Another Zionist War
by Bill White
Within a few days, we’re told, the United States will launch an unprovoked attack on Syria. The accusation is that the government of Basher al-Assad used chemical weapons against Al Qaeda rebels. These weapons were likely set off by rebel groups backed by Saudi Arabia and the Zionists in Palestine. America’s information is also coming from the new Saudi-Zionist alliance. And the media is largely ignoring the central fact – that launching missiles in an unprovoked attack legitimately permits a coalition of nations, including nuclear armed Russia and China, just cause to attack America’s homeland.
The attack may have begun before anyone can read this. It hasn’t begun before today because Obama has been too busy celebrating Trayvon Martin Luther King day and America’s long history of black communist agitation. Glenn Beck disagrees on attacking Syria, but he’s standing with Obama on that. So are the Judeo-Christian Zionists and the neo-cons at the Wall Street Journal. All of these factions viciously attack each other, but, when it comes to values — internatioanlism, anti-racialism, “democratic” revolution and Zionism — they all march together.
One thing that won’t delay the attack is Congress. Only Congress has the power to make war — and, that power is enshrined in big rubber stamps, one given to the President of the Senate; one to the Speaker of the House. 91% of the American public opposes war – 85% if chemical attacks have occurred. Truly, this is a war being made by a handful of Jews and Negroes.
Not that Obama is being overly aggressive. Obama clearly knows this is a fraud. The Zionists and the Saudis broke off from the US-led coalition in the Middle East a few months ago. Last week they installed Egyptian General Al-Sisi in Egypt. Al-Sisi is one quarter Jewish; his grandfather was a member of Haganah. The Saudis gave Al-Sisi $2 billion in cash, to compensate for any cut off American aid, and Al-Sisi killed over 1000 Muslim Brotherhood members in a coup. American neo-conservatives were involved. Obama tried to join in, with his ally George Soros’ man El-Baradei but was quickly sidelined. The Jews – in America and Palestine – and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi Minister of Intelligence, realized Obama is a paper tiger. So, they pushed their luck.
The civil war in Syria was a four-way conflict. Iran, Iraq, Hezbollah and Syria are the Shiite side. The rebels were divided three ways. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was supporting the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt is now gone, as is the Muslim Brotherhood stronghold of Homs. Qatar and Turkey were backing the Free Syrian Army — the liberal former Syrian Army commanders whom the US has failed to supply with weapons. And, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait back al-Qaeda, via the al-Nusra Front and others.
The US was allied with all three rebel factions. However, the Saudis and Zionists decided Obama was withdrawing US military power from the Mid East- so, while remaining nominal “allies”, they both decided to pursue a foreign policy of their own. After all – what is Obama going to do about it?
Months ago, al-Nusra seized chemical weapons when it overran a Syrian ammunition depot. This week, al-Nusra used these weapons. As Syria’s army, bolstered by its new National Defense Force, the elite of the Syrian Shabiha militia, retook neighborhoods to the east and southwest of Damascus, the Saudis and Zionists green-lighted the detonation of captured Syrian rockets.
There are two things you can believe here. One, you can believe the version above. Or, you can believe that Syria launched this completely unnecessary, strategically disadvantageous attack knowing it would invite American intervention. The latter belief – what the Zionists are telling us – would have to mean the Syrians want America to attack. If true, America should be doubly cautious – because this means Assad knows something the US doesn’t.
Why does the US believe Syria launched this attack? The bottom line is the Mossad. The Zionists have given the US an intelligence report they are claiming came from a source inside the Syrian Republican Guard’s 4th Armored Division, a chemically armed tank division currently leading the offensive around Damascus. The source says chemical artillery was deployed in the area, two to three weeks ago.
So, the Zionists orchestrated the attack – and the Zionists are providing the evidence that Syria did it. Syria must feel like a Defendant in the federal court system. The Jew cries out in pain as he slaps you – once again.
But, OBama is in a pickle – when I’m sure he’d rather be munching a watermelon. The Jews talked Obama into “red-lining” the use of chemical weapons. The Jews set the weapons off around Aleppo when their militias were run out of there in April. That didn’t work. This time, they ramped up the casualties and called Obama a pussy. Obama had two choices — the hard choice of calling the Jews’ bluff; or the “easy” choice of blowing off a few dozen missiles. Obama is doing the easy thing.
