I have said for almost three years that everything is going to be made very transparent. That everything- all the corruption, the fraud, etc...- needs to be made completely visible to the world....
In the past month, the "Visibility" has reached a whole new level. The question is: WILL PEOPLE PAY ATTENTION?
I said on the Oct 5th One People's Roundtable Discussion that the line has been very clearly drawn in the sand. That, in my opinion, there are very clearly now two separate groups of people on this planet: Those who are awake, waking up, or about to waken. And those that will not.
I know that sounds extremely harsh and "judgmental" , but in the conversations I have been witnessing and taking part in, the over whelming data is that there are huge groups of people who are, seemingly, incapable of SEEING or COMPREHENDING what is going on around them. They literally will not LOOK at ANYTHING that is not in their paradigm of belief- they physically will turn away, their eyes glaze over, and they will radically change the subject or walk away.
I
honestly think that we could use just this one point- this one topic-
as a litmus test for humanity. The complete absurdity of the "Climate
Change" rhetoric and agendas is so completely asinine, in that THEIR OWN
STATEMENTS contradict themselves- this is the perfect barometer to look
at whether people have any chance of shaking the mind numbing koolaid
out of their brains and actually use them to logically deduce the
bullshit that the "Climate Change" Schtic is.
THIS is yet another Litmus Test. If people can read these next articles and can NOT SEE, NOT COMPREHEND what has, and is, being done right now- right in front of them......
.... then they are in the "forever asleep" group on this planet.
d
US Rejects Hospital Bombing Investigation, Instead Smashes into Hospital in Tank, Destroying Evidence
After changing its story many times, the US now admits that
it intentionally threw bombs, for more than an hour, at the now famous
Doctors Without Borders hospital, proving accurate the assessment of DWB
staffer Meinie Nicolai, who said the US attack was “a premeditated massacre.”
Since initial US claims that the protected DWB hospital was a
“Taliban stronghold” and so forth have been debunked as stupid, the US
now claims it targeted the hospital because one man, a “Pakistan
Inter-Services Intelligence spy”, was inside.
However, Glenn Greenwald points out that the US puppet government in
Afghanistan has had it out for DWB for some time because they treat
patients indiscriminately, whereas US allies like Israel,
for example, discriminate between patients, treating Al Qaeda fighters
while targeting members of the UN-recognized Syrian government: “Israel
has opened its borders with Syria in order to provide medical treatment
to Nusra Front and al-Qaida fighters wounded in the ongoing civil war,
according to The Wall Street Journal.”
On October 14th, an “international panel” announced that
it was “ready to investigate the deadly US [hospital] bombing”, but
would need “assurances from Barack Obama and the Afghan president,
Ashraf Ghani, that their governments [would] comply.”
The US rejected the initiative for the investigation, and instead, on October 15th, sent soldiers to smash up the bombed hospital with a tank, “destroy[ing] potential evidence” for the war crimes investigation.
To explain this, the US announced that the tank was carrying the US’s own “investigators”.
In the mean time, a whistle-blower has released classified documents on
Obama’s global assassination ring that illustrate gross recklessness
and confirm that almost one hundred percent of the people being killed
are not actual targets – though targeting people and executing them is
also criminal.
US tank enters ruined Afghan hospital putting 'war crime' evidence at risk
MSF says ‘forced entry’ by military vehicle – later said to be
carrying investigators into the US airstrike that killed 22 patients and
staff – caused stress and fear
Doctors of MSF and citizens move the debris of the hospital in Kunduz damaged by the US airstrike on Thursday.
Photograph: Waqif Nasirahmad/Demotix/Corbis
A US tank has forced its way into the shell of the Afghanistan
hospital destroyed in an airstrike 11 days ago, prompting warnings that
the US military may have destroyed evidence in a potential war crimes investigation.
The 3 October attack on the Médécins sans Frontières (MSF) hospital
in Kunduz killed 10 patients and 12 staff members of the group.
In a statement on Thursday, the medical charity, also known as
Doctors Without Borders, said they were informed after Thursday’s
“intrusion” that the tank was carrying investigators from a
US-Nato-Afghan team which is investigating the attack.
“Their unannounced and forced entry damaged property, destroyed potential evidence and caused stress and fear,” MSF said.
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on
the reported intrusion, which came as new evidence emerged that US
forces operating in the area at the time of the attack knew that the
facility was a hospital.
US special operations analysts were gathering intelligence on the
hospital days before the attack, because they believed a Pakistani
operative was using it as his base, according to areport by the
Associated Press citing an unnamed former intelligence official.
