Donald Trump: establishment trojan horse?

Politics, History, & 'Conspiracy'
User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1475
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2911

Re: Donald Trump: establishment trojan horse?

Postby Daglord » Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:55 am

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1475
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2911

Postby Daglord » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:50 pm

Trump's Halt to CIA Backing for Syrian Rebels Appeases Pentagon, Not Russia
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/trumps-halt-cia-backing-syrian-rebels-appeases-pentagon-not-russia/ri20437

Image

The Washington Post is reporting that Trump has "decided to end" CIA's program to funnel arms, money and training to Syria's largely Islamist rebels.

There's a couple of things to say about that.

1. We're going to need confirmation that this has indeed happened. Ideally from people who have a direct line to some of the CIA-backed groups.

2. Is this the definite end of the CIA program, or a temporary halt? The aid was already frozen once before, in February-March of this year, but was then restored.

3. Is the end of CIA backing going to be coupled with instructions to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to stop their aid to rebels as well? Seeing how inclined the US is to appease the Saudis, and how fast its influence over Turkey is shrinking, I don't see it.

4. Wil the end of the CIA program be coupled with increased aid to the rebels by the Pentagon? Will the CIA-backed groups actually be cut off, or just go from CIA-backed to Pentagon-backed? That's a particularly pertinent question for southeastern Syria around al-Tanf where Pentagon-backed groups like Commandos of the Revolution rub shoulders with CIA-backed groups like Lions of the East. Many of these CIA-backed groups were trained by US Special Forces hired out to the CIA, so links between them and the US military already exist.

The Washington Post and the rest of the establishment media want to paint this decision as Trump appeasing Russia, but that is highly unlikely. There are a number of far better reasons why it came to this.

1. This is the natural evolution of the trajectory the US was already on since mid-2016. Recall that in September 2016 under the Kerry-Lavrov deal the US basically agreed to enter the war against extremist elements of the Syrian Islamist rebellion. Also recall that just before leaving office Obama sent B-52s against Jabhat al-Nusra and claimed over 100 killed.

2. Trump has been an outspoken opponent of US backing for Syrian rebels for years. You only need to glance at his Twitter to see that.

Image

3. The US military, which between Mattis and McMaster is highly influential in the Trump administration, never liked the CIA program. Recall the bombshell Seymour Hersh story from 2015 detailing how the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Intelligence Agency kept warning the Obama administration that toppling Assad would lead to chaos and possible takeover by jihadis. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey went so far as to secretly leak information on jihadis to the Russians, while the DIA chief, Mike Flynn was sacked when he made his opposition public.

4. The new CIA director was not wedded to the program. The Washington Post says the decision CIA would stop funneling arms into Syria was made by General McMaster and CIA's new chief, Mike Pompeo. Even within the CIA, John Brennan, its director under Obama, was probably the biggest supporter of what was dubbed sardonically "Brennan's war". It was his pet project and he was the driving force behind it. Almost whoever was going to replace Brennan was likely to at least scale it down.

5. Along with increased infighting between the rebels, particularly in their main territory in Idlib, there has been consolidation of the rebel groups into two rival blocs, both of them led by salafist jihadists. Continuing to arm the rebels now would at best mean directly arming Ahrar al-Sham, whose leadership includes former al-Qaeda members, and which used to be extremely cozy with Syrian al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra).

An end to the CIA fanning the flames of war in Syria is a good thing, but it doesn't mean the US is retreating from the country. It only means the reigns have been handed over to the Pentagon. The Pentagon has pursued a more rational course in Syria than the CIA, but it has been, if anything, even more heavy-handed.

Recently there has been a dramatic upsurge in Pentagon deliveries of military aid to the secessionist Syrian Kurds, along with an upsurge in US base building in Syria, in part to accommodate the transport planes hauling in this vast aid.

Also we've seen the US military repeatedly bomb the Syrian armed forces, cruise missiled one of its airbases, and shoot down one of its jets.

