Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Being in the business of selling gold is different than selling off your own gold holdings. With some funds he can easily *buy* and sell for a net profit on the exchange with no net loss to his holdings.
North Korea underground Hydrogen Bomb Blast causes Man Made M5.2 Earthquake
http://dutchsinse.com/1062016-north-korea-underground-hydrogen-bomb-blast-causes-man-made-m5-2-earthquake/
article: Holy Shades of Social Justice, Batman! The Pope, the UN, and One World Government-Religion
http://truthstreammedia.com/2015/06/29/holy-shades-of-social-justice-batman-the-pope-the-un-and-one-world-government-religion/
Holy Shades of Social Justice, Batman! The Pope, the UN, and One World Government-Religion
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Pin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on TumblrEmail this to someone
Truthstream Media | In April 2015, Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “made clear that a leading solution to global warming includes extreme depopulation.” Figueres said, “We can definitely change those [population] numbers and really should make every effort to change the numbers because we are already today, exceeding the planetary carrying capacity.”
The Vatican and United Nations also issued a joint statement in April. The “UN-inspired joint statement called for ‘reaching a level and sustainable population.’”
Nothing says Christianity and love for thy neighbor like extreme depopulation to reach a level of sustainable population, does it?
Marc Morano, Climate Depot publisher, wrote:
“The Vatican’s partnering with the United Nations climate agenda is nothing short of an unholy alliance. The papal encyclical, no matter how nuanced it may read, will simply be used as a tool to support UN global warming ‘solutions’ that are at odds with most Catholic teachings on issues such as abortion, contraception, overpopulation, and helping the poor nations develop. The Vatican appears to be taking an unprecedented step by seemingly endorsing a specific UN climate treaty.”
A worldwide church that opposes birth control for its followers, thereby increasing the earth’s population, is now joining hands with the same people who want the world’s population immediately reduced so the earth’s population is at a more “manageable” level? Do bedfellows get any stranger?
Mike Adams at Natural News recently reported in “Vatican speaker and California Governor in push for massive depopulation… talk of ‘Planetary Court’ and removal of 6 billion people under new ‘Earth Constitution’ and ‘World Government'”:
“The depopulationists are on the move again, pushing hard for the elimination of six billion people on planet Earth in order to bring the planet down to what’s being touted as its ‘sustainable carrying capacity of one billion people.’”
At this writing, the current world estimated world population was 7,253,000,000 plus. Reducing that number to what these people call a “sustainable one billion or less” would certainly be quite an extreme depopulation!
This past April, a group of climate science, environmental policy and theology experts visited Pope Francis in the hopes of adding some real science to the information the Pope was being fed. The Heartland Institute sent this “contingent” of experts because they were concerned the Pope was receiving a skewed alarmist view of climate change from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the United Nations.
On a side note and by coincidence, the Club of Rome happens to be in the same country as the Vatican. The Club of Rome has been a leader in working on world depopulation since it’s formation in 1968. “According to the club’s publications, the common enemy of humanity is man.” One of the Club’s major goals is “to reduce the world’s population by two billion people through war, famine, disease and any other means necessary.”
Is the Pope aware that groups like the Club of Rome are willing to use war, famine, disease and any other means necessary to get rid of man, the “common enemy of humanity”? And if you remove man from humanity what does that leave? (No, the answer isn’t “huity”.) The very definition of humanity is, collectively, the human race.
Jim Lakely, Heartland Institute Director of Communications, said Pope Francis “made a grave mistake by putting his trust and moral authority behind agenda-driven bureaucrats at the United Nations who have been bearing false witness about the causes and consequences of climate change for decades… Simply put, someone at the Pontifical Academy of Science should have told Pope Francis that every calamity the UN bureaucrats predicted for decades has not come to pass.”
Any possibility the Club of Rome’s members might have access to members of the Pontifical Academy of Science who influenced the Pope?
Unfortunately the Heartland Institute experts were unable to sway the Pope over to “reality”. Richard Keen, Meteorology Professor (emeritus) University of Colorado-Boulder wrote:
“Sections 23 and 24 of the draft Encyclical refer to numerous hypothetical disastrous consequences of climate change, or ‘warming.’ But none of these projected catastrophic consequences are anywhere to be found on the real Earth. Over the past 18 years, the best measurements of Earth’s global temperatures (by NOAA and NASA satellites) show no warming whatsoever. The total warming since 1979 has been a fraction of that predicted by the IPCC, and of that tiny warming, most can be attributed to natural causes, such as volcanoes.”
Like a tiny lifeboat, the Heartland Institute was hoping for fairness in an ocean rigged with sharks.
But Pope Francis, and his Environmental Encyclical, didn’t just simply and totally agree with the United Nations’ global warming plot. The Pope also quoted his predecessor, Benedict XVI, and again called for a “world political authority”.
Hmm.
Rebecca Terrell, The New American reporter, asked, “is it possible that these popes are proposing a world government with total control of currency, the food supply, military forces, private property and immigration, along with a court system to uphold its decrees? This plan disturbingly parallels the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals enumerated in its Agenda 21 program, formulated at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.”
Yes, Rebecca, it’s possible we are on the threshold of the long-awaited new world order.
