Globalists pitting US, Russia against each other so they can rule both

Alex Jones | Infowars.com – OCTOBER 17, 2016

The US and Russia have all but declared war. Alex breaks down how this manufactured conflict is being used to take over what remains of the United States by the globalists:

Mandy Retweets

Omg that woman is nothing but a warmonger. She’l kill us all.
Coco Good

Will war even wake people up or will they believe obama that Russia was the aggressor?

A Trump victor would be the biggest defeat for the left, democrats and the political elite, perhaps in history. Trump needs to win and make American great again.
Darrin Ward

Did you see Biden’s face…You could see the evil pouring out! What a waste of human flesh
larry swenson

Clintons to be hung publicly at high noon in the town square. git “r” done. 👍
Link The Champion of Hyrule

I want to rip George Soros’ throat out of his neck.

Long live the True American Republic! DOWN with globalists, down with socialism! May God have ‘mercy’ on our souls!

Obama Threatens Cyber Attack on Russia Over Wikileaks Releasing Hillary E-mails

Published on Oct 15, 2016
President Obama says the CIA is planning a possible cyber attack on Russia in response to Wikileaks releasing the DNC emails and the Podesta emails proving massive corruption in the Liberal Establishment. Media analyst Mark Dice has the story. © 2016 by Mark Dice


no evidence of weapons of mass destruction but they still fucked iraq up.they do what they want and arnt accountable its time the american people put sumone in office who is gonna be accountable.trump 2016
T Bo

Will someone please put a leash on that Muslim monkey?
Vas Me

T Bo lol .good one.

And they worry about Trump with the nukes. Can you say Mccarthy.
View all 5 replies


JD Ts That’s right! I’d forgotten about her and also Roseanne Barr. I think Trump has a landslide vote but we have to overcome cheating by the Democrats.

wish the Electoral College didn’t exist.

‘Obama cyber saber-rattling against Russia possible ploy to boost Clinton camp’

It is almost as if US intelligence officials are daring themselves to do something that may turn out to be quite destructive for everybody, Jim Jatras, former GOP Senate foreign policy adviser, told RT.

US Elections 2016

Wikileaks has been publicly releasing daily batches of leaked emails from Hillary Clinton‘s campaign chairman, yet Russia continues to grab US headlines as being somehow behind the scandal.

US officials have reportedly told NBC News that the CIA is preparing for a possible cyber-attack against Russia. The move, apparently, would be intended as retaliation for Russia’s alleged interference in the US presidential election, which is already being called the most scandal-filled contest in American political history.

Read more
Kremlin: Russia faces unprecedented cyber-threats from the US

Russia vehemently rejects the claims and says the US has produced absolutely no evidence to support the very serious charges. It is said the attack would also seek to “harass and embarrass” the Russian authorities.

RT spoke with Jim Jatras for his views on this latest ratcheting up of tensions between the two global nuclear powers.

RT: Would there be any justification for the CIA launching a cyber-attack on Russia in the absence of any good evidence Russia tried to interfere in the US presidential election?

Jim Jatras: This was given, it appears, as an exclusive to NBC; almost like a press-release that the government is giving out as a warning shot or really a threat against the Russians. And even though they are saying that this is connected to the election, there is no real evidence regarding the DNC and other things on WikiLeaks. What the statement says is that it is geared towards interference with the elections itself, with the voting. Anybody who is familiar with our system knows that that is next to impossible; we don’t have a single nation-wide voting system. We have 50 states and thousands of local, state and county systems, most of which are paper, most of which, even the electronic ones, not connected to the Internet. So the idea that Russia or anybody else could hack into those is just absurd. So, I don’t think that is what this is really about.


RT: Some have condemned the preparations for an attack by branding it “direct aggression” against Russia. Could we be close to a cyber-war?

