It lacks the moral authority. We’re talking about a government with a history of using chemical weapons against innocent people far more prolific and deadly than the mere accusations Assad faces from a trigger-happy Western military-industrial complex, bent on stifling further investigation before striking.
Here is a list of 10 chemical weapons attacks carried out by the U.S. government or its allies against civilians..
1. The U.S. Military Dumped 20 Million Gallons of Chemicals on Vietnam from 1962 – 1971
Via: AP
During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military sprayed 20 million gallons of chemicals, including the very toxic Agent Orange, on the forests and farmlands of Vietnam and neighboring countries, deliberately destroying food supplies, shattering the jungle ecology, and ravaging the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Vietnam estimates that as a result of the decade-long chemical attack, 400,000 people were killed or maimed, 500,000 babies have been born with birth defects, and 2 million have suffered from cancer or other illnesses. In 2012, the Red Cross estimated that one million people in Vietnam have disabilities or health problems related to Agent Orange.
2. Israel Attacked Palestinian Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2008 – 2009
Via: AP
White phosphorus is a horrific incendiary chemical weapon that melts human flesh right down to the bone.
In 2009, multiple human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and International Red Cross reported that the Israeli government was attacking civilians in their own country with chemical weapons. An Amnesty International team claimed to find “indisputable evidence of the widespread use of white phosphorus” as a weapon in densely-populated civilian areas. The Israeli military denied the allegations at first, but eventually admitted they were true.
After the string of allegations by these NGOs, the Israeli military even hit a UN headquarters(!) in Gazawith a chemical attack. How do you think all this evidence compares to the case against Syria? Why didn’t Obama try to bomb Israel?
3. Washington Attacked Iraqi Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2004
Via: AP
In 2004, journalists embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq began reporting the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah against Iraqi insurgents. First the military lied and said that it was only using white phosphorus to create smokescreens or illuminate targets. Then it admitted to using the volatile chemical as an incendiary weapon. At the time, Italian television broadcaster RAI aired a documentary entitled, “Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre,” including grim video footage and photographs, as well as eyewitness interviews with Fallujah residents and U.S. soldiers revealing how the U.S. government indiscriminately rained white chemical fire down on the Iraqi city and melted women and children to death.
4. The CIA Helped Saddam Hussein Massacre Iranians and Kurds with Chemical Weapons in 1988
CIA records now prove that Washington knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons (including sarin, nerve gas, and mustard gas) in the Iran-Iraq War, yet continued to pour intelligence into the hands of the Iraqi military, informing Hussein of Iranian troop movements while knowing that he would be using the information to launch chemical attacks. At one point in early 1988, Washington warned Hussein of an Iranian troop movement that would have ended the war in a decisive defeat for the Iraqi government. By March an emboldened Hussein with new friends in Washington struck a Kurdish village occupied by Iranian troops with multiple chemical agents, killing as many as 5,000 people and injuring as many as 10,000 more, most of them civilians. Thousands more died in the following years from complications, diseases, and birth defects.
5. The Army Tested Chemicals on Residents of Poor, Black St. Louis Neighborhoods in The 1950s
In the early 1950s, the Army set up motorized blowers on top of residential high-rises in low-income, mostly black St. Louis neighborhoods, including areas where as much as 70% of the residents were children under 12. The government told residents that it was experimenting with a smokescreen to protect the city from Russian attacks, but it was actually pumping the air full of hundreds of pounds of finely powdered zinc cadmium sulfide. The government admits that there was a second ingredient in the chemical powder, but whether or not that ingredient was radioactive remains classified. Of course it does. Since the tests, an alarming number of the area’s residents have developed cancer. In 1955, Doris Spates was born in one of the buildings the Army used to fill the air with chemicals from 1953 – 1954. Her father died inexplicably that same year, she has seen four siblings die from cancer, and Doris herself is a survivor of cervical cancer.
6. Police Fired Tear Gas at Occupy Protesters in 2011
The savage violence of the police against Occupy protesters in 2011 was well documented, and included the use of tear gas and other chemical irritants. Tear gas is prohibited for use against enemy soldiers in battle by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Can’t police give civilian protesters in Oakland, California the same courtesy and protection that international law requires for enemy soldiers on a battlefield?
7. The FBI Attacked Men, Women, and Children With Tear Gas in Waco in 1993
At the infamous Waco siege of a peaceful community of Seventh Day Adventists, the FBI pumped tear gasinto buildings knowing that women, children, and babies were inside. The tear gas was highly flammable and ignited, engulfing the buildings in flames and killing 49 men and women, and 27 children, including babies and toddlers. Remember, attacking an armed enemy soldier on a battlefield with tear gas is a war crime. What kind of crime is attacking a baby with tear gas?
8. The U.S. Military Littered Iraq with Toxic Depleted Uranium in 2003
Via: AP
In Iraq, the U.S. military has littered the environment with thousands of tons of munitions made from depleted uranium, a toxic and radioactive nuclear waste product. As a result, more than half of babies born in Fallujah from 2007 – 2010 were born with birth defects. Some of these defects have never been seen before outside of textbooks with photos of babies born near nuclear tests in the Pacific. Cancer and infant mortality have also seen a dramatic rise in Iraq. According to Christopher Busby, the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, “These are weapons which have absolutely destroyed the genetic integrity of the population of Iraq.” After authoring two of four reports published in 2012 on the health crisis in Iraq, Busby described Fallujah as having, “the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied.”
9. The U.S. Military Killed Hundreds of Thousands of Japanese Civilians with Napalm from 1944 – 1945
Napalm is a sticky and highly flammable gel which has been used as a weapon of terror by the U.S. military. In 1980, the UN declared the use of napalm on swaths of civilian population a war crime. That’sexactly what the U.S. military did in World War II, dropping enough napalm in one bombing raid on Tokyo to burn 100,000 people to death, injure a million more, and leave a million without homes in the single deadliest air raid of World War II.
10. The U.S. Government Dropped Nuclear Bombs on Two Japanese Cities in 1945
Although nuclear bombs may not be considered chemical weapons, I believe we can agree they belong to the same category. They certainly disperse an awful lot of deadly radioactive chemicals. They are every bit as horrifying as chemical weapons if not more, and by their very nature, suitable for only one purpose: wiping out an entire city full of civilians. It seems odd that the only regime to ever use one of these weapons of terror on other human beings has busied itself with the pretense of keeping the world safe from dangerous weapons in the hands of dangerous governments.
Sen. Ted Cruz called President Barack Obama’s efforts to authorize military intervention in Syria a public relations move, saying the U.S. military shouldn’t be “Al Qaeda’s air force.”
The Texas Republican said Tuesday on TheBlaze that while he’s glad the president listened to calls from him and others to bring the issue to Congress, America shouldn’t get involved and risk helping terrorists in the rebel forces.
“We certainly don’t have a dog in the fight,” Cruz said, calling it a civil war in Syria. “We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al Qaeda’s air force.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told reporters that Cruz sounded “totally uninformed” in his comments and that there is “overwhelming” evidence that the Free Syrian Army is still the dominant opposition force on the battlefield, not terrorists. McCain met with the army’s leader, Gen. Salim Idriss, in June.
“This is based on this assumption that they’re all extremists,” McCain said. “That’s just false, totally false. That’s someone that’s totally uninformed.”
Instead of being focused on securing chemical weapons in Syria, Cruz said, the president is too focused on “international norms” and his own public image.
“It appears what the president is pressing for is essentially protecting his public relations because he drew a red line, and, essentially, the bluff was called,” Cruz said.
Cruz said of nine major groups of rebels fighting in Syria, at least seven had ties to Al Qaeda, and a strategy from Obama that would arm those groups “makes no sense whatsoever.”
“I’ll give you one of the simplest principles of foreign policy that we ought to be following: Don’t give weapons to people who hate you. Don’t give weapons to people who want to kill you,” Cruz said.
Putin ‘does not rule out’ approving Syria strike with evidence Assad used poison gas
By Thomas Grove
MOSCOW | Wed Sep 4, 2013 4:48am EDT
(Reuters) – Russian President Vladimir Putin saidRussia did not rule out approving a military operation in Syria if clear evidence showed Damascus had carried out chemical weapons attacks, but said any attack would be illegal without U.N. support.
In an interview with AP and Russia’s First Channel, released the day before a G20 leaders’ meeting in St Petersburg, Putin said he expected to hold talks with the U.S. President Barack Obama on the summit sidelines, saying there was much to discuss.
Ties between the United States and Russia have fallen to one of their lowest points since the end of the Cold War over numerous issues including violence in Syria, where Russia has been President Bashar al-Assad’s most powerful protector.
Putin’s comments appeared intended to show readiness to remain constructive in U.S.-Russia ties, despite Obama’s decision to pull out of a bilateral summit between the leaders.
Obama comes to St Petersburg having secured support from key figures in the U.S. Congress for his call for limited U.S. strikes on Syria.
When asked whether Russia would agree to military action if Damascus were proven to have carried out a chemical weapons attack, Putin answered: "I do not rule it out."
However, he also made clear that Russia is not yet prepared to accept U.S. and European assertions that Assad’s forces were behind an August 21 chemical weapons attack that Washington says killed more than 1,400 people.
"We have no data that those chemical substances – it is not yet clear whether it was chemical weapons or simply some harmful chemical substances – were used precisely by the official government army."
Putin said no strikes on Syria could be legal without approval by the United Nations Security Council, where Moscow has a veto that it has repeatedly used to protect Assad.
"According to current international law, only the United Nations Security Council can sanction the use of force against a sovereign state. Any other approaches, means, to justify the use of force against an independent and sovereign state, are inadmissible," he said, adding it would amount to aggression.
The United States and France, its main ally on Syria, say they are prepared to launch strikes without a U.N. Security Council resolution because they believe Moscow would veto any authorization for force.
A senior Western official said that – while Moscow was unlikely to say so in public – there were signs Russian officials believe Assad was indeed responsible for the chemical weapons attack and it had strained Russian support for him.
Western countries are hoping that once any military strikes are finished, probably over Russia’s public objections, Moscow will be more cooperative than in the past in seeking a political solution, the official said.
Foreign ministers will also attend the G20 summit and will meet to discuss Syria.
Looking confident and relaxed, Putin said the burden was on other countries to convince Moscow Assad had used chemical arms. Russia has previously said it suspects rebels were behind the attack to provoke a U.S. military response. Putin said there was an "opinion" al Qaeda-linked rebels were to blame.
RUSSIA-U.S. TIES
He also said that Moscow had already sent to Syria some components of an S-300 missile system but was holding off on the delivery of final parts, something Putin threatened could happen if "existing international norms" were violated.
Western governments are concerned about the S-300 surface-to-air system, which could be used against their planes.
"We have supplied separate components, but the whole delivery is not finalized; we have suspended it for now. But if we see steps being undertaken that would violate existing international norms, we will think how to move forward, including on deliveries of such sensitive weapons," Putin said.
Regarding his relationship with Obama, Putin called the U.S. leader "a no-nonsense, practical person," and tried to dispel speculation that body language between the two leaders belied poor personal relations.
After cancelling a bilateral summit with Putin last month Obama said the Russian leader’s slouch can sometimes make him look "like the bored kid in the back of the classroom" but that his conversations with Putin were often constructive.
Obama had pulled out of the meeting with Putin, scheduled for before the G20 summit, after Russia granted temporary asylum to fugitive former U.S. spy contractor Edward Snowden, wanted by the United States for leaking information about surveillance programs. Putin said he still hoped to talk with Obama.
"I’m sure that even if we hold a meeting… on the sidelines of the summit, it will be useful in itself. In any case, we have many issues that we have been working on and we are interested in settling them," he said.
(Additional reporting by Vladimir Soldatkin and Gabriela Baczynska in Moscow and John Irish in Paris; Editing by Peter Graff)
Congress and the Imperial Presidency Debate Syria – An Analysis
by Lawrence Davidson
Part I – The President Goes to Congress
President Obama has sidestepped the political hole he had dug for himself (what we might call the “red line” hole) over his proposed attack on Syria. Having insisted there must be “consequences” for a breach of international law, specifically the alleged use of banned chemical weapons by the Syrian government, he was faced with both popular American reluctance to support military action and Congressional pique over not being included in the decision process.
As a consequence President Obama announced on 31 August 2013 that he now supports a Congressional debate and vote on the issue of attacking Syria. Then he told us how he sees the situation, “This [Syrian chemical] attack is an assault on human dignity…. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons…. Ultimately this is not about who occupies this [White House] office at any given time, its about who we are as a country.”
Part II – The U.S. and Chemical Weapons
For all I know, the president really believes his own words, but I am pretty sure his implied question of “who we are as a country” is meant to be rhetorical. If one was to give an evidence-based answer to that inquiry, as it relates to chemical weapons, it would be embarrassing in the extreme. Lest we forget, the U.S. defoliated parts of Vietnam with a chemical weapon called Agent Orange and by its use killed a lot more than large swaths of jungle. Agent Orange killed and maimed an estimated 400,000 Vietnamese and an estimated half a million children have subsequently been born deformed. It also did a fatal job on many of the American troops that handled the stuff. Later, the U.S. sold chemical and biological weapons-grade material to Saddam Hussein and followed up by helping his army aim the stuff accurately at Iranian troops. Saddam also used it on the Iraqi Kurds. Then there is the fact that our “very special friend,” Israel, used phosphorous bombs (a banned chemical weapon) on the civilians of Gaza. At the time Israel did this, President Obama occupied the oval office. I don’t remember him displaying any moral angst or positioning U.S. ships in the eastern Mediterranean with cruise missiles aimed at Israeli airbases. The truth is that during all of these episodes no one in the government worried (at least publicly) about what our actions or lack thereof, said about what sort of country this is.
However, this question does deserve a direct answer. What sort of country is the U.S. in relation to the use of chemical weapons? The kindest answer one can give is it is a bloody hypocritical nation.
Part III – Back to Congress
Nonetheless, sending the issue of a possible attack on Syria to Congress is a timely political move for the president. It puts off having to face the dilemma of taking military action that cannot both constitute meaningful punishment for the violation of international law and, at the same time, keep the U.S. from becoming ever more deeply embroiled in the Syrian civil war.
It also could be a good political move for the U.S. as a whole because it creates a good precedent. Having Congress debate and vote on the issue of military action against Syria could help resuscitate the moribund War Powers Act. Although Obama claims he has the authority to launch an attack no matter what Congress decides, he would be politically hard pressed to do so if the legislators said don’t do it. Thus the maneuver might narrow the otherwise rapidly expanding powers of the imperial presidency. Of course, none of this means that Congress can’t be scared or otherwise bamboozled into giving the president the power to do something militarily stupid. Vietnam and Iraq stand as powerful precedents in that regard.
There is another very interesting potential consequence of the president’s going to Congress. It might create a situation where there is a publicly noticeable difference between the express desires of a majority of the voting population and the special interests now encouraging military action against Syria. In my last analysis I laid out the idea that in the interim between elections, the influence of powerful special interests have much more to say about policy than do the voters, most of whom pay little attention to foreign policy. Now, however, we have a rare moment when the populace is paying attention and polls indicate that a healthy majority do not want further intervention in the Middle East. Who will the Congress respond to in the upcoming debate and vote, their special interest constituents or the voting kind?
Part IV – Conclusion
Of course, the notion that the President of the United States, with or without Congressional approval, has the authority to act as the world’s “policeman” and punish violators of international laws, that it itself flaunts, is offensive and dangerous. There are international institutions in place such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) that, imperfect as they are, can be used to prosecute violations such as the use of banned weapons. (It is to be noted that the cause of “human dignity” would be greatly advanced if the U.S. would stop refusing to ratify the treaty empowering the ICC).
How do you characterize a situation where one or a small number of community members takes it upon themselves to go outside the law to punish alleged wrongdoers? Here in the U.S. this is known as “vigilante justice.” Most often this sort of behavior results is a “lynching” based on little or no reliable evidence.
President Obama’s going to Congress will not change the vigilante nature of U.S. intentions. Let’s just hope that Congress listens to the people this time around and tells the President to keep his cruise missiles to himself. And then, lets hope he does just that.
***************************
DR. LAWRENCE DAVIDSON is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author of Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America’s National Interest; America’s Palestine: Popular and Offical Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood; and Islamic Fundamentalism. His academic work is focused on the history of American foreign relations with the Middle East. He also teaches courses in the history of science and modern European intellectual history.
His blog To The Point Analyses now has its own Facebook page. Along with the analyses, the Facebook page will also have reviews, pictures, and other analogous material.
Americans oppose U.S. military strikes in Syria, polls find
President Obama said Tuesday he was confident he would be able to work with Congress to pass a resolution authorizing military intervention in Syria.
By Morgan Little
3:13 p.m. CDT, September 3, 2013
WASHINGTON – President Obama has to persuade not just Congress on military intervention in Syria. New polling shows the American public is highly skeptical of the administration’s plan for limited missile strikes in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.
The divide tightens when Americans are asked about missile strikes conducted in conjunction with allied nations, with 51% in opposition and 46% in favor, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll.
Americans are even more opposed to providing weapons to rebel forces in Syria, with 70% siding against a step that Obama has already decided to take, according to Pew.
Opposition to intervention appears to have grown since polling conducted last week by NBC News, which found a 50%-42% split against U.S. military action in response to the use of chemical weapons.
At the root of this opposition is not widespread skepticism about the chemical weapons attack , as 53% told Pew that there was clear evidence the Syrian government did carry it out.
One possible cause is the belief that Obama has yet to clearly state his case for action, with just 32% of Americans saying he has done so and 48% saying he has not, according to Pew.
Those who believe Obama has not offered an adequate explanation includes higher percentages of Republicans (60%) and independents (54%) than Democrats (33%). Pew’s polling was partly conducted after Obama’s Saturday address to the nation on his decision to ask Congress for its approval of any military response.
There’s little optimism about the possible aftermath of missile strikes, with 74% thinking they would prompt a backlash against the U.S. and allies, 61% predicting a long-term military commitment and just 33% thinking they would prevent the use of chemical weapons in the future, according to Pew.
Pew’s poll was conducted from Thursday to Sunday among a random sample of 1,000 adults, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points. The ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted Wednesday to Sunday among a random sample of 1,012 adults, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 points. Both were conducted through land lines and cellphones.
Syria Conflict: Opposition Leader Haytham Al-Manna Criticises Plans For US Military Intervention As ‘Satanic’
Western military action in Syria would be a "satanic intervention against a satanic regime", a leading Syrian opposition figure has warned.
Speaking to the Huffington Post UK, Haytham al-Manna, the Paris-based spokesman of the National Coordination Committee (NCC), said: "Our position is against any [western] aggression against Syria. There is no [option of] military aggression against the regime, it will be against.. the population."
The NCC, which consists of a dozen or so secular, leftist political parties inside Syria, is not a member of the Syrian National Council (SNC), the coalition of opposition groups recognised as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people by several western governments. The latter has long supported western military intervention against Assad; the former does not.
The NCC’s Manna, a veteran human-rights activist whose brother was killed by the Assad regime, said US ordnance won’t "make the distinction between military and civilian targets. I saw what happened in Iraq..and all the [previous] American interventions."
