The London-based NGO, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, claimed recently that the number of dead from the civil war in Syria will soon hit the 200,000 mark. At the time we did the following radio show about what's really going on in Syria, the mainstream media was reporting that the Obama administration was "considering sending" military aid to the 'rebels'.

What has been reporting since they launched this dirty war in 2011 - that foreign terrorists have been fully supported by Western governments since the very beginning - has since been confirmed in the mainstream media. In the meantime, they've also tried to pin false-flag chemical weapons attacks on Bashar al-Assad and, most recently, just as peace talks get underway in Geneva, claim that "thousands" have been tortured to death by the Syrian 'regime'.

Have a listen as editors took a look behind-the-scenes at the real actors in the Syrian conflict and how the massive bloodshed there fits into the ever-changing narrative of the West's bogus 'war on terror'. As part of examining the Western government's real objectives in Syria, we also considered the history of "al-Qaeda" and the role of religion as it is used by psychopathic politicians to justify imperial expansion and domination of other nations.

Running Time: 02:20:00

Download: MP3

Here's the transcript:

Niall: Hello and welcome to SOTT Talk Radio. I'm your host, Niall Bradley, and my co-host tonight, Joe Quinn.

Joe: Hi there.

Niall: And joining us tonight is Jason Martin.

Jason: Hello.

Niall: So, manufacturing Civil War in Syria is the title of today's show. As listeners can probably tell, we're a little skeptical of the official narrative surrounding this conflict, so-called Civil War.

Joe: A little?

Niall: The fact that it's described as a civil war immediately raises a red-flag. But anyway, we're going to take the party line for a moment and use that as a kind of starting point for today's discussion.

Jason: Can I ask a question? When is the red flag today ever lowered? I mean it's perpetually up these days.

Joe: There's more than one.


Niall: Raise the red flags.

Jason: Raise the what?

Niall: Raise the red flags. So what we're supposed to believe runs something like this: two and a half years ago around the beginning of 2011, popular uprisings take place across the Middle East from Tunisia over to Yemen and then north into Syria. The Syrian Government, no wait, the Syrian regime begins brutally suppressing peaceful demonstrations. The Western Media, Western audiences in general clamour for something to be done about the evil Syrian Dictator Bashar Al-Assad and his ruthless army.

Somewhere in the middle of this chaos; still in 2011, let's say; and apparently out of nowhere the peaceful protestors become rebels equipped with rocket launchers, high-powered rifles, massive quantities of bombs, ammunition, intelligence on Syrian Military movements, well placed informants and supply lines that enable them to go deep into Syria to undertake daring raids, even hitting Damascus itself. Now they're under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and the rebels are actually beaten back fairly easily by the Syrian Army but they seem to keep coming and coming with more and more supplies behind them.

At the same time in parallel, we've got what appears to be completely random bloody mayhem increasing in the country. Suicide bombings, mass-killings, targeted assassinations, trails of dead bodies all over the place. That might actually have something to do with the fact that there are former convicts, mercenaries and fundamentalists roaming the country who may or may not be the same camp as the rebels. But on the international stage, what we have is this 'something must be done' mindset translated into Security Council meetings, temporary ceasefires; they've already come and gone, apparently to no success; meanwhile the carnage continues and just recently the death toll has been put at something like 100,000 people.

The most recent developments; oh I love this: "Western Intelligence Agencies are currently cooking up something called chemical weapons allegedly being used against the rebel forces by the Syrian Government and Obama tells us this is the Syrian Regime crossing the red line. Just three days ago he says 'we're ready to implement a no-fly zone in Syria'."

So you've got Western Governments wanted to supply military aid to these rebels, supposedly to defend the Syrian people from their evil dictator while Russia and China are encouraging diplomacy to resolve this "Civil War". The Israeli's apparently think everyone has no balls so they're just going in there unilaterally bombing Syria, allegedly to blow up weapons stores that belong to the Syrian Government.
So, case closed? There's something wrong with that picture.

Joe: There is something wrong with that picture and it's giving me déjà vu.

Jason: It's like something out of a movie.

Joe: But I would just like to say on the one-hundred thousand people dead; obviously a lot of those are civilians. There are twenty-two million people in Syria, that's approximately five-percent of the population which would equate to about fifteen-million Americans. Just to give you an idea. Obviously, fifteen-million is a lot but if this was happening in America on the same scale; if they were able to do it on the same scale in America, for example, there would be fifteen million people dead.

So in terms of the spread throughout the country, it gives you an idea. You don't have to think of it as fifteen-million people dead but think of it in terms of the spread of the country for fifteen-million Americans to have died in some kind of a war. That would have to be large numbers in the major cities and then smaller numbers all across the country, because that's pretty much what's happened in Syria.

Niall: Geographically, Syria is a small place and in fact most of it is not populated; it's a desert. And the cities are to the West and to the North, largely. That's very concentrated.

Joe: Exactly. It's concentrated in cities. Kind of like in America, except if the same thing was to happen in America it would be concentrated in the cities because there is large numbers of the American population in the major cities.

Niall: I do wonder about this figure, though, because it comes from the London-based non-governmental organization called the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Jason: Liars.

Joe: The Syrian Liars for Human Lies.

Niall: I wonder, because they have been called out more than a few times for let's say hyping and placing the blame for attacks on the Syrian Government. Sorry, Regime. Regime makes them sound more evil you see.

Jason: When an organization comes up and says 'Hi, we're a non-governmental organization,' I say yeah, run by the CIA, or MI5 or MI6, you know.

Niall: They're based in London.

Jason: Any con-man say's trust me and don't worry I'm not a thief. You can let me in your house.

Niall: I would say they have vested interest in inflating the figures, but okay, let's take their word for it that the situation is atrocious for such a small area in such a short span of time.

Joe: Well, given that the Syrian revolution is an entirely manufactured revolution and that can be proven to be the case; it's a no-brainer that any of these organizations that are in there (Syria), reporting back on figures and details that seem to be supportive of the Western point of view and against Assad and his government, they've all been placed there. There are these local action committees they've had in there for a long time and they've been reporting on all these figures and stuff.

I don't know if people can remember it, I think it was sometime in June 2011, there was the case of A Gay Girl in Damascus, which was a blog, supposedly by a Syrian lesbian blogger who had started up a few months after the supposed revolution began. Her name was Amina Arraf. Well, actually it was her cousin that was maintaining the blog on her behalf because she had gone into hiding because of the horrors of the Assad Regime and just because she was homosexual or gay. She had to be in hiding and so she was chronicling all of the horrors of life for the Western public. So it turned out then a months later that this person, Amina Arraf, this Gay Girl in Damascus lesbian blogger was actually a forty-year-old bearded American guy living in Scotland.

Niall: Pervert... In Scotland?

Joe: Yeah, he was at the University of Edinburgh following a course in Arab Studies but had maybe taken a sabbatical. He had been doing a lot of traveling to Turkey and strange places like that near Syria.

Jason: Oh, where have we heard that before?

Joe: He was the one behind this blog and he to eventually admit it. He tried to deny it initially but then he had to admit it.

Niall: He created a false persona.

Joe: Yeah, he stole a girl's pictures, put it up there and claimed to be her and he maintained that he had nothing to do with the CIA but it was like it had CIA written all over it.

Jason: Or even a Psy-Ops.

Joe: His name was Tom McMaster. That's him there.

Jason: Tom McMaster?

Joe: I know you can't see it on the radio but you can look up Tom McMaster and you'll see - at the time when I wrote about it, I put the caption under his picture of 'Tom McMaster CIA Psy-Ops Agent or Just in Need of a Proper Job'.


Joe: Because obviously he was not really filling his potential here unless he worked for the CIA in which case he probably was.

Niall: How do these people live with themselves? I mean, I'm sure he'll come around and say it was for the good in the end.

Jason: This is cyber false-flag attack. It's pretending to be someone else to rile up support for a cause. That's what they're doing.

Niall: Yeah, but how do they justify that. In their mind, they must assume that the cause is justified and therefore the means justifies the ends.

Jason: Because Assad's Regime is so repressive that none of them can really get the word out. You don't understand there are no lesbians there because they've all been tortured and murdered. Don't you understand Niall?!

Joe: It's these groups I was talking about. The reason I mentioned that was because they're called Local Coordination Committees of Syria, aka CIA Coordination Committees of Syria who claim to be grassroots groups. And they are grassroots groups that have been put there by the CIA and they were the ones who actually first broke the story that Amina, this fake blogger, who was actually Tom McMaster, had been arrested by Syrian police. So they actually started the whole thing going, giving publicity and brought attention to his blog.

Jason: So convenient. What a coincidence.

Joe: But that was a failed Op. Whatever CIA agent or department was running that, I hope they got a good wrap in the knuckles for it and told to go back to CIA/Psy-Ops 101 and take that course again because it was horrible.

Niall: It doesn't seem to have stopped them coming up with endless, endless propaganda. I remember getting into very heated Facebook discussions with people at the time, people would consistently be anti-war. In fact they would have just come off the back from seeing there was absolutely no justification for NATO to bomb Libya. Gaddafi was not the bad-guy he was made out to be and so on. Fresh off the back of that, they were screaming at me to open my eyes and see how evil President Bashar Al-Assad was. Their explanation, their evidence was to back this up was 'go and look at all the YouTube videos.'

Okay, so I went and looked at these videos of these mass protests and I looked at the details or I found some - maybe it had been mirrored from someone else, and you go and read the original description; it was a mass protest defending the Syrian Government against what was happening there. And what was happening well, there were some small protests; whether or not there were some small protests; there were clashes between government forces and so-called peaceful protestors in which more government forces were shot dead. Now I thought, hang on, peaceful protestors were firing back at government protestors? Something's not right here.

Jason: Well they should! Hey honey, look, American Gladiators is on. (Sarcasm)

Niall: Yeah, Operation Distraction. I realized that we were looking at a very similar situation to Libya where they were doing a mind-job on people. There was no mass uprising against Bashar Al-Assad, just as there was not against Gaddafi. Somehow, in the heat of the moment, the Arab Spring 2011, where there were massive demonstrations taking place in neighbouring countries, it was quite easy it seems to just blend this into the mix.

Jason: The ham-handedness and the ham-fistedness of all the manipulation was just because - I don't really think it was on schedule but they thought 'hey there's all this Arab Spring stuff going, let's try this out and see how it works.' And it's working like a charm because people don't practice any kind of discernment. They don't look at a situation and say hold on a second, who's telling me what's going on there? The Government! Okay, who should I not believe? The Government! Okay, so should I believe what the Government is telling me? No, I shouldn't believe it! If the government says it, it's a lie. Even if it's not a lie it's still a lie. You should just work off the principle that it is a lie and start from there.

Joe: There are a few things that should be highlighted about the beginning of this Syrian revolution which was around March 2011when there was the first supposed demonstrations. All of so-called demonstrations against Assad started in border regions in towns on the Turkish border, on the Jordanian border to the south and on the Lebanese border. So this is indicative of protestors rent-a-crowd being funnelled in just over the border to start these demonstrations. Here's an initial report from NPR that states that: "At least 120 members of Syria's Security Forces were killed in a battle with what had been called Armed Organizations.

So the fact of the matter is that initially, these demonstrations were violent, well organized, and they were firing mortars at Police and indiscriminately as part of these demonstrations. This wasn't your average peaceful protest by people. This was clearly well organized by someone else.

Jason: I'm curious, why isn't there more video of these things happening?

Joe: Well, there is. And in fact on December 24th when it was nine months going, there was a League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria, the day before Christmas Day in 2011, that was comprised of Observers from every single country in the Arab World that went to Syria to check out what was going on there. They had a fact-finding mission and they published a report. Probably nobody knows this because it wasn't widely disseminated in the news; surprise, surprise, surprise!

In the report, the members of the mission came to some very interesting conclusions. Conclusions that were in stark contrast to the official story of what was going on. They said they observed armed groups committing acts of violence against Government forces resulting in death and injury among their ranks. And examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus. This is supposedly a people-power revolution/demonstration and somehow these guys, right off the bat, are bombing civilian buses and killing Syrian civilians?

The bombing of bus in that case that these Arab Observers witnessed included the death of women and children. It killed eight people. They were also bombing trains carrying diesel oil. They also said that the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in the incidents.

Niall: Because they were getting all this information from these CIA Coordination Committees.

Joe: At the same time or a few months previously, a French journalist was killed. That was reported as evidence of Assad's crackdown on foreign reporters and stuff but the Arab Mission concluded that he was killed by opposition rebel mortar shells.

Niall: To answer your question, Jason, the internet is actually flooded with videos of what's been going on in Syria. A lot of them have been taken up by mainstream media and widely reported. Then, invariably it emerges that the footage you are seeing; and some of it is extreme beyond - we're talking about cutting kids heads off, lining them up and then videotaping it and then posting it up and saying 'look at what the Assad Regime is doing'. And then it emerges that these so-called rebels did it, time and time again. That's just one story. There are countless horrors coming out. It shows, to me, that they are prepared to go to any lengths.

Jason: Oh, absolutely. This is the (Frank) Kitson Doctrine. This is one-hundred percent what he and (French Colonel Roger) Trinquier said they needed to do in order to...

Niall: What did they call it? Gangs?

Joe: Pseudo-gangs.

Jason: Basically, he admitted in his book 'Bunch of Five' that he admitted to running around Africa with shoe-polish on his face murdering and raping people to make the opposition look bad. And Trinquier said the same kind of thing earlier, that the best way to deal with guerrillas is to dress like them and commit atrocities. That's basically your only solution because you can't find them and they usually have the support of the people so you have to take that away, and the way that they take it away is you dress up in their clothes and you go around and rape and murder some people and then you give them a bad reputation.

That was their solution to that problem and that's what they've been employing the entire time. They dress up like some terrorists or they find or manipulate somebody; they get someone that is kind of brown-looking, and put them in a situation where something happens or something is going to happen and then say 'look, see!' It's the same kind of story.

Niall: Yeah, and they've been recruiting these people mainly from Libya.

Joe: They bring them from anywhere they can find them. They have cadres of these types that are basically guns for hire. They're also largely extremist Muslims who want a bit of power for themselves, or maybe they just like killing. But obviously they've used them as their proxy army for decades. There's a big history behind that in terms of the Saudis being involved in training extremist Muslims through Madrassas and stuff, and arming them; basically child soldiers and raising them up to do the bidding of the American's and the Brits and the French.

Jason: The term he (Frank Kitson) uses for the whole situation is Low Intensity Operation (Warfare), which is basically another term for extreme violence but not an official war with tanks.

Niall: Okay, we're not officially at war. Look at us butter wouldn't melt. We're on the sidelines but look at that situation over there. Isn't it awful? A civil war has just spontaneously arisen between these people. Maybe we ought to step in and protect them. It's disgusting.

There was a recent report in April. The EU's Anti-Terror Chief; I didn't know the EU had an Anti-Terror Chief, but there you go; Gilles de Kerchove told the British media that some five-hundred Europeans were in Syria to fight against the government of Bashar Al-Assad. German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich has said that a number of German Nationals have teamed up with the foreign-backed militants in Syria. Well there you go. That's a mainstream report. They know it.

Joe: The sad truth about this situation is all over the mainstream media. It's not really a secret anymore. But I suppose they figure that they have people in such a position now, the programming is almost complete, that they can allow these kinds of details to be released.

Jason: I think they're required to.

Joe: Either they're required to or they have got to the point where they are doing it so flagrantly that they don't care anymore. They know that it will come out in the media. The media can't not report some of it, but they don't care because they know that nothing is going to happen as a result.

Niall: Whatever way the interests lie here, it seems that some don't care more than others. I think the Germans are saying 'We're not so sure about getting any more involved in this.' They're backing away. While the Brits and Americans...

Joe: And the Frenchies are gung-ho.

Niall: That's another thing. The Free Syrian Army - it's widely talked about now that there's no such thing really. It's a name, a moniker that's been given to them. They are the Al-Qaeda that we have all been taught to fear in our worst nightmares. The worst nightmare is now a fact on the ground. These are the people - you've got to love this - that they are currently debating about whether or not to send weapons to, to support. The people they have been arming for the last five plus years. That's the contrived discussion in the media: 'should we help these people?' These are the Al-Qaeda that you've told us hate us!

Jason: It's absolutely ridiculous for any government to support a revolution in a country. That's a totally ridiculous idea. If everything they say is true about Syria, which I highly doubt, then the responsibility for them is to send in official forces to take care of the problem, not to feed guns to a bunch of civilians ...

Joe: Right-wing nutcases.

Jason: ...or right-wing nutcases. That's not okay for a government to do that. No matter how good the cause is, if they are going to go and interfere in that country, they need to take the army and go over there, kill everybody and come back, because that's something that the entire world has tacitly and implicitly kind of accepted. NATO has a bunch of forces, they all have flak jackets, they all have guns, they have tanks, they wear these white helmets with "UN" on them. We accept that they exist and they're supposed to go over there and kick people's asses and then come back; if you believe the official story.

So should we give the rebels weapons? No, you should never give rebels weapons. It's not the way modern politics is supposed to work.

Joe: Supposed to work but the irony in all this is that in its most recent incarnation, Al-Qaeda has kind of come full circle. And it's now being used in Syria in the same way it was originally used in Afghanistan against the Soviets. They were our terrorists at the time and they were publicly supported...

Jason: Yeah, look how well that worked out.

Joe: And told that they had God's blessing and the guys that came out of that became the Al-Qaeda that became the target of the War on Terror and led to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. And now that they're starting to turn back into their original incarnation, which was 'we can support these guys because they are doing some good now.' And apparently, no one has a problem with that. No one has a problem with the fact that the people, the groups that everybody after 9/11 hated and wanted the governments of the world to take down and kick ass, etc. and invade countries to get, are now being supported and supplied weapons.

Jason: They're so not going to turn those against us!

Joe: They're giving weapons to those people who allegedly did 9/11. Now that's obviously a bullshit story because most people, I hope, understand that 9/11 was not carried out by any Muslims unless the CIA allows Muslims into their midst.

Jason: There just weren't 19 people flying those planes. That's just retarded.

Niall: Nevertheless, there was 19 people and the other terror cells were recruited as part of the cover to make real the reality of Al-Qaeda. They have to have somebody to talk about.

Joe: They were sheep-dipped.

Niall: They were literally brought to the US Embassy in Saudi Arabia. The former ambassador at the time has spoken out about this. He couldn't believe it. He was being asked to railroad these people through. The basic questions you're asked are 'You want to go to the US? You want a Visa to go for something in the US? Well, have you got a job there or do you have some contacts?' 'No, no.'

Jason: What are you planning to do there? 'I'm planning to bring war to the infidels.' Oh really, how are you going to do that? 'We will fly planes into these buildings.' Oh, very interesting.

Niall: We have a room coming up for free near Langley, we can sit you in there with some of your friends.

Jason: We have a hotel. Would you like flying lessons too?

Joe: They were screened for maniacal laughs as well to see if they were good enough.

Jason: The whole situation was ridiculous.

Joe: It was, but it is shock and awe. It's attacking people at their most basic fear response levels.

Jason: Transmarginal Inhibition, Pavlov.

Joe: And they only need them to be in that state for a certain period of time. It only lasts for a short period of time until they can launch their war and get the support for launching an invasion on the back of it.

Jason: Yeah, once the leviathan starts moving...

Joe: No one's going to stand in its way.

Jason: You can't really get in its way.

Joe: And you can't put it back in its box.

Jason: That's the whole thing about what's going on in the world today. We sit here and we comment about the politics and there's war is going on, but there's nothing to do about it. It's just going to move, you know.

Joe: So from a broad perspective when looking at Syria here, and how it fits into the overall scheme and what the overall scheme or plan is, they invaded Iraq, which is on Syria's border. They invaded an occupied Iraq, invaded an occupied Afghanistan, which is on Iran's eastern border and now Syria.

Jason: So basically you're saying it's a classic Pincer manoeuvre?

Joe: It kind of is. It seems to me that in a general sense I don't know if they've lost the plot at this stage and they are keeping it going because they started so they'll finish type of thing or whether they have an original plan. But it seems to me that the original plan, in terms of the Middle East and the US/Western Forces' interest in the Middle East, obviously was about resources and oil. But it was certainly in the latter half of the second-half of the twentieth century, it morphed into this need for a new enemy.

Their interests in invading, occupying and changing governments, regime change in the Middle East was to make sure that they could create this demon of radical Islam, create this reality on the ground by getting rid of any secular governments - the two ideas kind of dovetail in a way. They want access to the resources and the best way to have access to the resources is to make sure you have some kind of despotic fundie leader in place because he is much more inclined to control the population and do the bidding and make corrupt deals with the West than some kind of a progressive, socialist leader that is actually interested in the welfare of the people of the Middle East. It serves both purposes.

And the US, Brits and all Empires in recent modern history anyway, have found common cause with fundamentalist - in the case where religion was a serious concern - they found common cause with the fundamentalist leaders and groups far more than they have with any kind of secular or progressive socialist groups. They active fought against them and that's what they are doing in Syria, because Syria is, or was a secular country. It was one of the few countries in the Middle East where Muslims, Christians and Jews all lived fairly peaceably together. There wasn't any major social conflict or anything like that between those groups and certainly so in terms of fitting the description of a fundamentalist, Islamic Regime, in terms of the War on Terror that the Americans or the Brits have to go and fight them over there so they won't have to fight them back at home.

Well, Assad and his government in Syria did not, by any stretch of the imagination fit that profile. They were the kind of government that, if you take the Western powers at their word, the kind of government that the West should have wanted to maintain and to support in the Middle East, but they don't want that. Like Jason was saying, they basically turned it around on its head. What they say is pretty much 180 degrees from the truth.

Niall: The narrative is, 'We're doing this because we want to rid the world of extremist Islamo fascists' as Bush called them so we can have people who are reasonable, people we can do trade with.

Jason: What does that even mean, Islamo Fascist's?

Niall: He's asking you to fill in the gaps.

Jason: Does he even know what a fascist is? How can he be an Islamo fascist?

Niall: Well, his grandfather certainly knew what a fascist was.

Jason: His grandfather was a fascist.

Niall: Just to sit on that point for a moment so people understand, Syria was secular. That means it was like a Western modern country. It would have had all the same flaws and all the same issues. The Muslim Brotherhood was banned in that country as soon as the more or less current Regime took control.

Joe: People have heard of the term Ba'athist, right?

Jason: Can we stop calling them a Regime and start calling them a government because that's what they are.

Niall: Thank you.

Jason: It's a government.

Niall: I slipped there.

Jason: There's no such word as Regime. What does that even mean?

Niall: It's supposed to have bad connotations.

Jason: It's supposed to have bad connotations but they're a government. They could be a bad government.

Niall: I was thinking Regime because there are obviously many governments that have come and gone since, but more or less, Syria is, in its current era follows the same model.

Jason: Right now America is a Neo-conservative Regime, a neocon kind of thing.

Niall: Ba'athist. Explain.

Jason: Sorry, I interrupted.

Joe: People have heard of the Ba'athist's because Saddam was a Ba'athist. There was a lot of talk - the only two countries that were Ba'athist in the Middle East, that were Ba'athist; Iraq and Syria.

Jason: Kind of sounds like a Party that should show up in France.

Jason: That was so mean, I am so sorry, I apologize profusely for that.

Joe: To all the French people? No?

Jason: No.

Joe: Just apologizing to whoever. Because there was a whole process of de-Ba'athification in Iraq immediately after the...

Jason: So they switched the showers?

