US President Barack Obama speaks on the phone with King Abdullah II of Jordan in the Oval Office of the White House on August 8, 2014 in Washington, DC after US jets struck ISIL positions in northern Iraq.
The Obama administration is reportedly preparing to begin air strikes on Syrian territory without the consent of the Syrian government. The pretext is the rapidly expanding US war on ISIL, but in fact this is the long-desired US attack on Syria that was temporarily thwarted, reportedly by popular opposition last year (but more likely by US knowledge that its claims the Assad government was behind the chemical attacks at Ghouta had no basis in reality and would not stand up to even superficial scrutiny).
Though it makes for a compelling story, the idea that popular opposition to Obama’s plans to attack Syria last year stopped the bombs seems more wishful thinking than reality.
Consider how easy it has been these past two weeks to obliterate any opposition among the American people to the same US attack plan regurgitated almost exactly one year later.
A series of salacious stories about ISIL slaughtering a Yazidi minority that no one had even heard of mobilized US public opinion in favor of initial US strikes and even ground troops in Iraq.
Never mind that the US and its allies had armed and trained the individuals who now call themselves ISIL (now simply “IS”) for a number of years.
Another “babies thrown from incubators” story and even self-identified non-interventionists were screaming for bombing runs.
Then came the video released purporting to be the beheading of US freelance journalist (and former USAID contractor) James Foley. Though the video did not show an actual beheading, skeptics were nevertheless silenced by admonitions to not add to the family’s grief by questioning the official US government line. The videos were feverishly removed from social media outlets before many had the chance to see that they did not show a beheading at all.
If you have ever questioned the official narrative for the September 11th attacks then you have, without a doubt, been dubbed a conspiracy nut by the establishment media and those who hang on their every word. Like the Warren Commission report on the JFK assassination, the 9/11 Report assembled by a Congressional investigation is unraveling and being revealed for what it really is – nothing more than a cover story. This is no longer a conspiracy theory… it’s conspiracy fact.
After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors. But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals. It was kept secret and remains so today. President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks. … Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally. The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.
The New York Post investigation reveals that Saudi agents, officials and operatives in Virginia, Florida, California and D.C. provided direct support by way funding or intelligence to those involved in bringing down the towers. Karl Denninger at the Market Ticker succinctly argues that this was, in fact, an act of war:
It’s obvious given what happened, the logistical and funding requirements and where the hijackers came from along with inexplicable actions immediately following the attacks – unless our government explicitly let certain people flee. Yet we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan while helping the Saudis — the very people who attacked us. And Obama, to this day, kisses the Saudi King.
Recent news of the rapid advance of the Islamic Fundamentalist organization ISIS across a wide swath of Iraq may indeed have come as a shock to a large number of Americans. Indeed, to the general public who pay very little attention to the affairs of other countries or even their own, the fact that the ISIS now controls a large portion of Iraq as well as a portion of Syria not only conjures up images of American foreign policy failure but also of the possibility of re-invading Iraq in order to quell the fundamentalist forces.
The irony, of course, is that “al-Qaeda” and ISIS would never have been in Iraq to begin with had it not been for the United States nor would it have been in Syria if it were not for the fact that the United States, NATO, and the West in general organized, funded, trained, armed, and directed it.
Unfortunately, the Orwellian nature of the manner in which the “news” is presented to the American public almost absolves them of the blame for being utterly confused at the events transpiring overseas. From the constant fearmongering and propaganda after 9/11 over the dangers posed by Islamic terrorists to our “freedoms” to the subsequent open funding of al-Qaeda in other countries, the American people are constantly bounced back and forth between fear and support of the terrorist organization and networks now in control of such large portions of land in the Middle East.
Thirteen years after 9/11, extremists have gained more power in the region than they ever had before the “Global War On Terror” began. The only question is why they were allowed to seize so much territory, particularly inside a country that was seemingly so important to the United States.
Before going any further, it should be pointed out that any suggestion that the resurgence of ISIS and the march across Iraq caught the Western intelligence apparatus by surprise is entirely ludicrous. As Tony Cartalucci points out in his article, “NATO’s Terror Hordes In Iraq A Pretext For Syria Invasion,”
All roads lead to Baghdad and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is following them all, north from Syria and Turkey to south. Reading Western headlines, two fact-deficient narratives have begun gaining traction. The first is that this constitutes a “failure” of US policy in the Middle East, an alibi as to how the US and its NATO partners should in no way be seen as complicit in the current coordinated, massive, immensely funded and heavily armed terror blitzkrieg toward Baghdad. The second is how ISIS appears to have “sprung” from the sand dunes and date trees as a nearly professional military traveling in convoys of matching Toyota trucks without explanation.
