All warfare is based on deception.
Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive;
when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;
when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
Sun Tzu, The Art of War Ch1
In the video below, recorded in June 2012, we see Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and James Baker, former Secretary of State, (and the audience) gleeful at the prospect of war with Iran and, of course, the prospect of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of deaths. We also see Clinton outlining what she maintains the Iranians are thinking.
But psychopaths often attribute their thinking to others along with accusing others of doing exactly what they, the psychopaths, are doing. So, if you know how to listen to them, psychopaths will tell you all you need to know about them. Clinton in true psychopathic form, is ostensibly elaborating on what she says is the reasoning of some of the Iranians when, in fact, she is outlining her (i.e. her government's) thinking.
(Some transcript and video is available at GlobalResearch H/T Bot Tak at Penny's. The transcript of the full interview can be found here [thanks WP] and a video of the full interview can be found here)
When Clinton says she thinks the Iranians will provoke an attack from the US, she is telling us that a false flag attack on the US (or israel) will appear as a provocation to get America to attack them. It's about as screwy as it can get but we are dealing with the sick logic of psychopaths desperate to deceive the US populace into supporting them by turning reality inside out.
“All war is based on deception”
Once the American public at large and, more particularly, American servicemen and women understand what is really going on, the US administration's power will evaporate.
The above State Department sponsored interview was a little over a year ago. We had representatives of the ruling elite in America drooling at the prospect of ever more war and, yet, today we have this same US government setting itself up as the honourable party to negotiations with Iran. They are now mimicking Russia with this conciliatory approach because they see the approval Russia is getting world wide. Meanwhile, Netanyahu is saying the Iranians are liars and deceivers only to be 'proved right' (and Russia and the world 'proved wrong') when an attack is supposedly perpetrated by Iran against the US or israel and triggering a massive and sudden US response. Can this apparent sudden about-face by the US be in any way believable?
This is what disinformation looks like. Though seemingly critical of israel, the following article never-the-less uses the terminology and memes/concepts/narratives of the zionist/israeli aligned governments. These memes or concepts are designed to deceive people and reinterpret what their own common sense would tell them. Jonathan Cook is assisting the zionist cause in repeating these false concepts or narratives.
Here is Cook's article. I will insert some clarifying comments in italics in his text and summarise at the end.
Israel still angling for attacks on Syria and Iran
18 September 2013
Counterpunch – 18 September 2013
President Barack Obama may have drawn his seemingly regretted “red line” around Syria’s chemical weapons, but it was neither he nor the international community (“international community” - who are they? - is a term that is used to mislead people into thinking that the support for the US and its warring policies is world wide. It is far from it) based that turned the spotlight on their use. That task fell to Israel.
It was an Israeli general who claimed in April that Damascus had used chemical weapons, forcing Obama into an embarrassing demurral on his stated commitment to intervene should that happen.
The children seen in the videos supposedly showing chemical attack victims in East Ghouta (Damascus), were kidnapped from the Latakia province (which is over two hundred kilometres away) two weeks previously by the paid jihadists of Saudi Arabia.
Reports on this have been circulating around the internet for sometime including those from Voltairenet and Russia Today (listen carefully from 2:55 onwards) claiming the child victims had been kidnapped previously as seen above. But no one has provided a source for the story. We have refrained from publishing anything about it here at Winter Patriot Community until we could establish a source for this information. We now have that elusive source. Below are two quotes from a report of a Carmelite nun, Mother Agnes Mariam de la croix (some details of her here) . We believe this report has been furnished to the UN and was originally written in French. The translation accounts for some of the unusual phrasing.
