Arab Spring To Paris Fall: A Strategic Shift in the Works

a reply to: Xcathdra

Please, reveal to us who it is that wants to remove Assad, and who is funding and training those terrorists?

Of course, it isn't NATO. I mean, come on. And it wasn't NATO that removed Gaddafi as well. It was the people. Right?

originally posted by: Nikola014
Of course, it isn't NATO.

Why ask if you are going to answer your own question..

a reply to: Xcathdra

I said, if not NATO, then who?

USSR?

a reply to: Nikola014

and I dont have an answer other than not nato.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well then, why do you say that you know for a fact that it isn't NATO, when IN FACT( proper usage of the word fact ), you've got no idea yourself?

Want me to tell you who's trying to remove Assad?
Those who killed Gaddafi and destroyed Lybia.

The group in question is this:

ISIS/US/ISREAL/NATO/TURKEY/GULF-STATES/AL QAEDA/”SYRIAN MODERATES”

Versus the world

THE WORLD REPRESENTED BY RUSSIA/IRAN/SYRIA/HEZBOLLAH/KURDS

Amazing the US on the side of evil and all those bad guys on the side of what’s most right.

a reply to: Nikola014

Because NATO is not involved in Syria. But since you claim they are feel free to show us where nato wants to remove assad.

a reply to: Willtell

NATO is not involved in syria.

a reply to: Willtell

One of the better explanations of the complicated definitions of ISIS/ISIL/dash is in this vid . Kind of hard to follow so it might be worth watching a few times . In short ,ISIS has the same ideology as the Globalist .

a reply to: Xcathdra

Are you trying to singlehandedly blame it all on the US?

Holy, this is so not like you Xcathdra! I'm glad you are finally realizing the truth

a reply to: Nikola014

So you cant support your false claim about nato. Thanks for confirming it.

a reply to: intrptr

It would be nice if you would educate yourself on this matter.
In Libya, NATO intervened after there was a unanimous decision reached in the UN to do so, this came after Gaddafi's army started to bomb its own citizens.
It wasn't until August 2015 that bombs started to fall that were not dropped by Syrian forces.
Putin didn't want that so without a unanimous decision in the UN and no formal request from Assad for an intervention, IS/ISIS had all the freedom in Syria.
Until August 2015 that is, because then Russia engaged and started an intervention, only the bombs fell outside of the caliphate.
Iraq had requested help so a US led coalition has been present in Iraq since Sept 2014.
This is not about the west wanting to topple a government, this is about civil war, which was most probably ignited by wahabi salafists in both countries.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: CIAGypsy

They are far from secret.... And the article already theorized that Putin will get rid of Assad to placate the EU and ME, just not his government….

World leaders could just call each other on the phone, but travel back and forth, round the world, meeting face to face to keep anyone from eavesdropping. If you really knew what they discuss (carving up the spoils of war) and plot (overthrowing nations)…

well, maybe you do know.

Its about the money, from loans, for arms to destroy, and contracts to rebuild. IT's about enslaving the whole world to endless debt, repaying the interest on the loans… forever.

Was that a banking slam directed at me???

Please don't use NATO, this conflict includes Israel and the gulf states on one side and they are clearly not NATO. In fact some NATO countries would avoid this conflict entirely due to it.
Call them what they are: criminals.

a reply to: TonyS

Turkey giving up land is debatable.... Kurdistan will be carved from Iraq and western Syria. Unless, of course, Putin can implicate Turkey in something dastardly.... Lol.

a reply to: TonyS

Oh, and Hillary will never be President.... Who wants Benghazi on a global scale?

ETA - your assessment on the US fizzled response is poorly lacking but instead seems to be indicative of the kool-aid served up from the mainstream media....

originally posted by: EA006
a reply to: CIAGypsy

I don't think Obama is leaving office.

If it keeps Trump away...I may overlook that term limit thing until someone sane shows up LOL

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
a reply to: TonyS

Oh, and Hillary will never be President.... Who wants Benghazi on a global scale?

ETA - your assessment on the US fizzled response is poorly lacking but instead seems to be indicative of the kool-aid served up from the mainstream media....

Benghazi would not happen on a global scale. Things similar to Benghazi have occurred many, many times before Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Benghazi had the security that was normal for that type of outpost. It had private security as well. I know one of the private security guys that was killed. He knew each and every time he went somewhere he may be killed. If he were here, he would be saying "Enough already! FFS!"

a reply to: reldra

Sadly you are misinformed..... You need to step out of your brainwashed, kool-aid drinking trance and start asking some tough questions....

Let's start with these below. Ironically, what happened in Benghazi IS tied to Syria.

1) Why did we keep the diplomatic mission open after two attacks earlier in 2012 against the U.S. mission?

2) Why was Ambassador Stevens’ August 16, 2012, request for additional security, in a cable to the U.S. State Department, denied? This cable followed an August 15 “emergency meeting” in Benghazi.

3) Why were military assets not brought to bear during the seven or more hours that this event lasted, both in the Temporary Diplomatic Mission and the CIA Annex approximately one mile away?

4) Were any troops or security personnel ordered to not leave Tripoli, Libya that night to go to Benghazi to participate in any rescue efforts, and if so, why?

5) Where was President Obama that night, who did he communicate with about the events in Benghazi, and what were his orders?

6) Was the failure to bring military assets to bear in a way that might have saved some of those lives a dereliction of duty?

7) What was the origin of the story that the attack in Benghazi was sparked by a spontaneous demonstration related to an anti-Islam video that had shown up on YouTube, and which had actually sparked demonstrations in Egypt and other countries in the region?

8) Did the various statements from the administration reflect a belief that this was a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand, or a deliberate, planned terrorist attack with al-Qaeda involvement?

9) Who ordered then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s original talking points, and who ordered the changes to the talking points, such as to eliminate the notion that this was an al-Qaeda event, before her five Sunday talk-show appearances on the Sunday after the September 11th event?

10) Why do Administration officials continue to deny that they received no contradictory reports regarding a protest in Benghazi when numerous reports have shown that a) there was no protest, and b) that officials learned well before Susan Rice’s Sunday appearances that there was no protest? Why did the intelligence community’s reports outweigh testimony from those on the ground?