1983 CIA Document Reveals Plan To Destroy Syria, Foreshadows Current Crisis

Tyler Durden's picture

Prophetically foreshadowing the current crisis (and apparent action plan), leaked CIA documents from the reign of Bashar al-Assad's father in the 1980s show a Washington Deep State plan coalescing to "bring real muscle to bear against Syria," toppling its leader (in favor of one amenable to US demands) , severing ties with Russia (its primary arms dealer), and paving the way for an oil and gas pipeline of Washington's choosing.

As ActivistPost.com's Brandon Turbeville detailed (just a day before Trump unleashed his Tomahawks), as the Syrian crisis enters its sixth year, the Donald Trump administration is looking more and more like the Obama administration every day. With the Trump regime refusing to open useful dialogue with Russia regarding Syria, its obvious anti-Iran and pro-Israel positioning, and support for a very questionable “safe zone” plan for Syria, the odds of a rational U.S. policy in regards to Syria has lower and lower odds of existence as time progresses.

Yet, despite the fact that the Trump administration is apparently poised to continue the Obama regime’s proxy war of aggression against the people of Syria, an example of seamless transition, it should also be remembered that the plan to destroy Syria did not begin with Obama but with the Bush administration.

Even now, as the world awaits the continuation of the Syrian war through a Democratic and Republican administration, the genesis of that war goes back to the Republican Bush administration, demonstrating that there is indeed an overarching agenda and an overarching infrastructure of an oligarchical deep state intent on moving forward regardless of which party is seemingly in power.

As journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in his article, “The Redirection,”

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

“Extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam” who are “hostile to America and sympathetic to al-Qaeda” are the definition of the so-called “rebels” turned loose on Syria in 2011. Likewise, the fact that both Iran and Hezbollah, who are natural enemies of al-Qaeda and such radical Sunni groups, are involved in the battle against ISIS and other related terrorist organizations in Syria proves the accuracy of the article on another level.

Hersh also wrote,

The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.”


Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said.


. . . . . .


This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”


. . . . . .


Fourth, the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations. Syria is a major conduit of arms to Hezbollah.


. . . . .


In January, after an outburst of street violence in Beirut involving supporters of both the Siniora government and Hezbollah, Prince Bandar flew to Tehran to discuss the political impasse in Lebanon and to meet with Ali Larijani, the Iranians’ negotiator on nuclear issues. According to a Middle Eastern ambassador, Bandar’s mission—which the ambassador said was endorsed by the White House—also aimed “to create problems between the Iranians and Syria.” There had been tensions between the two countries about Syrian talks with Israel, and the Saudis’ goal was to encourage a breach. However, the ambassador said, “It did not work. Syria and Iran are not going to betray each other. Bandar’s approach is very unlikely to succeed.”


. . . . . .


The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, a branch of a radical Sunni movement founded in Egypt in 1928, engaged in more than a decade of violent opposition to the regime of Hafez Assad, Bashir’s father. In 1982, the Brotherhood took control of the city of Hama; Assad bombarded the city for a week, killing between six thousand and twenty thousand people. Membership in the Brotherhood is punishable by death in Syria. The Brotherhood is also an avowed enemy of the U.S. and of Israel. Nevertheless, Jumblatt said, “We told Cheney that the basic link between Iran and Lebanon is Syria—and to weaken Iran you need to open the door to effective Syrian opposition.”


. . . . .


There is evidence that the Administration’s redirection strategy has already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, “The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.” He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front’s members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents.

Hersh also spoke with Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Shi’ite Lebanese militia, Hezbollah. In relation to the Western strategy against Syria, he reported,

Nasrallah said he believed that America also wanted to bring about the partition of Lebanon and of Syria. In Syria, he said, the result would be to push the country “into chaos and internal battles like in Iraq.” In Lebanon, “There will be a Sunni state, an Alawi state, a Christian state, and a Druze state.” But, he said, “I do not know if there will be a Shiite state.” Nasrallah told me that he suspected that one aim of the Israeli bombing of Lebanon last summer was “the destruction of Shiite areas and the displacement of Shiites from Lebanon. The idea was to have the Shiites of Lebanon and Syria flee to southern Iraq,” which is dominated by Shiites. “I am not sure, but I smell this,” he told me.


