The Syrian War What You're Not Being Told

#

In this video StormCloudsGathering, Breaks down the Syrian Crisis, and brings light to some key evidence that shows the Syrian government was framed in the chemical weapons attack of August 21st, 2013.

[Sourced From The StormCloudsGathering Website]

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.

On March 19th, 2013 sarin gas was used in Syria near Aleppo. Israel and the U.S. promptly blamed the Syrian government for the attacks even though many of those who were killed were Syrian government soldiers. Obama began talking about the event as a red line that had been crossed and the war mongers began their saber rattling in ernest.

However the U.N. insisted on investigating the issue themselves, and on May 6th, 2013 UN investigator, Carla Del Ponte, went public stating that evidence from their investigation indicated that it was Syrian rebels that had used the sarin gas and that there was no indication that the Syrian government had launched any chemical attacks whatsoever.

Russia's U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, agreed with Del Ponte after Russian experts visited the location where the projectile struck and took their own samples of material from the site. Those samples were then analyzed at a Russian laboratory certified by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. According to lab results they found that the presence of Hexogen, utilized as an opening charge, and which is not used in standard munitions pointed to the attack being launched by the rebels.

Rather than cover this development, the mainstream media did what they always do when they don't want the public to look at something: the simply changed the subject.

Now of course the fact that the U.S. backed rebels had attempted to frame the Syrian government in order to build support for a NATO invasion would be bad enough, they were trying to start a war of aggression, but let's remember that sarin gas was in fact used. This means that the U.S. and its allies were willing to commit a blatant war crime, killing scores of civilians in order to justify toppling Assad. Nor did the U.S. withdraw their support after this event, in fact they increased it.

You would think that the fact that after this first attempt at framing Syria had blown up in their face the west would back down or try a different approach, but no. By July of 2013 the U.S. was already openly discussing "kinetic strikes" against Syria as if their lies hadn't been exposed. This of course brings us to the attack on August 21st, 2013 where they attempted once again to frame the Syrian government for the use of sarin gas, and once again they got caught.

The first wave of media coverage tried to pin the attack on the Syrian government, and the U.S. and France instantly came out condemning Assad. By August 24th the Pentagon had already announced plans for missile strikes, but even as they did their story was already falling apart again.

The Syrian army came forward that same day with footage to back up their report that they had uncovered a massive chemical weapons cache in rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar. This is the exact neighborhood where the chemical attack took place.

Then witnesses came forward with this video footage showing the rebels preparing what appear to be crude chemical weapons rockets for an attack. If you look closely at these rockets you'll see that the device shown is clearly improvised. This isn't a mass produced military grade munition like Assad would have. This is homemade.

Reuters acknowledges in this article that photos of rockets matching the description of this clip are currently being examined by experts. These experts say the rockets in the pictures they have are "Relatively basic and with crude stabilizing fins" they also say that they "bear a striking resemblance to devices found elsewhere in Syria in the aftermath of much smaller suspected attacks". If that's the case, and if the U.N. and Russia have evidence that the rebels were the ones who were behind the first chemical weapons attacks back in March then what does that tell us?

Let's put this case together as a district attorney might when deciding who to prosecute for a crime. Let's establish motive, means, opportunity and evidence. These are the elements you need to reach a guilty verdict in court.

Who had motive? Not the Syrian government. The Syrian military has been making strong gains this past few months. They didn't need to use chemical weapons. Furthermore they knew full well that the U.S. and NATO where looking for an excuse to invade, so the last thing they would want to do would be to give them that excuse. The rebels on the other hand do have motive since they knew they could count on the western media to spin the story in their favor, and that's exactly what's happened.

But did the rebels have the means and the oportunity? Actually yes. On May 31st, 2013 security forces in Turkey found a 2kg cylinder filled with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants. On July 7, the Syrian army went public about a chemical lab they had found belonging to rebels in the city of Banias.

In terms of evidence everything that has been released to the public so far points to the rebels being behind the attack. If the U.S. government has any real evidence to support their side of the story why don't they produce it? The so called intel document that they released on August 30th to justify their position doesn't contain any evidence at all, it's just a statement of opinion. They're talking about bombing a nation, taking us into a war that will most likely spin out of control drawing in Iran, Russia and China just based on their word.

Both Russia and China have openly sided with Syria and Iran, and Russia has warned that thermonuclear war could result if the U.S. continues down this path. We're talking about world war 3 here! This is not a game people! This is by far the dangerous crossroads we have ever come to in living history. If we let these psychopaths continue taking us down this path the consequences are too horrific to contemplate.

We've been talking about this war that they're trying to start here right now for years. We've been trying to warn people where we are headed and trying to show you that there is no political solution that will turn the U.S. government around. Voting the bums out isn't going to work. The people are going to have to take the power that they've handed over to these madmen back directly.

