What CNN Isn't Saying About Thailand's "Hunger Games" Protest

Protesters from same mob that burned downtown theater to ground in 2010 barred from using nearby theater as protest venue. Movie is still playing nationwide. 

Image: What's left of one of Apex's theaters after the last time "protesters"
used it as a venue for their political agenda in 2010. The theater was entirely
destroyed. CNN and others fail to mention this fact, and instead portray the
protesters as being "repressed" rather than violent, divisive criminals
attempting to set the stage for more violence. 
November 22, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - CNN would lament in its article, "More held in military-led Thailand after flashing 'Hunger Games' salute," that:
The central figure in "The Hunger Games," the hit sci-fi series about an oppressed people's struggle against a totalitarian regime, is being evoked for real, now, in Thailand among university students expressing their opposition to that southeast Asian nation's military rulers.  
Several students, from Bangkok to about 450 kilometers (280 miles) away to the northeast, have been detained in recent days after flashing the signature anti-establishment, three-fingered salute from"The Hunger Games."
CNN would also admit that the "opposition" consisted of "several students," in fact, not even 10 nationwide, but before claiming inexplicably that, "there's little indication the opposition is going away." And perhaps CNN is right - if one considers what the "opposition" really is. If it is actual people in Thailand, there is obviously no opposition. If it is special interests upon Wall Street and in the City of London that hand CNN, the BBC, and other news organizations their talking points, then indeed, the opposition remains.

What CNN Won't Say About the "Hunger Games" Protest 

CNN would also claim:

A "Hunger Games" fan club, which consists of university students calling for democracy in Thailand, had planned to meet for the latest film's showing Thursday at one Bangkok theater. 
But the showing at that theater and three others that are part of the same Apex chain was canceled -- for "technical" reasons, according to the chain.

US Never Intended to Defeat ISIS

November 20, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - A torrent of "foiled" terror plots have recently undulated headlines across the Western World. In Rochester New York, the FBI netted a man they claimed was plotting a shooting spree targeting US service members. In Australia, over 800 security agents swooped in on 15 ISIS suspects whom the Australian government claimed were plotting to randomly behead a member of the public. In the UK, 4 suspects allegedly linked to ISIS were arrested before carrying out a plot Scotland Yards claims was aimed at the Queen of England herself.

According to Western security agencies, in addition to ISIS' regional campaign of brutality stretching from Lebanon, across Syria, and into Iraq, it is also working ceaselessly to carry out attacks against targets within the US, across Europe, and even in the Pacific.

US Policymakers Claim ISIS is Neither a Threat Nor Necessary to Defeat

Considering the hysteria generated by ISIS' alleged global exploits, it should then be infinitely curious to readers who happen across US policymakers claiming that ISIS may pose a threat, but constitutes by far a lesser threat than Iran or Syria - the two principle nations leading the real fight against ISIS and its international sponsors. Furthermore, US policymakers claim there is no urgency to defeat ISIS, and it should instead be "contained." Of course, this "containment" will be within states targeted by US-backed regime change - serving as a convenient agent of destruction, destabilization, and perhaps even regime change itself.  


Image: A growing chorus among US policymakers and the Western media are claiming that ISIS poses a minimal threat even amid simaltaneous efforts to ratchet up public hysteria. The West also claims it is no longer necessary to "defeat" ISIS and it should instead be "contained" - inside nations targeted for regime change by the US, allowed to continue fighting America's enemies by proxy ... or in other words, ISIS should continue serving as the West's private mercenary army. 

Hong Kong's People Have Spoken - End the Protests

Will Hong Kong's "pro-democracy" movement heed the voice of the people and leave the streets indefinitely? Or remain there, revealing their true, self-serving agenda?  

November 20, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Despite an ongoing media circus in the West portraying a "popular uprising" in Hong Kong, China - in reality the Chinese people and particularly the citizens of Hong Kong have grown tired of the unrest.


After popular demand, the Public Opinion Programme (HKU POP) of the University of Hong Kong conducted a poll asking whether or not the "Occupy Central" movement should come to an end. An overwhelming 80% said yes with HKU POP stating specifically, "almost 80% called for an end to the occupation."

Bloomberg in their article, "Most Hong Kong People Want Pro-Democracy Protests to End Now," would also admit:
About 68 percent of 513 respondents said the government should clear the protesters immediately, according to a survey conducted by the University of Hong Kong Nov. 17-18.
Surely, with "Occupy Central" claiming to be a "pro-democracy" movement, it will heed the will of the people and voluntarily withdraw from Hong Kong's streets indefinitely. However, despite the wording of Bloomberg's headline, those blocking up Hong Kong's streets are not "pro-democracy." The backlash against "Occupy Central" is not the Hong Kong public turning on "pro-democracy" protesters but rather the Hong Kong public understanding "Occupy Central" has nothing at all to do with democracy in the first place.

The degree to which the "Occupy Central" has been exposed as a foreign-backed political destabilization is so complete that there is little likelihood that such a destabilization will be possible in Hong Kong, or anywhere else inside of China well into the foreseeable future.

