Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Can Putin and Trump Save the World from CIA Coups and Election Fraud?

What if the American government were overthrown by the CIA on behalf of the one percent?  I was reading an article at Mint Press about a recently declassified CIA manual on how to destabilize governments and it occurred to me, the CIA may have overthrown the American government in 2000 using that manual.


Declassified CIA Manual Shows How US Uses Bureaucracy To Destabilize Governments

The CIA is proud of its Kafkaesque field manual and evidently still views it as an unorthodox but effective form of destabilizing enemy operations around the world.

(ANTIMEDIA) When most people think of CIA sabotage, they think of coups, assassinations, proxy wars, armed rebel groups, and even false flags — not strategic stupidity and purposeful bureaucratic ineptitude. However, according to a declassified document from 1944, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which later became the CIA, used and trained a curious breed of “citizen-saboteurs” in occupied nations like Norway and France.

The World War II-era document, called Simple Sabotage Field Manual, outlines ways in which operatives can disrupt and demoralize enemy administrators and police forces….

Is it possible America’s government was overthrown using the CIA’s “Simple Sabotage Field Manual?”  For instance the “curious breed of citizen-saboteurs” are now a “curious breed of politician and media-saboteurs?”  The media saboteurs have been so effective in flooding the airways with disinformation that the 30% of the GOP wants to bomb Agrabah, a fictional land in Disney’s Alladin.  From The Guardian:


Poll: 30% of GOP voters support bombing Agrabah, the city from Aladdin

Almost one-third of Republican primary voters would support bombing the fictional kingdom of Agrabah, according to a report released by Public Policy Polling on Friday.

More than 530 Republican primary voters were polled this week on their support for Republican candidates and foreign policy issues including banning Muslims from entering the US, Japanese internment camps from the second world war and bombing Agrabah, the kingdom from Disney’s animated classic, Aladdin….

In its poll, Public Policy Polling asked the 532 Republicans: “Would you support or oppose bombing Agrabah?” While 57% of responders said they were not sure, 30% said they supported bombing it. Only 13% opposed it.

Joe Scarborough is a classic example of a politician-saboteur turned media-saboteur. From Time:


Trump Brushes Off Putin’s Alleged Killing Of Journalists

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump brushed off well-documented allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin has had political opponents and journalists killed, following praise from the Russian leader for his presidential campaign.

In an interview with “Morning Joe” Friday, Trump said he was pleased to be praised by Putin. “Sure, when people call you brilliant it’s always good, especially when the person heads up Russia,” he said.” Putin had called Trump “bright and talented” and all-but-endorsed his campaign this week.

But when host Joe Scarborough raised doubts about whether Putin’s support should be coveted, Trump brushed it off.

 “He also is a person that kills journalists, political opponents and invades countries. Obviously that would be a concern, would it not,” Scarborough asked.

“Our country does plenty of killing also Joe,” Trump replied. “He’s running his country and at least he’s a leader, unlike what we have in this country.”

Scarborough replied incredulously, “Again he kills journalists who don’t agree with him?”

“Well, our country does plenty of killing also Joe, so you know,” Trump followed-up, before declaring that there’s “a lot of killing going on, a lot of stupidity” in the world.

The allegations of Putin killing journalists was repeated by George Stephanopolis on This Week and Chuck Todd on Meet the Press.    Trump pointed out to the media-saboteurs that they have no evidence to support those allegations.  To which the Huffington Post wrote this piece dripping with sarcasm:


After basking in the "great honor" of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s praise, Republican front-runner Donald Trump on Sunday defended Putin against longstanding accusations that his regime has carried out murders of journalists who oppose him.

During an appearance on ABC News’ “This Week,” Trump said there is no evidence that Putin was behind any journalist murders in Russia.

“In all fairness to Putin, you're saying he killed people -- I haven't seen that,” Trump told host George Stephanopoulos. “I don't know that he has. Have you been able to prove that? Do you know the names of the reporters that he's killed?”

Trump added that it would be “despicable” if Putin indeed had killed journalists. “But I haven't seen any evidence that he killed anybody, in terms of reporters,” he said.

Then the Huffington Post goes on to provide their “proof” that Putin killed journalists:

Since the early 1990s, between 56 and 300 journalists have been killed in Russia, according to media watchdog groups…

Which media watchdog groups, they never say.  Where’s the evidence Putin killed those journalists? 

Viewers were treated to a Sunday morning saboteur gabfest where the “Putin killing journalists mantra” was all the outrage.  Media-saboteurs along with political-saboteurs discussed the various levels of outrage against Donald Trump for not condemning Putin for “killing journalists.”

