“Weapons of Mass Destruction” is the Mother of All Squirrels


Dr Nafeez Ahmed in The Guardian:

Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern

On 21 August, hundreds – perhaps over a thousand – people were killed in a chemical weapon attack in Ghouta, Damascus, prompting the US, UK, Israel and France to raise the spectre of military strikes against Bashir al Assad’s forces.

The latest episode is merely one more horrific event in a conflict that has increasingly taken on genocidal characteristics. The case for action at first glance is indisputable. The UN now confirms a death toll over 100,000 people, the vast majority of whom have been killed by Assad’s troops. An estimated 4.5 million people have been displaced from their homes. International observers have overwhelmingly confirmed Assad’s complicity in the preponderance of war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Syrian people. The illegitimacy of his regime, and the legitimacy of the uprising, is clear.


Whatever the case, few recall that US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had “cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations” intended to weaken the Shi’ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. “The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria,” wrote Hersh, “a byproduct” of which is “the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups” hostile to the United States and “sympathetic to al-Qaeda.” He noted that “the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria,” with a view to pressure him to be “more conciliatory and open to negotiations” with Israel. One faction receiving covert US “political and financial support” through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.


These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be “completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.


What is beyond doubt is that Assad is a war criminal whose government deserves to be overthrown. The question is by whom, and for what interests?

I do not vouch for the accuracy of this story. For all I know it may just be one man’s tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. On the other hand, this is not my first rodeo either.

You really didn’t think that Barack Obama was suddenly overwhelmed by the emotional impact of seeing the bodies of some dead women and children did you? When is the last time the US government gave a shit about a humanitarian crisis in a country that doesn’t have oil?

{{Theme from Final Jeopardy plays}}

We didn’t give a shit about Darfur. We let Somalia burn. We ignored the killing fields in Cambodia. After the Soviets left Afghanistan we turned a blind eye to the fate of women in the hands of the Taliban until after 9/11, then suddenly we were worried about their human rights again. For a little while, anyway. Then we quit caring again.

“Weapons of Mass Destruction” is the Mother of All Squirrels. There are 100,000 dead bodies in Syria and maybe 1% were killed with chemical weapons. And we’re gonna go to war for the 1%?

Follow the money.

Here’s my thinking: If we’re gonna go to war over oil, let’s just go in and take all of it. Pump those Middle Eastern oil fields dry and then leave.

At least that way we would be honest about why we were doing it. And nobody would give a shit about that part of the world ever again.


About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Syria and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

107 Responses to “Weapons of Mass Destruction” is the Mother of All Squirrels

  1. driguana says:

    Wouldn’t doubt if arms and weapons sales plays a role in the equation as well.

  2. Lulu says:

    This stuff keeps coming up in various scenarios of how we have gotten to this point. Trade routes, which is all a pipeline is really, have been fought over for many millennium. This is about Russian pipelines which are pushing the Saudis into economic and political irrelevance. The Saudis also oppose US domestic development of oil sands and pipelines with their own creature Bronco gumming it up. As someone said in the comment threads last night “He’s their boy.”

    • votermom says:

      Lulu hit the nail on the head.
      This is about Saudi oil interests. If it was about USA oil interests, EPA would not be throwing roadblocks on shale fracking, not to mention the Keystone pipeline.

      • SHV says:

        Follow the money….Obama is expediting the southern Keystone pipeline, signed a new exec. order in May, however, the northern portion is on hold, most likely because the railroad industry is making a lot of money transporting oil. Who’s making the most money???? Obama’s BFF Warren Buffet, owner, since 2010 of BNSF railroad.

      • r u reddy says:

        Will fracking affect USA water interests?

    • votermom says:

      • Constance says:

        If I remember correctly that dangerous crazy (according to progs)woman Sarah Palin was pushing for energy independence.

        • wmcb says:

          We need it. I’d push for safer nuclear as well. If we spent the money we spent on wars for oil on research into developing safer, more reliable reactors, we could revolutionize energy.

          Solar, etc may develop into a handy alternative for smaller applications, or routine or supplemental electricity needs, but it’s never going to cut it for large industrial needs. We need to go after nuclear, hard.

  3. driguana says:

    One more thing on the weapons issue that I mentioned above. Hardly anyone brings this up in blogs but RPGs (rocket propelled grenade launchers) have really changed the face of urban warfare and killed many hundreds of people. One could argue that they are not only the weapon of choice but are also, in their own way, weapons of mass destruction. Haven’t entirely researched who makes them but I am working on it. Practically every picture you see of people fighting in these conflicts shows someone with an RPG. They are nasty, easily portable weapons.

    • Propertius says:

      Variants of this sort of weapon are produced by Russia, the US, China, Israel, etc., etc. I’m sure everyone is cashing in.

