I found the cartoon below on Signs of the Times website. The author of the cartoon is not noted at SOTT or on the cartoon itself. Which is a pity because it is an excellent depiction of what is really going on with all these 'terrorist attacks'.
"You were supposed to attack civilians, women, children, innocent people from outside the political arena. For one simple reason: to force the public to turn to the State, turn to the regime, and ask for greater security. This was precisely the role of the Right in Italy. It placed itself at the service of the State under an aptly termed 'Strategy of Tension'. They had to get ordinary people to accept that at any moment over a period of 30 years, from 1960 to the mid-80s, a state of emergency could be declared. So, people would willingly trade part of their freedom for the security of being able to walk the streets, go on trains or enter a bank. This is the political logic behind all the bombings. They remain unpunished because the State cannot condemn itself."
~ Italian neo-fascist whose prosecution led to the discovery of NATO's 'Gladio' networks across Western Europe
- Vincenzo Vinciguerra
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Psychopaths (the 5%) cause 95% of all the trouble on earth and 100% of the wars. If we see that wars are perpetrated by psychopaths and ordinary people are always the victims, we can see that the history of civilisation has been one long war by the psychopaths (governments and those that control them) against ordinary human beings. Know your enemy.
Marcus Papadopoulos explains how the Western governments (psychopaths) have been the ultimate cause behind the Brussels attack on innocent people-
There are two types of authority. There is authority a person may have over a subject or skill. This is positive and can be creative. Traditionally, we sought out authorities of this manner to aid us in our survival as individuals and as tribes and this lead to our survival as a species. A Kahuna in Hawaiian culture is an example of this.
There is another type of authority which came into being within hierarchical societies such as we have today. This is authority a person may have (or claim) over other people. It is an extension of parental authority over children into adulthood. It is dysfunctional and always has negative consequences. It is no coincidence that our hierarchical societies led by people who claim authority over others are visibly heading for destruction.
Throughout history, those that have claimed authority over others point to two sources for this power. The first claimed source is God and this is dealt with below. The second source is ourselves, 'the governed'. This is the basis for Democracy.
Governments, having been voted into office by a majority of voters then claim the right to compel people who did not vote for them into complying with a particular measure. The problem here is that not one person on earth has authority over another and so cannot delegate an authority, that they do not have, to a government to use to coerce other people.
As adults, we all have free will. This simple but profound fact says that we are in charge of our decisions. If we are in charge of decisions, we are in charge of ourselves and then it follows that no one else is in charge of us and our decisions. It also follows that we are not in charge of others' decisions or their lives. That is the way God designed us or the way Nature has evolved us; take your pick. We as a species have spent 99% of our time on earth in co-operative, non-coercive, non-hierarchical, self-organising tribal societies.
If God designed us, as the Catholic Church maintains, then it makes no sense at all for them to say that God has given popes (and therefore kings) authority over us; that they know what's best for us. In effect, the Church is saying is that God made us as we are with two legs, two arms and free will but doesn't want us to use our free will and wants the people in funny hats instead to use their free will for us. That is a contradiction and there are no contradictions in nature. So one of the propositions, at least, must be wrong. The obviously wrong proposition is that God gave men in pointy hats authority over us. What is it with all these funny hats, anyway? Hats on, hats off!
If we take the tack that our natures (which includes free will) have evolved over perhaps a million years, then it follows that we are perfectly honed through evolution to survive and thrive. In other words, we need individual free will to survive as an individual and as a species. If that free will and our self authority is inhibited or taken away from us, it follows that our survival will be compromised. And, indeed, it has been. All the abuse in our society results from people taking authority over others that those people do not have.
They are going against Natural Law and, in particular, the design of the human mind. Gravity is part of Natural Law, too. It is part of the design of this world. If you were to jump off the roof of your house, you are exercising your free will. But you have no free will as to whether you float off in the air or fall straight to the ground at an accelerating rate. We don't have power over the consequences of our choices once they have been made.
