"The report stated that an Egyptian intelligence source warned DENIED that the Turkish Navy ship named DENIED, which was believed to be smuggling weapons to Libya, was in fact carrying a high-value target. DENIED prompted for interception of the said Navy ship. The closest operative at that time was a Greek ops-team, backed by an Israeli sigint asset."
هیشمهحیاتت مااتی هن مهییس گؤشه کویشههل افگیحیام ساوشییل پلاینهر گؤور لههیت لیر " گووشه تو لیشیین تاشوین لهؤشایل " ; امکاحوهیش ووؤاشه تو تاهشیین بیؤشهیل لیر کاؤال ووؤوشوین مؤیشوین الون افلؤحیام گاشؤ هیشمهحیاتت امنحو نؤشههل. هن ا ایموسا افگیحیام بهؤشو تو کشو تو, ا تؤوال یش کهتی اتح کیتی گوشا هلو, هی لشایر هن کشهور گاؤشی تو سا تو, ساوشاین کهشوین حیان تیهشو تاشوین وووؤشی هی ووؤاشیهل گاؤشی تو یش اتتکح وه گؤشه دؤال حیواس ل تو ایمرحی گؤور, افگیحیام سوشاور تااشا تو بوتی لؤوشو هی هینیس بیشاین. امکاحوهیش دؤاال تایشا ووؤیشی افساح وه ل ایموسا افگیحیام بهؤشو تو لیشؤ تو گؤور یش هلیکهحوان بیال تاشهال تاشوین ناشاال; افگیحیام گاؤشی تو یش هن سووشیین افو تااشا تو هیشمهحیاتت ادالیحیادا کؤهشؤیر:
"The original source was traced back to a Russian informer, which in turns channeled the information to the Egyptian authorities. The Turkish Navy was being monitored by US unmanned surveillance drones that flew out of Turkey’s Incirlik air base under the excuse their mission was to carry out surveillance on the PKK forces in northern Irak."
"... that the events reported were staged as a cover-up operation that had nothing to do with The Activity. According to DENIED, the real thing had to do with a planned robbery of two tactical nuclear weapons stored at Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base..."
"... reporting that Pakistani hackers collected a variety of data from their victims, by having it stealthily transmitted from compromised mobile phones to servers in Islamabad. The servers were in turn hacked by Chinese operatives. Collected data was analyzed by DENIED, which alerted DENIED on the plans for seizing the nuclear weapons by DENIED at the Incirlik Air Base"
"... that the information was now in the hands of the Iranians, being kept at Iran's embassy in Istanbul, which prompted DENIED to plan the killing of the Iranian operatives by activating a suicide bomb attack to be carried out by Islamic State's terrorists"
"DENIED showed disagreement, advising on taking advantage of the fact that the embassies of Iran in Paris and Athens came under attack by Kurdish separatists and left-wing groups protesting against Tehran’s oppression of ethnic minorities in the country, therefore he advised to carry out the operation in a way that could pass as a Kurdish terrorist attack"
"They have been using Iran's nuclear program as a distraction from the real problem: the Pakistan-Turkey collaboration leading to the development of Turkey's nuclear bomb"
نؤیشیور بهاوهم ل تاشییر ایمواس لؤیل وووشوهل کهشی تو, اتح, ل دیشاور گاوشاور سوؤشهال افگیحیام لؤشوال دؤوشه تو. سووشیین افگحواف هیشنحوالی یش الینوحوان کیشا لیر تاشوین هیشنحیان سهوشا تو لیر تاشوین اداسحیاتت. نؤیشیور یش ا وووؤشایل ووؤاشیهل اتتلحواتت اداوواحوهلی دؤوشه تو لیر گیاشؤ تو. گاؤشی تو یش دشؤیر گشیهل هن هلوساحیهلی ووؤور انکحو باشؤور, افگیحیام هن نوؤ تو تاشهیل دهیشی تاشایل وویهشیهل تاویر تاشوین بشیهل لیر کهشی تو هن گاوشاور دهیشیور دؤوشه تو; امکاحوهیش تاشهین افساح وه لؤشاهل گیشی لیر گیاشؤ تو تاشهال تاهشیین, افگیحیام گاؤشی تو یش ل دؤال لیشؤ تو ووؤیشی نهشههل هینیس (سؤیتی نؤیشؤ) بؤشوال دؤاال گیاشؤ تو هن دوهل ووؤاشیهل افساح وه امناحوادا لیر الوتیحوهلی توشؤال امکؤحیهلی تاشوین لؤوین نیؤیس.
