Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

9/11 Flight Simulator Study Preliminary Results | Dr. Piers Robinson

International Center for 9/11 Justice | October 7, 2025

At the Turning the Tide: 9/11 Justice in 2025 conference in Washington, D.C., Dr. Piers Robinson presented the preliminary results of the International Center for 9/11 Justice’s 9/11 flight simulator study.

This groundbreaking project examines the plausibility of the official 9/11 narrative by testing whether the flight paths of American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 175 could realistically have been carried out by the men alleged to have commandeered those aircraft.

Using a full-motion Boeing 737 simulator, three highly experienced airline transport pilots—including two former fast-jet military pilots—were tasked with replicating the flight maneuvers recorded on September 11th. The study applied two levels of testing:

  • Stringent Test – replicating the precise complex maneuvers observed on 9/11, including Flight 175’s rapid descent and final banking turn into the South Tower and Flight 77’s 330-degree descending turn before striking the Pentagon at ground level.
  • Lenient Test – simply pointing the aircraft at the target and flying directly into it.

On first attempts, even these highly experienced pilots frequently usually failed to complete the stringent maneuvers. Many runs ended in missed targets, loss of control, or crashes short of the buildings. While subsequent attempts showed improvement, the findings suggest that such precision maneuvers are low-probability events, particularly for pilots with only a few hundred hours of training—the level attributed to the alleged hijackers. Robinson emphasized that these results represent only Stage One of the study.

The next crucial phase — Stage Two — will test pilots with experience comparable to that of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. This will allow researchers to directly evaluate whether such low-time pilots could have realistically carried out the observed flight profiles. Stage Two will commence later in 2025, pending funding and logistical support.

The implications of this research go beyond pilot skill. If experienced airline captains struggled to replicate the 9/11 maneuvers, the results point to the possibility that the aircraft were not under manual control but instead guided by automated systems.

This study is the first of its kind conducted in a rigorous, research-based context. As Robinson noted, no government or official body has ever attempted such systematic testing. The International Center for 9/11 Justice is thus breaking new ground in rigorously assessing the feasibility of one of the most critical aspects of the 9/11 story.

For more information about the conference and IC911’s ongoing work, visit https://IC911.org.

October 8, 2025 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | 1 Comment

UK universities spied on students for arms firms supplying Israel: Report

Press TV – October 8, 2025

Leaked emails have revealed that UK universities spied on students’ social media and chat groups at the request of arms companies supplying weapons to Israel.

According to internal correspondence obtained by The Guardian and Liberty Investigates, several universities assured these weapons manufacturers that they would keep watch over students’ online activity to detect and preempt potential protests.

Over the past two years, large-scale pro-Palestinian demonstrations have taken place across UK campuses, with students demanding an end to arms sales to the Israeli regime.

In one case, a university responding to a weapon manufacturer’s “security questionnaire” said it would conduct “active monitoring of social media” to detect any planned protests against Rolls-Royce during a careers fair.

Rolls-Royce, the UK’s second-largest arms manufacturer, directly supplies key components for Israeli military vehicles. Its German subsidiary, MTU, also produces engines used in Israel’s battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, and warships.

Loughborough University told a recruitment firm running a “Rolls-Royce roadshow” that its security team was conducting “active monitoring of social media … to provide early intelligence about protests.”

Emails from Heriot-Watt University suggest that Raytheon UK requested the university to “monitor university chat groups” on its behalf before a careers fair — and the university agreed to “implement the measures you have suggested.”

Similarly, Glasgow and Cardiff universities faced pressure from major UK aerospace firms — BAE Systems and Leonardo — to track online activity before career events. Some events were later moved online after potential protests were identified.

The UK also supplies BAE-made components to a global pool of F-35 fighter jets that Israel can access.

The surveillance of students’ social media has sparked outrage among advocacy groups, who argue that universities should support peaceful protest, not criminalize it.

Jo Grady, general secretary of the University and College Union, called the universities’ actions “utterly shameful,” adding that “so many universities have spent time and resources surveilling students who are engaged in peaceful protest against genocide.”

Data compiled by Liberty Investigates shows that one in four UK universities — 37 out of 154 — launched disciplinary investigations into pro-Gaza student and staff activists between October 2023 and March 2025, affecting up to 200 people.

The United Kingdom maintains close political and military ties with Israel, including arms sales, intelligence sharing, and military partnerships.

British arms companies continue to provide key components for Israeli military vehicles, fighter jets, and naval vessels — a relationship that human rights groups say makes the UK complicit in the regime’s war crimes in Gaza.

October 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Exposed: Western journalists secretly served ‘Israel’s’ war propaganda

Al Mayadeen | October 8, 2025

Leaked emails from the inbox of former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Ron Prosor reveal that prominent Western journalists, ncluding The Atlantic’s David Frum and British writer Douglas Murray, secretly offered to write speeches and provide other forms of assistance to Israeli officials during the entity’s 2014 war on Gaza, according to a report by journalists Murtaza Hussain and Ryan Grim published on Drop Site.

