Archive | December 8, 2015

What You Should Know About Microwaves*

What You Should Know About Microwaves*

By Catherine J. Frompovich

World-renowned microwave expert Dr. Barrie Trower discusses microwaves in this 36 minute, 2012 YouTube interview.

Here are some approximate timelines to note while viewing this extraordinarily candid discussion about the technology (microwave electromagnetic frequencies) that everyone thinks is innocuous and technology companies, who provide it, keep telling us is safe. Think “Cigarettes really don’t cause or contribute to cancer or other disease.” Tobacco-science fooled us before, but should its tactics be used on us again?

Microwaves power or operate cell phones and towers, Wi-Fi, utility company Smart Meters for electricity, natural gas and water billing including surveillance, and most ‘smart’ devices!

Timeline / Brief Description

11

  • Microwave beams can be programmed and projected to make people hear voices. Question: Can that be a precipitating factor/cause for many ‘spontaneous-like’ acts of violence due to programmed mind control to effectuate certain societal issues and effects, e.g., “problem-reaction-solution” [4]?

13:45

  • Microwaves can change bacteria and viruses, which explains much of modern microbiology going on today, and probably is employed by vaccinology to monkey with DNA and viruses for vaccines. Furthermore, what Dr. Trower explains and talks about may indicate why microwave towers are going up everywhere? “Stealth weapons”?

17:20

  • Project TETRA [1] and Police use
  • This experiment is ongoing until 2018.

18:55

  • Stimulating violence frequencies

20:08

  • “Brain frying”
  • Cell phone use by a child

21:07

  • Mobile phone or ADHD?
  • Brain entrained permanently?
  • Cancers reaching epidemic proportions.
  • Parotid cancers [2] increasing due to cell phone use beside the head

23

  • Brain tumors

24:05

  • Corporate purveyors of microwave technology discuss only heat issues regarding microwaves and nothing else, e.g., Non-thermal health effects [3].

25:37

  • For 40 years, Dr. Trower says the UK/English government has been lying to the people of Great Britain about microwaves.

27

  • World Health Organization

27:09

  • Operation Paperclip after World War II and the U.S. government involvement in bringing Nazi scientists to USA to continue their work for the U.S.

29:40

  • Basis of mind control and drugs
  • Microwaves used on pregnant women inducing miscarriages

31:30

  • Nuremberg Treaty as a result of the Nuremberg trials after World War II atrocities committed against humans by the Nazi state in Germany
  • Bioethics
  • Informed consent and full knowledge a MUST for humans

38:10

  • TETRA Research Project is breaking the law and is illegal according to the Nuremberg Treaty, as per Dr. Barrie Trower.

Source*

Related Topics:

WiFi — an Invisible Threat to all Life*

Earth Shift and Shift of the Ages

The Electro-magnetic Warfare on our Consciousness*

Cancer Causing Cell Phones

Court Rules Tumors Caused By Cordless Phones!*

Further Warnings on the Use of Mobile/Cell Phones*

A Courageous School Girl Challenges the Personalized Electronic Tracking System

Do You Suffer from Electro-Sensitivity!

Warning from UK medical Doctors on Health and Safety of Wi-Fi and Mobile Phones

Walking into a Wi-Fi Field 2*

Principal of Australian Girls School Resigns Over Wi-Fi*

Son Died from Wi-Fi Induced Brain Cancer Parents Say*

The Counter-Productive Health Risks of Wi-Fi in Schools*

For Trying to Protect his Children from Wi-Fi, Father is Given Psychotic Drugs*

Wi-fi Affects the Memory*

Why Two Canadian Schools Have Stopped Using Wi-Fi*

Lloyds Nullifies Health Insurance against Mobiles Phones, Wi-Fi and EMF/EMR*

Conscientious Scientists Make an Int’l Appeal on the Wide-scale Problem of Wi-fi*

Parents Sue School over Son’s ‘Wi-Fi Allergy’*

Canada Parliament Committee Calls for “Protection of Vulnerable Groups” from Wi-fi*

U.K. to Blanket City Streets with Wi-Fi via “Smart Pavement”*

Tests Prove Li-Fi 100 Times Faster and More Secure than Wi-Fi*

Turkey Halts Troop Deployment, but Illegally Remains in Iraq*

Turkey Halts Troop Deployment, but Illegally Remains in Iraq*

Turkish troops enter Iraq

Turkey says it has currently stopped the deployment of troops to northern Iraq, warning, however, that it will not withdraw those soldiers already stationed in the Arab country.

Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Tanju Bilgic announced the development at a press conference in the Turkish capital, Ankara, on Tuesday. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu reiterated Ankara’s respect for Iraq’s territorial integrity during a Monday phone conversation with his Iraqi counterpart, Hoshyar Zebari, Bilgic stated.

On December 4, Turkey deployed some 150 soldiers, equipped with heavy weapons and backed by 20 to 25 tanks, to the outskirts of the city of Mosul, the capital of Iraq’s Nineveh Province.

Ankara claimed the deployment was part of a mission to train and equip Iraqi forces in the fight against the Takfiri Daesh terrorist group. Baghdad, however, strongly condemned the deployment of the Turkish battalion on the Iraqi territory, branding the uncoordinated act a violation of Iraq’s national sovereignty.

On December 6, Iraq gave Turkey 48 hours to pull out its forces or face all available options, including recourse to the United Nations Security Council.

Separately, in a speech to his party in the Turkish parliament, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said he was determined to visit Iraq as soon as possible to try to calm the latest Ankara-Baghdad tensions over the troops deployment. The northern and western parts of Iraq have been plagued by violence ever since Daesh began its march through the territory in June 2014. Iraqi army soldiers and Popular Mobilization Units have been engaged in joint operations to take back the militant-held regions.

Anti-Turkey demo in Iraq

In another development on Tuesday, people staged a demonstration outside the Turkish embassy in the Iraqi capital to express their dissatisfaction with the deployment of Turkish forces. Carrying placards denouncing the presence of the troops, the protesters called for the urgent withdrawal of the Turkish forces from the Iraqi soil, Arabic-language al-Sumaria satellite television network reported.

Meanwhile, Russia, whose relations with Turkey have also sharply deteriorated after Ankara recently shot down one of its fighter jets, described as unlawful the presence of Turkish forces in Iraq without Baghdad’s consent.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement published on Tuesday that it considered Ankara’s move to deploy troops to northern Iraq “illegal” and “a very serious factor of tensions,” emphasizing that “the forces arrived there without the approval of the Iraqi government.”

Source*

Related Topics:

Iraq Demands ‘Immediate’ Withdrawal of Turkish Forces from Its Territory*

Russia Imposes Economic Sanctions On Turkey*

Two-Faced Turkey Violated Greek Airspace 2,244 Times in 2014*

Turkey must be Removed from NATO: U.S. Army General*

Turkey Downed Russian Jet in Syrian Airspace*

Syrian Army Destroys al-Nusra Strongholds Near Turkish Border*

The Disposition Matrix: Court Rules Obama can Continue Targeted Assassinations*

The Disposition Matrix: Court Rules Obama can Continue Targeted Assassinations*

By Derrick Broze

While much of the media has focused on the recent violence in Paris, Georgia, and San Bernardino, as well as the escalating conflicts in Iraq and Syria, another profound and troubling domestic issue seems to have been overlooked.

