Join this community to post or comment
Pinned by moderator

Ortaiηe Ðeviaη

Inspirational  - 
Welcome to Globalist Watch International
Catherine Hislop's profile photophennig1977's profile photoJohn Phillips's profile photoНаталья Макарова's profile photo
George has me blocked too lol. To be fair I think I blocked him first a long time ago..(last year).  I was going through this "phase." I had unblocked him many months back and noticed that I was blocked. 
Add a comment...

Ortaiηe Ðeviaη

Psychotronic/Neuroweaponry  - 
The David Icke Videocast: Mass Mind Control The 'Astral Net'
May 22, 2015 • David Icke

*David Icke’s Acclaimed 2014 All-Day AWAKEN!! Wembley Presentation Now Available To See On Demand*
Add a comment...


General Discussion  - 
Catherine Hislop's profile photo
He new before the election he would have another term
Add a comment...

yilmaz gurol

General Discussion  - 
yilmaz gurol originally shared to Mission-Love:
"To take ALBAYRAK [the Turkish flag] to every places of the World. That is our aim." Prime Minister Davutoğlu said, yesterday, in the opening-ceremony of Ordu-airport. He in fact, implicitely but knowingly acted as a harbinger of the agenda: The establishment of the World-State by Turks, under the leadership of Yılmaz Gürol.
With my political consciousness, I am sure, Davutoğlu has the following knowledge about Yılmaz Gürol:
To establish the Socialist-World-State, Yılmaz Gürol was chosen at the age of 18, because of his passion of Socialism.
After the declaration of the Socialist-World-State, his passion will be dangerous. He will try to act according to his own passion, not in accordance with the needs of the secret-world-state. Therefore he will be toppled with a military coup, and he will be publicly executed. He was chosen as a victim. The proof is his being eunuch. He was led to amputate his genital organ at the age of 38, with deception that god wants it so.
I am now 67 years old. I have still been waiting for the start.
My mission is to establish, on the basis of socialist-economy, love-society with foursome-families of 4 siblings, two males and two females, spouses of each other, by birth.
Naturally, anybody who has the knowledge that Yılmaz Gürol will be killed is my enemy.
And naturally, anybody who comprehends that Yılmaz Gürol will not be killed is my friend, whatever his or her past is.
Europe s first airport on an artificial island opened on May 22, as a morning Turkish Airlines flight from Istanbul carrying 136 passengers touched down on its runway, the first of its kind outside the Far East
6 comments on original post
Add a comment...

Ortaiηe Ðeviaη

Liberty/Civil & Human Rights  - 
Edward Snowden Cheers On Rand Paul
5/21/115 •

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden on Thursday praised Sen. Rand Paul’s ten-and-a-half hour takeover of the Senate floor on Wednesday in protest of the Patriot Act.
Snowden, whose revelations about mass surveillance two years ago may finally result in reform legislation this week, said in a Reddit “Ask Me Anything” discussion that Paul’s action “represents a sea change from a few years ago, when intrusive new surveillance laws were passed without any kind of meaningful opposition or debate.”
Paul, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, spent much of his time on the floor criticizing the massive surveillance regime that Snowden exposed by leaking top-secret documents to journalists.
It was all for show — Paul’s self proclaimed “filibuster” (minibuster? fauxbuster?) had no practical effect on upcoming Senate votes, although it did give his presidential campaign a boost. The Senate is due to vote in the next several days on the USA Freedom Act, which passed the House overwhelmingly last week, and which would eliminate one — but only one — of the programs Snowden disclosed: the bulk collection of domestic phone records.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said he would prefer to simply renew the three Patriot Act provisions that expire on June 1, including the one that officials say justifies the bulk collection, but he is in a small minority, and his proposal may not even come to a vote.
Snowden wrote:
Whatever you think about Rand Paul or his politics, it’s important to remember that when he took the floor to say “No” to any length of reauthorization of the Patriot Act, he was speaking for the majority of Americans — more than 60% of whom want to see this kind of mass surveillance reformed or ended.
He was joined by several other senators who disagree with the Senate Majority leader’s efforts to sneak through a reauthorization of what courts just weeks ago declared was a comprehensively unlawful program, and if you notice that yours did not take to the floor with him, you should call them right now (1-920-END-4-215) and ask them to vote against any extension of the Patriot Act, because the final vote is being forced during the dark of a holiday weekend to shield them from criticism.
Snowden, who appeared on Reddit from Moscow, shared the online discussion with ACLU Deputy Director Jameel Jaffer.
In response to one commenter who noted that Paul was his senator, Snowden wrote:
If Paul is your Senator, then Mitch McConnell is also from your state. He’s the one spearheading the effort to reauthorize the same program the Second Circuit just ruled is unlawful.
Don’t send an email, make his phone ring. (ACLU tells me you can get your senator from any phone via 1-920-END-4-215)
Snowden urged readers “to correct misinformation whenever you see this topic being debated.” He even supplied his own bullet points:
Supporters of mass surveillance say it keeps us safe. The problem is that that’s an allegation, not a fact, and there’s no evidence at all to support the claim. In fact, a White House review with unrestricted access to classified information found that not only is mass surveillance illegal, it has never made a concrete difference in even one terrorism investigation.
Some claim the Senate should keep Section 215 of the Patriot Act (which will be voted on in two days) because we need “more time for debate,” but even in the US, the public has already decided: 60% oppose reauthorization. This unconstitutional mass surveillance program was revealed in June 2013 and has been struck down by courts twice since then. If two years and two courts aren’t enough to satisfy them, what is?
A few try to say that Section 215 is legal. It’s not. Help them understand.
The bottom line is we need people everywhere — in the US, outside the US, and especially within their own communities — to push back and challenge anybody defending these programs. More than anything, we need to ordinary people to make it clear that a vote in favor of the extension or reauthorization of mass surveillance authorities is a vote in favor of a program that is illegal, ineffective, and illiberal.
Asked if he thought the government might continue with the collection of bulk phone records despite losing what it says is its legal authority for doing so, Snowden replied:
There are always reasons to be concerned that regardless of the laws passed, some agencies in government (FBI, NSA, CIA, and DEA, for example, have flouted laws in the past) will miscontrue the intent of Congress in passing limiting laws — or simply disregard them totally. For example, the DOJ’s internal watchdog, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report claiming, among other abuses, that it could simply refuse to tell government oversight bodies what exactly it was doing, so the legality or illegality of their operations simply couldn’t be questioned at all.
However, that’s no excuse for the public or Congress to turn a blind eye to unlawful or immoral operations — and the kind of mass surveillance happening under Section 215 of the Patriot Act right now is very much unlawful: the Courts ruled just two weeks ago that not only are these activities illegal, but they have been since the day the programs began.
And asked if, during his now-famous interview with John Oliver, Oliver had really handed him a “picture of his junk” (you simply must watch the segment, if you haven’t already), Snowden replied with a unicode emoticon known as a “Lenny Face“:
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden on Thursday praised Sen. Rand Paul's ten-and-a-half hour takeover of the Senate floor on Wednesday in protest of the Patriot Act.
edward tungani's profile photoBen Nash's profile photopiperpepperpickeda peckofpickledpeppers's profile photomystdolly's profile photo
+007 PI If I recall correctly you said, "That is great but you need to check your new roots of WIKI and make sure they are all they claim to be." I'm not sure that I understand what you mean. What direction are your leads taking you? Thank you and have a wonderful weekend as well.
Add a comment...

