Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh acknowledges building evidence that the chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged to frame President Bashar al-Assad.
On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Rush Limbaugh show, the talk show host acknowledged reports from the Associated Press that the admitted intelligence on Syria’s chemical weapons attack was “no slam dunk.”
He also announced he believes Obama may have been “complicit” in the attack and possibly helped plan it.
Limbaugh expressed doubt over allegations Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Limbaugh asked if the allegations are true, what does Assad have to gain?
On Saturday morning, the talk show host received a note from a friend who spent time in the Middle East. In the note, Limbaugh’s friend vouched for Assad, claiming there’s “nothing in it for him,” and “he’s not that kind of guy,” describing the note as “almost a personal reference for Bashar.”
Limbaugh initially dismissed the claim and filed the note away stating “everybody wants to do my job” and “everybody wants to influence what I say.”
“Anybody can write me anything and say anything, says Limbaugh. I have to be very careful.
“I just can’t accept what somebody sends me in an email and run with it. So, I ran the theory by a couple of people whose opinion on these things I respect over the years. They both said ‘Na, na, na, that’s a little crazy.’”
However, Limbaugh changed his mind when he discovered another piece making similar accusations by a journalist named Yossef Bodansky.
In the article Bodansky argues the “deception playing out in Syria is a deception similar to the one used in Sarajevo in 1995 to provoke air strikes against the Serbs for the benefit of the Bosnian Muslims.”
According to Limbaugh, “If this is true, this is the setup of all time.”
The article alleges the “US had intel involvement dating a week before the alleged chemical weapons attack in meetings that were anticipating a war changing event.”
“We could be looking at a frame job. Pretty big setup,” says Limbaugh.
“The rebels nerve gassed themselves in order to engineer a response that takes out Bashar, putting the US on the side of Al-Qaeda,” alleges Mr. Bodansky.
Limbaugh’s skepticism of the White House narrative regarding the chemical weapons attack in Syria adds him to a growing list of people who believe the attack to be a staged false flag provocation.
The talk radio icon joins a long list of credible experts including Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Rand Pauland Jerome Corsi, who see evidence the Obama administration helped staged the chemical weapons attack in Syria with Al-Qaeda to frame the Assad regime.
A Homeland Security-funded training exercise in Boston dubbed “Operation Urban Shield” that was delayed due to April’s marathon bombing revolved around a terrorist cell dubbed “Free America Citizens,” another indication of how the DHS is characterizing liberty-loving Americans as domestic extremists. The Department of Homeland Security has gone public with an admission that that exercise was planned months before the Boston Marathon bombings and that it involved backpacks being used to detonate explosives by domestic terrorists.
“Months of painstaking planning had gone into the exercise, dubbed “Operation Urban Shield,” meant to train dozens of detectives in the Greater Boston area to work together to thwart a terrorist threat. The hypothetical terrorist group was even given a name: Free America Citizens, a home-grown cadre of militiamen whose logo would be a metal skull wearing an Uncle Sam hat and a furious expression,” reports the Boston Globe.
The drill, which was funded with the aid of a $200,000 Department of Homeland Security grant and was set to involve DHS officials along with other federal authorities, centered on the scenario of domestic terrorists leaving explosive-filled backpacks at locations around the city. The exercise was due to take place this weekend but was postponed in response to the Boston bombings and is now expected to go ahead early next year.
The exercise, many details of which remain confidential, has been crafted to test the investigative skills of detectives involved who will be tasked with finding out the motivation behind the “Free America” terrorists.
The drill was planned before the Boston bombings and officials from a dozen agencies have been meeting for months to plan the scenario. The exercise bore “eerie similarities” to the real attack in that police were tasked with identifying terrorists from street surveillance camera footage.
In this case, Homeland Security’s Urban Shield drill in Boston was scheduled to take place after the bombing. However, it follows numerous Boston Urban Shield exercises and semi-annual multi-agency drills that take place every year in Boston on Patriot’s Day (when the Marathon is typically held) and July 4th.
“Today thousands of runners and hundreds of thousands of spectators are unwittingly taking part in a planned disaster …“Massachusetts is better prepared for a real disaster because every Patriot’s Day and Fourth of July is treated as a ‘disaster.’”
Over the course of the last five years, the DHS has been criticized for its involvement in numerous training exercises and the production of material which demonizes conservatives and libertarians as domestic extremists, putting them in the same league as violent terrorists.
In March, Arkansas State Fusion Center Director Richard Davis admitted that the federal agency spies on Americans deemed to be “anti-government,” noting that the DHS concentrates on, “domestic terrorism and certain groups that are anti-government. We want to kind of take a look at that and receive that information,” so-called threats which included people, “putting political stickers in public bathrooms or participating in movements against the death penalty.”
Last year, a DHS-funded study produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.
The DHS also stoked controversy in 2011 when it released a series of videos to promote the See Something, Say Something campaign in which almost all of the terrorists portrayed in the PSAs were white Americans.
A DHS-funded exercise in Seattle last month portrayed “angry” parents who homeschooled their children as terrorists.
The 2009 MIAC report, published by the Missouri Information Analysis Center and first revealed by Infowars, also framed Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag, as potential terrorists.