Indeed, the issue at hand was first reported on November 24th — and covered for roughly a day — before it was quickly forgotten in the daily barrage of news stories. But we should not be so quick to dismiss the possibility of a future president (maybe one with fascist leanings?) choosing to exercise “targeted killings” against the American public. This practice, of course, is embodied by the Obama administration’s program of assassinating individuals suspected of terrorism, also known as the “disposition matrix.”

The Washington Post first reported on the disposition matrix in 2012:

Over the past two years, the Obama administration has been secretly developing a new blueprint for pursuing terrorists, a next-generation targeting list called the ‘disposition matrix.’

The matrix contains the names of terrorism suspects arrayed against an accounting of the resources being marshalled to track them down, including sealed indictments and clandestine operations. U.S. officials said the database is designed to go beyond existing kill lists, mapping plans for the ‘disposition’ of suspects beyond the reach of American drones.

Although the matrix is a work in progress, the effort to create it reflects a reality setting in among the nation’s counterterrorism ranks: The United States’ conventional wars are winding down, but the government expects to continue adding names to kill or capture lists for years.

For the last four years, New York Times journalist Charlie Savage has waged a legal battle against the Obama administration, seeking to reveal the government’s legal justifications for assassinating terror suspects without a trial. Specifically, Savage sued the Obama administration in an attempt to obtain details about the murder of al-Qaeda affiliated cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico and eventually found himself on the U.S. government’s radar under suspicion of terrorism.

On September 30, 2011, drones sent by the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command flew into Yemen and bombed al-Awlaki and al-Qaeda propagandist, Samir Khan. The case drew public criticism not only because al-Awlaki was an American citizen, but because several weeks after his death, another American drone killed al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman. He was also a U.S. citizen living in Yemen.

A 2014 ruling by Second Circuit court forced the release of a memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel. The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union fought for the release of 11 other OLC memos, but the court protected 10 of them from release. The Times and the ACLU appealed the decision, but a three-judge panel from the Second Circuit denied the release of the documents.

“This appeal, like the prior one, primarily concerns whether documents considering such lawfulness must be disclosed,” Judge Jon Newman wrote for the panel.

“We strongly disagree that these crucial legal memos can lawfully be kept secret. In a democracy, there should be no room for ‘secret law,’ and the courts should not play a role in perpetuating it,” Jameel Jaffer, Executive Director of the ACLU, told Courthouse News.

The ACLU also stated the decision “[would] not be the last word in the ACLU’s quest for transparency surrounding the government’s targeted killing program.”

According to the ACLU, “of more than 500 credibly reported strikes, only nine have been acknowledged on the record. Of more than 4,800 credibly reported deaths, only 11 have been acknowledged by the government. We don’t know how many individuals are on a government ‘kill list.'”

There is a real possibility that an American president could use this program on American soil to eliminate individuals who have been deemed “terrorists” or “extremists.” While some may scoff at the notion, there are Americans who currently support curbing civil liberties and human rights for groups of people who hold certain religious — and even political — beliefs. This is all driven by fear, nationalism, and xenophobia, which the media and political pundits are more than happy to exploit.

If the free people of this land wish to expose the tyrants and psychopaths in the American government, they should start by reducing their reliance on the institutions they oppose. Remove yourself from this crumbling empire and all its machinations. Keep fighting to shine light into darkness and expose government secrecy. In the end, truth always wins.

Source*

Related Topics:

NSA’s Medical Intelligence Hit List*

French Presidency Has “Kill List” of People Targeted for Assassination*

Kill Gaddafi By Any Means Necessary!

Iraq: U.S. Corporations Killing Citizens

Malcolm X’s Grandson Baited and Killed

U.S. Killer Cops get Further Training in Israel*

Utah Police Responsible for More Killings than Criminals*

Police Killing Indigenous Americans at Astounding Rate*

U.S. Used Al-Qaeda to Blackmail Yemen*

U.S. Airstrikes Kill 22 Iraqi Troops in Ramadi*

Four Million Muslims Killed and Counting since 1990*

Outsourcing the Killing Chain: Eleven Drone Contractors Revealed*

Somali Man Takes Legal Action against US, Germany Over Father’s Drone Killing*

San Bernadino Shooters were 3 White Men Dressed in Military Attire*

Federal Agent Confesses ‘We Killed Michael Jackson’*

Cameron Orders Attack on Syrian Army, Retaliation for Assad Statements*

Cameron Orders Attack on Syrian Army, Retaliation for Assad Statements*

By Gordon Duff

Veterans Today has just learned that today’s air attack on the Syrian Army base near Der Ezzor, was ordered by British Prime Minister Cameron in retaliation for criticism of British efforts by Syrian President Assad in an interview published in the London Times yesterday.

The U.S. has denied all knowledge of the attack though American AWAC aircraft supervise and plan all “coalition” air strikes.

The full text of the interview that Cameron told his defence officials was an “act of war on Britain.”  Reports from sources in the MOD in Britain say that the attack was planned to look like a “medium friendly fire” accident with orders “make it look like an accident but don’t try too hard, Syria can’t do anything about it anyway.”

If only we were making this up.

Question 1:  Thank you for seeing us Mr. President.  As you know, the British government today will be voting on whether it will join the coalition airstrikes against ISIS. Is Britain right to join airstrikes against ISIS in Syria? And do you welcome its involvement; and will it make things worse or not make a change?

President Assad:  If I want to let’s say, evaluate a book, I cannot take or single out a phrase from that book to evaluate the whole book.  I have to look at the headlines, then the titles of the chapters and then we can discuss the rest of the book.  So, what we are talking about is only an isolated phrase.  If we want to go back to the headline, it is “the will to fight terrorism.”  We know from the very beginning that Britain and France were the spearheads in supporting the terrorists in Syria, from the very beginning of the conflict.  We know that they don’t have that will, even if we want to go back to the chapter on military participation with the coalition, it has to be comprehensive, it has to be from the air, from the ground, to have cooperation with the troops on the ground, the national troops for the interference or participation to be legal.  It is legal only when the participation is in cooperation with the legitimate government in Syria.  So, I would say they don’t have the will and they don’t have the vision on how to defeat terrorism.

And if you want to evaluate, let’s evaluate from the facts.  Let’s go back to the reality on the ground.  Since that coalition started its operation a year or so, what was the result? ISIS and al-Nusra and other like-minded organizations or groups, were expanding, expanding freely.  What was the situation after the Russians participated in fighting terrorism directly?  ISIS and al-Nusra started shrinking.  So I would say, first they will not give any results.  Second, it will be harmful and illegal, and it will support terrorism as what happened after the coalition started its operation a year or so, because this is like a cancer.  You cannot cut the cancer.  You have to extract it.  This kind of operation is like cutting the cancer that will make it spread in the body faster.

Question 2:  Are you saying, just to clarify two things, are you saying that the British, if the British join the intervention, that includes also the other coalition, with that intervention you see that is illegitimate from an international-law perspective?

President Assad:  Definitely, definitely, we are a sovereign country.  Look at the Russians, when they wanted to make this alliance against terrorism, the first thing they did was they started discussions with the Syrian government before anyone else.  Then they started discussing the same issue with other governments.  Then they came.  So, this is the legal way to combat any terrorist around the world.

