stormcloudsgathering | In this video we're going to show you evidence that the Syrian government was framed in the chemical weapons attack of August 21st, 2013, we're going to explain why they were framed, and we're going to propose a course of action.
The use of chemical weapons on civilians in the Syrian conflict was a crime against humanity. As such it should be the subject of a real criminal investigation, and those responsible should be brought to justice. However, if the U.S. and NATO have their way that's not going to happen. In their book a simple accusation is as good as a conviction and therefore there's no point providing any real evidence. Let's just skip right to missile strikes shall we?
This really isn't surprising to anyone who's been paying attention though.
The United States has had Syria and Iran in their cross hairs for a long time. The plans for these wars have been in the works for over a decade.
[Wesley Clark video]
There are three primary psychological techniques that the powers that be in any given era use to build up the public support needed to take a country to war:
1. Create the impression that the aggressor is actually acting in self defense or in defense of a helpless nation. This can be done by exaggerating the danger posed by an enemy, fabricating an attack and blaming it on the enemy, or by intentionally provoking the enemy into a response.
2. Build up a crusade mythology, one that presents the aggressors as fighting for a higher ideal, or for the good of all humanity. In our current era the meme of “Spreading Democracy”, “Fighting Terrorism” or "Defending human rights"are the most commonly used.
3. De-humanize the enemy. War is mass murder, therefore presenting the enemy as evil, barbaric, or subhuman is essential unless you want your citizens and your soldiers questioning the morality of their actions. This pattern is often supported and augmented by a sense of cultural or racial superiority. The way Islamophobia is capitalized on to build moral support for this phony war on terror is a perfect example.
The U.S. government has a long illustrious history of using these techniques, and they keep using them because they work.
[clip Patrick Clawson Washington institute September 21st, 2012]
The United States has been trying to get Iran under its thumb for a long time. In 1953, the CIA and the UK's MI6 organized a coup to topple the democratically elected prime minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh. They then installed the Shah as their puppet. The Shah, who also just happened to be brutal dictator, ruled until 1979 when he was overthrown during the Iranian revolution.
The U.S. didn't like that so they tried to take Iran down by arming and funding Saddam Hussein against the Iranians. This was during the Iranian Iraq war, also referred to as the first Persian Gulf War which lasted from 1980 to 1988. The U.S. continued its support for Iraq even though they knew full well that he was using chemical weapons against the Iranians.
This now declassified top secret memo from Nov. 4, 1983 documents chemical weapons use by Iraq, and discusses Iran's likely reactions.
Here's a second memo, written on Feb. 24, 1984 to the director of Central Intelligence predicting that Iraq will use nerve agents against Iran.
Note that the source of these documents is Foreign Policy Magazine which is an extremely pro-establishment publication by any standards.
In spite of this, friendly diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Saddam continued. This video of Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan meeting with Saddam, was taken on December 20, 1983, which was after the first memo. This means that those running the U.S. knew Saddam was killing people with poison gas and they didn't care. Taking down Iran was more important to the U.S. government than protecting human rights, and it still is.
Saddam failed to defeat Iran, so the U.S. switched tactics, and for a long time they tried going after Iran directly by accusing them of building nuclear weapons in order to justify military strikes. However, this line of worn out propaganda didn't gain any traction, largely because the U.S. government had lost most of its credibility in their trumped up claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. You can only cry wolf so many times before people start rolling their eyes.
Their agenda fell apart completely when elements within the CIA and Mossad came forward stating that there was no evidence that Iran even intended to build such a weapon.
Not to be deterred by little details like the truth, these chicken hawk neo-cons decided to go after Syria to get to Iran. They know that Syria and Iran have a mutual defense agreement and if NATO forces enter Syria Iran will be drawn into the fight, and then these little deranged psychopaths in suits will get their war.
We still have to maintain appearances though, we wouldn't want people to think this was about controlling the world's oil supply and protecting the petrodollar would we? No, no, put those crazy conspiracy theories out of you mind. We're here to spread democracy and freedom with 50 caliber machine guns and drone strikes.