  4. DandyTIger says:

    They’ve got WMD’s, and we really mean it this time.

    Best part of all this BS, how the loyal zombies go along with it. Last time it was the R zombies, this time the D zombies. But this time is more fun because the D zombies protested when the R’s did the very same thing the D’s are doing this time.

  5. swanspirit says:

    Gunpowder, also known since the late 19th century as black powder, was the first chemical explosive and the only one known until the mid-1800s. It is a mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate (saltpeter)—with the sulfur and charcoal acting as fuels, while the saltpetre works as an oxidizer.[2] Because of its burning properties and the amount of heat and gas volume that it generates, gunpowder has been widely used as a propellant in firearms and as a pyrotechnic composition in fireworks.


    Gunpowder and other explosives are made of chemicals , and are “chemical weapons ”
    just sayin …

    • DandyTIger says:

      It isn’t the chemistry of the gunpowder that directly kills you, it’s the ballistics that result. Of course it’s all chemistry in the end, even the lead.

      But the idea of chemical weapons as an evil WMD started around WWI, or a little before that. That was when they really did kill more massively than traditional weapons. However that’s no longer the case. Traditional weapons now can kill more massively than most chemical weapons. So the WMD aspect of them is no longer an issue. It’s now included for political reasons because it’s so easy to make, and the relatively little guys can have them. Not to say they can’t be horribly nasty of course.

  6. DeniseVB says:

    So we send Obama all the way over to Russia for the G-20 to ignore Putin? Our Dear Leader will be meeting with the Russian LGBT leaders instead?


    Way to torque Putin even more.

    • wmcb says:

      I feel for the LGBT folks in Russia, but a head of state does not go to a foreign country and meddle that way. It’s an insult, bad diplomacy, and will likely result in backlash against the very people he’s meeting with.

      How would we react if Putin came here and snubbed our president, then went and met with a group he was vocally opposed to? Putin should come attend some Teaparties, make a speech about how many civil rights Obama is violating.

      The USSR may be dead, but Putin is old KGB. He’s a snake, but the difference between him and Obama is he’s a competent and skilled snake. Obama is fucking around with the wrong man.

      • The Klown says:

        Obama is out of his league. Putin is the most dangerous man in the world.

        • DandyTIger says:

          Putin is the most dangerous man in the world.

          Putin: “I don’t always crush Obama’s ego, but when I do, I do it with a smile, and a vodka chaser.”

        • swanspirit says:

          Obama is such an amateur , monarchs and world leaders have known for centuries that they have the privilege of smiling at their enemy in person , and sending their armies later .

        • wmcb says:

          Klown, I’ve been saying for years that discounting Russia as an old deposed toothless bear was folly. Putin is dangerous. He wants Russia to be a superpower again, and he’s sneaky and ruthless.

          • The Klown says:

            He can use Syria as a proxy to embarrass us. What if we bomb Syria and they use some Russian missiles to sink one or more of our ships in retaliation?

      • Propertius says:

        a head of state does not go to a foreign country and meddle that way

        That seems to be all our head of state knows how to do. I guess he views this as a “teachable moment” for Putin.

        • leslie says:

          he is the headmaster of state. Everything is a teachable moment to him. If he doesn’t think he can teach someone something, he ignores it.
          (I’m scratching my cheek with my middle finger as I think about him.)

        • erica says:

          He’s community organizing.

  7. Pips says:

    OT request:

    I would really like to find a certain video, but don’t know if it even exists anymore.

    The video in question showed Obama shaking hands with a couple hundred (ok, maybe a little less) people at some summit or ‘get-together’ for world leaders – compiled into only a few minutes, or maybe even just one.

    It revealed how fake, rehearsed and insincere his grin and his posture actually is, as he looked exactly the same all way through. For all I know it might as well have been a lifesize cardboard cutout.

    I’d be ever so grateful if anyone can help me out here. Either with a link or confirmation that the video has been pulled. Anyone?

    Thanks in advance … I hope. 🙂

    • DandyTIger says:

      Video search is hard. I don’t remember that video. It certainly wouldn’t have been pulled. So if you saw it here, it’s still here somewhere. Unless it was pulled from the original source location, e.g., youtube, of course.

      If anyone remembers and has a date ballpark, that would help. Otherwise trying some good keyword searches, and perhaps date ranges, on youtube is your best bet.

      • Pips says:

        Thanks Dandy. Yes, video search is hard. I’ve tried so many different combinations of words, with no result, but I guess my big mistake was to put in the word ‘handshake’ … as it turns out there were none.

    • DeniseVB says:

      I took a look and couldn’t find anything like a montage of Obama handshakes, just serveral shorter ones about some leaders refusing to shake his hand ? But there’s some of Bush being dissed too.

