?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
15 November 2013 @ 06:37 am
UK, US Trained, Tax Funded, Intelligence Services Directed Kiddie Killers  
.
SANA: Damascus: Crimes against children in Syria require accountability for countries backing terrorism
M. Ismael
Damascus, Foreign and Expatriates Ministry addressed two identical letters to the United Nations Secretary General and President of the UN Security Council, elaborating on the terrorist attacks with mortars targeting the Syrian cities.
The letters said that terrorism makes it imperative for the international community to hold the countries backing the terrorist groups to account for their overt support to them.
"The random mortars launched at the Syrian cities have become one of the preferred methods for the terrorist groups to kill innocent Syrian civilians, especially in Damascus city which proved unreachable for the terrorist groups, that's why they are showering Damascus and its countryside, especially Jaramana city, with scores of mortar rounds to spread panic and kill as many citizens as possible," the ministry said in its letters.
Children and their schools are bearing the brunt of the indiscriminate acts of terrorism, the letters said.
"The Syrian Arab Republic would like to put you in the picture of the crimes committed by the armed terrorist groups against children,'' the letters pointed out, addressing the United Nations Secretary General and President of the UN Security Council.
"On November 11, 2013, 4 children and a bus driver have been killed and 4 children and two superintendents injured after mortar rounds launched by terrorists hit a school bus outside a school in Bab Sharqi area in Damascus."
"The same day, John of Damascus School in al-Qasaa neighborhood has come under a similar mortar attack, with a mortar round slamming into a school, killing five children and wounding 35 others under the age of 10."
"On November 10, 2013, a father and his three sons have been killed in a mortar attack on their car in Jaramana city in Damascus suburbs."
"On November 9, 2013, 4 children have been killed and 6 citizens wounded when a mortar shell fell on al-Ashrafieh area in Aleppo."
"On November 6, 2013, a mortar round fell on an elementary school in al-Zahira al-Jadida area in Damascus, wounding 4 children under the age of 13."
"On November 3, 2013, a mortar round hit a schools complex in al-Dweila' neighborhood in Damascus."
The Ministry of Education had to suspend teaching for three days, starting from November 13, 2013, in a number of targeted schools to protect children from the terrorist shells, which has a negative impact on the educational process and deprives children of a basic human right, the right to education.
The ministry pointed out that these instances are not the first against children in one month, as terrorists fired shells on a schools complex in Jaramana city on October 22, 2013, wounding a teacher and 14 students, some of them seriously.
a
The ministry mentioned in its letters that the these crimes targeted schools and children with shells in less than a month, as the Syrian children remain prone to numerous forms of crimes, including the recruitment of children, training them to kill, abductions for blackmailing their families, killing and mutilation at the hands of terrorist groups.
These crimes are consistent with the acts of terrorists, who want the wheel of life to grind to a halt in Syria, the letters pointed out.
The letters also enumerated methods practiced by the terrorist groups that are intended to stop the educational process in Syria, including planting explosive devices in schools and replacing the Syrian curricula with a form of education that had prevailed before the emergence of the modern educational system, teaching distorted al-Qaeda-type religious studies.
The ministry also drew attention to the terrorist groups preventing the vaccination campaigns in the areas under their control, with the result of polio rearing its head again in Deir Ezzor city east of Syria, after Syria has succeeded in conquering it 20 years ago.
The letters said that the terrorist acts of the armed groups, especially against children place the international community before its responsibilities to hold to account the countries backing terrorism in Syria, and holding them responsible for the atrocities committed and for their overt support to terrorism at a time when these countries claim to be fighting the same groups elsewhere around the world.
The letters urged the international community to not allow the thwarting of the UNSC efforts for issuing a clear condemnation of terrorist groups and the countries backing them, especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and take the necessary measures to dry out the sources of terrorism.
http://213.178.225.235/eng/21/2013/11/14/512580.htm

The point being that if the UK regime is held to account, the cost will come out of the public's pockets. These damn psychopaths that are not just financially participating in Syria's destruction at public expense, they are doing so against the will of the public. Ask any Joe or Josephine on the street whether they are happy that their tax is being used to help kiddie killers and terrorists and their reply? If the UK is held to account for the Cameron regime's part in the illegal destruction of Libya and mass murder of conscripts with civil servants and civilians "as collateral damage", it would likely bankrupt our country.
