial attack on the consulate and an evacuation plane with U.S. commando units then arrived from Tripoli to evacuate them from the safe house. "It was supposed to be a secret place and we were surprised the armed groups knew about it. There was shooting," Sharif said. Two U.S. personnel were killed there, he said. Two other people were killed at the main consular building and between 12 and 17 wounded. The attack raised questions about the future U.S. diplomatic presence in Libya, relations between Washington and Tripoli, and the unstable security situation after Gaddafi's overthrow. Witnesses said the mob included tribesmen, militia and other gunmen. Hamam, a 17-year-old who took part in the attack, said Ansar al-Sharia cars arrived at the start of the protest but left once fighting started. "The protesters were running around the compound just looking for Americans, they just wanted to find an American so they could catch one," he said. "WE STARTED SHOOTING AT THEM" "We started shooting at them, and then some other people also threw hand-made bombs over the fences and started the fires in the buildings," he said. "There was some Libyan security for the embassy outside but when the hand-made bombs went off they ran off and left." Hamam said he saw an American die in front of him in the mayhem that ensued. He said the body was covered in ash. The "Innocence of Muslims," the film blamed for provoking the violence, was the work of a California-based Israeli filmmaker Sam Bacile, according to a report by the Associated Press. It portrays Mohammad as a fool, a philanderer and a religious fake and in one clip posted on YouTube, he was shown in an apparent sexual act with a woman. For many Muslims it is blasphemous even to show a depiction of the Prophet. Bacile, who described himself to AP as an Israeli Jew, spoke to the agency from hiding on Tuesday. He said that the film, which cost $5 million to make, was intended as a political statement and was financed by more than 100 Jewish donors. Egypt's Coptic Orthodox Church, meanwhile, condemned Copts living abroad who it said had financed "the production of a film insulting the Prophet Mohammad". About a 10th of Egypt's 83 million people are Christian. Western countries denounced the Benghazi killings and Russia expressed deep concern, saying the episode underscored the need for global cooperation to fight "the evil of terrorism." Many Muslim states focused their condemnation on the film and will be concerned about preventing a repeat of the fallout seen after publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad. This touched off riots in the Middle East, Africa and Asia in 2006 in which at least 50 people died. Afghan President Hamid Karzai called the making of the movie a "devilish act" but said he was certain those involved in its production were a very small minority. The U.S. embassy in Kabul appealed to Afghan leaders for help in "maintaining calm" and Afghanistan shut down the YouTube site so Afghans would not be able to see the film. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, took the unusual step of telephoning a radical Florida Pastor, Terry Jones, and asking him to withdraw his support for the film. Earlier provocative acts by Jones, like publicly burning a Koran, had sparked Muslim unrest. In Egypt, Prime Minister Hisham Kandil called on Washington to act against the film's makers for stirring up strife but condemned the violence saying that they had "no relation to the (U.S.) government." "SMALL AND SAVAGE GROUP" U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the attack was the work of a "small and savage group." Abdel-Monem Al-Hurr, spokesman for Libya's Supreme Security Committee, said Libyan security forces came under heavy fire and "were not prepared for the intensity of the attack." Libya's interim government has struggled to impose its authority on a myriad of armed groups that refused to lay down their weapons and often take the law into their own hands. Security experts say the area around Benghazi is host to a number of Islamist militant groups who oppose any Western presence in Muslim countries. U.S. ambassadors in such volatile countries as Libya have tight security, usually travelling in well-protected convoys. Diplomatic missions are normally protected by Marines or other special forces. Tributes poured in to honor Stevens, who said in a video posted on the embassy website of his involvement in the Libyan revolution: "I was thrilled to watch the Libyan people stand up and demand their rights." Stevens, who was 52, grew up in California, graduated from Berkeley and worked in North Africa as a Peace Corps volunteer. He taught English in Morocco before joining the foreign service where he worked in the Middle East and North Africa. The worst-case scenario for Western governments is that the spate of recent unrest in Libya could be the start of an Iraq-style insurgency by Islamist militants. That could hit oil exports as the energy sector depends on foreign workers. However, security analysts say an insurgency is unlikely to gain the kind of traction it had in Iraq , mainly because Western states have no military presence in Libya. (Additional reporting by Samia Nakhoul in Beirut, Marie-Louise Gumuchian in Tripoli, Hadeel Al Shalchi in Tripoli, Sarah N. Lynch, Arshad Mohammed, Andrew Quinn, Matt Spetalnick, Steve Holland and Mark Hosenball in Washington, and Reuters reporters in Cairo and Benghazi; Writing by David Brunnstrom and Peter Millership) http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/12/us-libya-usa-attack-idUSBRE88B0EI20120912 Administration is engaged in a massive cover-up Benghazi explained: Interview with an "Intelligence Insider" - Doug Hagmann ( Bio and Archives ) Thursday, November 29, 2012 (47) Comments Print friendly Subscribe Email Us Benghazi, Libya CIA Station http://www.cryptocomb.org/Bengazi%20CIA%20Station.jpg Benghazi: Behind the scenes (Part II) This is part one of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. In this part, he provides important background, and explains this administration is engaged in a massive cover-up. DH: It's been a while since we've discussed Benghazi. What have you heard lately? II: Before I answer that, I want to get a few things off my chest. Every politician, whether it's a congressman senator, diplomat, or their spokespeople and the media are lying to the American public every time they call the location of the attack a consulate. It was not. There was absolutely no diplomatic consulate in Benghazi. None. Words are important here. They can create a wrong image, an incorrect picture of what was really going on. The property where our Ambassador and other Americans were murdered was a rented villa consisting of a primary residence with a couple of outbuildings behind the actual house. The reason they're still calling it a consulate is to subtly divert any questions about our activities there. DH: Let's go over this again; exactly what was taking place at Benghazi? II: As I said, the place where the attack happened is one of the largest, one of the most active CIA operation centers in North Africa, if not in the entire Middle East. It was not a diplomatic station. It was a planning and operations center, a logistics hub for weapons and arms being funneled out of Libya. Unlike the embassy in Tripoli, there was limited security in Benghazi. Why? So the operation did not draw attention to what was going on there. DH: So in reality there were no actual security issues? II: Oh yes, there were, in Tripoli. Diplomatic cables show that. But it was for the embassy in Tripoli, the Ambassador and the diplomatic staff in general, not specifically for the Benghazi location for two reasons. First, the Benghazi location was a CIA operation, not a diplomatic one. Visible security at that location would draw unwanted attention there. They had to blend in. Remember, the villa was located in a somewhat residential area, sort of like the suburbs. Secondly, additional manpower was not needed there, at this CIA center, as the operation was already winding down. DH: I know you've gone over this before, but let's get into the specifics of the operation at Benghazi. II: Good, I want to be clear. After Gaddafi was taken out, there was the matter of his weapons and arms that were hidden all over Libya, including chemical weapons - gas weapons. According to Obama and Hillary Clinton, we were in Libya to collect and destroy these weapons to make for a 'safer' Libya. That's what they were telling the American public. That's not really what was going on, though, and it seems like all of the other nations except the average American knew it. Anyway, you can find pictures and videos of weapons caches being destroyed, but that is strictly for the public's consumption. What was really happening, before Gaddafi's body was even cold, is that we had people locating caches of weapons, separating the working from those that weren't, and making a big show of destroying the weapons, but only the weapons that were useless. The working weapons were being given to Islamic terrorists. They were being funneled through Libya, crisscrossing Libya on a Muslim Brotherhood managed strategic supply route. In fact, Michael Reagan called it the modern day equivalent of the Ho Chi Minh Trail in a recent article he wrote, and he is correct. The entire arms and weapons running operation was headquartered in Benghazi, The weapons were actually being shipped out of Libya from the port city of Dernah, located about a hundred miles east of Benghazi. That was the 'choke point' of the weapons being shipped out. Remember the Lusitania? Think in those terms, ships carrying weapons hid among 'humanitarian aid.' By the time of the attacks, an estimated 30-40 million pounds of arms were already transported out of Libya. From there, the weapons were being sent to staging areas in Turkey near the Syrian border, for use by the Free Syrian Army and other ragtag terrorist groups to fight against Assad. The objective was and still is to destabilize the Assad government. Why Syria, why not Iran? II: It's both, but Syria is the primary target here for this operation. First, look at the bigger picture, look at the so-called "Arab Spring." Who benefits and by default, who doesn't? Who is the architect for what's going on throughout the Middle East and North Africa? Whose agenda is being implemented? To specifically address Benghazi, though, look at the bigger picture here and what is trying to be accomplished. The Obama administration is playing the role of Saudi Arabia's private army. I think if Americans knew this, they would be outraged. Our service men and women are being sold out as mercenaries for the wants and desires of the Royal family, for the Saudi's interests. It's about religious dominance and oil. Who is really benefitting from, say, what's going on in Egypt? Mubarek is out, and the Muslim Brotherhood is in. Who does that benefit? Saudi Arabia. Look at what we see happening in Egypt. Destabilization. Do you think the Russians want that? Hell no. Syria is Russia's red line in the sand, as you earlier wrote. If Syria is lost to the Muslim Brotherhood by the actions of Obama, Hillary Clinton and others in this administration, what happens? Well, it will have an adverse impact on Russia from a military standpoint. They will likely lose access to their Mediterranean deep water port in Syria, which is Tartus. But think further - three dimensionally. Russia is still the world's largest oil producer, and that's Russia's primary source of income. Then there's Turkey, adjacent to Syria. A large amount of Russian oil and gas, consumed by the West, flows through Turkey, which is also a player in this operation. So, the destabilization of Syria which is exactly what Obama and Clinton are trying to do, presents a direct military and economic threat to Russia. Assad at least has kept things in check in Syria. Can you imagine Assad being replaced by someone like Morsi? That would strike at the very heart of Russia's economic health and military capabilities. Think of what's at stake here. Do Americans want a regional war? World War III? Has Obama or Clinton asked the American people if this is what they want? Make no mistake, we are doing the bidding for Saudi Arabia. The U.S., NATO and other allies are engaged in a proxy war with Iran and Russia. What about Assad's war crimes? Assad is no angel, but don't be fooled by the death toll attributed to him. Now this is important. Remember the first Gulf War? In the run up to Desert Storm, a young woman testified before the Human Rights Caucus - she only testified under her first name, which was Nayirah. Remember that she testified that Iraqi soldiers were taking infants from incubators in Kuwait, leaving them to die? Her testimony was supposedly confirmed by Amnesty International. Her testimony went viral, and every war hawk in the U.S. government cited her testimony, saying we needed to right the wrongs, the inhumanity. It was all one big lie! After Desert Storm, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was Al-Sabah, and she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Her testimony was part of a publicity campaign organized by Citizens for a Free Kuwait, which was run by Hill & Knowlton, a PR firm out of New York. People must learn the back story. So we see a body count attributed to Assad. Who's doing the killing, Assad's people? Maybe at times, but the Free Syrian Army and other groups are doing most of the slaughter. It's one huge 'false flag' operation and the media is selling it hard. And Americans are buying it, just like the testimony of the girl from Kuwait. It's one big lie being told by Obama, Clinton, Rice, and others. Many Americans are buying the lie, and the media is selling the lie. The people behind this are laughing at us. Don't you get it? They're laughing at us. And do you want to know what's at stake? Four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Forty thousand have been killed so far in Syria. Tens of thousands of Syrian people have become refugees. Why? For what? To advance the agenda of Saudi Arabia. For oil. You know, the so-called right wing establishment were all up in arms about Obama's submissive bow to the Saudi King. Where are they now? Where's the outrage that the body count will be much greater than Forty thousand? It is anticipated that if the Obama plan succeeds, not only will America be committed to yet another war, but the body count could be as high as FOUR MILLION . Christians, among others, will be slaughtered. This could trigger a third world war, it's that serious. What are Russia and Iran doing? Certainly, they must be fighting back. Benghazi was a strike against us, the Obama-Clinton agenda. A visible strike, and I'll explain more about this shortly, because there are events I will point out that will put it all into perspective. But think of it this way. How did we successfully collapse the Soviet Union? I mean, what was the last straw? We attacked their currency - the Ruble. They're still stinging from that, and Putin was in the KGB at the time. Do you think he forgot about that? So, how do, or will Russia and Iran strike back if Obama and Clinton continue this insanity? Militarily? Possibly in regional conflicts, but to take us out, to stop us, what is the one area where we are very vulnerable? It's our economy - our dollar. What's our dollar tied to? Not gold or silver anymore, and some say it's not tied to anything. Well, that's not quite correct. It's tied to OIL. The free-flow of oil. Oil transactions everywhere in the world, including Russia and China, are made with U.S. dollars. We buy their oil with our dollars, and they return with those same paper dollars and employ Americans by buying our goods and services. As Michael Reagan wrote : " his system is also crucial to the security of our diplomatic and legal infrastructure, which is ultimately backed by our military. It's the core of our foreign policy." He also wrote that "any attack on the free flow of oil is an attack on the dollar. Any attack on the dollar is an attack on our ability to project power and protect Western democracies, economies, and ideals. God have mercy on us all if that attack is successful!" Tomorrow Part II Copyright (c) Douglas Hagmann Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report , a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET. Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network , and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website. Doug can be reached at: director@homelandsecurityus.com Older articles by Doug Hagmann http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51346 Obama does not want the American people to know the truth about what is going on, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, AQIM Benghazi: Behind the scenes (Part II) - Doug Hagmann ( Bio and Archives ) Friday, November 30, 2012 (44) Comments Print friendly Subscribe Email Us Author's note: This is part two of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. It is important to note that the information contained in this series was developed from interviews that spanned over 100 hours. In this part, the insider provides information about the events of the attack and the continuation of the cover-up at the highest levels of our government. ( For Part I, please click here ). We've heard different accounts and different timelines concerning the attack at Benghazi. What exactly happened? First, people must understand that the compound that was attacked was situated in a somewhat rural area and was not a consulate, but a rented villa, or a residential structure. The residence was the primary building, and what has been referred to as the annex was located about 1800 feet away as the crow flies, but just over a mile to travel by road. And again, visible security was not present as the compound was the headquarters for a covert operation. No one wanted to draw attention to what was taking place at this location. The first indications of problems there began at least twelve-(12) hours before the first shot was even fired. One of the men at the compound observed a policeman or Libyan security officer taking photographs outside of the villa. Keep in mind that Ambassador Stevens, the point man in this Obama-sanctioned weapons running operation, was hastily scheduled to meet with the Turkish consul general at this location. The meeting was deliberately planned for dinner tie, toward evening, when the events that happened next could be performed under the cover of darkness. It's also important to consider the location of this meeting. Tripoli is the seat of power in Libya, and a genuine diplomatic meeting could more safely have been conducted there, at the embassy. Also, what most people don't know is that Libya is split, much like East and West Germany before the wall. The eastern part is more closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, the same group that controls Egypt. The Turkish consul general had to meet there, not just with Stevens but with other factions involved in this covert operation. Now I'll digress for a moment. It is reasonable to ask whether the Turkish consul general was setting Stevens up for a hit, like a classic mob-style hit. First, there is no dispute that there was surveillance done at 6:30 a.m. and intermittently throughout the day. Next, consider that three hours before the first shot was fired, about 6:30 p.m. local time, some strange things were observed taking place near the compound. Military type vehicles began closing of the streets with trucks that had 50 caliber guns mounted on them. Checkpoints on the streets and at intersections were being quietly closed off around the compound. Nearby residents began going inside their homes. Anyone walking in the area got off the streets, like a scene from a movie in the Godfather series. It was obvious that the stage was being set for a strike against the compound. This alone reveals preplanning and coordination. It's also noteworthy to point out that the Turkish counsel general most likely passed through one or more of these checkpoints, or at least would have noticed that things were not right in the area. You must remember that just as Stevens was previously CIA working under diplomatic cover, the Turkish counsel general was his counterpart. It's typical spy-versus-spy stuff. Also consider this. One of the men stationed at the compound, a British national, left the compound at about 9:20 p.m., reportedly to get more phone cards. That's right, phone cards, like you would buy at Walmart. Why? Because the men at the compound ran out of minutes. Just who do you think they were talking to that day to burn through the minutes, and why do you think they needed them at that exact time? They were using the phones as a last and perhaps only line of communications to provide assessments of the strange things going on earlier. They knew that something was being planned and they were conveying that information - their observations to those who could assist them, in Tripoli and DC. Based on these activities, it is clear that the men at the compound suspected that they were in trouble long before the first shot was ever fired. They were calling anyone who would listen, or who should have listened. We knew trouble was brewing and no one responded in any meaningful way. Could the man who left to buy more phone cards have known what was about to take place? Well, it's possible, but there is no indication of that. Was the Turkish counsel general in on this, to set Stevens up? Well, what have we heard from our government? Has anyone even bothered to interview him? What did he say? Don't forget, this administration decided to handle this attack as a crime and not a terrorist attack. How long did it take for the FBI to be able to access the 'crime scene' after the attack? More importantly, what was left at the 'crime scene' to examine by the FBI due to this delay? Do you think the delay was accidental? Do you know what was discussed, or the reason for the meeting between Stevens and the Turkish consul general? Yes, I know some key points. First, keep in mind what this arms running operation was all about. It was to topple Assad and replace him with a Muslim Brotherhood leader. It was to destabilize Syria to advance the agenda of Saudi Arabia. They were using U.S. and NATO forces to do exactly that. However, Assad is no Gaddafi, and there is no comparison between Assad's army and the Libyan army. It would take much more than rebels inside Syria to topple Assad. There is no way on earth that the Syrian rebels, or Free Syrian Army, has the capability to accomplish this objective alone. It required U.S. assistance, arms and training. Now, Turkey is a NATO ally. They were assisting the Obama-Clinton-Saudi plan to funnel weapons ultimately to Syria, but the primary staging areas for these weapons were in Turkey near the Syrian border. Visual surveillance by Russia, using satellites and other means amassed photographic documentation of the U.S. assisting the 'anti-Assad rebels' inside Turkey. They developed evidence of the U.S. training these rebels and assisting them into Syria to fight against Assad. Think about this. What if surveillance images observed anti-Assad rebels being trained to handle and mount chemical weapons - gas shells - onto rockets? The process would be apparent and would obviously be detected by a number of visual indicators. Obviously, Syria wanted this to stop. By extension, so did Russia. One aspect of the weapons plan was to set up a false flag operation to make it appear that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Imagine the outcry from the civilized world to the news that Assad 'gassed' his own people. That would be an invitation to NATO and the West to openly intervene. Don't forget about the timing of all of this. Two months before the elections, and time was running out. The job of taking out Assad was not yet complete. Such an event would quickly advance this agenda. By this time, however, being caught and placed in a rather unenviable position between Russia and the U.S., the Turkish consul general was in a 'CYA, clean-up' mode, assuring that none of the chemical weapons that might have still been in Libya were headed for Turkey. It is also important to understand that the covert weapons running operation was just about finished. An estimated 40 million pounds of weapons were already shipped from Libya, and things were winding down. There was another issue as well, a very important and telling one. Seven members of the Iranian Red Crescent had been kidnapped or snatched from the streets of Benghazi on or about July 31, 2012. Again you must understand that virtually anyone walking on the streets of Benghazi not indigenous to the area are spies. Covert operatives, operating under various covers. From all nations. Along with the message that the weapons running operation was compromised, the Iranians had good reason to suspect that the 'Red Crescent workers' were snatched by the CIA or with their assistance. Iran wanted them back. They were spies, and countries want their spies back! So part of the meeting was to address this, as there was pressure by Russia against a wavering Turkey to switch sides. Anyway, you'll see how this ties in to the way the actual attack was executed. Please continue. So at 9:30 pm local time, the compound began to take on small arms fire. Based on all reports I've reviewed, there were three twelve-man attack teams armed with small arms, RPGs, and other sophisticated military style weapons. These were not run-of-the-mill street weapons, but military issued type weapons. The types of weapons alone scream that this was a preplanned attack. Eyes on the area confirmed that two of these teams surrounded the villa and the annex. The third team was elsewhere, lying in wait. The two teams began their assault on the compound where Stevens was inside about an hour after the Turkish counsel general left. Remember, he had to pass the checkpoints after the meeting. Just keep that in mind. Anyway, we all know now that there was an intense firefight that lasted nearly nine hours during which four Americans, Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were killed. And of course that attack was not over a video and there were no protests before the attack. Now there are questions that are not being asked. The two well-armed 'hit teams' had the capability to reduce the compound and annex to rubble quickly. Why a protracted firefight? There are a couple of reasons. First, what was the makeup of the 'hit teams,' or who were the attackers? We have verified that the attackers were a combination of members of Ansar al Sharia and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), but they were operating under the flag of Ansar al Sharia. Who is Ansar al Sharia? Iranian terrorists. They are a terrorist group that receives their training by and funding from Iran . Now think about this. Carefully consider the implications here. IRAN. It's the elephant in the room no one wants to mention or talk about. The attack on our ambassador and our people - Americans - was an attack by Iran. It was an attack at a nation-state level. AQIM also assisted. They are indigenous to Africa and are extremely dangerous. AQIM is a very 'elite' and extremely well-funded group, and very limited in number. Our last assessment suggests that there are only 400 or so members, but they are very influential across Africa and into South and Central America and Western Europe. Their importance and relevance will become evident shortly. The reason that they did not just take out the compound and everything and everyone in it is that they were looking for their spies. Remember the Red Crescent workers? The Iranian spies? They suspected that they might be held at the annex. As such, they wanted to free them and did not want to risk killing them. Oh, and there were others 'missing' as well. AQIM members. These were terrorists involved in drug running operations from the Tri-border (TBA) areas of South America through North Africa and into Western Europe. By the way, this is the way they made their money. Drugs sell at higher profits in Western Europe than elsewhere, so there is money to be made. The problem is that some of them got caught-snatched up in Benghazi and northeastern Libya. Now regarding AQIM, this has a direct connection not only to South America, but also to Mexico and Mexican drug gangs. You think that what's going on in Libya is just 'over there,' and far away from the U.S. and has nothing to do with our safety and security? Think again, but more on this in a bit. There's also another reason. The hit teams fully expected rescue teams from the U.S. to be dispatched to the compound. Certainly, calls for help went out. By waiting for the back-up or rescue forces, a surprise assault by the other 'hit team' team would have exposed our forces to possible causalities and turned the event into a much bigger event where the actual nature of the operation could be exposed to the world. Instead of being a cover-up for which they have yet to be held accountable, it would have been an international incident that would have exposed the entire affair. So the Ansar al Sharia attack groups deliberately conducted a protracted assault on the compound. Just imagine, our men and even the bad guys never expected team Obama would leave our people twisting in the wind, fighting for their lives. That alone should speak volumes to every American. As daylight approached, they had to wrap things up so they could disappear under the cover of darkness. Oh, and the crowds that are often cited by this administration, did form in the area as the attack progressed, much like a growing mob in riot. They provided the fog, or the cover, that permitted the attackers to escape amid the crowd. You mentioned the missing Iranian Red Crescent workers and members of AQIM. Were they ever released or found? Yes, and this is an extremely important part of this entire story. This reaches into the highest levels of our government. This is so very important that it must be addressed separately. So the attack was first and the crowd came later. I noted that the administration said that there were protests going on at the Embassy in Cairo at the same time and they compared it to Benghazi. Yes, that's their cover story and they know that there is absolutely no comparison. This is one huge lie that is easily addressed and put out of its misery. How soon did U.S. intelligence officials know who was responsible for the attack? Almost immediately, if not concurrent with the attack. Every part of that area is under active aerial surveillance by the U.S. There was SIGINT or communication intercepts at the time of the attack. Then, there was even an admission by the attackers. Obama knew. Hillary knew. Clapper knew. Everyone knew, expect the American people. And you know what? The American media knew as well. I heard a statement that they did not admit knowledge to avoid alerting the perpetrators. Yes, it was said that Rice and others did not want to alert the 'bad guys' or tip their hand or some such nonsense, but did that mean that Susan Rice, for example, had to appear on national television and lie to every one of us, to the country? In my opinion, Rice took on the temporary job of propaganda minister for a day in exchange for a shot at Secretary of State in the future. You are painting quite a dire picture. It gets worse, much worse, and it involves real threats across the globe and even to us here in the United States. But it's all because of our actions, the covert weapons running from Libya to Syria by way of Turkey at the direction of Barack Obama and his Saudi 'handlers.' FORTY THOUSAND men, women and children are dead in Syria as a direct result of this attempt at nation building, or tearing down Assad. There are four dead Americans. We are arming some of the very people who are killing our troops. Not only are we on the wrong side of this, we are actively pushing the world to the precipice of World War III. We are engaged in a real war here with Iran and Syria and by extension, with Russia and China. And we are being lied to about it every step of the way. And the lies are getting worse, but so are the attempts to stop the truth from getting out. What do you mean? What do you think the recent directive issued by Obama, the one you wrote about ' insider threats ,' is all about? Obama does not want the American people to know the truth about what is going on. He's doubled down to stop leaks, like this. But you know what? He just might be too late, because we're not done here. I'm not done talking, and there's much more that needs to be exposed. Copyright (c) Douglas Hagmann Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report , a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET. Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network , and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website. Doug can be reached at: director@homelandsecurityus.com Older articles by Doug Hagmann http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51400 Advancing the agenda of Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood in North Africa, Middle East. We're doing their work, pitting ourselves against Syria, Iran and ultimately Russia and China Benghazi explained: Interview with an "Intelligence Insider" (Part III) - Doug Hagmann ( Bio and Archives ) Wednesday, December 12, 2012 (28) Comments Print friendly Subscribe Email Us Author's note: This is part three of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. As previously stated, the information contained in this series was developed from interviews that spanned over 100 hours. Included in this update is the most current information following a more recent interview with this insider. (Click here for Part I and Part II ). Events seem to be changing rapidly in Syria, and we know that the operations in Benghazi played a very important role in Syria. Please update the readers on the current situation, but first give a brief recap for context. Okay, but we're running out of time. The world is running out of time. Remember when we first began this lengthy interview process? It was in response to your report on September 15, 2012, just four days after the attack in Libya. You wrote that the fuse for WW III has been lit. It is now burning rapidly down, although people are still not understanding what's taking place right in front of them. I'll give a brief, perhaps somewhat oversimplified recap going back to the beginning, giving context for what's taking place at this very moment. I suppose I cannot overstate this or say this enough. The so-called "Arab Spring" is an initiative by Obama and his foreign policy advisers, Clinton, in her capacity of Secretary of State, and others including some of the most powerful people in the world. International bankers, the power brokers and string pullers. It is a plan to reshape the Middle East and North Africa, and change the geopolitical balance of power. It's not about some feel-good mission to free the oppressed. Never was. It's about the U.S., through the CIA, using groups ideologically aligned to al Qaeda aligned to overthrow various Middle East nations to install regimes controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood It's a globalist agenda, using the blueprints and agenda created by Saudi Arabia for the North African and Middle East portions of the globe, to shape that area geopolitically. They are using the United States as their surrogate and their military muscle, and the Obama led U.S. "regime" is all too willing to comply. With regard to Libya, it was in March of 2011 when the Clinton State Department, under orders of Obama, appointed Ambassador Stevens as the point man to the al Qaeda linked Libyan opposition forces to topple Qaddafi. Remember, Osama bin Laden was reportedly killed two months later and al Qaeda was supposedly out of existence, according to Obama. But think about this. Under direct orders of Obama, Clinton appointed Stevens to work with the very same people who reportedly killed 3000-plus Americans on September 11, 2001 for the purposes of overthrowing Qaddafi. It worked, and Qaddafi was deposed and murdered in October of 2011. Look at what happened next. Clinton announced that the U.S. was throwing $40 million into Libya to "secure" Qaddafi's weapon arsenals. Oh, really? That's what was being told to the public and to congress, but it's not reality, certainly not from the inside. As I've already explained , that money and our personnel were being used to collect the weapons to send them to Syria to topple Assad. Before getting to Syria, they were placed in staging areas in Turkey near the Syrian border, and other places, including Jordan. They were being collected and sent through northern Libya, and the CIA operations center was the headquarters for this operation. As I've said many times, there was no embassy or consulate in Benghazi. It was a covert CIA operations center. Wait, why do people continue to call it a consulate? Why is it identified on Google maps as a consulate. First, it continues to be called a consulate because this is part of the cover-up. The government is STILL lying to the American people. The media is assisting in the cover-up, and so are some in congress in both parties. For goodness sakes, anyone looking at Google maps on September 10, 2012 will never find the Benghazi location named a consulate. It's a LIE! Sorry, please go on. So every American understands, it is OUR tax money in part that was used to arm Islamic groups ideologically aligned with al Qaeda. Imagine that. Eleven years after 9/11, we're funding and assisting the very same terrorists who attacked our country to topple another country. And other countries are in this up to their necks as well. The Brits for one. The very country or empire that created some of the post-war borders, many knowingly unmanageable from the outset, is now in part responsible for changing them. Anyway, the weapons everyone in government said that were "collected" and destroyed were pieces of junk that never worked. The working weapons, including an estimated 10-15,000 shoulder fired missiles were shipped out of Libya. Stevens was the head of logistics, coordinating this operation. He was working with the Turkish consul general as well, the guy who met with him on the night of his death. We already went over this in detail. The attack was perpetuated by Ansar al-Shariah, an Islamic terrorist group backed by Iran. Also present were members of the terror group AQIM, or al Qaeda in Northern Africa. It was a coordinated attack for a purpose, and never, ever had anythig remotely to do with any internet video. Please touch on the nature of the attack again for those just catching up As I explained before , I have information that three "hit teams" were dispatched to Benghazi . Stevens was lured to the CIA compound to talk about Russia's knowledge of what the U.S. was doing - running weapons to be used against Assad in Syria, which is Russia's "red line." They needed to talk and not at the embassy, but at this out of the way location. The weapons running operation, although it was winding down anyway, was compromised. Over. Done. It is likely that the Turkish consul general told Sevens that the Russians had evidence - proof, of weapons in Turkey, including chemical weapons. Turkey, a NATO ally being squeezed by Russia, wanted the weapons gone from their turf. We also had people up there training the "rebels" on how to use the weapons as well. You heard about training exercises in that area on or about September 11, 2012? Who do you think we were training? Right after the Turkish counsel general left, the attack against the CIA compound began. What was the reason for the attack? Remember the story of the Iranian Red Crescent workers being "snatched" from the streets of Benghazi late on July 31 or the early morning of August 1, 2012? This happened at the same time the CIA compound wall was hit by a mortar. These Red Crescent workers were spies. At the same time, some members of the terror group AQIM were also picked up in Benghazi. It was a mystery! Where did they go? Who had them? The belief was that they were being held at the CIA compound. Iran wanted them back. So, in addition to everything else, Ansar al Shariah was looking for their people. AQIM were looking for their people too. This is the reason the compound was not immediately leveled by the weapons they had on sight. They were trying to find and free their people, who were not being held there, but elsewhere. They were trying to 'smoke" the people out of the compound and rescue the "hostages." Plus, a message had to be sent to Obama, Clinton and others that the weapons operation had to stop. The groups leading the attack, primarily Ansar al Sharia with an AQIM presence as well, were tools of Iran, Syria and of course, Russia. So there were two reasons for the attack: get their spies back, and expose this operation for what it was. Again, we went over this. The snatched Red Crescent Workers play prominently into exposing this operation. Yes, and here is where it gets interesting. They were released exactly 65 days after they were snatched . They were in good health and dropped off on the streets of Tripoli. But why then? This is where it get's damning to Obama, Clinton, and Valerie Jarrett. What is not widely known to Americans is that Obama sent Iranian born Valerie Jarrett to Qatar for high level talks with the Iranians about coming to an agreement before the November elections. This, despite Jarrett not having the capacity as official of the U.S. government. She had no business doing what she was doing. That aside, the plan was that Jarrett would broker a deal, and Obama would announce to the world that he had succeeded in diplomatic negotiations with the Iranians where they would halt their nuclear weapons ambitions and Obama would officially live up to his title as savior of the world. But before the talks kicked into high gear, the Iranians told Jarrett that the Red Crescent workers had to be released before any talks could be done in earnest. Jarrett relayed that to Obama and Clinton, and then, out of nowhere, the missing workers were suddenly released. If there were talks and the "spies" were released, then why was there no agreement? Because Jarrett, Obama and Clinton were being played by the Iranians. It was to buy time, especially since the Obama agenda of arming the anti-Assad rebels was continuing. The Iranians are not stupid. They understood that Obama and Clinton were continuing to support the anti-Assad rebels, and with bipartisan support, STILL ARE! So now we are hearing reports of chemical weapons planned for use by Assad. What's the real story? The world is being set up for a false flag operation. Obama, Clinton and every supporter of the anti-Assad initiative are either lying to the American people or are "dupes." The objective remains taking out Assad and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-backed regime. There have been reports out of the U.S. and the UK that Assad is preparing to use chemical weapons against the rebels. Assad denies that he would ever use them, and there is a reason we should believe him in this case. The condemnation that would result is unnecessary and certainly unwarranted. There reports are to condition people to immediately suspect Assad when a chemical incident occurs. In this case, it's the U.S., the UK and other Western backed countries constantly asserting that Assad will launch a chemical attack, and we're getting ready just for that case. But if you look at the evidence, it's the anti-Assad, Western backed forces that have taken possession of chemical storage areas. There was a recently released video, very graphic in nature of anti-Assad rebels conducting the test of a nerve agent on two rabbits. The video displayed chemicals bottles with the name of a Turkish country on them. I'm not going to give the name or video channel, but people can find the video for themselves on YouTube. It's a set-up to topple Assad and put a Muslim brotherhood leader in his place. I told you before, and you printed what I said, that a chemical weapon attack would justify U.S. and NATO intervention, supported by the outcry of the world against Assad. It's Iraq all over again, except Syria is a hundred times more dangerous. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan or even Libya, Syria will not implode. It will EXPLODE, and we will be fighting Iranians as well. Russia has "advisers" in Syria as well. Are the American people ready and willing to square off against Iran AND Russia in a regional conflict that will likely turn into a global, full scale war? What's going on with Turkey, Syria and Russia now? It was announced that Turkey will receive patriot Missiles to protect them from the spillover. Actually, these missiles over the northern territory of Syria will create a de-facto no fly zone that will allow the consolidation of anti-Assad rebels to perhaps install a new Western-backed government in the northern part of Syria . Well, Russia deployed Iskander missiles into Syria, rendering the Patriot missiles ineffective. This move shows exactly how serious Russia is. They are not backing down. And you know what else? Sunburn missiles are at Iran's disposal and can be used in that theater. Regardless of what is written or talked about by talking heads, these missiles poses a grave threat to our aircraft carriers. Want to see how fast we can lose an aircraft carrier and the several thousand crew members on board? This is what we face. Russia is doubling down, Iran is doubling down. Assad is doubling down. Meanwhile, Obama and the U.S. State Department continue to lie to the American people. The lie continues, and the fuse to WW III is burning down while the Obama regime is heading full steam ahead toward regional and global war. Why haven't we heard any truth about Benghazi, even from congressional investigators? Because the lie continues, and we are still supporting the overthrow of Assad, despite Putin's warnings. Obama, Clinton, the global leaders and their financiers are continuing to lead us into World War III. The lies continue, and to continue operations, the truth must be kept from the American public. We are continuing our operations to overthrow Assad at full throttle right in front of all Americans. And there will be fallout. In addition to four dead Americans and over 40 thousand dead Syrians, the consequences of our actions will cause the death of an estimated FOUR MILLION in Syria alone, many Christians. When, not if the "conflict" escalates, we'll see many millions dead. And for what? Okay, what's the objective here? Behind the smoke and mirrors is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It's their agenda. We're just providing the army, the