Obama an Accessory to War Crimes in Syria: Talk show host Rush Limbaugh
Obama an Accessory to War Crimes in Syria?
Posted by Bill Bissell, Admin II on September 4, 2013 at 11:25pm in General, Town Hall
Reprinted with full permission of Shoebat Foundation
Talk show host Rush Limbaugh spent a significant amount of time on his show today entertaining the notion that the Syrian rebels may have been behind the Chemical weapons attack on August 21st. In particular, he referenced an article by Yossef Bodansky, which indicates that in addition to the rebels using Chemical weapons against their own people but that the White House quite possibly knew about it and let it happen. Really?
Yes, really.
Bodansky isn’t just some blogger either. His bio includes time as Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare for several years and is Director of Research of the International Strategic Studies Association, as well as Senior Editor for the Defense and Foreign Affairs.
http://api.ning.com/files/E4nzSQYY5F...f_Bodansky.jpg
Bodanski: Obama war crimes in Syria
First, let’s see if we can answer a question. Is the Barack Obama administration so ideological that it would sacrifice innocent people to push its agenda?
An honest look at Operation Fast and Furious leads to an answer in the affirmative. This was an operation led by the ATF and supervised by Eric Holder’s Justice Department. ATF Agents required gun store owners to sell AK-47′s and other weapons to straw purchasers illegally. The guns were then trafficked into Mexico and given to drug cartels as the ATF Agents looked the other way. The result? Hundreds of dead Mexicans and at least one Border Patrol agent in Brian Terry.
The agenda is simple to understand but evil at its core. It was an attempt to create the culture for gun control. When weapons sold in the U.S. were recovered at crime scenes in Mexico, tighter regulations would be the result, to include a revived UN Assault weapons ban treaty. If innocent people had to die, it made no difference; there was a greater cause – gun control. Obama’s ideological hero put such tactics best:
“The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. … The real arena is corrupt and bloody.” – Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals, p. 24
Let’s apply this Alinsky standard to Syria. Based on Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama administration has established the precedent that innocent lives may be extinguished if it serves a greater good. Let’s ask another question. Is the Obama administration so ideological that it would allow Syrians to be murdered by rebels with Chemical Weapons if it would lead to the removal of Bashar al-Assad by framing the leader of Syria?
This brings us to Bodansky’s article. An important entity to keep in mind is the “Mukhabarat Amriki”. This is essentially a joint Intelligence task force made up of Turks, Qataris, and Americans:
On August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major and irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and representatives of Qatari, Turkish, and US Intelligence [“Mukhabarat Amriki”] took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors. Very senior opposition commanders who had arrived from Istanbul briefed the regional commanders of an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development” which would, in turn, lead to a US-led bombing of Syria.
The opposition forces had to quickly prepare their forces for exploiting the US-led bombing in order to march on Damascus and topple the Bashar al-Assad Government, the senior commanders explained. The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive. {emphasis ours}
So, the Mukhabarat Amriki was briefed one week before the Chemical weapons attack on August 21st, that there would be “a war-changing development” which would lead to an attack on Syria by the U.S. That Syrian rebels were behind the August 21st attack squares with our findings last week. It also squares with the findings of AP writer Dale Gavlak, though her evidence points to rebels mishandling weapons provided to them by Saudi Intelligence Chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. As bad as Gavlak’s findings are, Bodansky’s claims would be devastating if true.
Bodansky then writes about an “unprecedented weapons distribution” to rebel forces in Turkey’s Hatay Province between August 21-23. If this distribution was discussed in Mukhabarat Amriki meetings one week earlier, does it say anything about what attendees knew about future events, specifically on August 21st? Bodansky continues
The descriptions of these meetings raise the question of the extent of foreknowledge of US Intelligence, and therefore, the Obama White House. All the sources consulted — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that officials of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” actively participated in the meetings and briefings in Turkey. Therefore, at the very least, they should have known that the opposition leaders were anticipating “a war-changing development”: that is, a dramatic event which would provoke a US-led military intervention. {emphasis ours
Fast and Furious was about sacrificing innocent people to gun violence in the name of protecting them from gun violence. If Bodansky’s claims bear out, Chemical weapons being used in Syria could be about sacrificing innocent people to Chemical weapons in the name of getting justice for them by removing someone who didn’t do it so that the perpetrators who did, can rise to power.
It would also mean something else; it would mean that the Obama administration and Nazi Germany have more in common than we thought.
“I will give propagandistic cause for the release of the war, whether convincing or not. The winner is not asked later whether he said the truth or not.” – Adolf Hitler, August 11, 1939.
Incidentally, if the Obama administration knew or was involved in the August 21st attack and if it knew or was involved in Operation Fast and Furious, which was designed to produce dead bodies to help push gun control, isn’t it worth asking if it knew or was involved in any nefarious activities related to the Benghazi attack on 9/11/12?
If Bodansky’s claims are correct, they will make Gavlak’s story pale in comparison. It will also mean that Barack Obama and any member of Congress who votes to attack Syria will be complicit in war crimes.
Shoebat Foundation
