TTUN News

02/03/2023

WASHINGTON, March 1 (Reuters) - The United States is sounding out close allies about the possibility of imposing new sanctions on China if Beijing provides

12/10/2022

post_title,
FILE PHOTO: A KC-10 Extender refuels a B-52H Stratofortress, August 21, 2017 © US Air Force / Louis Briscese

NATO prepares for nuclear drills

Canceling the exercise would send a “very wrong signal” to Russia, the military alliance’s chief said
NATO has confirmed that it’s sticking to plans for its annual nuclear drill, even as the escalating Russia-Ukraine conflict spurs fears of a direct and catastrophic confrontation between Moscow and the Western military bloc.
“This is routine training, which happens every year, to keep our deterrent safe, secure and effective,” NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg told reporters on Tuesday. The exercise, known as Steadfast Noon, will be held next week. It typically brings together dozens of aircraft from member nations and practices a nuclear strike mission. The jets typically don’t carry live warheads.
US President Joe Biden warned last week that Russia and the West face a greater threat of nuclear “Armageddon” than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis 40 years ago. President Vladimir Putin has vowed that Russia will use “all the means available to us” to defend its people and territory – a statement that Washington and its NATO allies perceived as a threat to deploy nuclear weapons.
Asked whether the 30 NATO members had discussed the potential for the Steadfast Noon drill to cause a miscalculation amid heightened tensions with Russia, Stoltenberg dismissed such concern. “Now is the right time to be firm and to be clear that NATO is there to protect and defend all allies. And this is a long-time-planned exercise, actually planned before the invasion of Ukraine.”
The secretary-general added that it would send a “very wrong signal” if NATO canceled the nuclear drill because of the Ukraine crisis. “We need to understand that NATO's firm, predictable behavior – our military strength – is the best way to prevent escalation. We are there to preserve peace, to prevent escalation and prevent any attack on NATO-allied countries.”
NATO’s preparedness to defend against any attack deters nuclear threats, Stoltenberg said. “This was important before the invasion of Ukraine, it has become even more important after, not least in light of the nuclear rhetoric from President Putin and from Russia,” he added.
Last week, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky demanded that NATO carry out preventive strikes on Russia to deter the use of nuclear weapons. After Moscow accused him of trying to spark a third world war, Zelensky walked backed the statement, claiming it was mistranslated and that he really meant to say preemptive sanctions, not “preemptive strikes.”
The alliance is closely monitoring Russia’s nuclear forces and hasn’t seen any changes in their posture, Stoltenberg said. He added that NATO ministers will make decisions on Wednesday to increase weapons stockpiles. Media reports in recent weeks have indicated that members of the bloc are struggling to procure weapons quickly enough as aid to Ukraine depletes their supplies. The German Army, for instance, has enough ammunition for only one or two days of warfare, Business Insider reported on Saturday.

,,

Canceling the exercise would send a “very wrong signal” to Russia, the military alliance’s chief said

11/10/2022

post_title,
Tulsi Gabbard at a Democratic presidential debate in Westerville, Ohio, on Oct. 15, 2019. (Shannon Stapleton/Reuters)

Tulsi Gabbard says she is leaving the Democratic Party

Tulsi Gabbard says she is leaving the Democratic Party.
In a video posted to Twitter, the former U.S. congresswoman from Hawaii — who mounted an unsuccessful campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination — said she can “no longer stomach” the direction that “woke Democratic Party ideologues are taking our country.”
“I can no longer remain in today's Democratic Party that's under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers,” Gabbard said, “who are driven by cowardly wokeness who divide us by racializing every issue and stoking anti-white racism, who actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms that are enshrined in our Constitution, who are hostile to people of faith and spirituality, who demonize the police but protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans who believe in open borders, who weaponize the national security state to go after their political opponents and above all, who are dragging us ever closer to nuclear war.