The correspondence, obtained by the hacker collective Handala and published by the whistleblower group Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoSecrets), includes communications between Prosor and several journalists and media figures.

The trove reveals that while “Israel” faced global condemnation for its war that killed over 2,200 Palestinians,  more than 550 of them children, figures in Western media were privately coordinating with Israeli diplomats on messaging and advocacy efforts.

Frum’s dual role: Journalist and speechwriter

David Frum, a senior editor at The Atlantic and a former speechwriter for US President George W. Bush who coined the phrase “Axis of Evil,” began his editorial role at the magazine in early 2014. Just months later, at the height of “Israel’s” bombardment of Gaza, Frum sent Prosor a full draft of a UN speech.

In an email dated July 31, 2014, Frum told Prosor he had collaborated with Seth Mandel, a writer for the neoconservative publication Commentary, to prepare the text. The draft portrayed “Israel’s” war on Gaza as part of the “free world’s” struggle against “tyranny”, comparing it to the Allied defeat of Nazi Germany and invoking figures such as Harry Truman and the architects of the Marshall Plan.

The speech urged Americans not to grow “war weary” and to maintain support for “Israel’s” military actions. Prosor thanked Frum and said he would review the draft, though it remains unclear whether the text was ever used.

Remarkably, just one day earlier, Frum had contacted Prosor in his capacity as a journalist for The Atlantic, requesting an interview for a profile of the ambassador. Two months later, The Atlantic published Frum’s piece, “Israel’s Man at the United Nations,” which praised Prosor for his “toughness” and diplomatic skill in defending “Israel” against international criticism.

Douglas Murray’s contributions and fundraising

Frum was not alone. British commentator Douglas Murray, now an associate editor at The Spectator and a frequent television pundit, also sent Prosor a proposed draft for a UN speech on the same day, July 31, 2014.

In his email, Murray described the text as “first draft ideas,” noting it may include “more diplomatic things than needed.” His proposed speech echoed hardline pro-“Israel” narratives, including condemnation of BDS movements and disparaging references to European Muslims.

Murray pledged to continue assisting the ambassador. “I will give all the time I can to helping get it right,” he wrote.

In subsequent months, Murray continued corresponding with Prosor, sharing articles and offering public relations advice. Later that year, he informed the ambassador that he had hosted a London fundraiser that brought in over £1 million for the Association for the Wellbeing of Israeli Soldiers, a group providing direct support to Israeli occupation forces.

Prosor thanked Murray for his “wonderful work”, calling his efforts vital to “Israel’s cause”.

The revelations contrast sharply with Murray’s later insistence on journalistic independence. In an April 2025 appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, he chastised critics of “Israel’s” Gaza policies for lacking firsthand experience, saying he avoided commenting on countries he hadn’t visited.

Murray has frequently appeared in public wearing a “PRESS” flak jacket while embedded with Israeli forces, without disclosing his prior speechwriting and fundraising for the same military he was covering.

CNN producer’s role in Iron Dome fundraising

The leaked correspondence also implicates Pamela Gross, a former CNNproducer, who maintained close ties with Prosor during the war. Emails show that Gross and her husband, media executive Jimmy Finkelstein, then-owner of The Hill, privately discussed raising money for “Israel’s” Iron Dome missile system.

In one July 2014 message, Gross wrote to Prosor, “Clearly Iron Dome is doing the trick and saving lives. Please dear friend, let’s get it finished. Please let me know what is still left to be done at your soonest convenience.”

Prosor responded by thanking Gross for her “amazing work in fundraising for the Iron Dome project,” calling her and her husband “true assets to the state of Israel.” Gross later asked the ambassador to connect her with officials who could provide details about the project’s funding needs and how to channel donations.

Gross continued to book Prosor for CNNappearances while maintaining their personal friendship. In one 2015 exchange, she invited him on air to discuss Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the US Congress, telling him she and her husband had recently dined with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

Unanswered questions, ethical fallout

The leaked cache contains hundreds of verified messages, photographs, and attachments, though DDoSecrets noted it could not independently authenticate every file. Handala, the hacking group that released the material, issued a violent threat against Prosor, which DDoSecrets publicly condemned.

None of the journalists or organizations named in the emails, including Frum, Murray, Mandel, CNN, or the Israeli Embassy in Germany, where Prosor now serves, responded to requests for comment from Drop Site, which first reported the findings.

The revelations raise fresh ethical concerns about the blurred lines between journalism and government lobbying efforts during times of war. While journalists are expected to maintain independence and avoid conflicts of interest, the emails suggest that several prominent figures in Western media privately worked to shape pro-“Israel” narratives during one of the deadliest wars on Gaza.