Since when have these saboteurs been concerned about the killing of journalists?  Where was all the outrage by the media-saboteurs and politician-saboteurs six months ago when the Pentagon announced they had legalized killing journalists?  From Counter Current:


Pentagon Just Legalized Killing ‘Belligerent’ Journalists As Part of ‘Law of War’

The Pentagon just changed the rules of war to include legitimizing the killing of any journalists they deem “belligerent.”

The new “laws of war” were released as part of a book of instructions on legitimate warfare practices approved by the United States military.

This “rule book” of sorts details what the US government deems the acceptable ways of killing those they claim are the “enemy”… including journalists whose reporting they do not approve.

The manual explains that the Pentagon considers such journalists “unprivileged belligerents,” even though they are not “enemy combatants.”

This distinction is important for the Pentagon, since the battles against Muqtada as-Sadr’s “Jaysh al-Mahdi” militia was a fight the US picked over a newsletter America did not approve of. When the military tried to stop the presses, Sadr’s army took up arms against the US forces.

We don’t hear a lot about that in the media or government these days, because those battles didn’t exactly end in the US’s favor…

Now, the American 1,176-page “Department of Defense Law of War Manual” says THAT IT IS PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE TO SHOOT, EXPLODE, BOMB, STAB, OR CUT JOURNALISTS THEY DEEM “BELLIGERENT.”

On Meet the Press media-saboteur, Chuck Todd interviewed Trump:  



Why are you so comfortable praising Vladimir Putin?


I'm not, I didn't praise him, he praised me. He called me brilliant. He said very nice things about me. I mean, I accept it--


Well you've called him a strong leader--


He is a strong leader. What am I gonna say, he's a weak leader? He's making mincemeat out of our President. He is a strong leader. I mean, you would like me to call him a weak leader, he's a strong leader. And I'm not going to be politically correct.

He's got an 80% of approval rating done by pollsters from, I understand, this country, okay? So it's not even done by his pollsters. He's very popular within Russia. Now that may change, but I didn't say anything one way or the other. He came out with a very nice statement about me and I said, "That's very nice, I'm honored by it."

And it would be very nice if we got along with Russia, Chuck, it's not a bad thing, it's a good thing. He cannot stand our President. He doesn't like President Obama. I think it would be a positive thing if Russia and the United States actually got along and they could work to the mutual good of getting rid of ISIS and clean things up. I mean, right now, we don't get along with them at all.


Right, but right now, Vladimir Putin is the best ally Iran has around the world and the best ally that Assad has in Syria.


No, by making the horrible deal, one of the worst deals I've ever seen made in my entire life, giving them $150 billion and 24-day check periods, which don't start for a long time after that, 24-day check periods, self-inspection, we don't get our prisoners back, our four prisoners, we don't get them back.

We gave them $150 billion. We happen to be in its own sick and horrible way, we happen to have been one of the great allies of Iran, if you want to know the truth. And by the way, just to add to that?




We also handed them Iraq on a silver platter. We gave them Iraq with the second-largest oil reserves in the world. They're taking over Iraq as you speak to me this morning. So we gave them one of the best deals ever made. And by the way, they're taking that money now and they're giving it to Russia and others where they're buying armaments.

Ha, ha this is my favorite part of the interview:


Do you stick by the idea that the Middle East would be more stable today with Saddam Hussein and Gadhafi in power?


One hundred percent, 100 percent, is there even a doubt in your mind? And you wouldn't have the migration and you wouldn't have the people coming over to this country that we have no idea who they are. And if I win, they're going to have to go back because we have no idea who they are. One hundred percent..


Do you let Assad stay?


You know what? Well, you can't fight Assad and ISIS at the same time. You have to fight ISIS first. And I don't say Assad is good, but I--


That's exactly what Bernie Sanders believes, by the way. You and Bernie Sanders are in line on this.


Well that's okay. And I agree with him on that. It's okay to agree with him. He's a guy, I don't agree with him on much, but if he says that, I'm okay with it. Let me just tell you: You can't fight them both at the same time. And I say Assad's a bad guy, but we don't know who the rebels are that are fighting.

Every time we get involved with rebels, take a look at Libya, all these rebels, look what they did to our ambassador and those young men, those wonderful young men. Every time we get involved, in Benghazi I'm talking about, every time we get involved with rebels, the rebels, they call them "the freedom rebels," always nice names, it ends up being far worse than the people who were there in the first place.

