West's "Humanitarian" Claims Struggle as Syrian War Nears Endgame

September 2, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Headlines emanating from the West regarding Syria's ongoing war have a common theme - allegations of Syria and Russia's "ruthless barrage" of the northern region of Idlib.

So often - however - has the US and its allies falsely invoked "humanitarian concern" that these headlines fall on informed and discerning ears who not only reject it, but have cemented in their minds a familiarity with this ploy that will make it all but impossible to use it again on whatever battlefield the US shifts its foreign policy to next.

Like a Broken Record

CBS in its article, "Syrians trapped by Assad's ruthless Russian-backed barrage in Idlib beg for help," peddles an all-too-familiar narrative of helpless, innocent civilians in desperate need of "help." That "help," of course always comes in the form of US intervention and the eventual, total destruction of the nation as was the case for Libya in 2011.

The article claims:

More than three million people are trapped under a Syrian bombing campaign as Bashar Assad battles to reclaim the last enclave held by rebels in his country. Idlib is the only remaining opposition stronghold after eight grueling years of civil war.

There are no "rebels" or "opposition" in Idlib. There are - however - legions of militants operating under the banners of Al Qaeda, the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS), and their various affiliates.

These terrorists are the recipients of foreign arms and support - and many of them are not even themselves Syrian - making CBS' claims that Syria's conflict is a "civil war" wholly inaccurate.

Far from Syrian or Russian "propaganda," the fact that Idlib has been occupied by terrorists and not "rebels" is one admitted by the Western media itself - and a fact admitted to since the region first fell to foreign-armed terrorists.

The Associated Press in its 2015 article titled, "Assad Loses Final Idlib Stronghold to Al Qaeda-led Insurgents," would report:

After a two-year siege, al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria and other insurgents on Wednesday captured the one remaining Syrian army air base in Idlib, a development that activists said effectively expelled the last of President Bashar al-Assad’s military from the northwestern province. 

From the moment Idlib fell, throughout its occupation by terrorist forces, and up to the current Syrian assault to liberate Idlib, it is - by the West's own admission - terrorists that Syrian and Russian forces are fighting.

The collective attempt by the Western media to sidestep this fact - a fact they themselves have previously acknowledged and reported on - is aimed at condemning and impeding ongoing security operations organized by Damascus in Idlib. 

Still Trying to Sell US Intervention 

The CBS article - like many examples of Western war propaganda - after deceiving readers as to who Syrian forces are fighting in Idlib - makes the case for US intervention, claiming:

In the aftermath, one woman screamed hysterically at a news camera, begging for an American intervention. 

"We are getting killed every day," she cried. "Mr. Trump, please, please stop this!" 

But there is no help.

Like many of the West's narratives, CBS' story depends on readers believing without any evidence that not only did their "witness" really exist and said what CBS claims they said, but really begged the US to intervene despite seeing what US interventions have done everywhere else in the region over the past two decades.

Extra irony can be drawn from CBS' reporting - considering that the US itself has carried out airstrikes and drone attacks on Idlib over the years as well.

Geopolitical Impact of Elon Musk's AI "Neuralink"

August 29, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - Elon Musk has recently unveiled during a launching event technology he hopes will link the human mind to computers and eventually, link humans with artificial intelligence.

The technology can be used to help restore function for victims of brain diseases but can also eventually be used in the future as a form of human enhancement.

Forbes would report in a recent article that:

Artificially intelligent brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) may soon become more than fantasy as Musk announced plans to go to human trials with Neuralink by the end of 2020, aiming to “achieve a sort of symbiosis with artificial intelligence” and to give people “better access to their brain information in order to repair broken brain circuits,” according to the presentation.

Technology linking the human mind to computers, especially the leveraging of artificial intelligence would be a force multiplier for individuals, businesses, nations and beyond. Its impact on business, society, and politics might be as significant as the emergence and adaptation of computers and the Internet. Some predict it will be many times more significant. 

The company Musk helped co-found, Neuralink, has a working prototype of technology known as a "brain-machine interface" (BMI) and hopes to begin human trials as early as next year.



While Neuralink is not the only company by far working on this technology, Musk's energy and approach has attracted attention not only to the company itself, but to the concepts and goals the company is pursing.

Potentially "Disruptive" Technology 

This is not the first time Elon Musk has endeavored toward goals that will, if successful, undoubtedly shift or "disrupt" global trends. His electric car company, Tesla, has shaken up the auto industry, prompting entrenched corporate monopolies who sat on electric car technology for decades to finally begin serious efforts to produce and sell electric vehicles.

Hong Kong Crisis: Made in America

August 25, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Claims that Western interests are driving unrest in Hong Kong to undermine China have been decried across the Western media as "fake news," "disinformation," and even grounds for censorship from platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

Yet a look at the organizations directly involved in leading the unrest and those supporting it reveals unequivocally that it originates in Washington DC - not organically from within Hong Kong itself.

In order to conceal this fact, the Western media has attempted to portray the unrest as "leaderless." Yet coordinated protests most certainly have both leaders and organizations directing the majority of the movement's decisions as well as providing the logistical support necessary for the sustained unrest Hong Kong now faces.

Who is Leading Hong Kong's Unrest

Despite repeated and unrealistic claims that Hong Kong's recent protests are "leaderless," they are clearly being led by a combination of opposition political parties, supporting fronts posing as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and foreign-funded media organizations.

Even partial admissions of this fact can be found throughout Western coverage of these supposed "leaderless" protests.

Hong Kong Indigenous: A July 2019 Quartz article titled, "The leader of Hong Kong’s leaderless protest movement is a philosophy student behind bars," would admit:

...there is one person to whom many protesters have turned to for inspiration and guidance, even though he hasn’t been physically present at any of the demonstrations: jailed activist Edward Leung.

The article also reports:

Over the past two to three weeks, protesters have also begun to march with placards of Leung’s face. Meanwhile, Leung’s 2016 election slogan (link in Chinese)—”Reclaim Hong Kong! Revolution of our times!”—has roared back in full force, quickly becoming the clarion call of the current wave of protests.

Edward Leung is a leading figure of the Hong Kong Indigenous political party which holds zero seats in either of Hong Kong's elected legislative bodies.

While Quartz describes Leung's "localism" movement as emphasizing "Hong Kong identity as separate to mainland Chinese" and openly advocating "Hong Kong's independence from China," the "localism" movement itself is by no means independent.

