Published on 21 Dec 2017
Published on 21 Dec 2017
The world knows America is done for. Trump isn’t making America great, he is dancing on the corpse. We could give dates, 9/11 or back in 1913 when America took on an illegal Rothschild central bank. Perhaps it really is 1913 and the America of today, is the result of bleeding that began then.
It is always about debt. When nations take on a central bank, and all central banks are foreign owned, all controlled by the Rothschild family, their institutions crumble, the family, religion, their government, the courts, their media, all are targeted.
We have seen this time and time again. The reason 9/11 is critical has nothing to do with the endless war sweeping the world it began, proxy armies, phony terror groups and teeming millions of refugees.
For America it announced the largest robbery in history, $10 trillion in assets, enough to buy the entirety of Europe, simply “disappeared.” Only days before 9/11 it was learned that $2.4 trillion was missing from the US military budget alone, according to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. What few know is that the group investigating, in their entirety, were killed on 9/11 during the incident at the Pentagon.
We call it an incident because calling it a terror attack or even an airline crash is unsupportable without throwing away any reason whatsoever.
Then we ask, who does such a thing, who would take down America, destroy their government, collapse their economy as in 2008, and allow a nation to be led by a leader known to be clinically insane? Why do we never name the culprits, who are the “usual suspects?”
Let’s look at what happened in America while the world watched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, two wars America has technically lost, beyond lost, each alone makes the debacle of Vietnam stand out as a beacon of reason.
By the end of 2007, America’s 5 leading investment banks were bankrupt, having “misplaced” trillions in assets. Most major corporations were the same, broke, hopelessly, to the extent that the Down Jones Industrial Average had to be reconfigured as the leading companies in America were no longer viable.
If you track such things as credit card debt or home values, you see a different story. Between 2008 and 2010, unemployment in America rose to over 10%. Personal savings collapsed and personal debt rose to unimaginable levels while key industries like arms, oil and pharmaceuticals, informally known to have immense power over government, made record profits.
With interest rates dropped to almost nothing by Bush 43, millions of America families sought to protect assets through buying homes that would otherwise be unwise, overlarge, unaffordable, sold on the idea of a ballooning real estate market by media pundits.
By 2008 those homes stood empty. Many million dollar homes had the walls and wiring torn out, plumbing destroyed as angry homeowners packed up and moved in with relatives or simply joined the millions of homeless.
Most homes lost 60% of value across America and those forced to sell took on a lifetime of debt. Similarly, retirement savings typically lost 72%. A million dollar 401k that would return $5000 a month for life based on Clinton era rates and market performance was now only worth a little over $200,000 with an income potential of $200 a month. America’s middle class would work into their mid to late 70’s, with skilled and management retirees sentenced to a decade of menial labor on behalf of the banks that organized the crash.
This, of course pushed the younger generation into military service. With available jobs, and there were few of those, paying well under poverty level, military pay was the highest around with a guarantee of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan year after year.
Was this a plan? Was it known that America’s military would exhaust itself, losing its NCO corps, it best officers, it equipment failings exposed to the Cold War era Soviet weapons America herself spent billions on that now are in the hands of terrorists around the world?
Worse still, is the idea of betrayal. When the Syrian War came into focus, something amazing happened. Washington was forced to accept that not only were the terror groups al Qaeda and ISIS being supported by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, but that Israel may have been behind it all.
Worse still, the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel, assumed to be a “hate/hate” confrontation, now came into focus as well. Saudi Arabia and Israel, it seems, had been cooperating, not since the 1980s but as early as 1970.
Thus, when Saudi Arabia coordinated the OPEC oil embargo on the US, pushing oil price to stratospheric levels, all based on US aid to Israel during the 1973 War, might this well have been coordinated too?
More recently, it has become known that Saudi Arabia had a major role in 9/11. If they have been close to Israel all along, and were one to review issues of 9/11, such as who benefits, it become clear that everything since that day has not only benefited Saudi Arabia but Israel as well.
In fact it has become clear that almost all world terrorism, the Paris attacks, Boko Haram in Africa, certainly ISIS, all of it, has benefited Israel and Saudi Arabia as well.
Then might well a hypothesis that interests attributed to the Israeli state more benefit the Rothschild family than Israel itself?
If results are an indicator, Israel faces a unified Syria, Iraq and Iran with powerful Pakistan, Turkey and near-Superpower again, Russia, moving rapidly toward forming a regional power alliance?
Israel is far from secure, everything but, however what does exist is endless trillions in debt, the promise of war for another decade or more, chaos, distrust, balkanization around the world, poverty and disease, the signs are clear. This is the business model of the world’s banking system. This is what is meant by “globalism.”
Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — On November 13, 2017, the BBC dropped a bombshell report that exposed how the U.S. cut a secret deal with “hundreds” of ISIS fighters and their families to leave the Syrian city of Raqqa under the “gaze of the U.S. and British-led coalition and Kurdish-led forces who control the city.” The convoys reportedly included some of ISIS’ “most notorious” members, as well as its foreign fighters and tonnes of weapons and ammunition.
Almost a month later, Reuters reported that a high-level defector from Kurdish-led forces in Syria had revealed that the number of ISIS fighters given safe passage by the U.S.-led coalition was actually in the thousands, not hundreds. This account was seconded by a security official in Turkey despite the fact that Turkey and the Kurdish militia do not typically see eye to eye).
“Agreement was reached for the terrorists to leave, about 4,000 people, them and their families,” the defector said, as quoted by Reuters, adding that all but about 500 were fighters.
The defector also noted that the fighters were headed toward Deir ez-Zor, Syria’s most oil-rich region. The U.S. had been eager to bomb Deir ez-Zor for some time prior to the deal, and allowing ISIS safe passage to get there would merely give them the pretext to do so. In June of this year, regional outlet Al-Masdar released a video that appeared to show convoys of ISIS fighters leaving Raqqa, as well, though the media paid very little attention to this.
All of this begs the question: If the U.S. allowed 4,000 ISIS fighters to leave Raqqa, who on earth were they bombing during their brutal siege? Donald Trump’s illegal air campaign killed well over 1,800 civilians and brought the city to ruin — to the point that Russia accused the U.S. of wiping Raqqa “off the face of the earth.” The U.S. government knew ISIS was leaving the city safely but kept on bombing it into devastation, anyway.
Raqqa Secret Deal Barely Scratches the Surface
Now that we know the U.S. is amenable to granting ISIS fighters safe passage, ISIS’ ability to take over huge swaths of Iraq and Syria in the first place start to make a bit more sense. In June 2014, ISIS effortlessly took the strategic oil-rich cities of Mosul and Baiji and almost made it as far as Baghdad. The U.S. sat on its hands and did nothing the entire time, even as the militants took massive loads of American military equipment as spoils and brandished it all over social media. While ISIS was flaunting its activities untouched by the American military in Iraq, the U.S. was busy launching drone strikes in Pakistan, instead.
Why would the Obama administration prioritize air strikes in a country that overwhelmingly disapproves of them when it could have prevented ISIS from setting up a mini-state in Iraq at the same time?
Over the last few years, we have seen this similar pattern occur over and over again. When it came to Obama’s grand offensive to retake Mosul in 2016, reports also began emerging that the U.S. was granting safe passage for ISIS fighters to move from Mosul into Raqqa. Even if the U.S. hadn’t cut a formal deal with ISIS on this particular occasion, the reality on the ground was that the U.S. was allowing ISIS fighters to make their way into Syria from Mosul and doing little to stop them regardless. As Anti-Media documented at the time:
“According to Army Lieutenant General Talib Shaghati, as reported by anti-Russian newspaper, the Guardian, ISIS militants are already fleeing Mosul to Syria. This was further confirmed by the Saudi foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, who said that if ISIS were forced out of Mosul, they would likely go on to Syria.”
Why weren’t they striking these traveling ISIS fighters before they made it to Syria? When viewed in its recent historical context and with the most recent reports in mind, the answer to that question should be clear.
The U.S. Has Also Provided ISIS With Direct Air Support
The Syrian government and its allies are the most heavily engaged entities fighting ISIS inside Syria – not the U.S. military (or its allies). Yet the U.S. military has struck these pro-government forces directly multiple times over the last year, even when these troops have proven to be very effective against the jihadist group.
In September 2016, the U.S.-led coalition launched a barrage of airstrikes at Syrian government troops who were fending off the ISIS component of Deir ez-Zor at the time. Russia accused the U.S. coalition of providing air cover for ISIS because the terror group used the coalition strike to launch an offensive of their own. Over 60 Syrian soldiers died as a result of this illegal act of war, but no one was held accountable.
It has also been speculated that U.S. President Donald Trump’s Syria strike in April paved the way for an ISIS offensive, as well.
ISIS Took Advantage of U.S. Weapons Transfers
So far, we know that ISIS has received safe passage from the U.S. on at least one occasion and that the terror group has also received free air support on a number of other occasions. We also know the U.S. either directly or indirectly allowed ISIS to gain territory in the first place only to provide the pretext for a military intervention.
