Forums

This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 4/23/2016 10:48:02 AM
	Letters to the Editor Iran’s divisive rationale for arming up Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif at the United Nations on Thursday. (Mary Altaffer/Associated Press) April 22 at 5:51 PM In his April 21 op-ed, “Why Iran is building up its defenses,” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif argued that Iran has “not launched a war in more than two centuries” and is committed to “never commencing such foolishness.” But what about terrorists supported by the Iranian government who have killed hundreds of Americans? What about the presence of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps troops, Hezbollah, Shiite militias and Iranian materiel on the ground in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen? While Mr. Zarif proclaimed that Iran is a “stable, safe and healthy environment for our citizens and for those visiting and doing business with us,” the facts suggest otherwise. The Iranian regime remains designated as a primary money-laundering concern under U.S. law. Severe risks exist for companies thinking about investing with the ayatollah, including doing business with the wide array of front companies tied to the IRGC, a terrorist organization sanctioned by the United States and the international community; the unavailability and deficiency of insurance coverage; and hacking and cyber-insecurity. Let’s not forget the totalitarian suppression of women, homosexual and transgender people, political opponents and journalists. That is a high price for stability, unacceptable to the United States and inconsistent with our values. We look forward to the day when Iran behaves in a way that will give the United States reason to fully engage with it. Joseph I. Lieberman, New York The writer, a former senator from Connecticut, is chairman of United Against Nuclear Iran. Mark D. Wallace, New York The writer, a former ambassador to the United Nations, is chief executive of United Against Nuclear Iran. Mohammad Javad Zarif mentioned several reasons that Iran needs to protect itself from the West (which nominally includes Israel). He didn’t even include the 1953 coup that the CIA perpetrated against the duly elected democratic government of Iran, installing the shah. The harsh policies of the shah brought on the Islamic Revolution. Meanwhile, the United States supplies Saudi Arabia and Israel, Iran’s enemies, with billions of dollars in aid and military assistance. Why would any country not want to be able to be prepared to defend itself against such antagonists? Doris Rausch, Columbia (washingtonpost.com)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 4/23/2016 10:58:40 AM
	Saturday April 23, 2016 Afghans Ask Obama: 'What Does America Want From Us?' (AP) By Nasir Shansab Thursday, 21 Apr 2016 08:58 PM During my recent visit to Kabul, many Afghans asked me: “What does America want from us?” Initially, I didn’t know what exactly the inquiry was about and responded with a question of my own: “Isn’t America here helping the Afghans free themselves from the Taliban?” My counter question always triggered a raucous laughter and the charge that I didn’t want to tell the truth. I gradually realized that many Afghans, among them high-level government officials and well-educated young people, believe that the United States is instigating terror in Islamic countries to keep them mired in constant internal wars, rendering them weak and marginalized. While we can write off that reading as conspiracy theory—a common predilection among regional populations—the question does make sense: What, indeed, are we doing in Afghanistan? After the loss of almost 2,300 American lives, the cost of about one trillion dollars—over one hundred billions of which was spent on the country’s reconstruction—and 14 years of war, we are still bogged down there. The goodwill a majority of Afghans had felt for the American presence in their country 14 years ago, has evaporated and is replaced by feelings of puzzlement and even hostility. Let’s take stock of what the situation in Afghanistan is today: The Taliban has withstood President W. Bush’s invasion and survived President Obama’s surge. According to NATO, the Taliban today controls about 40 percent of the country. Not only is it entrenched in the country’s south. It has also deeply penetrated the north, which for many years was a relatively safe area. Fighting is in progress in at least ten provinces, among them the northern provinces of Kunduz and Baghlan. When the U.S. decided to terminate its combat mission at the end of 2014, Washington repeatedly declared that the Afghan security forces would by then be ready to successfully deal with the insurgency. We now know that the Afghan national army has steadily lost ground to the Taliban in 2015 and will likely lose more territory in 2016. The office of the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reports that the illiteracy rate of government uniformed forces is 89 percent. Desertions average 5,000 a month. Suicide bombings and kidnappings are almost daily occurrences. As recently as April 19, a suicide bomber killed 64 and wounded 347 people. According to Nicholas Haysom, UN Secretary General’s Special Representative for Afghanistan, poverty has increased from 46 to 49 percent of the population. The value of the Afghan currency, the afghani, has fallen from 50 to 68 relative to the dollar. As Afghanistan lacks production facilities and imports most everything from abroad, this steep fall in the local currency’s value affects every Afghan’s pocketbook. The UN further reports that civilian casualties have gone up by 200 percent during the first quarter of 2016 compared with the same period in 2015. In 2015 alone, Over 250 000 Afghans, mainly young educated people, have given up on the future of their country and taken the enormous risk of illegally immigrating to