With Pentagon fully in control of US Syria policy regime change is finally out completely, but the danger of a US-orchestrated partition and permanent occupation of the east only increases.



“Two Channels”, Pentagon and CIA: Don’t Be Fooled, the CIA Was Only “Half the Problem” in Syria
https://www.globalresearch.ca/dont-be-fooled-the-cia-was-only-half-the-problem-in-syria/5602010

The news that President Trump has halted the CIA program to arm and train rebel groups in Syria should be viewed with caution, as the CIA program only represented half of US involvement in Syria. Even if we take this information as completely accurate, and the CIA will cease to be involved in any covert programs in Syria, there is still a giant arm of US imperialism that is going to be heavily involved in the Syrian conflict for the foreseeable future; namely, the Pentagon.

The notion that the CIA was the only branch of the US establishment involved in the destabilization of Syria is nonsense. The US has always had two operations running simultaneously in Syria, with one being ran by the CIA, and other being ran by the Pentagon. As Reuters reported in an article in May of this year, titled: Syrian rebels say U.S., allies sending more arms to fend off Iran threat, military aid has been provided through “two separate channels:”

“Rebels said military aid has been boosted through two separate channels: a program backed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), known as the MOC, and regional states including Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and one run by the Pentagon.”


These two programs have often clashed, as was the case last year, when militias armed by the CIA fought against militias armed by the Pentagon. The Pentagon has been as involved in the disastrous operation to arm and train rebels in Syria as the CIA has, and has contributed heavily to the mess on the ground.

[spoiler]
CIA-Backed Syrian Rebels Fighting Pentagon-Backed Syrian Rebels
http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/28/cia-backed-syrian-rebels-fighting-pentag

Image

The United States continues to fund rebels on the ground in Syria's five-year-long civil war, with President Obama a few weeks ago authorizing the Pentagon to resume training and arming Syrian rebels meant to fight the Islamic State (ISIS).

But Pentagon-backed rebels and CIA-backed rebels in Syria have increasingly found themselves fighting each other, as the Los Angeles Times reports, with multiple skirmishes between Aleppo and the Turkish-Syrian border in recent days.

The Pentagon funding of rebel groups had been suspended after U.S.-trained rebels handed their weapons over to an Al-Qaeda affiliate last September.

The fighting between U.S.-backed rebels illustrates the confused, counter-productive, and costly foreign policy the Obama administration has been pursuing in Syria. The policy has met little legislative resistance in Congress, which continues its decades-long trend of ceding its role in foreign policy to the executive branch, and a bit more resistance on the campaign trail.

In September 2015 for instance, it was reported that a Pentagon-armed group of rebels – named Division 30 – handed over their weapons to al-Qaeda in Syria, a scenario that was a common outcome from many CIA operations as well. The Pentagon, never shy to blow an obscene amount of taxpayers’ money on imperial matters, has already wasted hundreds of millions of dollars training and arming rebels in Syria, yet Trump only wants to increase the US war budget.

Trump: The Man of the Military

Trump’s decision to halt the CIA program was hardly surprising, considering the support Trump has received from large sections of the military. A look at the backgrounds of the individuals that Trump has given cabinet positions reveals Trump’s close relationship with the military.

The Secretary of Homeland Security for instance, John Kelly, is a retired Marine Corps General and former Commander of US Southern Command. Trump’s pick for the Director of the CIA is even more telling, as Mike Pompeo has his roots in the military, graduating from West Point in the 1980s:

“Mr. Pompeo graduated first in his class at the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1986 and served as a cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall. He also served with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the US Army’s Fourth Infantry Division.”


Undoubtedly, there are many good forces in the US military (as in any other large organization), and there is nothing wrong with having a military background. But equally, there is also many nefarious forces in the military, and the influence of military-industrial complex is pervasive, constantly agitating for more imperial wars.