We don't need central government and we certainly don't need to be led by a choice from psychopaths like Cameron, Hague, Blair offered by banksters at each election.
That Cameron has got the UK involved in another dirty, illegal war where our secret services and military train these bastards, aiding the US and the despotic Saudi and Qatar destroy the country, pretending it is about helping Syrians to gain a democratic system by violence, where tens of thousands of members of the insurgency are not Syrian, where the real reason is to partition the country and implant a government obeisant to the West should see him tried for war crimes and breaches of international law.
 
 
 
clothcapclothcap on November 15th, 2013 06:46 am (UTC)
But the UK doesn't train AQ...
Many of the FSA members have and are defecting to Al Nusra, an AQ franchise and other AQ groups because Saudi, Qatari and private cash is flowing in large amounts to these groups.

Edited at 2013-11-15 07:55 am (UTC)
clothcapclothcap on November 15th, 2013 08:32 am (UTC)
Blinded by principles on Syria's war - Derek Dougdale
A comfortable idealism among liberal commentators has seen them dismiss the historical, social, and political complexities of Syria's conflict, such as the religious and ethnic tensions created when such countries are carved out of colonial empires. Like his father, Bashar al-Assad likely acted not just to save his regime. He also knew Syria's fragile, 67-year-old existence was threatened.
All too often an emancipatory politics is substituted for idealism posturing as an emancipatory politics. Syria is a case in point. Two years ago, we were told the troops of Bashar al-Assad took to the streets of Damascus and violently crushed a peaceful, democratic protest. This, we are still told, led to a popular uprising, a revolution.
Despite serious criticism and reports the event was exaggerated - if not fabricated - even today, the alleged response to the March 2011 uprisings has formed the moral basis and unwavering belief in a principled support for the opposition. In this context, opposition groups such as Al-Nusra Front and al-Qaeda are classed as fringe actors just as detrimental to the "good" opposition as they are to the government.
There is no doubt some truth in this. In-fighting between various opposition groups has been widely reported, mainly because the opposition is deeply fractured into hundreds of militias. Yet however splintered, however chaotic, and whatever the crimes of the opposition, the government exercised violence first, therefore - the principle goes - it is morally worse. That is the belief. That is the principle.
Now, suppose for a moment the Syrian government did send troops into a crowd of peaceful protesters two years ago. Suppose the troops did exercise violence, shooting live bullets at unharmed protesters waving placards, murdering innocent men and women. Even then, there has been much talk about the way in which the Syrian government is said to have crushed those initial protests, but little talk about the why.
Following its formal independence from French colonial rule in 1946, Syria was one of the most unstable nations in the Greater Middle East and witnessed a series of coups and counter-coups. The first came in 1949 when Syrian president Shukri al-Kuwaiti was overthrown by the US-backed Husni al-Zaim, who was operating as the Chief of Army. In the same year, another coup was launched and al-Zaim was overthrown and executed. This time it was Hashem al-Atassi who gained power, only to be overthrown in the very same year in a counter-coup led by Adib al-Shishakli.
The three coups of 1949 set the precedent for the next 21 years, which saw the country suffer coup after counter-coup until Hafez al-Assad eventually consolidated his power in the Corrective Movement of 1970. Yet even then, destabilizing forces within Syria worked to overthrow the government.
Towards the end of the 1970s, Syria was rocked by a series of brutal terrorist attacks by various Islamist groups generally referred to under the umbrella term "Muslim Brotherhood". At first, Islamists targeted politicians and party members for assassination, but quickly turned their attacks on the public.
In the ensuing bloodbath, thousands were killed while the Syrian government was slow to react. This culminated in 1982 when the city of Hama came under the control of Islamists, thus endangering the future of the Syrian state. The Syrian government responded with force, shelling the city in a battle that lasted for three weeks, until Hafez al-Assad's government quashed the insurgents and finally regained control of the city.