Europe. The United States invaded Afghanistan with the aim to free that country from the Taliban, to destroy Al Qaeda, reconstruct the Afghan infrastructure, and revitalize the country’s economy so that the Afghan people could live a free and dignified life. Yet, after the longest war in the history of the United States, we find ourselves confronted with a failed state that is unable to pay its bills, defend its borders, and survive without foreign military, financial, and advisory assistance from the international community—principally the United States. So what went wrong? Things went wrong right from the beginning. In November 2001, a number of international officials and a collection of Afghans got together in Bonn, Germany to form a government to be installed in Kabul when the Taliban had been evicted from the capital. At the Bonn conference, Afghan-born American Zalmay Khalilzad, a member of the U.S. delegation and the one most familiar with the Afghan society, played the most important role. He surrounded himself with a number of his Afghan-American friends, among them Qayoum Karzai, whose younger brother, Hamid Karzai, was chosen to lead Afghanistan. Mr. Khalilzad and Qayoum Karzai had handpicked most of the Afghan attendees in Bonn, mainly men they knew and were confident they could control. It was clear from the outset that Hamid Karzai would come out on top. In a study entitled “Crime and War in Afghanistan,” published by Oxford Press in December 2012, the Centre for Crime and Justice of the Australian National University concluded: “The Bonn Agreement in 2001 did not usher in an effective ‘constitutional moment’ because it enabled a personalized division of spoils rather than an institutionalized division of power.” And that’s exactly what went wrong. Zalmay Khalilzad and the Karzai brothers saw to it that, with few exceptions, the worst elements in Afghan society gained power, found legitimacy, and profited hugely from the massive inflow of donor money. And the world came to know Afghanistan as the largest producer of opium and one of the most corrupt countries on the planet. What is to be done? The U.S.-led international coalition, which has been governing Afghanistan since December 2001, has two choices: Give up, leave Afghanistan alone and let the chips fall where they may. In this case. the country would most likely implode and return to being a black hole where international terrorists, drug kingpins, and other criminal elements would find a large free space to operate from with considerable impunity. Stay on, accept responsibility for what happens in Afghanistan and implement the right policies that would lead to peace, to the revitalization of the Afghan economy, and a democratic government with pluralistic institutions and a free and functioning judiciary. Anything less will not do. For many years, I have been advocating option B and always felt that with the present political setup and some of today’s political actors, it would be impossible to rebuild the country, democratize the governing system, and regenerate the economy. Without these steps, I was and am now convinced that Afghanistan would remain a failed state. The reaction to my recommendation has been that Afghanistan was a sovereign state and handling of its affairs by other nations was unacceptable. I have differed from this view in the case of Afghanistan. In my view, a country that has no control over its borders, lacks financial self-sufficiency, and is unable to care for its people is not sovereign but a ward of the international community. Francis Fukuyama agrees with my take of sovereignty. In his book, "State Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century," he writes, “In … Afghanistan, the ‘international community’ ceased to be an abstraction and took on a palpable presence as the effective government of the country in question.” I believe the U.S.-led nations engaged in Afghanistan are responsible for bringing the Afghan war to an end and to enable the Afghan people to run their affairs in freedom and security. This step must be initiated immediately as there are two events ahead this year. In July, during a NATO conference in Warsaw, member states will discuss and most probably approve to extend for another year the payment of $ 4.1 billion for the maintenance of the Afghan security forces. And in October, donor nations will meet in Brussels and will most likely agree to carry on paying the $4 billion in support of the Afghan government’s nonmilitary expenses for the next year. In the past, during these meetings, the representatives of the donor community would, in its habitual manner, state its profound concern over the devastating effect Afghanistan’s rampant corruption had on the country’s progress. In turn, the Afghan government would, as it has become a routine, express its sincere determination to fight corruption. This scene has repeated itself so often that the donor representatives have come to know that the Afghans will do nothing to end the horrendous bribery and their patronage governance. However, they also recognize their own unwillingness to confront the Afghan government. It is high time to use these occasions to break that pattern by attach stringent and verifiable conditions, forcing the Afghan government to comply with the donors’ demands. It would be even better if the donors’ took direct responsibility and controlled the disbursement of the funds. For the sake of his own legacy and to avoid passing on to his successor a potentially intractable situation, President Obama should now initiate a hands on management of Afghanistan’s government. Nasir Shansab has maintained homes, business interests and dual citizenship in both the United States and Afghanistan for the past three decades. Read more: Afghans Ask Obama: 'What Does America Want From Us?' Important: Can you afford to Retire? (newsmax.com)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel

1162

61587

Lima

RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?

4/23/2016 3:51:35 PM

The Brussels Terror Attacks: Fake Videos and Images. “The Man in the Hat”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, April 20, 2016

After a month of exhaustive police investigations, the Belgian authorities have identified and arrested the alleged (surviving) terror mastermind of the airport bombing, the “man in the hat” Mohamed Abrini. The other four alleged terrorists involved in the kamikaze bombing attacks at the airport and the metro station are reported dead.

According to reports, Abrini was identified on a Brussels airport still photo released by one or more airport video security surveillance CCTV cameras.

This photo –which identifies three of the terror suspects– has become a central piece of evidence in the police investigation.

In this still photo, the mystery “man in the hat” allegedly Mohamed Abrini is seen accompanying the two alleged suicide bombers, who according to reports blew themselves up in Brussels airport.

Moreover, Abrini happens to be, according to French police investigators, the main surviving suspect of the Paris November attacks.

The official story is that the attacks in both Paris and Brussels were ordered by the ISIS, which just so happens to be supported by Turkey and Saudi Arabia in close liaison with Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels. (The issue of US-NATO-Israel support of the Islamic State is amply documented).

According to media reports:

The revelation that a Paris attacks suspect escorted two of the Brussels bombers to their deaths at the city’s airport is the strongest sign yet that the Islamic State attackers who brought mayhem to both European cities — killing a total of 162 people — were intimately linked. (See Guardian April 9, 2016)

Abrini is said to have confessed “his presence at the crime scene,” according to the official communique

The Authenticity of the Still Photo of the Three alleged Terrorists at Brussels Airport

Our analysis below will largely focus on the authenticity of the still photo allegedly from the Brussels airport CCTV surveillance cameras. CCTV systems are able to to take high resolution images on a time lapse basis. The still picture could also have taken by closed-circuit digital photography (CCDP), which is used to generate still digital images.

TIMELINE

To address this issue, it is important to recall the timeline:

7:55 am local time: “Surveillance footage shows three suspected attackers exiting a taxi and pushing luggage trolleys through Brussels Airport. Surveillance captured still images of the three suspects.” (See image above)

ONLY Three minutes later, it sounds absurd: Explosion According to reports the kamikaze bombers blow themselves up.

7.55-7.57am: Very much in a hurry, Abrini is said to have left the airport between 7.55am and 7.57am. before the blast occurred at 7.58am

7:58 am. Gunfire is reported in the departures terminal followed by an explosion. There were two blasts: a second blast erupts 10 seconds later.

8.20 am: The airport is closed. all roads and railway to the airport are closed.

9.07 am, DH.be (Dernière Heure), one of Belgium’s largest print and online media released an exclusive video footage of the bomb attack recorded by the CCTV surveillance cameras of the airport. This video was aired on all major TV networks, the images went round the World.

