Dave Emory’s entire lifetime of work is available on a flash drive that can be obtained here. (The flash drive includes the anti-fascist books available on this site.)
COMMENT: There is an old saw that goes: “Let’s you and him fight!” We noted in a previous post that Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia–the head of Saudi intelligence–was directing the program of aid to the Syrian rebels. We also noted that Bandar is so close to the Bush family that he has been nicknamed “Bandar Bush.”
In this post, never lose sight of the presence of Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda/Islamist elements, apparently dominating the Syrian rebels, in spite of official denials.
A major advocate of the disastrous U.S. involvement in Iraq, Bandar had been implicated in major intrigues for decades, including 9/11, the Iran-Contra scandal, and a slush fund scandal, in which he is being represented by former FBI director Louis Freeh.
A report attributed to German intelligence (BND) alleges that the Syrian regime did indeed launch the chemical weapons attack that is the foundation for proposed U.S. military action against that country’s armed forces. (See text excerpts below.)
In a post from last year, Germany Watch (which feeds along the right side of the front page of this website) notes the presence off of the Syrian coast of a German electronic intelligence ship, gathering information on battlefield communications in the war. (See text excerpts below.)
In addition to Russian allegations that it was, in fact, the rebels who used the chemical weapons, a website run by a Palestinian/American alleges that the aforementioned Prince Bandar had equipped the rebels with the chemical weapons, which may have been accidentally detonated. (“Vanfield” noted the editorial bias of this site, when he posted the comment containing the article.) (See text excerpts below.)
A number of things come to mind:
- Might we be seeing a “Curveball II” scenario, here? Might BND be ginning up an incident to trap Obama and the U.S. after Obama broke the cardinal street rule of not writing “a check with his mouth that his ass can’t cover?”
- In addition to the BND-controlled “Curveball,” the Niger/yellowcake uranium gambit lured the U.S. into the Iraq quagmire. The genesis of that disinformation was the SISMI–the Italian intelligence service inextricably linked with the milieu of the P-2 Lodge, the strategy of tension and the heirs to Mussolini.
- We should note in this context, that, as set forth in our discussions with Russ Baker, George W. Bush was talking about invading Iraq in the late 1990’s. The point here is that gaming the U.S. position vis a vis Iraq required as much guile as setting out a pot of honey in front of a marauding bear. The BND and other fascist elements that appear to have laid a trap had an easy task in front of them.
- We feel that a meeting at the Mont Pelerin resort in Switzerland may well have been a planning session to lure the U.S. into war in Iraq.
- Additional U.S. military action in that benighted part of the world will benefit Underground Reich/German interests in a number of ways including further weakening the U.S. economy, further weakening U.S. diplomatic credibility, further undermining American popular support for President Obama, further undermining U.S. relations with Russia and (perhaps) setting the stage for some sort of reprisal that will further damage this country.
- In a recent post by German-Foreign-Policy.com (which also feeds along the right-hand side of the front page of this website), the fallout from the ginned-up intelligence in the Iraq war is seen in Germany as having damaged not only the U.S./British “special relationship” but the British-French alliance as well. Both developments clearly advance strategic policy of the Underground Reich and Germany. (See text excerpts below.)
- At some point in the future, we may analyze this imbroglio against the background of earth island geo-politics, the “turn to the brotherhood,” the Arab Spring and other considerations. It is more than a little interesting that Prince Bandar allegedly offered to keep the upcoming Olympics in Moscow free of terrorism and indicated that they controlled the Chechen rebels. Part of the earth island geo-politics we will discuss concerns the Boston Marathon bombings, which track back to the entire Caucasus jihadist dynamic at play here.
EXCERPT: With the recent developments in Syria, it is interesting to first note an article from the German press, in order to give our explanation a reference point.
Officially of course, the US and UK governments have no love for Syria’s Assad. But they are also aware that many of the Syrian rebels are Islamic extremists, hence there is a balancing act between avoiding the worst of two bad choices. This why the US was sketchy about arming the rebels like they did in Libya – Assad is not quite the mad dog that Gaddafi was, and hence may be the lesser of two evils (the alternative being a Muslim Brotherhood/Jihadist Syria).
The Germans though, are making no such distinctions. In the German press article, published pretty much verbatim in the three main German newspapers, were these little gems;
“A German newspaper has reported that a spy ship from the German intelligence agency is helping Syrian rebels. According to a report on Sunday in the paper Bild am Sonntag, the ship is equipped to detect troop movements as far as 600 kilometers (372.8 miles) inland. The paper says the information thus obtained is being passed by the German foreign intelligence agency BND to United States and British intelligence services. These in turn are handing it on to Syrian rebels, the report says.”
The report quotes a US intelligence agent as saying: “No Western intelligence service has as good sources in Syria as the BND does.” (They never wondered why??)
A member of the BND told the newspaper that the intelligence service was “proud of the important contribution [it] is making to the overthrow of the Assad regime.” . . . .
EXCERPT: A Hezbollah official said in a phone call intercepted by German intelligence that President Bashar al-Assad had made a mistake in ordering a poison gas attack last month, suggesting the Syrian leader’s culpability, participants at a security briefing for German lawmakers said.
