Tuesday, September 2, 2014
The British Are Telling a Different Story
Judicial Watch Warns of Imminent ISIS Terrorist Attack in the US
The Texas Department of Safety Issues Warning of an Imminent ISIS Terror Attack
Saudi King Warns of ISIS Attack Directed Against Europe and the US
Recently Fired DIA Chief Speaks Out Against Obama’s Flawed Terrorist Policies
An Ex-CIA Operative Warns of An Imminent Terrorist Threat in the U.S.
Credit to common Sense
The U.S. Army is preparing to fight political dissidents who challenge the power of the state as “megacities” become the battleground of the future, according to a new report in the Army Times.
The article details how the Army’s Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) worked with US Army Special Operations Command, the chief of staff’s Strategic Studies Group and the UK’s Ministry of Defence earlier this year to wargame the future of armed combat, which will revolve around the neutralization of groups “who can influence the lives of the population while undermining the authority of the state,” a chillingly vague description which could easily be applied to political dissidents.
The plan foresees an unprecedented realignment of U.S. military strategy focused around putting “boots on the ground” in megacities to deal with “politically dispossessed” populations while relying on “more lethal and more autonomous” methods.
“It is inevitable that at some point the United States Army will be asked to operate in a megacity and currently the Army is ill-prepared to do so,” asserted a report by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno’s Strategic Studies Group, while Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster warned that the Army will increasingly have to expand its presence to battle an enemy which operates in “other contested spaces like organized crime and politics.”
The report also notes how the Army will utilize directed energy weapons which “would allow U.S. to have direct-fire capabilities with significant logistics reduction, and to counter enemy long-range missile capability.”
The article also cites a recent report by the Australian Army which identifies the fact that “these cities represent the battlefields of the future.”
Confirmation that the U.S. Army is preparing to fight disaffected groups and individuals who attempt to ‘undermine the authority of the state’, which could apply to a whole host of perfectly legal political activities, is particularly concerning given the recent militarized police response to unrest in Ferguson, Missouri.
A 2012 study by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland which was funded by the Department of Homeland Security lists Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty” and “suspicious of centralized federal authority” alongside violent terrorist groups.
Will citizens who ‘undermine the authority of the state’ by espousing these beliefs also be a future target for the U.S. Army under this new doctrine?
Earlier this year we also highlighted how the U.S. Army built a 300 acre ‘fake city’ in Virginia complete with a sports stadium, bank, school, and an underground subway in order to train for unspecified future combat scenarios. The city included a Christian chapel and subway signs in English, suggesting it was intended to double as a domestic town in addition to an overseas location.
The Army Times report is also disconcerting in light of a recently uncovered U.S. Army training documentwhich detailed preparations for “full scale riots” within the United States during which troops may be forced to engage in a “lethal response” to deal with crowds of demonstrators.
As with previous examples, the manual made it clear that such operations were being planned not just for foreign occupations but for inside the “continental United States (CONUS)” in the event of “unruly and violent crowds” where it is “necessary to quell riots and restore public order.”
The document also describes the deployment of a “lethal response” directed against “unarmed civilians,” including “sniper response” and “small arms direct fire,” while making reference to domestic political upheavals such as the 1999 demonstrations against the WTO in Seattle.
While the U.S. border remains wide open amidst reports of ISIS insurgents planning attacks, the fact that the security apparatus of the United States is more concerned with taking on political dissidents inside megacities is likely to prompt fresh outrage.
Credit to Infowars
If after months of Eurasian axis formation, one still hasn't realized why in the grand game over Ukraine supremacy - not to mention superpower geopolitics - Europe, and the West, has zero leverage, while Russia has all the trump cards, then today's latest development in Chinese-Russian cooperation should make it abundantly clear.
Overnight, following a grand ceremony in the Siberian city of Yakutsk, Russia and China officially began the construction of a new gas pipeline linking the countries. The bottom line to Russia - nearly half a trillion after China's CNPC agreed to buy $400bn in gas from Russia's Gazprom back in May. In return, Russia will ship 38 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas annually over a period of 30 years. The 3,968 km pipeline linking gas fields in eastern Siberia to China will be the world's largest fuel network in the world.
As BBC reports, "the deal will lessen Russia's dependence on European buyers, who have imposed economic sanctions because of the crisis in Ukraine." That is not news and has been known for months ever since the long-anticipated Holy Grail deal was signed in May. More importantly, as Zero Hedge reported last week, one awaits as the invoices become increasingly less denominated in USD, and more in CNY or RUB. Most importantly, and confirming the significance of Russia's pivot away from Europe, which ultimately can have Qatar's gas it so very desires, irrelevant how many thousands of innocent people have to die, the construction ceremony was attended by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese Vice-Premier Zhang Gaoli.