Britain and France helped in the rise of ISIS and al-Nusra in this region

http://sana.sy/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/President-al-Assad-Sunday-Times-interview-3-300×150.jpg

Question 3:  You say that France and Britain are responsible for the rise of terrorism here. But they were not responsible for the rise of ISIS, for example, is not that a little bit a harsh accusation?

President Assad: Let’s start from what Blair said.  He said that invading Iraq led to the rise of ISIS.  And we know that ISIS started publically, announcing itself as a state in Iraq in 2006, and the leader was Abu Mosaab al-Zerqawi.  He was killed by American strikes; and they announced that they killed him.  So, they know he existed and they know that IS in Iraq at that time had existed; and that it moved to Syria after the beginning of conflict in Syria because of the chaos that happened.  So, they confess.  British officials confessed, mainly Blair; and the reality is telling, that they helped in the rise of ISIS and al-Nusra in this region.

Question 4:  In your view, does al-Qaida’s branch in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, pose an equal or a greater long-term threat to the West than ISIS? And as such, is Britain’s Prime Minister, Cameron, going after the wrong enemy? I.e. he is going after ISIS instead of going after al-Nusra.

President Assad: The whole question is about the structure, and the problem is not about the structure of the organization.  It is about their ideology.  They do not base their actions on the structure, they base them on their dark, Wahhabi deviated ideology.  So, if we want to evaluate these two, the difference between the two, there is no difference because they have the same ideology.  This is one aspect.  The other aspect, if we want to talk about their grassroots, their followers, their members, you cannot have this distinction, because they move from one organization or one group to another.  And that is why sometimes they fight with each other, for their vested interests, on a local and small scale.  But in reality they are cooperating with each other on every level.  So, you cannot tell which is more dangerous because this is one mentality.  It is like if you say the first one is al-Qaida and the second one is al-Qaida.  The difference is the label, and maybe some other trivial things.

Question 5:  Last week, a key part of Cameron’s argument for extending U.K. airstrikes to Syria was a number that he used – 70 thousand moderate rebels – that he mentioned “don’t belong to extremist groups”, but are already on the ground, who the west can use to help them in the fight of ISIS. As far as you know, which groups are included in the 70 thousand? Are you aware of 70 thousand moderate rebels in Syria?

President Assad: Let me be frank and blunt about this.  This is a new episode in a long series of David Cameron’s classical farce, to be very frank.  This is not acceptable.  Where are they?  Where are the 70 thousand moderates that he is talking about?  That is what they always talk about: moderate groups in Syria.  This is a farce based on offering the public factoids instead of facts.

The Russians have been asking, since the beginning of their participation two months ago.  They have said: where are those moderates?  No one gave them an answer.  Actually, since the beginning of the conflict in Syria, there were no moderate militants in Syria.  All of them were extremists.  And in order not to say I am just giving excuses and so on, go back to the internet, go back to the social networking sites.  They uploaded their atrocities’ videos and pictures, with their faces and their rhetoric.  They use swords, they do beheadings; they ate the heart of a dismembered innocent person and so on.

And you know, the confession of a criminal is the incontrovertible fact.  So, those are the 70 thousand moderates he is talking about.  It is like if we describe the terrorists who committed the attack in Paris recently, and before that in Charlie Hebdo, and before that in the UK nearly ten years ago, and in Spain before that, and the 11th of September in New York, to describe them as moderate opposition.  That is not accepted anywhere in this world; and there is no 70 thousand, there is no 7 thousand, he does not have, maybe now ten of those.

Question 6:  Not even the Kurds and the FSA for example, the free Syrian army?

President Assad: The Kurds are fighting the terrorists with the Syrian army, in the same areas.

Question 7:  But they are also being supported and armed and trained and backed by the Americans to also launch, to fight …

President Assad:  Mainly by the Syrian army, and we have the documents.  We sent them armaments, because they are Syrian citizens, and they want to fight terrorism.  We do the same with many other groups in Syria, because you cannot send the army to every part of Syria.  So, it is not only the Kurds.  Many other Syrians are doing the same.

Question 8: U.S. Secretary of state John Kerry said last Friday that the Syrian government could cooperate with the opposition forces against the ISIS even if president Assad is still in office, but he said that this would be so difficult if the opposition fighters, who have been fighting the Syrian president, don’t have a faith that the Syrian president will eventually leave power.

Kerry also said that concerning the timing of leaving office, the answer is it is not obvious whether he will have to leave.

Meanwhile, the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told Le Progres Newspaper on Saturday that he no longer believes that President Assad’s departure is essential to any political transition in Syria, adding that the political transition does not mean that President Assad should step down before it but there should be future insurances.

My question: Do you intend to complete your presidential term until 2021 or do you expect a referendum or presidential elections prior to that date? And if so, when can these elections be held? And what can make you decide to hold them? And if they are held, is it certain that you will be running for election? What can influence your decision?

President Assad: The answer depends on the context of the question. If it is related to a settlement in Syria, then early elections have nothing to do with ending the conflict. This can only happen by fighting terrorists and ceasing Western and regional support for terrorists…Early elections will only be held as part of a comprehensive dialogue about future by the political powers and the civil society groups in Syria.

Thus, it is not about the will of the President, but rather the will of the Syrian people…It is about a political process. If this process is agreed on, then I have the right to run for elections like any other Syrian citizen…My decision in this case will be based on my ability to deliver on my commitments…and on whether I have the support of the Syrian people or not….Anyway, It is early to talk about this, because as you know, this process was not agreed upon yet.

Question 9:   Do you think ISIS can be defeated by airstrikes alone?

You cannot defeat ISIS through airstrikes alone without cooperation with forces on the ground

President Assad:  Did the coalition defeat them by airstrikes during the last year or so?  It didn’t.  Did the Americans achieve anything from the airstrikes in Afghanistan?  They achieved nothing.  Did they achieve anything in Iraq since the invasion in 2003?  Nothing.  You cannot defeat ISIS through airstrikes alone, without cooperation with forces on the ground.  You cannot defeat them if you do not have buy-in from the general public and the government.  They cannot defeat ISIS by airstrikes; they are going to fail again.  The reality is telling.

Question 10:     If the international coalition refuses, as it has so far, to coordinate with the Syrian Army, or with the local troops on the ground, what is your next plan?  I mean do you have a plan B beyond what is going on?  How do you plan to end this war?

President Assad:  This coalition is illusive, it’s virtual, because it has not made any achievements in fighting terrorism on the ground in Syria.  Since an illusion doesn’t exist, let’s not waste time with the ‘before and after.’  From the very beginning we started fighting terrorism irrespective of any global or world powers.  Whoever wants to join us is welcome, and whether they join us or not, we are going to continue.  This is our plan. It is the only plan we have and we will not change it.

Question 11:  Are you calling on them to ask the Syrian government to coordinate and cooperate with the Syrian army and the Syrian air force in the fight against terrorists?

President Assad:  We are very realistic.  We know that they are not going to do so and that they don’t have the will.  This is more about international law than anything else.  Is it possible that western governments, or regimes, don’t know the basics of international law, that they don’t understand the meaning of a sovereign state or that they haven’t read the U.N. Charter?  They have no respect for international law and we didn’t ask for their cooperation.