training, performing the logistics and doing the heavy lifting. It's the Saudi agenda, and it's about power, control and oil. Who do you think controls the Muslim brotherhood? Has anyone asked why Obama, raised in a Muslim culture, is tied at the hip with the Muslim Brotherhood? Why aren't Americans angry that we are using our assets, our men and women to advance the agenda of Saudi Arabia under the orders of Barack Hussein Obama? Why are members of congress so quick to commit our forces to oust Assad when it benefits Saudi Arabia, not the U.S? The agenda of Obama is so overt, so "in your face" yet not one member of congress, not one media outlet is calling him out on this. Some might call this mere conspiracy theory. There's a conspiracy alright, but it involves the government and the media. They are laughing in our faces. In addition to the obvious regional consequences, there will be blowback from the Obama-Clinton agenda. What type of blowback? Well, let's first look at what's happened already as this insane Obama agenda has been going on for some time. Remember the plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S? On October 11, 2011, the FBI announced that a plot, identified by the FBI as "Operation Red Coalition," was foiled to kill Saudi ambassador Adel al-Jubeir in the United States. It was alleged that Iranian nationals were working with a Mexican drug gang to kill al-Jubeir with a bomb while he was dining at a DC restaurant. Do you think he would have been the only one to die there if that plan succeeded? No, innocent men, women and children would have died as well. Many in the media and the talking heads were having trouble understanding why Iran or Iranian nationals would want the Saudi Ambassador dead. Well, in the context of what you know now, does this make a bit more sense? These events do not happen in a vacuum. But I'm sure people will question why members of a Mexican drug cartel would be enlisted to assist in this operation? This gets a bit complex, but it goes back to AQIM. Remember them? That's al Qaeda in Northern Africa. They are an elite Muslim terror group of perhaps 400 or so members. They carefully screen their members, and do a lot of subcontracting. Despite being Muslim, they are running drugs from South America, specifically the Tri-Border Area (TBA) into North Africa for ultimate distribution into Europe. Why Europe instead of North America? Because the drugs are worth more there, and the profit difference is worth it. While drugs are being funneled from South America, terror groups are also funneling al Qaeda terrorists or terrorists of similar ideology into South America and into Mexico, where they are entering the United States. Think of it as a two-lane highway. Some of these terrorists have been caught at the southern border of the U.S., some with tattoos on their arms of mullahs and Islamic phrases of jihad. Why? Because when the Syria-Iran situation goes hot, there will be terrorists already inside the United States. But we created them and gave them the reason to be here. A few AQIM members, running the drugs east, were caught in Benghazi, which explains their presence and getting picked up there as well. So Ansar al Shariah and AQIM, both present at Benghazi, were looking for their people. But back to the blowback, or the consequences of the Obama foreign policy agenda. There is more, and it much more serious. Attacks in the U.S? For all intents and purposes, the United States, Russia and China are at war. Although the situation in Syria is being described as a civil war, it is the direct result of U.S. involvement by Obama and Clinton at the behest of Saudi Arabia. While real bullets are flying in Syria, an asymmetrical war exists beyond the confines of Syria's borders. Remember, Putin has drawn a hard line in the sand at Syria. The stability of Syria is of extreme strategic economic and military importance to Russia as well as China. Although no hot war exists between Russia, China and the U.S. at the moment, that does not mean things are not taking place behind the scenes in ways that are not readily apparent. One of the biggest threats to the United States right now is an attack on the U.S. Dollar. At this moment, the fate of the U.S. dollar hangs in the balance. What is the U.S. dollar backed by? Gold? Silver? Neither. Some say the dollar is not backed by anything, and although they might be technically accurate, it's not entirely true. At this moment, the dollar is backed by one important thing, which is oil. The stability of the dollar rests on the free and unimpeded flow of oil. Once that is interrupted or even threatened, there is a high degree of risk that the dollar will collapse. The "string pullers" are pulling us into a situation where our actions result in the disruption or the threat of disruption of the free flow of oil. Given the current state of our economy, how fast might this bring down the United States without a shot having to be fired? Now I know I'm stepping out into some areas that people might consider to be fringe, but think about what is taking place in the U.S. and across the globe. People talk about global governance, or a one order under a single currency. What's the quickest way to destroy a country from within? What was the major reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union? Remember the Ruble? I can tell you this, Putin does. So at this point, what's an expeditious way to strike at the very heart of America while also accomplishing other larger global objectives? Take out the U.S. dollar. We are in a period of heightened risk and maximum vulnerability, put here by Obama, his foreign policy advisers, czars, and of course Hillary Clinton. What are their objectives, and those of his closest advisers, especially in terms of the fate of the U.S? Fundamental change in ways that can be hardly imagined. Are you saying that the larger objective is to destroy America? I'm saying that we are advancing the agenda of Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood in North Africa and the Middle East. We're doing their work, pitting ourselves against Syria, Iran and ultimately Russia and China. Syria and Iran are firewalls for Russia and China. Russia and China understand the monster created and used by the United States, they understand the Muslim Brotherhood backed terrorists. They will not stop at Syria. They will continue to push into the Federation of Russian States, disrupt oil flow, overthrow nations and threaten the security and sovereignty of Russia and threaten China. We're playing with fire, and to expect no consequences is ridiculous. The path that Obama continues to take, without any objection from congress or others in the U.S., will lead us on a path to self destruction. Perhaps the ultimate question is whether it is by incompetence or by design. Copyright (c) Douglas Hagmann Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report , a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET. Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network , and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website. Doug can be reached at: director@homelandsecurityus.com Older articles by Doug Hagmann http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51679 Chaffetz: State Dept Hiding Benghazi Survivors by Kerry Picket 12 Dec 2012 667 post a comment Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R- UT) told Breitbart News on Wednesday that he has been "thwarted" by the State Department from seeing any Americans who survived the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Many people forget that there were Americans who survived the Benghazi attack, some of whom were badly injured and are still recovering. "My understanding is that we still have some people in the hospital. I'd like to visit with them and wish them nothing but the best but the State Department has seen it unfit for me to know who those people are-or even how many there are," Rep. Chaffetz said. "I don't know who they are. I don't know where they live. I don't know what state they're from. I don't even know how many there are. It doesn't seem right to me." "This is so patently different than any other experience I've had. Unfortunately, people have been killed and maimed and in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq and in points beyond. It's typically been the case that they would release those names but in this case, they won't. My challenge is to the media. You try and figure it out. They won't let Congress know. They won't seem to let the media know either." Breitbart News sent an inquiry to the State Department regarding those who survived the attack in Benghazi and is awaiting a response. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/12/12/Chaffetz-Benghazi-State-Dept A Timeline of the Benghazi Attacks Reuters John Hudson 3,372 ViewsSep 21, 2012 While the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi has dominated headlines for more than a week, the facts of what actually happened during the Sept. 11 assault are still far from settled. A myriad of questions remain such as the identity of the attackers, the degree to which the assault was pre-planned and why security at the consulate was so insufficient, but new accounts bring us closer to how events unfolded that night and how U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other U.S. personnel were killed. To help sort it all out, this is a timeline of what we know so far about the attack, sequenced in Benghazi time. 8:00 to 9:30 p.m. This is the most disputed period of the evening. At 8 p.m., Ambassador Stevens finished a meeting with the Turkish consul general and, according to The Wall Street Journal , said he was "retiring for the night." What happened next has still not been established. Obama administration officials say that around 8 p.m.. a mob of Muslim protesters gathered around the U.S. consulate to protest the U.S. film Innocence of Muslims . Yesterday, however, CBS News reported that witnesses at the scene say there was never an anti-American protest outside the consulate. "That is in direct contradiction to the administration's account of the incident," said CBS correspondent Margaret Brennan. In today's paper, The New York Times also reported that witnesses say no anti-American protests occurred at the consulate: "Libyan witnesses, including two guards at the building, say the area around the compound was quiet until the attackers arrived." The map on the right shows a Google satellite image of the consulate. 9:30 p.m. The attackers arrive, approaching the consulate from three sides, armed with rocket-propelled grenades. According to The Journal , the militants breached the front and east walls around the building, and Americans began firing from inside. The Times says 20 Americans are inside at this time. The building was not heavily guarded and at no point were Marines involved in the fighting, despite initial reports. 9:35 to 10:30 p.m. The consulate alarm goes off and Libyan guards call for backup as militants gain access to the compound. "They fire rocket-propelled grenades into the main building. Mr. Stevens, Sean Smith and an American security officer are inside," reports The Times . "The security officer makes it outside. He returns to rescue the others and finds Mr. Smith dead but does not find Mr. Stevens." At 10 p.m., the consulate is burning in flames and, according to the Journal, the security officer was joined by Libyan government reinforcements who just arrived. "They guard front and rear gates as militants begin to crowd at rear gate. U.S. and Libyan guards enter burning building." The guards were also unable to find Ambassador Stevens. 10:45 p.m. At this point, American security personnel try to take back the main building of the consulate but fail. According to The Times they retreat to another compound about a half-mile away traveling in "two cars" according to The Journal. 12:30 a.m. Looters descend on the consulate and pull the ambassador out of the building. According to The Times , these same Libyans were responsible for bringing Stevens to the hospital. Video footage of Stevens being dragged out of the compound later surfaced online (most notably, the Drudge Report), with images of Libyans cheering and praising Allah. 1:00 a.m. A half hour later, Stevens arrives at Benghazi Medical Center and is described as "unresponsive," according to the Journal . The Times says "The doctor who treats him says he may have died from smoke inhalation. Americans are unaware of his whereabouts at this point." The map to the right shows the route from the consulate to the Benghazi Medical Center (5.1 kilometers by car.) 1:30 a.m. Enter the reinforcements: "An American rescue team arrives from Tripoli at Benghazi's airport and drives to the second compound," reports the Times . 2 a.m. This is where phase two of the attack is reported to have begun and where evidence emerges, according to some observers, that the attack was pre-planned and coordinated. "As the staff is preparing to leave the second compound, it comes under fire. More than 20 staff members retreat to a building at the back of the compound," reports the Times . Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, both American security officers, were killed in the shootout. Describing the confrontation, the Times says "The attackers had lain in wait, silently observing as the rescuers, including eight State Department civilians who had just landed at the airport in Benghazi, arrived in large convoys. This second attack was shorter in duration than the first, but more complex and sophisticated. It was an ambush." 3 to 4 a.m. Ambassador Stevens' body is found at the Benghazi hospital by Libyan security forces. After his colleague's describe his features, Libyans identify the body. 6:30 a.m. Time to leave. The U.S. survivors are flown to Tripoli. Shortly afterwards, the bodies of the murdered Americans are flown out of Benghazi as well. Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at jhudson@theatlantic.com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire. John Hudson Topics: Afghanistan , Libya http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/timeline-benghazi-attacks/57124/ WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: "Barack Obama - The Butcher of Benghazi." by Ulsterman on September 20, 2012 with 102 Comments in News "But they are so spooked and confused over the polling data, they released it sooner. That means the Middle East situation has them afraid. People are actually asking some questions now. Sniffing around the situation just a bit. And if they get somebody in the military...somebody like that...to go on the record with this...with whatever had that ambassador acting so strangely right before he was killed...well-well-well..." -WHI NOTE: Readers should know - Insider has been extremely busy of late, and to be given even just a bit of time to sit down face to face again after months of being unable to do so is both unexpected and a welcome privilege. -UM UM: You said I get two main topics to discuss, so let's start with Fast and Furious. Holder. Where are we at and where will it go? Gone in the fall. That's what you promised. Many times. WHI: Yes I did - and I also said...was it last time we talked...also said it's out of our hands now. They got what they need to push him out...they can do it if they're willin' to get just a little bloody. Don't know if they will though. Some of them...some of the Republicans are willin' - that I know. But they ain't leadership. They can move a committee vote on somethin'...but they can't bring it to the floor all by themselves. And then you got the Senate blocking everything...not the Senate. Reid. What they got or what they promised that old motherf-cker...nothing gettin' by him. Read more in News << Obama Flip-Flops On Middle East Embassy Attacks - Now Admits It WAS A Terrorist Attack Against America GUNNERGATE: Obama White House IGNORED Inspector General Gunrunning Investigation >> UM: So it's Boehner? He's blocking taking this to the next level? WHI: Sure...among others. I don't want put all the blame on Boehner...he's seeing how even if the House were to put something strong...hell...they already done good on some of that, right? Even pushing a legal challenge. But that takes a lot of time...and none of that will ever see the light of day until after the election. Might make for a brutal second term for Obama if he wins...but as for real justice? The truth? They are runnin' out the clock. And yeah - Republicans are dragging their feet too. Scared of a fight. A real fight. (Pause) Thing that's got me...well...more than a little pissed off about this is the real potential behind the DOJ investigation. You see, Fast and Furious...the gunrunning bullsh*t. It ties into a whole pile of no good around Obama and Jarrett...there's political stuff there of course. Gun control and all that. None of that has really come out like it should. I promised that memo...said there was a memo on the gun control thing, remember that? Nobody said nothing about it - and then it came out. And I thought "here we go - now it starts". Then nothin'. Media buried it. Deep. Congress hardly touched it. UM: You're talking about the memo stating how the border violence can be used to implement stronger gun regulations? WHI: That's the one - tied directly to Fast and Furious - laid out the real intent of all that gunrunning. They wanted things to get f-cked up. They wanted those drug lords killing off each other and if some poor innocent bastards get blown away in the crossfire, all the better, right? Make Americans...make enough of them, hate the idea of guns. Make them willing to give some of those guns back. Make them...the Dems would need just another 10% or so of the voters, maybe not even that much...and gun rights in America would be transformed forever. Be lucky to get a water gun out there after they done with it. And I ain't talking exaggerations here. The Democrats - ones who control the party now...taking guns away is right at the top of their priorities list. Way up there. UM: Why is that? WHI: It all comes back to control with these people. Soviet Union style control. Where you live. What you eat. What you read. How you work. They want to control all of that. 'Course they go on living however they like. Government becomes the elite class. And we ain't far off from that already. Obama, Jarrett...they want that so bad...they want to control the rest of us because...well we are all just too damn dumb to take care of ourselves, right? It's all for our good, right? UM: Back to Holder. Is he gone or does he stay? WHI: Out of our hands. Republicans have been given what they need. They just gotta get in the ring now and start swinging away. Hit something for f-ck's sake. HARD. UM: How about some of your Democrats help them to do that? WHI: I don't have any of "my Democrats". They are all dead and gone or sittin' back home wondering...same as I wonder...how in the hell it got so bad so fast. (Pause) Democratic Party is dead. Gone. We hung ourselves in 2008. Obama was the rope. Snapped our necks and gave us that sh-t for brains grin while he done it. UM: You helped with that rope in 2008. WHI: F-ck you - we all did. You don't...no need to remind me what I done. ...And if there was a Republican Party with just a little more balls...this thing woulda been wrapped up by now. Holder been gone and gone a long time ago. And back to Chicago with it. They got that - they know the deal there. Investigate that DOJ - investigate those wire taps. Investigate that prosecutor. The guys dyin'. Thing I told you about Vegas...how long ago? Here's the deal - it's all f-cking there. One by one by one...it's a hell of a mess but if they had the nuts to go after it...they could get it done. Media would have to take it on. (Pause) But I'm just an old has-been see? When bodies start showing up...courage leaves the room real fast. Nobody wants to risk anything on principle. Doin' the right thing is doin' the dead thing - that's what back to Chicago is in all of this. Fast and Furious...as bad as that is...that thing was just to get the ball rolling. Get Holder gone, peel away the DOJ onion...and see the real ugly inside. UM: So if Holder were to go...all of the rest - all that Back to Chicago scenario you have always been speaking to...it finally comes out? WHI: Used to think that...there would be a good month or so of chaos at DOJ...a window where people would be given the chance...and maybe find just enough courage to walk upright for once. You know? Man-the-f-ck UP. This thing got dragged out so long though...and Jarrett put West in there...he's hangin' real close to Holder now...sh-t, they probably got a real solid contingency in place by now. This thing took too f-cking long to get on. (Pause) Don't wanna think on that anymore - see what the Republicans do with it this week. F-ck 'em. All of 'em. Democrats. Republicans. It's all bullsh-t. Circle-jerkin' mother-f-ckers. Not a real man in the bunch these days. John f*cking Wayne has left the building man - and he slammed the door behind him. (Pause) Ah...godd-amit, I apologize son...said I wasn't gonna...know you don't like all the cursin'. Been a rough one. Past week. Got me feelin' so damn OLD. UM: How about the Middle East stuff? The embassy attacks? I have been trying to get out as much information on that as possible. Is that going to hurt Obama like it should? WHI: It will - it IS hurting him. Not as much as it should - media is in 24/7 protect mode. That whole things stinks...not just the president's reaction to it. Not just the lying by the administration...but the fella who was killed...that ambassador. Now this is me - this is just me thinkin' here. What my gut is tellin' me on this...that guy was no ambassador. Officially yeah - but off the books. He was CIA. Had to have been. You made a comment in one of your stories...'bout how it was like Fast and Furious except in the Middle East. Somethin' like that. UM: That if Obama was willing to arm Mexican drug lords, why not Muslim extremists. WHI: Right - somethin' like that. Think you might a nailed it there without knowing it. You meant it as...like a bit of sarcasm there at the end of what you wrote - but you actually said what the real deal is. Obama sent a sh-tload of weapons into Libya during the Gaddafi thing. Had no idea who they were going to...just...tens of millions of dollars worth of high grade weaponry. Now you think folks like al Qaeda and other militant groups won't notice? It was a take what you need weapons supermarket courtesy of the Obama government for them! Not much different than what happened in Egypt. UM: How so? WHI: You got Egypt. You got Libya. Both of them were run by...basically they guys running the show were non-practicing Muslims, right? Mubarak - he couldn't stand the Muslim hardliners and he beat the sh-t out of them every chance he got. Him and his military cronies. So he kept the peace that way. He kept business open to American and European interests. Things weren't perfect, but a hell of a lot better than say,Iran. He could tell Iran to shut the f-ck up, and Iran had to consider it because Egypt had some real muscle. It had a military, and it had the backing of the West. (Barack Obama shaking hands with former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. A year later Obama would be calling for Mubarak's removal from power) Now Libya...Gadaffi was a real sh*t. Sick bastard. But like Mubarak - he didn't like the Muslim hardliners in Libya either. Especially if they were gonna cause trouble for him. So he would intimidate the sh-t out of them too. At least over the last decade or so. Gaddafi had two coming to God moments in his life. The first was when Reagan bombed the hell out of his palace. He knew he coulda died then. He knew the West could come in and take his life if it wanted. So he moderated. Then there was 9-11. And when Bush went into Iraq and did his thing - they found Hussein and put him on trial and hung the bastard...that scared the hell out of Gaddafi. Really got inside his head. So he moderated some more. He was actually...my understanding...he was actually becoming a regular contributor to our Intel. By that time he couldn't stand al Qaeda anymore than we could. Maybe less so because they posed an even more direct threat to him. And what happens? The dumbest pile of sh-t that has ever sat in that White House helps to force Mubarak and Gaddafi out - and we got no real plan for the aftermath. All kinds of people are telling the administration the Muslim Brotherhood could take overEgypt. Could take over Libya. They either ignored those warning or that is EXACTLY what they wanted to happen. They are warned that Gadaffi's departure will create more chaos in Libya and there are a sh-tload of weapons that will be unaccounted for. That is exactly what happens. Obama doesn't give a sh-t. Too busy golfing. Doing the talk shows. Right? Telling Israel to go f-ck themselves. Dancing around Iran instead of punching them right in their f-cking face. Jarrett is Iranian. Jarrett has long ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. You would think, maybe for one f-cking second, enough people in the media would think maybe - just maybe...we should take a closer look at all this. (Pause) What if that ambassador fella...what if he was killed by weapons sent there by Barack Obama? Just like you said in that off-handed way. And what if there are tens of thousands of those weapons being used by al Qaeda right now? Maybe on their way to the Israeli border? And not just guns 'cause that's not all we were sending into Libya you know. We're talking some high powered take down an airliner kinda stuff. And take it a bit further. We did that. And we did it knowingly. We did it willingly. The Obama White House. Their hand picked stooges in the military, in State. They did that. Now let me go one little step more here. What if that ambassador...well...let's say he came across certain information...damaging to the administration. Why is he flying into that consulate in Benghazi? Cover of night. No security precautions. Anti-Western sentiment reaching critical levels. It's almost like he was trying to keep his whereabouts unknown to his own government. Right? And that bullsh-t little YouTube video thing? It had been out for...what - months? Nobody gave a sh-t about it. NOBODY. But then it is being used as the spark to start the fire? Who did that? Who would want to get those sand...get those people are riled up like that? And the administration - they are saying it was that video right out of the gate, right? Like it was a packaged excuse ready to go. Packaged means it was part of something bigger. A bigger plan, right? UM: (Interrupts) Hold on - I apologize. I just want to ask you if this is all your own speculation - or if you received information. (Military Insider?) You're getting pretty specific here - and that usually - all the times we've done this...usually means you received information from another source. WHI: This is me. Just me. ...so like I said...the video thing...it's part of a packaged plan. They are running that excuse HARD. Libyans are saying it's bullsh-t. London media...they got a sh-tload of people in Libya too who know - there is stuff going on between us and the Brits...they ain't happy with Obama. Not all of them. So basically everyone BUT the Obama administration is saying the Benghazi attack was pre-planned, right? Terrorist attack. And what is Barack Obama doing right at that time? He's flying to Vegas. He's doing goofy interviews. His White House just keeps repeating the video excuse over and over again. So is this all just a pile of incompetent sh-t by the Obama administration? By Clinton? Did you notice how Defense said very little? And the CIA...Petraeus... has said nothing? In this town, some times the ones speaking the loudest are the ones not saying a word. UM: And then we get the "secret" Romney 47% video released. WHI: Right - right. Obama was starting to take on just a little bit of heat on the Middle East sh-t and that tape comes out. That thing wasn't meant to come out this early. Late October, maybe - certainly not now. But they are so spooked and confused over the polling data, they released it sooner. That means the Middle East situation has them afraid. People are actually asking some questions now. Sniffing around the situation just a bit. And if they get somebody in the military...somebody like that...to go on the record with this...with whatever had that ambassador acting so strangely right before he was killed...well-well-well... UM: So you're going conspiracy on this? WHI: Oh yeah. That was no accidental killing of the ambassador. And it wasn't just al-Qaeda acting alone. They had approval. From somebody linked with our side of the fence. UM: And you're really just speculating here? WHI: (Pause) ...Sure. Just me on this...just me thinking on Barack Obama - the Butcher of Benghazi. UM: That has a ring to it. WHI: The truth often does. UM: Even if we win this election...Obama is defeated. Is there still time to save this country? Or are we too far gone? WHI: You been talking to the Old Man? 'Cause that's EXACTLY how he put it to me a few days back. Too far gone. Somethin' about...he went on about muni bonds. How that Ponzi scheme...how he didn't think they could stop the collapse. I don't understand all that sh-t. (Pause) You haven't talked to him? UM: No - not recently. WHI: Well...he's...he told me so I don't think he'd mind you knowing. UM: Knowing what? WHI: He's...how'd he put it? Closing shop? Already has the family out you know. Like he said he would. Now he's getting ready...even with his health...he's considering going himself. Not sure how he'd manage his treatments... He's about as paranoid as I've ever seen him...and that goes back a while. UM: Why? Something...was there a specific event that got him so spooked? WHI: I don't wanna talk for him - shouldn't even be talking this much about him. (Pause) He said this though...he said...and maybe this is why he isn't including you. For some kind of protection. Doesn't want you involved. He seems determined about something. Not sure what he's got planned - but he's up to somethin'. ...Said people have forgotten that there is both a loving god and a righteous god and that it's gonna be a righteous god America is about to meet up with. UM: What do you think that's supposed to mean? WHI: Not sure. It means something - he don't talk to talk. But who knows? He's lookin' to meet up with God soon enough I suppose. UM: And he said that the situation is "too far gone" for America? WHI: That's how he put it. Word for word. That's why I thought you talked with him recently. UM: How about my question - what do YOU think? Is America too far gone? WHI: Hell son...I ain't never gonna give up on this old girl. Her and I...it's been a lifelong love affair. She's a tired and cranky b-tch...but so am I. Semper Fi motherf-cker. ...I don't quit. END INTERVIEW. ______________________ RELATED UPDATE - THANK YOU TO ULSTERMANREPORT.COM READER "WHISTLEBLOWER" : DOJ SILENCES OBAMA ASSOCIATE WITH HIS FREEDOM http://www.scribd.com/doc/116778493/The-Utter-Insanity-of-Obama-and-the-CIA-Starting-World-War-3-in-the-Middle-East-Must-Read-Documents

