i've seen this in several locations and smiled each time;

 this article has some questions you may wish to find an answer for, but probably won't have the ability to do so for;

News reports from journalists embedded with American troops serving in Syria and Iraq are enlightening. They tell a daily story of operations, life behind the lines and the real story of America’s controversial mission that many believe is not only illegal and fully in support of organizations the US government has branded as “terrorist.”

There is a problem. There are no reports. There are no embedded journalists. There are, in fact, no reports of any kind, not from war correspondents, not from troops who have returned home or left the military entirely, not from anyone. In fact, access to US controlled regions in Iraq and Syria is totally restricted and all information on activities there not just classified but beyond the purview of even members of Congress.

No one knows what America’s mission is. Photos used in the media are often archival and years old.

More frightening still, the only reports about journalism inside Syria are of kidnapped and killed journalists, reports covering areas allegedly under US control, reports accusing the Damascus government of widespread censorship and press restrictions in regions where such actions are obviously impossible.

It gets worse. There are, in fact, no journalists serving in the American enclave in Southern Syria at al Tanf, an area the Damascus coalition and Russian claim is simply a protected zone for ISIS operations.

In Northern Syria, north and east of the Euphrates river where the US claims to control, with its Kurdish allies, up to 30% of Syria, no American, British or French news service operates at all, not with US military organizations nor at any of the US bases which include air fields, training operations and newly constructed AEGIS type radar stations. These radar stations are suspected as an attempt by the US to institute a “no fly zone” over Syria such as was advocated by the Atlantic Council in January 2014.

Then again, nobody asks. No one seems to have noticed that there are no reports, no combat footage, no videos posted, absolutely nothing from US operations in Syria and Iraq. In fact, there is nothing from Afghanistan either, nor is there coverage of new US bases in Niger, Chad and South Sudan or of activities there as well.

By the time Vietnam came along, the history of American combat journalists was over. Those who “made their bones” in Vietnam did so from outside the country, too often, or from briefings at headquarters in DaNang of Saigon.
https://journal-neo.org/2018/08/31/they-come-like-a-thief-in-the-night-america-s-secret-army/

https://journal-neo.org/2018/08/31/they-come-like-a-thief-in-the-night-america-s-secret-army/

 everyone i know who has a brain is fully aware that the 'official' 911 story is a fictional as is the 'official' story of the murder of jfk. this writer pursues some parts of that official crap herein;

Mister President,

The crimes of 11 September 2001 have never been judged in your country. I am writing to you as a French citizen, the first person to denounce the inconsistencies of the official version and to open the world to the debate and the search for the real perpetrators.
In a criminal court, as the jury, we have to determine whether the suspect presented to us is guilty or not, and eventually, to decide what punishment he should receive. When we suffered the events of 9/11, the Bush Junior administration told us that the guilty party was Al-Qaïda, and the punishment they should receive was the overthrow of those who had helped them – the Afghan Taliban, then the Iraqi régime of Saddam Hussein.
However, there is a weight of evidence which attests to the impossibility of this thesis. If we were members of a jury, we would have to declare objectively that the Taliban and the régime of Saddam Hussein were innocent of this crime. Of course, this alone would not enable us to name the real culprits, and we would thus be frustrated. But we could not conceive of condemning parties innocent of such a crime simply because we have not known how, or not been able, to find the guilty parties.
We all understood that certain senior personalities were lying when the Secretary of State for Justice and Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, revealed the names of the 19 presumed hijackers, because we already had in front of us the lists disclosed by the airline companies of all of the passengers embarked – lists on which none of the suspects were mentioned.


https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/08/thierry-meyssan/open-letter-to-president-trump-concerning-the-consequences-of-11-september-2001/

 something for you catholics here from pat buchanan and it makes several good points;

This summer, the sex scandal that has bedeviled the Catholic Church went critical.
First came the stunning revelation that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, former Archbishop of Washington and friend to presidents, had for decades been a predator-priest who preyed on seminarians and abused altar boys, and whose depravity was widely known and covered up.
Came then the report of a Pennsylvania grand jury that investigated six dioceses and found that some 300 priests had abused 1,000 children over the last 70 years.
The bishop of Pittsburgh, Donald Wuerl, now Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, defrocked some of these corrupt priests, but reassigned others to new parishes where new outrages were committed.
This weekend brought the most stunning accusation.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Vatican envoy to the United States under Pope Benedict XVI, charged that Pope Francis had been told of McCarrick’s abuses, done nothing to sanction him, and that, as “zero tolerance” of sexual abuse is Francis’ own policy, the pope should resign.
In his 11-page letter of accusations, Vigano further charged that there is a powerful “homosexual current” among the Vatican prelates closest to the pope.
What did the pope know and when did he know it?


