Featured image: Humvees are stored inside the Frigaard Cave in central Norway. The cave is one of six caves that are part of the Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway, which supports the equipping of Marine Expeditionary Brigade consisting of 15,000 Marines and with supplies for up to 30 days. (U.S.

Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Marcin Platek)

US Militarization of Scandinavia: Less Than a Year After First US Base in Norway, a Second One in the Offing

Terje Maloy| Global Research | Oct. 13, 2017

In these days, when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), it might be worth having a look at what the Norwegian military actually is up to.

In January 2017, the first US Marine Corps base in Norway became operational. It is located in Værnes, in the middle of this long rugged country. The base agreement is notionally on a ‘temporary rotating basis’. Norwegian politicians, with a straight face, insists the 330 Marines are always approved only for six months at the time, even though US budget documents clearly show that the Marine Corps routinely budget for this base several years ahead.

Now there are rumours of the establishment of a second US Marine Corps base, this time several hundred kilometres closer to the Russian border. The location mentioned  is Setermoen, a major hub for the Norwegian forces. The Ministry of Defence have as usual issued a denial, but it is confirmed that general Robert Neller, supreme commander of the US Marine Corps, was shown round the garrison area last week. The timeframe mentioned is a rather hurried stationing sometimes in 2018. The budget document also mentions building of hangars. Værnes is indeed next to an airport, but the use of  ‘location TBD’, could indicate the planning of a third base, possibly Evenes airport, close to Setermoen.

Since NATO was founded in 1949, the country has to some degree followed a policy of caution. Norway will not “conclude any agreement with other states which imposes obligations on Norway to open up bases for foreign powers’ forces in Norwegian territory, as long as Norway is not attacked or threatened with attacks”, as the policy was formulated. It lasted the entire cold war, but with the new base in January 2017, things have changed.

Full integration in the US/NATO military machine

The old concept was essentially a straightforward one – the Norwegian army would be responsible for the defence of Norway. In the last few years, and  in the planning for the coming ones, this concept is scrapped. A new concept, of close integration and intermeshing with foreign armies, is replacing it. This is a trend in many European  armies.

For example, the Norwegian army has a unit stationed  in Lithuania, and contingents with the NATO-rapid reaction force. As a replacement, foreign troops will be stationed in Norway. There is talk of joint headquarters in the NATO framework As a result, the budget for the Home Guards will be slashed. Several top military leaders have complained that such priorities will hollow out the core duty of territorial defence.

Another example are the choices made in purchasing  new equipment.

Source: Midt i fleisen

Norway buys a new generation of maritime patrol planes

Just a few years ago the purchase of 5 P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol planes was dismissed as to expensive. It would take away money from other areas. It is an advanced plane, and not many countries in the world, especially small ones, see the need for it. Purchasers so far are fairly large military forces like Australia, UK and India.

A steady stream of lobbying from one top US official after another seems to have opened  the wallet. Some indirect opposition has come from the defence forces themselves. The chief of the Norwegian army has earlier declared that if the land forces did not receive more funding, one would require allied troops on Norwegian soil. Of course, Norway has a rather large military budget. It is not the level of funding, but the priorities, like this extravagant plane purchase and the F-35, that  forces the hand.

P-8A Poseidon is equipped with torpedoes that can be dropped from  great height. The plane has advanced manoeuvrable rockets, and  is able to work together with the US drone MQ-4C Triton. It is a anti-submarine plane, designed for the task of chasing down Russian  submarines filled with nuclear missiles able to hit US cities.

The purchase of the planes is officially priced at 9.8 billion NOK (1.2 billion USD). The real price is much higher, but would to some degree be offset by US subsidies.

There is plenty of historical precedent for this arrangement. During the cold war, Norwegian military intelligence was in effect a subsidiary of the US. Even as late as 1992, approximately 50 percent of  Norwegian military intelligence staff worked on US funded projects. And what sort of  projects are these?

Norway as an important part of nuclear war

The main thing to keep in mind is the immense strategic usefulness of Norway in a war against Russia. On the Kola peninsula, just a few miles from the border, are the home bases of the Russian Northern Fleet, with its many strategic submarines. For geographical reasons – ice-free harbours – this peninsula is where the main Russian fleet units are, and has to be, based. A bit like Crimea, only much more sensitive.

Several invaluable services in this SIGNIT-cooperation are provided the Globus II/III radar complexes, in the town of Vardø. This is nominally a Norwegian project, but funded by the US and supervised by the US Air Force Space Command. Since Globus III will be able to track space objects as small as a baseball, it is – as usual with official denials – a part of the US ABM-system. Other radar and SIGNINT-stations, including on officially demilitarized Svalbard, are of high military interest. But they are not there only to keep an eye on any Russian activity.