From the Introduction of the report - (emphasis added except for the last four words of the second quote which are in the original)
|"We found that as a whole, the videos present a clear absence of normal Syrian family life, with no signs of the presence of the resident civilian population. While the proliferation of young males and children everywhere, dead or alive, let us wonder who they are and what they are doing in East Ghouta without their families. |
Our first concern was the fate of the children we see in the footages. Those angels are always alone in the hands of adult young males that seem to be elements of armed gangs. The children they trespassed remained without their families and unidentified all the way until they are wrapped in the white shrouds of the burial. Moreover, our study highlight without any doubt their little bodies were manipulated and disposed with theatrical arrangements to figure in the screening.
Thus we accuse the editors of the videos of artificial scenic treatment of what should have been honest information footage. The cynic manipulation of the little inanimate bodies, that seem to be under anaesthesia, endangered the life of the children and raises in our minds the question of their safety and the real reason of their death. . . . . "
From the Conclusion of this same report-
|"Studying the videotaped documentations available on line, from the point of view of the structure of the Syrian society, we find that the civilian population in East Ghouta as presented in those videos is inconsistent with the composition of a real Syrian civilian society. There is a flagrant lack of real Syrian families in East Ghouta, as presented by the videos. So with the terrible sense of the existence of a horrible crime we ask: Who are the children who are exposed in those videos? |
From where do they come? Where are their parents? How did they get killed? Where are their corpses buried?
We think that with the evidences of media manipulation that are shown in this Study, and other studies, there is a moral obligation to launch an International investigation and arrest Warrant under the yellow and black notice to find and identify the Syrian children bodies used in a criminal way in the so called Chemical Attacks of East Ghouta .
On the other hand, we are in close contact with the survivors of the horrendous massacres perpetrated on the 4th of August 2013 by Jobhat El Nosra and allies in eleven villages from Lattakiah mountains. As Reconciliation Committee we are trying to liberate more than 150 women and children, abducted under the pretext to exchange them for detainees. We have been contacted by the families of some abducted women and children. They recognise their relatives in the videos published online that show the alleged victims of the Chemical Attack in East Ghouta.
Some families have filed a complaint to the Syrian authorities in Syria. They need to be heard on an international level. We need to help raise International Awareness toward the humanitarian case of the criminal use of children in the East Ghouta Chemical Attack. Will you join us?"
This is the best source we can have. Mother Agnes, mother superior of the monastery of James the Mutilated in Qara (Syria), is a highly credible source and she is citing family members who are known to her who have made positive identifications.
What does this all mean?
(click on "read more" to continue)
My last post was concerned with trying to shed some light on the confusing statements and actions of the US in regard to Syria and Russia in the last months and their recent proposal to give up Syria's chemical weapons using a chess analogy.
I'd like to push my luck and do the same thing again but this time using a poker analogy for those poker players that more readily understand poker thought rather than chess thinking. Though both can be very sophisticated, they are very different ways of thinking. To me, chess is about reality, what is. It is about facts. Everything is on show including all the potentials if you have eyes to see them. There is nothing concealed and nothing is misrepresented. No bishop is suddenly going to be revealed as a pawn instead come showdown time. Whereas Poker is all about misrepresenting the facts; misrepresenting what is and creating doubt, uncertainty. These two fundamentally different viewpoints seem to accurately characterise the psychology and approach to politics of the two protagonists, Putin and Obama.
For any readers who are unfamiliar with poker rules and terminology and would like to follow along, there is a quick guide here.
One might understand the Russian leaders being better than their Americans counterparts at playing chess on the world political stage but there really should be no excuse for the Americans being outplayed at poker. Such is definitely the case, though.
The US has been playing its Syria hand like a poker player that has been winning all night from a good run of cards which has helped him bluff on those occasions when the cards have not come his way. Which has been way more often than the other players have suspected. Confidence is sky high.
Russia is more like a player at the table that has had a small stack of chips to play with at the beginning of the game and so has been cautious not to tangle with the stakes leader. But all the while Russia has been accumulating chips while observing closely this American and sussing his game.
