Tweet
Obama’s real world game of Risk
Canada Free Press
Doug Hagmann
11/5/2012
Excerpt:
Most thinking Americans are outraged about the cover-up pertaining to Benghazi. Questions about the deaths of four Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador, posed to Obama and his spokespeople have been met with vague, carefully worded, well parsed and deliberately misleading responses. Why? To cover up incompetence and intelligence failures? No, because there were no intelligence failures!
To say that the lack of response or calls for assistance was due to a communications breakdown is like calling a five alarm fire that completely destroys an important structure and everything in it, deliberately set to cover up a crime, an accident. And in this case, the fire department dispatchers are co-conspirators in the arson! In addition to not sending the fire company, they are now busy making sure that the fire investigators they are now sending to investigate what happened are maintaining their cover.
While the public is aghast at the damage caused by the fire, they are not paying attention to the crime it covered, hoping that it will all be relegated to the ash heap of history. We must look through the smoke from the burnt embers and pick through the ashes to see what was covered up by the fire. When we do, we will find the singed blueprints of activities so nefarious that they will explain the cover-up. To best understand the cover-up, it helps to identify and understand the crime.
Full disclosure of the Benghazi situation would expose an agenda that would surprise many Americans and answer a lot of questions about what’s really going on in the world, even offering explanations for such issues as Obama’s low-bow to the Saudi Royals to the exposure of a plan for the global power structure. It’s that big and that revealing, and that important.
There’s a real-life game of Risk being played by Obama and the major powers of the world, and Americans are involved in the game by default. Much like the actual Parker Brothers game of military strategy and world domination, Benghazi acts like a snapshot in time of the players, exposing the armies and their positions on the board. In those terms, it shows that Benghazi was a skirmish of significant import, and reveals the agenda and strategy of a number of players.
As Americans, however, you were not asked whether you wanted to play. Your role was predetermined for you. The color of your army, that of the Muslim Brotherhood, was picked by Obama for you. Unlike the game of Risk, the real life version produces real causalities. Obviously, four Americans are dead, but no one seems to be talking about forty thousand more men, women and children who have been killed in Syria as a result of the real world actions caused, in large part, by Obama’s actions in Libya. Or the tens of thousands refugees created. This is the real world version of Risk.
And therein lies the rub. It is this agenda, this plan, this foreign policy in action that is at the very heart of the events in Benghazi. It is this deliberate course of action that has led us to the brink of a regional conflict in the Middle East that could further ignite World War III. As Fellow Americans, do we really want to be part of another war? Is taking us to the brink of World War III and beyond in our best national interest? If it’s not in our best national interest, then for whom are we doing the dirty work? Let’s look at the players, game board and the game pieces to see if we might find answers.
Motive
In this real world game of Risk, Obama appears to be following the instructions of a super secret mission card. The “Benghazi mission” was to facilitate the destabilization of Syria at the hands of “freedom fighters,” overthrowing Assad and the installation of a sympathetic Muslim Brotherhood backed regime. The installation of such a regime is of critical importance here for reasons that will become obvious later.
At this point, however, it is no secret that the rag-tag groups of rebels or freedom fighters are no match for Assad’s military. They are disorganized and ill equipped to depose Assad. Also, Assad, under the guidance and support of Russia, had so far escaped the full wrath of NATO for his part in putting down the various attempts to oust him from power. And the game clock was running out.
Means & Opportunity
The anti-Assad rebels were in need of assistance in the form of weapons, training, military coordination and discipline. At the behest of Saudi Arabia (a player with no army pieces in this game), Mr. Obama agreed to step in to provide material and manpower, but he had a dilemma; he could not do so openly, with the full knowledge and consent of the U.S. Congress as they would never approve of such an operation (think Iran-Contra in terms of strategy, but with a much different intent).
The operation, therefore, had to be conducted under the radar. Mr. Obama could not be directly linked to this agenda, so the exports of weapons had to have some cover and provide some distance between Obama and the boots on the ground in Syria. This is where alliances were formed, and obfuscation reigned supreme.
As we were in Libya under the pretext of securing caches of weapons and arms left after Qadafi, Obama sent U.S. Ambassador Stevens to take charge of the logistics. Stevens was selected as he had vast experience and contacts on all sides in the Middle East. He was the perfect “go-to” guy for all sides.
Under the cover of securing and “destroying” arms as publicized, Obama’s covert operation diverted the functional weapons to Syria, while destroying the non-functional weapons and broadcasting their destruction in the media as eye-candy. From the time Qaddafi was deposed and killed through the attack of September 11, 2012, reasonable estimates suggest that between 30-40 million pounds of missiles, guns and even chemical weapons (gas) had been confiscated from Libya and shipped to various prepositioning locations in Turkey and directly into Syria for use by anti-Assad “rebels.”
In addition to arming the anti-Assad rebels with conventional weapons, there was a concurrent plan that would have been the icing on the cake, so to speak. An event that would have put the objective on a fast track to completion.
Imagine the outcry from the civilized world that wakes up one morning to the news that Assad had “gassed” his own people. Except it would be a false flag event that would set-up Assad. That would be an invitation to NATO and the West to intervene, using the same or a similar template we have seen Mr. Obama use. Again, the game clock was running out on Mr. Obama and his handlers, and there is no guarantee that he will see another term to get the job done. Such an event would usher in the forces of NATO and expedite plans.
.................................................. ......