Partition would leave Israel surrounded by “small tranquil states,” he said. “I can assure you that the Saudi kingdom will also be divided, and the issue will reach to North African states. There will be small ethnic and confessional states,” he said. “In other words, Israel will be the most important and the strongest state in a region that has been partitioned into ethnic and confessional states that are in agreement with each other. This is the new Middle East.”

Yet, while even the connections between the plans to destroy Syria and the Bush administration are generally unknown, what is even less well-known is the fact that there existed a plan to destroy Syria as far back as 1983.

Documents contained in the U.S. National Archives and drawn up by the CIA reveal a plan to destroy the Syrian government going back decades. One such document entitled, “Bringing Real Muscle To Bear In Syria,” written by CIA officer Graham Fuller, is particularly illuminating. In this document, Fuller wrote,

Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf — through closure of Iraq’s pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the [Iran-Iraq] war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey.

Even as far back as 1983, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s father, Hafez Assad, was viewed as a gadfly to the plans of Western imperialists seeking to weaken both the Iraqis and the Iranians and extend hegemony over the Middle East and Persia. The document shows that Assad and hence Syria represented a resistance to Western imperialism, a threat to Israel, and that Assad himself was well aware of the game the United States, Israel, and other members of the Western imperialist coalition were trying to play against him. The report reads,

Syria continues to maintain a hammerlock on two key U.S. interests in the Middle East:


Syrian refusal to withdraw its troops from Lebanon ensures Israeli occupation in the south;


Syrian closure of the Iraqi pipeline has been a key factor in bringing Iraq to its financial knees, impelling it towards dangerous internationalization of the war in the Gulf


Diplomatic initiatives to date have had little effect on Assad who has so far correctly calculated the play of forces in the area and concluded that they are only weakly arrayed against him. If the U.S. is to rein in Syria’s spoiling role, it can only do so through exertion of real muscle which will pose a vital threat to Assad’s position and power.

The author then presents a plan that sounds eerily similar to those now being discussed publicly by Western and specifically American corporate-financier think tanks and private non-governmental organizations who unofficially craft American policy. Fuller writes,

The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey. Iraq, perceived to be increasingly desperate in the Gulf war, would undertake limited military (air) operations against Syria with the sole goal of opening the pipeline. Although opening war on a second front against Syria poses considerable risk to Iraq, Syria would also face a two-front war since it is already heavily engaged in the Bekaa, on the Golan and in maintaining control over a hostile and restive population inside Syria.


Israel would simultaneously raise tensions along Syria’s Lebanon front without actually going to war. Turkey, angered by Syrian support to Armenian terrorism, to Iraqi Kurds on Turkey’s Kurdish border areas and to Turkish terrorists operating out of northern Syria, has often considered launching unilateral military operations against terrorist camps in northern Syria. Virtually all Arab states would have sympathy for Iraq.


Faced with three belligerent fronts, Assad would probably be forced to abandon his policy of closure of the pipeline. Such a concession would relieve the economic pressure on Iraq, and perhaps force Iran to reconsider bringing the war to an end. It would be a sharpening blow to Syria’s prestige and could effect the equation of forces in Lebanon.

Thus, Fuller outlines that not only would Syria be forced to reopen the pipeline of interest at the time, but that it would be a regional shockwave effecting the makeup of forces in and around Lebanon, weakening the prestige of the Syrian state and, presumably, the psychological state of the Syrian President and the Syrian people, as well as a message to Iran.

The document continues,

Such a threat must be primarily military in nature. At present there are three relatively hostile elements around Syria’s borders: Israel, Iraq and Turkey. Consideration must be given to orchestrating a credible military threat against Syria in order to induce at least some moderate change in its policies.

This paper proposes serious examination of the use of all three states – acting independently – to exert the necessary threat. Use of any one state in isolation cannot create such a credible threat.

