American Resistance To Empire

Earthquake Off North Korea Not Nuclear, According To Pentagon…But Was It HAARP?

Published on Nov 5, 2007

0800041 – Project Cannikin Review – 1971 – 13:00 – Color – This video reviews Project CANNIKIN, a nuclear test conducted on Amchitka Island, Alaska, at 11:00 a.m., Bering Standard Time, on November 6, 1971. CANNIKIN, a slightly less-than-five-megaton device, was the largest underground nuclear test conducted in the United States. CANNIKIN was conducted to proof test a warhead for the Spartan missile, a Safeguard Ballistic Missile Defense Program.

The video shows the nuclear device and instrumentation canister being lowered into the shaft, detonation sequences, and test effects. A long-range view of water turbulence after the detonation is shown, but no tsunami or large ocean wave was observed or recorded. Numerous ground shock waves are shown at normal speed and as seen by high-speed, slow-motion cameras located at various sites on the island. Surface effects at ground zero and other island locations were filmed one day after the test. Approximately 38 hours after the test, a subsidence crater, approximately 1.5 miles in diameter and 55 feet deep, began to form.

Many scenes in the video have no sound intentionally; no material was deleted.

The three underground nuclear tests conducted on Amchitka Island, Alaska, were as follows:

LONG SHOT, October 29, 1965, shaft, Vela Uniform Project, approximately 80 kilotons
MILROW October 2, 1969, shaft, weapons related, approximately 1 megaton (Mt)
CANNIKIN, November 6, 1971, shaft, weapons related, less than 5 Mt


WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A magnitude 6.0 earthquake that struck off North Korea in the Sea of Japan does not appear to have been caused by a nuclear test, the Pentagon said on Wednesday, citing initial reports.

Major Jamie Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said initial indications showed that the earthquake was not caused by a North Korean nuclear test because of the location and depth of the quake.

Davis added that the Pentagon would continue to study the seismic activity.

Reporting by Idrees Ali and Phil Stewart; Editing by Jonathan Oatis

Putin Plays Russian Roulette—Plato’s Guns


Putin Plays Russian Roulette


Plato’s Guns


by Taxi

They don’t call it Russian roulette for nothing.  Get a six-shooter, load it with a single bullet called Destiny, spin the chamber, point the barrel an inch above your ear, any ear – now wait or don’t wait – now squint or don’t squint – think or don’t think – now flashback or don’t – now weep or unweep – now breathe and don’t breathe now laugh and don’t laugh so dammit what the heck you waiting for – pull the goddamn trigger!


Pot luck, you’re still alive.

You lost five pounds of sweat in just under a minute.  But you’re alive.

Now it’s Putin’s turn.  Shootin’ hootin’ tootin Putin – it’s his turn.

You hand him the gun.  He takes it.  He looks down at you even though he’s shorter than you.  How the hell does he do that, you wonder?

“Where I come from, we only play this game after a good lunch and a nice afternoon nap in the buff, if you know what I mean”, he tells you without blinking.  You argue over whether you need nerves of steel or nerves of cloud to play Russian roulette – Putin says you need neither.  “When there’s a gun to you head, the process of thinking is too slow – you must therefore act out of instant instinct”.   You argue some more about whether instinct is faster than thought – and again Putin wins that argument.  He feels sorry for you so he shares a few secrets with you, telling you that you must handle the bullet like you would a wild bull before you insert it into the gun’s chamber.  “You bully the bullet into submission and force it to forget that it has horns”, he adds.  “Right before you insert the bullet into the hole, you must instruct it to sleep long and dream of gun-less orgies.  You must also tell yourself in no uncertain terms that you are the sole god of this bullet, that you control its movements and final destination”.

Listening to him, all you can do is nod at his metaphoric deconstructionism.  He tells you that your will to live must be multiplied by infinity to win at Russian roulette.  You measure his words with utter care and quietly marvel at his Napoleonic guru-ism.  Yet still, there’s something about him that bothers you and you want to know what it is so you start another argument about mind over matter until you hit a massive self-made scatological wall.  He cracks a barely perceptible grin at your stained and smashed argument; all the while, his blue lentil eyes are fixed on yours.

Nothing that you say can beat down Putin’s sobriety – nothing distracts his focus from your eyes and all his words to you come with a certificate, a calculator and a map.  You will see things his way whether you like it or not.  Because he has seen the shortest distance between two points while you were still scanning the horizon.

But will his mental powers serve him in your dual?  You’ve already pulled the trigger and you lived.  Now it’s his turn – and he knows it.

You watch him with fiendish interest as he holds a single bullet in his palm.  “Never kiss a bullet before using it”, he says.  “Never romanticize death.  Challenge it”.