Since this area provides the shortest flight path to Moscow, US ballistic missile submarines are  stationed in the Norwegian Sea. To research possible problems with launches, the Andøya  rocket test base was established in 1962, again with heavy US subsidies. (As anyone who has ever been there would know, the island is a really windswept place, and would be an unlikely place  to place a rocket firing range for any other reasons). One of its missions was to supply telemetric data, since the trajectory and atmospheric conditions for these scientific rockets are virtually identical to the Trident ballistic missiles that would be fired from these submarines. One could also use these test rockets to gauge how the USSR missile warning system would respond.

Over the years, the northern parts of Norway  has been home to many SIGNINT projects. As often as not, the information gathered was not shared with Norway.

All (sensor)eyes on the main target: The Russian nuclear submarine bases on the Kola peninsula

Apart from SIGNINT, Norway has recently found itself in the position of having a more aggressive military posture. Three new F-35 Lighting from Lockheed-Martin are scheduled to be in service by November, the first of 52 of these planes. Barely usable for traditional interception, these planes are designed to carry missiles and precision bombs to target deep inside enemy territory.

Similar upgrades of sea based missiles systems have the same capabilities, to knock out enemy bases from a long distance. As part of an area based missile defence system, in case of a first strike on Russian nuclear assets, these ships might be able to eliminate any remaining Russian missile launchers that manage to survive.

This is tacitly admitted (presented as a response to a Russian invasion) in the Norwegian military’s own strategy documents (leaked draft version, where they acknowledge that for the Russians, the northernmost part of Norway “would appear to be an open corridor for attacks with planes and cruise missiles”, the very systems that are being purchased.

The US have put lots of effort into researching how to knock out these bases. They are buried deep underground, in a geologically very hard type of rock. In the 1990’s, after the end of the cold war, the US Nuclear Defence Agency, responsible for researching new nuclear weapons, did several test explosions in an abandoned  mine shaft just a few kilometres from  the Russian border. The purpose of the tests was to see what sort of (nuclear) strikes would be required to penetrate this type of rock.


So in case of a conflict, one could find the ridiculous situation that the bulk of Norwegian forces are stationed far away, whilst home territory becomes a playground for the US Marine Corps. These units might have their own objectives apart from territorial defence.

At the same time, the deep integration into US nuclear war systems will make Norwegian participation inevitable; antisubmarine-planes chasing Russian nuclear strategic submarines; radars being vital to any nuclear strike or ABM-systems; F35 and advanced missiles that only are good for hitting Russian bases. In a tense situation where both Russia and the US are upgrading their Arctic capabilities, one can question the wisdom of insisting on being such an eager part of the encirclement of Russia, in what is obviously a drive for war.

Terje Maloy is a Norwegian/Australian blogger and translator. This article is Creative Commons for non-commercial purposes.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Terje Maloy, Global Research, 2017

Why you shouldn’t believe anything the FBI says about the Vegas shooting

By Jon Rappoport | October 9, 2017

No matter how the Vegas shooting investigation looks, the FBI is playing a large role. The forensics, in particular, would be checked by FBI techs and labs.

Vital lab analysis of weapons and ammunition and bullet-angles and cartridges and residue. Weapons Paddock had or didn’t have. Ammunition he had or didn’t have. Modifications he made or didn’t make to those weapons. How many different kinds of bullets were found in victims? What weapons did those bullets come from?

And depending on that evidence—were there multiple shooters, for example?

Should you believe the FBI’s analyses?

Are you kidding? The scurrilous reputation of the FBI in its handling of forensics is astonishing. Read on. Note: I’m saving the best for last:

In 2014-15, stories appeared in the press about the phenomenal corruption of the FBI evidence lab. But since then, there has been very little follow-up. I find no compelling evidence that the federal government has fixed the problem.

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…[an FBI source states] ’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload.’”

Washington Post, April 18, 2015: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

“Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.”

“The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.”

Giant long-term scandal and corruption. The story is covered. Then it disappears.

Now here’s the capper:

On April 19, 1995, one-third of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City blew up, killing 169 people and wounding 680 others.

Three men were arrested and convicted: Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier. McVeigh was put to death on June 11, 2001, Nichols is currently serving multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole, and Fortier was sentenced to 12 years (he served that term and was released).