Of course, it is equally ludicrous to suggest that the only options available to the United States are reinvasion or allowing Iraq to fall to terrorist savages. There is indeed a third way out of the tragedy that has befallen the Iraqi people which lies within the very nature of ISIS. As Tony Cartalucci writes,
In actuality, ISIS is the product of a joint NATO-GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] conspiracy stretching back as far as 2007 where US-Saudi policymakers sought to ignite a region-wide sectarian war to purge the Middle East of Iran’s arch of influence stretching from its borders, across Syria and Iraq, and as far west as Lebanon and the coast of the Mediterranean. ISIS has been harbored, trained, armed, and extensively funded by a coalition of NATO and Persian Gulf states within Turkey’s (NATO territory) borders and has launched invasions into northern Syria with, at times, both Turkish artillery and air cover. The most recent example of this was the cross-border invasion by Al Qaeda into Kasab village, Latikia province in northwest Syria.
Thus, with ISIS being a creation of NATO and the GCC, the most realistic solution – if the United States was truly interested in stopping the progression of the terrorist organization and rolling back its recent gains – would be to stop funding and supporting it.
Robert Steuckers est une figure de la « Nouvelle Droite », ancien membre du mouvement GRECE et fondateur du mouvement « Synergies européennes ». Dans cet entretien, il propose une analyse à la fois historique et géopolitique des tentatives de subversion opérées dans le monde arabe et la sphère d’influence russe par la thalassocratie anglo-états-unienne.
The NSC was funneling arms to the Nicaraguan contras before Oliver North’s resupply network was operational. US aid to Saudi Arabia was being forwarded to the contras via the Karachi, Pakistan-based Bank of Credit & Commerce International (BCCI). 
While House of Saud-bound money was being diverted towards the contras, one of BCCI’s biggest initial depositors was the Shah of Iran, whose Swiss BCCI accounts were bulging.
With the ruling families of the Nixon’s “Twin Pillars” on board, BCCI would become the mixing bowl into which Persian Gulf petrodollars were stirred with generous helpings of drug money to finance worldwide covert operations for the CIA and its Israeli Mossad and British MI6 partners.
BCCI was the bank of choice for the world’s most notorious dictators, including the Somoza family, Saddam Hussein, Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos and Haiti’s Jean-Claude “Papa Doc” Duvalier. The South African apartheid regime used BCCI, as did Manuel Noriega, who strode into BCCI’s Panama branch regularly to collect his $200,000/year CIA paycheck.
BCCI was favorite laundry mat for the Medellin Cartel and for the world’s newest heroin kingpins, the leaders of the CIA-controlled factions of the Afghan mujahadeen. BCCI financed Reagan’s secret arms sales to Iran and worked with Robert Calvi’s Banco Amrosiano. It was the conduit for dirty money generated by Mossad fugitive financier Marc Rich and washed the funny money emanating from the now bankrupt Enron in its reincarnated state as Chicago-based Pinnacle Banc Group. 
Frequenting the Karachi headquarters of BCCI was valued account-holder Osama bin Laden.
With branches in 76 countries, BCCI dealt in conventional and nuclear weapons, gold, drugs, mercenary armies, intelligence and counter-intelligence. These interests were often shielded behind more legitimate fronts such as the shipping of Honduran coffee or Vietnamese beans. The bank had close relations with the CIA, Pakistan’s ISI, the Israeli Mossad and Saudi intelligence agencies. It was the financial glue that bonded numerous seemingly disparate public scandals together.
BCCI’s main stockholders were monarchs and wealthy oil sheiks from the Reagan-manufactured Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations.
Entretien avec Bernard Cornut sur la situation en Syrie.
Ingénieur Polytechnicien ayant vécu de nombreuses années dans divers pays du Moyen Orient. S’appuyant sur des documents peu connus, il livre ici en exclusivité pour Égalité et Réconciliation, son analyse sur la situation en Syrie.