If you have "no place to go," come here!

15 Arguments Against WMD Playbook in Obama’s Hands!

It is highly probable that the Obama administration and NATO will be launching a pre-emptive war (under another name) against Syria within the next two weeks OR even the next two days. They will be using the same pre-emptive war WMD propaganda playbook, exactly as was done with GWB’s Iraq War.

Deja vu, my fellow Americans?

Are we still so much the “bewildered herd” we’re about to watch big-time international war criminality perpetrated one more time? This time with the weapons of mass destruction playbook in the hands of the ever-popular Barack Obama.

Apparently and tragically!

Are we once again over-indulging the Obama personality factor to excuse a murderous defiance of law -- moral, domestic and international? Minimizing Bush/Cheney, even Nazi-style, mass international criminality?

David Swanson in "Lying About Syria, and the Lying Liars Who Lie About the Lying" writes:

Obama, undeterred, went right on preaching against what he was about to do.  "Sometimes," Obama said, "what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region."


I've found that when Obama starts talking sense like this, he's actually moving rapidly in the opposite direction.  The more he explains why it would be wrong and illegal and stupid and immoral to attack Syria, the more you can be sure he's about to do just that.

Are we letting a craven mainstream media along with our mendacious president play us one more time, con us, into supporting global violence and assuming diplomacy for peace no longer works or exists?

I can’t stop thinking of Obama as GWB, John Kerry as Colin Powell and the UK’s Cameron as Tony Blair! Can you not see it, too?

Once again a UN team is being given short shrift and not allowed to finish their investigation of chemical weapons accusations, same as with Iraq!

Only 9% of Americans, according to a Reuters’ poll, say that they would endorse a US military assault against Syria. It sure sounds inevitable. 91% of us are against an invasion!!!!!

The will of the citizenry not to intervene seems to matter very little to this administration, judging from the colossal war hype going on this week. In fact, our war-weary and conscience-awakened reluctance is actually driving the hammering messaging from media and politicians to launch another cruel, dangerous and albatross of another criminal pre-emptive war.

The western media and western leaders stridently are insisting the latest apparent chemical weapons attack in Ghouta on Syrian citizens was perpetrated by government soldiers -- the crossing of Obama’s declared “red line” -- when there is actually no impartial confirmation that this was so. In fact, it seems illogical that Assad’s soldiers would resort to such a provocative action which would invite eager imperialists for faux-“humanitarian reasons to intervene in its civil war.”

David Swanson declares that Assad would have to be “suicidally insane” to have authorized his military to use chemical weapons.

The exploitation of the UN’s humanitarian “responsibility to protect” justification for foreign involvement was used by the US and NATO countries to “regime change” and quickly destroy the infrastructure and the welfare along with thousands of lives of the inhabitants of Libya.

Pepe Escobar in “Obama Set For Holy Tomahawk War”:

If this all looks like Iraq 2.0 that's because it is. Time to fix the facts around the policy - all over again. Time for weapons of mass deception - all over again. 


Now, Israel and Saudi Arabia are oh so excited because they are getting exactly what they dream just by good ol' Wag the Dog methods. Tel Aviv has even telegraphed how it wants it: this Monday, the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper headlined with ''On the Way to Attack'' and even printed the ideal Order of Battle.


The prospects remain grim. Damn another coalition of the willing; Washington already has the British and French poodles in the bag, and full support - in air-con safety - from the democratic Gulf Cooperation Council petro-monarchies, minion Jordan and nuclear power Israel. This is what passes for ''international community'' in the newspeak age. 


What happens next requires concentric crystal balls - from Tomahawks to a barrage of air strikes to Special Ops commandos on the ground to a sustained air campaign lasting months. In his long interview to Izvestia, Assad gives the impression he thinks Obama is bluffing. 

What's certain is that Syria won't be a ''piece of cake'' like Libya; even depleted on all fronts,

Gaddafi resisted for eight long months after NATO started its humanitarian bombing. Syria has a weary but still strong army of 200,000; loads of Soviet and Russian weapons; very good antiaircraft systems; and full support from asymmetrical warfare experts Iran and Hezbollah. Not to mention Russia, which just needs to forward a few S-300 air defense batteries and relay solid intelligence.

