The Syrian War Explained.......

[Mr Mosquito]

Rugmeister68 - on yahoo - posted the following sentiments, the best I've yet read.........

As General Wesley Clarke warned in the wake of 911 when the U.S. was bombing Afghanistan and trying to start war with Iraq.....he was handed a memo which stated that the U.S. was going to attack and destroy the governments of 7 countries in as many years starting with Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Syria and finishing with Iran.

Clark said the aim of this plot was this: “They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.” He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz — back in 1991 — in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush senior for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: “But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran, Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.”

All of those countries named apart from Syria and Iran have now been destroyed, regime changed and under Western control.....all of their assets stolen and an elite central bank set up to control the money from resources mostly oil. Iran has hideous sanctions put upon it and the West is supplying weapons, training and funding to attempt to topple Assad before a ground war commences there.

What more do you need to know to understand this war in Syria is not about the use of chemicals weapons but regime change to enable the global elite to take more power and wealth from the Middle East before starting a third world war when they attempt to attack Iran?

Funny how each of the countries invaded have each in turn, turned on their own people, none at the same time......first it was Sadam "gassing his own people" and owning WMDs, when that finished Ghadaffi pulled the same stunt on his people...why did he wait until Saddam was toppled? Now Assad's using sarin against his people during another civil war that has just sprung up....my guess (educated guess) is that when Assad is overthrown the controlled media (BBC etc) will start again with Iran's leader now "having WMDs, a civil war will erupt and he will then start killing his own people...it's a stage and we are all letting it happen using our tax money...we are all guilty until we understand the plan and try to stop our criminal puppet leaders and the lunatics pulling their strings.

Source: Reply to: "John Kerry To Shore Up Support Over Syria" http://uk.news.yahoo.com/john-kerry-shore-support-over-syria-041856678.html

[Aizoon]

That is extremely paranoid and very probably true. It explains something that's baffled me - why should the USA support rebel movements that are strongly infiltrated by al-Qaeda and its allies?

[Cambridge Batch Red]

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-syrian-rebels-gang-raped-executed-15-year-old-girl

[Aizoon]

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-syrian-rebels-gang-raped-executed-15-year-old-girl

Entirely possible, but hardly the most reliable of sources.

[Red-Robbo]

Rugmeister68 - on yahoo - posted the following sentiments, the best I've yet read.........

As General Wesley Clarke warned in the wake of 911 when the U.S. was bombing Afghanistan and trying to start war with Iraq.....he was handed a memo which stated that the U.S. was going to attack and destroy the governments of 7 countries in as many years starting with Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Syria and finishing with Iran.

Clark said the aim of this plot was this: “They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.” He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz — back in 1991 — in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush senior for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: “But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran, Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.”

All of those countries named apart from Syria and Iran have now been destroyed, regime changed and under Western control.....all of their assets stolen and an elite central bank set up to control the money from resources mostly oil. Iran has hideous sanctions put upon it and the West is supplying weapons, training and funding to attempt to topple Assad before a ground war commences there.

What more do you need to know to understand this war in Syria is not about the use of chemicals weapons but regime change to enable the global elite to take more power and wealth from the Middle East before starting a third world war when they attempt to attack Iran?

Funny how each of the countries invaded have each in turn, turned on their own people, none at the same time......first it was Sadam "gassing his own people" and owning WMDs, when that finished Ghadaffi pulled the same stunt on his people...why did he wait until Saddam was toppled? Now Assad's using sarin against his people during another civil war that has just sprung up....my guess (educated guess) is that when Assad is overthrown the controlled media (BBC etc) will start again with Iran's leader now "having WMDs, a civil war will erupt and he will then start killing his own people...it's a stage and we are all letting it happen using our tax money...we are all guilty until we understand the plan and try to stop our criminal puppet leaders and the lunatics pulling their strings.

Source: Reply to: "John Kerry To Shore Up Support Over Syria" http://uk.news.yahoo.com/john-kerry-shore-support-over-syria-041856678.html

Oh dear. Where to start here...

Like many postings from conspiracy theorists, this guy on Yahoo has taken parts of the tale out of context, omitted others, and hasn't quite thought through the chronology or implications - or even read widely on the subject.