With this context in mind, it is hardly surprising that Trump favours the Pentagon program over the CIA one, especially considering the power struggle taking place between the CIA and the military within the US. It should be highlighted that Trump has not completely halted all US programs to arm and train militias in Syria, he has merely shutdown one channel.

Pentagon Using Kurds to Balkanize Syria

The Pentagon has been heavily involved in arming Kurdish forces in Syria, using them as a tool to attempt to Balkanize and fracture Syria into micro-states. In May of this year, President Trump approved a plan – supported by many in the Pentagon – to arm the People’s Protection Unit (YPG), a Kurdish militia operating predominantly in northern Syria.

The YPG is also the controlling militia in the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which includes an array of other militias. In addition to providing arms to the YPG, US special forces have been pictured on the ground in northern Syria working in conjunction with YPG fighters.

When most of the public was distracted by the story of Trump halting the CIA program, footage surfaced showing US armed military vehicles passing through Qamishli – a city in northern Syria on the Turkish border – reportedly on route to Raqqa. The recipients of the vehicles are believed to be either the SDF or US forces directly, who are involved in the battle against ISIS in Raqqa.

If (or when) ISIS is defeated in Raqqa, it will be very interesting to see who ends up controlling the city. It is possible that the Pentagon wants to defeat ISIS in Raqqa, and then hand Raqqa to the Kurds – a scenario that many Kurds would only be too happy with. In March of this year, Saleh Muslim, the co-chair of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) – the political affiliate of the YPG – said that once ISIS is defeated in Raqqa, the city should be incorporated into a Kurdish state in northern Syria.

The Pentagon’s support for Kurdish forces is clearly part of a strategy to break the northern part of the country away from control of the Syrian government in Damascus. A subservient Kurdish state in northern Syria (which would probably join with Kurdish zones in Iraq and other countries in the future) would allow the US to have a permanent military presence in Syria, and easy access to thenatural resources in the Kurdish region.

The creation of Kurdish state in northern Syria would of course cause a severe breakdown in relations with NATO member Turkey, given the views of the current Turkish leadership that is. Turkey considers the YPG to be an extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), a group Ankara views as a terrorist organization. Turkey has repeatedly denounced US support for Kurdish groups in Syria, with this being a major source of disagreement between the US and Turkey. It is no coincidence that Turkish state media recently published a list of classified US military bases and outposts in northern Syria, with this information revealing the extent to which the US military is embedded in Kurdish-controlled regions in Syria.

The plan to balkanize Syria is well on its way, and the Pentagon is leading the charge. How Russia positions herself in the coming months will be crucial for the future of Syria.


User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1475
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2911

Postby Daglord » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:45 pm



Why is the Pentagon spending billions of dollars purchasing Soviet and east European weapons to ship to Syrian rebels? A blockbuster Bulgarian investigative report exposes the lies and illegality of the purchases and shipments; several mainstream investigations corroborate the Bulgarian report. Investigative Reporter Dilyana Gaytandzhieva joins the Liberty Report to explain her findings -- and why they got her interrogated and fired.

Image

350 Documents flights carry weapons for Terrorists
https://trud.bg/350-diplomatic-flights-carry-weapons-for-terrorists/

Journalist Interrogated, Fired For Story Linking CIA And Syria Weapons Flights
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-28/journalist-interrogated-fired-story-linking-cia-and-syria-weapons-flights

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1475
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2911

Postby Daglord » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:00 pm

C.I.A. Wants Authority to Conduct Drone Strikes in Afghanistan for the First Time
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/us/politics/cia-drone-strike-authority-afghanistan.html?mcubz=3

Image

WASHINGTON — The C.I.A. is pushing for expanded powers to carry out covert drone strikes in Afghanistan and other active war zones, a proposal that the White House appears to favor despite the misgivings of some at the Pentagon, according to current and former intelligence and military officials.

If approved by President Trump, it would mark the first time the C.I.A. has had such powers in Afghanistan, expanding beyond its existing authority to carry out covert strikes against Al Qaeda and other terrorist targets across the border in Pakistan.