If it were obvious that the U.S. was attacking Syria it would be very difficult to obtain international or domestic support, so rather than attacking Syria directly the U.S. and NATO have been running a proxy war by arming and funding the Syrian rebels. To obscure the source of this support U.S. allies in the region such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been used to purchase weapons and then route them to Syria via Turkey.
This pattern of arming and funding dictators or extremist groups to get take down non-cooperative governments has been a key element in America's foreign policy since the creation of the CIA after World War II.
[Clinton clip]
Let's not just talk about this in general sense. Who was running that operation?
[Zbig clip]
Just in case you're thinking this is irrelevant to this current situation we should point out that Zbigniew Brzezinski is an acknowledged friend and mentor to Barack Obama.
[Obama Zbig clip]
History proves that these dictators and extremists that the U.S. government installs are disposable and the very qualities that made them useful against enemies are later used to demonize them and thereby providing the justification for a full on invasion. This should be taken as a warning to those rebel groups that the U.S. is using to to destabilize Syria right now.
Now who are these Syrian rebels, this Free Syrian Army that the U.S. government so vocally supports? Well, while the West has tried to paint them as local freedom fighters, the reality is that the conflict has attracted foreign Jihadist from multiple countries, many of whom openly declare their intent to replace Assad's secular government with Sharia law. Numerous mainstream reports are already surfacing of Sharia motivated atrocities committed by the rebels. These reports are backed up by video footage that is far too graphic for me to show here. If you do a google search you can videos of men being beheaded and women being shot by rebels from the Al-Nusra Front. Yet the U.S. government isn't deterred by these details. They still want to help these extremists topple the Syrian government.
Funny isn't it how they require FBI background checks to buy a deer rifle in the states, but if you're a foreign Jihadist trying to overthrow a government that Washington isn't on good terms with they'll send you rocket launchers and heavy artillery no questions asked? And how do you reconcile the fact that the U.S. is fighting religious extremists in Afghanistan calling them terrorists, while supporting those same groups in Syria calling them freedom fighters. It doesn't make sense at all if you take the U.S. government's propaganda at face value.
The use of chemical weapons on civilians in the Syrian conflict was a crime against humanity. As such it should be the subject of a real criminal investigation, and those responsible should be brought to justice. However, if the U.S. and NATO have their way that's not going to happen. In their book a simple accusation is as good as a conviction and therefore there's no point providing any real evidence. Let's just skip right to missile strikes shall we?
This really isn't surprising to anyone who's been paying attention though.
The United States has had Syria and Iran in their cross hairs for a long time. The plans for these wars have been in the works for over a decade.
[Wesley Clark video]
There are three primary psychological techniques that the powers that be in any given era use to build up the public support needed to take a country to war:
1. Create the impression that the aggressor is actually acting in self defense or in defense of a helpless nation. This can be done by exaggerating the danger posed by an enemy, fabricating an attack and blaming it on the enemy, or by intentionally provoking the enemy into a response.
2. Build up a crusade mythology, one that presents the aggressors as fighting for a higher ideal, or for the good of all humanity. In our current era the meme of “Spreading Democracy”, “Fighting Terrorism” or "Defending human rights"are the most commonly used.
3. De-humanize the enemy. War is mass murder, therefore presenting the enemy as evil, barbaric, or subhuman is essential unless you want your citizens and your soldiers questioning the morality of their actions. This pattern is often supported and augmented by a sense of cultural or racial superiority. The way Islamophobia is capitalized on to build moral support for this phony war on terror is a perfect example.
The U.S. government has a long illustrious history of using these techniques, and they keep using them because they work.
[clip Patrick Clawson Washington institute September 21st, 2012]
The United States has been trying to get Iran under its thumb for a long time. In 1953, the CIA and the UK's MI6 organized a coup to topple the democratically elected prime minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh. They then installed the Shah as their puppet. The Shah, who also just happened to be brutal dictator, ruled until 1979 when he was overthrown during the Iranian revolution.