Ortaiηe Ðeviaη

Liberty/Civil & Human Rights  - 
Whereas: Today, our Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from government search and seizure unless there is probable cause of a crime, is under assault like never before; and. Whereas: This country fought a revolution over issues like generalized warrants, where soldiers would go from ...
Marc Krisnanto's profile photoOrtaiηe Ðeviaη's profile photoedward tungani's profile photomystdolly's profile photo
+Marc Krisnanto
Amazing indeed.
Add a comment...


General Discussion  - 
Marc Krisnanto's profile photo
Haven't watched the video but I like the design :)
Add a comment...

Rex Radd

Humor/Satire  - 
Marc Krisnanto's profile photoTwsbi Banghorn's profile photo
And it changes color too!
Add a comment...

Ortaiηe Ðeviaη

Liberty/Civil & Human Rights  - 
The Senate Fails to Reform NSA Spying, Votes Against USA Freedom Act
5.23.15 •

A last-minute bid to reform NSA spying before lawmakers break for a week-long recess failed early Saturday morning after hours of debate and filibuster overnight when Senate lawmakers voted 57-42 against the USA Freedom Act.
Senator Mitch McConnell then tried to lead an effort to extend the key provision in the Patriot Act that has been used to justify NSA spying, which is set to expire on June 1. But that vote also failed. Temporarily, that means the government’s bulk collection of phone records from U.S. telecoms is on hold.
USA Freedom Act aimed to put an end to that program, first uncovered by USA Today in 2006 and re-exposed in 2013 by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The bill called for records to be retained by telecoms and would have forced the NSA to obtain court orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to gain access to them. It also would have required the agency to use specific search terms to narrow its access to only relevant records.
A companion bill passed in the House earlier this month by a landslide vote of 338 to 88 but encountered trouble in the Senate where opponents said it would handicap the fight against terrorism and harm national security.
Proponents of the bill were pushing to get it passed before lawmakers could vote on whether or not to re-authorize sections of the US Patriot Act. Section 215, which the government has long said legally justifies its collection of phone records, is set to expire at midnight June 1. Even after this failure, Lawmakers remain under pressure to re-authorize it before then. They plan to reconvene on May 31 after their break to try again.
Supporters of the USA Freedom Act hoped to get this bill passed to counter Section 215 and reform the collection program that Section 215 purportedly legalizes. But the Second Circuit Court of Appeals introduced a ripple when it ruled earlier this month that Section 215 cannot be used to justify the bulk records collection program. The three-judge panel said that such collection was never intended by lawmakers when they drafted the Patriot Act, and that the government could not use it to legally justify the mass collection of US phone records.
This left lawmakers with the choice of either revising Section 215 so that it is written in a way that does authorize bulk collection, or re-authorize it as written, leaving the government with no legal coverage for the NSA’s phone records collection program.
The USA Freedom Act was intended as a compromise—a bill that would authorize the NSA to still obtain access to phone records that are relevant to an investigation but without allowing the spy agency to collect massive records to do so.
Civil liberties groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation were divided in their support of the USA Freedom Act. EFF had supported the legislation until the appeals court ruling about Section 215. EFF hoped the ruling would embolden the Senate to revise the bill to provide even stronger reforms of the phone records program.
Most importantly, EFF wanted lawmakers to include language that would provide a strict interpretation of key terms in the statute such as “relevant” and “investigation,” to prevent the NSA from using loose interpretations to keep collecting massive amounts of data. “This easy task will make sure that the law is not read as rejecting the Second Circuit’s reading and will help ensure that the USA Freedom Act actually accomplishes its goal of ending bulk collection,” EFF wrote in the post last week.
The bill had the support of the White House, which had said it balanced the need for surveillance with the preservation of constitutional protections for Americans. Attorney General Eric Holder and even the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had both expressed support for it.
Lawmakers who opposed it, however, said it would handicap the NSA and allow terrorist groups to prosper. In a Wall Street journal op-ed, former NSA and CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden and former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey called it the kind of “NSA Reform That Only ISIS Could Love,” referring to the militant group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria that is terrorizing parts of the Middle East.
The U.S. Senate building, April 11, 2015 in Washington, D.C. Raymond Boyd/Getty Images A last-minute bid to reform NSA spying before lawmakers break for a week-long recess failed early Saturday morning after hours of debate and filibuster overnight when Senate lawmakers voted 57-42 against the USA Freedom Act. Senator Mitch McConnell then tried to lead…
Ortaiηe Ðeviaη's profile photo
Add a comment...

