Why The NWO Really Hates Syria

reply to post by ketsuko


Everything you just said in that post doesn't constitute proof of a great evil looking to enslave our souls to some fiery damnation. In fact it does more to support my theory that it is just a bunch of different players each with ulterior motives of their own, playing each other for position so they can benefit to the detriment of everyone else (including their own people). In the end it is good old fashioned greed and lust for power that is behind all these shenanigans.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

I wasn't aware that I had to prove something here when it comes to and a point of faith.

However, I think that the games in Syria are quite deep and more involved that most are thinking.

reply to post by ketsuko


You eluded to it in your initial response to me. Was this not you saying:

Look, I know you are a non-believer, so I won't bore you too much. But, there is one simple thing about the idea of good and evil in this picture - any peace would be bad to the ultimate agent of evil. So, what's going on in Syria? Yeah, that would be due to him (Satan), and it doesn't have to be for any grander purpose than that he likes to create chaos and suffering.

Emphasis added and parenthesis added for clarification. I'm thankful that you spared me the scripture quotes, but you are clearly (to me) talking about the same Satan that the OP is accusing the NWO of worshiping. So if you are going to speak to that angle, I will address it.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


No, not Satan worship just the attribution of temptation which is everywhere. No one has to listen, but we all wind up doing it to some degree or other.

xuenchen
I thought the "civil" war in Syria is all about natural gas.

It's Gazprom/Russia vs. Qatar/Saudi/American interests.

NG Pipelines to Europe.

The NWO central bank B.I.S. is rabid and jealous too.

Oil is secondary.

Its a bit of both it seems.

reply to post by ketsuko


But see that is what I was getting at with my initial post. Saying that temptation is falling to evil is just passing the blame off to something that may not even exist. Instead of calling it what it is, humans behaving badly. By decoupling the blame of these human faults, you allow people to express that they need to be "saved" from this evil by some other otherwordly being. This reliance on things like this just takes our freedom away. We are perfectly free to F everything up, but apparently not free enough to fix the problems. We need someone or something else to save us.

Hey Krazysh0t how's it going man?
Just thought I'd tune in with this. I get your angle when you say we're perfectly free to screw everything up , but not perfectly free to fix it all- we always need something or someone to save us.

I wrestled with that forever. But Here's a question. What if they can co-exist?? Meaning when you believe someone like Christ really is going to save us- that's the missing link we need to want to be a part of the fix?
It's telling that it seems like humans are notoriously bad for screwing everything up when we're going through the motions without guidance and just being human. It's because we're fallen- meaning we respond barbarically, violently, some it's not so extreme it's cruel, than just rude, dismissive, careless, ignorant etc... We all have our blemishes and our strong points, but what is that's a sign that we need to be a part of the change, and the solution.
And the only way to fully be a part of that change and solution- is surrending to God's will.
see we're capable of doing Good here and there whether we believe in God or not, but that's not enough.. Because only God knows exactly what we need, and only God is perfect love, so wouldn't it make sense to even consider that a possibility?

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Why would it be passing of the blame?

Just because you can listen doesn't mean you have to choose to do the wrong thing. The choice is still yours and so is all the responsibility for it.

If I try to convince you to shoot up with heroin, can I force you to do it? Is it my fault if you decide to after hearing me talk about it? Of course not, only you have the power to do it, and that choice is all yours and your responsibility.

Now, back to the topic ... If you really want to get into this start another thread somewhere else.

freedom7
Hey Krazysh0t how's it going man?
Just thought I'd tune in with this. I get your angle when you say we're perfectly free to screw everything up , but not perfectly free to fix it all- we always need something or someone to save us.

I wrestled with that forever. But Here's a question. What if they can co-exist?? Meaning when you believe someone like Christ really is going to save us- that's the missing link we need to want to be a part of the fix?
It's telling that it seems like humans are notoriously bad for screwing everything up when we're going through the motions without guidance and just being human. It's because we're fallen- meaning we respond barbarically, violently, some it's not so extreme it's cruel, than just rude, dismissive, careless, ignorant etc... We all have our blemishes and our strong points, but what is that's a sign that we need to be a part of the change, and the solution.
And the only way to fully be a part of that change and solution- is surrending to God's will.
see we're capable of doing Good here and there whether we believe in God or not, but that's not enough.. Because only God knows exactly what we need, and only God is perfect love, so wouldn't it make sense to even consider that a possibility?

