The Mediterranean Stand Off

It’s starting to look crowded in there but we are forgetting the Israeli ships and subs, as well as the possibility of China and Iran entering the fray. Call me cynical but if Obama doesn’t get the vote, another Gulf of Tonkin or a USS Liberty style False Flag?

image

The Pentagon Is Preparing A Cruise Missile Attack Against Syria

From the noble peace prize winner, Barrack Obama, we have the call to war in Syria. The recent false flag chemical attack perpetrated by the US/UK/Qatar/SA backed rebels in an area of Damascus, which is not under control of government forces, makes no sense and the evidence is sketchy at best! The victims were different colours (you’d expect Sarin to cause burning of the skin), the numbers of victims was overestimated, no government troops secured the area after the attack to prevent this coming out….the list goes on but its all lies and a precursor for war. Lest we never forget, all wars are banker wars.

Courtesy of The Hedge:

Earlier today, in “US Refines “Military Options” Ahead Of Syrian Strikes”, we reported on what we thought was now inevitable especially since it was in agreemenet with what we predicted with absolute certainty over a month ago in “US Prepares For “Kinetic Strikes” Against Syria.” There we said: “The pre-story here is well-known to most: in a repeat fabulation of the Iraq “WMD” lie, the US and the entire developed world “found” Syria to have crossed a red-line when it used chemical weapons, despite subsequent reports that it was the Syrian rebels, aka Qatari mercenaries, who were the party responsible for chemical weapon use. No matter though: the public media campaign was hatched, and merely waited for the catalyst. That catalyst may be imminent…”

Sure enough, a month later the convenient catalyst emerged when this Wedensday, despite the entire world watching Assad (and as Iraq WMD inspector Rolf Ekeus stating the obvious in “It would be very peculiar if it was the government to do this at the exact moment the international inspectors come into the country”), we are meant to believe that the Syrian leader launched the biggest nerve gas attack in the history of the Qatari, Al-Qaeda and CIA-funded and organized Syrian rebellion. Two days later, without any actual investigation, the west determined somehow, on its own, that the attack was launched by Assad, not a false flag attack by the rebels even though it was their chemical weapons depot that had been previously uncovered. Visions of Colin Powell lying to the world (with his former aide admitting years later the WMD speech was the “lowest point in my life”) should now be emerging right before your eyes.

Moments ago the inevitable denouement arrived when as CBS’ David Martin reports, the US is preparing for a cruise missile launch against Syria, and is further ordering warships closer to Syria to be prepared and ready for when the trigger is pulled.

More from CBS:

CBS News has learned that the Pentagon is making the initial preparations for a cruise missile attack on Syrian government forces. We say “initial preparations” because such an attack won’t happen until the president gives the green light. And it was clear during an interview on CNN Friday that he is not there yet.

“If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country, without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented,” the president told CNN, “then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it — ‘do we have the coalition to make it work?’ Those are considerations that we have to take into account.”

Launching cruise missiles from the sea would not risk any American lives. It would be a punitive strike designed not to topple Syrian dictator Bashir Assad but to convince him he cannot get away with using chemical weapons.

Watch a report on Syrian activists gathering evidence to prove chemical attack:

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey is expected to present options for a strike at a White House meeting on Saturday.

Potential targets include command bunkers and launchers used to fire chemical weapons.

However, officials stress President Obama, who until now has steadfastly resisted calls for military intervention, has not made a decision.

CBS News has learned that the Pentagon is making the initial preparations for a cruise missile attack on Syrian government forces. We say “initial preparations” because such an attack won’t happen until the president gives the green light. And it was clear during an interview on CNN Friday that he is not there yet.

“If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country, without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented,” the president told CNN, “then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it — ‘do we have the coalition to make it work?’ Those are considerations that we have to take into account.”

Launching cruise missiles from the sea would not risk any American lives. It would be a punitive strike designed not to topple Syrian dictator Bashir Assad but to convince him he cannot get away with using chemical weapons.

Watch a report on Syrian activists gathering evidence to prove chemical attack:

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey is expected to present options for a strike at a White House meeting on Saturday.

Potential targets include command bunkers and launchers used to fire chemical weapons.