In a 2016 South China Morning Post article titled, "‘Not some kind of secret meeting’: Hong Kong Indigenous leaders meet with American diplomats," Edward Leung and fellow Hong Kong Indigenous member Ray Wong would attempt to explain why they were caught secretly meeting with US consulate staff in Hong Kong.

The article would claim:

The photos, published by news website Bastille Post on Wednesday night, showed three members of the group – including Edward Leung Tin-kei and Ray Wong Toi-yeung – meeting two consulate staffers. The quintet reportedly chatted for around an hour and a half, speaking in Putonghua at times, before going their separate ways.

Some mainland media and Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying have both claimed that there were foreign forces behind the city’s pro-democracy protests of 2014.

Today, Edward Leung encourages protesters from jail, including members of his political party to continue sowing unrest across Hong Kong.

Hong Kong Free Press - itself a foreign-backed media platform admittedly partners with US-UK government-funded fronts including PEN Hong Kong - would admit in an article titled, "Jailed Hong Kong activist Edward Leung urges protesters to focus on convincing those who oppose them," that Leung has been writing letters addressed to the protesters - who in turn carry his portrait around in the streets and have used his 2014 protest slogan during recent unrest. 

Ray Wong has since fled Hong Kong being granted asylum in Germany, the South China Morning Post would report in their article, "Hong Kong activists wanted over Mong Kok riots granted asylum in Germany."

In every instance, Hong Kong Indigenous has been supported by the United States and its European partners. Holding no elected seats in Hong Kong's government and thus in no way representing the will of the people of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Indigenous instead represents Washington's ambitions of maintaining Hong Kong as a foothold in and a pressure point against China.

Demosisto Party: Having held only one seat in Hong Kong's elected legislative bodies - Demosisto is also playing an active role in leading and directing recent protests. Its secretary general - Joshua Wong - is openly involved in leading current protests.

Wong was also a prominent figure during the 2014 "Umbrella Revolution," and was invited to Washington DC by National Endowment for Democracy (NED) subsidiary - Freedom House - to collect an award for his role in leading the unrest .

On Freedom House's own website, a post titled, "Freedom House marks its 75th anniversary by honoring three generations of Hong Kong democracy leaders: Joshua Wong, Benny Tai and Martin C. M. Lee," would praise Wong, claiming:

Wong rallied over 200,000 peaceful protestors in 2014 during the Umbrella Revolution. For his efforts, he has been recognized by notable media outlets including Fortune, Time Magazine, Foreign Policy, and London’s The Times. He has been arrested by Chinese authorities on a number of occasions, which sparked international outrage and further protests in Hong Kong.

Wong is now center stage amid current protests with his name regularly appearing in articles like The Times' "Hong Kong protests: Joshua Wong says British police commander ‘must pay price’," directing the agenda, focus, and tempo of the unrest.

While platforms like Google, Twitter, and Facebook delete accounts attempting to expose the West's role in backing unrest in Hong Kong, the Strait Times in an article titled, "Google warns Hong Kong's Joshua Wong of government-backed hackers," suggests US-based tech giants continue to provide assistance to Western-backed opposition groups and figures - including Wong - just as they were exposed doing in 2011 during the so-called "Arab Spring."

Protecting Information Space from Facebook's Tyranny

August 19, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - The recent attack aimed at New Eastern Outlook (NEO) and several of its authors once again exposes the infinite hypocrisy of US and European interests including across their media and among their supposed human rights advocates.

It also exposes the severe threat that exists to the national security of nations around the globe who lack control over platforms including social media used by their citizens to exchange information.

This lack of control over a nation's information space is quickly becoming as dangerous as being unable to control and protect a nation's physical space/territory.

Facebook's Tyranny  

NEO and at least one of its contributors had their Facebook and Twitter accounts deleted and were accused of "coordinated inauthentic behavior," according to Facebook's "newsroom."

Their statement reads:

In the past week, we removed multiple Pages, Groups and accounts that were involved in coordinated inauthentic behavior on Facebook and Instagram.

It also reads:

We removed 12 Facebook accounts and 10 Facebook Pages for engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior that originated in Thailand and focused primarily on Thailand and the US. The people behind this small network used fake accounts to create fictitious personas and run Pages, increase engagement, disseminate content, and also to drive people to off-platform blogs posing as news outlets. They also frequently shared divisive narratives and comments on topics including Thai politics, geopolitical issues like US-China relations, protests in Hong Kong, and criticism of democracy activists in Thailand. Although the people behind this activity attempted to conceal their identities, our review found that some of this activity was linked to an individual based in Thailand associated with New Eastern Outlook, a Russian government-funded journal based in Moscow.

In this single statement, Facebook reveals about itself that it, and it alone, decides what is and isn't a "news outlet."

Apparently the blogs the deleted Facebook pages linked to were "not" news outlets, though no criteria was provided by Facebook nor any evidence presented that these links did not meet whatever criteria Facebook used.

While Facebook claims that it did not delete the accounts based on their content, they contradicted themselves by clearly referring to the content in their statement as "divisive narratives and comments" which clearly challenged narratives and comments established by Western media organizations.

The statement first accuses the pages of "coordinated inauthentic behavior," but then admits they were only able to link the pages to a single individual in Thailand. How does a single person "coordinate" with themselves? Again, Facebook doesn't explain.

Finally, Facebook reveals that any association at all with Russia is apparently grounds for deletion despite nothing of the sort being included in their terms of service nor any specific explanation of this apparent policy made in their statement. New Eastern Outlook is indeed a Russian journal.

Other governments, especially the United States, fund journals and media platforms not only in the United States, but around the globe. Facebook and Twitter, for example, have not deleted the accounts of the virtual army of such journals and platforms funded by the US government funded and directed via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

NED-funded operations often operate well outside of the United States, while NEO is based in Russia's capital, Moscow. NED-funded operations often don't disclose their funding or affiliations.

Ironically, the accounts Facebook deleted in Thailand were proficient at exposing this funding to the public.

The bottom line here is that Facebook is a massive social media platform. It is also clearly very abusive, maintaining strict but arbitrary control over content on its networks, detached even from their own stated terms of service. It is a form of control that ultimately and clearly works in favor of special interests in Washington and against anyone Washington declares a villain.

Facebook would be bad enough as just a massive US social media platform, but the real problem arises considering its global reach.

Looking at Information Space as we do Physical Space 

A nation's information space is a lot like its physical space (or territory). The people of a nation operate in it, conduct commerce, exchange information, report news, and carry out a growing number of other economically, socially and politically important activities there. It is not entirely unlike a nation's physical space where people conduct these same sort of activities.