The changes are being weighed as part of a broader push inside the Trump White House to loosen Obama-era restraints on how the C.I.A. and the military fight Islamist militants around the world. The Obama administration imposed the restrictions in part to limit civilian casualties, and the proposed shift has raised concerns among critics that the Trump administration would open the way for broader C.I.A. strikes in such countries as Libya, Somalia and Yemen, where the United States is fighting the Islamic State, Al Qaeda or both.

Until now, the Pentagon has had the lead role for conducting airstrikes — with drones or other aircraft — against militants in Afghanistan and other conflict zones, such as Somalia and Libya and, to some extent, Yemen. The military publicly acknowledges its strikes, unlike the C.I.A., which for roughly a decade has carried out its own campaign of covert drone strikes in Pakistan that were not acknowledged by either country, a condition that Pakistan’s government has long insisted on.

But the C.I.A.’s director, Mike Pompeo, has made a forceful case to Mr. Trump in recent weeks that the Obama-era arrangement needlessly limited the United States’ ability to conduct counterterrorism operations, according to the current and former officials, who would not be named discussing internal debates about sensitive information. He has publicly suggested that Mr. Trump favors granting the C.I.A. greater authorities to go after militants, though he has been vague about specifics, nearly all of which are classified.

“When we’ve asked for more authorities, we’ve been given it. When we ask for more resources, we get it,” Mr. Pompeo said this week on Fox News.



He said that the agency was hunting “every day” for Al Qaeda’s leaders, most of whom are believed to be sheltering in the remote mountains that straddle the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“If I were them, I’d count my days,” Mr. Pompeo said.

From the outset of his tenure at the C.I.A., Mr. Pompeo, a West Point graduate and former Army officer, has made clear that he favors pushing the agency to take on a more direct role in fighting militants. Afghanistan, the most active war zone in which the United States is fighting, makes sense as the place to start: In the past three years, the number of military drone strikes there has climbed, from 304 in 2015, to 376 last year, to 362 through the first eight months of this year.

The C.I.A., in comparison, has had little to do across the border in Pakistan, where there were three drone strikes last year and have been four so far this year, according to the Long War Journal published by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

“This is bureaucratic politics 101,” said Christine Wormuth, a former top Pentagon official. “The C.I.A. has very significant capabilities, and it wants to go use them.”

Mr. Trump has already authorized Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to deploy more troops to Afghanistan – some 4,000 reinforcements who will allow American officers to more closely advise Afghan brigades, train more Afghan special operations forces and call in American firepower.

Spokesmen for the C.I.A. and the Defense Department declined to comment on the pending proposal, which involves delicate internal deliberations.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has not resisted the C.I.A. proposal, administration officials said, but other Pentagon officials question the expansion of C.I.A. authorities in Afghanistan or elsewhere, asking what the agency can do that the military cannot. Some Pentagon officials also fear that American troops on the ground in Afghanistan could end up bearing the burden of any C.I.A. strikes that accidentally kill civilians, because the agency will not publicly acknowledge those attacks. The military has also had to confront its own deadly mistakes in Afghanistan.

One senior Defense Department official said that the United States would gain little from having the C.I.A. carry out drone strikes alongside the military, and that it raised the question of whether it was an appropriate use of covert action.

A former senior administration official familiar with Mr. Pompeo’s position said that he views a division of labor with the Defense Department as an abrogation of the C.I.A.’s authorities.

Mr. Pompeo’s argument seems to be carrying the day with Mr. Trump, who has struck a bellicose tone in seeking to confront extremist groups in Afghanistan, including Al Qaeda, the Islamic State and the Haqqani network, a faction of the Taliban.

Image

In Mr. Trump’s speech last month outlining his policy for South Asia, including Afghanistan, the president promised that he would loosen restrictions on American soldiers to enable them to hunt down terrorists, whom he labeled “thugs and criminals and predators, and — that’s right — losers.”