However, officials stress President Obama, who until now has steadfastly resisted calls for military intervention, has not made a decision.
None of this should come as a surprise to our readers. We explained in detail why not the US state department, not the Pentagon, not even the president or the US MIC is seeking this war. No: the culprit is none other than the Federal Reserve and it banking industry superiors. To wit:

The chart below will likely come as a surprise to most. It shows total nominal US defense spending, more importantly it shows that such spending has been rapidly declining since 2010. And while on the surface it is great news the US is becoming more “pacifist” (apparently mass killings using drones are relatively cost-effective) and the result for the US is even better as it means lower deficits, there is one person who is very unhappy with this outcome – Ben Bernanke.

image

Why is Ben unhappy? Simple – as a reminder, the only reason Ben is even contemplating tapering has nothing to do with the economy. After all the Fed chairman (and/or his successor) is willing to send the stock market into stratospheric overdrive and would be very happy to add not subtract from the monthly QE $85 billion notional since it means more “wealth effect” and thus brings the US closer to the “Keynesian successful endgame” (that the logic here is completely inverted is well known to all but the most die-hard Keynesian fanboys and is not in the scope of this article).

However, the fact that the gross US debt issuance is declining (if only until the demographic and healthcare crunch hits in 2015 and deficits explode once more) means Bernanke has less primary issuance to monetize. Were Bernanke to maintain his monetization run rate into a lower deficit regime, the Chairman would destabilize the liquidity in the already increasingly illiquid Treasury market in which the Fed now holds over 30% of all 10 Year equivalents and its holdings increase by 0.3% every week.

This illiquidity is manifesting itself most directly in the “special” repo rates that have become a norm in the past few months especially in the 10 Year, and which indicate an ongoing shortage of TSY collateral.

Of course, there is a very simple and elegant solution to declining defense spending, one which has been used time and again in US history when the US government needed to provide the Fed with more securities (i.e. deficit) to monetize: war.
And speaking of war:

The ultimate decision will come not from Congress but from the Fed.

So what may have spooked Bernanke and the sudden reappearance of the Syrian war as a real and credible possibility?

Why, the economy of course. Only not its “improvement” but its recent (and ongoing) deterioration.

And since the taper is largely priced in, Bernanke is already contemplating how to reengage in the subsequent untapering should all hell break loose following a September tapering announcement prompting the Fed to reengage once more. However, for that to happen, US deficits would need to flow as before, as only then will there be the much needed copious primary issuance of debt that the Fed will need in order to resume monetizing at a fervent pace without impairing the liquidity characteristics of the bond market.

As for the downside? What are some irrelevant Syrian lives in the grand scheme of things, when the status quo’s wealth must be preserved at all costs. Costs including the death of thousands of innocent civilian Syrians and/or other nationalities should the conflict just happen to spill outside the Syrian borders.

So there you have it: in order to make way for the inevitable Untaper, Bernanke has launched in motion a chain of events that will ultimately culminate with a surge in US deficit spending, which will require a surge in Treasury issuance, and thus, a surge in Fed monetization, which also means reserve creation, and as has been made all too clear over the past 5 years, yet another surge in the stock market.

Of course, the use of war as a culmination point to end a depression is nothing new. Just look at the first Great Depression.

And just like then, the only cost to perpetuate the myth of the Keynesian and monetarist religion and the pillaged wealth of the 0.01% status quo elite, will be a few hundred thousand innocent men, women and children. Or, as they are known in the Beltway, collateral damage.

That is, unless, Putin decides to retaliate. Then history will truly rhyme, when just as the first great US depression was followed promptly by a world war, so the second great US depression will have an identical outcome.

A False Flag Chemical Attack in Syria

Last night in Syria there was a chemical weapons massacre where more than 200 people were killed shortly after 3 am, local time. Syrian activists and anti-Assad forces promptly accused President Assad of conducting the attack that killed numerous women and children. This was in the area that was uncovered just over a month ago to contain an anti-Assad chemical weapons factory.