"when interrogated about this, DENIED answered that it was Ankara’s intervention in Lybia what made the Russians to leak the existence of DENIED subprogram. The subprogram has to do with the weaponization of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant in order for Turkey to build its nuclear bomb with Pakistan and Chinese technical support."
When
is something just a “co-incidence” and when are we just being
paranoid”?
Well,
I am not much of a believer in “coiincidence”
On
February 20, 2019 Margo produced the following video in which she
discusses the following article from Zero Hedge.
The
article makes the point that never has there been less concern about
nuclear weapons and a new generation of mini -nukes shows that on one
side only the fear of mutually-assured destruction (MAD) is over.
One
side is disinterested in mutual anything and fully intend to USE
nuclear weapons
It's
hard to believe that humankind would kill off our best hope for
preventing catastrophic climate change out of an exaggerated fear of
nuclear weapons, but that is precisely what we are in the process of
doing. *** Last year, on June 18 Margo did a very comprehensive and excellent report on Novaya Zemlya as a smoking gun for rapid Arctic warming.
On cue, the very next day, the same author produced this article with an almost identical title as the one from the other day. This came together with a cartoon of a poor, frightened woman. What could be more ridiculous than fearing nuclear waste? Forget Chernobyl, forget Fukushima. It's all a complete nothingburger and needed the "save the planet" (for the elite).
Everybody
wants to do something about nuclear waste. Nuclear plant operators
and most House members want to bury it in Nevada. A bipartisan group
of senators wants states to compete for it. And Bill Gates and other
entrepreneurs want to reuse it as fuel in next generation reactors.
Almost everybody is
wrong to do so. Nuclear waste has never been a real problem. In fact,
it’s the best solution to the environmental
impacts from energy production.
Consider:
Every
year, the lives of seven
million people are cut short by
waste products in the form of air pollution from burning biomass and
fossil fuels;
No
way of making electricity other than nuclear power safely manages
and pays for any its waste.
In
other words, nuclear power’s waste by-products aren‘t a mark
against the technology, they are its key selling point.
Who
Is the author?
Michael Shellenberger describes hinself as a "ecological modernist"
and "eco-pragmatist”
He
writes about himself:
"I
am a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” Green Book Award
Winner, and President of Environmental Progress, a research and
policy organization. My writings have appeared in The New York Times,
Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, Nature
Energy, and PLOS Biology. My TED talks have been viewed over 1.5
million times"
You
won't see it in print but he is also a sociopathic liar in league
with the nuclear energy.
How much did he sell his soul for?
P.S. Here is Margo's report where she discusses this -
At least half a dozen nuclear power plants are in the direct path of Hurricane Florence in South and North Carolina. (Photo: Scribble Maps/Google Maps)
With
1.5 million residents now under
orders to
evacuate their homes in preparation for Hurricane Florence's landfall
in Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, the region faces the
possibility of catastrophe should the storm damage one or more of the
nuclear power plants which lie in its potential path.
As
the Associated
Pressreported on
Monday, "The storm's potential path also includes half a dozen
nuclear power plants, pits holding coal-ash and other industrial
waste, and numerous eastern hog farms that store animal waste in
massive open-air lagoons."
The
plants thought to lie in the path of the hurricane, which is expected
to make landfall on the Southeastern U.S. coast on Thursday, include
North Carolina's Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant in Southport, Duke
Energy Sutton Steam Plant in Wilmington, and South Carolina's V.C.
Summer Nuclear Station in Jenkinsville.
"Florence
will approach the Carolina coast Thursday night into Friday with
winds in excess of 100mph along with flooding rains. This system will
approach the Brunswick Nuclear Plant as well as the Duke-Sutton Steam
Plant," Ed Vallee, a North Carolina-based
meteorologist, toldZero
Hedge.
"Dangerous wind gusts and flooding will be the largest threats
to these operations with inland plants being susceptible to inland
flooding."