      I think it’s a safe bet that going through the motions of shaking hands with world leaders or campaign supporters at rallies is indeed fake. Obama is just not that into anyone but himself, but when he knows the cameras are on him (and every politician knows where the cameras are) he may make more of an effort to act interested in that person.

      • Pips says:

        Case in point: Him meeting Putin today. At first acting childishly miffed, then turning to the cameras with his ‘smile’ turned on. Grow up already!

    • imusthavepie says:

  8. DeniseVB says:

    The NYT calls this propaganda, I call it Obama perpetual campaign style photo ops. 😉


  9. helenk3 says:


    Egypt’s muslim brotherhood in Syria (backtrack’s BFFs) threaten to kill Kurds if they don’t follow sharia law

  10. helenk3 says:


    mooch gives the look better.

    backtrack gives Putin the death stare. Putin is shaking in his boots with laughter

  11. DeniseVB says:

    Yikes, here’s Kerry when he was against “US moral intervention” before he was FOR IT 😀

  12. swanspirit says:

    Totally OT and possible tinfoil hat warning
    You can go to this link and vote for your fave publications , in the food mag category Paula Deen is the overwhelming winner . You can vote for her if you like . 🙂

    I have often wondered about why the media turned on her the way they did , The first incident happened when the smoking , hard drinking Anthony Bourdain , who travels around the world , lets everyone else do the cooking and never says anything bad about some of their ingredients ; said insulting things about her food and ingredients back in 2011. Her ratings were much higher than his , but no one bothered to point that out at the time .

    Paula Deen is sued for discrimination , the lawsuit is thrown out but Paula turns out to be a raaaaacist for admitting she said a bad word 37 years ago , and gets kicked off the food channel .
    Not long afterward , Bourdain eventually shows up on CNN with his own show . I just have to wonder .I just do.

    • DeniseVB says:

      People hate her for her butter ! I’m a fan and hate the media for making her guilty before her day in court. I think she won many more fans after that. Knowing Miss Paula, that which doth not kill her will make her stronger 😀

      • t says:

        Seriously. They don’t see her for what she is….a shock jock of the culinary world. We watch her fry butter with amazement that anyone would do that. We don’t actually do it ourselves. She would not be as successful on good healthy eatin’. It’s the shock value that keeps us there.

  13. DeniseVB says:

    hee, hee, probably because this reminds me of my bunny hugging days when Nugent was satan to the animal rights activists because he called them out on their hypocrisies all the time……..

    Ted Nugent; rock star and avid bow hunter from Michigan, was being interviewed by a liberal journalist who also happens to be an animal rights activist. The discussion came around to deer hunting. The journalist asked, “What do you think is the last thought in the head of a deer before you shoot him? Is it, ‘Are you my friend?’ or is it ‘Are you the one who killed my brother?'”

    Nugent replied, “Deer aren’t capable of that kind of thinking. All they care about is what am I going to eat next, who am I going to screw next, and can I run fast enough to get away. They are very much like the Democrats in Congress.”

    The interview ended

  14. DeniseVB says:

    Or for pete’s sake, it IS Bush’s fault Obama can’t get international support for Syria …. per Carville, lolololololz


    Obama’s been preezy for 5+ years, how’s he been handling the ME all this time?

    • t says:

      That may be true…and it’s because some people have learned that these wars are unwinnable…while others don’t seem to be so teachable.

      • Lulu says:

        So they are now admitting that Obama can not “fix” what Shrub broke? He was supposed to undo, remake, create miracles, etc and he can’t. That all of his campaign crap was just bull and he can’t do squat. But he can make it worse, a lot worse like we are seeing now. Thanks James you idiot. Nice of you to admit it for the DNC.

  15. driguana says:

    John Kerry’s theme song…

  16. The Klown says:
    • DeniseVB says:

      VDH certainly made me think of Sarah’s “Let Allah sort them out”. There is just not enough proof yet who’s gassing who and likely they’re doing it to each other anyhow.

      Wish we had better intelligence than “Obama and Kerry have the details but can’t tell ya’ because it’s classified” b.s. Colin Powell was a better salesman for Bush’s Iraq I guess, or Kerry’s just an idiot 😉

  17. wmcb says:

    Syria in one sentence:

    I want Congress to authorize something I don’t believe they need to authorize, and which I reserve the right to do anyway whether or not they authorize it, in order that I might defend the credibility of a red line I didn’t actually draw, so that I may take decisive action that will not in any way affect the momentum of the Syrian civil war or, if it accidentally does, al-Qaeda will the stronger for it, in order that I might have a chance to do what I have spent a decade yelling about other people doing.


  18. wmcb says:

    Rand Paul gets it:

    The U.S. should not fight a war to save face. I will not vote to send young men and women to sacrifice life and limb for stalemate. I will not vote to send our nation’s best and brightest to fight for anything less than victory. If American interests are at stake, then our goal should not be stalemate.

    Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/04/sen-rand-paul-why-im-voting-no-on-syria/#ixzz2e2BlkhRw

    • Pips says:

      I watched the walk on tv. Everybody but one walking along chatting, discussing, mingling. Then, apparently later, all by himself Obama arrived waving at … well who is he waving at, whenever there’s a camera near by?

  19. helenk3 says:


    CBC ordered not to criticize backtrack on Syria. limit public comment on the issue.

    that is one sad statement for people who are supposed to represent the American people not be lapdogs

    • helenk3 says:

      In my soon to be 77 years as a citizen of the United States of America, having lived through Japan’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the dark days of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Watergate, 9/11 and all the other serious and profound events our beloved nation has been involved in over the last three quarters of a century, I have to say with all sincerity that I have never seen a president as confused, befuddled, impotent, insincere and as out of his depth as Barack Obama has become in dealing with the Syrian issue.

      When you’re the leader of the free world, you don’t make statements you can’t back up and you don’t draw lines in the sand, watch your enemies cross them with impunity and go off and play a round of golf.

      • insanelysane says:

        helen, In agreement with you on this but wasn’t this really all there is to him?
        He has the compliant media political pundits cover for his failures like a nanny picking up after the Boss’s kid.

        This is the empty chair that we and Clint saw 5 years ago.
        And, that’s pretty sad.

    • wmcb says:

      That’s a great op ed by Daniels.

  20. Lulu says:

    “House Republican staffers tell us that several key members are unsatisfied so far by the classified briefings from the administration. A top aide said the administration has failed to make a compelling case “beyond spasmodic moral outrage.”http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/epic-falls-96305.html

    What exactly have Obamacrats done since 2008 but go into “spasmodic moral outrage” if anyone disagrees with them or asks a question? I don’t think it works very well anymore. Everyone is outraged out and exhausted with the histrionics by assholes like Kerry (not that you can tell he is outraged by his frozen, Botoxed and Dermafiled face).

  21. The Klown says:
  22. The Klown says:
    • wmcb says:

      When I called my rep (who has been “on the fence” and weaseling) this morning, his staff sounded very frazzled. I think the American People have been burning up those phone lines.

      • kanaughty says:

        yeah in one of the articles i read today, the congress person told kerry that he had 300 calls that said no, where as he had none that said yes… so if these congress people listen to their constituents instead of the obama propaganda and campaigning then this should be an easy no vote. but those obama people are damned manipulative and so the dems are becoming hypocrites more and more by the day. if this were gwb, does anyone think any dem would say yes? no they wouldn’t. this is their show pony on the line, so they are falling in line, and that sickens me. and the repubs who are for this are falling into ob’s trap so that if this is f’ed up, ob can say it was congress’s fault and he never wanted to go to war. he will weasel his way out of this decision and blame it on congress. i am glad to see the repub contenders for 2016 have said no. at least they are trying to draw a distinction against ob and the dems right now before they get in the race. no flip flopping, but an actual stand and decision right out of the gate, rubio and paul for instance.

      • The Klown says:

        I wonder if there is a single congressional district in the country that supports going to war?

    • Lulu says:

      “The idea that Obama’s motives are political is taking hold on both the left and right, underscoring the challenge he faces in securing support for a risky military venture abroad.”

  23. DandyTIger says:

    Shorter Syria News: “Obama wants Congress to hold his dick while he pees. They will likely say yes.”

    Over the top? I can never tell.

  24. The Klown says:
  25. The Klown says:
  26. The Klown says:
  27. wmcb says:

    OT: Sorry, kid, you’re too smart, go home. Because it’s “not fair” to excel, because it makes people who don’t excel as much as you do feel bad. This is how insane our culture has become.


  28. helenk3 says:


    Russia releases 100 page report saying rebels are responsible for chemical weapons

  29. trixta says:

    Thought the Guardian article was informative too (posted a link to it a few days ago) and dovetails with other similar reporting of pipelines (oil and gas). From the geo-politics of oil and gas pipelines, the current war strategy makes perfect sense.

    The following site contains many maps which track a myriad of pipelines throughout the ME:


  30. trixta says:

    And just for fun, the 1999 James Bond flick THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH may have foreshadowed (long before the Iraq War) such geo-political pipeline conflicts (in Azerbaijan, Turkey, Afghanistan, etc.):

  31. helenk3 says:


    backtrack’s brother headed for Egypt’s terror watch list for his involvement with the muslim brotherhood

Comments are closed.