We have had, for some years now, what has become known as the ‘Arab Spring’. This has been portrayed and promoted as people of the Middle East and North Africa spontaneously rebelling against oppression and tyranny. The reason it has been promoted in this way is because this is what the system, the hidden hand behind world events, wants us to believe is the situation.
The Arab Spring can be described aptly in the words of author David Icke, “It is people with brown faces being played off against people with brown faces, so that people with white faces can steal their land.” That is what we are seeing, and Syria is just another step in a long-planned series of countries being hijacked and taken over, with the Arab Spring as the front, the excuse and the cover.
This is a sequence of events that has been long planned. A piece of background to this is as follows. General Wesley Clark is a former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO. He said, in a television interview in 2007, just days after 9/11, that the following happened when he visited the pentagon:
“About ten days after 9/11 I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say ‘hello’ to some of the people in the joint staff who used to work for me, and one of the Generals called me in. He said, ‘Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me for a second.’
I said, ‘You’re too busy.’
He said, ‘No. We have made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.’”
And so in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Blair and Bush were saying that they were still trying to get a peaceful settlement, knowing all along they were going to invade. Clark continues:
“I said, ‘We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?’
He said, ‘I don’t know, I guess they don’t know what else to do.’
So I said, ‘Well did they find some information connecting Saddam to Al-Qaeda?’
He said, ‘No, there’s nothing new that way, they just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.’
So I came back to see the same guy a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, ‘Are we still going to war with Iraq?’
And he said, ‘Oh it’s worse than that.’ And he reached over to his desk, picked up a piece of paper and he said, ‘I’ve just got this down from upstairs.’ (Meaning the Secretary of Defence’s office) and he said, ‘This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.’
I said, ‘Is it classified?’
He said, ‘Yes, sir.’
I said, ‘Well don’t show it to me.’ And I saw him a year or so later and I said, ‘You remember that…?’
He said, ‘Sir, I didn’t show you that memo. I didn’t show it to you.’”
So here we have a situation in which countries are been ‘picked off’ – Syria being the latest – which has all been planned long before. Not only that, in September 2000, 12 months before 9/11, the so-called NeoCon group (neo conservatives), that control Bush and the Republican Party and came to power with Bush in early 2001 when Bush became president, produced this document.
In it they called for multiple wars, in multiple countries, by American forces. The countries they named (the countries they wanted to attack) were these same countries that Clark was talking about, plus some others. It was all planned.
More recently, former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas said that Britain had been planning a war against Syria for some 2 years before the unrest broke out in the Arab country. The statement came during a recent interview with a French parliamentary TV network, LCP. This is what he said:
“I’m going to tell you something. I was in England, two years before the violence in Syria, on other business. I met with top British officials who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain, not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer Minister for Foreign Affairs, if I would like to participate.”
Responding to a question on the motive behind inciting violence in Syria, Dumas said, “Very simple, with a very simple aim – to overthrow the Syrian government because in the region it’s important to understand that the Syrian regime makes anti-Israeli talk.” And then the former Foreign Minister added that he’d been told, by an Israeli Prime Minister a long time ago, that Tel Aviv would seek to destroy any country that did not get along with it in the region.
It is not just about Israel, it is about the acquisition of country after country across the Middle and Near East, North Africa and then going deeper and deeper South into Africa. This has been planned for decades.
How do they pick-off country after country?
Well first they need a major trigger that can start the process. We know that trigger as 9/11. 9/11 was an inside job – a Problem-Reaction-Solution. Problem-Reaction-Solution is a technique which works like this: you want to change society in ways that you know will attract enormous opposition. In stage one, you covertly create the problem – in this case 9/11.
In stage two, you tell the people, through an unquestioning and pathetic mainstream media, the version of the problem that you want the public to believe. – In this case, nineteen Arab hijackers, who couldn’t fly one-engined Cessnas, flew wide-bodied jets in a way that professional wide-bodied jet pilots have said they could never do, on 9/11. You are now looking for a reaction from the people of fear and outrage and a demand that ‘something must be done’. So in stage three, you openly offer the solution to the problem you have yourself covertly created – in this case the war on terror and invasion of Afghanistan.
They next needed to go into Iraq. They can’t keep using the same reason because people might cotton-on that there’s a pattern, so they have to find different excuses for the same process of acquisition. In this case, ‘weapons of mass destruction’ – you don’t even need a real problem to justify going into Iraq, we’ll just tell them there’s a problem that doesn’t really exist. This was ordered (on behalf of their hidden masters) by the Rothschild assets, George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Both have the character flaws so essential to serving their masters and reaping the financial rewards.