A nation's physical space would never be surrendered to a foreign government or corporation to control and decide who can and cannot use it and how it is used. But this is precisely what many nations around the globe have done regarding their information space.

US Meddling Continues in Cambodia, But With Setbacks

August 15, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Two Cambodian employees of US government-funded "Radio Free Asia" (RFA) face espionage charges for continuing to work for the foreign information operation even after the Cambodian government ordered it closed.

Qatari state media, Al Jazeera, in their article, "Espionage trial of two former RFA journalists starts in Cambodia," would report:

Former Radio Free Asia (RFA) reporters Uon Chhin and Yeang Sothearin were arrested in November 2017 after a late-night police raid on an apartment rented by the former. They were accused of supplying a foreign state with information, a charge that carries a prison sentence of between seven and 15 years. 

RFA, which is funded by the government of the United States, had closed its operations in Cambodia shortly before the arrests. The outlet was known for its critical coverage of the Cambodian government, including frequent reports on corruption and illegal logging.

Al Jazeera also admitted:

Both Uon Chhin and Yeang Sothearin admitted at Friday's hearing that they had continued sending videos and information to RFA after it had shut down, but they denied that this constituted espionage.

Human Rights Watch's (HRW) deputy Asia director Phil Robertson would make a statement published on the organisation's site claiming:

Chhin and Sothearin should never have had to face these bogus espionage charges, and all judicial restrictions on them should be lifted.

HRW's Robertson made these comments unironically after celebrating and making excuses for Facebook and Twitter's censorship of accounts and individuals critical of Western impropriety (including the dubious, often hypocritical work of HRW itself) worldwide.

Cambodian courts vowed to ignore the demands of foreign organisations like HRW, insisting instead they would use evidence and Cambodian law to reach a verdict, RFA's own article on the story reported.

US Meddling in Cambodia Was Extensive 

Amid continued hysteria and accusations of "Russian interference" levelled by the United States and its various functionaries against any and all opponents worldwide, the US itself has been involved in meddling in Cambodia's internal political affairs extensively.

Far from merely funding information operations like RFA, Voice of America and Cambodia Daily Cambodia has since shut down or co-opted, the US literally ran an entire political party with members operating out of Washington DC itself. It protected these proxies  from well-earned accusations and charges of sedition with fronts posing as "human rights" organisations also funded by the US government.

Cambodian National Rescue Party (CNRP) leader Kem Sokha openly admitted to Washington's role in propping up his party and its bid to seize power in Cambodia not through elections, but through the same sort of destructive colour revolutions that have swept through Eastern Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

US Walks Away From Southeast Asia Summit Empty-Handed

August 13, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) -  A recent meeting of the 10 member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) convened in Bangkok, Thailand and attended by representatives from China, Russia and even the United States, provides us with a clear indicator of how power and influence are being shaped across wider Asia and even globally.

Headlines like the Associated Press', "Pompeo ends frustrating Bangkok visit," gives a good feel for how, at least for Washington, the meeting went and how the region responded to Washington's "plans" for it.

The article would note: 

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo left Thailand on Saturday with his hopes for resuming nuclear talks with North Korea dashed, while facing an escalating trade war with China and a potentially devastating breakdown in relations between key American allies Japan and South Korea.

Another article published just ahead of the meetings would better frame US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's (and Washington's) agenda. The LA Times', "Pompeo seeks to restore U.S. influence in Southeast Asia amid China’s rise," would report:

Against a backdrop of China’s rising economic and military power, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo arrived in the Thai capital of Bangkok this week with a difficult mission: Try to win back lost ground in Southeast Asia, a region once dominated by the U.S.

The article would continue:

Pompeo is also attempting to solidify another initiative of his tenure: creation of the so-called Indo-Pacific region, which portends to redraw boundaries to stretch from the U.S. West Coast to Japan, down through Southeast Asia to Australia and west across another ocean to India. It is replacing the familiar Asia-Pacific region and incorporates India (while sidelining Pakistan) to expand U.S. heft against China. 

China has not been shy about pouring tens of billions of dollars into infrastructure projects as part of its mammoth Belt and Road initiative, promising to boost transport systems and connectivity to help drive a sustained period of growth and stepping in where the U.S. often isn’t. 

Thanks in part to China’s investment, the Assn. of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, has posted a combined economic-output growth of 50% in the last decade. 

The LA Times would then attempt to cite "backlash" across the region, but upon closer examination, things like Malaysia "cancelling" One Belt, One Road (OBOR) projects with China were more about negotiating better agreements rather than cancelling them.

The Diplomat in an article from April this year titled, "Malaysia: Revised China Deal Shows Costs Were Inflated," helps explain how the Chinese-Malaysian "row" was blown out of proportion by many in the Western media and how the project is once again moving forward.

Despite this renegotiating having long-since taken place, the LA Times and other media outlets are still trying to portray various countries in Southeast Asia as "opposed" to China or having cancelled deals that are still very much moving forward.

The LA Times also tries to cite disputes in the South China Sea, another area of conflict cultivated by Washington with even the nations it is supposedly "defending" dragging their feet on initiatives Washington had hoped would divide the region and isolate Beijing.

The LA Times does finally admit:

Many Southeast Asian governments have also recoiled at what they see as U.S. efforts to force them to take sides in the trade dispute with China. 

Apart from Vietnam, no country in the region has agreed to join the U.S. boycott of Huawei, despite the Trump administration’s warnings that the U.S. could cease sharing sensitive information with countries that use the company’s technology. 

Not only has ASEAN rejected US demands regarding Huawei and other coercive polices designed to divide the region and set back joint development, the LA Times quotes Western policymakers who have no choice but to admit the US has no alternatives to offer the region.

From Coercion to Pan-Handling 

Thailand in particular has suffered years of coercion from Washington in a bid to roll back Thai-Chinese relations.

Opposition or Terrorists: Who is Syria and Russia Bombing in Idlib?

August 12, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Scott Lucas - a professor at the University of Birmingham UK - would decry with the rest of the Western media - resumed joint military operations carried out by Syria and Russia in and around the northwestern governorate of Idlib.

Reuters in their article, "Syrian army resumes military operations against rebels in northwest Syria," would claim:

The Syrian army said on Monday it was resuming military operations in a Russian-led campaign in northwest Syria that has uprooted tens of thousands and killed hundreds, blaming Turkey for not abiding by its commitments under a truce deal.

Both Lucas and Reuters - like many other Western media fronts and personalities - are careful never to fully characterize who the "opposition" actually consists of - instead attempting to imply Syria and Russia are waging war on civilians and "moderate rebels." 