APRIL 25, 2013 – FBI & CIA now admit to putting Boston bombing suspect on 2 “watch lists,” directly contradicting previous public statements. CIA most likely sponsored suspect’s trips to meet US-backed terrorists in Chechnya, Russia. It is now confirmed that Russian investigators contacted the FBI at least as early as 2011 in regards to Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and … Continue reading »
APRIL 25, 2013 – As details about the latest intelligence from the Russian’s emerge it is now clear that Tamerlan was in direct contact with a man known as Russia’s Bin Laden, whose operations are still being funded by the United States despite being officially being designated by the UN as an Al Qaeda associated organization. New intelligence reports … Continue reading »
APRIL 21, 2013 – After days of speculation and calls for officials to provide an explanation, it has emerged that the unidentified military style group pictured at the scene of the Boston bombing both before and after the explosions could be National Guard Civil Support Teams (CSTs) that were pre-scheduled to be at the event. CSTs are The National Guard’s full-time … Continue reading »
Amputee Actors and Navy SEALs Spotted at Boston Marathon
Savvy Internet sleuths have found images taken from surveillance cameras of members of the crowd gathered at the Boston Marathon that appear to identify Navy SEALs wearing suspicious backpacks, and appear to be taking part in a drill. We know there are amputee actors who help soldiers prepare for war, were they used in Boston? Continue reading »
APRIL 15, 2013 – An eyewitness to the two explosions at the Boston Marathon today said that a “drill” was repeatedly announced before the bombs exploded and that he “thought it was odd” bomb sniffing dogs were in place before the blast. Click here for video. University of Mobile’s Cross Country Coach Ali Stevenson told Local 15 News, “They kept … Continue reading »
MAY 25, 2013 – Have you ever wondered how the government’s misinformation gains traction? The answer is simple: disinformation works because “…only conspiracy kooks produce real evidence.” Therefore it become easy to dismiss the truth. Moreover, when a public and the commentators who inform it accept the collapse of the Constitution’s authority and the demise of their civil liberties, to complain about the IRS is pointless. Continue reading»
The White House is declining to say when President Barack Obama first learned of three e-mails that the State Department sent to the White House on Sept. 11, 2012, directly notifying the Executive Office of the President that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under attack, that U.S. Amb. Chris Stevens was at the Benghazi mission at the time of the attack, and that the group Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit for the attack.
Whie House: ‘We Decline to Comment’ on When Obama Learned of E-Mails, Met With NSC on Benghazi
The White House also declined to say when the president first met with the National Security Council after the Benghazi attack. Carney downplayed the significance of the State Department emails.
“There were emails about all sorts of information that was becoming available in the aftermath of the attack,” Carney said. “The email you’re referring to was an open-source, unclassified email referring to an assertion made on a social media site that everyone in this room had access to and knew about instantaneously. There was a variety of information coming in.
Bumps in the road: The President said the killing of ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya was some of the ‘bumps in the road’ along the ‘rocky path’ to Middle Eastern peace.
According to Democrats, today’s Congressional hearings on Benghazi are nothing but a partisan witch hunt.
According to Republicans, the Obama administration committed treason in it’s handling of Benghazi … and then tried to cover it up.
Both parties are avoiding the bigger picture … The fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have been using Benghazi as the center of U.S. efforts to arm the Al Qaeda-affiliated Syrian rebels.
According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:
The Hindustan Times reported in 2011:
“There is no question that al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition,” Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and a leading expert on terrorism, told Hindustan Times.
It has always been Qaddafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi.
(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion. But NATO planesstopped him, and protected Benghazi.)
In 2011, Ambassador Stevens was appointed to be the Obama administration’s liaison with the “budding Libyan opposition,” according to ABC News. Stevens and the State Department worked directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Belhadj has direct connections to al-Qaeda.
CNN, the Telegraph, the Washington Times, and many other mainstream sources confirm that Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya have since flooded into Syria to fight the Assad regime.
Mainstream sources also confirm that the Syrian opposition is largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists. (Indeed, the New York Times reported last week that virtually all of the rebel fighters are Al Qaeda terrorists.)
Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status. There was a small staff of actual State Department information officers plus local translators. The much larger CIA base was located in a separate building a mile away. It was protected by a not completely reliable local militia. Base management would have no say in the movement of the ambassador and would not be party to his plans, nor would it clear its own operations with the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. In Benghazi, the CIA’s operating directive would have been focused on two objectives: monitoring the local al-Qaeda affiliate group, Ansar al-Sharia, and tracking down weapons liberated from Colonel Gaddafi’s arsenal. Staff consisted of CIA paramilitaries who were working in cooperation with the local militia. The ambassador would not be privy to operational details and would only know in general what the agency was up to. When the ambassador’s party was attacked, the paramilitaries at the CIA base came to the rescue before being driven back into their own compound, where two officers were subsequently killed in a mortar attack.
Retired Lt. General William Boykin said in January that Stevens was in Benghazi as part of an effort to arm the Syrian opposition:
More supposition was that he was now funneling guns to the rebel forces in Syria, using essentially the Turks to facilitate that. Was that occurring, (a), and if so, was it a legal covert action?
