The Syria Thread 2011 - Present

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby 8bitagent » Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:57 am

I've been reading about the secret meeting between Bandar and Putin three weeks ago. Allegedly Bandar said Saudi Arabia controls the Chechen militants, and implying if they want the Sochi games safe it'd be best to stop siding with Syria. Also implying that soon things will really heat up in Syria. I've long believed Saudi Arabia was deeply involved in the 9/11 operation, and we know they were behind the Khobar tower attacks in 1996. Very possible Saudi Arabia could have used their militant proxies in Syria to stage a series of crude sarin mortar attacks to make it look like Assad was launching military grade chem weapon attacks on civilians. Also one has to wonder if there is a Boston bombing/Saudi link. We know that Saudi Arabia a couple years ago was using its military against the Northern part of Yemen, as well as killing protesters in Bahrain. Perhaps Saudi Arabia is more diabolical and far reaching in influence than some think. Isn't it funny how no matter what the Kingdom does, the US always has its back? Even Pakistan no longer seems to be pals with the US anymore.

Also remember the "Iran plot" against the Saudis and Israel in Washington DC? How freaking obvious is the Saudi/Israel nexus, and how involved is the US in this unholy pact?


Also so surreal seeing Glenn Beck pleading with conservatives join with liberals and take to the streets to oppose this war. He talks about how Bush was in bed with Saudis and how the neocons are in league with the Obama administration in pushing for war. He talks about endless spying, perpetual war, the whole lot.

"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:57 am

State Dept Admits It Doesn't Know Who Ordered Syria's Chemical Strike
Posted By Elias Groll Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 10:24 PM Share

With the United States barreling toward a strike on Syria, U.S. officials say they are completely certain that Bashar al-Assad's government is responsible for last week's chemical weapons attack. They just don't know who in the Syrian government is to blame.

On Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf admitted as much. "The commander-in-chief of any military is ultimately responsible for decisions made under their leadership, even if ... he's not the one that pushes the button or said, 'Go,' on this," Harf said. "I don't know what the facts are here. I'm just, broadly speaking, saying that he is responsible for the actions of his regime. I'm not intimately familiar with the command and control structure of the Syrian military. I'm just not. But again, he is responsible ultimately for the decisions that are made."

On Tuesday, The Cable reported that U.S. officials are basing their assessment that the Assad regime bears responsibility for the strike largely on an intercepted phone call between a panicked Ministry of Defense official and a commander of a Syrian chemical weapons unit. But that intelligence does not resolve the question of who in the government ordered the strike or what kind of command and control structures are in place for the use of such weapons. "It's unclear where control lies," one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable Tuesday. "Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"

Because of that lack of clarity, Harf took a beating on Wednesday. In a testy exchange during her daily briefing, Harf very nearly admitted that it makes no difference who in the Syrian government ordered the attack, a reflection of the lack of certainty that still shrouds U.S. understanding of the chemical attack that may have left as many as 1,000 people dead.

In effect, Harf was left arguing that because no one else could have carried out the attack, it must have been the Syrian government. "The world doesn't need a classified U.S. intelligence assessment to see the photos and the videos of these people and to know that the only possible entity in Syria that could do this to their own people is the regime," she said.

Given that U.N. inspectors with a mandate to investigate chemical weapons use were on the ground when the attack happened, the decision to deploy what appears to have been a nerve agent in a suburb east of Damascus has puzzled many observers. Why would Syria do such a thing when it is fully aware that the mass use of chemical weapons is the one thing that might require the United States to take military action against it? That's a question U.S. intelligence analysts are puzzling over as well. "We don't know exactly why it happened," the intelligence official said. "We just know it was pretty fucking stupid."

