#Iraq #Syria - State Sponsored Terrorism.

by Scott Creighton

“3-84. At the core of IW are insurgency and COIN. The purpose of insurgency is to overthrow and replace an established government or societal structure.Terrorism and CT are activities conducted as part of IW and are frequently subactivities of insurgency and COIN . However, terrorism may also stand alone when its purpose is to coerce or intimidate governments or societies without overthrowing them” Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare

Barack Obama is a terrorist.

As is the case in most of our unconventional warfare destabilization campaigns, the one taking place in Syria right now is targeting civilian and industrial infrastructure in an attempt to decimate the cohesiveness of the Syrian society, making it painful in so many ways for the indigenous population to continue their support of their elected government. Obama justifies this with the fictitious ISIS™ Crisis.

“U.S.-led coalition warplanes bombed Islamic State group positions overnight across four provinces in northern and eastern Syria, hitting a grain silo as well as the country’s largest gas plant… and oil installations“

‘… reported the strike on the grain silo in Manbij, northeast of Aleppo city. It said the attack ignited a fire at the facility.”

“… raids hit an abandoned military base and an empty school, sending pillars of smoke and dust into the air. He said Islamic State fighters cleared out of the military about three or four months ago.”

“The Observatory says at least 19 civilians have been killed so far in coalition airstrikes“

“Human Rights Watch said that it had confirmed the deaths of at least seven civilians — two women and five children — from apparent U.S. missile strikes on Sept. 23” AP

The targets President Obama’s military and Special Operations planners are choosing are indicative of this type of state sponsored terrorism we have integrated into our standard operating procedures.

Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare written in Sept. of 2008:

“In some operations, IW (irregular warfare) may contrast with SSTR operations, such as supporting an insurgency or conducting UW where the goal is not to support the host government but rather to undermine stability and security to erode an adversary’s control over its territory or population.”

“3-54. The U.S. military will fight an uncertain and unpredictable enemy or, even more demanding, multiple enemy forces simultaneously in widely dispersed joint operations areas (JOAs). The future environment will be characterized by— 1.  Globalization” 3-12

“However, since adversaries employ terrorism and transnational criminal activities against the interests of the United States and its partners, these activities are included below as examples of the range of operations andactivities that can be conducted as part of IW: Transnational criminal activities, including narc o-trafficking, illicit arms dealing, and illegal financial transactions, that support or sustain IW.” 3-18

“The classic conception of UW employment is SF (Special Forces) Soldiers advising and assisting guerrilla forces to raid, ambush, sabotage, and otherwise interdict the adversary in ways designed to drain that hostile power’s morale and resources through military activities up to and including combat.”

“As in the past, today the United States must lay the foundations and build the institutions that the country needs to meet these challenges. Therefore, the United States must… Ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade… Develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power.. Engage the opportunities and confront the challenges of globalization”  3-1

You can go here to read an early CIA training manual produced for the terrorist forces Reagan used in Nicaragua to try to unseat the democratically elected Sandinista government because they weren’t good for American business interests. Here’s an example of a little comic book they published and distributed:

True, cruise missiles, daisy cutters and drone warfare are certainly a step up from kidnappings, fire bombs and narcotics trafficking (ever wonder why US military resources are being used to protect Afghanistan’s heroin fields?) but you have to remember, that crap hasn’t been working in Syria for the past three years. The Syrian government in conjunction with the vast majority of the Syrian people, have been steadily repelling our irregular warfare forces (a.k.a. “terrorists”) in the country, so President Peace Prize needed to take it up a notch and thus “ISIS” was born.

But you’ll notice the military strikes are still centered on doing damage to the infrastructure of the nation which will in turn have a detrimental effect on the lives of the population in general.

It’s state sponsored terrorism folks all in the name of free market, free trade globalization. It is sanctioned transnational criminal activity as published policy and established procedure. And that is an undeniable fact.

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/obama-bombing-syrian-oil-refineries-lng-plants-grain-silos-and-children-state-sponsored-terrorism/

300,000 Barrels Of Oil A Day.

Getting rid of Assad opens up Syrian oilfields to Europe and puts a finger up at Putin.
It is all about the oil.
Again...

For those to whom the recent US campaign against Syria seems a deja vu of last summer's "near-war" attempt to ouster its president Bashar al-Assad, which was stopped in the last minute due to some very forceful Russian intervention and the near breakout of war in the Mediterranean between US and Russian navies, it is because they are. And as a reminder, just like last year, the biggest wildcard in this, and that, direct intervention into sovereign Syrian territory, or as some would call it invasion or even war, was not the US but Saudi Arabia - recall from August of 2013 - "Meet Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin Sultan: The Puppetmaster Behind The Syrian War." Bin Sultan was officially let go shortly after the 2013 campaign to replace Syria's leadership with a more "amenable" regime failed if not unofficially (see below), but Saudi ambitions over Syria remained.

That much is revealed by the WSJ today in a piece exposing the backdoor dealings that the US conducted with Saudi Arabia to get the "green light" to launch its airstrikes against ISIS, or rather, parts of Iraq and Syria. And, not surprising, it is once again Assad whose fate was the bargaining chip to get the Saudis on the US' side, because in order to launch the incursion into Syrian sovereign territory "took months of behind-the-scenes work by the U.S. and Arab leaders, who agreed on the need to cooperate against Islamic State, but not how or when. The process gave the Saudis leverage to extract a fresh U.S. commitment to beef up training for rebels fighting Mr. Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top priority."

