US and Russia Agree: Jabhat Al Nusra are Still Terrorists

July 31, 2016 (The New Atlas) - Consensus among the United States and Russia is rare, but just such a consensus was reached, at least rhetorically, in the wake of Jabhat Al Nusra's apparent break with Al Qaeda and an attempt to rebrand itself as Syrian forces completed their encirclement of Syria's northern city of Aleppo.

Qatari state broadcaster Al Jazeera in its report "Al-Nusra leader Jolani announces split from al-Qaeda," stated:

Abu Mohammed al-Jolani appeared in camera for the first time to announce his group's name has also changed to Jabhat Fath al Sham, or The Front for liberation of al Sham. 

"We declare the complete cancellation of all operations under the name of Jabhat al-Nusra, and the formation of a new group operating under the name 'Jabhat Fath al-Sham', noting that this new organisation has no affiliation to any external entity," Jolani said.

Al Jazeera would also quote spokeswoman Farah al-Atassi of the High Negotiations Committee representing armed groups fighting the Syrian government who claimed: 

We look at it with relief," she told Al Jazeera from Washington DC, minutes after Jolani's announcement. 

This will reflect somehow positively on the Free Syrian Army (FSA) who has been fighting ISIL and al-Nusra for the past six months, because Russia is bombing and hitting FSA positions and civilian neighbourhoods with the excuse that they are hitting al-Nusra.

Her optimism, however, is likely unfounded. Both the United States and Russia have subsequently released statements indicating that the move would not change either nations' stance on the group.

CNN would report in its article, "Syria's al-Nusra rebrands and cuts ties with al Qaeda," that:

"We judge any organization, including this one, much more by its actions, its ideology, its goals," State Department spokesman John Kirby said of al Nusra. 

"We judge a group by what they do, not by what they call themselves. ... Thus far, there's no change to our views about this particular group. We certainly see no reasons to believe that their actions or their objectives are any different. And they are still considered a foreign terrorist organization."

Russian news agency TASS made Russia's position regarding Jabhat Al Nusra even clearer. Its article, "Russian Foreign Ministry calls Jabhat al-Nusra�s attempts to change image vain," stated:

Attempts of Jabhat al-Nusra to paint itself differently by changing its name are vain, the group remains an illegal terrorist organization, fight against it will continue until it is fully destroyed, a Russian Foreign Ministry commentary said on Friday.  

Regardless of what the United States and its allies may be doing covertly to support either Jabhat Al Nusra or groups fighting alongside it, even the US State Department finds it difficult to publicly afford the terrorist organisation any new leeway in the wake of this recent move. Global public awareness of the conflict of Syria has reached a tipping point where portrayal of armed groups fighting the Syrian government as "victims" is now increasingly ineffective.

Russia, for its part, has from the beginning of its intervention last year made it clear that while it was willing to support negotiations between armed groups and the Syrian government, those who refused to put down arms would remain legitimate targets toward the goal of ending the conflict and stabilising Syria.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov would famously say at the beginning of Russia's intervention in Syria that, "if it looks like a terrorist, if it acts like a terrorist, if it walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it's a terrorist, right?"

It is unlikely then, with Syria and its allies including Russia possessing the initiative, that any attempt to blur the lines between various groups fighting on the ground will somehow spare any of them from military operations now entering the next phase in securing the country and ending the war.

The New Atlas is a media platform providing geopolitical analysis and op-eds. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

How the West Extends its Control Over Journalism Worldwide

July 31, 2016 (The New Atlas) - Political developments are often emotionally charged, and even journalists who are expected to maintain an objective approach to reporting can find themselves swept away by sensational headlines and the temptation to wade into controversy without fully analysing background information that might significantly alter established narratives.

Because of this, some journalists find themselves playing the role of commentator rather than investigator, often leaving out critical information in a rush to contribute to one of two sides amid a political divide. In some cases, journalists may appear to be doing their job by "investigating" deeper into news stories, but do so in a transparently one-sided manner, thus negating their role as an objective observer.

In Thailand, this can be clearly seen in English-language coverage, particularly from The Nation and the Bangkok Post. In the rare instance that journalists from either paper "investigates" independently into any given headline, it is generally one-sided and transparently politically-motivated.

And more often than not, these papers appear to be taking their lead from foreign news sources, particularly those in Europe and North America. One would expect newspapers from region to region to develop their own unique angles and perspectives regarding the news, but upon following the money, we will soon see why this more often than not doesn't happen. 

The Industrialised Journalist Mill

Pravit Rojanaphruk, currently a commentator at Thailand's Khoasod English, is perhaps one of the most transparent examples of just what is wrong with newspapers across Asia. He proudly boasts of his various Western media affiliations and fellowships with his Twitter profile reading as follows:

MSc (Oxon), British Chevening Scholar 2001-2002, Reuter Fellow 97-98, Katherine Fanning Fellow 2009, Salzburg Sem. Fellow.

If these scholarships and fellowships actually cultivated real principles of journalism within recipients, they might actually be noteworthy milestones in a journalist's career.

However, what they instead represent, is a concerted attempt by the Western media to extend its influence further abroad, and to help align global news coverage uniformly to their perspective and to serve their interests.

Journalists like Pravit, then, serve as an extension of Western media coverage rather than a representation of Thai journalism. Journalism by definition is the reporting of news, and news is by definition noteworthy information. 

What Pravit and others like him are prone to do, however, is interweave opinion and commentary into what is often strained, spun or even fabricated information. And this is done to align Thai news with those expectations and norms taught to them during their fellowships abroad in Europe and North America.

The Reuters Journalism Fellowship Programme alone has processed hundreds of journalists around the world, putting them through between 1-3 terms at the University of Oxford to undergo a program of stringent indoctrination into the ways of Western journalism. It is virtually impossible for a fellow to undergo this process and leave as an independent journalist.