In his article, “Survival of Spaceship Earth: The Ultimate Rockefeller Depopulation Propaganda Film,” Truthstream Media’s own Aaron Dykes has previously reported that the plan for the one world government was put into action a long time ago:
“Depopulation, environmental laws, carbon taxes, global warming/global cooling/climate change, family planning, denying development to developing countries – it was all planned decades ago for global control by a handful of elites.”
The Pope is now joined with the elitists whose goal is depopulation and global control.
The elitists are a “tiny class of people that have appointed themselves to fix the problems of the world – in their own ways,” as Truthstream’s Melissa Dykes wrote in her article, “Eugenics and Population Control: How the 85 Richest See the 3.5 Billion Poorest.” In their own ways like war, famine, disease and any other means necessary? Melissa asked,
“And who will stop them? Who will even point out the harm, rather than just assume they are saints and thank their unilateral actions?”
Indeed, isn’t questioning the authority of the Pope tantamount to blasphemy?
The elitists who are looking to depopulate and enjoy a world with a smaller population are effectively in motion to sweep the pesky pawns off the chessboard.
So, now we have the “wisdom” of the Pope’s Environmental Encyclical. The Pope’s solution is for wealthy nations, who owe a “social debt” to the poor, to pay this debt by “better distribution of wealth” to the impoverished people of the world.
The wealthy are not going to want their riches going to anyone else, especially not the poor. Once the population is reduced to a sustainable one billion or less, how many impoverished people will even be left?
Holy shades of social justice, Batman!
article: Doctor’s HORRIFYING report reveals German hospitality to Muslim refugees has led to cultural, economic nightmare
"the local German press is forbidden to write of the conditions following the Muslim invasion."
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/10/09/doctors-horrifying-report-reveals-german-hospitality-to-muslim-refugees-has-led-to-cultural-economic-nightmare-261799
Is the United States and some of its allies ISIS? World opinion is quickly trending toward believing so...
"Russian airstrikes within the past 24 hours, have targeted four command centers, a jihad training center, a workshop producing suicide belts, and three army depots... According to Alexis Pushkov the head of the Russian Parliment Internal Affairs Committee "The US led coalition spent a whole year pretending that they were striking ISIS targets but what are the results of these strikes?" And he's right. Within the past 13 months the US... military have been supposedly bombing ISIS. What has happened within those 13 months? ISIS grew... gaining millions of dollars from Turkey and Saudi Arabia by selling off the oil that they are stealing... There's even bombshell reports saying that the Pentagon refused to bomb ISIS training centers... General Wesley Clark said that ISIS was started through the funding from our friends and allies... Reuters even reported [that the US government gave] Syrian trained rebels ... weapons and arms and intelligence... the world is turning against the United States..."
video dated Oct 6:
Taking third of profits; not going to second guess plunge protection pack.
IMO moves in TVIX relative to recent activity is a minor factor to consider. There was so much volatility recently that small moves now are relatively calm.
You Don't Represent Me Any More
video: IDF Hamas Human Shield Manual a Sloppy Forgery
The people will not tolerate it at a certain point, however that will be handled by developments of the newer and bigger crisis always on the horizon as they chaos the status-quo into a new order.
Fully agree.
Whatreallyhappened has been a favorite of mine since 1999, and x22report is in my top five within last year (listening to episode 436 when I saw your post).
article: Bullseye! CDC Ebola Quarantine Map Lines Up Perfectly With Immigration Map – Why?
http://investmentwatchblog.com/bullseye-cdc-ebola-quarantine-map-lines-up-perfectly-with-immigration-map-why/
Actually they are making deals in South America and Asia wherein there are no US dollars used and without GMO's.
CBOE article
http://www.cboe.com/micro/skew/introduction.aspx
This horrific killing is not Islam, please do not make that mistake! It is what some would have you believe while they finance such violence. Many people of that faith feel the same as you and I about such acts.
This is a response to statement: "Islam, oh it's a peaceful religion, any questions? "
BLOWBACK! U.S. TRAINED ISIS AT SECRET JORDAN BASE
Described as covert aid to insurgents targeting al-Assad
JERUSALEM – Members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials.
The officials said dozens of ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future campaign in Iraq.
The Jordanian officials said all ISIS members who received U.S. training to fight in Syria were first vetted for any links to extremist groups like al-Qaida.
In February 2012, WND was first to report the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country’s northern desert region.
That report has since been corroborated by numerous other media accounts.
Last March, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported Americans were training Syrian rebels in Jordan.
Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms. The training in Jordan reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.
The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.
Britain’s Guardian newspaper also reported last March that U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.
Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on the German magazine’s report. The French foreign ministry and Britain’s foreign and defense ministries also would not comment to Reuters.
The Jordanian officials spoke to WND amid concern the sectarian violence in Iraq will spill over into their own country as well as into Syria.
ISIS previously posted a video on YouTube threatening to move on Jordan and “slaughter” King Abdullah, whom they view as an enemy of Islam.
WND reported last week that, according to Jordanian and Syrian regime sources, Saudi Arabia has been arming the ISIS and that the Saudis are a driving force in supporting the al-Qaida-linked group.
WND further reported that, according to a Shiite source in contact with a high official in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Obama administration has been aware for two months that the al-Qaida-inspired group that has taken over two Iraqi cities and now is threatening Baghdad also was training fighters in Turkey.
The source told WND that at least one of the training camps of the group Iraq of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Syria, the ISIS, is in the vicinity of Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey, where American personnel and equipment are located.
He called Obama “an accomplice” in the attacks that are threatening the Maliki government the U.S. helped establish through the Iraq war.