Tulsi Gabbard says she is leaving the Democratic Party

Dylan Stableford
·Senior Writer

Tue, October 11, 2022 at 9:43 AM




Tulsi Gabbard says she is leaving the Democratic Party.
In a video posted to Twitter, the former U.S. congresswoman from Hawaii — who mounted an unsuccessful campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination — said she can “no longer stomach” the direction that “woke Democratic Party ideologues are taking our country.”
“I can no longer remain in today's Democratic Party that's under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers,” Gabbard said, “who are driven by cowardly wokeness who divide us by racializing every issue and stoking anti-white racism, who actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms that are enshrined in our Constitution, who are hostile to people of faith and spirituality, who demonize the police but protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans who believe in open borders, who weaponize the national security state to go after their political opponents and above all, who are dragging us ever closer to nuclear war.
“Now I believe in a government that's of the people, by the people and for the people,” Gabbard continued. “Unfortunately, today's Democratic Party does not. Instead it stands for a government that is of, by and for the powerful elite.”
The 41-year-old U.S. Army Reserve officer, who represented Hawaii's Second Congressional District from 2013 to 2021, said she is calling on “fellow common sense, independent-minded Democrats” to join her in leaving the party.



Tulsi Gabbard says she is leaving the Democratic Party

Dylan Stableford
·Senior Writer

Tue, October 11, 2022 at 9:43 AM




Tulsi Gabbard says she is leaving the Democratic Party.
In a video posted to Twitter, the former U.S. congresswoman from Hawaii — who mounted an unsuccessful campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination — said she can “no longer stomach” the direction that “woke Democratic Party ideologues are taking our country.”
“I can no longer remain in today's Democratic Party that's under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers,” Gabbard said, “who are driven by cowardly wokeness who divide us by racializing every issue and stoking anti-white racism, who actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms that are enshrined in our Constitution, who are hostile to people of faith and spirituality, who demonize the police but protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans who believe in open borders, who weaponize the national security state to go after their political opponents and above all, who are dragging us ever closer to nuclear war.

“Now I believe in a government that's of the people, by the people and for the people,” Gabbard continued. “Unfortunately, today's Democratic Party does not. Instead it stands for a government that is of, by and for the powerful elite.”
The 41-year-old U.S. Army Reserve officer, who represented Hawaii's Second Congressional District from 2013 to 2021, said she is calling on “fellow common sense, independent-minded Democrats” to join her in leaving the party.
She posted a similar, lengthy statement online explaining her departure.



Tulsi Gabbard at a Democratic presidential debate in Westerville, Ohio, on Oct. 15, 2019. (Shannon Stapleton/Reuters)

During the 2020 Democratic primary, Gabbard participated in several debates, sparring with fellow candidates over foreign policy.
She also sued Hillary Clinton for seeming to suggest that Republicans were “grooming” Gabbard to be a spoiler as a third-party candidate. Clinton, who did not mention Gabbard by name, further suggested that she was “the favorite of the Russians.” (Gabbard eventually dropped her lawsuit.)
Gabbard won just two delegates during the primary, both from American Samoa. She dropped out of the race in March 2020 and endorsed Joe Biden.
Since leaving Congress, Gabbard has been a regular on Fox News, even serving as a fill-in host for Tucker Carlson.
The reaction to her announcement was swift, at least on Twitter. Shortly after the video was posted, the phrase “Good riddance” was trending.

,,

Tulsi Gabbard says she is leaving the Democratic Party. In a video posted to Twitter, the former U.S. congresswoman from Hawaii

11/10/2022

post_title,
EU’s top diplomat Josep Borrell speaks at an event in Strasbourg, France, October 5, 2022. © Frederick Florin / AFP

