Alleged hacked emails from defense contractor Britam reveal a plan “approved by Washington” and funded by Qatar to stage a chemical weapons attack in Syria and blame it on the Assad regime, fulfilling what the Obama administration has made clear is a “red line” that would mandate US military intervention.
The leaked emails, obtained by a hacker in Malaysia, feature an exchange (click here for screenshot) between Britam Defence’s Business Development Director David Goulding and the company’s founder Philip Doughty;
We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.
We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.
Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?
The fact that the plan involves delivering a CW (chemical weapon) that is “similar to those Assad should have,” clearly suggests that the idea is to stage a false flag chemical weapons attack that could be blamed on Assad by Gulf states like Qatar and NATO powers. …
Pharmaceutical makers, not gun owners, should be held to account for the series of “lone-wolf,” mass shootings that have occurred since the widespread use of psychiatric drugs began.
In 2000, New York legislators recognized the ubiquitous and unambiguous connection between violence, especially gun violence and mass murder, and the widespread prescribed use of psychiatric drugs. Senate Bill 7035 was introduced in the New York State Senate that year requiring police agencies to report to the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) on certain crimes and suicides committed by a person who is using psychiatric drugs, including assault, homicide, sex offenses, robbery offenses, firearms and other dangerous weapons offenses, kidnapping and arson. The preamble to the bill read, in part:
“There is a large body of scientific research establishing a connection between violence and suicide and the use of psychotropic drugs in some cases. This research, which has been published in peer reviewed publications such as the American Journal of Psychiatry, The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and The Journal of Forensic Science, has shown, among other things, that: certain drugs can induce mania (a psychosis which can produce bizarre, grandiose and highly elaborated destructive plans, including mass murder);. . .and certain drugs can produce an acute psychotic reaction in an individual not previously psychotic.”
The bill died in committee. Since that time, there have been at least 12 additional high-profile mass murders linked to the use of psychiatric drugs, about one a year. And, in virtually every mass school shooting during the past 15 years, the shooter has been on or in withdrawal from psychiatric drugs. Here is a partial list of 24 such horrific events that occurred since 1998, not including the Virginia Tech shootings and the recent Sandy Hook shootings where the authorities continue to suppress information about whether and to what extent the shooters were on or in withdrawal from a psychiatric drug.
These examples are not unique. According to the Citizens Commission On Human Rights International (CCHR), between 2004 and 2011, there were 12,755 reports to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system of psychiatric drugs causing violent side effects including: 1,231 cases of homicidal ideation/homicide, 2,795 cases of mania and 7,250 cases of aggression. Since the FDA admits that only one to ten percent of all side effects are ever reported to it, the actual occurrence of violent side effects from psychiatric drugs is certainly nine or ten times higher than the official data suggest.
Yet, federal and state governments continue to ignore the connection between psychiatric drugs and murderous violence, preferring instead to exploit these tragedies in an oppressive and unconstitutional power grab to snatch guns away from innocent, law-abiding people who are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution the right to own and bear arms to deter government tyranny and to use firearms in self defense against any miscreant who would do them harm. Therefore, it is pharmaceutical makers, not law-abiding gun owners or gun manufacturers, who should be held to account for the series of “lone-wolf,” mass shootings that have occurred since the widespread use of psychiatric drugs began.
Although it is doubtful any single variable can explain what causes someone to commit such unspeakable acts as we saw recently at Sandy Hook, one common denominator surfaces time and time again, in hundreds and hundreds of cases where a “lone wolf” commits violence, murder and mayhem for apparently no reason: Prescribed psychiatric drugs, which are well documented to induce mania, psychosis, violence, suicide and murder, including mass murder for no apparent reason by otherwise non-psychotic people.
Given the mass of supporting data linking psychiatric drug use/withdrawal and violence, and given the fact it has been ignored studiously by the U.S. Congress and federal agencies, it is well past time that Congress and state legislatures and government agencies at all levels formally investigate the well established link between prescribed use of psychiatric drugs, school shootings and similar acts of senseless violence.
