Palestine Cry: US Contractors Cited for Syrian Chem Attacks (video) | Veterans Today

...beware of Greeks bearing gifts...

911 is part of the ongoing plan of which this is integral.

Palestine Cry: US Contractors Cited for Syrian Chem Attacks (video) | Veterans Today

* * *

Public Law 99-145 designates the U.S. Army responsible for the destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile.

NO WHERE WAS THE CIA NOR THE DIA NOR ANY FEDERAL AGENCY GIVEN ANY PERMISSION BY LAW TO STEAL THESE WEAPONS AND COVERTLY USE THEM TO MURDER PEOPLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES AND THEN BLAME LEADERS WHO THEY WANTED TO UNLAWFULLY REMOVE TO PLEASE THEIR ZIONIST AND ILLUMINATI MASTERS. BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON, SEE: US Contractors Cited for Syrian Chem Attacks (video) | Veterans Today. THIS GARBAGE BEGAN AT AS LEAST AS EARLY AS THE TEN YEAR IRAN IRAQ WAR IN THE 1980'S WHICH WAS SUPPLIED AND MANAGED BY THE CIA ON BOTH SIDES WITH HELP FROM OTHER SUBVERSIVE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES INCLUDING THE ISRAELI MOSSAD AND SAYERET MATKAL. Saddam Hussein was the CIA's boy and the Shah was as well. There never would have been the balkanization that the Israeli Devils wanted with those two regimes in power. So first the Shah was removed with the help of the French CIA providing cover for the Ayatollah and then a pretended Islamist takeover of Iran by the Ayatollah as if he just defied the whole west to do so. It never would have happened except the West wanted him there. The Vatican and BCCI and number of other Banks and Gold manipulation provided the grease to accomplish this.The surprise in store for Saddam's supporters was that he gave Iraq over to the "conquering Americans" with the help of the Russians. He expected to live in peace in retirement. Whether it was his double or him that was executed by the Jews, he will never be seen again. Iran is the funnel for Israeli Sayan Islamist "rebels" and Anglo American subversive Intelligence saboteurs throughout the whole Middle East. Iran is not the hope of the Arabs nor of the Middle East at all ever. PLO, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood etc. are all fronts just as much as Al CIAQaeda for Triad Western Zionist Russian-Chinese manipulation of the puppet regimes in the Middle East. Iran supports PLO, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood etc. under the planning and control of Triad Western Zionist Russian-Chinese manipulation. Syria is just another puppet to knock down after the dog and pony show. There is a saying of ancient Greece concerning the Trojan War, beware of Greeks bearing gifts. It should be updated to beware of the Triad Military Industrial Complex bearing gifts of WMD and Intelligence and Military and Political and Industrial support. ALL of the Arab regimes and others throughout the world have cuckcolded by this.

Next is North Eastern Africa... then Iran.

See Triad - each of these is a different set of links with different articles, all important, scroll back through articles in each link using Older Post link at right bottom of article:

Triad

Triad

Triad

God and His Messiah Jesus Christ our Lord - our right and duty to witness to Him: Triad - Targets Palestine and the United States of America - Triad's hidden out in wide open plan 7 articles - scroll back through

Triad

CMA FACT SHEET

WWW.CMA.ARMY.MIL

U.S. ARMY CHEMICAL MATERIALS AGENCY

Public Laws Impacting the U.S. Army Chemical
Weapons Storage and Demilitarization Program.PDF


Congressional oversight guides the execution 
of the U.S. Chemical Weapons Demilitarization 
Program. Annual appropriations of funding and 
specific requirements in the authorization and 
appropriations laws are the most important 
ways in which Congress influences the program. 
This fact sheet summarizes the most important 
provisions in these laws that guide the mission 
to safely eliminate all U.S. chemical warfare 
materiel. To obtain copies of referenced 
legislation please contact the Chemical Materials 
Agency Public Affairs Office or your local 
chemical demilitarization outreach office.

