HSBC whistleblower Falciani sentenced to five years in prison | Reuters http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0TG1I520151127?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
TiLTNews Network: Earth Watch - Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it ~ Dr. Ron Paul
Friday, November 27, 2015
Turkey Arrests Journalists Who Exposed Erdogan's Weapons Smuggling To Extremist Syrian Rebels
Turkey Arrests Journalists Who Exposed Erdogan's Weapons Smuggling To Extremist Syrian Rebels http://ow.ly/3yuhwn
Thursday, November 26, 2015
The Lynchpin
Now this is interesting. So was this the US blessing for Turkey to go ahead and provoke a war? Russia may have been baited and Ukraine will pay the price and don't forget, we're paying for all of this.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY VICTORIA NULAND'S TRAVEL TO SPAIN, TURKEY, AND GREECE, OCTOBER 18-21
BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS
October 18, 2015
Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland joined Secretary Kerry October 18-19 in Madrid, Spain, where he met with King Felipe VI, President Rajoy, and Foreign Minister Garcia-Margallo to discuss a range of bilateral and global issues.
She then traveled on October 19 to Ankara, Turkey to meet with senior Turkish government officials to discuss counter-ISIL coalition efforts, the refugee crisis and other regional and bilateral issues. In the wake of the recent terrorist attack in Ankara, she also underscored our solidarity in the face of the security threats Turkey faces.
The following day the Assistant Secretary traveled to Athens, Greece, where she met with senior Greek government officials to discuss a range of bilateral and regional issues, including economic reforms, the refugee crisis, and energy diversification.
Releases
-10/21/15 Press Availability Following Meeting With Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias
-10/20/15 Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland's Visit to Ankara, Turkey
[This is a mobile copy of Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland's Travel to Spain, Turkey, and Greece, October 18-21]
Short URL: http://m.state.gov/md248316.htm
*************************************
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Dr. Starfield’s revelations: shock of shocks
Dr. Starfield’s revelations: shock of shocks
by Jon Rappoport
November 25, 2015
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
Suppose you learned that a single source in the US, every year, like clockwork, kills 225,000 people. That would be 2.25 million killings per decade.
Wouldn’t you think we’d hear about it? Wouldn’t public health agencies make a big, bigger, biggest deal about it? Wouldn’t they call it a pandemic to end all pandemics?
Can you imagine the reaction at every level of society? The insane panic? The madness in the streets? The attacks against institutions tasked with preventing such a cataclysm? The collapse of the stock market and the healthcare system? The predictions of the end of the world? The churches on roaring business highs?
Well, on July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published Dr. Barbara Starfield‘s review, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”
In it, Starfield, who was a respected public health expert working at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, stated that:
* The US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.
* 106,000 deaths per year from FDA-approved medical drugs.
* 119,000 deaths per year from error-ridden treatment in hospitals.
I’m aware that independent research puts those death figures much higher, but I focus on Dr. Starfield’s work because no mainstream reporter or government official could challenge her credentials or the credentials of the journal that published her findings.
And yes, there were stories in the press at the time, in 2000. But the coverage wasn’t aggressive, and it faded out quickly.
And none of the mainstream coverage did the obvious extrapolations. We are talking about 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade. And over a MILLION deaths per decade from medicines the FDA has approved as safe and effective.
The US government is aware. You can search for an FDA page titled, “Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs)?”
It states: “Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly.” And “100,000 DEATHS yearly.” (The capital letters are the FDA’s, not mine.)
The FDA, of course, is the single federal agency responsible for certifying all medical drugs safe and effective before they are released for public use. They readily admit the human death-and- maiming devastation…but take no responsibility for it.
On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here are excerpts from that interview.
What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?
The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.
In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?
The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).
Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?
NO.
Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?
Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews [of its new drugs]—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.
Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?
They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.
Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?
Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.)
Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?
Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.
Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?
No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.
Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?
It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!
Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?
I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.
—end of interview excerpt—
Comment: Hyping death is a media industry. But it cuts two ways. The people who do the scare-propaganda also delete the uncomfortable truths, like those Dr. Starfield describes above.
As always, media are fronting for an agenda.
They are selectively inventing reality for the public.
Reality-invention is the biggest business in the world.