The SOURCE OF THIS VIDEO released by Dh.be at 9.07am did not emanate from the CCTV cameras of Brussels airport [22/03/216, DH.be logo pasted on the Moscow 2011 footage], it was a rerun of a 2011 bomb attack at Moscow international airport. (see image below)

Below is the screenshot of DH’s video release.

Now compare this to

Moscow airport attacks (January 2011) Video 1 scan (Moscow airport, January 2011)

9:10 am: A blast is reported on a train at the Maalbeek metro subway station, near the headquarters of the European Commission.

AGAIN: The video broadcast of the Maalbeek metro explosion was not from the CCTV cameras as reported by the police and the media. It was from the Minsk, Belarus metro bomb blast in April 2011.

(see photo scans at the foot of this article)

What we can conclude is that:

1) Dernière Heure broadcast a video of the Moscow airport bomb attack instead of the Brussels blast (recorded by CCTV camera) airport attack. Was it sloppy journalism or something else? This is a matter for the police to investigate. (The broadcast of the video footage of the Minsk metro attack was equally misleading).

2) The official CCTV airport security video was not available to Dernière Heure at 9.07am and the public was misled by the release of the Moscow video.

One would therefore assume that if the CCTV video footage of the blast had been available to Dernière Heure, they would have broadcast it instead of the Moscow footage.

3) Assuming that the airport CCTV video footage was not available to Dernière Heure at 9.07am, how come they were able to get their hands on still images from the CCTV video surveillance system showing the three alleged terrorists.

10.25am, less than an hour and a half following the release of the “fake” Moscow CCTV surveillance video of the bomb attack (i.e. Moscow) by Dernière Heure, a still image is released by Dernière Heure of the three alleged suspects walking with trolleys in the airport at 7.55am, three minutes before the first blast in the departure terminal.

The image allegedly from an airport CCTV surveillance camera in the departure terminal was released by DH.be at 10.25am, it was tagged EXCLUSIVE, No other media had early access to this alleged airport CCTV video and the still images. The latter were presented with some confusion as photographic evidence pertaining to the identity of the terror suspects.

Most media reports acknowledged that the mysterious photo of the alleged suicide bombers was released by the Brussels police rather than DH.be.

The twitter entries below confirm the exact time at which the airport photos were released:

First Release by DH.be at 10.27am (entitled “Photo Exclusive” by DH.be)

12.58pm, is the time at which the still image is “officially” released by the police in liaison with the office of the prosecutor. (procureur)

Release by Politie Brussel/Police de Bruxelles: 12.58pm

In an unusual twist, it would appear that Dernière Heure had access to the alleged CCTV still images from the surveillance cameras BEFORE the police.

The media reported that the photo was from federal police sources and was provided on the instructions of the federal prosecutor [procureur]:

DH.be released the still image of the three alleged terrorists at 10.25am, two and a half hours before its official release by Brussels police at 12.58pm, which suggests that the exclusive image published by Dernière Heure DID NOT emanate from the police authorities.

There is always the possibility that a police and/or airport surveillance personnel made these still images available to Dernière Heure prior to their official release by Brussels police at 12.58pm. It is also possible that the still images were taken by a CCTV camera which was live streaming and that this video livestream was accessible to the public.

The third possibility is that the Brussels police took cognizance of the photograph which Dernière Heure described as a still image from the CCTV airport surveillance system and decided to release it without verifying its original source.

On April 7, new video footage showing the man in the hat leaving the airport, circa 7.56am-7.57am was made public. The still image of him leaving the airport is stamped 7.54am

Now let us recap:

DH.be released both the Moscow 2011 video of the bomb attack at 9.07am (instead of the Brussels airport CCTV footage) as well as the still image allegedly from the same CCTV airport source (in the departure terminal) of the three terrorists at 10.25am.

Did DH.be have access to the security CCTV cameras?

At 9.07am, they did not have access to the CCTV video footage. They presented Moscow footage (in lieu of Brussels footage) at 9.07am under the byline: “video de surveillance a l’aeroport”. They then claimed that the still image released at 10.25am was from the same source, namely the CCTV camera system at Brussels airport, departure terminal.

