Image

Civil war in Syria, or civil war ON Syria?
With the U.S. poised to lead yet another bombing campaign, this time against Syria, a sense of deja-vu is hanging in the air. President Obama tells us it will be a quick two-day airstrike to knock out Syrian defenses and end the country's 'reign of terror led by the brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad'. The bad guys will be defeated and the good guys can award themselves peace prizes for making the world a safer place.

This grand narrative is, of course, all complete and utter horse-hockey. This week on SOTT Talk Radio we'll be taking a closer look at the alleged chemical weapons attack that precipitated the major recent upswing in bellicose war rhetoric. WMDs, evil dictators killing their own people, UN inspectors, quick little 'humanitarian' wars... we've heard it all before, we know what it led to and what was really behind it.

It's easy enough to see through the propaganda the American, British, French and Israeli governments 'catapult' out there to justify and reinforce the Big Lie that is the 'clash of civilizations'. We wonder though, with signs of major global climatological and environmental upheaval now manifesting daily, if there's a primary underlying reason for launching another major, and extremely risky, war that might easily become a regional or global war.

Do the Powers That Be know that 'something wicked this way comes'? And are they trying to deliberately embroil humanity in the chaos of war in an effort to distract us from the very real and present danger posed by incoming space rocks?

Running Time: 02:21:00

Download: MP3


Here's the transcript:

Joe: You're listening to SOTT Talk Radio, the world for people who think. And there's an awful lot of thinking needed these days. Our show this week is about a very current event although we will be going into other details or other aspects of it. It's obviously the war, or the potential war, they keep using this term "war". It's an attack, an invasion. Let's not use the word "war" because it's basically a turkey shoot, a turkey shoot against Syria. Anyway, I'm Joe Quinn. With me today as most other days are Jason Martin.

Jason: Hey everybody.

Joe: Niall Bradley.

Niall: Hello.

Joe: And Pierre Lescaudron.

Pierre: Hello everybody.

Joe: That is our panel for this evening's discussion on the rather rousing, the flashbacks that everybody's been having to - what year is this, 2003?

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: March.

Jason: 1911.

Joe: Yeah. When and where are we living? It's just crazy.

Niall: It's pretty disorienting. It's almost verbatim a rerun of WMD, Iraq, weapons of mass destruction. We've heard it all before. They're practically using the same press releases.

Joe: Yeah.

Jason: History seems to be repeating itself in shorter and shorter cycles.

Pierre: And you know what happens to people who don't know history.

Joe: Yeah, that's interesting the way history seems to be repeating itself in shorter and shorter cycles. That can't be a good thing.

Jason: No, I don't think so.

Joe: Because when it's a longer cycle, you may have some time, but shorter and shorter, seems to be spiralling down to a 'kaboom splat'.

Pierre: There's a frustrating factor as well because when you look into this Syria affair, it's so similar to previous fake wars, they use the same lies, the same manipulation, the same twist of reality, but you'd think at this point we should have realized because the previous examples have been so documented. Now it's so clear for example, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The invasion was not justified. And again and again and again, it's pretty clear for most people and though for some reason apparently we don't manage to make the connection and see it's the same lie, the same deception that is going on in Syria.

Joe: Well to be honest a lot of people are seeing that.

Jason: Even Putin said in his speech, "You were wrong last time".

Joe: Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch for them this time to try this on again but that apparently isn't stopping them. Apparently what they seem to be doing specifically in the form of or through the dribbling maw of Secretary of State John Kerry is to ramp up ...

Jason: What a hypocrite.

Joe: Ramp up the emotional rhetoric and appealing to our shared humanity and "we must do something. For the love of god, we must do something for these babies." That's the kind of stuff he's coming out with, more or less that's what's kind of hitting people. And actually I have his speech or a good portion of a speech that he gave, I think today, it was based on - he's given several over the past week or so. But he gave another one today and it was the "evidence" speech. "This is the evidence that we have" so it's obviously building up for them going ahead and doing it despite the fact that the Brits have backed out. And the Brits backing out was a bit of a shock to most people because no one loves war, or a good turkey shoot as much as the Brits.

Niall: Sporting.

Joe: Yeah, they're very sporting in that way. They like to beat up on countries that have a much inferior military than they do and ideally when they only have spears and bows and arrows.

Niall: It was a close call. Thirteen votes.

Pierre: I have a question about that. Is it thought by the British Parliament against the invasion of Syria a definite democratic decision?

Joe: Yeah.

Pierre: Or is it just a way to veneer a democratic legitimacy to appease the masses and later on there will be another bogus terrorist attack or chemical weapon attack and then there will be a switch.

Joe: That's always possible.

Niall: Part of the benefit, if you want to call it that, of aside from the fact of not having any reason to whatsoever is that they went, within Britain, they went down the same route in 2003 where they put a vote to the House of Commons. It's just that in this case, the votes went the other way. So they did it out of convention. "We did it before. We'll do it now. It'll just be a routine affair and then we move on to the next phase." But then I think back now that was a surprise, at least to most people.

Pierre: Because it was unexpected. And do you think the British Army can still intervene in Syria despite this negative vote from the Parliament?

Joe: No, absolutely not, no. They would lose all credibility. It would be the sham that is democracy in the UK would be fully clear to everybody if they did that.

Jason: So basically you're saying that they absolutely will do it.

Joe: The thing about it is they have never done this before. They've never gone against - they've gone to a vote in the House or Parliament and had a no vote and then gone ahead and done it anyway. Effectively, that's where the rubber hits the road in supposed democracy, it's the representatives of the people in the House of Parliament, they have all spoken for the people and the majority have said "No". Now, there's no direct threat to the UK. There's no scope for any kind of executive branch of the British government or anything taking an executive decision and going above and beyond the will of the people or the will of the vote in Parliament. So I can't see any way that would justify it save some kind of renewed evidence or that would include some kind of attack on the UK and stuff.

Pierre: You know what I find suspicious is the way the Israeli leaders were describing the current situation. First they were repeating a bit too much. I find that suspicious. They were repeating that "We're not helping the rebels in Syria" which only to me "Okay we are helping them." I might be just paranoid. And the other thing the following sentence was "But if they attack, they commit attacks on our territory, we will retaliate." And in a Shimon Perez declaration statement I read that one of the Israeli officials, I don't remember his name right now, I was thinking what does he mean? Does he mean that they are already planning a false flag operation under the Syrian Crown or threatening Israeli assets in order to legitimize their intervention in Syria conflict?

Joe: They're itching to have some justification to attack again any Arab country around them, the Israelis are. And they want the U.S. to attack Syria because much like this alleged chemical weapons attack, which was very likely some kind of a setup, some kind of a false flag that actually happened but it wasn't the Syrian government, the Israelis after the U.S. attacks with tomahawk cruise missiles, whatever Syria, the Israelis have just carte blanche to do whatever they want. Who knows? Who said they don't have something set up, some turkey bomb somewhere in the middle of Israel?

Jason: Yeah, they don't even know.

Joe: Exactly. A bomb explodes in Tel Aviv a few days after the Americans attack Syria. Boom the Israelis are involved and they blame it on Syria.

Niall: They have already helped on at least two occasions; the Israelis have bombed with military jets Syrian Military installations. So they have already done so.

Pierre: You know the use of chemical weapons is all the more unconvincing that a) it didn't happen or if it happened, it was connected by rebel forces backed by western powers. But even if Bashar al Assad would have committed this foolish move, which would not serve his interests at all, how can the U.S. or the Israelis condemn such a move since in 2009 during the Operation Cast Lead, the Israelis used such weapons, phosphorus, which is banned by the Geneva Convention, against Palestinian population. In 2004 the U.S. used the same with phosphorus bombs against Iraq, Iraqi population. So they used those banned weapons, then at the same time they are punishing Syria for using weapons that they don't even use. So it's so asymmetric.

Niall: Well here we get to the issue. So they framed this justification for war, this casus belli around the fact that X, in this case Syria, has weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons.

Jason: And it's convenient.

Niall: Have they used them or have they not? But the issue first and foremost is framed as "Do they have them?" And it's framed by the very countries that not only have a lot of them, not only sold them to all of these Arab countries, they've used them recently. But you see, the Israelis did that in 2009 and that's already ancient history. You just won't see it brought up.

Pierre: And the possibility they fear as well because you see those western leaders condemning Syria and after they're asking for an inquiry. Usually you conduct an inquiry, you get the results and then possibly or not, you condemn. But it's as if Syria is guilty before the evidence has been provided.

Joe: Of course. That's what they always do.

Jason: And that's the most grotesquely inappropriate thing. You have to remember the executive branch is not the judicial branch. It has no legal qualification whatsoever to say anyone's innocent or guilty for anything. And that's the way at least the American government has been structured. So unless a competent judicial authority pronounces Syria or Bashar al Assad guilty after a court, whatever that organized court may be, only then can you say that they're guilty or not because people are innocent until proven guilty. The fact that there's an accusation against them is fine. Cool. Okay, investigate it, have a court settle it by jury or judge or however you want to do it, but at least it has to be a competent judicial authority. And the idea that anyone would accept the President of the United States pronouncing guilt on anyone, it doesn't matter if even he was a witness to the crime. In American jurisprudence it doesn't matter if you witnessed the crime. You are not a competent judge. You can't say that a person's guilty. You can say "I saw him do it." "Okay, bring your evidence to a judge and the judge will decide."

Pierre: And there's a precedent actually because the Iranian case a few years ago was quite similar. You had the western powers condemning Iran, pointing the finger at Iran because they were allegedly developing nuclear bombs. And then after the condemnation they dedicated a UN commission led by Mohamed ElBaradei from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to investigate the presence of nuclear facilities. And Mohamed ElBaradei in his official report stated that there was no possibility of developing nuclear weapons. Civil nuclear power yes for electricity but not nuclear weapons. And despite the official report the western powers went on and they even established an embargo against Iran.

Joe: Well I think we should actually just listen to the kind of things that John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State has said here, because this is it in toto as far as the argument for firing Tomahawk cruise missiles, etc. at - well they've claimed it's not the Syrian people, but the Syrian infrastructure, the government infrastructure. But it'll be at the Syrian people like it always is. So let's just go ahead and listen to some hype:
[John Kerry]: That's why this morning's release of our government's unclassified estimate of what took place in Syria is so important. Its findings are as clear as they are compelling. I'm not asking you to take my word for it. Read for yourself, everyone, those listening, all of you. Read for yourselves the evidence from thousands of sources, the evidence that is already publicly available. And read for yourselves the verdict reached by our intelligence community about the chemical weapons attack the Assad regime inflicted on the opposition and on opposition-controlled or contested neighbourhoods in the Damascus suburbs on the early morning of August 21st. Our intelligence community has carefully reviewed and re-reviewed information regarding this attack. And I will tell you it has done so more than mindful of the Iraq experience. We will not repeat that moment.

Accordingly we have taken unprecedented steps to declassify and make facts available to people who can judge for themselves. But still, in order to protect sources and methods, some of what we know will only be released to members of Congress, the representatives of the American people. That means that some things we do know, we can't talk about publicly.

So what do we really know that we can talk about? Well, we know that the Assad regime has the largest chemical weapons program in the entire Middle East. We know that the regime has used those weapons multiple times this year and has used them on a smaller scale, but still it has used them against its own people including not very far from where last Wednesday's attack happened.

We know that the regime was specifically determined to rid the Damascus suburbs of the opposition and it was frustrated that it hadn't succeeded in doing so. We know that for three days before the attack, the Syrian regime's chemical weapons personnel were on the ground, in the area, making preparations. And we know that the Syrian regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks and taking precautions associated with chemical weapons. We know that these were specific instructions.

We know where the rockets were launched from and at what time. We know where they landed and when. We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighbourhoods. And we know, as does the world, that just 90 minutes later all hell broke loose in the social media. With our own eyes we have seen the thousands of reports from 11 separate sites in the Damascus suburbs. All of them show and report victims with breathing difficulties, people twitching in spasms, coughing, rapid heartbeats, foaming at the mouth, unconsciousness and death. And we know it was ordinary Syrian citizens who reported all of these horrors.

