Thread: IS OBAMA TRYING TO KICK START WORLD WAR III WITH AN ATTACK ON SYRIA?

IS OBAMA TRYING TO KICK START WORLD WAR III WITH AN ATTACK ON SYRIA?

Posted by Bill Bissell, Admin II on August 28, 2013 at 2:41pm in Patriot Action Alerts

From Our Own Liberty News Team

http://api.ning.com/files/9bnzZeuKAx...XPK3t/mean.jpg

What I’m about to write is something I’ve somewhat avoided for a few days now. Several of our team members here at LibertyNEWS.com (along with quite a few others in alternative media) have a very uneasy suspicion about what’s happening in Syria. We’ve discussed this in detail internally, but haven’t yet gone out with a full explanation of where we think it all may be headed. To get us started, I ask that you take a few minutes to watch yesterday’s episode of LibertyNEWS TV. Norvell Rose hit the nail on the head and this is an episode you don’t want to miss. The episode looks at Obama’s war machine and explains why Obama is the biggest wartime President in the history of the America.

There are two fronts to Norvell’s narrative. Well, two methods of war Obama is waging. The first is a war on the moral fabric that has, without question, held America together and built the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Obama and his ilk in radical leftist circles have succeeded in breaking down the idea of family, they’ve trained young generations how to accept failure and view it as normal in a bad economy, they’ve successfully taken complete control over the markets, they’ve built a political machine within government that can bully and defeat opponents, and they’ve finalized the move to control national mainstream media for propaganda purposes.

America as a society is now weakened. Those who still believe in the need to fight aren’t sure what they’re fighting or how to fight it. Those who believe a fight is not necessary are now enslaved by government, hoping the free ride can continue a little longer before the ship sinks. That’s the first method of war being waged and Obama’s efforts are beginning to reveal themselves with disastrous consequences. The second method of war is more physical. If our suspicions are correct, and God knows we hope they aren’t, Obama is about to drag the planet into a war that will reach all corners of the world. We’re not alleging it’s going to happen this way, but logic dictates we consider the following a very strong possibility.

Let’s step back in time a few years and look at what got us where we are. For the record, Obama isn’t the first President to control and dictate the actions of the middle east. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of meddling in the affairs of middle eastern nations. The difference between Presidents of the past on Obama is the underlying intent. I’m not saying it was right to dictate regime change when we believed it necessary, but Presidents of the past have generally taken such actions to create stability in a violent and chaotic region. Yes, we installed dictators who were less than ideal when it comes to western standards, but we made our picks based on the ability of said dictators to maintain regional order. In the case of Israel, for some years now, leading up to Obama’s takeover of U.S. government, leaders of middle eastern nations have toned down the threats and worked to stay clear of major conflict with the Jewish nation. Sure, much of this was only possible due to massive infusions of cash and aid, but it has somewhat worked when you consider its objective.

Then Obama took office. This is where it gets very, very disconcerting.

Unlike Presidents of the past, Obama immediately went to work destabilizing the middle east. He started with Libya, where he went to war against a “controllable” leader and eventually toppled the Libyan government that tolerated Israel. The CIA and State Department then went into Libya and began a massive regional arms-running operation out of Benghazi. This was all happening with Ambassador Stephens (who had a history dealing with arms in Libya) at the helm, which also helps us understand what happened when terrorist militants attacked the CIA facility in Benghazi.

The arms were being shipped through Turkey into Syria. They were being shipped to terrorist militants who have a deep desire to see Israel brought to her knees.

Meanwhile, at Israel’s southern border we watched Egypt see epic unrest and a leader who tolerated Israel was removed, followed by a takeover of government by the terrorist organization, Muslim Brotherhood. The fact the Muslim Brotherhood no longer controls Egyptian government is irrelevant. What matters is that the U.S. heavily, and I mean HEAVILY armed and funded the Muslim Brotherhood in the short period of time they controlled Egyptian government. Yes, it’s true the Muslim Brotherhood no longer controls Egyptian government, but anyone who looks at the current environment in Egypt should be able to see the country is in absolute chaos. The Muslim Brotherhood are not in check and they’re currently able to move arms, fighters and money between Iran and Israel’s southern border.

Back to Syria today. From all the reports we’re seeing, Obama is very much willing to side with terrorists and attack Syria’s current government. This all happening while terrorist militants control much of the country side and are able to work with Iran to conduct massive movement of arms, troops and money.

Robert Fisk hit hard on this, writing for The Independent.

If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qaida. Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad. The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

OK, so we get that Obama has toppled several regimes and helped arm/fund terrorist militant groups.

The next question is why? I think Israel is at the heart of it. Consider everything written above and then look at this map.

Notice how there is a fairly clear path between Iran and Egypt, and Iran and Syria. For Syria Iran just needs passage through a small part of Turkey. For Egypt, Iran needs to travel Yemen and Sudan. Do you honestly think any of these countries will stop Iran from moving arms, fighters and money?

Which brings us back to Obama. Why is Obama so hell-bent on weakening leaders who oppose the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and terrorists armies in Syria? And why does he so aggressively arm the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist armies to the teeth? Does he not realize that in doing so he is essentially helping build a military might that wishes to go to war with Israel?

If this all begins to unravel the way it looks like it might, the middle east is about to descend into darkness and bloody war that will set the record books. The impact will be global. Russia, China and many others are already looking at us with an eye of scorn. Russia pretends it wants nothing to do with this all, but Russia will be all t0o happy to supply arms into the conflict. The U.S. has been, for years now, supplying arms for the conflict.

Where will everyone else stand?

In addition, while all of this is hitting the fan, the U.S. economy is undergoing a controlled demolition via ObamaCare and a falsely propped up stock market.

What happens if and when the world is at war and the U.S. economy suffers a complete collapse?

To know how serious the threat is, all we need to do is monitor Israel’s actions. Israel is fully aware of what goes on in the region and will preemptively act. Take a look at this, just out from AP.

Israel ordered a special call-up of reserve troops Wednesday as nervous citizens lined up at gas-mask distribution centers, preparing for possible hostilities with Syria. With the U.S. threatening to attack Syria over its alleged use of chemical weapons, Israel fears that Syria may respond by attacking Israel, a close American ally. While Israeli officials believe the chances of a Syrian strike remain slim, people were clearly preparing for the possibility.

Keep in mind Obama is about to start this thing without declaring war, without Congressional approval, without any proof of who used chemical weapons, whose weapons they were, and who they were targeting. This is Obama acting alone, as a dictator with an agenda to create further chaos and unrest in the middle east. To what end? What exactly is Obama’s ultimate goal in all of this? Why would he seek actions that, in effect, very well could lead to World War III?

Liberty News


http://patriotaction.net/forum/topic...sg_share_topic

Shock and Awful Suspicious- Chemicals, War, and Monkey Business

Posted by: Rick Wells Posted date: August 28, 2013 In: Blog Posts, News

The proposition I am about to offer might sound like crazy talk to some people. It might sound like the truth to others, especially those who are guilty of the crimes about which I will speculate. There are others who will find the likely truth to reside somewhere in between those two points.
It seems totally suspicious and contrived that the U.S. and Britain, on the heels of a chemical attack in Syria, are petitioning the U.N. for authority to use “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Syria from chemical attack.
How convenient and fortunate for the war monger nations. Providence has given them a perfect premise upon which to invade Syria just when they are all staffed up and on high alert. On first casual glance, to a seriously uninformed observer, they might appear to be great humanitarians. But what if the claims of Syria’s Assad are not the fabrications the U.S. and Britain say they are. What if, as the Syrians say, the perpetrators of the gas attacks were the Al Qaeda terrorists that America and Britain are now allies with? If you believe Al Qaeda killed 3,000 people on September 11^th, 2001, would you believe that they would kill 1,300 in a false flag terror attack? If they are truly responsible of 9/11, then of course they would jump at the chance to kill in cold blood for the inside track to rule a country. But if Assad did not gas his own people, then it was America, through their terrorist allies of Al Qaeda, who murdered the women and children in order to have a justifiable “good Samaritan” premise for their expansionistic goals. The intimacy between America, Britain and Al Qaeda, our supposed enemies seems to be very contrived.
The Hill reports that David Cameron, British Prime Minister, will make his request of the U.N., and it is unlikely there will be much specificity as to just what “all necessary means “entails. Odds are that you’ve left yourself a whole lot of wiggle room when your permission includes the word “all”.
My point is this: the timetable and timeline of events looks deliberate and set up. The invading forces are in now in place, the purported threat of chemical weapon attacks has been soft-sold as the trigger over the last year or so, the chemical attack happened, the media plays it up, the U.S. reports unverified evidence that it was the Syrians who did it, Britain and the U.S. ask for permission to invade. How much more obvious could this be?
The drama is too predictable for Hollywood but it’s a great script in DC. Think of it as a sequel to the Iraq War and the fear Saddam Hussein (no known relation to Barry) was going to unleash some sort of attack from the mysterious and unverified cache of WMD’s.
Russia and China will probably veto Cameron’s request for U.N. authorization. That won’t stop the war mongers. They’ve got their eye on the prize and they won’t give up, ever. Will America’s dictator Hussein Obama just proceed on his own, declaring war himself, in true autocratic fashion? Time will tell. I would not bet against it.
Rick Wells is an author who contributes to conservative media outlets. You can follow Rick on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Rick-Wells/1405080846374047?ref=hl