“The killers need to know they have nowhere to hide, that no place is beyond the reach of American might and American arms,” the president said. “Retribution will be fast and powerful.”

Mr. Pompeo may have a potentially important ally: Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr., the top commander in Afghanistan, who reportedly favors any approach to train more firepower on the array of foes of Afghan security forces and the 11,000 or so American troops advising and assisting them.

Mr. Trump has already authorized Mr. Mattis to deploy more troops to Afghanistan. Some 4,000 reinforcements will allow American officers to more closely advise Afghan brigades, train more Afghan Special Operations forces and call in American firepower.

Among the chief targets for the C.I.A. in Afghanistan would be the Haqqani network, whose leader is now the No. 2 in the Taliban and runs its military operations. The Haqqanis have been responsible for many of the deadliest attacks on Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul, in the war and are known for running a virtual factory in Pakistan that has steadily supplied suicide bombers since 2005.

Despite their objections, Defense Department officials say they are now somewhat resigned to the outcome and are working out arrangements with the C.I.A. to ensure that United States forces, including Special Operations advisers, are not accidentally targeted, officials said.

Beyond the military, critics see the proposal as another attempt to expand the C.I.A.’s drone wars without answering longstanding questions about whether American spies should be running military-style operations in the shadows.

“One of the things we learned early on in Afghanistan and Iraq was the importance of being as transparent as possible in discussing our military operations,” said Luke Hartig, a senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council during the Obama administration.

“Why we took the specific action, who all was killed or injured in the operation, what we were going to do if we had inadvertently killed civilians or damaged property,” he continued. “I don’t know what the Trump administration is specifically considering in Afghanistan, but if their new plans for the war decrease any of that transparency, that would be a big strategic and moral mistake.”

Image

When John O. Brennan, a former top White House counterterrorism adviser, became C.I.A. director in late 2013, he announced an intention to ratchet back the paramilitary operations that have transformed the agency since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Brennan’s goal, he said during his confirmation hearings, was to refocus the agency on the traditional work of intelligence collection and espionage that had sometimes been neglected. During those hearings, Mr. Brennan obliquely criticized the performance of American spy agencies in providing intelligence and analysis of the Arab revolutions that began in 2009, and said the C.I.A. needed to cede some of its paramilitary role to the Pentagon.

In a speech in May 2013 in which he sought to redefine American policy toward terrorism, President Barack Obama expanded on that theme, announcing new procedures for drone operations, which White House officials said would gradually become the responsibility of the Pentagon.

But critics contended that effort, too, proved slow-going, and that Mr. Brennan did not push forcefully for moving all drone operations away from the C.I.A.

Now, with Mr. Pompeo in charge, the agency appears to be aggressively renewing its paramilitary role, and pushing limits on other forms of covert operations outside conflict zones, including in countries where no fighting is underway, such as Iran. A veteran C.I.A. officer viewed as the architect of the drone program was put in charge of the agency’s Iran operations this year, for instance, and Mr. Pompeo has made it clear that he believes the C.I.A. has a robust role to play in fighting militants.

“We broke the back of Al Qaeda,” he said at a public appearance in July, referring to the drone campaign inside Pakistan that decimated the militant network’s leadership ranks.

“We took down their entire network,” he said. “And that’s what we’re going to do again.”

Image

Trump looks to broaden CIA's authority on drone strikes: Report
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-looks-to-broaden-cias-authority-on-drone-strikes-report/article/2634814

Image

The Trump administration is eyeing changes to its policy on drone strikes that would give the Central Intelligence Agency broader authority to conduct strikes in several countries, according to a report.

The possibility of additional policy changes comes after the White House gave the CIA more independence to decide when and if it should launch drone strikes, including in Yemen. There, the U.S. military oversees most airstrikes, four U.S. officials told NBC News.

