Western Media Cashes in on Death of US Citizen After Release from North Korea

June 21, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Otto Warmbier was arrested last year on charges of theft as he attempted to leave North Korea after traveling there with a tour group. His recent release from North Korea after 15 months of detainment was followed by his death in the US.



A firestorm of accusations, condemnation, and angry threats have resonated across the Western media, with op-eds ranging from the Independent's, "America needs to do something about Otto Warmbier’s death – but military force against North Korea isn’t an option," which calls on US foreign policy to follow that of Imperial Rome's, including swift and severe retribution, to the Australian's, "What did North Korea do to Otto Warmbier?," which incoherently leaps from commenting on Warmbier's "beautiful name" to claiming, "he was a pawn, a victim of the maniacal brutality of Kim Jong-un," to Foreign Policy's piece in which the title, "North Korea Would Not Hesitate to Kill You," says it all.

Nowhere amongst this familiar Western propaganda used worldwide to dehumanize nations and prime the public for unending hostilities can any actual evidence be found that the North Korean government killed Otto Warmbier. In every article it is noted that he was returned to the US, and that it was in the US where he died. His death, however, is being blamed on his alleged mistreatment while in North Korea.

No Autopsy, No Evidence, No Honest Conclusions  


Conveniently for the Western media, no autopsy will be performed, as the BBC would note in their article, "Otto Warmbier: No autopsy for US student held by North Korea," which stated:
The family of a US student who died shortly after being freed from North Korea have declined a post-mortem examination, according to a US coroner.
Otto Warmbier died on Monday near his family home in Ohio after more than 15 months in North Korean captivity.
The Hamilton County coroner said only an external exam was performed on the 22-year-old.
The BBC article even admits that the coroner's office itself stated:
No conclusions about the cause and manner of Mr Warmbier's death have been drawn at this time.

Due to the lack of any conclusive evidence regarding Warmbier's death, and the fact that no autopsy will be performed, the Western media's collective propaganda is able to stand alone in the court of biased Western public opinion. That propaganda - unsurprisingly - calls for North Korea to be "punished."

However, without an autopsy, whatever the perception is surrounding North Korea - no conclusions can honestly be drawn one way or the other regarding Warmbier's death.

One conclusion that can be drawn without doubt, however - is the shameless, merciless, and inhumane manner in which the Western media has exploited the death of Otto Warmbier.

Without evidence and no prospect of ever obtaining any, the Western media has rushed to create as much anger, hysteria, and resentment as possible in the minds of the Western public before the next news cycle hits. Embedded in the minds of many across the West will be the notion that North Korea "killed" Otto Warmbier. The minds of many will be primed ahead of further escalations by Washington on the Korean Peninsula where it seeks to maintain its power and influence as part of a wider strategy to maintain its unwarranted and uninvited "primacy" across Asia.

While the Western media poses as appalled over North Korea's inhumanity, it is the Western media that has helped set the stage for yet another bloody chapter of US-Asia relations and all of the inhumanity that unfolds because of it. 

US Downs Syrian Warplane Over Syria Amid War on ISIS

June 20, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Operating without any form of invitation from Damascus, or any resolution under international law, a US F-18 Super Hornet downed a Syrian Su-22 fighter-bomber over eastern Syria as it engaged targets in territory occupied by the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS).


It was the latest in a series of direct military strikes carried out by the US against Syrian government forces as they attempt to retake positions from terrorist organizations operating in their territory.

The move was categorically condemned by the Syrian government and its allies, including Russia.

The Washington Post would report in its article, "Russia threatens to treat U.S. coalition aircraft as targets over Syria," that:
On Monday, the Russian Defense Ministry said its warplanes had been operating in the area of the encounter between the U.S. and Syrian jets. It said the coalition had not used the deconflicting hotline to warn the Russian jet.

“Multiple military actions of U.S. aviation under the guise of fighting terrorism against the legal military of a state that is a member of the United Nations are a flagrant violation of international law and constitute de facto military aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic,” the ministry said.
The Washington Post also made mention of, "the possibility that the U.S. could be forced to deviate further from its stated policy in Syria, which only involves targeting Islamic State militants," betraying 6 years of reporting even by the Washington Post itself admitting America's role in Syria as primarily focused on regime change, not fighting terrorists - as the Russian Defense Ministry alluded to. 

Regime Change, Continuity of Agenda

The Washington Post and other Western media outlets are also contradicting a now infamous US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo (PDF) from 2012 which stated:
If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran). 
The DIA memo also explains exactly who the "supporting powers" are (and who would oppose a Salafist principality):
The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.
With the United States now responsible for multiple strikes against the Syrian military as Syrian forces battle ISIS militants and attempt to retake eastern territory, it is clear that the US is willing to risk wider war in pursuit of the 2012 agenda of using ISIS to "isolate the Syrian regime."

By hindering Syrian forces attempting to move east toward Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor, and beyond, the US hopes to continue stationing both its own forces, and armed proxies creating a de facto state within a state separate and opposed to the government in Damascus.