Natural Law can be said to be the Law of Consequences. And there are inevitable consequences to child abuse and every other form of abuse and exploitation that is rife in our society. The design of our consciousness, our psychology, has been transgressed and Natural Law says there will be harmful effects. The harmful consequences are there to tell everyone paying attention not to do it again – this is the wrong road; the road to ruin.
But people in power want to keeping doing it again and much else that is harmful. So to guard against the knowledge and spread of Natural Law (and our own commonsense) and to shore up its own power, the Church developed Canon Law as a substitute law. Instead of learning God's law that is very evident in the design of the world around us including our own psychology, we are now told to learn it from a book written by men. Man's Law in place of God's Law or Nature's Law. What could possibly go wrong?
Canon Law spawned Maritime Law (sometimes called Law of the Sea or Mercantile Law) which, in turn spawned modern Commercial Law, Administrative Law and our whole legal system. The other branch of our law, the Criminal Code, which is supposed to be based on Common Law which, in turn, is supposed to be based on Natural Law (but isn't) is no better because Criminal Law is based on the concept of punishment (Canon Law again) and not on Restitution which is demanded by Natural Law.
Restitution undoes some of the initial harm and puts a stop to the ongoing harm to the individual and society. Punishment is just more violence and does not improve the situation for the victim. It just creates more violence and violence begets more violence making the situation for society worse. This suits some people. Of course, these legal codes spawned a rash of lawyers and a rash of work for them.
So we have a legal system that proposes to combat violence with more violence and just makes matters worse in the process. Has all the money spent on lawyers and the legal system seriously inhibited crime? No, it clearly doesn't work as advertised. Again, we have Man's Law (punishment and violence) substituted for God's Law or Nature's Law (restitution). And what hasn't gone wrong?
There are two videos below that deal with some of these problems. The first is an excellent documentary, “Frequently Unanswered Questions” that lays out graphically, simply and very effectively how government authority in Australia today is simply presumed and maintained through lying and trickery. Scott Bartle, the author and presenter, shows how today's government and government departments do not follow their own legal system and are, in fact, commercial corporations. Commercial corporations are accountable to their shareholders not their 'customers'. But it is worse than that. Let Scott Bartle describe just how bad it is together with a method that has proved somewhat successful.
The second is an interview with Frank O'Collins, an Australian researcher and presenter on the historical basis of our legal system. He shows how the very basis of our legal system is corrupt and is not simply a matter of a government not following its own laws. The Law is invalid whether it is followed or not. The interview is conducted by Lisa M Harrison who asks good questions and allows Frank O'Collins the space to answer them.
Both videos are 'eye-openers' in my view.
It has been a week since I predicted that the Russian and Syrian governments would formally declare a 'No-Fly Zone' over all of Syrian territory and thus making it crystal clear that any flight that does not have the permission of the Syrian government will be declared an act of war against the Syrian people. It didn't happen. At least not in the form I predicted (and hoped for). True, al-Assad has said in interviews that over flights without consent of the Syrian government are a breach of Syria's sovereignty.
We have also had a few days ago a spokesman from the military co-ordination centre in Damascus that any NATO flights that are not co-ordinated with the Syrian/Russian coalition will be considered as a potential threat and will be countered one way or another.
|A high-ranking officer within the joint operation room in Damascus (consisting of Russia, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah) said “Damascus received sets of S -300 advanced Russian missiles, ready to enter active service. Soon, Syria will announce that any country using the airspace without coordinating with Damascus will be viewed as hostile and will shoot the jet/s without warning. Those willing to fight terrorism and coordinate with the military leadership will be granted safe corridors”.|
And more recently from Finian Cunningham quoting a senior Syrian officer from the same Co-ordination Centre in Damascus-
|Translated from Arabic language Alrai Media (thanks to the reliable Fort Russ Russian news site), the senior Syrian officer at the operations room is quoted as saying: “Soon Syria will announce that any country using the airspace without coordinating with Damascus will be viewed as hostile and [we] will shoot the jet down without warning. Those willing to fight terrorism and coordinate with the military leadership will be granted safe corridors.”