JJ: I think we could be. And let’s keep in mind that there are two things here that I think are really behind this – not interference with our election. As we know this whole “Russia, Russia, Russia theme” has been a constant of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. And maybe the Obama administration is trying to help her out a bit by turning up the heat and pointing the finger. Also remember, as of tonight, according to the news reports, President Obama was supposed to think up some kind of response to what is going on in Syria. Maybe this is part of what is related to that.



JJ: It could be, and it really depends at this point whether they actually do something or they just threaten. I noticed one of the things they are talking about doing is hacking into the Russian financial system. And that is somewhat worrisome because for about two years now Russia has been complying with an American law called FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) which essentially mandates turning over a trove of financial information to the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) from Russian banks, which includes a lot of metadata and the opportunity to insert spy ware and so forth. So, the Russians may have made this very easy for us.


RT: One former US intelligence official has stressed the importance of launching the cyber-attack in order “not to weaken the credible threat of the US response capability”. What are your thoughts on that statement?

JJ: I think it is kind of cyber-saber rattling. They are almost daring themselves to do something just to show that they can and then it becomes a matter of prestige. It is almost like they are daring themselves to do something that may turn out to be quite destructive for everybody (…) As the article said, there is some concern on the American side that if, for example, there was some attack on the Russian financial system many Russians would respond with an attack on our financial system, which would be much more disruptive globally given how central the American financial system is worldwide.

WikiLeaks: The two faces of Hillary Clinton on Syria

“People don’t trust Hillary Clinton, and no one can agree on why,” begins a sympathetic piece on the Democratic Party presidential candidate in Fast Company last July.
In a CNN poll that same month, only 30 percent of Americans believed Clinton to be “honest and trustworthy.”

If voters don’t know what to make of Clinton or how to read her, the blame may lie directly with the candidate herself. In an April 2013 speech made public by WikiLeaks last week, Clinton confided:

“Politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”

That last ‘public vs. private’ comment quickly made the media rounds, and confirmed – for her critics – Clinton’s deliberate duplicity on a number of policy positions.

WikiLeaks has provided an opportunity to delve into some of these, so let’s take a look at one very prominent feature of Clinton’s foreign policy agenda: Syria, a country that stands at the center of a potential global confrontation today.

Not a Syrian uprising; a regime change plan

A 2012 email released by WikiLeaks last year shows that, behind the scenes, Clinton’s State Department was calculating its Syria policy using entirely different metrics than its publicly-stated narrative of supporting reforms and rejecting violence:

“It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.”

The email, written by an unidentified person and included within the WikiLeaks ‘Clinton archive,’ lays out a plan:

“Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, US diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition… Arming the Syrian rebels and using Western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach.”

Arming a Syrian rebellion from outside the country was already a consideration “from the very beginning,” according to a recent WikiLeaks release of a June 2013 speech by Clinton:

“So, the problem for the US and the Europeans has been from the very beginning: What is it you – who is it you are going to try to arm. And you probably read in the papers my view was we should try to find some of the groups that were there that we thought we could build relationships with and develop some covert connections that might then at least give us some insight into what is going on inside Syria.”

Certainly, we know that by early 2012, the Obama and Erdogan administrations had struck a deal to establish a rat-line transporting weapons and ammunition from Libya to Syria – via the CIA and MI6, and funded by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

READ MORE: Podesta files: Top 10 revelations from leaked Clinton campaign emails

The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi which killed US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was only a temporary setback. Weapons and financial assistance to militants in Syria, however, continued to flow from America’s regional allies without any US pushback, even though Washington clearly knew arms were being siphoned to extremists.

A declassified DIA document from August 2012 circulated to Clinton’s State Department states plainly that “the Salafist, Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (Al-Qaeda in Iraq) are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” and that “the West, Gulf countries and Turkey support the opposition.” 

But if US Special Forces were involved in driving arms and fighters into Syria in early 2012, the groundwork would have had to have begun many, many months before. The US military’s unconventional warfare (UW) strategy requires that target-state population perceptions are first ‘groomed’ into accepting an armed insurrection, using “propaganda and political and psychological efforts to discredit the government”…creating “local and national ‘agitation’”…helping organize “boycotts, strikes and other efforts to suggest public discontent”…before beginning the “infiltration of foreign organizers and advisors and foreign propaganda, material, money, weapons and equipment.”

