Bev Conover, editor and publisher of Intrepid Report, just posted an important op-ed (in preparation for Obama’s war speech tomorrow) which dismantles the alleged moral arguments for war and provides a list of more likely reasons and the various groups who would benefit. Among the usual suspects:
- Western Central Banks
- Weapons Contractors
- Energy Corporations
- Geopolitical Allies Saudi Arabia and Israel
- Powerful Elites
Via: Intrepid Report:
Then there is the matter of the red line, which Obama claimed, during last week’s visit to Sweden, “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when government’s representing 98 percent of the world’s populations said the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent.” But he said last year, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized, That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” It’s hard keeping the lies straight, isn’t it?
Yes, the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent. The US should know as it’s used them eight times and, while not chemical weapons, used munitions coated with toxic depleted uranium Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. (See 10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn’t Want You to Talk About)
So what are all the lies about the need for illegally attacking Syria, possibly setting the whole Middle East aflame or even starting World War III (or IV, depending on how you count) about? It’s about the elephants in the room they don’t want you to see.
Who are the elephants? One elephant is the Western banksters who profit from every war, regardless of whether it’s a win, lose or draw. The banksters make money from the loans they give to armament manufacturers and contractors who sell the necessary support supplies to the military. The banksters also have to make sure the US dollar stay as the world’s reserve currency.
– See more at: http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/10770#sthash.4o6514Xe.dpuf
Then there is the matter of the red line, which Obama claimed, during last week’s visit to Sweden, “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when government’s representing 98 percent of the world’s populations said the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent.” But he said last year, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized, That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” It’s hard keeping the lies straight, isn’t it?
Yes, the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent. The US should know as it’s used them eight times and, while not chemical weapons, used munitions coated with toxic depleted uranium Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. (See 10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn’t Want You to Talk About) So what are all the lies about the need for illegally attacking Syria, possibly setting the whole Middle East aflame or even starting World War III (or IV, depending on how you count) about? It’s about the elephants in the room they don’t want you to see.
Who are the elephants? One elephant is the Western banksters who profit from every war, regardless of whether it’s a win, lose or draw. The banksters make money from the loans they give to armament manufacturers and contractors who sell the necessary support supplies to the military. The banksters also have to make sure the US dollar stay as the world’s reserve currency.
Read the complete op-ed here: http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/10770
If a U.S. attack on Syria is supposed to be a response for Assad gassing his own people on 8/21 as claimed, then why were U.S. and allied warships placed off the Syrian coast before that date? Michel Chossudovsky provides analysis and commentary on the pattern and timeline of weapons transports at Global Research:
If the chemical weapons attack is a justification for intervening, why was the order to launch an R2P “humanitarian” naval operation against Syria decided upon “Prior” to August 21? Was there advanced knowledge or intelligence regarding the timing and occurrence of the 21 August Chemical Weapons attack?
…With independent news reports providing firm evidence that the US sponsored Al Qaeda rebels (recruited and trained by Allied Special Forces) have chemical weapons in their possession, this delay does not favor the president’s political credibility.
Moreover, there is evidence that the US sponsored rebels used chemical weapons against civilians. (see image right)
In providing those chemical weapons to al Qaeda “rebels”, the US-NATO-Israel alliance is in violation of international law, not to mention their own anti-terrorist legislation.
Overtly supporting Al Qaeda has become the “New Normal”.
When the various pieces of evidence are put together, the picture which emerges is that of a covert “flag flag operation” carried out by the US sponsored “rebels” and special forces, intent upon blaming president Bashar Al Assad for killing his own people. As mentioned above, the naval deployment was decided upon ex ante, before the 21 August chemical Weapons attack.
This diabolical false flag attack which consists in killing civilians and blaming the Syrian government constitutes the justification for military intervention on “humanitarian grounds”.
Read the complete report here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/massive-naval-deployment-us-and-allied-warships-deployed-to-syrian-coastline-before-the-august-21-chemical-weapons-attack/5347766
After the Crash 