Active Shooter San Bernardino

[Iamwhomiam]

Note the date of the article.

FBI chief rips Apple, Google for adding unbreakable encryption to their smart phones
posted at 6:41 pm on September 26, 2014 by Allahpundit

If I’m not mistaken, Android phones already have this capability. What has the feds exercised now is the fact that encryption will soon be the default option on Android phones and on Apple’s new iPhone.

Has there ever been a technology capable of protecting information so securely that law enforcement couldn’t get to it, even if they knew where it was? I feel like there must be obvious examples but I’m blanking on them. People have been using codes since the beginning of time but until recently breaking those codes was a matter of humans matching wits. We’re now at the point where computers are capable of generating codes so long and complex that it would take other computers ages to guess every possible password permutation.

“There will come a day when it will matter a great deal to the lives of people . . . that we will be able to gain access” to such devices, [FBI director James] Comey told reporters in a briefing. “I want to have that conversation [with companies responsible] before that day comes.”

Comey added that FBI officials already have made initial contact with the two companies, which announced their new smartphone encryption initiatives last week. He said he could not understand why companies would “market something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.”…

“Apple will become the phone of choice for the pedophile,” said John J. Escalante, chief of detectives for Chicago’s police department. “The average pedophile at this point is probably thinking, I’ve got to get an Apple phone.”

A few of the comments in our Headlines thread on this have me thinking that not everyone understands what this means. One reader wrote defiantly that if the feds, i.e. the NSA, want to know what’s on their phone, they can go ahead and get a search warrant. But … that’s Comey’s point: The new technology would render even valid search warrants useless. Currently, if the cops want to know what’s on someone’s phone, they can serve Apple or Google with a warrant and the company can unlock the phone on the back end. With the new encryption, the company won’t be able to do that; the code is so hard to break that only its owner would know how to unlock it. Terrorists, pedophiles, you name it: As long as they keep their sensitive info on the phone’s hard drive and don’t stupidly upload it to an external server like “the Cloud,” there’d be no way for cops to reach it.

Law prof Orin Kerr wrote a long post about this last week, noting that he couldn’t see any reason for the new technology except to thwart lawful search warrants that have been obtained in full compliance with the Fourth Amendment. (He also imagined a case where cops might need information stored on the phone of a murder victim to solve the case but wouldn’t be able to touch it because of the encryption.) He walked that back a bit in a later post after people pointed out that a phone that can’t be broken by the company that built it also can’t be broken by hackers. It’s fully secure from prying eyes of all kinds — possibly including the NSA, although who knows what capabilities they’ve developed — so long as you’re not sharing the information on it with an outside server, which will be increasingly important as people start putting more and more of their vital data (including health data and financial data) on our phones. As one Headlines commenter put it, if the FBI has a problem with this they should direct their complaints not to Apple and Google but to the NSA. After all, it’s public alarm over mass surveillance and consumer upset over telecoms’ collusion with the feds that created the demand that the companies are now trying to meet with the new encryption tech. Most people, I’d bet, support making smart phones searchable if the FBI has a warrant. But since the only options at this point seem to be “searchable by the NSA” and “searchable by no one,” go figure that there’s a market for the latter.

Two points here. One: It could be that Comey’s worry is overblown simply because so much of our most sensitive is in fact also stored on external servers. E-mails, texts, tweets, Facebook updates, on and on — it’s all landing on telecoms’ hard drives, where the FBI and NSA can hoover it up. It’s hard to believe that, as health tracking apps become more popular, the data they generate will remain completely contained on your phone and not transmitted to some third party as well. Super-encryption might make the FBI’s job harder by forcing them to go knocking on multiple telecoms’ doors to get the info they could extract in 10 minutes if they had your phone, but it probably won’t thwart most investigations outright. Two: It may be that courts will decide that suspects can be compelled to unlock their phones pursuant to a subpoena. That was a hot topic in the first Kerr post that I linked above. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects you from having to divulge the information stored in your brain, but what about the information stored on your phone? I’ll leave it to legal eagles to argue that out but do note that Kerr thinks people can be compelled to unlock their phones on pain of contempt of court if they refuse. If the Supreme Court agrees, they’ll have created a legal backdoor to replace the technological backdoor that Apple and Google closed. It used to be that cops could make the telecoms unlock your phone; now they’ll make you do it instead.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/26/fbi-chief-rips-apple-google-for-adding-unbreakable-encryption-to-their-smart-phones/

[elfismiles]

Still trying to find this "new report" online...

