CIA and FBI Setting Up Death Squads in Ukraine is “thuggism, it’s rogue state-ism”

FBI and CIA setting up death squads against pro-Russian activists in Ukraine. The pro-Russians of Eastern Ukraine are giving the Color Revolution Otpor scum a taste of their own medicine, and the US responds with CIA and FBI on the ground in Ukraine. This is getting hotter and hotter every day.

American Everyman

by Scott Creighton

Yesterday I wrote about our puppet technocrat in Ukraine taking his marching orders from the IMF and setting up death squads, what he calls “territorial defense battalions”, which will be made up of “trained” military assets (probably the Greystone Limited mercs) and “patriots” like the fascist neo-Nazi Right Sector thugs who have already been murdering and terrorizing the people of eastern Ukraine.

I pointed out that many times in the past, the CIA has been there to help brutal dictators repress the opposition of their own people by setting up death squads, watch-lists, arranging kidnappings, torture and generally terrorizing the indigenous population into complicit submission to the will of the Masters of the Universe.

A new report out of Germany suggests they are up to their old bloody tricks, “the worst sort of behavior” in Ukraine.

View original post 565 more words

Advertisements

About mindweapon

A mind weapon riding along with Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.https://en.gravatar.com/profiles/edit/#
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to CIA and FBI Setting Up Death Squads in Ukraine is “thuggism, it’s rogue state-ism”

  1. Ryu says:

    So….the usual then?

    That’s what they did in Greece to Golden Dawn. Probably XE group or Blackwater, whatever they call themselves now is in Ukraine as well.

  2. wobbly says:

    What’s new is they used to only do this in the 3rd world. It’s gradually getting closer and closer to home.

  3. Meanwhile the patriotard ladies at the local thrift store blame it all on Putin. “We support our troops” signs on their backs. I might as well present the truth of the Ukraine to a brick wall. I’d have better luck convincing the brick wall that the USA is the “Great Satan,” as the old Ayatolla Khomieni (sp?) used to say.

  4. WG says:

    The morons over at “American Everyman” (the website MW links to) evidently think MW is a fed operative and that this site is a trap. Read the comments over at AE. It’s pretty funny watching the retards talk among themselves.

  5. The morons over at “American Everyman” (the website MW links to) evidently think MW is a fed operative and that this site is a trap. Read the comments over at AE. It’s pretty funny watching the retards talk among themselves.

    It’s actually a good thing. It’s Aryan Skynet becoming self-aware – often the first response is a knee jerk reaction like this. You’re already dealing with a controversial issue, then all of a sudden you find yourself on the side of the Official Enemies (sexistracistnazikkk) and move to separate yourself from it.

    Look at his thought process:

    The website linked above is itself operated by nazis. Or government disinfo shills masquerading as nazis. Perhaps that’s more likely; the CIA would obviously benefit from spreading the idea that the victims of its death squads are themselves fascists and racists, or that those who sympathize with them are.

    You see, he’s almost getting it. He is starting to realize that “the CIA” (read: US imperialists) will slander their victims as “fascists and racists.” His next step should be to ask himself why the US Empire opposes “fascists and racists.” He should ask himself why “fascism” is the enemy-du-jour, considering that actual fascists only lasted a dozen years 70 something years ago. Why not “communists?” They certained killed more than the “fascists” and lasted a lot longer.

    Wasn’t that the whole point of the Oklahoma City Bombing false-flag operation?

    Anyone who isn’t a 9/11 truther is an idiot. But there are plenty of 9/11 truthers that are idiots. As you can see, it’s another lightbulb trying to come on. He realizes that OKC was a false flag and that the patsies were supposed “fascists and racists.” Now he just needs to ask himself why that is? Why those enemies?

    Tell your CIA masters that your Cognitive Infiltration mission has failed.

    You see, this is good. Now he’s convinced we are CIA. It’s a great compliment, frankly. So now he knows our secret, he’ll be watching us, absorbing our memes and reading the open source intel analysis of Aryan Skynet. Right now he’s an uncooperative asset but that will change.

    • Mr. Rational says:

      Anyone who isn’t a 9/11 truther is an idiot.

      You mean, people who knew that, long before 9/11, fire was a known threat able to take down skyscrapers and even saw the announcement in the 1970’s of a patent on a water-cooled skyscraper frame to prevent just such a collapse, which neatly eliminates the claim that the towers could only have been brought down by explosives… is an idiot?

      Someone who watches the news and even sees a highway overpass collapsed by fire (which softened the steel beams) is an idiot?

      Troofers are victims of reality inversion.  It’s worthy of a Jewish conspiracy.

      • people who knew that, long before 9/11, fire was a known threat able to take down skyscrapers and even saw the announcement in the 1970’s of a patent on a water-cooled skyscraper frame to prevent just such a collapse, which neatly eliminates the claim that the towers could only have been brought down by explosives… is an idiot?