Question 12:  But would you like them to?

President Assad:  If they are ready – serious and genuine – to fight terrorism, we welcome any country or government, any political effort.  In that regard we are not radical, we are pragmatic.  Ultimately, we want to resolve the situation in Syria and prevent further bloodshed.  That is our mission.  So, it’s not about love or hate, accepting or not, it is about reality.  Are they truly ready to help us fight terrorism, to stop terrorists coming into Syria through their surrogate governments in our region, or not?  That is the real question.  If they are ready, we will welcome them.  This is not personal.

Question 13:  Do you think it is possible for you, in Syria, and for your allies – Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and other allies – to defeat ISIS militarily; and if so, how long do you think it might take?

President Assad:  The answer is based on two factors: our capabilities on the one hand, and the support the terrorists receive on the other.  From our perspective, if you were to remove the support these groups get from various countries in our region and the West in general, it will take a matter of months to achieve our mission.  It is not very complicated, the solution is very clear to us.  However, these groups have unlimited support from these countries, which makes the situation drag on, makes it more complicated and harder to resolve.  This means our mission will be achieved at a much higher price, which will ultimately be paid by Syrians.

Question 14:  But there has already been a high price: over 200,000 people have been killed.

President Assad:  You are right, and that is a consequence of the support I referred to.

Question 15:  But a lot of it is also blamed on the Syrian government and the Syrian use of force, sometimes indiscriminate or unnecessary force in certain areas that has brought about a large number of people killed.  How do you respond to that?

President Assad:  First, all wars are bad.  There is no such thing as a good war.  In every war there are always too many innocent casualties.  These are only avoidable by bringing that war to an end.  So it is self-evident that wars anywhere in the world will result in loss of life.  But the rhetoric that has been repeated in the West for a long time ignores the fact that from day one terrorists were killing innocent people, it also ignores that fact that many of the people killed were supporters of the government and not vice versa.  As a government, our only countermeasure against terrorists is to fight them.  There is no other choice.  We cannot stop fighting the terrorists who kill civilians for fear of being accused by the West of using force.

Question 16: Let us talk about the role of Russia.  How important has the role of Russia been?  Was Syria about to fall had Russia not intervened when it did at the time?

Russia and Iran’s support played important part in Syria’s steadfastness against terrorism

President Assad: The Russian role is very important.  It has had a significant impact on both the military and political arena in Syria.  But to say that without this role, the government or the state would have collapsed, is hypothetical.  Since the very beginning of the conflict in Syria, there were bets on the collapse of the government.  First it was a few weeks, then it was a few months and then a few years.  Every time it was the same wishful thinking.  What is definite is that the Russian support to the Syrian people and government from the very beginning, along with the strong and staunch support of Iran, has played a very important part in the steadfastness of the Syrian state in the fight against terrorism.

Question 17: You mean the previous one, or the recent military intervention?

President Assad:  No, the whole support; it is not only about their participation.  Their support from the very beginning in all aspects: political, military and economic.

Question 18: How and why did Russian involvement come about now?  And can you give us some details of the discussions between you and President Putin that brought it about?  Who took the first step?  Did you ask, or did they offer?

The Russians want to protect Syria, Iraq, the region, themselves and even Europe

President Assad:  You will have to ask the Russians why they got involved.  But from our perspective, since the Western coalition started in Syria, ISIS has expanded, al-Nusra has expanded and every other extremist and terrorist group has expanded and captured new territory in Syria and Iraq.  The Russians clearly saw how this posed a threat to Syria, Iraq and the region in general, as well as to Russia and the rest of the world.  We can see this as a reality in Europe today.  If you read and analyse what happened in Paris recently and at Charlie Hebdo, rather than view them as separate incidences, you will realize something very important.  How many extremists cells now exist in Europe?  How many extremists did you export from Europe to Syria?  This is where the danger lies.  The danger is in the incubator.  The Russians can see this very clearly.  They want to protect Syria, Iraq, the region, themselves and even Europe.  I am not exaggerating by saying they are protecting Europe today.

Question 19: So, did they come to you and say we would like to be involved? Or did you ask them: could you help us?

President Assad:  It was an accumulative decision; it didn’t happen by me having this idea or them having another.  As you know, our relationship with the Russians goes back more than five decades, and they have always had military staff in Syria: call them experts or by any other name.  This cooperation accelerated and increased during the crisis.  Their teams are here and can see the situation real-time with us.  This kind of decision doesn’t start from the top down, but rather from the bottom up.  There is a daily political and military discussion between our two countries.  When it reached a presidential level, it was mature enough and ready for the decision to be made quickly.

Question 20: But there must have been a point when they said: we think, or with your agreement, we think that we should actually now physically get involved.

President Assad: Again, this was started at the lower levels.  These officials jointly agreed that it was necessary to get involved and each party discussed it with their leaders.  When it reached the stage of discussion between us, I mean between President Putin and I, we focused our discussions on the how.  Of course this did not happen directly as we had not yet met and it’s impossible to discuss these issues on the phone.   It was mediated through senior officials from both sides.  That is what happened.  In terms of procedure, I sent a letter to President Putin which included an invitation for their forces to participate.

Question 21:  So you asked president Putin having been advised by your officials.

President Assad:  Exactly, after we reached that point I sent President Putin a formal letter and we released a statement announcing that we had invited them to join our efforts.  Let’s not forget that President Putin had already taken the step when he said he was willing to create a coalition.  My response to this was that we are ready if you want to bring your forces to participate.

Question 22:  So, what forces have been deployed? I am talking about Russian forces. There have been reports, for example, of a thousand ground troops plus Special Forces, is this correct? Is there anytime when you think that the Russians will be involved in Syria, not just by air but with ground troops as well?

President Assad:  No, so far there is no such thing.  There are no ground troops except for the personnel that they send with their military staff and airplanes to guard the airbase, and that is natural.  They don’t have any ground troops fighting with Syrian forces at all.

Question 23:  And there is no plan for that?

President Assad:  We have not discussed that yet, and I don’t think we need it now, because things are moving in the right direction.  The Russians may consider it with time or under different circumstances, but for the moment, this has not been discussed.

Question 24: There was a report, or a hint, that Syria might be receiving S-300 from the Russians, and the S-300 will allow Syria to protect its airspace. Is this something, for example, that Syria will use against the U.S.-led coalition’s air force, even if Britain was involved, since their warplanes are in Syrian skies, as you said earlier, without official or sovereign permission. As Syria will receive S-300, then will it use this to impose, if you want, protection of its skies and impose a way to tell the coalition that you have to actually directly deal with us, or coordinate with us on the ground?

We will use any means available to us to protect our airspace

President Assad:  That is our right and it is only to be expected that we prevent any airplane from violating our airspace.  That is completely legal.  We are going to use any means available to us to protect our airspace.  It is not about that armament in particular.  Any air defence we have is for that reason.

Question 25:  Do you have that defense at the moment?

President Assad:  No. So far we don’t have it.

Question 26:  If you get that defence?

President Assad:  Any defence systems we are going to have are for that purpose.  If we are not going to protect our airspace, then why buy such armaments in the first place?  That is self-evident.