So Assad is not a good guy, but the people that we're backing, a lot of people think they're ISIS, that we're actually backing ISIS. So what are we doing? We have to get rid of ISIS first; Assad, we think about later on.

As if on cue the media and politician-saboteurs attacked Trump in unison:


The mogul candidate, however, has faced broad criticism from both Republicans and Democrats for his public genteel toward Putin, who has been widely condemned by U.S. leaders for his backing of embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad, his annexation of Crimea last year and for his involvement in Ukraine.

On Sunday, presidential candidate Marco Rubio continued that attack line, saying that the Republican front-runner "shouldn't be honored" by the Russian strongman's kind words.

"Vladimir Putin is a person who has killed. He's jailed and murdered journalists, political opponents," the Florida senator said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "He bombed an apartment building as a pretext to attack the Chechens. He is responsible for the downing of the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine, because he provided the antiaircraft weaponry that was used for that. So this is a person who's done some horrifying things on the global stage."

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush agreed, calling Putin "a dictator" and "a bully."

"Putin is organized to challenge the United States across the world now. He views his success by pushing us back. We're losing influence around the world and Putin is gaining influence," Bush said on the same program.

"You don't brag about what a great guy he is. He's not. He kills journalists. Anybody that opposes him ultimately is pushed away," Bush added.

Media-saboteur Frank Luntz conducted a focus group of Muslim Americans to discuss the Trump proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entering America.  Unfortunately some of the panel were critical of the American foreign policy, therefore those comments were edited out.  From The Intercept:


CBS Edits Out Criticisms of U.S. Policy From Frank Luntz Focus Group With Muslim Americans

When a CBS News segment featuring a focus group of American Muslims aired Friday, it highlighted their relationship to terrorism, with a particular fixation on how much responsibility they felt to condemn terrorist attacks.

But in interviews with The Intercept, two Muslim Americans who took part in the group complained that CBS edited out parts of the discussion where they raised their own concerns — including critiques of U.S. militarism, surveillance, and entrapment.

They also said that Frank Luntz, the right-wing pollster who led the focus group, silenced members of the group when they criticized discriminatory U.S. government policies.

When Luntz asked the group how they respond to attacks such as the recent one in San Bernardino, New York City activist Amelia Noor-Oshiro told The Intercept she asked Luntz, “Why don’t you ask that to people who actually commit acts of terror? Why don’t you ask that to White America who are responsible for a majority of domestic terror attacks?”

That didn’t make it into the on-air segment…

Sarah Harvard, a New York City journalist…..   wrote that after Luntz asked the group whether they were Americans or Muslims first, she chose to demonstrate the offensive nature of the question by asking, “Well, are you an American or Jewish first?”

That didn’t make it on the air either.

The media and politician-saboteurs seem to have collaborated on using the San Bernardino and Paris attacks to promote more rabidly rightwing candidates across the world from France, to Venezuela to America.  But what if those attacks were false flag attacks that any journalist or politician could easily uncover with just a few minutes of investigation, were it in their interest to do so.   From Paul Craig Roberts:


Weapon Used in November 13 Paris Attacks Came From CIA-linked Arms Dealer

At least one of the guns used in the November 13 terror attacks in Paris was purchased by Century International Arms and then re-exported to Europe. One of the largest arms dealers in the United States, Century Arms has close ties to the CIA and has faced charges in America and Europe of involvement in illegal arms deals.

The weapon, an M92 semiautomatic pistol, was produced at the Zastava arms factory in Kragujevac, Serbia. Last week, factory manager Milojko Brzakovic told AP he had checked its records on seven weapons that it manufactured that were used in the Paris attacks.

It delivered several of the weapons inside Yugoslavia before that country dissolved amid capitalist restoration and civil war in the 1990s, but it delivered the pistol in May 2013 to Century Arms, based in Delray Beach, Florida.

Century Arms officials refused Palm Beach Post reporters’ requests for comment, and it remains unclear how the M92 pistol was re-exported to Europe. Century Arms required US government approval to legally import the firearm into the United States, however, and whoever re-exported it to Europe would have had to submit a request to the US State Department in order to do so legally.

These reports further undermine the official presentation of the Paris attacks by governments, media, and pro-imperialist “left” parties. They insisted that the attacks were an act of Islamist terror in which the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) alone was involved and bore full responsibility.

This presentation was always a political fraud, insofar as the NATO powers were undoubtedly politically implicated. The attacks were led by Islamist fighters trained in Syria—where the CIA, European intelligence and Persian Gulf oil sheikdoms have given financial and military backing to such Islamist forces to topple President Bashar al-Assad. Though placed on watch lists and monitored by intelligence services, these fighters were somehow allowed to prepare highly complex, coordinated attacks in Paris.