Boykin said Stevens was “given a directive to support the Syrian rebels” and the State Department’s Special Mission Compound in Benghazi “would be the hub of that activity.”
Business Insider reports that Stevens may have been linked with Syrian terrorists:
There’s growing evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.
In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life.
In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.
Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.
***
Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot downSyrian helicopters and fighter jets.
The ship’s captain was “a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.
That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.
Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them “Libyans” when he explained that the FSA doesn’t “want these extremist people here.”
And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.
Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as “a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died.”
And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out the heavy weapons from Libya.
In other words, ambassador Stevens may have been a key player in deploying Libyan terrorists and arms to fight the Syrian government.
Other sources also claim that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used as a CIA operation to ship fighters and arms to Syria.
Many have speculated that – if normal security measures weren’t taken to protect the Benghazi consulate or to rescue ambassador Stevens – it was because the CIA was trying to keep an extremely low profile to protect its cover of being a normal State Department operation.
That is what I think really happened at Benghazi.
Was CIA Chief David Petraeus’ Firing Due to Benghazi?
CIA boss David Petraeus suddenly resigned, admitting to an affair. But Petraeus was scheduled to testify under oath the next week before power House and Senate committees regarding the Benghazi consulate. Many speculate that it wasn’t an affair – but the desire to avoid testifying on Benghazi – which was the real reason for Petraeus’ sudden resignation. (A self-described Pentagon whistleblower contacted us to confirm this theory.)
The Big Picture
Whatever the scope of the CIA’s operation in Benghazi – and whatever the real reason for the resignation of the CIA chief – the key is our historical and ongoing foreign policy.
The U.S. government has been consistently planning regime change in Syria, Libya and Iran for 20 years, and dreamed of regime change – using false flag terror – for 50 years.
And the Obama administration has probably supported even more terrorists – in Libya, Syria and elsewhere – than Bush. See this, this, this, this and this.
In other words, both GOP and Dem politicians are supporting instability and war, based upon false pretenses and pro-war media coverage … just like Iraq.
The reasoning behind recent US-Israeli attacks on Syria has been undermined further as the UN reveals Western-backed terrorists, not the Syrian government, deployed sarin gas during the 2 year conflict. Reuters reported in their article, “U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator,” that:
U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.
The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.
“Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,” Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.
Why the Small Amounts of Sarin Cited by Washington, Riyadh, and Tel Aviv are a Set Up
The small amounts of sarin gas reportedly used would defy any tactical or strategic sense had they been deployed by the Syrian government to tip the balance in the destructive 2-year conflict. According to the US military’s own assessments of chemical weapon use during the 1980′s Iran-Iraq War, only under ideal conditions and with massive amounts of chemical agents can tactical and strategic outcomes be achieved – and that conventional weapons were still, by far, superior to chemical weapons of any kind.
A document produced by the US Marine Corps, titled, “Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War” under “Appendix B: Chemical Weapons,” provides a comprehensive look at the all-out chemical warfare that took place during the devastating 8 year Iranian-Iraqi conflict. Several engagements are studied in detail, revealing large amounts of chemical agents deployed mainly to create areas of denial, not mass casualties.
The effectiveness and lethality of chemical weapons is summarized in the document as follows (emphasis added):
Chemical weapons require quite particular weather and geographic conditions for optimum effectiveness. Given the relative nonpersistence of all agents employed during this war, including mustard, there was only a brief window of employment opportunity both daily and seasonally, when the agents could be used. Even though the Iraqis employed mustard agent in the rainy season and also in the marshes, its effectiveness was significantly reduced under those conditions. As the Iraqis learned to their chagrin, mustard is not a good agent to employ in the mountains, unless you own the high ground and your enemy is in the valleys.
We are uncertain as to the relative effectiveness of nerve agents since those which were employed are by nature much less persistent than mustard. In order to gain killing concentrations of these agents, predawn attacks are best, conducted in areas where the morning breezes are likely to blow away from friendly positions.
Chemical weapons have a low kill ratio. Just as in WWl, during which the ratio of deaths to injured from chemicals was 2-3 percent, that figure appears to be borne out again in this war although reliable data on casualties are very difficult to obtain. We deem it remarkable that the death rate should hold at such a low level even with the introduction of nerve agents. If those rates are correct, as they well may be, this further reinforces the position that we must not think of chemical weapons as “a poor man’s nuclear weapon.” While such weapons have great psychological potential, they are not killers or destroyers on a scale with nuclear or biological weapons.
Clearly, the minute amounts of sarin the West has accused the Syrian government of using, makes no tactical, political, or strategic sense. However, these small amounts of sarin gas, now suspected to be the work of Western-backed terrorists, would have been perfect for establishing a pretext for Western military intervention, and in fact, have been in part cited by the US and Israel in their latest, unprovoked aerial assault on Damascus.
The terrorists operating in Syria possess the means and motivation to carry out such an operation, as do their Western sponsors.
Where Did Western-backed Terrorists Obtain Sarin?
