The Truth About Syria Must Be Told.

Greater Middle East
Greater Middle East (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Posted August 25, 2013

by Jerry Alatalo

After visiting numerous blogs and reading many articles on the heart-wrenching situation in the country of Syria, I have come to believe that high-level televised talks have to be held at the United Nations. And as soon as humanly possible.

The reason such talks have to be held is that the people of the world are sharply divided on the tragic scenario in Syria. The reason people have differing views is because very few, if any, reports are being given to people that has the type of in-depth analysis people need to determine accurately what is occurring, and why. Depending on which reports people are reading and listening to, and they are all well-written no matter which “side” of the Syrian issue articulated, this is what they come to accept as true.

On the one hand there are those who believe that the recent chemical attacks, tragically resulting in the deaths of hundreds of men, women and children, are no doubt the work of the Syrian government and President Bashir Al-Assad. On the other hand there are those who believe that the rebel mercenaries, those fighting to topple the Al-Assad government were responsible, and that it was a “false flag” operation to allow the United States and western allies to escalate, to begin firing cruise missiles into Damascus.

This writer gets the sense that reports have been written by men and women from a standpoint absent any drilling down into real analysis of the causes for the Syrian civil war and increasing tensions; it is causeless, it is just the way it is. I have asked the following question in comments sections at a good number of blogs: “what is the reason for the warring and killing in Syria?” and have yet to receive any reply, much less any form of analysis.

In the following talk by economic, geopolitical researcher and author William Engdahl, he points out that Syria has allegedly reached an agreement with Iraq and Iran for a pipeline to transport natural gas, from Iran through Iraq to Syria, for shipment at Syrian ports on the Mediterranean. He mentions the “Leviathan” gas field, an enormous gas field in Israeli territory which Israel has begun to tap into.

Is this the reason for the warring and killing in Syria, and the west/east involvement: natural gas?

Or is the warring and killing in Syria because of the competition that privately controlled central banks in the west are receiving from the newly established, so-called BRICS financial organization, with Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa the original member states? A documentary by radio talk show host Michael Rivero titled “All Wars Are Banker Wars” could allow one to point to BRICS as the main reason which has led to the warring.

Is the warring and killing because of the rise of the BRICS nations’ competition against historical monetary control by private central bank cartels?

I have no wish to take sides on the Syrian war issue. Believe it or not I believe there are no “sides” for the human race-we are all one-whether we are conscious of it or not. The posting of this talk by William Engdahl was done because it was one I came across that at least delved in an analytic way into the situation, the big picture so to speak, of the Middle East region, including Syria. If any of you have similar sources of information which can give people more understanding of the forces at play in Syria, please mention them in the comments section.

Please do all you can to find and express the truth about the situation in Syria. The stakes are too high, there are too many negative consequences possible in this already horrific situation, for any man or woman to sit on the sidelines. Do not fear to propose spiritual solutions when speaking or writing about Syria. Do not fear to propose any and all solutions when speaking or writing about Syria. Now is the time for all good people to push as hard as humanly possible to prevent any escalation of war and violence in Syria, and all countries around this Earth.

Humanity needs to know exactly, and specifically, why there is war and killing in the country of Syria. Humanity must know the truth so that there is no doubt about what actions must be taken, where necessary. The truth has to be known by humanity in order that the wisest, most positive actions be taken, which ends the violence and suffering in Syria and the Middle East.

Take any and all action on Syria with the view that men, women and children who happened to somehow be born in that country are fellow brothers and sisters in the one family of man. Truly feel that relationship as brothers and sisters. What would you do if your mother or father, your brother or sister, your son or daughter were in Syria? This is the vision which all people on this Earth must hold now, and act as it is the true reality.

I state once again that there is an urgent need for high-level, televised talks with representatives from every country involved, every country concerned about this dangerous situation in the Middle East region. If that is every one of the 193 member states of the United Nations, so be it.


9 thoughts on “The Truth About Syria Must Be Told.

    1. David,
      Humanity has seen enough war to last an eternity. World leaders need to sit down and agree on actions which will benefit all people. War is failure at the highest level. Organized murder is a primitive activity and must be seen as acting in direct contradiction to the truth: we are all connected, family, and one on this Earth. American writer Norman Cousins said “War is an invention of the human mind. The human mind can invent peace.” World leaders simply need to use their minds and invent peace. The use of world leader here includes any man or woman, no matter their status in life, even if they are homeless or a street sweeper, who uses their mind to invent peace.
      Thank you,


  1. Pingback: All Wars Are Bankers Wars. | Family Hurts Inc - Inquiry, News & Critique

  2. Hi Jerry,
    I came to your blog after you liked an article on my blog and I have to say that I like this post very much. I see you as an idealist, and I think what our world really needs are idealists. People who believe in simple (Ockham’s razor) and fair solutions for every side of a conflict. What we do not need are people who all the the time want to see differences (racial, religious, sectarian)

    To come back to Syria:

    There is one article by the award winning journalist of the New Yorker Seymour Hersh written in 2007. The article is not specifically about Syria, but what Hersh is writing in 2007 is explaining the context of what is now happening in the middle east. It helps a lot to understand what is currently going on in that part of the world.