This fact sheet does not address environmental 
laws that regulate chemical weapons treatment. 
To learn about these laws please obtain a copy 
of the fact sheet “Federal Environmental Laws 
Governing Chemical Agent Storage and Disposal.”

Chemical Weapons Demilitarization 
Program Mission and Organization

Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to 
destroy the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile 
in 1985. The Secretary must ensure maximum 
protection of the environment, the general 
public, and the workers involved in chemical 
weapons destruction (Public Law 99-145).

Congress originally designated the Army as the 
organization responsible for safe storage and 
destruction of the U.S. chemical stockpile (Public 
Law 99-145, 1985). The Chemical Materials 
Agency (CMA) is the Army’s management 
organization for the destruction effort. Congress 
later directed that destruction operations at 
the chemical stockpile storage sites in Pueblo, 
Colo. and Blue Grass, Ky. should be managed 
by a separate organization, the Assembled 
Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) within the 
Department of Defense (Public Law 107-248, 2002).

In 1992, Congress directed the Secretary of the 
Army to plan for destruction of chemical warfare 
materiel not part of the stockpile. Non-stockpile 
chemical materiel includes buried chemical 
weapons, binary chemical weapons, former chemical 
weapons production facilities, chemical weapons 
recovered from ranges and miscellaneous chemical 
warfare materiel (Public Law 102-484, 1992).

When Congress consented to the ratification 
of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997 
(Senate Resolution 75, 105th Congress) the 
U.S. Chemical Weapons Demilitarization Program 
became subject to the requirements of this 
treaty. This includes declaration of all chemical 
warfare materiel (CWM), international inspections 
of storage and destruction facilities, as well as 
deadline for destruction of declared CWM. The 
original deadline was April 29, 2007 but it 
has since been extended to April 29, 2012.

Reports to Congress

Congress requires the Secretary of Defense to submit 
an annual report on the status of the chemical 
demilitarization program. The report includes 
information about each chemical weapons stockpile 
site, an accounting of all funds expended by the 
program and an assessment of the stockpiles’ 
current safety and integrity (Public Law 99-
145, 1985, and Public Law 101-510, 1990).

In addition, the Secretary of Defense is required 
to prepare and submit a comprehensive schedule 
for the safe destruction of the chemical stockpile 
on an annual basis until the destruction is 
completed (Public Law 109-364, 2006).

OVER

CMA_Public_Laws_Impacting_US_Chemical Weapons_1_29_09.indd



Public Laws Impacting the U.S. Army Chemical
Weapons Storage and Demilitarization Program (continued)



Transportation of Chemical Weapons 
Chemical weapons that are part of the chemical 
stockpile may not be transported across state 
lines. If a chemical warfare item is discovered that 
is not part of the stockpile (i.e., non-stockpile 
materiel), the item may be transported to the 
nearest chemical stockpile storage facility with 
the necessary permits for receiving and storing 
such items (Public Law 103-337, 1994).

No funds may be expended to study the feasibility 
of removing or transporting the chemical weapons 
stockpile from any storage site in the continental 
United States, except for studies needed for 
environmental analysis under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (Public Law 102-172, 1991).

Destruction Facilities

Facilities constructed for chemical stockpile 
destruction generally may not be used for any 
other purpose (PL 99-145). When no longer 
needed for chemical disposal, facilities must be 
cleaned, dismantled, and disposed of in accordance 
with applicable laws and regulations and mutual 
agreements between the Secretary of the Army and 
the Governor of the State in which the facility is 
located (PL 99-145, 1985 and PL 106-65, 1999). 

The U.S. Army may use chemical stockpile disposal 
facilities to destroy non-stockpile chemical materiel 
if the state in which the destruction facility is 
located issues the appropriate permit(s) for the 
destruction of such items at that facility.

