The French Malaise: ”National security” but for which nation?
By Gearóid Ó Colmáin | American Herald tribune | March 31, 2016
Since the Belgian attacks on March 22nd, there has been much talk of Europe’s need to increase security and modernize methods of mass surveillance and control in all public transport, particularly airports and underground trains. One country in the world has received a considerable degree of publicity in this regard: Israel. The Jewish State is now being held up by the French media as a ‘model of security’ which should be emulated by the European Union.
Henceforth, Israeli security methods are to be employed in our Airports. Travelers parking their cars will be interrogated by police and secret service personnel; passengers will be questioned about their destination and further interrogations will ensue if they are perceived to be engaging in prevarication or showing signs of anxiety or stress. Passenger profiling is to become the norm rather than the exception. People’s travel records will be taken into consideration in assessing whether or not they pose a ‘threat’. This ultimately means that all citizens will be treated as though they were terrorists.
The French media have not been embarrassed about suggesting Israeli security methods be introduced throughout Europe, notwithstanding the fact that Israel is a racist and criminal entity which cruelly keeps over a million people locked up in an open air concentration camp, subjecting the native population of the occupied territory to constant state terror and torture. The pro-Israeli propaganda is being aggressively pushed through both national and regional newspapers throughout France.
An article appeared in Quest France on Sunday March 27 with the headline: L’aéroport de Tel-Aviv, modèlede sécurité- ‘Tel-Aviv Airport, model of security’.
The report describes the interrogation methods mentioned above which are routinely carried out in Tel -Aviv’s Ben Gourion airport. We are also informed that Israeli security experts from the EL AI airline visited Zaventem Airport in Bruxelles shortly after the terrorist attacks in order to assess the site’s security; they were apparently ‘outraged’ by the lax security at the airport. But the reader is not told who was in charge of surveillance at Zaventem Airport. Security at the airport is in fact provided by ICTS, an Israeli company which was set up by former operatives of Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic spy agency. So Israeli experts were ‘outraged’ by the lack of security provided by Israeli intelligence? http://www.ictseurope.com/global-locations/belgium
According to Sott.net :
‘ICTS uses the security system employed in Israel, whereby passengers are profiled to assess the degree to which they pose a potential threat on the basis of a number of indicators, including age, name, origin and behavior during questioning’.
ICTS provided security at Logan Airport in 2001 when the infamous ’19 hijackers’ allegedly boarded their flight to New York on their way to the World Trade Centre. A few months later in December 2001, Richard Reid, who had previously spent time in Israel, boarded a flight in Paris’ Charles De Gaulle airport heading for Miami. He was carrying explosives which he unsuccessfully attempted to detonate on the plane. ICTS, who were in charge of security at Charles De Gaulle airport, failed once again.
ICTS was in charge of London’s bus security system in 2005 during the terrorist attacks there and on Christmas Day 2009 at Schipol Airport, Amsterdam, the Israeli company failed to prevent ‘knicker-bomber, Nigerian ‘terrorist’ Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the wealthy son of a former Nigerian MP, who boarded a flight from to Detroit without a passport, while carrying explosives. According to US attorney Kurk Haskel who was an eye-witness, Abdulmutallab was escorted on board the plane by a ‘well-dressed’ man of ‘Indian’ origin who told ticket officials that “the man was from Sudan and that it was typical (to let him on the plane without a passport).”
This strongly suggests the terrorists had security clearances.
So now we have a barrage of media sound bites about the effectiveness of Israeli security and the necessity of introducing further police-state measures in Europe, in spite of the fact that Israeli companies are already providing ‘security’ here and doing a spectacularly dismal job at preventing terrorism!
After the March 22nd attacks in Brussels, a video circulated on the Internet drawing attention to the suspicious behavior of an ”eyewitness’ on France 24 news station after the bombs in Zaventum airport. The ”eye-witness” named Alexandre claims to be a Belgian living in America but his accent is unusual. Alexandre, who is supposed to be in shock and trauma after a brutal terrorist attack, suggests that perhaps European authorities will be forced to adopt security measures similar to those in Israel. Although this ”eye witness” experienced a terrorist attack, he admits that he has ‘ no idea’ what the other victims in the Brussels metro bombs went through. The statements are odd and suspicious but there is no way of proving whether the character is a Mossad agent as the video caption implies.
Nonetheless, it is particularly surreal to find the mass media in France promoting the ‘Israeli security model’ when it is Israeli security companies who are responsible for ‘failing to prevent’ so many terrorist attacks. Of course, the Zionist entity is the only real and long term beneficiary of the War on Terror. As Benjamin Netanyahu himself put it in 2007: ” We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.”
There is no reason to suppose that this recent wave of terrorist attacks in Europe is not also ”benefiting” the Zionist entity.
Promoting emigration and multiculturalism in Europe, propping up Zionist regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey who are Wahhabising Europe’s youth, while at the same time fomenting Islamophobia among European citizens, all these policies serve Israel’s imperial ambitions to rule over all the Arabs and Muslims of the Middle East, while maintaining support in Europe and America by reminding its people every time there is an ‘Islamist’ terrorist attack that this is what Israel is fighting every day.
In his new book Palestine, le malaise Français Franco-Camerounian investigative Journalist Charles Onana shows how the Jewish Lobby in France harassed and demonised President Francois Mitterand for insisting on Yasser Arafat’s visit to France in 1989.
Onana’s study of French government archives prove that the influence of the Jewish Lobby on French foreign policy is deeper and more far-reaching than commonly understood.
Mitterand’s defiance of the Jewish Lobby was continued to a certain extent by President Chirac when he refused to participate in the Zionist-orchestrated war on Iraq in 2003. Since the accession of Nicolas Sarkozy to the French presidency in 2007 and the current regime of François Hollande, Zionism has become almost inseparable from French ruling class ideology. From arch-Zionist Bernard-Henri Lévy’s war on Libya to the war on Syria and a whole series of artificially engineered destabilizations in Africa involving Takfiri Muslims murdering Christians, France has become the bellicose avant-garde of Zionism, carrying out a strategy of chaos which is making the world dangerous for the many but safe for the ‘chosen ones’ and their ever expanding Zionist entity.
Mitterand and Chirac were certainly no friends of French workers nor of the African nations writhing under the yoke of French neo-colonialism, but both leaders had, on the contrary, the merit of setting some limits to Zionist omnipotence. Mitterand’s haughty refusal to ‘apologise’ to Israel on behalf of the French people for the crimes of the Vichy regime, and Chirac’s imperious reprimand of Israeli troops during his visit to Palestine.
[This] contrasts poignantly with the craven, sycophancy of President Hollande’s abasement of the French nation before Israel, when at Netanyahu’s Israeli residence in November 2013 the French president, like a court jester, nauseatingly offered to ” sing a song of love for Israel”.
None of the articles in the French press, published since the Paris and Belgium terrorist attacks mention the criminal ‘negligence’ of ICTS. Instead, we are being told Israeli security is a model we should follow when in fact, we are already living under ‘Israeli security’, the same security agencies who have boasted about committing false flag terrorism against the French public.
In 1979, Israel bombed a factory in France making parts for a nuclear reactor in Iraq. The attack was blamed on ecologists. The Israeli Secret Intelligence Service ( ISIS or Mossad) then proceeded to issue death threats to French engineers working on the project, threatening to kill them and their families if they returned to Iraq. The death threats were issued in the name of an ‘Islamist’ group. All of this was admitted by the Mossad agents themselves in a documentary aired on French television entitled: ‘Droit d’Inventaire: quand le Mossad frappe en France’.
Israel is the only foreign state to have bombed France since the German occupation of the Second World War, a terror campaign admitted by the Zionist entity’s government, yet Israeli companies are providing ‘security’ for French citizens.
Israel’s global role as a pariah state operating outside the norms of international law, flouting all international conventions on human rights, repeatedly committing heinous war crimes and waging wars of aggression, while functioning as a veritable shadow government within the corridors of Western imperial states, this is a problem no nation can continue to ignore. But the few who refuse to ignore it risk their lives.
On March 26 French senator Natalie Goulet received death threats on social media after she wrote a letter to the secretary of state in charge of the budget, requesting clarification for the French government’s policy of giving a 60 percent tax deduction to families who make donations to the Israeli Defense Forces. Although banned in Israel, Betar, the Zionist terrorist militia, regularly issue death threats to their enemies with total impunity from the French state.
But perhaps we should feel ‘safer’ now that the ‘Israeli security model’ is being reinforced as the metropolitan world, our world, slowly metamorphoses into a vast, sprawling Gaza-zone.
Gearóid Ó Colmáin, AHT Paris correspondent, is a journalist and political analyst. His work focuses on globalization, geopolitics and class struggle. His articles have been translated into many languages. He is a regular contributor to Global Research, Russia Today International, Press TV, Sputnik Radio France, Sputnik English, Al Etijah TV, Sahar TV Englis, Sahar French and has also appeared on Al Jazeera. He writes in English, Irish Gaelic and French.
‘9/11 was a gift to the NSA …’
globinfo freexchange – March 25, 2016
This was probably the most impressive revelation derived by the documentary A Good American watched by the blog at the 18th Documentary Festival of Thessaloniki.
The exceptional documentary by Friedrich Moser deconstructs completely the image of the National Security Agency, one of the most powerful intelligence agencies in the world. Through the revealing stories of former NSA employees who became whistleblowers – like William Binney, Diane Roark and Thomas Andrews Drake – the agency appears that it has become a field of personal ambitions and money hunting through huge funds from the central government.
Moreover, the experienced, top analyst, William Binney (who is the central figure of the documentary), deconstructs the myth of an organization that is supposed to be pioneer in new technologies. He presents NSA as an organization which had certain difficulties to follow the explosive progress of the computer technology during 1990s, in order to modernize its obsolete equipment as fast as possible.
But the most mind-blowing revelation comes from Binney’s NSA colleague Thomas Drake. At one point, Drake recalls how a Senior Military Officer dismissed Osama bin Laden as “a raghead spouting off about a fatwa in the desert” in response to their intelligence reports on Al Qaeda in the late 90s. After the events of 9/11, Drake quotes his former NSA boss Maureen Baginski who reportedly said “9/11 was a gift to the NSA, we’re gonna get all the money we need and then some.” [1]
Although one could claim that behind this story is hidden a conflict of interest concerning two rival projects proposed to the NSA, there is plenty of evidence that ThinThread, the project developed by a small group around Binney, was rejected against Trailblazer, only because Trailblazer was promoted by a powerful lobby inside the NSA.
Indeed, as also presented in the documentary: NSA whistleblowers J. Kirk Wiebe, William Binney, Ed Loomis, and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staffer Diane Roark complained to the Department of Defense’s Inspector General (IG) about waste, fraud, and abuse in the program, and the fact that a successful operating prototype existed, but was ignored when the Trailblazer program was launched. The complaint was accepted by the IG and an investigation began that lasted until mid-2005 when the final results were issued. The results were largely hidden, as the report given to the public was heavily (90%) redacted, while the original report was heavily classified, thus restricting the ability of most people to see it. [2]
Additionally, in July 2007, armed FBI agents raided the homes of Roark, Binney, and Wiebe, the same people who had filed the complaint with the DoD Inspector General in 2002. Binney claims they pointed guns at his wife and himself. Wiebe said it reminded him of the Soviet Union. None of these people were charged with any crimes. In November 2007, there was a raid on Drake’s residence. His computers, documents, and books were confiscated. He was never charged with giving any sensitive information to anyone; the charge actually brought against him is for ‘retaining’ information. The FBI tried to get Roark to testify against Drake; she refused. [3]
The documentary also reveals that the project ThinThread not only was much cheaper, but had two additional advantages: it was much more effective and was designed to protect the personal data of millions of citizens who were not related with terrorist activity.
Although NSA leadership rejected ThinThread three weeks prior to 9/11, in a secret test-run of the program against the pre-9/11-NSA database in early 2002, the program immediately found the terrorists. [4]
No one should expect intelligence agencies to be composed by “angels” who follow strictly a moral code. The dirty role of US and other agencies around the world for many decades is well known.
Yet, this documentary uncovers something much worse. Nothing has left from the original mission that the NSA supposedly serves. The protection of citizens against terrorist attacks has become irrelevant in front of the big money targeted by the corrupted groups of interests inside the agency. It seems that nothing has been remained unaffected from the rotten culture of “money and power above all and by all means” that dominates in today’s societies.
[1] Greed, Corruption & Cover-Up At The NSA, http://artvoice.com/2016/03/04/greed-corruption-cover-up-at-the-nsa/#.VvQZ_Y_PHLc
[2] Trailblazer Project, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project
[3] Thomas Andrews Drake, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake
[4] A Good American (2015), Plot Summary, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4065414/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl
The Brussels Attacks: What is True, What is Fake? Three Daesh Suspects at Brussels Airport
By Michel Chossudovsky – Global Research – March 25, 2016
Two Fake CC surveillance Videos of the bomb attacks, Ibrahim’s Laptop Computer discovered in a Rubbish bin;
The alleged Will (Testament) of one of the Daesh suspects;
Foreknowledge of the Attacks by the Belgian police and security authorities;
An EU terror emergency drill simulating a Metro attack held three weeks earlier, …
Mystery, “Evidence” concerning the deceased suicide bombers?
The role and death of suicide bombers Khalif and Ibrahim el-Bakraoui respectively at the Maelbeek metro station and Brussels airport?
Where are the official surveillance video recordings? So far they have been suppressed?
The Mysterious Photo: Three Daesh Suspects at Brussels Airport Caught on the CC Surveillance Camera?
A review of official police statements suggests that the still photos allegedly from the Airport CC Surveillance Camera were not initially released by the Police, they were first published by Dernière Heure, DH.be, which is part of Belgium’s media giant Groupe Multimédia IPM S.A.
It is worth noting that DH.be together with La Libre (also part of Groupe IPM) (mistakenly) published the fake CC surveillance video of the Brussels airport bomb attacks by using the footage of the Moscow terror attack of January 2011.
The “real” video footage from the airport CC surveillance cameras has so far not been made public
Below is the picture of the three Daesh suspects walking in Brussels airport. There is no mention as to when (at what time) the still video picture was taken.
Apart from this still image, no official CC surveillance video footage was released. (See our analysis on the fake CC videos).
As mentioned above, there are contradictions regarding the time of release and the source of the above images.
Derniere Heure DH.net.be published the still photo from the CC camera at 10.27am, two and a half hours BEFORE its alleged official release by the Brussels police: at 12.58pm.
The airport was closed shortly after the 8am attack: there are three possible answers:
1) that the airport security authorities made the video images available to DH.be prior to releasing it to the police.
2) that the Brussels police authorities released the images to DH.be as an exclusive, prior to their official release. (Unlikely)
3) that the source of the still image did not emanate from the airport surveillance CC cameras, but from another source which was used by Derniere Heure DH.be
Most media reports acknowledged that the mysterious photo of the alleged suicide bombers was released by the Brussels police.
The Facebook entries below confirm the exact time at which the airport photos were released:
First Release by DH.be at 10.27am (entitled “Photo Exclusive” by DH.be)
Second Release by Politie Brussel/Police de Bruxelles: 12.58pm
The press release of the federal prosecutor’s office on March 23d confirms the identity of one of the suspects, Ibrahim El Bakraoui and mentions the photo. The time of its release is not mentioned.
See also
Analysis: Are the airport images genuine?
In other words, can we trust DH.be which published a fake surveillance video of the bomb attack (using footage from Moscow January 2011) on March 22 at 09.07 (one hour after the bomb attack). (See our earlier report on this issue, see summary n the box below)
The CC surveillance videos of the attacks in real time published by Belgium’s media on March 22 at both the airport and the metro are fake.
This is confirmed by an earlier Global Research report. The Belgian corporate media published footage from the Moscow airport attacks (January 2011) and the Minsk Metro terror attack (April 2011).
Video 1 scan (Moscow airport, January 2011)
Video 2 scan (Minsk Airport, April 2011)
Here is a screenshot of the Minsk 2011 video footage broadcast on Belgian network TV and on the internet depicting the explosion in the Metro in Brussels, March 22, 2016
For full report see:
Fake Video Used in News Coverage of Brussels Terror Attacks by Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 22, 2016
Media Manipulation: More Fake Video Reports of the Brussels Terror Attacks by Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 23, 2016
Contradictions
In contradiction with the official press release, several media reports identified the three men as Khalif and Ibrahim el Bakraoui at Brussels airport together with Najim Laachraoui. The quoted source was the official surveillance camera.
Khalif allegedly committed the suicide attack at the metro station. So why was he walking together with his brother at the airport? The airport was closed down immediately after the bomb explosions. The Prosecutor’s press release (March 23) quoted above gives a superficial explanation.
In this regard, several media changed their stories, first Khalif died at the airport as the second kamikaze. The media subsequently clarified quoting The Belgian Federal Prosecutor “that one detonated at the airport and the other at the Maelbeek metro station.”
In a subsequent statement emanating from the Prosecutor’s office, Najim is confirmed as the second kamikaze at the airport. In turn, media reports then confirmed that Najim Laachraoui was the second attacker at the Zaventem Airport. Subsequent reports confirm the death of Ibrahim and Najim at the airport, without any substantiating evidence.
According to Le Monde “a second man, carrying a large bag, was seen on CCTV in the Brussels metro with Khalid el-Bakraoui” (quoted in the Guardian ).
News reports say that “authorities identified” brothers Khalid el-Bakraoui, 27, and Ibrahim el-Bakraoui, 30 as the suicide (Kamikaze) bombers.” Ibrahim el-Bakraoui died at Zaventem Airport while Khalid el-Bakraoui died at the Maelbeek Metro Station”
But where is the evidence, where are the bodies? Has a post mortem been conducted which confirms the identity of the kamikaze bombers.
Ibrahim’s Computer and Will Found in a Rubbish Bin
According to the Prosecutor’s press release, a computer was found abandoned in a rubbish bin contained the will of Ibrahim. This was discovered thanks to the testimony of the taxi driver who took Ibrahim to the airport. in addition to the explosives, a flag of the Islamic State was also found.
The text of the alleged will (testament) is not available.
Some media call it a “letter”. From what has been released to the media, the alleged will does not say anything. In fact it is not a will but a text focusing on Ibrahim’s personal fears. Daesh is not mentioned, neither is the planned bomb attack.
Suspects were Known to Police and Intelligence
What is of significance is that all the suspects were on the radar of police and intelligence.
The two el-Bakraoui brothers “were already being sought by police due to suspected links to the November terror attacks in Paris.”
Ironically, Brussels police categorizes Ibrahim as unknown suspect (suspect inconnu)
Unknown suspects at Zaventem airport?
Not only were the suspects known to police authorities, the government had advanced information, foreknowledge of a possible attack in Brussels:
“The Belgian security services, as well as other Western intelligence agencies, had advance and precise intelligence warnings regarding the terrorist attacks in Belgium on Tuesday, Ha’aretz has learned. The security services knew, with a high degree of certainty, that attacks were planned in the very near future for the airport and, apparently, for the subway as well.” (Haaretz, March 23, 2016)
EU Emergency Response Drill Simulating a Terror Attack in a Metro Station Held Three Weeks Before the Attacks
Three weeks before the Brussels attacks, an EU terror emergency drill was held in the UK, simulating an attack on the London underground tube. Seven countries including Belgium participated in the exercise.
Is it relevant?
“Exercise allows workers to practice skills they would need in the event of a major disaster such as terror attack”.
Source Daily Mail
Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2016
Possible Signs Of False Flag In Brussels Now Emerging
By Brandon Turbeville – Activist Post – March 23, 2016
Yet another terrorist attack in Europe to be blamed on Islamic extremists and ISIS and yet another instance of the suspects in the attacks being previously known to security services and intelligence agencies in the years, months, weeks, and days leading up to the event. That is exactly what happened in Brussels, Belgium on March 22, 2016.
Lending credence to those who suggest that the Brussels attacks were false flags (meaning directed, orchestrated, or allowed by Western intelligence agencies), it is being reported that, yet again, the perpetrators were known to police and security services prior to the attack suggesting a number of possibilities in the false flag vein such as 1.) That the security services knew an attack was being planned and allowed it to continue 2.) That the intelligence agencies organized the attack from the very beginning.
Building a case for the false flag argument sees a number of points to be made that, while not conclusively proving that such is the case, they do provide a good reason to question the official narrative.
The identities, criminal history, and jihadist history of the assailants were already known to security services prior to the attacks.
Khalid and Brahim El Bakraoui, the two men suspected of being blowing themselves up during the attack on the airport, had been arrested for violent crimes in Belgium prior to the attacks but were both curiously released.
Brahim El Bakraoui was convicted in 2010 of shooting at police officers with a Kalashnikov during the process of committing an armed robbery. Brahim was sentenced to nine years but was curiously free and able to commit a terrorist attack only six years later.
Khalid was convicted for a number of carjackings in 2011 but only received probation and was thus also free to commit terrorist acts in 2016.
While records of violent crimes is not a direct connection to terrorism, both brothers were known to authorities prior to the attacks and were considered “wanted” by police. Indeed, an anti-terror raid at the brothers’ apartment complex took place in mid-March where an Algerian immigrant with ties to ISIS was killed.
Consider how the killers were represented in The Telegraph on March 23. The paper reports:
Khalid Bakraoui, 27, is suspected to have rented a house under a false name in the Forest suburb of Brussels which was raided by police last week in connection with the Paris attacks.
Mohamed Belkaid, a key member of the Paris plot who had accompanied Salah Abdeslam on a trip to Hungary and who transferred cash to the plot’s mastermind, was killed in the raid, and an Isil flag found next to him. Two men got away.
According to local media, both El Bakraoui brothers were known to the police.
In October 2010, Ibrahim was sentenced to nine years in prison for opening fire on police with a Kalashnikov rifle during an armed robbery on a stockbroker.
Khalid was sentenced to five years probation in February 2011 for car-jackings. He was found to have Kalashnikovs when arrested.
He is now one of Europe’s most wanted men who gave police the slip last year when he returned from Syria.
He was also in the car with Belkaid on the return trip from Hungary. [emphasis added]
The Incriminating Material Found After The Attacks
As any good pair of patsies would do, the suicide bombers were careful to leave a trail of bombs, ISIS flags, and suicide notes behind them ensuring that their connections to ISIS would be found and used to maximum effect.
According to the Associated Press, Belgian police found nail bombs, ISIS flags, and “chemical products” in an apartment where the brothers were picked up by a taxi.
Perhaps the most interesting “coincidence” is the discovery of the suicide note on the computer of Brahim el Bakroui which was allegedly found in a trash can by a cleaning crew . . . or by investigators. Media reports have actually been unclear as to who actually found the computer and the note.
Brussels suicide bomber Ibrahim El Bakraoui has left a note on a computer found in a trash can during an anti-terrorist raid, Belgium’s federal prosecutor said. The terrorist reportedly wrote that he felt increasingly unsafe, didn’t know what to do and feared going to prison.
. . . . .
Before the attacks Ibrahim left a note, where he wrote that he felt increasingly unsafe and feared landing up in prison. El Bakraoui said he was “in a hurry, doesn’t know what to do” and was “surrounded by all sides.”
The note was found on a computer in a trash can in Brussels’ Schaerbeek neighborhood.
Earlier reports in Belgian media emerged that a computer with messages allegedly related to Islamic State militants had been found in Brussels. The contents of the computer were described by police as “interesting.”
It is not yet clear whether the computer found by cleaning services was the same one mentioned by the prosecutor.
The trove was found by Bruxelles Propreté cleaning team, Dernier Heure newspaper reported. The company’s employees immediately contacted officers from the Montgomery area in Brussels.
While the information above is not evidence enough to conclusively demonstrate that the Brussels attacks were false flags, it is enough to suggest that the official narrative of the events be looked at through skeptical lenses, particularly when western intelligence agencies and governments have repeatedly sponsored false flag terror attacks in the past in order to justify wars or police state crack downs at home.
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.
Israeli Minister Facebook Rant Blames Brussels Bombing on EU Labeling of Illegal Settlement Goods
21st Century Wire – March 23, 2016
Now here’s another interesting take on the Brussels Attacks.
There are three possible angles you could read this story from:
1. This Israeli minister is essentially saying that because the EU chose to worry about the Palestinian plight, it reaped the scourge of Islamist terror on its capital.
2. This Israeli minister is a few cards short of a full deck.
3. And finally there’s this option: by blaming the EU for accurately labeling its food products that come from from illegal settlements, is this Israeli minister somehow inferring that the Brussels bombing was a retaliation for that EU regulation?
It’s hard to know for sure, but at the very least, the Israeli minister’s off-hand comments are very revealing about the current schizophrenic political mindset in Tel Aviv…
Middle East Monitor – March 22, 2106
The EU’s labeling of goods from illegal Israeli settlements led to the bombing in Belgium, Brussels, today, The New Arab reported an Israeli minister saying.
Minister of Science, Technology and Space, Ofir Akunis, said Europeans lost sight of “terrorism of extremist Islam” by focusing on boycotting Israeli goods instead allowing the attacks to take place.
“Many in Europe have preferred to occupy themselves with the folly of condemning Israel, labeling products, and boycotts. In this time, underneath the nose of the continent’s citizens, thousands of extremist Islamic terror cells have grown,” Akunis wrote on Facebook.
“There were those who repressed and mocked whoever tried to give warning. There were those who underestimated. To our sorrow, the reality has struck the lives of dozens of innocent people.”
Turkey’s Erdogan Mentions Possible Brussels Bombing Just Days Before Attack
Sputnik -22.03.2016
Less than a week before the terrorist attacks in Brussels, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned of possible bombings in European cities, including Brussels.
“There is no reason why the bomb that exploded in Ankara could not explode in Brussels, or in any other European city,” Erdogan declared during a ceremony commemorating the 101st anniversary of the Battle of Gallipoli in the coastal town of Canakkale on March 18.
It should be noted that Erdogan’s statement followed the deadly terrorist act of March 13, when a car bomb exploded at a bus stop near Ankara’s central Kizilay Square, leaving 37 dead and over 120 injured. The Turkish head of state blamed Kurdish radicals for the attack and berated European leaders for their refusal to recognize certain Kurdish organizations as terrorist groups.
“The snakes you are sleeping with can bite you at any time,” Erdogan added.
On Tuesday, March 22, the city of Brussels – capital of Belgium and administrative center for both NATO and the EU – was hit by a series of explosions, including two blasts in Brussels Airport in Zaventem, Belgium that left 13 people dead and over 35 injured. An additional 15 people were killed in Tuesday’s explosion at the Maalbeek metro station in central Brussels, local media reported.
Australia Still Reluctant to Disclose MH17 Information
By James ONeill – New Eastern Outlook – 19.03.2016
When Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over Eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014, Australian politicians and the mainstream media, especially the Murdoch newspapers, were quick to apportion blame. Responsibility for the disaster was immediately attributed to Russia, either directly or thorough Russian support for the so-called “separatists” in the Donbass region.
For the Australian politicians and media it was a case of “guilty as alleged” although at that time in the immediate aftermath of the disaster there was no evidence upon which to form any conclusions.
Three days after the crash the United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press TV program said that the US had
“picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.”
Mr Kerry did not specify how the US had this information, but it was a reasonable inference at that time that the data had come from US satellites.
Since Mr Kerry’s remarks it has been established by independent investigators that the US had at least three satellites in geo-stationary orbit over Eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014 Two of these satellites are of the SBIRS type (GEO-1 and GEO-2), and a Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) satellite. Between them they are able to perform continuous surveillance of the area of interest.
Some commentators have endeavoured to downplay the significance of this by suggesting that factors such as cloud cover impeded surveillance capability. This is self-evidently nonsense. As one of their prime functions is to detect missile launches, their defensive capability would be hopelessly compromised if something as simple as cloud cover impeded their capacity to provide a timely warning of missile launches.
The capability of these satellites certainly includes the ability to detect and track the launch of a BUK missile, the weapon most commonly described as the cause of the disintegration of MH17. They can similarly track an air-to-air missile, which is the alternative hypothesis that has been advanced.
There has been a great deal of contradictory information from official sources about this satellite data, which is itself suspicious. For example, on 19 December 2015 the Dutch chief prosecutor and coordinator of the criminal investigation into the disaster, Mr Fred Westerbeke, told the Dutch daily newspaper NRC :
“Satellite images showing how on July 17 Flight MH17 was shot out of the sky by a rocket do not exist. There has been a misunderstanding about this… There is no conclusive evidence from intelligence services with the answers to all the questions.”
If Mr Westerbeke was correct, then it clearly contradicts the claims made by Mr Kerry 17 months earlier. But Mr Westerbeke then contradicted his own earlier statements in a letter to the families of the Dutch victims in February 2016. In that letter Mr Westerbeke stated:
“The US authorities have data generated by their own security forces, which could potentially provide information on a rocket trajectory. These data have been confidentially shared with the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service (DISS). The DISS and the Public Prosecutor are now investigating in what form the US state secret information can be used in the criminal investigation and what will be provided in a so-called official report to the Public Prosecution. That special report can be used as evidence by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT).”
It seems a reasonable inference on the basis of that statement that the secret US satellite data does disclose the required information. Specifically, it answers the major question: who fired the missile and from where?
The issue that is publically troubling the JIT is how to use sensitive intelligence data in a public forum such as a trial of accused persons. The undisclosed problem for the JIT is twofold. If, as is widely suspected, the satellite data show that the BUK missile was fired by Ukrainian forces, then that will contradict 20 months of relentless anti-Russian propaganda. The western media are not good at admitting the error of their ways.
The second problem is the agreement of 8 August 2014 whereby the members of the JIT agreed not to disclose any information unless all the parties agreed. As one of those parties, Ukraine, is a prime suspect, it is unlikely that the evidence will ever be revealed if it in fact implicates Ukraine.
It is still the case that the Australian government has never acknowledged the existence of the 8 August 2014 agreement. It has not bothered to tell the Australian public why it entered into such an agreement when the public interest would demand a transparent and full investigation of the worst disaster to be inflicted on Australians since the Bali bombings of 2002.
Given the existence of Mr Westerbeke’s letter to the families of Dutch victims it is difficult to understand why the Australian media are persisting with the claim that the Americans have refused to release the data. Paul Malone’s claim to that effect in the Canberra Times of 12 March 2016 is plainly wrong. It is possible of course that Mr Malone is aware of the facts, but the two problems identified above prevent him disclosing those facts.
Apart from detecting the launch of a missile, the satellite data can pinpoint the precise point from which the missile was fired. In the present case that is supremely important.
The Report of the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) into the MH17 disaster, published in October 2015 only went as far as to narrow the location of the launch site to an area of 320 square kilometers. This was territory contested by both Ukrainian and separatists forces. Despite the uncertainty and non-attribution of culpability in the DSB Report, Australian politicians falsely claimed that the report “proved” that Russian backed separatists were responsible.
Apart from a complete failure by the Australian media to correct this false information, they have also failed to address two further pieces of relevant evidence found in the DSB Report.
The first piece of evidence is found in the technical appendices of the DSB Report. Appendix T (from the Dutch Intelligence Services) has clearly not been read by any member of the Australian mainstream media. This appendix stated, inter alia:
- Although the separatists had captured a Ukrainian military base at Donetsk, the BUK systems located there were “not operational” and therefore “could not be used by the separatists.”
- Although there was information pointing to the fact that the separatists had been supplied with heavy weapons by the Russian Federation, there were no indications that these were powerful anti-aircraft systems.
- Although the separatists were trained to use weapons systems, there are no indications that they were being trained to use powerful anti-aircraft systems.
- There was no evidence of any intention by the separatists to shoot down a civil aircraft.
Reports in the mainstream media imply that the firing of a BUK missile is a matter of pointing it at the sky and pushing the proverbial button. As Appendix T makes clear however, extensive training in their use is required.
Not only must the crews be trained to a high level of proficiency, for which Appendix T notes there is no evidence in respect of the separatists, the firing of a BUK missile also requires the ancillary use of radar systems. Again, there is no evidence that the separatists had such radar equipment.
There was evidence however, that radar equipment of the Ukrainian armed forces was operational at the relevant time and in the relevant location. The Russian authorities at a press briefing given on 21 July 2014 disclosed this. Again, the Australian media ignored this evidence.
Contrary to the vague generality of the DSB Report as to the launch location, we have a report by the Russian manufacturer of the BUK missile, Almaz-Antey, released at the same time as the DSB Report.
Almaz-Antey produced a detailed analysis of the data. Their conclusion was that the BUK missile was launched from the Zaroschenskoe area, which was under the control of the Ukrainian armed forces at the time. This report has never been mentioned in the Australian mainstream media, probably because its conclusions do not fit the official narrative.
Thus, Mr Malone in the Canberra Times states that the JIT investigation is “widely expected” to “confirm that the missile was launched from separatist held territory.” It would only be “widely expected” by those reliant upon the constant stream of disinformation and concealment of evidence common to the mainstream media’s coverage of the MH17 disaster.
It was noted above that there was an alternative hypothesis about the cause of MH17’s crash, namely an air-to-air missile, presumably fired by one of the Ukrainian fighter aircraft identified in the area in the Russian briefing of 21 July 2014.
The Russian forensic expert Albert Naryshkin comprehensively advanced the air-to-air missile theory in July 2015. His report (available only in Russian) concluded that although the specific weapon could not be unequivocally identified, the specific nature of the missile damage to the aircraft meant that the most likely weapon was a Python air-to-air missile.
This particular weapon was adapted for use by the SU-25 Scorpion fighter that was the type of fighter observed by Russian radar data on 17 July 2014 and reported on at the 21 July 2014 briefing.
The merits or otherwise of this hypothesis are beyond the scope of this article. Suffice to say that it was not considered by the DSB and any mention of it is conspicuously absent from the Australian media.
Three further recent developments are worth noting. The first of these was the Coronial Inquest held in Melbourne in November 2015 in respect of the Australian victims. The inquest has been reported by John Helmer on his website. Suffice to note here that the coronial inquiry was deeply flawed. It was marked by secrecy, the suppression of evidence, conflicts of interest, and a manifest desire to simply parrot the official line regardless of other evidence that is progressively emerging.
It accepted without question the conclusions of the DSB Report, even though that Report is incomplete, does not ascribe culpability as it awaits the JIT investigation, and for the reasons mentioned below, is far from flawless.
The second development worth noting is that both the Dutch and the Russians have released letters addressed to the families of the victims.
The Russian statement is by the Deputy Head of the Federal Air Transport Agency of the Russian Federation, Oleg Storchevoy. Mr Storchevoy takes the opportunity to address some of the misinformation about what Russia has and has not done to assist the official inquiry.
He notes, for example, that Russian primary radar data was provided to the DSB, together with telephone conversations and other data, in August 2014. Russian primary radar data was in fact the only such data available, as the Ukrainians had for some reason switched off their radar at the critical time.
The Russian data supplied to the DSB confirmed increased activity by Ukrainian BUK missile systems within the conflict zone ahead of the tragedy. That evidence was ignored by the DSB.
It might be interpolated here that the separatists have no air force, so the need for anti-aircraft systems to be active remains obscure. No explanation has been forthcoming from the Ukrainians.
Mr Storchevoy also drew attention to the unprecedented cooperation offered by Almaz-Antey, the BUK manufacturer which again was ignored by the DSB.
Mr Storchevoy noted that Russia has repeatedly pointed out that the Dutch technical investigation was performed in an extremely non-transparent and biased manner. He said that the Dutch authorities should also explain how they distorted facts and concealed data, and ignored important data supplied by the Russians.
These and other questions posed by Mr Storchevoy are legitimate and deserve careful consideration and response. Perhaps needless to add, no report of Mr Storchevoy’s statement has appeared in the Australian mainstream media.
The second letter was written to the families of the Dutch victims by the head of the JIT inquiry, Mr Fred Westerbeke.
Mr Westerbeke’s letter discussed, inter alia, that conclusions about the technical analysis of the aircraft debris should be available in the latter half of 2016. Importantly, as noted above, he confirmed that the Americans had provided data about the missile trajectory although the form in which that data can be used is unsettled.
Mr Westerbeke also said that the analysis of other data, including intercepted telephone calls, location data from telephones, images (unspecified), witness statements and technical calculations would enable “certain inferences” to be drawn about the rocket’s track.
Reference was also made to the English blogger Eliot Higgins who operates under the name of “Bellingcat.” Despite repeated critical analysis of Higgins’ falsification of data and manifest other errors, he continues to be reported in the western mainstream media as a reliable source.
Why western intelligence agencies, with their vast resources, would defer to one man operating out of his house in Leicester is explicable only if Higgins is seen as a useful conduit for what is invariably anti-Russian propaganda.
Westerbeke obliquely dismisses Bellingcat as a resource, as “providing no evidence of direct involvement of members of a Russian unit” in the shoot down on MH17. The claim of Russian direct involvement is one of the more sensational of Bellingcat’s claims faithfully and uncritically reported in the western media.
In the light of the Westerbeke letter, the Australian Federal Police were asked whether they agreed with the contents of the Westerbeke letter. Westerbeke had signed the letter on behalf of the members of the JIT (which includes Australia).
They were also asked whether a similar letter would be sent to the Australian families. The AFP’s response was a non-answer, saying only that the queries had been forwarded to the JIT!
Information has also been sought from the Prime Minister’s on what compensation the Australian victim families might expect. Under the relevant Australian legislation victims of terrorism are eligible for compensation up to $75,000. That possibility was raised by a number of mainstream media outlets in Australia in July 2014. In order to be eligible the Prime Minister must declare that the deaths of the Australian citizens were as a result of a terrorist attack.
The government had announced on 9 October 2013 that payments would be made to the victim’s families of other terrorist attacks pursuant to the prime ministerial declaration. The payments have been applied retrospectively, starting with the events of 11 September 2001. To date there have been 10 such declarations, the latest being the Paris attacks of 13 November 2015.
The Australian government has not declared the shooting down of MH17 to be a terrorist act for the purposes of the legislation. The reasons for this are unknown, although comment has been sought from the Prime Minister’s office.
Australian victim families still have other remedies available under the provisions of the Montreal Convention of 1999. Under Article 21 of that Convention damages of (approximately) $215,000 are set.
Potential liability of the carrier, in this case Malaysian Airlines, is however unlimited unless it can prove that the death “was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier or its servants or agents.”
Given that the evidence appears to suggest that MH17 either flew over a war zone of its own volition or was directed to do so by Ukrainian air traffic control, discharging that onus may prove difficult.
Proceedings seeking various declarations have been launched in the New South Wales Supreme Court by Tim Lauschet (2015/210056) against Malaysian Airlines, but that case is still at a preliminary stage.
The only clear point to emerge in Australia in the 21 months since the disaster is that the government and the mainstream media are determined to, on the one hand deny the public vital information about the disaster, and on the other hand maintain the fiction that the disaster was the fault of Russian backed separatists.
That line serves to justify the sanctions imposed on Russia and the continuing demonization of President Putin. If only Prime Minister Turnbull’s plea for an intelligent and adult dialogue was sincere. If that were the case the Australian public would be better informed than they are. It seems a very vain hope.
James O’Neill is an Australian-based Barrister at Law.
















If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .