The first time bin Laden had seen the Tora Bora caves, he had been a young mujahedeen fighter and a recent university graduate with a degree in civil engineering. It had been some 20 years before, during Washington’s first Afghan war, the decade-long, C.I.A.-financed jihad of the 1980’s against the Soviet occupation. Rising to more than 13,000 feet, 35 miles southwest of the provincial capital of Jalalabad, Tora Bora was a fortress of snow-capped peaks, steep valleys and fortified caves. Its miles of tunnels, bunkers and base camps, dug deeply into the steep rock walls, had been part of a C.I.A.-financed complex built for the mujahedeen. Bin Laden had flown in dozens of bulldozers and other pieces of heavy equipment from his father’s construction empire, the Saudi Binladin Group, one of the most prosperous construction companies in Saudi Arabia and throughout the Persian Gulf. According to one frequently told story, bin Laden would drive one of the bulldozers himself across the precipitous mountain peaks, constructing defensive tunnels and storage depots.
Indeed, by December 2001, when the final battle of Tora Bora took place, the cave complex had been so refined that it was said to have its own ventilation system and a power system created by a series of hydroelectric generators; bin Laden is believed to have designed the latter. Tora Bora’s walls and the floors of its hundreds of rooms were finished and smooth and extended some 350 yards into the granite mountain that enveloped them.
Now, as the last major battle of the war in Afghanistan began, hidden from view inside the caves were an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 well-trained, well-armed men. A mile below, at the base of the caves, some three dozen U.S. Special Forces troops fanned out. They were the only ground forces that senior American military leaders had committed to the Tora Bora campaign.
A United Airlines flight was ordered to stay out of Russia by authorities on Wednesday, just days after a doctor was violently dragged from a flight.
A United flight from San Fransisco to Shanghai, China was diverted away from Russian airspace for “diplomatic reasons,” according to reports from passengers.
The unscheduled diversion forced the flight to refuel at Tokyo’s Narita airport.
On @United 857 enroute to PVG, diverted to NRT. Captain: Due to diplomatic reasons, Russia denied access to air space. Now refuelling
— brianlinca (@brianlinca) April 12, 2017
United has come under severe criticism over the last few days after a doctor was dragged from an overbooked flight by airport security after having had his teeth smashed for not cooperating with the airline.
Whilst the reason for the diversion hasn’t been made clear, some people believe it may be to do with the tense relations between the U.S. and Russia over the recent false flag attack in Syria on April 4.
In 2014, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev discussed the idea of banning Western airlines access to Russian airspace.
Flight logs tracked on the website FlightAware show that the flight from San Francisco was diverted at 7:32 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.
The flight, which normally takes less than 13 hours, was delayed nearly three hours. It left San Francisco’s airport at 2:10 p.m. local time on Tuesday and arrived in Shanghai at 8:22 p.m. local time.
A spokesman for United Airlines confirmed to The Daily Caller that the flight was re-routed and that because the airplane “required a longer route,” it was forced to refuel.
The spokesman declined to comment on whether diplomatic concerns were at play. He said that United is in communication with air traffic control, including the Federal Aviation Administration, to determine the reason for the diversion.
A spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration sent this statement after publication:
“A U.S. flight was routed around Russian airspace Tuesday. These kinds of reroutes are routine and most often occur when there are issues with the paperwork that is filed to obtain clearances to access that airspace.”
(Natural News) Media giant Google now thinks it is large enough to decide which news reports are valid and which are not, so it is implementing “fact-checking labels” to tell readers whether news is “true or false,” The Guardian reports.
Here’s how it will work: When a user searches a political subject or phrase, the returns will focus on news and information that has supposedly been vetted and determined to be true or false, as part of Google’s post-election effort to stop the spread of fake news.
“The fact-checking feature, which was first introduced to Google News in the UK and U.S. in October, will now be displayed as an information box in general search results as well as news search results globally,” The Guardian reported.
And just who is Google depending on to ‘fact-check’ news reports? Only some of the most Left-wing organizations known to the media business – organizations that have a demonstrable, chronic anti-liberty, anti-constitutional, anti-conservative bias and who are very often wrong because of their political ideology. (RELATED: Facebook’s “Fake News” Crackdown Is A Deliberate Attempt To Destroy The Independent Media)
As reported by Breitbart News’ Warner Todd Huston, those “left-of-center gatekeepers” of news honesty include Snopes.com, Politifact, ABC News and The Associated Press. All this really amounts to is the latest effort by media liberals to once again gain control over the daily news narrative – telling Americans what they want them to hear and how they ought to think about and respond to the narrative.
Facebook is jumping on the “fake news” bandwagon too, for that matter, partnering with many of the same organizations as Google. In December, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, a huge supporter of twice-vanquished Hillary Clinton, posted on his account an explanation of why his company is taking its action.
“We’re a new kind of platform for public discourse — and that means we have a new kind of responsibility to enable people to have the most meaningful conversations, and to build a space where people can be informed,” he wrote.
In a word, bull. “A new kind of responsibility” is nothing more than a euphemism for implementing old-fashioned censorship, in this case of the alternative media that played such an important role in revealing bombshell after bombshell during last year’s election cycle, and then serving as a platform for that news to spread.
“This is a disaster for news coverage,” wrote the Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro. “It’s an attempt to restore gatekeepers who have a bias as the ultimate arbiters of truth. If these organizations begin questioning articles and penalizing outlets for simple political disagreements rather than outright factual falsities, conservatives will have to go elsewhere for their news.”
And that’s precisely what is about to happen: Certain political viewpoints and reporting will be censored via labeling as “fake news” or “false,” even when they’re not. As for those “fact checkers?” Let’s examine them:
— As noted by The Federalist, when ‘fact-checking’ Republican and Democratic figures, the latter fared much better:
When fact-checked by PolitiFact, Democrats had an average rating of 1.8, which is between “Mostly True” and “Half True.” The average Republican rating was 2.6, which is between “Half-True” and “Mostly False.” We also checked Republicans without President-elect Donald Trump in the mix and found that 0.8 truth gap narrowed to 0.5.
Bias? Of course.
— Then there are the outright fabrications. As reported by TruthWiki, Snopes was founded and, for the longest time, operated by a married couple who had no particular training, education or experience investigating news reporting:
David and Barbara Mikkelson, husband and wife from San Fernando Valley, started their “neutral” blog of shoddy, liberal-bent research over a decade ago, posting time and time again their “final factual words” that aren’t really facts at all. Snopes repeatedly explains away criticisms towards liberal politicians and other leftist public figures while character assassinating conservatives.
— ABC News and The Associated Press fare only slightly better, but both carry the same Left-wing bias in their reporting.
The point is, Facebook and Google are not out to rid their feeds of so-called “fake news.” They are out to rid their feeds of reporting and political opinion which does not fit their liberal worldview, and in doing so impugning the reporters and editors of those news organizations, period. (RELATED: Beyond Fake News… How Google Just Became FAKE SEARCH By Blacklisting Independent Journalism)
This has nothing to do with “true or false” and everything to do with blatant censorship.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.
Columnist and author sounds off president’s decision to strike Syria, a departure from campaign promises that has baffled some supporters. Plus. her upcoming speech at Berkeley
Mike Papantonio discusses the reasons why the marijuana legalization effort failed in Arizona and speaks with Justin Strekal, Political Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, about what pharmaceutical companies have to gain from keeping marijuana illegal.
The chemical incident in Idlib province blamed on Damascus was a “100 percent fabrication” as the Syrian military has already dismantled chemical weapons stockpiles, President Bashar Assad told AFP.
READ MORE: https://on.rt.com/88s4