Right now, the US has four missile destroyers in the Mediterranean with about 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles. At $1.5 million apiece, that’s a $150 million barrage. As wars go, that’s cheap. The missiles also have a range of 1500 miles – which is important. The Zionists are claiming these destroyers are “off the coast” of Syria. Don’t be fooled. Those ships are no closer than the west coast of Cyprus. The US tried to deploy an aircraft carrier “off the coast” of Syria last year. It retreated when the Syrians deployed Russian Yakhont missiles, which can sink ships from Palestine to Egypt to Cyprus’ west coast. The US destroyers are hiding somewhere near Italy – as close to the coast of Syria as the murder of a two-year-old is to an abortion.
Frankly, my prayer is that the Syrians or the Russians or someone sinks those four destroyers before they get off a shot – but, that won’t happen. No US warship will come within range. But, what if the Syrians decide to start sinking US shipping to Egypt and the Zionists? They could close the Suez with their missiles – though that stretches the 200-mile range. Has anyone thought of this?
Obama “leaked” fifty locations he plans to attack in Syria this morning – probably, as the Wall Street Journal argued, so Assad could move his equipment and absorb the attack without feeling a need to retaliate. Obama wants a theatric strike — just enough that he won’t be mocked. Assad is supposed to play a role – take his “punishment,” teach the American people a moral lesson about Obama’s power, and move on.
But, what if Assad retaliates? Say Assad sets off a hundred Boston Marathon-style pressure cooker bombs in the US. 300 killed and wounded each — 30,000 casualties, a disproportionate response, as the US bombing will be much worse. Is this acceptable to Americans? Trade a $25 pressure cooker bomb one for one with a $1.5 million cruise missile. Good idea? Let America feel an immediate consequence for its actions — not a delayed response like 9-11. Then, see how Obama stomachs it.
But, there are two much more serious consequences – all resulting from the broader consequences of Obama’s actions.
Once Obama starts to fight, he will be pressured to win. $150 million won’t do it. Say Syria doesn’t lay down like a shocked dog and take it, and Obama now has to fight a war. If the war stays limited to Syria, the cost will be $18 billion a year for an air campaign. An invasion – which the US is not prepared for – may cost $400 billion. Obama — and America — are broke. A true, protracted war will break America like World War II broke the British Empire. It’s coming anyway – in a sense, it might as well start now – but, does Obama understand this?
Then, there is the big issue – what if Russia decides to respond militarily? What if China intervenes? What if, on a much smaller scale, Iran deploys troops – not just advisors – to the region, using the US attack as an excuse?
Nuclear death from Russian and Chinese ICBMs raining down on the US would be a relief. Finally, the democratic tyranny would be over. The blacks and Jews are concentrated in major urban areas; they’d be gone. White people may even be free again.
How else could Russia intervene? If US forces mass in Turkey, Russia could invade. That would be an exhausting war – but, Russia would win, and retake Georgia and the Caucasus in the interim.
Or, Russia could just escalate its arms sales to Syria and Iran, and provide support for a joint Iranian intervention in Syria and, possibly, Iraq. Syria could fight a war with Turkey as Russia’s proxy. Or, Syria could blockade the Zionists in Palestine by sea and air – no airlifts of US armaments like in 1967 and 1973 – while renewing war on the Golan Heights. The Zionist military is substandard; it is heavily dependent on US resupply; and its only hope would be its new friends in Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
Or — what if Russia and China arm and support a general war – Iran, Iraq and Syria against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Zionists?
None of this might be immediate – but, even if a US attack doesn’t prompt a direct Russian counterattack, it invites and justifies further Russian intervention. This intervention pushes all parties closer to a general conflict. And, with NATO in Turkey, Iran close to nuclear weapons, and the Zionists holding no real card but nuclear weapons – nothing good can happen.
The Zionists are starting this war because, in their arrogance, they can’t imagine they’ll lose. When asked about potential Syrian counterattacks on US ships – the Jews credulously announced that Syria “wouldn’t dare” — because it would invite the same ineffective attacks they’ve invited now. Well, the US isn’t what it was 10 years ago. Immigration, free trade, economic collapse and political discussion have hollowed the US out. Russia and China are waiting to push the US over the edge into a regional power – not a superpower. Conflict in Syria is a way to do that.
(Reposted from VNN Forum)