This video reveals the indisputable connection between psychiatric drugs and violence, especially young “lone-wolf” shooters in gun massacres.
As psychiatrist Peter Breggin observes in the video:
“One of the things in the past that we’ve known about depression is that it very, very rarely leads to violence. It’s only been since the advent of these new SSRI drugs that we’ve had murderers even mass murders taking these antidepressant drugs.”
Instead of intimidating the NRA into negotiating away Americans’ Second Amendment rights through its seat at the table in Washington, the government should be demanding answers and explanations from PhRMA and the pharmaceutical companies.
Instead of extorting NRA chairman Dave Keene and NRA president Wayne LaPierre into participating with the gun snatchers’ efforts to nullify the Second Amendment in the name of reducing gun violence, why isn’t the White House and Congress putting former Business Roundtable President and current head of PhRMA, John Castellani, along with the presidents of the pharmaceutical companies on the hot seat?
Why isn’t Castellani sitting in on White House and congressional meetings about the connection between his products and mass shootings instead of Keene and LaPierre of the NRA?
Why isn’t there a White House Task Force on the connection between psychiatric drugs and violence, suicide and murder, both gun related and otherwise?
Why aren’t there congressional hearings on the connection between violence and psychiatric drugs?
Why aren’t there bills being introduced in Congress and state legislatures to tighten down on the indiscriminate, unmonitored use of these killer drugs?
Why is the government still suppressing information about the shooters’ psychiatric drug use at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech?
Why is the government turning America into a police state in the name of protecting us against nonexistent “reefer madness” while it turns a blind eye to the real, deadly med madness created by psychiatric drugs and the uncontrollable violent rages they produce in some people?
Could it be there is a quiet conspiracy afoot among pharmaceutical companies, the government and the gun grabbers to make Mr. and Mrs. Gun Owner of America the patsies for the violence and to blame lone-wolf violence on guns rather than psychiatric drugs?
Could it be that power-hungry politicians and gun snatchers are out to exploit rare tragedies such as Sandy Hook and use the blood of innocent children to scare America into giving up its constitutional rights to own and bear arms and use them as a deterrent against tyranny?
Could it be that big pharma is today’s big tobacco?
Could it be there is an intentional effort underway in the centers of power in Washington, DC to hide the truth from the American people about the strong connection between psychiatric drugs and violence and to protect the pharmaceutical companies from civil and criminal charges for their responsibility in these heinous crimes?
Could that be the explanation for why there continue to be lawsuits against gun manufacturers — not for defects in their products but rather for the misuse of their products by drug-addled individuals — and why there are few lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies for the obvious flaws in their products, which are producing violence and mayhem?
Could it be the Gun Control movement is simply a blind; just an effort by the triple alliance of left-fascists, big-government politicians and big-pharma prescription-drug dealers to dose and oppress the American people in the name of public safety, “officer safety” and social order?
The gun snatchers such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg all shamefully exploit the bloody murder of children as a pretext to nullify the Second Amendment and short arm the American public with their so-called “assault-weapons” ban and ammunition/clip restrictions. The fact is, the kinds of guns used by mass shooters are far less relevant than the kinds of drugs they were prescribed.
Oh what a difference three decades make. Back in the 1980s, as Japanese companies began buying up prime real estate in the US, and the supremacy of Japanese cars and electronics made it seem like the country’s economic ascendancy was assured, sci-fi visions of the future imagined a United States dominated by Japanese culture, language and business.
Today, the economic stagnation that has gripped the Japanese economy for the past two decades make such visions of the future seem like the naive dreams of a bygone age, much like how futurists of the early 20th century extrapolated from their own time to imagine fleets of dirigibles carrying passengers across the Atlantic. Just as the trend-spotters of the early 20th century were caught off guard by the jet engine, so too were those predicting the rise of an unstoppable Japan caught off guard by the raising of interest rates and the popping of the bubble, the bailout of the banks, the life support of the zombie companies, and the lost decade…
See video at site.