Let us play the devil’s advocate: If DH.be had been in possession of the real surveillance video footage at 9.07am, why on earth would they have released the Moscow airport footage and then one and a half hours later come up with an allegedly authentic image from the CCTV airport cameras.

There is another important caveat. While police and surveillance authorities would be able to view and analyse almost immediately the camera footage of the bomb explosion, the same does not apply to the process of identifying three passengers with trolleys mingling amongst several hundred airline passengers also with trolleys in the departure terminal.

In other words, to identify three individuals from a large number of airport CCTV cameras with hundreds of passengers travelling early morning would not have been an easy fast-track undertaking: the still images pertaining to hundreds of passengers would have had to be examined, compared to police photographic records, etc: An almost impossible task to achieve in a matter of two hours after the blast, assuming that Dernière Heure had access to the CCTV surveillance video data. Normally, journalists would not have had access to the CCTV camera footage prior to the police authorities.

Moreover, the airport was immediately evacuated and closed down at 8.20am, twenty-two minutes after the blast. A state of chaos prevailed. And we are led to believe that the journalists of Dernière Heure managed in collaboration with CCTV camera surveillance personnel and/or police to get hold of the still image of three alleged terrorists, which they released at 10.25am, prior to the conduct of a police investigation and less than two and half hours following the 7.58am bomb blast.

Video 2 scan (Minsk Metro, April 2011)

Here is a screenshot of the Minsk 2011 video footage broadcast on Belgian network TV and on the internet depicting the explosion in the Metro in Brussels, March 22, 2016

Now Compare the above to the screenshot of the Minsk April 2011 attacks.

These are the questions for police investigators.

1. Why did Dernière Heure deliberately broadcast at 9.07am the video footage of the January 2011 Moscow airport terror attack?

Why did the media broadcast the video footage of a Minsk, Belarus metro terror attack in 2011 in lieu of the surveillance video of the metro?

In other words both the metro and airport videos were “fake”.

2. Did Dernière Heure interface with Belgian police and intelligence prior to releasing the Moscow airport video which was broadcast Worldwide?

3. Who authorized the release of this fake video?

4. What are the legal implications of this negligence on the part of Dernière Heure?

5. Where did Dernière Heure get the still image from which they released as an EXCLUSIVE at 10.25amprior to the conduct of a police investigation?

6. Was there evidence of them having access to the CCTV cameras? Did the CCTV airport surveillance personnel provide Dernière Heure with access to CCTV footage? Assuming they did, how on earth did the Derniere Heure journalists manage to single out a still image of three passengers, establish and corroborate their identity in the absence of a police investigation and without immediate access to police records.

7. Did the police corroborate the identity of these three individuals prior to 10.25am and communicate the results of their investigation to Dernière Heure?

Highly unlikely: lest we forget, the police released the still image at 12.58am, two and a half hours later. By that time, the EXCLUSIVE picture by Dernière Heure had been picked up by the news chain, it had circled the globe prior to its official release by the Brussels police.

Concluding Remarks

People in Belgium who are living the dramatic aftermath of this national catastrophe and loss of life: Draw your own conclusions. Is your government telling the truth?

The Belgian police, by addressing these seven questions, should be in a position to establish the authenticity and the source of the still pictures of the three men at the airport. Will they undertake this task?

For full report containing the videos of the Minsk and Moscow bomb attacks, see:

The Brussels Attacks: What is True, What is Fake? Three Daesh Suspects at Brussels AirportBy Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 25, 2016

Fake Video Used in News Coverage of Brussels Terror Attacks By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 22, 2016

Media Manipulation: More Fake Video Reports of the Brussels Terror Attacks By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 23, 2016