Several nuclear power plants in North and South Carolina lie in the path of Hurricane Florence.
In
2015, the Huffington
Post and Weather.comidentified Brunswick
as one of the East Coast's most at-risk nuclear power plants in the
event of rising sea levels and the storm surges that come with them.
As of Tuesday
afternoon, Hurricane Florence was thought to have the potential to
cause "massive damage to our country" according
to Jeff
Byard, associate administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA).
The storm
was labeled a
Category 4 tropical storm with the potential to become a Category 5
as it nears the coast, with 130 mile-per-hour winds blowing about 900
miles off the coast of Cape Fear, North Carolina. Meteorologists warned
of hurricane-force winds in the region by mid-day Thursday, with
storm surges reaching up to 12 feet or higher.
The
2011 Fukushima
disaster remains
the highest-profile nuclear catastrophe caused by a natural disaster.
The tsunami that hit Japan in March of that year disabled three of
the plant's reactors, causing a radioactive release which forced
hundreds of thousands of people from their homes.
In 2014, Shane
Shifflett and Kate Sheppard at the Huffington
Postreported on
the risk storms like Florence pose to nuclear plants:
Most nuclear
power facilities were built well before scientists understood just
how high sea levels might rise in the future. And for power plants,
the most serious threat is likely to come from surges during storms.
Higher sea levels mean that flooding will travel farther inland,
creating potential hazards in areas that may have previously been
considered safe.
During hurricanes,
many nuclear facilities will power down—but this is not a sure-fire
way to avoid disaster, wrote Sheppard and Shifflett.
"Even when a
plant is not operating, the spent fuel stored on-site, typically
uranium, will continue to emit heat and must be cooled using
equipment that relies on the plant's own power," they wrote.
"Flooding can cause a loss of power, and in serious conditions
it can damage backup generators. Without a cooling system, reactors
can overheat and damage the facility to the point of releasing
radioactive material."
www.nnsa.energy.gov
here at work we also have the fact that all older nuclear reactors
and spent fuel cooling ponds hit a tipping point when temps are
steadily over 37 to 44c. Yet all federal safety standards have
recently been De regulated in order to increase energy company
profits. Despite monthly warnings that NASA and all agencies see an
abrupt impact event by 2023. Please copy and share this. Last chance
year for more than 1% of the human race to understand that nuclear
power consequence management is serious. Chain reaction meltdowns
will impact earth beyond any other effect of methane burps.
Radioactivity eats ozone and oxygen. The half life of isotopes is
thousands of years destroying the chances of any future evolution!
Hot
Weather Spells Trouble For Nuclear Power Plants
Nuclear
power plants in Europe have been forced to cut back electricity
production because of warmer-than-usual seawater.
Plants
in Finland, Sweden and Germany have been affected by a heat wave that
has broken records in Scandinavia and the British Isles and
exacerbated deadly wildfires along the Mediterranean.
Air
temperatures have stubbornly lingered above 90 degrees in many parts
of Sweden, Finland and Germany, and water temperatures are abnormally
high — 75 degrees or higher in the usually temperate Baltic Sea.
That's
bad news for nuclear power plants, which rely on seawater to cool
reactors.
Finland's
Loviisa power plant, located about 65 miles outside Helsinki, first
slightly reduced its output on Wednesday. "The situation does
not endanger people, [the] environment or the power plant," its
operator, the energy company Fortum, wrote in a statement.
The
seawater has not cooled since then, and the plant continued to reduce
its output on both Thursday and Friday, confirmed the plant's chief
of operations, Timo Eurasto. "The weather forecast [means] it
can continue at least a week. But hopefully not that long," he
said.
Eurasto
says customers have not been affected by the relatively small
reduction in output, because other power plants are satisfying
electricity demand. The power plant produced about 10 percent of
Finland's electricity last year.
The
company also cut production at the Loviisa facility in 2010 and 2011,
also due to warm water, but Eurasto said this summer's heatwave has
been more severe than previous ones.
Nuclear
power stations in Sweden and Germany have also reduced production
because of cooling problems, Reuters reported. A spokesperson for
Sweden's nuclear energy regulator told the wire service on Tuesday
that the Forsmark nuclear power plant in Sweden had cut energy
production "by a few percentage points."
