RED ALERT: The U.N.’s General Assembly met 20/10/2016 to discuss whether to take steps to override the Security Council on the Syrian conflict

Red Alert Master feature 02

Any act like this makes the UN security council a irrelevant organisation.

The security council was established to ensure that there was never again a World War!

And any action which by passes the security council by its members can only be seen as an rogue nation action!

Which should require the rogue nations immediate expulsion from the UN.

The U.N.’s General Assembly met informally 20th October 2016 Thursday to discuss whether to take steps to override the Security Council on the Syrian conflict

This action is being floated because they can not deceive Russia and China to overthrow Assad in Syria!


Due to the frightening developments of the last few days Alex sounds his third Emergency Alert as the world marches dangerously close to the eruption of WWIII/WWIV.

From the elite scrambling away to armored redoubts, to the sabre rattling of Ergodan the unhinged Turkish P.M. we are hurtling towards the precipice of full scale war.

British Oligarchy planning new 9/11 to trigger World War III?

WWIII (WW3) feature (01)
CEC of Australia First published , 11 September 2014

To prepare the agenda for the 4-5 September 2014 NATO summit in Wales, the British Parliament’s House of Commons Defence Select Committee on 29 July issued a lengthy report entitled “Towards the Next Defence and Security Review: Part Two—NATO”. Chief among its bloodcurdling recommendations for NATO preparations towards a final showdown with Russia, was the downgrading of the famous Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which specifies that an “armed attack” against any of NATO’s 28 members is an attack against them all. Without offering proof, the Committee claimed that Russia is now deploying “asymmetric”, “ambiguous”, or “deniable” acts of war such as “information” or “cyber” war, as well as irregular units of “little green men”.

As the chief example of threats for which NATO must be prepared, the Committee cited the 11 September 2001 attack on the Twin Towers in New York:

“The use of airliners hijacked for attacks in New York and the Pentagon in the USA in 2001 were considered sufficient to invoke a NATO Article 5 response, even though not immediately attributable to any nation state but to non-state actors.”

Even though no nation state could be identified as the author of 9/11, the declaration of Article 5, “the only one since the inception of NATO”, had justified the NATO-spearheaded invasion of Afghanistan, the report pointed out (emphasis added). It stated that such “vicarious” or “deniable” actions must be expected more frequently in the future—on the part of Russia, “as in the situation in Ukraine”.

Taking the cue, British Prime Minister Cameron warned at a 2 September meeting of EU leaders in Brussels, on the very eve of the summit, against “appeasing [Russian President] Putin as we did Hitler”. The British, with the wholehearted support of U.S. President Obama, rammed through an agreement to upgrade a British-led NATO Rapid Reaction Force for permanent deployment in Eastern Europe, while the UK announced plans to form still another force, British-led but not formally under NATO, including Denmark, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Norway and the Netherlands.

Why is the British Empire step-by-step, relentlessly whipping up the political and military atmosphere for a final showdown with Russia? Because the City of London/Wall Street-centred financial empire could explode any day now, and Anglo-American power along with it. Moreover, the recent emergence of a new world economic order around the BRICS alliance, led by Russia and China and committed to rapid rates of technological and industrial growth, will soon eclipse the collapsing Anglo-American trans-Atlantic system.

The original 9/11: the setting

In the wake of near-cataclysmic GFC of 2008, many have forgotten the sequence of accelerating, severe financial crashes that set the stage for 11 September 2001. Set in motion by the end of the Bretton Woods system of physical economic growth in 1971 and the shift to a speculative, looting system, these included:

  • The “Asia crisis” beginning July 1997, which saw the devastation of many Asian nations under speculative attack by London and Wall Street;
  • The 27 October 1997 “Black Monday” Wall Street collapse, now almost forgotten, but which was much larger even than that of October 1929.
  • The August 1998 Russian GKO bond crisis, which almost triggered a global meltdown.
  • The consequent September 1998 collapse of the U.S.-based Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) hedge fund, which came within a whisker of detonating that global financial collapse.
  • The manufactured “Y2K” crisis of 2000.

Surveying this pattern shortly after the election of London/Wall Street puppet George W. Bush (whose Wall Street banker grandfather Prescott Bush had financed Hitler’s rise to power in Germany) as U.S. President, the world’s leading economic forecaster, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., warned on 3 January 2001, eight months before 9/11:

“What you’re going to get with a frustrated Bush Administration, if it’s determined to prevent itself from being opposed—its will—you’re going to get crisis-management. Where members of the Special Warfare types, of the Secret Government, the secret police teams, and so forth, will set off provocations, which will be used to bring about dictatorial powers and emotion, in the name of crisis-management.”