EU prosperity based on China and Russia – Borrell

The bloc’s top diplomat says that Brussels has relied too heavily on Moscow's energy and Beijing's production
For too long the EU’s prosperity has been dependent on China and Russia, while security has been outsourced to the US, top EU diplomat, Josep Borrell, has said.
The statement comes amid soaring energy prices and attempts to curb Russian oil and gas supplies as part of sanctions over Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine.
“Our prosperity has been based on cheap energy coming from Russia. Russian gas – cheap and supposedly affordable, secure, and stable. It has been proved not [to be] the case,” Borrell said in a speech at an EU ambassadors’ conference on Monday.
The diplomat added that the 27-member bloc also relied too much on trade with China, as well as Chinese investment and “cheap goods.”
“I think that the Chinese workers with their low salaries have done much better and much more to contain inflation than all the Central Banks together,” Borrell argued.
Borrell added, that while growing economically dependent on Moscow and Beijing, “we delegated our security to the United States.” The over-reliance on Washington creates a sense of uncertainty in Brussels, especially if the next US leadership would be less favorable to the EU, he said.
READ MORE: Russia may redirect EU coal supply
“Who knows what will happen two years from now, or even in November? What would have happened if, instead of [Joe] Biden, it would have been [Donald] Trump or someone like him in the White House? What would have been the answer of the United States to the war in Ukraine? What would have been our answer in a different situation?”
“And the answer for me is clear: we need to shoulder more responsibilities ourselves. We have to take a bigger part of our responsibility in securing security,” Borrell stated.
Concerns over gas prices and fears of possible shortages have also prompted some major companies to shift production from the EU to the US. Volkswagen, Europe’s biggest carmaker, revealed last month that it was considering relocating manufacturing plants from Germany due to rising energy costs.
,,

The bloc’s top diplomat says that Brussels has relied too heavily on Moscow's energy and Beijing's production

11/10/2022

post_title,
© Getty Images / halbergman

US taking advantage of EU energy crisis – Paris

Washington is selling gas to the EU for four times what it charges at home, the French finance minister says
The US should not be allowed to dominate the global energy market while the EU suffers from the consequences of the conflict in Ukraine, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire has warned.
“The conflict in Ukraine must not end in American economic domination and a weakening of the EU,” he said, speaking at the National Assembly on Monday.
Le Maire said it’s unacceptable that Washington “sells its liquefied natural gas at four times the price than it sets for its own industrialists,” adding that “the economic weakening of Europe is not in anyone’s interest.”
“We must reach a more balanced economic relationship on the energy issue between our American partners and the European continent,” Le Maire said.
Prior to the conflict in Ukraine, Russia was the EU’s largest gas supplier, responsible for about 45% of the bloc’s gas imports. However, due to sanctions imposed on Moscow in recent months, Russian gas supplies to the EU have decreased significantly.
Facing an energy crisis, EU countries have rushed to fill their storage facilities – the level of reserves in underground storages was close to 91% as of Monday, according to Gas Infrastructure Europe. The storage sites are largely filled by liquefied natural gas (LNG), and are currently at their highest seasonal levels since at least 2016, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. However, LNG imports from overseas cost much more than gas supplied via pipeline from Russia under long-term contracts, and energy prices in the bloc continue to rise.
The EU has considered setting a cap on natural gas prices for all suppliers, but a number of countries are opposed to this. Norway, a non-EU state but a partner in the European Economic Area (EEA) and one of EU’s major gas suppliers, recently warned that a step such as this could aggravate the situation, forcing exporters to divert supplies to other markets.
,,

Washington is selling gas to the EU for four times what it charges at home, the French finance minister says

10/10/2022

post_title,
FILE PHOTO: Protesters march behind a banner 'Resistance' in Paris, France, on September 3, 2022. © AFP / Findlay Kember