President Trump's push to let the CIA have more autonomy on drone strikes began after the president visited the CIA's headquarters in January, NBC News reported. During the tour of the agency, Trump was shown the floor where officers direct drone strikes targeting those suspected of terrorism. Afterward, the president told CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other intelligence officers he wanted the CIA to be more aggressive in its drone strikes.

Since then, the CIA has been conducting drone strikes that may not have been given the go-ahead under former President Barack Obama. Some of those strikes were carried out in Syria, where the military has conducted most of them.

The change in policy under the Trump administration represents a departure from the Obama administration, which worked to shift drone strikes from the CIA to the military.

In 2010, for example, the CIA conducted as many as two drone strikes each week in Pakistan, but there's been a significant decline in drone strikes carried out by the agency in part because of new rules implemented by the Obama administration.

The Trump administration is also working on a new written policy to remove two Obama-era restrictions on drone strikes included in Obama's drone playbook. One measure prohibits a strike from being conducted unless intelligence analysts find there is a "near-certainty" no civilians will be hurt. The other says there cannot be any additional detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

According to NBC News, it's unclear how much of an impact the White House's changes to the drone playbook would have, as it doesn't currently apply to Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan.



According to recent media reports, President Trump is planning to lift the restrictions on the CIA's use of drones worldwide. Will this new "counterterrorism" strategy create more terrorists than it kills?

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1475
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2911

Postby Daglord » Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:30 pm



President Trump's speech yesterday at the United Nations got rave reviews from neocons like John Bolton and Elliot Abrams. The US president threatened North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. At the same time he claimed that the US is the one country to lead by example rather than by violating the sovereignty of others. Are the neocons on a roll as they push for more war? Have they "won" Trump?



Bolton: 'This Was the Best Speech of the Trump Presidency'
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/09/19/john-bolton-president-trumps-speech-united-nations-un-general-assembly

John Bolton says President Donald Trump's address to the United Nations General Assembly was the "best speech of the Trump presidency."

Abrams: Trump’s Successful U.N. Speech
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451501/trumps-un-speech-was-success

In his speech to the United Nations, President Trump very successfully met the political and intellectual challenge he faced. He reminded the delegates that the United Nations was never meant to be a gigantic bureaucracy that would steadily become a world government. Rather, he said, it is an association of sovereign states whose strength depends “on the independent strength of its members.” Its success, he argued, depends on their success at governing well as “strong, sovereign, and independent nations.”

Benjamin Netanyahu applauds Trump's UN remarks: 'I never heard a bolder or more courageous speech'
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/benjamin-netanyahu-applauds-trumps-un-remarks-i-never-heard-a-bolder-or-more-courageous-speech/article/2634890

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave President Trump high marks Tuesday afternoon for his speech before the United National General Assembly earlier in the day.

"In over 30 years in my experience with the UN, I never heard a bolder or more courageous speech," Netanyahu tweeted. "President Trump spoke the truth about the great dangers facing our world ... and issued a powerful call to confront them in order to ensure the future of humanity."

Bill Kristol on Trump UN Speech: ‘More Normal’ Than I Would Have Expected
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-kristol-on-trump-un-speech-more-normal-than-i-would-have-expected/

Bill Kristol told Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC earlier this afternoon that President Trump’s U.N. speech was “more normal” than he would have expected.

He said it “sounded a little like George W. Bush to me” and that “for all of Donald Trump’s America First talk and repudiation of the Bush-McCain-Romney foreign policy,” it came across as “more standard,” even with the “Trumpian aspects.”

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1475
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2911

Postby Daglord » Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:45 pm

Image

how about that timing? almost immediately after Trump's UN "Rocketman" speech?

"Hee Yeon, whose named was changed to protect her identity..."
"she explained to reporters, citing reports from one of her friends..."

