The Iraq War Was Based on Lies. Therefore whoever Lied Had a Definitve Reason which Begs the Question: Who Gained?

Category: SpecialsPublished on Tuesday, 02 June 2015 14:09Hits: 6227, Author: Michael Aydinian

The Iraq War Was Based on Lies. Therefore whoever Lied Had a Definitve Reason which Begs the Question: Who Gained?

Whatsupic — How does one begin to assess the cost of Tony Blair’s desire to bring democracy to Iraq? We rely on the media to inform us accurately of what’s going on. Aid agencies may have access to war zones but ultimately it requires media coverage in order for their findings to be highlighted. Therefore, especially with the Iraq war, isn’t one obliged to ask what if those who own the media are inextricably linked to the very people who bent over backwards to create the war in Iraq? What if those who control companies specialising in the manufacture of weapons in the lucrative armaments industry also possess a huge stake in the media? What if the owners of the six major media corporations were perfectly happy to see Iraq laid to waste and the country to descend into chaos, in other words, the objective all along was exactly what’s occurred? A prerequisite for understanding the whole truth about the Iraq war is ticking all three boxes.

Plain and simple, there were no grounds for war in Iraq. We know this….. yet a case for war was literally manufactured out of thin air. Therefore, it’s unequivocal – there had to a definitive reason for certain people to want to do this. The initial job of fabricating a case for war against Iraq fell on the shoulders of three men – Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. Needless to say, they have much in common. All three masquerade as Americans. All three are dual national Zionists whose allegiance is to Israel. All three were members of the infamous Project for New American Century, more commonly known as the PNAC group; lamentably, not so well known as the group which comprised of the chief architects of 9/11. It is indeed a sad indictment of the human race these mass-murderers not only remain free; they exert every bit as much influence today.

Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith conjured up three lies: Saddam had WMD’s, weapons of mass destruction.; he had links with Al Qaeda and he could attack any city in Europe within 45 minutes. Their ‘findings’ were fed to their Zionist partners in the corporate media and so a process began where over the next 18 months the general public was constantly reminded of these three claims. The media forged ahead as if it had blinkers on, for as flimsy as these claims were, on a matter of war no less, the media never once asked the key question – where’s the evidence? All we ever heard is ‘we have reason to believe’……. and that would suffice. The press neglected to apply an iota of pressure when the situation demanded it. It was their duty to ask ‘what are those reasons?’ If the media so desired they could have sought the opinion of chief weapons inspectors who for years made sure Saddam’s weapons were neutralised.

Sure enough, journalist Andrew Gilligan did just that. He interviewed UK’s chief weapons inspector to Iraq Dr. David Kelly who scoffed at the very notion Saddam possessed WMD’s. This wasn’t reason to believe; this was evidence from the horses mouth! Without revealing his source Gilligan said as much in a newspaper article. However, instead of pursuing a line of inquiring that could well have cast serious doubt on the Bush/Blair case for war, the media inexplicably pressured Gilligan to break what’s considered a journalist’s oath – to reveal one’s source, which incidentally happened to be priority No.1 for Blair. Finally, Gilligan grudgingly relented. The situation couldn’t have been clearer – Britain’s chief weapons inspector to Iraq challenged Blair’s assertion Saddam had WMD’s. Since we’re talking about declaring war on a sovereign nation if Blair was lying, he was effectively committing Treason!

Who was the one that should have been grilled? On the one side we have a public servant who was entrusted with the dangerous job of ensuring Saddam’s weapons would be destroyed. On some 10 occasions Dr. Kelly visited Iraq knowing if Saddam had a hit list, he’s be right up there. On the other hand we have a man gagging to make his mark on history. While Dr. Kelly was known for his meticulous attention to detail, Blair was known for making things up as he went along. Ultimately if your life depended on picking who most likely knew whether Saddam had WMD’s, it would be beyond the boundaries of sanity to say Blair ahead of Dr. Kelly…… yet….. the Zionist controlled media ignored all this. Small wonder, Dr. Kelly soon discovered he was totally isolated. What followed was as shameful as it gets.