Joe: Yes, it was a re-showerfication, a de-Ba'athification. And it's interesting because people assume that was just getting rid of Saddam and the remnants of the Saddam Regime, and they went as far as to stop anybody that's ever been a member of the Ba'ath party in Iraq from having a job. They all got kicked out of their jobs. School teachers, people who were just a member of the Party just because kind of joined the party type thing because it's a dumb thing and keep your head down and join the party. It wasn't as bad as Communist Russia or anything like that but the Ba'ath Party was the real party and people joined it because they identified with it or liked it. A lot of people were members of it.

And the de-Ba'athification process in Iraq in 2004 under Paul Bremer was terrible because it really fed the insurgency and turned ordinary people against the Americans because a large percentage of the population were members of this Party and suddenly anybody who was a member of this Party could not work. They were kicked out of all their jobs; school teachers, trash collectors, everybody was gone. And eventually a year or two later they overturned that because they realized what a horrible idea that was.

But what Ba'ath Party in Iraq and Syria goes back to the 1940's. And it was basically a sect, I can't remember the name of the guy. His name wasn't Ba'ath. The name of the guy who started it.

Jason: His name was tub.

Joe: It was a movement that sought enlightenment or renaissance and the rebirth of Arab culture, Arab values and Arab society. It's supported the creation of a single party states and rejected political pluralism for an unspecified length of time. The Ba'ath party theoretically uses an unspecified length of time to develop an enlightened Arabic society and is based on principles of Arab Nationalism, Pan-Arabism, Arab Socialism as well as social progress and is a secular ideology. They support socialist economics to a varying degree and support public ownership over the heights of the economy but opposes the confiscation of private property. So it's basically about creating or promoting ...

Jason: It's communistic.

Joe: That's what people might see it as, but really what it was it's pretty similar to socialist states in Western Europe, like France for example.

Jason: That goddamn Socialism.

Joe: They wanted progress, modernization, and they were secular, i.e., they were not Islamic Fundies. So that's what the Americans were doing. They were trying to get rid of anybody - and what they're doing now in Syria - trying to get rid of any group or governing group and anybody in the country who supports the ideas of progress, modernization, secularism, i.e., non-fundamentalist Islam in an Arab society. That's what the Americans are fighting against, that's who they are overthrowing. That's who they overthrew in Libya. Gaddafi was exactly the same. They've been going into the middle east and the Magreb and stuff, overthrowing Arab governments that want to be modern, progressive, non-fundamentalist Islamic, and more like the Western world. You can't get any more opposite to what they claim they're doing.

They're doing exactly the opposite of what they claim to do. But of course they create the reality on the ground of there being a fundie-Islam threat or problem in these countries to America, i.e., they are trying to take away our freedoms by flying planes into buildings and stuff, or that's what they might do again, again, by actually getting a bunch of these fundie's, training them, arming them and putting them into these countries and then saying 'look, see, we told you they were there'. And they're using them - it's so opposite of the truth of what they're saying. They really go far down this road of doing exactly the opposite, in so many different ways, of what they claim to doing.

Not only are they overthrowing non-fundamentalist, progressive Arab Regimes, but they are supporting the fundies and trying to put them in power in these countries. So really, you can't get any more complete contradiction or exactly the opposite of what they claim to be doing.

Jason: Well from my limited understanding from this whole situation in the Middle East, this kind of thing has been going on a long time since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, when they started cutting up and splitting the Middle East. It's like a divide and conquer thing and I don't think it's about oil. I don't think that it's about the control of resources either. I think it's a religious situation. There think that there are some seriously fundamentalist Christians who are trying to bring about the Apocalypse there.

Joe: You have to wonder about whether religion is actually a real factor or whether it's just being used.

Jason: I'm not talking about modern - no, we're talking about different religions. There is this huge body of evidence that deep within the bowels of governments and militaries, there are these groups of people that have this really weird religious series of beliefs and they go through all these weird rituals and there's all this anecdotal evidence surrounding it. And a lot of times it's attributed to Satanism and things like that, but I don't think it is. I think it's these people are secret society type of situation. Of course it sounds completely insane. I'm not going to use the 'I' word because I don't believe in that crap. It's not Rosicrucian's or Illuminati or any of that BS. But what I do think that informs their policy's, their ideas and their plans, is some sort of weird, twisted religious ideology. Because I just don't think it's about oil.

Joe: Well, I think that might be one factor but I'd say there are various different factors, and in terms of the motivation for this kind of thing, who gives the ultimate orders? There are various levels of people involved in the planning and orchestration of this. And the people at the very top, what do the people? They have their ideology. The people down below you have to explain it to them in a slightly different way to get them on board, like the military generals and stuff. Or even if you want to get the corporate people on board, you might have to sell them the idea of oil, get the backing of big oil companies and say 'listen, we want to do this, and guess what, you can get access to oil.' And they are like, 'Okay, we'll do that.'

Jason: This kind of stuff has been going on steadily since who brought over all those Nazis with Project Paperclip. And it was such a suspicious situation that all those Nazi scientists were into occult BS and they were a bunch of wannabe Illuminati kind of people and there's no reason to think they didn't continue that kind of weirdness when they got over there. That's just my crazy conspiracy theory.

Niall: There is one society, the Muslim Brotherhood, that I'm really, really suspicious about. Here's a group that is banned in Syria and has been for decades, whose representative recently came into power in Egypt post-revolution, and who have a long history of ties with British Intelligence, MI6. It does make you wonder, this kind of secret society. I mean they aren't that secret. They're a public organization and they pretends to be religious and yet constantly get involved in the politics. And I do wonder what they believe. Well this part of the world is where the three big monotheistic religions are born; Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

Jason: I would argue that India is pretty close where Buddhism came from. We were arguing that earlier. That whole region is like a religion factory.

Niall: Yeah, now are they religious people? I don't know. When you look what is done in the name of the religious fundamentalists in Syria right now, they are engaged in the most extreme forms of barbarism.

Joe: They're just animals. They're not religious at all.

Niall: If you think about being religious, they are extremely materialistic.

Jason: Right, but so is modern religion. Christianity is fundamentally a materialist religion and so is Judaism. All of them are, for the most part, materialist religions. It's all about bodily resurrection, you go to heaven and you sit next to Jesus, he pat's you on the shoulder, you get like seventy virgins; all these different things. Or if you do a really good job, God will make you the great nation and you'll rule over all the other countries of the world. All of those religions promise something completely physical, bodily resurrection, a bunch of virgins. I mean, if you're incorporeal in a spirit, how are you going to enjoy seventy virgins?

Niall: Well, each of them has their messiah coming down at the end times when there is war and chaos during Armageddon. Is this situation unfolding not Armageddon? Creating the facts on the ground to fulfill each of their own versions of the prophecy. For Muslims it's the return of the prophet Mohammed.

Joe: But Jesus said, like the whole idea of heaven and stuff and spirituality for these people is very physical. It's very materialistic. So for them, a fulfillment of a prophecy would also be material, i.e., their idea of a heaven on earth, the ushering in the new kingdom and stuff is basically what it plays out as on the ground, is basically them getting to lord it over all of the world, as the elite, getting to lord it over - they don't need to go to heaven. They don't want to die. They want to have their heaven on earth which is basically getting to dominate and control, and exploit as many as people as possible. That's their idea of heaven. That's the psychopathic idea of heaven. And this idea in mainstream religion of heaven and the reward and all that kind of stuff, is completely psychopathic because it has nothing to do with the real spirituality whatsoever.

Jason: I don't even think it goes as far as to be a literal interpretation of Christian or Judaism or Islam. I think that these guys have their own personal interpretation of the religions. They think they are in on some sort of occult secret. I don't think that they really, truly, deeply believe it. I think for them it's fun. When you're so rich and powerful I don't think you have much else to do when you can buy nine-hundred thousand Ferrari's no problem and you can buy paintings for thirty-million bucks a pop, what are you going to do on a Sunday night?

Joe: What's spirituality for a psychopath?

Jason: For a rich psychopath.

Joe: It's being rich and being powerful. The height of their spirituality is physical jollies, and they can never be satiated; they always want more and more and more and more. So it's not spirituality at all, and we were talking about this earlier on and the idea that differences between people around the world, for normal peoples would ever cause one group of people to want to go and attack and kill another group of people is utterly ridiculous, from a normal human perspective.

I mean for most of human history, for large portions of human history, people interacted with each other. Going back two-thousand years, when maritime people travelled in boats from their part of the land down the coast for a few days, weeks or whatever, got to a different place, found a different group of people and established ties with them, saw that they were doing things differently and it was all good. Maybe even exchanged if they found a different kind of idea of spirituality, they would say 'that's kind of cool, that's kind of similar to ours'. But surely if all human beings are all the same then surely we all have a common spirituality, right?

Maybe we're not all the same but if we are all the same in a very fundamental way then there's only one spirituality for human beings if they are all made from the same stuff. Any higher ideas are the same for everybody. Maybe that's not the case, but certainly, in terms of psychopaths, they are the ones who exploit these differences between people and get people to see those differences as something evil and have to wipe out those other people that are different from us.

But that's totally unnatural for a normal human being. And maybe what you're seeing there in that exploitation of the differences, is you're seeing some kind of unconscious, visceral understanding within the psychopathic mind, of a difference between them and normal humanity. And they're the ones who want to kill normal - because any idea of difference is really in them, versus the rest of normal humanity and they impose that on normal humanity and try and get normal humanity to fight each other over contrived differences that are not natural to them.

Jason: You notice that they do those is that they (psychopaths) project onto the other group of people, all those attributes that we would attribute to psychopaths, to themselves. The things that they're doing, they basically pin it on the other people and of course we're going to want to go after these other people, of course we are going to want to fight them. And it's not that they're different. It's more like they are doing all this bad stuff. But that's all the bad stuff that they're doing. They talk about this guy's regime suppressing peaceful protests. What happened at Occupy Wall Street?

Joe: Exactly, yeah.

Jason: How many peaceful protests are suppressed in Europe and the United States? It's a pot calling the kettle black.

Joe: People in the media, over the last couple of years, have tried to demonize Assad in saying that he's a brutal dictator.

Jason: He could be a douche-bag.

Joe: Well, I'm not saying he's a wonderful guy.

Jason: He is a government ruler.

Joe: He's could be a dictatorial ruler and his clan could be dictatorial rulers.

Jason: He's a douche-bag by definition in my opinion.

Joe: Well, I kind of disagree in the sense that in the modern age you can't have anything too perfect. You can strive for perfection but nowhere on this planet is it perfect. Certainly not the US or the West, and the things that they come up with to demonize Assad with is political prisoners, saying he has political prisoners.

Jason: Like the US doesn't? What about Guantanamo Bay?

Joe: Obviously there's political prisoners all over the U.S., but worse than that, usually what happens in the U.S. and western countries is when you have a political dissident, for example a journalist, who is exposing something about the government or saying something about the government that the government doesn't want exposed, what very often and has repeatedly happened in the U.S. is that guy is killed secretly and quietly.

Jason: And now the government has the power to do it legally.

Joe: Well exactly. But because Assad does it, or someone else does it, does exactly the same thing - not exactly the same thing, doesn't kill them, just puts them in prison, he's the bad guy. And because he does it semi-publicly or you can actually hear about it, suddenly he's held up as a brutal, evil dictator. But in the U.S., far worse is being done because they are killing people political dissidents. They're killing people who disagree with the government, but they do it secretly and quietly so that people never know. They have the technology...

Jason: Assad obviously never read Machiavelli, whereas the American government is very Machiavellian. They never appear to be doing anything bad. They get other people, secret people, the CIA to do it in a dark corner somewhere. They fly you off to some prison in another country and get you tortured.

Niall: About those political prisoners in both Syria and Libya; when the War on Terror was launched post-9/11, both Gaddafi and Assad cooperated with the United States and imprisoned some of the people that the US was saying are terrorists. They also cooperated in extraordinary rendition, having them sent either into Syria or from Syria to be tortured in some black site and then ultimately end up in Guantanamo. These people invariably were actually extremists and nutcases. When Libya was attacked ...