Ortaiηe Ðeviaη

Health/Environmental  - 
Millions Across The World Gather To Take Down Monsanto And Here’s Why They’re Doing It
5/23/15 •
It’s May 23rd and millions of people across the planet are gathering (again) to voice their desire to no longer have a corporation like Monsanto in control of the entire global food supply. It’s become known as the “March Against Monsanto” and it’s become so large over the years that it has gained the attention […]
MIchelle Tennant's profile photoLove Light's profile photoT FlashPoint Szerlong's profile photoGlenn parent's profile photo
I think Mosanto has the worst PR program ever , even Nestlé is doing better.
Add a comment...

About this community

This community is dedicated to exposing the Globalist Agenda. Be polite. Comments attacking specific ethnic or religious groups will not be tolerated. No graphic images of violence. No marketing. Owners are Editor-In-Chiefs. Any post or comment may be pulled for language or not being pertinent to discussion.

Dmatic Deesh

General Discussion  - 
Modern Day Stalking by elijah1757
A compilation of quotes and excerpts that attempt to describe the nearly indescribable phenomenon of modern-day organized stalking.

Modern-day Stalking
“To explain exactly what modern-day gang stalking is in so few words is nearly impossible due to the complexity, depth, and range of the elements that make up the whole. But in so few words, suffice it to say that in the shadow of the Nazi police state and the cooperation of many naive ‘citizen informants,’ this modern-day, community-based bullying and intimidation is the oppression of the unseen hand of corrupted governments and evidence of a collapsing society.” — elijah1757

“A slow death by assassination from co-conspirators is achieved by a continuous stream of “soft” blows to both the individual’s body and mind as well as his/her environment. Defamation by slander, isolation by rejection, demoralization by bullying, destabilization by unemployment, and despair by complete poverty and loneliness. (From: Manchurian Candidates and Gang Stalking)

“Modern day gang stalking (organized stalking) is not a group of switch-blade wielding, bandana-wearing misfits of society shaking up a well-to-do couple who took the wrong turn near the ghetto. Quite the contrary, organized stalking identifies the ‘undesirable’ (falsely accused or slandered) and uses ‘no-touch intimidation’ to break the person’s psyche. In the spiritual sense, these are Barrabas’ zealots who in their self-righteousness or ignorance shout, “crucify him!” (From: Modern Day Gang Stalking – Community Mob Force | elijah1757)

“Briefly, I must convey that I am a ‘Targeted Individual.’ A ‘TI’ is a person who has been put in a secret program by government or influential persons without their consent. The program involves a multi-layered and multifaceted psychological and physical assault against the TI (targeted individual) and his/her environment. It is commonly referred to as covert organized stalking (gang stalking) and is essentially a secret civilian mob under the direction and coercion of the aforementioned authorities (CIA/FBI/NSA, etc). (From: Operation Soul Catcher | elijah1757)
To explain exactly what modern-day gang stalking is in so few words is nearly impossible due to the complexity, depth, and range of the elements that make up the whole. Perhaps this compilation is ...
Add a comment...

Ortaiηe Ðeviaη

Radio/Internet Shows  - 
EMERGENCY: TPP IS Tyrannical World Government
May 23, 2015 • Alex Jones

The Senate's fast-track TPP gift to Obama is a watershed moment in this next monumental step of the globalists. They have cleared the way for the next phase of tyrannical government to tighten it's ever closing grip on our liberties. We must make it clear to everyone, this secret "treaty" is not about "trade" but about the fight for our very existence. The other shoe is dropping, we must wake up and face this encroaching globalist tyranny for what it is and spread the word far and wide.

Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family:
Add a comment...

Ortaiηe Ðeviaη

NewWorldOrder/NationalSecurity  - 
Secret Pentagon report reveals West saw ISIS as strategic asset Anti-ISIS coalition knowingly sponsored violent extremists to ‘isolate’ Assad, rollback ‘Shia expansion’
5/21/15 •

This story is published by INSURGE INTELLIGENCE, a new crowd-funded investigative journalism project.
Support us to break the stories that no one else will — become a patron of independent, investigative journalism for the global commons.
A declassified secret US government document obtained by the conservative public interest law firm, Judicial Watch, shows that Western governments deliberately allied with al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups to topple Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad.
The document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states and Turkey, the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, despite anticipating that doing so could lead to the emergence of an ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
According to the newly declassified US document, the Pentagon foresaw the likely rise of the ‘Islamic State’ as a direct consequence of the strategy, but described this outcome as a strategic opportunity to “isolate the Syrian regime.”


The revelations contradict the official line of Western government on their policies in Syria, and raise disturbing questions about secret Western support for violent extremists abroad, while using the burgeoning threat of terror to justify excessive mass surveillance and crackdowns on civil liberties at home.
Among the batch of documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a federal lawsuit, released earlier this week, is a US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document then classified as “secret,” dated 12th August 2012.
The DIA provides military intelligence in support of planners, policymakers and operations for the US Department of Defense and intelligence community.
So far, media reporting has focused on the evidence that the Obama administration knew of arms supplies from a Libyan terrorist stronghold to rebels in Syria.
Some outlets have reported the US intelligence community’s internal prediction of the rise of ISIS. Yet none have accurately acknowledged the disturbing details exposing how the West knowingly fostered a sectarian, al-Qaeda-driven rebellion in Syria.
Charles Shoebridge, a former British Army and Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism intelligence officer, said:
“Given the political leanings of the organisation that obtained these documents, it’s unsurprising that the main emphasis given to them thus far has been an attempt to embarrass Hilary Clinton regarding what was known about the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in 2012. However, the documents also contain far less publicized revelations that raise vitally important questions of the West’s governments and media in their support of Syria’s rebellion.”

The West’s Islamists

The newly declassified DIA document from 2012 confirms that the main component of the anti-Assad rebel forces by this time comprised Islamist insurgents affiliated to groups that would lead to the emergence of ISIS. Despite this, these groups were to continue receiving support from Western militaries and their regional allies.
Noting that “the Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” the document states that “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition,” while Russia, China and Iran “support the [Assad] regime.”
The 7-page DIA document states that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the precursor to the ‘Islamic State in Iraq,’ (ISI) which became the ‘Islamic State in Iraq and Syria,’ “supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media.”
The formerly secret Pentagon report notes that the “rise of the insurgency in Syria” has increasingly taken a “sectarian direction,” attracting diverse support from Sunni “religious and tribal powers” across the region.
In a section titled ‘The Future Assumptions of the Crisis,’ the DIA report predicts that while Assad’s regime will survive, retaining control over Syrian territory, the crisis will continue to escalate “into proxy war.”
The document also recommends the creation of “safe havens under international sheltering, similar to what transpired in Libya when Benghazi was chosen as the command centre for the temporary government.”
In Libya, anti-Gaddafi rebels, most of whom were al-Qaeda affiliated militias, were protected by NATO ‘safe havens’ (aka ‘no fly zones’).

‘Supporting powers want’ ISIS entity

In a strikingly prescient prediction, the Pentagon document explicitly forecasts the probable declaration of “an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.”
Nevertheless, “Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts” by Syrian “opposition forces” fighting to “control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar)”:
“… there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”
The secret Pentagon document thus provides extraordinary confirmation that the US-led coalition currently fighting ISIS, had three years ago welcomed the emergence of an extremist “Salafist Principality” in the region as a way to undermine Assad, and block off the strategic expansion of Iran. Crucially, Iraq is labeled as an integral part of this “Shia expansion.”
The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, the DIA document asserts, is “exactly” what the “supporting powers to the [Syrian] opposition want.” Earlier on, the document repeatedly describes those “supporting powers” as “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.”
Further on, the document reveals that Pentagon analysts were acutely aware of the dire risks of this strategy, yet ploughed ahead anyway.
The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, it says, would create “the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi.” Last summer, ISIS conquered Mosul in Iraq, and just this month has also taken control of Ramadi.
Such a quasi-state entity will provide:
“… a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of territory.”
The 2012 DIA document is an Intelligence Information Report (IIR), not a “finally evaluated intelligence” assessment, but its contents are vetted before distribution. The report was circulated throughout the US intelligence community, including to the State Department, Central Command, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI, among other agencies.
In response to my questions about the strategy, the British government simply denied the Pentagon report’s startling revelations of deliberate Western sponsorship of violent extremists in Syria. A British Foreign Office spokesperson said:
“AQ and ISIL are proscribed terrorist organisations. The UK opposes all forms of terrorism. AQ, ISIL, and their affiliates pose a direct threat to the UK’s national security. We are part of a military and political coalition to defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria, and are working with international partners to counter the threat from AQ and other terrorist groups in that region. In Syria we have always supported those moderate opposition groups who oppose the tyranny of Assad and the brutality of the extremists.”
The DIA did not respond to request for comment.

