Showing posts with label Blowback. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blowback. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Murder Of Green Berets In Jordan Exposed Secretive CIA Syria Program Details

"The Jordanian government had a strong incentive to gloss over the murders of the three Green Berets.  Likewise, the CIA was scared of potential blowback and the exposing of their covert program," says investigative journalist Jack Murphy, himself an Army special forces veteran.


A premeditated green-on-blue attack in Jordan outside of King Faisal Air Base (at al-Jafr in Southern Jordan) late last year resulted in the deaths of three elite US Green Berets in what the media initially dubbed a mere unfortunate gate incident and what the Jordanian government dismissed as a "a tragic accident devoid of any terrorist motives". But the whole event and subsequent attempts at cover-up just as Obama was leaving office enraged both the families of the slain and the US special forces community; and it further threatened to blow wide open the CIA"s illegal Syrian regime change operation, called Timber Sycamore, which involved American special ops soldiers being tasked with training so-called "moderate" Syrian rebels in Jordan and Turkey as part of an inter-agency program.


As details of the court case involving the shooter continue to emerge this week, the media continues to misreport the true nature of the what the US special forces personnel were doing in Jordan in the first place, and how a CIA secret program put them at risk.


On Monday (July 17) a Jordanian military court sentenced the attacker, a Jordanian soldier named Marik al-Tuwayha, to life in prison with hard labor for the premeditated murder of Staff Sgt. Matthew C. Lewellen, 27, of Kirksville, Missouri; Staff Sgt. Kevin J. McEnroe, 30, of Tucson, Arizona; and Staff Sgt. James F. Moriarty, 27, of Kerrville, Texas. In Jordan a "life sentence" can mean the possibility of being set free after serving 20 years for good behavior.


Last November the three Green Berets were entering King Faisal Air Base assigned as part of the CIA"s "Timber Sycamore" training. According to court testimony as well as evidence collected by the Pentagon, a soldier in the US-allied Jordanian Army opened fire as the Green Berets" convoy was stopped in front of the base. The Jordanian guard fired for six minutes, reloading multiple rifle magazines. The Jordanian government and media attempted to paint a picture that the approaching US convoy charged the gate and neglected protocol, and that the guard thought he was acting in self defense (a claim later retracted by Jordan). But initially suppressed surveillance footage captured the entire event, and confirms a methodical and willed attack as the Americans yelled in English and in Arabic, “We’re Americans! We’re friendly!" (the Jordanian military court refused to show the footage). As Foreign Affairs reported, "they were hunted down and executed at close range." A fourth US soldier was able to wound the shooter, bringing the attack to an end.



Crime scene photo evidence by the Army’s official 15-6 investigation


Monday"s verdict is being widely reported as "case closed" concerning the attack even as the victims" families and active special forces personnel themselves continue to ask questions. While family members consider the verdict a "good first step," they have all along pointed to deeper issues regarding their sons" presence in Jordan and the policies that sent them there. Official family statements from a March press conference included the following:





Based on their behavior, the Jordanians apparently believe that our sons were expendable...



Finally, our government gives Jordan more than a billion dollars each year in foreign aid. The American public is told that the government of Jordan is our ‘ally.’ ...As for the foreign aid for Jordan, I say, ‘No more.’ Enough is enough.



In a remarkably candid 2014 speech at Harvard, then Vice President Joe Biden admitted and emphasized Jordan"s role among "our allies" in funding and supporting the rise of ISIS.


After Trump took office Staff Sgt. Kevin McEnroe"s father published a letter asking the new US president to "reconsider our relationship and aide to an ally who murders our soldiers and then lies about it.”


Perhaps more significant is that the whole episode threatened to expose never before known details of the ground level nuts and bolts of how the CIA"s program to destabilize and topple the Syrian government worked. While the program began to be the subject of vague references in major US media in 2013, specific names and locations of military units, persons, and places involved had never been known or understood until just before and after the tragic attack in Jordan. Even as of 2014, as reports and rumors of CIA training camps in Jordan"s vast deserts were abundant, and as some enterprising journalists literally stumbled around Jordan looking for the whereabouts, locations and details remained a complete mystery.