Joe: There were two groups of people.

Niall: ... there were huge amounts of prisoners who were released. And who were they? They were all the nut jobs. They were the Al-Qaeda. They were the ones who had been rounded up to support the War on Terror.

Joe: Exactly, the Americans want these people out on the streets because they are their proxy foot soldiers to overthrow this secular, progressive, Arab regime. They want these people out on the streets so they kind of say about Gaddafi and about Assad, they say 'well he's got political prisoners'. No, these people are nutcases who want to impose a fundamentalist Islamic State in the country and because Assad and Gaddafi wanted a secular, progressive Regime they said 'no, you're going to jail.'

Also, the other group of people that he had in jail were people who had been agents of the West who had been infiltrated into the countries to try and sow discord. So if you're the ruler of a country and you see these foreign agents coming in and they are starting to stir things up, and sow lies, and start demonstrations, and whip people up, and spread lies about the government, what are you going to do? And they're foreigners basically. So what are you going to do? You're going to put them in jail. You're going to say 'listen, you're trying to destabilize our country. You're trying to bring down to the level of - you're trying to foment essentially, some type of a military conflagration in our country which will be to the extreme detriment of the local population, the civilian population' as has happened in Syria.

So he sees this happening, and sees this as the plan, because it's always been the plan that they followed over and over again. You don't have to be a genius to work out that is their modus operandi; that's the way they work. So you see this happening, what do you do? You put them in jail because they are a threat to national security. They are the threat to the country and a real threat to the civilian population of the country, so you put them in jail. Unfortunately when you do that, you're held up in the Western press as being this evil dictator that won't allow dissent. Well hang on a minute. Actually there's something about the U.S. government actually that you're not allowed to do.

Niall: As you're looking for that, I want to say something here. I would advise anyone wondering about Assad's character, and genuinely interested in discerning one from the other, to take Jason's advice and not believe a word your government says.

Jason: Don't believe a word I say either. I don't know if the guy...

Niall: Jay, what I'm saying is I don't know the guy either. But I've heard him speak and seen what he's written over the years and my god, he's either an awesome actor or he actually knows what's he's talking about. He is plain spoken, he's frank, he's saying exactly what we're saying here tonight is really going on in Syria and all his words have been twisted in the Western media to saying 'well, he would say that, wouldn't he? He's an evil, bloody dictator'. i.e., he's a psychopath. That's what they are insinuating. Psychopaths are insinuating he's a psychopath.

Jason: Here's the thing that strikes me about the whole situation. I don't remember the name of the guy, it's not Agathocles, but they quoted Machiavellian when he wrote The Prince. He writes about this guy who is going to take over this country or this province somewhere and he realizes that he doesn't want to look bad to the people so he goes out and he finds the worst, most murderous judge he can. I mean, this guy is just bad. And he puts him in charge of doing all the prosecutions in the area. And this guy goes through. He chops everybody's heads off, all this stuff.

People are up in arms and the guy comes in, he says 'oh, I didn't know! He was so highly recommended.' And then he arrests the guy and chops his head off and then he killed all of the people he wanted to kill, all of the citizens that he wanted to get rid of, and he looked like a saint. And of course, Machiavelli held this guy up as saying 'this is the strategy, if you need to kill a bunch of people or do something bad, you get the most criminal person and you put them in a position of power, let them abuse it, and then you come in and rescue everybody from them. You've killed all the people you've wanted to kill and now you come off smelling like a rose.' And that's what the U.S. does.

Joe: Yeah. But the thing that I was going to say was that it's interesting to note that in terms of America's support of the so-called opposition in Syria, which includes criminal terrorists and foreign fighters that are trying to effect regime change, it underscores a really stark hypocrisy in terms of U.S. law and the kind of wonderful society and form of government and law that the U.S. has.

Jason: And a fearless leader.

Joe: Because according to U.S. Federal Law, and specifically, if you're interested, it's 18 U.S.C. 2385, on advocating the overthrow of government, it says that 'Advocating the overthrow of government, which is organizing or help or attempt to organize any society, group or assembly or persons to teach, advocate or encourage the overthrow or destruction of the government of the United States or the government of any political subdivision therein by force of violence, there are serious consequences, including fines and prison sentences up to 20 years.

So in U.S. law, you are not allowed, on pain of 20 years and probably imprisoned for the rest of your life, you're not allowed to overthrow the U.S. government, BUT, the U.S. government is allowed to overthrow those same laws that they hold so sacrosanct and so wonderful, they don't apply to other countries.

Niall: I think as a signatory to international law and precedent that was established a hundred years ago, the U.S. Regime, can I use that term here, is fully aware that legally you are not allowed to do this. That is why they have contrived and gone to these lengths to, in Iraq's case, present a case for a legal justification 'Oh, he had weapons of mass destruction,' ...

Joe: Which he didn't.

Niall: ... which he didn't. And now in Syria, similar, 'Oh, he's got chemical weapons which he's using them,' blah, blah, blah. That's why they go to these lengths in the back of their mind and/or their legal advisors tugging at their sleeves saying ...

Joe: They don't care about the legalities.

Niall: ... in the world international law exists.

Joe: They don't care about international law. They haven't for a long time. What they've turned to since 9/11 is the application of moral law that isn't written down anywhere but is basically 'he's a bad man.' That was one of the arguments. Ultimately when they couldn't pin it on anything else because they were exposed as liars and all those other justifications, they turned around and said 'well, he was a bad man and we had to get him.' So that's what it comes down to. That's what they're left with. That's what you're meant to pin all of the death, slaughter and murder in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere over the past ten or twelve years is 'they were bad people'.

Jason: Para-moralism.

Joe: Is that good enough? Would you accept that as an argument in court?

Jason: Only a psychopath would do that, though, because they have no concept of morality. You can't murder people for a moral reason. There's no moral justification for murder. There's a pragmatic one. Let's say you have a serial killer going through some town and he's raping and murdering a whole bunch of women and children and you're a cop and you shoot the guy. That's a good thing, in a certain sense.
But you can't ever sit there and say 'I was morally right to do it' because you're not morally right. Murder is fundamentally immoral. Killing somebody is immoral. It's never a moral act. You should weight the consequences, you should weigh what you're doing. You should have some sort of thought about it, but you are not a good person for killing somebody. You can't pat yourself on the back and look in the mirror and go 'it had to be done, I'm so awesome I killed that guy dead and it was good.'

You're a sick person if you're happy and feel any kind of pleasure or satisfaction after killing somebody. That's not healthy. You should feel 'wow, I'm sorry and I hate that I was forced into that position. I hate that I had to do it in order to protect myself, family, my community or whatever it is'. You should weigh this with conscience, but these people have no conscience or understanding of morality. So they can think that there is such a thing as a moral killing, or a murder or a moral execution and it's not. It's fundamentally immoral. That's my opinion, sorry.

Niall: President Obama would agree with everything you just said and then say to you 'but look at that problem over there, my hands are clean of it. We need to go in there and help those people who are being immorally slaughtered.' And he'll say it with a straight face while his own mercenaries are going around cutting kids heads off, eating people's hearts and posting videos of it on YouTube.

Joe: That's what they're supporting. It can't get any more obvious, transparent and clear to people than that. If people want to go sit up and see what's going on; basically the U.S., Britain, France, and whoever else, Israel and these crony client Arab states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are supporting, funding and arming people who advocate and practice the cutting off of people's heads and cutting their hearts out and eating them! And recording it on video and putting it on YouTube. That's what it comes down to, the final line on it. And if you support the U.S. government while it's doing it, that's what you're supporting as well.

Niall: Have you seen this video on YouTube? It's a tiny little group, supposedly a demonstration with some of these so-called rebels in Syria. And in the background they're all dressed like terrorists are supposed to dress and they're waving the black flag of Al-Qaeda. The black flag of Al-Qaeda.

Jason: The black flag. Raise the Jolly Roger! (laughter)

Niall: I've seen a few videos of this tune, I think it's an anthem they've come up with. In this video they have given the microphone to a child of not more than six or seven years old, hoisted him up on someone's shoulders and they are humming along to it as well. And someone has translated the lyrics of the song, and one of them goes 'and then we destroy the World Trade Center and watch the towers fall to dust. Hooray!' These are the people the U.S. - the CIA are paying to cause bloody mayhem in Syria.

Joe: What are people going to do about it? Here's the problem. What are people going to do about it? The facts on the ground are clear. What do people know about Syria or about Assad? They know nothing about it. All they know is what the media is telling them and the media is telling them complete and utter lies. Bullshit, fabricated nonsense that is provably untrue if they would just take five minutes and look it up. Assad is essentially a dictator, but obviously, one person doesn't run the country. The same way that Obama is just a puppet-head, Assad was largely just a puppet-head as well.

Obviously, he didn't have a fairly large infrastructure in any country to run the country. So this group of people had been in power for - they make reference to the family ties going back 40 years, but obviously things change over 40 years. The bottom line was that Syria, up until a couple of years ago, after Iraq was destroyed, was the most progressive, secular, peaceful and pretty cool places in the Middle East to go. And the vast majority of Syrians were fairly happy. They may have had ideas about change and a bit more progressiveness, a bit more modernization or whatever, but generally speaking, as we've just shown, there were no massive anti-Assad demonstrations. It was all fabricated by rent-a-crowds sponsored by the CIA.

That was the situation a couple of years ago until the CIA started to sponsor this regime change business which has resulted in up to 100,000 deaths of civilians and the destruction of the country ...

Jason: In front of a live studio audience.

Joe: In front of a live studio audience, at the hands of fundamentalist, Islamic nut jobs who supposedly the U.S. was out to get 9/11 because they did 9/11, and now they are supporting them in the overthrow of a secular, progressive Arab country and facilitating them in their butchering and murder of 100,000 Syrian civilians.

Jason: While they're singing songs mocking 9/11.

Joe: That is precisely what has happened and what the U.S., Brits and the French, etc. have done and have sponsored, and they do not give a shit. And who's going to support that? Hands up if anyone out there is listening or anyone out there in the world, hands up if you understood that situation. It's fairly simple. It's not very complicated. It's kind of prosaic. Who's going to support that? And if you're a normal human being, obviously you're not, so what are going to do about it? It's just so outrageous and ridiculous, it leaves me kind of speechless, for a second.

Jason: There's nothing you're going to do about it.

Joe: People have to stop to supporting it, at the very least. And like Lisa Guliani, who's been writing recently about 'Support our Troops' on SOTT and has had to write a follow-up article because of the response she got, from some people, not very supportive response...

Niall: Fan mail.

Joe: Anti-fan mail of people saying 'how dare you say that people shouldn't support our troops' and she's trying to make the fairly simple point that 'listen, if your troops are engaged in or working for a psychopathic government that is slaughtering innocent people around the world and your troops are the foot soldiers of that, however deluded they are, conned or however well-intentioned they are, you shouldn't support them.' That's pretty simple. But apparently a lot of people can't get that idea that 'Support Our Troops no matter what' and that the troops aren't the same as the government. Well the troops are doing the bidding of the government and if the government is engaged in crimes against humanity then so are the troops. So don't support them.

Niall: I remember conversations with people in the run-up to the Iraq war. They were with me the whole way in that they thought this was wrong. There's no legal for it, no moral basis for it. And then it was apparent it was going to happen anyway and they came around and said 'Well, it's a done deal, we've got to support the troops'. They were English so there was a natural inclination to do it. But I couldn't believe it! "But you were with me until this point, but now you're going to say 'they're going to be there, they're going to be in danger so I'll support them!'"