    In my blog I am as always only citing a small piece of Hersh’s article but also provding the link to original article.

    I encourage all people interested in background knowledge about the current conflict to click further and read the original article.


    1. Hello,
      Thank you for the information. What is your take on the reasons for the violence in Syria? My take is the natural gas pipelines which both Iran and Qatar want to build through Syria to European markets, as well as establishing a privately owned central bank (Federal Reserve – see “All Wars Are Bankers Wars” in separate post) in Syria. I suppose it all boils down to a moral, ethical question. Is it OK to kill thousands of men, women and children for profits? Perhaps Madeline Albright expressed the affirmative when she was asked years ago if sanctions which will result in the deaths of 500,000 children in Iraq was worth it and she replied “Yes, we think it is worth it.”
      Thanks, again.


      1. Hi Jerry,
        I think the logic behind each modern conflict is money, in this case it is gas. Gas is such a big business that we do not need to search for other reasons.
        Assad’s Syria had agreed to transport iranian gas coming through Iraq to the meditaranean and thus to the european market.
        There was only one way for Qatar to hinder the competition to getting to the market, and also use that route for its own gas and for Saudi oil: Extend the arab spring to Syria. If you look at polls from some years ago, Assad was the most popular president in the arab world, no where near to the unpopular mubarak or ghaddafi. With quick googling I found this, you may find a better source for this:

        So I am not saying that there were no real demonstrations in Syria, but I am sure those demonstrations were highjacked by Qatar in very early phase, making a political movement to a a violent uprising.
        The same thing is planned for Iraq:

        Now why if it is only about Qatars wish to hinder competition and bringing it’s own resources to european/world markets through an additional route are the US and Europe siding with Qatar/Saudi Arabia?
        Besided he Hersh article which gives some context I would bringing up these reasons for siding with Qatar:

        Qatar has huge investments, and thus influence in Europe:
        and I am sure the same holds for Qatars/SAs influence in the US.

        The gulf arab states are the biggest buyers of weapons in the world:
        The US is not the best cars poducer in the world nor an exporter of machines or electronics (they come from asia), but the US is the worlds best producer and exporter of weapons. Since the arab states are its most important customers it is not surprising that the US governments sides with these states. This is also the reason why Iran ( a country that has not started a single war for the last 200 years) is promoted as a big villain. It is to make the primitive but rich arab states scary and willing to buy weapons (mostly from the US but also from UK, Germany and France). You cannot scare Iran with Qatar inorder to make the iranians buy more weapons, but with Qatar (population <250.000) you have a tiny country that has as much gas a Iran (population: 75 million) and has thus full pockets and can easily be scared from the huge and villain Iran. (Before Iran was promoted as a villain, we had the huge soviet union to make small countries to buy us and european weapons, and in other parts of the world we have for example noth corea)

        Israel's interest is inline with Qatars interest in Syria:

        An additional route for Qatari gas and Saudi oil besides the Strait of Hormuz, which can be closed by Iran in case of a conflict, is in the interest of the US and Europe.
        Would there not be an additional route a war with Iran would reduce the amount of gas and oil coming to the world market considerably, and the oil and gas prices would skyrocket.
        This way another hurdle can be eliminated in order to build up more pressure on iran and prepare a possible future war with Iran.

        Iran was the big strategic winner of the Iraq invasion by George W. Bush. The governments in the US and Europe are inline with arab states that this win has to be reversed. This is also why the arab states are trying to remove Iraq's shia government (see the link I posted above – first paragraph)

        6. Assad is doing their war on terror:
        Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and in a much smaller scale also Europe are getting rid of their own radicals by encouraging them to go to the suicide mission in Syria. (a lot of online articles about french, british and german radicals joining the jihadists in Syria)

        Of course the main reasons are 1-4.

        Kind regards,


        1. Socialinform,
          Thank you for taking the time to respond. I would agree with your analysis completely. Gas/oil market competition gone insane. Have you given any consideration to ways to prevent the insane aspect of the competition (war and killing)?
          Thanks again.


          1. Hi Jerry,
            well, this i a hard one, but I give it a try.
            Well I think there are two enities that help to stop this insanity.
            The one super power (the US government) and us (the regular people).

            US government:
            The US government has special responsibilities because it’s behaviour has strong influence to other governments behaviours.
            We are seeing this in Israel since decades, if the superpower sides with one side then this side has no real motivitation to stop its bad behaviour (building more and more settlements on land that is not belonging to it, or is at least disputed) and using overwhelming force without any fear that it will be condemned:

            Now this siding with Israel is decades old and it has enforced radicalism in the middle east, towards the US and between countires/ethnies of the middle east. This siding with Israel is not my main topic, it is about siding at all. If the US government is playing world’s justice system then it has also to act as the justice system: neutral.

            The same siding is now causing a much bigger conflict in the middle east than the Israel/Palestine conflict. The Sunni, Shiite conflict ist going to get bigger than any conflict before. this conflict was silent, cooled down for hundreds of years. Still the potential for the conflict was of course existing: primitive “religious” people.