Alternative Technologies

In 1992, Congress directed the Army study 
alternatives to the baseline incineration disposal 
technology and implement an alternative disposal 
method at low-volume chemical storage sites 
(Richmond, Ky.; Edgewood, Md.; and Newport, Ind.) if 
the alternative could meet the stockpile elimination 
deadline and was significantly safer than and at 
least as cost-effective as baseline incineration 
(Public Law 102-484, 1992). The Army established 
the Alternative Technologies and Approaches Project, 
which ultimately resulted in the destruction of the 
bulk chemical agent stockpiles at Aberdeen, Md. 
and Newport, Ind. via chemical neutralization. 

In 1996, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense 
to conduct a pilot program to study alternatives to 
the baseline incineration technology for assembled 
chemical munitions and required this effort to 
be managed separately from the Army disposal 
program. This program is known as Assembled 
Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA). All ACWA 
technologies must meet applicable federal and 
state environmental and safety requirements and 
the ACWA Program Manager must submit an annual 
report to Congress (Public Law 104-208, 1996). 

In 1999, Congress ordered that the chemical 
destruction facility at Richmond, Ky., could not 
be constructed until after the ACWA Program 
had demonstrated six alternatives to baseline 
incineration for the destruction of chemical 
weapons (Public Law 106-52, 1999).

In 2000, Congress ordered the Department of 
Defense to consider only incineration and those 
technologies demonstrated before May 1, 2000 
for destruction of chemical weapons at Pueblo 
Chemical Depot (Public Law 106-398, 2000). In 
accordance with Congressional direction, ACWA is 
responsible for managing the chemical stockpile 
destruction efforts at the Kentucky and Colorado 
site (PL 107-248). Both of the planned destruction 
facilities will use alternative technologies.

Emergency Preparedness

To help address the requirement to ensure maximum 
protection of the environment, the general public, 
and the workers during chemical stockpile disposal 
operations, Congress in 1990 authorized the 
Secretary of Defense to make grants to state and 
local governments to assist emergency preparedness 
efforts (Public Law 101-510, 1990).

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, in 
coordination with the Army, helps state and local 
governments develop their individual response 
systems to deal with chemical stockpile emergency 
situations (Public Law 105-261, 1998).

The Army may provide financial assistance to state 
and local chemical stockpile emergency preparedness 



Public Laws Impacting the U.S. Army Chemical 
Weapons Storage and Demilitarization Program (continued)




programs until 180 days after the completion of 
stockpile disposal at a site or the completion of all 
grants and cooperative agreements between the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency and the 
state and local governments responsible for that site, 
whichever occurs first (Public Law 110-181, 2008).

Public Participation

Congress directed the establishment of Citizen’s 
Advisory Commissions specifically for low-volume 
chemical stockpile storage sites (Richmond, Ky.; 
Edgewood, Md.; and Newport, Ind.) and for all other 
sites upon request from the governor of the state 
in which the site is located. Commissions have 
9 members, including seven governor-appointed 
citizens who live in areas affected by destruction 
operations and two state government representatives 
with direct responsibilities related to the chemical 
demilitarization program (Public Law 102-484, 
1992). An Army representative attends each 
Commission meeting (Public Law 102-484, 1992). 
The Citizens’ Advisory Commissions must meet at 
least twice a year (Public Law 103-484, 1992). 
Commissions will be terminated upon completion 
of closure of the chemical destruction facility at 
their respective storage site or upon request of 
the Governor of the commission’s state, whichever 
occurs first (Public Law 110-181, 2008).

Conclusion

Congressional oversight continues to guide the 
execution of the chemical demilitarization program. 
CMA and ACWA are working with Congress to carry 
out the destruction effort in an effective and 
safe manner. 