Joe: What's wrong with people? Don't support your troops and start protesting against your government for sending the troops. Just accept the fact - anybody who'se got a member of your family in the military, accept the fact that that member of your family has joined the military and appears to be going along with government policy, appears not to have the intellectual capacity to understand the nuances of the situation. It's not very complicated, but if he still can't understand the idea that if your government is sending you off to commit war crimes and to contravene international law, etc., if he can't understand that simple idea and feels compelled because he's been programmed by the military to go along with whatever his superiors tell him, you are going to have to do something. You're going to have to stage an intervention or something. Because he's part of a cult. He's been mind-programmed by a cult and you need to get somebody to come along and kidnap him and put him in a closet and deprogram him because he's a danger to himself and other people all around the world.

Jason: I have to admit that I really fundamentally disagree with that entire line of argument because I am part of the 'Support Your Troops' crowd, unfortunately. I don't think that you should support in the sense of 'yeah, everything you're doing is okay.' It's one thing to be critical of the government and it is one thing to be critical of what the military does, but say for instance, there were stories during the Vietnam War of these vets coming home and protests of people supposedly spitting on them and calling them murderers. And I used to work with a Vietnam vet who had gone into the war. He was 17 years old from the backwoods of Arkansas, missing most of his teeth. They were taking in anybody. He had no education whatsoever and they sent him off to there. And he did a lot of horrible things.

He got shot up and had huge scar all down his body where he was shot up. And he came home and he said 'I didn't understand what was going on. I thought I was doing right and then they tell me I'm doing wrong and I didn't really know.' He was a decently-hearted person. This is a guy, who would after work, he would get out a bottle of whisky and get shit-faced drunk and he would cry constantly about the horrors of the situation. The only time he would really talk about what happened in the war was when he was really drunk.

And I went to school with a lot older guys, who were coming back to school for education who had been in Vietnam, and was sitting there talking to them, and most of them were anti-government. Most of them said 'We were really fucked over. We were fooled. We didn't know what it was about; we didn't understand; we were teenagers, basically." And so supporting your troops in the sense of getting out there and cheering for them that everything they're doing is right is obviously retarded.

Joe: That's what we're talking about.

Jason: But I think that a lot of people, especially in the conspiracy and 9/11 Truth Movement, they go too far in the other direction when they start 'They're all psychopathic murderers! They're killing babies' and all this different stuff. There's this huge problem of suicide. Twenty-two ...

Joe: Per day.

Jason: Vets are committing suicide per day. These people are not heartless, soulless people.

Joe: So, if you support your troops and the troops is a member of your family, then you want to spare them. When you love them, you want to spare them that kind of a situation. You want to spare them from committing suicide or any kind of trauma so you cannot support them if they are being programmed.

Jason: You need to keep focused on the guilty parties.

Joe: Exactly. But what if, like I said, they have been programmed. What if you have a family member who is a member of the military and he, for whatever reason, maybe because of military programming he has gone through, he can't see what's waiting for him when he goes off and he comes back? Surely, in that sense you should support them by trying not let them get sucked into this abusive cult.

Jason: What was the name of the Navy sniper that wrote this book?

Joe: Oh yeah. (Chris Kyle?)

Jason: And I saw an interview with him. And he sat there and said 'yeah, what I did was right.' And I sitting there looking at him and was like 'this guy is not alright'. He was nervous as hell. You could see there was this really kind of like 'yeah, everything I did was correct.' You could see that he kind of felt obligated to say that kind of stuff. But these people, it's not a black and white situation.

Niall: Absolutely.

Jason: I think you can criticize the military and I don't agree with the people who react like 'you don't support our troops when you criticize the military!' But at the same time I feel that a lot of people criticize the military in the wrong ways and say 'Oh a soldier's a psychopath, blah, blah, blah,' and I don't agree with that.

Niall: I think you're conflating judgement of who a person is with judgement of the choices a person has made.

Jason: Right. Sure.

Niall: Okay, now take some poor hick who has gotten himself into something he had no idea about and he comes out of it and realizes he's done wrong. That's not a judgement on him. I think the point we're trying to make here ...

Jason: I understand the point you're trying to make.

Niall: ... is that everything that comes under the banner of trying to 'Support Your Troops' is lie down and take it. We're going to keep doing this and you're going to be behind our policy to the bitter end.

Jason: Yeah, that's wrong. But you should be criticizing policymakers. You can criticize the generals, but that marine out there? Unless he's committing a crime - when they're committing a crime you should say 'look, that's fucked up.' Like those marines that were peeing on corpses. That's not cool!

Niall: Technically, every single action, every single one of them is committing a crime because the war in Iraq is illegal.

Jason: Yeah, but they are not committing a crime.

Niall: Yes they are.

Jason: No they are not.

Niall: In Nuremberg, the precedent was set that 'Oh I was just following orders' is not a defence. Now we can argue the morals of it, but that's the legal position.

Jason: Not all Nazi soldiers were executed or put in prison. Nazi soldiers were let off. And the Nazi soldiers were forced to, by their generals, and by the political people and by everyone around them to swear allegiance to Hitler and all of the generals; Guderian, all of them, Reichenau and Rommel, they really didn't like Hitler all that much but they thought he was a fuck-tart(?) most of the time, but they felt obligated, and they were put into that position and then they felt they had to carry it through.

Niall: Now, if you came across someone who was formerly a soldier and/or a member of the Nazi party, what would your immediate reaction be?

Jason: My immediate reaction be? Most of the soldiers in that war were not operating concentration camps. It's not like they had them every five miles. They were normal soldiers.

Niall: No, but you would agree that the social convention is to revile them.

Jason: Of course!

Niall: That is the lesson that history has bought.

Joe: I think we are talking about a hypothetical situation where any of the soldiers that were involved in the Iraq invasion because it was illegal, should all be tried in court as party to a war crime or party to a crime against humanity, but some of them probably should be tried, not necessarily in that overarching way, but for their specific actions that they took. But the other people who just went there - I would say that most of them should be let off or should not be convicted for anything like that on the basis of diminished responsibility because I really do think that, as the military says 'Break 'em down to build them up'; they have been brainwashed.

If you have someone who has been brainwashed like the guy that you knew that was the Vietnam vet who only realized afterwards, there has to be some consideration given and each case would have to be taken on its own merits. You can't place a blanket kind of condemnation against all of them. But you can avoid that kind of situation from every coming about by making sure that none of the members of your family who are troops or soldiers, ever go on one of these wars. That would be a best case scenario. That's the solution to it; don't let them go anywhere.

Jason: The military is not really an opt-in, opt-out. Once your opt-in, you're in, it's not so easy to get out without doing something wrong. You don't really leave the military so much as you get kicked out. It's not like you can just quit. 'Oh, decided I didn't really want to be in this war'. Quitting on the battle lines is a sin that sometimes they will shoot you for. And they used to in World War II.

Joe: For cowardice.

Jason: So these people are in a very difficult position.

Joe: It's a very difficult situation. It's a problem that doesn't really seem to have a solution.

Jason: You have less in common with the policy makers then you do the soldiers. The soldiers are people from your hometown. They are poor people, they are uneducated, they are people who are sucked in, drawn into the military and sent over there to do that stuff and you have something in common with them. They are being duped as much as you and everyone around you have been. They are victims as well in this.

Joe: Yeah, most of them.

Jason: Now, of course there are obviously psychos that are going around killing people and having rape party's and those people should be prosecuted, but the soldiers as this whole amorphous mass in the military are not an evil bunch of horrible psychopaths.

Joe: But I think our point is that people should not support our troops in the sense of backing them in going off to war for a psychopathic agenda, for the agenda of a psychopathic leader. You should try and say 'listen, this isn't good and it's not going to be good for you or anyone so don't do it.' So in that sense, don't support our troops in doing that kind of thing. But you can support them as people. Like I said and like I think we've just concluded, that it's an impossible situation that doesn't have a solution right now. Nobody's going to change anything, except there may be an element that can change things and that, unfortunately, may be required. And here's a little example of it.

There's a news report from just a couple of days ago: "Freak Afghan hailstorm damages eighty U.S. helicopters." So in the absence of people power being able to do anything about the psychopathic rampaging and military invasions going on around the world, maybe Mother Nature can step in. Because in this story: "A freak hailstorm in Afghanistan damaged more than eighty U.S. military helicopters, wrecking rotor blades, shattering windows and grounding aircrafts for weeks. Golf ball sized hailstorms struck Kandahar airfield (this is a couple of months ago) on April 23rd, triggering an emergency operation to get the helicopters back in the air as soon as possible."

"The US military described how the sudden unprecedented hailstorm has badly dented the sheet metal skins of the helicopters that were parked outside the..." So maybe that's a solution? People have been put in such a position that they cannot do anything about the state of the situation going on in the world. So Mother Nature will come in.

Niall: People are trying. In the background, in the Middle East, we've mentioned it earlier, they've had the Arab Spring and what is clearly at least partially a grassroots movement that reflects a genuine revolutionary feeling among people. Of course it was in Egypt, Bahrain and Qatar as well. But Bahrain stands out for me. It's disgusting to think of the sheer hypocrisy of 'oh, we're going to support the revolution that wasn't actually there in Syria and just then suppress and totally ignore efforts to actually change something in a country nearby.'

Joe: It's so massively flagrant and obvious what they are doing. And I just wonder how many people are even paying attention? Because if more people were simply paying attention they could not avoid the conclusion that the real aggressor in the world today is the West; it's America, the Brits, the French and all the other Western powers that support them and are involved in these invasions to other countries and the killing of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions at this stage of people, and supporting extremist nutcases like the Al Nusra Front which is basically Al-Qaeda in Syria.

Supporting them, arming them, allowing and encouraging to kill civilians and at the same time claiming that's a popular revolution, which is nonsense because a hundred thousand Syrian civilians have been killed as a direct result of U.S. support in this. And at the same time, like you said, in other Middle Eastern countries where there is a genuine rebellion or popular revolution or uprising against a truly brutal and authoritarian regime that cares nothing for its people like in Bahrain or Qatar, that tries to get off the ground and is actually condemned or ignored by the West. And in fact they also ship weapons there, but when that happens they actually ship weapons to the government so they can put down a genuine, popular uprising.

Niall: Have you noticed that in all the footage of mass demonstrations, wherever they are in the world, the riot gear and the equipment they have usually all looks the same. It's bizarre.

Jason: It's all made by the same companies.

Niall: Well, then you see 'made in USA' stamped on the side of the grenade the ...

Joe: Made in China, assembled in the USA.

Niall: I was trying to get a handle on some kind of idea of what figures they're throwing at this manufactured civil war in Syria. Obviously in covert, we're not privy to the size of the budgets, but there was something recently. Qatar, a tiny country in the Middle East but very much a U.S. client regime, has spent $30 billion so far.

Joe: On what?

Niall: On funding and facilitating the Syrian rebels. They want Assad gone with a powerful will.

Joe: Because he is a threat, like we mentioned previously, and the ideology that he follows, which is Ba'athist; which is a secularist, modern, progressive...

Jason: Socialists.

Joe: He does not want fundamentalist Islam to be the rule in the country and the method by which people are kept down because he and a few other leaders in the Middle East have seen that that just plays into American intent to use that as an excuse to go around invading other countries. And also these people in the Middle East, these Middle Eastern client states, these guys want to maintain that fundi-Islam, Wahhabism, Salafism, Sharia Law and all that kind of stuff; really brutal, despotic fundamentalist Islam social code. They want that because that's what keeps them in power because itgives them the tools and it's the rules and the laws that allow them to crack down on any dissent whatsoever.

So if you take that away and have it secular, non-religious progressive socialist where you're essentially empowering the people to some extent, they're out of a job very quickly. They know that if they ever allowed that to happen there would be revolution in a moment and that's why they supported the invasion of Iraq and that's why they're supporting what's happening in Syria because they don't want any other Arab leaders to stand in opposition to them or be an example of a way the Arab world could be compared to what they want it to be.

Jason: The fear is that the socialist,

Joe: They're monarchs.