Let's take it a paragraph at a time:

1) Wes Clark, a potential Democratic Party presidency candidate, made the claim that a senior Pentagon aide told him about this memo in 2001. He never says he saw the memo, or was handed it, nor does he name his 'source'. However, he used its alleged existence - in a speech in 2007, to attack the then-Republican administration's Iraq policy and claim - not unreasonably - that US foreign policy had been taken over by hawks, like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz etc - who saw the war on terror as a means to take out unfriendly regimes in the Middle East. So far, so likely, although it has to be said no-one other than an implacable enemy of the Bush regime claims to have heard of this memo and it has to be said, if it was a five-year plan it's waaaaaaaay behind schedule: only two of the seven have seen US military interventions.

The important point to remember is that this was a Democrat talking about his disgust at some sort of vague bellicose "plan" (it hardly sounds detailed) made by the aides to a Republican president. There is a Democrat president now, the neo-Cons are no longer at the centre of strategic planning, indeed most of Obama's men speak of the Iraq War as a mistake. A Democrat is now taking - or rather in the case of Syria, not taking - the decisions.

The so-called itinerary of invasions is a bit bizarre to say the least: Lebanon is already unstable, having destabilised itself in sectarian conflict dating back to the mid-70s. It's current government, in as much as it controls its own territory, is hardly anti-Western. Likewise Somalia has been destabilised since the 70s, well before Bush, 9/11 and the war on terror. tribal conflict being the initial trigger there.

2) This is where the poster's own nuance is imposed on Clark as he didn't say the aim was to directly control the countries, but to take out former Soviet satellites in the region. The conversation with Wolfowitz in 1991 is not really relevant to current US thinking as the man is out of government and has little influence at present. His defence policies have lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and even Republicans now seek to distance themselves from those aspects of the Bush years.

3) This par begins with a falsehood, Lebanon and Sudan have no 'been destroyed and are under Western control'. Sudan has the same regime as in 2001 and Lebanon, as has been said, was already unstable and is in no ways different to how it was then. Somalia did not have a government even then, and how anyone can think it's now under Western control is beyond me. Libya is so little under US control, armed gangs can invade its embassy and murder its ambassador there.Don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory I guess...

With that in mind, I'd like the poster to try and explain how the assets of the named countries have been 'stolen'? As I've already said, the Iraq oil industry is nationalised and new contracts there have largely gone to non-US companies, in one major field the Chinese state enterprise is the lead partner. And while we're at it "set up an elite Central Bank"???! What's that all about? Is their some suggestion there was no central bank in Iraq before the invasion? and aren't central banks always a bit 'elite' by virtue of their position? That line is utter cobblers.

If it was all about 'invade and control the oil' wouldn't the US have provoked some sort of uprising against the autocratic Royal families of Saudi and the gulf states? They are much smaller population wise and have much more wealth than Syria which has a relatively large population, but little oil and is one of the Middle East's poorest countries.

4) Perhaps the poster hasn't heard of the Arab Spring - or perhaps he thinks the Yanks were behind it - but let's examine its progress: BTW in each case the dictators 'turned on their own people'. It's what dictators do and why they manage to maintain unchallenged power for so long. The first uprising was in Tunisia, where a pro-Western dictator was ousted and a democracy delivered an Islamic flavoured president in his place [no invasion there? why not? Guess it wasn't on the 'wish list'] then Mubarak, another pro-US dictator fell and again a vaguely pro-Islamic regime was voted in, but then toppled. I'm sure the Egyptian generals ran their coup plans past Nato - or at any rate correctly assumed Nato would not interfere. Although very unstable, the number of deaths in Egypt is dwarfed by those in Syria. Libya went next and I'd like to get the Yahoo poster to explain how the US persuaded several hundreds of thousands of Libyans to risk their lives to topple Gadhaffi - particularly as many of the armed groups don't seem very well-disposed towards US interests. Then we had a suppressed uprising in pro-Western Bahrein and suppressed discontent in Saudi and Jordan. Finally Syria, where we saw mass demonstrations brutally suppressed long before there was any Western involvement - and a Civil War, which took on a distinctly sectarian hue, developed.

My point is, if the US was behind 'Arab Spring' why did it launch movements that took out its friends as well as foes - and how on earth did it just talk people into sacrificing their lives in the AS revolutions to further its aims? Does the poster contend that Assad was beloved by his people and he really got 99.7% of the vote in a free and fair election? Isn't the fact, that these regimes were hated by a large percentage of their own people, having relied on secret police and various methods of repression to maintain power?

The BBC doesn't have to start on about Iran having WMD's. Iran HAS WMD's - the UN acknowledges it and the Iranians tacitly suggest as such, to deter military action, whilst maintaining official denials. [Love the phrase 'the controlled media' - as Iran's nuclear programme has been on Sky, Al-Jazeera, C4, RTE, Channel+ are we to conclude all these broadcasters are 'controlled', and if so by whom and how?] Incidentally, there are already various little reported ethnic uprisings in Iran, notably in Baluchistan.