Manna’s brother was killed by the Assad regime but he doesn’t support military intervention
Manna added: "We are against the intervention in Syria of Hizbollah [and] of foreign fighters from al Qaeda. We cannot build democracy in Syria with others."
Criticising the United States, Turkey, Israel and other regional powers, he said: "We are not in favour of a satanic intervention against a satanic regime."
Several other opposition groups have criticised the NCC for being too soft on the Syrian government, with the rebelFree Syrian Army (FSA) dismissing it as "just the other face of the same coin". But Manna insisted that the "political opposition outside Syria" is a "minority inside the country". The NCC spokesman claimed that "the majority of Syrian society is against any [foreign military] intervention".
Referring to the proposed ‘Geneva II’ UN-backed peace conference in Switzerland, Manna warned that "we have now the opportunity.. to push all parties, the regime and the opposition, to go to Geneva.. Up to now, [the Assad regime] accepted it had to go to Geneva.. I am not sure [Assad] will go at the end of the year."
Manna wants pressure to be put on Assad and the rebels to attend peace talks in Geneva
However, most of Syria’s opposition groups, as well as a growing number of Western diplomats, believe Assad will not agree to negotiate with his opponents unless there is a credible threat of US-led military action. Manna disagrees. "If [Assad] doesn’t accept [he has] to go, Russia will change its position [of support] because it is an essential part of Geneva II."
Responding to his critics who take a more hardline stance against the regime, and insist on Assad’s resignation as a precondition to peace talks, Manna said that the rebels had been refusing to negotiate with the Syrian president for over two years "and we lost more than 70,000 people in Syria because of this position". The prolonging of the Syrian civil war, he explained, "is only in the interests of Assad and al Qaeda".
For Manna, there is no alternative to negotiations. "The regime and the opposition must go to Geneva II without preconditions," he told HuffPost UK. "The only precondition is applying [the principles of the] Geneva communique. And this is in the interests of the democratic opposition, not of al Qaeda [or] the Islamists." TheGeneva communique, published in June 2012, called on all parties to the conflict to recommit to a "sustained cessation of armed violence" and immediately implement the then UN envoy Kofi Annan’s six-point peace plan.
In recent days, US and UK officials have spoken about the importance of "enforcing the international norm with respect to chemical weapons" and taking military action to punish the Assad regime for its alleged use of sarin gas against civilians in Ghouta, east of Damascus on 21 August.
Manna, however, pointed out that enforcing international law "is not a decision for Congress or for the French parliament.. We don’t accept any unilateral decision from any country in the world, whether it is the US or Iran or the UK."
Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?
By Michael Snyder, on September 3rd, 2013
Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe. Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region. On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom. Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.
It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time. The following is an excerpt from an articlefrom 2009…
Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world’s biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).
"We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.
Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.
"For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.
Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world’s leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.
As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline. Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route. The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian…
In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas."
Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.
The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be"completely" in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.
If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia. So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people. In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely…
The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.
Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.
Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.
The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!
The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.
Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.
But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.
Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.
Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.
Is this really who we want to be "allied" with?
And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.
If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive. In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American "boots on the ground"…
The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used. Four points are worth making about these purposes. First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.). Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.” Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”). Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).
I think this AUMF has much broader implications thanIlya Somin described. Some questions for Congress to ponder:
(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power? Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.
(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.
Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?
I’ll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he’s five years old. We’re not talking about war; we’re talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, ‘Well, what do you think?’ He said, ‘I think no war.’
Unfortunately, his grandmother and most of our other insane "leaders" in Washington D.C. seem absolutely determined to take us to war.
In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline?
Ron Paul experiences ‘technical difficulties’ with his satellite connection while on CNN’s The Situation Room discussing possible US intervention in Syria.
No vote could spark constitutional crisis if White House launches attack anyway
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com September 4, 2013
Current indications suggest that Congress could reject the Obama administration’s draft resolution on Syria, setting up a potential constitutional crisis if Obama goes ahead and launches the attack anyway, as Secretary of State John Kerry has clearly suggested will happen.
According to a whip list compiled by the Hill, while the Senate vote to authorize the attack is already in the bag, 44 members of the House are either “no” or “leaning no” compared to just 17 who are “yes” or “leaning yes”. 31 Congressmembers are “undecided” or “unclear,” according to the Hill.
That leaves a further 343 members of Congress who have yet to take a public stance on the issue, although with national polls of Americans clearly showing that a majority oppose the strike, negative sentiment towards the idea of launching an attack seems to be the dominant factor.
“Most House Republicans who have taken a stance are vowing to vote no, or are leaning no,” the report notes. Despite receiving the backing of leadership allies like Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner, the consensus is that Obama faces an “uphill battle” to convince Congress as a whole.
According to Congressman Justin Amash, a staunch critic of military intervention, his visits with constituents have revealed, “Almost unanimous opposition to U.S. strikes.”
“It’s running at almost 100 to 1 against strikes in terms of people contacting me,” Amash told CBSaffiliate WWMZ-TV. “It’s pretty overwhelming. I think it’s pretty solidly against military strikes.”
A great deal of this opposition could of course be fairly easily overturned if we were to be presented with another convenient chemical weapons attack or a strike on US interests blamed on Assad before the vote takes place.
However, as we highlighted on Monday, both Secretary of State John Kerry and another State Department official have indicated that Obama will go ahead with military intervention anyway even if Congress does not give the green light.
“We don’t contemplate that the Congress is going to vote no,” Kerry asserted on Sunday, adding that Obama has the right to order attacks “no matter what Congress does”.
Kerry restated the same position yesterday during his confrontation with Senator Rand Paul, prompting Paul to respond, “You’re making a joke of us, you’re making us into theater.”
Obama has also insisted that he has the authority to launch the attack without Congressional backing, emphasizing once again that the whole process appears to be little more than a fig leaf or mere window dressing for a decision that has already been made.
The Obama administration’s apparent disregard for the fact that the founders intended war powers to be firmly within the control of Congress is setting the stage for a major constitutional confrontation the likes of which America hasn’t witnessed for decades.
Let us recall the words of James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, who stated, “In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature.”
Should Congress reject the authorization to launch the attack on Syria and the White House, as it has promised, goes ahead and orders the strike anyway, a constitutional crisis could be sparked and at the very least there will be calls from Republicans to begin impeachment proceedings against Obama, just as there were when he failed to obtain Congressional approval for the attack on Libya in 2011.
Corporate media makes it sound like Secretary of State opposed to boots on the ground
Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com September 4, 2013
If the CIA’s al-Qaeda shock troops at work in Syria get their hands on chemical weapons, Secretary of State John Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, the United States should respond with ground troops.
“In the event Syria imploded, for instance, or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else and it was clearly in the interest of our allies — and all of us, the British, the French and others to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements,” Kerry told Congress, “I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to the president of the United States to secure our country.”
Kerry said Obama does not want to discount the possibility of U.S. boots on the ground. “I don’t want anything coming out of this hearing that leaves any door open to any possibilities, so let’s shut that door now, as tight was we can,” he responded following remarks made by Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, who said Congress will make sure U.S. troops will not be used.
The Secretary of State said bombing Syria and possibly deploying troops to topple the al-Assad regime and defeat his military should not be characterized as going to war.
“Let me be clear: President Obama is not asking America to go to war,” he told the committee.
Near the end of Kerry’s testimony — and as if on cue — professional and foundation funded protester Medea Benjamin of Code Pink interrupted the proceedings by stating the obvious: “we don’t want another war” and “launching cruise missiles means another war.”
Drudge, Buchanan, Rand Paul & Justin Amash highlight hypocrisy of Obama supporters
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com September 4, 2013
Clockwise: Matt Drudge, Justin Amash, Pat Buchanan, Rand Paul.
While ideologues of the so-called “anti-war” left have offered milquetoast dissent or even supported Barack Obama’s planned attack on Syria, conservative icons in both politics and media are leading the backlash against another potentially disastrous foreign intervention.
It’s a phenomenon that many are attempting to understand – what happened to the substantial and vehement army of anti-war leftists who opposed George W. Bush in the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq? The vast majority of them undoubtedly voted for Obama once if not twice, and are apparently placing their slavish devotion to the President above the interests of the country by refusing to speak out against an aggressive intervention that could spark a far wider regional conflict.
While leftists have largely remained silent , media conservatives like Matt Drudge and Pat Buchanan, along with political heavyweights like Senator Rand Paul and Congressman Justin Amash have comprised the tip of the spear in opposing the White House’s rush to war.
“Where is the antiwar left on the war?” he asks, “Mostly silent. Not even Vermont’s Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders has come out in early opposition of a war with Syria.”
“Our Nobel Peace Prize-winning President has killed thousands of innocent children across the Middle East with his drone strikes as well as the antiwar left with his empty rhetoric,” adds Girdusky, calling on Republicans to “leave behind the foreign policy of President Bush.”
Just check out some of the tweets from recent days by leading conservative thinkers in both media and politics, individuals who are not only putting the so-called anti-war left to shame but also establishment Republicans like McCain, Graham and Boehner who have all voted to back Obama’s war.
Compare this sentiment to the likes of “anti-war icon” Noam Chomsky, who has actually expressed support for increased military intervention in Syria by advocating the Obama administration arm the Al-Qaeda-led rebels.
“I believe you should choose the negotiating track first, and should you fail, then moving to the second option” — backing the rebels — “becomes more acceptable,” said Chomsky, while calling for an attack so long as it is backed by the United Nations.
One notable exception on the left has been Oliver Stone, who has aggressively opposed Obama on Syria and recently called the President a snake in light of the NSA spying controversy and the Edward Snowden affair.
Conservative backlash against an attack on Syria has also been dovetailed by a wave of active duty and military veterans taking to Twitter to express their opposition to fighting on the same side as Al-Qaeda as part of the #IdidntJoin meme.
Will Obama take the ultimate step to embodying ‘war criminal’ status?
Adan Salazar Infowars.com Sept. 4, 2013
Syrian activists have taken to forming “human shields” around military installations in the capital of Damascus in efforts to discourage the Obama administration from authorizing “limited” military strikes on the Syrian regime.
According to RT, a coalition of activists have placed themselves around the predicted target of Mount Qasioun, an installation northeast of the Syrian capital of Damascus home to “security and military buildings” as well as Syrian regime armed forces.
Still from RT video
“Protesters rallying beside the place called themselves a ‘human shield’ and hold banners featuring slogans such as ‘No more American bombing democracy’ and ‘Hands off Syria,’” RT reported today.
Still from RT video
“We are here to express our loyalty to our country in the face of American threats,” a participant reportedly told RT, adding, “We don’t want what they did in Iraq over chemical weapons claims to be done in our country.”
Still from RT video
Should Obama authorize military strikes in the face of this form of protest, he will have assuredly assumed the role of war criminal, if his past transgressions haven’t already earned him that title.
Late last month, we documented how the Syrian people were already hard-pressed to find places they could safely hide from Obama’s “humanitarian love bombs” should he sway in the direction of cruise missile strikes.
“We live in the capital. Every turn, every street, every neighborhood has some government target. Where do we hide?” one panicked Damascus resident told Reuters.
“What about my friend?” asked another woman whose family was lucky enough to escape to a safe area. “Her whole family lives in this neighborhood. There is no place for them to go.”
Apparently unfazed by the UK parliament’s historic “no” vote last week in response to Prime Minister David Cameron’s request to attack Syria, Obama, bellicose members of Congress and a compliant lapdog media have been undeterred in their efforts to try to convince the American people chemical weapons used in Syria pose a serious threat to American interests, despite the fact no evidence has been produced directly implicating the Syrian government.
A new report from Russia lends evidence that the March 19 chemical attack in Syria was in fact carried out by the Obama-backed Syria rebels, highlighting the reality of the latest attacks.
In a new breaking report released by the Russian Foreign Ministry just moments ago, it has now been announced that the March 19 chemical weapons responsible for the attacks in Syria and blamed on Assad’s government army are linked up to rebel-made weaponry. Specifically, the findings state that the chemical weapon shells are very much different from the standard Syrian army weaponry and extremely similar to those made by the US-funded rebels who have been caught time and time again burning villages full of innocents.
The report from Russia’s RT reads:
“Probes from Khan al-Assal show chemicals used in the March 19 attack did not belong to standard Syrian army ammunition, and that the shell carrying the substance was similar to those made by a rebel fighter group, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated.”
And perhaps more importantly, the report goes on to mention that “the way is being paved for military action” through the blame on Assad for launching the attacks despite evidence showing the contrary. In fact, Syrian officials have gone on record in the past saying that evidence was submitted to the UN showing how there was information pointing towards the rebels carrying out the attacks. The relationship to the latest attacks is undeniable.
Prominent Analysts Label Attacks ‘False Flag’
The latest report coincides with what major analysts have been saying about the entire event as well as what I have been saying in reports regarding the latest attacks. Initially pushing the concept into the media, it was Ron Paul who went on air and labeled the attacks a false flag in a report that has now gone international in a major way. Paul was then followed by Pat Buchanan, who went on air saying that the attacks ‘reeked of a false flag’.
Now, it seems extremely clear to those who are following what’s going on that we were indeed correct in this analysis when considering this news. Yet, despite this reality, Obama and his handlers continue to push the nation into a hot war with Syria that could involve boots on the ground and the ignition of heavy military action against Assad.
Russia releases key findings on chemical attack near Aleppo indicating similarity with rebel-made weapons
Published time: September 04, 2013 17:02 Edited time: September 04, 2013 18:05
People injured in what the government said was a chemical weapons attack, breathe through oxygen masks as they are treated at a hospital in the Syrian city of Aleppo March 19, 2013 (Reuters / George Ourfalian)
Probes from Khan al-Assal show chemicals used in the March 19 attack did not belong to standard Syrian army ammunition, and that the shell carrying the substance was similar to those made by a rebel fighter group, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated.
A statement released by the ministry on Wednesday particularly drew attention to the “massive stove-piping of various information aimed at placing the responsibility for the alleged chemical weapons use in Syria on Damascus, even though the results of the UN investigation have not yet been revealed.”
By such means “the way is being paved for military action” against Damascus, the ministry pointed out.
But the samples taken at the site of the March 19 attack and analyzed by Russian experts indicate that a projectile carrying the deadly nerve agent sarin was most likely fired at Khan al-Assal by the rebels, the ministry statement suggests, outlining the 100-page report handed over to the UN by Russia.
The key points of the report have been given as follows:
• the shell used in the incident “does not belong to the standard ammunition of the Syrian army and was crudely according to type and parameters of the rocket-propelled unguided missiles manufactured in the north of Syria by the so-called Bashair al-Nasr brigade”;
• RDX, which is also known as hexogen or cyclonite, was used as the bursting charge for the shell, and it is “not used in standard chemical munitions”;
• soil and shell samples contain “the non-industrially synthesized nerve agent sarin and diisopropylfluorophosphate,” which was “used by Western states for producing chemical weapons during World War II.”
DETAILS TO FOLLOW
Syrians behead Christians for helping military, as CIA ships in arms
A priest and another Christian were beheaded before a cheering crowd by Syrian insurgents who say they aided and abetted the enemy, President Bashar Assad’s military, foreign media reported.
An undated video that made the Internet rounds on Wednesday showed two unnamed men with tied hands surrounded by a cheering crowd of dozens, just moments before their heads were cut off with a small knife, Syria Report said. The attackers in the video then lifted the head for show, and placed it back on the body. The incident took place in the countryside of Idlib, the media report said.
Syria Report said that foreign militants have increased attacks on civilians in recent weeks — and that many of these insurgents are supported by the West and by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. Just recently, a Catholic priest was recently executed by radicals, and last month, an entire Christian village in Homs was burned to the ground, Syria Report said. Moreover, two Christian bishops kidnapped in Aleppo at the beginning of the year are still missing.
The reported beheading of the two Christians comes about the same time America has started sending arms to rebel fighters, the Wall Street Journal revealed this week. The Journal reported the Central Intelligence Agency just began transporting weapons to Jordan for eventual transfer to Syrian fighters.
The weapons transfer is aimed at helping Free Syrian forces oust Mr. Assad. It’s scheduled to coincide with arms shipments from other European and Arab allies for a planned and coordinated rebel attack set for August, the Journal reported.
The CIA weapons transfer will take about three weeks, and involves light arms — and possibly antitank missiles, the Journal said.
A man sits in front of houses destroyed during a Syrian Air Force air strike in Azaz, Syria on August 15, 2012. (REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic)
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, backs President Obama’s request for authorization to intervene militarily in Syria, as does House Democratic Minority Nancy Pelosi, D-California.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, is similarly “in,” while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, in mum.
The president has done a pretty good job of selling his plan to congressional leaders.
He has not, however, sold it to the American people.
Thus, when members of Congress decide which side they’re on in the Syrian intervention votes that are expected to take place next week, they will have to consider whether they want to respond to pro-war pressure from inside-the-Beltway—as so many did when they authorized action against Iraq—or to the anti-war sentiments of their constituents.
The level of opposition might not be quite so overwhelming.
But it is strikingly high.
And, even as the president makes his case, skepticism about intervention appears to be growing.
A Pew Research survey released Tuesday found support for air strikes had collapsed from 45 percent to 29 percent, while opposition had spiked. “The public has long been skeptical of U.S. involvement in Syria, but an April survey found more support than opposition to the idea of a US-led military response if the use of chemical weapons was confirmed,” Pew reported Tuesday. “The new survey finds both broad concern over the possible consequences of military action in Syria and little optimism it will be effective.”
The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, released after the president announced he would seek congressional authorization for an attack on Syria, and after several days of administration lobbying for that attack, found that voters are overwhelmingly opposed to intervention.
“The United States says it has determined that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons in the civil war there,” the Post/ABC poll asked. “Given this, do you support or oppose the United States launching missile strikes against the Syrian government?”
* Sixty percent of registered voters (59 percent of all respondents) express opposition. Just 36 percent support intervention.
* Self-identified Democrats are opposed 54-42—a 12 point gap.
* Republicans are opposed 55-43—a similar 12 point gap.
* The fiercest opposition is among independents, who disapprove of intervention by a 66-30 margin. That figure suggests that members of Congress who represent swing districts might actually be more vulnerable if they vote to authorize the attack.
In addition to being broad-based, the opposition sentiment runs deep. Even if US allies such as Britain and France join in, a 51-46 majority is still opposed to missile strikes.
The idea of going further and trying to topple the Syrian regime appears to be a political non-starter. Seventy percent of those surveyed oppose supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels, while just 30 percent support the proposal that has been floated by President Obama and Republican hawks such as Arizona Senator John McCain.
What is especially notable about the polling data is the intensity of opposition to any sort of intervention—including missile strikes targeted at suspected chemical weapons sites—among groups that lean Democratic at election time.
* Sixty-five percent of women surveyed for The Post/ABC polloppose missile strikes, while just 30 percent favor them. (The Pew survey found an even lower level of support among women: just 19 percent)
* Among Americans under age 40 who were surveyed for the Post/ABC poll, 65 percent are opposed.
