I have said for almost three years that everything is going to be made very transparent. That everything- all the corruption, the fraud, etc...- needs to be made completely visible to the world....
In the past month, the "Visibility" has reached a whole new level. The question is: WILL PEOPLE PAY ATTENTION?
I said on the Oct 5th One Peoples Roundtable Discussion that the line has been very clearly drawn in the sand. That, in my opinion, there are very clearly now two separate groups of people on this planet: Those who are awake, waking up, or about to waken. And those that will not.
I know that sounds extremely harsh and "judgmental" , but in the conversations I have been witnessing and taking part in, the over whelming data is that there are huge groups of people who are, seemingly, incapable of SEEING or COMPREHENDING what is going on around them. They literally will not LOOK at ANYTHING that is not in their paradigm of belief- they physically will turn away, their eyes glaze over, and they will radically change the subject or walk away.
As I said in yesterday article "The Climate Change Litmus Test",
I honestly think that we could use just this one point- this one topic- as a litmus test for humanity. The complete absurdity of the "Climate Change" rhetoric and agendas is so completely asinine, in that THEIR OWN STATEMENTS contradict themselves- this is the perfect barometer to look at whether people have any chance of shaking the mind numbing koolaid out of their brains and actually use them to logically deduce the bullshit that the "Climate Change" Schtic is.
THIS is yet another Litmus Test. If people can read these next articles and can NOT SEE, NOT COMPREHEND what has, and is, being done right now- right in front of them......
.... then they are in the "forever asleep" group on this planet.
d
US Rejects Hospital Bombing Investigation, Instead Smashes into Hospital in Tank, Destroying Evidence
Posted onOctober 15, 2015byRobert Barsocchini
After changing its story many times, the US now admits that it intentionally threw bombs, for more than an hour, at the now famous Doctors Without Borders hospital, proving accurate the assessment of DWB staffer Meinie Nicolai, who said the US attack was “a premeditated massacre.”
Since initial US claims that the protected DWB hospital was a “Taliban stronghold” and so forth have been debunked as stupid, the US now claims it targeted the hospital because one man, a “Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence spy”, was inside.
However, Glenn Greenwald points out that the US puppet government in Afghanistan has had it out for DWB for some time because they treat patients indiscriminately, whereas US allies like Israel, for example, discriminate between patients, treating Al Qaeda fighters while targeting members of the UN-recognized Syrian government: “Israel has opened its borders with Syria in order to provide medical treatment to Nusra Front and al-Qaida fighters wounded in the ongoing civil war, according to The Wall Street Journal.”
On October 14th, an “international panel” announced that it was “ready to investigate the deadly US [hospital] bombing”, but would need “assurances from Barack Obama and the Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, that their governments [would] comply.”
The US rejected the initiative for the investigation, and instead, on October 15th, sent soldiers to smash up the bombed hospital with a tank, “destroy[ing] potential evidence” for the war crimes investigation.
To explain this, the US announced that the tank was carrying the US’s own “investigators”. In the mean time, a whistle-blower has released classified documents on Obama’s global assassination ring that illustrate gross recklessness and confirm that almost one hundred percent of the people being killed are not actual targets – though targeting people and executing them is also criminal.
US tank enters ruined Afghan hospital putting war crime evidence at risk
MSF says ‘forced entry’ by military vehicle – later said to be carrying investigators into the US airstrike that killed 22 patients and staff – caused stress and fear
Doctors of MSF and citizens move the debris of the hospital in Kunduz damaged by the US airstrike on Thursday. Photograph: Waqif Nasirahmad/Demotix/Corbis
A US tank has forced its way into the shell of the Afghanistan hospital destroyed in an airstrike 11 days ago, prompting warnings that the US military may have destroyed evidence in a potential war crimes investigation.
The 3 October attack on the Médécins sans Frontières (MSF) hospital in Kunduz killed 10 patients and 12 staff members of the group. In a statement on Thursday, the medical charity, also known as Doctors Without Borders, said they were informed after Thursday’s “intrusion” that the tank was carrying investigators from a US-Nato-Afghan team which is investigating the attack. “Their unannounced and forced entry damaged property, destroyed potential evidence and caused stress and fear,” MSF said. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the reported intrusion, which came as new evidence emerged that US forces operating in the area at the time of the attack knew that the facility was a hospital. US special operations analysts were gathering intelligence on the hospital days before the attack, because they believed a Pakistani operative was using it as his base, according to areport by the Associated Press citing an unnamed former intelligence official. The analysts had mapped the area and drawn a circle around the hospital, the official was quoted as saying. The Pakistani man, described both as a Taliban suspect and as a worker for the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence directorate, was killed in the attack, the official told the AP. Of the nearly 200 patients and staff inside the hospital at the time of the attack, more than three dozen were wounded, said MSF, which has called the attack a violation of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime. The group has said some patients burned to death in their beds. Several investigations of the attack are considering whether the separate American teams involved – special operations analysts, intelligence community officers, the military command that ordered the strike – knew the facility was a hospital, whether they gave warning of a strike and what was happening on the ground at the time.
Advertisement
It is unclear whether the analysts’ knowledge that the facility was a hospital was shared by the command that launched the attack. MSF said GPS coordinates identifying the hospital had been shared with US, coalition and Afghan military officers and civilian officials “as recently as Tuesday 29 September”. Michael Newton, a West Point graduate and an expert on conduct of hostilities issues at Vanderbilt Law School, listed questions a Defense Department investigation would seek to answer. “There’s somebody in some part of the force that knows that’s a prohibited target,” Newton said. “The question then is, what are the fire control measures over that place? “If they were followed, were they adequate? If they weren’t followed, why weren’t they followed? And underneath that, there’s two things. Either, one – they were misapplied. Or, two, there was an exception.” An example of an exception would be a case of self-defense, Newton said. The Pentagon originally said the hospital was struck in the course of a firefight involving US troops. General John Campbell, the top US officer in Afghanistan, later said the strike on the hospital was a mistake. The Pentagon declined further comment on Thursday, citing ongoing investigations. The Defense Department, Nato and the Afghan government are conducting parallel investigations of the attack, while MSF has called for an inquiry by the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission, or IHFFC, a never-before-used investigative commission under the Geneva conventions.
Advertisement
“It is impossible to expect the parties involved in the conflict to carry out independent and impartial investigations of acts in which they themselves are implicated,” said MSF in the statement on Thursday. “The preservation of health facilities as neutral, protected spaces depends on [an independent investigation].” US and Afghan consent is needed for the IHFFC investigation to proceed. MSF launched an online petition on Thursday calling on President Barack Obama to consent. The White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, said on Thursday that he was “not aware” of the Associated Press report. He declined comment on who gave the order for the strike on the hospital or the motivation for the attack. “All of those are questions that will be considered by the ongoing Defense Department investigation,” Earnest said. “The president’s expectation is that he will see a full accounting of these facts in context.” Newton said the Pentagon investigation would be drawing on a wealth of evidence. “There’s a limited time frame here, it’s a discrete incident, there would be radio logs or at least handwritten notes of radio traffic – I think they’ll absolutely get every relevant fact,” he said. Newton said the White House silence on the issue of whether the attack could constitute a war crime was appropriate. “People say, ‘Why won’t the president just call it a war crime, why won’t the secretary of defense just call it a war crime, let’s be honest, that’s what it was’,” said Newton. “The answer is, because in the US military it is a separate offense – unlawful command influence – if higher-level political officials or military officials prejudge a case and start talking about it in public.” “What actually happened on the ground? That’s the unanswered question.”
Did Obama Bomb Doctors Without Borders for Opposing TPP?