The strategy proposed here by the CIA is virtually identical to the one being discussed by deep state establishment think tanks like the Brookings Institution today. For instance, in the Brookings document “Middle East Memo #21: Saving Syria: Assessing Options For Regime Change,” it says,

Turkey’s participation would be vital for success, and Washington would have to encourage the Turks to play a more helpful role than they have so far. While Ankara has lost all patience with Damascus, it has taken few concrete steps that would increase the pressure on Asad (and thereby antagonize Tehran). Turkish policy toward the Syrian opposition has actually worked at cross-purposes with American efforts to foster a broad, unified national organization. With an eye to its own domestic Kurdish dilemmas, Ankara has frustrated efforts to integrate the Syrian Kurds into a broader opposition framework. In addition, it has overtly favored the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood over all other opposition groups. Washington must impress upon Turkey the need to be more accommodating of legitimate Kurdish political and cultural demands in a post-Asad Syria, and to be less insistent on the primacy of the Muslim Brotherhood.


Some voices in Washington and Jerusalem are exploring whether Israel could contribute to coercing Syrian elites to remove Asad. The Israelis have the region’s most formidable military, impressive intelligence services, and keen interests in Syria. In addition, Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly.

While Syria is not in conflict with Iraq today, after being destroyed by the United States in 2003, Western Iraq now houses the mysteriously-funded Islamic State on the border between Iraq and Syria.

That being said, this plan is not merely being discussed, it is being implemented as one can clearly see by the fact that Israel routinely launches airstrikes against the Syrian military, Turkey continues to funnel ISIS and related terrorists into Syria through its own territory, and ISIS continues to present itself as an Eastern front militarily. As a result, the “multi-front” war envisioned and written about by the CIA in 1983 and discussed by Brookings in 2012 has come to fruition and is in full swing today.

*  *  *

Full Document below:

*  *  *

Then three years later, another CIA report (found recently in CREST database by Wikileaks) confirms much of the above, raising once again the goal of reducing Russian influence, and toppling any Syrian leadership that was inclined to escalate tensions with Israel...

Under most circumstances Moscow's position in Syria should remain strong, but should Syria suffer another devastating military defeat at the hands of Israel new leaders might decide to look elsewhere for military equipment.


A shift to a Western arms supplier also could prompt parallel efforts to seek Western financial advice and support.

Best case scenario for Washington...

We judge that US interests in Syria probably would be best served by a Sunni regime as it might well include relative moderates interested in securing Western aid and investment.


Such a regime probably would be less inclined to escalate tensions with Israel.

Russian relations...

Syria is the centerpiece of Moscow's influence in the Middle East. Moscow thus has a vested interest in major policy shifts or changes in Syrian leadership. The Soviet Union and its East European allies provide virtually all of Syria's arms, and the Soviets deliver more weapons to Syria than to any other Third World client.


We believe Moscow's interests would be seriously jeopardized if Sunnis came to power through a civil war. Many Sunnis resent the Soviets because they are closely identified with Alawi dominance, and Sunnis would be especially hostile toward the Soviets if they had supported Alawis with military equipment and advisors in a civil war.


US biggest fear was series of coups over succession of Bashar al-Assad's father... That did not come to be.

Civil war (similar to what is very evident now)...

Sunni dissidence has been minimal since Assad crushed the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1980s, but deep-seated tensions remain--keeping alive the potential for minor incidents to grow into major flareups of communal violence. For example, disgruntlement over price hikes, altercations between Sunni citizens and security forces, or anger at privileges accorded to Alawis at the expense of Sunnis could foster small-scale protests. Excessive government force in quelling such disturbances might be seen by Sunnis as evidence of a government vendetta against all Sunnis, precipitating even larger protests by other Sunni groups.

Best case scenario...

In our view, US interests would be best served by a Sunni regime controlled by business-oriented moderates. Business moderates would see a strong need for Western aid and investment to build Syria's private economy, thus opening the way for stronger ties to Western governments. Although we believe such a government would give some support--or at least pay strong lipservice--to Arab causes, this group's preoccupation with economic development and its desire to limit the role of the military would give Sunnis an incentive to avoid a war with Israel.


We believe Washington's gains would be mitigated, however, if Sunni fundamentalists assumed power. Although Syria's secular traditions would make it extremely difficult for religious zealots to establish an Islamic Republic, should they succeed they would likely deepen hostilities with Israel and provide support and sanctuary to terrorist groups.