Pressed on whether the United States would still consider itself justified in launching a punitive strike if the chemical weapons were deployed by a "rogue officer," Harf said, "yes," before quickly adding a caveat: "But that's also a wildly conjecturous question."
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby Bandit Manatee » Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:05 am

Seriously, great stuff from Beck. People who have already made up their minds to hate him have already made it up, but I think the guy has had a serious awakening since leaving fox news. I think he is still a little bit too libertarian and culturally conservative for most people on this forum but if you listen to his radio show now it is pretty clear he is moving as far away from mainstream republicans as he can get.
Bandit Manatee
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:07 pm

8bitagent » Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:53 am wrote:
UK political wrangling throws wrench into
plan for quick strike against Syria

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... syria?lite
Image

Noone wants this war. Only al Qaeda and the Western leaders/think tanks/Saudis/Israel(ie: the usual suspects) I have both conservative and liberal friends, noone I know supports this shit.
Most forums Im on its unanimously against this. It's really only the Libermans/Mccains(neo liberal hawks), some Obama officials and European figureheads calling for this.
The UN so far admits there's no evidence of who did the attacks. They seem very crude to me, not sure where Biden is getting the "no doubt it was Assad".


Biden is getting this from his neo-con/lib friends. I put him in the Lieberman/McCain camp where foreign policy is concerned based on his PNAC creds.

8bitagent wrote:Rumsfeld.....Rumsfeld is saying Obama shouldnt attack Syria? Are we in bizarro world? Is this just some reverse psychology? I'm so confused.


No, when Rummy says Obama hasn't made the case for war, he's saying Obama should be more bellicose in his rhetoric. Something Rummy excels in.
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby brainpanhandler » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:08 pm

Bandit Manatee » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:05 am wrote:Seriously, great stuff from Beck. People who have already made up their minds to hate him have already made it up, but I think the guy has had a serious awakening since leaving fox news. I think he is still a little bit too libertarian and culturally conservative for most people on this forum but if you listen to his radio show now it is pretty clear he is moving as far away from mainstream republicans as he can get.



PUHlease...

I suppose I should take the good and leave the rest? FUCK THAT.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5116
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby brainpanhandler » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:11 pm

8bitagent » Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:57 am wrote:

Also so surreal seeing Glenn Beck pleading with conservatives join with liberals and take to the streets to oppose this war. He talks about how Bush was in bed with Saudis and how the neocons are in league with the Obama administration in pushing for war. He talks about endless spying, perpetual war, the whole lot.



And 8bit, fucking use your fucking brain, please. He's a fucking con man. There is nothing surreal about his pandering, at all. It's entirely predictable.

What next, are we going to comb through Limbaugh's pile of bullshit for a few things we can agree with him on?

Jesus fucking christ!
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5116
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby coffin_dodger » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:24 pm

Been watching the Houses of Parliament (recalled early, no less!) debate the military action against Syria. Almost without exception, each MP has stood and urged caution or in some cases, outright denounce UK military action. IF the cabal ignore this and go to war anyway, Pandora's box is open.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby slimmouse » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:45 pm

coffin_dodger » 29 Aug 2013 17:24 wrote:Been watching the Houses of Parliament (recalled early, no less!) debate the military action against Syria. Almost without exception, each MP has stood and urged caution or in some cases, outright denounce UK military action. IF the cabal ignore this and go to war anyway, Pandora's box is open.


Nice to hear. I sincerely hope the constituents of the MPs have been in their faces about all of this BS since the recent "Assad used chemical weapons" nonsense.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:51 pm

Alan Grayson On Syria Strike: 'Nobody Wants This Except The Military-Industrial Complex'

Posted: 08/29/2013 10:46 am EDT | Updated: 08/29/2013 10:49 am EDT

WASHINGTON -- Citing his responsibility to represent the views of his constituents, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said Thursday that he can't support an attack on Syria that his voters strongly oppose.

"One thing that is perfectly clear to me in my district, and I think is true in many other districts from speaking to other members, is that there is no desire, no desire on the part of people to be the world's policeman," Grayson said on SiriusXM's "The Agenda with Ari Rabin-Havt," which aired Thursday morning. "For us to pick up this gauntlet even on the basis of unequivocal evidence of chemical warfare by the Syrian army, deliberately against its own people -- even if there were unequivocal evidence of that -- that's just not what people in my district want."

That doesn't mean that opposition is universal, Grayson allowed. "I did notice, for what it's worth, that the manufacturer of the missiles that would be used has had an incredible run in their stock value in the last 60 days. Raytheon stock is up 20 percent in the past 60 days as the likelihood of the use of their missiles against Syria becomes more likely. So I understand that there is a certain element of our society that does benefit from this, but they're not the people who vote for me, or by the way the people who contribute to my campaign," he said. "Nobody wants this except the military-industrial complex."