Activities, according to the Reuters Institute's own website include:

• Attend seminars given by a diverse and high-level range of guest speakers who will share their insights into key industry trends and developments
• Work with an experienced supervisor, usually an Oxford academic, to produce a research paper of publishable quality
• Visit world-class news organisations and gain insights into how they are approaching industry challenges. Previous visits have included trips to Thomson Reuters, The Financial Times, The BBC, The Economist and The Guardian
• Join trips to key UK cultural and political organisations and institutions. Previous destinations have included Oxfam, the House of Commons and Stratford-upon-Avon, home of Shakespeare
• Exchange ideas and experiences with a diverse and international peer group. Around 25 Fellows a year join us from high-level media organisations all over the world. Strengthen your network, develop a global set of contacts and gain insights into international trends and developments
• Benefit from the extensive learning facilities offered by the University of Oxford, including the world-famous Bodleian Library and access to various seminars and lectures across the university. You are also encouraged to engage with the university�s cutting edge specialist research facilities, including centres for African, Middle Eastern, South Asian, Eastern and Western European, Japanese and Chinese studies
• Be given visiting scholar status of Green Templeton College

For inexperienced young men and women who aspire to be journalists, to be afforded this opportunity would be both immensely flattering and emotionally as well as professionally transformative. For a young journalist in Thailand to be afforded the opportunity to travel to the UK, to attend one or more terms at the world renowned University of Oxford and to be given an opportunity to see the inner workings of news organisations like the BBC, Thompson Reuters, The Economist and The Guardian would be an overwhelming experience. And it is meant to be.

If Only Real Journalism Was Being Promoted... 

The journalists who complete such fellowships and return to their home countries, are forever linked to the institutions and individuals they met and worked with during their time abroad. They take back with them to their home countries not the tools of an objective journalist, but the indoctrination, culture, interests and angles of a Western-centric worldview. To those who have completed the fellowship, they often confuse this Western-centric worldview with being "objective," but it is most certainly not.

We can look at the Reuters fellowship program and see news organisations like Thompson Reuters, the BBC, The Economist and The Guardian held up as examples of journalism. This is despite their active manipulation of information toward particular political objectives rather than accurately informing the public.

In particular, these news services played crucial roles in promoting wars like the US-UK led invasion of Iraq in 2003, intentionally obfuscating critical information the public and policymakers required to make an honest assessment of the decision to go to war.

The BBC in particular has been embroiled in impropriety ranging from deceptive news coverage to paid-for documentaries and even criminal conduct committed by individuals, and covered up institutionally.

But news organisations serving special interests is nothing new. One must expect this realistically, to a certain degree, regarding any news organisation operating around the world. It is not a matter of whether or not they are serving special interests, it is a matter of whose interests they are serving.

While Thai-based news organisations would be expected to serve special interests in Thailand, they do not, specifically because of the Wests industrialised 'journalist mills.' These fellowship programs, training seminars and campaigns are undertaken to ensure the widest possible consensus globally to Western special interests, regardless of what nation journalists may be from or what nations they are currently operating in.

That is why The Nation and the Bangkok Post feature editorial slants nearly indistinguishable from those of Western news agencies. While Pravit is very open and proud of his indoctrination into this system of mass-produced consensus, others employed across the Thai media are not. Some digging, however, into the backgrounds of journalists who repeatedly and suspiciously repeat talking-points originating from abroad usually reveals a similar and extensive "resume" of foreign fellowships, education and indoctrination.

History is Repeating Itself   

Understandably, for people hearing this for the first time, it sounds like an incredible conspiracy theory. However, upon thoughtful examination, it is merely the predictable repetition of history unfolding.

Ancient Roman historian Tacitus (c. AD 56 � after 117) would adeptly describe the systematic manner in which Rome pacified foreign peoples and the manner in which it would extend its sociocultural and institutional influence over conquered lands. 

In chapter 21 of his book Agricola, named so after his father-in-law whose methods of conquest were the subject of the text, Tacitus would explain:

His object was to accustom them to a life of peace and quiet by the provision of amenities. He therefore gave official assistance to the building of temples, public squares and good houses. He educated the sons of the chiefs in the liberal arts, and expressed a preference for British ability as compared to the trained skills of the Gauls. The result was that instead of loathing the Latin language they became eager to speak it effectively. In the same way, our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen. And so the population was gradually led into the demoralizing temptation of arcades, baths and sumptuous banquets. The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as 'civilization', when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement.

We can easily see how fellowships fill a similar role today, with the West, openly aspiring to construct an international order, "educating" potentially influential foreigners in both English and "the liberal arts," encouraging a preference for Western culture and perspectives and convincing them that such indoctrination is a novelty of 'civilisation' rather than a feature of control and a vector for Western influence into any particular country.



Under the British Empire, similar education and missionary programs were created to replace independent and unique local perspectives and culture with the uniform perspective and culture of Britain, serving British aspirations of global hegemony. 

Cambridge University Press' Missionary Writing and Empire, 1800�1860 would note in a chapter extract that (our emphasis):

Christian missionary activity was central to the work of European colonialism, providing British missionaries and their supporters with a sense of justice and moral authority. Throughout the history of imperial expansion, missionary proselytising offered the British public a model of �civilised� expansionism and colonial community management, transforming [imperial] projects into moral allegories. Missionary activity was, however, unavoidably implicated in either covert or explicit cultural change. It sought to transform indigenous communities into imperial archetypes of civility and modernity by remodelling the individual, the community, and the state through western, Christian philosophies. In the British Empire, and particularly in what is historically known as the �second� era of British imperialism (approximately 1784�1867), missionary activity was frequently involved with the initial steps of imperial expansion.

It is a bit ironic then that Britain, against which cultural colonialism was first used by the Romans, became a centre of power used then to disseminate cultural colonialism in service of naked imperialism under the British Empire, is now being used to disseminate a "softer" version of it under the guise of journalism and academia. 

Like the sons of chiefs in Britannia, foreign journalists like Thailand's Pravit Rojanaphruk probably have honestly convinced themselves that these features of control and manipulation are instead the "novelties of civilisation."