The Mindset of North Korean Elites. An article by GARY LEUPP

waterlawman — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:04:10 -0400

I'm only reproducing this for the readers of LiveLeak. This is not my work. I thought it would be compelling reading for LiveLeaker's. Gary Leupp wrote this he is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. April 16, 2013 What's Really Going On? The Mindset of North Korean Elites by GARY LEUPP On March 27 Kim Jong-un, the "Dear Respected Marshal" and leader the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, severed the last military hotline between North and South. Three days later he announced that the DPRK was renouncing the armistice agreement of 1953 and "entering the state of war." On April 2 he announced the reactivation of a plutonium reactor closed in 2007, and the closure of Kaesong Industrial Park the next day. (Pyongyang bravely declared that it receives "few economic benefits from the zone," where 53,000 North Koreans work for 123 South Korean companies, "while the South side largely benefits from it.") On April 4 U.S. intelligence reported movement of a medium-range missile to an eastern location for possible testing. The next day British and Russian diplomats reported that their missions in Pyongyang had been encouraged to evacuate family members. Two weeks have gone by. Pyongyang is reportedly calm, and there are some reports that-after some rather provocative moves-the Pentagon seems to have canceled or postponed some actions, perhaps to defuse the situation. (A nuclear-capable B-2 flew in from Missouri March 28 and dropped "inert ordinance" while nuclear-capable B-52s participated in "routine" drills and a destroyer and sea-based radar platform approached the North Korean coast.) Meanwhile the press reports that the U.S. has ruled out hitting missiles on the launch pad without evidence of plans to attack the U.S.-surely a small comfort. Everyone seems to agree that, since the North Koreans do not seem anywhere near to having deliverable nuclear warheads-and if they did they'd realize their use would surely doom themselves and tens of thousands of others-it's extremely unlikely that all the rhetoric and dramatic moves will truly lead to war. But how to explain them? One must imagine that Kim Jong-il and his courtiers are not the South Park cartoon characters created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone. They are in fact "rational." Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, met at length with Kim Jong-il in 2002 and pronounced him both "rational" and "pragmatic" (as well as "charming"). The reverends Billy and Franklin Graham, who have preached in North Korea and are seen by the Foreign Ministry as "friends of Korea" have also averred that the Kims are rational. (Yes, I agree that Albright and the evangelicals are themselves no models of rationality or morality. My point is just that the DPRK leaders are no nuttier than the global ruling-class norm.) Those in Kim's circle are well educated, can access the international media, and despite North Korea's reputation for "isolation" (Korea was called "the hermit kingdom" long before its division in 1945) well aware of the outside world. Dynasty founder Kim Il-song left Korea for Manchuria at age eight and didn't return to 1945. Kim Jong-un, now 29 or 30, apparently spent seven of his formative years enrolled first in the International School near Bern, Switzerland, from around age 10 to 14, and then the nearby Liebefeld Steinh"olzli from age 14 to 17. (He later obtained a degree in physics from Kim Il-song University.) His slightly older brother Jong-chul studied in Switzerland as well. His oldest (half-) brother Jong-nam (b. 1981) visited Tokyo from at least 1995. (Caught entering Japan on a forged passport in 2001, he embarrassed his father Kim Jong-il, was removed from his heir apparent position and now spends much of his time in Macao.) Indeed quite a few descendents of dynasty founder Kim have spent long periods outside the DPRK. Kim Il-song's second oldest son (after Jong-il) has been ambassador to Poland since the 1980s and his two children grew up in Warsaw. Kim Il-song's daughter Kim Kyong-chin has been living in Vienna over twenty years as wife of the DPRK ambassador to Austria. Another daughter, Kim Kyong-hui, studied in Moscow 1968-69. Her own daughter, Jong-un's cousin, studied in Paris (and as we will see, died there). Clearly the elite is aware of the realities of global capitalism, and aware that the U.S., however crisis-ridden its system may be, remains a hyper-power, the world's greatest purveyor of violence. It has over 7000 nukes in its arsenal. DPRK leaders also grasps the magnitude of the changes in China, where a "communist" party with fraternal ties to the DPRK's ruling Korean Workers Party has maintained its hold on power while overseeing the restoration of capitalism (and coping with the stormy social consequences). Kim's advisors presumably realize that without international relief and Chinese goodwill, the DPRK would become so destitute that social explosions would be inevitable. They know that actions seen as provocative by both the U.S. and China could result in sanctions producing mass suffering. One doubts that many in this stratum would welcome war. But then, who knows? All the commentators state that little is known about the North Korean leadership. What do we (outsiders in general) really know about how they think? The Songbun System First of all we must assume that having grown up under the songbun status system, they accept it or do not overtly challenge it. This system, little known to people outside the DPRK, places people in one of 51 categories based on songbun (background "components"). These categories were announced by the Great Leader Kim Il-song in 1957 and subsequently elaborated in party documents. The first group consists of "friendly" (or "core" forces). These as of 1957 consisted of the peasant and working classes, Party members, veterans of the wars against the Japanese and U.S., revolutionary intellectuals, etc. Kim estimated these at 25% of the population. Meanwhile "hostile" or "enemy" forces, such as former landlords and entrepreneurs, Christian missionaries, shamans, collaborators with the Japanese, etc. were about 20% of the people. The remaining 55% (including, for example) "former small venders" were "neutral" or "wavering." These are not all economic class categories but include "Chinese Koreans who returned from China to Korea in the 1950s," "Buddhists and people observing Buddhist rituals," etc. Status assignment, made at birth, has usually determined one's eligibility for education, employment, location, housing, food rations, access to electricity, and rights to purchase certain goods such as television sets. But some argue that the recent collapse of the state distribution system, rise of the black market and access to Chinese-made electronics and social media have reduced the importance of songbun . It should go without saying that this system of privilege by hereditary status has nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism, which has in fact long been replaced with "the Juche Idea" in official DPRK propaganda as the ideology of state. There is no pretense to either classlessness or strategy for the attainment of a classless society; the existence of privileged strata is taken for granted. Maybe the idea is that the hostile groups will either gradually wither away due to the discrimination they face or at least be denied the ability to inbreed with the "core." The system deeply impacts the minds of many. For example, an effort to promote a cult around Kim Jong-un's mother Ko Young-hee has apparently been stymied by her songbun . Born in Japan in 1952, in Osaka where there is a large ethnic Korean population, she moved with her family to North Korea at age nine. Koreans born in Japan hold low status. It does not help that a younger sister defected to the U.S. There are some in the elite who would have liked to prevent the circulation last year of the documentary "The Mother of Great Military-first Korea," in which Ko is shown as a loving wife and doting mother comparable to Kim Jong-suk, glorious spouse and comrade to Kim Il-song. Parents are often deeply opposed to marriages with families of inferior songbun , partly because they know that any grandchildren born to offspring "marrying down" will suffer disadvantages. One prominent example: Jang Kum-song-the daughter of Kim Kyong-hui, the sister of Kim Il-song mentioned above, and her husband, Gen. Jang Sung-taek-died at age 29 in Paris in 2006. Educated in Europe, she wished to marry a North Korean man but her parents opposed the union due to the songbun gap. She committed suicide by drug overdose, a child of extraordinary privilege perhaps protesting the unfairness of the system that had coddled her so far. (Her first cousin Jong-un was around 23 at the time. One wonders when he became aware of this, and what he thought. There are rumors that his own marriage to Ri Sol-ju-who studied music in China-was opposed by his father Jong-il and concealed before his death.) Kum-song's mother Kyong-hui had studied in Moscow in 1968-9 alongside her boyfriend Jang; although the Kim family had reportedly opposed their relationship, they married in 1972. (It appears obvious that the songbun system produces ongoing conflicts within the elite, especially within families.) As a director of the International Liaison Department of the ruling party she promoted relations with Singapore and Thailand in the 1970s. She's accumulated posts in industrial management and the military. She's been described as a "personal aide" to Jung-un and has been present with her husband at meetings with Chinese diplomats. (It's been reported that Kyong-hui has missed meetings due to depression, which would not be surprising given how and why her daughter died seven years ago.) Jong-un's uncle by marriage, Gen. Jang, held top party positions from the 1980s but disappeared from November 2004, probably for criticizing economic policy. His wife dropped from view too. But in March 2006 he resurfaced in the entourage of his brother-in-law Kim Jong-il then travelling in China. Apparently someone thought him indispensible to the management of the DPRK's relationship with the PRC. Now he and Aunt Kyong-hui are regarded as Jong-un's closest advisors. Everybody living within the songbun system must understand that they belong to a status group which determines their options in life. They realize furthermore that their fates rest on decisions made by faceless generals in line with the Songun ("military first") policy announced in 1995. Rare among self-pronounced "socialist" states, North Korea places military authority ahead of party authority. China's Mao Zedong once declared "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," but added that "...the Party the gun, the gun must never be allowed to command the Party." In North Korea it is just the reverse. The army-led only by men of highest status, with an interest in maintaining it-eclipses the party. Wherever the young Kim goes, or at least wherever he is photographed, he's surrounded by grim uniformed men at least twice his age. Their material interests are a driving factor in policy. The Kims have kept these brass (relatively) fat and happy with imported whiskey and luxury cars, yachts and jewelry, and all-night parties with the Leader. The people around Kim Jong-un affecting current policy, including the handling of this current standoff with the U.S. and the South, realize that the masses of North Koreans do not have access to much of the information available to themselves. (According to one industry source, only 6% of households have television sets.) Most quite likely believe what the mass media, education system and ubiquitous propaganda organs teach: that Kim Il-song, Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un are a line of geniuses who, with their boundless energy and through their ceaseless inspection tours, are personally responsible for all the DPRK's comforts and accomplishments. Surely most of the "core" believes that, although there must be a stratum that knows better and is quietly cynical (the alternative being suicide); and much of the "wavering" may believe too. We should not assume that people blame all hardships on the system or the Kims; quite likely, many feel a variety of religious reverence for the Kims that impedes their ability to analyze their situation. Even some of the "enemies" (if they survived the famine of 1994-98, estimated to have taken between several hundred thousand and two million lives) might accept the system, love the leader and believe what his government says. Believing this, the elite thinks it can do pretty much what it wants to do. Kimilsongism, Shinto, and Neo-Confucianism North Korea, as I've argued before, should be understood as a religious state . I do not mean one in which Marxism-Leninism has ossified into a type of state religion, as it did in the Soviet Union; Marxism-Leninism really has little to do with it. Mainstream journalists refer to it misleadingly as "Stalinist," and surely Kim Il-song emulated Stalin in forging a personality cult with omnipresent self-glorifying posters, statues etc. But while Stalin-whatever else you can say of him-took Marxism-Leninism seriously, the Kims have pretty much tossed it out. The official ideology of the DPRK is "Kimilsongism-Kimjongilism" (formerly just "Kimilsongism"), based on the (vague, infinitely flexible) Juche concept that officially supplanted Marxism-Leninism in 1972. The 1998 and 2009 versions of the DPRK Constitution make no reference to Marxism whatsoever although they refer to " Juche- based" socialism which is something quite different. The North Koreans wouldn't argue otherwise. The study of Marxist theory is not encouraged in North Korea. It's not even possible for most. A Russian scholar wrote in 1995, "the works by Marx, Engels, and Lenin are not only excluded from the standard curriculum, but are generally forbidden for lay readers. Almost all the classical works of Marxism-Leninism, as well as foreign works on the Marxist philosophy are