And just as important, we know what the doctors and the nurses who treated them didn't report. Not a scratch. Not a shrapnel wound. Not a cut. Not a gunshot wound. We saw rows of dead, lined up in burial shrouds, the white linen unstained by a single drop of blood. Instead of being tucked safely in their beds at home, we saw rows of children lying side-by-side, sprawled on a hospital floor, all of them dead from Assad's gas and surrounded by parents, grandparents, who had suffered the same fate.

The United States government now knows that at least 1,429 Syrians were killed in this attack including at least 426 children. Even the first responders, the doctors, nurses and medics who tried to save them, they became victims themselves. We saw them gasping for air, terrified that their own lives were in danger.

Joe: Had enough?

Jason: Had enough.

Joe: Okay, they've had enough.

Niall: Lies, lies, lies.

Joe: I would have liked to have played the rest of it but I have the transcript anyway. I can't stop and start, unfortunately. But anyway, that's the kind of tenor of where he's going with the whole thing. And by the way, he continues on for another 12 minutes or something and he lays out this evidence that "we know, we know, we know this, we know that, we know the other."

Jason: That's not evidence.

Joe: No exactly. But the thing of it is he's saying that this is a report that "this is what we know." He's citing a report, right? But I've looked at the report and the report is pretty much verbatim what he's saying there. So he's basically saying "we know" and that is the evidence. He's referring to a report as if the report has more substantial actual evidence for what he's claiming. What he's doing is making claims.

Jason: Yeah.

Joe: But he's saying "we know" and then you look at the actual document that's supposedly the evidence for his claims and it's his claims.

Jason: Right.

Joe: So there is no evidence. Hang on we have a call here so we're just going to take that. Hi caller, what's your name and where are you calling from? You're on the air.
Caller: Are you talking to me?

Joe: I certainly am. The only person who would be on the air would be you.

Niall: Hello.

Pierre: Hello.

Caller: Hi. My name's Bill. I guess two things real quick then. I, as usual, absolutely agree with everything you're saying. It's outrageous. It's like the warmonger crap is kind of on full display for anyone who wants to see it. It's almost like, in a perverted way, this is such a good thing. There's just no ducking, dodging and weaving in conversation with anyone who everything he's saying is so fallacious and beyond the pale that to me it's surprising that there's still 20 percent of the people hold in this country think we should and they must just say yes to everything.

Joe: Yeah, there always will be. That's a good point. We kind of try to make hay wherever it's available and as you say, the blatant kind of psychopathy and lies are on display here. It's a full frontal display of the kind of warmongering and disinformation and lies that they have engaged in repeatedly in the past and I suppose they're testing the people to see if they can get away with it again. And the question is, will they?
Bill: Yes. Well thank you.

Joe: Okay. Thanks for your call.

Bill: Okay. Thank you.

Joe: Alright, thanks.

Niall: Thanks Bill. Bye.

Joe: Okay, we have another call. Hi caller. What's your name and where are you calling from?

Caller: My name's Noah calling from Webster, Massachusetts.

Joe: Okay. Welcome.

Noah: Well Joe, I've listened to you guys for years. Two things I just want to get out. First one, you guys have all the power. You guys have a ton of listeners. Someone needs to make a statement saying that we're going to shut down the bank. Pick a bank, Bank of America. Have everybody simultaneously on the 11th stop their account. If they're a patriot, do it.

Pierre: It's been tried in Europe.

Niall: Yeah.

Pierre: A few years ago the leader, one of the leaders of this movement was Eric Cantona, famous soccer player for Manchester United.

Niall: The king they called him.

Pierre: It didn't really come to fruition. One of the reasons why is if you remove your assets, your money from a bank, or close your account ...

Noah: Well transfer them. I wasn't saying just cancel. I actually don't like that bank in particular but to be able to do something where in one instant stop everything. They can see it real time that we are united. That would be something. That's not violent. It's just going to take somebody who's got enough listeners to actually make that. Make it a Facebook thing. Make it, spread it and see what happens. But just to be able to state something like that to people who care. We're not all just mindless zombies here.

Pierre: You would transfer from a bank account to where?

Noah: A credit union, a private credit union. It is a pain in the butt, it does take people's time, but as far as it goes, there's really nothing you can do as far as not [doing it]. You can't just stand still. But there has to be something at least organized so it makes some effect.

Jason: I just want to say something on this topic real quick if I could. It's a nice idea, but the minute you publish that in any kind of serious way and a lot of people say "oh yeah, let's go do it", after about the first 100 to 150 accounts they're going to say "oh, people are really doing this" and they'll stop you from doing it.

Noah: Yeah, okay.

Jason: They'll say "No you can't right now."

Noah: Oh no, that's the answer that I needed.

Jason: That's what they would do. It's a good idea. That's what they've done in the past. They stop if people just start going en masse to take their money out. They literally just lock the door and say "Oh, we're closed today."

Pierre: That's what happened in ...

Jason: It happened in Cyprus.

Pierre: In Cyprus that's where they limited the amount you could withdraw every day or every week.

Joe: You know Noah it's a good idea, in essence, what you're saying, the idea of masses of people all at once taking some kind of affirmative action to show that they don't agree with government and to have civil disobedience or whatever. But the problem is that hasn't happened in a long time. It certainly hasn't happened in the U.S. ever.

Noah: Well in reality when you guys talk now it's kind of making a - from years ago when you guys had your site, even when you guys changed all of your names for all of the separate sections you had for whatever purpose, the softer side kind of came out. I hope they didn't get to you. But as far as it goes, I can just say it right now, this war will happen and we will just be sitting by talking about it and saying "Isn't that a shame." Fortunately we can all agree on that because really, we don't foresee anything changing.

Joe: We're going to be saying a lot worse than "It's a shame." And we're going to be doing our best continually to kind of put the evidence out there that it's not just a shame, it's a travesty, it's an obscenity and that everybody on this planet is going to pay a price if they allow this kind of thing.

Noah: We already have. We already are. The water's polluted. With everything that's going on, it is a sad time we live in. I would have picked the generation of the 40's to the 50's and lived in some bliss, ignorant bliss, but you just can't hide the fact that it is so blatant nowadays. There are a lot of people. We're all scared. And I mean fear is really what they have over us.

Pierre: And actually your idea, the principle of your idea is a good principle. Reaching a level of co-linearity of awareness among the whole population where they start to act against the oppressing elite interacting in an efficient way.

Niall: Where we actually won.

Pierre: Non-violent way. Well I'm not sure the transferring money from one account to another bank account is the best solution but we have to act together. And for us to be able to act together, we have to start by seeing the world as it is. To see the world in the same way, because ...

Noah: Well with psychopaths, there's just no way that they can. It's not in their capabilities.

Joe: No, not psychopaths, but ordinary people. The major problem is I don't think any plans for everybody should definitely take this action or that action is a good idea because we're not even there yet. Where we need to be at first is where people understand and see the situation for what it really is, see the fact that their government is ruled by liars and psychopaths who basically ultimately hate them or see no value in ordinary human life except as a bunch of worker slaves essentially. And if everybody understood that en masse, at the same time, then I think some action would develop. Part of that, yes, as suggested, something would happen organically as a result. So that is why we focus our energies on ...

Niall: On information.

Joe: ...informing people, trying to break down those barriers and fighting that war for people's minds, because that is where the war begins. If they win the war for your mind, if they dumb you down, keep you ignorant and unaware ...

Noah: That's absolutely right.

Joe: ...then you're food. They don't have to take any action against you really.

Jason: We're just talking here about an awareness or consciousness 12-step program. The first step is admitting you have a problem. And until we get more people to admit that there's a problem going on, talking about step number 12 of actually taking some sort of action about it, is just going to be a bit foolish as well. Is that actually going to help you realistically? How would the elites block you in that attempt? And the particular attempt that you say, taking your money out of an account, we've seen them block things like that before very easily. So you would be blocked and then you'd be like "well what are we going to do now?"

Joe: "I tried but we're still here."

Noah: Yeah, I follow, I follow. Can I just say one more thing? The people who are here in this country right now, they either are completely ignorant and blissful in the fact that they go to Walmart and they do what they do and buy what they buy and hang out with their friends and go on vacations. But the people who honestly are aware of what's going on I guess the real choice is to have a mass, well, or just leave the country. Get your passport. And I was going to ask you guys, where would you go? As far as it goes you really can't avoid this whole global thing that's going on. So unless you go find an island in the middle of the Pacific, some atoll and eat coconuts the rest of your life, you're basically going to be forced into whatever system is going to be put upon us.

Jason: There's an old saying the diluvium interspinous, it's just like sometimes it's actually safer to be in the middle of things than it is to try to run and hide in some backwater somewhere.

Noah: Well that's true too. Every other country that they say has the best lifestyles they either have not so much poverty, they don't have so much oppression. But you look at every country that's in riot or in a rebellion right now and it's just phenomenal. I never thought you'd never fathom this in your deepest imagination that there would be so much turmoil going on. And you're looking at it going what do you do? What do you really do?

Joe: Well, like you said, there's nowhere safe on this planet really, in that sense, where anybody could go and not be under this kind of control system, not be within the reach of any kind of police force, overt or covert, or paramilitary force, whatever. There's no point in going anywhere really to save your buns in that sense. I think it gets back to what we just said which is that the real battle here is for peoples' minds and do not underestimate the potential or the effect that even one mind that is to some extent liberated and can see what's going on, don't underestimate the effect that that can have, or the importance of that. So what I'm saying to you Noah is that don't get too depressed about the fact that all these people around here are just going to Walmart and eating McDonald's and they don't care. Kind of keep the faith yourself and have a little bit of faith and trust in the fact that your ability to continue to see the truth of what's going on around you in the world has value. And that goes for everyone.

Noah: Well I've realized that recently too, that no matter what your faith is, this is a very good time to put some faith in whatever deity you believe in in private.

Joe: Well I'm talking about faith just in the truth in a sense, and faith in your own ability to see the truth and the fact that that ability has some value. Because in a sea of lies...

Noah: You had said on a show not too long ago that this society, it was never meant to be an ideal, perfect world. We've seen for thousands of years that, I guess, this may just be a test of our own will in being here.

Joe: Yeah, absolutely.

Noah: And that I relate to. And I'm sure most of your listeners can understand that as well.

Pierre: Noah, there's maybe something else; there is this old saying that says it doesn't matter where you are, what matters is who you are.

Niall: And what you see.

Pierre: And what you see and how much objectivity you see the world and what's going on around you. This being said, if you are prepared, if you are ready, if you have a reliable network, all those said events, like Noah, the historic Noah, he was prepared. He had what was required to face his existing context helped him to go through challenges. So, yeah, I would go on learning like you do, trying to evaluate the world objectively, develop a reliable network and be ready and be prepared. And who knows what's going to happen.

Joe: Are you a member of our forum Noah?

Noah: No I actually see in reality that it was pretty gutsy of me to even call you guys. But the way that I felt about it is that the paranoia type of thing where really everything nowadays now is out in the open. It's like do you want to just be made known for something - you may have a belief or this or that but nowadays just shows from probably examples of all the people who speak out, that you're better off just being quiet. You guys have a lot of courage for having your show and that's one of the things where, people like me, I'm sure there's other people like me who, we're observers. I just see and pay attention and listen to really know what's going on. You have your personal family and friends. You can have your own celebrations. My brother just recently got married, a wonderful time. And he's living his life, but I wouldn't even discuss any of these things with him because his blissful state is one that shouldn't be intruded upon and that's my personal belief.

Joe: Absolutely.

Noah: You know if he wants to seek the truth he can.