The source said that after training in Turkey, thousands of ISIS fighters went to Iraq by way of Syria to join the effort to establish an Islamic caliphate subject to strict Islamic law, or Shariah.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/officials-u-s-trained-isis-at-secret-base-in-jordan/
US Radiation Rising - A Lot of People Are In A LOT Of Trouble
video:
Government supported illegal immigration. Let that sink in. Why do we even give it any consideration? There is obviously an agenda here. There are borders for a reason. What is going on? Fast and Furious? Borders without borders? Cheap imported labor and soldiers as icing on someones cake? Disemboweling citizens who are the benefactors of what they and their predecessors have worked and died for? Praying upon our compassion for children to provide others with sustenance denied our own impoverished children and our vets who go without jobs, healthcare, food and home, without compassion? Our emperors wear no clothes. Where are the military installations opening up their facilities to house our children and our vets? I see an attempt to manufacture a situation disenfranchising citizens and to keep us busy being divided and conquered while some peoples agenda is being forwarded.
LOL fail. You do realize that when comments like this are made it only shows you are not engaging in the conversation but are taking it personally and fighting about it right?
umm, that only goes back to 1950's... we were discussing millions and billions of years, you can't believe me cuz of that? Also, the chart you refer to is titled "Falling off the scale" and shows a computer model prediction and how temperatures are falling *below* predictions... rendering the theory falsified (which people who are of my position have pointed out).
WRT this comical skit:
"the debate on climate change should not be whether or not it exists but what we should do about it"
Climate change happens, nothing we can do about it except to plan accordingly.
"global temperatures are rising"
Shows graph going back to late 1800's, which is pretty much meaningless in context of climate change (and misrepresents the other side who would agree temps go up, temps go down, sun rises, earth spins).
quotes a paper stating "97.1% endorsed the...position that humans are causing global warming."
Here is someone who did some research specifically on this claim:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
Compare our charts. Notice a huge discrepancy? In 25 years I *never* saw a chart like yours until recently. Now I see them cropping up here and there on the net. What is the source and science for this chart?
Lots of ad hominem posts directed at me I notice. Lets look at a few things:
"CO2 levels have never been higher in the last 400,000 years and yes it's man made"
where is that data? I have seen a variety of data disagreeing with your claim. Here is a simple one presented as a graph:
RE: scientific consensus. Appeal to scientific authority has some merit though it is still appeal to authority. Personally, when I look at their claims they don't add up. But for the sake of looking at consensus, I'll present a couple of things to consider:
1)precursory look at Petition Project:
a) just from US
b) institutions with grant money at stake can pass it around and get people to sign all they want, not convincing.
2)"A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004)."
counter to this study: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/30/the-myth-of-the-97-climate-change-consensus/
"We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one."
This claim is patently misleading/false. Many believe it insignificant or inconclusive at best. Ask Russian scientists, plenty of European scientists, and elsewhere around the globe. I've seen many in my time who do not agree.
There are plenty of rebuttals if you care to look for them. I try to look at both sides of the issue and reach my own conclusions.
Here are a few more articles whose authors have similar points I have presented that I have not linked yet here on IHub:
http://thegazette.com/2014/03/07/global-warming-debunked/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18319-obama-s-alarmist-climate-report-debunked-by-scientists
regarding "Especially in an area like the climate system, which is incompletely understood, a consensus is meaningless."
http://www.thegwpf.org/dispute-over-global-warming-respected-meteorologist-joins-climate-sceptics/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/
"First one has to admit there is a problem caused by us before we can look at potential solutions" --one doesn't have to admit anything; one may have a different conclusion than you. My conclusion is that *there is no climate crisis caused by humans via CO2* and that is where the conversation should be.
--(aside:There is this tendency since around the time of failed Copenhagen accords (circa 2009?) where the alarmist strategy (being used to this day) came into vogue with claims of "the science is settled" and "we need to carbon tax now or world is doomed!"--when in fact the climate alarmists had never even released the raw data while giving various excuses for over half a decade at that point--thus it was not settled and globally many disagreed with that conclusion as they do to this day.)--
Furthermore, my claim is that the real underlying objective of those who initiated and drive climate alarmism (though their followers may be unaware of what is going on) is to: 1) co-opt authentic and actionable environmentalism and 2)carbon tax*. A repeated mistake being made by those opposing my position here at IHub is to portray me as being of some political bent using right/left, dem/repub, conserv/lib dichotomies... sorry, but I don't fit into these labels. They are convenient labels to ignore what I present.
Finally, my position has not been acquired only recently, I have followed this debate and forming my opinion since the late 80's (e.g., critical thinking course focused on science, history of science, and philosophy of science) when the debate was calling into question the climate research methods being used as well as addressing evidence of tinkering with results in a systemic way (i.e. justifiable suspicion of manipulation). Though I am not as intellectually astute as I once was (my focus in life has changed), I sufficiently "get it" when it comes to science to see what was and is going on wrt this topic.
*if you want to tax big oil for polluting in some fashion, go for it. Couching it in terms of CO2 will be playing into their hands though.
Poisoning yourself with CO2 does not lend any evidence to a theory that CO2 wreaks havoc on the climate. It does mislead the conversation, appeal to emotion, and engage in sensationalism.