The official narrative of the bombing stated: A Ryder truck parked at the curb outside the Murrah Building contained barrels of ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil (ANFO bombs), and their coordinated explosion occurred shortly after 9AM on the morning of April 19th.

In addition to the deaths and the woundings, the explosion impacted 324 buildings and 86 cars in the area.

(In my 1995, book, “The Oklahoma City Bombing, the Suppressed Truth,” I laid to rest the claim that ANFO bombs could have caused that much damage; and more importantly, I showed that an explosion coming out of a Ryder truck at the curb could not have caused the particular profile of damage sustained by the Murrah Building.)

The vaunted FBI lab decided that, indeed, all the damage and death HAD been caused by ANFO bombs in the Ryder truck.

But wait.

Buckle up.

Two years after the bombing, on March 22, 1997, we had this from CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the [FBI] explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

And with those revelations, the case, the investigation, the court trials, and press probes should have taken a whole new direction. But they didn’t.

The fake science was allowed to stand.

So now…there is no reason to believe anything the FBI says about Paddock, his weapons, his ammo, his modifications, the degree of his participation (or non-participation) in the shooting, the trajectories of bullets, the types of bullets found in victims, the nature of the expended shell casings, and other VITAL forensic details in the case.

SOURCE: Jon Rappoport


What Did Washington Achieve in its Six Year War on Syria?

Ron Paul | October 2, 2017

Now that the defeat of ISIS in Syria appears imminent, with the Syrian army clearing out some of the last ISIS strongholds in the east, Washington’s interventionists are searching for new excuses to maintain the illegal US military presence in the country. Their original rationale for intervention has long been exposed as another lie.

Remember that President Obama initially involved the US military in Iraq and Syria to “prevent genocide” of the Yazidis and promised the operation would not drift into US “boots on the ground.” That was three years ago and the US military became steadily more involved while Congress continued to dodge its Constitutional obligations. The US even built military bases in Syria despite having no permission to do so! Imagine if Syria started building military bases here in the US against our wishes.

After six years of war the Syrian government has nearly defeated ISIS and al-Qaeda and the US-backed “moderates” turned out to be either Islamist extremists or Kurdish soldiers for hire. According to a recent report, the US has shipped two billion dollars worth of weapons to fighters in Syria via eastern Europe. Much of these weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS directly, or indirectly through “moderates” taking their weapons with them while joining ISIS or al-Qaeda.

“Assad must go,” proclaimed President Obama back in 2011, as he claimed that the Syrian leader was committing genocide against his own people and that regime change was the only way to save Syrians. Then earlier this year, when eastern Aleppo was about to be liberated by the Syrian government, the neocons warned that Assad would move in and kill all the inhabitants. They warned that the population of eastern Aleppo would flee from the Syrian army. But something very different happened. According to the UN’s International Organization for Migration, 600,000 refugees returned to Syria by August. Half of the returnees went back to Aleppo, where we were told Assad was waiting to kill them.

What happened? The neocons and “humanitarian interventionists” lied. Just as they lied about Libya, Iraq, and so on.

While it was mostly ignored by the mainstream media, just this week a Christian was elected speaker of the Syrian parliament. The new speaker is a 58-year-old Orthodox Christian law graduate and member of President Assad’s Baath party.

How many Christians does our “ally” Saudi Arabia have in its parliament? Oh I forgot, Saudi Arabia has no elected parliament.

Why does it seem that US policy in the Middle East always hurts Christians the most? In Iraq, Christians suffered disproportionately from the 2003 US invasion. In fact there are hardly any Christians left. Why aren’t more US Christian groups demanding that the US get out of the Middle East?

The US is not about to leave on its own. With ISIS all but defeated in Syria, many in Washington are calling for the US military to continue its illegal occupation of parts of the country to protect against Iranian influence! Of course before the US military actions in Iraq and Syria there was far less Iranian influence in the region! So US foreign interventionism is producing new problems that can only be solved by more US interventionism? The military industrial complex could not have dreamed of a better scheme to rob the American people while enriching themselves!

What have we achieved in Syria? Nothing good.

Originally posted at Ron Paul Institute

Former Police Officer Arrested With Massive Arsenal Near White House, Claims He Was A CIA MK Ultra Asset

Alex Thomas | The Daily Sheeple | October 1, 2017



A former Memphis police officer was recently arrested near the White House after police found a variety of weapons during a search in which the man openly claimed to work for the Central Intelligence Agency.