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Filed under: Medical Fraud, Press Fraud
Dr. Starfield’s revelations: shock of shocks
Jon Rappoport
Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:30:37 GMT
ICYMI: CNN Conspires Against Rand
In case you missed it: A newly revealed State Department email shows that CNN correspondent Elise Labott coordinated with Hillary Clinton's aids to discredit Rand during the 2013 Benghazi hearings.
Even I didn't think CNN would actually go this far.
The liberal media has taken their Clinton sycophancy to a new low. CNN needs to address this bias and lack of journalistic integrity. This email revelation should give Republicans pause as to their coverage and possibility of fair treatment towards Sen. Paul during the next debate. All eyes will be on CNN's response to their employee colluding with Hillary Clinton in order to attack a prominent U.S. senator on their dime.
Will you #StandWithRand against this ridiculous media bias today?
In Liberty,
Doug Stafford
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rand Paul <info@randpaul2016.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 1:40 PM
Subject: Preview - CNN reporter conspires with Hillary to smear me!
Dear Supporter,
"EMAILS: CNN REPORTER COORDINATED WITH HILLARY AIDE TO SMEAR RAND PAUL . . ."
That was the headline that broke right before Thanksgiving following the U.S. State Department's release of a trove of emails.
These emails show a CNN reporter coordinated with Clinton staffer to launch social media attacks against me for daring to ask Secretary Clinton tough questions during the 2013 Benghazi hearing!
Shortly after that hearing, emails show she even congratulated the Clinton team stating, "[Hillary] was great. well done. I hope you're going to have a big drink tonight."
With the December 15 Republican Debate in Las Vegas rapidly approaching, I have to ask...
Is this a reporter concerned with uncovering critical news to bring to the American people? Or is this a partisan who's already in the tank for her Democrat candidate of choice?
Tamara, we can't allow the media's shenanigans to silence us. We have to break through and take our message of liberty straight to the American people.
The truth is, I'm fed up with stories like this.
First, it was news that former Clintonista George Stephanopoulos tried to hide fat contributions to the Clinton Foundation while masquerading as an objective news anchor.
Then the American people witnessed the utter embarrassment of the CNBC debate.
And now this?
Is it any wonder why recent polls show 60% of Americans don't trust the news media?
After winning the night with my strong performance during the last Republican debate, my campaign has seen a massive increase in momentum, fundraising and on-the-ground grassroots support.
We've posted growing poll numbers both nationally and in key early states like Iowa.
And thanks to your support, we reached $500,000 in our last money bomb!
Tamara, my campaign's growth over the past few weeks is the biggest story our national media just won't touch . . .
That's why I'm counting on you to help me break through.
A big money bomb for my campaign during this most critical time will FORCE their hands and give me a big boost of momentum heading into the next Republican Debate.
It will help silence those in the media who are using their platform to smear me.
And it will help pave the road to the victory you and I are fighting so hard for.
So please agree to your most generous contribution of $50, $25 or even $10 at once!
Thank you for your support.
In liberty,
Rand Paul
Rescued Su-24 Co-Pilot Rules Out Turkish Space Violation 'Even for Second'
© Sputnik/ Dmitry Vinogradov
17:23 25.11.2015(updated 18:45 25.11.2015) Get short URL
Topic:
Russian Su-24 Jet Downed Over Syria (78)
Rescued co-pilot from the downed Russian Su-24 jet said there were no visual or radio warnings issued by Turkey.
"There were no warnings. Not via the radio, not visually. There was no contact whatsoever. That's why we were keeping our combat course as usual. You have to understand what the cruising speed of a bomber is compared to an F-16. If they wanted to warn us, they could have shown themselves by heading on a parallel course. But there was nothing. And the rocket hit our tail completely unexpectedly. We didn't even see it in time to take evasive maneuvers."
Top Gun: Co-Pilot Rescued in Syria is One of Russia's Finest
Rescued co-pilot Captain Konstantin Murahtin said there was no violation of the Turkish airspace.
He also said the crew of the downed Russian bomber jet knew the area of the operation "like the back of their hands."
"Of course, having carried out numerous flights there we knew the region like the backs of our hands. We were conducting our sorties and returning back to base following the predetermined route. I’m a navigator, I know every altitude there. I can guide the aircraft there blindfolded," co-pilot said.