The amplitude theory is a redux theory also without evidence (to justify the foregone conclusion that CO2 is bad). Claims regarding an insignificant warming (read: unidirectional) greenhouse gas effect are making a mountain out of a perceived molehill that isn't even a molehill.
"you still are confused as to the message"
which is?
The history of this debate is that GW theorists claimed increasing temperatures will provide evidence of their claim; in fact their theory pretty much required just such evidence. They ended up with zero evidence. In fact, results suggest the opposite of their claim if anything; therefore whatever credibility their evidence was intended to lend to their theory actually belongs to the other side. Tyson's argument erroneously turns that failure around. Context is everything. If Climate alarmists don't think it matters, then don't mention it to begin with. If climate alarmists have a theory, show some actual evidence.
Beyond that, the notion that the science is settled is laughable. Especially with the elephant in the room being: burden of proof is on the GW theorists.
When you say it is not GW but climate change ("it is not Global Warming,...but it is Climate Change."), that falls in line with theories of many of those who don't believe humans are causing it--climate change is here and apparently always was. Our negligible effects on climate as a result of CO2 is silly to even talk about much less: 1) drive the conversation away from verifiable and actionable environmental concerns and 2) tax the world.
err, to answer your questions I did listen to it and responded. duh
LOL Tyson is a shill. This presentation so disregards the legitimate position against it that one is left astounded that it continues still. Although both have their respective relevance to the situation, obviously short-term weather (1 year/5 year/10 year) does not in and of itself prove anything long-term (many who don't believe in global warming theories have pointed this out all along).
It is the global warming crowd that has the burden of proof and they fail. What we have here is both long-term and short-term analysis do not support Tyson's position. Global warming supporters set themselves up to depend on current short-term trends to support their theories but alas short-term weather speaks against their position and now they claim it is irrelevant just because it doesn't fit their foregone conclusions as they had hoped. Then when this is pointed out, they accuse the other side of their own error the other side pointed out from the start! AGW proponents have the burdon of proof here!
P.S. climate change has and always will happen; somebody just wants to make *you* feel guilty for it and pay them.
more on governments confiscating peoples money; currently being "normalized" in US...
I'm upgrading my chicken coop and talking to a neighbor about working with them on their plans for a coop.
This is not what is being talked about here. This is confiscation, not failed claims that linger. Big diff.
The Destruction and Political Fragmentation of Iraq. Towards the Creation of a US Sponsored Islamist Caliphate
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham: An instrument of the Western Military Alliance
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, June 14, 2014
The Western media in chorus have described the unfolding conflict in Iraq as a “civil war” opposing the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham against the Armed forces of the Al-Maliki government.
(Also referred to as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS))
The conflict is casually described as “sectarian warfare” between Radical Sunni and Shia without addressing “who is behind the various factions”. What is at stake is a carefully staged US military-intelligence agenda.
Known and documented, Al Qaeda affiliated entities have been used by US-NATO in numerous conflicts as “intelligence assets” since the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war. In Syria, the Al Nusrah and ISIS rebels are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance, which oversees and controls the recruitment and training of paramilitary forces.
The Al Qaeda affiliated Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) re-emerged in April 2013 with a different name and acronym, commonly referred to as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The formation of a terrorist entity encompassing both Iraq and Syria was part of a US intelligence agenda. It responded to geopolitical objectives. It also coincided with the advances of Syrian government forces against the US sponsored insurgency in Syria and the failures of both the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and its various “opposition” terror brigades.
The decision was taken by Washington to channel its support (covertly) in favor of a terrorist entity which operates in both Syria and Iraq and which has logistical bases in both countries. The ISIS Sunni caliphate project coincides with a longstanding US agenda to carve up both Iraq and Syria into three separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia Republic, and a Republic of Kurdistan.
Whereas the (US proxy) government in Baghdad purchases advanced weapons systems from the US including F16 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham –which is fighting Iraqi government forces– is supported covertly by Western intelligence. The objective is to engineer a civil war in Iraq, in which both sides are controlled indirectly by US-NATO.
The scenario is to arm and equip them, on both sides, finance them with advanced weapons systems and then “let them fight”.
US-NATO is involved in the recruitment, training and financing of ISIS death squads operating in both Iraq and Syria. ISIS operates through indirect channels in liaison with Western intelligence. In turn, corroborated by reports on Syria’s insurgency, Western special forces and mercenaries integrate the ranks of ISIS.
US-NATO support to ISIS is channeled covertly through America’s staunchest allies: Qatar and Saudi Arabia. According to London’s Daily Express “They had money and arms supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.”
“through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West [has] supported militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other al-Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014)
While the media acknowledges that the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of supporting ISIS, it invariably fails to mention that both Doha and Riyadh are acting on behalf and in close liaison with Washington.
Under the banner of a civil war, an undercover war of aggression is being fought which essentially contributes to further destroying an entire country, its institutions, its economy. The undercover operation is part of an intelligence agenda, an engineered process which consists in transforming Iraq into an open territory.
Meanwhile, public opinion is led to believe that what is at stake is confrontation between Shia and Sunni.
America’s military occupation of Iraq has been replaced by non-conventional forms of warfare. Realities are blurred. In a bitter irony, the aggressor nation is portrayed as coming to the rescue of a “sovereign Iraq”.
An internal “civil war” between Shia and Sunni is fomented by US-NATO support to both the Al-Maliki government as well as to the Sunni ISIS rebels.