Russia has played a new opening move in the contest with the United States and it could be called “The Syrian Gambit”. In the tradition of chess, a “gambit” is a move whereby a chess player gives away a minor piece to position him or herself better to defeat their opponent. To the beginner chess player, a gambit appears counter-intuitive because their opponent deliberately suffers a loss and the advantage only makes itself apparent later. By which time, if the gambit has been played well, the neophyte player is already suffering a disadvantage.
John Kerry now famously made a rhetorical offer to Syria that if it gave up all its chemical weapons they could avoid an attack from the US. Much to Kerry's consternation, Sergei Lavrov, the very capable Russian Foreign Minister, said he thought it was a good idea and would discuss it with President Bashar al-Assad. That same day Assad agreed to give up Syria's chemical weapons in exchange for not being attacked. The Gambit was offered. And now the US is very rattled and nervous about accepting. Contradictory messages from various US administration staff seem to follow each other almost by the hour.
Many commentors on the internet are saying that it is a dangerous move because both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi got rid of their chemical weapons and both of their countries were subsequently invaded and decimated. They ask, 'why will Syria not suffer the same fate?'
The reason Syria won't go the way of Iraq or Libya is because of one fundamental and decisive difference: Russia is standing firmly by Syria's side (with its warships off the coast of Syria) and has said repeatedly that it will not allow Syria to be attacked by the US or anyone else. Assad, in explaining why he agreed to the Russian initiative, said it was because he had full confidence in Russia's protection of Syria.
So Syria is offering to give up an asset from amongst its arsenal of weapons. How will it gain from it being accepted?
The chemical weapons (CW) were becoming a liability and their military value is very limited. So not much, if any, value is being surrendered. Assad has said that the idea of CW was to counter the threat of nuclear weapons. But how likely is israel to attack Damascus with nuclear weapons with both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem little more than 210kms (130mls approx) away as the wind blows?
On a battlefield, chemical weapons need to be deployed by specially trained troops and these soldiers need to be in the right terrain at the right time with the right weather conditions for them to be effective and not be harmlessly dispersed, or worse, not blow back on their own soldiers. If the enemy soldiers have gas masks, any advantage quickly dissipates.
Holding CW may have value as a deterrent against the civilian population of a neighbouring country contemplating an invasion. But once they are fired at said population, the deterrent value evaporates while leaving the offending country open to being targeted by other surrounding countries and/or abandoned by their allies. Targeting the enemy's civilian population does nothing to improve the immediate military situation at hand.
The US is able to say Syria was responsible for the false flag that killed hundreds of Syrian civilians because Syria has a stockpile of chemical weapons. It would be impossible to say that if it was known that Syria no longer had chemical weapons. Indeed, a day or two after this proposal from Russia came news that another CW false flag operation was being planned by the NATO mercenaries against israel. (see video in comments section below)
So making the announcement to surrender the CW nipped that false flag (and any others involving CW) in the bud.
On the plus side, it takes away the excuses of the US to invade. They no longer have to prevent Syria from using them or prevent them falling into the 'wrong hands' (assuming those are different hands from the ones that the US and Saudi Arabia are already supplying with CW).
Syria can be seen as serious about working for peace and as an example to all the countries that are condemning Syria who ALL have stockpiles of CW! All these countries and especially the US and israel are now on the defensive.
Syria now has the 'high ground' (or centre control) by jettisoning a liability - a pawn that was actually in the way.
One of these guys is out of his league
(UPDATE at foot of article)
In two previous articles (here and here), I pointed out how the US/israel/NATO advance on the rest of the world has been stopped by Russia declaring it will not allow a foreign country to intervene militarily in Syria. In other words, Russia is saying if the US (or anyone else) attacks Syria, Russia will retaliate in kind. And Russia has the missile technology to defeat the US forces and these missiles are in place both on land in Syria and on their naval vessels off the coast of Syria. This fundamental fact that Russia will fight back and that it will, in all likelihood, be victorious is being totally ignored (publicly) by western officials and their brothers and sisters in the news media.