Mass protests against NATO and EU hit Paris streets

The demonstrations were sparked by what protesters called economic “disruption” and “energy and health restrictions”
A massive crowd of protesters marched through the center of the Paris on Saturday demanding that France radically change its stance on NATO and the EU.
The march was organized by the right-wing Les Patriotes (The Patriots) party led by Florian Philippot, the former deputy head of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally. Dubbed “the national meeting of resistance,” the rally attracted “thousands and thousands” of people, according to Philippot, who was also a member of the European Parliament between 2014 and 2019.
The demonstrators were holding a large banner reading ‘Resistance’ and smaller placards that read ‘Frexit’ – a reference to a demand that France leave the EU. Many protesters were also waving the national flag.
According to videos published by Philippot on social media, the crowd was chanting: “Let's get out of NATO!” They also demanded the ouster of French President Emmanuel Macron as they marched near the parliament building, the footage purports to show.
The protesters denounced NATO “warmongering,” as well as economic “disruption” and “energy and health restrictions,” linked to the sanctions the EU imposed on Russia over the conflict in Ukraine.
French officials have not commented on the rally and provided no official figures as to the number of demonstrators. The French media mostly ignored the event as well. According to the website of Les Patriotes, similar rallies were also held on September 3 and 17.
The unrest comes as France increasingly struggles to cope with the ongoing energy crunch, a major cause of which is the EU’s sanctions policy. Last month, the head of the French energy regulator CRE warned that private households could face power outages this winter if there are severe cold spells.
READ MORE: Austrians take to the streets over living costs
Le Pen also warned that the nation should brace for a tough winter. The right-wing politician told BFMTV that the sanctions on Russia were not working and were harming the French people instead.
,,

The demonstrations were sparked by what protesters called economic “disruption” and “energy and health restrictions”

09/10/2022

post_title,
FILE PHOTO: French troops take up positions near the Serbian border in Macedonia, April 12, 1999 © AP / Eric Feferberg

US asked Hungary to invade Serbia – President Vucic

Viktor Orban refused Bill Clinton’s 1999 request to wage war on his neighbor
Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic revealed on Saturday that American and British leaders, including President Bill Clinton, urged Hungary to invade Serbia by land in 1999. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who told Vucic of the request, refused.
In a televised address, Vucic said that the US and UK wanted Hungarian forces to push south into Serbia in order to split the Yugoslav military between the front in Kosovo and a new front with Hungary.
“Clinton and the British asked [Orban] to attack Serbia from the north so that they could extend our forces from Kosovo and Metohija to Vojvodina,” he explained. Orban, who at the time was one year into his first term in office, refused, and with the help of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, pushed back against the “pressure from the White House.”
Orban told Vucic of the request during a recent meeting and allowed him to speak about it publicly, the Serbian leader said.
NATO launched a bombing campaign in 1999 against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which by that time was made up of just Serbia and Montenegro. In waging the air war, NATO sided with ethnic Albanian separatists, who were fighting with the Serbs for the independence of Kosovo, a province of Serbia.
Hungary had joined NATO earlier that year, but did not participate in the campaign.
According to Vucic, Orban then traveled to the UK for talks with Prime Minister Tony Blair and former PM Margaret Thatcher. Greeting him at the door of Downing Street, Thatcher told Orban “it bothers me a lot that you refused to attack Serbia, that's why more British soldiers will die,” Vucic said.
Ultimately, no British troops died during the campaign. Hostilities ceased in June 1999 with the signing of the Kumanovo Agreement, after which NATO troops moved into Kosovo, where they remain to this day. The bombing campaign marked the first time that the US-led alliance used military force without the approval of the UN Security Council, and is still regarded by much of the world as illegitimate.
,,

Viktor Orban refused Bill Clinton’s 1999 request to wage war on his neighbor

08/10/2022

post_title,
FILE PHOTO. US marines take part in a joint amphibious assault exercise as part of the annual 'Balikatan' (shoulder-to-shoulder) US-Philippines war exercises, off the waters of South China Sea in Claveria, Cagayan province, Philippines. © Ezra Acayan/Getty Images