* Among Hispanics, 63 percent are opposed.
* Among African-Americans, 56 percent are opposed.
On the question of arming the rebels, opposition numbers skyrocket.
* Seventy-six percent of women surveyed for the Post/ABC poll are opposed.
* Seventy-four percent of those under age 40 are opposed.
* Seventy-three percent of African-Americans are opposed.
Regionally, the Democratic-leaning states of the Midwest and the Northeast are more opposed than the Republican-leaning states of the South.
It is true that foreign policy is not always made on the basis of polling data. It is true that patterns of war weariness and concern about how to address the use of chemical weapons makes the current circumstance volatile. And it is true that poll numbers can change. But it is worth noting that discomfort with launching air strikes—let alone any other intervention—is running strong among voters who have followed the story closely and among voters who have only recently begun to engage with it. Pew reports that “opposition to the idea is prevalent regardless of people’s level of interest—nearly half oppose airstrikes among the most and least attentive segments of the public.”
MSNBC talking head, former cop and indefatigable cheerleader for Obama and the Democrat side of the one party political system, Chris Matthews, has declared Syrian babies and grandmothers must die to salvage Obama’s dismal political future. He didn’t say it like that, of course, but he might as well have.
It should be obvious to all who bother to pay attention there is no difference between Obama, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, Barbara Boxer, et al, ad infinitum and ad nauseam.
All to varying degrees and with differing tact support the War Party and the apparently endless drive of the military-industrial complex to foment profitable wars and shake and bake the geopolitical chessboard to keep the game going for the bankers and their transnational corporate buddies. Because the political system is rigged like a game of three-card Monte and the antiwar movement is dead as a doornail, none of them have to worry about losing their cushy careers.
It’s Matthews’ job to provide cover – no matter how feeble – for mass murder, even though hardly anybody tunes MSNBC in anymore except a few hundred thousand diehard “progressives” who are pathetically deluded into thinking military intervention in Syria is somehow humanitarian.
Note: English translation of the Le Figaro interview reposted from SANA, the Syrian state government news agency.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to Le Figaro. Following is the full text:
Le Figaro: Mr. President, the Americans and the French have accused you of perpetrating a chemical attack on the 21st of August in Ghouta, which led to the death of hundreds. Do you have evidence to suggest that your army did not launch the attack?
President al-Assad: First of all, anyone making such an accusation is also responsible for providing the evidence to substantiate the allegation. We have challenged them to present a shred of legitimate evidence, which they have not been able to do. Since their foreign policy should be tailored to suit the interests of their own people, we have challenged them to present legitimate evidence to their own public opinion to substantiate their claims; again they have not done so.
Secondly, where is the logic in us carrying out an attack of this nature: two years into the crisis I can confidently state that the situation on the ground is much better now than it was a year ago; how is it conceivable then that an army making significant advancements on the ground through conventional armament would resort to using weapons of mass destruction?
I am neither confirming nor denying that we possess such weapons – this is not a matter for discussion. For the sake of argument, if the army had such weapons and decided to use them, is it conceivable that it would use them in areas where its own troops are deployed? Where is the logic in that? Additionally is it really plausible that the use of these weapons in a heavily populated area in the suburbs of the capital did not kill tens of thousands; these substances travel in the air.
Le Figaro: Were soldiers from the Syrian Army injured by the weapons?
President al-Assad: Yes, in the ‘Baharia’ area, in the suburbs of Damascus; the inspectors from the UN team met with them in hospital.
Le Figaro: Some do acknowledge that there has been some advancement by the army on the ground; however in other areas the rebels have also advanced and you are looking to wipe them out.
President al-Assad: Again, the areas in question are residential areas. The use of chemical weapons in these areas would result in the deaths of tens of thousands. All the accusations are based on unsubstantiated claims made by the terrorists and random pictures and videos posted on the Internet.
Le Figaro: The Americans have stated that they have intercepted a telephone conversation between an executive in you inner circle and officers in the Army giving the order to use these weapons.
We will only discuss substantiated truths
President al-Assad: If the Americans, the French or the British had a single shred of evidence they would have disclosed it from day one. We will not contest rumours and dubious allegations; we will only discuss substantiated truths – if they have any, they should present them.
Le Figaro: Is it possible that someone from your inner circle or officers in the Syrian Army took the decision without your knowledge?
President al-Assad: Again – regardless of whether we do or do not possess such weapons, in any country that does possess these weapons, the decision to deploy is usually centralized. Either way, this is classified military information.
Le Figaro: But this is what Jihad Makdissi stated.
President al-Assad: No, at the time, Jihad said that should we possess these weapons, we would not use them. Whether we do or do not possess them is an entirely Syrian affair.
Le Figaro: President Obama has postponed a military strike on Syria, how do you explain this?
President al-Assad: Some have seen Obama as weak because of his decision to withdraw or delay a possible strike by days or weeks; by waging a war on Syria, others have seen him as a strong leader of a powerful country.
Power lies in your ability to prevent wars not in igniting them
From my perspective, power lies in your ability to prevent wars not in igniting them. Power comes from ones ability to stand up and acknowledge their mistakes; if Obama was strong, he would have stood up and said that there is no evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons, he would have stood up and said that the right way forward is to wait for the results of the UN investigations and workthrough the UN Security Council. However, as I see it, he is weak because he succumbed to internal pressure from small groups and threatened military action. As I said strong leaders are those who prevent wars not those who inflame them.
Le Figaro: What do you say to members of congress whose vote will determine whether or not there will be any military action?
President al-Assad: Before they vote, they should ask themselves a simple question: What have previous wars achieved for America, or even for Europe? What has the world achieved from the war in Libya and the spread of terrorism in its aftermath? What has the world achieved from the wars in Iraq and other places? What will the world achieve from supporting terrorism in Syria?
Members of congress are entrusted to serve in the best interests of their country. Before they vote, they need to weigh up their decision in the interests of their own country. It is not in the interests of the US to perpetuate instability and extremism in the Middle East. It is not in their interests to continue – what George Bush started – spreading wars in the world.
If they think logically and in the interests of their country, they will not find any benefits to these wars. However many of them they have not mastered the art of logic in their political decision-making.
Le Figaro: How will you respond to these strikes, should they happen?
President al-Assad: If we think of the Middle East as a barrel of explosives close to a fire that is coming ever closer, then it becomes clear that the issue is no longer contained to a Syrian response, but rather what will happen after the first strike. The architects of the war can define the first strike – in other words they can determine what they will do, but beyond that it is impossible for anyone to predict what will follow. Once the barrel explodes, everyone loses control; nobody can determine the outcome, however what is certain is the spread of chaos, wars and extremism in all its forms everywhere.
Le Figaro: Is there a danger that it will spill into a regional conflict?
The issue today is no longer just about Syria, but about a whole region that is interlinked
President al-Assad: Of course, this is the first and most dangerous risk. The issue today is no longer just about Syria, but about a whole region that is interlinked, socially, politically and militarily; the resulting challenges are regional, not just Syrian.
Le Figaro: So is it likely that Israel would be one of your targets?
President al-Assad: You don’t really expect me to announce how we will respond?! It is not realistic that we would announce our plans, but as I said there are many players involved and narrowing the conversation to just one player diminishes the significance of what will happen.
Le Figaro: What do you say to Jordan who is known to be training the rebels on the ground? What is at risk for Jordan should the strike occur in favour of the rebels and terrorists?
President al-Assad: Our policy has always been to not export our problems to neighbouring countries. We have been striking the thousands of terrorists that have entered Syria via Jordan, and Jordan has announced that it would not provide a base for any military strikes against Syria. However, should we not succeed in fighting terrorism in Syria, we can only expect that it will spread to other countries along with the ensuing chaos and extremism.
Le Figaro: So are you warning Jordan and Turkey?
Our priority is to fight terrorism within Syria
President al-Assad: We have said this before and we have communicated this to them directly and indirectly. I believe Jordan is fully aware of the situation, despite the pressure on it to continue to be a route for this terrorism. As for Erdogan, I don’t think he has a clue of what he is doing. Our priority is to fight terrorism within Syria.
Le Figaro: How will your allies – Hezbollah and Iran – respond to any strike? Are you counting on their support should you be attacked?
President al-Assad: I do not wish to speak on their behalf, their statements have been very clear. We are all aware that this is a regional issue and as such it is impossible to separate the interests of Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and other countries that are supporting us.
Today, stability in the region depends on the situation in Syria; Russia fully fathoms this. Russia is neither defending the President nor Syria, but rather it is defending stability in this region knowing all too well that otherwise it will also be affected. To assess the situation through the narrow lens of a Syrian-Iranian alliance is a naïve and over simplistic view; we are dealing with a situation of far greater significance.
Le Figaro: Have the Russians reassured you that they will reach out to the Americans to try to attenuate the strike?
President al-Assad: I don’t think anyone can trust the Americans; I don’t think there is a country in the world that can guarantee that the Americans will or will not take any form of action towards another country, so it is pointless to look for such reassurances. The Americans adopt one position in the morning, only to endorse the complete opposite in the evening. As long as the US does not comply with or listen to the UN, we should not be reassured.
Le Figaro: How can we stop the war, the crisis in Syria has been on going for more than two-and-half years? You have suggested a National Unity government, the international community has suggested Geneva II, how can we stop the blood bath in Syria?
Solution lies in stopping the influx of terrorists into Syria, stopping financial and military support to them
President al-Assad: Discussing a solution at the beginning of the crisis is very different to discussing it today. From the beginning I have emphasised that a resolution can only be achieved through dialogue, which would lead to solutions that can be implemented through political measures.
The situation today is different; today we are fighting terrorists, 80-90% of them affiliated to Al-Qaeda. These terrorists are not interested in reform, or politics, or legislations. The only way to deal with the terrorists is to strike them; only then can we talk about political steps. So in response to your question, the solution today lies in stopping the influx of terrorists into Syria and stopping the financial, military or any other support they receive.
Le Figaro: Who is supporting them?
President al-Assad: Primarily Saudi Arabia, followed by Turkey and Jordan by streaming the militants into Syria, as well as France, America and Britain.
Le Figaro: Do you have proof that France has provided arms to the terrorists?
President al-Assad: It is evident enough through France’s political stance and its provocative role in the situation as dictated to it by Qatar and other countries.
Le Figaro: Mr. President, are you willing to invite the opposition to come to Syria, to guarantee their safety in order for you all to sit around a table and find a solution?
President al-Assad: In January of this year we launched an initiative that addresses the points you raised and others in order to move forward with a political solution. However, this opposition that you refer to was manufactured abroad – manufactured by Qatar, France and others – it is not a Syrian opposition, and as such it takes orders from its masters who have forbidden it from engaging with this initiative. In addition to the fact that since they were manufactured abroad they lack local public support. Despite all their shortfalls, we did invite them but they did not respond.
Le Figaro: However some did not respond for fear of their security, they fear being imprisoned like Abdul Aziz al-Khayer. Can you provide them with guarantees?
President al-Assad: We have provided guarantees and I have spoken of these political points including guarantees of security to any member of the opposition wanting to come to Syria for the purpose of dialogue. However, they were either not willing to come or maybe they weren’t given permission to come. We have not killed or captured any member of the opposition. Abdul Aziz al-Khayer’s friends are all in Syria – you can see for yourself. Why would we target one of them and ignore the rest? Where is the logic in that?
Le Figaro: How do you explain the French position towards you today, you were once friends with Sarkozy and you enjoyed a friendly relationship with France and visited several times? How do you explain this U-turn?
French policy towards Syria is entirely based on American and Qatari desires
President al-Assad: It wasn’t a friendly relationship. It was clear from the beginning that France, at the request of the Americans, was trying to manipulate Syrian policy. Even the positive shift towards Syria in 2008 was due to Qatari influence, and so was the negative U-turn in 2011. It is very clear that French policy towards Syria is entirely based on American and Qatari desires.
Le Figaro: French Parliamentarians will meet on Wednesday. There is a big debate in France now, with some believing that Hollande has gone too far on this issue. What is your message to the French Parliamentarians before they convene and vote on the strike?
Go back to the principles of the French Revolution, Liberty, Justice, Equality
President al-Assad: A few days ago the French Interior Minister was quoted as saying that “France’s participation is dependent on the US congress,” with no mention to the French Parliament. Allow me then to pose this question to you: To whom does the French government answer to – the French parliament or the US congress? Since 2003, on the back of the invasion of Iraq and its earlier position before the war, France has relinquished its independence and has become a part of American foreign policy. This applies to Chirac after the war on Iraq, to Sarkozy, and today to Hollande.
So the question really is: will the meeting of the French parliamentarians return the independence of France’s decisions back to the French? We hope that this would be the case. Since they will be working in the interests of France, will the representatives of the French people take the side of extremism and terrorism? Will they support those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks in New York, or those who bombed the Metro in Spain? Will the representatives of the French people support those who killed the innocents in France?
How is it possible for them to stand against individuals like Mohammed Merah in France and yet support others like him in Syria? How can France fight terrorism in Mali and support it in Syria? Will France adopt the American model of double standards? How can the parliamentarians convince the French public that their country is secular, yet at the same time it supports extremism and sectarianism in other parts of the world? How can France advocate for democracy but yet one of its closest allies – Saudi Arabia – is still living in medieval times?
My message to the French Parliamentarians is: go back to the principles of the French Revolution that the whole world is proud of: Liberty, Justice, Equality.
Le Figaro: You cited French national interests; if France intervened militarily, would their interests in Syria or the region be targeted?
President al-Assad: I do not know if your interests will be targeted or not, this will depend on the consequences of the war. But most certainly, France will lose its interests. There is hatred and contempt towards French policy, which would inevitably directly affect French interests in the region. In addition, unlike previous times, significant countries in the region have started to look away from Europe towards the East for alternative partnerships where there is mutual respect between countries.
Le Figaro: So you are calling out for rationality and reason?
President al-Assad: For rationality and ethics.
Le Figaro: Are you planning to run for office in the next presidential elections?
President al-Assad: This really depends on the will of the Syrian people at the time. If I feel that there is a strong public desire for to me to run, I will not hesitate and vice versa. We may not have accurate measures at the moment, but we do have strong indications. The strongest indicator is that when you are fighting terrorists from over 80 countries who are supported by Western and Arab states, if your people do not embrace you, you simply cannot carry on. Syria has been resilient for two-and-a-half years this is an important indication of strong public support.
Le Figaro: Mr. President how much are you prepared to fight in this crisis?
President al-Assad: We have two options: we either defend our country against terrorism or we surrender. The history in this region has never known surrender; it has seen many wars, yet it has never and will never surrender.
Le Figaro: So will fight and sacrifice your life for Syria?
President al-Assad: When it becomes a matter of patriotism, we will all fight to defend our country – whether we are citizens or the president, it is not about the individual but rather about the whole nation. What is the point in living if your country is dead?
Le Figaro: Mr. President, do you take responsibility for the mistakes that have been committed including those by the army and the security forces? Do you accept that mistakes have been made?
President al-Assad: Any human being makes mistakes in their work. If you do not make mistakes you are either not human or you do not work. I am a human being and I work. However, when you want to evaluate your mistakes you need to do so in hindsight when the events are behind you and you are able to see the results of your actions. We are currently in the heart of the battle; when it is over, we can assess the results and determine whether we were right or wrong on particular matters.
Le Figaro: Are you confident of winning the battle?
President al-Assad: The history of our region teaches us that when our people defend themselves, they inevitably win. This is not a war against the President or the Government alone, it is a war against the entire country, and we shall be victorious.
Le Figaro: Having said this, your army has lost control over certain areas in the North, East and South. Do you believe that you can regain these areas?
President al-Assad: The issue is not about labeling areas as being under our control or under the control of the militants; there isn’t a single area that the army has planned to enter and not been able to do so. The real challenge is the continuous influx of terrorists from across the borders and the acts they have perpetrated at a social level in the areas they have infiltrated.
Le Figaro: Moratinos, a previous friend of yours, told me few days ago that he cannot understand what is in Bashar al-Assad’s mind, how could he possibly commit such violence in his country.
President al-Assad: There is an analogy that can also be asked here: how could France allow the killing of the terrorists who terrified French citizens? How did the British deal with the riots in Britain last year? Why was the army deployed in Los Angeles in the nineties? Why are other countries allowed to fight terrorism and Syria isn’t? Why is it forbidden for Mohammed Merah to stay alive in France and to kill civilians and yet terrorists are allowed to remain alive in Syria and kill innocent people?
Le Figaro: Mr. President, how has your daily routine changed in terms of leading the country since the beginning of the crisis? Some suggest that after two-and-a-half years Bashar al-Assad is leading the country alone.
President al-Assad: This is what I meant earlier, if the West is against me and so were the Syrian people, if I was alone, how could I conceivably be leading the country? This is illogical. I can continue to lead because of the strength of public support and the strength of the Syrian state. Unfortunately, those in the West do not view this reality objectively.
Le Figaro: Mr. President, a number of French journalists have been held in Syria. Do you have any idea of their situation? Are the Syrian authorities holding them?
President al-Assad: Do you mean that we are holding them?
Le Figaro: They were taken hostage in the North of Syria; do you have information on their fate?
President al-Assad: If they were taken hostage by the terrorists, you will have to ask them. If anyone is arrested by the government for entering the country illegally, they will be taken to court rather than being held in jail. They would face charges according to Syrian law and this would be public knowledge.
Le Figaro: Are you looking to cooperate with France on security issues? This was an area that went well in the past.
President al-Assad: Any cooperation, be it security, military or economic requires political consensus. You cannot maintain security cooperation with any country when there is a conflict of interests.
Le Figaro: When your father passed away, you visited France and were received by President Chirac. Everyone viewed you as a youthful and promising president and a successful ophthalmologist. Today, since the crisis, this image has changed. To what extent have you as a person changed?
President al-Assad: The more imperative question is: has the nature of this person changed? The media can manipulate a person’s image at a whim, yet my reality remains the same. I belong to the Syrian people; I defend their interests and independence and will not succumb to external pressure. I cooperate with others in a way that promotes my country’s interests. This is what was never properly understood; they assumed that they could easily influence a young president, that if I had studied in the West I would lose my original culture. This is such a naïve and shallow attitude. I have not changed; they are the ones who wished to identify me differently at the beginning. They need to accept the image of a Syrian president who embraces his country’s independence.
Le Figaro: Has France become an enemy of Syria?
President al-Assad: All those who support the terrorists financially or militarily are enemies of the Syrian people. Anyone who facilitates the killing of a Syrian soldier, or works against the interests of Syria and her people is an enemy of Syria. I am not referring to the French people since I believe that the French government is working against the interests and will of its people. There is a difference between the concepts of adverse government and adverse nation. The French people are not our enemy but the policy of their government is one that is adverse to the Syrian people.
Le Figaro: Is the French government an enemy of Syria?
President al-Assad: The more adverse the policies of the French government are to the Syrian people, the more the government is an enemy to the Syrian people. The current policies, that we mentioned earlier, adopted by the French leadership are hostile towards Syria. This hostility can only end when the French government readdresses its policies.
