01 Sep 2013
The US Intelligence and “Morals” support the strike on Syria

The American people have said no to the strike on Syria. The British have said no, the Germans, the Italians ... even the entire Arab league has said no to the strike on Syria.

Yeah ... one French guy says we should strike ... but if you take a poll in France ... even the majority of the French people will also say no to the strike. All in all ... the whole world is saying no to the strike in Syria. But our lovely US Politicians still want to strike Syria. They are “obliged” to strike Syria because ... because the US Intelligence and “Morals” support the strike on Syria. Let’s take a look into these two elements shall we?

The US Intelligence
I sometimes wonder what is the definition of “intelligence” when I hear “US Intelligence”. I wonder what these guys assume to be the meaning of intelligence. Isn’t reason, logic and facts supposed to be a part of intelligence? Aren’t “true facts” supposed to be a part of intelligence? Isn’t US Intelligence supposed to mean the collection of true data that is beyond the reach of the common man? Let’s see ... shall we?

Saddam Hussein has WMD
What happened out there? George Bush went to war with Iraq based upon US Intelligence reports that ... Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction. After we entered into a long expensive war ... we came to know that this information was not true.

The US Intelligence Flip Flop on the attack in Libya
Their first statement on the attack in Libya was that the consulate was attack by protestors. And this statement was maintaining for two full weeks ... after two weeks the statement was changed. Then they release a statement saying ... no, no, we were attacked by heavily armed terrorists.

With all due respect, in the first glance itself ... can’t you make out the difference between a civilian and a heavily armed terrorist? Why does it take 2 weeks for you to realize that the guy standing in front of you was a heavily armed terrorist?

It is like saying ... I was attacked by a white guy ... then after two weeks ... you come and say ... duh, no, no, I was attacked by a black guy. He was standing there right in front of you ... couldn’t you at least see how he looked like?

It was not as if that the attack lasted just for a few seconds. It was not as if the attack was from a bunch of guys in a speeding car or a speeding bike or a helicopter. The attack lasted for several hours ... it was carried out by people on foot ... standing right in front of you. And you are telling me that the world’s best intelligence agency could not make out if the person is a civilian or a heavily armed terrorist.

Here is a clue. “Heavily armed terrorist” ... means that the person is “heavily armed” ... read the three words you are using to describe him ... “heavily armed terrorist”. You are telling me that you couldn’t see the guns in their hands? It took 2 full weeks for you to realize that the person in front of you was carrying a gun in his hand?

Who gives these kind of testimonies man? In any kind of incident in daily life ... if you ask a normal person ... hey, did the guy have a gun in his hand? Within 2 seconds the person will respond by saying yes or no. Why would anyone change their testimony? After 2 weeks? That too in such a drastic manner?

There is a full article on the flip flop on Libya attack here:

Why did the US Intelligence change its stand?
It was politically motivated. This attack took place after the release of an anti-Islamic movie. There were protests in two dozen countries against the film and the protests in Libya resulted in this attack. Right from the beginning of their campaign ... Romney Ryan were preaching the American people against jihad and radical Islam. This movie was released just a few months before the elections ... Americans were killed ... thus helping Romney Ryan in their strategy. But the American people did not buy it ... they brushed it aside to be a reaction towards a stupid YouTube video. But what the American people wanted to know was ... why wasn’t there enough security for the Americans in the consulate? It is then that the Intelligence changed their stand ... no, no, no ... they were not protestors ... they were heavily armed terrorists.

Killing people is a part of their policy
What you need to realize here is that ... killing people is a part of their foreign policy. Killing American people is a part of their policy ... to create fear and war.

  • 911 ... 5000 Americans died we should go to war with Iraq
  • Government has killed people in Libya ... we should go to war with Libya
  • Government has killed people in Syria ... we should go to war with Syria
  • 100,000 people have died in Syria ... we should attack Syria
  • 1400 people died in a chemical attack in Syria ... we should attack Syria

What is this going on? Their strategy is ... first get some people killed ... and then “use” that event to go to war with that country. Killing innocent people is a part of their policy. Until and unless people die ... they don’t get what they want. Look at Syria ... would you be paying so much attention to Syria if there was no conflict and everything was totally fine over there. If people carried out peaceful protests ... demanding what they want ... would you pay so much attention? Okay fine ... people are protesting ... see what they want ... that’s it ... would that be a reason for war?

  • Killing people gets them what they want
  • Killing as many people as possible gets them what they want
  • Doing the worst in Syria ... gets them what they want

Following this policy ... haven’t they carried out exactly these steps? Why would you supply arms and ammunition to civilians in a country? If that doesn’t help ... now chemical attacks fall into place?

Who are these guys and why are these guys so atrocious?

These guys who benefit from these events are:

  • Weapon Manufacturers
  • War Contractors and
  • Oil Companies

You think a weapon manufacturer cares how many people die? You think a war contractor bothers about the reason that started the war ... or you think he would actually welcome the reason that started the war. You think Oil Companies would mind the business that they are going to get out of this? No they don’t. They love this ... they want this to happen ... and they are enjoying every bit of this. And what’s totally awesome for them is ... staying in the background ... minting money and not being touched at all.

Coming back to US Intelligence
Aren’t they supposed to know this? Don’t they know who benefited from the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya? Isn’t the US Intelligence a “government” agency ... paid by the people of America? Isn’t your work supposed to be in the best interests for the American people?

The key principle of these companies is ... “Morals for the people, contracts for us and don’t ask what happens at the ground level”. Some recent statements by our lovely politicians in the media ... according to this principle:

  • The chemical attack was a moral obscenity
  • The chemical attack was outrageous and immoral
  • We have to respond
  • We have to take some action

Falling in perfect line with their principle ...

  • Step One. First kill some people
  • Step Two. Use morals
  • Step Three. Get contracts

Simple isn’t it? Step Two can be a little bit difficult ... sometimes they also need to use fear and insecurity as well.
They talk about morals but all of their wars are based upon a lie.

  • There were no WMD in Iraq
  • There was no bloodbath in Libya. The government did not kill peaceful protestors. There was an initial armed conflict.
  • There was an initial “armed” conflict in Syria as well. Nobody is killing peaceful people.

Why is it that Assad attacks on the rebels and not his supporters? Because the rebels are heavily armed and they won’t put down their weapons ... they won’t talk, they won’t negotiate. All of these wars are based upon a lie. They talk about morals and direct it to the leaders of other countries.

  • How is it moral to go for a war based upon a lie?
  • How is it moral to kill 100,000 civilians in Iraq war?
  • How is it moral to turn a blind eye to these 100,000 deaths and not go after those responsible?
  • How is it moral to give a life sentence to the marine who revealed this information and not even touch those who are responsible?
  • How is it moral to supply funds and arms into the protests of another country?
  • How is it moral to continue to supply funds and arms even after 100,000 people have died in that conflict?
  • How is it moral to play along with vested interests and use incidents in a war zone to attack that country?

Senator John Kerry ... how can you stand there and talk about morals when you support all of these above? So much for morals.

We need to step away from their planned moves. It is high time we fixed our system. And it is high time that we went after these vested interests first.