Below are 15 arguments against the probable war crimes on Syria by the US and NATO countries and their colluders I have been collecting.

1. Intervening in Syria is really for the sake of profiteering imperialism!

This is part of a long-term, pre-emptive warring campaign for Washington to achieve global domination through military force. Since the US is in such severe economic decline, its leadership has decided to recover power militarily through world domination and plunder. The cost of hundreds of millions of lives and maybe even destroying the planet is not a priority for imperialists such as Obama, Cameron, Hollande, Netanyahu and other national leaders along with vulture-like, profiteering corporate backers and war contractors ("Why the United States is waging war against Syria" by David North and Alex Lantier)

2. Attacking Syria soon would sabotage the UN team in Syria from discovering that the chemical weapons assault was a false flag operation perpetrated by the US-backed rebels NOT Assad’s soldiers, and it also would conveniently skirt a UN vote of the Security Council on the legitimacy of foreign intervention in Syria!

The rush to war, the minimizing of the explorations by the UN of the real source of the chemical attacks, and proceeding into war with Syria helps avoid a vote in the UN Security Council, where Russia and China have veto power and would undoubtedly use it. (Why the United States is waging war against Syria by David North and Alex Lantier)

Tony Cartalucci in "CONFIRMED: US Claims Against Syria - There is no Evidence":

The Wall Street Journal reports: 

"In an email on Sunday, White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice told U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and other top officials that the U.N. mission was pointless because the chemical weapons evidence already was conclusive, officials said. The U.S. privately urged the U.N. to pull the inspectors out, setting the stage for President Barack Obama to possibly move forward with a military response, officials said."

The US then, not Syria, is attempting a coverup, with fabrications in place from discredited, compromised intelligence sources and the threat of impending military strikes that would endanger the UN inspection team's safety should they fail to end their investigation and withdraw.   

The Wall Street Journal also reiterated that the US is planning to fully sidestep the UN Security Council and proceed with its partners unilaterally:

...if the U.S. chose to strike, it would do so with allies and without the U.N., in order to sidestep an expected Russian veto.

The US proceeds now with absolute disregard for international law, all but declaring it has no intention of providing credible evidence of its accusations against the Syrian government. It is a rush to war with all the hallmarks of dangerous desperation as the West's proxy forces collapse before the Syrian military. Western military leaders must consider the strategic tenants and historical examples regarding the dangers and folly of haste and imprudence in war - especially war fought to protect special interests and political agendas rather than to defend territory.

3. A war now with Syria would distract US and western populations from the present stupefying scandal of massive illegal government surveillance!

Again, a war with Syria would distract public attention -- globally -- from the US government’s intelligence agencies’ massive and illegal spying on whole populations including its own. Social tension would be directed outward by waging destructive and gratuitous war. ("Why the United States is waging war against Syria" by David North and Alex Lantier)

4. The imperialist nations want to change the outcome of the faux-rebels’ losing the war in Syria!

The US-backed, Al Qaeda-linked rebels are LOSING their war against the Assad regime in Syria. The government had no motive to carry out a desperate chemical attack and consequently provoke global interference. It benefits the opposition’s situation. There is a lack of popular support for the rebels among the majority of Syrian citizens, especially urban dwellers, and the rebel forces are “disintegrating into bands of looters and murderers ... who will kill any member of Assad’s Alawite faith they capture.” ("The war drive against Syria" by Alex Lantier).

5. The recklessness of the US/NATO/Israel/Arab countries could conceivably launch a World War III!

The positioning of heavy weaponry by the US and NATO, Israel and colluding Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey, preparing a massive bombing campaign along with shipments of powerful arms to Islamist militias fighting Assad’s government forces in Syria may very well provoke serious retaliation. These imperialist governments, especially the US, are recklessly ignoring warnings by Iran and Russia that an attack on Syria will have “dire consequences.” ("The war drive against Syria" by Alex Lantier).

Eric Draitser in "The War on Iran Begins…in Syria" writes:

What has become ever more apparent in recent weeks and months is that the conflict in Syria is much larger than Syria itself. Like the Balkans almost exactly 100 years ago, Syria has become the proverbial powder keg in which Western leaders play with matches. Tragically, the diplomatic brinksmanship of the imperial powers in 1914 unleashed upon the world one of the greatest tragedies in the history of humanity: the First World War. As the United States prepares to commence yet another war, let us hope that world war is not once again the outcome.