The co-pilot added that he wants to continue serving in the Russian aviation group in Syria.
"I can't wait until I get the all-clear from the medics, so that I can step back into the ranks. I'm going to ask our command to keep me on this base — I have a debt to repay, for my commander."
Putin Signs Decree to Award 3 Heroes of Syrian Operation, 2 Posthumously
On Tuesday, a Russian Su-24 bomber jet crashed in Syria. Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the plane was downed by an air-to-air missile launched by a Turkish F-16 jet over Syrian territory, falling 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) from the Turkish border.
The crew of the plane ejected and one pilot was killed by fire from the ground, according to the Russian General Staff. The co-pilot survived.
A pilot killed by fire from the ground after ejecting from a Russian Su-24 jet downed by Turkey in Syria was posthumously awarded with a Gold Star medal, Russia’s highest honorary title.
860
Topic:
Russian Su-24 Jet Downed Over Syria (78)
Tags:
downing, incident, plane crash, pilot, Su-24, Turkey, Syria, Russia
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Monday, November 23, 2015
The Founding Fathers Warned Of This
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/23/2015 21:35 -0500
Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,
It seems that the only response to terrorism is more surveillance, security, police presence and, of course, war.
Ignoring the lessons of blowback and escalation that have played out for many years now, the major powers of the world are broadcasting fears and preparing to clamp down on society in response to renewed threats from ISIS and other terror organizations.
None of it will stop potential attacks from happening, but it will firmly entrench the authority of police and other officials to suspect anyone and sidestep the law when a threat is felt.
Take a look at how terror and fear have gripped headlines and taken over the news cycle, and ask yourself who benefits from this:
Although officials have admittedly not stopped any attacks from happening, the system is self-assured in its show of force – with SWAT-style police forces clad in all black hunting down suspects and locking down streets in Paris, Belgium and other parts of Europe.
The Daily Mail highlighted some of the most recent threats, along with just one of the several suspicious persons found at or near major security concerns, including the Pentagon, and in a separate case, the LAX airport:
Washington D.C residents were left on edge after an internal police alert about four Middle Eastern-looking men ‘acting suspiciously’ in the Pentagon metro station was leaked just two days after ISIS announced the capital was their next target.
[…]
On Monday, a chilling video emerged of ISIS warning that countries taking part in air strikes against Syria will suffer the same fate as Paris.
They also said they would hit the U.S capital next.
The specific threat against the US capital emerged as CIA director John Brennan warned that more atrocities will be committed against the West by the Islamist terror group.
With New York and Washington, D.C. once again named as terrorism targets, police are gearing up in the homeland as well. It is a bittersweet reminder that the atmosphere that enveloped America for many years after 9/11 will not fade away, but remain a part of our culture. Unless someone cuts through this madness, the attacks on civil liberties will only deepen, and the national conversation will be all too centered on false promises of liberty-through-security.
Hillary, for one, who effectively has the Democratic nomination in hand, is using the occasion to vow a hawkish stance on the Middle East, though her previous meddling as Secretary of State did much to stir the violence and chaos that has swept over the region.
“The United States has been conducting this fight for more than a year; it’s time to be begin a new phase and intensify and broaden our efforts,” Clinton told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
“We should have no illusions about how difficult the mission before us really is … but if we press forward on both sides of the border, in the air on the ground and as well as diplomatically, I do believe we can crush Isis’s enclave of terror,” she added.
[…] She also said the US should arm Sunni tribes and Kurds in the country if the government in Baghdad refused to.
But Clinton called for further US special forces to be deployed to Syria too, reiterated her call for a no-fly zone and demanded an “intelligence surge” to allow the airstrikes against Isis to be stepped up. “We have a lot of work to do to really decimate Isil in Iraq and Syria,” she said, using an alternate name for Isis.
The words hold an ominous tone for what may be coming in the next four years of the presidency.
Yet it is not unique to the ambitious Hillary Clinton – indeed, there are few voices in government calling for restraint, and every sign that more attacks are forthcoming on all sides.
These developments in terrorism are textbook Hegelian Dialectic, using problem-reaction-solution to justify a greater military presence in Syria and Iraq, despite nearly a decade and a half of fighting jihad, civil war and supporting “frenemies” across the region with arms, training and financial support.