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20151206/1031325664/syria-nato-planes-cunningham.html#ixzz3tc0HqkCP
President Putin has said similar things as has Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. Perhaps Russia has been waiting till all their S 400 and S 300 air defence systems are in place and the air port at Sha’ayrat airport is ready to accept the extra 100 fighter jets needed to ensure complete lock-down of Syrian air space. But time is a wasting.
The day after the shooting down of their Su24 bomber by Turkey, Russia announced that it was positioning the missile cruiser, Moskva, off the northern end of the Latakia coast of Syria. This meant that the Moskva was closest to the area the bomber was shot down in and also closest it could get to the Incirlik airbase in Turkey that houses the US Air Force jets including F16's and F15's. The Moskva has an array of missiles and electronic warfare devises that enables it to provide a secure cover for the Russian Aerospace Force operating out of Latakia.
Russia also announced that it would shoot down anything approaching their aircraft. Subsequent to this, Russia flew in S400 missile batteries which can intercept and take down any jet or missile any of the NATO forces might fire at Syria or the Russian forces.
Russia had declared a de facto 'no-fly zone' for anyone other than the Syrian Air Force. Neither Turkey nor the US has ventured into the skies of Syria since then. They have contented themselves with flying over Iraq looking for sand hills and the odd piece of Iraqi infrastructure to bomb. The Turks and the Americans have shown themselves to be totally treacherous and are no longer to be tolerated. Russia cannot put its forces at risk and allow a repeat of the Su24 downing.
I think it logical and likely that within the next few days, Russia and Syria will formally announce the imposition of the 'no-fly zone' over the total sovereign territory of Syria. If Russia is to protect its forces, then this has to happen.
The Syrian Foreign Minister (and Deputy Prime Minister), Walid al-Muallem, was in Moscow meeting with Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, last Friday 27th Nov. At a press conference after the meeting, they both emphasised the fault of Turkey and the sovereignty of Syria. The ministers were clearly in accord with each other and clearly decisions had been made but not announced as yet.
If the Russians are going to formally declare a 'no-fly zone', they would first have needed to 'game' all the options and that would have taken a couple of days because, clearly, they were not expecting one of their jets to be attacked by Turkey. Then, having settled on the most viable option, run it past the Syrian government. That was the likely purpose of al-Muallem's visit. He wasn't there for diplomatic niceties. He was there because decisions were being made that involved Syrian sovereignty and therefore needed the Syrian government's agreement.
Walid al-Muallem has returned to Syria and to, no doubt, closed and intense meetings with al-Assad, government and military officials. If all is agreeable, then I think we can expect the formal announcement of a 'no-fly zone' in the coming days. This will put an end to the intolerable situation where Syria and now Russia have been putting up with the Turks and the US flying over Syrian territory bombing Syrian infrastructure and dropping weapons and supplies to their mercenaries and jihadis.
The de facto 'no-fly zone' currently in place has allowed the Russians to bomb the supply lines of NATO's proxy army of terrorists more effectively because they have not had to inform the US of the flight paths where they are going to be operating and thus giving some forewarning to the Americans and therefore, most probably, the terrorists themselves.
The US obviously passed on the flight information to the Turkish Air Force (assuming it was a Turkish pilot flying a Turkish F16) regarding the Su24 that was shot down by them. The Russians can no longer afford to continue to give such sensitive information the US. Also, the Russians cannot afford to let the US fly over Syria without this information due to the large possibility of an accident occurring. The only option left for the Russians is to no longer allow the US to overfly Syria.
The terrorists are rapidly losing ground and the Turkish government is panicking at the imminent closure of the Turkish/Syrian border by the Syrian Arab Army. This will cut the terrorists' supply line and signal their end. The Russians will likely want to trap the terrorists in a 'cauldron' having, no doubt, instructed the Syrian Arab Army in its application. Russia does not want these terrorists to escape and be deployed elsewhere by NATO; perhaps to their own Caucasus territory.