The original source of this article is Global Research

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 4/23/2016 4:44:19 PM
	Turkish prison for refugees? EU to accept only 70,000 migrants from Turkey Published time: 22 Apr, 2016 15:54 Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan (R) meets with German Chancellor Angela Merkel © Kayhan Ozer / Reuters EU-Turkey relations are like cattle trading with the EU trying to turn Turkey into a prison camp for refugees and Erdogan using it to boost his popularity, says Firat Demir, Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Oklahoma. Germany’s Chancellor Merkel is heading to Turkey on Saturday to discuss implementing the migrant deal that was sealed with Ankara in March. Under it the EU will deport illegal migrants to Turkey while providing Ankara with financial aid and promises of a visa-free regime for Turks. RT: Merkel's coalition partner the Social Democrats have urged the chancellor to send a message on freedom of speech during her visit. How do you think that will go? Firat Demir: First of all, regarding the visa-free travel for Turkish citizens, that has been a disgrace for the EU since 1963. The EU agreed to visa-free travel for citizens of Turkey in 1963, and confirmed it in 1970 and even as recent as 2009 the European Council of Human Rights struck down it’s restrictions against citizens of Turkey. What happens is because of such restrictions, meaning Europe as a whole; Turkey is one of the countries subject to such restrictions. It encourages the hands of anti-EU coalitions within Turkey and also it feeds into the hands of xenophobic and anti-immigrant sentiments within Europe. Having said that of course there are certain parts of the agreement between Turkey and the EU that Turkey has to fulfill. According to the latest reports from the European Commission, more than half of those 72 requirements have been met. So, 35 out of 72 have been met, but they are still significant parts that haven’t been met. RT: How much has the scandal with Erdogan demanding Germany prosecute a comedian affected the agreement and overall relations between Germany and Turkey? Read more Merkel urges EU to ‘share burden’ of refugee crisis with Turkey FD: That’s true. But I am afraid that we are mixing up apples with bananas here. You have quite a few countries within the EU right now which have quite authoritarian governments, and this includes the governments of Poland to Croatia and the entire Central Europe more or less. You may like or dislike President Erdogan and could criticize him, and I’m among those that criticize him quite often. But we are mixing that with the rights of the citizens of Turkey and there are 77 million of them. And they have to go through such strict visa restrictions to be able to travel to the EU. It includes businessmen, students, professors like me and those restrictions are not only unjust, they are anti-EU… RT: In a recent interview with a French newspaper, Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, said the EU shouldn't hand the keys to its security to Turkey. Has that not already happened? FD: I am afraid this is turning into a cattle market. On the European Union side, they would like to present their constituencies that, because of the refugee flow, they will be able to stop that in Turkey and turn Turkey into a giant prison camp for refugees. On the Turkish side, President Erdogan and the AKP ruling party would like to present this success as a win for their supporters and this will be huge boost to their popularity in the possibly upcoming referendum on the change in Turkey of the presidential system. President Erdogan would like to use it as a big boost for his support. And European Union politicians who are already facing a backlash, I think unjustly, from their voters regarding the refugee flow. So both sides are playing with this. It takes two to tango. I don’t think it is right to only blame the one side on this. That doesn’t mean that Turkey doesn’t have things to fulfill. RT: Ankara has already threatened to walk out of the deal if it doesn't see visa liberalization by June. But the EU says Turkey has met only half of the conditions needed. How do you see that play out? FD: The prime minister just this week threatened to walk away from this deal. But remember first of all there is more misinformation within Turkey regarding this. The refugee agreement between the European Union and Turkey involves only 70,000 refugees. So, the moment the European Union meets 70,000, they are not going to accept any more refugees from Turkey. They will stay in Turkey. And this is the big elephant in the room that is hidden from the Turkish public. And secondly the European Union never said that we will hand over free visas unless you meet those 72 conditions. So, the Turkish government knew this since 2013. The latest one was only an agreement to strengthen the effort; otherwise the latest debate is about an agreement that was signed in 2013 for visa-free travel for Turkish citizens. And we haven’t done anything for three years. Now there are only a few months left and suddenly we would like to push and go ahead and do all those 72 changes. I don’t think it is going to happen. The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 4/23/2016 4:57:51 PM