The analysts had mapped the area and drawn a circle around the
hospital, the official was quoted as saying. The Pakistani man,
described both as a Taliban suspect and as a worker for the Pakistani
Inter-Service Intelligence directorate, was killed in the attack, the
official told the AP.
Of the nearly 200 patients and staff inside the hospital at the time of the attack, more than three dozen were wounded, said
MSF, which has called the attack a violation of the Geneva Conventions
and a war crime. The group has said some patients burned to death in
their beds.
Several investigations of the attack are considering whether the
separate American teams involved – special operations analysts,
intelligence community officers, the military command that ordered the
strike – knew the facility was a hospital, whether they gave warning of a
strike and what was happening on the ground at the time.
Advertisement
It
is unclear whether the analysts’ knowledge that the facility was a
hospital was shared by the command that launched the attack. MSF said
GPS coordinates identifying the hospital had been shared with US,
coalition and Afghan military officers and civilian officials “as
recently as Tuesday 29 September”.
Michael Newton, a West Point graduate and an expert on conduct of
hostilities issues at Vanderbilt Law School, listed questions a Defense
Department investigation would seek to answer.
“There’s somebody in some part of the force that knows that’s a
prohibited target,” Newton said. “The question then is, what are the
fire control measures over that place?
“If they were followed, were they adequate? If they weren’t followed,
why weren’t they followed? And underneath that, there’s two things.
Either, one – they were misapplied. Or, two, there was an exception.”
An example of an exception would be a case of self-defense, Newton said.
The Pentagon originally said the hospital was struck in the course of
a firefight involving US troops. General John Campbell, the top US
officer in Afghanistan, later said the strike on the hospital was a mistake.
The Pentagon declined further comment on Thursday, citing ongoing investigations.
The Defense Department, Nato and the Afghan government are conducting parallel investigations of the attack, while MSF has called
for an inquiry by the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding
Commission, or IHFFC, a never-before-used investigative commission under
the Geneva conventions.
Advertisement
“It
is impossible to expect the parties involved in the conflict to carry
out independent and impartial investigations of acts in which they
themselves are implicated,” said MSF in the statement on Thursday. “The
preservation of health facilities as neutral, protected spaces depends
on [an independent investigation].”
US and Afghan consent is needed for the IHFFC investigation to proceed. MSF launched an online petition on Thursday calling on President Barack Obama to consent.
The White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, said on Thursday that he was
“not aware” of the Associated Press report. He declined comment on who
gave the order for the strike on the hospital or the motivation for the
attack.
“All of those are questions that will be considered by the ongoing
Defense Department investigation,” Earnest said. “The president’s
expectation is that he will see a full accounting of these facts in
context.”
Newton said the Pentagon investigation would be drawing on a wealth of evidence.
“There’s a limited time frame here, it’s a discrete incident, there
would be radio logs or at least handwritten notes of radio traffic – I
think they’ll absolutely get every relevant fact,” he said.
Newton said the White House silence on the issue of whether the attack could constitute a war crime was appropriate.
“People say, ‘Why won’t the president just call it a war crime, why
won’t the secretary of defense just call it a war crime, let’s be
honest, that’s what it was’,” said Newton. “The answer is, because in
the US military it is a separate offense – unlawful command influence –
if higher-level political officials or military officials prejudge a
case and start talking about it in public.”
“What actually happened on the ground? That’s the unanswered question.”
By Claire Bernish of AntiMedia
Had the President of Nobel Peace Prize-winning Doctors Without
Borders not warned us of the “imminent threat to global health” posed by
the TPP, would these 22 doctors and patients have lost their lives
early Saturday? “I don’t know exactly how long, but it was maybe half an hour
afterwards that they stopped bombing. I went out with the project
coordinator to see what had happened. What we saw was the hospital destroyed, burning,” describednurse Lajos Zoltan Jecs of the U.S. bombardment of a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan.
Harsh criticism and skepticism surround what is being labeled an
errant U.S. bombardment of a hospital in Kunduz that left 22 people dead
— many of them volunteers with Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders, the humanitarian aid agency) — but doubt lingers about the vague official story for a reason. Doctors Without Borders Calls Airstrike a War Crime
“Why did they have to blow up the whole hospital?” pleaded Nasratullah,
whose 25-year-old cousin Akbar was among doctors killed in the
bombing.“We know that the Americans are very clever. If they can target a
single person in a car from their planes, why did they have to blow up
the whole building?”
The ostensible explanation according to rumor centered on reports
Taliban forces had entered the location and were using the cover of the
hospital to fire on coalition forces.