Strategic asset for regime-change

Security analyst Shoebridge, however, who has tracked Western support for Islamist terrorists in Syria since the beginning of the war, pointed out that the secret Pentagon intelligence report exposes fatal contradictions at the heart of official pronunciations:
“Throughout the early years of the Syria crisis, the US and UK governments, and almost universally the West’s mainstream media, promoted Syria’s rebels as moderate, liberal, secular, democratic, and therefore deserving of the West’s support. Given that these documents wholly undermine this assessment, it’s significant that the West’s media has now, despite their immense significance, almost entirely ignored them.”
According to Brad Hoff, a former US Marine who served during the early years of the Iraq War and as a 9/11 first responder at the Marine Corps Headquarters in Battalion Quantico from 2000 to 2004, the just released Pentagon report for the first time provides stunning affirmation that:
“US intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a US strategic asset.”
Hoff, who is managing editor of Levant Report —  an online publication run by Texas-based educators who have direct experience of the Middle East — points out that the DIA document “matter-of-factly” states that the rise of such an extremist Salafist political entity in the region offers a “tool for regime change in Syria.”
The DIA intelligence report shows, he said, that the rise of ISIS only became possible in the context of the Syrian insurgency — “there is no mention of US troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits.” The report demonstrates that:
“The establishment of a ‘Salafist Principality’ in Eastern Syria is ‘exactly’ what the external powers supporting the opposition want (identified as ‘the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey’) in order to weaken the Assad government.”
The rise of a Salafist quasi-state entity that might expand into Iraq, and fracture that country, was therefore clearly foreseen by US intelligence as likely — but nevertheless strategically useful — blowback from the West’s commitment to “isolating Syria.”


Critics of the US-led strategy in the region have repeatedly raised questions about the role of coalition allies in intentionally providing extensive support to Islamist terrorist groups in the drive to destabilize the Assad regime in Syria.
The conventional wisdom is that the US government did not retain sufficient oversight on the funding to anti-Assad rebel groups, which was supposed to be monitored and vetted to ensure that only ‘moderate’ groups were supported.
However, the newly declassified Pentagon report proves unambiguously that years before ISIS launched its concerted offensive against Iraq, the US intelligence community was fully aware that Islamist militants constituted the core of Syria’s sectarian insurgency.
Despite that, the Pentagon continued to support the Islamist insurgency, even while anticipating the probability that doing so would establish an extremist Salafi stronghold in Syria and Iraq.
As Shoebridge told me, “The documents show that not only did the US government at the latest by August 2012 know the true extremist nature and likely outcome of Syria’s rebellion” — namely, the emergence of ISIS — “but that this was considered an advantage for US foreign policy. This also suggests a decision to spend years in an effort to deliberately mislead the West’s public, via a compliant media, into believing that Syria’s rebellion was overwhelmingly ‘moderate.’”
Annie Machon, a former MI5 intelligence officer who blew the whistle in the 1990s on MI6 funding of al-Qaeda to assassinate Libya’s former leader Colonel Gaddafi, similarly said of the revelations:
“This is no surprise to me. Within individual countries there are always multiple intelligence agencies with competing agendas.”
She explained that MI6’s Libya operation in 1996, which resulted in the deaths of innocent people, “happened at precisely the time when MI5 was setting up a new section to investigate al-Qaeda.”
This strategy was repeated on a grand scale in the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, said Machon, where the CIA and MI6 were:
“… supporting the very same Libyan groups, resulting in a failed state, mass murder, displacement and anarchy. So the idea that elements of the American military-security complex have enabled the development of ISIS after their failed attempt to get NATO to once again ‘intervene’ is part of an established pattern. And they remain indifferent to the sheer scale of human suffering that is unleashed as a result of such game-playing.”

