Why Syria is a target of the NWO & Zionism by Nicky Nelson
8 REASONS WHY THE NWO HATES SYRIA; THE TRUTH AS TO WHY WE’RE IN SYRIA
1) Syria’s central bank is state owned. They have resisted a Rothschild Central Bank.
2) Syria has NO loans with the IMF, the International Monetary Fund.
3) Syria has no GMO foods and does not do business with Monsanto.
4) Syrians are aware of the conspiracy for a New World Order and are against secret societies, as was JFK.
5) Syria has gas and an alternative route to supply oil to the EU, Asia, and Africa without Israel controlling it.
6) Syria does not recognize the apartheid terrorist “state” of Israel and Zionism that is the root of all the illegal wars based on lies and false flags.
7) Syria is the last secular country in the Middle East.
8) Syria has a strong national identity and resists foreign products and corporations.
In reference to Secret Societies from number 4 above, President Kennedy’s alarming speech about Secret Societies.
“…The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.
Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your newspapers have constantly said–that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?” And I hope that every group in America–unions and businessmen and public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
– II –
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face…”
For the entire transcript from the Presidential Library:
Thanks ever so much to Nicky Nelson for this. Ironically I was in the process of preparing a piece which dealt mainly with reason No.5
How the War in Syria is About Oil, not ISIS by We Are Anonymous
http://anonhq.com/how-the-war-in-syria-is-about-oil-not-isis/
& let’s not forget how Israel has refused to give back the Golan Heights which it stole from Syria in 1967. No surprise large oil & gas deposits have been discovered there & even less surprise I’m sure when you hear which two families have been granted drilling rights – THE ROTHSCHILD & THE MURDOCHS!
This links features a terrific video that I posted when it first came out –
The Geopolitics of WW III by Storm Clouds Gathering
I personally believe pretty much everything in these 3 videos but I feel Israel is the main instigator of all the trouble in the Middle East because of two main reasons –
1) There is absolutely no doubt 9/11 was an inside job. I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again – to believe such nonsense as the official account requires stupidity on a scale scarcely imaginable. Since I know the media are hardly brainless then they have to be protecting the very people who were responsible. It goes without saying Muslims were not responsible because mountains of evidence points to dual national Zionists & Mossad. The very fact Zionists own & control the entire corporate media rubbers stamps what I’ve just said. The media wouldn’t lie on such a devastating issue for anyone other than if their own people did it!
2) What rubber stamps this even further is the fact that in 1982 Oded Yinon drew lines on a map & said this is what Greater Israel is going to be –
– & since General Wesley Clark confirmed that only 9 days after 9/11 he discovered the plan was to take out 7 countries, everything that’s happened since 9/11 is in total accordance with this plan. Syria in my opinion is stage 6. Iran is the final stage. On the 25 September 2014 I wrote a piece –
Syria Crisis: The Sixth Stage of A Pre-9/11 Conceived Plan
http://whatsupic.com/special-usa/syria-crisis14445.html
Thanks to Jen Negib for this caption –