Training Jihadists for Syria Operations: Whistleblowers Speak


One month before the attack at King Faisal Air Base, a Green Beret associated with covert operations in Syria spoke out to a prominent military news site called SOFREP, blowing the whistle on details surrounding the CIA"s use of jihadists to overthrow Assad:





"Nobody believes in it. You"re like, "F--k this." Everyone on the ground knows they are jihadis. No one on the ground believes in this mission or this effort, and they know they are just training the next generation of jihadis, so they are sabotaging it by saying, "F--k it, who cares?"



The lengthy whistleblower report (member restricted) circulated widely among special forces veterans and professional analysts, but never reached a broader public audience and was ignored in mainstream press as it sat behind a members only access site founded by a well-known Navy Seal for the purpose of "insider" news and discussion impacting the special forces community. The report revealed that American Syrian rebel trainers (in Jordan and elsewhere) belonging to the Army"s 5th Special Forces Group had been tasked with assisting a CIA covert mission, but they knew full well that they were being ordered by the Obama administration to train jihadists and ISIS sympathizers in the push to topple the Syrian government. They warned blowback was coming as the CIA was violating America"s own counter-terror laws.



Media figures like CNN"s Clarissa Ward immediately attacked the report (Ward herself is a notorious regime change apologist), but SOFREP"s reputation is as one of the few outlets in the world with direct access to covert and special operatives on the ground in remote places. Its two co-founders appear semi-regularly on Fox News and other outlets to discuss their investigative stories. Indeed SOFREP"s team of journalists is made up almost entirely of former career intelligence and military operatives. The site"s editor-in-chief, Jack Murphy, joined a group of high profile journalists last year which sat in a closed door interview with Syrian President Assad - among them were the New York Times regional bureau chief, a journalist from The New Yorker, and analysts from The Century Foundation.


SOFREP"s bombshell report was the result of months, and even perhaps years of a firestorm of controversy within military and intelligence ranks. Some members of the 5th Special Forces Group felt as if they were being used as pawns ("de facto expendable assets" as the SOFREP investigation describes it) by CIA bureaucracy in a legally and constitutionally questionable scheme that involved the US actively teaming up with jihadists to fight in Syria. While a general Western policy of using Islamic terrorism to pressure the Assad government has not been a secret in recent years, especially since the 2012 DIA "salafist principality" memo came to light, details of how it all worked and how its overseers attempted to justify training jihadists have remained unknown.



Screenshot of Syrian rebel video: unpacking US ordinance during training.


Below are excerpts broken into sections from SOFREP"s multi-part investigation (member restricted) into the joint CIA/Army Special Forces ("inter-agency") program. The total investigative series includes some 30+ printed pages of program history and details. It is unclear to what extent various elements of the program remained in place after Trump took office.


1) The three slain Green Berets were working under a program in which the CIA refused to properly vet trainees and allies:





The slaying of three Green Berets comes after years of the Special Forces soldiers assigned to the CIA’s Timber Sycamore program complaining that the moderate rebels they had been sent to train were actually ISIS and al-Nusra infiltrators. The vetting that the CIA does of the rebels is dubious at best, consisting of bio-metric trace searches in old databases which are far from comprehensive. The Special Forces soldiers have repeatedly brought up the fact that the rebels they have to train have also failed their polygraphs and display allegiances to Islamists during interviews. Such concerns have also been expressed by the CIA’s para-military component, called Ground Branch, which have also gone ignored.



*****





The shooter was an [Jordanian] Air Force soldier who came from the city of Ma’an, a hotbed of Islamic extremism.  Ma’an is known to be a city openly sympathetic to the Islamic State, and the black flag of ISIS has been flown over the city despite crackdowns by Jordanian Special Operations troops.



*****





As of now, three 5th Group members killed outside a CIA base in Jordan by a Jihadist sympathizer is not enough to get Congress asking questions about what is really going on with these programs.



*****





CIA officers, particularly the station chief in Turkey, are known to routinely blow off the concerns of the Special Forces sergeants. The CIA has a careerist culture in which numbers have to be met in order for their officers to be eligible for promotion, therefore the mission takes second place to checking tick marks on a ledger. Special Forces trainers complain that they were taking on too many rebels for them to control, and that many were actually terrorists.  Requests from the Green Berets for a security element from the Ranger Regiment to guard the rebels were dismissed.  The CIA blew off any and all concerns that the Green Berets had leading many of the trainers to actively sabotage the programs by passively refusing to train rebels that they know are actually terrorists. Some senior CIA staffers stayed away from the mission entirely, believing that the eventual blowback would be enough to destroy their careers.



