WILL THE WEST STAGE A CHEMICAL ATTACK TO JUSTIFY WAR IN SYRIA?
It appears the United States is determined to engage in yet another war without having been attacked or even having their allies attacked. The brazen Obama doctrine of preemptively bombing civilians to prevent a humanitarian crisis may soon be coming to another lucky country; Syria.
Although the build up to this conflict has been brewing for some time, it has now begun to boil. The US State Department is claiming categorically that Syria has weapons of mass destruction and that their use against foreign-backed rebels is imminent.
The Syrian military is prepared to use chemical weapons against its own people and is awaiting final orders from President Bashar Assad, U.S. officials told NBC News on Wednesday.
The military has loaded the precursor chemicals for sarin, a deadly nerve gas, into aerial bombs that could be dropped onto the Syrian people from dozens of fighter-bombers, the officials said. (emphasis added)
They wouldn't be lying to get us into another war of aggression, would they?
Meanwhile, the West continues to fund, arm, and train the rebels who are admittedly mostly foreigners and for all intents and purposes, Islamic terrorists -- just like they did in Libya.
It appears that if you're a secular country in the Middle East or North Africa that allows freedom of religion and women to become doctors, you're the enemy of the West while they stay friendly with oppressive regimes.
Iraq, Egypt, and Libya seem so much better off since the West liberated them from brutal dictators who peacefully accepted other religions and let women show their faces in public. Yet, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are rewarded for public beheadings, crushing peaceful protests, and RFID tracking of their fully burqa-ed women by these humanitarian warriors.
Several other stories indicate that America is steamrolling to war in Syria.
The NDAA that passed unanimously in the Senate to fund military operations for 2013 contained an amendment introduced by Sen. John McCain (Amendment 3262), which seeks recommendations for a no-fly zone and other military activities "that could deny or degrade the ability of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to use air power against civilians and opposition groups in Syria."
And, as we learned from the violent overthrow of Gaddafi, the new definition of a no-fly zone is carpet bombing heavily populated cities and critical infrastructure in order to remove a leader of a sovereign country with a state-run central bank.
The U.S. has made the use of WMD by Assad the line in the sand. Obama said Monday,
The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reinforced this yesterday in Brussels:
Our concerns are that an increasingly desperate Assad regime might turn to chemical weapons, or might lose control of them to one of the many groups that are now operating within Syria. We have sent an unmistakable message that this would cross a red line and those responsible would be held to account.
Even if Assad had them and used them against the terrorist rebels, who are proven to be primarily foreigners fighting a Jihad, does that justify U.S. intervention? I thought the U.S. was fighting against Islamic Jihadists?
The only one who seems "desperate" is the West, to justify their military presence in the region. It would not surprise me in the least if the U.S.-backed rebels drop some mustard gas on civilians to blame Assad. They've certainly been doing a lot worse to civilians in the name of liberating them.
Then the West can hold Assad "accountable" and go collect their next central bank in pursuit of global domination.