For “Israel”, such alliances helped bolster its messaging at a time of mounting global outrage over civilian casualties. For the public, however, the leaks expose the extent to which supposedly independent voices in Western journalism may have functioned,  willingly or not, as part of a broader influence campaign.

October 8, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

From Sabra and Shatila to Gaza: The vicious cycle of US-Israeli ‘peace’ ploys

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | October 8, 2025

The history of Zionism is fundamentally one of deception. This assertion is critically relevant today, as it contextualises the so-called ‘Trump Gaza proposal,’ which appears to be little more than a veiled strategy to defeat the Palestinians and facilitate the ethnic cleansing of a significant portion of Gaza’s population.

Since the start of the current conflict, the United States has been Israel’s staunchest ally, going as far as framing the outright slaughter of Palestinian civilians as Israel’s “right to defend itself.” This position is defined by the wholesale criminalisation of all Palestinians—civilians and combatants, women, children, and men alike.

Any naive hope that the Trump administration might restrain Israel proved unfounded. Both the Democratic administration of Joe Biden and the Republican administration of his successor have been enthusiastic partners in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s messianic mission. The difference has been primarily rhetorical. While Biden wraps his staunch support in liberal discourse, Trump is more direct, using the language of overt threats.

Both administrations pursued strategies to hand Netanyahu a victory, even when his war failed to achieve its strategic objectives. Biden used his Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, as an emissary to broker a ceasefire fully tailored to Israeli priorities. Similarly, Trump utilised his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, among others, to concoct a parallel ploy.

Netanyahu deftly exploited both administrations. The Trump era, however, saw the US lobby and Israel seemingly dictating American foreign policy. A clear sign of this dynamic was the famous scene last April, during Netanyahu’s White House visit, when the ‘America First’ President pulled out a chair for him. The summoning of Blair, who once headed the US-controlled Quartet for Peace, to the White House alongside Kushner in August, was another foreboding signal. It was evident that Israel and the US were planning a much larger scheme: one not only to crush Gaza but to prevent any attempt at resurrecting the Palestinian cause altogether.

While ten countries were declaring recognition of the state of Palestine to applause at the UN General Assembly between 21 and 23 September, the US and Israel were preparing to reveal their grand strategy, with critical contributions from Ron Dermer, then Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs.

The Trump Gaza proposal was announced on 29 September. Almost immediately, several countries, including strong supporters of Palestine, declared their backing. This support was given without realising that the latest iteration of the plan was substantially altered from what had been discussed between Trump and representatives of the Arab and Muslim world in New York on 24 September.

Trump announced that the proposal was accepted by Israel and threatened Hamas that, if it does not accept it within “three or four days”, then “ it’s going to be a very sad end.” Still, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who, along with the UN, has largely failed to hold Israel accountable, declared his support for the Trump proposal, stating that “it is now crucial that all parties commit to an agreement and its implementation.”

Netanyahu felt a newfound elation, believing the weight of international pressure was finally lifting, and the onus was shifting to the Palestinians. He reportedly said that “now the whole world, including the Arab and Muslim world, is pressuring Hamas to accept the conditions.” Comfortable that the pendulum had swung in his favor, he openly restated his objectives in Gaza on 30 September: “To release all our hostages, both the living and the deceased, while the IDF remains in most of the Strip.” Even when Arab and Muslim nations protested the amendments to the initial Trump plan, neither Netanyahu nor Trump relented, the former continuing the massacres, while the latter repeating his threats.

The implication is stark: regardless of the Palestinian position, Israel will continue to push for the ethnic cleansing of the Strip using both military and non-military means. The plan envisions Gaza and the West Bank being administered as two separate entities, with the Strip falling under the direct control of Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace”, thus effectively turning Blair and Kushner into the new colonial rulers of Palestine.

History is most critical here, particularly the history of Israeli deception. From its onset, Zionist colonialism justified its rule over Palestine based on a series of fabrications: that European settlers held essential historical links to the land; the erroneous claim that Palestine was a “land without a people”; the assertion that indigenous natives were intruders; and the stereotype that Arabs are inherently anti-Semitic. Consequently, the state of Israel, built on ethnically cleansed Palestinian land, was falsely marketed as a ‘beacon’ of peace and democracy.

This web of falsehoods deepened and became more accentuated after every massacre and war. When Israel faltered in managing its military efforts or its propaganda war, the United States invariably intervened. A prime example is the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, where a ‘peace deal’ was imposed on the PLO under US pressure. Thanks to US envoy Philip Habib’s efforts, Palestinian fighters left Beirut for exile, on the understanding that this step would spare thousands of civilian lives. Tragically, the opposite occurred, directly paving the way for the Sabra and Shatila massacre and a prolonged Israeli occupation of Lebanon until 2000.