*****





“A good 95 percent of them were either working in terrorist organizations or were sympathetic to them,” a Green Beret associated with the program said, adding, “A good majority of them admitted that they had no issues with ISIS and that their issue was with the Kurds and the Syrian regime.” Like the militias being trained in Jordan, the rebels being trained in Turkey were not ready for combat. “It is not in their blood to be fighters. A large majority of them are criminals,” a Green Beret said. Many were foreign fighters, some from Iraq. One even turned out to be a Lebanese drug smuggler.



“The majority of these guys have been coached on what to say at the training site and give cookie-cutter answers,” the Special Forces soldier told SOFREP. They would portray themselves as being secular, but the Americans could tell who the hardliners were because they didn’t smoke (jihadis follow Wahhabi Islam, which does not permit it) and looked at the Green Berets with disdain.



*****





Distinguishing between the FSA and al-Nusra is impossible, because they are virtually the same organization. As early as 2013, FSA commanders were defecting with their entire units to join al-Nusra. There, they still retain the FSA monicker, but it is merely for show, to give the appearance of secularism so they can maintain access to weaponry provided by the CIA and Saudi intelligence services. The reality is that the FSA is little more than a cover for the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra.



2) The CIA merely watched ISIS grow as its top priority had always been regime change in Syria:





CTC [CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center] “didn’t even track ISIS worth a damn,” a CIA officer said. Amazingly, ISIS remained in the background, regarded by CIA leadership as little more than another insurgent group. The director of CTC, who had once been chief of station in Baghdad, did not care about Iraq one way or the other according to multiple sources in CTC who spoke to SOFREP confidentially. Since this was the party line held by the CTC director, it filtered down through the lower ranks in the CIA. In Syria, the overwhelming priority for the CIA is what some CTC officers call Director John Brennan’s baby: the removal of the Assad regime.



*****





In 2012, with the Syrian Civil War already well underway, CIA Case Officer Doug Laux was dispatched to the Middle East in order to meet with allied nations and the leadership of the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA). The mission was to “achieve the desired result of removing President Bashar al-Assad from power,” as Laux wrote in a memo. “Leadership on the seventh floor [of CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia] and the White House had made it clear from the beginning that the goal of our task force was to find ways to remove President Assad from office,” the former CIA officer wrote in his memoir. Large sections of Laux’s book are blacked out by CIA censors, but what we do know is that American-made TOW anti-tank weapons began showing up in offensives waged by the FSA in Syria.



*****





Brennan was the one who breathed life into the Syrian Task Force, which was able to draw upon resources from CTC/SI. “John Brennan loved that regime-change bullshit,” a former CIA officer commented. CTC/SI focuses on counterterrorism, while the Syrian Task Force conducts espionage, influence operations, and paramilitary activities in conjunction with the Special Activities Division (SAD) as needed in pursuit of regime change, including the covert arming of militia groups inside Syria.



3) Advanced weaponry went to al-Qaeda in Syria:



Screenshot of Syrian rebel video: weapons training via American special ops instructor.





Weapons were provided to the FSA by the CIA under US Code Title 50, which authorizes the CIA to conduct covert operations, including the supply of arms to foreign proxy forces, after receiving permission from the White House via a presidential finding. In 2014, it became perfectly clear that U.S.-supplied TOW missile launchers had fallen into the hands of Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda-affiliated group in Syria.



*****





Concerns about the so-called moderate rebels have been brought up time and time again by the Special Forces trainers. Even the much lauded and allegedly successful program to arm the rebels with TOW missiles has proved to be a failure. Soon after the the TOWs were delivered, ISIS raided the storage facility where they were kept, the CIA-trained rebels abandoning their own weapons systems. Even the TOWs that remain in moderate FSA (Free Syrian Army) rebel hands end up benefitting the likes of the Al Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra. When a moderate FSA members fires TOW missiles in an offensive and takes new ground, that terrain is quickly ceded to al-Nusra, as moderate opposition groups are too weak to hold it.