Then they want to go for Libya. So they train and arm rebels. They put their people on the ground while saying that they haven’t got any people on the ground. Then they get the rebels (mercenaries) to attack the regime of Gaddafi. At this point no-one says a word – no government reaction, no media reaction. Then, the Gaddafi regime will respond to that attack, at which point trigger everybody – microphones everywhere.
Media, off you go – “He’s killing his own people!” And so they then create hysteria and a madness that goes like this: We (NATO) have to go in and bomb the Libyan cities like Tripoli, to protect the people from violence. And they bomb the crap out of the place, slaughter masses of people, destroy cities, take what was the most economically successful country in North Africa and destroy it.
The tribal wars, that Gaddafi was actually keeping a handle on, are now constant civil wars in Libya. But, the outcome is those who were behind the invasion (which is indeed what it was) now control the oil and the semi-independent banking system.
So now, Syria is next. Many of the rebels, who were fighting Gaddafi, are moved into Syria and start doing the same thing. They start attacking the Assad regime. Again the government and media remain silent until Assad retaliates, at which point – microphones everywhere. Media, off you go – “He’s killing his own people!” They tried for so long to legally supply arms and other support to the rebels, but they couldn’t get it through. So they did it covertly, as they always do, through places like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, who are just satellite states of NATO in the region.
Terrible atrocities by these rebels have gone on constantly; however the rebels have been portrayed by the British and American governments as been the ‘good guys’. (Keep it simple – good guys, bad guys. No shades of grey).
They thought they were going to do a Libya. They thought they were going to get rid of Assad very quickly, however it’s not happened. In the last few weeks, Assad’s forces have been taking back areas of Syria which the rebels had held. It was going pear-shaped for the British and American governments, so suddenly, as this was happening, the EU dropped the ban on supplying weapons to the rebels. Also, suddenly (just by coincidence) Assad is said to have crossed Obama’s red line by using chemical weapons – with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
What we’re looking at here is not protecting civilians, just as it never was protecting civilians in Libya, but is an effort to make sure this so-called rebellion removes the Assad regime so that another tick goes on the list, and then it’s off to Lebanon and off to Iran.
The creation of Al-Qaeda
Al-Qaeda is an interesting story in relation to all of this. Al-Qaeda was created, by the CIA in Afghanistan, to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. ‘Al-Qaeda’ means ‘database’, as it was the list of names on the CIA database of so-called Mujahidin fighters against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. At that point they brought Osama Bin Laden out of Saudi Arabia to front up all this, and at that point Al-Qaeda were the ‘good guys’.
Then we have 9/11, and they want to invade Afghanistan as part of this sequence, so they have to find an excuse to invade Afghanistan. So now Al-Qaeda, and Osama Bin Laden (who they ludicrously blamed for 9/11), are the ‘bad guys’. What then happens is they justify the invasion of Afghanistan by saying they need to get Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda – who are now the bad guys. Then, Al-Qaeda is in Libya and they’re now on the rebel side against Gaddafi – so now they’re the good guys again. And now Al-Qaeda (good guys still) has moved into Syria, and they are the dominant force within the so-called rebels.
Why do they say Al-Qaeda’s good one day, and Al-Qaeda’s bad the next day? One simple common theme: What does it suit them to say and do in the circumstances that they are facing?
The words and claims spoken, by George W. Bush, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Barack Obama, John Kerry (the Secretary of State in America) and by William Hague (the Foreign Secretary in Britain), in relation to this sequence of events, hold no validity whatsoever. Every single one of these people is a solid-gold liar, who should be in jail with the key thrown somewhere mid-Atlantic.
Because the number of people whose lives have been ended or ruined by being maimed in these conflicts, wars and manipulated rebellions, does not even begin to register in the human mind, such is the scale over these years that we’ve lived through. And this is just the latest. It’s a scam, and anyone who believes it – well, lost cause – because it’s so blatant.
By Julian Websdale, HumansAreFree.com;
Julian Websdale is an independent researcher in the fields of esoteric science and metaphysics, and a self-initiate of the Western Esoteric Tradition. His interest in these subjects began in 1988. Julian is a guest writer for HumansAreFree.com and you can visit his personal blog here.