Why the US won’t step back from the warpath with China

Washington’s policies are guided by threat inflation and a vision of global control
By Dr. Radhika Desai, a professor at the Department of Political Studies at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada and director of the Geopolitical Economy Research Group. She also writes on current affairs for Valdai Club, CGTN, Counterpunch and other outlets and is the author of Geopolitical Economy: After US Hegemony, Globalization and Empire and Capitalism, Coronavirus and War: A Geopolitical Economy
The drums of war being beaten in Washington DC are picking up tempo. Nancy Pelosi’s ill-advised visit to Taiwan was followed by that of more members of Congress. Only weeks later, President Biden declared that the US stood ready to defend Taiwan in case of Chinese invasion and, within two days of that, US and Canadian warships were conducting another of the provocative ‘Freedom of Navigation’ operations in the Taiwan Strait that have become increasingly frequent since President Obama’s Pivot to Asia, and now it has accelerated the passage of the Taiwan Policy Act, which aims to “support the security of Taiwan and its right of self-determination.”
If it passes, it will become Biden’s signature foreign-policy legacy, the proxy war against Russia through Ukraine notwithstanding. It will overturn the US’ long-standing observation of the One China policy, turning its decades-old ‘strategic ambiguity’ into the strategic certainty of US commitment to Taiwanese independence.
After Obama’s Pivot to Asia and Trump’s noisy trade, technology and currency wars, Biden was elected to take a more moderate and peaceable approach. Instead, his presidency has engineered a veritable fourth Taiwan Strait crisis, one that risks nuclear war.
Even amid all the tumult of the Ukraine conflict, US policy-making circles are rife with alarmism over China. Take the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, a critically weighty part of the US foreign policy community since 1918, when its founders’ report formed the basis of the famous Fourteen Points with which President Wilson responded to the Bolshevik Peace decree with its call for self-determination of all peoples. In recent months, Foreign Affairs, its flagship journal, has featured headlines like ‘Taiwan Can’t Wait: What America Must Do To Prevent a Successful Chinese Invasion,’ ‘How to Survive the Next Taiwan Strait Crisis,’ ‘Washington Must Be Ready For a Showdown With or Without a Pelosi Trip,’ ‘America Must Prepare for a War Over Taiwan,’ and ‘Time Is Running Out to Defend Taiwan: Why the Pentagon Must Focus on Near-Term Deterrence,’ the last by none other than Michele Flournoy, once tipped to be Biden’s Secretary of Defense.
These headlines are not just hot air. In addition to reactivating the Quadrilateral dialogue, forming AUKUS, and giving NATO an unprecedented focus on China, the Biden administration has overseen a massive concentration of forces in the Western Pacific, with 57 of its 111 ships operating worldwide attached to the Seventh Fleet. It includes three ‘super’ and three smaller aircraft carriers, home to nuclear-capable F-35 fighter jets. In addition, the US has been engaged in numerous military exercises in the region, including the so-called ‘Freedom of Navigation’ sailings through the Taiwan Strait.
Of course, declining US economic power over recent decades has also been accompanied by declining US military power, as evidenced in the string of military failures this century that culminated in the ignominious withdrawal from Afghanistan. Inevitably, therefore, there are also voices of caution emerging in the US. While Foreign Affairs itself can also sport stories headlined ‘Beijing Is Still Playing the Long Game on Taiwan’ and ‘Why China Isn’t Poised to Invade,’ new counter institutions have also emerged. One of the most important is the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, on the premise that ‘[t]he practical and moral failures of U.S. efforts to unilaterally shape the destiny of other nations by force requires a fundamental rethinking of U.S. foreign policy assumptions.’
However, how much can such new institutions change? After all, there is consensus – between the two major parties and across the divide between ‘realist’ and ‘liberal internationalist’ schools of foreign-policy thinking – that China constitutes the main threat to the US. To be sure, the principal expert of the Quincy institute on China warns against ‘threat inflation’ with regard to China, recommends that US policy-makers “[p]roduce more balanced, fact-based assessments of China’s capabilities and intentions,” and urges them to “to create a regional and global system centered on a maximum level of positive-sum interactions, including, among others, cooperative structures, and agreements to address specific common regional and global threats, including climate change, pandemics, financial instability, cyberattacks, and WMD proliferation.” He also advocates “the revitalization of the One China policy toward Taiwan alongside greater efforts to increase incentives in both Beijing and Taipei to compromise in ways that make possible eventual political talks.” However, even he recommends that the ultimate goal of US policy should be “a more financially feasible active denial force posture designed to deny China clear control over its maritime periphery.”
If denying China its sovereignty over its rightful waters is to be the goal of US policy even in the eyes of the critics of current US bellicosity, the US is unlikely to be shunted off the path of military aggression.