The break up of Iraq along sectarian lines is longstanding policy of the US and its allies.
“Supporting both Sides”
The “War on Terrorism” consists in creating Al Qaeda terrorist entities as part of an intelligence operation, as well as also coming to the rescue of governments which are the target of the terrorist insurgency. This process is carried out under the banner of counter-terrorism. It creates the pretext to intervene.
ISIS is a caliphate project of creating a Sunni Islamist state. It is not a project of the Sunni population of Iraq which is broadly committed to a secular forms of government. The caliphate project is part of a US intelligence operation.
In response to the advance of the ISIS rebels, Washington is envisaging the use of aerial bombings as well as drone attacks in support of the Baghdad government as part of a counter-terrorism operation. It is all for a good cause: to fight the terrorists, without of course acknowledging that these terrorists are the “foot soldiers” of the Western military alliance.
Needless to say, these developments contribute not only to destabilizing Iraq, but also to weakening the Iraqi resistance movement, which is one of major objectives of US-NATO.
The Islamic caliphate is supported covertly by the CIA in liaison with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkish intelligence. Israel is also involved in channeling support to both Al Qaeda rebels in Syria (out of the Golan Heights) as well to the Kurdish separatist movement in Syria and Iraq.
More broadly, the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) encompasses a consistent and diabolical logic: both sides –namely the terrorists and the government– are supported by the same military and intelligence actors, namely US-NATO.
While this pattern describes the current situation in Iraq, the structure of “supporting both sides” with a view to engineering sectarian conflict has been implemented time and again in numerous countries. Insurgencies integrated by Al Qaeda operatives (and supported by Western intelligence) prevail in a large number of countries including Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, Mali, the Central African Republic, Pakistan. The endgame is to destabilize sovereign nation states and to transform countries into open territories (on behalf of so-called foreign investors).
The pretext to intervene on humanitarian grounds (e.g. in Mali, Nigeria or the Central African Republic) is predicated on the existence of terrorist forces. Yet these terrorist forces would not exist without covert US-NATO support.
The Capture of Mosul: US-NATO Covert Support to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
Something unusual occurred in Mosul which cannot be explained in strictly military terms.
On June 10, the insurgent forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) captured Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, with a population of close to 1.5 million people. While these developments were “unexpected” according to the Obama administration, they were known to the Pentagon and US intelligence, which were not only providing weapons, logistics and financial support to the ISIS rebels, they were also coordinating, behind the scenes, the ISIS attack on the city of Mosul.
While ISIS is a well equipped and disciplined rebel army when compared to other Al Qaeda affiliated formations, the capture of Mosul, did not hinge upon ISIS’s military capabilities. Quite the opposite: Iraqi forces which outnumbered the rebels by far, equipped with advanced weapons systems could have easily repelled the ISIS rebels.
There were 30,000 government forces in Mosul as opposed to 1000 ISIS rebels, according to reports. The Iraqi army chose not to intervene. The media reports explained without evidence that the decision of the Iraqi armed forces not to intervene was spontaneous characterized by mass defections.
Iraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers – roughly 30,000 men – simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just 800 fighters. Isis extremists roamed freely on Wednesday through the streets of Mosul, openly surprised at the ease with which they took Iraq’s second largest city after three days of sporadic fighting. (Guardian, June 12, 2014, emphasis added)
The reports point to the fact that Iraqi military commanders were sympathetic with the Sunni led ISIS insurgency:
Speaking from the Kurdish city of Erbil, the defectors accused their officers of cowardice and betrayal, saying generals in Mosul “handed over” the city over to Sunni insurgents, with whom they shared sectarian and historical ties. (Daily Telegraph, 13 June 2014)
What is important to understand, is that both sides, namely the regular Iraqi forces and the ISIS rebel army are supported by US-NATO. There were US military advisers and special forces including operatives from private military companies on location in Mosul working with Iraq’s regular armed forces. In turn, there are Western special forces or mercenaries within ISIS (acting on contract to the CIA or the Pentagon) who are in liaison with US-NATO (e.g. through satellite phones).
Under these circumstances, with US intelligence amply involved, there would have been routine communication, coordination, logistics and exchange of intelligence between a US-NATO military and intelligence command center, US-NATO military advisers forces or private military contractors on the ground assigned to the Iraqi Army and Western special forces attached to the ISIS brigades. These Western special forces operating covertly within the ISIS could have been dispatched by a private security company on contract to US-NATO.
Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria
Yaser Al-Khodor/Courtesy Reuters
In this regard, the capture of Mosul appears to have been a carefully engineered operation, planned well in advance. With the exception of a few skirmishes, no fighting took place.
Entire divisions of the Iraqi National Army –trained by the US military with advanced weapons systems at their disposal– could have easily repelled the ISIS rebels. Reports suggest that they were ordered by their commanders not to intervene. According to witnesses, “Not a single shot was fired”.
The forces that had been in Mosul have fled — some of which abandoned their uniforms as well as their posts as the ISIS forces swarmed into the city.
Fighters with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an al-Qaeda offshoot, overran the entire western bank of the city overnight after Iraqi soldiers and police apparently fled their posts, in some instances discarding their uniforms as they sought to escape the advance of the militants. http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/10/mosul-falls-to-al-qaeda-as-us-trained-security-forces-flee/
A contingent of one thousand ISIS rebels take over a city of more than one million? Without prior knowledge that the US controlled Iraqi Army (30,000 strong) would not intervene, the Mosul operation would have fallen flat, the rebels would have been decimated.