Syria's existence was also threatened by the emergence of the State of Israel, which was established on land once known as Greater Syria in 1948. With the US shifting their imperial eyes over the region in a bid to combat Soviet influence, support for Israel - who they saw as a potential counterweight to the Russians and Nasser's Egypt - led to a geopolitical nightmare for the new Syrian state, resulting in three disastrous wars with Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973.

Continues under
clothcapclothcap on November 15th, 2013 08:35 am (UTC)
Continuation: Blinded by principles on Syria's war - Derek Dougdale
The context of Cold War politics, with the two main superpowers vying for control in the region, also resulted in covert support for various groups within Syria in a bid to manufacture dissent and gain political power and leverage, a policy which the US has continued up until today.
While Hafez al-Assad managed to bring stability to a country in absolute chaos and maintain a level of respect and independence in the existential battle with the US and Israel, the religious, ethnic, and political tensions in a fragile Syrian state, along with imperialist interference in Syrian affairs, continued up until Hafez al-Assad's death. In fact, it wouldn't be unfair to say the government's response two years ago to protesters was sparked by fears of the fragile Syrian state disintegrating. Two years on, and with the country looking more and more like it will be partitioned, it is clear these fears were well-grounded.
In a 2006 Wikileaks cable, the extent of US interference in pre-2011 Syrian affairs is revealed. The cable discusses extensive plans to destabilize the country, including fomenting dissent amongst Syrian Sunni groups; promoting conflict in the government's inner-circle; encouraging rumors of coup-plotting in the military; highlighting the failures of reform in the run up to the 2007 elections; and promoting a Kurdish rebellion in the country's north. In no uncertain terms, the cable also points to "the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists", and suggests there "may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG [United States government] can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising".
Despite all this, the "principled, moral" stance taken up by commentators outside of Syria has failed to take into account Syria's historical, social, and political reality. The fact the Syrian Arab Republic is just 67 years old and was carved like a chunk of flesh from the earth is ignored. Its ethnic and religious makeup, often alienated, ambivalent, or even hostile to the colonial frontiers that constitute the post-independence Syrian state is not considered, while the secular government's history of ethnic and religious toleration is hardly given a mention. In the same way, Syria's complicated process of nation-building along with the internal and external agents seeking its destruction are not positioned as part of the context of the 2011 uprisings.
The "principled, moral" stance taken up by bourgeois, liberal, and leftist commentators has instead prevailed in a vacuum: after all, it is the principle that matters, the principle. But this is a conflict that has witnessed the death of well over 100,000 civilians and created millions of homeless, exiled refugees.
It will likely see the end of the Syrian Arab Republic, which will probably be partitioned and experience a future of "liquid" war. Is it not a little disingenuous then for comfortable liberal commentators and the like to stand by an abstract principle divorced from social, historical, and political reality?
Is it not time we trace the contours of conflict - the historical roots, the roots of causation - before making uninformed, emotive decisions and building our very politics from the present? It is all too easy to stand by a principle when its consequences cannot pierce one's remote, detached, isolated comfort.
In the words of the inspirational Lebanese academic and political activist Amal-Saad Ghorayeb: "The Syrian refugees don't need our liberal humanitarianism, nor our lefty class solidarity, nor our bourgeois "tolerance" for their presence in our midst. They just need their country back."
We cannot give the exiled their country back, but we can stop conflating our comfortable idealism with the realities of Syria's pain.
Source http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-01-141113.html
Asia Times copyright Derek Dougdale, a pseudonymous writer and journalist based in Berlin, Germany. He can be reached at dabcule@gmail.com
clothcapclothcap on November 15th, 2013 08:56 am (UTC)
Alternative Media Under Attack!
Someone Trying to Set-up Truthstream Media
PLEASE NOTE that any e-mail attachments claiming to be from Truthstream Media are fraudulent and may be part of an attempt to discredit or set-up us or others in the alternative media. PLEASE DO NOT open any attachments as they are not communications from our website. It is not from us.
