by Brandon Martinez
Jan 8, 2016
Brandon Martinez and Kevin Barrett discuss the over-the-top Putin worship phenomenon sweeping the alt-media.
by 21st Century Wire
Jan 15, 2016
We’re joined by international journalist and human rights advocate and campaigner, Vanessa Beeley (thewallwillfall.wordpress.com), to discuss breaking events in Syria, Yemen and Serbia, including NGO deception and phony humanitarian propaganda designed to prolong the conflict and pave the way for western military intervention.
[related: Wahhabis and Salafis are not Sunnis]
Jan 12, 2016
I doubt ISIS would do such a thing – it would clearly be self defeating
by Brandon Martinez
Jan 7, 2016
Brandon Martinez talks about the Putin hero worship sweeping the gimpish sectors of alt-media.
Canada Psychiatrist Concerned About Remote Influencing Weaponry Affecting Mental And Physical Health
Amin Muhammad Gadit is a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Faculty of Medicine. October 2009, he writes a paper with the title “Terrorism and Mental Health: The issue of Psychological Fragility” published in Journal of Pakistan Medical Association. In the paper he talks about psychological long term effects that result from terrorist activities on civilians, including behavioral problems and post-traumatic stress.
He also notes that with the introduction of remote influencing technology, and the new weapon systems, it might be challenging for a psychiatrist to tell the difference between real mental and physical problems and induced ones, asking one crucial question: Are we prepared for this challenge?
via Conspiracy School
by David Livingstone
There have been numerous sects that have splintered from the main body of Islam, and all have clearly defined themselves as separate traditions. None have been so clever and wily, and so successfully imposed their pernicious influence, as the Wahhabis and Salafis, who have insinuated themselves instead as a “reform” movement within Sunni Islam. Instead, they have characterized Sunni Islam as being founded on belief in the rightful successorship of the four righteous Caliphs, in contradistinction to Saudi Arabia’s traditional enemies, the Shiah of Iran.
Rather, the Wahhabis and Salafis represent a consequence of a wave of “revivalist” movements that began to emerge in the eighteenth century, sponsored by the British, with the aim of undermining Sunni Islam, which has historically been founded on following one of the four schools of legal interpretation, known as Madhhabs, a practice known as Taqlid.
Known for their nefarious strategy of Divide and Conquer, the British were intent on re-writing the laws of Islam to suit their purposes. However, Sunni Islam had formalized a highly sophisticated legal tradition that was effectively impervious to outside influence. According to Joseph Schacht, the renowned historian of Islamic Law:
Islamic law provides us with a remarkable example of the possibilities of legal thought and of human thought in general, and with a key to understanding the essence of one of the great world religions.
Within the first few centuries of its existence, these Madhhabs had settled the majority of the early legal questions in Islam, and strictly forbade the use of unqualified independent reasoning, known as Ijtihad, in order to protect the sanctity of Islam from violation. However, what all the British-sponsored “revivalists” held in common was a rejection of the Madhhab tradition, in favour of re-opening the Doors of Itjihad, which has resulted in the wholesale rewriting Islam, in order to lend false justification to the injustices they currently perpetrate under its name.
Initially, the followers of Mohammed, known as the Sahabah, would seek advice from those amongst themselves who had attained reputations for piety and advanced knowledge of the religion. However, as the Muslim empire expanded, the cases that required rulings became increasingly complex, and because they were not necessarily explicitly addressed in the Quran, it became necessary for judges (Qadis) to make use of their independent reasoning (Ijtihad). The word “Ijtihad” is derived from the same root as the word “Jihad,” and means to strive with one’s utmost effort.
by Brandon Martinez
Dec 28, 2015
Brandon Martinez, founder and editor of Non-Aligned Media, discusses the burgeoning disinformation narrative that “Obama supports ISIS because he’s a secret Muslim” being sponsored by Ziocon talking heads like Pamela Gellar, Robert Spencer and the newly-converted Ziocon Alex Jones of Infowars.
Dec 9, 2015
BBC reports that – in 1957 – the British and American leaders approved the use of Islamic extremists and false flag attacks to topple the Syrian government:
Nearly 50 years before the war in Iraq, Britain and America sought a secretive “regime change” in another Arab country… by planning the invasion of Syria and the assassination of leading figures.
Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 [former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom] Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria’s pro-western neighbours, and then to “eliminate” the most influential triumvirate in Damascus.
via Conspiracy Archive
by Paul & Phillip D. Collins, October 18, 2009
In May of 2009, respected American journalist Seymour Hersh shared a shocking revelation during an Arab TV interview. According to Hersh, Pakistan’s former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, was a victim of a “special death squad formed by former U.S. vice-president Dick Cheney” (“U.S. special squad killed Benazir”). This squad was “headed by General Stanley McChrystal, the newly-appointed commander of U.S. army in Afghanistan” with Cheney using his position as chief of the Joint Special Operation Command to “clear the way for the U.S. by exterminating opponents through the unit and the CIA” (ibid).
Hersh has speculated that Bhutto was assassinated because she shared her opinion that Osama Bin Laden had been assassinated by Omar Saeed Sheikh (ibid). Could there be, however, a deeper reason for the Bhutto hit? These writers suggested as much during interviews on several radio shows shortly after the December 27, 2007 assassination. At that time, many in the media were blaming al Qaeda for the hit. The chief source for this claim seems to have been an “obscure Italian Web site” that alleged that its reporter had received a telephone call from Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, al Qaeda’s commander in Afghanistan (Ross). During the call, al-Yazid supposedly stated: “We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahedeen” (ibid). The Web site further contended that Ayman al Zawahri, al Qaeda’s number two leader, decided it was time to do away with Bhutto back in October 2007 (ibid). While all of this sounded like a smoking gun, the claim was anything but conclusive. According to ABC’s Brian Ross, U.S. intelligence officials said they could not confirm the claim of responsibility for the attack (ibid).
While al Qaeda may very well have been involved in the assassination, it should be understood that al Qaeda is merely part of a larger conspiratorial infrastructure, so it may not be accurate to place the blame solely at the doorstep of a single terrorist organization. Bhutto had vowed to do many things that would invite violent reprisal if she was re-elected prime minister. One promise that probably set off several alarm bells among the world’s wealthy and powerful appeared in a September 26, 2007 report in the Times of India. According to the report, Bhutto promised to allow inspectors from the United Nation’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to question A.Q. Khan, the metallurgist nuclear black marketer and father of Pakistan’s “Islamic Bomb” (“Bhutto commits to letting IAEA question A.Q. Khan”).
During a visit to Washington before returning to Pakistan from her self-imposed exile, the former prime minister stated before the Middle East Institute: “While we do not agree at this stage to have any Western access to A.Q. Khan, we do believe that IAEA… would have the right to question A.Q. Khan” (ibid). Bhutto almost certainly understood that Khan’s revelations to the inspectors would implicitly suggest that wealthy and powerful individuals who comprise the global oligarchical establishment were involved in the creation and shepherding of the Khan nuclear proliferation network. While she did not overtly say as much, Bhutto subtly suggested that Khan was anything but a rogue when she stated: “Many Pakistanis are cynical about whether A.Q. Khan could have done this without any official sanction” (ibid). The former prime minister was signing her own death warrant by ripping the veil off of one of the oligarchs’ deepest, darkest, and closely-guarded secrets: the power elite and dark factions within the intelligence community had assisted Khan in making the world a more dangerous place.
Nov 24, 2015
Were Turkey’s actions against Russia a provocation, or a response? Analysis indicates a bit of both, but tending towards response. Turkey struggles to maintain its interest in the Syrian conflict, importing oil from ISIS controlled areas. Russia recently dealt a serious blow to ISIS, striking a convoy of oil trucks headed to Turkey. From this perspective, Turkey has retaliated against Russia. What will Russia’s response be?
Inside Russia, the 5th and 6th column will use this against the Russian state – the 5th saying this is proof that the Russian activity in Syria produces unwanted consequences. The 6th will say that this is proof that Russia needs to push further.
Rather, Russia must not be controlled by its responses, but must forge its own activity.
Bilal Erdogan is a financier and owner of the oil trucks used by ISIS. The Russian strikes against the Ergodan family business have both personal and geopolitical ramifications for Turkey. This leads us to conclude that the downing of the Russian jet was not merely the order of a local airforce captain making a bad call – but rather the planned and thought-out action of the entire Turkish establishment.