Question 27:  And if you get it …

President Assad: Not at the moment; it is not our priority now.  Our priority is fighting the terrorists on the ground.  This is the most important danger now.  Of course we are keen to protect our airspace and prevent foreign interference in our internal affairs, militarily or other.  But the priority now is to defeat the terrorists.  By defeating the terrorists, some of whom are Syrians, we can move further in protecting the whole country from foreigners.  It is a matter of priorities.

Question 28:  But I meant about the actual coalition airplanes that are actually flying over Syria. So, that is not a priority either at the moment?

President Assad:  No, not at the moment.  At the moment the priority is fighting terrorism.

Question 29:  If Saudi Arabia were to invite you for serious discussions on the future of Syria, would you accept such an invitation? Or have relations between Syria and Saudi Arabia been severely severed that you would never consider that?

President Assad:  No, there is nothing impossible in politics.  It is not about whether I accept or not, but rather about the policies of each government.  What are their policies towards Syria? Are they going to keep supporting the terrorists or not? Are they going to continue playing their dangerous games in Syria, Yemen and other places?  If they are ready and willing to change their policies, especially with regard to Syria, we don’t have a problem meeting with them.  So it is not about the meeting or whether we go or not, the issue is their approach to what is happening in Syria.

Question 30:  Do you expect any results from the talks in Vienna?  And what would be the shape of any possible deal that you see coming out of Vienna?

President Assad:  The most important clause in the Vienna communique is that the Syrians should come together to discuss the future of Syria.  Everything else is an accessory.  If you don’t have that main part, the accessories are of no use.  So, the only solution is for us to come together as Syrians.  Vienna itself is a meeting to announce intentions; it is not the actual process of sitting down and discussing the future.  So, the question is not what results from Vienna, but rather what we Syrians are able to achieve when we sit down together.

Question 31:  But do you realize that some of the opposition’s leaders, and I’m talking about opposition figures who have been against taking up arms and what have you, but are also afraid of coming to Syria, because the moment they land in Syria, they will be arrested by the security officers and put in prison. And it has happened to others.

President Assad:  No, it has never happened.  There is an opposition in Syria, and they are free to do whatever they want.

Question 32:  No, I mean the external opposition. For example, somebody like Haitham Mannaa, cannot come back.

President Assad:  We have clearly stated that when there is a gathering in Syria, which they want to attend, we guarantee that they will not be arrested or held.  We have said this many times.  We don’t have any problems in this regard.

Question 33:  Now, Saudi Arabia invited 65 figures, including opposition leaders, even rebel commanders, businessmen, religious figures for a meeting in Saudi Arabia to present a united front in preparation for the January Vienna talks. Yet, the Syrian government, which is the other major element in this whole thing for the future of Syria, has not been seen to be involved with the opposition. Are you conducting any talks with the opposition? Have you reached any consensus with them?

President Assad:  We have direct channels with some opposition groups; but others cannot communicate with us because they are not allowed to do so by the governments that control them.  From our perspective, we are open for discussions with every peaceful opposition party.  We don’t have any problems.  With regards to the meeting in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi’s have been supporting terrorism directly, publically and explicitly.  That meeting will not change anything on the ground.  Before the meeting and after the meeting Saudi Arabia has been supporting terrorists and will continue to do so.  It is not a benchmark or a critical juncture to discuss.  It will not change anything.

Question 34:  Do you see that anytime, in the future, that in order to protect Syria, or in order to save Syria, or to get the Syria process moving, that you might see yourself sitting with certain groups, one group, or certain groups, that perhaps now you deem terrorist, but in the future, it might be feasible that you would agree to negotiate with them because it would do well for the future?

President Assad:  We already have; since the very beginning one of the pillars of our policy, was to start a dialogue with all parties involved in the conflict, whether they were in Syria or not.  We negotiated with many terrorist groups, not organizations – to be very precise, who wanted to give up their armaments, and return to normal life.  These negotiations led to many amnesties being issued and has proven to be very successful in several areas.  Furthermore, some of these fighters have joined the Syrian Army and are now fighting with our forces.  So yes, we are sitting down with those who committed illegal acts in Syria, whether political or military, to negotiate settlements on the condition that they give up their arms and return to normal life.  This doesn’t mean that we negotiate with terrorist organizations like ISIS, al-Nusra and others. This is what I meant by groups, those who want out of the fight, regret their choices and want to have their lives back.

Question 35:  The rebels call them barrel bombs. You refuse to refer to them as barrel bombs. Irrespective of the name, these were indiscriminate. Do you accept that Syria used indiscriminate bombs in some areas, which resulted in the death of many civilians?

President Assad:  Let us suppose that this part of the propaganda is true, which it isn’t.  But for the sake of argument, let us ask the same question regarding the different attacks committed by the Americans and the British with their state-of-the-art airplanes and missiles in Afghanistan and in Iraq, not only after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but also during the first Gulf war in 1990.  How many civilians and innocent people were killed by those airstrikes with these very high precision missiles?  They killed more civilians than terrorists.  So, the issue is not these so-called barrel bombs and this evil president killing the good people who are fighting for freedom.  This romantic image is not the case.  It is about how you use your armaments, rather than the difference between so called barrel bombs and high precision missiles.  It is about how you use these weapons, what kind of information you have and your intention.  Do we have the will to kill innocent people?  How is that possible when the state is defending them?  By doing so, we are pushing them towards the terrorists.  If we want to kill people, for any reason, innocent people or civilians, that will play directly into the hands of the terrorists.  And this is against our interests.  Are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot? That is not realistic and not logical.  This propaganda cannot be sold anymore.

Question 36: Mr President, the final question. As president of the country, and you always lead the military and everything. Do you, even if by default, not bear responsibility for some of the things that happened in Syria?

President Assad: I’ve been asked this question many times especially by western media and journalists.  The aim of the question is to corner me between two answers: if I were to say I was responsible, they would say look the President bears responsibility for everything that happened, if I were to say I am not responsible, they would say this is not true, you are the president, how can you not be responsible.

Question 37:  Because you are the head, like in a family …

President Assad:  Let me continue, that was only an introduction to my answer.  It is very simple.  Since the very beginning, we built our policy around two pillars, engaging in dialogue with everyone, and fighting terrorism everywhere in Syria.  Now, if you want to talk about the responsibility, you have to discuss many aspects of the conflict, and the reason why we are here today in this difficult and dire situation in Syria.  If I am to claim responsibility, do I also claim responsibility for asking the Qataris to pay the terrorists money?  Or for the Saudis to fund their activities?  Or for western governments allowing their terrorists to come to Syria?  Do I claim responsibility for asking western governments to offer a political umbrella to those terrorists and label them as moderates?  Or for the western embargos on the Syrian people?  This is how we have to discuss it.  We cannot simply say, that he takes responsibility or not.  We have to talk about every part; we have to differentiate between the policy decisions and the practices, between the strategy and the tactics.  So, it is very complicated to evaluate it.  Additionally, if you want to evaluate who bears responsibility in Syria, it could happen at the end of the war, when you can investigate the whole story before, during and after.

Interviewer:  Mr President, thank you very much.

The Syrian Government statement:

“Damascus – Foreign and Expatriates Ministry said that four U.S.- led coalition warplanes targeted with 9 rockets one of the Syrian army’s posts in Deir Ezzor province, claiming the lives of 3 soldiers and injuring 13 others in addition to destroying three armoured vehicles, four military vehicles, 23 mm machinegun, 14.5 machinegun and a depot of arms and ammunition.