In recent weeks Patrick Clawson, Director of Research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, attracted attention and headlines for a speech he delivered at last month’s Washington Institute panel on “How to Build U.S.-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout.” Unfortunately for him, the attention was not due to the quality of his speech, but to the remarkable nature of his open musings about the necessity to use duplicity in starting a war with Iran.
Clawson goes on to suggest that a “mysterious” downing of an Iranian submarine could get Iran to retaliate, thus provoking them into war. But it is the choice of historical precedents that Clawson points to in this clip that is particularly revealing. Fort Sumter. The USS Maine. The Lusitania. The Gulf of Tonkin. Pearl Harbor. All of these attacks are united by one key distinction: they are all examples of fabrications, exaggerations or provocations that were knowingly used to draw the United States into an unpopular war.
In this episode of our EyeOpener Report James Corbett presents and discusses the Washington-Tel Aviv war mongers’ desperate plots to frame Iran for any and every attack taking place in the world, the United States’ use of deliberate provocation techniques to start unpopular wars throughout its history, and the importance of informing the public about this history of false flag terrorism and inoculating them against whatever false flag incidents the neocons hold up their sleeves.
See video at site.
For years now, the drumbeat for war with Iran has been growing steadily louder from the Likudniks in Israel and their ideological bedmates in Washington. Weary, exhausted, and economically depleted after a year of disastrous entanglements in the Middle East, it is hard to believe that the American public is eager for yet another conflict, yet every few months without fail there are new signs that the Israeli leadership is sharpening their tools of warfare and cries are renewed in the corridors of power in Washington for unflinching support for whatever action Tel Aviv decides to take. As we examined last week, this drumbeat has reached fever pitch yet again in the last few months, and now Washington insiders, think tanks and policy wonks are once again openly discussing the possibility of staging a false flag event to blame on their Iranian enemy and launch a “retaliatory strike.”
But what would the fallout of such an action be? Well, for starters, there would be literal fallout.
In this episode of our EyeOpener Report James Corbett discusses possible consequence of an armed strike on Iran- from the economic fallout, to the potential release of radioactive materials into the atmosphere, and “legitimization” of the use of first-strike nuclear weapons as tactical weapons.
See video at site.
Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime? Or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other? Directly challenging common perceptions about gun control, legal scholar John Lott presents the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever done on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws. This timely and provocative work comes to the startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime. In this paperback edition, Lott has expanded the research through 1996, incorporating new data available from states that passed right-to-carry and other gun laws since the book’s publication as well as new city-level statistics.
“Lott’s pro-gun argument has to be examined on the merits, and its chief merit is lots of data. . . . If you still disagree with Lott, at least you will know what will be required to rebut a case that looks pretty near bulletproof.”–Peter Coy, Business Week
It’s not rocket science to see that if law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons, criminals will be intimidated. If right-to-carry is abolished, the only citizens with guns will be criminals and they will tend to be emboldened to commit crimes. In that context, it’s clear that making schools “no gun zones” tends to make them targets for criminals, even without the added factor of psychiatric drug-induced insanity.
At a more political level, one can also see that if any government has a monopoly on guns, over time, that government will become more emboldened in doing what all governments eventually do: become tyrannical. Corruption has nothing to do with ideology or the structure of law or governance. It’s a systemic structural problem of spontaneous emergence that always happens eventually in all known forms of government. Citizen ownership of guns is a fundamental prerequisite for the long term preservation of democratic rule, by distributing physical power throughout society.
The general public is becoming more distrusting of media, institutions, government. So it should not come as a surprise that citizen journalists around the world are analyzing the official Sandy Hook story to see if it can stand on it’s own. Many are finding that the story has many holes, some tell tale signs we have seen before, lack of security footage, change in weapons, sequestering media.
Alex Jones now goes on the record with his thoughts and analysis. He highlights some red flags, shows the CNN track record of faking news reports and working with Military Intelligence.
A prominent Texas doctor’s claim that many foster children come from “bad gene pools” is “a frightening throwback to some of the darkest chapters of American history” according to a national non-profit child advocacy organization. ….