You get an idea of how this ‘propaganda’ and ‘grooming’ works in a June 2011 email from Clinton’s recently-departed Director of Policy Planning Anne-Marie Slaughter, who openly calls for fabricating sectarian narratives to incite Syrian protestors:

“This suggests US should be making much more of the ways in which Syrian regime is simulating violence. Can’t we call for a meeting of the UNSC where we do not call for action but simply present information along the lines of what is recounted below so as to ‘bring it to the attention of the Council’ in a way that then has greater credibility globally? Making the point repeatedly that the regime wants this to look like/turn into sectarian violence? At the very least that can be broadcast back into Syria in various ways that will encourage protestors. There is an information war going on; we can do much more to elevate and legitimate the truth.”

This is business as usual for a US State Department well-versed in sowing sectarian discord in the Middle East – all while publicly denouncing sectarian strife. A WikiLeaks email from 2006 shows that this thinking was already well-entrenched in Foggy Bottom, with a focus on “exploiting vulnerabilities” – particularly “sectarian” ones – inside Syria.

Fueling the sectarian Jihad

By late 2011, US intelligence had assessed that Al-Qaeda was operating inside Syria. This information was public, but not widely disseminated. Instead, Clinton’s team focused heavily on flogging the narrative that “Assad must go” because of his government’s widespread human rights violations.

Clinton liberally used the humanitarian pretext to advance a regime change agenda – pushing, behind the scenes, for increased assistance to militants and direct US military intervention, while publicly decrying the escalating violence inside Syria.

But did she give a toss about keeping Syrians safe? The evidence suggests otherwise. In this new WikiLeaks release of a speech to the Jewish United Fund in August 2013 – flagged,” incidentally, by her staffers who worried about its content – Clinton outlines one possible Syria policy option:

One way is a very hands off, step back, we don’t have a dog in this hunt, let them kill themselves until they get exhausted, and then we’ll figure out how to deal with what the remnants are. That’s a position held by people who believe there is no way, not just for the United States but others, to stop the killing before the people doing the killing and the return killing are tired of killing each other. So it’s a very hands off approach.”

To any observer of the foreign-fueled Syrian war of attrition, it looks very much like Clinton opted for this course of action.

And given that Washington’s allies in the Syrian fight consisted mainly of head-chopping, jihadist foot soldiers, Clinton’s scenario of a killing field to keep all sides “exhausted” may have even been the starting plan.

These fighters came equipped with a militant, sectarian mindset courtesy of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar – under the supervision, of course, of a CIA that cut its teeth doing the exact same thing with the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan.

A WikiLeaks email sent from Hillary Clinton to her now-campaign chief John Podesta in August 2014 shows that the former Secretary of State is fully aware that her allies were partial to supporting terrorists:

“While this military/paramilitary operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”

Qatar and Saudi Arabia are, of course, two staunch US allies in the region that host American military bases and, apparently, also support ISIL.

Another October 2013 Clinton speech ‘flagged’ by her campaign staff, and released by WikiLeaks this week, has her saying:

“The Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons – and pretty indiscriminately – not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future.”

The State Department knows all too well that both fighters and weapons are fungible in the Syrian militant marketplace. It is a key reason the US has always resisted naming those groups it considers “moderate” rebels. Arms and supplies to US-backed groups have often found their way to ISIL and Al-Qaeda, with photo evidence aplenty making the social media rounds.

Despite these loaded disclosures, Clinton and other US policymakers still flog outdated narratives about an ‘evil Syrian regime killing innocent civilians’ while ignoring the narrative they know to be true: bloodthirsty jihadists armed to the teeth by ideologically-aligned US allies.

This Syrian conflict – privately, at least – is about regime change at all costs for the hawkish side of the policy establishment which includes the CIA, Pentagon brass and Clinton. Publicly, however, it’s still about “crimes against humanity” – whatever that means today.

