2017's exploding laptopgate - Zionist trickery backfires

[TonyGosling]

Originally from March this story

The flight ban for laptops is a classic protectionist scheme
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/flight-ban-laptops-classic-prote ctionist-scheme/
The flight ban for laptops is a classic protectionist scheme
Rachel Cunliffe

Rachel Cunliffe
22 March 2017
11:32 AM
First they came for your nail scissors, then your liquids, and now they’re after your electronics. The news this week that the US has banned passengers from taking laptops as carry-on onto flights from ten Middle Eastern airports has sparked horror among the global jet-setting community, which only intensified when the British government promptly followed suit. Smartphones will be allowed, but from now on if you’re travelling from the Middle East you’ll have to make do with an old-fashioned book rather than a kindle, iPad or laptop.

We are told that this is for ‘security’ reasons. According to US media sources, the ban was sparked by intelligence suggesting Islamic State has been developing ways to hide explosives in laptops. Just as the response to the 2006 plot involving liquid explosives was to ban everyone from carrying shampoo and bottled water onto planes, so the reaction to this potential threat has been to remove any devices that might make a long-haul flight bearable. For your own safety, of course. Who can complain about that?

Except there’s one detail about the US rules that doesn’t quite fit. The ban on large electronics only affects nine airlines, and notably excludes flights by US carriers. You can stay glued to your laptop for the entire duration of a flight from Doha to New York, as long as you’re flying with a US airline. This makes no sense at all. If IS terrorists really are plotting to hide explosives in laptops, wouldn’t they just book flights with US airlines?

I’m no conspiracy theorist, but I can’t help thinking of the bitterness that exists between American carriers and airlines from the Gulf, in particular Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways (all on the banned-laptops list). Put simply, the Gulf airlines are much, much nicer than anything United Airlines or Delta could ever hope to achieve. In terms of quality, comfort and customer service, US providers routinely fall short of basic competence, let alone the luxury offered by Emirates.

The US carriers claim the Gulf airlines are flush with government subsidies and don’t have to compete on the same terms, meaning they must be impeded at all costs. In 2015, the chief executives of American carriers lobbied to change the Open Skies agreement to restrict competition on US international routes and shut out Gulf challengers. (Nor is their antagonism towards foreign airlines limited to Arab oil states – lobbyists fought to keep air travel out of the proposed TTIP agreement with the EU, and low-cost European carriers like Norwegian Air have also come under fire.) Meanwhile, US airlines have been accused of high fares, poor service, and even price-fixing.

The most lucrative air travellers are business and first-class passengers who pay a premium for comfort – the kind of travellers, in other words, who might want to carry a laptop onto a plane and spend the flight working. With the new rules, the US government has effectively seized this market from its competitors, using the pretext of ‘safety’. They can’t compete for these customers in terms of service, so they are hampering what their rivals can offer instead. If that’s what’s going on, it is blatant protectionism, straight out of the Donald Trump campaign book on bringing back American jobs. And to hell with American (and international) air passengers.

Interestingly, the British version of the ban does not make exceptions for UK airlines like British Airways and EasyJet. It is possible we take security more seriously than the Americans – but unlikely. Has Britain just dutifully followed America in its bid to curb the open air travel market? We should know better.

[TonyGosling]

I Shared Intelligence With Russia For Good Reason, Says Trump
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-08ff-I-shared-intelligence-with-R ussia-for-good-reason,-says-Trump


Trump's Russia leak: The real scandal behind the Washington Post story
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/16/trumps-russia-leak-real-scan dal-behind-washington-post-story.html

Trump's Russia leak: The real scandal behind the Washington Post story
Fred Fleitz
By Fred Fleitz Published May 16, 2017 Fox News

NOW PLAYING
WH denies report that Trump leaked info on ISIS to Russia
The Washington Post started a new anti-Trump firestorm late Monday when it reported that President Trump revealed highly classified information on terrorist threats from ISIS in Syria to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak. The Post’s sources, current and former U.S. officials, portrayed this as a major scandal that put sensitive intelligence sources and methods at risk.

The Post claims it did not reveal all the details of the disclosures from its sources because U.S. officials said this would “jeopardize important intelligence capabilities.”

Yes, there’s a scandal here. It concerns former and current U.S. officials leaking classified information to the press to undermine a U.S. president.

Did President Trump slip and accidently tell the Russians something classified? Other U.S. participants in the meeting denied this. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster told the press Monday evening: “I was in the room. It didn’t happen.”

But keep in mind U.S. officials unfamiliar with intelligence sometimes make such mistakes. For example, in 2014, the Obama White House accidently revealed the name of the CIA Station Chief in Afghanistan to the press. The Obama White House also reportedly revealed sensitive intelligence to the media concerning the Stuxnet virus to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program and details of the Usama bin Laden raid. Where was the outrage by the mainstream media and Congressional Democrats over these leaks?

Senator Dianne Feinstein accidently leaked classified sensitive information on drone strikes in 2009 during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. Nothing happened to her.

And of course there is Senator Patrick Leahy who deliberately leaked classified information to hurt President Reagan in 1987. As a result, he was thrown off the Senate Intelligence Committee and earned the nickname “Leaky Leahy.”

Furthermore, under U.S. law, the President of the United States is our nation’s ultimate classification authority. He can declassify information as he sees fit to conduct his national security policy.

The real scandal here concerns the current and former U.S. officials who spoke to the Washington Post to generate this story. We don’t know if these sources lied, misrepresented what went on in the Trump meeting with the Russians, or were second-guessing what Trump told them.

We do know that current U.S. officials -- possibly with the NSC and intelligence agencies -- originated this story and revealed highly classified intelligence to the Post as part of their leaks. They were joined by former U.S government officials who I assume worked for the CIA and the Obama NSC. These people committed felonies. They must be identified and prosecuted.

The leaks also are another indication of the serious problem the Trump administration continues to face with leakers. Major house cleanings at the NSC, CIA, ODNI and the State Department to address this serious security threat are long overdue. It is urgent that the Trump administration bring in new blood to replace hundreds of Obama loyalists placed in key positions throughout the government by the last administration.

Just as serious is how partisan cowards entrusted with national security information are anonymously leaking U.S. intelligence to ruin an American president and our democratic system. It’s about time the mainstream media and congressional Democrats start focusing on the dangers of such leaks to our security and system of government instead of just using them to advance their political agenda against President Trump.