There is a lot at stake. Not only will it be the end of any hope of Erdogan's territorial expansion but also the end of the US's hegemonic power in the Middle East. US expansionism, which has already halted, will reverse. The perception of the US's invincible power will have evaporated and therefore much of the support from their allies. Who knows, the European nations might even rethink the whole NATO deal. But one thing to bear in mind always is that psychopaths can never give up. They are driven. So what can we expect from them?
Turkey is already firing mortar-bombs over the border into Syria and making nonsensical assertions that they need to invade Syria to 'stop ISIS' and secure their border (by advancing their border into Syria). See Tony Cartalucci's article, URGENT: US-Turkey Edging Up to Syrian Border
|”The United States and Turkey, with their ambush of a Russian Su-24 over Syria, have proven just how far the West is willing to go to get an advantage, even superficially, over Russia, even if it means resorting to extreme treachery. Another "power move" wrung from this impending "border operation" seems all but inevitable.
This increasingly desperate geostrategic posture comes at a time when Russia has begun bombing ISIS-bound convoys emerging from Turkish territory almost on the border itself. Syrian armed forces are likewise close to closing off this very border region from within their own territory. Syrian troops have approached the Euphrates River's west bank and will begin moving north toward the Turkish border itself. Once this region is retaken by Russian-backed Syrian troops, there will be no "safe zone" for NATO to establish.
Race to the Finish Line
To ensure that NATO's plans are fully derailed along the Turkish-Syrian border, Russian-backed Syrian troops much ensure a substantial deterrence exists specifically to face this threat. Diplomatically, offers to establish a border guard or peacekeeping force on the Syrian side to compliment NATO's within Turkish territory may be the best way to ensure NATO's ambitions remain where they are.
What the Wall Street Journal and the policy think-tanks it is repeating attempt to lay out is a narrative that claims in order to stop terrorists from passing through Turkish territory and into Syria, for some reason NATO needs to occupy Syria itself.”
Read the complete article at Landdestroyer
What is needed (and I think likely) is for Russia and Syria to jointly declare Syria's sovereignty and that any forces on or over Syrian territory without express and formal invitation will be considered enemy combatants. Then if incursions occur and they are rebuffed, no one can legitimately complain. Everything will be in accordance with International Law.
Cartalucci suggests that a Russian led international peacekeeping force could be stationed along the Turkish-Syrian border to prevent any further NATO incursions. It's quite possible. Forces from the CSTO countries would be a possibility or perhaps SCO countries which includes China!
Things are moving fast and the stakes are getting higher but I'm sure Russia did not start their intervention (at Syrian Government request) without thinking through the possibility of directly facing off against NATO and without knowing how they will prevail.
Russia has lost two servicemen, a jet and a helicopter but they have gained a 'no-fly zone' with the perfect excuse to bring into Syria the peerless S400 defensive missile system. This has stopped overflights and bombing runs of the Turkish, US and israeli air forces. The US continues to lose with every desperate act of aggression.
Below are three articles which explain much about the trail of people who make money from the theft of resources and the theft of the lives of largely innocent people.The trail stretches from Syria/Iraq to Turkey/Israel and beyond. Some readers may have read one or both of the first two articles by William Engdahl but few, I think, will have read the third article which is not to be missed.
The Western press featured stories about ISIS selling oil initially to explain how ISIS got their funding. What was left unsaid was where the funding came from in the beginning to place ISIS in a position to capture those oil wells: where the oil went to; through whom and who made money from these transactions.
Apart from the funding, there are enormous logistical operations involved in fielding an army in battle. It takes anywhere between 5 to 8 personnel to support one front line fighter. Who is supplying this logistical support? Tony Cartalucci explains in Logistics 101
All this information was, no doubt, included in the dossiers that Vladimir Putin handed out to the national heads attending the recent G20 meeting. He identified 40 countries and individuals who were supporting and facilitating the terrorism of ISIS et al. - Ali Baghdadi and the 40 Thieves.
Much of this information has been known for some time as the first of two articles from William Engdahl and the article from Tony Cartalucci will attest given that they were both written more than three months ago. William was being quite prophetic when he opened his August article with this statement -
"Turkey is a beautiful land, rich in resources, with many highly intelligent and warm people. It also happens to have a President who seems intent on destroying his once-proud nation."