The morning of 9/11

At the moment reports of the attacks on the Twin Towers hit the airwaves, LaRouche was giving a live radio interview to Jack Stockwell of KTKK-AM (“K-Talk”) in Salt Lake City. LaRouche commented, “The first suspicion that’s going to be on this is Osama bin Laden.” Once the later, Pentagon attack was reported, LaRouche, a veteran of decades in intelligence and security matters, exclaimed: “You can’t go around snatching planes in a coordinated fashion, like this. You can’t do it.” [LaRouche’s radio interview is featured in the LPAC video documentary on 9/11, Ten Years Later.]

Consider the chronology of that fateful morning. Between 8:25 a.m. and 8:32 a.m. the Federal Aviation Administration’s Boston Center flight controllers reported that Flight 11 had been hijacked. The North Tower was hit at 8:46 a.m. and the South Tower hit at 9:03 a.m. The Pentagon was not hit until 9:37 a.m. This building—the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense—presumably the most protected building in the world, was hit more than an hour after the first reported hijacking, yet not a single fighter jet had yet been scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base—just 18 kilometres from the Pentagon. These were well-practiced routines. With more than 4,500 aircraft continuously sharing U.S. airspace on any given day, the Pentagon between September 2000 and June 2001 had launched fighters on 67 occasions to escort wayward aircraft.

Despite the shutdown of all air travel shortly after the attacks and for days following, some planes did manage to fly. A private jet landed in Washington D.C. later on 11 September, carrying the head of the British secret intelligence service (MI6) and the deputy chief of Britain’s domestic intelligence service (MI5). By the end of the week, another private flight was granted clearance to leave the USA, this one carrying some 140 Saudi Arabian citizens, including 24 members of the family of Osama bin Laden—the man credited with the attacks.

Thousands of highly qualified experts have pointed out the impossibility of the official line of the U.S. and British governments: “Al-Qaeda did it alone.” Though most influentials who knew better were cowed from speaking out, some did:

  • Dr Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, observed that “Washington’s explanation of the attack implied a security failure too massive to be credible.” A former presidential appointee to high office, Dr Roberts’ high-level security clearances and knowledge of FEMA national emergency policy well qualifies him to make such statements.
  • Former German Defence Minister Andreas von Bülow has also long charged that 9/11 was an inside job: “I know a lot of people, including very influential ones, who agree with me, but only in whispers, never publicly.”
  • Former British Environment Minister and long-time MP Michael Meacher, in a 6 September 2003article in The Guardian, “This war on terrorism is bogus”, devastated the official account, and asked socratically, “Could U.S. air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11?”

Orchestrated “terrorist” events as provocations are not new in history. Elected as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933, Adolf Hitler was widely regarded as a joke who would soon pass from the scene. But his Nazi party set fire to the Reichstag on 27 February 1933, which allowed Hitler to consolidate a police state within Germany and set the course for World War II. In 1962, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff drafted Operation Northwoods, which called for Pentagon secret warfare units to kill innocent Americans and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities, creating public support for a war with Cuba, a plan vetoed by President John F. Kennedy.

The still-classified 28 pages: The British/Saudi authorship of 9/11

Two days ago, on 9 September 2014, three U.S. Congressmen joined seven family members of those killed in the 9/11 attacks in a powerful Capitol Hill press conference, demanding that President Obama fulfil his long-standing promise to declassify the 28 pages of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into the 9/11 events that were withheld from its report, released in 2002. This issue also received powerful coverage on CNN on 8 September. Those pages document the role of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in supporting the terrorist attack. Indeed, long-time Saudi Ambassador to the United States Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, along with his wife, aided, abetted, and personally financed some of the hijackers in the United States for a period of two years before the attacks. An intimate of the Bush family, Bandar bin-Sultan later became head of the Saudi Intelligence Agency, on top of operations promoting “Islamic fundamentalism” all over the Middle East and beyond.

But the story goes deeper still. As LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review magazine has documented in the explosive series of dossiers listed below, the real story of 9/11 begins in London in 1985, when Bandar-bin Sultan, an intimate of Prince Charles, met British PM Margaret Thatcher and set up what became infamous as the “Al-Yamamah Affair”, a 20-year deal between the giant British Aerospace firm BAE and the Saudi monarchy for massive British arms shipments to Saudi Arabia in return for oil, a deal worth anywhere from $100 to $160 billion. This massive deal provided a multi-billion dollar “slush fund”, which Bandar used to build up Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups. Al-Yamamah was investigated for years by U.S. and British authorities, but its patrons in the British Crown, the City of London and Wall Street ultimately managed to cover up most of the evidence of a worldwide criminal and terrorist combine. Bandar personally received $2 billion out of the deal, which went through Saudi accounts at the Riggs Bank in Washington and were likely used to finance some of the chief actors in 9/11, those documented to have received an estimated $75,000 in “charitable donations” from his wife.