China will start work on the construction of its side of the pipeline in the first half of 2015, Mr Zhang said.The first gas will be pumped from Siberia to north-east China in early 2019.Over the past 10 years, China has used other gas suppliers. Turkmenistan is now China's largest foreign gas supplier. Last year, it started importing piped natural gas from Myanmar.
Increasingly it appears that China will defer to Russia when it comes to cementing bilateral commodity deals, especially if it means further distancing both sides from what has emerged as a natural foe to both aspirational nations: the United States.
Here is what Putin had to say about the latest gas pipeline, soon to be the world's largest, during the groundbreaking ceremony outside the city of Yakutsh, via RT: "The new gas branch will significantly strengthen the economic cooperation with countries in the Asia-Pacific region and above all - our key partner China."
“Once we create a gas pipeline network here in the Far East and Siberia, we will be able to connect European pipeline system to the East. And this, in terms of export opportunities and expanding Russia’s ‘gasification’, is very beneficial. Depending on the situation in world markets, we can more effectively implement gas flows- either more to the West or to the East,” Putin told students at North-Eastern Federal University earlier on Monday.
Both President Putin and Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli signed the freshly-welded pipeline in a time-honored Russian tradition. The 'Power of Siberia' was welded together by workers from Chayanda gas field, overseen by CEO Aleksey Miller."Gazprom is always a reliable supplier of gas to its customers - which also applies to the ‘Power of Siberia," Miller said.The 3,968 km pipeline linking gas fields in eastern Siberia to China will be the world's largest fuel network in the world. Both Putin and Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli have called the project the world’s largest construction project, as investment from both countries will be more than $70 billion.“The gas pipeline ‘Power of Siberia’ will increase energy security and ensure Russia’s ability to fulfill export obligations,” Putin said in the opening remarks.Starting in 2019, Power of Siberia will pump gas from Siberia to China’s populous northeast region as well as to Russia’s Far East. The Chinese side will start the construction of its part of the pipeline in the first half of 2015, the Vice Premier of China said.Last year, China consumed about 170 billion cubic meters of natural gas and expects to consume 420 billion cubic meters per year by 2020. Europe still remains Russia’s largest energy market, buying more than 160 billion meters of Russian natural gas in 2013.
So while the west is no longer able to find any growth opportunities, with the marginal free cash flow dollar increasingly going in stock buybacks, Russia has no such problems: running from the Chayanda gas field in the Republic of Yakutia, the cost of construction is estimated at more than $20 billion (770 billion rubles), which includes other investment in the region of $7.5 billion (283 billion rubles). Russia’s largest steel pipeline manufacturer, TMK, will provide materials for the project.
The gas pipeline will become a common transit center for gas production centers in the Yakutia and Irkutsk regions.The first stage of the project will be to transport gas from the Chayanda deposit in Yakutia and connect to the town of Blagoveshchensk on the Chinese border. The 968 km pipeline should be completed by 2018.The Chayanda field, which will begin production in 2015, is estimated to have reserves of 1.2 trillion cubic meters in gas and 93 million tons of liquid hydrocarbons. Each year the field is expected to produce up to 25 billion cubic meters of gas and at least 1.5 million tons of oil.Putin also said that China can become a shareholder in the Vankor oil and gas fields in the Krasnoyarsk region in Eastern Siberia. China will enter into a strategic relationship with Rosneft, Russia's largest oil company, which owns the field.
But, Obama keeps repeating Russia is isolated by the entire world... Is he once again simply, gasp, lying?
To summarize all of the above: while Europe will continue to depend on Russia for its gas imports indefinitely, Russia will no longer depend on Europe for its experts.
Finally, a video of today's festivities if only for Russia, not so much the countries which are "isolating" it...
Credit to Zero Hedge
Mobilization seems to have begun for a long-term US intervention
The Americans have a habit of first naming their imminent war before the troops march out and it will be interesting to see how this one is going to be christened. There seems some ambiguity about the war ahead in Iraq and Syria – what it is really going to be as it gathers momentum. That probably explains the shyness in naming it.
What began as “humanitarian intervention” in Iraq has since spread from Kurdistan to Baghdad to Anbar and in the past forty-eight hours or so reached Syria with the US president having given approval for sustained air reconnaissance missions in its airspace.
So far, the US’s intervention in Iraq has been episodic but it produced some gains. These gains have been far from consolidated or irreversible, but are important enough. Humanitarian aid has apparently reached the beleaguered Yazidi community on Mount Sinjar and some areas lost to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Lebanon [ISIL] in northern Iraq – Gwer, Makhmour and the Mosul Dam – have been retaken by the Kurdish forces with the help of US air strikes. An ISIL advance toward the Kurdish capital of Erbil has been stalled for the present.