Sure I guess it could all be true. I am agnostic after all. But God's track record is indifferent at best and down right irresponsible at the worst. You see, even if I were to surrender to the will of God, these evils would still exist. Countries like Syria would still be decimated. The people would still suffer. And nothing will change. Where is this supposed "will"? Reading the OT, you can see he certainly likes nuking large swaths of "sinners," but what about beneficial? Why hasn't He ever saved the righteous being attacked by invaders? If the Syrian government is in the right, why hasn't He stepped down and offered His support? The people may be Muslim, but they DO pretty much worship the same God, not to mention religious affiliation of a group of innocent people shouldn't matter to an all loving god.

So basically, to sum up, until God gets off his lazy butt and actually helps the suffering people, I'm going to side with humans need to help themselves.

Every now and then there are items of interest that need to be reprised for the sake of clarity. I think that there are times when we need to be reminded of certain important events that relate to the issues as outlined in the opening post of this thread. So, I see this posting as a continuation of the premises laid forth, i.e., a Zionist inspired and controlled NWO, whose primary mission and goal is the complete takeover of the world - not just of the Middle East, or of the African continent, but the entire world. America has by now succumbed to the evil forces that are behind the NWO. It is a 'fait accompli' - an accomplished fact, a done deal - that America has already fallen.

As regards the reprise - In a not too well know speech given in 2007, General Wesley Clark claimed that America underwent a 'policy coup' at the time of the 9/11 (false flag) attacks. In the video presented below, he reveals that immediately following 9/11, he was privileged to know about secret information contained in a classified memo, namely that the United States had detailed plans to attack, invade, and to initiate regime change in no less that seven countries over a five year period: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

Gen. Clark say's that he was told: “We learned that we can use our military without being challenged …. We’ve got about five years to clean up the Soviet client regimes before another superpower comes along and challenges us.” Without telling us who the people are who took control he goes on to say “This was a policy coup…these people took control of policy in the United States….”

I have my own well founded suspicions as to "who these people are" that have taken control of American policy - foreign and domestic, and I am fully aware that many are not in agreement with my point of view regarding the powerfully negative influences of Zionism - not only in America, but throughout the world. But to my way of thinking, it is a rather well established fact that well placed and very powerful Zionist's (many of whom are dual citizen Israeli's) are 'stationed' within all three branches of the American government.

I believe that 'they' were involved in 9/11, and as a consequence of that awful deed they were also the architects of the illegal wars that followed - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria - with Iran, and Lebanon also on the list of future Zionist targets. Do a search “Project For The New American Century” for a more solid confirmation of these claims. Take note of what has happened to Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and of what may happen to Bashar al-Assad.

Some say that a major factor in this belligerent strategy regarding these (illegal) wars is control of oil/natural gas resources, but these criminal and illegitimate military operations are also being perpetrated by, and at the request of the powers that be in Israel. It is part and parcel of their evil, ungodly and lawless scheme for world domination - a NWO - the primary goal of which is the elimination of perceived enemies and control of their resources.

In the video (below), General Clark says he knew nothing about the plans to overthrow the aforementioned countries. Many question his ignorance concerning this. Others are claiming he speaks for 'truth' regarding the origin and persons who were really behind these criminal and illegal wars around the world.

My inclination is to say that General Clark is not a 'truther,' but a decoy and shill for the Zionist's. He's someone who draws supporters to a certain 'point of view' with the sole intention to mislead and to mis-inform. You will notice in this short video that General Clark informs his audience that the wars are all really about oil, but he fails to mention Zionist involvement on the level(s) of control, power and influence over the foreign policy of the United States.

In the event that there is a even a hint of a Zionist connection in Gen Cark's actions I should note here that Gen Clark has not failed to reveal his own rather extensive rabbinical Jewish background. I think its important to reveal as much as I know - so, for whatever its worth: Gen Clark is a Baptist convert to Catholicism. Speaking at yeshiva in 1999 he stunned a roomful of students by saying "I feel a tremendous amount in common with you, because I am the oldest son, of the oldest son, of the oldest son — at least five generations, and they were all rabbis."

Clark shares more than sentimental memories with Jews. Apparently he revels in his Jewish roots. He say's that his ancestors were not just Jews, but members of the priestly caste of Kohens. Clark's Jewish father, Benjamin Kanne, died when he was 4, but he has kept in touch with his father's family since his 20s, when he rediscovered his Jewish roots. He is close to a first cousin, Barry Kanne, who heads a pager company in Georgia.




youtu.be...
This is an excerpt of Gen. Wesley Clark in a Democracy Now interview - www.democracynow.org.../03/02/1440234 with Amy Goodman:

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"
AMY GOODMAN: I'm sorry. What did you say his name was?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I'm not going to give you his name.
AMY GOODMAN: So, go through the countries again.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, starting with Iraq, then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya, then Somalia and Sudan, and back to Iran.