Anthony Gucciardi & Alex Jones Infowars.com September 3, 2013
A high level source inside the military has now confirmed to us that Dyess Air Force base is actively moving nuclear warheads to the East Coast of the United States in a secret transfer that has no paper trail.
According to the high level military source, who has a strong record of continually being proven correct in deep military activity, the Dyess Air Force Commander authorized unknown parties to transfer the nuclear warheads to an unknown location that has been reported to be South Carolina, where the warheads will then be picked up and potentially utilized.
This is of particular interest not only due to the fact that the Syrian situation has escalated to the point of a very realistic hot war scenario, but due to the fact that Dyess has repeatedly denied the existence of nuclear warheads inside the base.
The brief report from the top level military source, which was written in a rush to get the information out, reads:
“Dyess is beginning to move out nuclear war heads today. I got a tap from DERMO earlier. He said it was the first time they have been even acknowledged since being put there in the 80′s. No signature was required for transfer… There was no directive. He said that Dyess Commander was on site to give authority to release. No one knew where they were going really, but the truck driver said to take them to South Carolina and another pick up will take them from there.”
The fact that this transfer was not signed for and there were no papers is key. It shows how the military is now secretly operating with the transfer of nuclear weapons, and what’s more, we know that DERMO (a military base in Florida) is a hotbed of special operations. Why is DERMO operating the nuclear warheads out of Dyess Air Force base with no paper trail? This shows that this is a highly secretive, black ops style move here that the military does not want on record.
The fact is that they don’t move all of these assets unless they plan on using them. Nuclear warheads are not simply moved to the East Coast for no reason, and the bottom line is that these missiles are likely being used for something even much greater than Syria.
Top Level Military Officer ‘Extremely Alarmed’
This leak inside the military industrial complex comes after prior sources have also revealed to us that B-1′s and B-2 bombers were ordered to head out of their respective bases (B-1B’s leaving Dyess specifically) across the nation and they haven’t come back. All of this is happening amid the growing Syrian crisis that has developed amid the ignition of a WW3-level wrestling match between the United States and Russia. Now, based on the transfer to South Carolina that is not on record and was not signed for, we may be looking at a pattern that reveals an extremely hot war scenario.
And here’s what’s essential to understand: There’s no question that the Syrian issue is huge, and it’s very possible that the US military is now under orders by Obama to prepare a strike, but the reality is that the much greater issue here is what’s going on with the US and Russia. What we’re seeing here is a proxy war turned hot with Syria, and we’ve been covering this for months now. Even the mainstream media has reported in the past how the evolution of war in Syria has turned into a hot proxy war against Russia via the Syrian rebels and Assad’s troops.
We now even have the Russian media openly discussing the hot war by the United States against Russia and how this will essentially lead to World War 3. But the fact of the matter is that we’re already progressively moving towards World War 3 . Obama and United States officials are already talking about boots on the ground in Syria and taking down the Russian-backed Assad regime. They are already moving forward following the blatantly staged chemical attacks that were absolutely carried out by the Obama-funded Syrian rebels in order to initiate a war scenario.
Why do you think Obama has been aiding in the training, funding, and supplying of the bloodthirsty Syrian rebels since 2011 through secret orders admitted by Reuters? The entire angle here is not to help the civilians of Syria, who the Obama-backed rebels already are beheading and murdering to cheering crowds. No, this has always been a buildup to a World War 3 scenario between Russia and the United States. And now, with the absolute insanity of Obama and the military industrial complex pushing these wars, it’s here.
Nuclear weapons held in bunker, similar to the reports of the high level military source.
World War 3 Is Starting
I have spoken to my connections in the Russian media and they are all confirming that World War 3 is the hottest topic right now amid the populace, and the fact of the matter is that all of the top level military officials over there are looking at this Syrian incident as the catalyst — as the spark. There’s a reason that Russia has begun amassing 160,000 troops and heavy military equipment following an Israeli strike on Russian missiles in Syria. There’s a reason that the troops were called along with naval ships and bombers to attain ‘immediate combat readiness’ along the border. We reported on this months ago while the media was too busy focusing on the Trayvon Martin case to talk about the ignition of World War 3.
What we’re looking at right now is the beginning of World War 3 unless we manage to stop it. The elite are crazy enough and drunk enough with power to launch anything if it means advancing their vast lust for power and control. Thankfully, we now have a public that is much more awake to what’s going on and able to put a speed bump in the overall war plan as admitted by Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski last week, but it will take a lot of awakening to stop Obama from launching these attacks that have been in the works for years.
We encourage you to continue checking out Infowars and Storyleak for more updates on this and the latest news and information we find out on this developing situation.
A Hiroshima victim of the nuclear strike — what everyone has to look forward to in the event of a nuclear war that is on the horizon if we don’t turn things around.
************************
PEOPLE of the World we MUST STOP these Psychotic Murdering Maniac PUPPETs from doing this or its HORRIBLE DEATH TO US ALL and the DESTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE PLANET… Except of course the Psychotic Murdering Maniacs themselves as they will be well hidden away in there cowardly bunkers they’ve been building for decades for probably just this kind of planned NUCLEAR FUCK Event!!!
Is this our Future
Or Our Children’s
Because Its No Future Its the END
If WWIII happens and Nukes are used,The Bombs used wont be bombs like Hiroshima They will be Thermonuclear or far worseWho really know what worse kind of death these Psychotic Murdering Maniacs have come up with that classified
We Cant Let This Happen
Are we People or Sheeople being led to the slaughter
We can all see the cliff ahead, are we just going to let these Psychotic Murdering Maniacs just walk us of that cliff
Its time to take back the Planet from these Psychotic Murdering Maniacs
ONCE AND FOR ALL
HOW? HOW YOU SAY?
You Really Know How deep down inside Just don’t be afraid any more
JUST SHOUT AND MEAN IT NO MORE WAR
the more they pull on
THE LOUDER YOU SHOUT NO MORE WAR
Come out of your houses and come out of your workplace fill the streets with NO MORE WAR as loud as you can
Screw your job for now Its time for a firm NO MORE WAR from all global CITIZENS to these Psychotic Murdering Maniacs NO MORE WAR
Do this by Writing, Emailing,Phoning,Tweeting, Posting or visiting your local Psychotic Murdering Maniac Puppets representative and make it clear to them NO MORE WAR
TO ALL AMERICANS
You are now regarded as the NAZI bad guys of the planet The EVIL if you will because of the NEOCONAZI Psychotic Murdering Maniacs criminal takeover of your government.YOU must really come out and say NO MORE WAR
(NaturalNews) Natural News can now reveal that the Syria chemical weapons narrative being pushed by the White House is an outlandish hoax. To understand why, you have to start with the story published in The Independent entitled Revealed: Government let British company export nerve gas chemicals to Syria. Sounds scary, right? As The Independent reports: The Government was accused of "breathtaking laxity" in its arms controls last night after it emerged that officials authorised the export to Syria of two chemicals capable of being used to make a nerve agent such as sarin a year ago. What, exactly, are those two dangerous chemicals that need to be controlled via "arms control" regulations? You won’t believe me when I tell you. They are: • sodium fluoride • potassium fluoride You can see this yourself in the screen capture of The Independent breaking news story. Note the headline and the subhead. The headline describes "nerve gas chemicals" and the subhead explains them as "sodium fluoride" and "potassium fluoride." click here to watch my video explaining all this at TV.naturalnews.com.
U.S. water fluoridation chemical is Syria’s "chemical weapon"
If these chemical names sound familiar, that’s because sodium fluoride is the same toxic chemical that’s routinely dumped into municipal water supplies all across the USA under the guise of "water fluoridation." In fact, the forced feeding of sodium fluoride to the U.S. population is called a "public health" victory by the CDC, FDA and dentists everywhere. Yet this same chemical, when sold to Syria, is openly and repeatedly referred to as a "chemical weapon." This is true across the BBC, the Guardian, Daily Record and Sunday Mail, France24.com and literally thousands of other news websites. According to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, any government "regime" that uses chemical weapons against its own people should be bombed / invaded / overthrown by a coalition of other United Nations members. By his own definition, then, the United States of America should now be invaded by the UN because the government uses a deadly chemical weapon — sodium fluoride — on its own people. By implication, then, John Kerry is now calling for the UN to bomb the USA. As the international media now confirms, sodium fluoride is a chemical weapon, and this chemical weapon is used against the American people every single day in the water supply, a favorite attack vector for terrorists.
"Evidence" of chemical weapons nothing more than hair samples of people who drank sodium fluoride
As you might have guessed, Secretary of State John Kerry is running around "pulling a George Bush" by claiming Syria has used weapons of mass destruction on its own population. Here’s a sample of his claims: "In the last 24 hours, we have learned through samples that were provided to the United States that have now been tested from first responders in east Damascus and hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin." Kerry said this on NBC’s Meet The Press. But what, exactly, is he saying? That hair samples have tested positive for "signatures" of sarin, not sarin itself. What is a "signature" of sarin? The fluorine element, which is of course the basis for sodium fluoride. In other words, this "evidence" of chemical weapons in Syria may be nothing more than a collection of hair samples taken from people who drank fluoride. As this study shows on SCIENCE.naturalnews.com, hair analysis is a commonly-used practice for assessing exposure to fluoride. It concludes, "hair may be regarded as biomaterial of high informative potential in evaluating prolonged exposure to fluorides…" Typically, this analysis is conducted with ICP-MS instrumentation, using a plasma torch that disintegrates all organic molecules, leaving only the resulting elements (fluorine). Tests done on Syrian citizens using ICP-MS would not be able to distinguish between sodium fluoride and sarin exposure in terms of the detection of elemental fluorine. Read that again, because it’s crucial to understanding the hoax being perpetrated by the White House: Tests on hair or other tissues, if done using ICP-MS (the most common elemental analysis technology used today), would not be able to distinguish between sodium fluoride and sarin. Sarin has the chemical formula: [(CH3)2CHO]CH3P(O)F You will notice that the only elements in this formula are: Fluorine Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Phosphorous Out of those five elements, four of them (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorous) occur naturally in the human body in large quantities. Fluorine is the only element that strongly stands out against the rest in terms of elemental analysis. And fluorine is the same element that forms the basis of sodium fluoride. Sarin can, of course, also be detected as a complete molecule using liquid chromatography systems (HPLC), but this is highly unlikely to have taken place given the inherent instability of the molecule, which breaks apart upon exposure to simple moisture in the air or in the body. Thus, ICP-MS testing could be used to intentionally "blur" the evidence, making sodium fluoride appear to be "signatures" of sarin, precisely as Kerry is now claiming in the media. As the whole point of all this is to fabricate evidence to justify a political war in the first place, there isn’t any real scientific scrutiny being applied to all this. Obama, Kerry and others are spouting whatever they think the people will swallow, and since most of the U.S. public is scientifically illiterate, it turns out they will swallow some real whoppers.
Same sodium fluoride chemical added to water for infants
Sodium fluoride, by the way, is also added to drinking water for babies and infants. It’s a key ingredient, actually, in a product called Nursery Water that’s "enriched" with extra sodium fluoride, the same chemical now being called a "chemical weapon" by the international media. You can see this for yourself at www.NurseryWater.com or just check out the photo below: As you can see, this sodium fluoride infant water — which the White House effectively calls a "chemical weapon" — is sold at Wal-Mart, Walgreens, Albertson’s, Safeway, K-Mart, Rite Aid and even Toys "R" Us. Bet you never knew you could buy chemical weapons at Toys "R" Us, did ya? The Nursery Water label, shown below, lists "sodium fluoride" as a key ingredient: You’ll also notice that the label includes instructions for using this sodium fluoride baby water: "…ready to mix with formula and cereal, dilute juice or drink – just open and pour!" Yep, you read it: the same "chemical weapon" that’s about to start World War III is part of your baby’s formula recipe. When sodium fluoride is in the hands of Syria’s Assad, it’s called a "chemical weapon," but when it’s part of your baby’s diet, it’s called "nutrition." How’s that for Orwellian doublespeak?
Syria’s "chemical weapon" also added to Colgate toothpaste
Just in case adding Syria’s "chemical weapon" to baby water isn’t enough for you, it’s also a key ingredient in Colgate toothpaste. Yep, according to dentists, chemical weapons also "fight tooth decay," so they should be added to toothpaste. Check out the label on this Colgate toothpaste and see for yourself: Keep this in mind the next time you carry toothpaste with you when you attempt to travel by air. The TSA can pull you aside and legitimately accuse you of working for the Assad regime as a chemical weapons terrorist while charging you with the federal crime of "transporting chemical weapons."
Mainstream media admits U.S. food companies use chemical weapons against their own customers
Unless the mainstream media retracts all its thousands of stories about sodium fluoride being a "chemical weapon" sold to Syria, it must come to terms with the fact that it is also accusing the U.S. food industry of using chemical weapons on consumers. Sodium fluoride, after all, is added to countless consumer products, from toothpaste and mouthwash to drinking water. Sodium fluoride does not magically change from a "chemical weapon" in Syria to a "nutritive mineral" by crossing the ocean. Sodium fluoride is sodium fluoride, and it’s dangerous no matter who consumes it. Keep this in mind the next time you hear a dentist recommending dumping sodium fluoride into the local water supply. You can correctly counter their absurd request by threatening to call Homeland Security to report them as a terrorist for engaging in the indiscriminate deployment of a chemical weapon in the water supply — a favorite target for terrorists worldwide. By the way, I’m not joking on this: I actually encourage you to call Homeland Security and report your local city council members as terrorists who are mirroring the Assad "regime" in Syria by using sodium fluoride "chemical weapons" on the public. You might even call the United Nations and ask them to intervene in the USA’s use of chemical weapons against its own people… right? Isn’t that what John Kerry is asking the world to do in the case of Syria? Why does the USA have immunity from using chemical weapons on its own people when Syria is threatened with war for using the exact same chemical weapons on its population?
Same "nerve gas chemicals" exported to Syria are imported from China by nearly every U.S. city
By the way, the same sodium fluoride that was exported to Syria as a "chemical weapon" is routinely imported by U.S. cities to dump into the municipal water supply. They call it "water fluoridation" and dentists push it like candy because it actually causes wildly increased tooth decay, mottling and discoloration (all of which adds up to increased repeat business for dentists). As documented by Natural News, sodium fluoride is touted by China’s exporters as a multi-purpose chemical that functions as a deadly pesticide, absorbs chemicals in the nuclear industry and more. See these two photos for more proof. These were created as marketing materials by China’s fluoride export industry: From Alibaba.com: Uses: It’s mainly used as a flux in the aluminum smelting by fused-salt electrolysis; also an opalizer in the manufacture of enamel; an opacifier and auxiliary solvent of glass and enamel; an insecticide of crops; a flux in aluminum alloy casting; and in the production of ferrous alloy and effervescing steel; as well as a wear-resistant filler for resin and rubber-boned abrasive wheels. As I first said back in 2012, "Fluoride is a chemical weapon!" Now it turns out John Kerry agrees with me, and he’s using fluoride as an excuse to bomb a sovereign nation. Quick question: If Russia begins bombing the USA, can they use the same excuse that Obama and Kerry are using on Syria? "We had to save the American people from the chemical weapons used by the Obama regime!" Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041883_Syria_chemical_weapons_sodium_fluoride.html#ixzz2dqWa6FSu
But as shown below, the case is extremely weak (government’s claim in quotes, followed by rebuttal evidence).
“A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children, though this assessment will certainly evolve as we obtain more information.“
Neither Kerry’s remarks nor the unclassified version of the U.S. intelligence he referenced explained how the U.S. reached a tally of 1,429, including 426 children. The only attribution was “a preliminary government assessment.”
Anthony Cordesman, a former senior defense official who’s now with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, took aim at the death toll discrepancies in an essay published Sunday.
He criticized Kerry as being “sandbagged into using an absurdly over-precise number” of 1,429, and noted that the number didn’t agree with either the British assessment of “at least 350 fatalities” or other Syrian opposition sources, namely the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has confirmed 502 dead, including about 100 children and “tens” of rebel fighters, and has demanded that Kerry provide the names of the victims included in the U.S. tally.
“President Obama was then forced to round off the number at ‘well over 1,000 people’ – creating a mix of contradictions over the most basic facts,” Cordesman wrote. He added that the blunder was reminiscent of “the mistakes the U.S. made in preparing Secretary (Colin) Powell’s speech to the U.N. on Iraq in 2003.”
An unclassified version of a French intelligence report on Syria that was released Monday hardly cleared things up; France confirmed only 281 fatalities, though it more broadly agreed with the United States that the regime had used chemical weapons in the Aug. 21 attack.
Next, the government says:
“In addition to U.S. intelligence information, there are accounts from international and Syrian medical personnel; videos; witness accounts; thousands of social media reports from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area; journalist accounts; and reports from highly credible nongovernmental organizations.”
Reports on the ground are contradictory, with some claiming that the rebels used the chemical weapons. See this and this. Indeed, government officials have admitted that they’re not sure who used chemical weapons.
More importantly the U.S. government claimed it had unimpeachable sources regarding Iraq’s WMDs … and that turned out to be wholly fabricated.
“We assess with high confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year, including in the Damascus suburbs. This assessment is based on multiple streams of information including reporting of Syrian officials planning and executing chemical weapons attacks and laboratory analysis of physiologicalsamples obtained from a number of individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin.”
Chemical weapons experts are still skeptical. The chain of custody is suspect, given that the U.S. hasn’t revealed where the samples came from, and who delivered them to the U.S. McClatchy reports:
Among chemical weapons experts and other analysts who’ve closely studied the Syrian battlefield, the main reservation about the U.S. claims is that there’s no understanding of the methodology behind the intelligence-gathering. They say that the evidence presented points to the use of some type of chemical agent, but say that there are still questions as to how the evidence was collected, the integrity of the chain of custody of such samples, and which laboratories were involved.
Eliot Higgins, a British chronicler of the Syrian civil war who writes the Brown Moses blog, a widely cited repository of information on the weapons observed on the Syrian battlefield, wrote a detailed post Monday listing photographs and videos that would seem to support U.S. claims that the Assad regime has possession of munitions that could be used to deliver chemical weapons. But he wouldn’t make the leap.
On the blog, Higgins asked: “How do we know these are chemical weapons? That’s the thing, we don’t. As I’ve said all along, these are munitions linked to alleged chemical attacks, not chemical munitions used in chemical attacks. It’s ultimately up to the U.N. to confirm if chemical weapons were used.”
Moreover, Dan Kaszeta – a former Chemical Officer in the United States Army, and one of the foremost experts in chemical and biological weapons – said in a recent interview that there can be false positives for Sarin, especially, when tests are done in the field (pesticides or other chemical agents can trigger a false positive for sarin.)
The bottom lines is that – even though the U.S. has done everything it can to derail a UN weapons inspection – we have to wait to see what the UN tests reveal.
“We assess that the opposition has not used chemical weapons.”
“The Syrian regime has the types of munitions that we assess were used to carry out the attack on August 21, and has the ability to strike simultaneously in multiple locations.”
The types of munitions which were apparently used to deliver the chemical weapon attack are an odd,do-it-yourself type of rocket. The rebels could have made these.