4) The Obama White House and the intelligence bureaucracy sought legal loops holes to prevent prosecution of US officials for training terrorists as part of the covert Syria program:





The legalities in arming groups which are designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the State Department are murky and complicated. If the orders are written the “right” way and lawyers are in sync at the White House and Department of Justice, they can be signed off on. Otherwise, the case can be made that support for the rebel programs are essential, admonishing the asset and personnel trained, while claiming that they will be monitored. The case would be that dubious groups have to be trained in the name of regime change in Syria, a regime that has backing from Russia, China, and Iran.



A curious loophole in 18 USC 2339, which makes it illegal to provide material support to terrorist organizations, is exception J which states that:



No person may be prosecuted under this section in connection with the term “personnel,” “training,” or “expert advice or assistance” if the provision of that material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization was approved by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Attorney General. The Secretary of State may not approve the provision of any material support that may be used to carry out terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act).



Exception J probably provides enough of a legal loophole for the CIA to train terrorists once DOJ and the White House of signed off on paperwork carefully written by a team of lawyers.



*****





The White House and the Department of Justice have to be providing paper to the CIA for these actions, as senior management at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia won’t move without adequate protection for themselves. In this scenario, the CIA treats their Special Forces trainers as de facto expendable assets, using them to train known jihadists, when it was only a matter of time before something went wrong.




ISIS social media released photos showing possession of the US-made BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missile.


*****





The inter-agency mission given to 5th Special Forces Group sees the Green Berets seconded to the CIA in which they act under Title 50 covert action authorities instead of Title 10 military authorities. During such deployments, they also act in a compartmentalized manner to the point that even the Colonel who commands 5th Group is not read in on to the CIA missions. A Special Forces soldier at Fort Campbell, Kentucky is assigned a position called S3X in which he is read on to all of the missions and acts as coordinator. Special Forces Groups are assigned to handle different regions around the world, and 5th Group’s area of operations is the Middle East making them the natural choice for the training and equipping of rebel forces in Turkey and Jordan.



*****





For the time being, the Special Forces soldiers assigned to carry out Title 10 programs feel as if they have to make it look like they are doing their job while actually doing nothing. With their hands tied behind their backs, options are few and far between. Many are actively sabotaging the programs by stalling and doing nothing, knowing that the supposedly secular rebels they are expected to train are actually al-Nusra terrorists.



5) Rare descriptions of covert training base details, housing and operations:





Battlespace was delineated among the Special Forces members, with the troops stationed in Amman in charge of southern Syria, and others deployed to Turkey in charge of the north. However, Damascus X [the CIA station once located in Syria, now in Amman, Jordan] maintained a tremendous amount of clout over both commands. Gradually, funding and weapons flowed into Jordan for the Green Berets to use to further their mission.



*****





One Green Beret commented on the great living conditions they had. A marble chow hall was built for them that employed a full-time cook. “They always have sweets out, ice cream, a giant freezer with chocolate milk, giant TVs, and an Xbox,” he said. He also mentioned they had a great gym. Between training rebel groups, they would take trips to see the local attractions. All and all, not a bad deployment.



6) Internal military pressures as well as media whitewashing attempted to censor SOFREP investigation details and end soldiers" leaking to the media:





Since those articles have been published, 5th Special Forces Group has held “sensing sessions” between the commander and his staff.  The 5th Group commander has also conducted battalion briefs in which he stuck to the party line, but never actually denied any of the charges made in the SOFREP articles about what is going on in his unit.  One 5th Group member reported that the briefs were extremely awkward, especially when the commander told them that he got them all ball caps which at that point felt like it was compensation to the men for the mess he had gotten them in.



*****





The commander, Colonel Leahy, went on the record for the Washington Times saying, “No one knows how to work with rebels better than our Green Berets…"



However, the [Washington Times] article glosses over the complaints that Green Berets have made about the Timber Sycamore program in which “moderate” rebels actually turn out to be Jihadists.  The Special Forces men complain and drag their feet, refusing to train the next generation of terrorists, but their words fall on deaf ears at the CIA.  The brass as Special Forces also seems uninterested in challenging the CIA, and the only mission that is keeping their unit relevant at the moment.