What Nations Can Do. 

It is important for policymakers and the public alike to understand this aspect of modern journalism to both be aware of how it impacts news coverage, and of what possible measures can be taken to combat modern day cultural colonialism.

One possible measure could be national programs that attempt to recruit and build up a corps of local journalists who represent their nation's best interests, culture and perspectives. These journalists can then fill the ranks of local newspapers and TV stations, as well as influence news conferences and seminars both local and international from their own nation's perspective, rather than merely amplifying those of nations running international "fellowship" programmes.

For Thailand who has large government-funded news organisations like Thai PBS, universities and trusted news professionals, untainted by foreign indoctrination, can develop a truly Thai brand of journalism that is taught to political science and journalist students in school, and reinforced through the same sort of activities conducted by foreign fellowships overseas.

In essence, instead of depending on foreign fellowships and joint news organisation-university programs abroad, Thailand should develop is own domestically, as well as well-funded news organisations for Thai journalists to work at safely, securely and far from the ego-ensnaring temptations extended by foreign interests.

The New Atlas is a media platform providing geopolitical analysis and op-eds. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

The Dirty Business of US-Funded "Election Monitors"

July 30, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Thailand faces an upcoming referendum regarding a new national charter meant to put the country back on track after over a decade of political conflict revolving around US-backed proxy Thaksin Shinawatra. Shinawatra and his foreign sponsors have increased pressure on the Thai government as the vote in early August nears.

This includes maneuvering into place overt fronts engaged in political agitation, and leveraging the West's monopoly over the international media to portray any attempt to crackdown on such fronts as heavy-handed and unjust.

Bangkok-based English newspaper the Nation in their article, "Thai junta refuses to accredit election monitors in referendum vote," reports that:

The Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL) said that repeated attempts to gain accreditation to monitor the August 7 referendum, Thailand�s first trip to the polls since the military took power in 2014, were met with silence.

What the Nation does not report is who ANFREL is, who funds them, or the obvious conflicts of interest involved in their "monitoring" work across all of Asia, including Thailand. 

ANFREL is funded by the US State Department through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, convicted financial criminal George Soros' "Open Society Institution" (OSI), and even the Australian government and the British Embassy.

This is according to ANFREL's own annual reports, this one from 2010 (.pdf), where they admit on page 7 (11 of 33 of the pdf) that:

Regarding the budget for 2010, NED has provided supported for administration expenses while other activities have been supported on a project by project basis by AusAid, USAID, OSI, Euro-Burma, Netherlands Embassy, TAF, Misereor and the British Embassy.

ANFREL's 2011 report also makes mention of US State Department NED subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), on page 5 (3/30 of the .pdf). In all of ANFREL's annual reports, none of these organizations are mentioned by their full names, and in no part of the annual reports are ANFREL's financial sponsors fully and transparently enumerated.

ANFREL's local affiliate in Thailand, PNet (under the Open Forum for Democracy Foundation (GNDEM)), is also openly funded by the US government. On GNDEM's own website, it states:

GNDEM appreciates the support provided by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the support that the NED and USAID have provided to the process surrounding the Declaration of Global Principles for Nonpartisan Election Observation and Monitoring by Citizen Organizations.

One wonders whose best interests are served by such "monitoring" groups who apparently cannot find any support in the very region they supposedly serve, and instead rely entirely on foreign funding from nations who have historically sought to control and subjugate Asia, its people, and their resources.  

ANFREL Picks Sides, So is Incapable of Impartial "Monitoring" 

More alarming than ANFREL's foreign sponsors or the fact that it serves as an instrument for foreign interests to interfere with the internal political affairs of sovereign nations in Asia - particularly in light of the US' own allegations that Russia is doing likewise in regards to US elections - is the fact that the US State Department, the NED, NDI, and Open Society are also engaged in funding overt opposition groups across Asia, including in Thailand.

The US NED, NDI, Open Society, and the International Republican Institute (IRI) are engaged in funding and supporting opposition groups including the so-called "Umbrella Revolution" in Hong Kong, the "Bersih" street movement in Malaysia headed by now-jailed opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, and deceptive media fronts like Prachatai in Thailand, who openly and repeatedly attack Thailand's indigenous institutions, while providing cover for US-backed opposition groups, including Thaksin Shinawatra's Peua Thai Party (PTP) and his ultra-violent street front, the so-called "red shirts."

Even on ANFREL's own website, they repeatedly support Malaysia-based Bersih, applauding them for contrived awards bestowed upon them by the same foreign interests funding their disruptive behavior. On ANFREL's Facebook page, they even allege that Bersih serves as part of their monitoring network.

An organization like ANFREL which masquerades as an "election monitoring" organization, that has clearly picked sides and openly backs and supports opposition groups, cannot in any way be trusted to impartially monitor elections. Then again, would honest, impartial observers expect a foreign-funded "monitoring" organization to not be used to manipulate the outcome of elections?

The Thai government's move to deny ANFREL accreditation is clearly justified. But despite this, that the Western media is able to portray the barring of a clearly compromised, biased organization as an obstruction to free and fair voting, illustrates how the US uses both fraudulent nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and the media in tandem to pressure, manipulate, and meddle in the affairs of nations around the world.

Thailand's ability to accurately and concisely expose what the reasoning was behind its decision regarding ANFREL through independent media organizations would do much in blunting the counterattack across the Western media Thailand now faces. Having failed to do this, however, Thailand will likely face a difficult choice between weathering the concerted campaign of abuse now targeting them, or capitulating regarding ANFREL and allowing it to meddle in Thailand's upcoming referendum with absolute impunity.

Also important to note, Thailand's stability and ability to move forward with a new charter dovetails with the larger conflict unfolding across Asia as Washington and Beijing attempt to assert Western and Eastern control, respectively, over the Asian region. A destabilized Thailand, or worse yet, one handed back under the control of Shinawatra and his allies, would serve to tip the balance in Washington's favor. It is no wonder then, why the US has invested so heavily in manipulating political events unfolding in Thailand - it is about more than just Thailand, it is a smaller part of a much larger hegemonic project.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine�New Eastern Outlook�.  