David Swanson in "Lying About Syria, and the Lying Liars Who Lie About the Lying" writes:

Washington is driving the world closer to nuclear war than it ever was even in the most dangerous periods of the Cold War. When Washington finishes with Syria, the next target is Iran. Russia and China will no longer be able to fool themselves that there is any system of international law or restraint on Western criminality. Western aggression is already forcing both countries to develop their strategic nuclear forces and to curtail the Western-financed NGOs that pose as “human rights organizations,” but in reality comprise a fifth column that Washington can use to destroy the legitimacy of the Russian and Chinese governments.

6. Now that Assad has been demonized by the western imperialists, his regime in their eyes must be ended since it will never again be as passive and convenient as it was, especially to a conspiring Israel that wants to dominate the ME militarily and “regime change” Iran!

If the imperialists cannot pull off “regime change” in Syria having stoked a faux-civil war there, the US, NATO, colluding ME nations and Israel have LOST Assad’s Syria as a “passive” fellow sovereign country. Syria will bond even more closely with Iran and Lebanon and there will be an even deeper polarization of the Middle East in terms of Shiites vs. Sunnis. Syria will also be regarded by Israel as an intense threat if Assad continues on. Jordan and Turkey will have a weakened influence in the Middle East, as well. ("The war drive against Syria" by Alex Lantier).

Ray McGovern in "The Broader Stakes of Syrian Crisis" writes:

... But, for Israel, Iran’s new President Hassan Rouhani poses a more subtle threat than the easier-to-demonize Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The more moderate and polished Rouhani – IF he can calm those Iranians who consider Washington a Siamese twin to Tel Aviv – may be able to enter renewed talks on the nuclear issue with concessions that the West would find difficult to refuse.

... Israeli and neocon hardliners have amply demonstrated that – despite their public face – they have little concern over Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program. Quite simply, they would like to get the U.S. to do to Iran what it did to Iraq. Period.


The Israeli position vis a vis its Muslim adversaries is also improved by the spreading of sectarian conflicts pitting Sunni vs. Shiite, a rift that was turned into a chasm – and made much bloodier – by the neocon-inspired U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Now, similar divisions are shattering Syria in a chaotic civil war with the growing likelihood that the Obama administration will soon weigh in militarily against the Alawite-dominated regime of Bashar al-Assad, which is being challenged by a Sunni-led rebellion. Alawites stem from the Shiite branch of Islam and Assad is allied with Shiite-ruled Iran.

7. Attacking Syria is motivated by predatory lust among the imperialists for rich oil resources!

In terms of oil, BP estimates that Iraq and Iran control 20% of the world’s oil, and the Middle East collectively has 48% of it. Getting access to this oil was and still is a goal of the imperialist vulture countries no matter how many thousands of Iraqis and now Syrians lose their lives as well as cannon-fodder troops involved in the attempts at conquest. ("The war drive against Syria" by Alex Lantier)

8. The Obama administration is railroading a pre-emptive war as Bush did with Iraq!

The working classes in the US and Europe do not want to be “railroaded” into another war for oil and hegemony but cannot stop it. “One Reuters/Ipsos poll published Saturday shows that only 9 percent of the US public supports US intervention in Syria, and only 25 percent would support it even if it were proven that Assad had used chemical weapons.” The American and European mainstream media have omitted the realpolitik story of the US/NATO/Israel military interference. They have minimized the reality of Al-Qaeda linked jihadists slaughtering innocent Syrians. Now they are hyping up the chemical weapons story without really knowing the source of such an attack. ("The war drive against Syria" by Alex Lantier)

Tony Cartalucci in "CONFIRMED: US Claims Against Syria - There is no Evidence":Tony Cartalucci writes:

Western special interests hope that a Syrian response and the death of American and/or Israeli troops - perhaps the sinking of a US ship or the loss of multiple US aircraft - will turn the 9% approval rating for their premeditated assault on Syria into an overwhelming baying for blood across the West's populations. Failing to elicit a response from Syria, this may be accomplished with false flag attacks, as was the case in the Gulf of Tonkin incident at the onset of the Vietnam War. ...