Joe: Yeah. That's a good pose to take. But what I'm saying is, for you personally, if you want to talk to other people about this, you can get on our forum and there are people on there who will talk about this and all sorts of other topics that might pique your interest and that's something. That's better than just feeling like you're alone and have no one to talk to about it. And I wouldn't be too worried about who's watching you.

Noah: Oh no, no. True. True.

Joe: I have a kind of flipped version kind of thing.

Noah: One more thing, this is on the same subject but I just want to say with this incoming ISON, with the timing of all the turmoil here, I know that Laura has written, I haven't read the book Comets [and the Horns] of Moses, I'm sorry, but do you think there's some real legitimacy about what will happen? I mean this would be an opportune time for all heck to break loose, let's put it that way.

Joe: Absolutely. We've theorized a little bit that this attack, potential attack on Syria might be a protracted kind of engagement where it kicks off something in the Middle East and it gets everybody worried and keeps everybody distracted going into a time when there might be something to do with comets. Or look at it this way; there have been fireballs flashing through our skies and that one in Russia this year.

Noah: Oh, I know. It's ridiculous. I've never seen anything like this.

Joe: There's obviously something going on there and our earth is opening up in a very literal way. There are sinkholes all over the place. Just last week in Rome, the Rome airport was basically just on the flat ground a little mini-volcano opened up sort of spewing a kind of hot, boiling gas. There are little bits of evidence like that, that suggest that there's something very strange going on. Of course the media reports on this kind of stuff and say "Oh look isn't that nice. Well there's hot springs in the area. It's natural that that would happen." But the media people, talking heads are going to try and distract people and play things like that down right up until the bitter end, if there is a bitter end coming, or until something major happens. They're going to be pointing at the incoming space rocks and going "Oh look, it's a new satellite that's approaching. Everybody take some pictures of it." Right up until the point that it hits them on the head and that's the end of the story. So definitely, you need to use your own seeing potential and, or seeing abilities to interpret what's going on and not fall into that kind of like "Oh, everything's okay" and not be too worried about it either. This planet has gone through repeated kind of cataclysms over and over again and stuff happens. But you've just got to take a kind of hoot and holler kind of approach to it where you say "Bring it on" but not in the way Bush meant.

Pierre: And there are also, just to give you some practical ideas, because there are some, first I think the cosmic threats are much greater than the political or conflict threats. So that's one thing to focus on. And if I was living in the U.S., I would not settle too much up north because global cooling is very likely. And I would not settle too close to the coast and not settle in the mountains and I would try to be integrated to my local community for solidarity and helping each other. And I would do some canning and get ready. Get ready for the worse or for the best and take what happens. And maybe we see what happens. It's better to be ready.

Noah: That is true.

Joe: Yeah. Well no, you can rely on the fact that we'll be broadcasting and talking and speaking about this until the bitter end, whatever the bitter end is.

Jason: Until a space rock falls on our heads.

Joe: Exactly. So maybe that's a little bit of comfort to you, that whatever you're seeing, we're watching it too and will be reporting on it.

Noah: Well, I wish you guys the best too.

Joe: Okay.

Noah: And as far as it goes, I'd like to hear from Laura again too when you get her back on the show. I do like what she has to say.

Joe: We'll get her on.

Niall: Eventually.

Noah: Yeah.

Niall: We will. And call in again. Call us again sometime.

Noah: I'll be sure to. And I'll try to call you next week definitely.

Joe: Okay.

Pierre: Okay.

Jason: Take care Noah.

Noah: Alright. Good talking to you, thank you guys.

Niall: Keep the faith.

Noah: Bye-bye.

Niall: Alright Noah.

Joe: Anyway, I was going to say sorry to our listeners. I think our audio's a bit choppy tonight. That's to do with our bandwidth connection or our internet connection. It's a bit slow maybe. I hope we're coming through sort of loud and clear, or at least intelligible.
I just wanted to get back to this, do it kind of quickly because we want to get into other things, but just Kerry's synopsis it's just obscene what he's been saying. He actually had the cajones to come out with this claim that a part of his "what we know is that", what was it the 1,500 people were killed?

Niall: Fourteen-something, yeah.

Joe: Yeah, 1,400. He's citing that figure based on what the Al-Qaeda rebels, the Syrian rebels, which is basically Al-Qaeda in Syria, have said. Right now they're ...

Jason: Unreliable.

Joe: Well they're right up there with, in terms of suspects for the people who actually carried out this attack. So they're obviously blaming it on Assad so they're going to have inflated figures. But there were at least two other groups, Médecins Sans Frontières and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights who said that 322, that's the Syrians Observatory for Human Rights, and Médecins Sans Frontières said 355. So Kerry has inflated those figures by 400% plus and based it on what Al-Qaeda in Syria have said.

So this guy, as a representative of the U.S. government who is fighting a war on terror against Al-Qaeda because it carried out 911 and killed 3,000 Americans on 911, supposedly, he is using their figures. He is basically in league with them, in the same camp as them, and promoting their evidence for what happened in Damascus a couple of weeks ago. I'm just going to quote you something that John Kerry said as part of that speech:
"As a father I can't get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing while chaos swarmed around him, the images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of blood or even a visible wound, bodies contorting in spasms, human suffering that we can never ignore or forget, anyone who could claim that an attack of this staggering scale could be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass."
So saying that anybody who suggests that this was not Assad, as he knows it was, based on no evidence whatsoever, may need to check their conscience and their moral compass. But the people who are suggesting that it was not Assad or suggesting that it was Al-Qaeda and Kerry himself and all of the American government admit that Al-Qaeda makes up the main contingent of the Syrian rebels, so people are suggesting that Syrian rebels, i.e. Al-Qaeda carried out this attack. Now, Kerry says anybody who says that needs to check their conscience and their moral compass. But why would anybody have a problem with the idea, least of all Kerry and the American government, have a problem with the idea that Al-Qaeda carried out a chemical attack? Didn't they kill 3,000 people on 911? What's a little chemical attack to them? But no, you're not allowed to suggest that. You have to check your moral compass.

Jason: Because now America's working with them and Al-Qaeda suddenly goes from hating the western infidels to hating the Arabs.

Joe: Exactly.

Jason: How did that turnabout happen anyway? It's the switcheroo. But I wanted to point out that, you read Cicero's fourth Catilinarian speech, the third or fourth Catilinarian speech. That was the same stuff, the same images that he did. "Imagine your children's bodies burning in flames..." because it's just - it's a 2,000-year-old rhetorical trick. And it's ridiculous. I wanted to point out though that people should know that he did not give a single piece of evidence. He said "We know that the missiles came from controlled areas." But he didn't say what area the missile came from. He should have said "It came from 5234 West Ahkbar Street, the top of the building, which is the Department of Motor Vehicles for the Assad regime." If he had said that, that would be a piece of evidence, okay, we can check that. But he didn't say any checkable facts. He didn't say which region it came from. So he didn't present any evidence by the rules of evidence because he didn't give you any facts that can be investigated. Can you say "is this a fact? This is not." He just said "We know that it came from Assad controlled region." Well what are the criteria for that Assad controlled area? We don't know.

Pierre: And there's something else. What you describe is a proper investigation and proper legal procedure with evidence, with investigation and conducted by an independent party.

Jason: Competent independent party.

Pierre: And here is not the case at all. You have biased sources. You have no independent commission. You have no proper investigation, no proper court and that's why there is this little switch in this discourse. He's not invoking law. He is invoking moral.

Niall: And emotion.

Pierre: And emotion as well. In the world that is less and less ruled by law and more and more ruled by emotions and arbitrary morals to justify illegal acts.

Jason: And he drives home the children aspect, the children, think of the children. Think of the father holding the broken body of his child as the explosions, or the chaos swirls around him. Notice the use of that word "swirls."

Niall: The scene he described of bodies lined up, "We've all seen the images of bodies lined up, wrapped in white shrouds." And then the image that they put with the speech in the New York Times and elsewhere was an image from a massacre that had occurred in Iraq. They took a 10-year-old photo and stuck it out. He was describing an attack in Iraq 15 years ago. That's why there're no facts because he needs to spin.

Pierre: In Yugoslavia they did the same with the Srebrenica slaughter and later on it was discovered that the corpses were not slaughtered right before the Yugoslavian war. It was Srebrenica. It was made up.

Jason: There's a second thing that he mentions in this speech which is all of the convenient cell phone camera footage and stuff like that from the witnesses which were amazingly placed. All these people with cell phones in this country and when you look at it really looks like a very third world area but apparently they all have iPhones. And he talks about those videos that they posted, but there's a slight problem with them. And one is that the people who are grabbing the bodies and stuff like that, they're not really showing any signs of being exposed. He says that the doctors and nurses were exposed too, but actually according to other reports, the doctors and nurses were not exposed and that that was what a lot of experts in chemical weapons were saying as evidence that it wasn't an actual chemical weapons attack. Because you see people without masks and without any kind of protective gear, running and grabbing and carrying bodies. It says "but if this was a chemical weapon attack, they should be falling down and their eyes should be puffy and they should be choking". And then another guy mentioned that the foam coming out of their mouth was too white. He said that if it was a real chemical weapons attack, it would have a mixture of blood in it or at least it would be kind of phlegmy, but it was pure white as if someone had put Alka Seltzer in their mouth or something like that.

Pierre: There's something else in that the way he talks, the way he tries to stimulate our emotions by describing those corpses without blood and without wounds because they were killed by chemical weapons. It's as if between their lies, the message is chemical weapons are worse than what we call classical weapons. But when you think about it, when the U.S. forces kill millions with drugs or traditional weapons, it's the same as using a chemical weapon. So you start to wonder if it's not a convenient excuse, this Geneva Convention and forbidden weapons that nobody respects, to point the finger conveniently at this regime or that regime you want to get rid of because it's not pro-imperialistic. It's the weapon of the poor.

Joe: Yeah, absolutely. It's not even Geneva Conventions that they're citing. They're not citing anything at all really. They're citing something called international norms. It kind of makes a mockery. It's true what he says in a sense but if you read between the lines he doesn't have anything to hang it on. There's no law, there's no international law. There is no international law basically.

Jason: Right.

Joe: There's nothing to govern, to say one state can or can't do anything and whoever decides. So essentially this has to be an illegal act, anything they do towards Syria is illegal because there is no international law. Kerry in his speech goes on to explain why they should act or why it matters. And before we get into that, it's not just about him not providing evidence, he actually twists and lies about certain things and omits a lot of things. At one point he cites that the Arabs and the Muslims are also against this. He says that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which is a ...

Jason: Something we've never heard of before.

Joe: Yeah, it's a body of 57 Islamic countries and he said that they have condemned Assad for this and that something needs to be done, whatever. I don't know the words that he used but he cites them as supporting it, but he doesn't say that this organization suspended Syria from their Organization of Islamic Cooperation. They suspended them on the 15th of August which was a week before this alleged chemical attack. So they had already suspended them for other reasons but in suspending them they said that the decision to suspend was a message to the international community that the Islamic community stands with a politically peaceful solution and does not want any more bloodshed. That's what this Islamic Organization said. But Kerry uses them selectively, cites them implying that they're backing military action when they explicitly said that they stand with a politically peaceful solution and do not want any more bloodshed. Now how much bloodshed are 800 Tomahawk cruise missiles going to inflict on the Syrian people?

And then he said "The Arab League", which is a more local kind of the Middle East and the Maghreb along North Africa, a group of countries, and he's cited them as having condemned it and he's been blaming Assad. Really Saudi Arabia is the head of each of these organizations and they waged all the power as a client state of the U.S. But they also condemned etc. and Kerry pointed it out. But he failed to point out that they also said that they wanted a peaceful solution and that they did not support any military intervention. So he's a lying piece of scum.

Jason: Pretty much, yeah. It's all the more considering the platform that he tried to get elected on. It just makes it even worse.