“We assess that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons over the last year primarily to gain the upper hand or break a stalemate in areas where it has struggled to seize and hold strategically valuable territory. In this regard, we continue to judge that the Syrian regime views chemical weapons as one of many tools in its arsenal, including air power and ballistic missiles, which they indiscriminately use against the opposition.
The Syrian regime has initiated an effort to rid the Damascus suburbs of opposition forces using the area as a base to stage attacks against regime targets in the capital. The regime has failed to clear dozens of Damascus neighborhoods of opposition elements, including neighborhoods targeted on August 21, despite employing nearly all of its conventional weapons systems. We assess that the regime’s frustration with its inability to secure large portions of Damascus may have contributed to its decision to use chemical weapons on August 21.”
This is not evidence. This is a conclusory opinion without any support. (To give an analogy, this would be like claiming Saddam was using weapons of mass destruction right before the Iraq war started because he didn’t like short people … without refuting the actual fact that Saddam didn’t have any WMDs.)
“We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel – including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC – were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack.
Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin.”
“On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks.”
This is an oddly-worded – and carefully crafted – statement. Assad has repeatedly warned that the rebels might steal chemical weapons and use them on civilians. The utilization of gas masks could have been a preventative measure because the Syrian government had received word that the rebels might carry out a chemical attack. More information is necessary.
“Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack.”
The area in which attacks occurred was heavily contested by the both government and the rebels, and both sides were in and out of the area. 90 minutes before the first attack is an eternity when fighting a war on a heavily-contested battlefield … and could have been plenty of time for rebels to slip in and fire off chemical weapons.
It’s unclear why this is supposed to be persuasive. Do rockets take 90 minutes to reach their targets? Does nerve gas escape from rockets 90 minutes after impact, or, once released, take 90 minutes to cause symptoms?
In a conflict as conscious of the importance of communication as the Syrian Civil War, do citizen journalists wait an hour and a half before reporting an enormous development–the point at which, as Kerry put it, “all hell broke loose in the social media”? Unless there’s some reason to expect this kind of a delay, it’s very unclear why we should think there’s any connection at all between the allegedly observed rocket launches and the later reports of mass poisoning.
The government next turns to social media:
“Local social media reports of a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs began at 2:30 a.m. local time on August 21. Within the next four hours there were thousands of social media reports on this attack from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area. Multiple accounts described chemical-filled rockets impacting opposition-controlled areas.
Three hospitals in the Damascus area received approximately 3,600 patients displaying symptoms consistent with nerve agent exposure in less than three hours on the morning of August 21, according to a highly credible international humanitarian organization. The reported symptoms, and the epidemiological pattern of events – characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers – were consistent with mass exposure to a nerve agent. We also received reports from international and Syrian medical personnel on the ground.
We have identified one hundred videos attributed to the attack, many of which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting physical signs consistent with, but not unique to, nerve agent exposure. The reported symptoms of victims included unconsciousness, foaming from the nose and mouth, constricted pupils, rapid heartbeat, and difficulty breathing. Several of the videos show what appear to be numerous fatalities with no visible injuries, which is consistent with death from chemical weapons, and inconsistent with death from small-arms, high-explosive munitions or blister agents. At least 12 locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at the general times and locations described in the footage.”
No one contests that some kind of chemical agent was used. The question is exactly what type of chemical it was and – more importantly – who used it.
Moreover, the rebels were making propaganda videos for years … and they’ve gotten more sophisticated recently. More information is needed.
“We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information associated with this chemical attack.”
Another conclusory opinion without evidence. More importantly, it is a red herring. No one is saying that the tragic and horrific deaths were faked.
The question is when and where they occurred, and who caused them. For example, one of the world’s leading experts on chemical weapons points out that it is difficult to know where the videos were taken:
Zanders, the former EU chemical weapons expert, went even further, arguing thatoutsiders cannot conclude with confidence the extent or geographic location of the chemical weapons attack widely being blamed on the Assad regime.
He singled out the images of victims convulsing in agony that have circulated widely on the Web, including on YouTube.
“You do not know where they were taken,” he said. “You do not know when they were taken or even by whom they were taken. Or, whether they [are from] the same incident or from different incidents.”
Zanders added: “It doesn’t tell me who would be responsible for it. It doesn’t tell me where the films were taken. It just tells me that something has happened, somewhere, at some point.”
The government then expands on allegedly intercepted intelligence:
“We have a body of information, including past Syrian practice, that leads us to conclude that regime officials were witting of and directed the attack on August 21. We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence. On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations.”
The Washington Post points out that alleged intelligence intercepts are “the core of the Obama administration’s evidentiary case….” America’s war intelligence has been spotty. For example:
It is also now well-accepted that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident which led to the Vietnam war was a fiction (confirmed here).
And the U.S. and Israel have admitted that they have carried out false flag deceptions (as have Muslim countries such as Indonesia; but to our knowledge, Syria has never been busted in a false flag.)
Recall that Powell played tapes of Iraqi officials supposedly talking about concealing evidence of banned weapons from inspectors–which turned out to show nothing of the kind. But Powell at least played tapes of the intercepted communication, even as he spun and misrepresented their contents–allowing for the possibility of an independent interpretation of these messages. Perhaps “mindful of the Iraq experience,” Kerry allows for no such interpretation.
David Swanson notes that American officials mischaracterized the communications to justify the Iraq war:
Powell was writing fictional dialogue. He put those extra lines in there and pretended somebody had said them. Here’s what Bob Woodward said about this in his book “Plan of Attack.”
“[Powell] had decided to add his personal interpretation of the intercepts to rehearsed script, taking them substantially further and casting them in the most negative light. Concerning the intercept about inspecting for the possibility of ‘forbidden ammo,’ Powell took the interpretation further: ‘Clean out all of the areas. . . . Make sure there is nothing there.’ None of this was in the intercept.”
[In addition] Powell … was presenting as facts numerous claims that his own staff had warned him were weak and indefensible.
The government then makes a throw-away argument:
“At the same time, the regime intensified the artillery barrage targeting many of the neighborhoods where chemical attacks occurred. In the 24 hour period after the attack, we detected indications of artillery and rocket fire at a rate approximately four times higher than the ten preceding days. We continued to see indications of sustained shelling in the neighborhoods up until the morning of August 26.”
This is another red herring. If the Syrian government believed that the rebels had used chemical weapons on civilians, they may have increased artillery fire to flush out the rebels to prevent further chemical attacks. Again, further information is needed.
“To conclude, there is a substantial body of information that implicates the Syrian government’s responsibility in the chemical weapons attack that took place on August 21.As indicated, there is additional intelligence that remains classified because of sources and methods concerns that is being provided to Congress and international partners.”
This sounds impressive at first glance. But Congress members who have seen the classified information – such as Tom Harkin – are not impressed.
What do members of the U.S. military think about the possibility of a war with Syria? So far, they appear to be overwhelmingly against it just like the rest of the general public. In fact, a new Twitter hashtag (#IdidntJoin) has been flooded with messages from service members expressing their displeasure with the idea of being forced to fight for al-Qaeda in Syria. This is consistent with what we have been hearing from other sources as well. For example, U.S. Representative Justin Amash recently sent out a tweet with the following message: “I’ve been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces. The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against #Syria.” Of course there are probably a few members of the military that would love a war with Syria, but they appear to be very much in the minority. Hopefully the Obama administration and members of the U.S. Congress are listening.
Posted below are photos taken from Twitter of American service members publicly declaring that they do not want war with Syria. In these photos they are wearing their uniforms, but they are obscuring their faces because they could potentially get in a lot of trouble for publicly defying the Obama administration.
We should applaud these brave service members for being willing to publicly take a stand like this…
—–
—–
—–
—–
—–
—–
Business Insider asked members of the military to write to them and tell them what they thought about a potential conflict with Syria. 52 members of the military responded, and 50 of them were against war with Syria. The following is one example…
“I’m a U.S. Air Force vet who spent a solid 6 years shuttling between Afghanistan and Iraq, doing everything from combat airdrops to medevacs to hauling flag-draped coffins,” wrote one servicemember in an email, who also mentioned travel to 38 countries in that time. “What we do not need is another war, and we certainly do not need any further involvement in a civil war where our objective isn’t clear, and our allies aren’t really our allies.”
And it is not just the rank and file that are against war with Syria. According to the Washington Post, many among the top military brass are expressing “serious reservations” about taking action in Syria…
The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.
Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.
This is not about being “anti-war”. This is about not wanting to shed American blood in an Islamic civil war where neither side is our friend.
Anyone that believes that the Syrian rebels are the “good guys” is being absolutely delusional.
In fact, even the U.S. State Department has admitted that the al-Nusra Front is a terror organization that is affiliated with al-Qaeda. According to the State Department, they have been responsible for close to 600 terror attacks since November 2011…
“There is also a threat from terrorism, including groups like al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) affiliated al-Nusrah Front,” says the current State Department travel warning on Syria. “Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks–ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations—in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. Public places such as government buildings, shopping areas, and open spaces have been targeted.”
The bolded language in this travel warning–emphasizing that the al Qaeda affiliate fighting in the Syrian opposition has been targeting places such as “shopping areas” was put there by the State Department in the online posting of its warning.
“During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed,” then-State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said at the department’s press briefing last Dec. 11.
In a statement published May 16, the State Department said that Muhammad al-Jawlani, the leader of the al-Nusrah Front, had recently “pledged allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qa’ida’s leader.”
And even the head of al-Qaeda says that the Syrian rebels are working for his side…
In an audio recording on Thursday, Al Qaeda’s leader Ayman al-Zawahri announced his support for the beleaguered Syrian rebels.
He framed the Syrian revolution, and the fall of President Bashar al-Assad, as necessary steps towards the defeat of Israel.
“Supporting jihad in Syria to establish a Muslim state is a basic step towards Jerusalem,” he said.
So why would members of the U.S. military want to go put their lives on the line to help al-Qaeda take over Syria?
Service members would have to be insane to want to go into battle allied with al-Qaeda.
Not a single drop of precious American blood should ever be shed for al-Qaeda. Unfortunately, the Obama administration seems absolutely determined to make this war happen, and so very soon members of the U.S. military will be forced against their will to fight for the benefit of al-Qaeda in Syria.
Al-Qaeda militants kill 24 civilians near Ras al-Ain
Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups operating in Syria, including the al-Nusra Front, are trying to capture Kurdish territories and make them part of a state they want to create in the region.
Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.
Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.
According to media reports, the attack was carried out because the passengers who were from three different villages in Ras al-Ain, supported anti-terrorist Kurdish groups which were formed recently to defend Kurdish population against anti-Syria terrorists.
Bodies of a mother and her 40-days infant were also seen among the dead, which were recognized by their relatives.
Syrian Kurdish leader Saleh Muslim warned on Friday that the Kurd minority is facing an ethnic cleansing by al-Qaeda terrorists.
While there is no end in sight to the bloody foreign-fueled conflict in Syria, another front has been formed between the Kurdish militia and extremist militants in Northern Syria.
Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups operating in the country, including the al-Nusra Front, are trying to capture Kurdish territories and make them part of a state they want to create in the region.
Following deadly attacks on Kurdish regions in recent months, groups of Kurdish militia were formed to protect their people.
Anti-Syria armed groups continue to target civilians amid US threats against Syrian army and government which have made militants find it easier to widen their attacks.
Following worldwide criticism, US President Barack Obama delayed an imminent military strike against Syria on August 31, sending the matter to the Congress to get more support.
Plan for military intervention greases skids for war throughout the region, says Harvard professor
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com September 3, 2013
The Obama administration’s draft resolution for military intervention which Congress is set to vote on next week is so broad that it would authorize boots on the ground as well as regime change and open ended war throughout the entire region, according to Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith.
Image: Wikimedia Commons
Goldsmith served as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel from 2003–2004, and Special Counsel to the Department of Defense from 2002–2003.
In an article for the Lawfare Blog, Goldsmith reveals how the White House’s proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) would give Obama the power to deploy ground troops in Syria, despite the administration’s claims that it is only seeking to carry out “limited” strikes that have no connection to regime change.
“The phrase “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” would include authorization for ground troops, should the President decide they were “necessary and appropriate,” writes Goldsmith.
Goldsmith points out that although the resolution authorizes the President to use the US military to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by (chemical weapons),” it does not limit the countries or groups against which this mandate applies.
“The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets,” writes Goldsmith, emphasizing that the language does not limit military force to the territory of Syria, merely that it must be connected to WMD use in the Syrian conflict.
The AUMF also contains no time limit for when this mandate expires without further congressional approval, meaning it creates the pretext for an open ended war that would “permit the President to use military force against any target anywhere in the world (including Iran or Lebanon) as long as the President, in his discretion, determines that the the target has a connection to WMD in the Syrian civil war.”
In response to complaints that the authorization is far too broad and would possibly be rejected by Congress on this basis, the Washington Post reports the the administration may be preparing to, “rewrite the proposed resolution to clarify that any operation would be limited in scope and duration and would not include the use of ground troops.”
Former vice chief of staff of the US Army General Jack Keane told BBC Radio 4 today that Obama’s claim that the planned missile strike on Syria will merely be an act of punishment for the use of chemical weapons and not intended to sway the course of the conflict or damage Assad’s military capacity is not the case.
“What he has told the two senators is that he also intends to assist the opposition forces, so he is going to degrade Assad’s military capacity and he is going to assist and upgrade the opposition forces with training assistance,” said Keane, adding that the attack plan has “much more substance than we were led to believe”.
Secretary of State John Kerry and another unnamed senior State Department official have both made it clear that the Obama administration will proceed with an attack on Syria whether Congress gives the green light or not.
Rest of corporate media refuses to cover viral Twitter backlash against attack on Syria
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com September 3, 2013
Image: Twitter
The mainstream media has responded to the military revolt against Barack Obama’s plan to attack Syria by claiming that the viral #IdidntJoin Twitter trend is a hoax invented by pro-Assad hackers.
Despite numerous images of soldiers and veterans holding up signs expressing their vehement opposition to military intervention in Syria going viral, in addition to a plethora of other tweets that were sent to Congressman Justin Amash expressing the same sentiment, the International Business Times website claims that the photos and tweets are the workof Syrian hackers “impersonating” US military personnel.
The article postulates that the original picture of a Petty Naval Officer declaring his opposition to fighting on the same side of Al-Qaeda is an image of a man “simply dressing up.” The article erroneously implies that the Syrian Electronic Army, which posted the image along with several others during its hack of the official US Marines website, was responsible for creating the hoax.
In reality, the image is completely genuine. It was first sent to radio host Angel Clark who posted it on social networking websites, prompting a wave of other veterans and active duty military personnel to follow suit. Former Marine Corporal Michael Büssing labeled the IBTimes article “disgraceful,” pointing out that it didn’t even correctly identify the Naval Officer’s war medals and ludicrously referred to him as a “Navy marine”.
“I looked into the person’s background, and found that they were indeed located in the United States and a part of the Navy. I thanked them for their service, and told them I would make sure their message was heard. It’s against the law to make a political statement in uniform, so this person is risking their livelihood,” writes Angel Clark, who was responsible for circulating the first #Ididntjoin image.
Despite attracting thousands of posts on Twitter, the rest of the mainstream media in the United States has completely ignored the story, which if it received significant attention would undoubtedly put a huge dent in the administration’s case for military intervention.
Last week’s astounding story by Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh, which features admissions by rebels stationed in Ghouta that they were responsible for last month’s chemical weapons attack, has also been completely blacklisted by the corporate media.
View a selection of images below of both active duty and military veterans showing their support for the #IdidntJoin movement.
On Sunday, anti-war protestors protested the anti-war protestor, and with that, as Shakespeare once said, “the wheel is come full circle.”
In the aftermath of Secretary of State John Kerry making a forceful case on Friday for U.S. military intervention in Syria, protesters assembled outside his townhouse on Beacon Hill.
Yes, the Vietnam veteran who became a leading anti-war activist after serving is now advocating for war.
According to Twitter users, as Twitchy reported, protesters pounded on Kerry’s front door and windows, but he wasn’t home. Of course, past precedent tells us if there is a crisis at hand, Kerry’s likely to be found aboard his 76-foot yacht, the “Isabel.”
Some images from Sunday’s protest, courtesy of Twitchy:
Remember that John Kerry is a Skull&Bonesmen of the Brotherhood of Death Cult He could give two shits about the people who died in the Syrian gas attack Its all a big ACT and He is the one who probably ordered the attack as well as head of the State Department it would come under his orders
WAKE UP PEOPLE
to these criminal scumballs who have hijacked the US government
Kerry said the Syrian leader “now joins a list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein who’ve used these weapons in a time of war,” a reference to the as of yet unproven accusation that the government of Syria used chemical weapons on its own people. Despite a lack of evidence, Kerry insists “the case gets stronger by the day” for a military attack aimed at al-Assad and his regime.
John Kerry dines with Bashar al-Assad.
Kerry twisted historical fact to fit the Obama administration’s pre-war rhetoric. Hitler and the Nazi Army didn’t use chemical weapons in battle during the Second World War. In fact, Hitler was a victim of a chemical weapon attack. He was gassed at the Ypres Salient in 1918 during the First World War. Hitler was temporarily blinded by a British mustard gas shell. Winston Churchill and the British were great admirers of chemical weapons. “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas,” Churchill wrote in 1919 as then colonial secretary. “I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes” in British occupied Iraq.
It is true Saddam Hussein used chemicals weapons. The Reagan administration and the U.S. Department Commerce made sure Iraq received all the biological and chemical weapons it required. Phillips Petroleum, Unilever, Alcolac, Allied Signal, the American Type Culture Collection, and Teledyne sold the materials with the blessing of the United States government. I wrote about this in late 2002 as the Bush administration ran its Iraq weapons of mass destruction scam as a pretext to invade the country, an endeavor that eventually killed more than a million Iraqis (piled atop more than a million previously killed under sanctions) and that ultimately resulted in the execution of the CIA dupe Saddam Hussein.
John Kerry apparently prefers to dine with characters he now disingenuouslycompares to Saddam and Hitler. In 2009, as a member of a peace delegation sent to Syria, then Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz, dined with the Assads at the Naranj restaurant in Damascus.
“President Barack Obama’s administration considers Syria a key player in Washington’s efforts to revive the stalled Middle East peace process, US Senator John Kerry said in Damascus on Thursday. ‘Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region,’ Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a speech after meeting President Bashar al-Assad. ‘Both the United States and Syria have a very deep interest… in having a very frank exchange on any differences (and) agreements that we have about the possibilities of peace in this region,’ he said in the statement.”
Video capture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.
The Kerry meeting is reminiscent of Donald Rumsfeld’s visit to Baghdad in December of 1983. Rumsfeld was dispatched to establish “direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein,” while emphasizing “his close relationship” with the president. Rumsfeld declared the Reagan administration’s “willingness to do more” regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but “made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights.” A duplicitous remark, at best, considering the CIA’s behavior mentioned above.
Rumsfeld would later, as Secretary of Defense, work with George W. Bush to invade Iraq and make sure Saddam Hussein went to the gallows.
Now the globalists are running the same trick in Syria. Over the course of several years, Syria – like Iraq before it – has gone from “a key player in Washington’s efforts to revive the stalled Middle East peace process” to a rogue nation ruled by a Hitler-like character who mercilessly gasses his own people.
This is hardly unusual – as Saddam Hussein’s fate revealed, the U.S. government routinely turns former friends into Hitleresque enemies for the sake of geopolitical expediency. Kerry’s dinner with Bashar is merely another bizarre sideshow in an ongoing drama that will result in organized mass murder and the untold suffering of millions of innocents – like a few million Libyans last year – after Obama finally unleashes the dogs of war and the hounds “famine, sword and fire” in Syria.
The photos below demonstrate more government duplicity:
Obama meets Muammar Gaddafi a couple years before he had the Libyan leader murdered Mafia style.
Former British Prime Minister Blair was flown to Libya twice at Gaddafi’s expense before the Libyan leader was murdered.
Gaddafi funded French president Sarkozy’s campaign before France joined effort to invade Libya and kill Sarkozy’s benefactor.
President Ronald Reagan met with the Taliban in 1983. He compared them to America’s founding fathers.
Senator John McCain meets with the CIA’s Syrian terrorists.
President Nixon meets the world’s most notorious mass murderer, China’s Chairman Mao.
(above pics) DIFFERENT FACES OF REAL AMERICAN HITLER Type CRIMINALS throughout history smiling and deceiving
A military veteran was arrested by Federal Parks Police in Philadelphia Friday for allegedly playing a banjo in the wrong place during a “No War With Syria” rally.
While performing to fellow protesters under a tree at Independence Mall, Emily Yates, an Iraq combat veteran and organizer with Iraq Veterans Against the War, was approached by several parks police officers and told to leave the area immediately. Yates, confused by the request, repeatedly attempted to engage the officers as to why she was being asked to leave. The officers felt that Yates wasn’t entitled to a response and answered her with a violent arrest instead.
See the video below:
“They’re manhandling me and I haven’t done anything wrong! All I wanted to do was know why I was being asked to leave!” Yates shouted as police forced her arms behind her back. “We live in a police state! We live in a f*cking police state! They’re damaging my body and my personal property! I went to war for this country!”
A defense fund set up by friends of Yates confirmed that she was taken to a Federal Detention Center on unknown charges. A friend and bystander who witnessed the incident unfold from across the street, who had also recently been arrested alongside Adam Kokesh by parks police for protesting, called it “the latest in a series of aggressive and unnecessary arrests by Federal Park Rangers in Philadelphia.”
“The Panic Hour is using all available resources to lend assistance and call attention to this blatant disregard for civil liberties at, of all places, the birthplace of liberty,” said N.A. Poe.
In light of continued scandals and the unfolding situation in Syria, which is now opposed by more than91 percent of the public, people across the country have taken to the streets in protest of President Obama’s disregard for constitutional law. Just last month, two “Impeach Obama” protestors weretackled and arrested for refusing to leave an overpass in Missouri. Officers claimed their first amendment was infringing on the safety of the public.
Unfortunately for the president, a backlash from the military has begun to grow. Viral pictures of military soldiers holding up signs reading “I will not fight for Al Qaeda in Syria” have been shared tens of thousands of times on Facebook and Twitter. Even with a growing number of military and Congress members coming out against a strike, the State Department has reportedly told Fox News that Obama will act regardless.
Friends and family of Yates have been unable to make contact but expect her to see a judge sometime this week.
The New York Times reports that a 50 man cell of “rebels” trained and armed by the CIA and US special forces is to sneak over the border from Jordan into Syria this week to begin fighting government forces there, a move that should prompt concern given that moderate rebel forces are now fully infiltrated by extremist al Qaeda linked terrorists.
The details were revealed in a report detailing a meeting between the president and Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, during which Obama assured them that covert action would be stepped up in an attempt to do more damage to the Syrian army.
Obama told the two that in addition to a limited strike, “we have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition.”
The Times reports that “the C.I.A.’s program to arm the rebels would be deliberately limited at first to allow a trial run for American officials to monitor it before ramping up to a larger, more aggressive campaign.”
“There seems to be emerging from this administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition,” Graham said after the meeting.
Both Graham and McCain now say they are willing to vote to authorize military action by the US on Syria. During a press conference (full video here) McCain stated that a congressional vote against the administration’s request “would be catastrophic in its consequences” for US credibility internationally.
“It is all in the details, but I left the meeting feeling better than I felt before about what happens the day after and that the purpose of the attack is going to be a little more robust than I thought,” Graham said.
McCain has been pushing to arm Syrian rebels for some time, saying this week that it is “shameful” that the US had three months ago promised arms for the opposition, and failed to do so.
The Arizona Senator said in an interview that he had strongly urged the president on Monday to provide anti-tank and antiaircraft systems to the opposition and to attack the Syrian Air Force.
Graham added that he hoped the opposition would be given “a chance to speak directly to the American people” to allay fears that rebel forces are dominated by al Qaeda linked extremists.
“They’re not trying to replace one dictator, Assad, who has been brutal… to only have al-Qaeda run Syria,” Graham said.
However, as we have repeatedly pointed out, this is the exact scenario that is unfolding in Syria, according to intelligence sources and military experts.
The New York Times has reported that “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups.”
Military experts and former intelligence officials are on record as stating that the Syrian fighters who defected from the Assad military in order to protect civilians and innocent protesters have been almost completely sidelined, with all of the US support and logistics going to the Muslim Brotherhood/Salafist-led Syrian Military Council backed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
These Syrian rebels have been responsible for a plethora of atrocities, from terrorist attacks and massacres, to forcing people to become suicide bombers, to attacks on Christian churches and making children carry out grisly beheadings of unarmed prisoners.
“The true FSA has not received any of the support from the international community, instead they have been marginalized, even though they are the majority of the support on the ground.” Officials at intelligence gathering group Stand Up America have noted, citing sources in contact with FSA Commanders.
The bottom line is that the CIA, with the blessing of the Obama administration, is once again training and arming extremists that have pledged to kill Americans.
Group planned to deliver copies of newspaper to Congress members today
Adan Salazar Infowars.com Sept. 3, 2013
A coalition of black citizens united under the banner of the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) are reportedly planning to run an ad in today’s edition of the Washington Times detailing why president Barack Obama should be impeached.
Click to view entire PDF.
The group said it planned to deliver the newspaper to each member of Congress when they reconvene today.
Richard Swier, editor for the conservative site Watchdog Wire,issued the announcement yesterday.
According to Swier, “The Florida basedNational Black Republican Associationhas sent Articles of Impeachment to the Judiciary Committee in the US House of Representatives. The NBRA has decided to publish an advertisement in the Washington Times and provide a copy of the ad to every member of Congress as they return to work on Tuesday.”
“We, black American citizens,” the letter begins, “in order to free ourselves and our fellow citizens from governmental tyranny, do herewith submit these Articles of Impeachment to Congress for the removal of President Barack H. Obama, aka, Barry Soetoro from office for his attack on liberty and commission of egregious acts of despotism that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and NBRA President Francis Rice encouraged people to download and distribute the PDF, stating, “Anyone may download and use the ad, which is camera ready, and pay for it to be in their local newspaper or magazine.”
As we noted last month when the group first issued its Articles detailing why Obama should be a prime candidate for impeachment proceedings, the group addresses both Democrat and Republican issues making their arguments harder to dismiss as merely partisan politics.
Article 6 berates Obama for his willingness to “conduct or continue electronic surveillance of over 300 million aferage Americans,” while Article 3 picks apart the Justice Department’s involvement in the Operation Fast And Furious gun-walking scandal “wherein guns were sold to Mexican drug trafficking organizations that were used to kill innocent Mexican civilians…”
Also included is the Obama administration’s intimidation and persecution of whistleblowers, “while refusing to prosecute anyone for actual torture.”
Even without an article addressing the president’s desire to dispatch military forces for use in a Syrian civil war without congressional approval – as was done in Libya, the ten articles assembled still make an extremely strong case for Obama’s impeachment.
According to Rice, “The PDF was created by the Washington Times for their use in publishing it in their paper.”
Both top brass and regular servicemembers express opposition to US involvement
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com September 2, 2013
Image: Twitter
The military revolt against the Obama administration’s plan to launch a potentially disastrous attack on Syria is gathering pace, with both top brass and regular servicemembers expressing their vehement opposition to the United States becoming entangled in the conflict.
The backlash began to spread on social media yesterday with numerous members of the military posting photos of themselves holding up signs stating that they would refuse to fight on the same side as Al-Qaeda in Syria. The photos went viral, with one post alone generating over 16,000 shares on Facebook.
Others have posted their photos on Twitter alongside the hashtag #IdidntJoin.
This will do little to reassure a growing number of influential figures in the US military who are becoming increasingly recalcitrant about the United States becoming embroiled in yet another war in the Middle East.
The Washington Post reports that, “The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.”
Republican Congressman Justin Amash also took to Twitter to state, “I’ve been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces. The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against Syria.” Amash’s statement was followed by a series of tweets from military veterans who also expressed their opposition to the attack.
Business Insider’s Paul Szoldra also spoke to “sources who are either veterans or currently on active duty in the military,” and asked them if they supported military escalation in Syria.
“Most have responded with a resounding no,” writes Szoldra.
He quotes an active duty First Class Sergeant who states, “We are stretched thin, tired, and broke,” adding that the United States “(does not) need to be World Police.”
“Our involvement in Syria is so dangerous on so many levels, and the 21st century American vet is more keen to this than anybody. It boggles my mind that we are being ignored,” adds former Cpl. Jack Mandaville, a Marine Corps infantry veteran with 3 deployments to Iraq.
Not only are military personnel going public with their concerns, Politico reported that leaks of attack plans are also, “emanating from a Pentagon bureaucracy less enthusiastic about the prospect of an attack than, say, the State Department, National Security Council or Obama himself,” unauthorized disclosures that have the White House “peeved”.
Meanwhile, the Syrian Electronic Army hacked the official US Marines website and left an astoundingmessage calling on US soldiers to join the Syrian Army in fighting Al-Qaeda (click for enlargement).
The full text of the message reads:
“This is a message written by your brothers in the Syrian Army, who have been fighting al-Qaida for the last 3 years. We understand your patriotism and love for your country so please understand our love for ours. Obama is a traitor who wants to put your lives in danger to rescue al- Qaida insurgents.
Marines, please take a look at what your comrades think about Obama’s alliance with al-Qaida against Syria. Your officer in charge probably has no qualms about sending you to die against soldiers just like you, fighting a vile common enemy. The Syrian army should be your ally not your enemy.
Refuse your orders and concentrate on the real reason every soldier joins their military, to defend their homeland. You’re more than welcome to fight alongside our army rather than against it.
Your brothers, the Syrian army soldiers. A message delivered by the SEA.”
View a selection of US servicemembers expressing their opposition to the attack on Syria via the #IdidntJoin meme on Twitter below.
Why is the Obama administration so determined to have the U.S. military help al-Qaeda win the civil war in Syria? Why are we being told that the U.S. has “no choice” but to help rabid jihadist terrorists that are slaughtering entire Christian villages, brutally raping Christian women and joyfully beheading Christian prisoners? If you are a Christian, you should not want anything to do with these genocidal lunatics. Jabhat al-Nusra is a radical Sunni terror organization affiliated with al-Qaeda that is leading the fight against the Assad regime.
If they win, life will be absolute hell for the approximately two million Christians in Syria and other religious minorities. According to Wikipedia, Jabhat al-Nusra intends “to create a Pan-Islamic state under sharia law and aims to reinstate the Islamic Caliphate.” As you will seebelow, many members of the U.S. military understand this, and they absolutely do not want to fight on the side of al-Qaeda.
Not that we should be supporting Assad either. Assad is horrible. He should be rotting in prison somewhere. But just because a country has a bad leader does not mean that we have justification to attack them.
The U.S. military should only be put into action when there is a compelling national interest at stake. And getting involved in a bloody civil war between Assad and al-Qaeda does not qualify.
For the moment, we have a little bit of time to educate the American people about this because the Obama administration has decided to try to get the approval of Congress before striking Syria. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.
Unfortunately, some members of the U.S. Congress are actually trying to push Obama into even stronger action. In fact, some Senators are now saying that they will not support military intervention in Syria unless it is a part of an “overall strategy” to remove Assad from power.
If the U.S. does try to remove Assad, it will unleash hell in the Middle East. Syria has already threatened to attack Israel if the U.S. tries to remove Assad and so has Hezbollah.
As I mentioned the other day, right now there are 70,000 Hezbollah rockets aimed at Israel.
When Hezbollah and Syria start sending rockets into the heart of Tel Aviv, Israel will respond with even greater force.
And if a single one of those rockets that land in Tel Aviv have an unconventional warhead, Israel will respond by absolutely flattening Damascus.
When I say that, what I mean is that a city of 1.7 million people will be gone permanently.
Do our politicians have any idea of the hell that they are about to unleash?
Do our leaders actually want Israel to be attacked?
Do our leaders actually want major cities in the Middle East to be completely wiped out?
Do our leaders actually want millions of precious people to die?
As I mentioned above, those serving in the U.S. military understand these things better than most people, and right now many of them are expressing a very strong desire to stay out of this conflict.
According to a tweet from U.S. Representative Justin Amash, he has heard from numerous members of the U.S. military that are urging him to vote against an attack on Syria…
“I’ve been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces. The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against #Syria.”
Journalist Paul Szoldra says that he has also heard from a lot of service members that want nothing to do with this conflict…
I’ve reached out to my own sources who are either veterans or currently on active duty in the military, and asked them to share their thoughts on whether we should, or should not, intervene in the two-year-old Syrian civil war. Most have responded with a resounding no.
The following is what a Marine Corps infantry veteran with three deployments to Iraq named Jack Mandaville wrote to Szoldra…
The worst part about this Syria debacle, among many things, is how closely it resembles Iraq. Those Vietnam veterans who warned us about disastrous results in Iraq were doing so based off their experience in a war that, contrary to popular belief, was vastly different from our war and was separated by at least two decades. Many veterans of Iraq are still in their twenties and have a firsthand understanding of Arab political issues. The complicated things we faced with Syria’s next door neighbors is freshly ingrained in our memories. How quickly the American people and our political leaders forget.
Our involvement in Syria is so dangerous on so many levels, and the 21st century American vet is more keen to this than anybody. It boggles my mind that we are being ignored. My anger over this issue has actually made me seriously comment on our foreign policy for the first time since 2006 when I was honorably discharged after three stints in Iraq and subsequently watched it continue for nearly another six years. I’m sickened that we’re putting ourselves in a position for another prolonged war where the American people will quickly forget about the people fighting it.
And even an establishment mouthpiece like the Washington Post is admitting that top U.S. military officials are expressing “serious reservations” about a war with Syria…
The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.
Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.
One officer even told the Post that he “can’t believe” that Obama is even considering a conflict with Syria…
“I can’t believe the president is even considering it,” said [one] officer, who like most officers interviewed for this story agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity because military personnel are reluctant to criticize policymakers while military campaigns are being planned.
What Obama wants to do is utter insanity.
Why would we want to enter a war on the side of Christian killers?
In areas of Syria that are controlled by the rebels, Christians are being treated brutally. The following is from eyewitness testimony from a Christian missionary who recently visited the region…
“The Christian residents were offered four choices: 1. renounce the ‘idolatry’ of Christianity and convert to Islam; 2. pay a heavy tribute to the Muslims for the privilege of keeping their heads and their Christian faith (this tribute is known as jizya); 3. be killed; 4. flee for their lives, leaving all their belongings behind.”
How would you like to be faced with those choices?
In other instances, Christians are not even given any choices. Instead, they are being summarily executed for their faith.
For example, the following is one incident that made news back in December…
Syrian rebels beheaded a Christian man and fed his body to dogs, according to a nun who says the West is ignoring atrocities committed by Islamic extremists.
The nun said taxi driver Andrei Arbashe, 38, was kidnapped after his brother was heard complaining that fighters against the ruling regime behaved like bandits.
She said his headless corpse was found by the side of the road, surrounded by hungry dogs. He had recently married and was soon to be a father.
How would you feel if a member of your family was beheaded and fed to the dogs?
And the rebels have continued to slaughter Christians even though they know the world is watching. The following is from an NBC News report on August 18th…
Syrian rebels killed at least 11 people, including civilians, in an attack on a checkpoint west of the city of Homs on Saturday that official state media described as a massacre.
Most of those killed were Christians, activists and residents said.
Sometimes these psychotic Syrian rebels actually round up Christian women and children and gun them down. The following is from a report about what the rebels did to the Christian village of al-Duvair when they took control…
Images obtained exclusively by Infowars show the aftermath of an alleged massacre of a Christian village in Syria during which men, women and children were slaughtered and churches desecrated by Obama-backed FSA rebels.
The photos, which were provided by a source inside the village of al-Duvair in Syria’s Western province of Homs, show ruined homes, ransacked churches as well as the burned remains of what looks like an infant.
According to the Assyrian International News Agency (AINA) on May 29, “The armed rebels affiliated to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) raided the Christian-populated al-Duvair village in Reef (outskirts of) Homs near the border with Lebanon….and massacred all its civilian residents, including women and children.”
But sometimes women are not killed by the rebels. If they are young and lovely, they are often systematically raped. What happened to one 15-year-old Christian girl from Qusair named Mariam is a total abomination…
The commander of the battalion “Jabhat al-Nusra” in Qusair took Mariam, married and raped her. Then he repudiated her. The next day the young woman was forced to marry another Islamic militant. He also raped her and then repudiated her. The same trend was repeated for 15 days, and Mariam was raped by 15 different men. This psychologically destabilized her and made her insane. Mariam, became mentally unstable and was eventually killed.
This is who Obama wants to help?
We are going to shed American blood to help those monsters take over Syria?
Are we insane?
Of course one of the most prominent examples of rebel brutality was even reported on by CNN…
The ghastly video shows how barbaric the Syrian civil war can be.
A man, said to be a well-known rebel fighter, carves into the body of a government soldier and cuts out his heart and liver.
“I swear to God we will eat your hearts out, you soldiers of Bashar. You dogs. God is greater!” the man says. “Heroes of Baba Amr … we will take out their hearts to eat them.”
He then puts the heart in his mouth and takes a bite.
After reading that, can anyone out there possibly justify helping the Syrian rebels?
But the Obama administration insists that we “must” attack Syria because Assad supposedly used chemical weapons against his own people.
Secretary of State John Kerry says that samples taken by UN inspectors have tested positive for the nerve agent sarin, and therefore what we must do is clear.
But is it really?
According to Reuters, the UN has had evidence that Syrian rebels have been using sarin gas against Assad forces since May…
U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.
And as I discussed the other day, Syrian rebels have admitted to an Associated Press reporter that they were the ones that used sarin gas during the incident that the Obama administration is so concerned about.
The chemical weapons were supplied to the rebels by Saudi Arabia, but the Obama administration will never, ever admit this. If the U.S. called the Saudis out on this, it would potentially endanger the status of the petrodollar.
Instead, the U.S. government is going to end up doing exactly what the Saudis want, which is to attack Syria.
But people all around the world are seeing through this charade. For example, the following is a statement that Pat Buchanan made during a recent interview with Newsmax…
“I would not understand or comprehend that Bashar al-Assad, no matter how bad a man he may be, would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country when the immediate consequence of which might be that he would be at war with the United States. So this reeks of a false flag operation.”
Sadly, it doesn’t really seem to matter what any of us think. According to James Rosen of Fox News, the Obama administration has apparently made the decision to go ahead with an attack on Syria no matter what Congress decides…
A senior State Department official tells Fox News the president’s decision to take military action in Syria still stands, and will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes next week to approve the use of such force.
The official said that every major player on the National Security Council – including the commander-in-chief – was in accord last night on the need for military action, and that the president’s decision to seek a congressional debate and vote was a surprise to most if not all of them. However, the aide insisted the request for Congress to vote did not supplant the president’s earlier decision to use force in Syria, only delayed its implementation.
“That’s going to happen, anyway,” the source told me, adding that that was why the president, in his rose Garden remarks, was careful to establish that he believes he has the authority to launch such strikes even without congressional authorization.
Very soon, the U.S. military will be embroiled in a vicious civil war between a brutal dictator and absolutely psychotic Christian-killing jihadists.
Should American blood be spilled in such a conflict?
After President Obama said the United States “should” strike Syria during a Saturday speech in the Rose Garden, Republican Justin Amash (R-Mich.) took to Twitter to dispute that claim with comments from those who would likely carry out that order.
“I’ve been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces,” Amash tweeted. “The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against Syria.”
I’ve reached out to my own sources who are either veterans or currently on active duty in the military, and asked them to share their thoughts on whether we should, or should not, intervene in the two-year-old Syrian civil war. Most have responded with a resounding no.
The general theme of most emails bring up personal experiences in Iraq or Afghanistan, the lack of a clear objective or end state in striking Syria, and the very muddled line between anti-government rebels and al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists.
While President Obama has repeatedly said there would be no “boots on the ground,” many remain fearful that limited strikes could have consequences that lead to further action.
Here are two emails I received, and I am reprinting them here in full, only lightly edited for clarity.
From an active-duty soldier, rank of Sergeant First Class:
I have to say I am fairly conflicted about Syria. My logic is generally fighting itself and my personal feelings towards taking action.
Part of me says that we need to take a stand against chemical weapons. President Obama announced that using chemicals weapons was the line, and Assad crossed it. The fact that even the French President has called for “proportional and firm action” says something. I’m not sure how the UN can stand by while Syria kills 1300 citizens, including women and children. The line was drawn, and Assad crossed it.
But does the U.S. always have to be the one to deliver consequences? We are stretched thin, tired, and broke. My personal feeling is no.
I’m more inclined to be ok with our involvement if we’re talking about actions by the Air Force and the Navy. We are too tired to put boots on the ground. But as an Explosive Ordnance Disposal tech, I know what would go into disarmament of chemical weapons.
And that’s just not a job I want anything to do with. And I don’t want my Soldiers doing it.
Not only is the process long and exhausting, it’s dangerous in different ways than we have been dealing with.
My gut is telling me that we don’t need to be World Police. And if we don’t have the UN for back up, it’s just too much for us to take on. We still haven’t finished Afghanistan; I just don’t see how we can take on another war, or even military actions that don’t affect us.
I can’t stand to sit by and watch innocent lives be taken in such a horrible manner, but we can’t really do this alone.
But if we don’t do something, who will? How many more innocent people have to die before anyone else will take action?
In mid-March of 2003, I was a 19-year-old Private First Class waiting to cross the border into Iraq. I was aware that there was a significant portion of veterans (mostly Vietnam-era) back home who were fundamentally opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Like the majority of my peers and superiors, I didn’t really care nor did I give it much thought. We just wanted our war.
A little over 10 years later, the majority of individuals in my generation have recognised the Iraq folly for what it was. I’m still proud of my service, as are my buds, but we understand that Iraq was completely unnecessary and cost way too much money and, more importantly, American lives.
We witnessed our politicians and countrymen send us to war on a surge of emotion and quickly forget about us for nearly a decade. We had the training and capabilities to deal with Iraq, but were set up for failure by timid members of Congress and the Executive branch who futilely attempted to conduct a PC war.
The worst part about this Syria debacle, among many things, is how closely it resembles Iraq. Those Vietnam veterans who warned us about disastrous results in Iraq were doing so based off their experience in a war that, contrary to popular belief, was vastly different from our war and was separated by at least two decades.
Many veterans of Iraq are still in their twenties and have a firsthand understanding of Arab political issues. The complicated things we faced with Syria’s next door neighbours is freshly ingrained in our memories. How quickly the American people and our political leaders forget.
Our involvement in Syria is so dangerous on so many levels, and the 21st century American vet is more keen to this than anybody. It boggles my mind that we are being ignored.
My anger over this issue has actually made me seriously comment on our foreign policy for the first time since 2006 when I was honorably discharged after three stints in Iraq and subsequently watched itcontinue for nearly another six years.
I’m sickened that we’re putting ourselves in a position for another prolonged war where the American people will quickly forget about the people fighting it.
Are you a military veteran? Send me an email with your thoughts on possible military action in Syria (anonymity protected if preferred) — pszoldra@businessinsider.com
One of the U.S. government’s main justifications for its claim that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack is that the rebels don’t have chemical weapons.
However, multiple lines of evidence show that the rebels do have chemical weapons.
U.S. officials are increasingly worried that Syria’s weapons of mass destruction could fall into the hands of Islamist extremists, rogue generals or other uncontrollable factions.
Last week, fighters from a group that the Obama administration has branded aterrorist organization were among rebels who seized the Sheik Suleiman military base near Aleppo, where research on chemical weapons had been conducted. Rebels are also closing in on another base near Aleppo, known as Safirah, which has served as a major production center for such munitions, according to U.S. officials and analysts.
***
A former Syrian general who once led the army’s chemical weapons training program said that the main storage sites for mustard gas and nerve agents are supposed to be guarded by thousands of Syrian troops but that they would be easily overrun.
The sites are not secure, retired Maj. Gen. Adnan Silou, who defected to the opposition in June, said in an interview near Turkey’s border with Syria. “Probablyanyone from the Free Syrian Army or any Islamic extremist group could take them over,” he said.
***
As the Syrian opposition steadily makes territorial gains, U.S. officials and analysts said the odds are increasing that insurgents will seize control of a chemical weapons site or that Syrian troops guarding the installations will simply abandon their posts.
“It’s almost inevitable,” [Michael Eisenstadt, a retired Army officer who directs the military and security studies program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy] said. “It may have already happened, for what we know.”
***
Last week, the Syrian Foreign Ministry said the al-Nusra Front — an anti-Assad group that has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United States and is also known as Jabhat al-Nusra — had seized a chlorine factory near the town of Safirah, east of Aleppo. “Terrorist groups may resort to using chemical weapons against the Syrian people,” the ministry cautioned.
Questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria’s chemical weapons stores ….
A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria includes a few key caveats — including acknowledging that the U.S. intelligence community no longer has the certainty it did six months ago of where the regime’s chemical weapons are stored ….
U.S. and allied spies have lost track of who controls some of the country’s chemical weapons supplies, according to the two intelligence officials and two other U.S. officials.
***
U.S. analysts … are also not certain that when they saw what looked like Assad’s forces moving chemical supplies, those forces were able to remove everything before rebels took over an area where weapons had been stored.
U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad’s orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said.
***
Another possibility that officials would hope to rule out: that stocks had fallen out of the government’s control and were deployed by rebels in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war.
In August, Fox News interviewed Rep. Mike Rogers, R.-Mich., who said he saw a chemical weapon stockpile in the country during a 2004 trip. At the time, he said the U.S. was concerned about “thousands of pounds of very active mustard gas.”
He also said there is some sarin gas that is unaccounted for.
Spread across the desert here off the Sirte-Waddan road sits one of the biggest threats to Western hopes for Libya: a massive, unguarded weapons depot that is being pillaged daily by anti-Gadhafi military units, hired work crews and any enterprising individual who has the right vehicle and chooses to make the trip.
In one of dozens of warehouses the size of a single-family home, Soviet-era guided missiles remain wrapped inside crates stacked to the 15-foot ceiling. In another, dusted with sand, are dozens of sealed cases labeled “warhead.” Artillery rounds designed to carry chemical weapons are stashed in the back of another. Rockets, antitank grenades and projectiles of all calibers are piled so high they defy counting….
Convoys of armed groups from all over Libya have made the trek here and piled looted weapons into trailer trucks, dump trucks, buses and even empty meat trucks….
In the desert near Sirte, there was no security for dozens of small armories at the complex, where weapons are removed every day by opposition fighters, paid contractors and others. In one structure, the word “warhead” was stamped on dozens of sealed containers. At another depot, empty chemical agent munitions were found.
There is at present no viable Libyan government-sanctioned force with the capacity to keep freelancer fighters from taking what they please from the warehouses, according to the Journal.
***
U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) visited the Libyan capital, where he said gaining control over the country’s armories was a “very big topic.”
“We have a game plan to secure the weapon caches, particularly biological and chemical weapons,” McCain said.
Al Qaeda terrorists in North Africa could be in possession of chemical weapons, a leading Spanish intelligence officer said on Monday.
The head of National Police counter-terrorist intelligence, Commissioner-General Enrique Baron, told a strategic security conference in Barcelona that it was believed that the self-styled Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb – AQMI – could have acquired such arms in Libya or elsewhere during the Arab Spring last year.
***
Commissioner Baron told his audience: “The Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb has acquired and used very powerful conventional arms and probably also has non-conventional arms, basically chemical, as a result of the loss of control of arsenals.”
The most likely place where this could have happened was in Libya during the uprising which overthrew the Gaddafi regime, said Commissioner Baron.
In his position as the head of Spanish National Police intelligence the Commissioner-General works closely with MI6, the CIA and other Western European intelligence services.
Remember, the head of the Libyan rebels admitted that the rebels were largely Al Qaeda. CNN, theTelegraph, the Washington Times, and many other mainstream sources confirm that Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya have since flooded into Syria to fight the Assad regime … bringing their arms with them. And the post-Gaddafi Libyan government is also itself a top funder and arms supplier of the Syrian opposition. (CNN notes that the CIA may have had a hand in this operation.)
Bush administration official Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson and British MP George Galloway speculate that Israel or another country may have given chemical weapons to the Syrian rebels.
We don’t know which countries did or didn’t give chemical weapons to the rebels. The point is that there are quite a few opportunities or possibilities.
Evidence of Possession and Use
The above, of course, is simply speculation. More important is actual evidence of possession and use.
The Turkish General Directorate of Security … seized 2 kg of sarin gas in the city of Adana in the early hours of yesterday morning. The chemical weapons were in the possession of Al Nusra terrorists believed to have been heading for Syria.
UN investigator Carla Del Ponte said that there is strong evidence that the rebels used chemical weapons, but that there is not evidence that the government used such weapons:
There is also evidence that the rebels have recently used chemical weapons.See this and this.
Revealed: Government let British company export nerve gas chemicals to Syria
UK accused of ‘breath-taking laxity’ over export licence for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride
The Government was accused of “breathtaking laxity” in its arms controls last night after it emerged that officials authorised the export to Syria of two chemicals capable of being used to make a nerve agent such as sarin a year ago.
The Business Secretary, Vince Cable, will today be asked by MPs to explain why a British company was granted export licences for the dual-use substances for six months in 2012 while Syria’s civil war was raging and concern was rife that the regime could use chemical weapons on its own people. The disclosure of the licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride, which can both be used as precursor chemicals in the manufacture of nerve gas, came as the US Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States had evidence that sarin gas was used in last month’s atrocity in Damascus.
Mr Kerry announced that traces of the nerve agent, found in hair and blood samples taken from victims of the attack in the Syrian capital which claimed more than 1,400 lives, were part of a case being built by the Obama administration for military intervention as it launched a full-scale political offensive on Sunday to persuade a sceptical Congress to approve a military strike against Syria.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills insisted that although the licences were granted to an unnamed UK chemical company in January 2012, the substances were not sent to Syria before the permits were eventually revoked last July in response to tightened European Union sanctions.
In a previously unpublicised letter to MPs last year, Mr Cable acknowledged that his officials had authorised the export of an unspecified quantity of the chemicals in the knowledge that they were listed on an international schedule of chemical weapon precursors.
Downing Street insisted today that Britain’s system for approving arms exports to Syria is working even though licences for two chemicals capable of being used in making nerve gas were approved by the Government and blocked only by EU sanctions.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “You see the system working, with materials not exported. The facts are that the licences were revoked and the exports did not take place. The Prime Minister’s view is that that demonstrates that the system is working. There is a sanctions regime, which is a very active part.”
Critics of the Business Secretary, whose department said it had accepted assurances from the exporting company that the chemicals would be used in the manufacture of metal window frames and shower enclosures, said it appeared the substances had only stayed out of Syria by chance.
The shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna told The Independent: “It will be a relief that the chemicals concerned were never actually delivered. But, in light of the fact the Assad regime had already been violently oppressing internal dissent for many months by the beginning of 2012 and the intelligence now indicates use of chemical weapons on multiple occasions, a full explanation is needed as to why the export of these chemicals was approved in the first place.”
The Labour MP Thomas Docherty, a member of the Commons Arms Export Controls Committee, will today table parliamentary questions demanding to know why the licences were granted and to whom.
He said: “This would seem to be a case of breath-taking laxity – the Government has had a very lucky escape indeed that these chemicals were not sent to Syria.
“What was Mr Cable’s department doing authorising the sale of chemicals which by their own admission had a dual use as precursors for chemical weapons at a time when the Syria’s war was long under way?”
The licences for the two chemicals were granted on 17 and 18 January last year for “use in industrial processes” after being assessed by Department for Business officials to judge if “there was a clear risk that they might be used for internal repression or be diverted for such an end”, according to the letter sent by Mr Cable to the arms controls committee.
Mr Cable said: “The licences were granted because at the time there were no grounds for refusal.”
Although the export deal was outlawed by the EU on 17 June last year in a package of sanctions against the regime of Bashar al-Assad, the licences were not revoked until 30 July. Chemical weapons experts said that although the two substances have a variety of uses such as the fluoridation of drinking water, sodium and potassium fluoride are also key to producing the chemical effect which makes a nerve agent such as sarin so toxic.
Western intelligence has long suspected the Syrian regime of using front companies to divert dual-use materials imported for industrial purposes into its weapons programmes. It is believed that chemical weapons including sarin have been used in the Syrian conflict on 14 occasions since 2012.
Mr Cable’s department last night insisted it was satisfied that the export licence was correctly granted. A spokesman said: “The UK Government operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world.
“The exporter and recipient company demonstrated that the chemicals were for a legitimate civilian end-use – which was for metal finishing of aluminium profiles used in making aluminium showers and aluminium window frames.”
MOSCOW (AP) — The Russian news agency Interfax says President Vladimir Putin hopes to send a delegation of lawmakers to the U.S. to discuss the situation in Syria with members of Congress.
Russian legislators Valentina Matvienko and Sergei Naryshkin proposed that to Putin on Monday, saying polls have shown little support among Americans for armed intervention in Syria to punish its regime for an alleged chemical weapons attack.
The lawmakers said maybe U.S. legislators can be persuaded to take a "balanced stance" on the issue. Putin supported the initiative, which would require formal approval by the Foreign Ministry.
Russia has been a stalwart ally of Syria’s Bashar Assad, and Putin spoke out on Saturday against the prospect of U.S. military intervention in Syria, calling such a move "foolish nonsense" that "defies all logic."
Russia sends spy ship as US prepares for possible Syria strike
Priazovye sails from Black Sea naval base as Vladmir Putin says deployment necessary to protect Russian security interest
Monday 2 September 2013 09.49 BST
Vladimir Putin said the ship was needed to protect national security interests. Russia has a naval facility in the Syrian port of Tartous. Photograph: Itar-Tass/Barcroft Media
Russia is sending a reconnaissance ship to the eastern Mediterranean as the US prepares for a possible military strike in Syria, it was reported on Monday.
The Priazovye left Russia’s naval base in the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Sevastopol late on Sunday on a mission "to gather current information in the area of the escalating conflict", said an unidentified military source quoted by the Interfax news agency. The defence ministry declined to comment.
Barack Obama said on Saturday he would seek congressional authorisation for punitive military action against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad after what the US says was a sarin gas attack that killed more than 1,400 people.
Russia says the US has not proved its case and that it believes the attack was staged by rebels to provoke intervention in the civil war.
Russia is one of Assad’s biggest arms suppliers and has a naval maintenance facility in the Syrian port of Tartous. Moscow opposes any military intervention in Syria and has shielded Damascus from pressure at the UN security council.
Interfax said the Priazovye would be operating separately from a navy unit permanently stationed in the Mediterranean in a deployment that the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, said is needed to protect national security interests.
The defence ministry said last week that new warships would be sent to the Mediterranean to replace others in a long-planned rotation of ships based there.
Syria asks the United Nations to stop U.S. strike
BEIRUT | Mon Sep 2, 2013 4:46am EDT
(Reuters) – Syria has asked the United Nations to prevent "any aggression" against Syria following a call over the weekend by U.S. President Barack Obama for punitive strikes against the Syrian military for last month’s chemical weapons attack.
Washington says more than 1,400 people, many of them children, were killed in the world’s worst use of chemical arms since Iraq’s Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds in 1988.
U.S. military action will be put to a vote in Congress, which ends its summer recess on September 9, giving President Bashar al-Assad time to prepare the ground for any assault and try to rally international support against the use of force.
In a letter to U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon and President of the Security Council Maria Cristina Perceval, Syrian U.N. envoy Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari called on "the U.N. Secretary General to shoulder his responsibilities for preventing any aggression on Syria and pushing forward reaching a political solution to the crisis in Syria", state news agency SANA said on Monday.
He called on the Security Council to "maintain its role as a safety valve to prevent the absurd use of force out of the frame of international legitimacy".
Ja’afari said the United States should "play its role, as a peace sponsor and as a partner to Russiain the preparation for the international conference on Syria and not as a state that uses force against whoever opposes its policies".
Syria denies using chemical weapons and accuses rebel groups, who have been fighting for more than two years to topple Assad, of using the banned weapons. At least 100,000 people have been killed in the conflict, which started in March 2011 with protests against four decades of Assad family rule.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday that tests showed sarin nerve gas was fired on rebel-held areas on August 21.
Ja’afari said Kerry had "adopted old stories fabricated by terrorists" based on fake photos from the Internet.
(Reporting by Oliver Holmes; Editing by Yara Bayoumy and Alison Williams)
Make no mistake: The president couldn’t care less about the plight of Syrians, the 1,500 gassed to death — including nearly 500 children. It’s all about 2014. Win the House, reign supreme.
