"Boris Johnson says matter of Israel embassy plot is 'closed'. He's wrong - it's a scandal". In a proud non-Jewed-up country the Israeli ambassador would already have been expelled along with the caught functionary, but Boris just counts his shekels.
"Israeli diplomat who plotted against MPs also set up political groups".
"Here's Shai Masot & Jeremy Newmark with Israeli ambassador Mark Regev speaking at an event at Labour party conference in 2016 (Al Jazeera)"Tweet (Middle East Eye) (Halfon seems like a comedy parody of a snivelling twit):
"This was a question planted in UK parliament by Israeli Embassy-linked aide who influenced MP Robert Halfon to ask it"
Tweet (George Galloway):
"Excellent statement from the SNP. It is the statement Labour should have made. It is a pity that they didn't."
Tweet (George Galloway):
"For what was there a secret £1,000,000 slush fund for the so-called "Labour Friends of Israel" maintained at the Israeli Embassy?"
"Why Has Israeli Spy Shai Masot Not Been Expelled?" by Craig Murray. With reference to the nonsense but usual argument made by the Americans regarding protecting intelligence sources and methods:
"In passing, allow me to destroy quickly the “we have smoking gun evidence but it’s too secret to show you” argument. Given the Snowden revelations and the whistleblowing of the former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney, for the US government to claim to be hiding the fact that it can tack all electronic traffic in the USA is risible. This is like saying we can’t give you the evidence in case the Russians find out the sky is blue. If there were hacks, the NSA could identify the precise hack transmitting the precise information out of Washington. Everybody knows that. There were no hacks so there is no evidence. End of argument. They are internal leaks."
From October: "Israeli embassy embraces extremists to save flagging brand":
"Embassy official Rony Yedidia-Clein, who said she was “delighted” to be at the event, introduced Ohana with remarks of her own, and spent the rest of the event contributing answers and comments in response to audience questions.
Yedidia-Clein gave the impression of an embassy that has its work cut out, bemoaning the fact that “today it’s become almost a badge of honour for someone to call themselves an anti-Zionist, and a term of shame for someone to call themselves a Zionist.”
According to the diplomat, the embassy has been working to establish local “friends of Israel” groups, and she praised the work of “people in the room” who have “helped…us at the embassy” to set up 40 such organisations in the past two years, citing Inverness (see here) and Jersey (see here)."Assange's anarcho-conspiracy theory. The reaction of the conspirators to leaks is to close down their communications structures which are vitally necessary for the conspirators to operate. One problem with this is exemplified in the American election itself, where Assange fatally messed up the Democratic Party (it would be interesting to know if the failed technical campaign by the Democrats was in part due to terror at leaks), an act which just allowed another better-armed group of conspirators to prevail.
"The Democrats’ Conspiracy Theory".
Assange of the CIA!: "Agent Assange". Odd then that he assisted Trump/Flynn against the CIA.
Somebody bought Beppe: "In Shocking Move, Beppe Grillo Calls For UKIP Split, Urges Hook Up With European Federalist Liberals".
"Allegations Against Russia Less Credible Every Day":
"Supposedly the evidence has been made public and is overwhelming, but try to find it and you’ll come up dry. Ask why, and you’ll be told that of course the evidence cannot be made public as that would risk revealing how the U.S. government came upon the information. Yet the same government feeds the U.S. media with the story that it intercepted communications of top Russian officials just after the U.S. election celebrating Trump’s victory. Did that story not run that risk? The U.S. government feeds the U.S. media (specifically the “free” press of the Washington Post whose owner makes more money from the CIA than from the Washington Post) that Russia has hacked Vermont’s electrical supply, and — because this was a claim that could be checked by an independent party — the secret methods of the CIA quickly turned out to be these: they had simply made the thing up."
"US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia ‘Hack’" (Parry; conclusive argument I'd say, with the CIA giving Putin credit for predicting a certain Trump win when nobody else did):
". . . while it is true that many Russian officials, including President Putin, considered Clinton to be a threat to worsen the already frayed relationship between the two nuclear superpowers, the report ignores the downside for Russia trying to interfere with the U.S. election campaign and then failing to stop Clinton, which looked like the most likely outcome until Election Night.
If Russia had accessed the DNC and Podesta emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks for publication, Putin would have to think that the National Security Agency, with its exceptional ability to track electronic communications around the world, might well have detected the maneuver and would have informed Clinton.
So, on top of Clinton’s well-known hawkishness, Putin would have risked handing the expected incoming president a personal reason to take revenge on him and his country. Historically, Russia has been very circumspect in such situations, usually holding its intelligence collections for internal purposes only, not sharing them with the public.
While it is conceivable that Putin decided to take this extraordinary risk in this case – despite the widely held view that Clinton was a shoo-in to defeat Trump – an objective report would have examined this counter argument for him not doing so."
"American Unintelligence on Russia (Op-ed)". The CIA had such a weak case they had to put the RT stuff in to back it up, but the RT stuff is just silly drivel.
"The Big Lie on Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections":
"And how was Russia going to undermine “Public Faith” in our democratic process? By stealing emails that exposed the true behind the scenes political scheming and machinations by the DNC and Hillary’s campaign. Nothing destroys ones faith in our “democratic” process more quickly than learning that Debbie Wasserman Schultz tried to rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders. In other words, those crafty Rooskies were going to flood America with truth."
"UK intelligence gave US key tipoff about Russian hacking, report says". You'll remember the intelligence technique used in the lies which led to the Iraq war whereby the 'intelligence' is burnished by feeding it through another country, thus giving your own lies the appearance of verification by a disinterested third party (Niger yellowcake). This 'outside' information also makes it easier to stovepipe it, i.e., feed it directly into the political system without the usual intelligence expert vetting for credibility: "The Stovepipe".
Tweet (The War Nerd) (there is no escaping the fact that the monsters are always Sunni):
"Another Sunni bombing of a Shia district... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38546497?SThisFB …"
"US Backed “Moderate Rebels” Target French Delegation in Aleppo".
Another Khazar 'hero', who wasn't: "Nat Hentoff, dead". We should probably stop relying on them to define our great people.