Individuals willing to be contacted for information and/or leading groups of activists striving for truth around the crimes of 9-11-2001. To request your name be added to this list, or to change or remove your information, please utilize the Contact form linked at the righthand column.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Activist Post - Audio Reported of US / ISIS Collaboration

Report: Syrian Govt Has Audio Of U.S. Conversation With ISIS Before Attack On Syrian Military

TOPICS:Brandon TurbevilleISISMilitarySyria.

September 26, 2016

isis_constitutionBy Brandon Turbeville

According to a report from Russian news agency, Sputnik, Syrian intelligence possesses an audio recording of a conversation that took place between the United States military and ISIS fighters shortly before the U.S. airstrikes on Syrian government positions in Deir el-Zour.

Likewise, the speaker of the People’s Council of Syria stated as much on Monday.

“The Syrian Army intercepted a conversation between the Americans and Daesh before the air raid on Deir ez-Zor,” said Hadiya Khalaf Abbas as quoted by Al Mayadeen.

. These statements appear to suggest that the conversation recorded by the Syrian government will definitively show coordination between the U.S. and ISIS against the Syrian military.

Indeed, during her visit to Iran, the head of the Syrian Parliament stated that, after the coalition airstrikes on Syrian government troops, the U.S. military directed the ISIS attack on the Syrian army that saw the terrorist organization temporarily gain territory surrounding Deir el-Zour.

If the claims of the Syrian officials quoted above are true, then we strongly encourage Syria to release the audio recordings for the world to hear.

That the United States has been responsible for the creation, support, direction, arming, and facilitation of ISIS has long been known in informed circles. However, an audio recording of cooperation between the U.S. and ISIS would effectively drive the last nail in the coffin of American credibility and any remaining semblance of honesty and logic in is “war on terror” that is, in reality, nothing but a “war of terror” against the world’s people.

If there was ever any doubt that the United States was supporting and protecting the most feared terrorist organization in the world, that doubt is now erased as a result of the U.S. strike on Syrian military forces in Deir al-Zour on September 17.

The attack took place as a battle between the Syrian military and ISIS forces was raging in Deir al-Zour when the United States swooped in with air strikes against Syrian military forces killing “dozens” of Syrian soldiers, allowing ISIS to advance. Some outlets put the death toll as high as 80 while others suggest 62 soldiers were killed.

The United States claims that it did not knowingly strike the Syrian military and that it confused the SAA with ISIS fighters. However, illegal violations of Syrian national sovereignty aside, claims that the United States could not decipher SAA forces from ISIS forces is hardly plausible since the former is easily identified by the fact that it is in battle with the latter.

The U.S. bombing all but ended the fragile “ceasefire” plan (terrorists never once abided by any obligation of the agreement) and prompted a war of words between Russian and American diplomats as well as an emergency United Nations Security Council Meeting.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 850 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at)

Saturday, September 24, 2016

National Interest - The Simple, Bottom-line Truth

Clinton And Trump, Call Your Office: America’s Bipartisan Policy Of Perpetual War Has Failed To Deliver Peace
09/24/2016 02:29 pm ET

Doug Bandow
Contributing writer, policy analyst

The last three administrations have followed a bipartisan policy of constant war. Unfortunately, the consequences have been ugly: every intervention has laid the groundwork for more conflict.

Yet the architects of this failure claim that all would be well if only Washington had acted more often and more decisively. In their view, the problem is not that America goes to war, but that it doesn’t go to war nearly enough.

This approach is based on the belief that Washington is capable of solving every international problem. If only unnamed bright people implemented theoretically brilliant strategies backed by unidentified resolute citizens, terrorism would be suppressed, ISIS would be defeated, Russia would be compliant, Iraq would be successful, Syria would be peaceful, Libya would be united, and China would be respectful.

Alas, our experience suggests that such people and policies don’t exist. Otherwise, why would recent military operations have turned out so badly? If the right conditions for success weren’t present in the last 15 years, why should we expect them to occur in the next 15 years?

The biggest problem is the belief in immaculate intervention. More troops should have stayed longer, more bombs should have been dropped, and more no fly zones should have been established. Advocates rarely bother to explain the practical requirements and consequences of those policies.

For instance, no intervention is more universally criticized by serious foreign policy analysts than the Iraq invasion. That war triggered widespread sectarian conflict, caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, wrecked the historic Christian community, spawned al-Qaeda in Iraq which morphed into ISIS, and empowered Iran.