Leaders including Benny Tai and Joshua Wong have all been linked to US State Department funded organizations, projects, and campaigns. "Occupy Central" leaders including Martin Lee and Anson Chan literally were in Washington D.C. earlier this year lobbying for US support in front of the very organizations funding the political activity of virtually every prominent "Occupy Central" leader. Even HKU POP has been implicated in "dirty money" used to qualify an ad hoc referendum carried out by "Occupy Central" ahead of the recent protests.

Heed the Will of the People? 

Perhaps greater evidence of "Occupy Central's illegitimacy resides not in its documented financial and political ties to foreign interests, but rather the utter contempt in which "Occupy Central" leaders hold the Hong Kong public's interests.

Before street unrest even began, "Occupy Central" held a "referendum" to gauge public interest in their "proposals." Only a fifth of Hong Kong's voting public turned out for the "referendum" which intentionally left out any possible vote to condemn the entire process or the "Occupy Central" movement promoting it. With this paltry "fifth" tentatively "behind" the movement, they took to the streets to disrupt life for the entire special administrative region.


CNN: Libyan "Rebels" Are Now ISIS

November 19, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - The United States has attempted to claim that the only way to stop the so-called "Islamic State" in Syria and Iraq is to first remove the government in Syria. Complicating this plan are developments in Libya, benefactor of NATO's last successful regime change campaign. In 2011, NATO armed, funded, and backed with a sweeping air campaign militants in Libya centered around the eastern Libyan cities of Tobruk, Derna, and Benghazi. By October 2011, NATO successfully destroyed the Libyan government, effectively handing the nation over to these militants. 

Images: Same convoy, different flag. Even in 2011, it was painfully obvious the so-called "rebels" fighting with NATO assistance in Libya were in fact members of long-standing Al Qaeda franchises including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). Their strongholds in eastern Libya served as the "revolution's" cradle, meaning the "revolution" was merely cover for a NATO-assisted Al Qaeda uprising. In other words, NATO handed Libya over to Al Qaeda, and is attempting to do likewise with Syria.  

What ensued was a campaign of barbarism, genocide, and sectarian extremism as brutal in reality as what NATO claimed in fiction was perpetrated by the Libyan government ahead of its intervention. The so-called "rebels" NATO had backed were revealed to be terrorists led by Al Qaeda factions including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).

The so-called "pro-democracy protesters" Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi was poised to attack in what NATO claimed was pending "genocide" were in fact heavily armed terrorists that have festered for decades in eastern Libya.

Almost immediately after NATO successfully destroyed Libya's government, its terrorist proxies were mobilized to take part in NATO's next campaign against Syria. Libyan terrorists were sent first to NATO-member Turkey were they were staged, armed, trained, and equipped, before crossing the Turkish-Syrian border to take part in the fighting. 

US-Armed Syrian Opposition "Surrenders" to Al Qaeda?

November 18, 2014 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Al Qaeda affiliates are suddenly now Islamic State (ISIS) affiliates, and entire groups of militants the US has been arming, funding, and training are "surrendering" to Al Qaeda, bringing along with them a large number of US weapons. Is this a failure of US foreign policy? Or is this simply a rhetorical means to explain away what appears to be an immense army of extremists the US is once again building up to direct at one of its enemies, just as it did in Afghanistan in the 1980's? 



Al Qaeda Morphs into ISIS

In late September, just in time to aid the US in its fumbling justification for bombing Syria, terrorists allegedly beheaded a French tourist kidnapped in the North African nation of Algeria. The timing, as with previous ISIS executions, was impeccable, lending maximum propaganda value, not to the terrorist organization, but to the United States which has utilized each grisly murder as a means for direct and continued military intervention on both sides of the Syrian-Iraqi border. 

The BBC in their article, "French hostage Herve Gourdel beheaded in Algeria," would report that: 
The beheading, the spokesman says, is to "avenge the victims in Algeria... and support the caliphate" proclaimed by IS in Iraq and Syria.
Jund al-Khilafa (Soldiers of the Caliphate) pledged allegiance to IS on 14 September. 
Until then it had been known as part of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which grew out of an Algerian militant group and is now active across North and parts of West Africa.
Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, was directly associated with terrorist groups armed and backed by NATO in the 2011 invasion and bombardment of Libya in efforts to overthrow the government of Muammar Qaddafi in Tripoli. 


In a 2007 West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) report and a 2011 CTC report, "Are Islamist Extremists Fighting Among Libya's Rebels?," AQIM is specifically mentioned as working closely with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and it was predicted most notably by geopolitical analyst Dr. Webster Tarpley, that even before NATO began dropping bombs on Libya that by doing so, they would be thrusting not only LIFG into power, but empowering a regional network of extremists, including AQIM. AQIM's presence shortly thereafter in northern Mali, flush with weapons from Libya and a new sense of purpose as well as the fact that AQIM continues to menace the region years later is the complete fulfillment of this prediction.

Both AQIM and LIFG are listed by the US State Department as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) but were in fact leading the fight against the Libyan government in 2011 with NATO weapons and air support. It would be France itself that would drop weapons into the country illegally to bolster their fighting capabilities during the conflict, and clearly, after the conflict both inside Libya's borders and beyond them.