Joe: Hypocrisy is all over this. They go on about chemical weapons. It's so transparent and so false. The U.S., nine times in the past hundred years, nine times the U.S. has used different types of chemical weapons. The U.S. and its western allies that are now crying their hearts out, their bleeding hearts about this chemical attack. And they themselves have been using what we already described, what Pierre described Fallujah were in 2004 in Iraq where they killed hundreds of people with white phosphorus, which was cited by the U.S. military, or defined by the U.S. military, as a chemical weapon. Even though it's in a kind of grey area, it's essentially seen by them as a chemical weapon. They used it.

Jason: It's a chemical weapon.

Joe: White phosphorous.

Jason: Yeah, it is, absolutely.

Joe: So the first people to use it, as I said on previous shows, the first people to use chemical weapons were the Brits under Churchill in 1919 against the Arabs. Nothing ever changes. But almost a hundred years ago they started using it for the first time and they're doing it again today of course. They're blaming it on Assad but today it's got to the point where they're using the chemical weapons against the Arabs and blaming the Arabs for it. Back in 1919 they had no problem because Churchill famously said he fully supports the idea of using chemical weapons against an uncivilized Arab tribe.

Niall: Among the repulsive comments there from Kerry, he begins that by saying something like "Well I know we had Iraq before that, but this is different."

Jason: How?

Niall: He just cast away the Iraq problem as "that moment." "That moment was a mistake" or whatever. That moment! That's ten years. It's still going on. In fact it's ramped up in the last few months this year.

Joe: And both Obama and Kerry, both of them in their speeches have said "I know the American people and people around the world are weary of war after Iraq and Afghanistan." And both of them followed that up by saying "None are more weary than I am. But I just want to get this quick one in before I go to bed because I need to sleep." It's ridiculous.

Niall: Today air strike and that'll be it. Problem solved.

Joe: Yeah. "I am the most antiwar guy in the whole world."

Niall: "I got a Nobel Peace Prize. You know me, I don't like war."

Jason: You know Hitler was Time Magazine Man of the Year.

Joe: "No one is more weary of war than I am. Yeah, drones? Just go ahead and fire those, yeah. Do the drones. But anyway, I'm weary, yeah, of this war but I just, I think we need to do it."

Niall: Yes, there have been six drone attacks during this last two weeks where all the focus has been on Syria. So its operations are all a go, go, go elsewhere.

Joe: And how can we not cite Agent Orange in Vietnam?

Jason: Oh yeah, Agent Orange.

Joe: For 10 years four hundred thousand Vietnamese dead from Agent Orange specifically dropped by the U.S. and half a million babies born with defects.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: Thirty years ago.

Pierre: Still today.

Joe: Forty years ago.

Niall: And Iraq, another grey area but its results are the same, it's a chemical weapon. The munitions they use ...

Joe: Depleted uranium.

Niall: Depleted uranium. You're going to have whole generations of a country of 25 million born with defects. That's all on the U.S. government's hands.

Joe: They may have introduced depleted uranium on Syria, used substantially what is a chemical. There's debate over whether or not DU causes any kind of chemical effects, but it does because when a depleted uranium shell hits a building or a tank or a reinforced whatever, a car, it basically turns into metal dust that is then inhaled and causes cancers and all sorts of things. And I think the UN, when they did the study on it back in 1997, they wrote a UN working paper. It was delivered in 2002 and the authors of it said that DU weapons along with other weapons listed by the sub-commission probably breach one or more of the following treaties: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter of the United Nations, the Genocide Convention, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, the Geneva Conventions including Protocol 1 and the Convention of Conventional Weapons of 1980 and the Chemical Weapons Convention. So the UN has decided that DU is a chemical weapon and anybody who uses it is in breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention amongst all the others.

Niall: But as soon as that report is made I think and voted on and put into laws and accepted, that becomes international law, i.e., an international norm.

Jason: International norm, international law is such a strong word, you know?

Niall: I know, but just to use their own, that is on paper what ...

Pierre: When the UN resolutions go their way, they claim them and they apply them, but when it doesn't go their way, they don't respect them. And just following up on the depleted uranium, the word suggests that it's depleted from radioactivity. It is not the case. Depleted uranium is still radioactive. And, as Joe said, depleted uranium bullets, because of the very high atomic weight, has a lot of momentum, it's very efficient for going through tanks. So it's used a lot. But when it hits tanks or hard matter it literally pulverizes. And there's a fundamental difference between being exposed to radiation that can be de-spent through ionizing rays, radiation and having radioactive particles in your body. If you have radioactive particles in your body, breathe in a particle or particles of depleted uranium, it means you have radioactive matter, for example, in your lungs, so you're going to have a nucleus for genetic mutation, cancer. It's much, much more dangerous. And when you see the safety protocols in the nuclear power plants, radiation is okay, you have to stay below a certain level every year but particles is a big no-no. It's much more dangerous.

Jason: So you can't escape it. You have constant exposure.

Niall: That means that the U.S. solution to a possible chemical weapons attack in Syria is to launch a chemical weapons attack on Syria.

Joe: Yup, pretty much.

Jason: That's probably what their plan's going to be.

Joe: And this is all in the context of, okay, even if we take Kerry's inflated Al-Qaeda figures of 1,400 people, this comes on the back of over two years of a Syrian "revolution" that was started by the Saudis and the Qatari government with the backing of western governments against Assad with fake opposition that has led to the death of 60,000 people over those two-and-a-half years, all of them directly attributable to these western governments because they are the ones who facilitated this to happen. So 60,000 compared to one chemical weapon attack, even if Assad did it, pales in comparison.

Jason: That's the thing. Even entertaining the idea that Assad did it is mind-numbingly stupid. He simply wouldn't have done it because it's like shooting yourself in the foot, like putting the gun point blank right against you and saying "this won't hurt" and pulling the trigger. It's not even like an accident, "Oh he was fumbling" and "oh I shot myself in the foot. That was an accident." This is completely and total conscious stupidity.

Joe: Absolutely.

Jason: It can have no serious effect. He can't kill enough of the rebels. If he had killed all of the rebels at once with a chemical weapon attack then you could say "well maybe he did it because whatever, because it was so effective." But to kill such a small number of people and basically screw himself completely over and lose all credibility, he would lose all credibility forever in the eyes of every single foreign power.

Niall: I think that may be touching on the reason why this just didn't fly.

Joe: But Jason, for you to say that, John Kerry says that you should check your conscience and your moral compass.

Jason: Well, no I shouldn't because it's not really about a conscience in this case.

Joe: Yeah, but you know, he wants people to be feely-feely about it. Check your conscience.

Jason: No, no, no. It's about simple logic. I mean its cold logic.

Niall: Jason, no. He's not even home.

Jason: Did you not read? This is about the law. I think it was Aristotle who said that the law is reason free from passion. And really if this is a matter of law and a crime has been committed, emotion has nothing to do with it. Not when a crime has been committed. You have to go into it saying "Well, hold on a second. Who really did it?" Because you want justice and justice can only come if you find out the truth. And the truth can only be found if you don't go into it with some sort of hate, with fear or distaste or disgust. Those things have no place in a discussion about law.

Joe: Which is why Kerry made his pseudo-legal case in a way that was full of emotional manipulation about a father holding his dead child wielding chaos?

Jason: Swirling chaos.

Joe: They should have been sleeping in their beds. This is what his speech was about. And as you just said, it has nothing to do with logic or facts or the truth. It's all an emotional manipulation.

Jason: He needs to check his moral compass because if those children really did die, then they deserve to have justice. And the quickest, the most expedient and correct way to find the absolute who was responsible, who pulled the trigger, who gave the order, in the whole chain from A to Z, you have to do that correctly to make sure that the people are found and punished correctly, if that's what you believe in. And there's no way to do it with this whole emotional "Oh we think it was him. We know. We know."

Joe: He wants to emotionally blind people with emotions so the Americans can carry on their warmongering with impunity, a word that he uses repeatedly but it's impunity that the Americans are seeking, impunity to attack another country with no cause whatsoever and kill thousands or more.

Jason: I have another word; compunction. He lies with compunction.

Niall: How about we do our own investigation based on what's publicly available. The first question I have is did something actually happen.

Joe: Yes. Well, let's go to the one piece of evidence that he presented and supposedly was verified, even though it's going to take two weeks for the results to come in. But he claims that the UN inspectors who were there on the day that this happened, who were planning to look into a previous alleged attack and this is when Assad decided to do it. Yeah, he's a smart guy.

Niall: They were 15 minutes away staying at a nearby hotel.

Joe: The Americans and the west have been trying to find a way to attack him for two-and-a-half years. But apparently he wasn't aware of that and they had used the claim of chemical weapons previously, like months and months ago, apparently he wasn't aware of that either. He wasn't aware that they were trying to use the chemical weapons claim as a justification for their attack on him so he went ahead and used the chemical weapon on the very day that UN inspectors were there.

Jason: Right next to the UN inspectors.

Joe: Right next to them. He may as well have just given them the shell and said "Here you go."

Jason: I mean it's just ridiculous.

Joe: But anyway, so they have done their investigation and it'll be a couple of weeks before the results are in but Kerry claims he already knows and that the hair samples and maybe blood samples from first responders, he claimed, showed signs of sarin gas or sarin compounds in their blood and in their hair samples, right? So this is one piece of actual supposed evidence. The rest is just emotional manipulation. But back in May this year a UN team had been in Syria because there was some allegation of a small amount of chemical weapons being used or whatever, and the day that this attack happened and the UN were there, this most recent attack happened, they were there to follow up on that first investigation. And the results of that first investigation were released back in May and then the preliminary results, they were just going for a follow up a couple of weeks ago and they spoke specifically about sarin gas, the gas, the chemical weapon that Kerry claims Assad used. And this is the lead investigator; her name is Carla Del Ponte. And this is what she said:
[Carla Del Ponte]: During our investigation for crimes against humanity and war crimes, we collect some witness testimony that made to appear that some chemical weapons were used, in particular nerve gas. And what appeared to our investigation, that that was used by the opponents, by the rebels. And we have no, no indication at all that the government, the authority of the Syrian government had used chemical weapons.
Joe: So there you go.

Pierre: It's pretty clear.

Joe: That's pretty clear. And yet it's been turned completely on its head and Kerry knows "We know" - you should listen to his speech. He uses "we know" at the start of every paragraph.

Niall: You know what it reminds me of, that Rumsfeld speech about the known unknowns and the unknown unknown knowns. It was just completely out there, but he was referring to Iraq and the evidence for weapons of mass destruction.

Jason: It just shows you that the person who wrote his speech was just kind of a student of rhetoric. It's just the classical kind of composition.

Pierre: Just priming. "We know, we know, we know."

Jason: Yeah. Just like constantly the repetition of that that begins starting links each point together.

Pierre: And so hypnotic.

Jason: Yeah, it's got a hypnotic effect. On the topic of that again, with the whole chemical thing, we have to ask the particular question of whether or not a chemical attack really happened at that time. And a lot of people have said that it doesn't show, from whatever evidence they've seen, from the video evidence they've seen, like I said before, that no, it doesn't look like a chemical weapons attack. There was no smoking gun. There's a lot of smoke but there's not enough choking people in the various videos that have come out, or pictures, but basically it just looks very suspicious. I have a couple of quotes here. Let's see, this is Paula Vanninen, Director of VERIFIN, the Finnish Institute of Verification for the Chemical Weapons Convention: "At the moment I am not totally convinced because the people that are helping them are without any protective clothing and without any respirators. In a real case they would also be contaminated and would be having symptoms." And that was something that they did. "Of the video I've seen for the last few hours, none of them show pinpoint pupils. This would indicate exposure to organophosphorous nerve agents." Things like that. All these experts who have been viewing the videos are saying that it just doesn't look right. It's not what I would expect. The foam from the mouth looks unnaturally white. All the people helping, they're running around. Nobody's choking and falling over in spasm in the way that they should. There's people standing around who aren't suffering. So it doesn't really look like they even bothered to use real sarin gas.

Pierre: Yeah, and it's not because Carla del Ponte, after investigation in May on this year found evidence that rebels used sarin gas, that the victims in those videos were subjected to sarin gas in August and there's even less proof that this alleged sarin gas was used by Assad forces.