This historical pattern is repeating itself in Gaza today, though the options are now more stark. Palestinians face a choice between the guaranteed defeat of Gaza — accompanied by a non-guaranteed, temporary slowdown of the genocide — and the continuation of mass slaughter. Unlike the Israeli deception in Lebanon four decades ago, however, Netanyahu makes no effort to mask his vile intentions this time. Will the world allow him to get away with this deception and genocide?

October 8, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Graham’s Middle East vs. reality on the ground: Hezbollah, the undefeatable Resistance

By Sondoss Al Asaad | Al Mayadeen | October 8, 2025

When US Senator Lindsey Graham declared that “there can be no normal Middle East as long as Hezbollah exists,” he was not merely a Republican congressman making a passing statement.

Rather, Graham was expressing, with complete candor, the profound understanding within the US-Israeli strategy of a reality on the ground and in politics: that Hezbollah is the greatest obstacle to the project of “comprehensive normalization” and the reshaping of the region to suit Tel Aviv and Washington.

Graham’s statement, despite its simplicity, carries connotations that go beyond traditional political rhetoric and deconstruct the “defeat” narrative that Western and Israeli media have been promoting for years.

If Hezbollah had truly been defeated, as they claim, Graham would not have been compelled to make its disarmament a condition for any “normal Middle East.”

This condition reveals that the party remains at the heart of the equation and that no regional project can outweigh its power.

Thus, the rhetoric of “defeat” becomes nothing more than a tool for producing counter-awareness, while American statements themselves acknowledge that the Resistance remains the most formidable force.

Field facts reinforce this conclusion: Between December 2023 and September 2025, American MQ-9 Reaper drones carried out dozens of sorties over Lebanon, some lasting for long hours, reaching up to 18 consecutive hours, with up to three drones participating simultaneously over the South, the Bekaa, and Greater Beirut.

According to the Union Center for Research and Development, these drones don’t just photograph; they also intercept communications, decrypt encryption, and have the capability to strike with Hellfire 3 missiles.

More seriously, these missions are carried out without any coordination with civil aviation authorities, which has led to several incidents that nearly turned into air disasters.

However, Washington sees no harm in this blatant violation of Lebanese sovereignty, instead framing it as a “security necessity” to protect Israel since the “Al-Aqsa Intifada” of 2023.

Fundamentally, this American behavior does not express “normalcy” as Graham desires, but rather the continuation of the abnormality imposed by Washington on Lebanon and the region by violating airspace and sovereignty and employing all intelligence tools to “Israel’s” advantage.

Thus, the paradox becomes clear: Graham is demanding the disarmament of Hezbollah under the pretext of restoring “normalcy”, while his country is practicing the most extreme forms of abnormality on the ground.

Nevertheless, what Washington does not realize is that the Lebanese street is moving in a different direction. The mass scenes that accompanied the funeral of Hezbollah Secretary-Generals, in February 2025, were a revealing moment.

Hundreds of thousands filled the streets in the south, the suburbs, and Beirut, in an unprecedented scene that expressed the depth of popular connection to the Resistance.

These crowds were not merely an emotional response; they were an eloquent political message: the Resistance is not merely an armed organization, but a socio-popular movement rooted in the people’s conscience.

This popular entrenchment was also reflected at the ballot box. The results of the recent municipal elections showed significant progress for the Resistance lists and their allies in the South and the Bekaa, reflecting that the public mood still favors this option and that attempts to promote a narrative of defeat have not affected the broad social base.

Faced with these realities, the Resistance’s domestic opponents, particularly forces linked to the US embassy in Beirut, have resorted to attempting to circumvent the situation through the political-legal process.

Amendments to the electoral law have been proposed, aiming to redistribute representation or introduce new mechanisms, particularly with regard to expatriate seats, in order to reduce the parliamentary weight of the Resistance forces and weaken them within the institutions.

These attempts fall within a single strategic context: if Hezbollah cannot be defeated militarily or popularly, then let us attempt to contain it through the law and the constitution.

However, these maneuvers also reveal the extent of the impasse facing the American camp in Lebanon. The more popular support for the resistance increases and transforms into a tangible electoral presence, the more the external insistence on engineering laws that satisfy the demand for normalization with “Israel” increases.

Indeed, Graham’s statement becomes clearer: He’s not just talking about weapons, but about eliminating the Resistance option from the equation as a whole, by dismantling its battlefield, political, and popular power.

But even this ambition clashes with reality. The popular scene in Lebanon—from the funerals of leaders to the results of the municipal elections—clearly indicates that the Resistance is not in a collapsed defensive position, but rather in a position of strength protected by the balance of deterrence with “Israel” and a renewed popular support.

More importantly, Graham’s rhetoric, which was supposed to be threatening, has turned into an implicit admission: “The Middle East will not be normal without the defeat of Hezbollah,” meaning that the party’s survival is what prevents US-Israeli normalization from becoming an inevitable fate.