Who was behind the decision to let the ISIS terrorists take control of Mosul?
Had the senior Iraqi commanders been instructed by their Western military advisers to hand over the city to the ISIS terrorists? Were they co-opted?
Source: The Economist
Was the handing over of Mosul to ISIS part of a US intelligence agenda?
Were the Iraqi military commanders manipulated or paid off into allowing the city to fall into the hands of the ISIS rebels without “a single shot being fired”.
Shiite General Mehdi Sabih al-Gharawi who was in charge of the Mosul Army divisions “had left the city”. Al Gharawi had worked hand in glove with the US military. He took over the command of Mosul in September 2011, from US Col Scott McKean. Had he been co-opted, instructed by his US counterparts to abandon his command?
(image left) U.S. Army Col. Scott McKean, right, commander, 4th Advise and Assist Brigade, 1st Armored Division, talks with Iraqi police Maj. Gen. Mahdi Sabih al-Gharawi following a transfer of authority ceremony on September 4, 2011
US forces could have intervened. They had been instructed to let it happen. It was part of a carefully planned agenda to facilitate the advance of the ISIS rebel forces and the installation of the ISIS caliphate.
The whole operation appears to have been carefully staged.
In Mosul, government buildings, police stations, schools, hospitals, etc are formally now under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). In turn, ISIS has taken control of military hardware including helicopters and tanks which were abandoned by the Iraqi armed forces.
What is unfolding is the installation of a US sponsored Islamist ISIS caliphate alongside the rapid demise of the Baghdad government. Meanwhile, the Northern Kurdistan region has de facto declared its independence from Baghdad. Kurdish peshmerga rebel forces (which are supported by Israel) have taken control of the cities of Arbil and Kirkuk. (See map above)
Concluding Remarks
There were no Al Qaeda rebels in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. Moreover, Al Qaeda was non-existent in Syria until the outset of the US-NATO-Israeli supported insurgency in March 2011.
The ISIS is not an independent entity. It is a creation of US intelligence. It is a US intelligence asset, an instrument of non-conventional warfare.
The ultimate objective of this ongoing US-NATO engineered conflict opposing Maliki government forces to the ISIS insurgency is to destroy and destabilize Iraq as a Nation State. It is part of an intelligence operation, an engineered process of transforming countries into territories. The break up of Iraq along sectarian lines is a longstanding policy of the US and its allies.
The ISIS is a caliphate project of creating a Sunni Islamist state. It is not a project of the Sunni population of Iraq which historically has been committed to a secular system of government. The caliphate project is a US design. The advances of ISIS forces is intended to garnish broad support within the Sunni population directed against the Al Maliki government
The division of Iraq along sectarian-ethnic lines has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 10 years.
The formation of the caliphate may be the first step towards a broader conflict in the Middle East, bearing in mind that Iran is supportive of the Al Maliki government and the US ploy may indeed be to encourage the intervention of Iran.
The proposed redivision of Iraq is broadly modeled on that of the Federation of Yugoslavia which was split up into seven “independent states” (Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYRM), Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo).
According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, the re division of Iraq into three separate states is part of a broader process of redrawing the Map of the Middle East.
The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).
Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers”. (See Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East” By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, November 2006)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-destruction-and-political-fragmentation-of-iraq-towards-the-creation-of-a-us-sponsored-islamist-caliphate/5386998?utm_source=feedly&utm_reader=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-destruction-and-political-fragmentation-of-iraq-towards-the-creation-of-a-us-sponsored-islamist-caliphate
The Destruction and Political Fragmentation of Iraq. Towards the Creation of a US Sponsored Islamist Caliphate
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham: An instrument of the Western Military Alliance
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, June 14, 2014
The Western media in chorus have described the unfolding conflict in Iraq as a “civil war” opposing the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham against the Armed forces of the Al-Maliki government.
(Also referred to as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS))
The conflict is casually described as “sectarian warfare” between Radical Sunni and Shia without addressing “who is behind the various factions”. What is at stake is a carefully staged US military-intelligence agenda.
Known and documented, Al Qaeda affiliated entities have been used by US-NATO in numerous conflicts as “intelligence assets” since the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war. In Syria, the Al Nusrah and ISIS rebels are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance, which oversees and controls the recruitment and training of paramilitary forces.
The Al Qaeda affiliated Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) re-emerged in April 2013 with a different name and acronym, commonly referred to as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The formation of a terrorist entity encompassing both Iraq and Syria was part of a US intelligence agenda. It responded to geopolitical objectives. It also coincided with the advances of Syrian government forces against the US sponsored insurgency in Syria and the failures of both the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and its various “opposition” terror brigades.
The decision was taken by Washington to channel its support (covertly) in favor of a terrorist entity which operates in both Syria and Iraq and which has logistical bases in both countries. The ISIS Sunni caliphate project coincides with a longstanding US agenda to carve up both Iraq and Syria into three separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia Republic, and a Republic of Kurdistan.
Whereas the (US proxy) government in Baghdad purchases advanced weapons systems from the US including F16 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham –which is fighting Iraqi government forces– is supported covertly by Western intelligence. The objective is to engineer a civil war in Iraq, in which both sides are controlled indirectly by US-NATO.