The consequences

British Prime Minister Tony Blair pyramided the lies of 9/11 into still a bigger lie: that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” that could hit Western capitals “within 45 minutes”. This argument became the pretext for the Anglo-American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Iraq and Afghanistan have been virtually destroyed by the “war on terror”. According to a 2006 survey published inThe Lancet, 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths (those above the normal expected rate) related to the Iraq War occurred between March 2003 and June 2006 alone. At least 174,000 civilians have died violent deaths as a result of the “war on terror” in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as of April 2014. Illicit opium production in Afghanistan increased 40-fold after 9/11 (especially in the zones occupied by the British Army), poisoning literally millions of human beings on the Eurasian continent and beyond.

Meanwhile, the “war on terror” has been used to justify ever stronger police states throughout the trans-Atlantic sector and including Australia, as typified by the omnipotent surveillance of virtually all communications of any type by the “Five Eyes” intelligence arrangement, centred at the U.S. National Security Agency and Britain’s Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in Cheltenham. Already in 2002, the Howard government used 9/11 to push through a set of draconian “anti-terror” laws, which have been amplified since. The Abbott government’s proposed National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014, now before parliament, will grant immunity from prosecution to ASIO and its affiliates for any crimes committed in the course of a special intelligence operation. Cameron has just announced that the UK faces “the greatest terror threat in history” (The Telegraph, 29 August) and has raised Britain’s threat level to “severe”—the second highest level, meaning that a terrorist attack is considered “highly likely”. This new threat level was declared by MI5’s Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, which reports to no one in the UK government structure, but solely to the Crown. Almost daily the Anglo-American and Australian press reports on dozens or hundreds of American, British or Australian jihadis who will soon be streaming home to launch mayhem in the lands of their birth.

The pathway out: Glass-Steagall and a BRICS-centred New World Economic Order

As with the financial crises leading into the original 9/11, the British Crown and the City of London-Wall Street nexus are hysterical at the prospect that the next, even deeper global financial crash will crush their imperial power forever. Rather than wait for that to happen, they have launched wars all over, international terrorism, and now a likely thermonuclear showdown with Russia, in order to maintain their imperial system. We must break their power through the implementation of a Glass-Steagall-style breakup of their “Too Big To Fail” banks, and establish new institutions to direct credit into an industrial and agricultural renaissance, as the BRICS nations are now doing. It’s either that, or you’ll wake up one day before long to some British-rigged “new 9/11” in Eastern Europe, to be blamed on Russia, as forecast so recently by Her Majesty’s House Defence Select Committee.


“Scandal of the Century Rocks British Crown and the City”, Jeffrey Steinberg, Executive Intelligence Review, 22 June 2007. The original EIR expose which blew the lid on the Al-Yamamah affair and the real authors of 9/11

“U.S. Investigation Takes Direct Aim at Anglo-Saudi ‘Al-Yamamah’ Pot of Gold”, Jeffrey Steinberg, EIR, 30 May 2008. Reports on official investigations by U.S. and British governmental agencies into BAE and Al-Yamamah corruption, money-laundering, and ties to 9/11.

“Bust the London-Riyadh Global Terror Axis”, EIR Special Report.

“The British Monarchy, Saudi Arabia, and 9/11”, Richard Freeman and William F. Wertz, Jr., EIR, 23 May 2014. A devastating account of the decades-long, intimate ties between the Royal Family’s Prince Charles and Bandar bin-Sultan and the most evil faction of the Saudi monarchy.

Background information is available in the EIR Special Report, “Obama’s War on America: 9/11 Two”.Click here to purchase a copy.

Click here : for a free copy of the latest edition of Executive Intelligence Review magazine, which analyses the British push to position NATO to instigate a war against Russia. EIR is the weekly journal founded 40 years ago by U.S. statesman Lyndon LaRouche to investigate and name the names of those behind current events; it has been called the finest private intelligence service in the world.


What happened at anti-IS coalition meeting?