	New Report Proves US Law Enforcement Preparing For Rioting On A National Scale APRIL 22, 2016 By Claire Bernish Fascism doesn’t often sweep in overnight and take over some hapless nation’s government; rather, it gradually seeps into the cultural fabric — as is quietly taking place all around the globe, evidenced by an upsurge in sales of riot equipment that has gone largely unnoticed. A new report from analysts with industry research group, Sandler Research, forecasts the Global Riot Control System Market for the next four years — but beyond a burgeoning market to parallel the expanding global police state, it appears world governments are also keenly aware of civilian discontent. Sandler predicts the market will have an annual growth of 3.5 percent, and makes a telling juxtaposition, emphases added, involving the United States: Law enforcement agencies around the world are the biggest market for riot control systems. This market is expected to generate revenues of over USD 3.5 billion by the end of 2020. Countries such as the U.S., Iran, Egypt, Russia, China, and Thailand have started procuring riot control equipment and are investing heavily in [non-lethal weapons]. Moreover, special vehicles that are equipped with water cannon and reservoirs have been designed for security personnel, for use in areas of conflict to handle large crowds and demonstration. Demand for such equipment is expected to rise during the next few years. Note the last sentence in its truncated time frame. Specifically, the analysts continue: In North America, the prominent markets are Canada and the U.S. and law enforcement agencies in these nations are best equipped with the upgraded weapons. The militarization of the police department and other law enforcement agencies in the Americas has encouraged the use of advanced riot control equipment. While swaths of the country debate the finer points of which lesser evil should take the helm of the corporate plutocracy, various U.S. law enforcement agencies have been gearing up for the virtually inevitable unrest both during and following those elections. Militarized police forces have become de rigueur, even in the nation’s smallest towns — but arming law enforcement with the weapons of war, rather than protecting civilians, has birthed a chasm of distrust and animosity on both sides. It isn’t as if this equipment is being produced by a marketplace intent on keeping civilians safe from an ostensible outside threat. As the report, which does not offer a breakdown of specific agencies it might be referring to (though may in its body which can be purchased for $2,500 here), definitively states: Law enforcement agencies use riot control systems to maintain the public order and safety and to enforce laws. They are used to disperse, control, and arrest people involved in riots and protests.Riot control systems include lethal and non-lethal weapons (NWLs), body-worn cameras, armored vehicles, and communications systems. As if released in conjunction with one another, a report by Lloyd’s intones the necessity of preparedness as mass civil unrest can not only spark without prior warning, but flare outward, unpredictably — what the insurer calls “Political Violence Contagion.” According to the report, instances of political violence “contagion (pandemics) have become more frequent, and the contagion effect ever more rapid and impactful.” Considering massive worldwide demonstrations in the U.S. and elsewhere — as people finally grasp how corrupt governments actually are — it becomes apparent in these reports the politicians and their enforcement agencies comprehend the greatest threat to their power. As caucuses andprimaries fall into chaos — and the City of Cleveland gears up for the Republican National Convention — voters and nonvoters alike harbor greater disillusionment than ever before. Cleveland, whose police are currently under federal oversightfollowing a Department of Justice probe that found a general pattern of brutality, plans to spend around $20 million to beef up security measures for the RNC. While part of the sum will focus on training, personnel expenditures, and the like, Vox reported 40 percent will be earmarked for “equipment and supplies” — including, in part, 2,000 sets of full-body riot gear. Additionally, if not ominously, the city “has put out bids for, among other things, 24 sets of ballistic body armor, 300 patrol bikes, and more than 3.7 miles of interlocking steel barriers, all of which can be used to curtail protestors,” according toVox. Together, the reports paint a dire prediction — not as much for its illustration of a world in chaos, but for its intimation authoritarian actors may act aggressively to quash even positive and peaceful change by the rest of us. This article (New Report Proves US Law Enforcement Preparing for Rioting on a National Scale) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radioairs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org. (activistpost.com)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

My Links

Menu

Forums

Iran’s divisive rationale for arming up

The Brussels Terror Attacks: Fake Videos and Images. “The Man in the Hat”

These are the questions for police investigators.

Turkish prison for refugees? EU to accept only 70,000 migrants from Turkey

New Report Proves US Law Enforcement Preparing For Rioting On A National Scale