It seems the press talk about who, or if chemical weapons were used in Syria, but they do not attempt to go any deeper than that. Surely most people who have the capability of thinking for themselves can see beyond the surface story? Whenever there is a war on the cards, there is an agenda, and when there is an agenda there is business.
The US government are blatantly churning out the ‘chemical weapons’ terminology, just like ten years ago – when it was ‘weapons of mass destruction’. This is repeated over and over again, along with ‘the gassing of innocent children’. Please! The US administration does not care for innocent children, they just make the mainstream media churn out the false belief that they do to fulfil their agenda.
They take a lie, usually a shocking one, which scares people, and repeat it over, and over, and over again, until they believe it, an unquestioning media believe it and an unsuspecting public believe it. Winning strategy, or is it?
Ten years ago when the US invaded Iraq on the pretence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, it came at a time when everyone was still in shock at the devastation of 9/11 and how such a terrible thing could occur in the USA, the land of opportunity and the American Dream. Many could not even comprehend that such a terrible scenario may have been plotted by the very people running the country, to push an agenda.
Much has been written about 9/11 and I for one do not doubt it was a false flag attack orchestrated by the Bush administration, with involvement from the FBI and CIA. The evidence and actions by Bush and his ‘cronies’ post 9/11 made it obvious they had something to hide. I was 20 at the time of 9/11 and a member of the unsuspecting public myself, falling for the ‘make-believe’ story of hijackers with box cutters. I remember watching CNN and feeling scared about what might happen next, no doubt absorbing all the propaganda, fear and multiple use of the various terms derived from ‘terror’.
In the last decade, people, myself included, are more frequently using the Internet and searching for alternative sources of news, researching the evidence and facts. This is why US military intervention in Syria just downright stinks so badly of an ulterior motive, agenda and business. In the days approaching the anniversary of 9/11, it is clear that many are no longer fooled.
So what is the real reason for wanting to kick Assad out of Syria – is it for use of ‘chemical weapons’? I doubt it.
This potential war is about who is ‘buddies’ with who and for what business, not for the sake of humanity, peace and to ensure children do not get gassed. Although, gas in a different context appears to be the primary reason.
Here is an excerpt from an excellent article written by Nafeez Ahmed I posted earlier this week, detailing the gas pipeline deals that Syria and Iran have in place, which favours Russia’s interests. Plus the proposed Qatari – Saudi Arabia – Turkey pipeline, which favours the US and would you believe it, Israel’s interests:
These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”
Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed by in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines. The pipeline would potentially allow Iran to supply gas to European markets.
The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be “completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.
Israel also has a direct interest in countering the Iran-brokered pipeline. In 2003, just a month after the commencement of the Iraq War, U.S. and Israeli government sources told The Guardian of plans to “build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to Israel” bypassing Syria. The basis for the plan, known as the Haifa project, goes back to a 1975 MoU signed by then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, “whereby the U.S. would guarantee Israel’s oil reserves and energy supply in times of crisis.” As late as 2007, U.S. and Israeli government officials were in discussion on costs and contingencies for the Iraq-Israel pipeline project.
All the parties intervening in Syria’s escalating conflict – the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Israel on one side providing limited support to opposition forces, with Russia, China and Iran on the other shoring up Assad’s regime – are doing so for their own narrow, competing geopolitical interests. (Source – Nafeez Ahmed)
In support of this segment, here is a video from the 2012 US Presidential Campaign, where Romney describes the ‘potential of Syria’, which ties in with Nafeez Ahmed’s description of gas pipelines. Although Romney does not actually mention any pipelines, the way he describes their allies working together basically summarises just that. This video also demonstrates the ‘one party, with two different representatives’ theory. If Romney and Obama’s agenda were different and unique to the Republican or Democratic parties, then surely they would not want the same thing? So why do they want the same agenda? Could it be because they are just spokesmen for a single party government, controlled by elite families? It is a possibility…
Secretary Kerry, President Obama and any other World leader who feels that arming the opposition in Syria is a good idea, while the rebels continue to execute and butcher soldiers and innocent Syrian civilians, need to snap out of their cold mentality and gain some empathy. If they could imagine the torture of putting their families in the firing line of such brutality, they would not even suggest it. It appears that most world leaders either lack a degree of empathy for the general population, or they and their families are threatened by others out of sight to fulfil an agenda, with failure meaning they end up dead themselves. I would not be surprised if that is the case.
So in the week that Congress votes for or against military intervention in Syria, let us be aware that this action goes far beyond ‘chemical weapons’ just like Iraq was with ‘weapons of mass destruction’.
Deals mean business, business means profit, profit means wealth to these people – that is what drives them to pursue crazy actions to succeed their agenda. If that means bloodshed, destruction and total chaos, so be it – they don’t care because they are, quite frankly, insane.
Article by Disclosed Info