Jason: ... secular movement would start spreading to other Arab states. They see it as a cancer that's growing in the Arab world that they (Syria?) want to get free of this sixteenth, seventeenth century hard core fundamentalist Islamism.

Niall: The irony is the Pan-Arab secular vision that Nasser originated, and is today represented by Assad, that vision is on the flipside, the other vision isthe Pan-Arab Caliphate of fundi extremism, which is what Al-Qaeda is supposedly all about.

Joe: But the question is why does the U.S. want to do this? Why do they want to overthrow these secular, progressive governments in the Middle East? I don't they necessarily do and I don't think they would have, because okay, you could say they want to maintain these despotic, fundi rulers in the Middle East because they have more access to oil and major resources in the Middle East, but I don't think that is really necessary for them to have access. They could strike deals and say 'we have the main technology that can extract the oil and you're going to have to cut us a deal or whatever' so the elephant in the room here ...

Jason: These are already client states.

Joe: Of course. But the elephant in the room here as an explanation as to why this has happening is Israel, because Israel cannot continue, and knows that it will not and could not have existed for so long without this kind of intervention from the U.S. and Israel's own manipulations of Arab States. So while the Americans might have given up this idea of invading all these countries in the Middle East and overthrowing governments, they might take a little bit of a hit on access to oil, but when you weigh it up it's not really worth it.

Jason: The spice must flow.

Joe: 'It's not really worth it to do it for us to do that. We can get it anyway.' I think they would have decided that except for Israel. In Israel's case it's not just a matter of having a little bit less access or less profit on your oil resources, for Israel, it's the destruction of Israel, it's the disappearance of the Jewish State of Israel. Because if that kind of a secular Pan-Arab ideology would spread all over the Middle East around Israel, where Israel had nothing to fight against, no enemy, had nobody trying to destroy it or the appearance of somebody trying to destroy it, if they didn't have that as an excuse for their raison d'être 'This is why we must remain here and exist because we are fighting against this extremist Muslim threat to the West and America. You have to support us in this', if they didn't have that and they wouldn't if secularism and progressive Arab nationalism spread all around Israel and the Middle East, Israel would ultimately feel the pressure of what it has done and what it is based on, what the State of Israel is based on, which is injustice and the dispossession of hundreds of thousands of people of their homes and their land.

So Israel can push that issue and that problem, and has done that 60 or 70 years, has pushed that to the sidelines because there is a more important issue here. The more important issue of 'fundamentalist Islamic threat to the West and the entire world and we are your policemen to stop this from happening.' If that went away, suddenly everyone's living happily here, 'Israel, we have a question for you? It's been on the backburner for a while and we need you to address it. How about giving that land back and how about not being a solely Jewish State?'

Which is what would ultimately happen, the border of Israel basically dissolving and the Jewish people of Israel dissolving into some other configuration of a Middle Eastern State because they are in the middle of the Middle East, they are in Muslim lands. And at that point it would be secular, there would be no reason for them not to do it, there would be no reason for them to take the belligerent stance they have taken for 60 years of meddling and the question of justice would come up for the Palestinians will come up. And the last thing the Israeli's want, ever to be on the table, is any serious consideration of justice for the Palestinians because they are in the wrong. Hello!

Jason: One of my favourite quotes from Martin Luther King is "Justice delayed is Justice denied." And that's what's going on. As long we allow the persistence of delayed justice then we are denying it to those people, which is terrible. But I think what the West fears is an Arab Union, an Arab equivalent to the European Union. A conglomeration of Arab Socialist, even, dare I say it, democratic kinds of states together forming an economic union and agreeing with each other.

Niall: Just normal countries ruled more or less normally.

Jason: Yes, they fear that because they don't want a union of peoples against them. Especially the European Union doesn't want this. The European Union is very, very strongly against the idea of there being any unions of people together. That was the big fear about the Soviet Union that's the big fear about China. Are will all the disparate Oriental peoples going to come together? Their big fear in that sense would be a Japan/China union of any kind or North Korea/South Korea, this type of thing. That's why they have that whole ...

Joe: And yet the European Union are doing this.

Jason: Of course.

Joe: It's about a power play. "We're top dog."

Niall: It's consolidated along acceptable lines. The European Union is not a social democracy or at least it's not anymore. It's consolidated along the same neo-liberal lines as Washington is.

Joe: But it's a power play basically. We were on first and we don't want anybody to stand as a threat or competition against our dominance.

Niall: This is why Gaddafi had to go. His vision was to strengthen an African Union which already exists but to make it more along the lines of the European Union. This is why Chavez had to go. His vision was a Latin-American Union.

Jason: Same in Latin America. There's no real union in Latin America, there's no real union in Africa, there's no real union in Asia and there's certainly no union in the Middle East. There's only a European Union and its connection to the United States which is not really a union itself. It's got Canada there who's its lapdog and Mexico who just doesn't know what to do about the whole situation. But the only real group of people are - what do you expect, it's 'white makes right' all over again. It's the western European - for hundreds of years the British Empire, France, England, Germany, Spain, all those people, they went around the world, they colonized it, they've been controlling and manipulating it. This is just a continuation of that same philosophy from them.

Niall: Is there something wrong with white people?

Jason: Yeah there is. There is fundamentally something wrong with white people. We are the least numerous, we are the minority on the planet. We are the meanest sons of bitches ever. We are duplicitous, manipulative. We and are one of the few peoples that takes so much delight in killing and suppressing each other.

I used to look at the whole situation with blacks in America and with slavery, and I said and they always thought white people were together on this thing but we weren't because white people are suppressed too. We don't just do it to African-Americans or Africans or Asians or Latinos, rich white people suppress and mess over poor white people.

Joe: So maybe we could say that rather than white people are the evil sons of bitches, maybe we could say there might be some evidence that psychopathy or white Caucasian genes

Jason: I think that white psychopath is the worst psychopathy ...

Joe: Well maybe white Caucasian genes select for psychopathy in a stronger way than does Asian or African.

Jason: I think they do.

Joe: That might be the problem there.

Niall: Yeah, it's not unique to white people of course, but something kind of related. I want to get in a word about the current Egyptian leader. I think he is Prime Minister Morsi.

Jason: Morrissey?

Niall: His surname is Morsi, M-O-R-S-I. Today is the anniversary of him coming into power in Egypt so this post-revolution Egypt is supposed to be the great beginning for them and there is a massive demonstration being organized against him. They already want him out. The people are calling for fresh elections. They realize he is a Muslim Brotherhood stooge. This guy, throughout the last year, vis-à-vis Egyptian/Syrian relations, this guy has been calling for and I would assume facilitating fundamentalists like him in Egypt to go to Syria and fight the 'good fight.'

Jason: Of course. He's a stooge.

Niall: I was stunned when I first heard that. This is so flagrantly against his own interests, surely, as an Arab.

Jason: But he doesn't serve his own interests.

Joe: He's playing to somebody else's tune.

Jason: He serves the white, psychopathic rich people; the West's interests, all these client regimes and puppet rulers.

Niall: Another interesting thing is that Iraq's Prime Minister - now Iraq, you think the U.S. are gone, kind of, they've got their client regime there, but their Prime Minister doesn't always play ball. His name's Al-Maliki and he has publicly condemning the Egyptian leader Morsi. The Iraqi's are on the Syrians side when it comes to this and Al-Maliki has come out blaming the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood for the continuing bloodshed and pointing out that Morsi is encouraging these nutcases to go into Syria.

He says "I'm astonished to see the head of State of Egypt telling people to go and fight in Syria. Morsi is openly gathering clerics and endorsing the fight there. He is explicitly asking for people in Syria to kill Shi'ites."

Now when you look at the broad picture of the Middle East, what struck me was ten years ago the narrative was trying to divide Muslims in particular, along the Shi'ite and Sunni lines and I thought that was ridiculous because they have obviously lived in peace before now. But looking at the situation now, ten years on, and it's like they've made this dividing line come true because when I look at who's on what side, it's pretty much Iraq and Iran, Syria - well Syria's not Shi'ite but it looks like this Sunni/Shi'ite divide has been made manifest. I will explain in a bit.

The natural allies of Hamas would be the Syrian government. The Syrian government have been supporting the Palestinian cause consistently but the Hamas leadership has come out against the Syrian government and for the dirty war.

Joe: But when you talk about Hamas you have to realize where they are and how they are completely controlled by Israel. There's even evidence that they were originally set up by Israel as a counterpoint to Arafat's PLO which was secular and all those things that we talked about in regards to Assad. So Hamas was set up as a fundi organization and those guys are happy enough to play along and to play that fundi Islam card because it maintains their positions of power over the people.

Jason: Hamas is Israel's Emmanuel Goldstein.

Joe: Exactly, so that's the explanation for Hamas. Hamas will never be anything other than controlled by Israel. And that's the unfortunate reality.

Niall: Well, that's something I'm going to have to take on the chin because I was pretty shocked when I heard it. I thought 'surely Hamas would take any support they can and here they are telling Assad, after all his support for the Palestinian cause, to take a hike and support Israel on this.'

Joe: Hamas may think, being the fundi's that they are, that if a bunch of fundi Islamic nut jobs are set up in power in Syria that that might aid them in waging holy war against the Israeli's and upping their ability to get more support.

Niall: There's another factor to take into account, though. Iran is supposed to be a fundamentalist regime.

Joe: Yeah, but it's not.

Niall: They're supporting the secular State. Hezbollah is supposed to be a fundamentalist entity...

Joe: Yeah but they're not. That's lies! Hezbollah are completely - the idea of secularism is there can be a religion. France is secular but it's a Christian country. Lebanon is a pluralist with a bunch of different religions living there but Hezbollah are Muslims but they don't ascribe to fundamentalist Islam, i.e. the Quran would essentially be the rule book, that's if you wanted to look at the government list of rules and regulations, look at the Quran. The laws? Just look at the Quran.

They (Hezbollah) don't want that, so that essentially makes them secular, i.e., they don't want religion to be the defining aspect or the book by which society is defined or regulated because anybody with half-a-brain can see that most religions are nonsense in the sense of the list of rules and regulations they have. I mean, only the Orthodox Jews have gone to the extreme of using the Torah where they won't kill a fly on a Sunday, they won't pick their left nostril on a Saturday but they're allowed to pick their right nostril; that kind of thing. There's Orthodox Jews who do that.

But talking about the religious aspect of it, it's funny how the whole holy war Jihadist's has become this meme that's spread around. Ask any average person on the street 'what's the major threat to the West?' and they will say 'it's the Jihadist holy war type people.' And they don't even care enough or have interest in it. They just want these sound bites to repeat this simple explanation. They don't even have enough interest to look into it to realize that that idea of holy war or Jihad, as they understand it, does not exist in the Quran. So what are they basing it on? It doesn't exist in the Quran. Jihad in the Quran is basically a spiritual aspect which is striving or struggling in the spiritual sense.

Niall: Internal war.

Joe: It's an internal war against the devil and basically trying to be a good Muslim. That's what Jihad is. And the other thing is throughout the Ottoman empire and other Muslim empires before that there has been no Muslim holy war ever waged in that sense.

Jason: Only the West, western Europe have ever done it.

Joe: It's only the West and the crusades who did it for 300 years at the turn of the first millennium, did it for hundreds of years. Christians waged literally a holy war where they went over to the Middle East to take it back from the Muslims, because they were Muslims and they were killing Muslims because they were Muslims because they were supposedly on their Christian holy sites, which was nonsense. When you think about the history of it, Mohammed was 600 A.D. and that's when the first Muslim empire spread across - they were able to walk in, if you look at the history of it, they were able to spread - and it was quite a big empire, right across from the entire Middle East all across...

Niall: Indonesia.

Joe: And this way and round into Spain and even into Italy. And you wonder how did they, just at that point in time, how were they able to suddenly exert themselves? It seemed to be a pretty natural process. And then you realize that in 540 A.D., most of Europe was destroyed...

Niall: Obliterated.