A number of methods could have lent sarin gas to terrorists operating in Syria – from Turkey, Israel, and the US simply handing select units the chemical agent in a clandestine operation, to Libyan terrorists confirmed to have been flooding into Syria for the past 2 years, bringing looted chemical stockpiles with them after NATO’s disastrous invasion in 2011 left them in the hands of a sectarian extremist regime.
Indeed, Libya’s arsenal had fallen into the hands of sectarian extremists with NATO assistance in 2011 in the culmination of efforts to overthrow the North African nation . Since then, Libya’s militants led by commanders ofAl Qaeda’s Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) have armed sectarian extremists across the Arab World, fromas far West as Mali, to as far East as Syria.
Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, “met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey,” said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. “Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there.”
Syrian rebels held secret talks with Libya’s new authorities on Friday, aiming to secure weapons and money for their insurgency against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
At the meeting, which was held in Istanbul and included Turkish officials, the Syrians requested “assistance” from the Libyan representatives and were offered arms, and potentially volunteers.
“There is something being planned to send weapons and even Libyan fighters to Syria,” said a Libyan source, speaking on condition of anonymity. “There is a military intervention on the way. Within a few weeks you will see.”
Some Syrians are more frank about the assistance the Libyans are providing. “They have heavier weapons than we do,” notes Firas Tamim, who has traveled in rebel-controlled areas to keep tabs on foreign fighters. “They brought these weapons to Syria, and they are being used on the front lines.” Among the arms Tamim has seen are Russian-made surface-to-air missiles, known as the SAM 7.
Libyan fighters largely brush off questions about weapon transfers, but in December they claimed they were doing just that. “We are in the process of collecting arms in Libya,” a Libyan fighter in Syria told the French dailyLe Figaro. “Once this is done, we will have to find a way to bring them here.”
Clearly NATO intervention in Libya has left a vast, devastating arsenal in the hands of sectarian extremists, led by US State Department, United Nations, and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf)-listed terrorist organization LIFG that is now exporting these weapons and militants to NATO’s other front in Syria. It is confirmed that both Libyan terrorists and weapons are crossing the Turkish-Syrian border, with NATO assistance, and it is now clear that heavy weapons, including anti-aircraft weapons have crossed the border too.
Libya’s stockpiles of mustard gas and chemicals used to make weapons are intact and were not stolen during the uprising that toppled Muammar Gaddafi, weapons inspectors have said.
But also reported that:
The abandonment or disappearance of some Gaddafi-era weapons has prompted concerns that such firepower could erode regional security if it falls into the hands of Islamist militants or rebels active in north Africa. Some fear they could be used by Gaddafi loyalists to spread instability in Libya.
Last month Human Rights Watch urged Libya’s ruling national transitional council to take action over large numbers of heavy weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, it said were lying unguarded more than two months after Gaddafi was overthrown.On Wednesday the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said the UN would send experts to Libya to help ensure nuclear material and chemical weapons did not fall into the wrong hands.
And while inspectors claim that Libya’s chemical weapons are in the “government’s” hands and not “extremists’,” it is clear by the Libyan government’s own admission, that they themselves are involved in sending fighters and weapons into Syria to support NATO and Al Qaeda’s joint operation there.
The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday.
The training, which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.
NATO not only ensured that chemical weapons in Libya remained in the hands of a proxy regime now openly arming, aiding, and sending fighters to assist terrorists in Syria, but also appears to have ensured these terrorists possessed the know-how on handling and using these weapons.
Israel vs. Hezbollah – Lie of Last Resort
It appears that once again, those truly responsible for the most egregious atrocities and the crossing of “red lines,” are the very Western interests drawing these lines in the first place.
The decision to shift attention away from the chemical weapons “red line,” and toward Israel and Hezbollah is a desperate ploy to extend the faltering viability of the West’s current operations in Syria.
While Israel, with the help of the Western media, attempts to portray itself as reluctantly entering a war it has so far avoided, it has been documented since as early as 2007 that Israel, along with the US and Saudi Arabia were openly conspiring to overthrow the Syrian government via armed and funded Al Qaeda terrorists and an unprecedented sectarian bloodbath.
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 New Yorker article, “The Redirection,” stated (emphasis added):
“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”
Of Israel and Saudi Arabia’s partnership it specifically stated:
“The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations.”
Additionally, Saudi Arabian officials mentioned the careful balancing act their nation must play in order to conceal its role in supporting US-Israeli ambitions across the region. It was stated even then, that using Israel to publicly carry out attacks on Iran would be preferable to the US, which would ultimately implicate the Saudis. It was stated:
“The Saudi said that, in his country’s view, it was taking a political risk by joining the U.S. in challenging Iran: Bandar is already seen in the Arab world as being too close to the Bush Administration. “We have two nightmares,” the former diplomat told me. “For Iran to acquire the bomb and for the United States to attack Iran. I’d rather the Israelis bomb the Iranians, so we can blame them. If America does it, we will be blamed.””
This ploy was further developed in 2009 by the Fortune 500-funded (page 19) Brookings Institution in their document, “Which Path to Persia?” In regards to Iran, and now clearly being utilized against Syria, the gambit was described as follows (emphasis added):
“…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) ” –page 84-85, Which Path to Perisa?, Brookings Institution.