The scenario is to arm and equip them, on both sides, finance them with advanced weapons systems and then “let them fight”.
US-NATO is involved in the recruitment, training and financing of ISIS death squads operating in both Iraq and Syria. ISIS operates through indirect channels in liaison with Western intelligence. In turn, corroborated by reports on Syria’s insurgency, Western special forces and mercenaries integrate the ranks of ISIS.
US-NATO support to ISIS is channeled covertly through America’s staunchest allies: Qatar and Saudi Arabia. According to London’s Daily Express “They had money and arms supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.”
“through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West [has] supported militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other al-Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014)
While the media acknowledges that the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of supporting ISIS, it invariably fails to mention that both Doha and Riyadh are acting on behalf and in close liaison with Washington.
Under the banner of a civil war, an undercover war of aggression is being fought which essentially contributes to further destroying an entire country, its institutions, its economy. The undercover operation is part of an intelligence agenda, an engineered process which consists in transforming Iraq into an open territory.
Meanwhile, public opinion is led to believe that what is at stake is confrontation between Shia and Sunni.
America’s military occupation of Iraq has been replaced by non-conventional forms of warfare. Realities are blurred. In a bitter irony, the aggressor nation is portrayed as coming to the rescue of a “sovereign Iraq”.
An internal “civil war” between Shia and Sunni is fomented by US-NATO support to both the Al-Maliki government as well as to the Sunni ISIS rebels.
The break up of Iraq along sectarian lines is longstanding policy of the US and its allies.
“Supporting both Sides”
The “War on Terrorism” consists in creating Al Qaeda terrorist entities as part of an intelligence operation, as well as also coming to the rescue of governments which are the target of the terrorist insurgency. This process is carried out under the banner of counter-terrorism. It creates the pretext to intervene.
ISIS is a caliphate project of creating a Sunni Islamist state. It is not a project of the Sunni population of Iraq which is broadly committed to a secular forms of government. The caliphate project is part of a US intelligence operation.
In response to the advance of the ISIS rebels, Washington is envisaging the use of aerial bombings as well as drone attacks in support of the Baghdad government as part of a counter-terrorism operation. It is all for a good cause: to fight the terrorists, without of course acknowledging that these terrorists are the “foot soldiers” of the Western military alliance.
Needless to say, these developments contribute not only to destabilizing Iraq, but also to weakening the Iraqi resistance movement, which is one of major objectives of US-NATO.
The Islamic caliphate is supported covertly by the CIA in liaison with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkish intelligence. Israel is also involved in channeling support to both Al Qaeda rebels in Syria (out of the Golan Heights) as well to the Kurdish separatist movement in Syria and Iraq.
More broadly, the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) encompasses a consistent and diabolical logic: both sides –namely the terrorists and the government– are supported by the same military and intelligence actors, namely US-NATO.
While this pattern describes the current situation in Iraq, the structure of “supporting both sides” with a view to engineering sectarian conflict has been implemented time and again in numerous countries. Insurgencies integrated by Al Qaeda operatives (and supported by Western intelligence) prevail in a large number of countries including Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, Mali, the Central African Republic, Pakistan. The endgame is to destabilize sovereign nation states and to transform countries into open territories (on behalf of so-called foreign investors).
The pretext to intervene on humanitarian grounds (e.g. in Mali, Nigeria or the Central African Republic) is predicated on the existence of terrorist forces. Yet these terrorist forces would not exist without covert US-NATO support.
The Capture of Mosul: US-NATO Covert Support to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
Something unusual occurred in Mosul which cannot be explained in strictly military terms.
On June 10, the insurgent forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) captured Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, with a population of close to 1.5 million people. While these developments were “unexpected” according to the Obama administration, they were known to the Pentagon and US intelligence, which were not only providing weapons, logistics and financial support to the ISIS rebels, they were also coordinating, behind the scenes, the ISIS attack on the city of Mosul.
While ISIS is a well equipped and disciplined rebel army when compared to other Al Qaeda affiliated formations, the capture of Mosul, did not hinge upon ISIS’s military capabilities. Quite the opposite: Iraqi forces which outnumbered the rebels by far, equipped with advanced weapons systems could have easily repelled the ISIS rebels.
There were 30,000 government forces in Mosul as opposed to 1000 ISIS rebels, according to reports. The Iraqi army chose not to intervene. The media reports explained without evidence that the decision of the Iraqi armed forces not to intervene was spontaneous characterized by mass defections.
Iraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers – roughly 30,000 men – simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just 800 fighters. Isis extremists roamed freely on Wednesday through the streets of Mosul, openly surprised at the ease with which they took Iraq’s second largest city after three days of sporadic fighting. (Guardian, June 12, 2014, emphasis added)
The reports point to the fact that Iraqi military commanders were sympathetic with the Sunni led ISIS insurgency:
Speaking from the Kurdish city of Erbil, the defectors accused their officers of cowardice and betrayal, saying generals in Mosul “handed over” the city over to Sunni insurgents, with whom they shared sectarian and historical ties. (Daily Telegraph, 13 June 2014)
What is important to understand, is that both sides, namely the regular Iraqi forces and the ISIS rebel army are supported by US-NATO. There were US military advisers and special forces including operatives from private military companies on location in Mosul working with Iraq’s regular armed forces. In turn, there are Western special forces or mercenaries within ISIS (acting on contract to the CIA or the Pentagon) who are in liaison with US-NATO (e.g. through satellite phones).