This fact sheet will be updated periodically as 
legislative requirements change. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

CDC www.cdc.gov

History of U.S. Chemical Weapons Elimination

History of U.S. Chemical Weapons 
Elimination.PDF

From World War I to 1968, the United States
produced chemical weapons as a deterrent
against use of similar weapons by other
countries. Though never used in battle,
these U.S.weapons are now obsolete and
deteriorating with age. The U.S. national
stockpile of lethal chemical warfare agents
primarily involves six chemicals:

GA—Tabun or ethyl N,N-dimethyl ••
phosphoroamidocyanidate,
CAS 77-81-6

GB—Sarin or isopropyl ••
methylphosphonofluoridate,
CAS 107-44-8

H, HD, HT—Sulfur mustard, bis-(2-chloroethyl)sulfide, or di-2-chloroethyl sulfide (HD), CAS 505-••
60-2; bis(2-chloroethylthioethyl) ether (HT), CAS 63918-89-8

L—Lewisite or dichloro 2-chlorovinylarsine, CAS 541-25-3••

VX—O-ethyl-S-(2-diisopropylaminoethyl)-methyl phosphonothiolate, CAS 50782-69-9••

Congress Mandates Destruction of Outdated Chemical Weapons

In 1985, the U.S. Congress mandated that the Department
of Defense be responsible for establishing a Chemical and
Biological Defense (CDB) program, U.S. Code Title 50, Sections
1521 through 153, provided the legal foundation for chemical
weapons disposal activities.

The Department of Defense was also responsible for ensuring
maximum protection of the environment and the general
public, as well as workers involved in chemical weapons
destruction (Public Law 99-145, 1985 and U.S. Code 50,
Section 1521):

Chapter 32, Chemical and Biological Warfare Program ••

Section 1521, Destruction of existing stockpile of ››
lethal chemical agents and munitions

Section 1522, Conduct of chemical and biological ››
defense program

Section 1523, Annual report on chemical and biological warfare defense ››

National Center for Environmental Health

Division of Emergency and Environmental Health Services

Map of the United States displaying locations and status of chemical stockpile sites
Locations and Status of Stockpile SitesLocations and Status of Stockpile SitesPueblo, COPueblo, COJohnston AtollJohnston AtollUmatilla, ORUmatilla, ORTooele, UTTooele, UTPine Bluff, ARPine Bluff, ARNewport, INNewport, INAnniston, ALAnniston, ALEdgewood, MDEdgewood, MDBlue Grass, KYBlue Grass, KYUnder constructionIn operationClosedIn closureUnder constructionIn operationClosedIn closure
Soldier in a chemical warfare suit
CS215851_D

(Continued on back)



U.S. Signs International Chemical
Weapons Convention Treaty

In 1997, the United States ratified the United Nations
International Chemical Weapons Convention treaty.
By participating in the treaty, the United States
agreed to destroy its stockpile of aging chemical
weapons—principally mustard agent and nerve
agents—by April 29, 2007. However, the final
destruction deadline was extended to April 29, 2012,
at the Eleventh Session of the Conference of the
States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention
at The Hague on December 8, 2006.

The CDC chemical weapons elimination team’s
mission is to protect public health and safety by providing oversight and guidance to the U.S.
Army’s chemical warfare materiel demilitarization program by reviewing, advising, and making
recommendations on the Army’s plans to destroy stockpile and nonstockpile chemical weapons. This
mission is mandated by Public Laws 91-121, 91-441, and 99-145.

Today, the U.S. Army is recognized as a world leader in international chemical weapons elimination
efforts. Over a decade of experience has demonstrated that these weapons can be destroyed safely,
without harm to employees, to the community, or to the environment.

Disposal of Stockpile and Nonstockpile
Chemical Warfare Agents

Years ago, the Department of Defense stored
chemical warfare agents, either in bulk containers
or as assembled munitions, at locations within the
continental United States. The remainder of the
stockpile was transferred to Johnston Atoll, a small
remote island in the Pacific Ocean (Southwest of the
Hawaiian Islands). Note that all chemical warfare agent
materials previously stored on Johnston Atoll now
have been destroyed.

Nonstockpile chemical warfare materiel includes
former chemical weapons production facilities;
recovered chemical weapons, chemical samples, and
binary chemical weapons; and miscellaneous equipment,
such as empty aerial spray tanks.

Web: www.cdc.gov

February 2010

Stockpile of chemical weapons



A forklift storing chemical weapson in a bulk container



_______________________________________________________________

Yamantau

US Contractors Cited for Syrian Chem Attacks (video) | Veterans Today

US Contractors Cited for Syrian Chem Attacks (video) | Veterans Today

Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 | Posted by Gordon Duff

US Contractors Cited for Syrian Chem Attacks (video)

Welcome to the real world folks. It’s a nasty place.

US Chem Weapons Disposal Program Supplies WMD’s for Syrian Rebels

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

Investigative journalists inside Georgia and the region have traced shipments of chemical weapons to American controlled sources in the region.

Here, the weapons from Georgia are being deployed by US backed Al Qaeda terrorists.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

Journalists, Jeffrey Silverman and Lika Moshiashvili have discovered clandestine WMD operations at the US controlled Central Reference Laboratory.

Additionally, at the same facility, now controlled by the US government under cover of a “disarmament aid” program, new strains of deadly viruses are now also being reported as being weaponized and distributed to terrorist organizations.

Differentiating between listed and named terror groups and intelligence agencies has become problematic. All of this is financed by the US government and done under the guise of foreign aid and disease control.

Illuminati Showdown in Middle East | Veterans Today

Illuminati Showdown in Middle East | Veterans Today

Sunday, September 8th, 2013 | Posted by Dean Henderson

Illuminati Showdown in Middle East

by Dean Henderson

This week’s US Congressional vote on Syrian missile strikes will prove a watershed event in the battle to wrest global control from the Illuminati banksters.

Russian warships continue to stream into the Eastern Mediterranean.  Infowars.com reports that Chinese warships are doing the same. Hezbollah fighters cross the Syrian border with Lebanon en masse.  Iran says it will target US embassies in the region if we attack Syria.

Last year, for the first time since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, two Iranian warships entered the Suez Canal bound for the Mediterranean.  The frigate and supply ship conducted training exercises with the Syrian military.

Something’s got to give.

Since the 2011 Egyptian uprising, Western intelligence agencies have been busy backing al Qaeda thugs in Libya, Iran and Syria.  They succeeded in Libya, where Qaddafi was brutally murdered and CIA Islamists put in charge.

Meanwhile, authentic people-power protests have commenced in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen and Algeria.  Battle lines are being drawn in the region.  The outcome may well define global geopolitics for the next century.

Ever since the Rockefeller/Rothschild petro-monopoly discovered oil in the region, there has been a resource war between regional nationalist leaders like Boumediene, Nasser and Mossadegh – who fought to retain oil profits for their people – and the Illuminati banking cartel, which has used oil to grease the wheels of its ever-expanding global capitalist enterprise.

Israel has served as Zionist enforcer in the region, using divide and conquer strategies to overcome popular Arab anti-colonial movements. AIPAC lobbyists will be descending on Congress this week in an attempt to draw the US into the Syrian quagmire.

History repeats itself today as the Illuminati corporate media tentacle attempts to equate the uprisings inIlluminati-controlled Bahrain, Yemen and Algeria with those in Iran, Syria and Egypt.  The latter three countries have for now won their independence from the banksters.  It’s why we are taught to hate them.  Iran is demonized the most because it nationalized its oil sector following the overthrow of David Rockefeller’s good friend, the Shah of Iran, in 1979.

The Illuminati response to this seminal event would define Western intelligence strategy in the region for the next 30 years.  As discussed in Chapter 1 of my Big Oil… book, the Iranian Revolution began in the oil-rich Khuzistan region and was spearheaded by left-wing nationalist oilfield workers belonging to the Tudeh and Feyadeen parties.

Executives at Texaco and Exxon were targeted for assassination.  Their Iranian Consortium subsidiary had seized Iranian oilfields after the 1953 CIA/Mossad/MI6 overthrow of democratically-elected President Mohamed Mossadegh.  The coup was coordinated by British Petroleum.