However, there are widely-shared misgivings too that the ISIL might have been bruised but is far from defeated and the spectre of a quasi-state run by a terrorist entity with worldwide networking is presented as the challenge facing the US. The American pundits are quibbling over the efficacy of a “containment” strategy toward the ISIL, but most experts agree that there is no alternative to defeating the network by eliminating its sanctuaries.
Having said that, the challenge is not merely a military one because also that the ISIL banks on key power centres within Iraq – tribes, former Baath military officers, disaffected Sunnis – and in the region and is estimated to have a daily “income” of over $1 million and has a huge stockpile of weapons and considerable financial wherewithal. But the debates view this as a peripheral issue and the focus is on the military part.
Suffice to say, the mobilization seems to have begun for a long-term US intervention. The reports suggest that similar to the scale of effort in the first Gulf War, the US is already moving toward mobilizing a coalition of donors to support its intervention financially. It is entirely conceivable that an international conference may take place in a near future after the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s summit in Wales on September 4 gets over to bring together the potential donors who would finance the US-led war and to constitute a “contact group.”
By now, it is clear that the theatre of the US intervention is not going to be Iraq alone. Senior American officials have begun briefing the media about the possibility of US intervention in Syria. How the Syrian chapter is going to develop has not been spelled out in detail, but what stands out is that there is open talk by American experts about increasing the support for the Syrian opposition ostensibly with a view to putting pressure on the ISIL from the western flanks. How this pans out remains unclear. The point is, the proposed intervention in Syria is also being cast in political terms.
As a leading figure in the US strategic community on Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad (former US ambassador to Baghdad) wrote last week in the National Interest magazine, “Even if progress is made in Iraq, the ISIL threat will persist in the absence of a settlement in Syria. As in Iraq, the most feasible formula for resolving the crisis in Syria is a unity government with power sharing at the center between the [Bashar al-] Assad government, moderate Sunnis, and Kurds and other groups, and devolution of authority to regions and provinces, perhaps organized on an ethnic and sectarian basis.”
Significantly, Khalilzad, who is closely identified with the neoconservative platform in the American foreign-policy discourses, also argued that “increased support for the national Syrian opposition and timely military strikes against ISIL targets in Syria are necessary both to put pressure on ISIL across all the territory it controls and to lay the ground work for a political settlement.
This is where the catch lies. First of all, all the American attention so far has been on demonizing the ISIL (rightly so) with a view to etching the “enemy” in stark terms. Taking note of the perceptible shift (following the horrific killing of photojournalist Jim Foley) in the domestic public attitudes toward US involvement in the Middle East’s conflicts, a strong case is now being made for long-term US intervention in Iraq and Syria. But no one speaks about international law or the need to associate the United Nations.
Syria has forewarned that while it is willing to collaborate with any party in any effort to vanquish the ISIL, it is also conscious of the bottom line that all foreign powers should respect Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity under the principles and norms of international law. To quote Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, “Syria is ready to cooperate and coordinate on the regional and international level in the war on terror. But any effort to combat terrorism should be coordinated with the Syrian government.”
He then went on to say, “Any strike which isn’t coordinated with the government [in Damascus] will be considered as aggression.” Al-Moallem said air strikes alone won’t suffice for eliminating the ISIL; effort is also needed for “drying up” their resources, including cutting off funding and arming by regional state entities and private donors, as well as controlling the borders and exchange of intelligence information.
Plainly put, Al-Moallem has demanded that the US should also discipline its key regional allies such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Qatar, which it now proposes to include as partners in the upcoming ‘war on terror’ against the ISIL. True, sincerity of purpose will otherwise be lacking in the US’ interventionist strategy. After all, the ISIL monster, which poses the newest threat to Western security, didn’t just arise out of the earth. The ISIL needed the money, weapons, logistics, propaganda facilities and regional and international connections to reach where they are now in Syria and Iraq. And there cannot be any running away from the bitter truth that the ISIL got them all free of charge from the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other oil-rich Gulf countries.
The US’ regional allies were in a de facto alliance with the extremist groups affiliated with the ISIL in a master plan with the principal objective of forcing “regime change” in Syria. There is deep irony here that Qatar used its good offices just this week to engineer the release of an American freelance journalist who was being held by a jihadist group in Syria. Quite obviously the nexus between the Syrian jihadists groups and the Gulf Arab petrodollar states such as Qatar is very much continuing. And now, despite all that, to associate and co-opt these very same “regional allies” today in the upcoming Syria project as key partners raises suspicions about the real American intentions.
At least 200,000 Syrian people have been killed, 2.5 million Syrians have been turned into refugees, and over 6.5 million Syrians have been displaced in the carnage in Syria so far. Isn’t that enough? Surely, some of that blood at least must be on Obama’s hands?
Credit to Infowars