Čuči ozbiljan ludak imao sam 7 od 10 na onom roršak testu 


Nego da se mi vratimo na uzroke Pariza,koji su na bliskom istoku


The Red Line and the Rat Line
Seymour M. Hersh


The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida. (The DNI spokesperson said: ‘The idea that the United States was providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false.’)

In January, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others. The report’s criticism of the State Department for not providing adequate security at the consulate, and of the intelligence community for not alerting the US military to the presence of a CIA outpost in the area, received front-page coverage and revived animosities in Washington, with Republicans accusing Obama and Hillary Clinton of a cover-up. A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)

The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.

The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

Washington abruptly ended the CIA’s role in the transfer of arms from Libya after the attack on the consulate, but the rat line kept going. ‘The United States was no longer in control of what the Turks were relaying to the jihadists,’ the former intelligence official said. Within weeks, as many as forty portable surface-to-air missile launchers, commonly known as manpads, were in the hands of Syrian rebels. On 28 November 2012, Joby Warrick of the Washington Post reported that the previous day rebels near Aleppo had used what was almost certainly a manpad to shoot down a Syrian transport helicopter. ‘The Obama administration,’ Warrick wrote, ‘has steadfastly opposed arming Syrian opposition forces with such missiles, warning that the weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists and be used to shoot down commercial aircraft.’ Two Middle Eastern intelligence officials fingered Qatar as the source, and a former US intelligence analyst speculated that the manpads could have been obtained from Syrian military outposts overrun by the rebels. There was no indication that the rebels’ possession of manpads was likely the unintended consequence of a covert US programme that was no longer under US control.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

Salafist principality

A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.

Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later. The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq


 From El Salvador to Iraq: Washington's man behind brutal police squads

In 2004, with the war in Iraq going from bad to worse, the US drafted in a veteran of Central America's dirty wars to help set up a new force to fight the insurgency. The result: secret detention centres, torture and a spiral into sectarian carnage

A generation later, and half the world away, America's war in Iraq was going from bad to worse. It was 2004 – the neo-cons had dismantled the Ba'athist party apparatus, and that had fostered anarchy. A mainly Sunni uprising was gaining ground and causing major problems in Fallujah and Mosul. There was a violent backlash against the US occupation that was claiming over 50 American lives a month by 2004.

The US Army was facing an unconventional, guerrilla insurgency in a country it knew little about. There was already talk in Washington DC of using the Salvador option in Iraq and the man who would spearhead that strategy was already in place.


James Steele

Soon after the invasion in March 2003 Jim Steele was in Baghdad as one of the White House's most important "consultants", sending back reports to Rumsfeld. His memos were so valued that Rumsfeld passed them on to George Bush and Cheney. Rumsfeld spoke of him in glowing terms. "We had discussion with General Petraeus yesterday and I had a briefing today from a man named Steele who's been out there working with the security forces and been doing a wonderful job as a civilian as a matter of fact."

In June 2004 Petraeus arrived in Baghdad with the brief to train a new Iraqi police force with an emphasis on counterinsurgency. Steele and serving US colonel James Coffman introduced Petraeus to a small hardened group of police commandos, many of them among the toughest survivors of the old regime, including General Adnan Thabit, sentenced to death for a failed plot against Saddam but saved by the US invasion. Thabit, selected by the Americans to run the Special Police Commandos, developed a close relationship with the new advisers. "They became my friends. My advisers, James Steele and Colonel Coffman, were all from special forces, so I benefited from their experience … but the main person I used to contact was David Petraeus."


General Petraeus

With Steele and Coffman as his point men, Petraeus began pouring money from a multimillion dollar fund into what would become the Special Police Commandos. According to the US Government Accounts Office, they received a share of an $8.2bn (£5.4bn) fund paid for by the US taxpayer. The exact amount they received is classified.
Advertisement

With Petraeus's almost unlimited access to money and weapons, and Steele's field expertise in counterinsurgency the stage was set for the commandos to emerge as a terrifying force. One more element would complete the picture. The US had barred members of the violent Shia militias like the Badr Brigade and the Mahdi Army from joining the security forces, but by the summer of 2004 they had lifted the ban.