Cooling
issues at nuclear power plants may get worse in the future. Climate
change is causing global ocean temperatures to rise and making heat
waves more frequent and severe in many parts of the world. A 2011
report by the Union of Concerned Scientists warned that warmer seas
could affect the efficiency of nuclear power plants, noting:
"...during
times of extreme heat, nuclear power plants operate less efficiently
and are dually under the stress of increased electricity demand from
air conditioning use. When cooling systems cannot operate, power
plants are forced to shut down or reduce output."
It's
not just warmer oceans that could spell trouble for nuclear power
plants. Climate change is also producing more powerful storms and
contributing to drought conditions, threatening facilities on coasts
with wave and wind damage, and reducing the amount of water available
to plants that cool their reactors with fresh water.
The
question needs to be asked why John Key, prime minister that does not
have nuclear power nor uranium and has anti-nuclear legislation on
its books is attending a 'nuclear security conference' in Washington
that addresses neither nuclear bombs nor nuclear power.
Prime
Minister John Key said he would meet with the United States President
at an international summit in Washington.
Key
confirmed he would be heading to US capital during the Easter break.
"I'm
going over the weekend but for the nuclear security summit," Key
said on Paul Henry, spilling the beans on the trip before it had been
officially announced.
Compiled
data shows Govt has voted against anti-nuke stance
Compiled
data shows Govt has voted against anti-nuke stance
Data
compiled for the Green Party shows that the National Government voted
against, or abstained, on nuclear disarmament resolutions in the
General Assembly 25 percent of the time.
John
Key is currently in the US where he was invited to the Nuclear
Security Summit. He was initially invited in 2010 because of New
Zealand’s strong anti-nuclear stance, since then he has undermined
that.
“John
Key is supposed to be in the US promoting our anti-nuclear position
but in reality his Government has not voted in line with that
position each time it's had the chance to,” said Green Party
Co-leader Metiria Turei.
“We
have serious concerns that John Key is undermining New Zealand’s
strong anti-nuclear stance during his trip to the US to attend the
nuclear summit.
“For
example in 2014, the National Government voted against a resolution
that called on States “to take the measures necessary to prevent
the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects and to
promote nuclear disarmament”. This is fundamental to our policy,
there was no reason to vote against it.
“John
Key needs to do more to promote New Zealand’s anti-nuclear stance
than use the Nuclear Security Summit as a photo-op.
“It's
crucial that New Zealand has an independent foreign policy. We need a
government prepared to stand up for what is right,” said Mrs Turei.
The
high-profile presidential primary revolt against decades of damaging
American trade policy finally has forced the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) into mainstream media coverage.
The
usual free-trade-agreement cheerleading squad of
chronic-job-offshoring corporations, Wall Street, agribusiness and
their coterie of think tanks and pundits are unnerved.
After
spending billions in campaign contributions, lobbying and PR since
the 1990s to enact our current trade policies, they want us to
believe there is no alternative. In recent weeks, they have ginned up
a PR campaign with two main themes: Critics of free trade agreements
in general and the TPP in specific are protectionists who want to
stop trade and/or are ignorant and misled.
The
recent Washington Post piece by Vice President Biden’s former chief
economist Jared Bernstein does a great job explaining why the real
choice is not between TPP and no trade. As he notes, we don’t need
more free trade agreements to expand trade.
Indeed,
U.S. export growth to countries that are not Free Trade Agreement
(FTA) partners has exceeded U.S. export growth to FTA partners by 29
percent over the past decade. By the end of 2015, the aggregate U.S.
trade deficit with FTA partners had increased by 418 percent since
the FTAs were implemented while that with all non-FTA countries had
decreased by 6 percent.
How
can that be? For the same reason polls repeatedly show that most
Americans are for trade and against our trade agreements: America’s
trade policy and trade agreements have been hijacked by special
interests.
Indeed,
the TPP’s strongest opponents are not against trade and do know
what is in such agreements. That is precisely why they oppose them.