Dr. Kelly found himself before a bent parliamentary committee. He was grilled as if he’d committed some heinous crime while the media portrayed him as dodgy and elusive as if he was hiding something. It was positively gut-wrenching. The only thing Kelly should have been asked was whether Saddam had WMD’s or not. This was the worst witch hunt I had ever seen. A few days later Dr. Kelly was found dead in a field. Immediately, we were told he committed suicide. His family apparently stated he’d been depressed. The truth is, we’ve never heard a word from his family. They were well and truly gagged. As far as I’m concerned a man brave enough to be doing such a job in Iraq is hardly a man who’d commit suicide. The Iraq war was already underway but the last thing Blair needed was someone like Dr. Kelly around. It’s obvious Blair had him murdered. The media duly covered up the whole sordid episode.

The media seemed able to act with impunity, never mentioning the anomaly that Saddam couldn’t have had WMD’s after Desert Storm because this was part and parcel of the ultimatum. Moreover, Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other. No evidence was ever presented to substantiate this. They just said it and that was it! But what took the ticket was the claim ’45 minutes and it could be all she wrote!’ Surely there’s a limit to how crass fear-mongering can be? Several nations genuinely had this ability. This didn’t bother us. Who’s daft enough to bomb a European city when it’s a shoe-in there’ll be hell to pay? In any case, the WMD argument of has he, hasn’t he, renders the 45 minute claim irrelevant! If he’s got WMD’s, he may be able to attack us; if he hasn’t, then he can’t! To make up such tripe is actually embarrassing yet quite how Blair was daft enough to say regime change was necessary in order to bring democracy to Iraq, I’d be astonished if one of his advisers didn’t say to him “shut up you blithering idiot. We’re the ones who put Saddam there! This can of worms is the last thing we need to open up!” Had this been highlighted by any journalist, how could Blair have got away with telling such a humungous lie?

Just for the record, this is how Saddam reached top dog status. In the late 50’s Iraq’s leader Qasim incurred the wrath of the US and UK by stating “Iraqi oil is for the Iraqi people.” So the CIA sent in two trained assassins, brothers in fact, to murder Qasim. They blew their assignment, so the CIA sent in the pros and the job was done. A few years later, the brothers, who’d been in hiding, appeared. One of them, with the help of America, became Iraq’s leader – his name Saddam Hussein. Considering US and UK kids were being sent to fight in this war, the deception is there for all to see. Not only were all the reasons for going to war false, crucial facts were deliberately withheld. Make no mistake – the true conspirators could never get away with any of this without the full control of the media. Once you know this, everything becomes as clear as daylight, including the fact that whoever owns the media is either directly or indirectly linked to the war criminals.

Unravelling this conundrum explains why most of us have little or no idea of either the sheer carnage or the horrendous death toll. In the early stages of the campaign though, the media were in the box seat. There were photo opportunities aplenty and by the time US forces reached Saddam’s statue in Baghdad, cameras were on a roll. A delerious crowd cheered wildly as US marines help pull down the statue. Saddam was toast. Democracy had returned to Iraq! Rejoice. The media made maximum use of this ‘historic’ event, milking it as if to say “see. We told you.” The UK tabloids made sure all those who opposed the war, had their noses well and truly rubbed in it. It was a propaganda coup for the war-mongers. What we didn’t know – this whole event was staged!

Then there was the aftermath and the media’s role changed like the wind. Cast your mind back to when US forces attacked Fallujah. Captured on camera were several examples where we could see and hear US marines executing wounded Iraqis. This is was a violation of the Geneva Convention and therefore a war crime. One or two of these incidents made prime-time news in the West. Naturally people were shocked. As a result, there were calls for this; calls for that. US army big-wigs made out these were merely isolated incidents, when for the world it appeared these soldiers had the green light. We were fed the usual claptrap and as soon as I heard the UN say they were going to look into it, I thought I better not hold my breath! Nothing was done. The ONLY thing that occurred was the press went from front row seats to being slung out the theatre.

What possible excuse could media moguls have for the disturbing lack of media coverage in Iraq? We know filming in any war zone requires courage but this never stopped journalists and cameramen getting into the thick of it. There’s ample footage of WW I and II, the war of annihilation and the horrific street to street fighting when the Russians took Berlin. Considering too how US and UK forces were vastly superior and therefore members of the press would have been in a far less precarious situation than they might have been, do you honestly believe we’ve seen anything like the footage we should have from Iraq? Modern equipment is nothing like as cumbersome as the furniture war correspondents had to cart around in the past. To think all it requires today is a click on a laptop or tablet and within seconds photos and footage are sent across the globe to where they’re needed so that the public could be kept well informed.