State TV and Syrian government promptly denied any responsibility for the attack. So much so that even experts are now wondering if it wasn’t merely the latest provocation attempt by the US, UK, Al-Qaeda supported rebels to turn public opinion further against Assad thus allowing an eventual military intervention. This is disgusting behaviour by the rebels, why would Assad carry out this atrocity when inviting chemical weapons inspectors into his country 3 days before? He wouldn’t, so why are our governments from the UK and US backing these murderous scum? Our governments are not what we are led to believe, front of house managers for the corporates and elites. Me and you do not matter to them, just the agenda.

image

Courtesy of Reuters:

The timing and location of the reported chemical weapons use – just three days after the team of U.N. chemical experts checked in to a Damascus hotel a few km (miles) to the east at the start of their mission – was surprising.

“It would be very peculiar if it was the government to do this at the exact moment the international inspectors come into the country,” said Rolf Ekeus, a retired Swedish diplomat who headed a team of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq in the 1990s.

“At the least, it wouldn’t be very clever.”

Ekeus said the mandate of the U.N. team was limited to three sites but could be amended to investigate fresh claims – which would be simpler to verify than the other months-old cases.

“It is easier to do sampling and testing, and also to look at the victims, if there are sick people or even dead people (on the scene). It is easier to get to doctors and get to the place where the event happened.”

Charles Lister, an analyst at IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre, also said it made little sense for the Syrian government to use chemical agents now.

“Nonetheless, the Ghouta region (where the attacks were reported) is well known for its opposition leanings. Jabhat al-Nusra has had a long-time presence there and the region has borne the brunt of sustained military pressure for months now,” he said, referring to a hardline Sunni Islamist rebel group allied to al Qaeda.

“While it is clearly impossible to confirm the chemical weapons claim, it is clear from videos uploaded by reliable accounts that a large number of people have died.”

Our governments are supporting terrorism to maintain the petrodollar, a despicable act of a despicable system. My thoughts and hopes go out to the Syrian people and hope the world sees this for what it is, war crimes committed by the Western backed terrorists.

The Terrible Future Of The Syrian War

I read this article by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog and it reinforces what I believe about the Syrian conflict. It is a proxy war and no one will win, it is clear aggression by the global elite to start a world war but we must not let them. Not only for our own salvation but the salvation of all men, woman and children who will be killed, maimed, misplaced, regardless of what side they support. We need to highlight the false information they are are perpetuating and hold these ignorant, narcissistic and sociopathic poor excuses for human beings to account.

I do not wish for my children or their children to inherit an earth in which we allowed a certain 1% faction of our own society to ruin and desecrate it. We are the 99% and it is time we awoke to take back our lives and our natural right to freedom, happiness and liberty. Regardless of race, religion, colour or creed we are one species and we need to work together to remove our shackles or we will commit our children to live a life of blatant slavery. I for one will not stand for this, I ask anyone who reads this to make the right decision and hold those in power to account because if we don not make a stand, we are letting ourselves and our future friends and families down.

Full Article:

The last war America fought openly through proxy was the Vietnam War. The idea was not necessarily “new”; General Smedley Butler’s exposé on his career as a conqueror-for-hire, titled War is a Racket, uncovered a long history of bloodshed by U.S. government and corporate interests in third world countries designed to destroy sovereign nations and plunder their resources. This was done through the use of mercenaries for hire, military men acting covertly or guerrilla forces with a pre-existing agenda supplied through back channels.

After our defeat in Vietnam, our government set forth on a program of private warfare. The “School of the Americas” was formed, also known as the School of Assassins, in Fort Benning, Georgia. The combat academy churned out some of the most unstable monsters in third world politics. The U.S. trained and conditioned agents for violent social change and military overthrow, who were then implanted around the world (mostly in Central and South America). These agents then initiated war fever in the name of cementing U.S. interests around the globe. Their horrifying methods were seen as a means to an end.

image

The sad and disturbing reality is that most wars fought by our country over the course of the past century have not been fought on principle. Instead, they have been fought for profit and for the consolidation of power and oligarchy.

Vietnam was a break in the tradition of secret puppet conflicts, sending the U.S. into the realm of openly admitted proxy. The establishment wanted the American people to know that we were supplying funding and weapons to the South Vietnamese nationalists, meddling in a civil war which had absolutely no bearing on U.S. international relations or domestic policy. The rationalization then was that America had to stop the spread of communism. Ironically, the communists of North Vietnam were a minimal threat compared to the elitist communists within our own borders sitting in positions of political power.