https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/08/patrick-j-buchanan/a-cancer-on-the-papacy/

 a good question with an equally good answer i believe;

After decades of warfare, the federal drug war has become a predictable cycle.
Drug dealer, drug gang, or drug user busted. DEA agents celebrate the bust. Newspaper reporters laud the DEA. Defendants prosecuted, convicted, and sent to jail.
And then?
Then, the cycle repeats itself. Drug dealer, drug gang, or drug user busted. DEA agents celebrate the bust. Newspaper reporters laud the DEA. Defendants prosecuted, convicted, and sent to jail.
And again and again and again. Month after month. Year after year.  Decade after decade. The cycle never stops.
Normally when one wages a war, he strives for victory. But no one ever defines what victory in the drug war would look like. The feds seem satisfied to simply engage in the same cycle, over and over again, into perpetuity.
Some proponents of the drug war say that if only the federal government really cracked down in the war on drugs, the war could be won. But what they fail to recognize is that over the years, the federal government really has cracked down.
The feds adopted mandatory-minimum sentences, which took sentencing discretion out of the hands of federal judges and imposed draconian sentences for drug-law violations.
They enacted asset-forfeiture laws, which enable the DEA to seize people’s money without charging them with any offense.


https://www.fff.org/2018/08/30/what-would-it-take-to-win-the-drug-war/

 the author of this, reputed to be former cia, has an interesting take on some of the 'russians did it' crap and where that might lead;

A quite astonishing article recently appeared in the New York Times, astonishing even by the standards of that newspaper, which featured Judith Miller and Michael Gordon in the Pentagon-sponsored lie machine that led up to the catastrophic war against Iraq.
The article, entitled “Kremlin Sources Go Quiet, Leaving CIA in the Dark about Putin’s Plans for Midterms,” claims that the United States has had a number of spies close to the Russian president “who have provided crucial details” that have now stopped reporting at a critical time with midterm elections coming up. The reporting is sourced to “…American officials familiar with the intelligence” who “…spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal classified information.”
After reading the piece, my first reaction was that Judith Miller was back but the byline clearly read Julian E. Barnes and Matthew Rosenberg. Noms de plume, perhaps? The article is so astonishingly bad on so many levels that it could have been featured in Marvel Comics instead of the Gray Lady. First of all, if American intelligence truly has in the Kremlin high level human agents, referred to as humint, it would not be publicizing the fact for fear that Moscow would intensify its search for the traitors and discover who they were. No intelligence officer speaking either openly or anonymously would make that kind of fatal mistake by leaking such information to a journalist.



https://www.globalresearch.ca/sources-go-quiet-in-moscow/5652400

i paste here in its entirety an email from a friend received this am. i think what he sent is worthy of your attention and says it all better than i believe i could, so here it is;

Ron Unz (jew) just authored a blockbuster (almost book-length) article laying out the sordid development of the "holocaust" hoax and the revisionism exposing the grand deception.   https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/     Here's a little taste:

"Both of these simple facts have been widely accepted in America throughout my entire lifetime. But combine them together with the relatively tiny size of worldwide Jewry, around 16 million prior to World War II, and the inescapable conclusion is that in per capita terms Jews were the greatest mass-murderers of the twentieth century, holding that unfortunate distinction by an enormous margin and with no other nationality coming even remotely close. And yet, by the astonishing alchemy of Hollywood, the greatest killers of the last one hundred years have somehow been transmuted into being seen as the greatest victims, a transformation so seemingly implausible that future generations will surely be left gasping in awe. 

Though he does a bit of weasel wording and peppers the text with the usual disclaimers and qualifiers of being only an amateur and not an expert, the below leaves little doubt as to his conclusion.

"However, as an outsider exploring this contentious topic I think it far more likely than not that the standard Holocaust narrative is at least substantially false, and quite possibly, almost entirely so. "

The cat's getting out of the bag and one can only hope that this will help further open the floodgates of truth.  

Ron Unz will soon be demonized as an anti-semitic, neo-nazi, self-hating jew.  God bless him.