Once it became clear that the Shah and his brutal SAVAKsecret police were about to fall, Western intelligence agencies began to back Ayatollah Khomeini.  The banksters knew that the Islamist Khomeini would be easier to work with, and later to discredit, than the nationalists who led the Revolution.  Later they provided Khomeini with a hit list of Tudeh and Feyadeen leaders while Israel coordinated arms sales to the Ayatollah for his coming war with Iraq.  The Iran/Iraq War was designed to decimate both countries.  Western arms flowed to both sides while oil infrastructure was targeted in both nations.

With the Shah gone, the Illuminati’s “Twin Pillars” policy in the Middle East – based on alliances with the Shah and the House of Saud – needed rethinking.  President Reagan facilitated the formation of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).  The GCC is comprised of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, United Arab Emirates and Qatar.  These tiny monarchies line the southwest side of the Persian Gulf – an area that contains 42% of the world’s oil.  These former British protectorates were slowly given independence on the condition that single-family monarchs would remain compliant to Illuminati oil interests.  In exchange for their loyalty, these families received Western military protection, as much from their own populations as from foreign threats.

A decision was made early on to refine all Saudi crude on the island of Bahrain.  Big Oil never trusted the Saudi people, worried that a people’s revolution might result in nationalization of their refineries.  Quietly the US Fifth Fleet moved into Bahrain to protect these refineries, as well as the offices of Illuminati-controlled banks such as JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, HSBC and Barclays.  These banks run their offshore Middle East headquarters’ from Bahrain, where they recycle petrodollars and drug money into high-interest loans to the world’s developing nations.

Following the Iranian template, Western intelligence agencies encouraged Islamic extremism in the GCC nations.  While the ruling families gamble and fornicate in Monaco, the people are encouraged to embraceWahhabism to keep their gaze from the glaring class disparities that exist.  It is the same strategy employed by the Illuminati in America via their boot-licking Republican Party and it’s Evangelical American Taliban extremist contingent.

In that same year of 1979, a Yemeni uprising resulted in that country splitting into two, with North Yemen – home to many Saudi oilfield workers – remaining loyal to Illuminati interests and South Yemen declaring itself a Marxist state in defiance of the international banksters.  When South Yemen cast the lone “No” vote at the UN Security Council in 1991 regarding the Gulf War, they were targeted for destruction by the Illuminati.  The nation became one again and it’s Western allied leaders encouraged Islamic fundamentalism.

Algeria was also in the bankster’s crosshairs for their opposition to the Gulf War.  The CIA/Mossad/MI6 unleashed AIG (Armed Islamic Group) Islamic terrorists – many of whom later fought for these agencies in Bosnia – against the leftist Algerian government, which had kept its oil nationalized under the state-owned Sonatrech.  The Illuminati toppled that government after a series of AIG massacres.  Soon theHydrocarbon Law was passed, AIG extremists loyal to theIlluminati took power and Algeria’s oil sector was handed over to the Rockefeller/Rothschild petro-monopoly.

The people of Algeria, Yemen and Bahrain rose up against these Islamic extremist Illuminati lapdog governments.  Egyptians have booted the Muslim Brotherhood. Tunisians look set to do the same. If they succeed, nationalist governments that threaten the Illuminati oil barons will emerge.

In sharp contrast to these popular uprisings are the CIA/Mossad/MI6-fomented events in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Libya.  These countries have already fought revolutions to gain their freedom from the banksters.

Now, more than ever, it is important to know your Middle East history.  Battle lines are being drawn between Islamist Western puppets and leftist nationalist movements that attempt to free their people from the Rockefeller/Rothschild oil axis.  There may well be a bigger showdown between Iran and Israel.

The outcome will decide whether the world remains wrapped in the oil-addictionstranglehold of Illuminati bondage, or is able to progress beyond colonialism and its monopoly capitalist offspring.

---

Dean Henderson is the author of four books: Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network, The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries, Stickin’ it to the Matrix and Das Kartell der Federal Reserve.To subscribe to Dean’s weekly blog, Left Hook, go to www.deanhenderson.wordpress.com

Are we Going To War with Syria over a Natural Gas Pipeline? | Veterans Today

Are we Going To War with Syria over a Natural Gas Pipeline? | Veterans Today

Saturday, September 7th, 2013 | Posted by Jim Fetzer

Are we Going To War with Syria over a Natural Gas Pipeline?

