US Invasion of Syria: The Deep Breath Before the PlungeBy Tony Cartalucci The article claims: However, these safe zones are precisely what US policy think tank the Brookings Institution has conspired to create over the entire course of the Syrian conflict, under different pretexts first predicated on feigned humanitarian concern similar to the ruse used to justify NATOs war on Libya in 2011, and now using the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) as a pretext. Brookings 2012 Middle East Memo #21 Assessing Options for Regime Change would state: Clearly, while the justification for Western meddling constantly shifts with the political winds, the underlying plan to divide, destroy, incrementally invade, occupy, and eventually overrun Syria remains. In reality the latest pretext, ISIS, was created and to this day perpetuated by US, Saudi, Israeli, Jordanian, and Turkish support. ISIS is incapable of sourcing the weapons, cash, and fighters within Syria and Iraq alone, and admittedly receives the vast majority of all three from abroad. In Turkey alone, hundreds of trucks a day pass by Turkish border checkpoints destined for ISIS territory in Syria and Iraq. So overt are these supply convoys that a Deutsche Welles camera crew spent a day filming them and interviewing locals describing the daily torrent feeding state-sponsored terrorism just across the border in northern Syria. Likewise, reports from Israels own Haaretz newspaper admitted that the Israeli Defense Force was rendering aid to Al Qaedas al Nusra Front, long listed by the US State Department as a foreign terrorist organization and having cooperated openly with ISIS in the past. The report titled, Israel halts medical treatment for members of Syrias Nusra Front, admitted that: Growing complaints from Israels Druze community prompted the public statement which proves that Israel, like Turkey to Syrias north, is providing material support for Al Qaeda terrorists the very terrorists the West and its regional allies are attempting to use as a pretext to yet further escalate the Syrian conflict. If Turkey Really Wanted to Stop ISIS Were Turkey serious about ending the ISIS menace, its first order of business should be to stop harboring their fighters in their territory. Stricter measures along Turkeys borders would be implemented to prevent new fighters from streaming into Syria and joining ISIS ranks, and the endless torrent of supplies flowing into ISIS territory in Syria and Iraq, apparently through NATO-member Turkeys territory, would also be interdicted immediately. One may notice that Turkey is the virtual port-of-call for all fighters from across the world seeking to join ISIS whether they are Uyghur terrorists the US and Turkey are trafficking from China, or patsies recruited by Western intelligence services across North America and Europe sent to and from Turkey before carrying out spectacular terrorist attacks back home. In fact, it was to Turkey that one of several of the French Charlie Hebdo shooting suspects attempted to flee in an attempt to rejoin ISIS fighters in Syria. For years now, these options were clearly on the table and at any point Turkey could have exercised them. But Turkey has not. That is because eliminating ISIS is not the objective of this most recent attempt to militarily intervene in Syria, rather the objective is to carve out safe zones as described by US policymakers in 2012, from which to topple the Syrian government. Turkey has no intention of stopping ISIS. There are no moderate fighters Turkey has to back in its alleged, upcoming military operation. It will carve out Syrian territory in a de facto invasion, and push the front closer to Damascus in a desperate bid to once again shake the resolve of both the Syrian people, and the Syrian Arab Army. It also seeks to shatter the resolve of Syrias allies who have thus far stood with Damascus. By threatening to carve out Syrian territory in a de facto invasion under the pretense of fighting ISIS, when in all reality ISIS will simply be provided with NATO aircover to further build its otherwise inexplicable fighting capacity, NATO hopes to force concessions from Syrias allies to salvage what would be left after the operation concluded. The US and Turkeys planned invasion of northern Syria is a power move born of a frustrated, stalled conspiracy to topple the Syrian government in quick succession after the fall of Libyas government in 2011. A well-calculated power move by Syrias allies is in order to counter it. Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook. Researchers Link Syrian Conflict to a Drought Made Worse by Climate Change NYTimes March/2015 The prolonged and devastating drought that sparked the mass migration of rural workers into Syrian cities before the 2011 uprising was probably made worse by greenhouse gas emissions, US scientists say. The study is one of the first to implicate global warming from human activities as one of the factors that played into the Syrian conflict..Were not arguing that the drought, or even human-induced climate change, caused the uprising, said Colin Kelley at the University of California in Santa Barbara. What we are saying is that the long term trend, of less rainfall and warmer temperatures in the region, was a contributing factor, because it made the drought so much more severe. From 2006, the