Friday, May 26, 2017

UK Terrorist’s Motive Revealed: Family Says He Wanted Revenge for US Killing Children in Syria

blowback



Jomana Abedi, sister of Manchester attacker, Salman Abedi — whose improvised, shrapnel-laden bomb detonated after a concert, killing himself and 22 people, and injuring dozens more — has now disclosed the irrefutable, trenchant reason for the deadly attack, in her brother’s own words.


Blowback.


“I think he saw children — Muslim children — dying everywhere, and wanted revenge. He saw the explosives America drops on children in Syria, and he wanted revenge,” she told the Wall Street Journal. “Whether he got that is between him and God.”


However telling, the United States engaging in perpetual warfare throughout the Middle East comprises just one straw on the back of a camel overburdened with possible motivations that Salman Abedi sought annihilation as an act of revenge.


Born in Manchester on New Year’s Eve 1994, the WSJ reports, Abedi had a fairly ordinary childhood — though neighbors found the family to be insular.


Ramadan Abedi, Salman’s father, regularly attended a nearby mosque, and occasionally performed the call to prayer. Older brother, Ismail, also was a regular attendee, but neighbors suggested Salman only joined them sporadically.


In 2011, Abedi traveled to see his father in Libya — both parents hail from the conflict-ravaged North African nation — where they fought in a militia with designs on ousting Muammar Gaddafi, as the revolutionary ripple known as the Arab Spring gripped much of the region.


Called the Tripoli Brigade, the rebel militia fought in western Libya and were key in the eventual taking of the Libyan capital, a victory aligning with the United States’ plot to depose Gaddafi — an utter disaster in the making, as far as mutterings of blowback, and a change in regime ultimately damning the now-decimated nation to interminable conflict.


Abedi and his mother returned to Manchester in 2014, an unnamed person claiming to be a friend of the family told the Wall Street Journal, where, the following year, he began studying business administration at the University of Salford.


He lasted just one year before all-but dropping out.


Then, reports the WSJ,



“In May 2016, an 18-year-old friend of Salman Abedi’s, Abdul Wahab Hafidah, a Briton of Libyan descent, died after being run down by a car and then stabbed in Manchester. Six men and a 15-year-old boy are on trial in a Manchester court this month charged with murder in connection with the killing, which prosecutors have argued was gang-related. The defendants deny wrongdoing.”


Already having grown embittered against mistreatment of Muslims in Britain, Abedi deemed the killing a hate crime, and — whether or not he knew at the time — one of the weightier straws on the allegorical camel’s back. To wit,


“I remember Salman at his funeral vowing revenge,” the Abedi family friend said.


However, hours before he was detained by Libyan authorities, Bloomberg interviewed Ramadan Abedi, who could not imagine his son responsible for the heinous act against innocents.


“I was really shocked when I saw the news, I still don’t believe it,” the patriarch explained from Tripoli.


Ramadan Abedi, according to Bloomberg, first came to Manchester during the 1990s, and left for Libya in 2008 — three years before father and son would fight side-by-side in the rebellion against Gaddafi.


“My son was as religious as any child who opens his eyes in a religious family,” he insisted, suggesting Abedi more devoted than his Manchester neighbors witnessed.


“As we were discussing news of similar attacks earlier, he was always against those attacks, saying there’s no religious justification for them,” Ramadan continued, this time, vaguely echoing his daughter’s description of the young man as ‘kind’ and ‘loving.’


“I don’t understand how he’d have become involved in an attack that led to the killing of children.”


Emphatically, he added, “We condemn these terrorist acts on civilians, innocent people.”



Whatever Salman Abedi’s demented rationale for slaughtering victims as young as eight, a cursory examination of his experiences as a Muslim — split between a life in the West, pockmarked crimes committed against adherents of his faith, and one in his parents’ homeland, a nation shredded by Western so-called foreign policy — evince raw despair at the unlikelihood violence will ever cease.


Abedi, in short, is blowback — transmogrified into rageful human form.


He, the Manchester disaster, is U.S. hegemonic imperialism — pompous in its pillaging and merciless in wanton killing — collateral murder of innocents, moot.