Divide and rule

Several US government officials have conceded that their closest allies in the anti-ISIS coalition were funding violent extremist Islamist groups that became integral to ISIS.
US Vice President Joe Biden, for instance, admitted last year that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Turkey had funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Islamist rebels in Syria that metamorphosed into ISIS.
But he did not admit what this internal Pentagon document demonstrates — that the entire covert strategy was sanctioned and supervised by the US, Britain, France, Israel and other Western powers.
The strategy appears to fit a policy scenario identified by a recent US Army-commissioned RAND Corp report.
The report, published four years before the DIA document, called for the US “to capitalise on the Shia-Sunni conflict by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes in a decisive fashion and working with them against all Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.”
The US would need to contain “Iranian power and influence” in the Gulf by “shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan.” Simultaneously, the US must maintain “a strong strategic relationship with the Iraqi Shiite government” despite its Iran alliance.
The RAND report confirmed that the “divide and rule” strategy was already being deployed “to create divisions in the jihadist camp. Today in Iraq such a strategy is being used at the tactical level.”
The report observed that the US was forming “temporary alliances” with al-Qaeda affiliated “nationalist insurgent groups” that have fought the US for four years in the form of “weapons and cash.” Although these nationalists “have cooperated with al-Qaeda against US forces,” they are now being supported to exploit “the common threat that al-Qaeda now poses to both parties.”
The 2012 DIA document, however, further shows that while sponsoring purportedly former al-Qaeda insurgents in Iraq to counter al-Qaeda, Western governments were simultaneously arming al-Qaeda insurgents in Syria.
The revelation from an internal US intelligence document that the very US-led coalition supposedly fighting ‘Islamic State’ today, knowingly created ISIS in the first place, raises troubling questions about recent government efforts to justify the expansion of state anti-terror powers.
In the wake of the rise of ISIS, intrusive new measures to combat extremism including mass surveillance, the Orwellian ‘prevent duty’ and even plans to enable government censorship of broadcasters, are being pursued on both sides of the Atlantic, much of which disproportionately targets activists, journalists and ethnic minorities, especially Muslims.
Yet the new Pentagon report reveals that, contrary to Western government claims, the primary cause of the threat comes from their own deeply misguided policies of secretly sponsoring Islamist terrorism for dubious geopolitical purposes.
Dr Nafeez Ahmed is an investigative journalist, bestselling author and international security scholar. A former Guardian writer, he writes the ‘System Shift’ column for VICE’s Motherboard, and is also a columnist for Middle East Eye. He is the winner of a 2015 Project Censored Award, known as the ‘Alternative Pulitzer Prize’, for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for his Guardian work, and was selected in the Evening Standard’s ‘Power 1,000’ most globally influential Londoners.
Nafeez has also written for The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, Quartz, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique, New Internationalist, Counterpunch, Truthout, among others. He is the author of A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It (2010), and the scifi thriller novel ZERO POINT, among other books. His work on the root causes and covert operations linked to international terrorism officially contributed to the 9/11 Commission and the 7/7 Coroner’s Inquest.
This exclusive is being released for free in the public interest, and was enabled by crowdfunding. I’d like to thank my amazing community of patrons for their support, which gave me the opportunity to work on this in-depth investigation. If you appreciated this story, please support independent, investigative journalism for the global commons via, where you can donate as much or as little as you like.
Anti-ISIS coalition knowingly sponsored violent extremists to ‘isolate’ Assad, rollback ‘Shia expansion’
Add a comment...

Israel Ag Nouh Yattara

General Discussion  - 
ISIS supporters riding the metro in Turkey. Blatantly wearing ISIS tee-shirts. Are they ISIS or are they just supporters?
View original post
Add a comment...

Ortaiηe Ðeviaη

Inspirational  - 
90 yr old stroke victim, virtually comatose, meets his newest great grandson
Oct 14, 2013 • Wayne Bogda
Add a comment...

Ortaiηe Ðeviaη

News & Science  - 
This Artificial Intelligence Pioneer Has a Few Concerns
5.23.15 •

In January, the British-American computer scientist Stuart Russell drafted and became the first signatory of an open letter calling for researchers to look beyond the goal of merely making artificial intelligence more powerful. “We recommend expanded research aimed at ensuring that increasingly capable AI systems are robust and beneficial,” the letter states. “Our AI systems must do what we want them to do.” Thousands of people have since signed the letter, including leading artificial intelligence researchers at Google, Facebook, Microsoft and other industry hubs along with top computer scientists, physicists and philosophers around the world. By the end of March, about 300 research groups had applied to pursue new research into “keeping artificial intelligence beneficial” with funds contributed by the letter’s 37th signatory, the inventor-entrepreneur Elon Musk.
Original story reprinted with permission from Quanta Magazine, an editorially independent division of whose mission is to enhance public understanding of science by covering research developments and trends in mathematics and the physical and life sciences.