Details http://12160.info/video/alternative-media-under-attack-someone-trying-to-set-up

Edited at 2013-11-15 08:56 am (UTC)
clothcapclothcap on November 15th, 2013 09:08 am (UTC)
Syria Syrian air raid kills rebel commander in Aleppo: activists
Reuters: A Syrian rebel commander in a main Islamist brigade was killed and two others were injured in an air strike by President Bashar al-Assad's forces on Aleppo, activists said on Friday, in a setback to rebels defending the city against a loyalist attack.
Aleppo, Syria's commercial hub and most populous city before the uprising against Assad erupted in 2011, has been witnessing heavy fighting since Assad's forces, backed by Shi'ite militia from Iraq and the Lebanese party Hezbollah, launched an offensive two weeks ago to retake rebel-held areas in the city.
The opposition Aleppo News Network said in a statement that the raid on Thursday targeted an army base that rebels had captured, killing commander Youssef al-Abbas of the Qatari-backed al-Tawhid Brigades, one of the biggest armed opposition groups.
Abbas was known by the nom de guerre Abu al-Tayyeb.
Continues http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/15/us-syria-crisis-aleppo-idUSBRE9AE04320131115
H/t Révolutions Info
clothcapclothcap on November 15th, 2013 09:12 am (UTC)
Asia Times - Iran
Why France is playing 'stupid' on Iran - Pepe Escobar
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, by pecking at "weak points" to kill the nascent international deal on Iran's nuclear program, looked "blind" and stupid" in the eyes of the United States. Cool calculation was behind the Gallic rooster's display: he was foolishly doing the bidding for Israel and the House of Saud. The axis of fear and loathing may play spoilers, but Washington and Tehran will inevitably strike a deal.
More http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-02-121113.html

Scuppered Iran deal faces US scrutiny - Jasmin Ramsey
The anticipated agreement over Iran's controversial nuclear program that slipped away in Geneva last week is being hotly debated on Capitol Hill. As Secretary of State John Kerry appeals for the United States Congress to hold back on adding to the sanctions, hawkish Senator John McCain thanked France for opposing a deal.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-141113.html
clothcapclothcap on November 15th, 2013 09:20 am (UTC)
Israel seeks destruction of Iran: Mark Glenn
Fearing the independence and stability of the Islamic Republic in the Middle East, the Israeli regime seeks Iran’s “destruction,” a political commentator tells Press TV.
In an interview with Press TV on Thursday, Mark Glenn, an American author and journalist, described Iran as the “only stable” Middle Eastern country, which as opposed to other regional states, is not dependant on the United States and Israel “for money and for military supplies.”
Glenn argued that the Tel Aviv regime “would still be calling for Iran’s destruction” even if Tehran did not have a nuclear energy program, which Israel, the US, and some of their allies claim to include a non-civilian component. Iran has frequently rejected the allegation as groundless.
The analyst added that Israel and its Arab allies in the region, particularly Saudi Arabia, “have a vested interest...in making sure that Iran does not become the powerhouse of the Middle East.”
Israel is furious at the recent nuclear talks held between Iran and the six world powers - the US, Britain, Russia, China, France and Germany - in Geneva, Switzerland. The Zionist regime is, therefore, spearheading a campaign to block any accord between Iran and the Sextet over Tehran’s nuclear energy program.
Full + vid http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/14/334719/israel-wants-irans-destruction-analyst/
clothcapclothcap on November 15th, 2013 09:23 am (UTC)
Obama urges Congress against new Iran sanctions
Ahead of a new round of talks between Iran and six major world powers, US President Barack Obama has urged Congress not to impose new sanctions against Iran.
Speaking at a news conference on Thursday, Obama called on lawmakers to give time to diplomacy to help a deal with Iran over its nuclear energy program.
Obama said that there was the “possibility of an agreement” with Iran, but he reassured lawmakers that sanctions could be “ramped back up” if no deal is reached.