This
Washington Post infographic shows how our secretive trade negotiating
process gives a privileged role to hundreds of official U.S. trade
advisors representing corporate interests. They have turned our
“trade” agreements into delivery mechanisms for an array of
retrograde policies, many unrelated to trade, that have hurt most
Americans.
Consider
that the agreements sold as expanding exports of Made-in-America
goods actually include provisions that make it easier for
corporations to export investment and American jobs to low wage
countries and import their goods back. The pro-free-trade Cato
Institute calls these foreign investor protections, found in pacts
since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a subsidy for
offshoring. The terms significantly reduce risks and costs for firms
that relocate.
Or
consider that our “free trade” agreements impose protectionist
intellectual property monopolies. Big PhRMA got terms that require
every signatory country to extend the periods during which
pharmaceutical firms can avoid generic competition and thus charge
obscene medicine prices. The pacts also include terms extending
copyright protections and limits on Internet freedom that undermine
access to knowledge and stifle innovation.
The
pacts also provide new tools for transnational investors to attack
the environmental and health policies on which we all rely to keep
our families safe. Major oil and gas firms have been among the most
frequent users of these infamous investor-state dispute settlement
provisions. They empower individual foreign corporations and
investors to drag the U.S. government in front of foreign arbitration
tribunals to demand compensation from taxpayers when the investor
believes that policies - applying equally to domestic and foreign
firms enacted by Congress and approved by our courts - violate their
new trade pact investor rights.
Agribusiness
interests got terms that require us to import food that does not meet
U.S. safety standards. The GEs, GMs and other manufacturing firms
that offshored production pushed rules that forbid us to apply “Buy
American” procurement policies. That lets them still benefit from
U.S. government procurement contracts after they move production to
sweatshops abroad. Yes, our trade pacts also offshore our tax dollars
rather than harnessing government purchasing power to create jobs and
spur innovation here.
Wall
Street got rules limiting financial regulation, even those applying
equally to domestic and foreign firms. This includes constraints on
policies that limit the size of financial institutions, ban
especially risky financial products or require firewalls to limit the
spread of risk across financial products.
Every
effort at common sense reform has been beaten back - both in the
agreements and in U.S. policy.
So
we have tax policies that reward job offshoring and provide impunity
for ‘American’ firms that invert their corporate structure to tax
havens but no rules to stop other countries from cheating on trade by
lowering the value of their currency. Currency devaluations subsidize
their exports to us - wiping out American jobs, firms and farmers -
and make our exports too expensive to sell in the
currency-manipulating countries.
There
are no limits on trade with countries complicit in horrific human
rights abuses. But it would violate the trade rules if we cut off
trade with a country after a coup against a democratic government.
In
sum, our trade policies reflect the goals of certain privileged
interests to the detriment of promoting the broad public interest.
Having
lived with the damaging results over the past decades, it should be
no surprise that many Americans are against these corrupt special
interest trade policies.
And
now we have presidential candidates from both parties revealing the
truth: There is nothing inevitable about the damage, but rather the
rules have been rigged against us.
Trade
agreement after trade agreement has not only failed to meet its
business sector and political backers’ glowing promises of job
creation but has done severe damage.
We
have suffered the net loss of nearly 5 million U.S. manufacturing
jobs and more than 57,000 factories, and seen millions of higher-wage
service sector jobs offshored.
Americans
face flat median wages despite significant productivity gains as
those losing jobs to bad trade polices join the glut of Americans
competing for non-offshorable service sector jobs. This has been a
major contributor to the worst U.S. income inequality in the last
century.
The
volume of U.S. food exports has stagnated while U.S. food imports
have more than doubled in the past 20 years of NAFTA-style deals. The
result: family farmers wiped out and all our families flooded with
unsafe imported food.
And
this is not just a NAFTA problem. The 2012-implemented Korea FTA
included the higher labor and environmental standards congressional
Democrats forced into George W. Bush’s last trade pacts. But still
the U.S. trade deficit with Korea grew over 90 percent in the first
three years it was in effect. That equates to the loss of 90,000
American jobs, counting imports and exports in the formula the
administration used to predict job gains from the pact.
We
can do better and we must.
Trade
agreements and policies are how we can write rules for the global
economy.
And
the United States is uniquely able to set trade policies that others
have to follow. That leverage is the only upside to having the
largest trade deficit in history.