Russell, 53, a professor of computer science and founder of the Center for Intelligent Systems at the University of California, Berkeley, has long been contemplating the power and perils of thinking machines. He is the author of more than 200 papers as well as the field’s standard textbook, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (with Peter Norvig, head of research at Google). But increasingly rapid advances in artificial intelligence have given Russell’s longstanding concerns heightened urgency.
Recently, he says, artificial intelligence has made major strides, partly on the strength of neuro-inspired learning algorithms. These are used in Facebook’s face-recognition software, smartphone personal assistants and Google’s self-driving cars. In a bombshell result reported recently in Nature, a simulated network of artificial neurons learned to play Atari video games better than humans in a matter of hours given only data representing the screen and the goal of increasing the score at the top—but no preprogrammed knowledge of aliens, bullets, left, right, up or down. “If your newborn baby did that you would think it was possessed,” Russell said.
Quanta Magazine caught up with Russell over breakfast at the American Physical Society’s 2015 March Meeting in San Antonio, Texas, where he touched down for less than 24 hours to give a standing-room-only lecture on the future of artificial intelligence. In this edited and condensed version of the interview, Russell discusses the nature of intelligence itself and the immense challenges of safely approximating it in machines.
QUANTA MAGAZINE: You think the goal of your field should be developing artificial intelligence that is “provably aligned” with human values. What does that mean?
STUART RUSSELL: It’s a deliberately provocative statement, because it’s putting together two things—“provably” and “human values”—that seem incompatible. It might be that human values will forever remain somewhat mysterious. But to the extent that our values are revealed in our behavior, you would hope to be able to prove that the machine will be able to “get” most of it. There might be some bits and pieces left in the corners that the machine doesn’t understand or that we disagree on among ourselves. But as long as the machine has got the basics right, you should be able to show that it cannot be very harmful.
How do you go about doing that?
That’s the question I’m working on right now: Where does a machine get hold of some approximation of the values that humans would like it to have? I think one answer is a technique called “inverse reinforcement learning.” Ordinary reinforcement learning is a process where you are given rewards and punishments as you behave, and your goal is to figure out the behavior that will get you the most rewards. That’s what the [Atari-playing] DQN system is doing; it is given the score of the game, and its goal is to make that score bigger. Inverse reinforcement learning is the other way around. You see the behavior, and you’re trying to figure out what score that behavior is trying to maximize. For example, your domestic robot sees you crawl out of bed in the morning and grind up some brown round things in a very noisy machine and do some complicated thing with steam and hot water and milk and so on, and then you seem to be happy. It should learn that part of the human value function in the morning is having some coffee.
There’s an enormous amount of information out there in books, movies and on the web about human actions and attitudes to the actions. So that’s an incredible resource for machines to learn what human values are—who wins medals, who goes to jail, and why.

