Home | About | Donate

Risking Nuclear War for Al Qaeda?


Risking Nuclear War for Al Qaeda?

Robert Parry

When President Barack Obama took questions from reporters on Tuesday, the one that needed to be asked – but wasn’t – was whether he had forbidden Turkey and Saudi Arabia to invade Syria, because on that question could hinge whether the ugly Syrian civil war could spin off into World War III and possibly a nuclear showdown.


The various sectarian conflicts, nefarious coalitions, and difficult to pronounce, ever-changing list of "foreign terrorist groups cum bad guys" make any understanding of the complexities of the Syrian conflict borderline impossible to follow... no less make sense out of.

I was riding along with Mr. Parry's narrative until this:

"But The Washington Post and its mainstream U.S. cohorts don’t want you to know the real “real world” reality that Syria’s sainted “moderate” rebels are fighting side by side with Al Qaeda, which was responsible for killing nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and for drawing the U.S. military into a series of Mideast conflicts that have claimed the lives of about 8,000 U.S. soldiers."

In my mind, Parry loses credibility when he pushes the Official Story for 911. And by the way, I don't think Al Qaeda existed prior to The Event. Wasn't it a response to its aftermath? Either way, Intelligent Minds have reviewed the EVIDENCE and it hardly comports with the Official Story.

So why does Parry peddle it when he otherwise does a good job of disentangling streams of disinformation... particularly when it's geared towards instigating a Third World War?


Parry concludes the lengthy piece in this way:

"But today the stakes include a potential nuclear showdown with Russia — with the United States being urged to take on that existential risk for all humankind on behalf of preserving Al Qaeda’s hopes for raising its black flag over Damascus."

Like the codes within codes that were so difficult for the allies to break during W.W. II, truth now must be peeled layer by layer from an odious onion.

And Mr. Parry only peels a few layers.

If the military industrial complex and the legion of weapons developers and suppliers it maintains wish to retain their primacy, then key to their agenda is the spread of wars.

Saudi Arabia is a MAJOR client when it comes to purchasing sophisticated arms.

Few would argue that hereditary leaders possess any evidence of spiritual maturity or the sort of altruism that looks out for the welfare of their people, an incentive that usually entails getting along with one's geographical neighbors.

Thus in a manner similar to the flash and bombast of royal family members boasting fancy cars and gorgeous women, at least some of the Saudis wish to USE those weapons they've spent a lot of money to obtain.

That's why Yemen has become a convenient target... as has the inflammation in Syria.

The more weapons the Saudis use, the greater their requirement for more to fill their coffers. That's good for the War Business.

Yes. When it comes to the ruling elites, this level of savage sadism fuels their policies.

Therefore, raising a flag over Damascus is the COVER STORY. The real agenda is keeping those expensive shipments of arms moving.

Some elites DO want a major global population reduction, so it's a two-for-one plan.

Either these entities have reserved rooms waiting in underground bunkers if things get out of hand, or they think they can just manage existing wars without any escalation into a bona fide World War III.

Looks like someone made a lot of clones of Dr. Strangelove.


No. It was a response to the Gulf War and the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.


America going to nuclear war with Russia to defend Al Qaeda and ISIS would be the perfect ending to a bullshit nation founded on murder, theft, and lies. Can you imagine Obama's Churchillian WWIII speeches, "in this our darkest hour, let us recall the fighting spirit of Osama bin Laden."


You do have to wonder how many of the neocons are even aware that it would take as few as 100 nuclear weapons to end the human species (nuclear winter, see Sagan 'A Path Where No Man Thought'). Two years with no sunlight, all plant life dies, all humanity starves.

I remember a stunned Russian, upon learning that in the U.S. it is claimed that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, saying, "what!? No, Carl Sagan visited Russia and publicly explained about nuclear winter. We realized then it was not possible to have a nuclear war with America and survive."


Although fewer than 100 Murkins have been killed by terrorists since September 12, 2001, more than 95% of Murkins were impacted by the 2008 meltdown caused by the too-big-to-fail banks.
95% of Murkins will be even more negatively impacted by the next meltdown, due for the most part to too-big-to-fail banks controlling nearly half of US bank assets today compared to 25% in 2008.

When you consider that 95 percentile equates to nearly 300 million Murkins, the threat Wall Street banks pose to Murkins is many million times greater than the threat of terrorism.

It would be helpful if Bernie could put this comparison in the proper light, however, we know that corporate media would frame it as Bernie wanting the terrorists to win.


Just how many individuals have been imprisoned in the US because they were allegedly supporting terrorism financially or otherwise? All along the US government was doing even worse by supplying terrorists with deadly weapons! Why isn't Obama in prison with the other individuals caught doing similar things? Has the rule of law been so badly trashed by American elites that it now only applies to ordinary citizens and no one else?


Interesting to watch US foreign policy shift, morph and reshape itself as events progress in the Middle East. First we're fighting them, then we're funding them, then we're ending the world for them. All this to continue using internal combustion engines and live an idiotic, wasteful and destructive lifestyle.I hope some aliens are filming all this so that future generations of other worlders can learn how humanity self destructed.


This potential scenario is like a deadly highly-infective parasite virus killing the host - think Marburg-ebola. The MICC war-machine would do well to rein-in Turkey/Erdogan's madness and consider that any nuclear conflict will kill the host providing their blood-profits from the deaths of millions/billions and destruction of humankind's works.....some of which actually work for the Common Good.......