Shia militia members from all over the country arrived in Baghdad "by the lorry-load" to join the new commandos. These men were eager to fight the Sunnis: many sought revenge for decades of Sunni-supported, brutal Saddam rule, and a chance to hit back at the violent insurgents and the indiscriminate terror of al-Qaida.

Petraeus and Steele would unleash this local force on the Sunni population as well as the insurgents and their supporters and anyone else who was unlucky enough to get in the way. It was classic counterinsurgency. It was also letting a lethal, sectarian genie out of the bottle. The consequences for Iraqi society would be catastrophic. At the height of the civil war two years later 3,000 bodies a month were turning up on the streets of Iraq — many of them innocent civilians of sectarian war.

But it was the actions of the commandos inside the detention centres that raises the most troubling questions for their American masters. Desperate for information, the commandos set up a network of secret detention centres where insurgents could be brought and information extracted from them.

The commandos used the most brutal methods to make detainees talk. There is no evidence that Steele or Coffman took part in these torture sessions, but General Muntadher al Samari, a former general in the Iraqi army, who worked after the invasion with the US to rebuild the police force, claims that they knew exactly what was going on and were supplying the commandos with lists of people they wanted brought in. He says he tried to stop the torture, but failed and fled the country.

"We were having lunch. Col Steele, Col Coffman, and the door opened and Captain Jabr was there torturing a prisoner. He [the victim] was hanging upside down and Steele got up and just closed the door, he didn't say anything – it was just normal for him."

He says there were 13 to 14 secret prisons in Baghdad under the control of the interior ministry and used by the Special Police Commandos. He alleges that Steele and Coffman had access to all these prisons and that he visited one in Baghdad with both men.

"They were secret, never declared. But the American top brass and the Iraqi leadership knew all about these prisons. The things that went on there: drilling, murder, torture. The ugliest sort of torture I've ever seen."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/06/el-salvador-iraq-police-squads-washington

Jel mi ti to ovde ovim hoces da opravdas ove sa mozgom "Bozije kazne"?

Taj ti sigurno nece raditi ovo sto pises




To ti je isto kao ovi "profesionalni" sto se sete zrtava na drugom kraju sveta iskljucivo na ovakve dogadjaje 

Snimak na 01:38 i odmah mi sva empatija koju osećam prema žrtvama u Parizu nestane

Pariz 1999.te

Nego, kako vi kao vrsni poznavaoci svetske politike posmatrate ovaj razvoj situacije sa Boko Haram?

3:50
pazi ovog gancija on prica da je u ovim okolnostima taksijom prevezen ali taj taksi je usao u jednosmernu sto nije imao pravo


sto se tice ove slike 1999 pariza naravno da se radi o fotomontazi

gugl kaze da je to london a ne pariz

Nas su tad bombardovali jer smo "postupali neljudski prema siptarskim teroristima", sve dok nije Sloba potpisao da ce ih ostaviti na miru da rade sta hoce i kasnije osamostale Kosovo.

Sada isti oni objavljuju rat tim teroristima jer su njih napali u Parizu. Pazi, ne mogu kriviti sam narod za ovo, i mi smo ispastali '99.-e kao i oni sad. Narod nije kriv i ne  treba da gine. Krivci ce se izvuci za ovo sad. Ovaj napad je bio lekcija Francuzima. Jbg, Amerika je napravila to cedo IS koje se sada polako ali sigurno otima kontroli, jer vuk dlaku menja ali cud jok. Sve da bi se destabilizovala EU i podigle granice, sto se i desava, sto zbog izbeglickog talasa, sto zbog panike da ce se desavati jos napada. Sad je svima Orban ok sto dize zidine, a do juce je bio divljak i nacista koji mrzi sirote izbeglice. Sve dodje na svoje.