The US president, however, repeated his mantra of keeping all options on the table regarding Iran, but warned of "unintended consequences" of a military conflict, adding that he favored the peaceful settlement of the West’s depute with Iran over its nuclear energy program.
Obama’s remarks come as Israel, concerned over a possible Iran nuclear deal, is pushing the US Congress for new sanctions against Tehran.
Full http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/15/334773/obama-urges-congress-to-delay-iran-bans/
clothcapclothcap on November 15th, 2013 09:32 am (UTC)
Pivotal moment: Why US wants deal with Iran
The Geneva talks between Iran and the P5+1 group may have been torpedoed, but they are not sunk. The possibility of at least an interim deal on Iran’s nuclear program is still on. The saga continues next Wednesday.
Here I have detailed how, and for what turgid motives, France – acting for Israel and the House of Saud - derailed the negotiations last week.
Yet the basic win-win rationale, in the long run, remains. Tehran needs to get rid of the vicious US/Western sanctions package. And Washington wants more leverage in Southwest Asia, and across Eurasia.
Make no mistake; this negotiation is essentially between Washington and Tehran, despite the other players on the table. At the same time, the mere, tantalizing possibility of a deal affects the calculations of every player across Eurasia – from Turkey to BRICS members Russia and China.
Debunking a ‘march to war’
The White House and the State Department are now actively spinning that for the US Congress to impose even more sanctions – on third-party nations trading with Iran – would be “a march to war.” With negotiations failing, President Obama would have no way to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment; hardliners in Tehran would prevail and go for a bomb; and Washington would be forced to attack Iran.
This makes absolutely no sense. To start with, every informed actor – from the IAEA to the alphabet soup of US intelligence agencies and even former Israeli Defense officials - knows that Tehran does not have a weaponized nuclear program. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has repeatedly condemned a nuclear weapon as un-Islamic and totally off-limits.
Iran not only does not have - or want - a bomb; it subscribes to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). On the other hand, Israel does not care for the NPT, and is a de facto nuclear power – with warheads in the low hundreds.
[...] There are, of course, a cornucopia of motives; the impenetrable, 34-year Wall of Mistrust erected between Washington and Tehran after the Islamic Revolution; the fact Washington elites have always wanted regime change; Iran’s independent foreign policy; US corporate desire to access that fabulous energy wealth, not to mention opening up a huge virgin market.
By peddling the logic that failed negotiations would lead to war on Iran, the White House and the State Department are in fact pointing their fingers to their allies, the Likudniks in Israel and the House of Saud, who are already doing everything they can to derail Geneva.
As for war, it is already on – as in financial war, a de facto blockade, with a nasty package of sanctions crippling Iran’s oil exports especially to the West (Asian powers, for their part, have found myriad strategies to dodge the sanctions). It’s this financial war that must be defused.
Full http://rt.com/op-edge/us-iran-nuclear-program-764/
Recommended
clothcapclothcap on November 15th, 2013 10:34 am (UTC)
Another aspect
West vs Iran: It’s about economic control
The US and other Western powers have imposed sanctions on Iran not because it poses a serious threat but because a weak economy would keep Iran under control of the international community, Caleb Maupin, an International Action Center organizer, told RT.
RT: Washington has renewed what it calls 'a state of emergency regime' with Tehran. How significant is that?
Caleb Maupin: Well, it’s really outrageous. Iran has made clear for the last several decades that it has absolutely no intention of developing nuclear weapons, that it only seeks to develop peaceful nuclear power and it has abided by every single requirement of it with the International Atomic Energy Agency under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and yet this propaganda continues to go out claiming that there is some kind of Iranian threat to world peace. Well the reason that the United States, Israel, France, and countries like that are threatened by Iran is not because Iran is aggressive or anything like that. They’re threatened because Iran seeks independent economics. In the Iranian Revolution of 1979 the people of Iran rose up, they overthrew the Shah – who was a brutal US-backed dictator – and they began a course of independent economic development. The profits from Iranian oil go to the Iranian economy. They don’t go to the bankers on Wall Street, they don’t go to the London Stock Exchange, they go to the people. They go to the Iranian economy. And they don’t want independent economic development and that’s what the aggression against Iran is all about. And Iran has been more than accommodating, it’s made clear it has no desire for aggression. When President Rouhani was at the United Nations he made clear that he was talking of a world against violence and extremism and making clear that Iran is not aggressive, Iran does not want violence. But it’s clear that the Wall Street bankers and the corporations and the US government which represents them is very very committed to hostility toward Iran and that’s what we’re seeing with these new sanctions.