Video: DQN, an artificial neural network developed by researchers at Google DeepMind, teaches itself to play Atari games such as Breakout. It quickly develops sophisticated strategies.
How did you get into artificial intelligence?
When I was in school, AI wasn’t thought of as an academic discipline, by and large. But I was in boarding school in London, at St. Paul’s, and I had the opportunity to avoid compulsory rugby by doing a computer science A-level [course] at a nearby college. One of my projects for A-level was a program that taught itself to play naughts and crosses, or tic-tac-toe. I became very unpopular because I used up the college’s computer for hours on end. The next year I wrote a chess program and got permission from one of the professors at Imperial College to use their giant mainframe computer. It was fascinating to try to figure out how to get it to play chess. I learned some of the stuff I would later be teaching in my book.
But still, this was just a hobby; at the time my academic interest was physics. I did physics at Oxford. And then when I was applying to grad school I applied to do theoretical physics at Oxford and Cambridge, and I applied to do computer science at MIT, Carnegie Mellon and Stanford, not realizing that I’d missed all the deadlines for applications to the U.S. Fortunately Stanford waived the deadline, so I went to Stanford.
And you’ve been on the West Coast ever since?
You’ve spent much of your career trying to understand what intelligence is as a prerequisite for understanding how machines might achieve it. What have you learned?
During my thesis research in the ’80s, I started thinking about rational decision-making and the problem that it’s actually impossible. If you were rational you would think: Here’s my current state, here are the actions I could do right now, and after that I can do those actions and then those actions and then those actions; which path is guaranteed to lead to my goal? The definition of rational behavior requires you to optimize over the entire future of the universe. It’s just completely infeasible computationally.
It didn’t make much sense that we should define what we’re trying to do in AI as something that’s impossible, so I tried to figure out: How do we really make decisions?
So, how do we do it?
One trick is to think about a short horizon and then guess what the rest of the future is going to look like. So chess programs, for example—if they were rational they would only play moves that guarantee checkmate, but they don’t do that. Instead they look ahead a dozen moves into the future and make a guess about how useful those states are, and then they choose a move that they hope leads to one of the good states.
“Could you prove that your systems can’t ever, no matter how smart they are, overwrite their original goals as set by the humans?”
Another thing that’s really essential is to think about the decision problem at multiple levels of abstraction, so “hierarchical decision making.” A person does roughly 20 trillion physical actions in their lifetime. Coming to this conference to give a talk works out to 1.3 billion or something. If you were rational you’d be trying to look ahead 1.3 billion steps—completely, absurdly impossible. So the way humans manage this is by having this very rich store of abstract, high-level actions. You don’t think, “First I can either move my left foot or my right foot, and then after that I can either…” You think, “I’ll go on Expedia and book a flight. When I land, I’ll take a taxi.” And that’s it. I don’t think about it anymore until I actually get off the plane at the airport and look for the sign that says “taxi”—then I get down into more detail. This is how we live our lives, basically. The future is spread out, with a lot of detail very close to us in time, but these big chunks where we’ve made commitments to very abstract actions, like, “get a Ph.D.,” “have children.”
Are computers currently capable of hierarchical decision making?
So that’s one of the missing pieces right now: Where do all these high-level actions come from? We don’t think programs like the DQN network are figuring out abstract representations of actions. There are some games where DQN just doesn’t get it, and the games that are difficult are the ones that require thinking many, many steps ahead in the primitive representations of actions—ones where a person would think, “Oh, what I need to do now is unlock the door,” and unlocking the door involves fetching the key, etcetera. If the machine doesn’t have the representation “unlock the door” then it can’t really ever make progress on that task.
But if that problem is solved—and it’s certainly not impossible—then we would see another big increase in machine capabilities. There are two or three problems like that where if all of those were solved, then it’s not clear to me that there would be any major obstacle between there and human-level AI.
What concerns you about the possibility of human-level AI?
In the first [1994] edition of my book there’s a section called, “What if we do succeed?” Because it seemed to me that people in AI weren’t really thinking about that very much. Probably it was just too far away. But it’s pretty clear that success would be an enormous thing. “The biggest event in human history” might be a good way to describe it. And if that’s true, then we need to put a lot more thought than we are doing into what the precise shape of that event might be.
The basic idea of the intelligence explosion is that once machines reach a certain level of intelligence, they’ll be able to work on AI just like we do and improve their own capabilities—redesign their own hardware and so on—and their intelligence will zoom off the charts. Over the last few years, the community has gradually refined its arguments as to why there might be a problem. The most convincing argument has to do with value alignment: You build a system that’s extremely good at optimizing some utility function, but the utility function isn’t quite right. In [Oxford philosopher] Nick Bostrom’s book [Superintelligence], he has this example of paperclips. You say, “Make some paperclips.” And it turns the entire planet into a vast junkyard of paperclips. You build a super-optimizer; what utility function do you give it? Because it’s going to do it.
What about differences in human values?
That’s an intrinsic problem. You could say machines should err on the side of doing nothing in areas where there’s a conflict of values. That might be difficult. I think we will have to build in these value functions. If you want to have a domestic robot in your house, it has to share a pretty good cross-section of human values; otherwise it’s going to do pretty stupid things, like put the cat in the oven for dinner because there’s no food in the fridge and the kids are hungry. Real life is full of these tradeoffs. If the machine makes these tradeoffs in ways that reveal that it just doesn’t get it—that it’s just missing some chunk of what’s obvious to humans—then you’re not going to want that thing in your house.
I don’t see any real way around the fact that there’s going to be, in some sense, a values industry. And I also think there’s a huge economic incentive to get it right. It only takes one or two things like a domestic robot putting the cat in the oven for dinner for people to lose confidence and not buy them.
Then there’s the question, if we get it right such that some intelligent systems behave themselves, as you make the transition to more and more intelligent systems, does that mean you have to get better and better value functions that clean up all the loose ends, or do they still continue behaving themselves? I don’t know the answer yet.
You’ve argued that we need to be able to mathematically verify the behavior of AI under all possible circumstances. How would that work?
One of the difficulties people point to is that a system can arbitrarily produce a new version of itself that has different goals. That’s one of the scenarios that science fiction writers always talk about; somehow, the machine spontaneously gets this goal of defeating the human race. So the question is: Could you prove that your systems can’t ever, no matter how smart they are, overwrite their original goals as set by the humans?
Click to Open Overlay GalleryAutomating air traffic control systems may require airtight proofs about real-world possibilities. flightradar24
It would be relatively easy to prove that the DQN system, as it’s written, could never change its goal of optimizing that score. Now, there is a hack that people talk about called “wire-heading” where you could actually go into the console of the Atari game and physically change the thing that produces the score on the screen. At the moment that’s not feasible for DQN, because its scope of action is entirely within the game itself; it doesn’t have a robot arm. But that’s a serious problem if the machine has a scope of action in the real world. So, could you prove that your system is designed in such a way that it could never change the mechanism by which the score is presented to it, even though it’s within its scope of action? That’s a more difficult proof.
Are there any advances in this direction that you think hold promise?
There’s an area emerging called “cyber-physical systems” about systems that couple computers to the real world. With a cyber-physical system, you’ve got a bunch of bits representing an air traffic control program, and then you’ve got some real airplanes, and what you care about is that no airplanes collide. You’re trying to prove a theorem about the combination of the bits and the physical world. What you would do is write a very conservative mathematical description of the physical world—airplanes can accelerate within such-and-such envelope—and your theorems would still be true in the real world as long as the real world is somewhere inside the envelope of behaviors.
Yet you’ve pointed out that it might not be mathematically possible to formally verify AI systems.
There’s a general problem of “undecidability” in a lot of questions you can ask about computer programs. Alan Turing showed that no computer program can decide whether any other possible program will eventually terminate and output an answer or get stuck in an infinite loop. So if you start out with one program, but it could rewrite itself to be any other program, then you have a problem, because you can’t prove that all possible other programs would satisfy some property. So the question would be: Is it necessary to worry about undecidability for AI systems that rewrite themselves? They will rewrite themselves to a new program based on the existing program plus the experience they have in the world. What’s the possible scope of effect of interaction with the real world on how the next program gets designed? That’s where we don’t have much knowledge as yet.
Original story reprinted with permission from Quanta Magazine, an editorially independent publication of the Simons Foundation whose mission is to enhance public understanding of science by covering research developments and trends in mathematics and the physical and life sciences.
Increasingly rapid advances in AI have given Stuart Russell's concerns heightened urgency.
Marc Krisnanto's profile photoCatherine Hislop's profile photomystdolly's profile photo
Hmm...didn't know he works for Pioneer
Add a comment...