Behind West's Biased Coverage of Asia

July 28, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) As the US loses ground in Asia, between its failure to coerce states to adopt its Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, and its inability to garner greater support for its manufactured crisis in the South China Sea, it has doubled down on efforts to undermine and replace governments in the region it perceives as obstructive to its regional "primacy." 

Paramount to this process of undermining and removing governments, is the targeting and manipulation of public perception. This has always been an essential ingredient for special interests throughout human history. Today, the sophistication through which this is done is unprecedented. While all nations do this to a certain extent, the West has, by far, the largest and widest range of activities dedicated to this purpose.

Policy and objectives set out by corporate-financier funded think tanks are translated into media headlines and campaigns carried out by everyone from large Western news networks to hired bloggers and lobbyists posing as independent third parties. Together, this concerted effort is meant to maximize perceived credibility, and can even take a non-news event, and turn it into a minor crisis.

Just such an example has been exposed, just days before a crucial referendum in Thailand regarding the Southeast Asia nation's new charter.

The new charter is meant to set the nation back on course after over a decade of political instability rooted in the rise and fall of US-backed billionaire, mass murderer, and convicted criminal Thaksin Shinawatra. Should the charter pass, it will deliver yet another blow to a political machine the US has invested heavily in for over a decade, and further contribute to the US' geopolitical retreat from the region as a whole.

While the regime of Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey locks away thousands of political opponents, and even ponders executions for them with only muted protest from the West's politicians and media networks, a single alleged arrest in Thailand set off a minor firestorm across the Western media - highlighting the biased, politically-motivated nature of so-called Western journalism and how it seeks to misshape public perception at every given opportunity.

Behind the Scenes 

Bangkok police allegedly detained the wife of UK-based ex-Reuters editor Andrew Marshall briefly for questioning on July 22, before releasing her the same day. Despite the hysterical headlines that followed in the Western media, there were some essential details intentionally left out.

Marshall himself was fired from Reuters in 2011 after he and a colleague were caught mocking female victims of the horrific Fukushima disaster with racist and misogynist jokes. A 10 page appeal letter penned by Marshall (pdf) attempted to blame his actions on drug and alcohol abuse, as well as claims of deep mental illness. Since his dismissal from Reuters, he has served as a lobbyist for US-backed dictator Thaksin Shinawatra and his violent "red shirt" movement, serving as an ever-ready "expert" to provide spin for US, British, and Australian news networks eager to portray Shinawatra as a progressive  democrat.

His wife, Noppawan "Ploy" Bunluesilp, has regularly assisted Marshall in translating and propagating his lobbying work, including slander and threats targeting Thailand's head of state. It should be noted that slander and threats toward anyone, let alone a head of state, is a punishable crime in even the most liberal of nations.

Image: Marshall has repeatedly admitted to consorting with and speaking to terrorists involved in mass murder in Bangkok between 2013-2014. Having been fired from Reuters, and no longer an accredited journalist since 2011, his knowledge of and association with armed terrorists and his failure to report them to the appropriate authorities renders him an accomplice. And despite this appalling behavior, Western news networks including the BBC, Guardian, AFP, AP, and others, still cite him as a "credible expert." 

Marshall has also admittedly consorted with armed terrorists working on behalf of Shinawatra who have been involved in some of Thailand's most violent episodes in the past 10 years, and both Marshall and Ploy regularly feature themselves posing in pictures together with the rest of Thaksin Shinawatra's "media" and "academic" lobbying front.

That Marshall and Ploy actively aid and abet the violent movement of a convicted criminal is a serious offense. Were Shinawatra an enemy of the British government, Marshall and Ploy would likely have not only been detained by British law enforcement, but also incarcerated by British courts in British prisons.

In the wake of the brief detainment on the 22nd, the BBC, AFP, AP, the Guardian, and Singapore's Channel News Asia, among others, immediately published headlines decrying the "arrest," never mentioning any of the above stated facts, and instead portrayed Marshall and Ploy as the innocent victims of a heavy-handed "junta."

Image: The Foreign Corespondents Club of Thailand (FCCT) is quite literally a luxury clubhouse where Western journalists compare narratives before releasing concerted, biased media campaigns against targets of Western special interests.

The speed at which this was done should not be surprising. Many of the journalists involved frequent the Bangkok-based luxury clubhouse maintained by the so-called "Foreign Corespondents Club of Thailand" (FCCT) where they regularly craft deceitful media campaigns to intentionally target the opponents of Western special interests - not just in Thailand, but across the rest of Southeast Asia.

Each article published amid this most recent staged, concerted media campaign, capitalized on the non-event to sow disinformation regarding Thailand's current political crisis, bending public perception in favor of Shinawatra and his attempted political comeback.

This stunt is only one of many, targeting not only Thailand, but nations all across Asia, in a desperate bid to extort cooperation and capitulation from regional governments under threat of the West's perceived control over public perception and its ability to turn it against targeted nations.

Western Coverage is Losing its Touch 

The story of the West's gradual retreat from Southeast Asia is not only one of China's rise, but the rise of the developing world in general. The monopoly the West has long enjoyed militarily, economically, and in terms of supremacy across information space, has slowly been eroded by emerging institutions, organizations, and competing centers of global power.

The alternative media - those channels, platforms, and journals not associated with Washington, London, and Brussels-based special interests - has become more than a match for the West. For every "stunt" performed by the Western media targeting any given nation, there is a counterbalance of information revealing the truth behind it, undercutting the intended impact of it, and ultimately giving the initiative back to those nations being targeted.

Now we can see behind the scenes of the West's torrent of lies and disinformation as well as the true character of those many have mistakenly entrusted the responsibility of journalism with.