,,

Washington’s policies are guided by threat inflation and a vision of global control

07/10/2022

post_title,
© Getty Images / Vasil Nanev / EyeEm

Kremlin accuses Zelensky of trying to start a world war

Putin's spokesman issues warning to the US and UK over the Ukrainian leader's nuclear demands
The Kremlin has accused Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky of trying to spark a third world war, after he demanded that NATO carry out preventive strikes on Russia to deter the use of nuclear weapons.
Speaking to the Australian Lowy Institute on Thursday, Zelensky stated that NATO must ensure Moscow does not use nukes against Kiev’s forces. To do this, he called on the US-led military bloc and the international community to carry out preventive strikes against Russia so that it “knows what to expect" if it decides to use them.
“What should NATO do? Eliminate the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons,” Zelensky said during the online conference. “I once again appeal to the international community, as it was before February 24: preemptive strikes so that they [Russia] know what will happen to them if they use it, and not the other way around.”
Moscow has slammed Zelensky’s suggestion, with Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stating that the Ukrainian leader’s comments are nothing short of an attempt to spark a world war, which would lead to “unforeseeable disastrous consequences.”
Russia’s Foreign Ministry has also accused Zelensky of trying to provoke a nuclear war, with spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stating that “every person on the planet” should recognize that the “unbalanced” puppet leader of Ukraine, who has been pumped full of weapons, has turned into “a monster, whose hands can destroy the planet.”
The Kremlin has called on the international community to pay special attention to Zelensky’s statements, especially the US and the UK, who Peskov says are “de facto in control of Kiev’s actions” and therefore bear responsibility for the Ukrainian president’s words.
Russia has repeatedly stated that it is not considering a nuclear strike on Ukraine but has warned that it will use any means necessary in order to protect its borders, people and sovereignty.
Meanwhile, both Washington and London have also admitted that it is unlikely that Moscow will deploy tactical nukes in the Ukraine conflict and have seen no indications of Moscow preparing such an attack. Nevertheless, Western leaders have warned Russia against ever crossing that line, vowing “catastrophic consequences.”
,,

Putin's spokesman issues warning to the US and UK over the Ukrainian leader's nuclear demands

07/10/2022

post_title,
FILE PHOTO. © Omar Marques / SOPA Images / LightRocket via Getty Images

Be careful what you post: How Facebook and the US government have united against Americans with the 'wrong' views