Signing the permission slip to wage war against a tactic has instead brought innovation in the perfection of terrorism — wrought by individuals like Abedi, manipulative quasi-nation-states of militants, and military superpowers, alike.


Fighting this ludicrous war on terror succeeds phenomenally in two areas — providing fertile ground for further terroristic acts, the seeds of which are fertilized with corporate media’s seeds of fear, as well as fomenting anti-Western sentiment into atrocity, and fueling the military industrial complex.


In an unfortunately ironic footnote, it was Muammar Gaddafi, himself, who extended an olive branch of sorts, to former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair — who offered only a deaf ear.


Lamenting that his forces could not withstand the onslaught from al-Qaeda fighters, the Libyan leader pleaded with Blair not to ignore Western interventionism would result in attacks — in Europe.


“They [jihadists] want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe,” Gaddafi admonished in 2011, shortly before the West succeeded in deposing and killing the leader, whose plans for a gold-based currency conflicted with the worldwide U.S. petrodollar-dominated marketplace.


No one in a position to do so heeded that prognostication.


Explaining the potency of blowback has earned sharp rebuke from the still-mourning citizens of Manchester as somehow condoning the attack — but slipping the mourning veil over truth cannot shroud the ugliness of innocents in coffins.


But terror and its war don’t claim only the innocence of their victims — witnesses to carnage on the scale of war cannot unsee the callousness of collateral death. Innocence lost to indiscriminate casualty never returns.



Until the United States-led West reins in its monstrously flawed foreign operations — or, at least, attempts coordination there, with longstanding foes — there will be more Abedis.


In fact, basic principles of blowback guarantee it will be so.

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

US Just Warned Traveling Citizens That a Terror Attack May Happen at Any Time

terror



In a rather unexpected move, the United States has now issued a terror alert warning citizens about travel throughout the European Union, and — while the warning recalls relatively recent incidents in France, the UK, Russia, and Sweden — its timing, amid hostilities with North Korea and others, implies an ominous prognostication, rather than cautionary heads-up.


For the U.S. Department of State to issue such a warning — unconnected in immediacy to any specific incident in the E.U. — appears to adhere to guidelines of past warnings, in that its impetus likely rests in credible babble of an imminent threat to life.


“While local governments continue counterterrorism operations,” the U.S. Department of State’s newest Travel Alert reads, “the Department nevertheless remains concerned about the potential for future terrorist attacks. U.S. citizens should always be alert to the possibility that terrorist sympathizers or self-radicalized extremists may conduct attacks with little or no warning.”


Interestingly, while the State Department admonishes citizens operatives of the Islamic State could strike at any time, it also cautions specifically against militants of al-Qaeda — the War on Terror’s original Enemy Number One — a group which now claims to be fighting alongside the U.S. in Yemen, among other locations.



Nevertheless, the warning continues,


“Extremists continue to focus on tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets/shopping malls, and local government facilities as viable targets. In addition, hotels, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, parks, high-profile events, educational institutions, airports, and other soft targets remain priority locations for possible attacks. U.S. citizens should exercise additional vigilance in these and similar locations, in particular during the upcoming summer travel season when large crowds may be common.



“Terrorists persist in employing a variety of tactics, including firearms, explosives, using vehicles as ramming devices, and sharp-edged weapons that are difficult to detect prior to an attack.”


Indeed, caution is necessitated — arguably, everywhere the United States continues fighting militarily in answer to political woes — and although the most dangerous locales undoubtedly lie in direct conflict zones, it is interventionist, imperialist foreign policy to blame for safety concerns.


Slated to continue through September 1, the travel advisement insinuates safety rests in the traveler’s purview — and not in a constriction of troops from areas known hostile to U.S. presence, where rage and a feeling of exploitation thwart any potential good intentions.


By all outward appearances, President Trump’s administration has not quelled the nefarious effects of blowback — a term murkily coined by both the U.S. Intelligence Community and journalists present abroad in delicate situations — comprising the negative and damaging repercussions, direct and surreptitious, from operations like regime change, undesired otherwise by civilian populations.