U ovakvim situacijama treba se samo zapitati kome ovo ide na ruku, kome to odgovara, i doci ce se do kompleksne interesne mreze. Mnogo je veca pozadina ovih desavanja u Parizu koji su po meni delo ogranaka islamistickih sekti iz Sirije koji nisu hteli da budu poslusni i rade ono sto im ujka Sem kaze. Sirija je poslednji korak do Rusije. Kako su prestala dejstva u Ukrajini, tako su pocela u Siriji. Rusima se bezbednost sada uzdrmala kada je pas na lancu poceo da laje, otima se i ujeda. Sad Ruska vosjka lansira napade kao nikad ranije, bombarduju islamisticke polozaje, jer bolje je boriti se protiv terorista na tlu Sirije nego na Kavkazu.

Libija je postala oruzarnica islamista. Arapi iz Katara i Saudi Arabije su obezbedili novac, Libija oruzje, Amerikanac logistiku i eto ISIL-a. Ciljeva kolko hoces, Evropa cije jedinstvo i jaka ekonomija nekome smetaju, Rusija koja preti da postane snabdevac naftom br. 1 u svetu, a za slucaj opasnosti, uvek su tu kvazi polozaji u Siriji koje treba javno bombardovati "za primer". Zapad jedno govori a drugo radi i to nece proci dobro. Sledeci je Jordan pa Izrael.

Kad je rec o samom napadu, nesto nije bas krenulo kako treba u Parizu za teroriste. Onaj sto je bombu aktivirao pored punog stadiona imao je drugi cilj, nego nesto se tu desavalo. Ako su obavestajci znali za napad, moguce je da su krenuli na njih pre nego sto je ovaj usao u stadion pa je resio da se tu kokne i ubije koliko god moze. To je pretpostavka, jer ne verujem da bi se zbog nadredjenih ili nekoga drugog predomislio i propustio sansu da kazni i Francusku i Nemacku jednim udarcem, a na stadionu je bilo i poznatih licnosti i funkcionera...


Da dodam na ovo, Boko Haram je ubio hiljade i hiljade ljudi i dece, i na drugim stranama sveta ginu ljudi i deca, a niko ni ne spomilnje to, niti stavlja zastavu Nigerije na profilnu sliku sa suzom u oku. A kad pukne u Parizu e onda to jako zaboli. E pa dok se ne izjednace zrtve svuda u svetu, ovo ce se ponavljati sve cesce. Tek ce sledece godine biti jos gore.

IZBEGNUTO VEĆE KRVOPROLIĆE: Bombaš samoubica imao kartu i pokušao da uđe na stadion

Najmanje dvojica bombaša samoubica pokušali su da uđu na nacionalni stadion u Parizu tokom utakmice Francuska - Nemačka i izazovu veliko krvoproliće, prenose domaći mediji.

Kako je u izjavi medijima rekao pripadnik francuske policije, jedan od napadača je otkriven tokom pretresa na ulazu stadiona.

Prilikom rutinskog pretresa primećen je njegov prsluk sa eksplozivom. Terorista je pokušao da uđe na stadion petnaestak minuta posle početka susreta.

Pošto je otkriven, počeo je da beži od policajaca i onda je detonirao prsluk u kojoj nije stradao niko sem njega.

Tri minuta posle te detonacije još jedna osoba se raznela u blizini stadiona, dok je treći bombaš samoubica detonirao eksploziv u obližnjem restoranu.

Eksplozije su se dogodile tokom prvog poluvremena pomenute utakmice i mogle su se čuti unutar stadiona.

Organizatori meča, neobjašnjivo, nisu prekinuli utakmicu, već je ona odigrana do kraja. Pretpostavlja se da nisu želeli da izazovu paniku s obzirom da se na tribinama nalazilo oko 80.000 gledalaca.

Izvor: http://www.kurir.rs/sport/fudbal/video-izbegnuto-vece-krvoprolice-bombas-samoubica-imao-kartu-i-pokusao-da-ude-na-stadion-clanak-2018717