In two identical letters addressed to the U.N. Secretary General and Chairman of the U.N. Security Council on Monday, the Foreign and Expatriates Ministry stressed that the Syrian Arab Republic strongly condemns this heinous aggression by the coalition and affirms that it contradicts with the goals and wills of the U.N. Charter.

Syria called on the Security Council to immediately take the urgent measures to prevent such aggression from occurring again, adding that the aggression on the military post hinders the efforts aiming to fight terrorism and reiterates that the U.S.- led coalition lacks seriousness and credibility in the fight against terrorism.

From Russia Today:

Damascus has labelled as an “act of aggression” the U.S.-led coalition’s missile strike which killed three Syrian soldiers at an army base in the Deir ez Zor province.

On top of the fatalities, 13 personnel were injured and a number of military vehicles were destroyed when warplanes fired nine missiles at the Saeqa military camp.

The incident is the first of its kind since the coalition started to bomb Syrian territory more than a year ago, though the US-led alliance continues to deny it carried out the airstrike.

“Syria strongly condemns the act of aggression by the U.S.-led coalition that contradicts the U.N. Charter on goals and principles. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has sent letters to the U.N. Secretary General and the UN Security Council,” Syria’s SANA news agency quoted the country’s foreign ministry as saying.

Coalition spokesman Colonel Steve Warren has insisted, however, that the only airstrikes in the area were delivered some 55km away.

“We’ve seen those Syrian reports but we did not conduct any strikes in that part of Deir ez Zor yesterday. So we see no evidence,” he said.

The Deir ez Zor province is situated in eastern Syria, and is largely controlled by Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL). The region is of significant strategic importance to the terrorist group, as it contains a number of oilfields, which are a major source of revenue for IS.

On November 24 a Turkish Air Force F-16 jet shot down a Russian Su-24 bomber over Syria. Ankara claims the Russian plane briefly crossed into Turkish airspace. One of the Russian pilots was killed by Syrian rebels as he ejected from the stricken plane, while the other was rescued in a swift operation during which one Russian serviceman was killed.

The downing of the bomber by Turkey came after a successful Russian bombing campaign against ISIS oil infrastructure on the Syria-Turkish border, and was seen as revenge. Putin described the act as “a stab in the back” and accused Erdogan of benefiting from the illegal oil trade with IS and financing the terrorists.

Russia has been conducting airstrikes targeting IS and other terrorist groups in Syria since September 30. The strikes were launched after a formal request from Damascus. Russian jets have been carrying out sorties from Moscow’s Khmeimim Air Base in Latakia.

The U.S.-led coalition’s airstrikes in Syria are in fact illegal, as it has never received permission from Syrian President Bashar Assad to enter the country’s airspace. In response to the U.K.’s decision to join the bombing campaign in Syria, Assad reiterated in an interview with the Sunday Times that the presence of Britain in Syria is unlawful as neither Damascus nor the United Nations have given London the green light to bomb Syrian territory.

“It will be harmful and illegal and it will support terrorism, as happened after the coalition started its operation a year or so [ago], because this is like a cancer,” Assad said.

Source*

Related Topics:

Interview with President Assad

French Arrested in Assad Assassination Attempt*

British SAS Special Forces “Dressed Up as ISIS Rebels” Fighting Assad in Syria*

British Airstrike Kills 20 Civilians in Hasaka*

Cameron’s ‘deceitful’ Strategy to get U.K. Syrian Involvement*

The Syrian oil fields targeted in U.K. airstrikes were already “obliterated” by Russia*

Syrian Army Destroys al-Nusra Strongholds Near Turkish Border*

Al-Nusrah Terrorists Launch Powerful Assault in Aleppo Province, Repelled by Syrian Forces*

Iraq Demands ‘Immediate’ Withdrawal of Turkish Forces from Its Territory*

Turkey Downed Russian Jet in Syrian Airspace*

U.S.-NATO Next Battle Front towards WWIII in Crimea Causes National Blackouts*

Turkey must be Removed from NATO: U.S. Army General*

U.S. Shows Footage of Russian Airstrike against ISIS as Its Own*

Planetary Conquest by a Global AI Warfare System for Global Conquest

Putin’s Address to the U.N. in 10 Quotes*

Brzezinski to Putin: Stop hitting OUR al-Qaeda or it’s World War III*

Putin Blows the Whistle on the Who and the Why of ISIS*

Saudi Invasion of Syria Blocked by Putin*

Russia Tells the World about the NWO/CIA/MOSSAD/M16 Plan for Massacre in Paris*

Don’t Have that Appendix Removed It Isn’t a Redundant part of Evolution *

Don’t Have that Appendix Removed It Isn’t a Redundant part of Evolution *

When the modern scientist relegates parts of body to ‘useless, like so-called ‘junk’ DNA the appendix serves a function after all…

By Don Boys

Well, we creationists have been vindicated–again by evolutionary scientists. This week in Australia’s Herald Sun scientists reported on “new” evidence regarding the human appendix:

“Its removal is one of the most common surgical procedures in Australia, with more than 70,000 operations each year. However, we may wish to rethink whether the appendix is so irrelevant for our health.”

The article continued to relate that the appendix harbours “good” bacteria and when the intestines are emptied during a bout of diarrhoea, the appendix “reseeds” the intestines with “good” bacteria and restores the body back to good digestive health.

Creationists have known the benefit of the appendix and tonsils for decades! I wrote in the 1994 edition of Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? (new, expanded edition to be published this month by Barbwire Books) the following:

“Another major error made by evolutionists is that of allegedly useless organs in man that are supposed to be withered memorials of man’s past evolution. As late as the 1960s, evolutionary textbooks listed over 200 ‘useless’ organs, but later information has proved that almost all ‘vestigial organs’ have some function during our lifetime. The tonsils, appendix, and thymus gland are known to protect us against infections, especially during our younger years, but until recent years, they were thought to be unnecessary.”

So there! That qualifies as an “I told you so” event.

Atheist David Mills asserted that the human appendix is harmful to our well-being! However, he is wrong because scientists have finally discovered that the appendix serves an important function in the human immune system. If evolutionists had declared these organs as having an “unknown purpose” rather than being unnecessary (there is a difference, you know) I would have agreed; however, now we know that those organs are necessary for proper functioning of the immune system, etc.

Because of their ignorance, for a hundred years doctors took out those “unnecessary” healthy organs to the detriment of their patients. If those scientists had not been controlled by an atheistic worldview, they could have done an enormous amount of research, but since they did not believe God designed those organs with a purpose in mind, the “experts” perpetrated crimes upon children and adults and furthered their crimes by not researching those organs for a hundred years.

Irreparable harm has resulted from this teaching as hundreds of thousands of tonsils, adenoids, appendixes, etc., were removed from children and adults in the past hundred years. How much research has not been done on various “useless” organs because scientists taught other scientists that many organs and glands were useless? We should pity the distraught evolutionists who had all their “vestigial” organs removed only to discover, post-surgery, that they were all important! Not essential but important. I have been told that some of the more desperate, dogmatic, and depressed evolutionists/atheists had their brains removed, but that hasn’t been confirmed!