Revelations of a concrete link between Century Arms and the Paris attacks, however, raise specifically whether elements in the intelligence services aided the attackers—either inadvertently, due to their reckless war policy, or deliberately, to shift the political atmosphere far to the right.

Indeed, the revelations that there’s a link between the CIA’s arms dealer and the Paris attacks raise questions about whether the intelligence services aided the attackers to shift the political atmosphere far to the right.  And did that work?

The ruling elite reacted to the November 13 attacks, predictably, by aligning policy on war and democratic rights with the views of the most aggressive sections of the military-intelligence complex. France is now preparing to impose a permanent state of emergency, effectively abrogating key democratic rights and boosting the political fortunes of the neo-fascist National Front (FN). 


Well so much for the hopes of electing a more sane government in France, but what about the San Bernardino attacks?    From Mint Press:


FBI: ‘No Evidence’ San Bernardino Attackers ‘Were Part Of Terrorist Cell’

The local and State law enforcement, in conjunction with the mainstream media, has essentially been creating a “terror plot” revolving around this couple and the attacks, based on what seems to be getting them the most attention, ratings and praise from a fearful public.

The FBI is coming clean about the San Bernardino attackers, and it is not making local law enforcement and media very happy.

For starters, the FBI head said that the media rumor about the “terror couple” texting, tweeting or “Facebooking” support for ISIS or even “jihad” has absolutely no basis in fact, whatsoever.

Reuters reported on Wednesday that this echoes “investigators’ views that the pair were inspired by, rather than organized by Islamic State.”

But in reality, the FBI has not even gone that far….

His (Comey’s) remarks came as Americans are jittery two weeks after the San Bernardino attack. Islamic State is based in Iraq and Syria, where it controls a large area of territory as it seeks to carve out a caliphate. It claimed responsibility for attacks in Paris on Nov. 13 that killed 130 people.

Comey said the group has perfected the use of social media, and Twitter in particular, to contact potential followers in the United States and elsewhere.

“Twitter works as a way to sell books, as a way to promote movies, and it works as a way to crowdsource terrorism – to sell murder,” Comey added.

Given all that is it any wonder that Vladimir Putin has praised Donald Trump for being brilliant enough to cut through all the bullshit of the media and politician-saboteurs? From NewYork Times:

Vladimir Putin Chides Turkey, Praises Trump and Backs Russia’s Economy

MOSCOW — Alternately pugnacious and conciliatory, with his customary swagger and salty language, President Vladimir V. Putin held forth on a broad array of topics in his traditional year-end news conference on Thursday, even throwing in a glowing assessment of Donald J. Trump.

Mr. Putin drew applause from the crowd of journalists when he lashed out at Turkey for having shot down a Russian bomber, daring the Turks to try it again with Russia’s advanced air defense system in place and surmising that PERHAPS THE TURKS “WANTED TO LICK THE AMERICANS IN ONE PLACE…”

And he even inserted himself into the Republican primary contest in the United States, speaking highly of Mr. Trump in remarks after the news conference ended. “There is no doubt that he is a very bright and talented man,” the Russian leader said. “It is not our business to assess his merits; that is up to the U.S. voters. But he is an absolute leader of the presidential race.”

Peppered with dozens of questions, Mr. Putin lingered, as he did at last year’s session, on those that allowed him to reassure Russians that their living standards were not imperiled…

Real incomes, he conceded, are falling, but other indications of social well-being, such as the birthrate, are up, he said…

Despite the recession, Mr. Putin’s popularity remains extraordinarily high, with support above 80 percent in some polls. While the economy is biting at home, even as Mr. Putin pursues a swaggering foreign policy, the hardship has not yet translated into widespread political discontent…

Surveys and the answers to questions posed to focus groups show that the pillars of Mr. Putin’s popularity shifted in early 2014, just before the current downturn. Russians now say they admire Mr. Putin more for a role as a “protector” from external threats than for the role of “provider,” a study by an influential Russian sociologist, Mikhail E. Dmitriyev, concluded this year.

Vladimir Putin sounds like FDR working for the good of the people of Russia instead of the one percent.  The one percent, using the CIA and NATO as enforcers has succeeded in keeping the American people in fear, willing to give up their standard of living, their privacy and their wealth just for false security.

So while election season is taking place across the world the question that should be asked is “can Putin and Trump save the world from CIA coups and election fraud?”

By Patricia Baeten

No comments:

Post a Comment