Understanding that the intentional endangerment and death of US troops and their allied counterparts is part of initiating an otherwise impossible wider war, inoculates much of an already war-weary Western population from the "rally around the flag" effect Western special interests are depending on to re-energize their failed Middle East adventure.

9. US and NATO are feigning “humanitarian concern” about the Syrians! The US and NATO countries are guilty of chemical weaponry themselves!

The claims of humanitarian concern for the Syrians who suffered and/or died from the chemical weapons attack is bogus. While Egypt’s US-backed military junta was slaughtering thousands of unarmed protesters the imperialist nations asserted no “responsibility to protect” them as did the mainstream media. ("The war drive against Syria" by Alex Lantier)

According to Alex Lantier, Secretary of State John Kerry had his “Colin Powell moment” when he appeared on national television on August 26 to propagandize for an impending US/NATO attack on Syria. In 2003 Powell infamously addressed the UN for two hours shoring up false evidence of WMDs in Iraq.

Alex Lantier in John Kerry’s “Colin Powell moment”:

The United States government and its allies in Britain, France and Germany are in no position to lecture the world on the “moral obscenity” of chemical warfare or anything else. ... Washington has poisoned entire Iraqi cities with depleted uranium and white phosphorus. Earlier, it dropped 75 million liters of Agent Orange—a chemical weapon—on Vietnam, affecting millions of people. The US is the one country in the world that has used nuclear weapons on defenseless cities—not once, but twice, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It and the European imperialist powers—who pioneered the use of poison gas—are collectively responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

Kerry used the phrasing “moral obscenity” of indiscriminate killings with chemical weapons, yet, again, the US is funding an Egyptian military junta that is slaughtering unarmed protesters in the streets. ... The CIA, which has been transformed into a heavily-armed global paramilitary organization, has access to such weapons and could easily make them available to the opposition.

10. Syria was not being uncooperative with the UN team when it first arrived as the mainstream media reported, it was being protective of it!

One of the reasons the Assad government showed hesitation in allowing UN inspectors to access the chemical weapons attack site in Ghouta according to Nile Bowie was that it is one of the rebel-held strongholds on the outskirts of Damascus. The security of the UN team could not be guaranteed if rebels attacked them there. Syrian rebels have been hostile to UN forces before, kidnapping 21 in the Golan Heights last March, and another 4 in May. The UN team was fired upon by unknown snipers upon arrival, making the situation more of a dramatic global propaganda story, framed against Assad. The idea that the Assad regime would resort to chemical weapons is illogical.

Nile Bowie in "Western Logic on Syria: ‘We Need To Bomb It To Save It" writes:

“UN commission of inquiry head Carla Del Ponte declared in late March chemical weapons use in northern Syria appeared to come from anti-government militants.” Western Logic on Syria: ‘We Need To Bomb It To Save It‘ Tony Cartalucci writes: “The US has accused the Syrian government of delaying UN inspectors from accessing the site of an alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus. But now, according to Reuters, the US appears to be preparing to strike Syria militarily before the UN's now ongoing investigation is concluded and evidence revealed to either support or conflict with the West's so far baseless allegations. ...

Clearly, such a strike would render moot both the UN inspection team's investigation and any evidence they may find. While the US has accused the Syrian government of obstructing an investigation that is indeed already being carried out, the impending US attack would indefinitely end the UN's efforts. If, as the US reasons, obstructing the UN's investigation implicates guilt, then the US has just made itself the prime suspect of what is increasingly appearing to be a staged provocation to salvage a proxy war the US and its allies have all but lost.

11. The past US international war criminality with Kosovo should not be used as “legal” precedent for illegitimate intervention into Syria!

Since there is no legal basis for interference in Syria imperialists are beginning to cite the so-called “Kosovo model”.

Nile Bowie in "Western Logic on Syria: ‘We Need To Bomb It To Save It" writes:

Reports indicate that Obama’s team is now studying the NATO mission in Kosovo as a “possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations.” It is ominous, alarming and bizarre how NATO’s intervention in the former Yugoslavia could be used a positive reference point for anything. NATO rained down bombs for 78 straight days, effectively smashing civilian infrastructure in Serbia and Montenegro while hospitals, schools, and public utilities were damaged beyond repair, killing over 1,200 civilians and injuring 4,500 more.”

