Friday, September 6, 2013

Why is Obama so vehement about bombing Syria? Why are the Arabs so keen to get rid of Assad? Why are they willing to pay the US to make our Military into a mercenary force? Why is Russia so keen of helping a non player like Assad? READ THIS AND YOU WILL GET IT... >>ITS ABOUT ..MONEY AND OIL AND WHO GETS THE PROFITS FROM IT!!


Why is Obama so vehement about bombing Syria?
Why are the Arabs so keen to get rid of Assad?
Why are they willing to pay the US to make our Military into a mercenary force?
Why is Russia so keen of helping a non player like Assad?


Here is a rhetorical question to ask....Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? The answer revolves, as usually is the case in the Middle East, around an oil pipeline and the money.

Here are some additional perspectives.

Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.

And as we asked last week, why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.

On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.

Now Obama is getting directly involved in the conflict with direct ordesr from his handlers the SAUDI'S. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all. ( DUH!!! ) But if Obama gets it done he has a HUGE HUGE commission coming after his retirement or ejection from America!

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time.

The article was found from 2009...

"Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

"We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas. NOW THAT'S WHERE THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THEIR SPECIAL INTERESTS COME IN.

"For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world's leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.



Last week, the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation pointed out that in the trailer for film, one of the financial backers listed is Image Nation Abu Dhabi.

Image Nation Abu Dhabi is, in turn, owned by Abu Dhabi Media - a state media company for the United Arab Emirates. The UAE, an OPEC member, is the world's third-largest oil exporter.

- See more at:

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline. Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route. The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian...

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.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia. So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people. In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely...

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia! THAT IS WHY OBAMA IS RACING TO TRY AND CONVERT AMERICA INTO A SOCIALIST OLIGARCHY SO THAT HIS CABAL CAN HAVE CONTROL OVER THIS HUGE RESERVE.

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.

But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.

If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants...

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be "allied" with?

And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.

If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive. In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American "boots on the ground"...

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.

Four points are worth making about these purposes.

First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).

Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”

Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”).

Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described. Some questions for Congress to ponder:

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power? Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.
(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?

What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out...

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline and Retirement MONEY for Obama and all those who support him like his Cabal and other Rino's like McCain, Graham and others. THERE IS HUGE MONEY INVOLVED... WE ARE TALKING HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.... AND FOR THAT KIND OF MONEY OUR MILITARY AND WE TAX PAYERS ARE THE PAWNS!!



OBAMA BROTHER LAUNDERS US MONEY FOR THE PAIR!. This complaint, however, includes identifying President Barack Obama as the conduit who facilitated Malik’s illegal financial gains resulting from raising monies in the U.S. that have been used to fund operations that support a terror network.

Obama’s Brother headed for Egypt’s Terror Watch List?  AND THE IRS GIVES HIM HIS TAX EXEMPTION IN 30 DAYS !!!

By Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack
Several prominent Egyptian media sources are reporting that Malik Obama, half-brother to President Barack Obama is quickly becoming a person of interest in that country relative to his role with the Islamic Da’wa Organization (IDO) – based in bordering Sudan – and the larger Muslim Brotherhood umbrella group. Complaints have been filed with Egypt’s Prosecutor General that call for Malik to be put on Egypt’s terror watch list and brought in for questioning about his role in financing terrorism.
Egypt's Attorney General: Hisham Barakat
Egypt’s Attorney General: Hisham Barakat
The following is a direct translation from an article from Youm7:
“Dr. Ahmed Nabil Ganzory, in his capacity as lawyer and agent for Dr. Sadik Rauf Obeid, and resident in the United States of America, filed a complaint with Egypt’s Attorney General Hisham Barakat, against Malik Obama, accusing him of supporting terrorism in Egypt and for his involvement in managing the Islamic Da’wa Organization (IDO). The complaint also asks to include Chancellor Tahani Al-Jebali to substantiate claims against Obama
Complaint No. 1761 for the year 2013 reported to the Attorney General asked the Egyptian High Court to consider the suspicious activity of a group called the Islamic Da’wa Organization (IDO), which is owned and managed by Malik Obama. This group is now being investigated by international bodies and the attached evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a close link exists between Malik Obama and some of the most notorious characters already wanted for their involvement in terrorism, as is consistent with the pictures and reports attached…
The complaint also asks the court to bring in Malik Obama – a resident of the United States – to be questioned in regards to the terrorist groups in Egypt, whether by inciting or participating with or in any form of support punishable by law. It seeks permission to declare Obama a defendant in his right outside Egypt diplomatically, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In the case of non-appearance and compliance for the investigation, the complainant requests monitoring [Mr. Obama] by including his name on all Egyptian airports and ports, and take the necessary legal steps.” {emphasis ours}
Note that the complaint also calls for the inclusion of Tahani Al-Jebali, former Chancellor of the Constitutional Court of Egypt and current adviser. This is indeed significant because Jebali has already gone on public record with claims that Barack Obama’s brother is a major player with the Muslim Brotherhood. As we reported at the time, Jebali’s claims corroborated our claims, as does the aforementioned complaint.
Ganzory, the man who filed the complaint, is identified as an Egyptian constitutional law expert. He was recently interviewed by El-Balad TV and said the following during that interview:
“I have what it takes to convict Obama’s brother in financiering terrorism.”
He added…
“Malik Obama will be brought to face justice in Egypt if and when these charges are proven.”

