@gulfgal98

... On a serious note, I keep wondering what is the purpose of this site? It is the very same question I ask about Hillary's book. The answer to both appears to continued stroking of Ms. Clinton's very needy ego. She and her sycophants are continuing to re-litigate the election one year later.

What good does this do for the American people? Where are Hillary and her devoted followers in trying to move for legislation and programs to help the American people? She could be traveling around the country pushing for high minimum wages, Medicare for all, clean energy programs,
de-criminalization of marijuana, prison and sentencing reform, and a whole host of other issues that would benefit the people of this country.

Instead, we get the Hillary pity party in which she and her devoted followers continue to blame everyone for her loss, particularly focused upon Bernie and his followers. The self serving arrogance of Hillary Clinton is on full display here. She is not a nice or good intentioned person.

Her Presidential campaign never ends, does it? Same old, same old, only now apparently with fewer Big Donors and, it seems, some degree of disapproval from at least one of Her largest paymasters.

Although I still do have suspicions that this Republican win may have been rigged toward that Constitutional re-write to corporate/billionaire specs and that Her's been promised Her Turn later, once that's done and all Her can do is to follow corporate 'Constitutional' 'law' as corporate management. If the general public stands still for all of this, to be squished more easily.

#3.1.1 I ventured over there to the link that Snoopy provided and comments sounded like those coming from seriously brainwashed people. I felt like I needed a shower after going over there.

On a serious note, I keep wondering what is the purpose of this site? It is the very same question I ask about Hillary's book. The answer to both appears to continued stroking of Ms. Clinton's very needy ego. She and her sycophants are continuing to re-litigate the election one year later.

What good does this do for the American people? Where are Hillary and her devoted followers in trying to move for legislation and programs to help the American people? She could be traveling around the country pushing for high minimum wages, Medicare for all, clean energy programs,
de-criminalization of marijuana, prison and sentencing reform, and a whole host of other issues that would benefit the people of this country.

Instead, we get the Hillary pity party in which she and her devoted followers continue to blame everyone for her loss, particularly focused upon Bernie and his followers. The self serving arrogance of Hillary Clinton is on full display here. She is not a nice or good intentioned person.

@Ellen North the CIA/MIC are in control
with the rest of govt. being an extension.

and the people have for the most part
swallowed the kool-aid, but tptb have
started over reaching, becoming way
to brazen, arrogant on their ride to
riches.

#6.1.1

Dear gawd - you meant this

16 Years Later: 9/11 Lessons Put Into Practice?

by Tyler Durden
Sep 11, 2017 9:35 PM

voicing concern about having to fight terrorists in their own countries to avoid fighting them on American soil, while being nuked?

I hope that anyone seeing this reads the whole thing at source, if at all possible, although as it's stated that Google has a problem with it, I'll copy (all emphasis mine, although too tired to see straight and having trouble getting the emphasis to go where I want it, lol) the whole thing below...

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/20/the-cias-founding-of-al-qaeda-do...

The CIA’s “Founding” of Al Qaeda Documented

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor on April 20, 2013

The Muslim Terrorist Apparatus was Created by US Intelligence as a Geopolitical Weapon

Le Nouvel Observateur’s Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski

Originally published 15-21 January 1998

Translated by Jean Martineau

(Editor’s Note: The following article and interview have been suppressed by Google, now a “black-ops” contractor. The background on US backing for the Chechen rebels totally debunks attempts to assign blame for the Boston Marathon bombings to any group other than American security agencies and their domestic and foreign contractors who were very obvious at the scene, before and after the attack we believe they staged. Without adequate background on how we got where we are, real information can easily be “shaken off” as conspiracy.

If you want real conspiracy, read on and see who the very real conspirators are. G Duff for VT)

Below is our translation of an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski. It is important for three reasons. First, it flatly contradicts the official US justification for giving billions of dollars to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, namely that the US and Saudi Arabia were defending so-called freedom fighters against Soviet aggression.

“Not so,” says Brzezinski. He confirms what opponents have charged: that the US began covert sponsorship of Muslim extremists five months *before* the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He says that after President Carter authorized the covert action: “I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.” Second, the interview is instructive concerning so-called “conspiracy theory.” To be sure, there are plenty of nutty theories out there. And of course, there are plenty of just plain wrong theories.

But as Brzezinski demonstrates, the US foreign policy establishment did, for want of a better word, conspire. Even as they claimed to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly fomented it *as a weapon of policy.* And they lied about what they were doing, pretending they were helping freedom fighters resist an invasion. In other words, deceit on two levels.