Jason: Yeah, there was a real clover field kind of feel to all of the videos. You know that movie that I think J.J. Abrams did about the alien attack where everything's done with a handy cam and it's supposed to be like from the thick of it type of thing. And all of the camera work is just so you can never really see what's going on and you just get little snippets. And that's kind of what it seemed like to me from the little I saw.

Niall: Well I found an analysis of the videos that pointed out that the bulk of them came from just two YouTube accounts. John Kerry and his thousands of people on the ground were actually two guys. The upload date, funnily enough, is August 20th on all of them or at least the ones that I checked. This event happened on August 21st which made me wonder if they're publishing something else. It was staged, if it was ...

Joe: It's hard to know. It's not likely that it was staged to some extent.

Niall: There was actually a statement from the rebel group and some local residents saying that they were disgusted by the allegations. As far as they're concerned if anything was done, they were set up by an Al-Qaeda, Iranian and not one of us. You've got to remember there are many factions here. They also said that they believed that Saudi Arabia supplied whatever ...

Joe: Chemical weapons.

Niall: ... actual chemicals they were using.

Joe: Yeah, and that they were given the narrative from them is that these low-level rebels who were supplied some chemical mortar by some Al-Qaeda group and not told what it was and told to just fire it. These low-level people just fired it and then realized afterward what they had done.

Jason: Well just put the secret shells into their weapons cache.

Joe: Yeah.

Jason: You wouldn't even have to tell them "Hey, go fire this gas."

Joe: That's pretty much what they claim.

Niall: As far as the Syrian government's concerned, they issued a statement shortly after this broke, and said that they sent military forces to this neighbourhood and what they found was tunnels with containers of some kind of chemicals and that they filmed what they were finding and you see it on the side of this stuff "Made in KSA" which is suggestive that it's from Kosovo. Additionally they said that there was no one there. The place was deserted. The only casualties as far as they're concerned, are three of their own troops who were taken ill while investigating these tunnels. So that's their statement.

Then later on the Chinese reporter went in and filmed this site, so this is now available for broadcast in China of course. It's also available on YouTube. This is the only actual video footage that we know is of the alleged district where this happened. And what you have is they will say the Syrian government may have set this up, but "we've shown these tunnels. Here's all this equipment". Close ups. I can't remember for sure but I think it's not just that it said "Made in KSA", it's just in Kosovo but that there was another link or statement, something like somehow they could show the packages were from Saudi Arabia. I don't know if it had "Made in Saudi Arabia" on it.

Jason: Well I did read something from Joe's article or something like that, that was saying that some of them were from Turkey. Some of the chemicals they were talking about, industrial toxicants, they were loading up their shells with various industrially toxic chemicals,

Joe: Well that's one of the experts that actually said that, that the evidence of the symptoms that people were experiencing, as seen in the YouTube videos, looked more like they had been exposed to some kind of industrial toxicant rather than an actual chemical weapon. And that goes back to the videos that these Syrian rebels supposedly put up earlier this year on YouTube where they had a rabbit in a glass case and they put in some kind of mixture and the chemicals they were using were of a Turkish chemical factory.

Niall: The Turks are real scumbags, evil bastards in this. I have never been so disgusted. Maybe because a few years ago they seemed to be saying the right things when it came to standing up for Palestinians in Gaza. My god it's just for show. They put on this show they were standing up to Israel while all these backroom deals go on. And in this case, in fact, in the U.S. narrative this is just supposed to have happened. "Okay, we need to go and save these people." But the ones talking explicitly about regime change who has said it over the last two years "Our goal is to change the regime" is the Turks. And that is basically the CIA and NATO speaking through them.

Pierre: What is disgusting too is the change of position of France, that a few years ago you had Dominique de Villepin, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs that was delivering this speech in front of the UN Assembly, opposing firmly the invasion of Iraq, probably as Joe emphasized more because of geopolitical reasons than humanitarian reasons. And now François Hollande, the French President, is the leader of the warmongers, so quite a change. But this topic as well, the source that was mentioned previously is Médecins Sans Frontières, a French organization. And humanitarian organizations are very handy because they have this veneer of humanism.

Joe: And legitimacy and independence.

Pierre: Yeah. But it's a spy nest and there're some bizarre efficient tools for propaganda. And if you look at the history of Médecins Sans Frontières, it was founded by Bernard Kouchner, a flaming Zionist by his own account, who was the Minster of Foreign Affairs during Operation Cast Lead and who kept supporting the expansionist policy of Israel. So the words coming from this allegedly humanitarian organization should really be taken with a pinch of salt.

Joe: Well to put that in context, Kerry didn't even rely on the figures in the reports from these kinds of front organizations like Médecins Sans Frontières where he said 355 people died. He went directly to Al-Qaeda and Syria and he called them "independent channels" by the way.

Jason: Independent channels.

Joe: That's independent channels in Syria. They said 1,400 people. But just on the whole UN thing and the UN inspectors thing and the evidence that they might present, there's a little historical context here that goes back to the 2003 invasion/turkey shoot/occupation of Iraq where there's an organization, apart from the UN weapons inspectors who would go and oversee any kind of WMDs, there's an organization called the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. And it's an inter-governmental organization that's located in The Hague in the Netherlands. And it promotes and verifies adherence to chemical weapons convention prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, etc. And they are funded by a bunch of different governments and states. They're kind of like a second investigatory body of specifically chemical weapons.
Back in 2002 the head of it was a Brazilian diplomat called José Bustani and John Bolton, who shortly thereafter became the UN ambassador, John Bolton got rid of him, spearheaded a successful attempt to boot him out of his job because at the time this Bustani guy, this was in 2002, was trying to get and said he could get Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government to sign up to the chemical weapons convention.

Of course, at that time, what the U.S. was doing was manipulating and the Brits were manipulating everybody everywhere in every way they could to make sure that they maintained this idea that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Because that was the only reason they were left with for any kind of invasion. So Kerry in his speech yesterday claimed that they have great respect for the UN and its job and its investigation and they have a track record here, a very similar organization who wanted to supposedly give them what they wanted. "Saddam, you want to get rid of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? You want to get him to comply? I can do it. I can deliver. I can go in there and I can get Saddam's signature on that convention." And they said "Oops. You got to go." And they trumped up, got a bunch of people and manipulated a bunch of other countries to all vote him out of power, which it wasn't even legal at the time, got him out of power and put in one of their puppets. And then they were able to continue on with their phony weapons of mass destruction claim. So it's just another example of how Kerry's speech is so full of lies.

Niall: Well he was exposed right there, just yesterday when Russia Today headline was something like "Latest NSA leak reveals that U.S. government has been spying on the UN." That's not actually news, but the timing of it was like "Oh, we respect the UN. We respect the UN." And Russia Today of course, Putin, let's call it his anti-propaganda tool, just throws that out there to remind people.

Pierre: And John Kerry today is typically seen as the hero of protecting children and humanity and fighting against suffering and death. But if you look at his curriculum vitae, he's the opposite of that. He was a member of Skull and Bones. In 2004 he ran for election and neutralized the democratic left forces in the U.S. enabling somehow the election of Bush who would conduct the second invasion of Iraq. And John Kerry has been elected for years and never heard him opposing firmly the invasion of Afghanistan, the Cast Lead operation in Palestine or the Iraqi invasion. He's not a peaceful defender of peace and freedom. He's the one of terror. Now out of the blue, he's starting to depict himself as the saviour of humanity and the defender of the poor and the oppressed. That's such a scam.

Jason: One of the interesting things about that though is I spent 20 years in America I never heard the name John Kerry. Who is this guy? It's all of these people right now that they're just sort of like nobodies but it's obvious that they've kind of been cultivated up, as if they're put into position now to be mouthpieces. John Kerry, he's not talking about his opinion, he's reading a script somebody wrote for him. He's an actor because one time he says one thing, the next time he says another thing and you think "Oh, he's just duplicitous." No, he's just an actor. He probably doesn't believe any of it. He just wants to go to ...

Joe: To go up to the shop and get his ...

Jason: And get his cocaine or whatever.

Joe: This talk about sarin. Who used sarin gas? Where was it first synthesized? Where was it invented?

Pierre: I thought it was used during the First World War before 1919.

Joe: No, no.

Pierre: German? French?

Joe: No, it wasn't used before the First World War. It was used in the Second World War but ...

Niall: Camp Detrick.

Joe: No, it's a bit murkier than that. It was discovered in 1938 in Germany by scientists at IG Farben. They were attempting to create stronger pesticides and stumbled on the fortuitous discovery that in fact you could kill bugs and people with this. So it's the most toxic of the four g-series nerve agents that have been made by Germany. But IG Farben was a big giant kind of chemical company in Germany and was involved in producing all sorts of things like sarin and Zyklon-B, which was supposedly used in the gas chambers, etc. So they produced this. They're a pharmaceutical company essentially or were. But Prescott Bush, George W. Bush's grandfather had links with them. He essentially was a partner in their company with another company. He was prosecuted for aiding the enemy during World War II because he kept up his contacts all the way through and so IG Farben then was kind of closed down. None of its correct. The fact is that they were prosecuted and then given early release and given their jobs back about a year after they were ...

Jason: As long as they keep making the poison for new guys.

Joe: Exactly. But it spun off eventually. It was broken up and it became ...

Pierre: Three pieces?

Joe: It became ...

Pierre: Bayer?

Joe: Yeah, Bayer was in it, but it became a company called Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz. And Sandoz, as talked about before, was the producer of LSD for the CIA, well not originally for the CIA. And the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds had their dirty fingers all over this at the time. But yeah, I just thought that was interesting. That the original sarin basically was a company that has a link to George Bush's grandfather and the bulk of his company Novartis, which is today the spinoff ultimately of those companies as well. And Novartis, just before Obama started his first term on the advice of Bush officials, he rubber stamped a big contract to Novartis for flu vaccines.

Jason: The fox guarding the chicken coop.

Joe: Five hundred million dollars. So there's a trail there that goes back right up to today to IG Farben and Prescott Bush and the development of sarin. Going right back to today to the same type of company being given a $500 million contract to produce flu vaccines.

Niall: Prescott Bush, Skull and Bones, John Kerry, Skull and Bones.

Joe: John Kerry is an admitted member of Skull and Bones and it's all just fun and giggles really apparently.

Niall: Hush hush.

Jason: Those guys are all connected in various different ways.

Niall: Kerry, I think he's enjoyed or has been suitable for his role, that he has been a grey man that no one really knows. He is prominent now of course. But his real work has predominantly been done in the shadows. It's a classic example of they've got more power really than they publicly have. Happily accepting what outwardly looks like a crappy consultancy/advisory role but is actually connected with serious strange players.

Jason: It's kind of like football, you know? Watch a football game, any kind of football game, there's a lot of people sitting on the benches but at one point somebody's going to hold up a little sign and he's going to come on the field and the other guy's going to come off. And that's how politics is.

Joe: We may have a call here. Let me just check this. Hi do we have a caller?
Caller: Yes. How are you guys doing today?

Joe: Pretty good.

Jason: What's your name and where are you calling from?

Caller: I'm calling from Atlanta, Georgia. And I heard you guys talking earlier about the sarin gas. Didn't Hitler use that in World War II?

Joe: He did, yeah.

Caller: And I also have a question for you guys with regards to what's going on in Syria. I know that, well we all know that the United States funds Israel, but also they're funding the Egyptian military to the tune of $1.3 billion a year. Do you feel that at some point, because my theory is all they're trying to do is unify the entire region even though Egypt has already balked and said "Oh, we're not going to get involved, we don't agree with this." Do you feel that at some point the United States is going to use Israel and Egypt because they fund both militaries as proxies for this impending confrontation that we all know is going to happen?

Niall: Egypt has been involved from the very beginning.

Caller: Okay.