And:
“Israel appears to have done extensive planning and practice for such a strike already, and its aircraft are probably already based as close to Iran as possible. as such, Israel might be able to launch the strike in a matter of weeks or even days, depending on what weather and intelligence conditions it felt it needed. Moreover, since Israel would have much less of a need (or even interest) in securing regional support for the operation, Jerusalem probably would feel less motivated to wait for an Iranian provocation before attacking. In short, Israel could move very fast to implement this option if both Israeli and American leaders wanted it to happen.
However, as noted in the previous chapter, the airstrikes themselves are really just the start of this policy. Again, the Iranians would doubtless rebuild their nuclear sites. They would probably retaliate against Israel, and they might retaliate against the United States, too (which might create a pretext for American airstrikes or even an invasion).” –page 91, Which Path to Perisa?, Brookings Institution.
It is unlikely the West possesses the political, economic, or even tactical ability to pursue a greater regional war against Syria and Iran. The aim of using Israel against Syria is to alleviate pressure on Western-backed terrorists, create tension and opposition within the Syrian government and military, and perhaps even crack “fortress Damascus” ahead of one final push by whatever remains of the so-called “opposition.”
“In addition, Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly.” –page 6, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Clearly, Israel has been involved in Western designs against Syria from the beginning. Its role has been intentionally kept subtle until now, specifically to exercise options of last resort. It is now up to Syria and its allies to ensure they both survive increasingly provocative assaults by the West, while both winning the political battle abroad and sweeping away the remnants of the West’s terrorist proxies at home.
China has just made several moves against the U.S. dollar, and currency wars with the U.S. have a way of turning into real wars. The Federal Reserve is a private entity is owned by a conglomerate of the most powerful banks in the world, and the men who control those banks are the ones who pull the strings. To them this a game, and false-flag deception is a tool in this art of war. Your life and the lives of those you love are just pawns on their chessboard.
Who is this Patrick Clawson clown to openly promotes starting wars by way of false-flag deception? Read more hereand here.
China has just made several moves against the U.S. dollar, and currency wars with the U.S. have a way of turning into real wars.
“…despite America’s continuing financial crisis, the Pentagon is effectively considering trading two military quagmires for the possibility of a third. Reducing its commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan as it refocuses on Asia, Washington is not so much withdrawing forces from the Persian Gulf as it is redeploying them for a prospective war with its largest creditor, China.” ~SalonThe Pentagon’s new China war plan
Why did United States attack Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan… Yemen? Why are U.S. covert operatives helping destabilize Syria? And why is the United States government so intent on taking down Iran in spite of the fact that Iran has not attacked any country since 1798?
When you look at the trajectory that we are on it doesn’t make sense at all if you evaluate it based on what we are taught in school. In fact it doesn’t even make sense according to what is being presented by many in the alternative media. But it makes perfect sense once you know the real motives of the powers that be,
In order to understand those motives we first have to look at history…
In 1945 the Bretton Woods agreement established the dollar as world reserve currency which meant that international commodities were priced in dollars. The agreement which gave the United States a distinct financial advantage was made under the condition that those dollars would remain redeemable for gold at a consistent rate of $35 dollars per ounce. The United States promised not print much money, but this was on the honor system, because the Federal Reserve refused to allow any audits or supervision of its printing presses.
In the years leading up to 1970 expenditures in the Vietnam war made it clear to many countries that the U.S. was printing far more money than it had in gold, and in response they began to ask for their gold back. This set off a rapid decline in the value of the dollar.
The situation climaxed in 1971 when France attempted to withdraw its gold and Nixon refused. On August 15th he made the following announcement:
This was obviously not a temporary suspension as he claimed, but rather a permanent default and to put it bluntly it was theft.
In 1973 President Nixon asked King Faisal of Saudi Arabia to accept only US dollars as payment for oil and to invest any excess profits in US Treasury bonds, notes, and bills. In return Nixon offered military protection for Saudi oil fields. The same offer was extended to each of the world’s key oil producing countries, and by 1975 every member of OPEC had agreed to only sell oil in U.S. dollars.
The act of moving the dollar off of gold and tying it to foreign oil instantly forced every oil importing country in the world to start maintaining a constant supply of Federal Reserve paper, and to get that paper they would have to send real, physical goods to America.
This was the birth of the Petrodollar, Paper dollars went out, everything America needed came in and the United States got very, very rich as a result. It was largest financial con in recorded history.
Through 70s and the 80s the U.S. used the financial power gained by the petrodollar arrangement to build the most powerful military in the world,
and when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the United States was left with no rival.
Many hoped that at this point the U.S would start to reduce its military presence across the world, and that a new era of peace and stability would follow…
Unfortunately there were those in high places which had other ideas
Within that same year the U.S. invaded Iraq in the first Gulf war, and after crushing the Iraqi military and destroying their infrastructure, crippling sanctions were established which prevented that infrastructure from being rebuilt. These sanctions which were initiated by Bush senior and sustained throughout the entire Clinton administration lasted over a decade and were estimated to have killed over 500,000 children. The Clinton administration was fully aware of these figures.
Mrs. Albright what exactly was it that was worth killing 500,000 kids for?