The man, Timothy J. Bates, was arrested last Sunday with an arsenal of firearms, including an assault rifle and a loaded AK-47. The weapons were found after Bates oddly allowed officers to search his car while ranting about a CIA microchip implanted in his head and the need for his paycheck which would presumably be for work he carried out for the agency. (If true)

“According to court documents, Bates was approached by uniformed members of the Secret Service on Sunday at the corner of 17th Street NW and Pennsylvania Avenue as he appeared to be publicly urinating. He told the officers he was trying to reach Defense Secretary James Mattis or NSA Director Mike Rogers for advice on missing paychecks and how to get the dog chip out of my head,” The New York Post reported.

“Bates told the Secret Service officers that he had been offered $28.7 million by the Department of Homeland Security and the state of Tennessee to participate in the CIA’s “MK Ultra” program and that he had a chip planted in his head that was causing him “severe headaches, shaking and convulsions,” the report continued.

That’s right, a former police officer who had loaded weapons extremely close to the White House openly claimed to officers on scene that he was a member of the MK Ultra program and was looking for payment for his work.

It is obviously possible that this is simply a case of an extremely crazy person babbling nonsense, but when you consider both the CIA’s history of mind control as well as the ongoing deep state operation to take out the president, one can only wonder if this was someone who intelligence operatives had planned to use to take a shot at Donald Trump.

From literally thousands of threats to assassinate Trump coming from social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter, coupled with the fact that high-level establishment operatives have floated the idea of killing Trump, it is certainly not inconceivable that the Secret Service stopped at least part of a real plot to take out the president.

Predictably, the mainstream media largely ignored this absolutely huge story, instead focusing on fake news claims that the White House isn’t helping Puerto Rico as well as continued coverage of the discredited Russian narrative.

To them, a story such as this is simply one they do not believe you have a right to read.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

# Take A Knee

     L. Steele | America Uncensore | September 24, 2017

There is a lot of buzz going on in the media lately about Colin Kaepernick’s big stand off with the U.S. government. Particularly on social media where hashtags such as #TakeAKnee and #TakeTheKnee have been trending near the top for nearly three days. Twitter has been lit up with users tweeting their thoughts on the issue of NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem. Everyone chiming in with their opinions of the most important issue of the week.

The buzz started not long after President Trump ignited the flames of attention in his speech in Huntsville, Alabama on Friday.

“We’re proud of our country. We respect our flag. Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say get that son of a bitch off the field, right now, out? He’s fired.”

 Trump went on to fuel the flames on Saturday when he took to twitter just before noon.


The two tweet’s combined gained Trump 318k likes, 108k comments and 85k re-tweets. Spiraling a slew of hastags such as #TakeAKnee and #TakeTheKnee, social media’s top trending hash tags, all weekend long. 

While the President is right about feeling upset with these athlete’s disrespect for the national anthem, he is wrong for thinking they should face consequences for doing so. The national anthem represents this nation and the people in it, so taking a knee is showing disrespect. However, what makes this country great is our Constitution which gets attacked from every direction. The constitution guarantees our right to free speech. If these players want to sit out the national anthem, they have the right to do so. We don’t have to support their actions, but we do have to support their constitutional rights.


President Trump’s rants combined with NFL commissioner Roger Goodel’sl  full support of the player’s who chose to disrespect our national anthem, ensures more athletes will take a knee. 

The Cleveland Browns did not miss the chance on Sunday when a dozen players chose to take a knee in the largest national anthem protest yet. As reported by ESPN.

“There’s a lot of racial and social injustices in the world that are going on right now,” rookie safety Jabrill Peppers said after the Browns’ second win in two preseason games. “We just decided to take a knee and pray for the people who have been affected and just pray for the world in general.”

While it is hard to frown on the player’s choice to pray for social injustice, the manner in which they do so could be questioned. Other questions arise as well. What do NFL stars really know about social injustice? If they really cared about the issue, why wouldn’t they use the proven method of digging into their fat wallets to help solve such an issue? Perhaps raping crack whores gets too expensive. If they really wanted to draw attention to the issue, why wouldn’t they wait until they game starts to take a knee and pray? Can’t do that, just ask Tim Tebow.

The tweets sparked a lesser but more agreeable trend,  #BoycottNFL. With users tweeting that it was time to boycott the NFL for their disrespect of the national anthem.

#TakeAKnee highlights what is wrong with America. Football is so imprtant and enormous weath passes through the NFL while real important issues take a back seat. The world is on the verge of nuclear world war three. America is still recovering from hurricanes, fires and floods. Hurricane victims being placed on FEMA ships, and homeless people being killed off in shelters. You won’t find those issues trending on twitter, or anywhere else in the media.