Niall: It has been sending, in fact encouraging Jihadists to go to Syria to topple the "evil regime" so a lot of the bodies have actually come from Egypt.

Pierre: And the switch in the region that you mentioned and the progress with what's called the Arab Spring over the last year we've been witnessing a lot of regime change that are now pro-U.S. and pro-Israel. Apart from Syria and all the other countries in Northern Africa, Maghreb and the Middle East are active pro-U.S. and pro-Israeli.

Jason: I have something to say on this whole uniting. You were saying something about the lines of you want to unite the region or something like that?

Caller: No, no. I was just saying that my theory is that they're going to unify the region because you know it's already in the North American region they've already signed off on that, I'm sorry, the North American Union which is Canada, the United States and I think like a small part of Mexico. And then there's the South American Union that's to go along with the European Union. And I just feel like, and I'm just saying this is just my theory so there's no truth to this, I'm just projecting, I'm just thinking that what they're doing is unifying the Middle Eastern region. And I had a couple more questions. One of them involves you guys know anything about Syria nationalizing their central bank? Because I heard some things about this where they're trying to eliminate their central banking system and make it a nationalized banking system. Because isn't there certain countries in the Middle East that are not a part of the IMF, the International Monetary Fund? And what's the other organization?

Pierre: Well the World Bank and the IMF. Some countries are not part of it.

Caller: Right.

Joe: Absolutely. And I think ultimately that is the goal. The goal in all of this in terms of the expansion of empire and the centralization of power in these unions is to bring all governments and all the people therefore under control. To have them all essentially beholding to the money lenders so that they can control them. It's hard to come up with a definitive answer as to what their end goal is because I think their end goal is simply control. It's almost like a sickness that they have.

Jason: Can I say something on that when you're done?

Joe: Yeah. It's a sickness that they have where they simply are driven to want to control everybody and everything. And anybody who steps out of line and isn't playing the game, they get extremely angry and want to destroy them. They want to bring them under control and if they won't be brought under control then they're more than willing to launch military campaigns to bring them under control. And it's basically control for control's sake, as far as they're concerned.

Caller: Okay.

Jason: I was going to say from a grand strategy kind of perspective the west's policy has kind of always been the same. I think in the Middle East and in certain areas they want to create disturbed regions to occupy the army because it's very dangerous to have a very large standing army all the time without a war to fight. And that's usually been the recipe for a military coup. Throughout history, in Roman times, any time you had a standing army and you didn't have an enemy to fight, eventually the generals would get a little bit uppity and decide that they wanted to take over, or something like that. So they don't want to unite or they don't want to have peace in the Middle East. They actually want to have the exact opposite. They want to have a place to send the army. They want to have a place to sharpen their claws, test out their weapons, test out their strategies, do all this different stuff and occupy the army so that they can maintain it and that they can keep things moving forward. They need to have an enemy to keep the people always in fear, to keep the people making sacrifices. Because when there's a war on, everybody kind of tightens their belt and says "Oh well, its war time. We've got to do this. You've got to be a patriot." And they'll accept a lot of economic depression and economic problems because there's a war going on. "Oh, gas is more expensive, oh, blah, blah, blah" and all this different stuff. And so they need to maintain that and the best way to do that is to just have a region, create and cultivate regions of the world where everything's a mess and send the army in there to kill as many people as possible.

Joe: And it actually, what you just said, reminds me of George Orwell's 1984 where he has this idea of the future where the world is broken up into just three or four kind of sections or unions. So even though they might centralize a large number of that power among a large number of countries and create a union out of those countries, you might have three or four of them, but that doesn't mean you're not going to have wars between them afterwards. But it's much more controllable when everybody is seen as part of one group. Ultimately maybe they want to bring it down to it's just a bi-polar world where it's ...

Jason: East and West.

Joe: Yeah.

Pierre: And this union world is misleading of course. As part of Orwell's not blank suggests natural affinity, solidarity, and people getting together. It's just the opposite in Latin America or Europe where they have what they call unions developing. You see that actually it's destruction of rights of nations, destruction of cultures, destructions of nations. And setting a centralized power is more power for few oligarchs and more slaves basically increasing the sphere of influence, increasing the sphere of control is Empire 101, like in Roman times. You have a few oligarchs and wide quantity of slaves.

Niall: There are actually two kinds of unification processes. It's not as simple as the unifying and centralization is bad because in Latin America for example, the process is underway for 15 years was largely spearheaded by Hugo Chavez. And in his game he was going to fund programs for other countries that would be beneficial for people. The problem was that that did not jive with the kind of unification of control that the empire is seeking. You have the same problems in Africa. The African Union was developing anyway. Gaddafi became instrumental in directing and funding that towards ways that would benefit people. He had to go as well. So you see unification in a globalized world is a kind of a process that can be taken advantage of and vectored one way or the other. And the kind of unification they want in the Middle East is the one where there is bloodshed, constant strife, the arc of crisis as Brzezinski called it, a permanent state of low-level crisis. You can control people that way.

Jason: And I wanted to make a comment on what Pierre was saying about slaves. People have a weird idea about slavery. Slavery is when you have to do something or else you will suffer some sort of very adverse consequence, right? You'll die. And today, everyone pretty much working every day in the world is what they call a wage slave. But a wage slave is still a slave. What a wage slave is, is a slave where your master doesn't have to feed and clothe you and bed you. It's where you get given money so you can do it yourself because they don't want the responsibility of having to build a tenant house there and provide you with slop. And so basically they give you enough money for you to buy your own slop.

Pierre: And there's something to go further on your reasoning. Today some people think we're not slaves anymore. We are free. And by opposition in antiquity during the Roman Empire there were a lot of slaves. So there's been a social progress. But when you look at it, at the time slaves had food, they had shelter, they had a relatively decent life while it was not ideal but at least they had that. Today you have a lot of people that are called working poor, they are working and they are wage slaves. With this type of slavery they don't even have the few privileges of the slaves, i.e., being able to have decent housing and decent food. So from this perspective we can even say that to some extent our modern slaves are in a worse situation than the antique slaves.

Jason: Usually the argument against slavery in the old times was that masters could kill you and there were a lot of Marshall Talks about buying slaves simply because they were sexually attractive and they wanted to abuse them and things like that which was going on. And the thing is it hasn't changed because we're always up here talking about the pedophile rings and all these different things like Dominique Strauss Kahn organizing sex parties but with women who are kind of like forced into that position because of poverty. As a general rule that is the truth. No one wakes up in the morning and says "I'd like to sell my body today." They usually do that in economic desperation. So basically you have exactly the same recipe except we're called free and it always kind of irks me a little bit.

Caller: I'd just like to interject just for a second. There is a very old thing that the best slave is one that thinks it's free. And with that being said, do you guys feel that the guy that's in control in Syria, Assad, is taking such a hard stance because he has, as we see it, he has the support of Russia and China? Is that the reason why that they're saying "Oh, well, he's not budging one iota". And then on top of that I found what was interesting about Obama's speech about the use of chemical weapons, I think a lot of people forget that chemical weapons were used in the United States back in Waco, Texas when Janet Reno was Attorney General, and they went in there with the Branch Dividians and shot them with cyanide gas after they shot the whole place up. Then they shot the cyanide gas in there, which is the exact same thing that's used in California in San Quentin for the death penalty. And I saw this documentary called, it's called, and anybody can look this up, it's called Rules of Engagement. And if you watch it, I think that documentary won an Academy Award but I might be wrong on that, but if you watch it they show you what it did. You can see what it did to the bodies and these were children, women and older people that were in there. So I find it quite ironic that he was so vehemently opposed to chemical weapons but at the same time he didn't even address the fact that it was used in the United States as well. I just wanted to know what you guys think about that.

Joe: He's a liar and a manipulator and you can't expect one word of truth to come out of his mouth. In fact you can expect lies to repeatedly come out of his mouth and to ignore the fact that he is a massive hypocrite. In speeches for the American government and all that it stands for and all that it's done, he is a massive hypocrite to point the finger at anybody else anywhere in the world and say "You used chemical weapons" when the U.S. government has been the biggest and most egregious aggressor around the world for the past 100 years and has killed far more people than any other country over the last 100 years. If there's an axis of evil, it's the U.S. and a couple of other western nations or all of them put together.

Jason: It's all of the western nations, yeah. You should go get a book called Political Ponerology. You can get it on Amazon and the guy who wrote it, Lobaczewski talks about the reversive blockade which is where the psychopath basically just tells a bald-faced lie and the more you say "Wait a minute, that's not true" he says "Of course it is. What's wrong with you? Of course it is." And they keep repeating a lie, a lie, a lie. And in a certain sense that's just an extension of it this presupposition that "We've never done it. Of course we've never done it. What do you mean? We never did that. That didn't happen. Of course not. It wasn't us. We weren't there. It didn't happen. And obviously we didn't do it because if we did it then we wouldn't be saying what we're saying now."

Niall: Yeah. And eventually if you listen, they will sort of capitulate unless he stands firm because they can be very, very persuasive. And that is what happens on a mass scale.

Joe: It's a pathological confidence, essentially, where they appear to be so confident. Who would repeat over and over again and make a statement over and over again and ignore anybody who contests it and say "No, you're wrong. I'm right. I'm right." People think "Well he must be right. He's really getting worked up about it. He must be telling the truth." No, he's just making a more forceful lie. He's presenting a more forceful lie to you.

Pierre: And that's one of our weakness as normal human beings, ordinary human beings, that when we hear the authority called leader being so confident, we think in our own minds "If I was this confident it means I would be really sure of what I say and what I say would be absolutely true." And we attribute to the psychopath these attributes that he doesn't have. Whatever he says, a psychopath can be super-confident, more confident than normal people even though when they say absolute truth that they are 100% convinced of. So this projection is a trap for ordinary people.

Joe: Yeah. Just look at Hitler. Look at what Hitler was able to achieve through oration and the big lie. It's what's happening today.

Jason: Well things have kind of moved away. Instead of having a single person, I've noticed this kind of weird happening in most of the western countries. They've moved away from the Hitler type of person as the great orator. And what they've done is they've split the task between several different people. There's John Kerry and usually what they'll do is they'll have the "when two sides unite". They'll have someone from the democrats and someone from the republicans and they put aside their differences on this issue because obviously...

Joe: So important.

Jason: ... it's so important. And they'll do that and if you put their speeches together, you would get the fine oration of like a Hitler type or something like that. But they split it aside so that no one can point to a single person. "Oh, he's kind of being like Hitler here. He's an inspirational speaker and he's rabblerousing."

Joe: Yeah. You need to have your wits about you to see through it. But listen, we're going to let you go. Was it Jim, yeah?

Jason: No he just said he was from Atlanta.

Joe: Oh, Atlanta. Okay.

Caller: No, my name is Patrick. Thank you guys for taking my call, I really appreciate it. And I'd just like to add, there's another great book, because I heard one of the gentlemen mention a book, I have a book that's called Killing Hope-U.S. Military and CIA Intervention Since World War II by William Blum.

Joe: William Blum?

Patrick: That's the book.

Joe: That's a good book, yeah.

Patrick: And thank you guys for taking my call. I'll keep listening. I'm going to get off. You guys have a great weekend.

Joe: You too. We appreciate it.

Pierre: Bye Patrick.

Patrick: Thank you.

Pierre: You're welcome.

Niall: In the meantime, I want to get back to those sneaky Saudis. Between the Saudis and the Turks, they are the two countries that actually need regime change. It kind of nearly happened organically this summer, well it nearly happened. There was widespread, practically a revolution that was suppressed by the Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan. The Saudis, they're the backward Jihadist fundamentalist nutcases. If you took everything the American regime has been saying about fundamental Islamo-facists ...

Joe: And how evil it is and how we have to fight the threat to everybody.

Niall: Yeah and how there's a clash of civilizations. Well, go visit Saudi Arabia.

Joe: And you'll see it all on display.

