Now, After The Paris ‘False Flag’ Claimed By The Same ISIS/ISIL The US, NATO, Israel AND Saudis Created, Some Are Calling For An Increased US Response To Wipe Them Out Under The Leadership Of Obama

Posted: November 17, 2015 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

[Here’s What THAT Would Take & WHY IT Ain’t Gonna Happen, Folks!]

By Ric A Ohge | Quotes & Attributions Noted And/Or Linked | Nov 17, 2015

In my previous post on this I pointed out a number of inconvenient facts behind WHY Paris in particular, and France, generally, was targeted for this “terrorist” attack. For details, read: []

President Hollande, not unlike Sarkosy, has been wandering further away from US and NATO positions for going on a couple years. France has chafed under the Russian sanctions promoted by the US and NATO, has turned out Monsanto from French farming and is about to turn thumbs down on the TTIP/TISA “Trade Deals” that are the cornerstone of Obama’s benighted eight year ‘Legacy’.

Frances reaction was swift and deadly, raining ordinance on Raqqa, the Caliphate’s capitol city. [

If you’ve REALLY followed this story from “go”, you know the US spent years arming the “Moderate Militants” and “Free Syrian Army” to remove the allegedly[as claimed by the US and Islamists trying to topple him] tyrannical Assad Regime. 

WE Armed Them-And Allowed Them To Become ISIS

Reported In The Fair Blog, Feb 22, 2015:


As Ian Sinclair noted last September in the Huffington Post:

In mid-2012, the most influential newspaper in the world reported the US was helping to arm the rebels-1–a fact confirmed by subsequent stories-2 in the New York Times itself, as well as numerous reports-3 in other mainstream news outlets around the world.




Contrast this publicly available, easily accessed information with these summaries from the mainstream media of the ongoing US role in Syria…

New York Times (5/4/13): “President [Obama] seems to be moving closer to providing lethal assistance to the Syrian rebels, even though he rejected such a policy just months ago.”


Guardian (5/8/13): “The US, which has outlawed al-Nusra as a terrorist group, has hesitated to arm the FSA [Free Syrian Army].”


New York Times (9/9/14): “Mr Obama has resisted military engagement in Syria for more than three years, out of fear early on that arming the rebels who oppose Mr. Assad would fail to alter the balance in the civil war.”


BBC Today Programme (9/11/14), presenter Mishal Husein to US ambassador: “If you [the US] had helped the moderate Syrian opposition, the Free Syrian Army, three years ago, even two years ago, we might well not be in the position that we are now. President Obama’s reluctance to intervene and to take action on Syria has contributed to what we are seeing now.”

HOW Tyrannical?

This Video from 2014 illustrates, as RT interviews Virginia Senator Richard Black who had drafted a letter to President Assad thank him for saving the lives of so many Christian Syrians-Published on Aug 29, 2014:

Video Link:

“Syrian President Bashar al-Assad should be lauded for his efforts to protect Christians from the radical militants of the Islamic State, according to Virginia State Sen. Richard Black. In May, the Republican wrote a letter to the Syrian leader, openly thanking his army and air force for providing protection from jihadists. As the IS threat grows, the senator believes showing support for the Assad is becoming even more important. RT’s Ameera David spoke to Black to get his anti-“groupthink” take on the crisis.”

But WHY Does Assad Remain In Power?

Edward Dark Writes In Middle East Eye | Mar 31, 2015:

Assad’s support in Aleppo and Damascus

A regime that has no support among its own population cannot survive years of civil war, no matter how powerful it is or how much support it gets from abroad, it just goes against all logic. 

A large part of the Syrian population-1 still inside the country still supports-2 the regime. 



Many are from Syria’s numerous and diverse religious minorities, but a sizable number are also from the Sunni populations in the large and cosmopolitan cities of Damascus and Aleppo.


This is a startling statistic after three years of civil war, and not one you are likely to read about in the news anytime soon. 

Worse still, if you’re in the Middle East, the Syrian conflict is framed by the dominant Gulf-owned pan-Arabian news networks that strongly back the insurgency as a fully sectarian Shia vs Sunni issue. 

This helps galvanize support – and initially even recruits – to the anti-regime cause and keeps Arab public opinion – mostly Sunni Muslim – on side.

The Sunni split

The truth, however, is far more nuanced, though there is definitely a sectarian dimension to the Syrian conflict and significant internal polarization along those lines. 

The Syrian army is largely made up of Sunni conscripts, while many willing Sunni volunteers in the paramilitary groups that support regular government forces fight alongside foreign Shia militias, like Hezbollah, against a plethora of rebel groups that are all exclusively Sunni Muslim of varying extremes – both local and foreign. 

It is this Sunni split in Syria that is perhaps the most significant but overlooked factor in shaping the conflict.

A protracted civil war also favors the most powerful player on the ground and the one that can provide stability, or at least the prospect of it, no matter how dim. 

In Syria’s case this happens to be the central state, which for all intents and purposes is the ruling regime. 

They are inexorably and organically linked together, hence getting rid of the regime would also destroy central government. 

Absent any credible viable alternatives, this would cement the failed state status of a Syria embroiled in constant internal conflict for decades to come.

The dangers of collapse

This sort of central collapse would also almost certainly see jihadist groups fill the void, creating even more powerful extremist mini-statelets, the ideal breeding ground and export hub for terrorist fanatics. 

As you can imagine, this is not a prospect welcomed by most Syrians, nor indeed one of the most powerful backers of the opposition and insurgency, the United States. 

It is, on the contrary, an acceptable outcome for others like Israel, Turkey, Saudi and Qatar, who are obsessed with regime change at any cost despite the catastrophic consequences a disorderly collapse would have on the nation, and the profound wider-reaching repercussions.

This scenario plays well with their strategic regional interests of countering Iranian influence and hegemony in the Middle East, which in the case of the Gulf States and Israel is viewed as an imminent existential threat. 

A fractured Syria would deny Iran an important ally, and enable them to retain permanent spheres of influence in the north and south of Syria through their proxy rebel militias. 

They can then accommodate or deal with the extremist groups in the long term, at least that’s their flawed reasoning. 

This intransigent self-interest is one of the major obstacles to reaching a lasting political settlement to the conflict.

Stability, services and incomes

Amid all this fear and uncertainty we cannot underestimate the psychological and pragmatic attachment of many Syrians to a central government that continues to provide at least the bare minimum of public services, civil bureaucracy and state institutions including policing, free healthcare, education, as well as salaries and pensions to hundreds of thousands of civil servants and government employees. 

This is the case even for those living in opposition or ISIS territory. 

For many families, this is their only source of income.

Syria is a nation split along geographic and demographic lines and those divides grow ever deeper the more intractable the fighting gets. 

There is no realistic prospect of a military victory for any side anytime soon. 

In the meantime, the plight of ordinary Syrians continues to get ever more desperate as extremist groups take advantage of the chaos to sow terror at an industrial scale.

The only solution to this conflict – as has been repeated time and again – is a negotiated political settlement. 

The only way to achieve that is to sit down and talk with the ruling regime no matter how unpalatable or controversial that may seem. 

For all of its reprehensible acts, the ruling regime represents the central state, the Syrian army and a sizable chunk of Syrians and their interests.

It would be folly to ignore all that and keep pushing the same shortsighted narratives that have lead us nowhere except to more violence. 

At the end of the day, it is the enemy you negotiate with to end war, not your friends.”


A June 25th 2013 Article from the Voltaire Network reports on an internal NATO study (dated June 2013), which takes stock of Syrian public opinion.
“The study shows that 70% of Syrians support President Bashar al-Assad, 20% adopt a neutral position and 10% support the “rebels.”
These figures are presented as reflecting a change of heart. The population is tired of the abuses and divisions of the armed opposition. From NATO’s perspective, what we are witnessing is not a phenomenon that is occurring in view of the approaching “Geneva-2” peace conference.
For two years, the events in Syria have been portrayed by the Atlanticist and GCC press as a peaceful revolution cruelly suppressed by a tyrant. The Syrian and anti-imperialist press, on the contrary, brands them as a foreign attack, armed and funded to the tune of billions of dollars.” [
So, despite all of this, and as “our answer” to the Paris attack, President Obama is being urged to step up air attacks, put “boots on the ground”, and in general ramp up American power against an enemy WE essentially created, a call showing an obvious disconnect between the Rothschild NATO Zionist Western MSM and reality.
The ONLY way this could ever happen OR work, is if those forces were placed under the Syrian-Russian-Iranian Coalition Command, bombed and/or attacked coalition targets, all under the auspices of support for an Assad Syrian Regime, with Israel required to stand down in IT’S escalating attacks against Syrian targets.


Such a combined effort could wipe the core of the Caliphate off the planet in weeks…BUT, it puts Obama in the embarrassing position of doing a 180 degree turn against the forces he at least HELPED create, and who he’s continued to support up to now, as well as affirming new support for a Syrian Regime, that he, nor NATO, nor the Rothschild Banking Cartel want.

In the end, I’m afraid the Bankers will have their way. 
We can then anticipate that an increased American presence in the Middle-East Conflict[It’s no longer a “Syrian” war], especially as Israel and NATO are stepping theirs up, will push us ever closer to that WW III scenario no one in their right mind would want.
And is it ONLY ME, or is appearing more clearly NO ONE IS IN THEIR RIGHT MIND.I’m Just Saying…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s