Joe: By a cometary impact. And of course the people on the edges of it who weren't, which in those days as Islam asserted itself and spread, those people just came across and went 'oh look an empty house' or 'oh look, the ruins of a house. There's nobody here so let's move.' And large groups of people, as population expanded, just moved across new territory and if they find no opposition they say 'hey, let's do that.' And they did that and they were there for hundreds of years.

In Spain it was from 700 A.D. to 1492 A.D, the supposed re-conquest of Spain; that was just a (skip) until 1400. There was no re-conquest. As soon as Western Europe and the Christians reinvented themselves and came out of the rubble after that cometary destruction, the Muslims just retreated.

Jason: They were kind of shagged off.

Joe: Well, they were like 'oh, you guys are back? Alright...'

Jason: Sorry.

Joe: 'We'll see you later.'

Jason: It's cold here anyways. (Laughter)

Joe: 'Yeah we don't like it. It's warmer where we are.' So, that's the kind of ebb and flow of it right up until from 1500 A.D. and on you still had the Ottoman Empire as the West started to assert itself in terms of the British Empire, spreading across the world; you had a reassertion of the more modern Western powers. And apart from the Crusades to take that (land) back in 1000 up to 1200 or 1300 A.D., there was no real antagonism or religious war in the latter part of the 2nd millennium, say from 1500 A.D. up until today.

And it's only today that they have manufactured this clash of civilizations where it's Muslim vs. Christian. That has never really existed except when the Christians did it to take back their holy lands which the Muslims had occupied because the Muslims said 'hey, you guys weren't here. I know you had some problems over there in Europe with the whole cometary thing but we just moved in because you guys weren't here.'

Niall: That's what the Zionists claim what they were doing in the near East.

Joe: "A land without a people for a people without a land."

Niall: Exactly. 'There's no one here.' There were people there.

Joe: Of course there were.

Niall: They eliminated them.

Jason: That's what everyone has done. That's what America did. That's probably what the Europeans did. Who knows? Everybody does that and that's probably why Israel going 'why is everybody complaining? You guys did this shit too.'

Niall: Somewhere along the way Christianity was written after the fact to explain to these recovering Europeans, post cometary bombardment, and somebody was whispering into their ears 'what you guys needs to do is go all the way over there to the holy land and reclaim your holy sites.' But that civilization had to come out of nothing and invent this story.

Joe: They needed some substance to their claims for this history of their religion and something for people to hang on to, some 'this is the original holy land, this is where Jesus was born' that whole narrative had to be remade and reconstructed. And it was reconstructed as Laura explains in her books.

Jason: Comets and the Horns of Moses as well as Secret History of the World, both available on Amazon.

Joe: It shows very well how history was basically made up again after these cometary bombardments. They recreated a history out of nothing. Talking about the whole end times stuff, there's an article on Business Insider recently; and I'll just a read a little bit of it because it's quite interesting:
"Last year it was announced that the U.S. was looking to build a secret underground complex in Israel."

Niall: So secret that we know about it.

Jason: It's a ridiculous thing.

Joe: So there's a company called Conti Corp Federal Services in Edison, New Jersey that got the contract for $63,000,000 to build five underground levels and six above-ground buildings. Probably there is the story. There's more to it than this but they have 900 days from February 13th this year (2013), to complete it. The U.S. government then issued another request for a proposal to construct another site, also in Israel and also partially underground. That's going to cost another $100,000,000 to refinish six underground facilities and some currently occupied surface buildings.

"When complete, the compound will have five levels buried underground, six additional above-ground, 127,000 square feet, the first three floors will house classrooms, an auditorium and a laboratory, and they will all be wedged behind shock resistant doors with radiation protection and massive security. Only one gate will allow workers entrance and exit during the project and that one entrance will be guarded by only Israeli's."

Jason: It's all these Armageddon people.

Joe: The other thing is the Americans have requested that mezuzah's will adorn every door in the facility. Does everyone know what a mezuzah is?

Jason: No.

Joe: A mezuzah, which is basically Hebrew for door post, is a piece of parchment inscribed with specific Hebrew verses from the Torah. These verses comprise the Jewish prayer Shema Israel, beginning with the phrase "Here O' Israel, the Lord our God. The Lord is one.' It's affixed to the doorframe in Jewish homes to fulfill the Mitzvah or biblical Commandment to inscribe the words of the Shema on the knob posts of your house.

Jason: Okay.

Joe: It shall be written in un-erasable ink on uncoated leather parchment and be handwritten by a scribe holding a written authorization according to Jewish law. They shall be proofread by computer at an authorized institution.

Niall: With kosher software.

Joe: And it has to be affixed. So nobody knows what these sites that the Americans are having built in Israel are actually for.

Niall: What do they actually say the site is for?

Joe: Guess what the site is called?

Jason: What?

Joe: Site 911. So it seems they are expecting something or maybe they're just protecting their interests, the Americans are doing it to protect their interests.

Jason: It's like they are building Noah's Ark. I think that is the group of people who think there is going to be a nuclear conflagration. I think that that's part of that crowd. There's all these different crowds, the Armageddon crowds, the end of the world crowds, and each one has a different idea, by fire or water or stuff like that, and I think this is the group that thinks there's going to be some sort of nuclear conflagration and Armageddon like htat. They are just totally crazy.

Joe: Getting back to the religion thing, people need to understand that very few people in the world today are practicing, religious people. As in, most people can be split up into Christian or Muslim or other.

Jason: I think almost none of them are.

Joe: But very few are actually practicing. We're talking about 5, 6, 7% depending on the country. For example, in the UK there are 41 million Christians but only about 6 or 7 million are practicing. So 93% of Christians in the UK ...

Jason: And what does even practicing mean?

Joe: Well it means they don't go to church. So practicing means they show up to church.

Jason: Practicing means they are showing up to church but they are hardly practicing Christianity just by showing up to church.

Joe: What we're talking about here in terms of fundi religious type people, on both sides, is a very, very small percentage of the population. But yet it's being presented in terms of the Muslims, that they are all fundi's. The same should be applied to Muslims that all of them are nominally Muslim but very few are actually practicing, which means they are not really interested in following the Quran to the letter of the law. But it's being presented that way which is an attempt to give support to the West is doing that, is spreading that idea to give support to the small fundi psychos.

It's like the psycho's in power have picked out the psycho's in the population and are supporting them as much as possible. In one way that you see evidence for them being psychos in the population is their adherence or adoption of the fundamentalist tenets of any religions because the fundamentalist tenets of any religion are psychopathic in nature.

Jason: The fundamentalist tenet in any religion is exclusionary. People read the bible but they don't realize that fundamentally, the Christian religion pretty much spells out for the most part that not everyone is going to be saved. Very few people are actually going to be raptured. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe 144,000.

Joe: Most are going to be ruptured.

Jason: Most of them are going to be ruptured. There are 7.5, 8 billion people on the planet depending on who you talk to or what numbers you pick. You have to understand that 144,000 of them is a miniscule number. So according to the Christian faith, if you're very hard core, almost everyone except for 144,000 are going to die, or go to hell or be left behind; all these different theories and ideas they come up with.

And that's the perfect psychopathic religion because psychopaths, at the very worst, they're probably about 6% of the population or something like that, this is the number that gets bandied around. But how many of those are actually essential psychopaths? Probably not so many. So it's kind of like an essential psychopath idea. It's the perfect religion for them in the end. I'm sure that most of the other religions are very similar in their idea of the chosen few that are truly god's faithful and getting saved.

Joe: They suck people in. The whole idea of heaven and stuff, I don't think anybody really buys that.

Jason: It's kind of stupid.

Joe: Who wants to do that? Think about what you actually enjoy doing on earth? Most people enjoy being active in some way, have some interests, be productive in some way and learn things. People like to learn different things in different ways. I'm not going to get into value judgements and what you should learn but most people are learning something or at least show an initiative or desire to learn and find out about things.

So, the idea of heaven then, that you're meant to aspire to is your just going to sit around all day in bliss and do nothing. If you sat around in bliss and had nothing to do and were fanned by angels and were fed grapes by 72 virgins, like Seraphim or something, would you not get bored? Of course you would! After a few days you'd be 'I want to get up and do something' so why do you think that would change if you went to heaven? Why do you think you would not get bored with that? Heaven sounds like an extremely boring place so it's completely nonsense. This is another example of what religion actually holds out to you is nonsense.

Jason: Maybe there are plenty of arcade games and there's Parcheesi and all that different stuff and there's plenty of go and everyone's sitting around playing monopoly. There could be all kinds of amusements in heaven. That's totally possible!

Joe: Well, maybe.

Jason: Take a step back because it gets ridiculous before we even get there. The whole concept gets ridiculous before. "God" created the earth and the universe. Now even if you don't believe the universe is very big it's still kind of big from a human perspective, it's kind of large. And even if you are a young Earther it's still old from human standards, even if you believe its 4000-6000 thousand years old it's still actually kind of old. So the idea that "God" did all of this work to give you 74, 80 years to decide whether or not you should get eternal bliss is just retarded!

It's retarded to think that God created this entire creation but only gave you 70 years and the young Earther's are like 'yeah but people used to live 900 years.' Still, in the scale of things, 900 years is miniscule and you are so miniscule in the size of the universe so why would God go through so much trouble if life is just 70 years and then its heaven or hell? Take your pick. Who designed this game? It's over in the blink of an eye and then you either get eternal bliss or eternal hell. It's ridiculous propaganda.

Joe: It's nonsense. But this is what we are saying, very few people actually ascribe to that and most people are just left in the middle where they are like 'yeah, whatever. I'm a Christian because I was born into Christianity' but most people don't actually practice because it's retarded. The whole concept is retarded, and doesn't offer the people anything.

Jason: The carrot and the stick.

Joe: But somehow, today, they are able to use the idea of one religion against another to instil fear in people and have them go or support your troops and go to wage war against one religion that is supposedly coming to attack you and take over the world when the reality is, is that it's a very tiny percentage of the members of that other religion that are being supported and it's been inflated beyond all sense to be this monstrous threat and isn't actually there.

And if people were to turn it around, they could easily do the same, just flip it around, and it could turn out it was actually fundi Christians. Imagine everyone in the West was all Muslim. Everybody in the West could be Muslim because you would still have the small group of Pat Robertson's who would be trying to apply the extremist view of it and then most people would just be Muslim nominally.

Jason: Pat Robertson calling for a holy crusade against the infidels or liberal Arabs. We must kill them all!

Joe: Yeah, let's say we are still in the West but we are all Muslim and there are a bunch of Christians over in the Middle East. One of them's called Pat Robertson. He's a terrorist Christian leader.

Jason: Living in a cave with a long beard.

Joe: And he wants to wage holy war Christian war against us. The details are there within Christianity for that to be entirely possible.

Jason: Every religion.

Joe: If it was flipped around you have all the elements within Christianity that would allow for this idea of fundi Christian - I don't know what the word in Christianity would be for Jihadi, but ...

Jason: Crusade.

Joe: crusader is trying to come and kill our children.

Niall: I think we're touching on an important point here; the way in which fundamentalists over here and fundamentalists over there, their two interests end up converging into one unified goal without necessarily without any direct intention on their part. This is the definition, the biological root of conspiracy. It's a natural outcome of psychopathy in the overall population. It's not that they necessarily need to be in the same secret societies reading the same cheat notes, their natural function as fundamentalists, as people with psychopathologies, either inherited or inherent, end up conspiring against normal human beings.

Joe: Because they have some visceral, if even unconscious awareness of their difference between us and them, and they try to sow that division that they feel within themselves, compared to normal humanity, amongst the normal human population. They try to project out their own pathology onto the population and get people to fight against each other over psychopathically inspired ideals.