kept in special depositories, along with other kinds of subversive literature. Such works are accessible only to specialists with special permits." How could any real Marxist believe what DPRK school children are taught? They're told that the Kim family originated on Mt. Paektu, a mountain held sacred to Koreans and Manchurians for 2000 years, the place of origin of both peoples, according to their mythologies. (According to an ancient myth, the Korean nation of Choson was founded by the son of a bear who had been transformed into a woman by Hwanung, ruler of a divine city on Mt. Paektu, and a tiger. It rather reminds me of the Japanese Shinto myth in which the grandson of the Sun Goddess descends from heaven to Mt. Takachiho in Kyushu and begets two sons. One of these married the daughter of the Sea God, who turned out to be a dragon. She gave birth to the first emperor of Japan before slinking away back into the sea. Thus the Japanese imperial family also descended from heaven, and became human.) North Korean school children are now told that the Kims descended from heaven to the top of Mt. Paektu, where they were transformed into human beings. What sort of historical materialist could accept the story that Kim Il-song during the 1940s, fighting Japanese in Manchuria, could cut down trees with his enormous sword as though he were slicing through tofu? Or believe the official biography of Kim Jong-il, beginning with his birth in a humble log cabin on this sacred Mt. Paektu? (He was in fact born in Vyatskoye, a Russian fishing village on the Amur River. His father, then a captain in the Soviet Red Army, had served in the Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army in Manchuria from 1935 to 1940. He was a member of the Chinese Communist Party at this time, had been educated in Chinese from age eight and reportedly spoke Korean with some difficulty at this time.) What sort of Marxist can believe that when the Dear Leader was born, a double rainbow appeared over the mountain peak, a new star rose in the heavens, and a swallow descended, heralding the early arrival of spring? Or believe that once when he visited Panmunjom, a fog descended to protect him from South Korean snipers, but when he was out of danger, the mist dramatically lifted and glorious red sunlight shone all around him? Or take seriously the report that he shot 11 holes-in-one to achieve an unprecedented 38-under-par game on a regulation 18-hole golf course, on his very first try at golf? Or accept the somber statement in the DPRK media, on the day of Kim Jong-il's death: "When the Great Marshal died, thousands of cranes descended from heaven to fetch him. The birds couldn't take him because they saw that North Koreans cried and screamed and pummeled their chests, pulled their hair and pounded the ground"? Such attributions of supernatural powers, the suggestion that Heaven endorses the Kims, are just the beginning of North Korean religiosity. If the regime has integrated aspects of native mythology to the Kim cult, it has also drawn upon neo-Confucianism, the dominant ideology in Korea from the late fourteenth century. It formed, as historian James B., Palais states, "the basis not only of the educational curriculum and the civil service examination system, but also of ritual practice, family organization and ethical values" in the country. Confucianism is rooted in the values of filial piety and respect for ancestors, which are viewed as essential for the workings of a harmonious state under rulers who've received the Mandate of Heaven. If children obey their (presumably virtuous) parents, subjects-properly educated and knowing their assigned place in a fixed class system (gentry, peasants, artisans, merchants)-will obey the ruler. But the ruler must also be virtuous. If the ruler behaves badly, or is perceived as lacking virtue, there will be disorder, signaling that Heaven has withdrawn its mandate. That's the gist of this essentially conservative philosophy, which Mao Zedong (to cite the example of a serious, philosophically inclined Marxist-Leninist) found inherently reactionary. (Indeed, Mao endorsed a campaign to "criticize Confucius" in the last few years of his life.) Karl Marx was a family man and dutiful son and I doubt would object to filial piety in principle. But he would certainly take exception to the conflation of filial loyalty and loyalty to a ruling family. What could be less Marxist than the practice of hereditary kingship? But here perhaps is where the elder Kim's innovative "brilliance" shines through. During the Sino-Soviet split in the 1950s, Kim Il-song came to advocate "the Juche Idea ." This vague concept (sometimes translated "self-reliance") originally seemed to connote DPRK political independence vis-`a-vis the quarreling PRC and USSR. But it has in practice meant the creation of a national belief system that freely combines some socialist values (violated in practice) with many elements of the native tradition. Kim advocated, for example, that women dress in the traditional chima-jeogori . (This is rather like Japanese officials urging women to wear the kimono rather than more comfortable modern dress.) His son Jong-il reiterated in 1986 that brides should, due to "traditional custom and national sentiment of the Koreans" to dress in that outfit. Jong-il also urged all Koreans to observe the traditional observances of the Chongmyong holiday (April 6). These include dressing "in turf" and mowing the grass around the graves, and preparing special dishes including "cakes cooked with newly harvested grains." (The DPRK media reprinted his statement for this month's holiday, noting "it is one of the Koreans' manners to visit ancestral graves to pay tribute to the memory of their ancestors on the day. Leader Kim Jong Il in his lifetime had paid deep attention to carrying forward the traditional manners among the people in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.") It is all about filial piety and reverence for ancestors, positively justified as "traditional manners." Shouldn't one revere the ancestors of the leader too? Chinese and Soviet observers alike once looked askance at all of this, but both were obliged to accept this quasi-Marxist/neo-Confucian hybrid as an ally-a member of an imagined "socialist camp." One can say the strategy worked. Kim's grandson reigns in great comfort, after all, the revered heir of beloved forbears. China and Russia remain basically friendly. The Land of the Morning Calm indeed seems calm. The Mandate of Heaven The Great Leader apparently thought that to be thoroughly, independently Korean , the DPRK needed to draw upon its neo-Confucian heritage. This didn't mean reviving the reverence for Confucius himself, which had occurred as temples like the Hamhung Confucian temple in Hamgyongnamdo destroyed like most other monuments by U.S. bombing. The official position on Confucianism remains that announced in 1982: "Confucianism is a religion which believed in 'Heaven' and theologised the feudal kingdom...Like other religions... Confucianism was used as an ideological tool of the feudal ruling class since it arrived in Korea and had a poisonous impact on the People's ideology, psychology and ethics as well as on economic culture and technological development." But it did mean embracing and exploiting old concepts. It meant replacing the old neo-Confucian four-class system with fixed songbun categories, with "revolutionary intellectuals" at the top replacing the old yangban scholar-gentry, and former capitalists and miscellaneous miscreants at the bottom replacing the merchant class disparaged in Confucian thought. It meant replacing the monarchy toppled by the Japanese in 1910 with a new one claiming both ideological correctness and heavenly approval. If what emerged struck and continues to strike most Marxists as simply very bizarre, the North Koreans can defiantly proclaim: "These are our national, independent customs, and nobody else's business!" Korea is, however, very much China's business. The PRC and DPRK are, as the unpleasant Chinese expression goes, "as close as the lips and teeth." They are profoundly linked by history from Neolithic times, a shared written language (Chinese) for over 1000 years, Confucian culture, an 880 mile border, and the shared experience of fighting U.S. imperialism during the Korean War (1950-53). There are two and a half million Koreans in China. From China's point of view, North Korea is a buffer against Russia, Japan and South Korea. The modern Chinese may not have expected that Korean rulers would, like kings in the past, seek Beijing's approval when naming heirs apparent. But this happened with Jong-il in the early 1990s and with Jong-un in 2011. It's a version of the old confirmation of legitimacy sought from the Chinese emperors, themselves in possession of the Mandate of Heaven. (The Chinese leaders are in an awkward spot. Last November a delegation from the PRC delivered a letter to Jung-un from President Xi Jinping demanding that he not launch a ballistic missile. He did anyway, no doubt realizing that China's ability to pressure the DPRK is limited by Chinese fears of catastrophe in the event of a halt in aid and trade. Beijing hopes to nudge North Korea towards its own brand of state capitalism, which it thinks will contribute to stability in the region-although the Chinese regime itself faces mounting discontent-and facilitate eventual reunification. It has to maintain friendship with this former tributary kingdom.) Kim Il-song deftly arranged his own succession, as though it were the most natural thing in the world for the president of a republic to pass power on to his son. Jong-il less deftly and more hastily arranged the transfer of power to Jong-un. In both instances, Heaven played a role or at least was invoked. One of Jong-il's monikers was "the Heavenly-Descended General." Kim Il-song, whose motto was "believing in the people as in heaven," wrote a poem in 1991 on the occasion of his beloved son's 50th birthday: "Heaven and earth shake with the resounding cheers of all the people united in praising him." And as Jung-un took the throne, as mentioned above, the sacred cranes (symbols of longevity in East Asia) descended from Heaven to transport his father thence. The image of the sun has been important in this religification. Where does that come from, if not from the next-door Land of the Rising Sun? Korea was colonized from 1910 to 1945 by Japan, with its native myth of the Sun Goddess. State Shinto was promoted among the (partly resistant) Korean population during that period, who like the Japanese were taught that the Japanese emperors were descended from the goddess. Kim Il-song was surely exposed to this notion during his first eight years. Thus it isn't all that strange that the Kim cult similarly links the Great Leader with the sun. The DPRK Constitution states, "The great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung is the sun of the nation and the lodestar of the reunification of the fatherland." A monumental artwork called "the Figure of the Sun" erected to mark the 100-day memorial service for Kim in 1994, adorns a hill overlooking Pyongyang. April 15, the Great Leader's birthday and the main North Korean holiday, is called the "Day of Sun." Immediately after Il-song's death in 1994, villages and towns throughout the nation began to construct Towers of Eternal Life, the main one rising 93 meters over Kim's mausoleum in Pyongyang. The Great Leader's son took power, declining to assume the title of President. The Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea restricts that title forever to the Great Leader, whom the Dear Leader has proclaimed, "will always be with us." In 1997 the DPRK adopted a new calendar, in which the first year of Juche corresponds to Kim's birth year, 1912. Is it not obvious that Kimilsungism is a religious cult? And that it must condition the thinking even of many who silently doubt it? What They're Thinking So we have two control systems operating together: the songbun and a religious thought-control system. When young Jong-un sits down with Auntie Kyong-hui and Uncle Sung-taek, he and they and anyone else in the room realize that they preside over a very well-controlled privilege- and status-based society, in which the most discontented are the weakest, the most kept out of sight, and probably not an important threat; and where despite the hardships caused by famine and human stupidity, there remains a large class of people who dress well enough, eat adequately, have comfortable housing, and find some leisure time to enjoy sports and culture. (I recommend, by the way, surfing youtube for examples of televised popular entertainment in the DPRK, some of which will likely surprise you. Kim Jong-un seems partial to the all-female sixteen member electronic music group, the Moranbong Band. It was just launched last July. Their repertoire ranges from the patriotic, Kim-cult material you'd expect, to themes of the Disney movie "Beauty and the Beast" and "Gonna Fly Now" from "Rocky," to western classical pieces such as Mozart's Symphony no. 40 and P. Mauriat's Minuetto. They debuted last July with a concert extravaganza attended by Kim. He is clearly is a big fan and patron of the group. Having just emerged months after his coronation, it surely reflects his tastes These include a version of the DPRK anthem that begins with wistful violin and cello strings and erupts precisely midway through with the soaring strains of an electric guitar backed by drumbeat. Watch it here on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McBUm8YxHMs or visit the band's Facebook page Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan ; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan ; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900 . He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion , (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute or exhibit portions of copyright motion pictures, video tapes, or video disks under certain circumstances without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called fair use and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching and parody.

Inside Combat Rescue Episode 5 - Fog of War

Bu187 — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:14:23 -0400

Go inside an elite Air Force paracrescue unit as they deploy to Afghanistan. One PJ, Chris, is eager to prove himself and save lives. When an Afghan civilian is injured in an improvised explosive device blast, the men of the 38th Rescue Squadron must treat and transport him to the hospital within the hour to save his life. Since the men must constantly stay on top of current medical knowledge, each Monday they review and practice their skills so when they need to use them, they are ready.

Fog catchers in the Atacama deserrt

Casca72 — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:08:11 -0400

Harvesting water from the mist

Soyuz space capsule lands in Kazakhstan fog.

KLM35AboveUK — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 05:59:26 -0400

3 crew from the I.S.S. return after 144-day mission.

(Disasters) Texas City April 16th, 1947 Ammonium Nitrate Explosion

BloodyPeasant — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:11:14 -0400

The Texas City disaster was the deadliest industrial accident in U.S. history. The incident took place on April 16, 1947, and began with a mid-morning fire on board the French-registered vessel SS Grandcamp which was docked in the Port of Texas City. The fire detonated approximately 2,300 tons (2,086,100 kg) of ammonium nitrate and the resulting chain reaction of fires and explosions killed at least 581 people, including all but one member of the Texas City fire department. These events also triggered the first ever class action lawsuit against the United States government, under the then-recently enacted Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), on behalf of 8,485 victims. Ships The Grandcamp was a recently re-activated 437-foot-long (133 m) Liberty ship. Originally named the SS Benjamin R. Curtis in Los Angeles in 1942, the ship served in the Pacific theatre and was mothballed in Philadelphia after World War II. In a Cold War gesture, the ship was assigned to the French Line to assist in the rebuilding of Europe. Along with ammonium nitrate-a very common cargo on the high seas-it was carrying small arms ammunition, machinery, and bales of sisal twine on the deck. Another ship in the harbor, the SS High Flyer, was docked about 600 feet (200 m) away from the SS Grandcamp. The High Flyer contained an additional 961 tons of ammonium nitrate and 1,800 tons of sulfur. The ammonium nitrate in the two ships and in the adjacent warehouse was fertilizer on its way to farmers in Europe. The Grandcamp had arrived from Houston, Texas, where the port authority did not permit loading of ammonium nitrate. Explosions The 38% ammonium nitrate, used as fertilizer and in blasting agents, was manufactured in Nebraska and Iowa and shipped to Texas City by rail before being loaded on the Grandcamp. It was manufactured in a patented process, mixed with clay, petrolatum, rosin and paraffin wax to avoid moisture caking. It was also packaged in paper sacks, then transported and stored at temperatures that increased its chemical activity. Longshoremen reported the bags were warm to the touch prior to loading. Around 8:00 a.m., smoke was spotted in the cargo hold of the Grandcamp while it was still moored at its dock. Over the next hour, attempts to put out the fire or put it under control failed as a red glow returned after each effort to douse the fire. Shortly before 9:00 a.m., the captain ordered his men to steam the hold, a firefighting method where steam is piped in to put out fires in the hope of preserving the cargo. Meanwhile, the fire had attracted a crowd of spectators along the shoreline, who believed they were a safe distance away. Spectators noted that the water around the docked ship was already boiling from the heat, and the splashing water touching the hull of the ship was vaporized into steam. The cargo hold and deck began to bulge as the pressure of the steam increased inside. At 9:12 a.m., the ammonium nitrate reached an explosive threshold and the vessel then detonated, causing great destruction and damage throughout the port. The tremendous blast (29.3756^0N 94.8916^0W) sent a 15-foot (4.5 m) wave that was detectable nearly 100 miles (160 km) off the Texas shoreline. The blast leveled nearly 1,000 buildings on land. The Grandcamp explosion destroyed the Monsanto Chemical Company plant and resulted in ignition of refineries and chemical tanks on the waterfront. Falling bales of burning twine added to the damage while the Grandcamp's anchor was hurled across the city. Sightseeing airplanes flying nearby had their wings shorn off, forcing them out of the sky. Ten miles away, people in Galveston were forced to their knees; windows were shattered in Houston, Texas, 40 miles (60 km) away. People felt the shock 100 miles away in Louisiana. The explosion blew almost 6,350 tons of the ship's steel into the air, some at supersonic speed. Official casualty estimates came to a total of 567, including all the crewmen who remained onboard the Grandcamp, but many victims were burned to ashes or blown to bits, and the official total is believed to be an undercount. All but one member of the Texas City volunteer fire department were killed in the initial explosion on the docks while fighting the shipboard fire, and with the fires raging, first responders from other areas were initially unable to reach the site of the disaster. The first explosion ignited ammonium nitrate in the nearby cargo ship High Flyer. The crews spent hours attempting to cut the High Flyer free from its anchor and other obstacles, but without success. After smoke had been pouring out of its hold for over five hours, and about 15 hours after the explosions aboard the Grandcamp, the High Flyer blew up demolishing the nearby SS Wilson B. Keene, killing at least two more people and increasing the damage to the port and other ships with more shrapnel and fire. One of the propellers on the High Flyer was blown off, and found almost a mile inland; it is now part of a memorial park, and sits near the anchor of the Grandcamp. The propeller is cracked in several places, and one of the blades has a large piece missing from it, a mute testament to the destruction that took place that day. Scale of the disaster The Texas City Disaster is generally considered the worst industrial accident in American history. Witnesses compared the scene to the fairly recent images of the 1943 Air Raid on Bari and the much larger devastation at Nagasaki. Of the dead, 405 were identified and 63 have never been identified. These 100 were placed in a memorial cemetery in the north part of Texas City near Moses Lake. A remaining 113 people were classified as missing, for no identifiable parts were ever found. This figure includes firefighters who were aboard Grandcamp when it exploded. There is some speculation that there may have been hundreds more killed but uncounted, including visiting seamen, non-census laborers and their families, and an untold number of travelers. However, there were some survivors as close as 70 feet (21 m) from the dock. The victims' bodies quickly filled the local morgue, and several bodies were laid out in the local high school's gymnasium for identification by loved ones. More than 5,000 people were injured, with 1,784 admitted to twenty-one area hospitals. More than 500 homes were destroyed and hundreds damaged, leaving 2,000 homeless. The seaport was destroyed and many businesses were flattened or burned. Over 1,100 vehicles were damaged and 362 freight cars were obliterated-the property damage was estimated at $100 million ($1.03 billion in today's terms). A two-ton anchor of Grandcamp was hurled 1.62 miles (2.61 km) and found in a 10-foot (3 m) crater. It now rests in a memorial park. The other main five-ton anchor was hurled 1/2 mile (800 m) to the entrance of the Texas City Dike, and rests on a Texas shaped memorial at the entrance. Burning wreckage ignited everything within miles, including dozens of oil storage tanks and chemical tanks. The nearby city of Galveston, Texas, was covered with an oily fog which left deposits over every exposed outdoor surface. Firefighting casualties Some of the deaths and damage in Texas City were due to the destruction and subsequent burning of several chemical plants (including Monsanto and Union Carbide), oil storage, and other facilities near the explosions. Twenty-seven of the 28 members of Texas City's volunteer fire department and three members of the Texas City Heights Volunteer Fire Department who were on the docks near the burning ship were killed. One firefighter, Fred Dowdy, who had not responded to the initial call, coordinated other firefighters arriving from communities up to 60 miles (100 km) away. Eventually 200 firefighters arrived, from as far away as Los Angeles. Fires resulting from the cataclysmic events were still burning a week after the disaster, and the process of body recovery took nearly a month. All four fire engines of Texas City were twisted and burned hulks. A positive result of the Texas City disaster was widespread disaster response planning to help organize plant, local, and regional responses to emergencies. Reactions and rebuilding The disaster gained attention from the national media. Offers of assistance came in from all over the country. Several funds were established to handle donations, particularly the Texas City Relief Fund, created by the city's mayor Curtis Trahan. One of the largest fundraising efforts for the city and the victims of the disaster was organized by Sam Maceo, one of the two brothers who ran organized crime in Galveston at the time. Maceo organized a large-scale benefit on the island featuring some of the most famous entertainers of the time including Phil Harris, Frank Sinatra, and Ann Sheridan. In the end, the Texas City Relief Fund raised more than $1 million ($10.9 million in today's terms). Payouts for fire insurance claims reached nearly $4 million ($40.7 million in today's terms). Within days after the disaster, major companies that had lost facilities in the explosions announced plans to rebuild in Texas City and even expand their operations. Some companies implemented policies of retaining all of the hourly workers who had previously worked at destroyed facilities with plans to utilize them in the rebuilding. In all, the expenditures for industrial reconstruction were estimated to have been approximately $100 million ($1.03 billion in today's terms). Legal case Hundreds of lawsuits were filed as a result of the disaster. Many of them were combined into Elizabeth Dalehite, et al. v. United States, under the recently enacted Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). On April 13, 1950, the district court found the United States responsible for a litany of negligent acts of omission and commission by 168 named agencies and their representatives in the manufacture, packaging, and labeling of ammonium nitrate, further compounded by errors in transport, storage, loading, fire prevention, and fire suppression, all of which led to the explosions and the subsequent carnage. On June 10, 1952, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned this decision, finding that the United States maintained the right to exercise its own "discretion" in vital national matters. The Supreme Court affirmed that decision (346 U.S. 15, June 8, 1953), in a 4-to-3 opinion, noting that the district court had no jurisdiction under the federal statute to find the U.S. government liable for "negligent planning decisions" which were properly delegated to various departments and agencies. In short, the FTCA clearly exempts "failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty", and the court found that all of the alleged acts in this case were discretionary in nature. In its dissent, the three justices argued that, under the FTCA, "Congress has defined the tort liability of the government as analogous to that of a private person," i.e., when carrying out duties unrelated to governing. In this case, "a policy adopted in the exercise of an immune discretion was carried out carelessly by those in charge of detail," and that a private person would certainly be held liable for such acts. It should also be noted that a private person is held to a higher standard of care when carrying out "inherently dangerous" acts such as transportation and storage of explosives. According to Melvin Belli in his book Ready for the Plaintiff! (1965), Congress acted to provide some compensation after the courts refused to do so. The Dalehite decision was eventually "appealed" to Congress, where relief was granted by means of legislation (Public Law 378, 69 Stat. 707 (1955). When the last claim had been processed in 1957, 1,394 awards, totaling nearly $17,000,000, had been made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Disaster Subscribe for similar videos at: http://disasters.liveleak.com

Multi-agency SWAT callouts: Who's In charge?

SAPD_HRT — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:53:12 -0400

Once upon a time there was a gunman barricaded in a liquor store which sat on the border between the cities of Hog Patch and Fog Patch within the county of Dog Patch. A command post was set up and manned by the regional SWAT team commander, Sgt. I. Don Ho. He was ably orchestrating the response as he watched one of his trained negotiators - Deputy Costello - skillfully establish a rapport with the gunman, when Sheriff Howe of the Dog Patch Sheriff's Department strode into the command post. Howe said, "I'm taking over. Ho I want you on the perimeter." After a passionate discussion, Ho relented to the sheriff and headed out onto the perimeter. As Ho left, Chief Waat of Fog Patch entered, followed by Chief Wu of Hog Patch. Another argument about jurisdiction and command ensued, and Wu determined that he would set up a command post in his jurisdiction on First Street, while Waat decided to set up another on Second Street. Sheriff Howe shortly became bored in his empty command post and abruptly took over negotiations from Officer Costello. Who's In Command? As Costello sat shaking his head, wondering to himself what had just happened, Sergeant Abbot, the regional SWAT team's team leader entered the command post and asked, "Who's in charge?" "Wu's on First," replied Costello. "No, what's the name of the person in charge?" clarified Abbot. "No Waat's on Second," answered Costello. Just then, the sheriff slammed down the phone and exclaimed, "The suspect hung up on me!" Abbot turned to look at the sheriff, and with a puzzled look asked Costello - who Abbot knew to be the team's chief negotiator - "Why is he negotiating?" "Howe?" asked Costello? "No Why?" repeated Abbot. Just then their conversation was interrupted by a voice which crackled on the radio, "We have the suspect in custody on the perimeter." In a startled voice Sheriff Howe asked, "I want the name of the man on the radio." "I. Don Ho," answered both Abbot and Costello, familiar with the voice of their team's officer in charge. "You don't know? Doesn't anyone know what's going on around this place? Who's in charge?" demanded the sheriff. "Wu's on First," answered Costello... Okay, Seriously... "Who's in charge?" seems to be a question asked again and again at some of the hottest and most dangerous scenes around the country. While an incident is in progress is not the time to have the discussion. This needs to be worked out in advance. Especially when command issues are complicated even more by a multi-jurisdictional responses, it is imperative that the question, "Who's in charge," is answered before the incident occurs. When it comes to SWAT, the overall authority for all tactical decisions at the scenes to which they are called, should be placed in the hands of the officer in charge of the team at the scene, regardless of rank. The officer In charge of the team should have a clear chain of command in place for occasions at which they are not present. The officer in charge trains with the team and knows each member's capabilities as well as the team's capabilities. Too often, chiefs and sheriffs want to assign responsibility after an event, but find it difficult to relinquish their authority to subordinates during an event. Some say chiefs and sheriffs should not even be at the scene of SWAT actions, but that is wishful thinking and not happening in the real world. When a chief or sheriff does arrive at a command post of an in progress SWAT event, they should take a deep breath and tell themselves, "These are the people I have chosen, whom I have had trained and placed my faith and trust in. I must let them work." If these issues are still unresolved in the areas where you will find yourself operating in the future, now is the time to sit down with all involved and answer the question unequivocally, "Anytime, anywhere our SWAT Team is called, who is going to be in charge?" Remember the words of Sun Tzu, "He whose generals are able and not interfered with by the sovereign will be victorious."

Interview with a Cannibal VERY GRAPHIC

firehot — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:35:39 -0400

Issei Sagawa served time in a French jail for the murder of the Dutch student Ren'ee Hartevelt, a classmate at the Sorbonne Academy. On June 11, 1981, Sagawa, a 32-year-old student of Comparative literature, invited Hartevelt to dinner at his 10 Rue Erlanger apartment under the pretense of translating German poetry for a class he was taking. Upon her arrival, after convincing her to begin reading the poetry, he then shot her in the neck with a rifle while she sat with her back to him at a desk. At that point he began to carry out his plan of eating her. His first attempt to bite into her buttocks met with failure so he proceeded to go out shopping for a butcher knife. She was selected, he has stated, for her health and beauty, those characteristics Sagawa believed he lacked. Sagawa describes himself as a "weak, ugly, and inadequate little man" (he is just under 5 ft (1.52 m) tall) and claims that he wanted to "absorb her energy". Sagawa said he fainted after the shock of shooting her, but awoke with the realization that he had to carry out his desire to eat her.He did so, beginning with her buttocks and thighs, after having sex with the corpse. In interviews, he noted his surprise at the "corn-colored" nature of human fat. For two days, Sagawa ate various parts of her body. He described the meat as tasting like raw tuna. He then attempted to dump the mutilated body in a remote lake, but was seen in the act and later arrested by the French police who found parts of the deceased still in his refrigerator. His wealthy father provided a top lawyer for his defense, and after being held for two years without trial the French judge Jean-Louis Brugui`ere found him legally insane and unfit to stand trial and ordered Sagawa to be held indefinitely in a mental institution. Following a visit by the author Inuhiko Yomota, Sagawa's account of the murder was published in Japan with the title In the Fog. The subsequent publicity and macabre celebrity of Sagawa likely contributed to the French authorities' decision to have him extradited to Japan. Upon arrival in Japan, he was immediately taken to Matsuzawa hospital, where examining psychologists all found him to be sane, stating that sexual perversion was the sole motivation for the murder.However, Japanese authorities found it to be legally impossible to hold him, because the French government refused to release court documents (which remain secret), to Japan, claiming that the case was already dropped in France. As a result, Sagawa checked himself out of the mental institution on August 12, 1986, and has been a free man ever since. Sagawa's freedom has been questioned and criticized by many.