Ultimately, the Vietnam War had nothing to do with fighting communism, and everything to do with manipulating the public into accepting the concept of foreign intervention. That is to say, we were being conditioned to think of interventionism as a perfectly normal U.S. policy.

The war in Vietnam was achieved in stages. First, the U.S. aided then abandoned the government of Ngo Dinh Diem, who was assassinated during a military coup inspired partly by Diem’s despotic mistreatment of the Vietnamese populace. Money was then sent to cement the power of the military junta in the name of countering the rise of the communist North. Soon, weapons and heavy ordinance were being shipped to the South. Then, U.S. “advisors” were sent to train South Vietnamese soldiers.

Full intervention was successfully avoided by the John F. Kennedy Administration until his assassination, after which President Lyndon B. Johnson launched into a full-spectrum U.S. invasion which the mainstream referred to as a “police action.” This invasion was facilitated by the “Gulf of Tonkin event”, which is now openly admitted by officials of the day, including Robert McNamara, as a false flag incident entirely fabricated by the U.S. government in order to engineer a validation for outright war. Simultaneously, Chinese and Russian interests began supplying the North, though their involvement never officially led to boots on the ground.

I rehash this history because I think it is important to note that the Vietnam theatre seems to have been recycled in Syria today, though the cast of characters has been rearranged slightly. This time, the U.S. and Europe has supported the insurgency. The government of Bashar al-Assad has been cast as the “villain”. Russia and China are now playing the role of mediators and peacemakers, while the West now sends men like Senator John McCain to throw money and weapons into the hands of a rebellion permeated with members of Al Qaeda, who decapitate and eat the hearts of prisoners on video, and who, last time I checked, were supposedly our enemy.

The process and escalation of the conflict has been very similar to our adventures in Southeast Asia. Money has been openly sent to the rebels. Weapons have likely been covertly sent (evidence suggests that this program was perhaps a part of the reason for the Benghazi incident and subsequent cover-up). Now, certain parties within the U.S., Israel, and the EU have suggested open armament of the insurgency, while destabilization of the region is blamed on Assad by the Western media. A false flag event seems to have already been fabricated in the form of a chemical weapons attack. Samples of a particular Sarin gas incident have allegedly been collected by French journalists from the La Monde newspaper, and have been supplied to the UN. The UN of course has identified the samples as Sarin and has immediately led the public to believe that the Syrian government was involved, though they have been forced to acknowledge that the insurgents may also have access to similar chemical weapons. My question is, who the hell is La Monde? Are we really supposed to believe that random embedded journalists with no agenda have supplied the UN with substantial proof of chemical weapons by the Assad regime? Where are these samples? Where were they taken? Where is the proof that they were taken during a combat incident? I smell an Iraqi setup special all over again…

In response to the accelerated armament of what many now consider an entirely fabricated revolution, Russia, Iran, and Lebanon have offered aid to Assad. Russia has supplied Syria with weaponry for years, though shipments have increased in recent months, including a new shipment of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles which has infuriated Israel (Israel has claimed it has no intention to escalate, even thought it has twice used airstrikes within Syria’s borders — their anger over S-300 shipments only shows that they intend to continue such aggression).

Iran has a longstanding mutual defense pact with Syria and has stated that any further direct incursions by the West will result in Iranian involvement (though I think it likely that they are already involved sending arms and advisors of their own). Lebanon has supplied actual ground troops to Assad through Hezbollah. They are aiding the Syrian army in what appears to be a successful campaign against the insurgency. Hezbollah was very effective in repelling an invasion by Israel in 2006, causing the United Nations to step in to provide face-saving resolutions and an excuse for Israeli retreat. I believe their involvement in Syria will be a game changer.

I have been writing and warning about Syria’s potential as a catalyst for an expanded global war for years, long before most people had ever heard of Assad, and much of what I have predicted in the past is now coming true. Whether you believe the Assad regime is good or evil, it is important to realize that our government’s involvement in the region has nothing to do with Assad. This conflict is about setting off chain reactions in the Middle East, and, perhaps, even triggering a world war. You can read more about this in my article “Syria And Iran Dominos Lead To World War.”

Using Vietnam and other proxy wars as a reference, here is how I believe the war in Syria is likely to progress over the coming months:

Heavy weapons will be supplied to the insurgency, including anti-aircraft weapons, leading to increased casualties, especially civilian casualties.

Assad will respond with expanded and deadly airstrikes and ground troops will advance with the aid of Hezbollah.

Iran will begin openly supplying arms, and step up covert supplies of advisors and ground troops.

Russia will increase arms shipments even further, including anti-ship, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles in order to dissuade U.S. and Israeli interests from sending their own forces into the area.

Syrian insurgents will begin losing ground quickly. The UN will offer to “mediate” a ceasefire, but this will only be designed to allow the insurgents time to regroup, and for the U.S., EU and Israel to position themselves for attack.

The UN ceasefire talks will be a wash, if they even take place. Israel will begin regular airstrikes in the name of stopping Iran and Hezbollah from interfering in the war, or to stop them from obtaining “chemical weapons.” The strikes will be aimed at Syrian military facilities and Syrian infrastructure. There will be many civilian casualties.

Syria will respond with ground to air and ground to ground missiles. Israeli cities will see far more precise targeting than the scud missiles used by Iraq during Gulf I and Gulf II. Civilian deaths will be much higher than expected, despite common claims that Israeli missile defenses are the most advanced in the world (Israel has never faced the threat of advanced Russian missile systems).

A no-fly zone will be announced over Syria, enforced by U.S. and Israeli planes, along with anti-aircraft batteries.

A violent attack will take place in Israel, likely against a civilian population center (I would not be surprised if chemical weapons are involved). The attack will be blamed on the Assad government, or affiliated allies. It might be a real attack or it might be a false flag. In either case, the result will be the commitment of Israeli ground troops.

I think it highly probable that Israel will be the first Western country to invade Syria. However, their involvement will immediately draw a declaration of war from Iran, and, increased ship movements from Russia, which maintains a strategic naval base off the coast of Tartus.

Israel will be swallowed up in a strategic quandary, and will demand U.S. military action. The U.S. will supply that action. Combat will spread into cross-border battles in countries not directly engaged in the fight (as it did in Cambodia during Vietnam).
China will respond with economic retaliation, dumping the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency. Russia will respond by reducing petro-product exports to Europe and staging a massive naval presence in the region. From this point, all bets are off…
Now, the temptation here is for one to immediately take sides and to look at this conflict through the lens of “East vs. West.” This would be a mistake. The Syrian government has in the past acted in tyrannical fashion (though much of the latest accusations appear to be propaganda designed to lure the American public into rallying around another war).

Russia is just as restrictive an oligarchy as the U.S. or the EU. China’s society is a communist nightmare state and the average globalist’s aspiration for what they want America to become one day. Iran has many oppressive policies and is certainly not the kind of country I would ever want to live in. The Syrian insurgency is a mixture of immoral and unprincipled death squads and paid covert wet-work agents. The U.S. government is immorally supplying the cash and weapons for them to operate in the name of fighting the same kind of tyranny that is being instituting here at home.

The point is, there are no “good guys” in this story. There are no heroes; only the insiders, the outsiders, and the general public. It has been the habit of the public to ignore most past proxy wars and then flip on the patriotism switch during the rare occasions that American troops are actually deployed. Given time for adequate contemplation (as well as significant American losses), the citizenry eventually turns sour against the paradigm and demands a change. This time, however, there may be no time for such contemplation. I believe that any forward ground action in Syria on the part of the U.S. or Israel will result in a very fast moving global war.

Such a war would seem like insanity, but it serves a vital purpose for certain special interests. It would provide perfect cover for a global economic crash which is about to occur anyway, except in the midst of war, international bankers can divert blame away from themselves. It would provide a rationalization for overt domestic security and the reduction of civil liberties in the name of public safety. It would allow an excuse for a government crackdown on activist groups, who can be labeled “traitors” who aid the enemy simply by speaking ill of government policy. It would give credence to the ideology of globalization and centralized governance. The elites could claim that sovereignty must be erased and all nations must come together under a single banner so that such a “terrible catastrophe” will never happen again.

The war in Syria will not be about Syria. It will not be about the freedom of the people. It will not be about dethroning Assad or establishing democracy. It will not be about defusing violence in the region. Syria will not be the target; we will be the target — our society, our rights, our nation.

America is in the middle of the most insidious consolidation of power in history and Syria is merely a stepping stone in the game. If we cannot maintain our vigilance and allow ourselves to be sucked into the proxy war façade, the elites will get their global conflict with little to no home opposition. The globalists will win, and everyone else lose.

What is a false flag?

A false flag event is where covert military or paramilitary operations are designed and executed to deceive the public and further a narrative and fuel propaganda. The operations appear as though they are being carried out by other groups or nations rather than by those who actually planned and executed them.

The recent Boston bombing has many oddities in the story and the video evidence has not been offered to the public. Other suspects involved but not followed up, the 2 brothers were involved with FBI for 2 years and an uncle involved with the CIA. Not forgetting the Saudi that was rushed out of the country and the fact that law enforcement, FBI and private contractors were running a drill at the same time.

The key part of this other than the lack of video evidence is running a drill at the same time of the attack. The same thing happened at 9/11, 7/7 and Sandy Hook. An attack is staged on the public, there is media and apparent public outcry and then laws will be enacted and freedoms withdrawn. This may sound like I should be wearing a tinfoil hat but if you do not believe any of the examples above, the Gulf of Tonkin should set the scene.

image

Ripped from Cracked

On the night of August 4, 1964, at the height of the tensions between the U.S. and North Vietnam, the communist navy made the bizarre decision to attack two American destroyers — the USS Turner Joy and the USS Maddox. The American ships were outside of North Vietnamese territory when they radioed that they were being attacked by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats.
Since this constituted an act of war, this meant that America had the right to invade Vietnam. Hours after the first radio message from the Maddox, President Johnson was on TV announcing that the communists had attacked us in international waters and asking for permission to make the beef real in Vietnam. The incident is often cited by historians as the key inciting event that started America’s involvement in Vietnam, and a few years ago, it was cited by the National Security Agency as utter b.s.

“These could be ships, or they could be kamikaze seagulls. But whatever, let’s declare war.”
In 2005, an NSA report on the records from the night of the Gulf of Tonkin incident concluded that the event was blown out of proportion on purpose, which is pretty significant, since the NSA was the one who did the initial blowing. According to the report, “It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night.” Yes, the North Vietnamese attack that started the Vietnam War didn’t actually happen, and American officials knew it almost immediately.

An hour after the battle, the commander of one of the destroyers sent a message that there might not have been a single Vietnamese boat in the area, explaining that “Freak weather effects on radar and overeager sonar men may have accounted for” the initial reports. When the sun rose on the gulf and there wasn’t a single shred of wreckage from the two torpedo boats they’d fired on and believed they’d sunk, it was pretty clear to everyone involved that the U.S. Navy had been playing with itself in the dark the night before.

Unfortunately, within 30 minutes of the imaginary attack, Johnson had already decided to retaliate. America had been aiding the South Vietnamese army for years, and they were just looking for an excuse to make their relationship official. While the Gulf of Tonkin attack was completely imaginary, there’s no telling how long it would take the North Vietnamese to actually attack them. So Johnson and the NSA said good enough and made a “conscious effort” to make it look like there was an attack.
So in light of the truth about the Tonkin incident, is it really so crazy to think that 9/11 was an inside job? Yes. Still crazy. In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy makes such elaborate conspiracy theories seem even more unlikely (to the sane). It proves that you don’t need to orchestrate elaborate conspiracies to justify an unjust war. All you need is the ability to ignore 90 percent of the facts and focus on the ones that support the case for war. In that way, the Tonkin incident bears a much closer resemblance to the many intelligence oopsies that happened in the run up to the Iraq War.

So a false flag is an attack or just outright lying to the public to further an agenda, an agenda that would not be passed by the public under normal conditions. These people are the terrorists.