When asked by journalist Peter Hitchens to give a run down on who the Syrian opposition actually was, Lucas in a post on social media would respond:

Hi, Peter! #Syria situation, across not only northwest but northeast, is web of local councils, local military groups, and local activist organizations to provide services. You'll need to specify a particular area, such as a town or city in #Idlib or #Hama Province.

Yet the accompanying picture Lucas used to illustrate his point was of a meeting organized by the IHH (Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief). IHH is based in Turkey and is by no means "local."

IHH is also linked directly to Al Qaeda, serving as a logistical support network for the terrorist organization, merely couching itself behind its humanitarian mission statement.

US Leaves INF Because "Russia," But Points Missiles at China

August 9, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - We're told that the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty singed in 1987 between the US and Soviet Union was based on claims that Russia had violated it.



While we continue waiting for Washington to provide evidence to prove these claims, the US itself admitted it had already long begun developing missiles that violated the treaty. 

A February 2018 Defense One article titled, "Pentagon Confirms It’s Developing Nuclear Cruise Missile to Counter a Similar Russian One," admitted that:

The U.S. military is developing a ground-launched, intermediate-range cruise missile to counter a similar Russian weapon whose deployment violates an arms-control treaty between Moscow and Washington, U.S. officials said Friday. 

The officials acknowledged that the still-under-development American missile would, if deployed, also violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Just as the US did when it unilaterally walked away from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, the goal is to blame Russia for otherwise indefensible and incremental provocations aimed at Moscow. For example, after the US walked away from the ABM Treaty in 2002, the US began deploying anti-missile systems across Europe.

But if Russia is the problem, why did the US also begin deploying similar missiles in Asia?

It is Washington's goal of hemming in its competitors anywhere and everywhere that is at the heart of these serial treaty terminations, not any particular "violation" on Moscow's part.

China Too   

That the US already had missiles under development that would undoubtedly violate the INF Treaty before it accused Russia of such violations, is one indicator of Washington's true intentions. Another is the fact Washington is rushing to encircle China with both defensive and offensive missile systems as well.

China is not a signatory of either the ABM Treaty or the INF Treaty. Its missiles are deployed strictly within its mainland territory with no plans by Beijing to deploy them anywhere else in the future.

The only threat they pose is to any nation that decides to wage war on China, in or around Chinese territory.

Washington's behavior post-INF Treaty indicates that it was its intent to violate the treaty all along, creating the same precarious security crisis in Asia the treaty sought to prevent in Europe.

Western Propaganda: Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't

August 7, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Nations running afoul of US and European hegemony often find themselves the target of concerted, long-term propaganda campaigns. Without creating a media front capable of confronting this propaganda, virtually nothing a targeted nation does can improve its image among the global public, because no matter what it does, it will be 'spun' by the US and European media to smear it.

A pertinent example can be found in Southeast Asia's Kingdom of Thailand which possesses the second largest economy in ASEAN and has become one of Beijing's most important partners in the region. Because of this, it has become a target for US and European political subversion in the hopes of installing a government that can reverse this trend.

To that end, Thailand's institutions have come under attack, including its military and constitutional monarchy.

Forward-Thinking Reform Spun as Elitist "Exemption" 

The current Thai dynasty has existed for nearly as long as the US has been a nation, and the institution itself has existed for over eight centuries. Its modern manifestation fosters national unity and is the caretaker of Thai tradition, culture and history. The constitutional monarchy also invests heavily in development projects across the country.

Thailand's monarchy is also an institution in constant change to keep up with the times. A recent revision to the monarchy's property holdings placed Thailand's King Maha Vajiralongkorn under the same property tax laws as the rest of the nation.

However, because Thai tax laws are poorly understood by foreigners, an opportunity to spin a reform into a smear presented itself and UK-based media organisation Reuters took full advantage of it.

In their article, "Thai king exempted from tax on some land properties," Reuters claimed:

Thailand’s King Maha Vajiralongkorn will be exempt from tax on some of his land property, according to a government announcement.

The Crown Property Bureau, which manages the multi-billion dollar holdings of the monarchy and controls huge swathes of land in Bangkok, was placed under the king’s direct control in 2017. Its previous tax exempt status was then removed. 

But some of the king’s lands and establishments will now be exempt from tax, according to the new legislation published in the Royal Gazette on Friday.

Reuters then finally admits there is one "exception;" land not used for "non-profit" purposes, or in other words, land used for commercial purposes will be taxed.

Never mentioned throughout the entirety of Reuters' article is the fact that this is not a special exemption at all.

There is no property tax leveled against anyone using their property for private purposes. Property taxes are only collected in Thailand if property is used for commercial purposes.

A quick search online for "property taxes in Thailand" reveals numerous Thai-based law firms clearly explaining Thai property taxes, like this one from Thailand Law Online. It explains (my emphasis):

There are no general property taxes (capital tax on property imposed by the government) in Thailand, but real properties put to commercial use (residential houses not 'owner occupied' and commercial buildings) must under the Building and Land Tax Act pay a 'rental' tax at a rate of 12,5 % of the annual rental value or the annual assessed rental value, whichever is higher.

Thus, the new law places the King of Thailand under the same rules as all other Thais, and is if anything a forward-thinking reform.

Reuters capitalised on its readership's ignorance and trust, intentionally spinning the reform depicting it as an elitist "exemption" to smear Thailand and its institutions as part of a wider agenda to undermine and overthrow Thailand's current political order and replace it with one more pliable for US and European special interests.

US-backed Opposition Prime Suspects in Thai Bombings

August 3, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Several small bombs detonated across Bangkok on Friday, August 2, amid a meeting between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) the US, China, and Russia.

There were several injuries reported, but no deaths.

Despite a Western media deliberately feigning confusion over motives and possible suspects while attempting to depict the capital as "in chaos" and the current Thai government "humiliated" - its image "tarnished" - US-backed opposition groups are the prime suspects, their motives including growing desperation.

Also absent from Western media coverage was any genuine context surrounding Thailand's ongoing political crisis as foreign-backed opposition groups attempt to  reverse the nation's growing ties with China, Russia, and developing nations across Eurasia.

US-Backed Opposition Growing Desperate 

The US-backed opposition consists of former prime minister, billionaire fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra, his Pheu Thai Party (PTP), his violent street front - the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) better known as "red shirts," and a number of new parties Thaksin created to hedge his bets in elections earlier this year.

The most prominent among these parties is Future Forward headed by billionaire Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.