Exposed: Social media giant is spying on conservative users and snitching to the feds
It’s been revealed by sources within the US Department of Justice that direct messages sent through Facebook by American users, along with public postings, have been rigorously monitored, and reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) if they express anti-government, anti-authority views, or if they question the legitimacy of the November 2020 presidential election’s outcome.
Witch hunt on the web
Under the terms of a secret collaboration agreement with the FBI, a Facebook staffer has, over the past 19 months, been red-flagging content they consider to be “subversive” and immediately transmitting it to the Bureau’s domestic terrorism operational unit, without the FBI having filed a single subpoena – outside the established US legal process, without probable cause, and in breach of the First Amendment, in other words.
Just as shockingly, these intercepted communications were then provided as leads and tips to FBI field offices across the US, which in turn secured subpoenas in order to officially obtain the private conversations that they already possessed, and thus cover up the fact the material had been obtained extra-legally. Facebook invariably complied with these subpoenas, and would send back “gigabytes of data and photos” within an hour, suggesting the content sought was already packaged and awaiting legal confirmation before distribution.
It is uncertain quite how many users were flagged, but it’s abundantly clear a specific type of person was of interest to the FBI - “red-blooded” conservative right-wingers, many of whom supported the right to bear arms. No one connected to Antifa, BLM or any other left-wing group was ever informed on.
It seems not a single Facebook user snitched upon for daring to be possessed of troublesome political opinions was ever arrested, or prosecuted, for their wrongthink, even though some were reportedly subject to covert surveillance and other forms of intrusion and harassment. Their views were consistently found to not translate to criminality or violence - their words were simply brutal condemnations of Biden’s election and presidency, and aggressive calls for protests.
However, once these users’ information reached FBI headquarters, it appears to have been selectively and misleadingly edited, “the most egregious parts highlighted and taken out of context” in order to perk the interest of field offices. Once the same data was sought and accessed by them via subpoena, the conversations “didn’t sound as bad” and none pointed to any “plan or orchestration to carry out any kind of violence.” No one spoke of injuring, let alone killing, anyone.
The entire operation appears to have been a gigantic waste of time but, given the Biden administration’s rhetoric about the January 6 Capitol “insurrection,” it would hardly surprise if the FBI was under intense political pressure to make as many arrests as possible of “right-wing terrorists” in order to make the sensationalist fantasies of White House officials a reality.
During the War on Terror, the FBI was in effect charged with creating a domestic terror threat, and delivered on a grand scale. Almost every major terrorism-related case in the post 9/11 period was effectively entrapment, with informants and undercover agents encouraging often mentally ill people to commit violent acts, helping them sketch mass casualty plans, and even providing the weapons to be used in the plots, which the FBI heroically busts at the last minute.
Luckily for those Facebook users flagged to the FBI, none were the victim of similar sting operations, although in the case of the October 2020 kidnapping plot targeting Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer by militia members, at least 12 individuals involved in the planning were working for the Bureau.
Who polices the police?
In two separate statements to the New York Post, a Facebook spokesperson seemed to contradict themselves on whether the Justice Department whistleblowers’ claims were accurate. First, they said the allegations were “false because they reflect a misunderstanding of how our systems protect people from harm and how we engage with law enforcement.” An hour later, they got in touch unprompted to say the accusations were “just wrong,” rather than “false.”
Coincidentally, that spokesperson previously worked for Planned Parenthood and “Obama for America.” The latter campaign, to get the then-President re-elected in 2012, not only employed the exact same tactics as Cambridge Analytica to harvest user data without knowledge or consent, but has also admitted it was allowed by Facebook to “do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.”
For its part, the FBI would neither confirm nor deny the incendiary charges, although that the Bureau maintains a little-known “unclassified/law enforcement sensitive” relationship with Facebook has long-been a matter of record, and a spokesperson did concede that this connection allows for a “quick exchange” of information in an “ongoing dialogue.”
Even more ominously, if we accept that Facebook’s denial it has a subpoena-less agreement for the unfettered sharing of private user data to be truthful, this could imply that the FBI is running an agent –a “confidential human source,” in Bureau parlance– within the social media giant who has unfettered access, whether granted or not, to sensitive, private information on millions of users.
Of course, Facebook’s denial could just be a lie – or a literally true but consciously dishonest statement, in that it is aware a senior staffer is passing the FBI information and has approved the arrangement but this is not formal or officially admitted. Such a setup would grant the social media monopoly plausible deniability were questions to arise about misuse of users’ data – as they now have.
There are strong grounds to believe that whether Facebook is fully aware of the staffer’s relationship with the FBI or not, it would approve of the arrangement, and its upper-tier employees assisting US security and intelligence agencies in their work.
The Washington Post recently exposed how the Pentagon is conducting an extensive internal audit of all its psychological warfare operations online, after several fake accounts it was running were identified by researchers.
A fascinating passage in the article noted that, back in Summer 2020, David Agranovich, Facebook’s Director of Global Threat Disruption, who spent six years at the Pentagon then served as Director for Intelligence at the elite White House National Security Council, got in touch with his Pentagon pals directly, to warn them he and his team had identified a number of US military-managed trolls and bots on its network, and “if Facebook could sniff them out, so could US adversaries.”
The obvious meaning of all this, which The Post apparently missed, is that senior Facebook staff consider their platform being weaponized for information warfare purposes to be acceptable if not welcome, as long as it’s US military and intelligence operatives doing it, and they don’t get “burned” - and they are willing to provide American spies with helpful guidance on how to operate in secret more effectively.
,,

Exposed: Social media giant is spying on conservative users and snitching to the feds