Niall: Well something came up, it was a story, we don't know the original source, but anyway, it was put out there and it was picked up by a mainstream British paper. It's saying that the Saudi head of security, like their CIA chief, a guy known to have been pulling strings in the past, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, tried to bribe Russia a few weeks back. Obviously he knew this was coming up, by saying that "Listen, throw off your support will you, of Syria and in return we're going to ..."

Joe: Just sell you cheap oil.

Niall: "...sell you cheap oil." It didn't work. And then he said, allegedly this is a quote from them quoting here this is what he said to Putin as part of his sweetening deal. This was the stick. He said "I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year" which are taking place in Russia. "The Chechen groups that threatened the security of the games are controlled by us. We used them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria's political future." Well does that sound like someone who knows?

Joe: Knows what's going on, yeah. Knows pretty much what is going on.

Niall: That was a threat.

Joe: Yeah. But then obviously some kind of a Chechen Moslem terrorist attack at the Winter Olympics will just be used by Putin as he would say "Bring it on. I'll make hay out of that one. I've got to fight the terrorists just like you."

Jason: Well I don't know. Back on that Bandar guy though, he was connected to Bush.

Niall: Bush has said "Me and Bandar are like family."

Joe: Yeah, he was like family.

Jason: That's a little bit creepy.

Joe: This guy is like a caricature. He's a real freak. He was, like a lot of the Saudi royals, of which there are hundreds, from the first father who had like 55 children, and there's ...

Jason: And 80 wives.

Joe: Yeah. He was educated in military school in the UK. He's Saudi Arabian but he swans around the English countryside with the deer and dogs and goes on pheasant shoots when he's not involved in turkey shoots elsewhere. This is the guy that Niall was taking about. We're just dealing with a twisted psycho, money-grabbing ...

Niall: He's basically a deal maker and a financier, kind of. It's not really his money. He is up to his neck in arms deals. A recent one for $43 billion I believe with British Aerospace to sell fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. But he doesn't just do it, he's not really just a liaison officer for his own country, he makes and breaks massive deals between countries around the world. So he's obviously up to his neck in it in terms of what's going on in Syria. I thought it was interesting that this emerged a few weeks prior to this, so what kind of foreknowledge does this guy have?

Joe: When you look at these details it screams at you because to use John Kerry's terminology, except what he was saying was screaming out at everybody, was the need to do something about Assad. What is screaming out at the entire world here, when you just make a cursory investigation of this entire situation, is that this was a false flag attack. It's written all over it. Someone amongst the western-backed funded and trained and armed Syrian rebels blew up or detonated some kind of a chemical or even released some kind of industrial toxicant into the area to create these scenes that then could be used by the west to bomb in some form or other, Syria and beyond that we're not sure. It could be the beginning of a wonderful war. "Oh what a lovely war" where it ignites, as so many people keep saying, it would ignite the region as in any response that the Syrians would have would be largely directed at Turkey and Israel and if they could reach it Saudi Arabia, and that would be kind of it. If they started they could end up really bombing Syria back to the Stone Age and killing millions of people at which point obviously Iran, or before that, Iran would be involved as well. And who knows, I don't really believe Russia or China or those people would do anything. I think they're ultimately at the upper levels. They're part of the same kind of "We're not going to get serious about this." Its "dying is for the little people, not for the ..."

Jason: When I read about this whole situation, the first thing that came to mind was the start of World War II with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

Niall: That was the First World War.

Jason: Yeah, First World War, start of the First World War. And apparently this was taken place by a couple of Serbs, or something like that, aided by some sort of secret network of military people of the Black Hand. But they killed the single person who was representing their interests. So there's this extremely suspicious situation. They targeted and killed the one person that they probably shouldn't have, somebody who was liked and who was actually on their side which screams conspiracy there. And that one little event basically ignited, supposedly, this war that was from all these different powers that had been sort of like making political moves back and forth and a little bit of this and treaties here and treaties there. Germany under Bismarck had been doing all this different stuff and isolating France and basically castrated England and then had this treaty with Czar Nicholas and stuff like that. So this was bouncing back and forth and then they started to get all kind of pissed off at each other and then this happened and it kind of blew up. So this looks kind of like a similar type of situation. It really could because you have China and Russia and America all having made interesting political moves. China with their not giving up Snowden and saying "Hey what about this spy?" that was kind of a weird thing for them to do. And then Russia with Putin coming out with his speech where he basically calls the U.S. liars, pretty much he says they're lying.

Joe: Yeah.

Jason: But he said "If they had evidence, they would have shown it. If they don't show it, it means they don't have it." Well that's just a fancy way of them saying "They're lying to you about having evidence" right?

Joe: Yeah.

Jason: And so it's an interesting political move to come from Putin who originally with that whole Snowden guy who was like "Stop hurting our American partners." He has kind of not been so overt. So you look at the situation and you say "What if they decided that it's time for a big conflagration?" And it could explode into that.

Pierre: At the same time at the very top I think that there is no opposition between nations. There is a script written by a few oligarchs and nations and Putins and other leaders are just puppets. Right now they're playing a scenario where there is an opposition between China, Russia and the U.S. because it serves their interests.

Jason: But it was the same with World War I and World War II.

Pierre: Exactly.

Jason: So a big war is not necessarily not on the agenda.

Joe: Except in the sense that today a war or any real aggression between nuclear armed nations I think is off the books because...

Jason: I don't think so.

Joe: Well...

Jason: They may say that.

Joe: Well I don't know.

Jason: They keep saying that.

Joe: We went through the whole cold war and it never happened. I can't imagine for example, Russia and the U.S. and the UK and maybe France, all involved in a nuclear war where they're lobbing nukes at each other because there's no one left, you know?

Jason: There's nothing to say that they won't go nuclear. That's a Carl von Clausewitz kind of total war. He who doesn't go to the nth degree is weak against his enemy who is willing to go. That doesn't have to happen. They might just be playing at war and decide "You know what, we need another 60, let's try to top it, a hundred million dead this time. We'll take nuclear bombs off the table. We'll promise not to use them and we'll just fight it out with guns and drones and stuff."

Joe: Yeah, exactly.

Jason: Because it's just a game.

Joe: Exactly. That's what I think they would do because ultimately I think if they were to start a nuclear war what will happen would be that they would not be so sure of their positions afterwards.

Jason: Right.

Joe: At least the people in the overt government.

Niall: Four days ago before the British Parliament vote, in other words, when it was just fresh on the table and it was looking like they'd made a decision because the same sort of pseudo-battle plans were appearing in newspapers all over the world. There was the way of announcing "We're go, we're all a green light." On the same day there's this article headline "Russia joins U.S. and Canada in anti-terror aerial exercise." It goes on; "An anti-terror exercise aimed at boosting cooperation in reaction to hijacking of commercial aircraft. Fighter jets from the U.S. and Canada and Russia will be taking part in Vigilant Evil 2013, the third such exercise so far this year." So there, in the height of all this, "Oh, my god, we're on the verge of world war" they're like "Yeah, okay, yup. We'll be over there next week. See you then."

Joe: They're a bunch of duplicitous A-holes. You cannot trust them as far as you could throw them or whatever. It's really ridiculous that anybody anywhere in the world puts any faith or any trust in any of these so-called leaders because they're ...

Jason: But Putin sounds so sincere.

Pierre: He does the good cop/bad cop that's always fake dualities.

Jason: Right.

Pierre: But the only real duality again, we've said it in previous shows, it's between the oligarchs and the 99.9% of the people who are exploited.

Jason: We're talking about like maybe a hundred thousand people at the most at the top of the food chain. But, remember the game from The Authoritarians, from Bob Altemeyer's book The Authoritarians, you should get it on Amazon, where he put the right-wing authoritarians in charge of this game and it took them 40 minutes to destroy the entire world and end in nuclear confrontation. I had a friend once and used to say "When you're looking at a situation and someone could do the stupidest thing possible, always bet on stupid. They will do it."

Niall: Jay has a point because ...

Pierre: Hang on. But in this game, there are already two teams. It was authoritarians, people who had a tendency for authority, and compared to the other who has lower authoritarian tendencies. He was far less cooperative and screwed up everything very quickly. However here, the setting, the structure might be different and I'm not sure at the top you really have two teams. The apex of the pyramid might be just one.

Joe: The right-wing.

Pierre: And the rest of the other team is us.

Jason: I have something to say, but I have a response for that. What were you going to say Niall?

Niall: Well it reminded me that if it is some sort of controlled burn they go for, "Okay, let's hype things up, but let's not lose control of the situation", they're overlooking the simple fact that things do get out of control.

Jason: They do.

Niall: And it could happen.

Jason: But here's the thing. I hate reasoning by analogy. It's kind of like generally sometimes it can be a bit of a problem. But if you look at any kind of historical governmental structure, it collapses and then some evidence is found by historians about what was going on internally with that structure. You see that there was nothing but factional in-fighting between people who were united in their desire to oppress the people. They were completely united in their desire to use the people in any way they wanted, but each one of them or each group seemed to want to use the people in a slightly different way.

There's the warmongers, the murder people. They want war and destruction and blood. And then there's the greedy people, they're really interested in sort of like gluttony and greed and they want to take everything for themselves and they want to live lavish lifestyles. Then there's the perverts who want to have pedophile rings. And these are all factions that are running inside. And I think it's probably the same at the very, very top because there are factions and you never know when one faction is going to move against the other. And this could be a perfect opportunity, maybe not.

Joe: But it'll be "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss," a different flavour.

Jason: Yeah, different flavour.

Pierre: I think it's open. What we can say from historic data is that when you read Prouty's Secret Team or Douglas Reed's Controversy of Zion, you see that those major conflicts are very carefully planned at a high level that transcends by far any national cleavage. But it doesn't mean that it can't go out of hand and that the script is always respected and that there's no dissention within the apex.

Jason: I think that there's a lot of evidence, especially from history of the Second World War specifically, that I think that it was orchestrated, and sure they plan it but there's an old saying, it's like a military saying and a boxing saying, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." And they have this plan, they put it in motion but when you put tanks on the ground and you have 2 million troops running around with guns shooting at another 2 million troops, managing that and controlling that and controlling all the variable is just really kind of practically impossible.

Joe: Yeah. I think when they do that they don't try to control it because for them 65 million people dead is fine. That's the point of war. Let's get rid of a few people, let's re-define or re-draw the lines on the map.

Niall: We'll change the board game.

Joe: Let's change the board game type of thing.

Jason: Right.

Niall: Yeah, but Syria is the outcome of that board game change.

Joe: And that's fine.

Niall: The borders.

Joe: You can let things go in conventional warfare as far as you want them to go, type of thing, but the problem is, if there's any kind of a nuclear war, as I see it anyway, if they really did. The U.S. has hundreds of nukes and the Brits have a few hundred. The Israelis have a few hundred. If they ...

Jason: America has thousands.

Joe: Yeah, thousands, sorry. If they launched all those, if it was really just a free-for-all, fire everything we've got, there's no planet left for anybody.

Jason: They wouldn't do that.

Joe: I don't know if they would or not.

Jason: They might, but I don't think so.

Niall: Speaking of firing rockets, on the 7th of June last year, 2012, something strange was seen in the skies over the Middle East. It was seen from Israel, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, the whole region. People were freaked out. They described it as a comet-like object in the sky. And stories quickly came out saying "No, no, no, not to worry, not to worry. It was just a missile test. Specifically it was an ICBM, an intercontinental ballistic missile launched by Russia." And the most alarming thing about that apparent explanation for this was that I was thinking okay, so wait a minute. We've got this serious tension going on in the Middle East. You're saying that Russia lobbed a missile over the region at the height of it and no one in the west picked up on this? I mean, here they are today having to contrive an incident which might have killed people out of thin air but they had a real opportunity to say "Look, look, the evil Russians are coming" but it just disappeared from the news story.