Raytheon stock has in fact surged over the past two months, though it's been slightly shy of 20 percent.

Image

"I take the title of representative seriously. I listen to people, I hear what they have to say. At a time when we are cutting veterans benefits, cutting education, student loans, cutting school budgets, contemplating cutting Social Security and Medicare, I don't see how we can justify spending billions of dollars on an attack like this," Grayson said.

Opinion polls back up Grayson's assessment of people's attitude toward Syria, as HuffPost's Emily Swanson reported Wednesday.

U.S. officials claim Syria's government has killed thousands with chemical weapons, but the American public mostly opposes any U.S. intervention in the war in Syria, according to the new HuffPost/YouGov poll.

Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they believe Syria has used chemical weapons against rebels, but they were about evenly divided on what the U.S. response should be.

Only a quarter of Americans support air strikes to aid rebels in Syria, according to the latest HuffPost/YouGov poll -- though that support has risen since two previous HuffPost/YouGov polls (here, in April, and here, in June). Forty-one percent oppose them.

Other options for intervention had even less support. Forty-nine percent oppose providing weapons to rebels, while 13 percent support the action, and 65 percent oppose sending U.S. troops to aid the rebels, while 11 percent support such a move.

Respondents were also divided over whether the U.S. has a responsibility to prevent the Syrian government from using chemical weapons, with 31 percent saying it has such a responsibility, 38 saying it does not and 31 percent unsure.


When Alan Grayson and Glenn Beck are in agreement on an issue (though I still don't understand Beck's bloviating about "non-progressive liberals" which really makes no sense), that may be one of the signs that the apocalypse is at hand.
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby Byrne » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:08 pm

'Downing Street has released a statement, based on legal advice by the attorney general'

From links here:
Code: Select all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23862114

CHEMICAL WEAPON USE BY SYRIAN REGIME - UK GOVERNMENT LEGAL POSITION

1. This note sets out the UK Government’s position regarding the legality of military action in Syria following the chemical weapons attack in Eastern Damascus on 21 August 2013.

2. The use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime is a serious crime of international concern, as a breach of the customary international law prohibition on use of chemical weapons, and amounts to a war crime and a crime against humanity. However, the legal basis for military action would be humanitarian intervention; the aim is to relieve humanitarian suffering by deterring or disrupting the further use of chemical weapons.

3. The UK is seeking a resolution of the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations which would condemn the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian authorities; demand that the Syrian authorities strictly observe their obligations under international law and previous Security Council resolutions, including ceasing all use of chemical weapons; and authorise member states, among other things, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians in Syria from the use of chemical weapons and prevent any future use of Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons; and refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court.

4. If action in the Security Council is blocked, the UK would still be permitted under international law to take exceptional measures in order to alleviate the scale of the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe in Syria by deterring and disrupting the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. Such a legal basis is available, under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, provided three conditions are met:

(i) there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief;

(ii) it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and

(iii) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian need and must be strictly limited in time and scope to this aim (i.e. the minimum necessary to achieve that end and for no other purpose).

5. All three conditions would clearly be met in this case:

(i) The Syrian regime has been killing its people for two years, with reported deaths now over 100,000 and refugees at nearly 2 million. The large-scale use of chemical weapons by the regime in a heavily populated area on 21 August 2013 is a war crime and perhaps the most egregious single incident of the conflict. Given the Syrian regime’s pattern of use of chemical weapons over several months, it is likely that the regime will seek to use such weapons again. It is also likely to continue frustrating the efforts of the United Nations to establish exactly what has happened. Renewed attacks using chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would cause further suffering and loss of civilian lives, and would lead to displacement of the civilian population on a large scale and in hostile conditions.

(ii) Previous attempts by the UK and its international partners to secure a resolution of this conflict, end its associated humanitarian suffering and prevent the use of chemical weapons through meaningful action by the Security Council have been blocked over the last two years. If action in the Security Council is blocked again, no practicable alternative would remain to the use of force to deter and degrade the capacity for the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime.