In a final act of resistance Iraq began selling it’s oil exclusively in Euros November of 2000.
This was a direct attack on the dollar and on U.S. financial dominance, and it wasn’t going to be tolerated.
In response the U.S. government, with the assistance of the main stream media began to build up a massive propaganda campaign claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was planning to use them. In 2003 the U.S. invaded, and once they had control of the country oil sales were immediately switched back to dollars.
This is particularly notable due to the fact that switching back to the dollar meant a 15 – 20% loss in revenue due to the euro’s higher value. It doesn’t make sense at all unless you take the petrodollar into account.
General General Wesley Clark: March 2, 2007
This interview was filmed in 2007 and yet almost all of what General Clark described has come to pass.
In Libya Gahaffi was in the process of organizing a block of African countries to create a gold based currency called the Dynar which they intended to use to replace the dollar in that region. U.S. and NATO forces helped destabilize and topple the Libyan government in 2011 and after taking control of the region U.S. armed Rebels executed Gaddafi in cold blood and immediately set up the Libyan central bank.
Iran has been actively campaigning to pull oil sales off of the dollar for some time now and has recently secured agreements to begin trading its oil in exchange for gold; In response the U.S. government with mainstream media assistance has been attempting to build international support for military strikes on the pretext of preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon. In the meantime they established sanctions which U.S. officials openly admit are aimed at causing a collapse of the Iranian economy.
Syria is Iran’s closest ally, and they are bound by mutual defense agreements. The country is currently in the process of being destabilized with covert assistance from NATO, and though Russia and China have warned the United States not to get involved, the white house has made statements within the past month indicating that they are considering military intervention.
It should be clear that military intervention in Syria and Iran isn’t being considered, it’s a foregone conclusion, just as it was in Iraq and Libya. The U.S. is actively working to create the context which gives them the diplomatic cover do what they already have planned.
The motive for these invasions becomes clear when we look at them in their full context and connect the dots.
Those who control United States understand that if even a few countries begin to sell their oil in another currency it will set off a chain reaction, and the dollar will collapse.
They understand that there is absolutely nothing else holding up the value of the dollar at this point, and so does the rest of the world.
Rather than accepting the fact that the dollar is nearing the end of its lifespan, the powers that be have made a calculated gambit.
They have decided to use the U.S. military crush each and every resistant state in the middle east and Africa.
That in itself would be bad enough, but what you need to understand is that this is not going to end with Syria, Iran and Yemen.
China and Russia have stated publicly and in no uncertain terms that they will not tolerate an attack on Iran or Syria.
Iran is one of their key allies, and they understand that if Iran falls
then they will have no way to escape the dollar without going to war.
And yet the U.S. is pushing forward in spite of the warnings.
What we are witnessing here is a trajectory that leads straight to the unthinkable.
It is a trajectory that was mapped out years ago in full awareness of the human consequences.
But who was it that set us on this course? What kind of psychopath is willing to intentionally set off a global conflict that will lead to millions of deaths just to protect the value of a paper currency?
It obviously isn’t the president. The decision to invade Libya, Syria and Iran was made long before Obama had risen to the national spotlight, and yet he is carrying out his duty just like the puppets that preceded him.
So who is pulling the strings?
Often the best answer to questions like this are found by asking another question: Qui Bono? Who benefits?
Obviously those who have the power to print the dollar out of thin air have the most to loose if the dollar were to fall and since 1913 that power has been held by the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve is a private entity is owned by a conglomerate of the most powerful banks in the world, and the men who control those banks are the ones who pull the strings.
To them this a game. Your life and the lives of those you love are just pawns on their chessboard.
At like a spoiled 4 year old who tips the board onto the floor when they start to lose the powers that be are willing to start world war three to keep control of the global financial system.
Remember that as these wars extend and accelerate. Remember that when your son or your neighbors son comes back home in a flag draped coffin. Remember that when they point the finger at the new boogie man. Because the madmen who are running this show will take this as far as you allow
What are our chances? Can we change course?… also the wrong question.
The odds don’t matter anymore. If you understand what we are facing then you have a moral responsibility to do everything in our power alter the course we are on regardless of the odds. It’s only when you stop basing your involvement on the chances of success that success actually becomes possible.
To strip the ill begotten power from the financial elites and to bring these criminal cartels to justice will require nothing less than a revolution. The government is not going to save us. The government is completely infiltrated and corrupt to the core. Looking to them for a solution at this point is utterly naive.
There are 3 stages of revolution, and they are sequential. Stage one is already underway.
Stage one is the ideological resistance. In this stage we have to actively work to wake up as many people as possible about what is happening and the direction we are headed. All revolutions originate from a shift in the mindset of the population, and no other meaningful resistance is possible without it. Success in this stage of a revolution can be measured by the contagion of ideas. When an idea reaches critical mass it begins to spread on its own and seeps into all levels of society. In order to achieve that contagion we need more people in this fight. We need more people speaking out, making videos, writing articles, getting this information onto the national and international stage, and we especially need to reach the police and military.