It's a little late for that Islamic State genie to go back in the bottle now.

As Brandon Turbeville concludes, the trail of documentation and the manner in which the overarching agenda of world hegemony on the behalf of corporate-financier interests have continued apace regardless of party and seamlessly through Republican and Democrat administrations serves to prove that changing parties and personalities do nothing to stop the onslaught of imperialism, war, and destruction being waged across the world today and in earnest ever since 2001. Indeed, such changes only make adjustments to the appearance and presentation of a much larger Communo-Fascist system that is entrenching itself by the day.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Truther's picture

Confirmed all along. The CIA and Mossad created ISIS as their minions for blood and slaughter.
This shit is getting crazy as hell.

junction's picture

Trump and his insane Israeli puppet masters won't be happy until there is a mushroom cloud over an American city, courtesy of the jihadists the CIA funds in the Middle East.

Nemontel's picture

Another failed Middle East intervention is the last thing we need. Trump will fail his entire presidency if he goes into Syria.



winged's picture

"toppling its leader in favor of one amenable to US demands"


"toppling its leader in favor of one amenable to Israeli demands"


sincerely_yours's picture

In 1983, the CIA and the Mossad did not expect Russia to park itself in Syria.

They were confident that Russia was dead and did not foresee a man like Putin.

Putin alone is a major game changer. No wonder they hate his guts.

quax's picture

Do yourself a favor. Get yourself a time machine and travel back.

You will find in 1983 that the cold war is in full swing, and the West was shitting itself over the prospect of hot nuclear war. It was two more years before Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev was selected as new General Secretray of the Communist Party, he would then begin to slowly open the Soviet society to the Western world.

07564111's picture

take your own advice quacker.

Even the Joopedia tells the correct story of Soviet/Russia and Syrian history.


It wasn't Gorbachev but the drunk Yeltsin that the US and Israel were counting to remove Russia from the ME. Instead Yeltsin was removed and Russia got Putin. Putin made absolutely certain that Russia stayed in Syria, another reason they hate him muchly.

quax's picture

You seem to have a problem with the arrow of time, let me help:

1983 - Yeltsin was just another member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov, a very smart but very old hardliner, had full control, and no intend to give it up untill he died.

07564111's picture

Nope, the problem is yours. You're trying to connect us to one point on the timeline and failing ;)

Yeltsin was the one that they were going to use to remove Russia from the MENA, and that , tribeboy, is why we are now watching the grand plan fall apart and why the Likud slugs are shitting in their pants.

:D :D

macholatte's picture


I’m sorry. Maybe I missed something. Can somebody please tell me, in terms a 5 year old can understand, why the USA should give a shit if Europe gets energy from Russia or the ME? Isn’t that Europe’s problem? Where is it written that the USA should spend its blood and treasure for the benefit of Europe or a bunch of muzzies?


TahoeBilly2012's picture

Middle East same as WW1 and WW2, remake of the maps to get rid of strong orthodox Countries Governments not controlled by Zionist media and banking. 

It's all in the Elder of Zion my friends!

Lore's picture

Control of energy supply --> Control of means for payment --> Extend lifespan of authorized banking franchise

There are many layers and ways of looking at it, but they all boil down to CONTROLLING INTEREST.  Think like a psychopath.

There are ways to pre-empt the whole shebang without a lot of fuss. Different groups are working to that end. 

"You have to give up something to get something."

Mr Blue's picture
Mr Blue (not verified) Lore Apr 11, 2017 2:58 AM

I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... http://bit.ly/2jdTzrM

Lore's picture

Oh, blow me. 

Mr Blue member for 1 week 6 days

Tyler, what is your policy regarding clickbait?

HowdyDoody's picture

Thwere is no policy. Tylers is asleep at the wheel. Anything goes. Especially ShitBob.

Ghordius's picture

macholatte, your question is excellent, and deserves an answer

yes, if you look at the map, you could be mistaken to think those wars are all about two giants battling each other about how to serve...

... Europe's energy demand

interesting, eh? fighting for... how to serve the esteemed customer in Europe

benefits? for us, in europe? neither giant is interested in having us not paying. they both want to be the one that serves us... and gets something in return for it

what would you like us to do?

push both... out of this business? now... don't you think that there is enough propaganda against us from both American and Russian sources?

push one of them out of this business? now, would that improve anything? depends on which one, doesn't it?

no, they don't do it for our freedoms or because they hate our freedoms. they also don't do that because of our precious body fluids

they both do that because the owners of those resources pay top dollar, and they make a huge business in... sustaining wars between the owners of those resources

DownWithYogaPants's picture

But is there also not the connect that petrodollar users in the mideast recycle their bucks through the New York banking "industry"?

And if it is Iran selling gas they won't be doing that will they?

Jim in MN's picture

So tired of the imperialist fantasy wankers. 

So a modest regional player, not even a regional power, has a 'hammerlock' on OUR interests for having the audacity to observe that they maintain sovereignty over some scrubby territory, their homeland, through which rich people may one day wish to build a pipeline or something.

This CLEARLY means they must all be killed, if need be, to show 'muscle' and relieve the 'hammerlock'.


This kind of thinking deserves whatever blowback it generates.  It is immoral, and unAmerican, and flat-out stupid.

Next time try peace and stability to bolster a prosperous middle class in the scrubby territory, then offer fair compensation and profit sharing to build your 'thing'.



stizazz's picture

Part of the blowback is already making itself felt.

The US economy is in the doghouse. War and economic progress don't mesh too well.

So I agree completely, Jim.

bob_bichen's picture
bob_bichen (not verified) stizazz Apr 10, 2017 11:26 PM

stizazz <<< biblicism,com   WHACK JOB SPAMMER

quax's picture

So tired of children, who have no clue that during the cold war there was no such thing as true sovereignty. You either belonged to the Eastern or the Western block, or you were a country that was fought over (notably exceptions Sweden and Switzerland who were developed enough to afford a state of the art military that guaranteed that their neutrality was respected).

Look at the words you little shit: Cold War.

It was a fucking war and it was fought covertly everywhere. 

07564111's picture

It still is a War :) and your team is losing muchly bigly.

:D :D

DownWithYogaPants's picture

Which side? Both?

Seems like everyone just ends up owing the central bankers so I vote both.

GUS100CORRINA's picture

WOW ... 1983 puts Syria intervention back into the REGAN YEARS!!

Who would have thought it went that far back?

GOD is indeed patient and long suffering or America would be laid waste for Her sins!

This new information is NOT a healthy development for the US Republic.

BennyBoy's picture


Our  imperialist fantasy wankers demand getting stuff out of the ground for free. Depopulating areas thru murder, starvation or creating refugees makes the remaining populace more compliant. The new US installed ditator will get billions to keep the people docile or murdered.

Its been the american way for over a hundred years. Look what happened to native americans.

BurningBetty's picture

The ones you refer to only share one thing with the rest; crumbles. And even that wouldn't have been left if they didn't deemed it way too much effort. 

J S Bach's picture

(((They))) ALWAYS know.  It is up to US to expose (((their))) treachery.

bob_bichen's picture
bob_bichen (not verified) J S Bach Apr 10, 2017 10:49 PM

WHAT AN ABSOLUTE CLUSTER FUCK OF SPAMMERS WE HAVE HERE!!!  It's the WHOLE FUCKING SPAMMER CROWD (except the $7000/week "this is what I do") cocksucker.  -- we are waiting for "dailywesterner,com" to drop in.

*****"winged"  talking to several of his COUNTLESS imaginary friends  including new friends , "sincerely_yours", "PAIZAN" {new log-on, many have been banned} and "J S Bach"  <<< the "biblicisminstitute,com" SPAMMER who spends hours in his mothers woodshed "talking to himself" with an ENDLESS series of log-ons and TAINTED LINKS TO HIS VIRUS- MALWARE- and TROJAN-LITTERED website of whackodom.


ZH USERS MAY wish to send an email to abuse@zerohedge.com and request that BOTH these spammers, in all their multiple personalities, be PERMANENTLY BANNED and their CONTENT REMOVED!!!  (copy and paste your list from following)

 ••• biblicism,com whack-job log-ons  (many have been banned)

J S Bach








Yippee Kiyay


SumTing Wong

King Tut

Jim in MN's picture

Anti-spam spam is getting a bit tedious as well IMHO....


...carry on....


...maybe lose the bold face and caps.

DownWithYogaPants's picture

No no!  Definitely needs to go all capital letters so the voice in my head yells as I read.

charlie303's picture
charlie303 (not verified) junction Apr 11, 2017 12:18 AM

until there is a mushroom cloud over an American city

If they are arrogant enough to pull a WMD stunt and if they are truly demonic paedophiles they might do it themselves.

Buck Johnson's picture

And that may happen, we are getting walked into a hell scenario.



stecha's picture

88 countries fighting against what cant be maybe 5 or 10k people left to the rebs. wow, sounds like end times to me.

LetThemEatRand's picture

These guys are good.  They wrote the memo in 1983 so we could not point out the 1984 connection decades later.

TeamDepends's picture

Check this out for some foreshadowing. Truly bizarre, and if you want more analysis go to dailycrow.com.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs6UcgiDwg0

greenskeeper carl's picture

Haha very good. Before I read your comment  I was going to go with "Orwell was only a year off"

GRDguy's picture

Interesting that this was shortly after Reagan became president,

and ol' daddy Bush was vice-president. (after being director of CIA)

They're all dirty.

Withdrawn Sanction's picture

Yep, about 6 months after the attempted assasination by the son of a family friend of....you guessed it...the Bush family.  In fact, Hinckley, the father, was a major fund raiser when old GHWB was still running for Congress.  Seems like old Ronnie rec'd the message loud and clear...Trump's epiphany came a bit earlier in his term (and w/o a bullet), it would seem. 

DownWithYogaPants's picture

That's yet to be determined depending on further evants.  

Syrian missile thing looks like kabuke theatre.  I'm waiting to see what happens next.

nightwish's picture

Holy crap what a surprise, what a shocking revelation this is  /sarc

How much more evidence do we need that Israel is the biggest threat to the world? Not Syria, not iran etc


Duc888's picture

Fucking Irishmen...oh....wait.

biker's picture
biker (not verified) Apr 10, 2017 10:19 PM

3/24 events referenced


.:March 24:.
1603 Queen Elizabeth dies, King James ascends to the throne
1945 Attack on Germany launches
1947 UN land created
1951 Republic of Korea crosses 38th parallel
1953 Porkchop hill
1958 Elvis drafted
1976 Argentine coup
1988 Iran contra
1989 Exxon Valdez
1991 Schwarzkopf
1993 World Trade Center Egypt
1998 Clinton Jonesboro
1999 Nato bombings
2017 Obamacare Decoy
2017 330 Civilians bombed Iraq
2017 UN new North Korea attack resolution

shitload of other shit not mentioned

GRDguy's picture

Add just one: 1690 Barclays Bank (and it's still around.)

They've seen a thing or two.  (Nice list.)

Ecclesia Militans's picture

LOL Elvis drafted, a 3/24 world-shaking event

Victory_Garden's picture

Of course it is all planned.

Who did not know that?

And who, indeed.

Who works for the bankster satanic/luciferic industry of constant never ending woars?

Here is todays sensational Mike show for some easy listening.:



SHADEWELL's picture

Yes, "brilliant" reporting

You alaways create a plan for 35 years in the future right?  i mean the dickheads who put this doc together, at best. would be drooling hot choocolate brown sauce from their ass onto  the nursing home bed at this point [whilst singing, i dropped a bomb on you....baby

keep the bastards honest's picture

Yes. create a plan for 35 years in the future. You can see it.

Just look at the Balfour Agreement 1917. Look at the khazarians in the Pale and Marx kicked out of Germany and heading off to Russia. Jewish bolshevik leaders hated russians so 64 million died. Was a long game. And Marx's communications re communism/globalism /New World order where the Chosen few would own everything.  Jewish oligaths played out the game to scam off so much after 1990's. Soros is still on the long game.


Anarchyteez's picture

Albert Pike's letter demonstrates planning of over 100 years.

Rock On Roger's picture

Yup, Bank of England is over 300 years old so the goal is long range. I guess the planning has been ongoing for 5777 years, ever since the gods gave humans Kingship.