Thanathorn faces multiple criminal charges including election law violations. His political future is nonexistent - a miniature Thaksin Shinawatra minus the initial success and popularity Thaksin once enjoyed when first coming to power in 2001.

Thaksin's various proxies parties faired poorly in the last election, with Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP) winning the popular vote and forming a larger coalition. PPRP is headed by military figures responsible for ousting Thaksin  in 2006 - and his sister Yingluck Shinawatra from power in 2014.

Having lost elections and lacking public support - with expensive and violent protests a now exhausted option - few options are left besides violence. Many hardcore Thaksin supporters are fond of repeating the quote, "those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

While they are by no means interested in any sort of principled revolution, they are most certainly fond of pursing violence.

US-Backed Opposition's Verified History of Violence and Terrorism 

Thaksin - since his ouster in 2006 - has resorted to large scale violence in a bid to seize back power. This is in addition to his poor human rights record during his time in power which saw over 2,000 people extrajudicially executed during a 90 day "drug war."

Should evidence tie Thaksin to the recent blasts - it wouldn't be the first time he and his political allies would have targeted an important ASEAN summit hosted by Thailand.

The Guardian in its article, "Protesters storm Asian leaders' summit in Thailand," would admit that in 2009 during another large ASEAN meeting, Thaksin's red shirts would storm the convention center forcing ASEAN representatives to flee by helicopter. During related protests, Thaksin's red shirts would kill two shopkeepers while trying to loot their businesses.

In 2010, Thaksin would deploy between 300-500 heavily armed militants who - even according to Human Rights Watch - murdered soldiers, police, and civilians. Despite HRW admitting this, it and the Western media still depicts the violence as a "government crackdown" to this day.  Leading up to the protests, Thaksin's militants threatened judges deciding on a court case over the seizure of $1.4 billion of his assets. This included grenade attacks on court buildings.

There were also other senseless grenade and bomb attacks carried out throughout Bangkok as a crude attempt to coerce the government to meet Thaksin's demands in 2010.

In 2014 when protesters took to the street to oppose Thaksin Shinawatra's sister - Yingluck Shinawtra - his militants would once again return, carrying out gun and grenade attacks leaving up to 20 dead including women and children. Violence continued until the military intervened, ousting Yingluck, and taking over as an interim government.

In fact, only Thaksin Shinawatra and his political supporters have a verified record of carrying out violence and terrorism in and around Bangkok - and for over a decade.

Southern Separatists? 

Three of Thailand's southern-most provinces have faced a low-intensity insurgency since Thaksin took power in 2001 and violated a 20-year peace deal.

Claims that separatists in Thailand's deep south might have been responsible for the recent blasts are dubious at best. Separatists have never attacked Bangkok.

Will Shake Up at IAEA Impact Iran?

July 31, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Yukiya Amano's passing has stirred up suspicion and further tensions amid US-Iranian tensions.

Amano was 72 years old and as of mid July 2019 had already begun preparing to step down due to poor health.

A July 18 AFP-JIJI article titled, "Japanese IAEA head Yukiya Amano to step down next year for health reasons: diplomatic sources," reported:

The head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, Yukiya Amano, will step down in March for health reasons, diplomatic sources said Wednesday, as the agency navigates verification of the increasingly fragile Iran nuclear deal.

However, in the wake of his death and because of his perceived opposition to US efforts to undermine the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or "Iran Deal" - suspicions began circulating that the US or Israel - or both - may have played a role in his death.

Iran-based Tasnim News Agency in an article titled, "Sources Raise Possibility of Israeli Assassination of Amano," would claim:

Informed sources have speculated that late chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Yukiya Amano was assassinated by Israel in collaboration with the US for refusing to give in to pressures to raise new fabricated allegations against Iran’s nuclear program.

Considering the foreign policy track records of either the US or Israel - an assassination targeting members of international institutions impeding Western interests certainly sounds plausible. However no evidence has been provided to suggest Amano was assassinated.

Furthermore - his death whatever the cause will likely have little impact on the IAEA's policies or the general state of US-Iranian tensions - for several reasons.

International Institutions are the Sum of their Member States

International institutions reflect the vector sum of sponsoring nations' interests. As the global balance of power shifts, so too does the proportion of influence of each member state represented by these institutions. In turn the agenda of these institutions changes accordingly.

The IAEA's criticism of Washington's undermining of the Iran Deal reflects not the IAEA's independent assessment - but the collective interests of member nations the IAEA supposedly represents in all matters of nuclear technology. It is no coincidence that in the halls of foreign ministries around the globe similar criticism has been leveled against Washington regarding the Iran Deal.

Nations in Europe attempting to salvage the deal have taken measures to sidestep US sanctions imposed after the US unilaterally and without justification, withdrew. Whatever influence these same nations have within the UN and IAEA has certainly filtered through and was reflected by Amano's position over the Iran Deal prior to his death.

With this in mind, one can expect the IAEA's position to remain relatively unchanged regardless of who becomes the institution's next chief.

Washington's Abuse of International Institutions: A Tired Trick 

The United States and its partners have so regularly abused or even entirely sidestepped international institutions that the legitimacy and impact of these institutions have been greatly diminished.

While the IAEA may reflect a position supporting the Iran Deal's continuation - nations of the world pragmatically sidestepping US sanctions and pursuing multilateral diplomacy is by far more important than anything the IAEA can contribute.

Should the US or Israel succeed in maneuvering to the head of the IAEA a new chief reflecting their interests it will only accelerate the IAEA's irrelevancy further regarding the Iran Deal.

"Human Right Activists" Celebrate Facebook-Twitter Censorship

July 27, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - All Facebook and Twitter accounts associated with Bangkok-based geopolitical analyst Tony Cartalucci have been deleted. The extent to which both American-based tech companies went to target Cartalucci could be seen in a recent Reuters article reporting on it. 

Written by Thai Reuters correspondent Patpicha Tanakasempipat, the article titled, "Facebook removes fake accounts from Thailand, Russia, Ukraine, Honduras," referred to the author claiming: 

The accounts removed in Thailand used “fictitious personas” to promote narratives about Thai politics, U.S.-China relations, protests in Hong Kong, and criticism of democracy activists in Thailand, Gleicher said. 

“We were able to determine conclusively that some of the activities of this network was linked to an individual based in Thailand associated with New Eastern Outlook, a Russian government-funded journal based in Moscow,” Gleicher said.

The article cited “coordinated inauthentic behavior” and hailed the move as countering "deceptive political propaganda."

No mention was made of how writing anonymously is "inauthentic behavior" nor were any examples provided of what was deemed "deceptive political propaganda" and why.