Under these circumstances, with US intelligence amply involved, there would have been routine communication, coordination, logistics and exchange of intelligence between a US-NATO military and intelligence command center, US-NATO military advisers forces or private military contractors on the ground assigned to the Iraqi Army and Western special forces attached to the ISIS brigades. These Western special forces operating covertly within the ISIS could have been dispatched by a private security company on contract to US-NATO.
Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria
Yaser Al-Khodor/Courtesy Reuters
In this regard, the capture of Mosul appears to have been a carefully engineered operation, planned well in advance. With the exception of a few skirmishes, no fighting took place.
Entire divisions of the Iraqi National Army –trained by the US military with advanced weapons systems at their disposal– could have easily repelled the ISIS rebels. Reports suggest that they were ordered by their commanders not to intervene. According to witnesses, “Not a single shot was fired”.
The forces that had been in Mosul have fled — some of which abandoned their uniforms as well as their posts as the ISIS forces swarmed into the city.
Fighters with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an al-Qaeda offshoot, overran the entire western bank of the city overnight after Iraqi soldiers and police apparently fled their posts, in some instances discarding their uniforms as they sought to escape the advance of the militants. http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/10/mosul-falls-to-al-qaeda-as-us-trained-security-forces-flee/
A contingent of one thousand ISIS rebels take over a city of more than one million? Without prior knowledge that the US controlled Iraqi Army (30,000 strong) would not intervene, the Mosul operation would have fallen flat, the rebels would have been decimated.
Who was behind the decision to let the ISIS terrorists take control of Mosul?
Had the senior Iraqi commanders been instructed by their Western military advisers to hand over the city to the ISIS terrorists? Were they co-opted?
Source: The Economist
Was the handing over of Mosul to ISIS part of a US intelligence agenda?
Were the Iraqi military commanders manipulated or paid off into allowing the city to fall into the hands of the ISIS rebels without “a single shot being fired”.
Shiite General Mehdi Sabih al-Gharawi who was in charge of the Mosul Army divisions “had left the city”. Al Gharawi had worked hand in glove with the US military. He took over the command of Mosul in September 2011, from US Col Scott McKean. Had he been co-opted, instructed by his US counterparts to abandon his command?
(image left) U.S. Army Col. Scott McKean, right, commander, 4th Advise and Assist Brigade, 1st Armored Division, talks with Iraqi police Maj. Gen. Mahdi Sabih al-Gharawi following a transfer of authority ceremony on September 4, 2011
US forces could have intervened. They had been instructed to let it happen. It was part of a carefully planned agenda to facilitate the advance of the ISIS rebel forces and the installation of the ISIS caliphate.
The whole operation appears to have been carefully staged.
In Mosul, government buildings, police stations, schools, hospitals, etc are formally now under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). In turn, ISIS has taken control of military hardware including helicopters and tanks which were abandoned by the Iraqi armed forces.
What is unfolding is the installation of a US sponsored Islamist ISIS caliphate alongside the rapid demise of the Baghdad government. Meanwhile, the Northern Kurdistan region has de facto declared its independence from Baghdad. Kurdish peshmerga rebel forces (which are supported by Israel) have taken control of the cities of Arbil and Kirkuk. (See map above)
Concluding Remarks
There were no Al Qaeda rebels in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. Moreover, Al Qaeda was non-existent in Syria until the outset of the US-NATO-Israeli supported insurgency in March 2011.
The ISIS is not an independent entity. It is a creation of US intelligence. It is a US intelligence asset, an instrument of non-conventional warfare.
The ultimate objective of this ongoing US-NATO engineered conflict opposing Maliki government forces to the ISIS insurgency is to destroy and destabilize Iraq as a Nation State. It is part of an intelligence operation, an engineered process of transforming countries into territories. The break up of Iraq along sectarian lines is a longstanding policy of the US and its allies.
The ISIS is a caliphate project of creating a Sunni Islamist state. It is not a project of the Sunni population of Iraq which historically has been committed to a secular system of government. The caliphate project is a US design. The advances of ISIS forces is intended to garnish broad support within the Sunni population directed against the Al Maliki government
The division of Iraq along sectarian-ethnic lines has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 10 years.
The formation of the caliphate may be the first step towards a broader conflict in the Middle East, bearing in mind that Iran is supportive of the Al Maliki government and the US ploy may indeed be to encourage the intervention of Iran.
The proposed redivision of Iraq is broadly modeled on that of the Federation of Yugoslavia which was split up into seven “independent states” (Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYRM), Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo).
According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, the re division of Iraq into three separate states is part of a broader process of redrawing the Map of the Middle East.
The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).
Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers”. (See Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East” By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, November 2006)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-destruction-and-political-fragmentation-of-iraq-towards-the-creation-of-a-us-sponsored-islamist-caliphate/5386998?utm_source=feedly&utm_reader=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-destruction-and-political-fragmentation-of-iraq-towards-the-creation-of-a-us-sponsored-islamist-caliphate
Ok, well, look into it for yourself. The article is a starting point. There is a trend globally. Cyprus was one of the earlier places where they began doing this sort of thing. The implementation of such practices globally comes directly from IMF policy statement (research it). You will find various legislation geared at how you get to lose your money, in this country and abroad. You've probably heard about negative interest rates recently for example. How about encroachment on inheritance rights? You familiar with the term "bail in?"