As the US becomes increasingly desperate for a change in fortune for its fading "primacy in Asia," there will be many more "stunts" to come. As the charter nears a vote in Thailand - US-backed opposition groups are already threatening another round of violence in the streets. Asia, and regions around the world emerging onto the global stage, need to continue searching out and investing in the tools and techniques required to neutralize the West's attempts to reassert itself geopolitically, whether it is on the battlefield, or in information space.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine�New Eastern Outlook�.  

Declassified 9/11 Report Portrays US-Saudis as Partners in Crime

July 25, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The recently released, previously classified report titled, "Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001" (.pdf), reveals that indeed long-time US ally, Saudi Arabia, had connections to the alleged hijackers who purportedly carried out the 9/11 attacks.

While the US would go on to invade Afghanistan and Iraq predicated on the 9/11 attacks, it should be noted that all of the alleged hijackers were either Saudis or Persian Gulf citizens, or connected to terrorist organizations supported by Persian Gulf states.

The Western media has attempted to downplay the impact of the document's release, claiming that subsequent investigations found the "many" of the allegations in the document "without basis" - even as the US and Saudi Arabia today openly arm and fund terrorists in Syria.

To Whose Benefit? 

Many mistakenly believe on one hand terrorism is simply an inevitable clash of civilizations between "Islam" and the West, while others maintain it is the predictable backlash to flawed or unjust Western foreign policy.

In reality, it is neither.

It is meticulously engineered violence used as a tool for achieving geopolitical objectives around the world - from overthrowing governments and justifying military interventions, to creating paralyzing fear and hysteria at home to garner support for a growing domestic police state and a large military footprint overseas.

In essence, it is a highly conductive medium through which modern day empire can spread.

This can clearly be seen through the use of terrorism today. Some 14 years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and as memories begin to fade, the US finds itself partnered with Saudi Arabia once again, arming and funding terrorists to fight their proxy wars in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and beyond, just as they did in the 1980s when they jointly created Al Qaeda to begin with.

As the pendulum of geopolitical necessity swings from needing heavily armed, fanatical proxy forces to fight abroad, to needing a pretext at home to initiate large-scale military interventions overseas, these terrorist organizations are characterized by Western politicians and the media in a similarly shifting manner. During the 1980s Al Qaeda was portrayed as "freedom fighters." In 2001 when the United States sought to use full-scale military force to rearrange the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, Al Qaeda was transformed into a villain.

The 2001 terrorist attacks allowed the US to justify over a decade of global-spanning war that it otherwise would have been unable to wage.

The Hijackers Had Ties to Saudi Intelligence 

The 28 pages now declassified depicts a tangled web of connections between the Saudi government, Saudi intelligence agencies, the Bin Laden family, and the hijackers - most of whom were Saudi citizens themselves.

The report states:

While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi Government. There is information, primarily from FBI sources, that at least two of those individuals were alleged by some to be Saudi intelligence officers. 

The report also reveals that the suspected Saudi intelligence officers worked for companies that had ties to both the Saudi government, and Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden (spelled: Usama Bin Ladin throughout the report).

And not only did various Saudi intelligence officers have connections to the alleged hijackers, several are revealed to have known each other as well.

Mentioned also is Osama Bin Laden's half-brother, Abdullah Bin Ladin, claimed to have worked for the Saudi Embassy in Washington D.C. as an "administration officer," revealing once again the incestuous ties between the Bin Ladin family, the Saudi government, and through equity firm - the Carlyle Group - the Bush family and other political and business leaders in the United States.

The report also mentions that despite the many apparent links, and attempts by the FBI to investigate them further, many suspects were inexplicably able to "leave" the United States and return to Saudi Arabia.

Image: Fake mosques like this one in Denmark, openly recruit Europeans to fight Western proxy wars in the Middle East. Instead of being immediately shut down and those involved for providing material support for terrorism, often European governments and security agencies work with them to manage terrorists as they come home - again - not to imprison them, but use them to manipulate public perception and shape domestic policy. Such "mosques" are often Saudi-funded. 

The report also referred to "mosques" either directly funded by the Saudi government in which various aspects of terrorism were thought to be coordinated, or mosques in which associates of the hijackers met frequently or operated out of.

This illustrates precisely how the US-Saudi terror enterprise keeps its ranks full - through a global network of centers masquerading as mosques, protected by law enforcement and intelligence organizations linked to the West, allowing for both the recruitment and radicalization of terrorists, as well as the planning and financing of terrorism itself.

US Intelligence Community Before 9/11: Incompetence or Collusion? Or Both?  

The US and Saudi Arabia helped create Al Qaeda and for years used the organization to wage proxy war around the world. It's actions on 9/11 then helped set the stage for a decade of war in which the US toppled governments, occupied nations, while conducting covert warfare against others, expanding US hegemony across the globe, and dividing and destroying nations allied to its rivals in Beijing and Moscow.

It is very clear that Saudi Arabia played a role in the 9/11 attacks, as well as in terrorism of all kinds around the world before and after the attacks.

Clearly the FBI and the CIA both were aware of Saudi Arabia's role. It is also clear that efforts were made to protect valuable Saudi assets by spiriting them out of the country as dutiful agents attempted to do their jobs by investigating them further. Those who spirited Saudi agents and officials out of the country, protecting them from further investigation regarding their role in 9/11, are likely linked to those Americans who helped their Saudi counterparts organize and carry out the attacks.

And while some FBI and CIA agents attempted to do their job, one comment toward the end of the 28 pages reveals that perhaps agents were not as aware as they should have been regarding the nature of Al Qaeda and its relationship to Saudi Arabia.

The report quotes a former FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge, saying:

Basically [redacted]. They were not a country identified by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. And the theme or the common modus operandi that we saw in San Diego was that if there were [redacted] there, their primary objective was to monitor dissidents in the interest of protecting the royal family. So they were not viewed as an inimical threat to national security.  