US Election Meddling: Smoke and Mirrors

June 16, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - For a magician, the greater the illusion attempted, the more showmanship that's required to distract audiences from that fact that it is indeed just an illusion. For US politics, something very similar applies, particularly regarding the latest, ongoing narrative surrounding alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.


Having concluded over half a year ago, had there been actual evidence of state-sponsored election interference by Russia, it would have surfaced and the necessity for a lengthy and dramatic public spectacle would not only be absent, it would obstruct real measures needed to protect America's political process from future foreign influence.

However, actual evidence has not surfaced.

Instead, complex conspiracy theories buttressed by the most tenuous documentation have been spun and promoted in the midst of public hearings, political rearrangements in the White House and other theatrics designed to keep the public engaged and convinced of the notion that Russia's government actually attempted to manipulate the results of America's presidential election.

However, the entire spectacle and the narrative driving it, is based entirely on the assumption that Russia's government believes the office of US President is of significant importance enough so as to risk meddling in it in the first place. It also means that Russia believed the office of US President was so important to influence, that the substantial political fallout and consequences if caught were worth the risk.

In reality, as US President Donald Trump has thoroughly demonstrated, the White House holds little to no sway regarding US foreign policy.

While President Trump promised during his campaign leading up to the 2016 election cooperation with Russia, a withdrawal from undermining and overthrowing the government in Damascus, Syria and a reversal of decades of US support for the government of Saudi Arabia, he now finds himself presiding over an administration continuing to build up military forces on Russia's borders in Eastern Europe, is currently and repeatedly killing Syrian soldiers in Syria and has sealed a record arms deal with Saudi Arabia amounting to over 110 billion US dollars.

It is clear that the foreign policy executed by US President George Bush, continued by President Barack Obama and set to continue under US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, is instead being faithfully executed by President Trump.

Any and all efforts to skew the electoral process either through leaked e-mails or through hacking electronic voting machines would have carried a political risk that far outweighed what is clearly a negligible outcome.

Cui Bono? 

For US foreign and domestic policy, however, the grand illusion of Russia meddling in America's political process helps in at least three fundamental ways.

First, it provides a distraction for the American public. While President Trump continues the policies of previous administrations in the service of the unelected special interests that actually determine and benefit from US foreign policy, the "US election meddling" narrative provides a diversion that prevents President Trump's backtracking and hypocrisy from taking precedence in public debates.

Second, creating hysteria over the possibility that a foreign nation might have interfered with America's political process helps reinforce the illusion that America's political process is legitimate and meaningful in the first place. It buttresses the notion that America's destiny is determined by the electorate and the representatives it puts in office, not the multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations and financial institutions that lobby America's legislative bodies and place their representatives within each presidential cabinet regardless of who the American public vote into office.


And third, accusing Russia of interfering in America's political process helps perpetuate the adversarial nature of US-Russian relations, justifying the continued existence and expansion of NATO and all of the conflicts it both fuels and feeds off of. In addition to geopolitical objectives, this process reaps billions in defense contracts and opens up new potential markets for US corporations and financial institutions.

Ultimately, the co-opting or elimination of Russian competitors across a multitude of industries globally would give existing US monopolies and even tighter grip on the planet, its resources and its people.


Philippines: ISIS Saves US Foreign Policy, Again

June 15, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - In an all too familiar pattern, militants proclaiming ties to the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS) have once again found themselves aiding US foreign policy, this time in the Philippines where the Philippine government has been increasingly seeking closer ties with Beijing at the expense of Washington's longstanding influence in the Southeast Asian state.


Militants have conducted a large scale military operation seizing parts of the southern Philippine city of Marawi where they have carried out a variety of atrocities and hoisted ISIS flags. Located on the southern island of Mindanao, the city is only slightly removed from Al Qaeda affiliate Abu Sayaff's primary area of operation on nearby Jolo and Basilan islands.

Abu Sayaff and other regional affiliates have received much of their funding and support from one of America's oldest and closest Mideast allies, Saudi Arabia with whom the US has just recently sealed another unprecedented arms deal.

It is now reported that the US military is aiding Philippine troops in attempts to retake the city, highlighting just how ISIS has been used as a pretext to justify Washington's continued influence in the nation - and particularly - the presence of US military forces in Southeast Asia.

AFP would report in an article titled, "US troops on the ground in war-ravaged Philippine city: military," that:
US troops are on the ground helping local soldiers battle Islamist militants in a Philippine city, a Filipino military spokesman said Wednesday, giving the most detailed account of their role.
The small number of US soldiers are providing vital surveillance assistance and, although they do not have a combat role, are allowed to open fire on the militants if attacked first, spokesman Brigadier-General Restituto Padilla said.
AFP also noted that:
The issue of US troops in the Philippines has become extremely sensitive since Rodrigo Duterte became president last year and sought to downgrade his nation’s military alliance with the United States in favour of China.