Pepe Escobar in “Obama Set For Holy Tomahawk War”:

As for that bunch of amateurs surrounding Obama - including R2P groupies such as Susan Rice and new Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, all of them liberal hawks - they are all suckers for Kosovo. Kosovo - with a Libya add-on - is being spun as the ideal model for Syria; R2P via (illegal) air strikes. Right on cue, the New York Times is already frantically parroting the idea.

Marjorie Cohn and Jeanne Mirer in ”Killing Civilians to Protect Civilians in Syria

" write:

President Barack Obama admitted, “If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a UN mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it . . .” The Obama administration is studying the 1999 “NATO air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations,” the New York Times reported. But NATO’s Kosovo bombing also violated the UN Charter as the Security Council never approved it, and it was not carried out in self-defense. The UN Charter does not permit the use of military force for “humanitarian interventions.” Humanitarian concerns do not constitute self-defense. In fact, humanitarian concerns should spur the international community to seek peace and end the suffering, not increase military attacks, which could endanger peace in the entire region.

12. Military involvement with Syria will be a boon to profiteering munitions contractors!

The intervention in Syria is an added boon to the arms industry.

Nile Bowie in "Western Logic on Syria: ‘We Need To Bomb It To Save It" writes

... four US warships with ballistic missiles are moving into position in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, ready to shower Damascus with Tomahawk cruise missiles – all under the auspices of protecting civilians. Lockheed Martin’s stock prices have dramatically shot up since news of the chemical weapons attack.

13. The war criminality of attacking Syria violates the Nuremberg Principles!

Michael Collins in ”A Rush to Judgment is a Rush to War" writes:

If Obama and Cameron proceed with an attack on Syria they will share a place of shame with George W Bush and Tony Blair as liars of epic proportion and violators of the Nuremberg Principles (VI, a, i and ii).They will also kill a lot of people and provide even more support to the FSA and it's Al Qaeda allies who will do even more killing than they already have.

Julian Pecquet in "Kucinich: Syria Strike Would Turn US Into 'al Qaeda's Air Force" writes:

The War Powers Resolution permits the president to introduce U.S. forces into hostile action with a congressional declaration of war, a congressional authorization for use of force or in the event of a foreign attack on the United States or its forces. Once hostilities start, presidents have 60 days to act before they either remove the troops or get congressional approval.

In the international arena, two circumstances generally permit war making: national self-defense and action authorized by the U.N. Security Council.

Self-defense doesn’t apply in the Syrian case, O’Connell said, because “the use of chemical weapons within Syria is not an armed attack on the United States.”

Security Council authorization of international action requires the support of nine member nations on the 15-member panel. However, any of the five permanent members, which include China and Russia as well as the United States, can veto any proposed action. That seems likely in the case of Syria.

“Using force without the approval of the U.N. Security Council is a very grave violation of international law," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters Monday at a Moscow news conference.

In 1999, Russia blocked U.N. Security Council support for military action in Kosovo, in the former Yugoslavia. The United States and other NATO countries, nonetheless, undertook a 78-day air war that ended with the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces.

Russia also resisted a 2003 Bush administration push for a key Security Council resolution targeting Iraq. As with Kosovo, the U.S.-led war proceeded regardless of the council’s inaction.


In March 2011, for instance, U.S. ships and warplanes began participating in an international air assault on Libya. The U.S. contribution to the six-month-long campaign included cruise missiles, drone strikes, bombers, fighters and more. Nonetheless, the State Department’s top legal adviser insisted the actions didn’t amount to “hostilities,” a legally significant term.

Using logic that could recur with Syria, then-legal adviser Harold Koh told a skeptical Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June 2011 that the “limited exposure for U.S. troops, limited risk of serious escalation and . . . limited military means” meant the Libyan campaign didn’t amount to hostile action. As a result, Obama asserted that he didn’t have to comply with the War Powers Resolution’s requirement that U.S. troops be withdrawn within 60 days of the start of hostilities unless Congress authorizes action.