Stage two is civil disobedience, also known as non-violent resistance. In this stage you put your money where your mouth is, or more accurately you withhold your money and your obedience from government, and do everything in your power to bring the gears of the state to a halt. Practiced in mass this method alone is often enough to bring a regime to its knees. However if you fail at this stage, stage 3 is inevitable.
Stage 3 is direct physical resistance. Direct physical resistance is the last resort and it should be avoided and delayed as long as possible, and should only be invoked once all other options have been thoroughly exhausted
There are those talk tough and claim that they will resist when the time comes, but what those people fail to realize is that if you are inactive during the first two stages and save your efforts for violent resistance then you will fail. When the Nazis were moving door to door dragging people out of their homes in Germany that was the time to fight back physically, but due to the lack of ideological resistance and civil disobedience leading up to that moment even an armed uprising would have likely failed at that point. An armed uprising can only succeed if the people have established an attitude of active resistance, and active resistance is only possible after their minds have broken free from main stream propaganda.
If you want to fight back it’s now or never. You’re not gonna get another chance, and the stakes are much higher than they were in Nazi Germany.
Evidence is mounting that the accused dead Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev became a “radicalized” Muslim while participating in a covert CIA program, run through the Republic of Georgia, to destabilize Russia’s North Caucasus region. The ultimate goal of the CIA’s campaign was for the Muslim inhabitants of the region to declare independence from Moscow and tilt toward the U.S. Wahhabi Muslim-run governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
What does U.S. ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul know about Tamerlan Tsarneav’s activities in Russia’s North Caucasus?
Russia’s Izvestia is reporting that Tsarnaev attended seminars run by the Caucasus Fund of Georgia, a group affiliated with the neo-conservative think tank, the Jamestown Foundation, between January and July 2012. The U.S. media has been reporting that during this six month time frame Tsarnaev was being radicalized by Dagestan radical imam “Abu Dudzhan,” killed in a fight with Russian security last year. However, in documents leaked by the Georgian Ministry of Internal Affairs’s Counterintelligence Department, Tsarnaev is pinpointed as being in Tbilisi taking part in “seminars” organized by the Caucasus Fund, founded during the Georgian-South Ossetian war of 2008, a war started when Georgian troops invaded the pro-Russian Republic of South Ossetia during the Beijing Olympics. Georgia was supported by the United States and Israel, including U.S. Special Forces advisers. The Georgian intelligence documents indicate Tsarnaev attended the Jamestown seminars in Tbilisi.
Tsarnaev also visited Dagestan in 2011. On December 16, 2011, WMR reported on the CIA’s and George Soros’s operations in Georgia that funded the Caucasus Fund, the Jamestown Foundation, and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) activities. It should also be noted that Tsarnaev’s Maryland-based uncle, Ruslan Tsarni (name changed from Tsarnaev) was also contracted to USAID.
“The money from USAID for Russian dissidents is being funneled through the Georgian Ministry of Education. The Georgian Minister of Education Dmitry Shashkin also attended the Tbilisi ceremony (a World AIDS Day ceremony also attended by U.S. ambassador to Georgia John Bass and Georgia First Lady Sandra Roloefs, the Dutch wife of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili), which provided cover for the covert aid program to the Russian dissidents. USAID money was used to fund scholarships in Georgia for exiled Chechen “students” who were being trained as CIA agenst to interface with Chechen guerrilla forces and the Caucasus Emirate terrorists of Doku Umarov.
Georgia has become the nexus for the U.S. aid to the Russian opposition trying to unseat Putin. In March [2010], Georgia sponsored, with CIA, Soros, and MI-6 funds, a conference titled ‘Hidden Nations, Enduring Crimes: The Circassians and the People of the North Caucasus Between Past and Future.’ Georgia and its CIA, Soros, and British intelligence allies are funneling cash and other support for secessionism by ethnic minorities in Russia, including Circassians, Chechens, Ingushetians, Balkars, Kabardins, Abaza, Tatars, Talysh, and Kumyks.”
Note: the Talysh and Kumyks live primarily in Dagestan.
The conference, held on March 21, 2010, was organized by the Jamestown Foundation and the International School of Caucasus Studies at Ilia State University in Georgia. If Georgian counter-intelligence documents had Tamerlan Tsarnaev attending Jamestown conferences in Tbilisi in 2011, could the Russian FSB have tracked him to the Jamestown Hidden Nations seminar in March 2010? In any event, a year later the FSB decided to contact the FBI about Tsarnaev’s ties to terrorists.
The first Russian request to the FBI came via the FBI’s Legal Attache’s office at the U.S. embassy in Moscow in March 2011. It took the FBI until June of 2011 to conclude that Tamerlan posed no terrorist threat but it did add his name to the Treasury Enforcement Communications System, or TECS, which monitors financial information such as bank accounts held abroad and wire transfers. In September 2011, Russian authorities, once again, alerted the U.S. of their suspicions about Tamerlan. The second alert went to the CIA. The Russians were well aware that the Hidden Nations seminar held a year earlier was a CIA-sponsored event that was supported by the Saakashvili government in Georgia. In their second communication with Washington, the Russians were likely making the CIA aware that it was on to one of Langley’s assets.