The official Neoconservative line, however, is that the war was a great success won by President George W. Bush. Victory was squandered by President Barack Obama, who withdrew U.S. forces.

Yet Bush, with troop levels at their highest providing maximum leverage, was unable to win Iraqi consent to a status of forces agreement, essential for any U.S. garrison. Had Washington attempted to force Baghdad to accept continued occupation, U.S. troops would have been targeted by Shia extremists as well as Sunni terrorists.

The only way America could have blocked the rise of ISIS and ousted Iraq’s sectarian regime would have been to intervene militarily, with potentially disastrous consequences. There was no domestic support for such a course after the Bush administration’s earlier failed promises and unrealistic predictions.

The U.S. should stop attempting to micro-manage the globe.
Intervention in Libya, it is said, would have worked if only the West had intervened to nation build. Yet people the world over want to rule themselves. Having overthrown the Khadafy government, victorious Libyan forces wouldn’t have welcomed a U.S. occupation force. There is no reason to believe the results of such an effort would have been any better than in Afghanistan or Iraq.

In Syria, contend committed interventionists, America should have acted against Bashar al-Assad. He would have been overthrown, the Syrian Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would have taken charge, and ISIS would never have emerged. It’s a great story, but overlooks the rise of sectarianism after America overthrew Iraq’s secular dictator. Defenestrating Assad would have merely triggered the next stage of a bitter struggle for control.

Nor was there domestic U.S. support for greater involvement: opposition to air strikes was overwhelming when the administration tossed the issue to Congress. Belief that half-hearted involvement would have led to swift victory by so-called moderate insurgents ignored the latter’s consistently disappointing performance.

In Afghanistan a continued U.S. military presence is supposed to allow the Kabul government to create a stable, efficient, honest democracy in Central Asia. Yet the Afghan authorities are losing ground after 15 years despite support from tens of thousands of allied military personnel and expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars. Keeping a few thousand combat personnel on station will only slow the collapse of a government known mostly for corruption and incompetence.

Another claim is that had the Obama administration enforced the president’s infamous “red line” on chemical weapons in Syria, Washington would have had the credibility to stop Russia from seizing Crimea and China from pushing its territorial claims in the Asia-Pacific. However, acting on a foolish promise for war is worse than sacrificing a bit of credibility. Anyway, every U.S. attempt to pressure nuclear-armed Moscow and Beijing forces them to demonstrate that they will not be intimidated by Washington.

America’s disastrous experience with promiscuous intervention cannot be salvaged by playing “what if” games. Doing more of the same only guarantees more of the same result. The U.S. should stop attempting to micro-manage the globe.

This article was first posted to National Interest.

Follow Doug Bandow on Twitter:

Friday, September 23, 2016

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

ICH /Globalist vs Nationalist arguments - Read Article vs Comments

The United States Must Be the World’s Policeman
Only America has the material and moral greatness to stop the slide into chaos and foster peace.

By Anders Fogh Rasmussen

September 21, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "WSJ" - Barely had I been seated before Vladimir Putin told me that NATO—the organization that I then headed—no longer had any purpose and should be disbanded. “After the end of the Cold War, we dissolved the Warsaw Pact,” he said. “Similarly, you should dissolve NATO. That is a relic from the Cold War.”

During my visit to Moscow in December 2009, I sensed that President Putin was challenging the world order that the U.S. created so successfully after World War II. Beginning in 2014, he invaded Ukraine and launched a military action in Syria.

From my former positions as prime minister of Denmark and secretary-general of NATO, I know how important American leadership is. We desperately need a U.S. president who is able and willing to lead the free world and counter autocrats like President Putin. A president who will lead from the front, not from behind.

The world needs such a policeman if freedom and prosperity are to prevail against the forces of oppression, and the only capable, reliable and desirable candidate for the position is the United States. The presidential elections thus come at a pivotal point in history.

The Middle East is torn by war. In North Africa, Libya has collapsed and become a breeding ground for terrorists. In Eastern Europe, a resurgent Russia has brutally attacked and grabbed land by force from Ukraine. China is flexing its muscles against its neighbors—and the rogue state of North Korea is threatening a nuclear attack.