The bottom line is that between the rhetoric of a “normal Middle East” and US violations, and between attempts to amend laws and the escalating popular scene, one equation becomes clear: Hezbollah has not been defeated and will not be defeated!

Hezbollah may face challenges, and military, political, or media wars may be waged against it, but its deep-rooted presence among the people and on the ground makes it a constant force in the equation.

Any rhetoric about a “normal Middle East without it” is nothing more than an admission that its power is what deprives the American-Israeli project of its alleged “normality”.

October 8, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Are You On a Secret TSA Watchlist?

By Jim Bovard | The Libertarian Institute | October 7, 2025

In 1999, the Supreme Court recognized that the “‘constitutional right to travel from one State to another’ is firmly embedded in our jurisprudence.” Unless, of course, federal agents secretly disapprove of you, your beliefs, or your suspected connections.

The Transportation Security Administration has vexed Americans for more than twenty years. Last week, three separate idiotic TSA surveillance programs were exposed by Congress and the Trump administration.

In 2021, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) created a secret watchlist of individuals who publicly opposed President Joe Biden’s COVID mask mandate. Operation Freedom to Breathe resulted in dozens of individuals being either banned from flying or hit with additional groping or patdowns. As journalist Matt Taibbi reported, “12 were placed on a watch list for removing their masks in-flight,” which a TSA memo characterized as “an act of extreme recklessness in carrying out an act that represents a threat to the life of passengers and crew.” That covert crackdown only ended when a federal judge struck down Biden’s mask mandate in April 2022. Only in Washington would an edict to banish all dissidents be labeled Operation Freedom to Breathe.

The Biden’s TSA secretly condemned hundreds of people allegedly linked to the January 6, 2021 Capitol protests. TSA approved “enhanced screening” and watchlists for anyone “suspected of traveling to the National Capital Region” for that protest, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) revealed. TSA bloated the list of January 6 suspects by tapping a George Washington University database of alleged extremists—which was as credible as randomly selecting names of Trump donors. A TSA privacy officer protested, “TSA is punishing people for the expression of their ideas when they haven’t been charged, let alone convicted of incitement or sedition.”

New dirt also came to the surface about the Quiet Skies program, which sent TSA air marshals to covertly surveil travelers on the flimsiest pretexts. If you fell asleep or used the bathroom or glared at noisy kids during a flight, those incriminating facts might have been added to your federal dossier. Air marshals noted whether suspects gained weight or were balding or were paranoid about the undercover federal agents who followed them into the parking lot to their cars. If you fidgeted, sweat, or had “strong body odor”—BOOM! the feds were onto you. Air marshals also zeroed in on “facial flushing,” “gripping/white knuckling bags,” “face touching,” or “wide open, staring eyes,” and “rapid eye blinking.”

Quiet Skies, which cost $200 million a year, was scandalized last year after it targeted former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (currently the Director of National Intelligence) after she criticized Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. Turns out Quiet Skies was also tracking three Republican congressmen prior to the program being abolished in June. TSA has not yet revealed the names of those congressmen.

Legions of women bitterly complain on social media about TSA screeners molesting them. But if a woman pushes a TSA screeners hands away from her breasts, then she can placed on the TSA secret “95 list” of potentially troublesome travelers. TSA’s official watchlist defines troublemaker to include someone who merely “loiters” near a TSA checkpoint or demonstrates any “concerning behavior.” Any behavior which is “offensive [to the TSA] and without legal justification” can get a person secretly listed, according to a confidential TSA memo. TSA assistant administrator Darby LaJoye told Congress that any traveler who demonstrated “concerning” behavior can be secretly placed on the list. “Concerning behavior” is vague enough to add 10,000 chumps a day to the watchlist. The TSA would have been more honest if it announced that anyone who fails to instantly and unquestioningly submit to all TSA demands is guilty of insubordination.

TSA can also place someone on the watchlist simply because they are “publicly notorious.” Did getting denounced by TSA chief John Pistole in 2014 for “maligning” and “disparaging” TSA agents in an op-ed qualify me for the list and endless TSA supplemental patdowns when I travel? The Brennan Center for Justice warned that TSA could add “pretty much anyone with even a modest public profile, such as journalists or activists,” to the “95 list.” ACLU attorney Hugh Handeyside warns that the new watchlist “permits TSA officials to blacklist people for conduct that could be wholly innocuous. This is conduct that’s so completely subjective, and in many cases likely completely innocent, it just gives officers too much latitude to blacklist people arbitrarily and to essentially punish them for asserting their rights and in doing anything other than complying with officers’ demands.”

There are other TSA surveillance programs and watchlists that desperately need sunshine if not legal de-lousing. A 2023 report by the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee noted that “U.S. travelers may be screened for at least 22 different reasons.” An Iron Curtain of secrecy covers the operation:

“The executive branch has revealed hardly any information about what watchlists it maintains, who is included, and why or how those lists are used.”