Swiftly and with no further ceremonials, you watch him inset the pacified bullet into an empty chamber.   A perfect snug  fit and a perfect little gun hum issues. You expect him to spin and close the chamber and point the gun, but he surprises you with pulling out four more bullets from his pocket.  He squeezes a firm fist around them and  turns silent towards you, watches your mouth caught between dropping to the floor and gasping as he rapidly places all four bullets inside empty chamber pods, spinning the chamber with flare, spinning it close to his ear as if waiting for the right musical note to hit first before he expertly, precisely stops the spinning.  Which he does in a heartbeat.

You watch him put the loaded gun to his head.

Now his lean finger is on the swooning trigger.

Now his eyes are looking at you and looking through you to the great unfathomable beyond – possibly beckoning the empty gun tunnel to harmoniously meet his architectural brain.  Possibly wedding his soul to nothingness.  Possibly folding the white handkerchief of time with his thoughts.

You look at him in devastated amazement as he stands there present yet not  – stands there pointing gun at his own head and looking at you looking at him and nothing but him.

It’s a five-bullet Russian roulette game that only the cultivated Merlin and Lao Tzu did one time ever play.  It’s the five-pointed star of war that Putin is silently devouring.  Five bullets in a six-shooter – five tunnels stuffed with death and one vacant birthing canal .   Studying him, you can tell that working the five-to-one odds is not an oddity in Putin’s world.  This is not the first time he’s performed the five-bullet routine.  He is not showing you reckless bravado, he is showing you pure unadulterated confidence.  Cold, quiet confidence.  Extremely comfortable confidence.

You experience time passing slow as your agonized eyes are glued to his finger on the trigger.  Your nerves are rattled.  Putin’s suspended non-action simply devastates you.  You want to throw yourself at his feet and implore him to stop tormenting your bated breath.  He can see a terror in your eyes and he is disgusted by your weakness.  By your lack of faith in life; in human potentialism.  And as your lips are about to open in pleading speech, his finger  pulls the trigger and his head in slo-mo ducks right before the spark of gunpowder flashes the barrel and a whistling bullet comes speeding an inch over his bent head and right over the bridge of your own nose – disappearing silently into the empty distance…

Putin lives.

And not by fickle chance.

“There’s always a rogue bullet”, he calmly says to you as you stand there shaking in palpitating misery.  “Always account for that when you spin the chamber”, he says poker-faced.  You look at him and you hate his guts and all you can do is start another argument with him about whether ducking is cowardice or intelligence, knowing very well that any second now, he will be winning  yet another argument.

America’s/The West’s “Warrior Elite” Really Just Mass Murderers?

Australian death squads in Afghanistan
British SAS—Terrorists Or Storm-Troopers?
The Afghan Night Raids Resume–Murder In the Night Again the Norm
American Killer Elite Unleashed Upon the Entire Human Race
The New Face Of American War
Manufacturing Justification for the NATO Takeover of Central Asia–Smashing Greater Central Asia – (Part One)

‘Land, kill and leave’: How Australian

special forces helped lose the war in




The photographs, the documents, the whistleblower testimony are all there — the brutal details of our diggers’ conduct brought forward into the harsh light of day.

A blow has been dealt to the prestige of Australia’s special forces with in-kind damages likely to follow for the reputation of the Australian Army as a whole.  At first, it might seem tempting to think of these kinds of events as isolated incidents that do not speak to a more widespread problem within the Army’s special operations community. But misconduct on the battlefield also speaks to a wayward shift in a military force’s broader operating culture.  Along with the Maywand District murders and the Panjywai massacre, what these new allegations levelled against Australian soldiers in Uruzgan will come to symbolise is the ultimate failure of Western militaries to adapt to a fight where the decisive battle was the human terrain.

According to our military leaders, the reason for Australia’s presence in Uruzgan province between 2001 and 2014 was to “clear, hold and build” a Taliban-free Afghanistan. Per counterinsurgency doctrine, by providing an enduring sense of physical security to local Afghans, the “hearts and minds” as well as the rifles and trigger-fingers of fighting-aged males in Uruzgan would eventually be won over.

At some point it seems that this strategic guidance either failed or was wholly ignored.

While Special Operations soldiers had earlier played a kind of “guardian angel” role in support of their regular counterparts in the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force, as the Afghan war dragged on, that role became increasingly aggressive.

An upsurge in “direct action” operations began to distract from efforts to secure the population. By 2010, much of the task group was solely focused on so-called “high-value targeting” — the coalition’s effort to kill or capture an ever-growing list of local Taliban “commanders”.

As a former Special Operations Task Group member drily put it to me, the new penchant for fly-in fly-out missions conducted out the side of a Black Hawk saw the entire concept of operations switch from “clear, hold and build” to “land, kill and leave”.