“’Hostilities’ is an ambiguous term of art,” Koh testified.

Airstrikes on Syria would turn the U.S. military into “al Qaeda's air force,” former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told The Hill.

The outspoken anti-war activist said any such action would plunge the United States into another war in the Middle East and embolden Islamist militants fighting Bashar Assad's regime.

“So what, we're about to become Al Qaeda's air force now?” Kucinich said. “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we're just going to have a 'targeted strike' — that's an act of war. It's not anything to be trifled with.”

The comments echo warnings from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who voted against legislation to arm the Syrian rebels earlier this year by saying such a move would boost al Qaeda.
Kucinich also said President Obama would be violating the Constitution if he doesn't get congressional approval before taking any military action in Syria.

14. By this impending attack on Syria, a peaceful settlement is removed from the table as an option in the Syrian civil war!

Paul Craig Roberts in "Syria: Another Western War Crime In The Making" writes:

Another reason for the rush to war is that Cameron, the UK prime minister, wants to get the war going before the British parliament can block him for providing cover for Obama’s war crimes the way that Tony Blair provided cover for George W. Bush, for which Blair was duly rewarded. What does Cameron care about Syrian lives when he can leave office into the waiting arms of a $50 million fortune. 


The corrupt British government has declared that Syria can be attacked without UN authorization, just as Serbia and Libya were militarily attacked without UN authorization. In other words, the Western democracies have already established precedents for violating international law. “International law? We don’t need no stinking international law!” The West knows only one rule: Might is Right. As long as the West has the Might, the West has the Right.


Once again Washington has preempted any hope of peaceful settlement. By announcing the forthcoming attack, the US destroyed any incentive for the “rebels” to participate in the peace talks with the Syrian government. On the verge of these talks taking place, the “rebels” now have no incentive to participate as the West’s military is coming to their aid.

15. The attack will worsen the plight of Syrian citizens, particularly the children who are struggling to survive!

César Chelala in "Syrian Children Pay the Heaviest Price in War" writes:

The numbers of Syrian children affected by the brutal war ravaging their country are truly disheartening. According to UN agencies, one million children, three-quarters of them under age 11, have had to flee their country since the conflict began in 2011. “This one millionth child refugee is not just another number. This is a real child ripped from home, maybe even from a family, facing horrors we can only begin to comprehend,” stated grimly Anthony Lake, executive director of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF.)

The children’s dramatic situation doesn’t end there, however. In addition to the one million who have been forced to flee their country, two million others are displaced within their own country, making of this one of the most serious humanitarian emergencies today.

Children’s nightmarish situation is just a reflection of the wider conflict in their country, which so far has cost the lives of 100,000 people since protests broke out against Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad in March 2011. Since then, Syrians of all religious beliefs have been fleeing to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt and, increasingly, to North Africa and Europe. ......


... Many children are suffering the psychological consequences of seeing their family members and friends killed or injured, and become terrified at the sounds and scenes of the conflict.

Drinking water is a hard commodity now in Syria. In the most deprived areas, access to water has fallen by two-thirds, resulting in increased skin and respiratory infections. Four million people inside the country have access to safe water. However, basic infrastructure and public services have been systematically destroyed over the last 24 months, warns UNICEF.

Many children in Syria have been victims of human rights violations including arbitrary detention, torture, and killing, and many have been recruited and made to fight by one of the armies in conflict. In addition, many children are maimed as a result of stepping into explosive remnants of war.

No votes yet


CMike's picture
Submitted by CMike on

It'll take me through the weekend to follow all of your links but I will be doing that, though I don't think, in the end, I'll be agreeing with everything here. I think, for instance, #3 and #8 conflict with each other a bit. My take on #3 is that it is intended that the intelligentsia in the States, not "western populations," will be distracted from the Snowden inspired surveillance controversy by U.S. intervention in Syria as it is correctly, I think, pointed out in #8 that the, er, "working classes in the US and Europe do not want to be 'railroaded' into another war for oil and hegemony but cannot stop it." Or, rather, the working class in the U.S. has lost interest in these endless national security crises, in part, becuase they cannot deter these train wrecks from happening regardless of any sentiments they, the majority of the 99%, might hold.