        That’s an interesting talking point, and of course, wholly irrelevant to the facts and evidence. Your key strawman is “could only have been brought down by explosives.”

        Someone who watches the news and even sees a highway overpass collapsed by fire (which softened the steel beams) is an idiot?

        That’s not a rational argument to make. Fire caused this thing, therefore it’s not impossible for fire to cause this other thing, therefore WTC 1, 2, and 7 were not demolished in a controlled demolition.

        You set up a strawman, ignore all of the evidence in exchange for some theorizing on various mostly unrelated things.

        Troofers are victims of reality inversion. It’s worthy of a Jewish conspiracy.

        Then you follow it up with “troofers” and “Jewish conspiracies.” Textbook. It used to work, and still does on people unfamiliar with the evidence.

        But I’ll amend my statement. There are three categories of anti-truthers – morons, the ignorant, and liars. The liars are often not morons nor ignorant.

      • Mr. Rational says:

        That’s an interesting talking point, and of course, wholly irrelevant to the facts and evidence.

        Ah, the old “dismiss the only verifiable evidence by deeming it irrelevant” trick.

        That’s not a rational argument to make. Fire caused this thing, therefore it’s not impossible for fire to cause this other thing, therefore WTC 1, 2, and 7 were not demolished in a controlled demolition.

        I’ll spell it out in simple steps for the hard-of-thinking:

        1.  Fire collapses steel-framed structures.  Even an open-air fire from a fuel tanker softens the heavy steel I-beams of bridges and highway ramps to the point of collapse; the much lighter steel holding up skyscraper floors would heat and sag much more quickly.  There have been multiple examples documented in the news both before and after 9/11.

        2.  There were uncontrolled fires in WTC 1 and 2 (jet fuel, carpets and other furnishings and goods) and 7 (fuel tanks for the diesel generators plus the rest).

        3.  There is a limit to the amount of load even an undamaged floor in a building can take.  Once loaded past its point of failure it will come down on the next floor all at once, causing it to fail in turn.

        4.  There was visible sagging of floor structures in WTC 1 and 2 before their ultimate collapse.  This is indicative that such a progressive collapse, by sagging of floors and piling of weight onto floors below, went on exactly as projected decades before.

        5.  All of the necessary elements for a fire-driven collapse were present, therefore by Occam’s razor it is the most tenable explanation, QED.

        The insistence that a controlled demolition was carried out, in the middle of a raging fire, is based on denial of the facts in #1-#4 which force the conclusion in #5.  There is no other evidence, and some of the so-called evidence like “collapse faster than gravity” is false to fact.  Having seen what a building prepped for implosion looks like, it is simply not credible that the same could have been done in the WTC.

        I suppose you could say that I am a 9/11 truther.  The truth is that there was no controlled demolition, and if there was an “inside job” it consisted of a studied ignorance of what Al Qaeda and its agents were planning and a refusal to e.g. deport visa overstayers when discovered at traffic stops.  The anti-truthers are people who insist otherwise.  That they call themselves “truthers” is typical of the ironies of our current age.

      • Ah, the old “dismiss the only verifiable evidence by deeming it irrelevant” trick.

        No, you didn’t offer any evidence, you didn’t point to the physical evidence, the eyewitness accounts, nor the historical record. Instead, you mentioned some vague story about some article published a few years ago about skyscrapers and fire damage. That’s not evidence of anything.

        All of the necessary elements for a fire-driven collapse were present, therefore by Occam’s razor it is the most tenable explanation, QED.

        This is a language game that you know you’re playing. “Fire driven collapse” is not incompatible with the evidence of controlled demolition. You know this.

        The insistence that a controlled demolition was carried out, in the middle of a raging fire, is based on denial of the facts in #1-#4 which force the conclusion in #5

        This is false.

        so-called evidence like “collapse faster than gravity”

        This is a red herring, no one ever said anything about “collapse faster than gravity.” You’re just doing the obvious, making up nonsensical claims and purporting to refute them based on ignoring all the evidence and arguing with yourself.

        The truth is that there was no controlled demolition, and if there was an “inside job” it consisted of a studied ignorance of what Al Qaeda and its agents were planning and a refusal to e.g. deport visa overstayers when discovered at traffic stops.

        This is a cartoon, not even actually the official story itself, and even goes against the testimony of the people involved in granting the visas.

        MW probably doessn’t want this rehashed here, but I’ll argue with you on this over at my blog.

        It’s always fun to find one still hanging around after all this time.

      • Mr. Rational says:

        No, you didn’t offer any evidence, you didn’t point to the physical evidence, the eyewitness accounts, nor the historical record.

        Bloody hell, arguing with the confirmation-biased is for the birds.

        Here you have the close-up of the visibly-deforming corner of the south tower finally buckling in ultimate failure.  There are no explosions and puffs of gas as there would be if structural members had been cut with charges.  Nothing starts blowing out of the building until the floors start pancaking together and squeezing out the air.