Blowback could not be more clear from the self-titled Islamic State, whose militants frequently cite U.S. operations interfering in the affairs of predominantly Muslim, sovereign States as the impetus for attacks carried out or threatened.


Unusual in the State Department’s travel alert is its duration and lack of specificity — its ambiguity, alone, suggests U.S. Intelligence might possess additional information not made apparent to travelers to Europe.


Why, when all the conditions listed have not changed for months or years, would State abruptly announce the need for increased vigilance and wariness when traveling abroad to Western-allied nations?


Issuing a caution without elaborating on the details of its sudden imperative nature necessitates questions about the extent of knowledge withheld from the populace. While the matter likely isn’t suspicious beyond what we’ve been told, the Department of State would not announce such a warning were no legitimate threat present.


“We continue to work closely with our European partners and allies on the threat from international terrorism,” the alert concludes. “Information is routinely shared between the United States and our key partners to disrupt terrorist plotting, identify and take action against potential operatives, and strengthen our defenses against potential threats.”


Perhaps, in an abundance of caution, State felt informing the public — without exploding latent fear and paranoia — usurped the need to provide comprehensive information.



Or, perhaps — as aforementioned — the U.S. Department of State knows more than it would ever provide, much less acknowledge openly.

Monday, January 23, 2017

Want To Hold Trump Accountable as President? Start Here

January 23, 2017   |   admintam




(RPI – Op-EdThroughout the presidential campaign, Donald Trump’s foreign policy positions have been anything but consistent. One day we heard that NATO was obsolete and the US needs to pursue better relations with Russia. But the next time he spoke, these sensible positions were abandoned or an opposite position was taken. Trump’s inconsistent rhetoric left us wondering exactly what kind of foreign policy he would pursue if elected.


The President’s inaugural speech was no different. On the one hand it was very encouraging when he said that under his Administration the US would “seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world,” and that he understands the “right of all nations to put their own interests first.” He sounded even better when he said that under Trump the US would “not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example. We will shine for everyone to follow.” That truly would be a first step toward peace and prosperity.



However in the very next line he promised a worldwide war against not a country, but an ideology, when he said he would, “unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate from the face of the Earth.” This inconsistent and dangerous hawkishess will not defeat “radical Islamic terrorism,” but rather it will increase it. Terrorism is not a place, it is a tactic in reaction to invasion and occupation by outsiders, as Professor Robert Pape explained in his important book, Dying to Win.


The neocons repeat the lie that ISIS was formed because the US military pulled out of Iraq instead of continuing its occupation. But where was ISIS before the US attack on Iraq? Nowhere. ISIS was a reaction to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. The same phenomenon has been repeated wherever US interventionist actions have destabilized countries and societies.


Radical Islamic terrorism is for the most part a reaction to foreign interventionism. It will never be defeated until this simple truth is understood.


We also heard reassuring reports that President Trump was planning a major shake-up of the US intelligence community. With a budget probably approaching $100 billion, the intelligence community is the secret arm of the US empire. The CIA and other US agencies subvert elections and overthrow governments overseas, while billions are spent spying on American citizens at home. Neither of these make us safer or more prosperous.



But all the talk about a major shake up at the CIA under Trump was quickly dispelled when the President visited the CIA on his first full working day in office. Did he tell them a new sheriff was in town and that they would face a major and long-overdue reform? No. He merely said he was with them “1000 percent.”


One reason Trump sounds so inconsistent in his policy positions is that he does not have a governing philosophy. He is not philosophically opposed to a US military empire so sometimes he sounds in favor of more war and sometimes he sounds like he opposes it. Will President Trump in this case be more influenced by those he has chosen to serve him in senior positions? We can hope not, judging from their hawkishness in recent Senate hearings. Trump cannot be for war and against war simultaneously. Let us hope that once the weight of the office settles on him he will understand that the prosperity he is promising can only come about through a consistently peaceful foreign policy.




This article (Want To Hold Trump Accountable as President? Start Here) by Ron Paul originally appeared on RonPaulInstitute.org and was used with permission. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

China And Middle East Hot Spots: Diplomacy Or Militarism?

Ambassador Charles Freeman, a highly decorated US diplomat, joins the Liberty Report to discuss what the next Administration’s foreign policy might look like…and what it should look like.


»crosslinked«