Ulysses S. Grant once said, “The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on.” In a just war, and there are such things, this is the principle to live by. When you find your enemy you destroy him, utterly and completely. However, in the unjust war it is more difficult to do such a thing because you must continually fight for support and backing.
If a war is just, the people will inherently know such a thing. They will not need to be told and convinced. Just the same, in an unjust war, the people will inherently know and this is displayed by their skepticism. This is where propaganda steps in and is needed. Only in times of injustice do liars, cheats, and politicians need propaganda.
Thus is the case with what our world faces currently in respect to the civil war in Syria. The people know this is an unjust war and the only thing being produced is injustice for the Syrian innocents. The governments of the Western Nations and their Middle Eastern backers have become snake oil salesmen as they peddle their version of distorted version of peace through intervention.
On September 06, 2013, Bloomberg News ran a headline that stated there was a second chemical attack in Damascus, Syria. A quick check around the various news outlets seemed to prove the report, as there were other mentions of an attack. Within the hour however the headline was pulled from all news outlets and no mention was anywhere. So where did this report come from?
After digging it was found that a Syrian Activist, location unknown, posted a message about a second attack in the Qaboun area of Damascus and that there were multiple casualties. Soon after, his story was changed from chemical attack to “poisonous gas” and less that 10 casualties resulted from the attack. A report of poisonous gas is still a significant attack yet the media outlets pulled the headline. Could it have been that the “gas” was a rebel attack and would hinder the “hero rebel” image? It is unknown because no other reports have surfaced on the attack as of the writing of this article.
What we can learn from this is that the world is ready to jump on any additional chemical or biological attack in Syria because it would prove the case for western intervention. There are many pundits in the mainstream media that believe another attack would force the need for action upon the shoulders of the international community. Do to the fact that this belief is so wide spread it is not entirely out of the question for Islamist groups, namely Al-Qaeda, to conduct yet another chemical attack on civilians in order to blame the Syrian Government.
The world have made the assumption that the rebels did not conduct the attack because the governments seeking the Assad Government’s downfall has told the people that the Islamist Rebels do not have the capability to conduct such an attack. As reported previously, the Islamists do have the capability to conduct such an attack and their Sunni Arab backers in Saudi Arabia are willing to do whatever it necessary to ensure a rebel victory.
Proof of Islamist Rebels having the capability comes from far to many media sources to share all of them. This article will highlight three that the mainstream media is ignoring in order to prove that rebels have had access to chemical weapons, thus having the capability. It will also highlight the reason for the Syrian Civil War, a topic that is not often spoken about and if it is the Arab Spring is blamed.
First, in an article from the Turkish Weekly on June 06, 2013, it was reported that Syrian Rebels were seized on the Turkish-Syrian border with a 2kg cylinder full of sarin nerve gas. Russian officials, after hearing about the seizure, called on Turkey to share its findings. Sergei Lavrov, the top Russian foreign official, said that the Kremlin wanted to get a clearer picture on the issue of chemical weapons used in Syria. Lavrov went on to say, “I do not rule out that some force may want to use it to say that the “red line” has been crossed and a foreign intervention is needed.” Even in June, a full two months prior to the major chemical incident, Russian officials were worried about a rebel attack that would be blamed on the Syrian Government. This report also shows that rebels had received sarin from a source outside of Syria.
Second, in an article from France24 on February 09, 2013, it was reported that British companies were given government licenses in January 2012 to export chemicals to Syria that could have been used to produce nerve gas. Export licenses for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted ten months after the country of Syria had descended into civil war. The British and United States governments have been stanch supporters of the Syrian Rebels from the very start of the civil war so why would these governments want to export possible precursors for chemical weapons to the rebels? The report did go on to quote an official as saying that “the chemicals concerned were never actually delivered.”
Third, in an article from the Washington Post on December 2012, it was reported that rebels had seized the Sheik Suleiman military base near Aleppo, Syrian. This base was the location of a chemical weapons research facility. The rebels also seized about base near Aleppo, known as Safirah, which served as a major production center for chemical munitions. A former Syrian general stated the main storage sites for mustard gas and nerve agents were overrun by rebel forces. A second Syrian general, who was retired, said that, “probably anyone from the Free Syrian Army or any Islamic extremist group could take them over.”
These three articles, and as stated before there are many others, show that there was access to chemical weapons by the Islamist Rebels. Furthermore it displays that there was intent on behalf of outside governments that are supportive of the rebels to provide the rebels with at least the means to make such weapons. But what countries would support Al-Qaeda and not care about such damaging consequences?
Reuters and the Guardian both reported that after the chemical attacks in Damascus, Syrian soldiers were sent to investigate the scene. While investigating they found rebels tunnels in the suburb of Jobar and when discovered the soldiers started to feel as though they were suffocating. This led to may Syrian soldiers being taken away in ambulances. Chemical munitions with Arab markings were found in the tunnels as well as medicines to counter chemical exposure and gas masks. This was quickly written off as Syrian propaganda by the west and it was not reported on again. But where did these munitions come from?
AP reporter Dale Gaylak, writing for MintPress News, stated in his article that rebel fighters received the chemical weapons from Saudi Intelligence. A resident of Ghouta, Syria, who was a rebel fighter, had informed his father of a Saudi militant working for Al-Nusra Front named Abu Ayesha, that had requested him and others to carry unknown weapons described as a tube-like structure or gas bottle. Later the father was told that his son and twelve others were killed in tunnels during the chemical attacks. A female fighter told the reporter that, “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons. When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who known how to handle and use them.” A rebel leader agreed, “we were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions.”
So the last question is why would Saudi Director of Intelligence, Prince Bandar, under the full authorization of the Saudi Royal Family, giving chemical weapons to Syrian Rebels? Why are the Sunni Arab nations supporting the rebels in general? Why would Saudi Arabia offer to pay for the US led military strike? The simple answer is money.
As of 2007, The Arab League was tied with Russia as the largest exporter of natural gas in the world. Qatar, listed at number seven on that same list, and on Wikipedia it is listed as the number one exporter of liquefied natural gas. Qatar has wanted desperately to build a natural gas pipeline through Syria to Turkey in order to enter the European market. There is just one problem, the Syrian Government, led by President Assad, refuses to allow Qatar permission to build such a pipeline.
In order to rectify the problem Saudi Arabia came up with a plan to use the so-called Arab Spring as a way to destabilize Syria. This would allow a Saudi friendly and Sunni led government, and the natural gas pipeline would be on the fast track to project initiation. After completion, this pipeline would allow Qatar and the Arab League to enter Russia’s natural gas market in Europe.
The United States, Israel, and the European nations are very supportive of the plan because it would eliminate or hinder Iranian influence in the Middle East and Russian influence in Europe. If regional or global war breaks out they, the above-mentioned scheming nations, believe it would ultimately result in a military victory. This would still achieve the before mentioned goals, as well as give possibility to deteriorated governments in Iran, Russia, and China. This is the added bonus because it would eliminate the economic woes facing the western nations. Even if a peace agreement were suggested and accepted the only acceptable outcome is that which provides an end state that falls inline with the plan.
Is the argument to far reaching? You be the judge. Do your own research and make up your own mind. In this case the fate of the world may very well hang upon if you are informed. Know that Christians are persecuted as a result of the world’s rich and political playing a game of real life Risk. Above all else pray that God’s will be done on Earth, as it is in Heaven.
From the Ekklesia Report
09 September 2013