DHS receives requests from almost 20,000 people a year complaining about being banned from flying or subjected to enhanced screening, and 98% of those people are not on terrorist watchlists, according to TSA.

The Senate report revealed the existence of TSA’s Security Notification List which “includes individuals who may pose a threat to aviation security, but who do not warrant additional screening.” So if they pose a threat to airline safety, why are they permitted to fly? The report noted:

“These individuals may seek to intentionally evade or defeat security measures or may attempt to disrupt the safe and effective completion of screening…Individuals on this list may not be referred for additional screening solely by virtue of their placement on this list, but TSA personnel may be given forewarning of their travel.”

Is this simply the “Bad Attitude List”  or the “Give Hell to Anyone Who Complained Since 9/11 List”?

The Senate report warned, “A watchlist that is not properly maintained… breaks the trust with innocent Americans who get caught up in this net with no way out.” TSA watchlists are perilous to freedom because TSA proudly hires many employees who failed every intelligence test they ever took. “Senator Ted Kennedy and former U.S. Representative John Lewis, and even babies, have been stopped at airports because they shared biographical information with individuals on the [No Fly] terrorist  watchlist,” the Senate report noted.

How many other secret watchlists has TSA or DHS not yet revealed? We have no idea how many Americans’ rights and liberties continue to vanish into TSA black holes.

Endless false alarms at TSA checkpoints are a clue that the agency is still on par with a drunk blindfolded person swinging at a pinata. Airport security seems like a perpetual psycho-pathological experiment to determine how much degradation Americans will tolerate. Despite squeezing millions of butts and boobs, TSA has never caught a real terrorist. After pointlessly groping  millions of Americans, TSA has no excuse for groping millions more.

October 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Europeans negatively react against Brussels’ war psychosis – Peter Szijjarto

By Lucas Leiroz | October 8, 2025

The success of Hungarian pragmatism is apparently influencing other European countries to adopt a policy that diverges from the Brussels establishment—also encouraging ordinary people to vote for dissident candidates who advocate peace and diplomacy, rather than war and sanctions. This is the assessment of Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, who recently commented on the election results in the Czech Republic, applauding the victory of Andrej Babis’s ANO party.

Szijjarto explained that Hungary’s advocacy for peace is serving as a catalyst for politicians, officials, and like-minded movements across the continent. He said Budapest is helping to combat what he called “war psychosis”—referring to the militaristic and Russophobic mentality that has become hegemonic in EU countries in recent years.

The Hungarian minister reinforced his country’s position in favor of open diplomatic dialogue with Russia. Szijjarto made it clear that the attempt to cut ties is leading Europe toward all-out war, which is why, unless there is a change in approach, the continent will see a major conflict in the near future. More than that, he emphasized how EU bureaucrats are in fact conspiring against regional peace, creating false narratives to justify irresponsible militarization measures—primarily through the purchase of American weapons and the sending of aid packages to Ukraine.

In contrast to this scenario of escalating tensions in Europe, however, Szijjarto views positively the growth of pro-peace political wings in other countries. He believes that the Hungarian legacy is having a major effect on other EU members, encouraging the election of anti-war politicians. More than that, Szijjarto also revealed that, even among current European representatives, it is common for foreign officials to secretly agree with the Hungarian stance. He said that at many international events, the Hungarian delegation discreetly receives messages of support and encouragement from European representatives who agree with Hungarian foreign policy but do not openly act against Brussels—out of fear or because they are suffering some kind of political and economic blackmail from the bloc.

“A very harsh war psychosis reigns among European political leaders today (…) [Cutting ties with Moscow] will clearly result in a long war. (…) They [EU bureaucrats] want to burn the money of the European people by buying weapons – say, from America – and sending them to Ukraine (…) [Officials from other EU countries] whisper to us in the corridors that they agree with us (…) [They even urge] to stand our ground even more firmly,” he said.

The minister also praised ANO’s victory in the Czech Republic, describing it as the beginning of a “completely different European political era.” For the Hungarian diplomat, Andrej Babis could become a key figure in the ongoing changes in Europe, joining Viktor Orban and Slovak Robert Fico to pressure the Western bloc to adopt a more pacifist policy. Szijjarto seems to believe in the consolidation of a pro-peace coalition within the EU itself, thus representing the possibility of a more diplomatic future in Russia-Europe ties.

Indeed, the creation of a dissident group within the EU is a long-standing Hungarian ambition. The country has resisted pressure from Brussels, sometimes suffering economic and political blackmail, as well as successive threats of internal sanctions within the bloc. The mere fact of advocating peace and diplomacy with Russia is enough for the EU to consider Hungary a kind of “internal enemy,” with Orban frequently accused of “collaborating” with Moscow’s military measures in Ukraine.

