Petraeus represents the Bilderberg war party.
However, on the same webpage that this pro-war interview is reported in the DT, it is reported:
The American action came as Saudi Arabia warned the US and UK not to “meddle” in the “alarming situation”in Iraq and risk escalating it.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, the Saudi ambassador to the UK, said it would be“madness” and “beyond our comprehension” for the US to launch air strikes.
He said he “despaired” for the innocent families trapped in the conflict but that it was“Iraq’s problem” to sort out.
He wrote: “We also absolutely oppose all foreign intervention and interference.
“So the call by the Iraqi foreign minister for President Obama and the US government to launch air strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham (Isis) rebels is beyond our comprehension.
“An air strike will not just eliminate extremists – whom we do not support – but will effectively sign the death warrant of many Iraqi citizens, innocent families trapped and terrified by this crisis. “
Prince Mohammed also blamed the Iraqi leadership for creating the divisions between Sunni and Shia that has fuelled the crisis with an “unashamedly sectarian agenda”.
[source : US should launch targeted military strikes on 'terrorist army' Isis, says General David Petraeus, Daily Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10913259/US-should-launch-targeted-military-strikes-on-terrorist-army-Isis-says-General-David-Petraeus.html, 19th June 2014]
This is a very interesting development.
Is there a factional split here?
And what will this mean for those unreleased 28 pages of the official 9/11 report that are believed to implicate Saudi Arabia?
No comments:
Post a Comment