The founding fathers warned of this, but could scarcely foresee the cynical nature of today’s police state – where the terrorists created by the state have become the population’s worst nightmare.
In one variation of the statement, Benjamin Franklin wrote: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Average:
0
"Get Out Of Your Trucks And Run Away": US Gives ISIS 45 Minute Warning On Oil Tanker Strikes
Last week, in the wake of Russian and US airstrikes on ISIS oil convoys, we asked three important questions:
- Who are the commodity trading firms that have been so generously buying millions of smuggled oil barrels procured by the Islamic State at massive discounts to market, and then reselling them to other interested parties? In other words, who are the middlemen?
- Can it possibly be true, as officials now claim, that the Obama administration refrained from bombing Islamic State oil trucks because Washington thought the group was “only” making $100 million per year instead of $400 million?
- Is it likely, considering how cavalier the US is about collateral damage from drone strikes, that The Pentagon refused to take out Islamic State’s revenue stream because the military was afraid of killing a few “innocent” truck drivers who by definition knew they were transporting illegal crude for a terrorist organization?
The first question is, for now anyway, unanswerable. As to the second and third, here’s what we said:
Perhaps the US overestimated the effect its airstrikes were having on Islamic State’s oil production capabilities and perhaps The Pentagon was concerned with killing innocent truck drivers, but it could also be that, as Sergei Lavrov suggested earlier this month, the US has until now intentionally avoided hitting ISIS where it hurts in order to keep them in the game and ensure they can still be effective at destabilizing Assad. If you cut off the oil trade, they lose the ability to battle the regime.
Whatever the case, it's too late now, because just as Russian airstrikes and the Iranian ground presence forced the US to do something - anything - to prove to the world that America is serious about fighting terrorism, Moscow's targeting of ISIS oil convoys has forced the US to get on board (the Russians are going to hit them anyway, so there's no point in vacillating).
American airstrikes reportedly destroyed 116 oil tanker trucks earlier this month and another 280 today in Paris mastermind Abdelhamid Abaaoud's former fiefdom of Deir ez-Zor.
Of course the US would hate to catch ISIS off guard risk killing innocent truck drivers, so prior to the November 16 strike, US planes dropped leaflets warning the drivers to "get out of your trucks now, and run away from them." Here's the leaflet (note the stick figures running for their lives):
Here's some commentary from Colonel Steve Warren from Operation Inherent Resolve (delivered at a press conference earlier this month):
Early Sunday morning in Al-Bukamal, which is the southern blue circle number two, you see two blue circles there. They both represent Tidal Wave II operations, but we're in the southern one -- the one further towards the bottom of your screen, there.
In Al-Bukamal, we destroyed 116 tanker trucks, which we believe will reduce ISIL's ability to transport its stolen oil products.
This is our first strike against tanker trucks, and to minimize risks to civilians, we conducted a leaflet drop prior to the strike. We did a show of force, by -- we had aircraft essentially buzz the trucks at low altitude.
So, I do have copy of the leaflet, and I have got some videos, so why don't you pull the leaflet up. Let me take a look at it so I can talk about it.
As you can see, it's a fairly simple leaflet, it says, "Get out of your trucks now, and run away from them." A very simple message.
And then, also, "Warning: airstrikes are coming. Oil trucks will be destroyed. Get away from your oil trucks immediately. Do not risk your life."
And so, these are the leaflets that we dropped -- about 45 minutes before the airstrikes actually began.
And here's an amusing bit from the post-presser Q&A:
Q: On Bob's question, too, if -- if it's so important to cut off the oil shipments, the critical revenue source for ISIS, why did it take so long to take out 116 oil tanker trucks?
COL. WARREN: No, that's a great question, Jim. Thanks for asking it.
So, a little history on Operation Tidal Wave II. Initially, we, you know, we have been striking oil infrastructure targets since the very beginning of this operation.
What we found out was that many of our strikes were only minimally effective. We would strike pieces of the oil infrastructure that were easily repaired.
When we came to that realization, we conducted some more study -- I think I talked about this last week, a little bit -- we conducted some more study, and determined how to better strike the oil infrastructure itself, different pieces of the system.
During the course of that study, we also determined that part of the illicit oil system, from the oil coming out of the ground at a -- at a pump head, to the end of that chain, which is the distribution network.