Once again, we’re confronted with the dilemma that plays into the hands of the conspirators and war-mongers. The worthiness of a news item doesn’t enter the equation. What matters for the purveyors of news is whether a news item advances or hinders their cause. The truth has zero bearing on the issue. Therefore, however worthy a news item is, if the media doesn’t report it, it’s not news and so as a consequence, is largely stricken from the annals of history. This is an integral part of a process that allows the history books to be written by the winners. A young intelligence analyst, however, thought different. His name was Bradley Manning. He’d seen his trigger-happy colleagues mowing down innocent civilians as if Iraq was a playground shooting gallery. He felt the world had to be told. So he passed on classified documents to Julian Assange at Wikileaks, who in turn uploaded them onto the Internet. Finally, the world could see the true horrors that were taking place in Iraq. This was not war; this was wholesale slaughter!

Instead of the US military being placed in the dock, the lives of these two brave men were turned upside down. Assange was falsely accused of sexual harassment. It was obvious these were trumped up charges, literally snatched out of thin air & note, the media didn’t just play their part – they were integral to this whole process of vilification that to the uninitiated rendered the messenger, the whistle-blower of what were outrageous crimes against humanity, as traitors who’d compromised national security. Only the Ecuadorian Embassey provided refuge for Assange but for 4 years, Cameron has made sure Assange can never leave, surrounding the embassy 24 hours a day with armed Police, costing the British taxpayer in excess of £10 million. And he has the nerve to insist the people of the UK have to tighten their belts? However, compared to Bradley Manning, Assange got off lightly. His punishment for revealing war crimes and simply telling the truth was more akin to that of a serial killer – 35 years imprisonment!

Yet we have to look no further than the history books to alert us to something very disturbing. 12 years earlier, in the first Iraq war, Bush senior chose not to invade Iraq. Desert Storm succeeded in ejecting Saddam’s forces out of Kuwait. Saddam then accepted the ultimatum and as a result remained Iraq’s leader. Why did Bush senior do this? Because he believed this was the best way to serve US interests. Maintaining stability in the Middle East was crucial in order to safeguard oil supplies which were integral to the US economy. Also Saddam ruthlessness proved ideal for keeping the lid on the various warring factions in Iraq. What earthly reason did America have to suddenly execute a complete about turn in foreign policy? It seems inconceivable that 12 years later America would choose to alienate itself in the eyes of the world and in doing so spend a king’s ransom.

9/11 was a pivotal point in history. Before 9/11, sure. America had Israel’s back. US foreign policy though was strictly designed to protect US interests. However, after 9/11, US foreign policy not only served Israel’s interests; it proved to be nothing short of catastrophic for America. There’s no point beating about the bush – Israel is the only country gaining from the mayhem in the Middle East and since it’s all perfectly in accordance with Oded Yinon’s plan for the creation of Greater Israel, how can anyone not concede that the dual national Zionists have complete control of America? Whether you like it or not, America has been taken over from within.

But what of the poor Iraqi people? Will they one day be able to claim the kind of compensation Jews have been receiving for 65 years? The damage is incalculable. On a pack of Zionist lies, we have in excess of 1.5 million dead Iraqis; some 5 million rendered homeless; the country’s infrasture reduced to rubble. Goodness knows how many injured and scarred for life and we haven’t even mentioned the devastation caused by the illegal use of Depleted Uranium! The entire country is blighted by the most hideous birth defects you can imagine and if anything, this dire predicament shows no signs of abating. Did the Zionists media ever highlight any of this? All these years later, scarcely a day goes by where more innocent civilians aren’t blown to pieces by yet another indiscriminate bomb blast. What the Palestinians are suffering is bad enough but I ask you, isn’t what’s occurring in Iraq another Holocaust?

To cap it all the media have the gall to tell us this Islamic terrorist group ISIS is running riot in Iraq. They’re doing the same in Syria. So what we’re led to believe is these Islamic terrorist, who mysteriously never have any problem with supplies, only kill Arabs and Muslims. What’s more, their greatest enemy, which happens to be but a stone’s throw away, remains untouched from these terrible Islamic maniacs. We’re even told the US military left all this hardware and firepower for these yoyo’s to simply pick up. Well, thank you very much. Is this how we fight terrorism? Is this why we have to suffer futhe ignominy of further erosion of our civil liberties? To me it looks as if our politicians are doing everything in their power to create terrorism. Most significantly I wholeheartedly believe the very people who complain so vociferously about terrorism, are not only the greatest terrorists on the planet but the most successful terrorists in history.


The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, the Whatsupic.

Source :

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *