Sunday, June 22, 2014

Crippled analysis

I'm not impressed with much of what I'm reading on the conspiracy front these days (a necessary problem with being unable to state the only possible valid analysis), but you can draw your own conclusions from some bare facts.

"A Big Deal"

"Turkey Would Support Iraqi Kurds' Bid For Self-Rule, Spokesman Says In Historic Remark"  Just a coincidence . . .

"The Stingers of Benghazi"  It is funny how:
  1. regardless of what they say, these Sunni Islamist terrorist groups never (ever, ever, ever) attack Israeli/Jewish interests;
  2. surface to air missiles, despite apparently floating around all over the place, never get used against commercial aviation (where they would be economic game-changers).
"The United States should not cooperate with Iran on Iraq" ZOG issues its orders (and Barry dutifully follows). Note the hilarious collection of lies.

"Fear of a Decrease in Fear of Iran"

"Neo-Zangid State erases Syria-Iraq Border, cuts Hizbullah off from Iran" Cole, I know, but interesting (and explains why Iran will have to fix this).

"Bruce Riedel, once again, offers his expertise on the Middle East: ISIS and "its Shia counterparts""

"The New Map of the Middle East" Some Yinon gloating (and note that World Jewry has brought the concentration camp guard back to the Atlantic).

Comment by thepanzer to a Moon of Alabama post:
"It's possible that this is all a grand conspiracy running from DC to Riyadh but that doesn't mean it's probable. If these actors wanted to remove Maliki for a more pliable leader there are surely much simpler and safer ways to do so than to unleash religious fanatics to conquer half the country with no means to reign them in? No?
Maybe we should consider that ISIS aren't a bunch of dummies, and similar to Hezbollah have been steadily learning, adapting, and refining their craft over the years. I'm sure that Riyadh certainly tries to influence them, but influence is not the same thing as control. As for DC, they're dumb enough to have been arming ISIS in Syria thinking they could control them and/or not realizing they were actually arming them given the chaos in the country as well as how porous the area is for foreign fighters and arms cross flow. But again, thinking you can control and actually controlling are two different things.
This doesn't seem like a planned DC event, I live in the northern virginia area and there's a definite whiff of shock and panic wafting over the potomac. To put it another way, why would Obama and/or the deep state give the go ahead to set in motion a chain of events that make them look powerless, foolish, assigns blame to the current administration for ALL of the Iraq stumbles, polarize public opinion against both Obama and the deep state as incompetent at best, all just to remove a mostly powerless figurehead in a failed state? One they can simply bribe and coerce to enact the majority of what they want any way? Also add in that DC's best efforts to pivot to Asia while containing Russia via the Ukraine debacle just got completely monkeywrenched by events in Iraq. If the deep state wanted to go after Iran, they'd just go after Iran. period, dot. The chaos in Iraq will make it absolutely impossible for the US to go after Iran militarily.
The attempt now to remove Maliki isn't the fruition of some grand plot. It's the feeble last gasp of an administration that's lost control of events in the Middle east, has no other viable options to pursue, and is desperately trying to keep the world from noticing how powerless it has become in the region."
There is simply nothing more obvious in the world that the Americans were utterly blindsided by events in both Iraq and Ukraine, and there is no American conspiracy involved in either. All you have to do is look at the ridiculousness and clumsiness of the American attempts to deal with the problems.  In particular, the American Empire is deeply embarrassed by its lack of options in dealing with Iraq (Barry actually looks weak and embarrassed).
blog comments powered by Disqus