The security for the Brussels airport was run by the same Israeli company (based in Holland) that ran the 9/11 security at all involved airports, and that for the "underwear bomber" among other recent false flag attacks.
The person verifying that "ISIS claimed responsibility" for the Brussels attack is none other than Rita Katz- an Israeli, who provides "proof" that most recent False Flag attacks have been claimed by ISIS, or Al Qaeda or whoever. Her "proof" comes from Twitter accounts, and "ISIS websites" which are often linked back to Saudi Arabia, and the UK.
The iconic television images of people running away from the Airport terminal are also apparently owned by Israelis i24 television station.
Zionist Olav' Thon's employees were seen surround the alleged victims outside the metro station- the same man who had his empty buildings blow up during the Oslo Attack (buildings he was denied a demolition permit for on historic grounds).
The agenda of this attack only goes to help create a state of "Greater Israel", as 4 days after this False Flag, like clockwork, Belgium sent warplanes to go and bomb "ISIS" in Syria and pledge more military assistance.
Is it any "coincidence" ISIS never attacks Israeli soil?
When you start to add all these things up, and because these themes keep re-occurring, one can only deduct that Israeli forces are behind these False Flags and Hoaxes as well as ISIS, with the agenda of destabilizing competing nation-states near Israel and in the region, as well as the ultimate goal of the creation of a state of "Greater Israel".
*
In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA !
Syrian militias armed by different parts of the U.S. war machine have begun to fight each other on the plains between the besieged city of Aleppo and the Turkish border, highlighting how little control U.S. intelligence officers and military planners have over the groups they have financed and trained in the bitter five-year-old civil war...... more latimes
*
Petri Krohn : WW3.5 – A SCENARIO FOR A LARGE REGIONAL WAR
The central axiom of war in the nuclear age is that the nuclear superpowers must never directly wage war against each other. Open warfare between the U.S. and the Soviet Union would immediately have escalated into a global war on all fronts, that would likely soon turn nuclear and escalate in to Global Thermonuclear War or MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction. Any war between the superpowers would thus have to be fought by proxies, as in the Vietnam War. If Russian and U.S. soldiers were killing each other, as in Korea, this would need to happen in secret or at least with plausible deniability.
The Russian strategy for MUTUAL security in Europe is to increase commercial and economic ties between Russia and the EU. A gas pipeline guarantees peace for both sides, as any increase in tensions would bring enormous economic loss to both.
The American interest in Europe is to make Europe less secure. Nato's value as a deterrent against Russian 'aggression' or action on the global chessboard is weakened if European countries are unwilling to wage war on Russia because of their mutual economic interests.
The U.S. seems to be making preparations for a war with Russia. Forces are being moved to Europe as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve. So far they have done little more than to irritate Russia. As Obama himself states in the interview in The Atlantic, Ukraine is not in America's vital interests. The U.S. would thus not engage Russia in Ukraine.
In Ukraine as in Syria the U.S. aim seems to be to provoke Russia to enter a war that Russia does not really want to be a part of. Russia may be successfully provoked, but I do not believe the U.S. or Nato want to take part in open hostilities against Russia.
The question to ask is this: What would be the maximal proxy war the West could force upon Russia without being itself directly involved? If all the wars, fronts and conflict that Russia and her allies are involved in were to ignite at once, this could lead to a large regional war in Eastern Europe and Western Asia. On one side would be the 'Turkish Axis' of Ukraine, Turkey and Saudi Arabia with the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and "FSA". The 'Anti-Turkish Alliance' would consist of the 4+1 group of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah and Russia, with the addition of the Kurds, Yemen, Donbass or Novorossiya, and Armenia. These countries and parties are already actively involved in fighting.
Other fronts could easily ignite, starting with the Cyprus dispute between the Cypriot government and the Turkish occupation forces. Tensions would rise in the Aegean between Greece and Turkey. The conflict in Nagorno Karabakh would reignite as well as other hotspots in the South and North Caucasus. Bahrain and Saudi Arabia would see internal conflict between Sihas and Sunnis. Iran and Russia would openly start supporting Yemen against Saudi Arabia. The Balkans would be in flames with fighting between the pro-Western, pro-Russian, and pro-Turkish sides. People in the Baltic states will find little green men under their beds. The flow of refugees to Europe would double. The Islamic State would increase its terror activities in France and Belgium.
Even more fronts could open up in Asia, China could be attacked in the South China Sea. Korea could get hot. The only limitation in this scenario is that the U.S. must not openly wage war against Russia.
I believe Russia and Iran (and China) would likely emerge as the winners of this war. But for the West, winning is not the aim. The real purpose of U.S. policies is to cause maximum damage and disruption to Russia and Eurasia. The ultimate Western weapon against Russia's nuclear arsenal is the complete destruction of nation states in Russia's periphery. Nuclear deterrence is effective against a rational adversary, like the United States and the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Nuclear weapons are totally ineffective against terrorist armies based in failed states and embedded refuge flows. This regional Eurasian war could well be the end of Ukraine, Turkey and Saudi Arabia in their current forms, but destroying one's neighbours will only bring Russia more insecurity.
I have called ongoing 4th Generation Warfare fought from Libya to Ukraine as 'World War 4'. War is fought on three continents U.S. forces involved on all fronts. The number 3 for 'World War 3' is best reserved for the Cold War, or the hypothetical nuclear war that might have at any moment ignited between the superpowers. The trouble with WW4 is that it can escalate into a hotter war and degrade into World War 3. WW3.5 is World War Lite, not quite global or nuclear, but almost.
via S.Balaman