The agent's conclusion is based entirely on the assumption that the State Department's terrorist designations are meaningful and accurate. If such designations are not accurate, then the FBI would have neglected to fully investigate suspects who were indeed very much an inimical threat to national security.

Today, Al Qaeda and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS) are likewise portrayed as enemies of Saudi Arabia. This is despite clear evidence showing both terrorist organizations and their affiliates in Iraq and Syria, are armed and funded by, as well as working in the direct interests of Riyadh - as well as Washington. When terrorist attacks do unfold in Saudi Arabia, despite being portrayed as attacks aimed at Riyadh itself, they are often instead aimed at Shia'a targets throughout the country.

Shia'a in Saudi Arabia, unlike Al Qaeda and ISIS, do represent a threat to Riyadh - not predicated on fanatical extremism - but instead upon self-defense against the brutality and injustice of the Saudi political system which specifically targets Shia'a.

It appears that some agents, despite laboring under faulty assumptions, did attempt to do their jobs, while others appear to have been protecting suspects very likely tied to the 9/11 attacks, and possibly even tied to the attacks themselves. Together, through incompetence and collusion, the attacks unfolded, and the rest - as they say - is history.

Protecting Saudi Terrorism Then and Now 

While the Western media now claims that many of the declassified report's allegations have been found to be "without basis," the heavy redaction throughout the report leads one to believe that Saudi Arabia and the various tentacles of its security apparatus reaching into the United States are still being covered up by complicit American agents and interests.

Image: At some points, redaction of the 9/11 document becomes almost comically obstructive, defeating the purpose of declassifying it and making it public in the first place. 

Additionally, despite the very troubling implications of the report's contents, it should be noted that in the aftermath of 9/11 the US, along with Europe, continued supplying Saudi Arabia with billions of dollars worth of military weapons while politically supporting Riyadh during its own brush with the "Arab Spring" in 2011. Today, despite evidence of Saudi Arabia's arming and funding of designated terrorist organizations including Al Nusra, the US and Europe continue lending military and political support to Riyadh nonetheless.

Saudi Arabia didn't victimize the United States on 9/11, nor trick Washington. Riyadh and Washington are partners in crime, at times in lockstep, at other times posing as adversaries when maximum plausible deniability is desired.

Despite attempts to claim Saudi Arabia is blameless in the 9/11 attacks, the hijackers were undoubtedly Saudis, inspired by indoctrination that originated in Saudi-funded networks, allegedly approached and assisted by Saudi intelligence agents, and representative of terrorist organizations Riyadh to this day still arms, funds, and uses to wage it and America's proxy wars with.

The report is not really a revelation, but instead another piece of evidence that affirms the US and Saudi Arabia are collaborators in terrorism, not partners fighting it. Those who depend on either in a true fight against global terrorism, should be prepared for perpetual failure.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine�New Eastern Outlook�.     

Nice, France: A Harvest of Horror

July 20, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - While the Western media poses as perplexed over the recent string of horrific attacks across Europe and particularly in France, the latest of which unfolded this week in the seaside city of Nice leaving over 80 dead and many more injured, it is clear that France itself has cultivated the soil within which terrorism and violence has taken root.

Through France's own domestic and foreign policy, it has created the perfect storm to continue "watering" terrorism at home and abroad, while its political leaders carefully cultivate the predictable division, fear, hysteria, and violence that is now unfolding. Between attacks in 2015 and 2016, over 200 people have now died in France as a result of violent domestic attacks.

French Foreign Support of Terrorism 

Since 2011, France has played a key role in destabilizing North Africa and the Middle East. In 2011, it participated in the US-led NATO assault on Libya, as well as sending troops to other African nations including the Ivory Coast and Mali. France also currently maintains troops in Sahara, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Central African Republic, and Sahel in Africa, as well as troops still participating in the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan.

While France has portrayed these operations as essential for maintaining global stability and security, it has done anything but. In addition to creating chaos from which torrents of refugees are now fleeing - all the way to Europe - it should be noted that a component of French involvement abroad is also the arming and funding of militant groups. This was especially so in Libya, where France helped install into power terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda.

The London Telegraph's 2011 article, "France supplying weapons to Libyan rebels," would report that:

France has begun supplying weapons to the Libyan rebels despite the UN arms embargo, confirming on Wednesday it had dropped assault rifles into the Nafusa Mountains south-west of Tripoli.

It would also report that:

The air drop would appear to be in violation of the arms embargo against Libya instituted by the United Nations. But Nato officials believe that the UN security council resolution 1973 which authorised the bombing campaign allows for a wide range of actions in furtherance of the mission to "protect civilians".

It retrospect, it was clear that France's actions had little to do with an interest in "protecting civilians" and instead led directly to the overthrow of the Libyan government. The militant forces, armed, backed, and even provided air cover by NATO would be later revealed to be extremists directly affiliated with Al Qaeda and would later transform into the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS) in Libya.

Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had for decades subdued and kept in check extremist elements centered primarily in eastern Libya's Cyrenaica region, particularly in the cities of Benghazi, Tobruk, and Derna which would later go on to become epicenters of US military and diplomatic activity after the war as well as a springboard for Western-backed terrorism in Syria.

And France would likewise play a key role in supporting terrorism in Syria - a former French colony - providing arms, funding, and political support to supposed "rebel" groups who, ironically, fly the flags of the French mandate side-by-side those of Al Qaeda.

The London Guardian's article, "France funding Syrian rebels in new push to oust Assad," would report that:

France has emerged as the most prominent backer of Syria's armed opposition and is now directly funding rebel groups around Aleppo as part of a new push to oust the embattled Assad regime. 

Large sums of cash have been delivered by French government proxies across the Turkish border to rebel commanders in the past month, diplomatic sources have confirmed. The money has been used to buy weapons inside Syria and to fund armed operations against loyalist forces.

For 5 years now, France, along with the US and overt state sponsors of terrorism including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, have waged proxy war on Syria giving rise to terrorist organizations with full-scale military capabilities including mechanized, anti-tank, and anti-air warfare.