Fertile Crescent, where farming was born 12,000 years ago, faced the worst three year drought in the instrumental record. the Guardian March 2015 Tonys article is a brilliant analysis but sadly, he thinks global warming is a hoax, meaning that 99.9% of the worlds climate scientists are frauds. The lesson is that as climate change creates extreme droughts, flooding (melting of 90% of worlds glaciers), etc) it exacerbates the extreme reactions to such crises. The worst migrations ever in the history of Middle East have been caused by bombing Libya millions of black Abricans worked in Gaddhafis land. Libya was a factor of stability. Now, those people have to move to Europe searching jobs and better life this is a humanitarian catastrophe. If I am a paid troll (a deliberate but hilarious lie, of course), so are you, because I agree with you about about the criminal bombing in Afghanistan, Iraq,Libya, and Syria. I already have fruit trees and veggies growinghave done so for most of my life. Even now in the redwoods, my apples and nectarines are thriving, due to the warming since I moved here 24 years ago. Extreme weather exacerbating social divisions can lead to wars, humanitarian catstrophes. In the future, many areas will lose their water sources (due to glacial melting running its course) and that will lead to more wars, conflicts, etc. The efforts to mitigate global warming and resist Western militarism must be fought against the same forces, the fossil fuel oligarchies which promote wars which they fuel, which promote wars in oil rich nations to take control of the resources, and which went after Afghanistan on the heels of a 600 billion pipeline deal that went sour. All these factors are interconnected. 9/11 was funded by oil, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq were designed by oil oligarchs, Condi Rice was negotiating with the Taliban, Bush and Cheney were oilmen..and the anti-global warming propaganda campaign is funded by the oil industry, which has known about it since the 80s. Its the same struggle to end the power of the transnational, energy corporations,banks,and weapons makers,promoting war and blocking control of fossil fuel pollution and emissions. You know I am not a paid troll.why do you substitute libel with understanding? Your comment is a classic non sequitur. Iraq Afghanistan- Yugoslavia Libya Yemen Ukraina Syria how many wars more? I note that gifteconomy has edited his post to removed his libelous lie that I am a paid troll. It would have been decent of him to accompany his edit with an apology. In my original post, I pointed out the commonality between the neo-con war mongers and the forces funding anti-global warming propaganda. Today, I found an article detailing this link, since those who profit from war are the banks, which fund wars , the energy cartels which fuel it (and gain access to new sources in oil wars), the weapons makers, and all industries which profit from human catastrophes. 9 Industries That Are Cashing In as Our Planet Heats Up By Larry Schwartz / AlterNet I would add to the list detailed at Alternet, the weapons makers who profit from wars, which are exacerbated by crisis. Here is an example of climate change crisis which leads to war. U.S. News.com Study: Climate Change Could Put Millions More at Risk of Water Scarcity Water scarcity will be amplified 40 percent by climate change, study says. Wikipedia reports: A comprehensive online database of water-related conflictsthe Water Conflict Chronologyhas been developed by the Pacific Institute. This database lists violence over water going back nearly 5,000 years. Recent humanitarian catastrophes, such as the Rwandan Genocide or thewar in Sudanese Darfur, have been linked back to water conflicts. For example, the Middle East has only 1% of the worlds freshwater shared among 5% of the worlds population.[29] Intrastate conflicts take place between two of more parties in the same country. An example would be the conflicts between farmers and industry (agricultural vs industrial use of water). According to UNESCO, the current interstate conflicts occur mainly in the Middle East (disputes stemming from the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers among Turkey, Syria, and Iraq; and the Jordan River conflict among Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and the State of Palestine), in Africa (Nile River-related conflicts among Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan),[2] as well as in Central Asia (the Aral Seaconflict among Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan). Some analysts estimate that due to an increase in human consumption of water resources, water conflicts will become increasingly common in the near future. Pingback: US Invasion of Syria: The Deep Breath Before the Plunge | Sandora RSS Feed Aggregator Portal() On the notion of climate change, I would say that war is the elephant in the room and the major if not A major factor in creating climate change. From the manufacturing and deployment of weapons that destroy infrastructures around the globe, surely that has a devastating impact on the climate. I seldom if ever hear any reports about the devastating impact of war on the environment as if we live in a vacuum where the destruction of anothers infrastructure has no bearing on our own, as we live safely away from the bombs. 