Jason: Modern religion is totally psychopathic. If I was God, which I'm not, I would be insulted by the descriptions religions give God. God is basically like a giant slot machine. You pull the lever of prayer and you get something out. All religions describe God as existing to serve man's every whim and desire, practically. It's such an insulting description of God, most of the modern religions. It's a product of a pathological mind.
Most of the writings in religious books have more in common with Finnegan's Wake than they do with War and Peace as literature. It's nonsensical, schizophrenic psychobabble. But sometimes you have these core things that were thought out by somebody, that basically setting up the fundamental ideologies of psychopaths.

Joe: I had this conversation with someone once about Christianity and I was saying you have got to get rid of Christianity, specifically in this case was Catholicism. I said it's obviously corrupt, useless and doesn't serve the population in any way whatsoever. He said "The Ten Commandments are a good code for living."

Jason: Really, have you ever read them?

Joe: That's what he said. And I said "Really? You're trying to tell me that human beings needed some divine entity or inspiration or something to get the idea that you shouldn't kill the person you're living next to?"

Jason: You shouldn't shag his wife?

Joe: "You shouldn't steal?" What's clear is that it wasn't that the Ten Commandments were a product of divine inspiration or a past people, it was that the Ten Commandments came out of a natural human understanding of the way to live your life. So it's not divinely inspired, it's humanly inspired. If there is any legitimacy to them at all as a code for living, it came from the innate understandings of a normal human being.

Jason: The only people that need to be told it's not okay to kill people are psychopaths.

Joe: Exactly. So it was a code of living ...

Jason: And it doesn't work.

Joe: Yeah, but they don't understand it so ...

Jason: There was a guy who once said that laws are useless because you don't need to make a good man any better or you don't need to make a good man better and they don't make bad men better. So basically they're fundamentally useless. And the same thing as the Ten Commandments, it is kind of useless because the only people that are going to follow are those who already think that murder is not a good idea.

Joe: Who already know.

Jason: We didn't get any callers today.

Joe: We didn't get any callers today.

Jason: Did we not get any questions?

Joe: They were shocked and awed. Well, there were a few comments on the chat room.

Jason: I think most of the people hated my 'support the troops' speech.

Joe: No, that was important to make that distinction because that's not what we were saying. We're not saying that all troops are psychopathic killers. But we didn't get any callers because they were all so shocked and awed by our witty and profound repartee.

Jason: I'm very awesome at this. My bling just emanates off the microphone.

Joe: That must be it. That's the only explanation.

Joe: Anyway we're going to leave it there for this week folks. We hope you enjoyed the show. Next week, our guest will be Hank Albarelli Jr. Hank is a writer, an investigative journalist and author of two books. One of the two books we will be discussing is A Secret Order Investigating High Strangeness And Synchronicity In The JFK Assassination and A Terrible Mistake, The Murder of Frank Olsen, and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments.

So those are topics we will be exploring next Sunday. So until then, thanks to all of our listeners and thanks to, oh, just as we're ending the show, someone calls.

Jason: It's probably someone trying to get in a last word. Do you think we should let them through?

Joe: I don't know. What do our people think? I was just about to wrap it up and somebody calls. Maybe it's because you said we have no callers and someone feels sorry for us.

Jason: I think it's a pity call.

Joe: Will we take the pity call?

Jason: Yeah, alright.

Joe: Okay, we're going to take this pity call.

Jason: If it's Joe from Montana, though, so I don't know.

Joe: Hi caller, what's your name and where are you calling from?

Chris: Hey, my name is Chris and I'm calling from Oklahoma. It was a good show. But I would like to actually add something to the debate you had going on there for a little bit. A lot of people do not really realize, at least it doesn't come out in the mainstream media, of the reality of what kind of really goes on when the troops are deployed. Number one is soldiers are always disobeying orders. That's why you have summary justice, that's why you have Article 15. So it's not like you blindly go in, follow orders and do what you're told and so forth and so on. Authority is being challenged all the time. It's not the way it's presented. Yes, you have a well-disciplined army, to a degree.

Second thing is, is that you have a duty to disobey a unlawful order. You are required to disobey an unlawful order. Unfortunately, the burden of proof falls upon you to prove it was an unlawful order. And the other thing that goes along with this is when you have - for example Iraq. I actually went to Iraq. So a lot of people would stand up and say 'I refuse to do this because it's unlawful. We shouldn't be over here'. What people don't realize is, is once the government or military has gone in there, they instituted a government and however they did it, the provisional authority, therefore is recognized legally. It was a legal government at that point. They then invited the United States military to stay and so all these soldiers that said on principles 'I refuse to do this', whenever this went to the courts, "You broke the law because it is legal". So the entire illegal argument gets thrown out because they've already fixed that issue.

Jason: Why would they need to do it that way?

Chris: Because there's a challenging of it (unlawful order).

Jason: Exactly.

Chris: This is the way it works. They've already covered all their bases before they even send anyone in there. If you look back in 2004, you'll actually find a lot of mutinies. It's not exactly this well disciplined force at all.

Joe: Yeah, I'm sure you don't hear about the mutinies as well. They keep those pretty quiet.

Jason: It's in their interests to do so.

Chris: I know in October 2004 you had a transportation mutiny and that one did get - actually the Army Times leaked it. That's where I heard of it. But when I was over there and it was bad. There was a mutinous, seditious vein running through the whole thing. Commanders were having bodyguards on the base. If you were ever to go into the talk or commander area you had to be patted down, remove your weapons. It was pretty bad.

Jason: The term frag comes from apparently the Vietnam War, where soldiers would throw fragmentation grenades into the tents of their first lieutenants and stuff.

Chris: That actually happened in Iraq, a soldier did it to his commander and his commander sent in the Old Camp Victory - or that was actually in Kuwait, can't remember, Iraq or Kuwait. I think it was Camp Victory, Kuwait. And here's my view, now that I've kind of got the floor. Something I've been thinking about a little bit. I've always questioned this militarization of the police. Why even do it? It makes absolutely no sense. You've got the National Guards and you've got North Com and so forth, why go to double resources to give it to the police forces?

Well, in my experience when I came back, they gave me a lot of psychological evaluations. You know how you got to evaluate your college professors, in college, all those little evaluations, check the box where it says 'do you strongly support, agree, disagree' so on and so forth. Well on one of those, that goes into your jacket, that's kind of your mental health assessment. But then they do these other ones that's totally anonymous, and on those I noticed, and a lot of other soldiers had noticed when we came back, that it said stuff like 'when you were over there did you ever think of harming yourself or others, do you agree or disagree.' 'I had feelings or thoughts of physically harming my commander' and 'I believe that this war is wrong' and all this kind of stuff.

My opinion is that even though they say that they did this to study PTSD, I think they took those statistics and were making an assessment of what can we do that is immoral, or have these troops do what they believe is immoral, without a mutiny. And I think that it's possible, based on that assessment, whatever that assessment was, is why they went ahead and went with 'we'll just militarize the police force because these guys go get citizens every day anyway.'

I don't think that you are going to have a lot of support. I really don't. I think that the fear of mutiny, if soldiers were used against U.S. citizens would be way too risky.

Joe: So what you're saying is that soldiers that have been to Iraq have seen enough of how it's basically wrong and illegal and that the commanding officers or the top brass have decided that they don't want to have to rely on these troops based on the feedback you're talking back as well. They don't want to have to rely on them to do any kind of homeland security.

Chris: That's exactly what I am saying. Because when I was over there you would talk to other units and in 2004 moral was so low. Literally everyone thought it was going to be a cascading effect of mutinies. And we even talked about it openly. And then when it came out in Army Times we were all just looking back, well which is the next unit that - there was some transportation unit from North Carolina and they mutinied. I think it was about 14,000 troops that just refused orders and it actually came out. It was in the news. We were all expecting it to be a domino effect.

And that's why I'm saying I don't think - and I think that this whole militarization of the police - I was listening to the one you did on the NSA Prism, and I think it was either you or Jason that made the statement that were kind of all in agreement that basically it's a bluff. And I think this idea of enforcing U.S. policies against the citizens is a bluff. I think they can get away with it to a degree but they can't completely do it. But they want you to think they can and if you look at the new Superman movie, with all the military on .U.S soil it's more of a Psy-op than it has any basis in reality.

Jason: They're trying to program people.

Chris: And this was in a foreign country (Iraq) and discipline was hanging by a thread and they all knew it. I think it's a bluff.

Joe: Let me ask you Chris, if you don't mind, did you ever refuse any orders when you were there?

Chris: Oh absolutely. I didn't get in trouble for it because we did it smartly. We all agreed in agreeance. When Abu-Ghraib broke out, we agreed that we would not capture anybody. We were not going to capture if they dropped their weapon and ran. 'Alright. See you tomorrow.' That's just the way it was. There was a lot of stuff like that. Everybody refuses orders, even officers do. They're harder because the way the command is structured but amongst the men, oh yes, everybody refuses orders. I think it's the way that you do it.

Jason: From my limited experience of knowing military people, that's what I've always heard from them from various different wars. Anybody who I ever met from the military, they were like 'that whole image of mindless machines following orders and everything is this tight-knit mind-programmed thing is kind of true but kind of not true. I think that people hearing that like 14,000 troops standing up and saying 'we're not going to do something' that should make you want to say 'hey wait a minute, maybe we misjudged the military. They're not these mindless psycho killers.'

Joe: We support those guys.

Chris: And they're not. They will follow orders.

Jason: But those are troops and you support troops.

Chris: Right. They follow orders but they're not happy with it. And mutiny or sedition - no one in the military - I've not met one, not one service member, or army member, or member of the marines, because I worked for the marines too, that actually supports the government. Everyone is anti-government. No soldier actually trusts their government. People get punished on a daily basis and it's very interesting. And here's the way they do it. It's very interesting because they'll say "You did 'A', this is your offence. Now you can either accept a summary punishment, which won't go on your record or hurt you in the future, we do it at this local level and some of your pay or give you extra duty or whatever, or you can go ahead and request a courts martial but then the punishment could be so much higher."

Niall: Kind of like a plea bargain.

Chris: Exactly, this is called summary justice through Article 15. And this is done, if you take your Article 15, it's done, it's over and in a month or so you're clean. This is the system of how it works. And one of the pluses of it, in the military sense, is that you don't have to spend a lot of time on lawyers, in a trial. But on the other hand, you're also not getting statistics either of wrongdoing or punishments because it doesn't leave beyond the company commander. So it's not actually going to go into any database that the civilian population can use the Freedom of Information Act to get those numbers.

Joe: It occurred to me that one of the reasons there are so many contractors and mercenaries is for the reason you've given there in terms of the troops not being on the same page and seen as reliable.

Chris: I definitely think so. And here's what people don't understand about the contractors either. If you get an American contractor like Blackwater, Dynacorp, whatever, they are only going to have a small core actually coming from that company in America. They are going to subcontract out to Colombia, Nepal, Chile and all these other countries for all these other large numbers.

The majority of the contractors over there are not American citizens. They're really pulling them from Latin America and Africa and they are not paying them. They are making more than they would make in their home country for sure, but they aren't making that much money. This is how they are doing it, and yes I think they are doing it to have a military presence or to have the force element, but I don't think they rely on American troops. They know they have a limited window in which they can use them respectively.

Like after 9/11, that's when I joined, after 9/11. I hadn't seen the Pentagon strike video. I didn't know any of this stuff. I was just like everybody else. I felt right to go because "We just got attack. We've got to do something." They used this momentum and they have this window they can use American troops in before a seditious vein pervades the ranks. You can cut it with a knife, that's how thick it is.

Jason: We really appreciate your call. That was some good additions you made.

Chris: No problem, I thought I'd give you guys a sympathy call anyways.

Jason: Thank you very much. Goodnight man.

Chris: Talk to you guys later.

Joe: Yeah, we are going to wrap up after our sympathy call and as I said we are going to have a guest on next week, Hank Albarelli Jr. You can look him if you're interested, so until then, thanks for our listeners tuning in and we hope you can join us again next week.

Jason: And that's the way it was.