Disturbing, Dramatic New Details Emerge About San Bernardino Terror Attack
September 9, 2016 9:28 PM
Filed Under: San Bernardino, Terror Attack
Farook and Malik
4

SAN BERNARDINO (CBSLA.com) — A new report from the Justice Department and the Police Foundation reveal many new, disturbing and dramatic details about the San Bernardino terror attack last December.

The report revealed that three mystery people tried to rush the two terrorists – but these heroes were gunned down. KCAL9’s Tom Wait says the report also included new information about the bravery and heroism from police and paramedics.

The report focused on what happened the day Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik walked into the Inland Regional Center and started shooting.

When police and federal agents arrived on scene this is what they saw as they tried to clear the building.

“It was the worst thing imaginable—some people were quiet, hiding, others were screaming or dying, grabbing at your legs because they wanted us to get them out, but our job at the moment was to keep going,” the patrol officer said. “That was the hardest part, stepping over them.”
(credit: CBS)

(credit: CBS)

And there were more heartbreaking stories from victims.

A woman who was shot in the head asked a wounded coworker to call her mother to say goodbye. The coworker tried to comfort her and asked if she was okay. “The victim said I’m not, I’m bleeding from the mouth and then she closed her eyes for good,” the coworker wrote.

The shooting unfolded during a training session – a photo was snapped just minutes before the shooters fired more than 100 rounds.

“As the chaos unfolded, a round hit a fire sprinkler pipe causing water to pour out of the ceiling. The water and smoke that filled the room made it difficult for people to see. The shooters walked between tables. If someone moved or made a sound, the shooters fired one or multiple shots into their body,” the report related.

The terror couple escaped after they carried out their horrific crime. But an interview with a very observant witness helped police figure out who the masked shooters were — using body language and body structure. Witnesses also described the rented black SUV driven by the two.

A San Bernardino investigator quickly zeroed in on the rental company and officers made their way to the couple’s Redlands apartment and the chase began.

When it was over Farook was shot 26 times – his wife 15 times.

One other very troubling detail: Police found a bag in the conference room that contained three pipe bombs. They didn’t realize the bag was there until about six hours after the shooting. Police believe those explosives were supposed to go off after first-responders reached the scene.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/09/ ... or-attack/

[MacCruiskeen]

A declaration of bankruptcy:

LA Times, Dec 1, 2016:
A year after the San Bernardino terror attack, the FBI is still struggling to answer key questions

Cited by Kevin Ryan in this excellent article, with many links. (I include only the closing section, about the murder and frame-up of that dead couple.)

Terrorism and Terror Propaganda in 2016

Posted on December 29, 2016 by Kevin Ryan

http://911blogger.com/news/2016-12-29/t ... ganda-2016

[...]

Today, the fear instilled by the reporting of terrorist acts in the U.S. is hugely disproportionate to the actual risk presented. Only fear of government corruption is higher than fear of a domestic terrorist attack. The two fears are related, of course, and the pattern of terrorism in 2016 repeated that of 2015, further suggesting that these acts might be government sponsored.

Does the FBI continue to manufacture domestic terrorism as has been claimed in the past? Are operatives trained in special operations actually committing the terrorism while the FBI and professional propagandists concoct dubious official accounts?

An outstanding example is the San Bernardino shooting of December 2015. This was an attack in which all of the eyewitnesses were ignored in favor of an official account that still cannot be made to pass the red-face test. Furthermore, known terror propagandists have been involved in bolstering the official account.

Recently, the Los Angeles Times reported that, a year after the San Bernardino shooting, “federal officials acknowledge they still don’t have answers to some of the critical questions.” San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said, “We never established the motive. The best we can do is theorize.”

Theorize? That sounds familiar. Here’s a theory. The terror expert that the Times has quoted all year long is simply stoking the fear of terrorism, as he has done for decades, and distracting everyone from the facts of the case.