So, this is a decision that we had to make. We have not struck these trucks before. We assessed that these trucks, while although they are being used for operations that support ISIL, the truck drivers, themselves, probably not members of ISIL; they're probably just civilians. So we had to figure out a way around that. We're not in this business to kill civilians, we're in this business to stop ISIL -- to defeat ISIL.
So basically, it took the US 13 months to figure out that the best way to cripple Islamic State's oil trade was to bomb - the oil.
To the extent that occurred to anyone previously, the idea was dismissed because the truck drivers are "probably not members of ISIL." Well then who are they? Sure, they may not be suiting up in all black and firing RPGs at Toyota Corollas packed with "spies" for a propaganda video, but it's not like they don't know who they're working for.
Also, as mentioned above, the US hasn't exactly been shy about engaging targets even when there are women, children, and bedridden hospital patients in the vicinity so it's hard to imagine that anyone at the Pentagon was worried about Islamic State's truck drivers.
Whatever the case, the US is apprently set to give ISIS a 45 minute heads up when The Pentagon plans to bomb an oil convoy which we suppose makes sense.
It's the least the CIA can do for an old friend.
Why Syria’s Assad Will Likely Outlast Barack Obama in Office
MIDDLE EAST 22:19 23.11.2015(updated 22:25 23.11.2015) Get short URL
While the US and its allies have insisted that any Syrian peace deal must include the ousting of President Bashar al-Assad, that outcome is looking less and less likely. With a US election fast approaching, Assad’s presidency will more than likely outlast President Barack Obama’s.
Throughout the ongoing civil war in Syria, Western leaders have been adamant about one prerequisite for peace: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must step down.
US Must Stop Depicting Its War on Assad as 'Battle Between Good and Evil'
But with the increasingly dire threat of the self-proclaimed Islamic State terrorist group – highlighted by downing of the Russian A321 jet on Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and the Paris terror attacks – the West is beginning to show more flexibility on the fate of the Syrian leader.
During the 17-nation gathering in Vienna last weekend, a peace plan was drafted which states that "free and fair elections would be held pursuant to the new constitution within 18 months." Speaking on this plan, the US State Department said that new Syrian elections could establish a new parliament, but that the vote would in no way guarantee Assad’s ousting, according to the Associated Press.
Even if peace negotiations did lead to a change in Syrian leadership, it’s likely that Assad would remain through a transitionary period which would last until at least 2017.
Some Western politicians are even considering the option of keeping Assad as a permanent ceremonial president to ensure stability.
The Failed US Policy in Syria: If at First You Don't Succeed, Lie & Lie Again
This is largely in line with what Russian officials have said from the beginning. The destabilization of Assad’s legitimate government would only lead to more violence and unrest, and it is up to the Syrian people — not Western diplomats — to decide their nation’s future.
"Nothing can start before defeating the terrorists who occupy parts of Syria," Assad recently told Italian state television.
The United States and its allies are, at last, coming to this realization.
But just because a tentative peace deal is in place doesn’t mean that the Obama administration is pleased with the idea of Assad potentially holding onto power.
"I do not foresee a situation in which we can end the civil war in Syria while Assad remains in power," President Obama told reporters in Manila last week. "Even if I said it was okay, I still don’t think it would actually work. You could not get the Syrian people, the majority of them, to agree to that kind of outcome.
Russian Warplanes Destroy Over 1,000 Tanker Trucks Carrying Oil to ISIL Refineries (VIDEO)
"And you couldn’t get a number of their neighbors to agree to that outcome, as well."
These comments may, in fact, have more to do with Washington’s waning influence over the Syrian conflict. The Obama administration has faced heavy criticism for its inability to develop a coherent strategy in the region. The Pentagon’s initial plan to train-and-equip so-called "moderate" Syrian rebels was halted after failing to get off the ground in any meaningful way. The Obama administration’s latest plan to deploy up to 50 Special Forces advisers is already facing skepticism.
Russian airstrikes, on the other hand, have devastated IS targets, destroying 472 targets in the last 48 hours alone.
With new presidential elections approaching in the United States, it’s looking more and more likely that President Obama will leave office long before President Assad.
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151123/1030619952/assad-outlasting-obama.html#ixzz3sLaCQCh3
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)