What seems to have happened in the post you quote RG is a blogger has let an explicit anti-Americanism and a shaky grasp of global politics combine to create a unifying theory that doesn't really stand scrutiny.

Il Rad: If you want to know why the Saudis and Quatar support the rebel movements in Syria and Iran and Hezbollah support Assad, look at the religious background of regime and its opponents. Incidentally, by far the largest market for LPG is the Far East, not Europe. A pipeline across Syria wouldn't aid that.

[Fiale]

The whole area is simply in a war Shia v Sunni, with a Kurd faction trying to also trying to expand territory beyond it's Northern Iraqi area of influence (let's be honest, Northern Iraq is now a small Kurdistan)

Until Saudi Arabia with it's mass of money backing anyone it can to fight it's wars and the US happy to keep fighting to justify it's large military and spending decide they have done enough to win this war, it will continue - we all know the prize is Iran, and it will come sooner or later.

[Fiale]

4) Perhaps the poster hasn't heard of the Arab Spring - or perhaps he thinks the Yanks were behind it - but let's examine its progress: BTW in each case the dictators 'turned on their own people'. It's what dictators do and why they manage to maintain unchallenged power for so long. The first uprising was in Tunisia, where a pro-Western dictator was ousted and a democracy delivered an Islamic flavoured president in his place [no invasion there? why not? Guess it wasn't on the 'wish list'] then Mubarak, another pro-US dictator fell and again a vaguely pro-Islamic regime was voted in, but then toppled. I'm sure the Egyptian generals ran their coup plans past Nato - or at any rate correctly assumed Nato would not interfere. Although very unstable, the number of deaths in Egypt is dwarfed by those in Syria. Libya went next and I'd like to get the Yahoo poster to explain how the US persuaded several hundreds of thousands of Libyans to risk their lives to topple Gadhaffi - particularly as many of the armed groups don't seem very well-disposed towards US interests. Then we had a suppressed uprising in pro-Western Bahrein and suppressed discontent in Saudi and Jordan. Finally Syria, where we saw mass demonstrations brutally suppressed long before there was any Western involvement - and a Civil War, which took on a distinctly sectarian hue, developed.

My point is, if the US was behind 'Arab Spring' why did it launch movements that took out its friends as well as foes - and how on earth did it just talk people into sacrificing their lives in the AS revolutions to further its aims? Does the poster contend that Assad was beloved by his people and he really got 99.7% of the vote in a free and fair election? Isn't the fact, that these regimes were hated by a large percentage of their own people, having relied on secret police and various methods of repression to maintain power?

Well the whole area is fractured, lot's of money and arms being poured into countries by proxies to destablize governments. Who controls a nation is not as important as what can the nation do. After the Arab Springs all those countries have become weaker and more split - almost like the former Yugoslavia, however it's hard to see these middle Eastern countries come out of it the other side like those Slavic states.

[Red-Robbo]

Well the whole area is fractured, lot's of money and arms being poured into countries by proxies to destablize governments. Who controls a nation is not as important as what can the nation do. After the Arab Springs all those countries have become weaker and more split - almost like the former Yugoslavia, however it's hard to see these middle Eastern countries come out of it the other side like those Slavic states.

Indeed. But I don't think some outside power needed to destabilize the dictatorships - they were inherently unstable. A good dictator, like the Assads (father and son), will know to get enough people on their side through either being bound up with the machinery of the state or by the creation of a favoured elite - in Assad's case the Alawites, or by using fear [of an Islamic state] to get other groups [in this case Syrian Christians] on its side so as to make revolution difficult.

We'll clearly see airstrikes on Syria, but how much that will hinder Assad is unclear. It may even shore up support for him. As others have said, the US is less than sure it would achieve a regime in Syria favourable to it, even if Assad was deposed. My guess is they might want to see him toppled in a palace coup by a member of his own military high command.

The 'boogy man' responsible for chemical weapon attacks - possibly - would be gone gone and Obama could say "we have a man we can do business with" in his place. That, I suspect is the favoured Syrian solution.

[Davros]

Rugmeister68 - on yahoo - posted the following sentiments, the best I've yet read.........

As General Wesley Clarke warned in the wake of 911 when the U.S. was bombing Afghanistan and trying to start war with Iraq.....he was handed a memo which stated that the U.S. was going to attack and destroy the governments of 7 countries in as many years starting with Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Syria and finishing with Iran.

Clark said the aim of this plot was this: “They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.” He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz — back in 1991 — in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush senior for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: “But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran, Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.”

All of those countries named apart from Syria and Iran have now been destroyed, regime changed and under Western control.....all of their assets stolen and an elite central bank set up to control the money from resources mostly oil. Iran has hideous sanctions put upon it and the West is supplying weapons, training and funding to attempt to topple Assad before a ground war commences there.

What more do you need to know to understand this war in Syria is not about the use of chemicals weapons but regime change to enable the global elite to take more power and wealth from the Middle East before starting a third world war when they attempt to attack Iran?

Funny how each of the countries invaded have each in turn, turned on their own people, none at the same time......first it was Sadam "gassing his own people" and owning WMDs, when that finished Ghadaffi pulled the same stunt on his people...why did he wait until Saddam was toppled? Now Assad's using sarin against his people during another civil war that has just sprung up....my guess (educated guess) is that when Assad is overthrown the controlled media (BBC etc) will start again with Iran's leader now "having WMDs, a civil war will erupt and he will then start killing his own people...it's a stage and we are all letting it happen using our tax money...we are all guilty until we understand the plan and try to stop our criminal puppet leaders and the lunatics pulling their strings.

Source: Reply to: "John Kerry To Shore Up Support Over Syria" http://uk.news.yahoo.com/john-kerry-shore-support-over-syria-041856678.html

These Americans are brilliant, despite the incredible odds and expense of engineering such things as a popular civil uprising sparked by having persuading a guy to set himself on fire in Tunisia. These Americans have teamed up with with various

Or maybe

America have so much Gas and Oil they don't give a **** about the middle east.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/01/news/economy/oil-reserves/index.html

And maybe Assad is a tyrannical**** of astronomical proportions trying to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing on a scale not seen since the second world war. While the UK just shakes its head disapprovingly at Assad killing 1000 children in under a week. The only chance these people have is America and its allies.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/22/syria-sunnis-fear-alawite-ethnic-cleansing

But if you want to make it more complex than it really is, then feel free but don't try and pass it off as credible.

[CiderHider]

That is extremely paranoid and very probably true. It explains something that's baffled me - why should the USA support rebel movements that are strongly infiltrated by al-Qaeda and its allies?

The whole thing is one big mind ***k!

I sometimes wonder about people motives, the human mind is amazing, capable of wonderful ideas. And terrifying ideas, truly unholy and things so despicable and underhanded I don't have the mind to even begin to comprehend it.

What powers are at play and what lengths would they go to to achieve their goals? Well incase of Israel i would say capable of anything, and that is my worry.

My thoughts were on the idea of this link, and what lengths Israel will go to to ensure their future, if anything is on the table then anything is possible, inconceivable and ridiculous.

The recent uprisings, orichiasted by Israel, these events are not chance, they are happening by design.

[Fiale]

These Americans are brilliant, despite the incredible odds and expense of engineering such things as a popular civil uprising sparked by having persuading a guy to set himself on fire in Tunisia. These Americans have teamed up with with various

Or maybe

America have so much Gas and Oil they don't give a **** about the middle east.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/01/news/economy/oil-reserves/index.html

And maybe Assad is a tyrannical **** of astronomical proportions trying to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing on a scale not seen since the second world war. While the UK just shakes its head disapprovingly at Assad killing 1000 children in under a week. The only chance these people have is America and its allies.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/22/syria-sunnis-fear-alawite-ethnic-cleansing

But if you want to make it more complex than it really is, then feel free but don't try and pass it off as credible.

That Guardian article is one of the most pointless reads in a long time - suspect that, suspicions of, think that, potentially - there is nothing in there suggesting Assad is involved in Genocide - he is involved in a civil war however - and who is it against ? These fine chaps below

Rebels executed Syrian soilders and dumping their bodies in a drainage hole

http://youtu.be/YYTkttBBIfs

Different place, more Syrian soilders being executed to cries of God is great, whilst a Syrian Rebel crowd look on for entertainment

Rebels executing 51 soilders

Syrian Rebels promising to chop of your head and kill you - yes you - because your an infidel in their eyes

http://youtu.be/nkqp5-zW8M8

Shooting down aircraft screaming over and over and over and over how God is great

http://youtu.be/AJvnt8rpRJg

And what happens when soilders turn up - they fight for a while, and if look like losing, drop their weapons and go home in their civilian clothes, blend in with the civilians until they are safe to pick up their guns and start killing again -

So lets not make out Assad is somehow more evil than those he's fighting.

[Mr Mosquito]

So lets not make out Assad is somehow more evil than those he's fighting.

Exactly, let's hope the BBC and Dave Camoron and their cronies get that message.

[Fiale]

By the way - there are dozens more like that, and these are just the ones someone video'd and thought would be nice to post to youtube - nice bunch...

btw UN are concerned about Police officers and Soliders wives and children being kidnapped or killed, as well as whle areas being told to leave or be killed by the rebels who are looking to ethnically cleanse areas....

[Mr Mosquito]

By the way - there are dozens more like that, and these are just the ones someone video'd and thought would be nice to post to youtube - nice bunch...

btw UN are concerned about Police officers and Soliders wives and children being kidnapped or killed in their, as well as whle areas being told to leave or be killed by the rebels who are looking to ethnically cleanse areas....

.......it's about time the war mongering BBC broadcast these facts instead of always siding with the Islamist rebel Jihadists.

[Davros]

That Guardian article is one of the most pointless reads in a long time - suspect that, suspicions of, think that, potentially - there is nothing in there suggesting Assad is involved in Genocide - he is involved in a civil war however - and who is it against ? These fine chaps below

Rebels executed Syrian soilders and dumping their bodies in a drainage hole

http://youtu.be/YYTkttBBIfs

Different place, more Syrian soilders being executed to cries of God is great, whilst a Syrian Rebel crowd look on for entertainment

Rebels executing 51 soilders

Syrian Rebels promising to chop of your head and kill you - yes you - because your an infidel in their eyes

http://youtu.be/nkqp5-zW8M8

Shooting down aircraft screaming over and over and over and over how God is great

http://youtu.be/AJvnt8rpRJg

And what happens when soilders turn up - they fight for a while, and if look like losing, drop their weapons and go home in their civilian clothes, blend in with the civilians until they are safe to pick up their guns and start killing again -

So lets not make out Assad is somehow more evil than those he's fighting.

I don't know what you think civil war looks like, nobody is saying that every single group in the numerous groups that make up the rebels are in fact nice people, in fact some of the Jihadists are very misguided and unsavory individuals. Assad's soldiers don't video their actions because rapping women, shooting children and gassing whole sections of towns its generally not clever to make videos. However you might want to ask yourself what the these few rebels hope to get out of making videos of executions doing far less nasty things? They are simply hoping to scare people who are systematically raping, killing and murdering their families.

Funny thing how civil war, and whats becoming an increasingly sectarian conflict isn't nice to look at. But if we stand by and let it run its course the rebels we become increasingly more desperate as they are wiped out.

Take this man for example, the guy who took a bite from another mans heart (that's about as nasty as it gets) listen to why he did it, he's a devout Muslim in his mind now he knows he is going to pay for that sin. What you have to ask yourself is what drives people to these things, you dont just wake up one day and think I fancy taking a bite from another mans heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUl-a3VFT28

[Davros]

It been 2 years now and a hell of a lot people have died, but do you even how it started? Its turned into an even bigger mess than anyone could of imagined, but lets not loose sight of the fact it started as a peaceful uprising that was put down with guns, guns, snipers, rape and more guns oh and a good bit of burning. It then descended into civil war, and now its increasingly looking more like sectarian violence is becoming more and more commonplace.

Its a disaster of astronomical proportions, so attaching silly conspiracies and conjecture about political motivations is just disrespectful to the hundreds of thousands of dead.

No western government in its right mind would want to get involved for any other reason than to try and bring some order to the chaos that is there at the moment.

[Cambridge Batch Red]

No western government in its right mind would want to get involved for any other reason than to try and bring some order to the chaos that is there at the moment.

Firing tomahawk cruise missiles at the country is hardly a stabilising act of reconciliation is it?

[Davros]

Firing tomahawk cruise missiles at the country is hardly a stabilising act of reconciliation is it?

Or maybe just the threat of it as the news is coming out tonight is enough to make Assad come to his senses over chemical weapons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24022866

[Fiale]

deleted my reply as noticed their is some - well to graphic video in it....

[Davros]

deleted my reply as noticed their is some - well to graphic video in it....

Because posting up graphic content of whatever the rebels do makes Assad any less a tyrant how? He put down a peaceful demonstration with machine guns and snipers before the whole of Syria descended into chaos. That does not make the rebels saints and does not stop some of the brigades being anti western or loons, but it's very wrong to turn all the actions of some rebels into a collective responsibility for all rebels. Its now a very complex sectarian civil war that the rebels are losing horribly along with their families.