Of course, operating in this manner was never going to defeat the Taliban. Insurgencies are complex adaptive systems capable of surviving the deaths of leaders. As David Kilcullen writes in Counterinsurgency: “decapitation has rarely succeeded [and] with good reason — efforts to kill or capture insurgent leaders inject energy into the system by generating grievances and causing disparate groups to coalesce”.

All this considered then, by channelling an apparent “shoot first, never ask questions at all” ethos, there’s a good argument to be made that much of SOTG’s work in the final years of the Afghan War was counter-productive.

A new kind of warfare

In many ways, the sunset years of operations in Afghanistan marked a transitional moment in the Australian way of war — one which saw our special forces transformed into the hyper-conventional juggernaut it has become today.

In other Western forces, the over-emphasis on “conventionalised” operations — that is heavy-hitting operations which deviate from the subtle and indirect approach of yesteryear — has had similar results on the ground.

The New Zealand SAS is currently reeling from allegations that its members carried out “revenge raids” against civilians. US Navy SEAL Teams have now been linked to extra-judicial killings and corpse desecration on the battlefield. In Britain too, the story is much the same. Reports of “rogue” SAS troopers and battlefield executions. Civilian casualties. A Ministry of Defence probe into war crimes allegations.

Incident by incident, this is how the war in Afghanistan was lost.

A legacy of failure

Despite more than a decade and a half of sustained military effort, today Taliban and other extremist groups cover as much as 40 per cent of the country.

Certainly, where our own efforts are concerned, the data is clear. Australia’s war in Afghanistan was a failure. According to the Institute for the Study of War, districts like Shah Wali Kot (where Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith’s VC-winning charge took place) are now categorised as “high confidence Taliban support zones”.

Elsewhere, the observable metrics on the ground speak for themselves. In 2002, US intelligence estimated the Taliban’s strength at 7,000 fighters. As of 2016, that number has increased to 25,000. As this year’s spring fighting season begins, the Taliban still control roughly a quarter of Afghanistan.

Lost our way

More than anything, what these new revelations demonstrate is that somewhere along the way our military, and our special forces in particular, simply lost the ability to effectively counter an insurgency.

Once upon a time, “the best of the best” were trained to operate like “phantoms” — treading lightly and prudently alongside their local partners.

Today, however, the legacy they will leave behind in the minds of Afghans will be a brutal one. The civilian cost of the Special Operations Task Group’s operations in Afghanistan is now apparent for all to see.

C August Elliott is a former soldier and writer.

Qatar Being Scapegoated For Carrying-Out CIA/Bandar Terrorist Support Operation In Syria

[Bandar Bush and the “Fat Pig of Qatar” implemented the CIA’s terrorist-jihadi recruitment drive in Syria as a favor to Barack Obama.  After the failure of Obama’s WMD “red line”, when it had become plainly obvious just how much of a disaster that effort was creating, the Saudis replaced Bandar bin Sultan as the head of Saudi intelligence, and handed the entire operation over to the Qataris.  Now that Obama has turned into Trump, and Trump has publicly performed the homo-erotic sword-dance of love with the Saudis, the Saudis have confidently laid the entire Syrian quagmire and the absolutely failed war on terror at Qatar’s doorstep. 

Sure, Qatar IS responsible for at least half of this mess…but the other half belongs to the King of Saudi Arabia and all of his royal minions.]

[Bandar’s Blueprint for Civil WarTimeline for Bandar’s Blueprint for Civil War In Libya and Syria]

CIA, Qatari, Saudi Conspiracy To Violate United Nations Mandates and International Treaties, Nov 17, 2012
Qatar-Brotherhood Alliance Key Component of CIA Scheme To Rule Greater Middle East, Apr 29, 2013
Saudis Blame Qatar for Doing What CIA Wanted In Egypt and Yemen, Nov 26, 2013
The Unholy Alliance of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the CIA and Their Bastard Offspring–ISIS,

Jun 18, 2014
Arabs Scapegoating Qatar For What They All Did, Jun 9, 2017

Qatar being punished for embracing

American ideals



On June 21, the US Department of State announced it was “mystified” by the bullying of the State of Qatar by, among others, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, who had broken diplomatic relations, closed all borders, airspace and sea lanes in an attempt to shut down their neighbor’s economy.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Corker (R-Tenn.), taking a cue from the State Department, announced he would block all future arms sales to Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries until they resolved their differences, a move that lays the onus mostly on Saudi Arabia, which has large, pending arms deals still to be contracted.

Senator Corker also recognised that the accusation that Qatar funds terrorism was only a pretext for punishing Qatar for its strongly pro-American policies; policies that the neighbors view as a threat despite their need for American protection.