In this world of interconnections, it has become a cliché to talk about the “global village.“ But right now, the village is burning, and the neighbors are fighting in the light of the flames. Just as we need a policeman to restore order; we need a firefighter to put out the flames of conflict, and a kind of mayor, smart and sensible, to lead the rebuilding.

Only America can play all these roles, because of all world powers, America alone has the credibility to shape sustainable solutions to these challenges. Russia is obsessed with rebuilding the empire the Soviet Union lost. China is still primarily a regional actor. Europe is weak, divided and leaderless. The old powers of Britain and France are simply too small and exhausted to play the global role they once did.

This is not simply about means. It is also about morality. Just as only America has the material greatness to stop the slide into chaos, only America has the moral greatness to do it—not for the sake of power, but for the sake of peace.

Yet the U.S. will only be able to shape the solutions the world needs if its leaders act with conviction. When America retrenches and retreats—if the world even thinks that American restraint reflects a lack of willingness to engage in preventing and resolving conflicts—it leaves a vacuum that will be filled by crooked autocrats across the world.

The Obama administration’s reluctance to lead the world has had serious consequences, and none is graver than the behavior of Mr. Putin. While Europe and the U.S. slept, he launched a ruthless military operation in support of the Assad regime in Syria and tried to present Russia as a global power challenging the U.S. in importance. In Europe, he is trying to carve out a sphere of influence and establish Russia as a regional power capable of diminishing American influence.

These are only a few examples of what is now at stake as autocrats, terrorists and rogue states challenge America’s leadership of the international rules-based order—which was created after World War II and which secured for the world an unprecedented period of peace, progress and prosperity.

The next president must acknowledge this inheritance. American isolationism will not make the U.S. and other freedom-loving countries safer and more prosperous, it will make them less so and unleash a plague of dictators and other oppressors. Above all, American isolationism will threaten the future of the rules-based international world order that has brought freedom and prosperity to so many people.

Mr. Rasmussen, a former prime minister of Denmark and a former secretary-general of NATO, is the author of “The Will to Lead—America’s Indispensable Role in the Global Fight For Freedom,” out this month from HarperCollins/Broadside Books.

. Comments (15)

I don't believe he's stupid enough to believe a word of what he said in this article. He's a servant of evil.

Howard Johnson

But there it is in print.

Anders must be either a USA mule or smoking the crack pipe. In either case he is quite confused since the USA is indeed the world's petulant child longing for the days when his Mom said it was ok to bully people. Trump seems to have replaced Uncle Sam.


Another brainwashed idiot as leader. F*ck Nato.


Even flagged with a propaganda and barf alert, this doesn't belong here. Or has ICH been purchased by Fox News?


...but we do need to see what's going on; presence does not imply approval? rgds Share/Save/Bookmark


'Only America has the material and moral greatness to stop the slide into chaos and foster peace.' 'It is also about morality. Just as only America has the material greatness to stop the slide into chaos, only America has the moral greatness to do it'
'The world needs such a policeman if freedom and prosperity are to prevail against the forces of oppression, and the only capable, reliable and desirable candidate for the position is the United States. '

This much utter crap in one speech ? Th man is crazed, insane or perhaps just bought.


He is a "foggy" cheer leader for the u.s.a. imperial leadership.


"American restraint . . . leaves a vacuum that will be filled by crooked autocrats across the world."

I have only to observe my landlady to see proof that Rasmussen is right.

I also like the line that says "autocrats, terrorists and rogue states challenge America’s leadership of the international rules-based order—which was created after World War II and which secured for the world an unprecedented period of peace, progress and prosperity."

Our Uncle Sam likes our system of "international rules-based order" so much that he uses every opportunity to trash the rules and punish those who invoke the rules.

I used to know a guy named Rasmussen when I was in the Marines. He, too, was full of poopoo. I wonder if the problem is genetic or is there some sort of school, somewhere, that only Rasmussens are privileged to attend? If there is or if there isn't such a school, I prefer CHEESE Danish. . . .


Let me see if I have this right. The USA destroyed the Middle East and only we are qualified to fix the problems. Its time to step outside the dialectic.


The REAL problem is when propagandists begin BELIEVING their own propaganda. Then, there is no pressure to evaluate and determine what is true, rather than what I want to "sell".


Rasmussen has to take responsibility for NATO's role in all of this. My suggestion: let Rassmussen turn himself in and stand trial, with the expectation of a conviction and long jail term- AND THEN, let the world's policeman turn itself in and stand trial.