That expert, Brian Michael Jenkins, is himself a suspect in terrorism. In 1993, the editor of The Humanist called Jenkins “one of the architects of the contra war against Nicaragua—a terror war aimed primarily at the civilian population and infrastructure.”[1] A former special operations soldier and the man who designed the security system for the World Trade Center before it was destroyed, Jenkins is also named in the book Another Nineteen: Investigation Legitimate 9/11 Suspects. Apparently not distressed by the attention, Jenkins has posted a related article on his own website.

Immediately after the San Bernardino shooting, Jenkins began to be cited as the authority on the event in many media venues. The Guardian published Jenkins’ opinion piece that discussed visa programs, social media, and other risks in light of the shooting. The Atlantic employed him as its expert to explain how the internet can cause people to become “self-radicalized” (i.e. in the absence of any real associations with terrorism).

Jenkins continued to be the expert on the subject of the San Bernardino shooting and the new theory of self-radicalization. He appeared in articles for the LA Times (several times), the LA Daily News, local television reports, the Dallas News, the Associated Press, and others. In the most recent article by the LA Times, Jenkins described the two official suspects in the San Bernardino shooting. “They are essentially homegrown terrorists, self–radicalized and inspired by those overseas,” Jenkins said.

Of course, people who have followed the news in detail still wonder about facts that contradict the official San Bernardino account. For example, the evidence suggests that the attackers were three white men who appeared to be special operations soldiers.

At the time of the attack, a Los Angeles television station stated: “Police looking for 3 white males dressed in military gear.” The only eyewitness to the shootings said the perpetrators were three tall, athletic, white men in combat-style gear. The witnesses to the getaway said they saw three men in black masks fleeing the scene with rifles in hand. Another said it was three white men in military gear. The attackers got into a black SUV with tinted windows and “calmly” left the scene.

It is certain that a black SUV was shot up badly later in the day. However, no convincing evidence was ever produced showing how the accused were driving or shooting from the SUV. Moreover, the attorney representing the family said the accused appear to have been handcuffed and lying face down in the vehicle when found.

It was reported that the FBI was getting resistance from Apple in unlocking the suspect’s phone, causing a challenge to privacy rights. The truth was later revealed to be that the FBI had somehow reset the suspect’s iPhone password, making it impossible for Apple to access the phone’s content via cloud. Additionally, the suspect’s computer hard drive went missing. In other words, the FBI continued to the remaining evidence.

Nonetheless, the media frenzy in support of the official account soon became an entrenched myth. Even as the New York Times retracted its reporting on the subject and the Washington Post admitted that American law enforcement officials were “famous for feeding contradictory and unfounded information to the media,” the myth continued to go unchallenged.

On the 15th anniversary of 9/11, Brian Michael Jenkins co-authored a lead piece for The Atlantic that asked, How Much Really Changed About Terrorism on 9/11? His fellow contributors were Bruce Hoffman and Martha Crenshaw, terror propagandists associated with those of Cercle Pinay and the Washington Institute for the Study of Conflict. The article discussed how to predict who would become a terrorist and exaggerated the power and influence of “terrorist groups.” The authors argue that the only things that have really changed since 9/11 are that the stakes are higher, the terrorist are more capable, and we have not learned much.

It is true that many people have not learned much about terrorism since 9/11. That’s partly because the public is continually misinformed about every terrorist act and partly because people willfully ignore the evidence they do encounter. As terror propagandists and suspected terrorists continue to control the narrative, the future might provide more serious examples of this absurd and dangerous state of affairs.


Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

http://911blogger.com/news/2016-12-29/t ... ganda-2016

R.I.P. Syed Rizwan Farook, Tashfeen Malik, and the other 14 innocent people massacred by the US terror state in San Bernardino.

[Elvis]

Good to see this thread revived.

Can't wait for the report and the video of the shootout...

Has video of the 'shootout' been released? I've considered making an FOIA request for them (they must exist).

The only aspect that doesn't add up to me is the final 'shootout'; I suspect it was one-sided, but a video should reveal something about that.

[Elvis]

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/judge-forces-apple-help-unlock-san-bernardino-shooter-iphone-

Hm, link is now dead: "This page is unavailable."

[MacCruiskeen]

The only aspect that doesn't add up to me is the final 'shootout'

I`m surprised you`d say that, Elvis. None of it adds up. Or rather: It all adds up to clear evidence of a frame-up. Did you even read Ryan`s article?