One’s worldview changes everything. If a person is convinced that he evolved from the animals, then it is understandable when he acts like an animal. If he thinks life is accidental, then he will face each day without purpose to life. It surprises no one that he will live a hedonistic, selfish life. Since he assumes that he and others are not made in the image of God, he has no obligation to treat others in a kind, gracious, and friendly manner.

Evolution is supposed to be an advance from the simple to the complex; however the vestigial organ argument militates against that position! After all, if many human organs were needed and worked well in the past but are now useless and unnecessary, that is not evolution! Evolution would be the appearance of new organs not the degeneration of old ones.

Only four or five organs are now believed, by some evolutionists, to be unnecessary and those are questionable. And of course, just because an organ may not be necessary does not mean that it is useless. A thumb is not really essential, but it is surely handy when you have to grasp or pick up an object.

Zoologist S. R. Scadding asserted:

“The ‘vestigial organ’ argument uses as a premise the assertion that the organ in question has no function. There is no way, however, in which this negative assertion can be arrived at scientifically….I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.” That means none, zero, zilch, and nil evidence for evolution based on vestigial organs.

Those human organs may not be necessary for life, but non-thinking evolutionists are unnecessary and should be unemployed.

If evolutionists had followed their much touted scientific method, they would not have made fools of themselves so many times. An honest scientist will keep an open mind so that he will not “jump to conclusions” (often wrong conclusions) until he has made many observations with the same results. He must be very careful to base any conclusion on what he has actually seen, rather than what he wanted to see. And he must always be willing to change his mind. To the credit of most evolutionists, they have done that regarding the recapitulation theory and vestigial organs; however, there are some poorly trained scientists (or scientific fanatics) hanging to those silly, discredited theories like an insecure kid clutches a security blanket. It has been over 65 years since the Recapitulation theory was shown to be a fraud but still being taught; so, how long will it take for doctors to stop removing healthy “vestigial” organs?

No, there are no vestigial organs. God provided man with an incredible body that has the astounding ability to not only reproduce itself, but also to repair itself! But before the body can repair itself, it must review the injury (or illness), report on the problem, then resolve the problem before repair begins. What machine can do anything similar to that? Only fools would suggest that no design was involved!

While I don’t believe in vestigial organs, maybe, just maybe, the atheists/evolutionists have encased inside their skulls a vestigial organ that is shrunken and stunted from disuse for decades.

Source*

Related Topics:

Take II on Cholesterol… Doctors Got It Wrong!*

Psychology Research Really Is Just ‘Psycho-Babble’*

There Are NO Incurable Diseases*

Why Gene Therapy and Designated Genetic Disorders is Tinkering and not Science!

Western Medicine Is Rockefeller Medicine*

U.K. Offers Fast-track for Transgender Teachers and a £30,000 Grant*

U.K. Offers Fast-track for Transgender Teachers and a £30,000 Grant*

By Kate McCann

Schools are being offered £30,000 extra funding to hire and promote gay and transgender teachers, it can be revealed.

Critics have described the policy as “profoundly misguided” and warned it will oblige head teachers to favour some staff over others, regardless of their ability.

They say the policy fuels discrimination and erodes the fundamental principles of equality because it ignores skill and talent.

Schools can get a grant of up to £30,000 per project to provide training to existing teachers or recruit new staff to plug gaps in diversity, such as low number of gay or older teachers or staff with children.

The fund encourages applications on the basis of so-called protected characteristics, defined by the Equality Act in 2010.

These include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

In one case a school won funding to recruit more male staff or women who had given birth because it has too many senior female teachers who do not have children.

The same school also applied for help to employ older staff because an “audit identified the increasing number of young staff promoted to middle leader positions”.

In another case a Catholic school applied for funding to provide specialist training in religion for senior staff.

Schools can apply for the money to plug the so-called ‘diversity gaps’ by providing extra training, but a condition of the funding is that teachers must be promoted within 12 months.

David Green, the founder of think-tank Civitas warned the Department for Education backed scheme is bad for children because they are not getting the best teachers based on skill.

Mr Green told the Telegraph:

“The assumption behind the Leadership Equality and Diversity Fund is that there has been discrimination if there is not proportionate representation of any of the above groups in leadership roles.

“It is highly likely that this would include every school in the land. A law against discrimination is at least understandable if it relates to an ascribed characteristic that the individual can’t change (such as race), but it makes no sense if the protected characteristic is chosen.”

He also warned that work-related abilities should be the most important quality when recruiting senior staff.

Mr Green added: “If you go one of these courses the Head and Deputy are under obligation to promote you, which may not be best for the children.

“I would abolish the whole thing, I think it’s profoundly misguided and the money could be better spent on providing more teachers for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

David Nuttall, a Conservative MP, said the fund is “absolute nonsense”.

He told the Telegraph:

Discrimination, positive or not, is still discrimination by its very nature.

“It means someone somewhere is being discriminated against and I would always argue for a true equality where you don’t have positive discrimination at all, where you treat everyone equally.

“The problem is that by having an artificial mechanism in place that guarantees one group special treatment over another not only is it patronising to that group, but by definition it means that others who might be better qualified for promotion are discriminated against.”

Labour’s shadow education secretary Lucy Powell warned the money could be better spent.

She said: “We support moves to diversify school leadership so that it is more representative of the communities schools serve.

“However given the teacher shortage crisis in this county it is important that this funding is properly accounted for and is not being used simply to help plug gaps given the failure of Ministers to train enough teachers and at a time when more teachers are leaving the profession than ever before.”

The scheme, run by the National College for Teaching and Leadership, called for applications targeted specifically at a lack of black and minority ethnic teachers and women, but some of the funding has been spent on recruiting more men.

Under the scheme schools were encouraged to apply to the £900,000 fund for the first time this year, following a pilot scheme which ran in 2014/15.

One school applied for cash to boost the number of male primary school teachers while another aims to target low numbers of both men and women at different stages of the profession.

A spokesman for the Department for Education said the scheme aims to support “under-represented groups”, such as ethnic minorities, within senior teams in schools in England.

He added:

“Ensuring there are excellent leaders in our schools, to raise the standard of teaching and achieve the best outcomes for their pupils, is a key part of our ambition of extending opportunity to all.

“But good school leadership teams should also reflect the diversity of the teaching profession.” ​

A Department for Education spokesperson later added:

“This programme encourages able teachers with potential, who might otherwise not have the confidence to compete for such roles without targeted intervention, to move into leadership roles.”

In response to a line in the document stating that:

“A clear expectation of the funding is that 90 per cent of participants will progress to next stage promotion within 12 months of completion of the programme” they added:

“It is absolute nonsense to say that the people involved are promoted on the basis of diversity.

“All participants who apply for leadership roles must show they are the best person for the job to be successful. Participants do not have to be promoted within 12 months, they compete for leadership roles on the same basis as other applicants, and will only succeed where they are the most suitable person for the role.”