Matthew Tostevin, a Reuters correspondent also based in Southeast Asia and whose Twitter profile unironically invokes the hashtag, "Journalism is Not a Crime" celebrated the systematic, coordinated censorship, claiming in a tweet:

“Tony Cartalucci” Facebook and Twitter accounts inaccessible after Facebook said it had erased accounts of a network linked to “an individual based in Thailand associated with New Eastern Outlook, a Russian government-funded journal”.

The term "associated with" is often used to imply impropriety without providing any actual evidence of it. Tostevin's defence of Facebook-Twitter censorship fails to explain how getting paid to write articles is wrong, especially considering Tostevin himself makes his living doing precisely that for London-based Reuters.

Human Rights Watch's Thai representative, Sunai Phasuk, himself a verified recipient of foreign government funds, also celebrated rather than opposed Facebook and Twitter's coordinated censorship.

In his tweet (translated from Thai), he claimed:

The end of IO [information operation]! Facebook and Twitter suspend the accounts of Tony/Anthony Cartalucci (source of "slim" information) as well as related accounts for using a fake identity, disseminating false information, creating hatred for democratic parties and human rights activists/linked to Russian IO.  

The term "slim" is a derogatory term used by supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra, an ousted billionaire politician now living abroad as a fugitive and guilty of the worst human rights violations in contemporary Thai history.

Sunai not only reveals a complete lack of impartiality as a supposed human rights advocate, but also is clearly promoting censorship of information he and his foreign sponsors deem "false."

Regarding claims of using a "fake identity," Cartalucci himself has repeatedly stated over several years that the name "Tony Cartalucci" is a pen name and that he writes anonymously, as many authors throughout history have, particularly those writing about sensitive political topics.

Thai "Civil Society Organizations" Aided Facebook Censorship

July 27, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Facebook's official statement regarding a coordinated smear and censorship campaign targeting and closing my Facebook and Twitter accounts claims I was engaged in "coordinated inauthentic behavior." 

I am a single individual thus there obviously was no "coordinated behavior," although Facebook's page feature specifically allows page owners to invite multiple administrators to help post content.

I have operated for over a decade on Facebook and Twitter openly under the pen name "Tony Cartalucci." This is not in any conceivable way "inauthentic behavior," though Facebook never does explain what they defined as "inauthentic behavior."

Facebook also revealed that "civil society organizations" aided them in their efforts to censor my work. Facebook in their statement claims:

We identified these accounts through an internal investigation into suspected Thailand-linked coordinated inauthentic behavior. Our investigation benefited from information shared by local civil society organizations.

I can only assume - since no specific organization was mentioned - that they are the same US-funded fronts I regularly expose through my work. This is particularly ironic since most of these organizations pose as "rights advocates,"  yet voluntarily aided a corrupt foreign corporation in carrying out censorship.

Facebook claims that my account was not taken down because of the content I published, but produced several examples of my content to make their case. They also attempt to associate me with Russian-based New Eastern Outlook to bolster their case and obviously once again referring to the nature of my content. 

While I do contribute to New Eastern Outlook, Facebook never makes it clear how this is grounds for deleting my account.

Facebook's statement claims:

We removed 12 Facebook accounts and 10 Facebook Pages for engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior that originated in Thailand and focused primarily on Thailand and the US. The people behind this small network used fake accounts to create fictitious personas and run Pages, increase engagement, disseminate content, and also to drive people to off-platform blogs posing as news outlets. They also frequently shared divisive narratives and comments on topics including Thai politics, geopolitical issues like US-China relations, protests in Hong Kong, and criticism of democracy activists in Thailand. Although the people behind this activity attempted to conceal their identities, our review found that some of this activity was linked to an individual based in Thailand associated with New Eastern Outlook, a Russian government-funded journal based in Moscow.

Facebook never explains how the off-platform blogs were "posing as news outlets" rather than actually being news outlets. How any of my blogs are "not news" but organizations like the BBC caught repeatedly deceiving the public are, is another mystery Facebook's statement leaves unsolved.

Escaping Censorship

July 26, 2019 (The New Atlas at LiveJournal) Facebook, Twitter and Google (which includes YouTube) have mobilised to purge their networks of political activists, analysts and anyone in general impeding the special interests these three tech giants represent.

Ironically, despite Washington, London and Brussels accusing Russia of being an authoritarian state, safe havens like VK, Yandex and LiveJournal are giving dissident voices in the West space to say things they are prohibited from saying on Facebook, Twitter and Google.

The New Atlas is a blog now on LiveJournal shared by several authors and activists recently targeted by Facebook and Twitter specifically with our accounts purged from their platforms for using "fictitious personas." A Reuters article titled, "Facebook removes fake accounts from Thailand, Russia, Ukraine, Honduras," targeting us claimed: 

Facebook took action based on deceptive behavior and not the nature of the content posted, Gleicher said. 

The accounts removed in Thailand used “fictitious personas” to promote narratives about Thai politics, U.S.-China relations, protests in Hong Kong, and criticism of democracy activists in Thailand, Gleicher said. 

“We were able to determine conclusively that some of the activities of this network was linked to an individual based in Thailand associated with New Eastern Outlook, a Russian government-funded journal based in Moscow,” Gleicher said.

To be clear, we are anonymous authors who choose anonyminity primarily for our own protection. Spun as using "fictitious personas" we wonder whether or not Facebook and Twitter will target The Economist next, which publishes content anonymously as explained in this article by The Economist itself titled, "Why are The Economist’s writers anonymous?" which admits:

Historically, many publications printed articles without bylines or under pseudonyms—a subject worthy of a forthcoming explainer of its own—to give individual writers the freedom to assume different voices and to enable early newspapers to give the impression that their editorial teams were larger than they really were. The first few issues of The Economist were, in fact, written almost entirely by James Wilson, the founding editor, though he wrote in the first-person plural.

The Economist also explains why it publishes content anonymously, noting that:

The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it. In the words of Geoffrey Crowther, our editor from 1938 to 1956, anonymity keeps the editor "not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself…it gives to the paper an astonishing momentum of thought and principle."

Facebook and Twitter would never consider purging The Economist from their platforms for writing anonymously or for having teams of writers publishing single articles. Why? Because despite claiming they didn't purge us from their platform because of "the nature of our content," the only difference between us and The Economist is the nature of our content.

JT/TC  

Destabilizing Pakistan: Bookending Washington's China Policy

July 26, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Much is being said of US activities aimed at China. Recent protests in Hong Kong together with a US-led propaganda campaign aimed at Beijing's attempts to quell a growing terrorist threat in Xinjiang are aimed at pressuring the nation to fall back into line within Washington's enduring unipolar international order.