Of course, psychopaths eventually end up destroying everything they touch. That is the nature of psychopathy: that is the nature of nihilism; same, same. They worship power and have no God above themselves.
Turkey is a beautiful land, rich in resources, with many highly intelligent and warm people. It also happens to have a President who seems intent on destroying his once-proud nation. More and more details are coming to light revealing that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, variously known as ISIS, IS or Daesh, is being fed and kept alive by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the Turkish President and by his Turkish intelligence service, including MIT, the Turkish CIA. Turkey, as a result of Erdoğan’s pursuit of what some call a Neo-Ottoman Empire fantasies that stretch all the way to China, Syria and Iraq, threatens not only to destroy Turkey but much of the Middle East if he continues on his present path.
In October 2014 US Vice President Joe Biden told a Harvard gathering that Erdoğan’s regime was backing ISIS with “hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons…” Biden later apologized clearly for tactical reasons to get Erdoğan’s permission to use Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base for airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, but the dimensions of Erdoğan’s backing for ISIS since revealed is far, far more than Biden hinted.
ISIS militants were trained by US, Israeli and now it emerges, by Turkish special forces at secret bases in Konya Province inside the Turkish border to Syria, over the past three years. Erdoğan’s involvement in ISIS goes much deeper. At a time when Washington, Saudi Arabia and even Qatar appear to have cut off their support for ISIS, they remaining amazingly durable. The reason appears to be the scale of the backing from Erdoğan and his fellow neo-Ottoman Sunni Islam Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu.
Nice Family Business
The prime source of money feeding ISIS these days is sale of Iraqi oil from the Mosul region oilfields where they maintain a stronghold. The son of Erdoğan it seems is the man who makes the export sales of ISIS-controlled oil possible.
Bilal Erdoğan owns several maritime companies. He has allegedly signed contracts with European operating companies to carry Iraqi stolen oil to different Asian countries. The Turkish government buys Iraqi plundered oil which is being produced from the Iraqi seized oil wells. Bilal Erdoğan’s maritime companies own special wharfs in Beirut and Ceyhan ports that are transporting ISIS’ smuggled crude oil in Japan-bound oil tankers.
Read the rest together with links to further information at Erdogan’s Dirty Dangerous ISIS Games
The second article is a follow-up from William Engdahl and was published a couple of days ago after the shooting down of the Russian bomber by a Turkish jet fighter.
Welcome to our Thanksgiving Day dinner, Erdogan. You're the guest of honour!
You've made a lot of people in Washington very happy – the Neocons, their banker paymasters at the CFR and the Pentagon brass (also happily ensconced at the CFR).
You see, although Erdogan was helping the bankers by providing the logistics for ISIS (and making a fancy profit from it), he was hindering their plans for an independent Kurdistan. It was getting messy and the ever-fickle Kurds were in danger of going over wholesale to the Russians.
So, Erdogan had to go. But how? Simple: play to his overblown sense of entitlement and his psychopathic outrage at the Russian's bombing his family's lucrative terror business. His son ran the oil tanker fleet (that is no more) that shipped stolen Syrian oil from ISIS into and through Turkey. No doubt, there are many other highly profitable family businesses.
Turkey claims that they shot the Russian jet down using an air-to-air missile fired from an F16 fighter jet. There were early claims that it was a surface-to-air missile. I don't know that that possibility has been definitely ruled out. Another possibility is that it was an American jet or even an American pilot flying a Turkish Air Force F16. It's not like there are a shortage of American F16 pilots at Incirlik airbase where the attack allegedly was initiated from. There was another early report that claimed that US F15 combat aircraft were in the air at the time of the attack on the Russian Su24. Whatever, it is clear to many pundits around the world that the attack was, at least, co-ordinated with the US.
From Pepe Escobar-
"Let's cut to the chase. The notion that Turkey's downing of a Russian Su-24 by a made in USA F-16 was carried out without either a green light or at least pre-arranged "support" from Washington invites suspension of disbelief."