...This was an attack in which all of the eyewitnesses were ignored in favor of an official account that still cannot be made to pass the red-face test. Furthermore, known terror propagandists have been involved in bolstering the official account.

...

At the time of the attack, a Los Angeles television station stated: “Police looking for 3 white males dressed in military gear.” The only eyewitness to the shootings said the perpetrators were three tall, athletic, white men in combat-style gear. The witnesses to the getaway said they saw three men in black masks fleeing the scene with rifles in hand. Another said it was three white men in military gear. The attackers got into a black SUV with tinted windows and “calmly” left the scene.

It is certain that a black SUV was shot up badly later in the day. However, no convincing evidence was ever produced showing how the accused were driving or shooting from the SUV. Moreover, the attorney representing the family said the accused appear to have been handcuffed and lying face down in the vehicle when found.

...

This, and much more, is all documented, throughout this thread and with links in Ryan`s article. One year on, there is still not a shadow of a case against Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. There never was. Even that LA Times screed practically admits as much, shamefacedly.

[Elvis]

I`m surprised you`d say that, Elvis. None of it adds up. Or rather: It all adds up to clear evidence of a frame-up.

No, yes—that's what I meant: that it all adds up to clear evidence of a frame-up, except I can't explain how the final events unfolded. Video would be some help.

Btw, people still think Tafsheen Malik claimed allegiance to ISIS on social media, not least NPR's Steve Inskeep, who repeated the 'factoid' during the Orlando shootings' aftermath. I was going to email him about it, but, you know, I'd just be another Internet crank alerting him to another Truth™ he's disinclined to hear about. I still listen to his prattling every day but as a 'reporter' he'll never have my confidence.

Another reason I didn't call Inskeep on his gross error is that it doesn't just stop at one factoid. I'd have to continue: What NPR should be asking is: Who is responsible for the "tip" that Malik FB'd her allegiance to ISIS? (Rita Katz has been mentioned.) And what was the motive for that disinformation? Who are the other half-dozen anonymous callers & sources who started these very sticky false rumors?

Those false leads & tips are obviously—they can only be—biscuit crumbs strategically dropped to lead straight to a predermined conclusion. Paint a picture and all that.

In most cases above, I started to get a good idea of which correspondent or outlet first reported what, but I don't have time to really follow through, contact reporters etc. A few of them might actually engage, if anyone else wants to try (has anyone, anywhere tried?). But I think that's how you crack this crime: find out who planted those false leads.

[MacCruiskeen]

I`m surprised you`d say that, Elvis. None of it adds up. Or rather: It all adds up to clear evidence of a frame-up.

No, yes—that's what I meant: that it all adds up to clear evidence of a frame-up, except I can't explain how the final events unfolded. Video would be some help.

Btw, people still think Tafsheen Malik claimed allegiance to ISIS on social media, not least NPR's Steve Inskeep, who repeated the 'factoid' during the Orlando shootings' aftermath. I was going to email him about it, but, you know, I'd just be another Internet crank alerting him to another Truth™ he's disinclined to hear about. I still listen to his prattling every day but as a 'reporter' he'll never have my confidence.

Another reason I didn't call Inskeep on his gross error is that it doesn't just stop at one factoid. I'd have to continue: What NPR should be asking is: Who is responsible for the "tip" that Malik FB'd her allegiance to ISIS? (Rita Katz has been mentioned.) And what was the motive for that disinformation? Who are the other half-dozen anonymous callers & sources who started these very sticky false rumors?

Those false leads & tips are obviously—they can only be—biscuit crumbs strategically dropped to lead straight to a predermined conclusion. Paint a picture and all that.

In most cases above, I started to get a good idea of which correspondent or outlet first reported what, but I don't have time to really follow through, contact reporters etc. A few of them might actually engage, if anyone else wants to try (has anyone, anywhere tried?). But I think that's how you crack this crime: find out who planted those false leads.

It can only done by Americans, Elvis. If anyone. Good luck to anyone brave enough to try, not least because they'll have the media to contend with. They will be vilified as "conspiracy theorists" (and even traitors) * if they dare to doubt the guilt of that dead couple. NPR and other Liberal outlets will not raise a finger to help you, any more than they have ever raised a finger to help the Jersey Widows in the 15 years since 9/11. I'd love to be proven wrong about this. But the case certainly won't be "cracked" by any one "citizen investigator" acting alone.

Those are good points you raise about the "claimed allegiance to ISIS" lie. Do you know of any journalists who would actually be prepared to follow up those leads and ask those obvious questions? If so, please do get in touch with them asap. That LA Times one-year-anniversary article already demonstrates what a scandalous frame-up this whole case is and always has been. It is not great, but it might constitute a starting-point.

See the second quote in my sig-line, by John Steppling (it links to an article by him). 9/11 really was a test-case for journalists in the US and everywhere else. Very, very few of them stood up to the pressure or even tried to. It was more than their jobs were worth. Their failure was a turning-point. Ever since then, the truth about acts of terror has been whatever the government tells you it is.

*on edit: and of course accused of "disrespecting the victims".

on edit: three tyops creocted.

[MacCruiskeen]

Three separate witnesses describe THREE shooters (three MEN) - "tall", "appeared to be white", "athletic", etc:



5mins 9 secs.The actual interviews begin about 56 secs in.

Elvis, if you're going to contact any journalists, I 'd strongly suggest you ask them how they square this with the fact that Syed Rizwan Farook was a burly six-footer and Tashfeen Malik was "very petite", maybe smaller than five feet tall. I'd suggest challenging those journalists to find a photo of the couple side-by-side -- they could start by asking the dead couple's families, friends, mosque, etc.-- and then show that photo to those three eyewitnesses, all of whom freely gave their own names. (And I believe they all did so on camera as well. Why should they not have? They weren't lying, so they had nothing to hide.)

[Elvis]

if you're going to contact any journalists

The more I think it through, the more I ask myself whether I need that kind of trouble. Months ago I emailed a Business Insider reporter (CC'ing a half a dozen editors) about the same thing, very politely and with links. Silly me, I didn't realize then that Business Insider is mainly a clickbait farm. Nobody wrote back, of course, they just added the story to their repeating cycle so it would run on the front page a few more times. I think I griped about it somewhere on this thread. Bah.

If you DO start being effective, the trouble starts, and whoever they are, they don't fuck around.

[MacCruiskeen]

I understand your worry, Elvis, but you do see what it means. John Steppling is right. I don't throw the word "fascism" around lightly, and I don't want to get into a tedious discussion about the definition of fascism (there are any number of fascisms), but it's uncontroversial to say that all fascist societies are characterised by conformity, mutterings in private, and a deep fear of authority.

The fact that you are reluctant to write to a journalist is deeply symptomatic. And I have to doubly emphasise that I am not criticising you personally or trying to provoke or persuade you into doing anything at all. As I said, there is no hope of anyone "cracking" this case alone. There is certainly more safety in numbers, if you can achieve the numbers.* I don't know what I would do if I were a US citizen, especially one living in the USA. That LA Times journo was also clearly very reluctant to draw the obvious conclusion from what he himself was reporting: That dead couple are innocent, they were murdered by cops, and the real killers -- the "three tall white athletic men" -- are still walking free.

* Groups such as "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" and "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" have, as far as I know, suffered no actual government harassment as of yet. The corporate-media lockdown on reporting any "marginal" views (except, occasionally, to decry and ridicule them) suffices to ensure that their investigations and statements remain largely unheard and therefore ineffective.

[Elvis]

Speaking of fake news....

Here it is again:

Police and town officials later apologized for the incident, calling it "very regrettable." But such an incident is hardly surprising amid growing alarm in the wake of the recent mass terrorist attacks in Orlando and San Bernardino, Calif., in which the Muslim attackers pledged loyalty to the Islamic State.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... ad79025c27

Who is Pamela Constable? Was it her day off when Comey announced that the San Bernadino suspect did NOT pledge loyalty to ISIS? Or what?

This is from back in August, so probably would look silly to write WaPo or Pamela Constable about it now. (Unless maybe they got like ten letters pointing out the error.)


P.S. Hat tip to SLAD for posting the link in the Islamaphobia thread - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38721

[Elvis]

And from August 1, 2016, WaPo again, this time Adam Goldman and Mark Berman:

The Orlando police posted on their website last December — after two attackers who pledged loyalty to the Islamic State killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... deca74b510

Looking for a correction, I did find one:

Correction: Victim Deonka Drayton’s last name was rendered incorrectly as Drake in an earlier version of this report.