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/06/2015 13:53 -0400
inShare16
By Claire Bernish of AntiMedia Had the President of Nobel Peace Prize-winning Doctors Without Borders not warned us of the “imminent threat to global health” posed by the TPP, would these 22 doctors and patients have lost their lives early Saturday? “I don’t know exactly how long, but it was maybe half an hour afterwards that they stopped bombing. I went out with the project coordinator to see what had happened. What we saw was the hospital destroyed, burning,” describednurse Lajos Zoltan Jecs of the U.S. bombardment of a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan. Harsh criticism and skepticism surround what is being labeled an errant U.S. bombardment of a hospital in Kunduz that left 22 people dead — many of them volunteers with Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders, the humanitarian aid agency) — but doubt lingers about the vague official story for a reason. Doctors Without Borders Calls Airstrike a War Crime “Why did they have to blow up the whole hospital?” pleaded Nasratullah, whose 25-year-old cousin Akbar was among doctors killed in the bombing.“We know that the Americans are very clever. If they can target a single person in a car from their planes, why did they have to blow up the whole building?” The ostensible explanation according to rumor centered on reports Taliban forces had entered the location and were using the cover of the hospital to fire on coalition forces. Christopher Stokes, MSF General Director, irately stated, “Not a single member of our staff reported fighting inside the MSF hospital compound prior to the U.S. airstrike Saturday morning. The hospital was full of MSF staff, patients, and their caretakers. It is 12 MSF staff members and ten patients, including three children, who were killed in the attack.” Is something being overlooked? “U.S. forces conducted an airstrike in Kunduz City at 2:15 am [local time] on 3 October against individuals threatening the force. The strike may have resulted in collateral damage to a nearby medical facility. This incident is under investigation,” stated international coalition spokesperson, Col. Brian Tribus. “This attack is abhorrent and a grave violation of international humanitarian law,” declared MSF President, Meinie Nicolai. “We demand total transparency from coalition forces. We cannot accept that this horrific loss of life will simply be dismissed as ‘collateral damage.’” Reports from the scene indicate MSF had not only notified all warring parties in the region of the exact GPS coordinates for the hospital and its outlying buildings, but that doctors immediately notified forces the moment the hospital came under fire from a U.S. airstrike — and, even then, the attack continued for a full 30 minutes. Stokes found that suggestion wholly inadequate, adding: “Under clear presumption that a war crime has been committed, MSF demands that a full and transparent investigation into the event be conducted by an independent international body. Relying only on an internal investigation by a party to the conflict would be wholly insufficient.” So why did the attack continue, much less happen in the first place? Doctors Without Borders Vocally Opposes the TPP If circumstances of any incident appear not to add up, it’s pertinent to thoroughly examine the current narrative for signs the State is attempting to mold public opinion — because it is there you will find the truth that you’re not being told. In the case of MSF, a massive treaty cum trade deal involving U.S. interests in another part of the world from the tragedy in Kunduz can offer, perhaps, insight which might otherwise seem unrelated. As it turns out, MSF have been particularly vocal critics of the impending Trans-Pacific Partnership — and their criticism hasn’t gone unnoticed. As reported in the National Journal in May: “It’s not usual business for us, and the reason is because we’re very worried,” explained Judit Rius Sanjuan, whooversees Doctors Without Borders drug access campaign, in a phone interview. “We are doing anything we can to make sure the public is aware.” Though the Nobel Prize-winning group has actively but reservedly opposed the massive TPP deal for years, recent letters to President Obama and a campaign of subway ads on the D.C. Metro show a more urgent, public push. Sanjuan admitted such a robust effort “is not usual practice for us.” What is so pressing for the public to know that it led the group to abandon its typically subdued tone? Simply, drug costs. Specifically, the intellectual property and patent laws that will favor drug companies should the TPP take effect.
Protecting Profit vs. Saving Lives “It would force them to change the law of many of these countries that are currently negotiating to create new intellectual property protections for pharmaceutical drugs, including but not limited to patents,” Sanjuan explained about the deal as exposed by WikiLeaks in 2013. “The effects of these new obligations would limit generic competition and therefore increase the cost of medicine.” This has put Médecins sans Frontières “at odds with the White House,” as the National Journal delicately described. A recent letter to Obama from MSF clearly alluded to the humanitarian nature of the group’s opposition to the trade deal: “MSF believes this is essential to closing the gap in access to medicines to millions of people around the world. The TPP could be an opportunity to make significant progress toward these goals. Instead, in its current state, the TPP is a threat to the health of millions.” As evidenced in the Kunduz hospital bombing and numerous military campaigns in the Middle East and elsewhere, the human toll likely isn’t the priority first called to mind by the U.S. government. Profit, on the other hand, must be protected no matter the human cost. After this attack, MSF decided to pull its operations from Kunduz for the foreseeable future. As Jecs lamented, “The hospital, it has been my workplace and home for several months. Yes, it is just a building. But it is so much more than that. It is healthcare for Kunduz. Now it is gone. What is the benefit of this? Destroying a hospital and so many lives, for nothing. I cannot find words for this.” With the number of questions being raised, we will continue to look into the incident further. * * * Doctors Without Borders released a statement following the conclusion of TPP negotiations in Atlanta: “Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) expresses its dismay that TPP countries have agreed to United States government and multinational drug company demands that will raise the price of medicines for millions by unnecessarily extending monopolies and further delaying price-lowering generic competition. The big losers in the TPP are patients and treatment providers in developing countries. Although the text has improved over the initial demands, the TPP will still go down in history as the worst trade agreement for access to medicines in developing countries, which will be forced to change their laws to incorporate abusive intellectual property protections for pharmaceutical companies.”
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/06/2015 13:53 -0400