The U.S. didn't like that so they tried to take Iran down by arming and funding Saddam Hussein against the Iranians. This was during the Iranian Iraq war, also referred to as the first Persian Gulf War which lasted from 1980 to 1988. The U.S. continued its support for Iraq even though they knew full well that he was using chemical weapons against the Iranians.
This now declassified top secret memo from Nov. 4, 1983 documents chemical weapons use by Iraq, and discusses Iran's likely reactions.
Here's a second memo, written on Feb. 24, 1984 to the director of Central Intelligence predicting that Iraq will use nerve agents against Iran.
Note that the source of these documents is Foreign Policy Magazine which is an extremely pro-establishment publication by any standards.
In spite of this, friendly diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Saddam continued. This video of Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan meeting with Saddam, was taken on December 20, 1983, which was after the first memo. This means that those running the U.S. knew Saddam was killing people with poison gas and they didn't care. Taking down Iran was more important to the U.S. government than protecting human rights, and it still is.
Saddam failed to defeat Iran, so the U.S. switched tactics, and for a long time they tried going after Iran directly by accusing them of building nuclear weapons in order to justify military strikes. However, this line of worn out propaganda didn't gain any traction, largely because the U.S. government had lost most of its credibility in their trumped up claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. You can only cry wolf so many times before people start rolling their eyes.
Their agenda fell apart completely when elements within the CIA and Mossad came forward stating that there was no evidence that Iran even intended to build such a weapon.
Not to be deterred by little details like the truth, these chicken hawk neo-cons decided to go after Syria to get to Iran. They know that Syria and Iran have a mutual defense agreement and if NATO forces enter Syria Iran will be drawn into the fight, and then these little deranged psychopaths in suits will get their war.
We still have to maintain appearances though, we wouldn't want people to think this was about controlling the world's oil supply and protecting the petrodollar would we? No, no, put those crazy conspiracy theories out of you mind. We're here to spread democracy and freedom with 50 caliber machine guns and drone strikes.
If it were obvious that the U.S. was attacking Syria it would be very difficult to obtain international or domestic support, so rather than attacking Syria directly the U.S. and NATO have been running a proxy war by arming and funding the Syrian rebels. To obscure the source of this support U.S. allies in the region such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been used to purchase weapons and then route them to Syria via Turkey.
This pattern of arming and funding dictators or extremist groups to get take down non-cooperative governments has been a key element in America's foreign policy since the creation of the CIA after World War II.
[Clinton clip]
Let's not just talk about this in general sense. Who was running that operation?
[Zbig clip]
Just in case you're thinking this is irrelevant to this current situation we should point out that Zbigniew Brzezinski is an acknowledged friend and mentor to Barack Obama.
[Obama Zbig clip]
History proves that these dictators and extremists that the U.S. government installs are disposable and the very qualities that made them useful against enemies are later used to demonize them and thereby providing the justification for a full on invasion. This should be taken as a warning to those rebel groups that the U.S. is using to to destabilize Syria right now.
Now who are these Syrian rebels, this Free Syrian Army that the U.S. government so vocally supports? Well, while the West has tried to paint them as local freedom fighters, the reality is that the conflict has attracted foreign Jihadist from multiple countries, many of whom openly declare their intent to replace Assad's secular government with Sharia law. Numerous mainstream reports are already surfacing of Sharia motivated atrocities committed by the rebels. These reports are backed up by video footage that is far too graphic for me to show here. If you do a google search you can videos of men being beheaded and women being shot by rebels from the Al-Nusra Front. Yet the U.S. government isn't deterred by these details. They still want to help these extremists topple the Syrian government.
Funny isn't it how they require FBI background checks to buy a deer rifle in the states, but if you're a foreign Jihadist trying to overthrow a government that Washington isn't on good terms with they'll send you rocket launchers and heavy artillery no questions asked? And how do you reconcile the fact that the U.S. is fighting religious extremists in Afghanistan calling them terrorists, while supporting those same groups in Syria calling them freedom fighters. It doesn't make sense at all if you take the U.S. government's propaganda at face value.
0 comments:
Post a Comment