I have a feeling I could do this all day if I didn't have to go work. Already have three more post-fact WaPo lined up.

[Grizzly]

San Bernardino Redux :

 http://www.metafilter.com/164829/Terrorist-attack-in-Quebec

Or



God, will this ever stop!?

[Elvis]

San Bernardino Redux :

Excellent Corbett video, thanks Grizz. So we have the Nazi/Goebbels playbook AND the the Phoenix playbook at work.

A detail in the video led me to more good Corbett videos I hadn't seen, plus the Global Research piece below, which I don't recall seeing before; it certainly explains at least some the videos of black-clad "ISIS" fighters praying in different directions. I think other groups, whether state-sponsored, private, or"public-private partnership," have fake ISIS units in the field as well. And the more I think about it, it seems absolutely germane to this thread topic:

British SAS Special Forces “Dressed Up as ISIS Rebels” Fighting Assad in Syria
By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, August 04, 2015

On August 2, Britain’s Sunday Express newspaper headlined “SAS dress as ISIS fighters in undercover war on jihadis,” saying:

“More than 120 members belonging to the elite regiment are currently in the war-torn country” covertly “dressed in black and flying ISIS flags,” engaged in what’s called Operation Shader – attacking Syrian targets on the pretext of combatting ISIS.

Maybe covert US special forces and CIA elements are involved the same way. During Obama’s war on Libya, Britain deployed hundreds of Special Forces Support Group (SFSG) paratroopers – drawn from SAS (Special Air Service) and SBS (Special Boat Service) personnel.

Around 800 Royal Marines and 4,000 US counterparts were on standby to intervene on short notice if ordered.

The latest revelation comes two weeks after learning Prime Minister David Cameron last year approved British warplanes joining US ones in bombing Syria despite parliamentary rejection in August 2013.

At least part of its current covert ground operation is under US command – so-called “smash” units traveling in pickup trucks able to launch mini-UAVs to scan terrain for targets to attack.

Over 250 UK (and perhaps US) specialists are involved to provide communications support, the Sunday Express explained.

British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said “(o)ur actions and surveillance capabilities are freeing up other countries to strike in Syria.”

UK SAS forces are in Saudi Arabia training anti-Assad terrorists along with US operatives doing the same thing – including in Turkey, Jordan, Qatar and perhaps Israel.

US and UK claims about training so-called “moderate” rebels reflect smoke-screen cover for working directly with ISIS terrorists – trained, armed and funded abroad, funneled cross-border into Syria to fight Assad, now with US/UK and Canadian air support along with covert commandos on the ground.

The Express cited former British Army General David Richards saying “tanks will roll” as part of UK operations in Syria.

A separate article discussed US airstrikes defending ISIS terrorists serving as US foot soldiers against Assad.

The Wall Street Journal reported what appears ominously like prelude to Libya 2.0 – falsely claiming Obama authorized airstrikes against Syrian forces if they attack (nonexistent) US-supported “moderate” rebels.

Separately, Turkish media reported President Recep Tayyip Erdogan saying Putin may have softened on Assad. (H)e may give up on” him.

Obama said he was “encouraged by the fact that Mr. Putin called him (in late June) and initiated the call to talk about Syria.”

I think they get a sense that the Assad regime is losing a grip over greater and greater swaths of territory inside of Syria and that the prospects for a (jihadist) takeover or rout of the Syrian regime is not imminent but becomes a greater and greater threat by the day. That offers us an opportunity to have a serious conversation with them.

Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said both leaders discussed combatting terrorism – especially the Islamic State.

“The Russian view is well-known,” he explained. “(I)t was reiterated by (Putin) during (his) conversation” with Obama. It hasn’t changed.

Putin opposes outside interference by any nations in the internal affairs of others. He supports the sovereign right of Syrians and other people to choose their own leaders and legislators.

Putin aide Yury Ushakov said “the current leadership of Syria is one of the real and effective forces confronting the Islamic State.”

Nothing indicates less Russian support for Assad.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2015

http://www.globalresearch.ca/british-sa ... ia/5466944