In other words, John Kerry came, saw and promised everything he could, up to and including the missing piece of the puzzle - Syria itself on a silver platter - in order to prevent another diplomatic humiliation.

 

 

When Mr. Kerry touched down in Jeddah to meet with King Abdullah on Sept. 11, he didn't know for sure what else the Saudis were prepared to do. The Saudis had informed their American counterparts before the visit that they would be ready to commit air power—but only if they were convinced the Americans were serious about a sustained effort in Syria. The Saudis, for their part, weren't sure how far Mr. Obama would be willing to go, according to diplomats.

Said otherwise, the pound of flesh demanded by Syria to "bless" US airstrikes and make them appear as an act of some coalition, is the removal of the Assad regime. Why? So that, as we also explained last year, the holdings of the great Qatar natural gas fields can finally make their way onward to Europe, which incidentally is also America's desire - what better way to punish Putin for his recent actions than by crushing the main leverage the Kremlin has over Europe?

But back to the Saudis and how the deal to bomb Syria was cobbled together:

 

 

The Americans knew a lot was riding on a Sept. 11 meeting with the king of Saudi Arabia at his summer palace on the Red Sea.

A year earlier, King Abdullah had fumed when President Barack Obama called off strikes against the regime of Syria's Bashar al-Assad. This time, the U.S. needed the king's commitment to support a different Syrian mission—against the extremist group Islamic State—knowing there was little hope of assembling an Arab front without it.

At the palace, Secretary of State John Kerry requested assistance up to and including air strikes, according to U.S. and Gulf officials. "We will provide any support you need," the king said.

But only after the Saudis got the abovementioned assurances that Assad will fall. And to do that they would have to strongarm Obama:

 

 

Wary of a repeat of Mr. Obama's earlier reversal, the Saudis and United Arab Emirates decided on a strategy aimed at making it harder for Mr. Obama to change course. "Whatever they ask for, you say 'yes,'" an adviser to the Gulf bloc said of its strategy. "The goal was not to give them any reason to slow down or back out."

Arab participation in the strikes is of more symbolic than military value. The Americans have taken the lead and have dropped far more bombs than their Arab counterparts. But the show of support from a major Sunni state for a campaign against a Sunni militant group, U.S. officials said, made Mr. Obama comfortable with authorizing a campaign he had previously resisted.

To be sure, so far Obama has refrained from directly bombing Assad, it is only a matter of time: "How the alliance fares will depend on how the two sides reconcile their fundamental differences over Syria and other issues. Saudi leaders and members of the moderate Syrian opposition are betting the U.S. could eventually be pulled in the direction of strikes supporting moderate rebel fighters against Mr. Assad in addition to Islamic State. U.S. officials say the administration has no intention of bombing Mr. Assad's forces"... for now.

But why is Saudi Arabia so adamant to remove Assad? Here is the WSJ's take:

 

 

For the Saudis, Syria had become a critical frontline in the battle for regional influence with Iran, an Assad ally. As Mr. Assad stepped up his domestic crackdown, the king decided to do whatever was needed to bring the Syrian leader down, Arab diplomats say.

In the last week of August, a U.S. military and State Department delegation flew to Riyadh to lay the ground for a military program to train the moderate Syrian opposition to fight both the Assad regime and Islamic State—something the Saudis have long requested. The U.S. team wanted permission to use Saudi facilities for the training. Top Saudi ministers, after consulting overnight with the king, agreed and offered to foot much of the bill. Mr. Jubeir went to Capitol Hill to pressed key lawmakers to approve legislation authorizing the training.

And once the US once again folded to Saudi demands to attack another sovereign, it was merely a matter of planning:

 

 

Hours before the military campaign was set to begin, U.S. officials held a conference call to discuss final preparations. On the call, military officers raised last-minute questions about whether Qatar would take part and whether the countries would make their actions public.

Mr. Kerry was staying in a suite on the 34th floor of New York's Waldorf Astoria hotel, where he was meeting leaders attending United Nations gatherings. He called his Gulf counterparts to make sure they were still onboard. They were.

The UAE, which some defense officials refer to as "Little Sparta" because of its outsized military strength, had the most robust role. One of the UAE's pilots was a woman. Two of the F-15 pilots were members of the Saudi royal family, including Prince Khaled bin Salman, son of the crown prince. In the third wave of the initial attack, half of the attack airplanes in the sky were from Arab countries.

The best news for Obama: it is now just a matter of time to recreate the same false flag that the Saudi-US alliance pushed so hard on the world in the summer of 2013 to justify the first attempt to remove Assad, and once again get the "sympathy" public cote behind him, naturally with the support of the US media.

But how does one know it is once again nothing but a stage? The following blurb should explain everything:

 

 

Saudi players in attendance for the Sept. 11 meeting included Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who as the king's spymaster last year ran afoul of Mr. Kerry over Syria and Iraq policy. U.S. officials interpreted his presence as a sign the king wanted to make sure the court was united, U.S. officials said.

Actually, his presence is a sign that the same puppetmaster who pulled the strings, and failed, in 2013 to remove Assad, and as noted above was at least officially removed from the stage subsequently, is once again the person in charge of the Syrian campaign, only this time unofficially, and this time has Obama entirely wrapped around his finger.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-25/look-inside-secret-deal-saudi-arabia-unleashed-syrian-bombing