By Michael Snyder (with Jim Fetzer)

“WMR has learned from multiple intelligence sources in Washington, London, Beirut, and Paris, that Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan has paid off key members of the U.S. Senate and House leadership, as well as key ministers of the French government, with “incentive cash” to support an American and French “shock and awe” military strike on not only Syria but Hezbollah positions in Lebanon“–Wayne Madsen

As Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) has now publicly proclaimed, the Obama/Biden administration has been manipulating intelligence to justify an attack on Syria.

Vladimir Putin has taken the extraordinary step of asserting that Secretary of State John Kerry “has been lying” about the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Russia and China are increasing their military presence in the immediate vicinity and we appear to be on the verge of WWIII.

And members of Congress who have seen the “classified information” say it doesn’t prove anything, where the “rush to war” based on skewed intelligence is very similar to Iraq.

Wayne Madsen, moveover, has learned from multiple intelligence sources in Washington, London, Beirut, and Paris, that Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan has paid off key members of the U.S. Senate and House leadership, as well as key ministers of the French government, with “incentive cash” to support an American and French “shock and awe” military strike on not only Syria but Hezbollah positions in Lebanon:

Republican and Democratic members of the Senate and House leadership, including Senators Harry Reid, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Barbara Boxer, and Robert Menendez, as well as House Speaker John Boehner, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers, New York’s Peter King, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, and others have seen their campaign chests grow substantially as a result of Bandar’s financial largesse, according to our multiple sources.

If you ask why in the world Saudi Arabia would be so profoundly involved in promoting a war in Syria that it would bribe some of our nation’s highest officials, the answer may be that it wants to insure that a pipeline that would compete with its own preferred alternative which would pass through Syria is never built. If Michael Snyder has it right–and he appears to have “nailed it”–then all this rubbish about “international law” and the necessity to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons is nothing but political theater.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

Obama and Kerry have been lying to the American people. The case against the Syria government is completely contrived. It appears that Prince Bandar provided the rebels with these weapons but no instructions about how to use them–and that the rebels were clumsy and gassed themselves. Syria has had the rebels on the run and a UN inspection team was about to arrive! We are being told nothing but one lie after another:

Everything that Kerry has said about knowing where they were fired from, knowing where they landed, and knowing who was responsible is rubbish, where the United States has become an international joke. Syria and Iran are the final stages in the Israeli plan to dismantle the modern Arab states (and then strike Persian Iran), but this may explain why Saudi Arabia has been playing a crucial role behind the scenes.

Is the United States going to War with Syria over a Natural Gas Pipeline?

by Michael Snyder

Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?  Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria?  Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.

Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime”?  Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.

On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons.  One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.  Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict.

If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia.  This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.

Common Knowledge

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time.  The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009.

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world’s biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious program to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

YouTube - Veterans Today -

“We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey,” Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. “We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time,” he said, according to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.

The Nabucco Pipeline

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.

“For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all,” Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world’s leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.

Saudi Arabia said “No!”

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline.  Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route.  The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian.

In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria Pipeline

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be “completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia.  So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people.  In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said “NO” to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroeum International

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

No reason for the US to become involved

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.

But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.

If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be “allied” with?

Nusrah executes Syrian soldiers

And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.

If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive.  In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American “boots on the ground”.

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad.  It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force.  It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets.  Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.  Four points are worth making about these purposes.

First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict.  Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).

Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”

Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”).

Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described.  Some questions for Congress to ponder:

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power?  Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.  It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.

(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon?  Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?

YouTube - Veterans Today -

What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out.

I’ll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he’s five years old. We’re not talking about war; we’re talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, ‘Well, what do you think?’ He said, ‘I think no war.’

Unfortunately, his grandmother and most of our other insane “leaders” in Washington D.C. seem absolutely determined to take us to war.

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline?

This article originally appeared at theeconomiccollapseblog.com.