RT: Surely they’re missing a trick here then. If they get economic independence, then surely that opens up massive trade opportunities - which is presumably what Britain now sees because it has renewed diplomatic relations.
CM: But it’s about control. It’s about economic control. The western powers are very threatened by the fact that around the world – it’s not just Iran, there’s a whole network of countries that are not under its dominion. Whether it’s China, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria - these are all countries that are defying the will of the western financial institutions and have set up their own kind of economies that serve themselves rather than serving the West and that’s something they simply can’t stand for. That’s what this aggression is about.
Continues http://rt.com/op-edge/us-egypt-muslim-brotherhood-704/
clothcapclothcap on November 15th, 2013 10:37 am (UTC)
Across the pond
What Is The Real Agenda Of The American Police State?
Paul Craig Roberts
In my last column I emphasized that it was important for American citizens to demand to know what the real agendas are behind the wars of choice by the Bush and Obama regimes. These are major long term wars each lasting two to three times as long as World War II. Forbes reports that one million US soldiers have been injured in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. RT reports that the cost of keeping each US soldier in Afghanistan has risen from $1.3 million per soldier to $2.1 million per soldier. Matthew J. Nasuti reports in the Kabul Press that it cost US taxpayers $50 million to kill one Taliban soldier. That means it cost $1 billion to kill 20 Taliban fighters. This is a war that can be won only at the cost of the total bankruptcy of the United States.
Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes have estimated that the current out-of-pocket and already incurred future costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars is at least $6 trillion.
In other words, it is the cost of these two wars that explain the explosion of the US public debt and the economic and political problems associated with this large debt.
What has America gained in return for $6 trillion and one million injured soldiers, many very severely?
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/what-is-real-agenda-of-american-police.html

Obama’s Secret Treaty Which Will Merge America Into a One World Economic System
Michael Snyder
Did you know that the Obama administration is negotiating a super secret "trade agreement" that is so sensitive that he isn't even allowing members of Congress to see it? The Trans-Pacific Partnership is being called the "NAFTA of the Pacific" and "NAFTA on steroids", but the truth is that it is so much more than just a trade agreement. This treaty has 29 chapters, but only 5 of them have to do with trade. Most Americans don't realize this, but this treaty will fundamentally change our laws regarding Internet freedom, health care, the trading of derivatives, copyright issues, food safety, environmental standards, civil liberties and so much more.
It will also merge the United States far more deeply into the emerging one world economic system. Initially, twelve nations will be a party to this treaty including the United States, Mexico, Canada, Japan, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Together, those nations represent approximately 40 percent of global GDP. It is hoped that additional nations such as the Philippines, Thailand and Colombia will join the treaty later on.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/obamas-secret-treaty-which-will-merge.html

TPP Leak Confirms the Worst: US Negotiators Still Trying to Trade Away Internet Freedoms
Maira Sutton & Parker Higgins
After years of secret trade negotiations over the future of intellectual property rights (and limits on those rights), the public gets a chance to looks at the results. For those of us who care about free speech and a balanced intellectual property system that encourages innovation, creativity, and access to knowledge, it’s not a pretty picture.