The sheer scale of the terrorist organizations France has helped cultivate in Syria are astounding. Billions of dollars are involved, and tens of thousands of fighters from across the world, including France itself, have created logistical lines wrapping around the planet to feed the conflict.

The London Telegraph's article, "Islamic State: Where do its fighters come from?," would reveal that (emphasis added):

Nearly a fifth of fighters are residents or nationals of Western European countries,and an estimated 1,200 people have travelled from France alone.

This flow of foreign fighters has alarmed governments around the world, raising fears that returnees from may plot attacks in their home nations. Scotland Yard said that at least half of the 700 British residents - a statistic from the British police - suspected of fighting alongside Isil are now back in the UK.

That 800 British residents have fought alongside ISIS and returned to the UK, but are not immediately placed in prison, is astounding - but common across all of Europe with some governments even working with those who recruited them to help "integrate" them back into society.

But "integration" is not what is happening.

French Domestic Support for Terrorism 

While the French government's support for terrorism abroad is quite overt - manifesting itself in weapon and cash deliveries and open declarations of support for militant groups - its support for terrorism at home is more subtle.

As in the UK, terrorists returning from French-backed violence in Syria are not arrested and imprisoned, but instead placed on "watch lists" the French government claims it lacks the resources to properly maintain. NBC News would claim in an article titled, "French Intelligence Is Tracking 1,000 Who Have Been to Iraq, Syria: Expert," that:

"French intelligence is mostly focused today on more than 1,000 French citizens that traveled to Syria and Iraq since 2012," said Jean-Charles Brisard, the author of "Zarqawi: The New Face of Al-Qaeda." 

He added that one-fifth of them were being tracked around the clock. "This is a problem of resources," he added. "We cannot follow everyone."

At the same time French security agencies are failing to follow terrorists who should in fact be imprisoned, French political leaders openly encourage misunderstanding and mistrust between French Muslims and the rest of the population, fostering a climate of hate, fear, division and eventually violence.

An intentionally divisive society "seeded" with experienced terrorists returning from full-scale warfare almost ensures violent terrorist attacks like the "Charlie Hebdo" attack, the November 2015 Paris attack, or the most recent atrocity committed in Nice - if it was even a terrorist attack.

Was Nice the Scene of a Terrorist Attack? Does it Matter? 

While the suspect of the Nice attack, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, is so far not being publicly linked to terrorist groups, he did have a criminal record and was well known to French police.

The media has so far portrayed the suspect as especially nonreligious or political, and instead, a man facing immense personal and financial troubles. But because the French government and media has so successfully divided and misled the public, the attack appears to automatically being lumped into the long and growing list of actual terrorist attacks carried out by French-backed terrorists returning from abroad, simply because of the suspect's name and ethnicity.

Whatever truth emerges regarding the most recent attack, those before it, and the manner in which this most recent attack has been exploited by the media and politicians, reveals France as a nation that has carefully and intentionally sown the seeds of terrorism and violence, and is now harvesting the predictable horrors that have emerged.



If money, weapons, hatred, and bigotry are the necessities of growing terrorism, France withdrawing from its various wars and proxy wars abroad, while defusing racial, ethnic, and religious tensions at home would be essential in strangling terrorism. However, judging by the highly polarized reaction prompted by a dishonest Western media and equally dishonest, opportunistic Western politicians and political groups, it is very likely this harvest will yield many more horrors to come.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.   

The Developer Behind Latest Augmented Reality Craze

A company with a questionable pedigree, sporting the next step in technology already used to destabilize and destroy countries, has wrapped its latest creation in decidedly disarming cartoon characters. 

July 18, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Pokemon Go, a location-based interactive augmented reality (AR) game, has been portrayed as a triumph for video game giant Nintendo. However, it is not entirely Nintendo's doing. Instead, the idea originated within and was developed by Google's internal startup, Niantic.

Niantic, in turn, is headed by John Hanke, who before becoming a tech-entrepreneur worked for the US State Department. The Financial Times in its article, "The man who put �Pok�mon Go� on the map," would report:

Mr Hanke, now 49, had spent more than a decade with the search giant [Google] after it acquired his previous company, Keyhole, whose rich digital cartography and satellite images formed the basis of both Google Earth and Maps. For Mr Hanke, who worked for the US Department of State in Myanmar before moving to the San Francisco Bay Area to study for an MBA at University of California, Berkeley, it was his third start-up to be acquired.

Just why Hanke's stint a the US State Department is important is best understood by examining its relationship with Google, the tech-giant Hanke graduated onward to.

Google and the US State Department: A Quick Primer 

Google has played a pivotal role in augmenting reality in more ways than one.

Before it was populating the world with virtual Pokemon characters, it helped manipulate public perception during the unfolding US-engineered "Arab Spring" by quite literally renaming streets and public spaces on Google Earth and Google Maps in real-time to psychologically overwhelm embattled governments and their supporters, and give impetus to US-backed mobs and militants.

John Hanke - currently heading Niantic, the developer of Pokemon Go - would have been involved in Google Earth and Google Maps at the time this was happening.

As unbelievable as this all may sound, prominent British newspaper, the London Guardian, would report in its article, "Syria: is it possible to rename streets on Google Maps?," that (emphasis added):

In their struggle to free Syria from the clutches of President Bashar al-Assad, anti-government activists have embarked on a project to wipe him off the map. Literally. On Google Maps, major Damascus thoroughfares named after the Assad family have appeared renamed after heroes of the uprising. The Arab Spring has form in this regard. When anti-Gadaffi rebels tore into Tripoli last August, the name of the city's main square on the mapping service changed overnight � from "Green Square", the name given to it by the erstwhile dictator, to "Martyr's Square", its former title. 

The internet giant's mapping service has a history of weighing in on political disputes.

The Guardian would reveal that while Google Maps allowed name changes to be 'crowd sourced,' Google gave access only to certain crowds to do this - for example, China's population is denied such access. It also reveals that ultimately, Google moderators must approve of the changes.

But even before the "Arab Spring," Google would play an even more pivotal role - training US-backed opposition groups in New York, London, and Mexico City before sending them back to their respective countries to overthrow their governments.

The so-called Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM)  held summits as early as 2008 to prepare opposition groups for the planned 2011 uprising. AYM is a US State Department-run project sponsored by the US State Department and even included video call-ins by then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself.


It is also was sponsored by the State Department's various subsidiaries including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which funded opposition groups upon their return to their home countries. Other corporate and media giants also provided support, including Facebook. 

Google was well represented at AYM's summits. At the 2008 New York summit (.pdf), Google attendees included Vice President New Business Development Megan Smith, Director of New Business Development Gisel Hiscock, and Principal in the New Business Development Team Katie Stanton.

Also in attendance was Jared Cohen who at the time represented the US State Department, but would later end up also working for Google - revealing yet another conflict of interest-ridden, corporate-government revolving door - this time leading in and out of the tech industry.

Image: Jared Cohen frequent traveler through the revolving door between big-government and big-tech. 

Cohen's story further illustrates the incestuous ties between tech-giant Google and the global schemes of the US State Department. The UK Independent in its article, "Google planned to help Syrian rebels bring down Assad regime, leaked Hillary Clinton emails claim," would report that:

An interactive tool created by Google was designed to encourage Syrian rebels and help bring down the Assad regime, Hillary Clinton's leaked emails have reportedly revealed.

By tracking and mapping defections within the Syrian leadership, it was reportedly designed to encourage more people to defect and 'give confidence' to the rebel opposition. 

The article would continue:

The email detailing Google's defection tracker purportedly came from Jared Cohen, a Clinton advisor until 2010 and now-President of Jigsaw, formerly known as Google Ideas, the company's New York-based policy think tank.

In a July 2012 email to members of Clinton's team, which the WikiLeaks release alleges was later forwarded to the Secretary of State herself, Cohen reportedly said: �My team is planning to launch a tool on Sunday that will publicly track and map the defections in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from.�

Cohen would conclude:

�Our logic behind this is that while many people are tracking the atrocities, nobody is visually representing and mapping the defections, which we believe are important in encouraging more to defect and giving confidence to the opposition.�

Interactive tracking applications used to overthrow a sovereign, elected government, hardly sounds in step with Google's corporate motto of "Don't be evil." The technological successors of such applications - including Pokemon Go - seem just as likely to be abused as the applications that preceded them.

Before Niantic's Pokemon Go, There Was Ingress

With Google's cozy relationship with the US State Department amply established, and John Hanke's history with both, as well as Niantic - the developer of Pokemon Go - the general public's interest should at the very least be piqued. Though Niantic was officially "spun-off" from Google, it is difficult if not impossible to establish what connections Hanke maintains formally or informally with either of his former employers and what role this new "interactive tracking application" may play in experiments or implementations related to US domestic and/or foreign policy.

But if one's suspicion has yet to be aroused, they should consider the Niantic AR game that preceded Pokemon Go - Ingress.

It too is an interactive location-tracking application, but its premise was decidedly darker and had less potential for wider public uptake, particularly overseas.

The short trailer for the game includes phrases such as, "Global security could be at risk," "An actual take over of the mind," and "monitor the effects of mind hacking..." which may at first seem like nothing more than the ingredients of dystopian science fiction, until users are made aware of Niantic, Google, and the US State Department's use of the technology the three have already collaborated on.

Pokemon Go is merely Ingress but with a Pokemon theme. It is decidedly more appealing, and its rapid public uptake makes it clear that Google's decision to approach Pokemon for a means to make their AR technology universal, paid off.

What Could Ingress, Pokemon Go, and other AR Games be Used For?
Since, like Ingress, it seems things like to be hidden in plain view, perhaps the US State Department's own Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) news service's article, "Pokemon Go Away: Russians See CIA Plot, �Satanism� In Viral App," might lend some insight.

The article, after deriding Russian culture and traditions, reports:

...some in Russia have depicted the application as an extraordinary scheme by the U.S. secret services to craftily enlist millions of people across the world to photograph and film hidden, out-of-the-way places. 

�Imagine that the �little creature� in question doesn�t appear in some park but on a secret site where a conscript or other soldier takes and photographs it with his camera,� state news agency RIA Novosti quoted Aleksandr Mikhailov, a retired major general of the Federal Security Service (FSB), on July 15 as saying. �It�s recruitment by one's own personal desire and without any coercion. This is the ideal way for secret services to gather information. And no one takes any heed, entertainment is fashionable after all."

While the active use of Pokemon Go as some sort of implemented tool is always a possibility, it is also likely that it is an experiment or stepping stone toward much wider uptake in AR technology and tools the US State Department would like potential armies of opposition mobs and militants to familiarize themselves with before deploying more useful and dangerous applications.

Organized mobs or militants being able to collectively see something in a specific location, that a targeted group or government cannot see, may have have strategic value.

Also, behavior modification is already a well-studied scientific discipline. The ability to bring the game out into the real world, offers a whole new dimension to manipulating and training the minds of others.

Image: Yelp's augmented reality message service allows you to place messages at any location visible through your device or another authorized device's camera only, or view publicly available messages such as exact location of a restaurant, with a virtual sign visible through your camera.  

As with all technology, AR is ultimately neutral. It is up to people to use or abuse it - for good or for bad. Most importantly, it is up to people to be responsible enough to understand the technology they use, who is behind it, and what dangers may exist to both themselves, and their community.

For governments and policymakers, it is their responsibility to study the potential opportunities and threats that exist with the use of such technology, both by state and non-state actors.

Considering the pedigree of Niantic and the rapid uptake of Pokemon Go, it would be most unwise to let the fact that the technology is packaged under disarming cartoon characters to cause a very real potential threat to go unnoticed. It would be equally unwise for each nation's populations to be left vulnerable for the next "upgrade" of the US State Department's regime change program.