Earlier this month, Clinton began to publicly reveal that truth in advance of the November presidential election. Reuters reports Clinton as saying “removing President Bashar al-Assad is the top priority in Syria.” 

She is also once again touting a “no-fly zone” over Syria – much as she did with Libya. In yet another speech ‘flagged’ by her campaign and released by WikiLeaks – this one delivered to Goldman Sachs at their CEO conference in June 2013 – Clinton explains:

“To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk – you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians. So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.”

So Clinton is advocating for a no-fly zone despite the fact that she recognizes she’s “going to kill a lot of Syrians.” Which then puts that other speech of hers about letting Syrians “kill themselves until they get exhausted” into context.

Her only regional allies in this endeavor will be the Saudis and Qataris, who we now know support ISIL and other terrorists inside Syria. We also know that Clinton will continue to ignore this indiscretion – not because of what she says, but because of what she does:

Her public-versus-private position on the Saudis, after all, has been bandied about since the 2010 WikiLeaks State Department cables were released.

In 2009, a secret WikiLeaks cable signed off by then- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reads, in part: “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide…Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT (Laskhar-e Taiba), and other terrorist groups…It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.” 


Yet by 2011, Clinton was ushering through the biggest weapons sale to Saudi Arabia in US history – a massive $67 Billion arms dump into the epicenter of global terror.

Clinton is not averse to cashing in on Saudi riches for her and her family’s foundation either. The Clinton Foundation hasreceived millions of dollars from Saudi, Qatari and other Gulf sources, despite the role their governments have played in funding global Jihad. And her campaign manager’s brother, Tony Podesta, just signed on to furnish the Saudi government with very expensive public relations services earlier this year.

There is something schizophrenic about Hillary Clinton’s compartmentalization of issues that speaks to the very competence of her judgment. Her whole private-versus-public-positions shtick is antithetical to the transparency, process and accountability demanded by democracy.

She speaks of her Iraq “mistake,” yet we have still not heard what lessons she has learned. And it grates, because we can see she has repeated them again and again, in Libya and in Syria.

The ‘public’ Hillary Clinton supports self-determination, freedom and human rights for Syrians. The ‘private’ Hillary Clinton supports the wholesale massacre of Syrians by a closely allied network of depraved sectarian terrorists – in order to weaken Iran and strengthen Israel.

If you’re one of those Americans who don’t trust her, you have good reason. At this point it is hard to ascertain if Clinton herself knows what her truth is anymore.

US accuses Russia of hacking political sites

Published October 07, 2016  Associated Press

The U.S. is accusing Russia of hacking political sites, saying it is trying to interfere with the upcoming presidential election. Intelligence officials say they are confident that the Russian government directed the recent breaches of emails from American people and institutions, including U.S. political organizations. 

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security have released a joint statement saying that based on the “scope and sensitivity” of the hacking efforts, only Russia’s “senior-most officials” could have authorized these activities.

Pressure has been mounting on the Obama administration to call out Russia on the hacking of political groups, including the Democratic National Committee.

‘S-300, S-400 air defenses in place’: Russian MoD warns US-led coalition not to strike Syrian army

Russia’s Defense Ministry has cautioned the US-led coalition of carrying out airstrikes on Syrian army positions, adding in Syria there are numerous S-300 and S-400 air defense systems up and running.

Russia currently has S-400 and S-300 air-defense systems deployed to protect its troops stationed at the Tartus naval supply base and the Khmeimim airbase. The radius of the weapons reach may be a surprise to all unidentified flying objects, Russian Defense Ministry spokesperson General Igor Konashenkov said.

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, any airstrike or missile hitting targets in territory controlled by the Syrian government would put Russian personnel in danger.

The defense official said that members of the Russian Reconciliation Center in Syria are working on the ground delivering aid and communicating with a large number of communities in Syria.

“Therefore, any missile or air strikes on the territory controlled by the Syrian government will create a clear threat to Russian servicemen.”