The first stage of the revolution is the ideological revolution. That means our first job is to wake people up. To achieve this we must build networks of awareness. It's time to connect the activist groups, the facebook pages, the bloggers, the alternative media. It's time to build lines of communication that cross these artificial borders of left and right. It's time to find that common ground, that unifying idea that will enable us to face our common enemy and which will lay the framework for what comes next. We must reach a critical mass of awakening, because that's when those networks of awareness become networks of resistance.
Our network must reach into every aspect of society, especially to the police and military. The police and the military are the enforcement arm of this mafia. Without them the powers that be have no power at all.
We must show them that they are being tricked, that they are not being sent to fight for freedom nor do the American people or the Syrian people want this war. Only 9% of the U.S. population support strikes against Syria, 91% appose it. Who wants this war? A handful of narcissistic psychopaths and useful idiots.

History will remember the real heroes of this crisis as being the ones that had the courage to face this corrupt chain of command and say NO, I WILL NOT COMPLY! Some are already making that stand don't leave them standing alone.
If you want to understand the real reason we're being taken into these wars please watch "The Road to World War 3", a video that we released last year predicting the precise chain of events that we're seeing unfold right now.

You want to do something to stop this? Watch Revolution: An Instruction Manual and put those instructions into action. Then visit the get involved link on our website for more information.

Stand now or forever hold your peace.

Description of the crude rockets witnesses saw used in the chemical attack match remains found after other attacks:http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/23/us-syria-chemicals-idUSBRE97M0...

U.S. sending in heavy weaponry through its allies in Saudi Arabia.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10131063/Syri...

Chemical weapons confirmed in Syrian conflict:http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/08/24/gas-attack-syria.html

U.S. helped Saddam as he was using chemical weapons on Iran:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_...

The U.S. Funded Saddam: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-91712987.html (paid archive of Newsweek article written September 23, 2002 )
Free copy of that same article:http://www6.svsu.edu/~boles/index/iraq/usiraqgas.htm
Mention of that article in congressional record:http://books.google.dm/books?id=pY5e3AMIdn0C&pg=PA17406&dq=Congressional... (Rumsfeld is questioned about the article but he of course plays dumb).

CIA and Mossad both say the Iran hasn't even made the decision to seek a nuclear weapon: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/mossad-cia-agree-iran-has-...

Iran and Syria confront US with defense pact:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/feb/17/usa.syria

Iran already sending troops to Syria: http://rt.com/news/iran-troop-deployment-syria-782/

The proxy war in Syria: http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-imperial-left-and-the-proxy-war-ag...

The U.S. funneling weapons to rebels through Qatar & Saudi Arabia:http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2013/06/29/sending-missiles-syrian...
http://world.time.com/2012/09/18/syrias-secular-and-islamist-rebels-who-...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/01/syria-conflict-rebels-qatar...

Rebels are religious extremists pushing for Sharia law:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23139784
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/foreign-jihadists-declare-war-...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/world/middleeast/islamist-rebels-gains...

The March 19th, 2013 Sarin Attack:
Israel and the U.S. blame Assad:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/04/israel-accuses-syria-of-us...

Obama's red line:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9488314/Barac...

U.N. launches their own probe:http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/21/us-syria-crisis-chemical-un-id...

According to the U.N. investigation the March 19th chemical weapons attack turned out to be committed by the rebels:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

Russia agrees: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/09/us-syria-crisis-chemical-russi...

The August 21st, 2013 Chemical Attack:
Syrian soldiers enter rebel tunnels, find chemical agents
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/24/us-syria-crisis-jobar-idUSBRE9...

Video from attack apparently shows the rockets were small and primitive:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/23/us-syria-chemicals-idUSBRE97M0...

Iran says they have proof rebels used chemical weapons:
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-proof-syria-rebels-used-chemical-weapons...

Turkey finds sarin gas in homes of suspected Syrian Islamists
http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/

FSA says they are going to use chemical weapons from now on:http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171240#.Uhrr2rwYfUp

Russia opposes arming militants in Syria:
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/05/04/301705/russia-opposes-arming-mi...
Russia and China step up the warnings to the U.S.:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800
Russia warns Syria/Iran Crisis may go nuclear:http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-g8-russia-idUSBRE84G18M2012...

British MP Warns of World War 3: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23884043
Only 9% of Americans want an attack on Syria:http://news.yahoo.com/syria-war-escalates-americans-cool-u-intervention-...

The Road to World War 3

[Sourced From The StormCloudsGathering Website]

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.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/

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.

----
Credits:
Music is original composition by StormCloudsGathering
Thumbnail is creative commons
Scenes from Grey State trailer used with permission fromhttp://www.graystatemovie.com

Irish Lawmaker Tears Obama a New One

This just might be the speech of the year. Clare Daly, an Irish Lawmaker tells it like it is during Irish parliament which was captured on video.