As reported by prominent Egyptian newspaper Al-Wafd, another complaint was filed with Barakat against Malik Obama, this one by Sami Sabri. This complaint, however, includes identifying President Barack Obama as the conduit who facilitated Malik’s illegal financial gains resulting from raising monies in the U.S. that have been used to fund operations that support a terror network. The report stated that the complaint realizes that it will not result in bringing President Obama to face justice but that it will present the Egyptian people with the facts about the atrocities committed by the Muslim Brotherhood and how the Barack Obama administration has acted as the group’s facilitator and protector.
On August 23, 2013, Al-Wafd reported on another complaint which asked to place Malik Obama on Egypt’s terror watch list and that President Obama’s half-brother be prohibited from ever entering Egypt. Dostor reported on this as well. While both linked articles are in Arabic, photos of Barack and Malik are included.
The Prosecutor General in Egypt – Hisham Barakat – is that country’s equivalent to the Attorney General in the U.S., a position currently held by Eric Holder. That appears to be where the similarities end. Barakat’s brief history as the top law enforcement officer includes a swift and severe crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood while Holder’s Department of Justice has consistently run interference for the group. Terrorism expert Steve Emerson took it a bit further, saying that Holder is in bed with the group. Another difference is that these recent complaints are all over the Egyptian media while any news critical of the Brotherhood in the U.S. is suppressed by a very sympathetic media.
When we learned via Gateway Pundit that Al-Jazeera posted two tweets by Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Institute’s Doha Center in Qatar, it didn’t make sense. One of the tweets referenced an “Egyptian newspaper” which included a headline that identified Barack Obama as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. The other tweet included an image of an Al-Wafd article with a reference to what appears to be Saad al-Shater, the son of Muslim Brotherhood deputy Khairat al-Shater, who reportedly suggested that his father has documents that will seriously damage the U.S. President. We wrote about this last month and identified it as Addendum F in our “Ironclad” report, which has since been bolstered with time, additional reporting by Fox / AP, and quite likely, Hamid’s protestations, via twitter.
Why did Pro-Muslim Brotherhood writer tweet article damaging to the Obamas?
Why did Pro-Muslim Brotherhood writer tweet article damaging to the Obamas?
A quick perusal of Hamid’s writings reveals a very pro-Muslim Brotherhood viewpoint. Here is an interview with him on CNN this past July in which he bemoans the plight of the Brotherhood in Egypt and seems to be more in line with the Obama administration’s position:
As an aside, during a trip to Egypt last month, Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns seemed to take more interest in the elder al-Shater than any other Brotherhood leader. Burns met with al-Shater for 90 minutes under the cover of darkness in an apparent attempt to work out a solution between the Brotherhood and the new Egyptian government. According to ABC News, attempts were made to downplay the content, duration, and significance of the meeting by a Brotherhood spokesman. Did this meeting include any discussion about what al-Shater might have on Obama? This was the same week that Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went to Egypt to plead for the release of Muslim Brotherhood leaders as well. That same ABC article reports McCain and Graham were “dispatched” by Obama, essentially as emissaries instead of doing so on their own.
Why? To work for the release of Muslim Brotherhood leaders on behalf of Obama, not independently as members of a “co-equal” branch of Government.
Bill Burns: Met with the jailed Khairat Al-Shater for 90 Minutes on August 4th.
Bill Burns: Met with the jailed Khairat Al-Shater for 90 Minutes on August 4th.