View the complete article at:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50824
Copyright © Douglas Hagmann
Canada Free Press
Doug Hagmann
11/5/2012
Excerpt:
Most thinking Americans are outraged about the cover-up pertaining to Benghazi. Questions about the deaths of four Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador, posed to Obama and his spokespeople have been met with vague, carefully worded, well parsed and deliberately misleading responses. Why? To cover up incompetence and intelligence failures? No, because there were no intelligence failures!
To say that the lack of response or calls for assistance was due to a communications breakdown is like calling a five alarm fire that completely destroys an important structure and everything in it, deliberately set to cover up a crime, an accident. And in this case, the fire department dispatchers are co-conspirators in the arson! In addition to not sending the fire company, they are now busy making sure that the fire investigators they are now sending to investigate what happened are maintaining their cover.
While the public is aghast at the damage caused by the fire, they are not paying attention to the crime it covered, hoping that it will all be relegated to the ash heap of history. We must look through the smoke from the burnt embers and pick through the ashes to see what was covered up by the fire. When we do, we will find the singed blueprints of activities so nefarious that they will explain the cover-up. To best understand the cover-up, it helps to identify and understand the crime.
Full disclosure of the Benghazi situation would expose an agenda that would surprise many Americans and answer a lot of questions about what’s really going on in the world, even offering explanations for such issues as Obama’s low-bow to the Saudi Royals to the exposure of a plan for the global power structure. It’s that big and that revealing, and that important.
There’s a real-life game of Risk being played by Obama and the major powers of the world, and Americans are involved in the game by default. Much like the actual Parker Brothers game of military strategy and world domination, Benghazi acts like a snapshot in time of the players, exposing the armies and their positions on the board. In those terms, it shows that Benghazi was a skirmish of significant import, and reveals the agenda and strategy of a number of players.
As Americans, however, you were not asked whether you wanted to play. Your role was predetermined for you. The color of your army, that of the Muslim Brotherhood, was picked by Obama for you. Unlike the game of Risk, the real life version produces real causalities. Obviously, four Americans are dead, but no one seems to be talking about forty thousand more men, women and children who have been killed in Syria as a result of the real world actions caused, in large part, by Obama’s actions in Libya. Or the tens of thousands refugees created. This is the real world version of Risk.
And therein lies the rub. It is this agenda, this plan, this foreign policy in action that is at the very heart of the events in Benghazi. It is this deliberate course of action that has led us to the brink of a regional conflict in the Middle East that could further ignite World War III. As Fellow Americans, do we really want to be part of another war? Is taking us to the brink of World War III and beyond in our best national interest? If it’s not in our best national interest, then for whom are we doing the dirty work? Let’s look at the players, game board and the game pieces to see if we might find answers.
Motive
In this real world game of Risk, Obama appears to be following the instructions of a super secret mission card. The “Benghazi mission” was to facilitate the destabilization of Syria at the hands of “freedom fighters,” overthrowing Assad and the installation of a sympathetic Muslim Brotherhood backed regime. The installation of such a regime is of critical importance here for reasons that will become obvious later.
At this point, however, it is no secret that the rag-tag groups of rebels or freedom fighters are no match for Assad’s military. They are disorganized and ill equipped to depose Assad. Also, Assad, under the guidance and support of Russia, had so far escaped the full wrath of NATO for his part in putting down the various attempts to oust him from power. And the game clock was running out.
Means & Opportunity
The anti-Assad rebels were in need of assistance in the form of weapons, training, military coordination and discipline. At the behest of Saudi Arabia (a player with no army pieces in this game), Mr. Obama agreed to step in to provide material and manpower, but he had a dilemma; he could not do so openly, with the full knowledge and consent of the U.S. Congress as they would never approve of such an operation (think Iran-Contra in terms of strategy, but with a much different intent).
The operation, therefore, had to be conducted under the radar. Mr. Obama could not be directly linked to this agenda, so the exports of weapons had to have some cover and provide some distance between Obama and the boots on the ground in Syria. This is where alliances were formed, and obfuscation reigned supreme.
As we were in Libya under the pretext of securing caches of weapons and arms left after Qadafi, Obama sent U.S. Ambassador Stevens to take charge of the logistics. Stevens was selected as he had vast experience and contacts on all sides in the Middle East. He was the perfect “go-to” guy for all sides.
Under the cover of securing and “destroying” arms as publicized, Obama’s covert operation diverted the functional weapons to Syria, while destroying the non-functional weapons and broadcasting their destruction in the media as eye-candy. From the time Qaddafi was deposed and killed through the attack of September 11, 2012, reasonable estimates suggest that between 30-40 million pounds of missiles, guns and even chemical weapons (gas) had been confiscated from Libya and shipped to various prepositioning locations in Turkey and directly into Syria for use by anti-Assad “rebels.”
In addition to arming the anti-Assad rebels with conventional weapons, there was a concurrent plan that would have been the icing on the cake, so to speak. An event that would have put the objective on a fast track to completion.
Imagine the outcry from the civilized world that wakes up one morning to the news that Assad had “gassed” his own people. Except it would be a false flag event that would set-up Assad. That would be an invitation to NATO and the West to intervene, using the same or a similar template we have seen Mr. Obama use. Again, the game clock was running out on Mr. Obama and his handlers, and there is no guarantee that he will see another term to get the job done. Such an event would usher in the forces of NATO and expedite plans.
.................................................. ......
View the complete article at:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50824
Copyright © Douglas Hagmann
Comment