About Islam Religion feature
First published Al-Monitor December 9, 2014  AUTHOR: Jean Aziz is a columnist for Al-Monitor’s Lebanon Pulse. TRANSLATOR: Sahar Ghoussoub

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg (L), Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi (CL) and US Secretary of State John Kerry (CR) attend a meeting of the global coalition to counter the Islamic State militant group at NATO’s headquarters in Brussels, Dec. 3, 2014. (photo by REUTERS/Eric Vidal)

A Lebanese diplomatic source told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity that two main issues emerged during the meeting of the international coalition against the Islamic State group (IS) and other groups at the NATO headquarters in Brussels on Dec. 3. First, there was a split between the United States and Turkey over the Syrian situation, and second, Washington was keen to focus its efforts on fighting IS and avoid the complexities of the thorny Syrian crisis and the stances of other parties on it.

These two issues become clear when comparing the draft statement set forth before the conference and the final text released after it was over.

According to the source, who participated in the meetings in Brussels, the preliminary draft had been prepared with a focus on the Syrian crisis, trying to present the war on IS as a war against the Syrian regime as well.

paragrapgh11In the first draft of the text, Paragraph 11 focused on the UN reports regarding IS crimes of war and against humanity and civilians in Syria, reading, “Participants have pondered with great concern the suffering of the Syrian people, who live under the brutality of IS and the shelling of the [President Bashar] al-Assad regime. Participants have stressed their commitment to support the Syrian people in their efforts to confront IS, and to a transitional period based on the full implementation of the Geneva Communiqué, including increased support to the moderate opposition.

The paragraph concluded, “Participants support the work of the moderate Syrian opposition forces fighting against IS inside Syria.

The source said that upon receipt of this preliminary version, the participating countries expressed reservations. Some of these countries conditioned their attendance at the conference on the modification of certain expressions and terms, especially with regard to the Syrian issue.

The source said that the United States was first to respond to these reservations and expressed its readiness to work on finding an alternative final formulation, and the text was modified shortly before the conference opened.

paragrapgh11Paragraph 11 was reformulated as follows:Participants have pondered with great concern the suffering of the Syrian people. They urge the parties to the Syrian conflict to respect the international humanitarian law and to facilitate humanitarian access to those who need it, as per the Security Council Resolutions No. 2139 and 2165.

The new text went on, “A number of participants [which avoids implying a consensus] stressed the need for effective forces on the ground to fully defeat IS.

In this context, the participants are supporting the works of the moderate Syrian opposition forces fighting IS inside Syria. They also called for “increasing support for the moderate opposition forces that are fighting on several fronts, against IS, Jabhat al-Nusra and the Syrian regime.” Again, no consensus is implied.

The diplomatic source added that during the conference, Turkey tried to restore the first draft of the statement, but there was a firm objection on the part of the Lebanese delegation.

The intervention of Lebanese Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil was decisive. He asked, “How could you request us to support armed groups, which — as I have been just informed — carried out an attack against the Lebanese army on Lebanese territories, causing the death of seven soldiers?” Bassil was referring to the ambush by an armed Syrian opposition group against the Lebanese army patrol in Baalbek, in eastern Lebanon’s central Bekaa on Dec. 3, during the Brussels conference.

Surprisingly, the US delegation did not comment on Turkey’s requests, neither with regard to the reformulation of the preliminary draft nor the sudden demand to establish a no-fly zone in northern Syria.

Furthermore, according to the diplomatic source, US Secretary of State John Kerry thanked Saudi Arabia for its stance and support in his speech. His words were taken as an evasion of the Turkish demands, according to the source. Kerry also shook hands with Bassil and thanked him for his speech and comments.

why-02-Lft-handWhy did the United States stick to this balanced position?
The source said, “There are many plausible reasons for that. One ought to consider the relations with Iran and the participation of Tehran in the airstrikes [on IS], which came at a time when the Brussels conference was being held,” and added, “There is also the critical competition in the relations between Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which the US is trying not to get involved in. Moreover, Washington is keen on Iraq’s stance in its war on terror.

Most importantly it seemed that the United States intends to focus the efforts of the war against IS without getting caught up in other issues.

It was clear during the conference, according to the source, that the European Union was also committed to the fight against IS, given the great concern of the European delegations over “European jihadists,” their growth in European countries and most seriously, their return from Syria and Iraq to Europe.

It was clear in Brussels that the West wants to eradicate terrorism, while Turkey sought to achieve political gains against its regional rivals. Eventually, the West’s views and priorities to eliminate terrorism had the upper hand in the conference,” the source concluded.

4cminews Remarks:

Just in case these guys can't figure it out.

Just in case these guys can’t figure it out.

via What happened at anti-IS coalition meeting? – Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East.