As we reported here, Hamid was listed as a participant at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum (IWF) that took place in Doha, Qatar this past June. The IWF was co-sponsored by Hamid’s Brookings Institute and featured multiple Muslim Brotherhood members, sympathizers, and apparatchiks. The National Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Nihad Awad was there, as was Mohamed Magid, the President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the largest Muslim Brotherhood group in America. Incidentally, Barack Obama praised both the ISNA and Magid by name just this week.
Shockingly, Thomas Pickering, the Chairman of the Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB) that found no one accountable for security lapses that led to the deaths of four Americans, was also listed as a participant at the US-IWF. Regardless of what specific gaggle of terrorists is found responsible for the Benghazi attack, the Muslim Brotherhood was responsible as the parent group.
Pickering: Participant at US-IWF this past June.
Pickering: Participant at US-IWF this past June.
For more about attendees at the US-IWF, we direct you to Addendum A of our “Ironclad” Report.
We’d like to thank Hamid for sending out those tweets because, without them, we would not have learned about all of these other developments. This begs a simple question:
If Hamid is sympathetic to the Brotherhood, why would he help bring Egyptian newspapers that are exposing the Obamas, more exposure?
It very well may be an indication of just how prominent this news is in Egypt and the Middle East. The left always prefers to ignore evidence that will expose it. When scandals become too big to ignore, smear tactics, spin, and diversions become necessary. All one has to do to confirm this is look at western media; examples abound. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, etc. These scandals are dismissed and ignored as much as possible. The media only covers such stories when it absolutely has to. Perhaps a case in point is the ACORN scandal of 2009, when undercover video by James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles revealed a shocking reality that could no longer be ignored, though not for lack of trying. During a radio interview, at the height of these revelations being made known, ABC’s Charlie Gibson actually said, “I don’t even know about it.” This perfectly illustrated a time when denials are so blatantly obvious that they become more damning than admissions.
Sorry, Charlie, you should have been fired, either for lying or for being incompetent:
There comes a point when scandals can reach critical mass and ignoring them doesn’t work. One example is when State Department whistleblower Gregory Hicks testified in front of the House Oversight Committee on May 8, 2013. It was powerfully damning testimony for the Obama administration in general and the State Department in particular. The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes had been producing bombshell reports prior to this testimony but the story was thrust onto a larger stage when mainstream media reporters like ABC’s Jonathan Karl put it there; Karl’s May 10th report gave the scandal much more exposure because of where he worked.
Coincidentally, something else happened on May 10th. The IRS Scandal was born when Lois Lerner, Director of that entity’s Tax Exempt Division was found to have planted a question that would be asked of her at a meeting on that day. The question had to do with the IRS targeting Tea Party groups. This IRS Scandal diverted attention away from Benghazi at a very critical time for the administration. Rep. Michele Bachmann went so far as to suggest this was done intentionally to divert attention away from a Benghazi scandal that could no longer be spun.
If this is true, it was a gross miscalculation, not just because the IRS scandal seemed to resonate with more Americans but because this scandal actually helped us discover Malik Obama’s connection to the Islamic Da’Wa Organization (IDO). In fact, Malik received expeditious and illegal 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status from… you guessed it, Lois Lerner.
Lois Lerner's signature at the bottom of Malik Obama's tax-exempt approval letter.
Lois Lerner’s signature at the bottom of Malik Obama’s tax-exempt approval letter.
Whether intentional or not, the IRS scandal began as a diversion but it appears to have done more to compound the Obama administration’s problems rather than mitigate them.
Barack and Malik Obama in the Oval Office.
Barack and Malik Obama in the Oval Office.