http://freepatriot.org/2013/08/28/sh...nkey-business/

This is why we call him President Lucifer

Posted on August 28, 2013 by Dr. Eowyn

From the beginning with the 2008 presidential campaign, whenever I see the creature who calls himself Barack Hussein Obama, I am reminded of these images from The Dark Knight — of Heath Ledger’s demonic Joker (a role that killed Ledger) reveling in the sheer destruction, mayhem and chaos he’s fomented.

There were others who saw in Obama the same demonic Joker, most famously this poster (below) by an anonymous — and prescient — artist which began appearing in the streets of Los Angeles:

John McNaughton’s new painting, “The Demise of America,” evokes the same allusion:

Click pic to enlarge

McNaughton writes:

Many Americans today feel a sense of dismay and horror as we see our country in a downward spiral; both economically, morally, and politically. President Obama’s indifferent attitude and the continuous list ofscandals and bad policy are leading the country to ruin.

As an artist I am reminded of the old saying “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” History believes that Nero himself may have set the great fire that burned a part of Rome during his leadership. Afterwards, he blamed it on the Christians who suffered great persecution under his rule. I see great similarities to what we are experiencing today. Obama fiddled, while the people witnessed the demise of America.

“The Demise of America” is available at http://www.jonmcnaughton.com/.

H/t FOTM’s beloved Miss May.

~Eowyn
Dr. Eowyn is the Editor of Fellowship of the Minds and a regular contributor to The D.C. Clothesline.

Follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter.

Recommended Posts

• Brain Dead Californians Sign Petition to Allow Obama to Repeal the Bill of Rights
• President Lucifer has America in a Satanic grip
• The Lucifer Alliance: Secret group of powerful leftwing moneybags
• It’s Still Benghazi, Stupid
• Obama Blames “Phony Scandals” & “Distractions” For Five Years Of A Bad Economy
• Murdered Border Patrol Agent’s Family: Nothing “Phony” About Deaths Tied To Fast & Furious

http://dcclothesline.com/2013/08/28/...ident-lucifer/

What Was the ‘Doomsday’ Plane Doing in Turkey?

Posted on August 28, 2013 by BMartin1776

Turkey keeps coming up as a common denominator when we hear about trouble in the middle east. The first phone call obama made when he became POTUS was to Turkey. On 9/11/12 before the attack in Benghazi Amb Chris Stevens met with the Turkish General Consul, same GC who has alleged ties to rebels and radical islamists active in Syria.Arms shipments that end up in Syria are shipped through Turkey.

You should know the “E-4Bs are extremely important. In the event of a war, a terrorist attack, an alien invasion and so on (hence the “doomsday plane” nickname), these aircraft are destined to keep the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other “decision makers” alive to direct nuclear (and conventional) forces, by receiving, verifying and relaying EAM (Emergency Action Messages).” ~ Aviationist

This E-4B 747 is like the war-time Air Force One… its main purpose as listed above is to maintain command and control if ground based centers are attacked or unavailable. One E-4B is in the air every 12 hours with another on alert status. This is the same plane that was seen over DC during the 9/11/01 attack in which all kinds of insane truther conspiracies were hatched.