The latter of these two campaigns in particular - claims of Chinese authoritarianism as Beijing attempts to neutralize US-backed separatists and terrorists in Xinjiang - has also been spun as China "targeting Muslims."

This ignores the fact that one of China's closest and oldest allies in Eurasia is Pakistan - a Muslim-majority nation. It also ignores the fact that in Pakistan, the US is playing the same game aimed at cultivating violent extremism, separatism, violence, division, and even the dissolution of Pakistan's current borders.

Balochistan - the other Xinjiang 

While all the focus has been directed by the Western media on Xinjiang and a supposed "anti-Muslim crackdown" in the region, Pakistan faces the same problem in its southwestern province of Balochistan. In Pakistan - attempts by the government to root out violent separatists surely is not "anti-Muslim." 

In Balochistan, the US agencies involved in fanning the flames of separatism and violence instead portray Islamabad and the Pakistani military's efforts to restore order as simply trampling "human rights." 

US interference in Balochistan is just as extensive as it is in China's Xinjiang.

Despite the recent move by Washington to list the armed Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) as a terrorist organization - Islamabad has long accused Washington of funding and arming it along with segments of the Indian government aligned with US interests.

The fact that otherwise ignored activities by Balochistan separatists are covered by certain Indian newspapers even as recently as this year seems to give credence to these accusations. NDTV's article, "Pro-Balochistan Slogans Raised During Imran Khan's Address In US," and India Today's article, "16 EU Members of Parliament write letter to Trump to intervene in Balochistan," are just two such examples.

US support is much easier to track down.

US-based Stanford University's Mapping Militant Organizations project admits that the BLA receives much of its financial aid from the Balochi diaspora. The project's profile on the Balochistan Liberation Army notes:

Due to high community support for autonomy and independence from people of the Balochistan, many analysts suspect that a large amount of the BLA’s income and weapons supply come from donations from the Balochi people. Balochi leaders have also claimed that financial contributions from the Balochi diaspora make it possible to procure arms and ammunition through the black market.

Thus, even if the US is not directly arming and funding the BLA, it is openly supporting pro-separatists among the Balochi diaspora who even Stanford University experts admit are - in turn - funding the BLA's terrorism.

The US move to designate the BLA as a foreign terrorist organization holds little meaning. The BLA will find itself beside organizations like Jabhat Al Nusra in Syria which is all but openly funded and armed by the United States and a large cross-section of Washington's closest European and Arab allies.

Arming militants is only half of the overall strategy seeking to destabilize Pakistan. Subverting national institutions and replacing them with those interlocking with US special interests is the other half.

US NED Working Hard in - and Against - Pakistan  

The US State Department-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its various subsidiaries are busy at work in Pakistan's Baluchistan province as well as China's Xinjiang.

NED has been directly funding and supporting the work of the "Balochistan Institute for Development" (BIFD) which claims to be:

"...the leading resource on democracy, development and human rights in Balochistan, Pakistan."

In addition to organizing the annual NED-BFID "Workshop on Media, Democracy & Human Rights" BFID reports that USAID had provided funding for a "media-center" for the Baluchistan Assembly to "provide better facilities to reporters who cover the proceedings of the Balochistan Assembly." It can be assumed that BFID meant reporters are "trained" at NED-BFID workshops and at its USAID-funded center.

There is also Voice of Balochistan whose every top-story is US-funded propaganda, including op-eds by US representatives promoting Balochi separatism, foundation-funded Reporters Without Borders, Soros-funded Human Rights Watch, and a direct message from the US State Department.

Banned From Facebook and Twitter!

Update: I had a new Twitter account @cartalucci - also suspended. It was my only account and in the bio clearly stated "Cartalucci" is a pen name.

However, I'm up on VK here.

I have received and am grateful for a lot of support since Facebook/Twitter/Reuters' coordinated smear/censorship campaign. I've also more than doubled my website's viewership - because as is often the case - the harder you try to silence someone or something, the more attention you attract.

So I hope Facebook, Twitter, Reuters and many others continue working hard to "silence" me and others - because it helps prove everything being said is true about the West's hypocrisy and habit of hiding behind principles like "human rights," "free speech," and "democracy" when in fact trampling them all - it also helps people notice my work and decide for themselves if what is said about me by serial liars and hypocrites is true or not.

July 25, 2019 (LD) -  Facebook and Twitter joined forces to investigate and delete my accounts. This includes my Facebook page, as well as my Land Destroyer Twitter account, my Thai-centric AltThaiNews account, my personal Twitter account @TonyCartalucci and my LocalOrg account discussing solutions and technology.

It even made international news with Reuters in their article, "Facebook removes fake accounts from Thailand, Russia, Ukraine, Honduras," claiming:

The accounts removed in Thailand used “fictitious personas” to promote narratives about Thai politics, U.S.-China relations, protests in Hong Kong, and criticism of democracy activists in Thailand, Gleicher said. 

“We were able to determine conclusively that some of the activities of this network was linked to an individual based in Thailand associated with New Eastern Outlook, a Russian government-funded journal based in Moscow,” Gleicher said.

Tony Cartalucci is my pen name and a form of anonyminity - it is not a "fictitious persona." I write in a country where US-backed political agitators - referred to as "democracy activists" in the Reuters article - regularly use deadly violence against their opponents.

And if writing under a pen name or anonymously is grounds for expulsion from both Facebook and Twitter, what is The Economist still doing on either platform? The Economist's articles are all admittedly written anonymously.

The Reuters article and those citing it and celebrating censorship are engaged in the now familiar tactics of smearing targeted individuals to justify otherwise indefensible censorship.

I am associated with New Eastern Outlook. They regularly publish my articles, as do hundreds of other alternative media websites around the world.

What I perhaps noticed most were all the so-called "democracy activists" in Thailand - taking time from complaining about Bangkok "censoring" them - to celebrate Facebook and Twitter's censorship - including Thailand's Human Rights Watch senior researcher, Sunai Phasuk who gloated on Twitter that my "information operation" was finally "ended."

Reuters' Matthew Tostevin who includes #JournalismIsNotACrime in his Twitter bio - was also celebrating.

What's Next? 

Honestly, Facebook and Twitter are not where I get most of my views from.

I get it from ordinary people finding my work and promoting it themselves. My Facebook page was read almost exclusively by my Thai audience, and it has been disabled for over a month already before finally being deleted. I have not noticed any drop in readers on my blog because other Thais on Facebook have been and continue to promote my work.

Twitter was also increasingly frustrating. Almost no one in Thailand followed me on Twitter. As for my international followers, many much larger and more capable voices in the alternative media regularly check for and include my work in their own articles and videos. So again, most readers came from other much more prominent and capable alt media journalists promoting my work.

If anything, I've been unburdened from social media and will use the time I wasted sifting through it to write even more articles.

If you want to get in touch with me, currently I only have e-mail: cartalucci (at gmail.com).

I am grateful to everyone who is supporting and defending me. I never expected Facebook or Twitter to play fair and never enjoyed being on either platform. Above all, I will continue doing my work.

US Puppet Wants Help Making Thailand Like America

July 25, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The US is involved in regime change worldwide - from Venezuela in South America, to Ukraine in Eastern Europe, to Syria in the Middle East, to Afghanistan in Central Asia.

But these headline-grabbing wars, coups, color revolutions, and interventions are far from the full extend of US interference.

The US is also engaged in regime change efforts all along China's peripheries. This includes across Southeast Asia and in particular, the nation of Thailand.

Hard Times for US Proxies  

Recent elections held earlier this year validated public support for a 2014 coup ousting US-backed proxy Thaksin Shinawatra, his sister Yingluck Shinawatra, and their Pheu Thai political party (PTP).

The military-linked Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP) won the popular vote and built a coalition with a majority in parliament. PPRP's head, Prayuth Chan-O-Cha easily won a parliamentary vote for Thailand's next prime minister. 

Part of Shinawatra's strategy during the last election was dividing his political party into multiple parties so that if one or two were disbanded, there would still be several others left to run for seats in parliament.

One of these parties is Future Forward (FFP) led by billionaire Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit. His party's founding members include leaders and activists drawn from US and European-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

Since wading into politics, Thanathorn himself has received an inordinate amount of support from not only the Western media as seen during events organized by The Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand (FCCT) but also from Western embassies based in Bangkok.

FFP faired poorly in the elections coming in distant third with several million fewer votes than PPRP. Despite coming in third, and despite Thanathorn claiming he was not Shinawatra's proxy - Thaksin Shinawatra's PTP nominated him as their candidate for prime minister, but fell far short of winning.

Panhandling Overseas for Support 

Thanathorn now has criminal cases mounting against him owed to serial violations of election laws as well as charges related to sedition. Perhaps in hopes of being overseas if a guilty verdict is reached and escaping jail - Thanathorn now finds himself "touring" the US and Europe asking - and receiving - support in Washington, Brussels, and London.

During an arranged interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell, Thanathorn bemoaned Thailand's history of frequent military coups and the lack of "democracy."  He claimed the impetus of setting up FFP was to "end the culture of coup d'etat in Thailand."

Absent from either Mitchell's questioning or Thanathorn's rehearsed answers was any mention of what preceded the most recent coup in 2014.

No mention was made of the ousted government being openly and illegally run by Thaksin Shinawatra despite living in Dubai, UAE as a fugitive. No mention was made of the ousted government's robbery of nearly one million rice farmers and the crippling of Thailand's rice industry. And no mention was made of the protests the ousted government used deadly violence in an attempt to quell.

The military's intervention was welcomed by Thais, a fact vindicated by recent elections which saw the military-linked PPRP win the popular vote. The Western media - however - has gone through great lengths to portray it as a power grab rather than the restoration of stability it actually was.

The Roving Hypocrite 

Despite Thanathorn's overseas tour showcasing his fight for "democracy" and "human rights" in Thailand, he is directly linked to and admittedly a supporter of Thaksin Shinawatra, his Pheu Thai Party, and his violent street front known as the "red shirts."

Shinawatra has the worst human rights record in Thai history having mass murdered over 2,000 people in just 90 days in 2003 during a supposed "war on drugs." He also killed another 85 in a single day during the 2004 Tak Bai protests. Violence carried out by his red shirt street front has led to the deaths of over 100 people including police and soldiers between 2009-2014.

US "Boots" Turkey from F-35 Program

July 19, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - Turkey has been officially "booted" from the F-35 multirole combat aircraft program. 

The F-35 multirole combat aircraft, produced by US-based arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin, is part of a massive weapons program exceeding $1 trillion. A single aircraft can cost over $100 million, or over twice the cost of Russia's new Su-57 and many times more expensive than other Russian, Chinese and European-made aircraft already in operation. 

The record-breaking costs however don't translate into record-breaking performance. The F-35 has already seen its fair share of development hiccups and even when they are all ironed out, nothing the F-35 is even advertised as being able to do justifies its growing price tag.

It is amazing then that anyone has lined up to buy it at all let alone the large number of nations that have lined up.

Reuters in an older article titled, "The 11 countries expected to buy F-35 fighter jet," would report:

Lockheed is developing three models of the plane for the U.S. military and eight partner countries that helped fund the plane’s development - Britain, Australia, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Canada. 

South Korea, Japan and Israel have also placed orders for the jet.

Since then, however, there has been public backlash in nations like Canada which are shouldering development costs even if they end up buying no F-35s at all, CBC would explain.

Despite headlines like the BBC's, "US removes Turkey from F-35 fighter jet programme," Turkey itself has probably benefited most from being "removed." Other headlines across the corporate media have been using the term "booted," "kicked out," or "expelled," but a more apt term would be "dodged."

What would nations like Britain, Australia, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Canada, South Korea, Japan and Israel do with F-35s anyway?

Israel already reportedly has the new aircraft. They've even reportedly used them in their attacks on neighboring Syria. However Israel has used the aircraft for mostly standoff attacks, fearing Syrian air defenses despite the F-35s supposedly stealthy profile.

While Britain is likewise prone to acts of illegal military aggression like its Israeli friends, the remaining nations hardly have any role for the F-35 their existing aircraft, or newer, cheaper aircraft could not easily fulfill.

So why did any of these nations line up to buy the F-35 in the first place? Is there any historical precedent that can help explain why Lockheed Martin's extraordinary expensive, but less-than-extraordinary performing combat aircraft has been so financially successful?

Yes, there is.

Lockheed's F-104 Starfighter: Flying on a Wing and a Bribe 

This historical precedent is exceptionally relevant. Not only is it about an astronomically expensive, underperforming and essentially unnecessary combat aircraft, it was also made by Lockheed and pushed on America's allies at the time, just like the F-35 is now.

It turns out that policymakers who chose the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter despite its many shortcomings were simply bought off, literally with crate fulls of money as was the case in Japan.