America as Babylon

Terrorism with a “Human Face”: The History of America’s Death Squads

Death Squads in Iraq and Syria. The Historical Roots of US-NATO’s Covert War on Syria

Image: US Trained Salvadoran Death Squad at work in the mid-80’s

This article was first published by Global Research on January 4, 2013. It is also published as a chapter in Michel Chossudovsky’s book  The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity. Global Research Publishers, 2015

In recent developments the Chilcot Report has revealed the role of Latin-american style death squads in Iraq.

The recruitment of death squads is part of a well established US military-intelligence agenda. There is a long and gruesome US history of covert funding and support of  terror brigades and targeted assassinations going back to the Vietnam war. 

As government forces continue to confront the self-proclaimed “Free Syrian Army” (FSA),  the historical roots of  the West’s covert war on Syria –which has resulted in countless atrocities– must be fully revealed.

From the outset in March 2011, the US and its allies have supported the formation of death squads and the incursion of  terrorist brigades in a carefully planned undertaking.

The recruitment and training of terror brigades in both Iraq and Syria was modeled on the “Salvador Option”,  a “terrorist model” of mass killings by US sponsored death squads in Central America. It was first applied in  El Salvador, in the heyday of resistance against the military dictatorship, resulting in an estimated 75,000 deaths.

The formation of death squads in Syria builds upon the history and experience of US  sponsored terror brigades in Iraq, under the Pentagon’s “counterinsurgency” program…..

Border Crisis: The Crocodile Tears of the Empire

Child abuse as a tool of social control:

Franklin Coverup: The White House Call Boy Ring

The American Empire and its Media

Top German Journalist Admits Mainstream Media is Completely Fake: We All Lie for the CIA

Comparison of John Podesta’s Voice and Leaked Video of Child Torture Chamber

Ebola: The Source and the Solution


New HHS website allows you to register complaints vs vaccine mandates, obstetrical abuse, shock treatment etc…

(Natural News) There’s a new government web portal where Americans can file official complaints against medical practices and other service providers for violating conscience and religious freedom laws as they pertain to “mandatory” vaccinations.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) now offers anybody wanting to do so the ability to write, fax, email, or use the Office of Conscience and Religious Freedom (OCR) Complaint Portal to report cases of illicit vaccine coercion, or simply to voice their concerns about the questionable ways that healthcare service providers push vaccines.

HHS is asking that everyone who files a complaint to not only provide the name of the service provider in question, but to also provide specific details about the alleged malfeasance. HHS also requests any additional information that will help OCR determine an appropriate course of action.

You can file complaints with OCR for yourself AND others

Complainants who opt to submit their grievances via the OCR Portal are offered information about their rights as citizens to not be unfairly treated or discriminated against for their vaccine decisions.

“Federal Conscience and Religious Freedom Laws help to protect you from coercion, discrimination on the basis of conscience or religion, and burdens on the free exercise of religion,” the page states.

There are also numerous specific examples provided as to the types of covered entities for which OCR conducts investigations about conscience and religious freedom violations. These include:

• State and local government agencies that are responsible for administering health care
• State and local government income assistance and human service agencies
• Hospitals
• Medicaid and Medicare providers
• Physicians and other health care professionals in private practice with patients assisted by Medicaid
• Family health centers
• Community mental health centers
• Alcohol and drug treatment centers
• Nursing homes
• Foster care homes
• Public and private adoption and foster care agencies
• Day care centers
• Senior citizen centers
• Nutrition programs
• Any entity established under the Affordable Care Act
• Health insurance plans or companies
• HMOs
• Pharmacies
• Homeless shelters
• Health researchers

“If you believe that a covered entity discriminated against you or violated your (or someone else’s) civil rights, conscience rights, or religious freedom rights, you may file a complaint with OCR,” the page explains. “You may file a complaint for yourself, your organization, or for someone else.”…

American Suspension of INF Treaty is Aimed at China

So it’s done. The US has suspended its participation in the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and Russia soon followed suit. This almost certainly spells an end to this late Cold War relic, which banned the two superpowers from deploying ground-launched ballistic missiles and cruise missiles with ranges of 500-5,500km. There have been recriminations all round. But in the end, so far as two of the world’s three most greatest military Powers are concerned, upholding the INF Treaty could never have been done exactly to the letter.

The US has specified Russia’s Novator 9M729 (NATO designation: SSC-8) as the offending missile that finally prompted US action. Russian nuclear weapons analyst Pavel Podvig has noted that it is very similar to the Russian Navy’s Kalibr-NK cruise missile, which has a range well beyond 500 km and has been touted as a potential “carrier killer”. Podvig goes on to speculate that if the US had observed a test of the 9M729 from a land-based Iskander-M launcher – even if on just a single occasion – then all of them “would have to be eliminated” by the formal terms of the treaty. This is obviously not something that Russia could reasonably be expected to carry out.

Moreover, any number of US missile systems can be considered to be in breach of the INF Treaty. For instance, the Russians have argued that America’s AEGIS Ashore program – a ground-based cruise missile, for all intents and purposes – can also be considered to be in systemic breach of the INF Treaty. Incidentally, this system was itself enabled by America’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia in 2002, under the George W. Bush administration.

Trump has been taking heat for the INF withdrawal from the usual quarters. For instance, the top comment on this story at r/politics – a bastion of online Trump/Putin Derangement Syndrome – lambasts the US President for spoiling America’s image and letting down its allies instead of sanctioning Russia. (Naturally, no mention of where exactly it says that breaking the Treaty is grounds for such). In reality, dissatisfaction with the INF Treaty had been building up for years within the previous Obama administration, and NATO has released a statement of support for Trump’s decision. There is no significant division on this matter either within US political circles, or its transatlantic allies.

Because at the end of the day, rhetoric to the contrary, nobody really cares about the INF Treaty within Europe. Force levels on both sides of the border between the West and Russia – which has moved 1,000-1,500 km to the east, in large part thanks to NATO’s broken promises not to expand – are at a small fraction of Cold War levels. Few seriously believe that Russia has any territorial designs on the Baltics, and even on the off chance that it does, it’s not like the 9M729 is going to make any cardinal difference.

However, it is with respect to the balance of power in the West Pacific that the restrictions imposed by the INF on the US – but not on China – come into play. While consensus expert opinion holds that the US still retains dominance in the South China Sea vis-à-vis China, its margin of superiority is shrinking year by year. In a 2015 report, the RAND Corporation estimated that the number of US air wings required to defeat a surge of attacking Chinese aircraft over Taiwan increased from just a couple in 1996 to 30 by 2017. In a subsequent report released in the following year, we see the balance of power in potential China-US conflict scenarios shift from a terminal Chinese disadvantage in 1996, to parity over Taiwan by 2017 (though they believe that the US still holds a decisive advantage in a conflict over the Spratly Islands). Even so, it is especially notable that the only two categories in a conflict over Taiwan in which RAND now considers China to hold an advantage – “Chinese attacks on air bases” and “Chinese anti-surface warfare” – are both spheres in which intermediate-range ballistic missiles would play an important role. This is not just my supposition. In another 2016 RAND report, tellingly titled “War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable”, this consideration is stated openly and forthrightly: “US land-based missiles from 500 km to 5,500 km are prohibited by the INF treaty, whereas the Chinese missiles are not, giving China a significant advantage.”…