Today Wikileaks published a complete draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement’s chapter on “intellectual property rights.” The leaked text, from August 2013, confirms long-standing suspicions about the harm the agreement could do to users’ rights and a free and open Internet. From locking in excessive copyright term limits to further entrenching failed policies that give legal teeth to Digital Rights Management (DRM) tools, the TPP text we’ve seen today reflects a terrible but unsurprising truth: an agreement negotiated in near-total secrecy, including corporations but excluding the public, comes out as an anti-user wish list of industry-friendly policies.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/tpp-leak-confirms-worst-us-negotiators.html
clothcapclothcap on November 15th, 2013 10:39 am (UTC)
CNN Reports on Electromagnetic Pulse Weapons Almost 30 Years Ago
Imagine what they have now. Recent conflicts seem to be fought with sticks and stones compared to what is possible. If these weapons exist, it proves war is controlled Flintstones theater because these weapons would end wars very swiftly. Perpetual war is the goal of those who possess these advanced technologies.
Vid http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/cnn-reports-on-electromagnetic-pulse.html
clothcapclothcap on November 15th, 2013 10:45 am (UTC)
Massachusetts Defeating NDAA With Help of Activists
Andrew Pontbriand
The State of Massachusetts is steamrolling through legislation that is blocking the Feds from using the NDAA at local levels. The organization known as P.A.N.D.A. is leading the way, not only in MA, but across the country.
So far in Massachusetts, two owns have enacted legislation to effectively prevent the Federal Government from using the NDAA in their respective towns. Oxford, MA was the first, when it passed an Anti-NDAA Bill on October 9, 2013. This came just two days after Albany, New York became the first city in the country by passing Resolution 80.92.13.
The Oxford resolution entitled "Restoring Constitutional Governance Resolution", came with a near unanimous decision. The resolution is very strong and states the following:
...it is unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful for any person to:
a. arrest or capture any person in Oxford, or citizen of Oxford, within the United States, with the intention of "detention under the law of war", or
b. actually subject a person in Oxford, to "disposition under the law of war", or
c. subject any person to targeted killing in Oxford, or citizen of Oxford, within the United States;...."
Also in Massachusetts, the town of Webster wrote up a similar resolution, with the same strong language that passed into law in October
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/massachusetts-defeating-ndaa-with-help.html
clothcapclothcap on November 15th, 2013 10:46 am (UTC)
Re: Massachusetts Defeating NDAA With Help of Activists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a United States federal law specifying the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense. Each year's act also includes other provisions. The U.S. Congress oversees the defense budget primarily through two yearly bills: the National Defense Authorization Act and defense appropriations bills. The authorization bill determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent.
clothcapclothcap on November 15th, 2013 10:47 am (UTC)
Authoritarians' Plan - DNA Reader to use Internet and Banking in National Data Base
The Government Plans To Track Us And Those We Are Related To Using Our DNA
The Department of Homeland Security is soliciting information from potential contractors for a new program that the DHS hopes will enable it to use DNA tests to identify criminal suspects and track their family relationships. Down the road, the goal is to make the use of DNA identification as common as the use of fingerprint identification is today. If you do not think that this could ever happen, you should think again.
Barack Obama has already said that he wants a national DNA database, and a recent Supreme Court decision has opened the door wide open for one to be created. Someday soon, the federal government will have the capability of tracking all of us and those that we are related to using our DNA. And eventually, a “DNA reader” could replace all of our Internet passwords and be used to log into our bank accounts. In a world that is becoming more corrupt with each passing day, authorities consider being able to positively identify people as an extremely important goal, and DNA is considered by many as the best way to do that.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/the-government-plans-to-track-us-and.html
H/t the Sactical Bag
clothcapclothcap on November 15th, 2013 10:55 am (UTC)
Update on theft of personal, 3rd party countries and business info
US digs a security black hole - Tom Engelhardt
US spymasters believed that operating at the technological frontiers of surveillance and cryptography would hand them universal knowledge needed to grasp to universal power. However, not only has storing endless tweets, social network interactions and phone calls proved useless in influencing global actors and winning wars, the surveillance system they created with trillions of tax dollars has itself become a security hole.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-141113.html

Obama administration: Accountability for NSA spying would harm Americans’ privacy
Madison Ruppert
Obama administration officials told the Senate today that bringing even limited public accountability to the massive surveillance programs of the National Security Agency (NSA) would actually harm the privacy of Americans.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/obama-administration-accountability-for.html