There is a amazing story from mainstream journalist Dale Gavlak, often
published by the BBC, reporting that Syrian rebels admitted to her that the
chemical weapons came from Saudi Arabia but were mishandled by rebels and that
an accident occurred causing the deaths of Syrians in Damascus last
week.
This cannot be claimed as 'proof' of Assad's innocence but will any
mainstream sources follow up on this 'bombshell' of a story? It is surely
incredible that Assad, who is winning the conflict, would invite a massive US
air attack by doing what he promised never to do, use chemical weapons against
Syrians.
It doesn't look good, as the original internet source page (Mint Press News)
has been taken down. However a copy of the original article and commentary can
be seen here:
2 comments:
Whats really behind the US push for war in the middle east? Contrary to popular opinion it's not all about oil in the way you think! It's about the IMF and the US petro dollar.
Why was Iraq taken out? - not because of 9/11 that was all Sudi. It's because Saddam was selling oil outside of using the US dollar.
Why was Lybia taken out - because they wanted to sell oil based on their own gold backed currency. Nor we're they an IMF country.
Why the sword rattling over Iran - same thing they are not in the IMF and sell oil without using the US dollar.
Why back terrorists in Syria - Assad is not willing to join the IMF.
Why destabilize Egypt - to make them more dependent on the IMF
It's obvious that Russia and China are both working to take down the US dollar as the world reserve currency. Both are buying huge stocks in gold fo back their respective currencies. They have also agreed to sell oil to the world based on transactions outside of the US dollar. The also formed BRICS to buy pass the IMF.
From the Western perspective this whole situation is based on propping up the US dollar. For Russia and China it's about timing on when to collapse the Western economies.
The risk of attacking Syria without a mandate of the UN may be quite high, as China and especially Russia are strictly against any intervention (I believe Russia went so far to sent warships), yet I don't believe there will emerge another Great War ("WW III") between the powers in case of a military strike, because the Germans are not involved. Being a German myself, I think there can be no proper world war unless Germany has started it or is enormously entangled in its beginning. And - what is even more important - without Germany there will be no proper villain to blame after every war party has exhausted itself in years of pointless slaughter. Perhaps it's time for the German frigate "Bayern" to shell Damascus.
Post a Comment