That guy RAZZY needs to lie down and keep taking the tablets his doctor has proscribed, just might help him sound sane.


It's nice when a person of posittion writes something like this - It makes me feel good about myself.


This is why Pepe Escobar calls Anders Fogh Rasmussen "the Fogh of War."


Tuesday, September 20, 2016


by James Hufferd, Ph.D.,
Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Coordinator


The prophets of economic doom are at it with renewed vigor, and it’s hard for one less-wise to know what to make of their prating. A global currency would, it is true, make abandoning the dollar to jump to something else for international payment more difficult. China is into the U.S. for multiple trillions in gold, it seems, and is once again riled and rife to call in its chits. The EU – the fragile mask hiding naked, enslaved Europe – is crumbling and bankers are livid. The U.S. debt is unsustainable in the short run, with the Chinese nipping and the public not cooperating, not digging deeper to sustain the rich and the tyrants’ killing reputedly vicious invisible nobodies a world away.

Brexit happened. Electorates throughout the west are unruly and rebelling. The Plan is unfolding but imposed slavery not guaranteed, not free. So, so very close to the end and stalled. What’s a self-respecting psychopathic (aka “libertine”) plutocracy to do? Pump up the paralyzing fear!

David Rockefeller’s 1991 Bilderberg meeting credo: “The supernational sovereignty of the intellectual elite and the world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in the past.” (To them, yes). That’s the goal, tantalizingly within reach.

And when the public – American and/or world – becomes angrier and more nauseated than fearful, we can shut it down and take over responsibility for ourselves and the planet.

So, what’s to fear?

1) Manifest (and nauseating) evil, mostly beneath the surface, rumored and occasionally exposed as élite child and adult sex-slave abduction and partying rings, for example, to fuel and contain the lusts of the sick sovereigns. The police and courts at all levels, Congress won’t touch any such. Instructively, it’s the same at the individual level as on the international.

2) Skulking murder of whistle-blowers and witnesses. Give thanks if you don’t have inside knowledge. I am. The police, all levels of bureaucracy, hence the people, won’t attest to knowing anything. The Boulder D.A. was so spooked he avoided meticulously any mention of the fact that the Jon Benet Ramsey grand jury had returned an indictment against élite family members. No one knew it until years later. Lock-jaw, in fact, set into that whole community.

3) Of the simple truth itself – any resort necessary to avoid that. People who do stand up are not embraced by those nearby, but shunned, seen as sanctimonious, somehow defective, other. Cute logics are devised on the spot to protect us and vicariously the world from these deranged outcasts. Join them or even faintly praise them and you’ll likely end up dead, rotting in a dark, damp cell or bunker, or worse, disowned.

4) Fear of war here. Succumb to the argument for keeping it over there – at whatever cost. When we have to deal with a bit of it, it’s a worldwide emergency.

But then, the élite perps are shown to have enough fears of their own:

a) That the public, resisting their proven appeals, will reject by vote their persuasion. There’s Brexit, warned against as a province of the backward and uncivil (and perhaps still subject to being sold out, as the Greek anti-austerity vote was). Their “golden girl”, guaranteeing them 100% open access, 24/7/365, might likewise be nixed, even axed. Meaning likely less accommodating élite control.

b) That the intermediate partners (France, Germany, and that lot) might not be ultimately intimidated and bamboozled enough, and reach around to a resumed accord with Russia.

c) That the unbeatable rivals (Russia, China) might not back down, and could call their bluff. The Great Gamble? “If you don’t surrender and fall into line, we thermo-nuke you. You know we’re just crazy enough.” Let’s all fear lest these biggies give up and fold right in with the NWO.

“By deception we shall make war,” is the perps’ borrowed battle cry. And our ever-fainter hope, accordingly, for global sanity and emancipation, as well Russia’s claim to prevailing rational courage representing every nation is the peaceful, embarrassed disposition we saw of Obama’s red line in Syria. Because, “MAD” means something else besides “Mutual Assured destruction” or “deception”. And Syria, where the U.S. just scuttled the Russians’ newly revealing cease-fire, and the quite suddenly infinitely more-dangerous Sarajevo of our day, warrants oh-so-careful watching, with our dismaying election in the balance, over the next few days.

JH: 9/20/16