According to participants at a confidential meeting on Monday, attended by Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, the head of the BND foreign intelligence agency told the lawmakers its indications of Assad’s responsibility for the Aug 21 incident included an intercepted phone call believed to be between a high ranking member of the Hezbollah Lebanese Shi’ite militant group and the Iranian embassy in Damascus.
In the phone call, the Hezbollah official says Assad’s order for the attack was a mistake and that he was losing his nerve, the participants reported the BND briefing as saying. Both Iran and Hezbollah support Assad. . . .
EXCERPT: . . . However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the deadly gas attack.
“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.
“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”
“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.
A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.
“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.
Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.
The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.
More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.
In a recent article for Business Insider, reporter Geoffrey Ingersoll highlighted Saudi Prince Bandar’s role in the two-and-a-half year Syrian civil war. Many observers believe Bandar, with his close ties to Washington, has been at the very heart of the push for war by the U.S. against Assad.
Ingersoll referred to an article in the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks alleging that Bandar offered Russian President Vladimir Putin cheap oil in exchange for dumping Assad.
“Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” Ingersoll wrote.
“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Bandar allegedly told the Russians. . . .
EXCERPT: Berlin has reacted to the UK parliament’s decision not to participate in an attack on Syria with an about-face in its own foreign policy. Up until Thursday, the German government and the opposition had been unanimously proclaiming that the use chemical weapons near Damascus must have “consequences” and emphasizing their approval of the British prime minster’s belligerency. Now the German government is declaring that it is not considering “a military strike,” while the opposition is professing that “a military intervention would be a mistake.” This about-face must be seen in the context of the strategic leeway in Europe, resulting from the new situation, which only concerns Syria at a secondary level. As the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) notes, the British parliament’s decision has not only “damaged the special relationship with the United States,” it also provides Germany new political advantages. Moreover, “the British-French security and defense policy alliance has been weakened,” thereby strengthening Germany’s position. In spite of its about-face in foreign policy, bellicose positions are still remnant in Berlin. For example, the Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, Wolfgang Ischinger, declared that the West should not “from the outset” exclude any option – including participation in a war.
Germany has reacted to the UK parliament’s decision not to participate in an attack on Syria with a rapid about-face in its own foreign policy. Following her telephone conversation with the British Prime Minister David Cameron on Wednesday, the German chancellor declared that both had agreed that the “Syrian regime” should not hope “to be able to continue this kind of internationally illegal warfare without punishment:” An international reaction is “inevitable.” On Thursday the SPD’s candidate for the chancellery, Peer Steinbrück, stated that he shared the government’s position that “a serious violation of international legal norms,” such as the use of poison gas cannot be ignored: “We cannot dissociate ourselves one from another, just because we are in an election campaign.” This was the situation up to London’s Lower House’s decision to refuse military aggression against Syria by a vote of 285 – 272. This is not binding for the British government, however de facto Prime Minister Cameron can no longer implement his war plans as he had intended.
In Berlin, the reaction Friday morning was what the press politely referred to as a new “accent,”  and a cross-party consensus. Whereas the chancellor stuck to her formulations that there must be “consequences” for using chemical weapons, thereby maintaining verbal continuity and all options open, the Minister of Foreign Affairs declared that Germany would, under no conditions, take part in an attack on Syria. He spoke in the name of the “entire German government.” “We are not considering military means,” confirmed a spokesperson for the government. The SPD chancellor candidate chimed in almost in unison: “I would like to make it clear that I, and the SPD, consider a military intervention to be a mistake, because we cannot see how this would help the people of Syria.” Berlin’s foreign policy consensus has been maintained, even though the opposition has a greater margin of maneuver and can formulate more offensively than the German government.
Damaged “Special Relationship”
London’s change of course, imposed by the British parliament, provides Berlin an opportunity that only concerns Syria at a secondary level. According to a position statement by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), the British Lower House’s “No” expresses “the doubts the parliamentarians have,” about whether an attack on Syria is appropriate and expedient, while extending “far beyond the motivations and consequences (…) of the Syria policy.” On the one hand, hesitation about using military means has grown, not only within British public opinion, but also at the political level since the failure of the Iraq war. On the other, the growing parliamentary control will have an effect. “Great Britain has relinquished its claim of being able to step into the international ring above its ‘weight class,’ as well as a portion of its role as the junior partner of the USA.” In effect, with Friday night’s decision, “the ‘special relationship’ with the USA (…) has been damaged; in Washington, the reliability of the British government has been put into question.” “The highest objective of British security policy – maintaining military and political relevance in US military interventions, to keep the USA as the protective power of Europe – is a failure.”
Weakened British-French Alliance
And that is not all. According to the SWP, the British parliament’s decision also “weakened the French-British security and defense policy alliance.” The military alliance between London and Paris – formally concluded in November 2010 – (german-foreign-policy.com reported.), which first openly went into action in the war on Libya, had been very critically scrutinized by German government advisors. The German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) pointed out that this alliance was a rival model to the German-French military cooperation within the EU. It has even been referred to as a new form of nascent opposition to German hegemony, as a “new Entente Cordiale” against Berlin. Whereas London and Paris had recently been making joint preparations for war on Syria, France now stands “almost alone in Europe, with its willingness to use military force,” writes the SWP. Berlin benefits most from the fact that Paris, having isolated itself, has pushed London “closer toward the European mainstream” – i.e. closer to the German position. . . .