Joe: Yeah, well as we've talked about this before, we think that the recent spate of - obviously there's some tests that go on in terms of rockets and all that kind of stuff, but there's some level of lobbing a few rockets, having a few "tests" here and there to confuse the issue of incoming space rocks, meteorites because, as we have seen, I think at least on one occasion, where we were able to confirm that it was a rocket test, and then we compared that to what a meteorite flying through the sky at nighttime, or whatever, appeared to be like, they were almost indistinguishable. Now you'd think that this would be something, if they want to cover up the truth about their being an increase in incoming meteorites, well then one way to do it would be to throw up a few rockets at the same time, say that they're rockets and just muddy the waters in that way so that if at any point in time it gets a bit alarming for people they can say "Well they're rockets" or "It's space junk" or "It's an incoming ..."

Jason: Weather balloon.

Joe: Yeah, "It's a weather balloon. It's swamp gas."

Pierre: There is a difference between rockets and incoming cometary bodies. There's an electromagnetic signature. And now with all those lies about Iran developing electromagnetic pulse rockets ...

Jason: Exactly.

Pierre: ... that would explode in the higher atmosphere and have all the features of an incoming cometary body so they would be able to muddy the water even better. And to cover up the major threat that is not a world war, is not the human level, but that is on a cosmic level. That's why Victor Clube said years ago "They don't need cosmic intentions to cover up, to disguise ...

Joe: The cold war.

Pierre: ... [war]. They need wars to cover, disguise cosmic intentions." I think that makes sense.

Jason: Okay, so here's a thing on that line, if I can say it real quick. There were a lot of reports during various wars of a lot of lights in the sky and things like that. And people were saying they were seeing lots of UFOs. There were lots of these reports. And it makes you wonder for a moment, a lot of people theorized at the time that the UFOs were attracted to the conflict but what if the conflict was attracted to the UFOs. And what if they were trying - maybe there were comets going around and a lot of the bombing that was happening at the time was not really - you don't know. A little conspiracy

Niall: There are a number of videos of this so-called rocket. The people on the ground described it as a comet, "but that's obviously a comet". There was more than one body in the sky. There was something that broke up. One of the videos was taken by so-called Syrian rebels and they said "Oh my god." What they said was translated "Oh my god, oh my god, Assad is launching chemical weapons."

Pierre: I have just an anecdote.

Jason: They've been setting that up for a while, really.

Pierre: When I visited my grandmother's town in Toulouse, she's 98 years old. But we were having chit-chats about different topics and we were talking about this human/cosmic connection. And she reminded me when she was born in 1914 and the year before she was born was 1913, and that's when the great comet, Comet Halley, was observed (the comet reached perihelion on 20 April, 1910). She was telling me apparently you could see in the night as if it was the middle of the day and for people of this generation, we're just talking about one century ago, not far away, for those people it was very clear that the Comet Halley and the World War I were intimately related. So just hundred years ago, this conspicuous connection was already in peoples' minds.

Niall: Yeah, it's almost instinctive. In the memory, that it's a sign of impending disaster.

Jason: Well we know throughout history that when, short of cosmic catastrophes start happening, weird stuff starts happening on the planet, that it basically drives people insane. And that's what worries me about this whole Middle East situation. It may be they do have all kinds of plans but maybe they're being driven insane by this whole cosmic situation if they're not really as in control as they would like us to think.

Pierre: And there's a feedback loop here. Historically the records are very clear. There's a strong correlation between cosmic events and social unrest. And one could wonder what is the cause, what is the effect. It's probably a feedback loop in the sense that when people start to see the cosmically induced catastrophes they really freak out. That leads to more social unrest and the psychopaths in power want to keep their power so they increase the repression, so it's even more violence. And if as we hypothesize, violence, oppression, lies, are one factor that modulates cosmic intentions, cosmic activity, you have even an increase in cosmic catastrophes and more freak out and more repression and it goes up and it spirals up to a critical level.

Jason: I don't know who said it but someone I heard say that in life we don't attract what we want, we attract what we are. And if we are destructive then we're only going to attract more destructive things.

Niall: Besides this dynamic which makes a lot of sense. Joe you suggested earlier this week that it could be that the timing of some kind of regional or global conflagration or the hyping up of it could be connected with the powers that be having one eye on something coming.

Joe: I think we talked about that a little bit already and it was talked about in previous shows, but it's just a hypothesis because this whole Syria business seems so contrived and really kind of unnecessary. I don't see why they waited two-and-a-half years.

Niall: Yeah, it's kind of like it's been on the back burner and "We'll use it, not when, so why now?"

Joe: Yeah, it's an opportunity to use it, why now is the question. So the hypothesis is that NASA or somebody with their eyes on the skies ...

Niall: Not NASA, maybe the air force. NASA is incompetent.

Joe: Well maybe the air force. But whoever, there may be some awareness somewhere in the halls of power that something may be incoming, something on a level comparable to the Russian meteorite or several of them, let's say. It's unlikely they have a specific itinerary and time and date and trajectory.

Niall: No, a way of calculating a range of risks.

Joe: A range of dates or a window of opportunity and they want to have something going on, burning quite hot throughout the next 3, 4, 5 months, let's say, because that's the window of suspicion, let's say, when something from fireballs might be raining on our heads. And it would be useful to have the people all kind of worked up and in a state of kind of war or war hysteria type thing, rather than having a very calm, peaceful society where people have the time and the opportunity to take their video cameras out and post them on YouTube. You know what I mean, a distraction basically. Because if and when something like that does happen in terms of a major meteorite impact, or several of them, it's going to be very difficult for them to spin it as anything other than what it is. And the only thing I can think of that they would think of, as to how to spin it as something else, is to have it happen in the context of where the U.S. is attacking or engaged in some kind of a campaign against someone and therefore they finally responded. It sounds very implausible to me, still.

Niall: It does. It sounds like it would need to be very hot, i.e., rockets, missiles would need to have been fired at the time. Or, for example, there's an impact or an ablation that takes out half a U.S. city. There's got to be a war mania going on. "Oh, the first thing people will think of is those Syrians or those Iranians or even those Ruskies."

Jason: Right.

Niall: I think they just need that. If they can get that first PR crew in where people themselves go "Ah, of course, well it's the Russians" then they might have a chance.

Jason: Well yeah, there was stuff like that during the cold war where when any kind of catastrophe or any problem had happened "The Russians are probably invading." In fact they made a movie called Blast from the Past. It was kind of about that. Somebody who freaked out by some small little disaster and decided it was the Russians invading and went into his bomb shelter and got locked in or something.
I was going to say that there is another idea or theory that I kind of came up with, with what's going on. I think that it's got a low probability, but it seems like there's a lot of workup, there's a lot of people who are kind of against the U.S. right now with their intent to go in and strike. Russia and England and there's a lot of people marching and there's some demonstrations against it and hands off Syria and stuff like this. And with Obama not making the executive order and saying "I'm going to go to Congress" which is just a ridiculous situation. I mean he's already established that he has every intention to start wars willy-nilly. Why would he choose to do that? And it might be that he is setting up some opposition, going to go in there, get voted down and say "Hhhhhhhaaaa, because I'm such a good guy, I'm going to acquiesce". And then a big false flag terror attack happens and then everybody basically gets pimp slapped, like "You should have let me go in. Now we're going to go in hard and fast" and everyone's like "Oh, we won't say anything bad against you again, because ah gee whiz, you were right."

Joe: "We'll never doubt you again."

Niall: "I can't believe we lost faith in our commander-in-chief."

Jason: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Joe: It's very plausible. Things happen.

Niall: It's very plausible.

Pierre: Just one thing about the increased cometary activity, we were wondering through the past shows if they knew there was an increase. We know just by consulting some publically available databases, but during conversation with a technician who was involved in space industry and particularly in military satellite base observation system, we learned from a paper that is public, difficult to find but public, that actually currently the U.S. Air Force is able to detect incoming bodies that are 10 centimetres in diameter. So what is pretty sure right now is that their screens are flashing everywhere with incoming bodies. And they know it's going on. They know it's been increasing for months.

Joe: How far out can they detect them?

Pierre: No, they can only detect below.

Niall: The satellites are all pointing downward.

Joe: The satellites, yeah.

Niall: They have this scheme but it's focused on controlling us. They have the technology and they should be looking out. It's not. It's looking down at us.

Joe: But that means they will have very little time if anything does come in.

Pierre: No, no, you're right. It only shows that they know because they see all those bodies entering.

Niall: Whizzing past, coming down, almost here.

Pierre: But they don't know where they come from and they're totally unable to neutralize them. And neutralizing them would be a Herculean task because unlike what is usually depicted in Hollywood productions, it's not one big body identified for years and years that it is coming straight towards the earth, its bodies coming from every direction and bodies of every size. They can last for years.

Jason: But in all fairness, with the technology that they do have now, if those satellites were pointing the other way, they could have an effective screen. It probably wouldn't be 100%. Even 50% effective would be good. And they could definitely have something like that.

Pierre: Are you sure that the technology, that's what this technician, this engineer said.

Niall: Should've, could've, would've. That in the end I think is what will condemn them to today's equivalent of the guillotine that we might have been able to see stuff, observe stuff and neutralize stuff.

Jason: It's my hope that it will.

Joe: It's too late Jay.

Jason: History is full of situations exactly like what we're seeing today. For the last 2,000 years it's just full to the brim of short-sighted elite oligarchs shooting themselves and everybody else at the same time in the foot from willful ignorance and greed. And we never seem - it's only a small band of people, a small band of historians that look back at the past and say "This has happened before. This is what they did. They screwed up. They killed themselves and a lot of other people with their willful ignorance and their short-sightedness." And still we look back into history and we lift them up and "Oh the Roman Empire" and talk about the feudal system, we talk about the ancient kings and all this different stuff. And we glorify history and we never learn from it.

Joe: When it's populated by a bunch of idiots.

Jason: When it's basically populated by a bunch of willfully ignorant, short-sighted, oligarchic morons.

Pierre: And it's worse than the ignorance and short-sightedness because even if they are unable to neutralize those incoming cometary bodies, what they've been parroting and repeating in mainstream medias is this global warming scam. If at least they had been alleging one of the consequences of these cosmic changes, i.e., global cooling, people could have prepared themselves. And instead of getting ready to face heat, they would get ready to face a global cooling down. So they've been deceiving people and they've been ...

Jason: Actively deceiving.

Pierre: ... pushing people in the wrong direction.

Joe: They've been setting people up since time immemorial to be destroyed, to be killed. And putting them in positions where ...

Jason: Here's the problem with that though. You're right, they've been setting them up, but historically they were destroyed too. So it's stupidity.

Joe: Yeah, ultimately.

Jason: Do they have no sense of their own survival?

Joe: Apparently not.

Jason: Because they're not - there is no bunker in the world that's going to save them from 20 or 30 metre sheet of ice on top of them. They're going to be stuck down there with their Pop Tarts. I mean, big whoop!

Pierre: It's true but here comes into play wishful thinking because they are building those bunkers. So they know what's going on and they think they are ready and prepared, but I think that they don't have all the factors that constitute the only question.

Joe: Absolutely. And I think that'll be written on all our tombstones.

Jason: "Stupid is as stupid does."

Joe: I don't know. It's a pretty depressing outlook on the future, if there is one. Maybe the saving grace is that it won't last too long. Don't worry. The idiots will get it.

Jason: We'll get it too. Everybody else is going to die, but at least they will too.

Niall: At the very least. It's going to be spectacular.

Joe: Keep faith folks.

Niall: Keep your eyes open, and strap in.

Joe: When we say keep the faith, we mean the keep the faith in the value of your ability to see what is going on even if you're just alone, a single viewer. It's worth more than being an ignorant slave.

Niall: It may even be worth more than your life. It may be worth your soul.

Joe: Absolutely. So I think we'll leave it there for this week. Thanks to our callers and thanks to all of our listeners. We hope you enjoyed the show. We did. And we'll be back next week hopefully with an interview of a guest that is yet to be confirmed, but we'll let you know during the week. You can check it at the usual places. Until then, have a good one.

Pierre: Bye-bye.