Russian air defense system crews are unlikely to have time to determine in a ‘straight line’ the exact flight paths of missiles and then who the warheads belong to. And all the illusions of amateurs about the existence of ‘invisible’ jets will face a disappointing reality,  Konashenkov added.

He also noted that Syria itself has S-200 as well as BUK systems, and their technical capabilities have been updated over the past year.

The Russian Defense Ministry’s statement came in response to what it called “leaks” in the Western media alleging that Washington is considering launching airstrikes against Syrian government forces.

“Of particular concern is information that the initiators of such provocations are representatives of the CIA and the Pentagon, who in September reported to the [US] President on the alleged controllability of ‘opposition’ fighters, but today are lobbying for ‘kinetic’ scenarios in Syria, he said.

He cautioned Washington to conduct a thorough calculation of the possible consequences of such plans.”

US-led coalition jets bombed positions of the Syrian government forces on September 17, resulting in the deaths of 83 servicemen. Washington said the airstrike was a mistake, however Damascus claimed the incident was a blatant aggression.”

The relocation of the S-300 system in order to protect Russian ships and the naval base in Syria was confirmed by Russian defense officials on October 4. Konashenkov assured that the S-300 is a “purely defensive system and poses no threat. Russia also has S-400 missile defense systems at Khmeimim base that were placed there after Turkey downed a Russian SU-24 jet in November of 2015.

Obama Drops Charges Against Arms Dealer Who Threatened To Expose Hillary’s Bengahzi Crimes


An arms dealer who had threatened to reveal potentially damaging information about Hillary Clinton’s alleged role in arming Islamist militants until federal prosecutors abruptly dropped their case against him Tuesday, told Fox News the case has cost him everything.

Federal prosecutors faced a Wednesday deadline to turn over discovery documents to the legal team of American Marc Turi, who had been charged with selling weapons to Libyan rebels.

Late Tuesday, an announcement came that the government was dropping the case, which was set to go to trial on Nov. 8 – the day American voters choose between Clinton and GOP nominee Donald Trump. The move may avert a release of potentially explosive documents.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=5157276214001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a></noscript&gt;

“I am glad this horrific five-year ordeal is over and I am pleased to be able to move on with my life,” Turi told Fox News in a statement. “The American public has the right to know that an injustice was committed against an innocent American.”

Turi said his legal team advised him to accept the deal and avoid a trial, but insisted that his actions were in furtherance of his ongoing support of U.S. foreign policy. He said defending himself in a case that has now been dropped has cost him everything.

Last year, in his only extended television interview, Turi provided Fox News with documents and email exchanges he had with high-level members of Congress as well as military, and State Department employees to back up his claim that the Obama administration authorized in 2011, at the height of the Arab Spring, a covert weapons program that spun out of control.

“That’s where I came up with this ‘zero footprint’ Arab supply chain, whereby, our foreign ally supplies another, Arab country,” Turi said. In this case, the US would supply conventional weapons to a U.S. ally-Qatar, who would inturn supply them to Libya, as a kind of workaround.

“If you want to limit the exposure to the US government, what you simply do is outsource it to your allies,” Turi said, describing the practice. “The partners-the Qataris, and the Emiratis did exactly what they were contracted to do.”

Turi told Fox he never supplied any weapons to Qatar, and it was in the hands of the U.S. government and the State Department’s Bureau of Political and Military Affairs which was headed by a key Clinton aide, Andrew Shapiro. Shapiro was responsible to oversee the export control process at the State Department.

“They don’t want this stuff to come out because it will look really bad for Obama and Clinton just before the election,” an associate of Turi told Politico, claiming that information sought by Turi’s team would show Clinton’s own role in arming Libyan rebels fighting former strongman Col. Muammar Qaddafi while she was secretary of state.

In her only congressional testimony to date on Benghazi in January 2013, Clinton was asked by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., about the flow of weapons.

“I will see what information is available,” then Secretary Clinton ‎responded. “I don’t have any information on that.”