Daly  goes onto say, “is this person going for the hypocrite of the century award? Because we have to call things by their proper names, and the reality is by any serious examination, this man is a war criminal.”

This was in response to Obama's speech on peace to children in Northern Ireland.

See what else Daly had to say about Obama in this MUST watch video below:

US evokes ghost of Hitler as PR campaign against Assad goes crazy

The shock and awe that has greeted President Obama’s decision to get congressional consent to wage war in Syria underscores the problem with US foreign policy, not to mention our mainstream media machine.

Americans somehow think it is standard operating procedure for the Commander-in-Chief to bypass a quaint little place called Congress (Population 535) along the road to war. Perhaps this way of thinking is due to the general atmosphere of fear and loathing now gripping the crotch of the Heartland like a TSA officer. Or maybe it’s just that we’ve been conditioned to believe the president has the right to enjoy dictatorial powers. Whatever the case, the situation demands some consideration.

Up until Friday, it looked all but certain that Barack Obama, America’s Nobel-nominated president, would order yet another military strike on a foreign country without congressional approval (Libya was the first). The Democratic leader’s designs for a “limited” strike on Syria, however, were quickly dashed when British Prime Minister David Cameron suffered a historic defeat, as the House of Commons denied him permission to jump on the military bandwagon heading for Syria.

This was the first time since 1782 that the British parliament refused a government request to enter a war. Could it be that British intelligence knew something the Americans did not, like perhaps the truth? After all, Cameron himself admitted that the UK intelligence was not 100 percent certain that the Assad government was responsible for the chemical attack.

Whatever the case, with Washington’s foremost ally suddenly missing in action, Obama had nothing but respect for the US Constitution, which clearly states, Article 1, Section 8, “Congress shall have power…to declare war.”

US President Barack Obama speaks about Syria from the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, DC, on August 31, 2013.(AFP Photo / Jim Watson)

Thanks to the broadside delivered to Washington by the bumpy car of the British parliament, the American people got a fleeting, jolting reminder of their candidate on the early campaign trail, those bygone days of yesteryear when hope hung like dew on the American prairie and the sweet aroma of change dispelled the noxious vapors of George W. Bush’s fighter jets.

“I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that's why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress,”Obama said Saturday from the Rose Garden.

After the initial shock of those incredible words was fully digested, and the dogs of war were yanked snarling and slobbering back in the house, the PR campaign against the Syrian regime went haywire. The US mainstream media was clearly knocked off its stride, set as it was for an imminent war.

Consider this opening paragraph in Monday’s issue of The Wall Street Journal.

“President Obama's Syrian melodrama went from bad to worse on Saturday with his surprise decision to seek Congressional approval for what he promises will be merely a limited cruise-missile bombing. Mr. Obama will now have someone else to blame if Congress blocks his mission, but in the bargain he has put at risk his credibility and America's standing in the world with more than 40 months left in office.”

America’s leading business paper somehow believes that seeking congressional approval for war will “risk his credibility and America’s standing in the world.” Indeed, considering America’s basement rankings in the world, seeking such approval as mandated by international law could only have the opposite effect.

Free Syrian Army fighters drive a military tank that belonged to forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar Al-Assad after they seized it, in Aleppo's town of Khanasir August 29, 2013.(Reuters / Molhem Barakat)

And what is one to make of Obama’s (money-back?) guarantee of a “narrow and limited” cruise missile attack on Syria; a Lawrence-esque back-before-dinner jaunt that won’t leave the same kind of trillion-dollar aftertaste that the eight-year Iraq War did? After all, it will only take the firing of a single Syrian missile at a US naval vessel for Obama’s weekend fling to transmogrify into World War III.

The editorial then entered hand-wringing, hysteria mode, trembling at the thought that a single square-mile of real estate in a corner of the empire has not been stamped with the imprint of a US Army boot.

“A defeat in Congress would signal to Bashar Assad and the world's other thugs that the US has retired as the enforcer of any kind of world order…Unlike the British in 1956, the US can't retreat from east of Suez without grave consequences. The US replaced the British, but there is no one to replace America.”

With some 900 US military bases now straddling a disproportionate amount of the globe, it will take a lot more Congress voting to take a pass on a military scuffle in a Syrian civil war for the US war machine to suddenly go wobbly. Yes, the Obama administration will have to swallow a big slab of humble pie if Congress doesn’t vote in favor of war, but the long-term consequences in the event of such a decision on American power should not be exaggerated.

But exaggerating the consequences is exactly what America does best. Just one day after Obama had his faith miraculously restored in the battered US Constitution, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that a little birdie informed him that sarin nerve gas was used in the Damascus attack. This revelation allowed Kerry to pull out the most-effective ploy in the PR bag of tricks: the noxious Nazi analogy.

“Bashar al-Assad now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein who have used these weapons in time of war,” Kerry told NBC’s Face the Nation. Kerry called the attack an “affront against the decency and sensibilities of the world.”

“In the last 24 hours, we have learned through samples that were provided to the United States that have now been tested from first responders in east Damascus, and hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin,” he continued.

Free Syrian Army fighters stand in front of buildings damaged by what activists said was shelling by forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad in the old city of Aleppo September 2, 2013.(Reuters / Molhem Barakat)

So now, when US Congressmen return from their summer break on September 9, you can guarantee their email boxes will be littered with messages from special interest groups imploring them to support military action against the “world’s next Hitler.”

"This is squarely now in the hands of Congress," Kerry told CNN, saying he had confidence "they will do what is right because they understand the stakes."

Meanwhile, the calm voice of reason against a senseless war in Syria has been thrown under the bus.

Ron Paul was branded a “conspiracy theorist” by Salon for suggesting that the Syrian chemical attack was a false flag operation designed to get America into another Middle East war.

Paul pointed to the false intelligence that led to the Iraq War to back up his statement.

“[Syrian President Bashar] Assad, I don’t think is an idiot. I don’t think he would do this on purpose,” Paul told Fox News host Neil Cavuto on the allegation that Assad used chemical weapons on civilians.

“Just look at how many lies were told us about Saddam Hussein prior to that (Iraq War) build up. More propaganda. It happens all the time,” Paul said. “I think it’s a false flag.”

Paul then forwarded the single most important question regarding Syria that has been completely ignored by the US mainstream media: “Why are we on the side of the Al-Qaeda?”

Finally, infowars.com  reported that Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for the chemical weapons attack, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

Any story that challenges the one-world perspective of the US mainstream media will be ignored and condemned as just another “conspiracy,” just as they ignored the millions of critics in the build up to the Iraq War.

With a little bit of luck, however, truth may finally get the last word in the upcoming congressional debate on Syria. 

Click Here For More Content

Source

U.S. Prepares to Attack Syria -- 60% of Americans Are Against It, Obama Has No UN Approval, and No Proof of Who Was Behind Gas Attacks

Any moves to bomb Syria risk further American involvement in a brutal civil war that has spiraled out of control.



Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com
August 26, 2013 |



The U.S. is giving all signs of preparing for a unilateral military strike on Syria after an alleged chemical weapons attack last week. Any move to attack Syria could entangle American involvement in a brutal civil war that has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

The American people are strongly opposed to U.S. military involvement in Syria. A recent poll conducted by Reuters showed that 60 percent of Americans are opposed to intervention in Syria.

Last week, reports emerged that the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad attacked the Damascus suburb of Ghouta with nerve agents. Doctors Without Borders, which operates aid centers near Ghouta, said that the victims they treated came in with symptoms consistent with a chemical attack, including breathing problems, foaming at the mouth and damaged vision. Western governments over the weekend also said that there was little doubt that chemical weapons were used. Still, no firm proof has emerged as to who exactly was behind the attacks. Russia has suggested Syrian rebels could have perpetrated the attack, though they also offered no proof. Hundreds of people are estimated to have died in the alleged attack, and thousands more injured.

After the attack was reported, the U.S. began deliberations over a response to what may have been the crossing of the Obama administration’s “red line” on Syria. The U.S. military appears to be weighing a military response to the attack. The military maneuverings near Syria are being made despite the Assad regime allowing United Nations inspectors to investigate the attack, though that move came days after the chemical weapons were allegedly used. A U.S. official said the UN investigation would be "too late to be credible," and that evidence has been corrupted by the Syrian army’s attacks on the area. The UN team came under sniper fire today as it made its way to Ghouta.

The U.S. is now looking at the possibility of launching cruise missile strikes from the sea at Syria. Top U.S. lawmakers, like Rep. Eliot Engel and Senator Bob Corker, have voiced support for the idea.

There are some members of congress opposed to U.S. military action in Syria who say they want a vote to take place before any U.S. military response. “R ather than being solely concerned with U.N. approval, the President must come first to our own Congress for authorization, and I urge him to do so,” said Republican Rep. Chris Gibson in a statement to BuzzFeed. But as the example of Libya showed, the Obama administration has taken action without Congressional approval.In an interview with CNN, Obama said: “ If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it.” But given Russian opposition to a U.S. strike on Syria, a UN mandate would be hard to come by.

Download Leaked US Military Documents: http://stormcloudsgathering.com/leaked-britam-defense-syrian-documents-download

Russia warns US of ‘extremely dangerous’ fallout of strike on Syriahttp://growlearnthink.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/russia-warns-us-of-extremely-dangerous.html

Why Are People So Trusting Of The Mainstream Media?http://growlearnthink.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/why-mainstream.html