Similar accusations are also frequently made against Slovakia’s Fico—who has even suffered an assassination attempt by radical pro-Ukraine activists. Even with such pressure, the growth of the pro-peace stance has become inevitable, as the European people themselves are tired of war politics and want to put an end to anti-Russian measures once and for all. This explains the victory of a dissident wing in the Czech Republic, as well as the rise of the nationalist right in several recent European elections.

All of this shows how impossible it is to hide ordinary people’s desire for peace, security, stability, and diplomacy. Ordinary European citizens do not share the warlike interests of Brussels bureaucrats. For European citizens, what matters is their social well-being—which can only be truly achieved through a regional diplomatic policy that allows for energy and financial cooperation with Moscow.

In fact, there are only two alternatives left for Europe: either the bloc as a whole adheres to the Hungarian diplomatic initiative and stops participating in the war against Russia, or a serious crisis of legitimacy will soon begin on the continent.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

October 8, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Merz reveals details of clash with Orban

RT | October 7, 2025

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has admitted to having a heated argument with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban over their approaches to dealing with Russia.

The two clashed at an EU summit in Copenhagen last week, Merz said in an interview to a German broadcaster ntv on Monday.

“He accused [me] of not wanting to negotiate,” the chancellor said, referring to Orban. According to Merz, he responded by stating that Orban’s own diplomatic efforts last year, which involved visits to both Moscow and Kiev, led to nothing. “That’s not the path I want to take,” he added.

When further pressed by host Pinar Atalay whether just saying: “I won’t even try it” would solve the problem, Merz dodged the question by claiming that Russian President Vladimir Putin “does not want to negotiate.”

Russia has repeatedly stated throughout the Ukraine conflict that it was ready to sit down at the negotiating table at any time as long as the reality on the ground is taken into account and the root causes of the conflict are addressed during the talks.

Last month, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow is ready to pursue a “compromise” to resolve the conflict if “our legitimate security interests, as well as the legitimate interests of Russians living in Ukraine, are respected in the same way as those of other parties.”

Hungary has been one of the most vocal critics of the EU’s belligerent approach toward Russia. Orban warned after the Copenhagen summit that the EU leaders “want to go to war” with Russia.

Germany has been Kiev’s second largest arms supplier after the US since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Berlin’s position on the conflict has hardened under Merz, who claimed that diplomatic options were “exhausted” and declared that Germany was “already in a conflict” with Russia.

October 8, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US likely already sent new light JLTV ‘Tomahawk’ launchers to Neo-Nazi junta

By Drago Bosnic | October 8, 2025

Supplying the “Tomahawk” cruise missiles to the Kiev regime has been “on the table” for years. The troubled Biden administration never delivered them, despite repeatedly suggesting it would. Interestingly, Donald Trump regularly criticized such moves as escalatory, insisting that the United States shouldn’t be involved and that it’s only antagonizing Russia. Ironically enough, as soon as he took office, this stance changed dramatically. In a matter of weeks, Trump’s initial promise of “ending the war in 24 hours” degenerated into the same sort of belligerent rhetoric (and moves) as during the Biden era. The new US administration increased American involvement, with military sources suggesting that the Pentagon is close to delivering the aforementioned “Tomahawk” missiles.

Worse yet, some claim that this has already happened and that Washington DC even raised the stakes by supplying new light launchers for the US-made cruise missiles. Namely, since 2019, the Pentagon has been acquiring the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), better known as the Oshkosh Light Combat Tactical All-Terrain Vehicle (L-ATV). It was designed to replace the AM General High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), better known as the Humvee. One version of the JLTV has been modified for use by the US Marine Corps (USMC) under the Long Range Fires (LRF) program, designed to launch cruise missiles, specifically the infamous “Tomahawk”. The Pentagon intended to give the USMC similar capabilities to those of the US Army, which has the ground-based “Typhon”.

There’s been some confusion even in the US Congress regarding the official designation for the program, with some documents referring to it as the Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF), while others still use the LRF. Either way, the US military’s ability to use operational and strategic weapons on such a small platform can certainly provide it with a significant advantage in terms of risk mitigation. Namely, because the launcher is essentially a modified JLTV truck that’s now in wide use (well over 20,000 have been delivered so far), it makes it very difficult to detect “Tomahawk” carriers. This enables shoot-and-scoot (sort of like hit-and-run) strikes at targets that are 1,600 km away, although some sources claim that it’s 2,500 km for the latest Block V iteration of the “Tomahawk”.

The latest reports suggest that these cruise missiles have already been delivered to the Neo-Nazi junta forces through the main logistics hub for NATO-occupied Ukraine in Rzeszów, southeastern Poland, and are now waiting for the “zero hour” somewhere in Western Ukraine. The Kiev regime lacks the necessary ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) capabilities to effectively use the “Tomahawk” to the maximum, meaning that the US/NATO would need to provide the targeting data. This has already been the case with other Western cruise missiles, most notably the Anglo-French “Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG” and the German “Taurus” (the latter is yet to be officially delivered and deployed). Both types are newer and more advanced than the 1980s-era US-made “Tomahawk”.

However, the aforementioned Block V would certainly give them a run for their money, especially if deployed from the highly mobile JLTV trucks. Its ability to move quickly through heavily forested areas makes it extremely difficult to detect, meaning that it could effectively act as some sort of a single-shot “Iskander-K” (uses the 9M728/R-500, with a range of up to 500 km and the Novator’s 9M729, which Western sources claim has a staggering range of up to 5,500 km). The launcher could instantly deploy at virtually any firing position, while its relatively low cost offers the key advantage in terms of mitigating losses. Military sources report that the US could produce 100-200 such units per month, while the number of missiles supplied in each batch can reach over 500 units.

In other words, such a mass production would make it a much bigger challenge than the expensive and overhyped Western European missiles that the United Kingdom, France and Germany can produce in single or double digits, at best. Obviously, this is not to say that the Russian military could be defeated solely with the use of “Tomahawks”, but it could certainly complicate logistics and other operations far behind the immediate frontline. The Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) and its surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems have accumulated extensive experience in countering various types of missiles and drones; however, the mass deployment of different kinds of cruise missiles can pose a significant challenge. Namely, Russia is the largest country on the planet, making it extremely difficult to defend all of its territory.

Thus, the aviation, air defenses and ISR assets will need to work together and closely coordinate their actions in order to defend the most critically important areas (military-industrial facilities, bridges, thermal and nuclear power plants, substations, etc). A&WAC (airborne early warning and control) aircraft such as the A-50U will play a crucial role in this, as they can detect and track very low-flying cruise missiles. The sheer range of the “Tomahawk” puts virtually all of European Russia within striking distance, while the Block V expands that well into Western Siberia, putting even ICBM fields in jeopardy, including the Dombarovsky Red Banner Division of the 31st Missile Army of the Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN). This unit is armed with the monstrously destructive R-36M2 “Voyevoda” ICBMs (and likely the RS-28 “Sarmat”).

These missiles are also capable of deploying the Yu-71/74 “Avangard” HGVs (hypersonic glide vehicles), the world’s most advanced hypersonic weapon. The US calculus is pretty clear – deploying these missiles in NATO-occupied Ukraine puts Russia into an incredibly dangerous strategic position. It’s very similar to the geopolitical impact of having “Tomahawk” missiles permanently deployed in the Philippines and Japan, as these put Beijing and most major Chinese cities in range.

Thus, America has the capacity to strike both (Eur)Asian giants with medium-range weapons, while the two can only respond with their strategic arsenals. Although this effectively gives Washington DC the ability to dictate the pace of potential escalation, it still makes the world a far more dangerous place, forcing Moscow and Beijing to contemplate immediate strategic retaliation in order to defend themselves.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

October 8, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia ratifies military deal with Cuba amid US escalation

Al Mayadeen | October 8, 2025

Russia’s Federation Council, the upper house of parliament, ratified an intergovernmental agreement on military cooperation with Cuba on Wednesday, formalizing a framework for strengthened defense collaboration between the two nations.

Legal framework for bilateral cooperation

The explanatory note accompanying the draft highlighted that ratification will facilitate the development and expansion of military cooperation, provide the necessary legal basis to define objectives, directions, and forms of collaboration, and ensure the protection of Russian personnel operating in Cuba from local jurisdiction.

The agreement allows both nations to coordinate military activities while safeguarding the interests of their personnel and national security objectives. It is worth noting that the agreement was originally signed in March 2025.

Moscow’s response to US threats

Military expert Alexander Stepanov, from the Institute of Law and National Security at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, told TASS that the ratification represents a symmetrical response to Washington’s threats to supply Tomahawk cruise missiles to the Kiev government.

“This is about a symmetrical response to the potential supply of Tomahawks,” Stepanov explained.

“The ratified agreement maximally expands our military cooperation and allows, within the framework of bilateral interaction and in coordination with the government of the Republic of Cuba, to deploy virtually any offensive systems on the island’s territory.”

Strategic implications

The move comes amid heightened tensions over US plans to enforce Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities. Moscow has warned that supplying Tomahawk missiles would represent a new level of escalation, prompting Russia to secure its strategic interests and regional alliances.

Earlier on Thursday, US President Donald Trump signaled a tougher stance toward Moscow, declaring that Washington would “get Russia taken care of somehow” as part of efforts to end the ongoing war in Ukraine. His remarks, delivered in an interview with One America News Network, come amid a deepening stalemate in peace talks between Moscow and Kiev.

“We’ll get Russia taken care of somehow. We’re going to get that [conflict done],” Trump said, suggesting a shift toward a more assertive US posture as the conflict enters a new and volatile phase.

October 8, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment