ONCE YOU GET THEM OUT OF THE BOX YOU CAN'T PUT THEM BACK

This is what one source of Seymour Hersh said about the cutthroat Jihadis that have been unleashed onto Syria by Saudi Arabia with the full backing of Israel and the USA.

Nasr went on, “The Saudis have considerable financial means, and have deep relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis”—Sunni extremists who view Shiites as apostates. “The last time Iran was a threat, the Saudis were able to mobilize the worst kinds of Islamic radicals. Once you get them out of the box, you can’t put them back.”

[source : The Redirection, The New Yorker Magazine, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=all, 5th March 2007]

This has now manifested in Syria.

It’s been so long ago, it’s easy to forget that the Syrian Civil War began with peaceful protests. Now those organizers and human rights activists that initially called for the ouster of Assad are finding a rebellion that they recognize less and less, and that has less and less use for them.

Fleeing Assad-held territory, such activists took refuge in the rebel-held north. But as secular rebel fighters lose what little influence they have left, the activists are fleeing Islamist-dominated territory.

Reporters Without Borders and other groups have detailed scores of activists “detained” by al-Qaeda, and at least 150 were reported to have fled the country outright.

[source : Targeted by Islamists, Secular Rebels Flee Syria, Antiwar, http://news.antiwar.com/2013/12/19/targeted-by-islamists-secular-rebels-flee-syria/, 19th December 2013]

But I am not so surprised at Antiwar calling the violence in Syria "the Syrian Civil War" (note the use of capitals to make it sound official). As documented on this blog ad nauseum (which is free of charge and powered by long solitary hours of reading and analysis) there is no civil war in Syria. There is however an invasion of Syria by cutthroat Jihadis who are sponsored by Saudi Arabia. This was agreed with Israel and the USA because the plan for war on seven nations in five years, which was revealed to General Wesley Clark shortly after the inside job 9/11, was moribund.

Why am I not so surprised at Antiwar getting "the Syrian Civil War" wrong? Because on the recent 50th anniversary of JFKs assassination Antiwar had a right go at JFK. Not only that, there is a strong pro-Ron Paul element to their writings. And on Ron Paul, I am again with Webster Tarpley; there is something not right with Paul's link to Bilderberg, which could explain his Austrian economics, or vice versa. Not that I am anti Antiwar. But as with Paul's dodgy finances, we also have to ask who are Antiwar's angels? And what have they asked for in return?