One must ask oneself: if the US foreign policy Establishment used Muslim extremism as a weapon once, how can one argue *in principle* that they would not use it again? We say they *have* used it again; that they have used it continuously; and that we are seeing the fruits of this policy. Most recently we have seen the real essence of the Brzezinski doctrine in the horrendous events this past week in Russia (culminating in the school attack) and Israel (the double bus bombing).

Brzezinski and his protégé, Zalmay Khalilzad, set up a corporation in 1985, funded by the US congress, to train the mujahedeen to sell reporters the lie that the mujahedeen were freedom fighters and victims of aggression (Associated Press

U.S. Provides $500,000 So Afghan Rebels Can Tell Their Story
AP, September 16, 1985, Monday, PM cycle SECTION: Washington Dateline, by JOAN MOWER

Guerrillas in Afghanistan are about to get money from the United States government for a public relations campaign intended to bring their struggle against Soviet troops to the world’s attention.
The money will train Afghan rebel journalists to use television, radio and newspapers to advance their cause. Reporters will be given mini-cameras to photograph the war inside Afghanistan.

“It is the goal of this project to facilitate the collection, development and distribution of credible, objective and timely professional-quality news stories, photographs and television images about developments in Afghanistan,” said a notice in the Federal Register. The program will be overseen by Uncle Sam’s own propaganda arm, the U.S. Information Agency. Congress appropriated $500,000 to hire experts and may provide more later.

In making the money available, Congress all but instructed USIA to consider an organization like Friends of Afghanistan, a new group whose board includes former Carter administration national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, known for hard-line anti-Soviet views.
USIA has solicited proposals, due Sept. 25 (1985).

Friends of Afghanistan includes other American foreign policy luminaries such as Lawrence Eagleburger, a former undersecretary of state, and Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad, a Columbia University political science professor and some-time paid adviser to the State Department on Afghanistan.

Afghan rebels, called the Mujahedeen, have been battling 100,000 Soviet troops who have occupied the rugged, mountainous country since December 1979.

The Associated Press referred to Khalilzad as a “some-time paid adviser to the State Department on Afghanistan.” This was in the late summer of 1985. Less than three years later Tass, the Soviet news agency, reported that Khalilzad was delivering the mujahedeen an important message from the State Department. Khalilzad told them that the State Department would continue to support them:

a) only if they could consolidate control of Afghanistan and

b) only if they maintained an attitude of implacable hostility to the government in Kabul.

In other words the US ordered the mujahedeen not to make peace:

‘The United States has told the Afghan guerrillas that it would support them in an effort to form a provisional government if they consolidate their control of most of the country and meet other criteria,’ the newspaper New York Times today quoted State Department officials as saying.

A top State Department official made it clear that the government must oppose ‘the soviet-backed regime in Kabul’ and said that the USA did not ‘accept the legitimacy’ of the authorities in Afghanistan. The relevant message was delivered to the rebels in the Pakistani city of Peshawar last week by Zalmay Khalilzad, a special adviser on Afghanistan to under secretary of state Michael H. Armacost. (” To Support Afghan Counter Revolutionaries” New York; The Russian Information Agency ITAR-TASS, May 6, 1988, Friday)

BOSNIA

Brzezinski’s interview has tremendous importance today. According to a Dutch intelligence report on Bosnia, in the early 1990s Pentagon intelligence worked with the Saudis and Iranians to bring weapons and mujahedeen terrorists the ‘Afghan Arabs’ – into Bosnia to indoctrinate and lead Alija Izetbegovic’s Muslim extremists in fighting the Bosnian Serbs.

The same terrorists had been used against the pro-Soviet side in Afghanistan. Once again the media lied, claiming the Bosnian Serbs were fighting to destroy the Bosnian Muslims (i.e., genocide) when they were in fact defending their communities from the mujahedeen, and were allied with a large group of moderate Muslims.

This picture appeared in the London Times on December 11, 1995. The caption reads:

One of the Bosnian Army’s Muslim brigades marches through Zenica in a demonstration of strength by 10,000 soldiers.” Note that according to the Times these 10,000 troops constituted only one of “the Bosnian Army’s Muslim brigades…”

During the 1990s, pictures like this were as rare as hen’s teeth in the Western media. Why? Because they graphically demonstrated that the media was lying when it claimed that the Bosnian Government was moderate and multiculturalist and so on.

