The more that comes out through Wikileaks, the clearer the picture becomes and the more it is revealed how blinded the public truly is to what's really going on.
Here, I'll TRY to spell it out so it's easy to share with friends.
We find out Hillary Clinton knew Qatar and the Saudis were funding ISIS and other terrorist organizations. She took millions from those regimes anyway. Turns out they're working together to build an oil pipeline from Qatar, to Europe. No big deal, right? Well, Iran wants to build a pipeline to Europe too. Both of these pipelines of course have to go through other countries in order to reach Europe. Qatar has to go through Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey. Iran has to go through Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.
Okay, now start asking those internal questions because now you're gonna realize the real bombshell of this whole wild ride. Here's a question that will help lead you on the right path: Would Iran's pipeline be going through Iraq if Saddam Hussein was still in charge? Who is making money if Iran and Qatar have pipelines going into Europe? Where does Russia fit in?
The status quo is that Russia sells oil and natural gas to Europe. Because of sanctions, this makes up a majority of Russia's economy. They depend on oil sales. Europe is then in turn, dependant on Russia for these supplies to a certain extent. This creates what should be a symbiotic relationship between Russia and the West. Ukraine has vast quantities of natural gas in Eastern half of country, and in Crimea. Ukraine's pro-Russian government was ousted in CIA led coup, and replaced with an Anti-Russian government. Russia is now trying to prevent that from happening in Syria, thus preventing the two pipelines from Iran and Qatar from reaching Europe. These pipelines would end European dependence on Russian oil and cripple Russia's economy. The power vacuum left by US departure of Iraq didn't create ISIS, they were funded, supplied and created by the CIA, Qatar, and the Saudis to oust Bashar Al-Assad, who is pro-Russian.
One thing you must understand now is the practical definition of war. War is the continuation of State Policy. Nothing more, nothing less. To win a war, a strategist has a formula just like a physicist has a formula to solve equations. Means multiplied by Will = Fighting strength. Means is your capability of waging war. Manpower, money, supplies etc. Your will is of course, is public willingness to continue, military morale, and political willpower. Since this is multiplication, anything multiplied by zero, is of course, zero. No means to fight, doesn't matter if you're willing to fight, you simply can't. No will, and you could have all the means in the world but not want to fight.
The United States has the means to wage war anywhere in the world, but no will to fight. Europe has the means, but not the will. That's why Aleppo and pictures of "Muh Poor Chillums" is being thrown in your face at every opportunity. That's why there are ISIS attacks in the West even though ISIS is funded and supplied by the CIA and by those who are apparently our business partners in this deal. Clinton and many others stand to make a great deal of money by supplying Europe directly with Arab and Persian oil. This will create competition between the Arab and Persian states, which will inevitably cause conflict. Russia has the will to fight but is severely outclassed in terms of means. They know this and will strategize appropriately to crush our will to fight should we get into a shooting war, which is why they threaten the use of Nuclear weapons. They mean it. Russia's state policy is now in direct odds with the U.S. and European state policy, meaning war is inevitable unless we back down. Hillary Clinton's number one priority is regime change in Syria. But no seriously, the fake allegations against Donald Trump are way more important than preventing nuclear war.
Once Europe is free of Russian oil and natural gas dependence, and Russia's economy is crippled, it's only a matter of time until they try to oust Putin and set up a puppet government there.
That's just the basics, it goes much deeper. Bush, Obama and Clinton have all been a continuation of the same long foreign policy goals, and it was all outlined in Zbigniew Brzizenski's book, the Grand Chessboard in 1997.
By the way, final question... do you think any of this would have been possible without the 9/11 terrorist attacks?