It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It is not difficult to notice that the rebellion in Syria began to grow two years ago, almost at the same time as the signing of a memorandum in Bushehr on June 25, 2011 regarding the construction of a new Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline...
This new pipeline would take a "land" which starts of Qatar, through Saudi territory and Jordanian territory avoiding Iraqi territory to arrive in Syria and specifically to Homs. From Homs pipeline would branch off into three directions: Latakia on the Syrian coast, Tripoli in northern Lebanon, Turkey.
The main goal of this project is to route the Israeli and Qatari gas to the European continent for distribution throughout Europe, with a threefold objective. The first: break the Russian gas monopoly in Europe. The second: to liberate Turkey from its dependence on Iranian gas. The third: give Israel a chance to export its gas to Europe by land and cost.
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.
“It has become clear over the last year that the upheavals in the Islamic and Arab world have become a clash within a civilization rather than a clash between civilizations,” Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote recently. “The Sunni versus Alawite civil war in Syria is increasingly interacting with the Sunni versus Shiite tensions in the Gulf that are edging Iraq back toward civil war. They also interact with the Sunni-Shiite, Maronite and other confessional struggles in Lebanon.”
Some experts even say that we are seeing the emergence of a single big conflict that could be part of a generation-long devolution, which could end up toppling regimes and redrawing the national borders that were established after World War I. The forces ripping people into polarized groups seem stronger than the forces bringing them together.
Today, however, the battle in Syria is clearly split along religious lines. It is no longer about freedom versus dictatorship, but about Sunni versus Shia. According to Syria’s constitution, “freedom of religion is guaranteed” and “the State respects all religions.” But, as I wrote at the end of 2011, there has been an opportunistic use of religion by the Syrian regime: “Assad has already tried to delegitimise the protesters as Islamist extremists in a bid to garner the support of Syrian liberals and Christians. He is now trying to revive a form of state-backed Islam to defeat the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Almost two years since the article was published, the situation has worsened and religion now takes centre stage. On April 7th, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s top cleric, gave an interview to Al Jazeera and declared, “The jihad in Syria is now a personal duty incumbent upon all Muslims.” Last year, in early June, he repeated his call for jihad with added vigour: “Iran is pushing ahead with arms and men, so why do we stand idle?” He also pointed to Hezbollah: “The leader of the party of Satan comes to fight the Sunnis. Now we know what the Iranians want. They want to continue massacring Sunnis”.
edit on 9/1/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MamaJ
The only way I see us getting out of this hell is for there to be a natural disaster, one they do not orchestrate that is.
The only way I see us getting out of this hell is for there to be a natural disaster, one they do not orchestrate that is.
Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
reply to post by borntowatch
Putting it simply: it's a war against Islam. They can't say this, but Islam's intention has always been to take over the world - so is Judaism's. Islam is more upfront about it and Judaism / Freemasonry is more into subversive methods.
Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
Putting it simply: it's a war against Islam.
Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by FlyersFan
While oil is the easy, knee jerk option, religion will immediately spark denial as no one wants to come out and say we are in a religious war.. No matter what the signs indicate
Question Flyer,
Is it more oil or more religion in your opinion? I mean the REAL underlying reasons..
Originally posted by semperfortis
Is it more oil or more religion in your opinion? I mean the REAL underlying reasons..
"However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack."
If a full-blown war erupts between the United States and Syria, it will not be good for the United States, it will not be good for Israel, it will not be good for Syria, it will not be good for Iran and it will not be good for Hezbollah. The party that stands to benefit the most is Saudi Arabia, and they won't even be doing any of the fighting. They have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict in Syria, but so far they have not been successful in their attempts to overthrow the Assad regime. Now the Saudis are trying to play their trump card - the U.S. military. If the Saudis are successful, they will get to pit the two greatest long-term strategic enemies of Sunni Islam against each other - the U.S. and Israel on one side and Shia Islam on the other. In such a scenario, the more damage that both sides do to each other the happier the Sunnis will be.
Someone should ask Barack Obama why it is necessary for the U.S. military to do the dirty work of his Sunni Muslim friends[/b ]. Obama is promising that the upcoming attack will only be a "limited military strike" and that we will not be getting into a full-blown war with Syria. The only way that will work is if Syria, Hezbollah and Iran all sit on their hands and do nothing to respond to the upcoming U.S. attack