The Defense Calls It ‘Conspiracy Theory;’ The Prosecution Calls It ‘Circumstantial Evidence’
This post is connected to ‘Spirits and Types’ and ‘AGENDAS.’ It is a post that will be called ‘conspiracy theory’ by those who refuse to see what is really going on, or who have a vested interest in actually protecting the hidden agenda. However, if we were prosecutors, what follows would be called ‘circumstantial evidence.’ But there is a third option. If we were philosophers, and we were looking from a purely logical perspective, the following could be seen as support for an inductive argument. This is important because inductive reasoning is crucial to many aspects of society, our legal system, mathematics and even science. Without it, we could not function the way we do. So, please, keep all of this in mind as you consider the following possibilities in connection to Obama’s saber rattling toward Syria.
We start with this story:
Kerry: Arab Countries Have Offered to Pay for Syria Invasion
Secretary of State John Kerry said Arab countries have offered to pay for a full invasion of Syria to oust President Bashar Assad.” “
“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.”
Setting aside the fact that accepting payment from a third party to fight a war is the very definition of a mercenary, and likely a violation of international and U.S. law, ask yourself which Arab nations would fund a U.S.-led military attack on Syria and why?
Syria conflict and the oil market: Worst and best scenarios
Saudi Arabia struggled Sunday to assemble an Arab coalition that would give the U.S. and other Western countries vital political backing for airstrikes on the Syrian regime.
Does the mention of Saudi Arabia mean anything important? Well, this is just one of many books explaining the problem:
Thicker Than Oil: America’s Uneasy Partnership with Saudi Arabia
What we need to understand is that the U.S. has shown that it responds to the dictates of the Saudis. There is significant evidence to suggest our government has even allowed Saudi nationals connected to terrorist attacks on American interests to go free. We also need to understand that Saudi is aligned with Sunni Islam and is under significant pressures because fundamentalist Sunni groups – such as Al Qaeda – see the ruling family as being apostates. Add to this that the Shi’a Muslims – led by Iran – are also seeking to overthrow Saudi rule and we have a very rich, very powerful, very desperate nation to which the Western world is beholding for its very existence. Still, even the rich and powerful know that the universal law of morality is real, and that it prevents them from just doing what they want to do. They need to have some sort of justification for actions that the world would otherwise recognize as a clear violation of this universal moral law.
Revealed: Pentagon knew in 2012 that it would take 75,000 GROUND TROOPS to secure Syria’s chemical weapons facilities
Securing Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles and the facilities that produced them would likely require the U.S. to send more than 75,000 ground troops into the Middle Eastern country, MailOnline learned Wednesday.
That estimate comes from a secret memorandum the U.S. Department of Defense prepared for President Obama in early 2012.
U.S. Central Command arrived at the figure of 75,000 ground troops as part of a written series of military options for dealing with Bashar al-Assad more than 18 months ago, long before the U.S. confirmed internally that the Syrian dictator was using the weapons against rebel factions within his borders.
Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern
Massacres of civilians are being exploited for narrow geopolitical competition to control Mideast oil, gas pipelines
Could the Chemical Attack in Ghouta be the Markale of the Syrian War
In August 1995, Western governments, and particularly the Bill Clinton White House, were in great quandary. The negotiations with the Serbs were going well as Pres. Slobodan Milosevic was demonstrating unprecedented flexibility and accepting virtually all the demands put forward by the West. Hence, it was becoming politically and legally impossible for the US-led West to launch the NATO military intervention which Pres. Clinton had promised Bosnia-Herzegovina leader Alija Izetbegovic the US would launch in order to quickly win the war for the Bosnian-Muslims.
Then, on August 28, 1995, at around 11:00 hrs local, a mortar shell appeared to hit the Markale market-place in Sarajevo, killing 38 people and wounding another 90. Russian Col. Andrei Demurenko, then the commander of UN Forces in Sarajevo, immediately rushed with an UNPROFOR team to the supposed Bosnian-Serb mortar positions and ascertained that none of them could have been used to fire the mortar rounds.
Demurenko’s report stated that the Bosnian-Serb forces were falsely blamed for the attack on the Markale.
Nevertheless, ostensibly in response to the massacre, NATO launched the air campaign against Bosnian-Serb forces and shortly afterwards decided the war in favor of the Bosnian-Muslims.
Russia Delivers Report to U.N. Saying Syrian Rebels Behind Sarin Gas Attack in March
Russia has delivered a 100-page report to the United Nations that claims Syrian rebels are responsible for a sarin gas attack in March 2013 — an overlooked incident, it says, in the wake the alleged sarin attack in August that the United States and other nations say the Syrian government is behind, McClatchy news reports.
I suppose the capper to these previous stories would be:
Senate’s Syria Resolution Appears to Leave Room For Putting Boots on the Ground
The resolution passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday afternoon that gives President Barack Obama the authority to use military force against Syria appears to include a loophole that may leave room for placing troops on the ground.
The final resolution, obtained by TheBlaze shortly after the vote, only prohibits “the use of United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.”
Such language appears to leave open the possibility for Obama to deploy troops for non-combat operations, such as securing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons.
Now, if you were an ‘accused’ with this much circumstantial evidence against you, how comfortable would you feel about your chances for acquittal? Draw your own conclusions from all this, but keep this in mind as you do: Combat is no longer combat; it is a ‘kinetic military action.’
One thought on “Pieces Of The Puzzle: The Anatomy Of A ‘Created’ Crisis”