At some point in time after the first Russian alert and either before or after the second, the CIA entered Tamerlan’s name into the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment list (TIDE), a database with more than 750,000 entries that is maintained by the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, Virginia.
On March 31, 2010, shortly after the Hidden Nations conference in Tbilisi, deadly mass casualty suicide bomb blasts in the Moscow Metro system and in Dagestan, and Georgia’s Georgia’s launching of a Russian-language TV channel targeting the north Caucasus and designed to whip up anti-Russian feelings in the volatile region, WMR reported:
“The Jamestown Foundation is a long-standing front operation for the CIA, it being founded, in part, by CIA director William Casey in 1984. The organization was used as an employer for high-ranking Soviet bloc defectors, including the Soviet Undersecretary General of the UN Arkady Shevchenko and Romanian intelligence official Ion Pacepa. The Russian FSB and the SVR foreign intelligence agencies have long suspected Jamestown of helping to foment rebellions in Chechnya, Ingushetia, and other north Caucasus republics. The March 21 Tbilisi conference on the north Caucasus a few days before the Moscow train bombings has obviously added to the suspicions of the FSB and SVR.
Jamestown’s board includes such Cold War era individuals as Marcia Carlucci; wife of Frank Carlucci, the former CIA officer, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of The Carlyle Group [Frank Carlucci was also one of those who requested the U.S. government to allow former Chechen Republic ‘Foreign Minister’ Ilyas Akhmadov, accused by the Russians of terrorist ties, to be granted political asylum in the U.S. after a veto from the Homeland Security and Justice Departments], anti-Communist book and magazine publisher Alfred Regnery; and Caspar Weinberger’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Kathleen Troia “KT” McFarland. Also on the board is former Oklahoma GOP Governor Frank Keating, the governor at the time of the 1995 Murrah Federal Building bombing.
The Georgian International School for Caucasus Studies in a perfect partner for Jamestown. Its current major project is designed to stir up anti-Russian sentiments in the north Caucasus by creating such new research programs as “Tsarist Russian policy and state-sponsored Soviet ethnic policies conducted in the North Caucasus during the 19th and 20th century.”
Cooperating with Jamestown in not only its north and south Caucasus information operations, but also in Moldovan, Belarusian, Uighur, and Uzbekistan affairs, is George Soros’s ubiquitous Open Society Institute, another cipher for U.S. intelligence and global banking interests. Soros’s Central Eurasia Project has sponsored a number of panels and seminars with Jamestown. Soros and his NGO contrivances and constructs provided the impetus for Saakashvili’s themed ‘Rose Revolution.’ Jamestown’s Monitor and the Soros-influenced Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty often quote from each others’ sources and reports.
On March 9, 2005, the Jamestown Foundation, Soros’s Open Society Institute, and the Moldova Foundation sponsored a seminar in Washington on the Moldovan elections. Among the advisory board members of the Moldova Foundation are Bari-Bar Zion, CEO of A4E and Amin in Israel and a former business adviser to the head of the Israel State Lottery, and Sam Amadi, special adviser to the President of the Senate of Nigeria. The Moldova Foundation receives support from Soros’s Open Society Institute.”
Georgia was a major launching pad for anti-Russia operations by the CIA, Mossad, and Britain’s MI-6. Not only did Georgian Imedi TV presented a fake news report about a Russian invasion of Georgia — which also suggested that Russian troops had killed Saakashvili — but Caucasus Emirate terrorists were conducting a number of terrorist attacks inside Russia, including a suicide bombings in Moscow and Dagestan, at the same time NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was hosting Saakashvili in Brussels.
The Russians indicated in their first communication with the FBI that Tamerlan had changed drastically since 2010. That change came after the Hidden Nations conference in Tbilisi. U.S. support for Chechen and North Caucasus secession came as a result of a public statement on August 2008 by GOP presidential candidate John McCain that “after Russia illegally recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Western countries ought to think about the independence of the North Caucasus and Chechnya.”
What does U.S. ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul know about Tamerlan Tsarneav’s activities in Russia’s North Caucasus?
Upon becoming President in 2009, Barack Obama adopted McCain’s proposal and authorized CIA support for North Caucasus secessionists and terrorists with money laundered through the USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, Soros’s Open Society Institute, Freedom House, and the Jamestown Foundation. In January 2012, Obama appointed a Soros activist and neocon, Michael McFaul of the right-wing Hoover Institution at Stanford university, as U.S. ambassador to Moscow. McFaul immediately threw open the doors of the U.S. embassy to a variety of Russian dissidents, including secessionists from the North Caucasus, some of whom were suspected by the Russian FSB of ties to Islamist terrorists.
Whistleblower, translator and expert in Chechnya, Turkey and the Caucuses, Sibel Edmonds, connects the CIA to the Boston Bombing. Is this blowback or terror by design? Edmonds examines connections between an Imam brought to the US by the CIA who subsequently became a multi-billionaire and founded over 350 radical mosques, Uncle Ruslan Tsarni and the CIA man in the Chechnya region for decades, Graham Fuller, father-in-law to Ruslan.
What does U.S. ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul know about Tamerlan Tsarneav’s activities in Russia’s North Caucasus?
unSpy 