Christopher Stokes, MSF General Director, irately stated, “Not
a single member of our staff reported fighting inside the MSF hospital
compound prior to the U.S. airstrike Saturday morning. The hospital was
full of MSF staff, patients, and their caretakers. It is 12 MSF staff
members and ten patients, including three children, who were killed in
the attack.”
Is something being overlooked?
“U.S. forces conducted an airstrike in Kunduz City at 2:15 am
[local time] on 3 October against individuals threatening the force. The
strike may have resulted in collateral damage to a nearby medical
facility. This incident is under investigation,” stated international coalition spokesperson, Col. Brian Tribus.
“This attack is abhorrent and a grave violation of international humanitarian law,” declared MSF President, Meinie Nicolai. “We
demand total transparency from coalition forces. We cannot accept that
this horrific loss of life will simply be dismissed as ‘collateral
damage.’”
Reports from the scene indicate MSF had not only notified all warring
parties in the region of the exact GPS coordinates for the hospital and
its outlying buildings, but that doctors immediately notified forces
the moment the hospital came under fire from a U.S. airstrike — and,
even then, the attack continued for a full 30 minutes.
Stokes found that suggestion wholly inadequate, adding:
“Under clear presumption that a war crime has been committed, MSF
demands that a full and transparent investigation into the event be
conducted by an independent international body. Relying only on an
internal investigation by a party to the conflict would be wholly
insufficient.”
So why did the attack continue, much less happen in the first place? Doctors Without Borders Vocally Opposes the TPP
If circumstances of any incident appear not to add up, it’s pertinent
to thoroughly examine the current narrative for signs the State is
attempting to mold public opinion — because it is there you will find
the truth that you’re not being told.
In the case of MSF, a massive treaty cum trade deal involving U.S.
interests in another part of the world from the tragedy in Kunduz can
offer, perhaps, insight which might otherwise seem unrelated. As
it turns out, MSF have been particularly vocal critics of the impending
Trans-Pacific Partnership — and their criticism hasn’t gone unnoticed.
As reported in the National Journal in May: “It’s not usual business for us, and the reason is because we’re very worried,” explained Judit Rius Sanjuan, whooversees Doctors Without Borders drug access campaign, in a phone interview. “We are doing anything we can to make sure the public is aware.”
Though the Nobel Prize-winning group has actively but reservedly
opposed the massive TPP deal for years, recent letters to President
Obama and a campaign of subway ads on the D.C. Metro show a more urgent,
public push. Sanjuan admitted such a robust effort “is not usual
practice for us.”
What is so pressing for the public to know that it led the group to abandon its typically subdued tone?
Simply, drug costs. Specifically, the intellectual property and patent laws that will favor drug companies should the TPP take effect.
Protecting Profit vs. Saving Lives
“It would force them to change the law of many of these countries
that are currently negotiating to create new intellectual property
protections for pharmaceutical drugs, including but not limited to
patents,” Sanjuan explained about the deal as exposed by WikiLeaks in 2013. “The effects of these new obligations would limit generic competition and therefore increase the cost of medicine.”
This has put Médecins sans Frontières “at odds with the White House,” as the National Journal delicately described. A recent letter to Obama from MSF clearly alluded to the humanitarian nature of the group’s opposition to the trade deal:
“MSF believes this is essential to closing the gap in
access to medicines to millions of people around the world. The TPP
could be an opportunity to make significant progress toward these goals.
Instead, in its current state, the TPP is a threat to the health of
millions.”
As evidenced in the Kunduz hospital bombing and numerous military
campaigns in the Middle East and elsewhere, the human toll likely isn’t
the priority first called to mind by the U.S. government.
Profit, on the other hand, must be protected no matter the human cost.
After this attack, MSF decided to pull its operations from Kunduz for the foreseeable future. As Jecs lamented, “The hospital, it has been my workplace and home for several
months. Yes, it is just a building. But it is so much more than that. It
is healthcare for Kunduz. Now it is gone. What is the benefit of this?
Destroying a hospital and so many lives, for nothing. I cannot find
words for this.”
With the number of questions being raised, we will continue to look into the incident further.
* * *
Doctors Without Borders released a statement following the conclusion of TPP negotiations in Atlanta: “Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) expresses
its dismay that TPP countries have agreed to United States government
and multinational drug company demands that will raise the price of
medicines for millions by unnecessarily extending monopolies and further
delaying price-lowering generic competition. The big losers in the TPP
are patients and treatment providers in developing countries. Although
the text has improved over the initial demands, the TPP will still go
down in history as the worst trade agreement for access to medicines in
developing countries, which will be forced to change their laws to
incorporate abusive intellectual property protections for pharmaceutical
companies.”
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/06/2015 13:53 -0400
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.