The white costumes these troops are wearing are the uniforms of Middle Eastern mujahedeen, not Yugoslav Muslims. The Bosnian Muslim troops wore them because they had been indoctrinated by Muslim extremists, including mujahedeen imported by Iran, Saudi Arabia and other extremist states, with the participation of Pentagon intelligence. In the early part of the Bosnian conflict (up until January 1993) Zalmay Khalilzad, the protégé of Zginew Brzezinski, was in charge of strategic planning at the Pentagon.

In Afghanistan (as Brzezinski proudly states) and then in Bosnia, the US sponsored Muslim terror even as the State Department was officially condemning it. Because ordinary people would never support such a policy, it was sold to the public as support for freedom fighters (Afghanistan) or as defense of abused Muslims (Bosnia.)

By the late 1980s Brzezinski’s protégé, Prof. Zalmay Khalilzad, was the top strategist of the Afghan war.

Under the administration of Bush, Sr., Khalilzad was in charge of strategy at the Pentagon. We have substantial evidence that it was under Bush, Sr., not Clinton, that the US began assisting the mujahedeen in Bosnia.

So, in both cases, we have Brzezinski’s protégé directing the use of Muslim extremism as a weapon against a secular state, with the media misrepresenting the nature of the fight. The Brzezinski Doctrine in action.

2001: Brzezinski’s protégé Zalmay Khalilzad was appointed Senior National Security Director for Southwest Asia, the heartland of Muslim extremist terror…

Khalilzad was in charge of US policy on the ground in Afghanistan before and during the 2001 war. He then personally chose the Afghan government. It was under his watch that the US and Iran cooperated in convening a top level conference to give Afghanistan a government based on Muslim religious law. Now he’s Ambassador and Special Envoy to Afghanistan.

Even while Khalilzad was in charge of Afghanistan he was also the key man on the ground before, during and after the invasion of Iraq. He was in charge of political relations with Iraqi exile politicians and the Iranian and Saudi governments up until the fall 2003. A crucial period.

GEORGIA

His area of official responsibility included Georgia during the period when the US was intensifying the financing and training of the Georgian military. Russia accuses Georgia of aiding the Chechen terrorists.

So Brzezinski has been the key hands-on strategist, the leader on the ground, in a vast area plagued with Muslim extremist terror during most of the so-called war on terror. Oops – did I say rzezinski? Sorry; I meant Zalmay Khalilzad…

Brzezinski’s Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur

Le Nouvel Observateur: Former CIA director Robert Gates states in his memoirs: The American secret services began six months before the Soviet intervention to support the Mujahideen [in Afghanistan]. At that time you were president Carters security advisor; thus you played a key role in this affair. Do you confirm this statement?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version, the CIA’s support for the Mujahideen began in 1980, i.e. after the Soviet army’s invasion of Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, which was kept secret until today, is completely different:

Actually it was on 3 July 1979 that president Carter signed the first directive for the secret support of the opposition against the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day I wrote a note, in which I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.

Le Nouvel Observateur: Despite this risk you were a supporter of this covert action? But perhaps you expected the Soviets to enter this war and tried to provoke it?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: It’s not exactly like that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene but we knowingly increased the probability that they would do it.

Le Nouvel Observateur: When the Soviets justified their intervention with the statement that they were fighting against a secret US interference in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. Nevertheless there was a core of truth to this…Do you regret nothing today?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Regret what? This secret operation was an excellent idea. It lured the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you would like me to regret that? On the day when the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote president Carter, in essence:

“We now have the opportunity to provide the USSR with their Viet Nam war.” Indeed for ten years Moscow had to conduct a war that was intolerable for the regime, a conflict which involved the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire.

Le Nouvel Observateur: And also, don’t you regret having helped future terrorists, having given them weapons and advice?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: What is most important for world history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? Some Islamic hotheads or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Le Nouvel Observateur: “Some hotheads?” But it has been said time and time again: today Islamic fundamentalism represents a world-wide threat…

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Rubbish! It’s said that the West has a global policy regarding Islam. That’s hogwash: there is no global Islam. Let’s look at Islam in a rational and not a demagogic or emotional way. It is the first world religion with 1.5 billion adherents. But what is there in common between fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militaristic Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt and secularized Central Asia? Nothing more than that which connects the Christian countries…

And yet so many people cannot even believe that ruthless polluting industry self-interests who were cheated into the US government, coming from polluting industries which knowingly and for increased profit routinely destroyed the health of and continually slowly killed thousands (at the least, depending on pollution levels/air quality, etc.,), would kill/allow to be killed - by terrorists they funded and used - a few more thousand in order to gain an excuse to invade other people's countries to kill even more people more directly for increased power and profits?

Liars lie, and killers kill - how can they be trusted still?