Truth about latest regime change efforts USA

[Phaeton80]

Please realize the picture supplied to you by the MSM concerning 'undesirable (ME) regimes' should be scrutinized to the extreme. This should be an open door for everyone who hasnt been living under a stone the last decade, given the numerous instances we have experienced thus far.. But it seems certain people need to be reminded regardless, as time passes. 

An interesting report from the US Peace Council Representatives concerning this subject matter.

 

 

Since 2011 the Syrian people have been fighting against a long-planned foreign conspiracy to violently reorder their nation.

Fighting off tens of thousands of foreign-backed sectarian militants for 4 years, the Syrian people are finally beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. For those that have stood with Syria these last 3 years, we must keep standing strong. For those just becoming aware of the Syrian crisis, join hands with the Syrian people and raise your voices to end this war.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Phaeton80

[Phaeton80]

 

Quote

Fake News and False Flags

The Pentagon gave a controversial UK PR firm over half a billion dollars to run a top secret propaganda programme in Iraq, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal.

Bell Pottinger’s output included short TV segments made in the style of Arabic news networks and fake insurgent videos which could be used to track the people who watched them, according to a former employee.

The agency’s staff worked alongside high-ranking US military officers in their Baghdad Camp Victory headquarters as the insurgency raged outside.

Bell Pottinger's former chairman Lord Tim Bell confirmed to the Sunday Times, which worked with the Bureau on this story, that his firm had worked on a “covert” military operation “covered by various secrecy agreements.”

http://labs.thebureauinvestigates.com/fake-news-and-false-flags/

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Phaeton80

[SHaYap]

I think that's the kind of things that Snowden was hinting at ... I don't believe for a heartbeat that it is confined to tracking individuals in the Middle East of just keeping tabs on insurgents either ~

[Dark_Grey]

I started a thread on the fake videos but it got buried under election fever.

War is peace

Freedom is slavery

Russia is holding back WW3

[Dark_Grey]

I started a thread on the fake videos but it got buried under election fever.

War is peace

Freedom is slavery

Russia is holding back WW3

[Vorg]

The whole situation in Washington is sad. WE need a regime change, kick most our leaders out, and start over. VOTE people. These wars were all planned. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen.

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by South Alabam

[+and-then]

25 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

The whole situation in Washington is sad. WE need a regime change, kick most our leaders out, and start over. VOTE people. These wars were all planned. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen.

 

 

I see this guy regularly as a proof of the planning for a series of wars.  I know who he is and, to be honest, the fact that he made such statement while on DEMOCRACY NOW causes me to look askance at him.  Maybe he's legit, but that program is about as far Left crazy as they come.  But assuming he's telling the truth... why?  What gain is worth destabilizing the most volatile region on the planet and killing millions potentially?  A gas pipeline?  REALLY?  That may sound plausible at first glance but how is the wealth and power that comes from such a venture supposed to be protected long term in a region on fire?  Also, are we to believe that the Pentagon has a bunch of free agents managing all this without the input and authority of the POTUS?  If they do have such, then that means it goes beyond party. I used to watch DEMOCRACY NOW regularly and I can't seem to recall ANYTHING being laid at the feet of a Democrat administration - ever.

I have no axe to grind on this story and I have no proof that the US isn't involved in such shenanigans but if Wesley Clark is the only high -ranking government official to "out" this plan then I would be suspect.

[Vorg]

He was referring to the white house planning these wars and going into Iraq, as they didn't know what else to do to quell American anger at who had committed 9/11, not a bunch of rogue Generals without congressional oversight. And that meeting was around Sep 20th 2011. And Bush did go to war with Iraq.

Edited October 12, 2016 by South Alabam

[Dark_Grey]

23 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

He was referring to the white house planning these wars and going into Iraq, as they didn't know what else to do to quell American anger at who had committed 9/11

What a crock of ****e. All he's doing is playing the blame game. If they gave a hoot about what the people had to say, this country would look very different. War was decided when they first caught wind of another pathetic hijacking attempt in the works. Or maybe even before that. Maybe they were scratching their heads on how to sell this war to the people then BOOM! The twin towers came down and a new idea blossoms. Create perpetual warfare by "fighting terror".

However it happened, it happened. But certainly not because it was the America people wanting to crush Iraq.

[+and-then]

On 10/12/2016 at 4:52 PM, South Alabam said:

He was referring to the white house planning these wars and going into Iraq, as they didn't know what else to do to quell American anger at who had committed 9/11, not a bunch of rogue Generals without congressional oversight. And that meeting was around Sep 20th 2011. And Bush did go to war with Iraq.

 

Yeah, I understand the initial attack and how easily it was sold.  I'm talking about his claim that multiple nations were next.  Hell, maybe it IS true, I just don't buy it without some explanation of how it could reasonably be expected to be about a gas pipeline, that's all.

[Vorg]

Yep, the thing is, we did get involved in Libya and Syria.

[Phaeton80]

 

Meet the newest ME Bogeyman. Oh the sheer horror.. the evil drips from every word he utters. We should do any and everything in our power to 'Free the Syrian People from Their Evil Dictator'™, even if that means leaving ISIS to spray death & destruction where ever they can. Even if that means creating yet another power vacuum which will act as a catalyst for extremist elements in general. G*d bless the United States of America, the defender of the civilized world. Oh and remember, vote Hillary, or Trump! (Yeay!)

 

[GlitterRose]

On 10/12/2016 at 11:36 AM, and then said:

I see this guy regularly as a proof of the planning for a series of wars.  I know who he is and, to be honest, the fact that he made such statement while on DEMOCRACY NOW causes me to look askance at him.  Maybe he's legit, but that program is about as far Left crazy as they come.  But assuming he's telling the truth... why?  What gain is worth destabilizing the most volatile region on the planet and killing millions potentially?  A gas pipeline?  REALLY?  That may sound plausible at first glance but how is the wealth and power that comes from such a venture supposed to be protected long term in a region on fire?  Also, are we to believe that the Pentagon has a bunch of free agents managing all this without the input and authority of the POTUS?  If they do have such, then that means it goes beyond party. I used to watch DEMOCRACY NOW regularly and I can't seem to recall ANYTHING being laid at the feet of a Democrat administration - ever.

I have no axe to grind on this story and I have no proof that the US isn't involved in such shenanigans but if Wesley Clark is the only high -ranking government official to "out" this plan then I would be suspect.

There would only be one way. Genocide.

[+and-then]

41 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

There would only be one way. Genocide.

Meaning, you believe the US want to wholesale murder millions and millions of unarmed people for their oil?  Do you actually believe that nonsense?  

[GlitterRose]

3 minutes ago, and then said:

Meaning, you believe the US want to wholesale murder millions and millions of unarmed people for their oil?  Do you actually believe that nonsense?  

I couldn't venture a guess on that one. I'm just saying if there were powerful people who wanted to profit off of this, long term...that would be the only way they could. And it hasn't been beyond profiteers to engage in that sort of behavior in the past.

On another front, it sure seems like Russia and Assad are going for scorched earth in Aleppo. 

Edited October 14, 2016 by ChaosRose

[GlitterRose]

All I can say is that wherever there is a massive amount of money...there are always people who are willing to do anything in order to get their grubby hands on it.

[+and-then]

2 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

I couldn't venture a guess on that one. I'm just saying if there were powerful people who wanted to profit off of this, long term...that would be the only way they could. And it hasn't been beyond profiteers to engage in that sort of behavior in the past.

On another front, it sure seems like Russia and Assad are going for scorched earth in Aleppo. 

 

Russia always goes scorched earth if it can't win quick and easy.  It's what they do, period.  Ask the Chechens.   And if you believe that a US government would actually, willingly engage in Genocide then I find it very confusing and potentially ironic that you'd be defending HRC.  She will be the next president, barring some miracle, and she will cause either a war with Russia directly or she will have us fighting internally against "refugees" who come well trained from Syrian battlefields.  THAT'S quite a consideration when deciding which Mall to shop in or sporting event to go to, huh? Yes indeed, elections have consequences.

[GlitterRose]

1 minute ago, and then said:

Russia always goes scorched earth if it can't win quick and easy.  It's what they do, period.  Ask the Chechens.   And if you believe that a US government would actually, willingly engage in Genocide then I find it very confusing and potentially ironic that you'd be defending HRC.  She will be the next president, barring some miracle, and she will cause either a war with Russia directly or she will have us fighting internally against "refugees" who come well trained from Syrian battlefields.  THAT'S quite a consideration when deciding which Mall to shop in or sporting event to go to, huh? Yes indeed, elections have consequences.

I don't know. I wish I could say that the US government would not engage in genocide. There are people who already believe we have. I'm not sure about it. I'm not a historian. I don't study war. So I don't know if we really needed to drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People say we did need to, and people say we didn't. I do know that there's an awful lot of money to be made on oil, and they have it over there. Trump is calling for us to take the oil. We've had people in power in the past...like Cheney...who worked for companies who profited incredibly from the war in Iraq. Is it really outrageous to think it might be possible? 

[GlitterRose]

There is one candidate that claims (at least now) that the war in Iraq was not justified. But in his next breath, he criticizes the current administration for pulling out of Iraq, and for not taking the oil. (What are we...Vikings?)

The other candidate initially supported the war based on intelligence at the time (which now we know wasn't true...hindsight is 20/20). She also supported getting out of Iraq, and did not attempt to take the oil.

I'm not sure what surprises you about my support for that candidate over Trump.

Edited October 14, 2016 by ChaosRose

[+and-then]

My advice is to, with as open a mind as possible, research how Libya became a focus of military action.  My memory of the beginning of that run- up to war is that our president wanted nothing to do with it.  His staff of Sec State (Hillary) UN ambassador (Powers) and Susan Rice convinced him the US had a "duty to protect" the civilians of Libya against Gaddafi.  I realize that you probably won't change your vote at this late date but watch her once she is president.  She is a power mad person and "interventions" are her means to an end.  Trump is a populist buffoon who never would have been the nominee had not the media crushed coverage on all the other Republican candidates so they could make money off the Trump circus.  In short, he is a candidate created just for Hillary to beat.  Even HE has them scared, though.  They have pulled out all the stops and are nearly hysterical in their accusations.  They know that people are eager to believe the worst, most sordid things of our politicians and celebrities.  If he proves them wrong in court it will be long after she is inaugurated.  That's the America we have today.  We elect the candidate we are given and told to by the media.  It's worked for quite a while but now the country is in such shape that we no longer can afford the goodies for all so we are beginning to fight over them.  The half of America that's being told to shut up and pay up are not having much more of it.

Edited October 14, 2016 by and then