Source*

Related Topics:

Gays Who Reject the Illuminati Agenda*

Sexual Liberation a Tool of Mass Control*

U.K. Offers More Free Condoms, Lubricant for Underage Kids*

British Children as Young as 3 Referred for Transgender Treatment*

Raised by Transgendered Parent, but against Transgendered Adoption*

European Parliament asks WHO to remove transgender from Manual of Disorders*

U.K. Police Target Schoolchildren as Young as 4 with Tax Payer Funded, Transgender Propaganda*

Why is the Legalization of Gay Marriage so Important to the Queen?*

Gay Commissioner Cracks Down on Churches*

Gay Activist Admits our Goal is to Indoctrinate Children*

Woman Raised by Lesbians Testifies Gay Marriage Top of the List of Bad Marriages*

Bishops Denounce Horrific Desecration of Christian Images in ‘Gay Pride’*

Foundations Pouring Millions Into Eradicate Religious Exemptions on Gay ‘Marriage’*

U.K. Offers More Free Condoms, Lubricant for Underage Kids*

Surprise – STD Rates among U.S. Homosexuals ‘alarming,’*

San Bernadino Shooters were 3 White Men Dressed in Military Attire*

San Bernadino Shooters were 3 White Men Dressed in Military Attire*

By Kevin Barrett

My frequent radio guest Martin Hill (listen to Friday’s interview) has discovered another bombshell that blows the official story of the San Bernadino shooting to smithereens. In his new post Martin writes:

“Witness Sally Abdelmageed, who works at the Inland Regional Center and witnessed the shooting in San Bernardino, was interviewed live via telephone by CBS Evening News the day the massacre happened.

“The news anchor begins ‘She saw the attackers enter the building, and we spoke to her by phone.’

“We saw three men dressed in military attire,’ she says. ‘I couldn’t see his face, he had a black hat on… black cargo pants on, the kind with zippers on the side… He had a huge assault rifle a lot of ammo…

She continues, ‘They opened up the door to building then he starts to, you know, shoot all over into the room – that’s the room we have conferences in…

‘I called 911 and I just hid under my desk..

‘As I was talking to the dispatch, we went into my manager’s office and locked the doors..’

Mrs. Abdelmageed, can you describe to me in as much details as you can what did the gunman look like?’ the CBS anchor asks.

‘I couldn’t see his face, he had a black hat on. All I could see was a black hat, black long-sleeved shirt… He had extra ammo. He was probably ready for something, to reload – I don’t know know…

‘I just saw three, dressed exactly the same. They looked like they were athletic build, and um, they appeared to be tall…’

‘You’re certain that you saw three men?’ the news anchor asks.

‘Yeah,’ she replies, as she continues to describe the THREE WHITE MEN, their muscular build, etc.

After she leaves the line, the anchor insists ‘and of course we’ve just learned that one of the suspects was actually a woman.’”

[Read Martin Hill’s full report,  Witness to San Bernardino Massacre Describes Shooters As Three White Men “Dressed In Military Attire”]

Watch the CBS News video of the interview with witness Sally Abdelmageed

Now don’t get me wrong, folks. I’m a white man myself. And I am proud, not ashamed, of my Irish-Welsh-Scottish-German ancestry. But I’m sick of seeing paramilitary-type white guys committing massacres designed to be blamed on brown-skinned Muslims.

The same thing happened in Paris on November 13th. The shooters at La Belle Equipe restaurant were not brown-skinned Muslims; they were “white, clean shaven…They looked like soldiers or mercenaries and carried the whole thing out like a military operation.”

The killers in the Charlie Hebdo offices last January were also white men with blue eyes – which rules out the brown-skinned brown-eyed patsies, the Kouachi brothers.

Likewise, the killers of French soldiers in the 2012 shootings falsely blamed on Mohammed Merah  had tattoos worn only by white-power extremists, and therefore were almost certainly white paramilitaries employed by Operation Gladio B. (For details, read the chapter on the Merah case by Dr. Laurent Guyénot in We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo: Free Thinkers Question the French 9/11.)

Western governments and their lapdog corporate media, by refusing to investigate, discover and report the truth about these cases, are pumping out racist, Islamophobic hate propaganda in a manner that would shame Dr. Goebbels. That is the point I made in my latest Press TV interview:

-Press TV

The US media characterizes a shooting attack as “terrorism” only when there is indication that the perpetrator might be a Muslim but refuses to use the word in other cases, American scholar Dr. Kevin Barrett says.

On Wednesday, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 29, stormed a holiday party in San Bernardino, California, killing at least 14 people and injuring 21 in the deadliest mass shooting in the US in three years. Hours later, the couple died in a fire exchange with police. [According to dubious mainstream reports. -KB]

Only hours after news broke that suspects had Muslim names, American Muslims strongly condemned the incident, but this did not stop the US mainstream media from spewing hate and venom against Muslims and Islam.

Commenting to Press TV on Sunday, Dr. Barrett said, “We had another ‘mass shooting’ in the United States. This is nothing new; we had probably hundreds already in 2015.”

“But this one is getting worldwide headlines because the alleged perpetrators are supposedly ‘radical Muslims’, and that’s led to endless speculation among the media and politicians whether this is a case of ‘terrorism,’” he added.

“The word terrorism apparently means when anybody who is ostensibly Muslim conducts a shooting, and if anybody else does it’s not terrorism,” the editor of Veterans Today noted.  “Well, the problem though is that as with so many other similar cases, it appears that the link between the allegedly Muslim perpetrators and terrorism may have been fabricated.”

See: San Bernardino shooting story full of holes

Dr. Barrett said, “We have some huge questions being raised about what really happened in San Bernardino, and one of the people raising the questions is the lawyer of the family of the two alleged perpetrators.”

“This lawyer has questioned why the suspects were in handcuffs – they were dead in handcuffs. His name is David Chesley. And he should be commended. For once we have a lawyer for people who are being accused for this kind of crime who is actually standing up for his clients,” he added.

“And he has pointed out that the handcuffed bodies could be interpreted as evidence that the people were executed, which is what we have seen in many other similar cases where alleged terrorist suspects – who one would think would be captured and interrogated, you would think that they would stop at nothing to capture these people alive so that they can take down their alleged terror networks – and yet case after case, bin Laden’s supposed execution and throwing him in the ocean with no witnesses to all sorts of other cases where these terror suspects have just been hunted down and executed point-blank, the authorities really don’t act as if they are really trying to stop terrorism; instead they act like they are trying to silence patsies who know too much.

“And we have other indications that that’s what happened. The couple blamed for the San Bernardino shooting was apparently gunned down in cold blood in their car. The police claim that there was a gun battle initiated by the suspects, but the car windows were rolled up and then blown out. Nobody starts a gun battle by shooting through rolled-up car windows from inside of a car. It’s pretty much physically impossible, it wouldn’t work.

So it appears once again that these people may have just been gunned down and silenced.

“There are all sorts of other questions being raised about the shooting. The fact that the facility where the shooting happened, which is a handicapped facility – a very strange place for Muslims to attack! Why would radical Muslims be angry at handicapped people? I don’t know.”

Massive attacks on random civilians are virtually ALWAYS carried out by the government – in order to scare the people into running to the authorities for protection…and handing over their money and their liberty.

Source*

Related Topics:

Paris Attack Witness Describes Gunmen As White, Muscular, Clean Cut Mercenaries!

Russia Tells the World about the NWO/CIA/MOSSAD/M16 Plan for Massacre in Paris*

Israeli-Zionist Investigative Journalist Ties Netanyahu to Charlie Hebdo Massacre*

9/11 from Cheney to MOSSAD*