Image

NORTH KOREA'S KIM JONG UN RIPPED TEEN SEX SLAVES FROM SCHOOLS AND FORCED CITIZENS TO WATCH EXECUTIONS, DEFECTOR SAYS
http://www.newsweek.com/north-korea-kim-jong-un-sex-murder-669028

Kim Jong Un’s depravity and abuses of power have no bounds, extending even to North Korea’s upper echelon. The North’s authoritarian regime snatches teenagers out of school to be his sex slaves, forces members of the country’s upper class to watch executions and Kim is perfectly content to eat expensive lunches while his people subsist on grass, a defector told the Daily Mirror this week.

North Korean defector 'forced to watch 11 musicians executed with anti-aircraft guns'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/north-korea-defector-anti-aircraft-guns-execution-kim-jong-un-killed-sex-slaves-pyongyang-porn-film-a7959851.html

Kim Jong-un had 11 musicians executed with anti-aircraft guns and orders aides to pick out sex slaves from North Korea’s schools, a defector has claimed. The third-generation dictator also has a number of luxury hideouts that shield him from the eyes of Western spies, the woman, 26, reportedly claimed. She said she was among 10,000 people once forced to watch the execution of musicians accused of making a pornographic video, at Pyongyang’s military academy.

Inside Kim Jong Un’s regime: Teen sex slaves, public executions and bird saliva soup
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/inside-kim-jong-un%E2%80%99s-regime-teen-sex-slaves-public-executions-and-bird-saliva-soup/ar-AAsh2xl

Kim’s palate was more refined, Hee Yeon said. While his subjects are forced to eat bark and grass to survive, the North Korean leader dines on Bird’s Nest Soup — a Chinese delicacy made from the saliva of swiftlet birds. A kilogram of the bird’s nests, which are built using the birds’ saliva, can cost up to $12,000. And the soup is supposedly meant to prolong life if it’s consumed every day.

The leader, who Donald Trump has dubbed Rocket Man, is served the soup and other delicacies such as caviar and champagne by his teenage sex slaves, Hee Yeon said.

Image

User avatar
Megaterio Llamas
Posts: 1582
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Reputation: 1364

Postby Megaterio Llamas » Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:13 pm

Great stuff as usual Daglord. I'm glad you have the time/stomach for it. It's an awful lot.

By the way the Kurdification of the Christian areas of northern Iraq and northeast Syria by US and Israel backed Kurdish militias continues unchecked. Latest news is that Kurds in northern Iraq (Nineveh actually) are removing democratically elected Assyrian mayors and replacing them with puppets. As you probably recall I have been following Iraq/Syria closely for the past umpteen years; just taking a break from it lately. But it is hard to avoid the bad news altogether, some of it does seem always to seep through.

User avatar
Megaterio Llamas
Posts: 1582
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Reputation: 1364

Postby Megaterio Llamas » Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:24 pm


User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1475
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2911

Postby Daglord » Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:21 am

Megaterio Llamas wrote:Great stuff as usual Daglord. I'm glad you have the time/stomach for it. It's an awful lot.

By the way the Kurdification of the Christian areas of northern Iraq and northeast Syria by US and Israel backed Kurdish militias continues unchecked. Latest news is that Kurds in northern Iraq (Nineveh actually) are removing democratically elected Assyrian mayors and replacing them with puppets. As you probably recall I have been following Iraq/Syria closely for the past umpteen years; just taking a break from it lately. But it is hard to avoid the bad news altogether, some of it does seem always to seep through.


not a problem, I enjoy it & it helps me remember. like taking notes.

I do recall. in fact, I look forward to your input & consider you a wealth of knowledge re: the Middle East. you know your shit & I've learned a lot, it's not the kind of info I can find anywhere else.

shit's confusing to me man, even moreso now. if someone could explain to me what the hell our purpose/objective/goal is over there, I'd love to hear it. with the 'war on transparency', I doubt any answers are coming anytime soon - just the tired 'war on terror' line.

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1475
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2911

Postby Daglord » Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:45 am

watching your vid now ("puny" budget LOL).

could have been this guy (would have smashed Trump IMO)...

Bernie Sanders: Saudi Arabia Is “Not an Ally” and the U.S. Should “Rethink” Its Approach to Iran
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/21/bernie-sanders-interview-saudi-arabia-iran-trump/

Image

Saudi Arabia is “not an ally of the United States,” according to Bernie Sanders, the independent senator and former Democratic presidential hopeful.

Sanders broke with the bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill in an exclusive interview with The Intercept. The United States has long considered Saudi Arabia to be a loyal friend, supporter, and partner in the so-called war on terror.

Sanders issued a scathing denunciation of the Gulf kingdom, which has recently embarked on a new round of domestic repression.

“I consider [Saudi Arabia] to be an undemocratic country that has supported terrorism around the world, it has funded terrorism. … They are not an ally of the United States.”

The Vermont senator accused the “incredibly anti-democratic” Saudis of “continuing to fund madrasas” and spreading “an extremely radical Wahhabi doctrine in many countries around the world.”

“They are fomenting a lot of hatred,” he added. In June, Sanders joined 46 other senators in voting to try and block the sale of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia. A Saudi-led coalition backed by the U.S. has been bombing Iranian-backed Houthi fighters in Yemen since 2015 and is accused of killing thousands of Yemeni civilians.

[spoiler]
Senate Vote On Blocking Saudi Arms Deal Falls Short
https://wearechange.org/senate-vote-blocking-saudi-arms-deal-falls-short/



A group of Republican and Democrat senators teamed up on Tuesday to block the United States from completing part of a major arms deal with Saudi Arabia. The Senate failed to advance the resolution in a 47-53 vote.

Paul called out Trump on the legitimacy of the US’s actions in Yemen:

“Today we will discuss an arms sale to Saudi Arabia that threatens the lives of millions of Yemenis but we will discuss something even more important than an arms sale. We will discuss whether we should be actively involved. Should the United States be actively involved with refueling the Saudi planes, with picking targets, with having advisers on the ground? Should we be at war in Yemen? If you remember your constitution it says no president has that authority, only to repel imminent attack but no president alone has the unilateral authority to take us to war.”

“Nobody in America is listening to this. Everybody is paying attention to some silly show trial, silly stuff going on in committees. Nobody is talking about this at all. They say it is worse than Syria. Millions of people have fled Syria, hundreds of thousands have died and people are now predicting Yemen may be worse.”


Image

Image

Speaking to The Intercept, Sanders called for a “rethink, in terms of American foreign policy … vis-a-vis Iran and Saudi Arabia.” The senator suggested the United States should consider a pivot toward long-standing adversary Iran and away from traditional ally Saudi Arabia. The latter, he claimed, “has played a very bad role internationally, but we have sided with them time and time and time again, and yet Iran, which just held elections, Iran, whose young people really want to reach out to the West, we are … continuing to put them down.”

Sanders said he had “legitimate concerns … about Iran’s foreign policy” but wanted a more “even-handed” approach from the United States to the “Iran and Saudi conflict.”

In a wide-ranging interview ahead of his set-piece speech on foreign policy in Fulton, Missouri, on Thursday morning, the independent senator said the United States is “complicit” in Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories and said he would be willing to consider voting to cut U.S. aid to the Jewish state. He also offered tentative support for a “face-to-face” meeting between President Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un; described U.S. drone strikes against innocent civilians as one of the “root causes” of terrorism; and called for a re-examination of U.S. foreign policy “unilateralism.”

Asked if he agreed with ESPN’s Jemele Hill and The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates, who have both called Trump a “white supremacist,” Sanders said he preferred to use the word “racist” to describe the president.

“I think Donald Trump has strong racist tendencies,” he said. “And I say that not just because of his absurd and horrific remarks on Charlottesville, but because … when you lead the effort to try to de-legitimize … the first African-American president in our history, I think that’s racist. When you argue about the Central Park 5, I think that’s racist — so I think it’s fair to say he has strong racist tendencies.”

The Intercept will publish the full interview with Sanders on Friday.



Return to “The Grand Chessboard”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests