US cultivated, financed ISIS - FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds

[Cidersomerset]

US cultivated, financed ISIS - FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds

-7AV7A_Hh_M


Published on 13 Oct 2014


President Obama admits the rise of Islamic State was never properly addressed by the
US intelligence. Vice-President of the States puts all the blame on America’s allies,
saying it were they who funded jihadists. Terrorists threaten direct attacks on American
soil. Is the U.S. ready to respond with more than just airstrikes? Was it really unaware
of the growing threat? And were that the allies that gave a helping hand to the
radicalism in Iraq and Syria? To find answers to these questions, Sophie&Co speaks to
FBI whistleblower; Sibel Edmonds.

RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air


As Sibel says Turkey does not want to encourage Kurdish nationalism and are
reluctant to help the Syrian Kurds....


Turkey reluctant to intervene in Kobani, fears Kurds' nationalism - Chatham House analyst

UAT11xcGviw

Published on 12 Oct 2014


Watch the full episode here: http://youtu.be/cjZ0aKawDPU

The West has been counting on the Kurds to spearhead the ground offensive
against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. But with alliances in the Middle East
shifting rapidly, how reliable of an ally are they? Will the Kurds prove to be the
decisive factor in the US-lead coalition, or will they seek an accommodation with
the Islamic State to suit their own interests? Oksana is joined by Fadi Hakura, the
Manager of the Turkey Project at Chatham House, to attack these issues.

Follow Worlds Apart on Twitter http://twitter.com/WorldsApart_RT
Like Apart on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/WorldsApart.RT
+1 Worlds Apart on Google+ https://www.google.com/+WorldsApartRT

[Cidersomerset]

Total BS.....30 more years of military budget continuity $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Panetta: Obama 'Lost His Way,' Battle Against ISIS Could Be '30-Year War'

Ailx7qPLtLM

Published on 6 Oct 2014


Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta sat down with USA Today to discuss his criticism
of President Obama's withdrawal from Iraq.

In his new memoir, “Worthy Fights," Panetta blames the complete withdrawal from Iraq on
President Obama, writing that the White House was "so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was
willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.”
Obama's former CIA director and the White House chief of staff under Bill Clinton explained
that the United States will face a decades-long threat from foreign terror groups.

"I think we're looking at kind of a 30-year war," said Panetta, arguing that the
withdrawal from Iraq created a vacuum that allowed ISIS to rise.

Panetta believes the president "kind of lost his way" over the last two years in
the fight against terrorists, giving a "mixed message" about the role of the United States.

He believes the president's legacy depends on how the fight against ISIS turns out.
Panetta says he "understands" that the president doesn't want another war in the
Middle East, but believes U.S. ground troops may be necessary.

"We may very well need Special Forces to be able to work not only with the people
on the ground, but to also help in providing that targeting that is absolutely important
to the effectiveness of an air campaign," Panetta said, arguing Obama should have
started supporting rebels inside Syria two years ago.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dividends of Death: Doing Well in Defence Stocks

new Monday 13th October 2014 at 04:21 By david-icke



http://www.davidicke.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/227204_10150183718591275_86705_n.jpg


https://store.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/logo_store.png

Dividends of Death: Doing Well in Defence Stocks

By Binoy Kampmark

Global Research, October 12, 2014


http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/129480.jpg


‘War does what it needs to. It kills. It disrupts. It ruins and maims. And it earns a good dividend for
shareholders who think their continued wealthy existence depends on the profit of the war industry.
While the official definition of a state of war is becoming ever more opaque before legal watering downs
such as “armed conflict”, the money being earned is getting clearer than ever. If you are in the death
business and its various offshoots, you are doing spectacularly well with the noisy trading and the even
noisier consequences.’

Such behaviour goes to show that a fall in military spending does not necessarily equate to a fall in the
business of arming. 2012 was the first year since 1998 that global military spending actually fell, but
that did not stop the 100 largest arms producers and contractors recording $395 billion in sales. The
dip was explained by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute as a lull occasioned by the
withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. Those figures have certainly changed with the broadening
of conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Chicago-based BMO Private Bank, was getting so tumescent at
the latest figures, his talk started streaming with suggestive, meaty metaphors. “As we rap up our
military muscle in the Mideast, there’s a sense that demand for military equipment and weaponry
will likely rise.”[1]

Ablin’s response is the fetishist’s hope that his product is bound to go further than it can. Forget the
human element, and embrace the machine-like logic of destruction. “To the extent that we can shift
away from relying on troops and rely more heavily on equipment – that could present and opportunity.
” Humans, after all, just get in the way.

The log book of slaughterhouse inventiveness has thrilled the arms suppliers globally, but also traditional
suppliers in countries who tend to get rather moral when it comes to violence in other theatres. The most
sanctimonious of all, the United States, is doing rather well for itself, thank you. The dark voice of the
trading scene and death dealer Lockheed was rolling in it. It remains the world’s biggest defence company,
and its existence is based on the most obvious point: it keeps having customers. On September 19, the
price of its shares reached totals of $180.74. Huffing their way along the trail of dividends and death were
good companions Raytheon Co. and General Dynamics Corp.

Others also profit on presumption and fear. Troop movements of an enemy state, or at least one not exactly
in your good books, need monitoring. Machinery sales connected with that are doing well – keeping an eye
on those naughty Russians is bound to keep some pockets heavy with purchase, the delectable spin-offs.

Previous attempts have been made in the fast disappearing mists of history that made the war profiteer the
ultimate criminal, an uncomfortable mix of snake oil merchant and rapacious seducer. Governments would
be wooed into purchasing weapons for some future date of mass lethality, and the only one to really gain
from it would be the arms seller. Contingency here is everything – but the point is that anyone who has such
weapons is bound to, as Anton Chekhov so effectively reminds us, use it. Why load a gun if it isn’t going to go off?

For all its fixations on finding links and conscious efforts as to what lured the United States into the First World
War, the angry deliberations of the Committee of Senator Gerald Nye remain important. The focus of the
seven-member munitions Committee, chaired by the North Dakota Senator, was ostensibly to examine the
roles played by various groups that purportedly manoeuvred the Wilson administration into declaring war on
the Germany in April 1917. While much of this was imputed motive, Nye was very much on the money when
it came to the profiteers.

As Nye termed it on October 3, 1934, war was a form of “incorporated murder” and had taken the lives of
53,000 Americans. On other occasions, he deemed it “insane”, a cruel commercial racket inflicted upon people
and country. They were the busy, and profiting, Merchants of Death. The term itself came into vogue after
World War I, when conservatives such as H. C. Engelbrecht and F. C. Hanighen used it in their 1934 classic
with great effect. Far from it being a screed of the left with enervating pacifist elements, it was a sober suggestion
that the arms industry was a disease of broad proportions, the carcinogenic consequence of militarism and nationalism.
“The arms industry did not create the war system. On the contrary, the war system created the arms industry.”

Modern forms of the defence contracting industry see instances of corruption, and manipulation of government
contracts. As Samuel Perlo-Freeman of the SIPRI Programme on Military Expenditure and Arms Production
explains, “The arms industry has always been associated with corruption both in international arms transfers
and sometimes in domestic procurement.”[2] Arms dealers are the desperadoes of dubious deals.

While no form of righteousness is ever pleasant, the Nye Committee at least understood who its targets were.
If you are going to get on a pulpit and blast the enemy, make sure you use scorn and morality over weapons
and profit – they are not merely kinky targets of the moralists, but logical subjects of opprobrium. As Nye was
attempting to show, by the investigation’s end, “we shall see that war and preparation for war is not a matter
of national honour and national defence, but a matter of profit for the few.”

Arms dealers, whatever fabulous public relations outfit comes to the rescue, are in the business of killing. They
do not facilitate daily living in all its ordinariness, but the taking of life. Those who invest in them are in the
business of investing in war, which should not be seen as some anthropological release for antsy upstarts. Good
for the personal dividend; very bad for the durability and peace of human life.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University,
Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Notes

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-25/syria-to-ukraine-wars-send-u-s-defense-stocks-to-records.html


[2] http://time.com/24735/here-are-the-5-companies-making-a-killing-off-wars-around-the-world/


http://www.globalresearch.ca/dividends-of-death-doing-well-in-defence-stocks/5407599

[Frederick Jackson]

Someone is sitting on defence and needs to get off it and spell it right. Defense. Yeah, talk about corruption I think of the F-35 program. Indefensible.