So this leave one scratching their head as to what it’s doing in Turkey?!

We all know why and this government is going to start trouble that could very well lead to a major regional war and potential world war. Congress better cut their vacation short and put the brakes on his royal majesty before he get’s more people killed

http://savingtherepublic.com/blog/20...-plane-turkey/

What is President Obama Thinking About With a Military Intervention in Syria?

Ed Krayewski|Aug. 28, 2013 2:42 pm

blatantworld.com/foter.com

For more than two years, Syria has been embroiled in a civil war. It began when the long-time regime of Bashar Assad (handed down to him from his Ba’athist father, Hafez Assad) tried to quell uprisings in the country pinned to the Arab Spring and spiraled into a full-fledged armed conflict. American interventionists like John McCain have been pushing for US involvement in Syria since 2011. The Obama Administration took a relatively more subdued approach, though President Obama had already said Assad “had to go” back in 2011. That declaration, however, wasn’t backed by any kind of real support, and instead had the effect of cutting off the idea of engagement as a solution to an issue the US foreign policy establishment believes is relevant to them.

Eventually, Obama laid down a “red line,” the use of chemical weapons. In April, Israel said it was “nearly 100% certain” the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons, but Chuck Hagel wasn’t so sure. The next day, Hagel said U.S. intelligence sources had “some degree of varying confidence”Assad had in fact used chemical weapons. Obama said a “line was crossed,” but that more “direct evidence” was needed. Eventually, Israel hitwhat the Free Syrian Army said was a chemical weapons facility. Then, all still this April, Obama moved the goal posts to the “systematic” use of chemical weapons. Iran helpfully agreed that the use of chemical weapons (they, of course, meant by rebels, who the Syrian regime accused) would be crossing a line. But Western (and Iranian, too) intervention in Syria had already begun. By June, the White House said it had confirmed the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime, and announced it would be providing Syrian rebels with military aid.

In this month’s apparent chemical weapons attack, the Obama Administration is signaling its intent for a more forceful punitive response. The White House insists it’s not seeking regime change (but it already acknowledged that’s what it was looking for years ago), but to send a message that chemical weapons use is unacceptable. Here’s the way one official put it to the LA Times:

[H]e believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

"They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic," he said.

A phone call to Tehran or even Moscow would ensure a response that was “more than symbolic” without risking the life and limb of whoever the US might decide to point cruise missiles at in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons. Despite the insistence of interventionists to “do something,” no one in the US foreign policy establishment has articulated anything close to a strategic interest in intervention. The former Congressman Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, has been able to articulate a very clear strategic interest in non-intervention: intervention would make the US akin to “Al Qaeda’s air force,” and even trigger a world war by making a unilateral move in a multilateral conflict. Kucinich zeroed in on the strategic interest that was inherent in not intervening similarly in Libya two years ago; Al Qaeda today has a far stronger presence in the country than it did under Col. Qaddafi (when it was nearly non-existent), and tens of thousands of surface-to-air missiles (and other weaponry) went missing after the US intervention.

Foreign Policy’s Stephen Walt sees Obama as being dragged reluctantlyinto the Syria conflict by a desire not to appear to be damaging US credibility by drawing red lines that can be crossed without a whim. Walt writes that the notion of Obama lacking credibility on the use of force is “especially silly” given the president’s history of the use of force in places like Afghanistan, Libya, and in the drone campaign. But credibility isn’t just about the use of force. It’s about engagement. And while Obama’s foreign policy has been heavily interventionist, it has avoided engagement. Together, it makes for a sometimes aimless but highly destructive foreign policy. Obama, for example, “escalated” in Afghanistan, as Walt writes, but he did not use the fruits of that escalation to attempt to broker a peace or negotiate an exit. He let the moment come and pass, and is still dithering on a withdrawal, unwilling to commit to it, but unwilling, also, to engage anyone else about it.

And so it is with Syria, where President Obama and his advisors believe lobbing cruise missiles, without the authorization of Congress and or even an understanding of what would happen next, is more palpable than engaging the other sides involved. Or even imagining that the conflict in Syria might not need any kind of American involvement, and that regional powers, even including in Europe, were free enough to handle it on their own.


http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/28/wh...inking-about-w