But wait, it gets even better. Just this month, a report conducted by the U.K.-based Conflict Armament Research (CAR) group, which analyzed 40,000 items its investigators recovered along ISIS’ front lines between July 2014 and November 2017, found that the terror group was able to successfully arm itself by taking advantage of U.S. weapons transfers between Washington and its other allies in Syria. ISIS even garnered some of the more powerful anti-tank missiles through the CIA’s covert arms program.
“International weapon supplies to factions in the Syrian conflict have significantly augmented the quantity and quality of weapons available to IS forces — in numbers far beyond those that would have been available to the group through battlefield capture alone,” the report said.
The U.S. didn’t need to wait for an official report for this horrifying development to come to light. As far back as October 2012, the New York Times reported the following:
“[M]ost of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster…” [emphasis added]
Even if the U.S. had zero control over ISIS and the mayhem it has exacted over Iraq, Syria, and beyond — and was genuine in its bid to rid the world of its ideology and the horror the terror group has unleashed — there is one issue yet to be discussed: ISIS’ existence.
US Created Conditions for ISIS to Exist
ISIS evolved out of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which only became a formidable fighting force after the U.S. invaded in 2003. This was in part due to the Bush administration’s decision to fire close to 400,000 servicemen in Iraq, simply because of their affiliation with Saddam Hussein’s secular Baathist party. Some of these disgruntled servicemen now hold senior ISIS positions and are responsible for the terror group’s success.
History clearly demonstrates that al-Qaeda only exists in the first place because the U.S. actively trained, funded, and armed the mujahideen in Afghanistan as a means of bogging the Soviet empire down into a quagmire. The Independent even ran a story on Osama bin Laden at the time, portraying him as a heroic freedom fighter and “anti-Soviet warrior.”
However, since 9/11, the U.S. made a specific point of making aiding and providing material support to al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations a crime under U.S. law. Yet the U.S. has openly aided Syria’s al-Qaeda branch, as well as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen, and now we have more than enough formal proof that the U.S. has knowingly continued a foreign policy strategy that essentially provided all manner of material support to ISIS, one of the most deadly terror groups in recent history, as well.
It’s time for someone to be held accountable. There is a case to be made against the U.S. for some very serious criminal behavior here, and if anyone is serious about defeating “radical Islamic terror,” they should start by launching a court action against the U.S. government for its die-hard support for terrorism in the Middle East and beyond.
Weeks before the Republican-led Congress moved toward final passage of its corporate tax cut bill, major companies had already begun a surge of stock buybacks — confirming critics’ fears that the windfall of lower rates will be used for self-enrichment rather than job growth.
Home Depot led the buyback splurge, pocketing $15 billion. On an earnings call held earlier this month, the company’s CFO Carol Tomé quietly admitted the strategy, when asked about the impact of tax reform on the firm:
It really all depends on if it happens and when it happens and how we would spend it. Cash is fungible. Right now, we’re thinking it might not happen until 2019, so obviously we are using internally generated cash in 2018 to invest in the business and return capital to our shareholders. If it were to happen in 2019, we might use the tax — cash tax savings to invest in the business and then use — generated cash to back buy [sic] shares, it’s all fungible. The point is, we’re going to generate a lot, we may get some from tax reform and we will use it. We will invest back in the business, and we will return it our [sic] shareholders.
By “return it to our shareholders,” she is referring to a buyback, which drives up the price of a stock and can come with dividends as well. Typically, executives hold much of their wealth in company stock, and their compensation is tied to the performance of the shares.
Other corporations are expected to use the windfall to increase mergers and acquisitions (M&A) or invest in automation. “Industry executives have been eagerly anticipating tax reform in earnings calls, interviews and casual conversation all year. Multiple CEOs have projected major M&A activity will follow if any kind of corporate rate reduction is finalized, further accelerating the rapid pace of consolidation in the industry,” wrote one industry publication about how waste companies are anticipating tax reform.
But the House Republicans who wrote and passed the tax bill on Tuesday have ignored these warnings. In interviews with The Intercept, members suggested that stock buybacks, as well as M&A, will either be rare or not that harmful to the economy.
Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., didn’t believe in the buyback threat because some executives publicly pledged to increase jobs. “Most recently … the Delta CEO, and I don’t recall his name, he acknowledged that when the economy grows, it helps them and he doesn’t intend to buyback stock, he intends on making a better product,” she said. When we followed up on whether she anticipates any merger or stock buyback wave, she replied, “I don’t anticipate that happening.”