Plum City – (AbelDanger.net). United States Marine Field McConnell has linked Obama’s apparent use of BAE/Livery Company public key infrastructure ‘PKI’ to authorize a gas attack on Syria, to MI-2 Prince Andrew’s protection racket and the alleged bribery of the FBI to procure false-flag crime-scene investigations.
McConnell claims that Obama used the same BAE/Livery PKI (Entrust) to authorize a Blue Mountain road block and a Security Professionals’ attack of September 12, 2012 on the Benghazi compound where Obama’s late-raped Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was sheltering and where FBI agents – allegedly bribed by the MI-2 Prince – were subsequently deployed as a Cold Squad to conduct another false-flag crime-scene investigation.
MI-2 = Protection racket = Marcy (bona vacantia) + Inkster (escrow) + Interpol (Foreign Fugitive File)
MI-2 = Marine Intelligence and Investigation – unit set up in 1967 to destroy above
McConnell notes that in Book 12, published at www.abeldanger.net, agents deployed by the Marine Intelligence and Investigations (MI-2) group are mingling in various OODA modes with agents of the Marcy Inkster Interpol (MI-2) protection racket based at Skinners’ Hall.
#1664 Marine Links MI-2 Prince’s Livery Lottery to Solicitors' Yamama Camel Boys and BAE Saudi Syria Gas
“American Thinker … August 28, 2013
Communications intercept proves Syrian forces launched chemical attack
As far as I'm concerned, this doesn't change the rationale for not bombing Syria one bit. All it does is set up a war crimes trial in the Hague in the future.
Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. [This was an MitM attack on the Syrian chain of command staged through BAE/Livery Company PKI] Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.
But the intercept raises questions about culpability for the chemical massacre, even as it answers others: Was the attack on Aug. 21 the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds? Or was the strike explicitly directed by senior members of the Assad regime? "It's unclear where control lies," one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable. "Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"
Nor are U.S. analysts sure of the Syrian military's rationale for launching the strike -- if it had a rationale at all. Perhaps it was a lone general putting a long-standing battle plan in motion; perhaps it was a miscalculation by the Assad government. Whatever the reason, the attack has triggered worldwide outrage, and put the Obama administration on the brink of launching a strike of its own in Syria. "We don't know exactly why it happened," the intelligence official added. "We just know it was pretty fu**ing stupid."
American intelligence analysts are certain that chemical weapons were used on Aug. 21 -- the captured phone calls, combined with local doctors' accounts and video documentation of the tragedy -- are considered proof positive. That is why the U.S. government, from the president on down, has been unequivocal in its declarations that the Syrian military gassed thousands of civilians in the East Ghouta region.
However, U.S. spy services still have not acquired the evidence traditionally considered to be the gold standard in chemical weapons cases: soil, blood, and other environmental samples that test positive for reactions with nerve agent.
As analysts puzzle over what earthly reason the Syrian military had for using WMD to attack its own people, the only question we should be asking is, who would benefit by an attack on Assad?
Of all people, Dennis Kucinich gets it right:
Airstrikes on Syria would turn the U.S. military into "al Qaeda's air force," former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told The Hill.
The outspoken anti-war activist said any such action would plunge the United States into another war in the Middle East and embolden Islamist militants fighting Bashar Assad's regime.
"So what, we're about to become Al Qaeda's air force now?" Kucinich said. "This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we're just going to have a 'targeted strike' -- that's an act of war. It's not anything to be trifled with."
Following a strike on Syria, would an Iranian attack on one of our bases in the Gulf require a military response? If so, where would it stop?
There is no good end to this intervention. And it may set in motion things that no one could imagine or desire.”
“Townhall.com Syrian Rebels U.S. About to Help Connected to Benghazi Terrorists
Katie Pavlich | Aug 29, 2013 …
As President Obama prepares to make good on his Syrian "red-line" promise, new information shows the very people a U.S. strike would benefit are connected directly to the same al Qaeda terrorists who attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on 9/11 [Spoliation inference that these are MitM attacks on the Syrian, Libyan and FBI chains of command staged through BAE/Livery Company PKI].
U.S. intelligence agencies earlier this month uncovered new evidence that al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Benghazi are training foreign jihadists to fight with Syria’s Islamist rebels, according to U.S. officials.
Ansar al-Sharia, the al Qaeda-affiliated militia that U.S. officials say orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound and a CIA facility in Benghazi, is running several training camps for jihadists in Benghazi and nearby Darnah, another port city further east, said officials who discussed some details of the camps on condition of anonymity.
The officials said the terror training camps have been in operation since at least May and are part of a network that funnels foreign fighters to Syrian rebel groups, including the Al-Nusra Front, the most organized of the Islamist rebel groups fighting the Bashar al-Assad regime in Damascus.
Helping the very people who killed the first U.S. Ambassador in 30 years, what could go wrong?
Meanwhile, the Brits are saying a strike on Syria is justified on humanitarian grounds.
The British government, facing public reluctance to commit forces to the Syrian conflict after years of bruising warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Thursday that it could justify the use of force against Syria even if the United Nations declined to authorize a strike.
The justification would be on humanitarian grounds, to stop the suffering, the government said.
"The use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime is a serious crime of international concern, as a breach of the customary international law prohibition on use of chemical weapons, and amounts to a war crime and a crime against humanity. However, the legal basis for military action would be humanitarian intervention; the aim is to relieve humanitarian suffering by deterring or disrupting the further use of chemical weapons," the government said in a statement released Thursday.
Russia and China are pretty mad about a potential strike. Representatives from both countries walked out of a U.N. Security Council meeting yesterday. Congress isn't pleased either and signatures on a bipartisan letter asking Obama to seek congressional approval before issuing a strike on Syria, are growing.”
“The U.K. Guardian (here) reports that Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, took a keen interest in the SFO’s investigation of the BAE matter, specifically the al-Yamana deal with Saudi Arabia. According to the Guardian, Prince Andrew demanded a special meeting with the SFO, the SFO thought the request was out of order, but SFO Director Richard Alderman was ultimately summoned to Buckingham Palace in May 2008 for a meeting. The Guardian quotes the SFO as saying that “no confidential details” were discussed during the meeting. - See more at: http://www.fcpaprofessor.com/category/bae/page/3#sthash.RSo3sJFI.dpuf
Thus, even if HR 5366 was enacted prior to February 2010, it would not have prevented BAE from securing federal government contracts because the DOJ did not charge BAE with any FCPA anti-bribery offenses.
How many federal government contracts has BAE secured since the DOJ alleged that the company “provided substantial benefits” to a Saudi public official “who was in a position of influence regarding” a lucrative fighter jet contract?
Judging just by BAE’s press releases (see here) many – so many that separate links would be distracting.
None stand out more than the $40 million contract BAE was recently awarded by the FBI “to provide critical information security safeguards, including certification and accreditation, to ensure the confidentiality and privacy of FBI computer networks in the United States and around the world.” (see here) [this sets up the FBI for MitM attacks, staged through BAE/Livery Company PKI]
BAE’s conduct giving rise to the February 2010 enforcement action, in which BAE agreed to pay a $400 million criminal fine, “was investigated by FBI special agents who are part of the Washington Field Office’s dedicated FCPA squad.” (See here).
- See more at: http://www.fcpaprofessor.com/category/bae/page/3#sthash.RSo3sJFI.dpuf”
Abel Danger Blog