        Here are some examples of what explosive demolitions actually look like.  Notice the use of wrappings and tampers to prevent debris from being thrown.  Notice the very visible action BEFORE things start falling.

        You beg the question of how demolition charges could have been placed precisely where the fire was going to rage and kept from cooking off prematurely.  Noticing that little problem makes it very hard to believe the scenario… so you studiously tiptoe around it, as if it was Crimethink.  Your reasoning is motivated, not logical.

        This is a language game that you know you’re playing.

        Not liking the conclusion does not make it false.

        “Fire driven collapse” is not incompatible with the evidence of controlled demolition. You know this.

        Then why won’t you answer my questions about (a) how charges could be placed throughout a heavily-trafficed office building, (b) just how a barely-trained pilot could hit the proper floors with an airliner given no way to practice the impact maneuver, and (c) how the charges could be kept from cooking off prematurely in the raging fire.

        It’s like having Lee Harvey Oswald, a rifle and multiple spent shells in the book depository… and insisting that the killer was on the grassy knoll.

        no one ever said anything about “collapse faster than gravity.”

        I’ve encountered “troofers” making that claim a number of times.  It looks like you were about to make it yourself, but got pre-empted.

        This is a cartoon, not even actually the official story itself, and even goes against the testimony of the people involved in granting the visas.

        I never dug into that part in detail, but a “20th hijacker” was picked up by police and detained.  The hijackers of Flight 93 were short a man, which is why they didn’t get to their target.  A little better police and INS work would have stopped the plot before it could be carried off.  Just paying attention to the calls from the flight schools would have halted it.  Putting air marshalls on the planes those sketchy folks were flying… end of plot, plotters captured or dead.  Instead… studious refusal to take the idea seriously.  A recurring theme in my analysis here, I admit.

  6. TabuLa Raza says:

    Whew, I almost forgot about cinco de mayo

  7. wobbly says:

    @Mr Rational

    WTC7 was obviously a controlled demolition. It couldn’t possibly be anything else.

  8. TabuLa Raza says:

    bbc announces collapse 20 minutes before it actually happened:

    • Mr. Rational says:

      You’re assuming that the BBC knew which buildings in the complex were which.  Reporters are usually not subject-matter experts.

      Pictures from the scene show that the southeast corner of WTC 7 was missing from the 18th floor down.  Someone easily could have related that to the reporter selected more for her looks than her brains, and voila, another error-filled bit of television from the fog of war.

    • I’ll open a thread on my blog to point out mr rational’s long debunked talking points. Notice that the picture he claims shows “the southeast corner of WTC 7 was missing from the 18th floor down” – shows no such thing. This was actually a well known talking point and people waited years for the WTC7 report to put the official word out on this. It claimed that “exterior steel beams” had been damaged in the WTC7.

      This sounds really impressive, and it was supposed to be intimidating. Until you find out that the “exterior steel beams” that were missing in the WTC7 were the inch thick window frame “beams” – not structural beams. The entire official WTC7 collapse scenario is based on the failure one particular beam caused by office furnishings – desks and rugs – being on fire. NOT – as mr rational is purposefully trying to imply (but smart enough to know not to say openly) that debris from the towers caused major damage and fires which caused the collapse.

      Of course, that’s not what the official WTC7 report says. So neither the facts, the physical evidence, the eye witnesses, nor the official government story says what mr rational is implying they do.

      Mr. Rational is using 5 years out of date talking points that are even refuted by the official WTC7 report, which he’s likely never read. He’s either not familiar with, or simply ignoring, what the official story is, in order to point to various hypotheticals that someone may or may not have claimed at some point in time.

      As for the BBC video, it’s mostly a distraction. We have eyewitnesses on tape recounting how WTC7 blew up after officials did a count-down: “5, 4, 3, 2, 1” – as in a controlled demolition. It is, of course, impossible for them to have been able to count down to the precise moment the building came down if it really was random office fires causing an unexpected collapse of one particular interior structural beam then causing an amazing chain of events that had all of the hallmarks of a controlled demolition.

      You an see a great animated computer video of the official scenario of the WTC7 collapse, but you can’t get the actual data their model used – that’s classified. For public safety reasons.

      It was easier to take these people seriously 10 years ago, now, with the massive amount of evidence on the public record, you’re simply dealing with ignorance and in some cases, purposeful deception.

      Come on over to my blog, I’ll debate you on this one any day. The facts and evidence are on our side.

      • Mr. Rational says:

        I’m not going to argue with you at your blog.  You brought that nonsense here, I’m chasing it out of here.

      • mindweapon says:

        Mr. Rational,

        You are welcome to comment here, but it is not your privilege to chase anything out of here. Hipster gave you an invitation. You may take his invitation or leave it, but you aren’t going to chase anything out of here. I am the only one who does that.

      • Mr. Rational says:

        I guess it depends what you want to call “running after a faulty argument waving Occam’s razor with deadly intent”.  It ain’t a ban-hammer, that’s for sure.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s