China,
Vietnam, Mexico, Japan and other nations are deeply reliant on being
able to sell things here. That means these governments need to come
to agreement with us on terms of trade or risk economic disruptions
that could undermine their own political viability.
But
to date, this leverage has been squandered to obtain special
protections for Big PhRMA and U.S. firms seeking to invest abroad
rather than to secure terms that work for all of us.
We
desperately need a new American trade policy.
To
achieve that, first, we must do no further harm. As Paul Krugman put
it in a recent New York Times column, we need “a standstill on
further deals, or at least a presumption that proposed deals are
guilty unless proved innocent.”
We
must not enact any more-of-the-same, job-killing, race-to-the-bottom
agreements.
Polls
show majorities of Democrats, Independents and Republicans oppose the
TPP. Currently there is not a majority in the House of
Representatives to pass it. Supporters’ hope is to slime it through
Congress in a lame duck session post-election with the votes of
retired and fired representatives.
Imagine
the fury if the public knew that the Obama administration also is
close to a deal with China after years of closed-door negotiations.
That China Bilateral Investment Agreement would provide special
protections for U.S. corporations that offshore investment to China
and give Chinese firms new rights to buy up American manufacturing
companies, energy and communications firms, and land.
Second,
we must review and replace our existing trade policies and pacts. The
special interests that put our current system in place are jealously
intransigent about commonsense changes for which there is now growing
consensus.
This
includes enforceable disciplines against currency cheating; removing
offshoring incentives, bans on Buy American preferences, patent
extensions and the investor-state tribunal system in trade pacts;
conditioning access to the U.S. market on countries meeting
international labor, environmental and human rights standards;
eliminating existing U.S. tax credits, subsidies such as
Export-Import bank loans, and government contracts for firms that
ship jobs overseas; enacting domestic tax and procurement policies
that reward firms producing here; expanding Buy American procurement
preferences; eliminating the corporate benefits for companies that
relocate their corporate headquarters overseas to take advantage of a
tax loophole and so forth.
Third,
before we consider negotiating any new agreements, we must create a
new model that ensures any future pacts create jobs here and raise
wages.
The
TPP’s boosters cynically claim that the TPP is the new model. In
fact, the TPP includes word-for-word much of the old NAFTA-style
language. Worse, it actually expands on some of NAFTA’s most
damaging terms, such as the foreign investor privileges that promote
job offshoring.
The
TPP rolls back the initial reforms to trade-pact environmental and
medicine patent rules that congressional Democrats forced Bush to
include in his last trade deals. It would double U.S. liability under
the investor-state dispute settlement regime by empowering an
additional 9,200 Japanese and Australian firms to attack our laws in
foreign arbitration tribunals. (While billions have been paid to
foreign investors under this regime, so far we have dodged the bullet
because past U.S. pacts have been with developing nations with few
investors here.)
The
TPP includes notorious human rights violators like Brunei, which
recently implemented sharia-based laws for the stoning-to-death of
gays and unwed mothers, and Malaysia whose modern day slavery has
made it among the worst nations for human trafficking.
What
would a good trade agreement look like? In 2009, Congress’ leading
fair-trade champions worked with economists, trade experts,
businesses and environmental, labor, consumer, faith and family-farm
organizations to develop that alternative. They hoped it would shape
the approach taken by the new incoming Obama administration.
That
is not how history played out, and thus we have the TPP — NAFTA on
steroids.
But
the 2009 Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment
(TRADE) Act provides a good blueprint for trade pacts that could
benefit more Americans. The legislation set forth what must and must
not be included in future pacts - basically eliminating the special
interest non-trade riders that now comprise the majority of our
Trojan horse agreements and adding the rules to make actual trade
terms more fair.
It
also included criteria for what countries would be appropriate U.S.
trade agreement partners - those that offer American exporters
opportunities and where strong labor, environmental and human rights
standards exist in practice, not just on paper.
Unless
and until we enact a trade policy that can harvest the benefits of
expanding our exports to create well-paying American jobs and
prosperity for American farmers while growing jobs at home, raising
wages and promoting democracy, human rights and a healthy
environment, the trade fury we are now witnessing will only grow.
Posts