(iii) In these circumstances, and as an exceptional measure on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity, military intervention to strike specific targets with the aim of deterring and disrupting further such attacks would be necessary and proportionate and therefore legally justifiable. Such an intervention would be directed exclusively to averting a humanitarian catastrophe, and the minimum judged necessary for that purpose.
29 August 2013



This is following an assessment published by the Joint Intelligence Committee which argued that it was "not possible for the opposition to have carried out a chemical weapons attack on this scale".

From the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee
Ref: Jp 115
Prime Minister 29 August 2013
SYRIA: REPORTED CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE

Following the widespread open source reports of chemical weapons (CW) use in the suburbs of Damascus in the early hours of 21 August 2013, the JIC met on 25 August to agree an assessment. At a subsequent meeting on 27 August we met again to review our level of confidence in the assessment relating to the regime’s responsibility for the attack. The JIC’s conclusions were agreed by all Committee members. The final paper informed the National Security Council meeting on 28 August, at which I provided further background and a summary of the most recent reporting, analysis and challenge. The paper’s key judgements, based on the information and intelligence available to us as of 25 August, are attached.

It is important to put these JIC judgements in context. We have assessed previously that the Syrian regime used lethal CW on 14 occasions from 2012. This judgement was made with the highest possible level of certainty following an exhaustive review by the Joint Intelligence Organisation of intelligence reports plus diplomatic and open sources. We think that there have been other attacks although we do not have the same degree of confidence in the evidence. A clear pattern of regime use has therefore been established.

Unlike previous attacks, the degree of open source reporting of CW use on 21 August has been considerable. As a result, there is little serious dispute that chemical attacks causing mass casualties on a larger scale than hitherto (including, we judge, at least 350 fatalities) took place.

It is being claimed, including by the regime, that the attacks were either faked or undertaken by the Syrian Armed Opposition. We have tested this assertion using a wide range of intelligence and open sources, and invited HMG and outside experts to help us establish whether such a thing is possible. There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of CW by the opposition. The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility.

We also have a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgement that the regime was responsible for the attacks and that they were conducted to help clear the Opposition from strategic parts of Damascus. Some of this intelligence is highly sensitive but you have had access to it all.

Against that background, the JIC concluded that it is highly likely that the regime was responsible for the CW attacks on 21 August. The JIC had high confidence in all of its assessments except in relation to the regime’s precise motivation for carrying out an attack of this scale at this time – though intelligence may increase our confidence in the future.

There has been the closest possible cooperation with the Agencies in producing the JIC’s assessment. We have also worked in concert with the US intelligence community and agree with the conclusions they have reached.

Jon Day


it was "not possible for the opposition to have carried out a chemical weapons attack on this scale".
- not without covert support by others . See http://notthemsmdotcom.wordpress.com/20 ... s-pretext/
User avatar
Byrne
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby coffin_dodger » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:12 pm

slimmouse wrote:
coffin_dodger » 29 Aug 2013 17:24 wrote:Been watching the Houses of Parliament (recalled early, no less!) debate the military action against Syria. Almost without exception, each MP has stood and urged caution or in some cases, outright denounce UK military action. IF the cabal ignore this and go to war anyway, Pandora's box is open.


Nice to hear. I sincerely hope the constituents of the MPs have been in their faces about all of this BS since the recent "Assad used chemical weapons" nonsense.


Yes, in fact I forgot to mention, some MP's said they had heard from their constituents and the concensus was negative.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby bluenoseclaret » Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:37 pm

WESTERN DEMOCRACIES AND CRIMINAL INTERVENTIONISM

By Gilad Atzmon


It doesn’t take a genius to grasp that the American president doesn’t really want to attack Syria. He doesn’t want to topple Assad’s regime - He doesn’t have an alternative partner on the ground. Instead of ‘Shock and Awe’ this time the Pentagon is talking about ‘surgical attack’. The English speaking empire, famous for its destructive inclinations, makes the potential attack on Syria sound like a ‘cosmetic effort’. No one in America, Britain, France or Israel is yet to suggest what is the goal of such an attack. What are the military initiatives? But the most crucial question is what could be the positive outcome of such a military assault? I guess that we have to admit that Obama’s administration is almost as confused as the situation on the ground is.

It seems as if in a relatively short time, the American administration has managed to fall into every possible trap. It is now affiliated as well as conflicting with Al-Qaeda (assuming there is such a thing), Wahhabi war-mongers, Salafi terrorists, the Muslim Brotherhood and their enemies - the Arab seculars and nationalist revolutionary forces. America has tried to appease them all, but it obviously failed in every possible front. Dropping bombs on Syria is not going to provide the goods either. A ‘surgical’ assault on Damascus is not going to appease America’s Wahhabi partners, it may even achieve the opposite. I guess that time is ripe for Obama to re-examine America’s entire interventionist doctrine, but can he? Can an American leader think for himself? Can an American leader think for America? Can an American leader think at all, or is he or her just reacting to Lobby pressure?

For more than a while, America’s leadership has been in a clear state of detachment and alienation - instead of looking after America’s national interests, like other Western democracies, it is torn between opposing lobby interests and marginal pressure groups. I guess that no super power can maintain its hegemony under such circumstances. Accordingly, America, in its attempt to appease many conflicting lobbies, conveys a growing hesitance that has led into political impotence and a diplomatic standstill.

I guess that the meaning of it all is pretty devastating: Western democracies are becoming lethal instruments easily manipulated by foreign interests and ethnic lobbies. We are basically taken into wars by our elected politicians, because some other people expect us to do so. Yet when our leaders launch criminal wars they actually incriminate not just themselves, but each and every one of us.

The meaning of it is simple: every act of attempted aggression by our democratically elected leaders, must be subject to public scrutiny and an open political discussion. Obama and Cameron should present the exact reasoning that led them to decide upon a military action. They should present a smoking gun that links Assad to the chemical attack on his people. It is not enough for us to learn that the White House has managed to convince itself that Assad is a war criminal. I guess the fact that Bush and Blair have never been brought to The Hague has something to do with our leaders dismissal of international law.

Yesterday evening, when it looked as if an American attack on Syria was imminent and just a matter of hours away, Britain managed to save the situation - it gave president Obama a rope, it allowed him a bit more time to reconsider his action. It may even be possible that Britain followed Obama’s request. Someone in Britain must have realised that launching a war while the UN team is still investigating, would be hard if not impossible to justify afterwards. Clearly, the timing of the British decision to postpone the attack was crucial, yet, in order to save our civilization, we must form the necessary political instruments that would prevent our politicians from dragging us into foreign conflicts and world wars against our will and without our consent.
bluenoseclaret
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 4:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby brainpanhandler » Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:08 pm

bluenoseclaret » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:37 pm wrote:
Gilad Atzmon wrote:
I guess that the meaning of it all is pretty devastating: Western democracies are becoming lethal instruments easily manipulated by foreign interests and ethnic lobbies. We are basically taken into wars by our elected politicians, because some other people expect us to do so.


And what "foreign interests and ethnic lobbies" would those be?

I can think of lots of other more obvious and irrefutable reasons why western democracies engage in wars, not least of which is it funnels enormous amounts of public wealth into the coffers of the military/industrial complex. Duh.

The truth isn't that complicated. There's a bunch of fucking oil over there. We don't trust our client states to protect our interests in the region. The gassing of civilians is only of interest if it destabilizes the area and weakens our position relative to securing strategic assets like, OIL. You think western "democracies" give a flying fuck about anything else?
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5116
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:24 pm

Amen to BPH.

Even in the Reagan administration, the targets were the same: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria.

User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby bluenoseclaret » Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:07 pm

"..And what "foreign interests and ethnic lobbies" would those be?.."


The usual, obvious suspects.

Oh the MIC and Oil, we are talking about Syria.

We do seem to be moving closer to world control. Soon there won't be a single national central bank anywhere.
In material terms, totally captured governments pretending to be otherwise. This applies more in the West.

The BBC has become a sad cheerleading whorehouse.

I'm getting too long in the tooth for this crap.
bluenoseclaret
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 4:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 163 guests