However, the fact that the militants are funded and supported by US ally Saudi Arabia, and that the Islamic State itself was admittedly a creation of US and Persian Gulf interests, their sudden and spectacular appearance in the Philippines just as US-Philippine ties were at their lowest and impetus to finally remove America's presence from the nation at its highest, indicate that the recent mayhem is more than convenient coincidence.

US Foreign Policy: Breaking Windows By Night, Repairing Them (For a Price) By Day 

Dwindling geopolitical leverage in Asia Pacific has caused the United States to seek a variety of conflicts to serve as pretexts for its continued presence in the region. This includes tensions in the South China Sea where the US has sought to line up nations against China to challenge Beijing's claims over territory and islands there.

One of those nations - in fact - included the Philippines which sidelined an elaborate US-led legal charade over China's claims in the South China Sea in favor of bilateral talks with Beijing directly - excluding the US.

The US has also actively provoked conflict on the Korean Peninsula, threatening North Korea's government with a potential first strike aimed at "decapitating" its civilian and military leadership. Such meddling and the predictable tensions that result have ensured America's continued military presence in South Korea as well as years of lucrative defense contracts.

And while Washington's use of ISIS in the Philippines is the most recent example of how terrorism is being used to justify America's military presence in the region, it certainly isn't the first. Militancy in Thailand's south has been repeatedly used as a pretext for Washington to seek closer ties to Bangkok - ties Bangkok has repeatedly rejected in favor of more diverse military cooperation and acquisitions from China, Russia, Europe, and its own growing domestic industry.


Tehran Was Always America's and Thus the Islamic State's Final Destination

June 10, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Several were left dead and many more injured after coordinated terror attacks on Iran's capital of Tehran. Shootings and bombings targeted Iran's parliament and the tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini.


According to Reuters, the so-called "Islamic State" claimed responsibility for the attack, which unfolded just days after another terror attack unfolded in London. The Islamic State also reportedly took responsibility for the violence in London, despite evidence emerging that the three suspects involved were long-known to British security and intelligence agencies and were simply allowed to plot and carry out their attacks.

It is much less likely that Tehran's government coddled terrorists -as it has been engaged for years in fighting terrorism both on its borders and in Syria amid a vicious six-year war fueled by US, European, and Persian Gulf weapons, cash, and fighters.

Armed Violence Targeting Tehran Was the Stated Goal of US Policymakers

The recent terrorist attacks in Tehran are the literal manifestation of US foreign policy. The creation of a proxy force with which to fight Iran and establishing a safe haven for it beyond Iran's borders have been long-stated US policy. The current chaos consuming Syria and Iraq - and to a lesser extent in southeast Turkey - is a direct result of the US attempting to secure a base of operations to launch a proxy war directly against Iran.

In the 2009 Brookings Institution document titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran," the use of then US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) as a proxy for instigating a full-fledged armed insurgency not unlike that which is currently unfolding in Syria was discussed in detail.

The report explicitly stated:
The United states could also attempt to promote external Iranian opposition groups, providing them with the support to turn themselves into full-fledged insurgencies and even helping them militarily defeat the forces of the clerical regime. The United states could work with groups like the Iraq-based National council of resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its military wing, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), helping the thousands of its members who, under Saddam Husayn’s regime, were armed and had conducted guerrilla and terrorist operations against the clerical regime. although the NCRI is supposedly disarmed today, that could quickly be changed.
Brookings policymakers admitted throughout the report that MEK was responsible for killing both American and Iranian military personnel, politicians, and civilians in what was clear-cut terrorism. Despite this, and admissions that MEK remained indisputably a terrorist organization, recommendations were made to de-list it from the US State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organization registry so that more overt support could be provided to the group for armed regime change.

Based on such recommendations and intensive lobbying, the US State Department would eventually de-list MEK in 2012 and the group would receive significant backing from the US openly. This included support from many members of current US President Donald Trump's campaign team - including Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and John Bolton.

However, despite these efforts, MEK was not capable then or now of accomplishing the lofty goal of instigating full-fledged insurrection against Tehran, necessitating the use of other armed groups. The 2009 Brookings paper made mention of other candidates under a section titled, "Potential Ethnic Proxies," identifying Arab and Kurdish groups as well as possible candidates for a US proxy war against Tehran.

Under a section titled, "Finding a Conduit and Safe Haven," Brookings notes:
Of equal importance (and potential difficulty) will be finding a neighboring country willing to serve as the conduit for U.S. aid to the insurgent group, as well as to provide a safe haven where the group can train, plan, organize, heal, and resupply.
For the US proxy war on Syria, Turkey and Jordan fulfill this role. For Iran, it is clear that US efforts would have to focus on establishing conduits and safe havens from Pakistan's southwest Balochistan province and from Kurdish-dominated regions in northern Iraq, eastern Syria, and southeastern Turkey - precisely where current upheaval is being fueled by US intervention both overtly and covertly.