            In my oppinion it started again when the US forces had trouble in Iraq with sunni and shiite insurgency. It was not George W. Bush’s “Surge” strategy that reduced US casualties it was the implementation of an ancient but effective strategy: “Divide and Conquer” – Let sunnis and shiites kill themselves instead of killing us.
            This was an effective strategy but infact it was like opening the pandora box: starting a conflict that gets huge is hard to stop.
            Still this conflict was mostly one sided: sunni insurgents planting bombs in front of shia mossques and in shia neighborhoods, as it is still after 10 years:
            4000 deads in Iraq this year, mostly shiite civilians that were targeted with bombs planted in markets in shiite neighborhoods:

            The sunni insurgents in Iraq were mostly supported by Saudi Arabia, still Bush’s administration only complained about iranian intereference for which it never provided evidence. The same was true in Afghanistan, the Bush adminstration claimed (shiite) Iran would support (radical sunni) Taliban, which is just ridiculous. The Bush administrations focus on Iran and blindness for the behavior of the Saudi side, send one message to the region:
            “If you are on the US side (because you are an importer of US weapons, or because you are against Iran, even though your reasons for this are just sectarian), you can do anything you want, exaclty as it was true for Israel since decades.”

            This is also the reason why in the “arab spring” the peaceful demonstrators of Bahrain did not get any attention at all, even as the saudis sent in troops (without any legal justification) to crush the peaceful demonstrations with brutal force:
            I have collected relevant articles on bahrain here: (its worth to at least skim through titles of the articles)

            The hersh article I sent earlier in this thread actually says it all, the US policy in the middle east is Anti-Shia, Anti-Iran. I can still tolerate policy of a government to be against another Country but how can a democratic, secular country like the us take the side of one sect, and thus support sectarianism?

            In Iraq every month hundreds of shias are killed, the situation is similar in Pakistan. In Bahrain and SaudiArabia shias cannot enter police, army, justice system, … . This is in big contrast with Syria where the defence minister was christian (killed by a suicide attack of the rebels), the head of intelligence was sunni, and the biggest part of army and police are still sunnis.
            Now why am I emphesizing on this so much: because the biggest problem in the future can be ethnical cleansing in the middle east, specially of shiites. A Holocaust like scenario is hopefully impossible to happen again in Europe, but it is possible that it happens in the middle east. Here you have people who are easy influenced by e.g. the qatari state television al jazeera that in the arabic version regularly just calls shiites infidel dogs (something that would be condemned by the US if the same was stated about other religions/sects), and governments who know that they can make use of these radicalized individuals without risking any condemnation.

            The US government has to understand that it is in it’s interest to not side with a specific group but be neutral and in the long run grow it’s business with all the countries who behave well. a system in harmony (e.g.: europe) will always be better than a system where one part of it is sucking up the resources of another part. The US government has to stop polarizing the middleeast for shortterm gains, by taking one side.

            There is no need to give up. In fact we do matter, as we saw it in the UK where Cameron was prevented to join an unjust war. the british public oppinion was clearly against war and the politicians had no choice but stop following the US to another war.
            The same holds for Germany, since the 2nd World War germans are so much fed up with the idea of going to wars, that no politican ever tries to push in that direction.
            This has also to happen in the US. Here bloggers like us have to make the public aware. We have to show that going to war is not a plausible decision because every thing is as black and white as the governemt tries to tell us.
            Fortunately after the lies about the Iraq war people are much more aware of beeing framed by the governement, who is acting more in favour of the lobbies than in the favour of its people.
            We have to use our democratic rights and express our oppinions:
            “Why does Bradley Manning need to stay in prison for 35 years, because he endangered american lives (even though there was no evidence for this), but George W. Bush who’s lies caused the deaths of thousands of US soldiers is a well respected man, who has not to fear the justice because he endangered american lives?”
            In a democratic state we are allowed to sue this kind of people, so when we do not use our rights then why do we think that we have more rights than the people in a dictatorship? Just because we alternate between democrats and republicans in the government?
            So we have to make use of all our democratic rights, and do not let the government to take them one by one from us (NSA surveillance of regular americans). If the government misbehaves, tells us lies (Iraq WMDs), and the result of those lies are thousands of dead americans it needs to be made responsible for that.
            The people in the middleeast have to understand that they are just played with, from their own governments and from powerful foreign governemnts.
            They have to mature just as the people in latin america have matured. Eventhough a lot of latin american countries at least had a strong democratic basis.

            I hope this somehow answered your question.


            1. Socialinform,
              It seems that the desire for profits by the few, over the desire for the health and well-being of all people, is the seed of the problems. As the Middle East is an energy hub for the world, the intensity there is highest between profits and people. I agree that examples in Central and South American countries are good ones to analyze and emulate going forward. The message of the whole world sharing natural resources fairly and equitably, with the intent of the highest good for all, seems to be the most urgent message to focus on now.
              Thank you for your generous reply.


Comments are closed.