The countries that ganged up on Qatar, a long-standing American ally that is home to a number of US military bases, fear that the smallest Gulf state had embarked on a path to modernisation based on the American model that could upend the established regional autocratic order.

They saw that the aim of the Qatari experiment — from the US universities housed on the Qatar Foundation’s Education City campus to its invention of a pan-regional investigative journalism tradition at Al Jazeera — has been to create people-power: Training millions at home and across the region to think, debate and challenge the status quo of autocrats who buy American friends while supporting repression and extremism at home.

Long unhappy with Qatar’s modernisation, its neighbors created the current crisis to undo what they perceive as a threat to the regional status quo. Their list of demands would, if accepted, reduce Qatar to a vassal state of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia worse than what it endured from independence in 1971 to 1990. Qatari society in that period could best be described as a “lite” version of Saudi Wahhabism.

With few exceptions, Qatari women could not get a driver’s license, and churches were banned. Following my arrival in late 1995, several senior clerics told me that they chafed under these restrictions, which they described as against the real teaching of Mohammed Abdul Al Wahhab. When asked why they tolerated them, the reply was always the same: “We are afraid of the Saudis.”

Fortunately for Qatar, it differed from Saudi Arabia in one other crucial aspect: Governance. Unlike the Al Saud family, the ruling Al Thani family adhered more closely to the traditional bedouin constitutional order. The family chose the ruler through consensus with the governed. Qatar had already declared its de facto independence in 1990 when it realised that Saudi Arabia could not defend itself, let alone the GCC, after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Rather, Saudi Arabia had to call the Americans, something the Qataris could do themselves. Relations with Saudi Arabia deteriorated and then turned toxic when Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE conspired to support an attempted plot. It failed.

Qatar then embarked on the most radical modernisation policies in regional memory by choosing the institutions and liberal values of the United States as a model. By early 1996, the Emir lifted all press censorship and even abolished the Ministry of Information, making Qatar the only Arab state without a ministry responsible for censorship.

To improve education, Qatar enlisted RAND Corporation to advise on reforming K-12 schools. After explicitly stating that American universities were the world’s gold standard, the Emir’s consort, H H Sheikha Moza bint Nasr, led an effort that brought six of the most prestigious American universities to establish branch campuses in Doha.

Qatar insisted that they come as true branch campuses having a seamless relationship with the home campus, with complete academic freedom teaching the same curriculum exactly as at the home campus (for example, mixed classes). Qatar welcomed Georgetown University to set up its fabled School of Foreign Service in Qatar as an explicitly Jesuit institution.

Since then, Qatar Foundation has established many educational and social institutions that have brought Qatari women into a more equal status than any of its neighbors. Seventy percent of all Qatari graduates are women. Qatar established a municipal council with elected members early in 2000 under universal suffrage. Women got the vote on the same day as the men. This, in a society that remains as privately pious and conservative as any of its neighbors.

Religious freedom also thrives in Qatar. In early 1996, the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially allowed a priest to come to Doha to celebrate Holy Week and Easter and tend to his communicants. The Foreign Ministry arranged for the priest (now the patriarch of Jerusalem) to meet with the prime minister and have an audience with the Emir. Today, seven churches openly occupy a large plot donated by the government in a Doha suburb.

To the dismay of other regional ruling families, Qatar’s Emir H H Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani never disguised his unabashed love for being an Arab and his belief that the peoples of the Arab world deserved better governance. He set the example of what free speech and free press can accomplish. He established Al Jazeera out of the remnants of the BBC Arabic service, which had been shut down by the Saudis.

He made Qatar the hub for a decade-long series of international conferences where Arab intellectuals could meet and exchange views without fear of the secret police of their countries.

We all failed to anticipate the Arab Spring because we were looking for the intellectual ferment in the wrong places. Qatar had assumed the intellectual role of Andaluz and we never noticed. When the counter revolution violently overthrew Egypt’s first democratically elected government, Doha made the cardinal sin of agreeing with the United States publicly by expressing concern about this backward step.

The repressive states of the Arab world, meanwhile, all sought American protection while subliminally fostering hatred toward the liberal values about which we lectured them. The hatreds they created interacted with repression to formulate a deadly mix that led to 9/11, Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

Now that the American lectures are officially over, the repressive countries turned all their fury on Qatar as a surrogate for espousing the values and institutions of the United States. Americans should not stand idly as its neighbors punish Qatar for its belief in these American values.

  Patrick N Theros has previously served as US ambassador to Qatar in the second Clinton administration and is currently president of the US-Qatar Business Council, a private sector organisation that provides a forum for discussion of key economic, commercial and other issues of interest to American companies doing or planning to do business in Qatar.