Consider this: Mr. Obama made his dramatic Rose Garden statement Saturday — then headed to the golf course. Congress has no plans to cut short its 30-day vacation, and the president did not call lawmakers back. So much for urgency.
The conventional wisdom is, as usual, wrong. Losing the congressional vote won’t be an embarrassment for the president, as all the talking heads are still parroting. A loss would be a double win. First, because a “No” vote would allow the foreign policy neophyte to walk away from his blundering “red line” declaration on chemical weapons (“I wanted to go in, but Congress said no”). And second, should Republicans who voted for theIraq and Afghanistan wars now oppose Syria, the president would be armed with clear “evidence” that their opposition is purely political.
Keep in mind: This president knows no way to campaign other than to blame others. He’ll batter Republicans for all of 2014 as obstructionists should they be the reason the effort fails.
But the bloviating politicos are also wrong that the “Republican-controlled House” could reject the plan for partisan reasons. It is Democrats who seem most squeamish — and they were the most vocal in demanding their say before intervention in Syria. Remember, two years ago, as the president prepared to bomb Libya, 70 Democrats joined Republicans in voting against military operations. Mr. Obama bombed anyway.
Still, the entire fiasco has been hard to watch, “Amateur Hour” indeed. The president declares a “red line,” then sees the Syrian dictator cross it again and again. The Nobel Peace Prize winner declares he’ll take America to war — but only then does he seek partners and only to find a “Coalition of the Unwilling.” The United Nations says no, the Arab League says no, China and Russia say no — even the United Kingdom says no (mainly because Brits did not want to have another U.S.-led war jammed down their throats).
Back home, polls find 80 percent of Americans want Congress to decide, and nearly half oppose intervention. So the president — hoping to appear magnanimous — declares he’ll seek authorization (read: share the blame).
Still, the president and his secretary of state are absolutely right. “The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity,” John F. Kerry said. Mr. Obama, in his most powerful passage, said: “Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?”
Of course a firm response is the correct action. And Mr. Obama doesn’t need authority to do so in Syria, just as he didn’t in Libya. While Republican support on the Hill now would help Mr. Obama save face after his “red line” throw-down, striking Syria with a few cruise missiles — however fleeting and ineffectual that would be to the course of its 2-year-old civil war — also would send a signal to the real target: Iran. That’s why, most likely, Republicans will support the president after rewriting the White House’s draft resolution.
Now, it is up to Mr. Obama’s own party: Does he still hold sway over Democrats? Will they bend to his will? Many already seem to be running for the hills. And if they don’t, will the president have the temerity to order strikes anyway?
Whatever happens, this much is clear: We’re no longer talking about the IRS targeting tea party groups, the Justice Department tapping reporters’ phone lines, the NSA’s surveillance programs, Benghazi. The president has smartly changed the subject to the most important decision a commander in chief makes: war.
And the most presidential. That, he knows, will play better in the midterm elections, whichever way Congress votes.
• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times and is now editor of the Drudge Report. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on Twitter @josephcurl.
Syrian rebels from the al Qaeda-affilated al-Nusrah Front. (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) – While President Barack Obama is now asking Congress to authorize him to use military force against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad because that regime used chemical weapons on its own people, the State Department is maintaining a travel warning advising Americans not to travel to Syria because the al-Nusrah Front, the al Qaeda affiliate in Syria–which is participating in the rebellion seeking to overthrow Assad–has carried out about 600 attacks in the country since November 2011.
These al Qaeda terrorist attacks, according to the State Department, have killed many Syrian civilians.
"There is also a threat from terrorism, including groups like al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) affiliated al-Nusrah Front," says the current State Department travel warning on Syria. "Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks–ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations—in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. Public places such as government buildings, shopping areas, and open spaces have been targeted."
The bolded language in this travel warning–emphasizing that the al Qaeda affiliate fighting in the Syrian opposition has been targeting places such as "shopping areas" was put there by the State Department in the online posting of its warning.
"During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed," then-State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said at the department’s press briefing last Dec. 11.
In a statement published May 16, the State Department said that Muhammad al-Jawlani, the leader of the al-Nusrah Front, had recently "pledged allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qa’ida’s leader."
When the Obama Adminisration first officially named the al-Nusrah Front as an al Qaeda affiliate and a terrorist organzation, other elements in the Syrian rebel coalition–which the Obama administration supports–objected to what the Obama Administration had done.
"In December 2012, the Obama Administration designated the Nusra Front as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and as an alias of Al Qaeda in Iraq pursuant to Executive Order 13224," said a Congressional Research Service report published on June 14. "Reactions from some Syrian opposition leaders and armed groups were negative. Several armed groups made statements of solidarity with Al Nusra, and prominent civilian figures, including then-President Khateeb of the SC [National Coalition of Revolution and Opposition Forces], requested that the U.S. government reconsider the designation."
Hezbollah mobilises ahead of potential US Syria strike
September 02, 2013 05:58 PM
A man reaches out to touch mock rockets set by Hezbollah on the ruins of the Khiam prison, Tuesday, July 23, 2013. (The Daily Star/Mohammed Zaatari)
BEIRUT: Lebanon’s Shiite Hezbollah group, a close ally of the Syrian regime, is redeploying its forces ahead of possible US strikes on Damascus, according to witnesses in Lebanon.
The reports come as the daily Al-Akhbar, which is close to both Hezbollah and the Syrian regime, said on Monday that the group had "called on all its officers and members to man their positions."
Residents speaking to AFP in the southern Lebanese city of Tyre said there appeared to be a general mobilisation of the group’s members, even if such a movement was not being publicly discussed.
Many Hezbollah fighters have disappeared from local villages in the last five days, though strict security measures around group headquarters and checkpoints have remained in place, residents said.
The situation is the same in the Bekaa Valley of eastern Lebanon, a stronghold of the organisation.
Residents said fighters, including gunners, had left their regular posts, and switched off their mobile phones to ensure they could not be traced.
In the southern suburbs of the capital Beirut, also considered a Hezbollah bastion, teenagers have replaced more experienced fighters at checkpoints inspecting cars entering the district.
A Hezbollah spokesman declined to comment on the reported redeployment of the group’s forces.
On Monday, Al-Akhbar also reported that the "Syrian army has mobilised units that have not participated until now in the conflict."
"It has established an operations room… with Hezbollah and the units in charge of missiles are at an unprecedented level of alert," the daily added.
"The Islamic resistance (Hezbollah) has called on all its officers and members to man their positions," the newspaper reported.
The reported mobilisation comes after US President Barack Obama said he favoured the use of military action against Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus.
But Obama has said he will seek approval from Congress for any strikes in response to the attack, for which the Syrian regime denies responsibility.
Hezbollah is a close ally of the Syrian regime, and has dispatched fighters to battle alongside Syrian troops and against rebels seeking to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.
Wadah Charara, an expert on the group, says it commands around 30,000 fighters, including 10,000 with extensive combat experience.
Between 800 and 1,2000 Hezbollah fighters are thought to have taken part in the Syrian regime’s battle to recapture the town of Qusayr in central Homs province earlier this year.
China concerned about unilateral military action: FM spokesman English.news.cn | 2013-09-02 17:06:21 | Editor: An
BEIJING, Sept. 2 (Xinhua) — Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said Monday that China was seriously concerned about any unilateral military action against Syria.
At a regular press briefing, Hong said, "China is firmly opposed to the use of chemical weapons by any party in Syria and expresses serious concern about preparations by relevant countries for unilateral military action."
Hong said the United States has explained to China its evidence relating to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
"Any action by the international community should respect the rules of the UN Charter and basic rules of international relations," Hong said,adding that taking actions should avoid further complicating the Syria issue and avoid bringing more disaster to the Middle East.
China supports the UN Secretariat in carrying out an independent, objective and professional investigation on the alleged use of chemical weapons in accordance with relevant UN resolutions.
Hong said that no side should rush to pre-judge the results of an investigation by UN chemical weapons experts in Syria, saying that a political solution is the only practical way to solve the issue.
While still claiming dictatorial powers to start a war on his own authority, Obama put his unilateral attack on Syria on hold when he received a letter from more than 160 members of the House of Representatives reminding him that to take the country to war without congressional approval is an impeachable offense and when he saw that no country that could serve as cover for a war crime, not even the puppet British government and the NATO puppet states, would support America’s announced military aggression against Syria.
Obama got away with attacking Libya without an OK from Congress, because he used Washington’s NATO puppets and not US military forces. That ploy let Obama claim that the US was not directly involved.
Now that the lack of cover and the challenge from Congress has caused the would-be tyrant Obama to put on hold his attack on Syria, what can we expect?
If Obama were intelligent, and clearly anyone who would appoint Susan Rice as his national security adviser is not intelligent, he would simply let the attack on Syria fade into the background and die as Congress returns on September 9 to face the insoluble problems of the budget deficit and debt ceiling.
A competent administration would realize that a government that is unable to pay its bills without heavy use of the printing press is in far too much trouble to be worrying about what is going on in Syria. No competent administration would risk a military strike that could result in a Middle East conflagration and a rise in oil prices, thus worsening the economic situation that Washington faces.
But Obama and his collection of incompetents have demonstrated that they have no competence. The regime is also corrupt, and the entire edifice rests on nothing but lies.
Now that the White House realizes that Obama cannot commit a war crime without cover, here is what we can likely expect. The argument will move away from whether or not Assad used chemical weapons and become an argument that Congress must not undermine US prestige and credibility by failing to support President Obama, the latest front man for American wars of aggression.
The White House will bribe, cajole, and intimidate the Congress. The regime’s argument will be that with America’s prestige and credibility on the line, Congress must support the President. The President and Secretary of State have made unequivocal statements of Assad’s guilt and their determination to punish Assad. Given Washington’s insanity, the way Washington punishes Assad for (allegedly) killing Syrians with chemical weapons is for Washington to kill more Syrians with cruise missiles.
If this doesn’t make sense to you, you don’t belong in Obama’s government or in the American media, and you could never be a neoconservative.
The White House will argue that Obama has compromised with Congress by letting Congress vote on the decision, and that Congress’ part of the compromise is to give its support. Meet us half-way, the White House will say.
The Israel Lobby, Susan Rice, the neocons, and warmongers such as Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham will argue that lack of support for Obama’s attack on Syria hurts America’s credibility, aids the “terrorists” and “leaves America defenseless.” It is bad enough, they will argue, that Obama has shown indecision by waiting for Congress’ approval and irresolution by substituting a limited strike for the original plan of regime change.
Faced with threats of a cutoff of campaign donation munificence from the Israel Lobby and the military/security complex, the House and Senate can be brought into line to “support the country” as it commits another war crime. The combination of bribes, intimidation, and patriotic appeals to support America’s prestige can swing the Congress. No one really knows if the 160 or so members of the House are sincere about putting Obama on notice, or whether they simply want something. Perhaps they only want Obama to cough up for their approval.
If Congress gives its backing to another American war crime, British Prime Minister David Cameron can go back to Parliament and tell them that Obama “has now brought Congress on board, thus providing cover, and if Parliament doesn’t go along we will be cut out of the money.”
Few British politicians, other than George Galloway, are comfortable with being cut out of the money.
If Cameron brings Parliament around, the other NATO countries might decide to get on the payments bandwagon. The overriding rule of Western civilization is that more money is better than no money.
Washington and its NATO European puppets will criticize Russia and China for using their Security Council vetoes to block the UN from bringing justice, freedom, and democracy to Syria. These faux arguments will be used by the presstitute Western media to undermine the importance of the UN Security Council’s opposition to Washington’s attack on Syria. Why should Washington be deterred by Security Council members who support Assad’s use of chemical weapons, the US media whores will ask. The prostitutes that comprise the US media will do all in their power to ensure that Washington kills yet more Syrians. Killing is America’s hallmark.
As the history of humankind proves, people will do anything for money. Noteworthy exceptions are Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, and Julian Assange. Were any of these truth-tellers to have gone to Washington and say, “buy me,” in exchange for their silence Washington would have provided large fortunes with which they could live a life of comfort.
Considering how corrupted the US government is and how determined Washington is to have its way, the UN chemical weapons inspectors are at risk. It is unlikely that they will have an accident like SEAL Team Six. But unless they are sequestered like a jury, they are targets for bribery. If the UN report doesn’t support the White House position, the Secretary General will be pressured to make the report inconclusive. After all, Washington writes the checks that keep the UN in business.
No one should expect the US Congress to vote on the basis of the evidence. Moreover, Congress has so far shown no understanding that regardless of whether Assad used chemical weapons, it is a war crime for the US to commit naked aggression against Syria, a country that has not attacked the US. It is not Washington’s business how the Syrian government puts down the effort by al-Nusra extremists to overthrow it.
Washington itself has contingency plans to use nuclear bunker busters against Iran’s underground nuclear energy facilities. If Washington believes that weapons of mass destruction are impermissible, why does Washington have so many of them and contingency plans to use them? Is Washington regretful that Washington dropped two nuclear bombs on civilian Japanese cities at the very time that the Japanese government was doing everything in its power to surrender?
Ever since the dangerous Cold War ended, hot war has been the mainstay of US foreign policy. George H.W. Bush attacked Iraq after Bush’s ambassador gave Saddam Hussein the green light to attack Kuwait. Clinton attacked Serbia on false pretenses and without any constitutional or legal authority. George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq on the basis of lies. Obama renewed the attack on Afghanistan and has attacked also Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Obama sent his NATO puppets to attack Libya, sent mercenaries into Syria, and now intends to prevent his mercenaries’ defeat by attacking Syria.
Washington is building a string of military bases around both Russia and China. These bases are extremely provocative and foretell nuclear war.
The US, a country with a vast nuclear weapons arsenal, whose political leaders are both corrupt and insane, is a great danger to life on earth. That Washington is the number one danger to the world is now universally recognized, except by Americans who wear their patriotism on their sleeve. These gullible dupes are the enablers of the demise of humanity by war.
Until the US economy collapses, Washington still has printed money, and it can buy acquiescence to its crimes. Washington can rely on the presstitute media to tell its lies as if they were facts. The world will not be safe until the American house of cards collapses.
I feel sorry for those uninformed Americans who think that they live in the best country in the world. Too few Americans care that their government has destroyed countless lives from Central America and Vietnam to the Middle East and Africa. The US military routinely murders civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and is responsible for as many as 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths and 4,000,000 displaced Iraqis. The American definition of “the best country in the world” is the country that can murder the most innocent people, people who have never attacked America, people who once looked upon America as the hope of the world and now see a deadly threat.
Too many Americans have no idea that one-fifth of their fellow citizens are dependent on government support, or if they do know, they blame the unfortunate for being leeches on the taxpayers’ purse. In the US wages and employment opportunities are declining. There are no impediments to the looting of citizens by financial institutions. There are no constraints on the lawlessness and brutality of the police, and no limit to the lies that keep the American population entrapped in the Matrix unaware of reality.
How such a people can retain liberty or restrain a government committed to war strains the imagination.
Those Republicans who worry about our children’s and grandchildren’s debtburdens are worried about a future that might never come about. Washington’s hubris is pushing the world toward nuclear war.
“The best country in the world” is the evil force that is destroying the lives and prospects of many different peoples and might yet destroy all life on earth.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously the editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.
Obama’s proposal seeks broad war power despite vow of limits
President Barack Obama, joined by Vice President Joe Biden, delivers a statement on Syria in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, D.C., Saturday, August 31, 2013. | Kristoffer Tripplaar/MCT
By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — While President Barack Obama insists he wants only a limited air attack on Syria, his proposed authorization of force would empower him to do much more than that. Congress is likely to impose tighter reins, as lawmakers have learned that presidents are prone to expand on powers once granted
The substantive part of Obama’s proposed authorization of the use of military force, conveyed to congressional leaders over the weekend, contains 172 words. That’s significantly more than either the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution authorizing the Vietnam War or the 2001 resolution authorizing retaliation for the 9/11 terror attacks, two measures that later became notorious for how aggressively presidents used them.
The proposed resolution gives Obama a go-ahead to use the military as he “determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria.” Specifically, the president could act to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of the weapons or to “protect the United States and its allies and partners” from the weapons.”
Tellingly, University of Texas Law School Professor Robert Chesney said in an interview, Obama’s proposed authorization did not include a sunset date. Chesney suggested that “if the administration is serious about wanting to act in such a truly narrow, time-limited way,” then a sunset measure could be useful.
“These details may not matter much if all the president intends is a modest shot across the bow, as he suggested a few days ago,” said George Mason University School of Law Professor Ilya Somin Sunday. “But they could be significant if U.S. military intervention goes beyond that – including if it ends up expanding farther than the president may have originally intended.”
Publicly, Obama has repeatedly said that “we would not put boots on the ground.” His proposed authorization, though, did not limit the kinds of military forces that could be used. It also does not specify the forces against which force can be used.
“It would likely allow him to use force against Syrian rebels as well as the Assad regime, if it seems possible that the former have obtained chemical weapons or are likely to do so,” Somin said.
Obama’s proposed authorization would also allow military action to stop the “transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors” of the designated weapons. This includes actions involving weapons transfers “within, to or from Syria,” which potentially extends authority to act well outside Syria itself.
If it passed the House and Senate, the authorization would meet the domestic U.S. requirements of the War Powers Resolution, as well as give the Obama administration some political cover. It would not, however, necessarily address international legal requirements.
“Unfortunately, the president’s draft (authorization) states a violation of international law in every line,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a University of Notre Dame law professor. “Resort to military force is not permitted to punish the use of banned weapons; to address arms proliferation, or to respond to vague threats to the United States.”
National self-defense or actions explicitly authorized by the United Nations’ Security Council are the only two kinds of military action acceptable under international law, O’Connell explained.
Stymied by Russia and China, the United States has not been able to secure approval from the 15-member U.N. Security Council. Unlike the 1999 intervention in Kosovo, in which the United States led a 78-day bombing campaign, the Obama administration has not received a NATO authorization for action against Syria, either.
When political bodies do provide military authorizations, the resulting actions can grow beyond what some may have originally contemplated.
In March 2011, for instance, the U.N. Security Council authorized a “no-fly zone” in Libya and gave a go-ahead for “all necessary measures” to protect civilians. NATO forces, including U.S. warplanes, ultimately reported flying more than 26,000 sorties. The NATO air attack destroyed or damaged approximately 6,000 military targets, with several European country leaders pressing the alliance to act more aggressively toward Libyan government forces.
The congressional authorization of military action following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks has been used even more aggressively.
The measure authorized “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons (the president) determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”
The Bush and Obama administrations have subsequently invoked the post-9/11 authorization to support at least 30 different actions, including undertakings in countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya and the Philippines, the Congressional Research Service noted.
On Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry declined to be pinned down on what might happen if Congress rejects an authorization of force against Syria, though he several times stressed the president’s inherent power to act in the nation’s self-defense.
“He has the right to do that no matter what Congress does,” Kerry said on CNN’s State of the Union program. “But the President believes, and I hope we will prove to the world, that we are stronger as a nation, our democracy is stronger when we respect the rights of the Congress to also weigh in on this.”
White House signals next week’s vote has no relevance whatsoever
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com September 2, 2013
The Obama administration has made it clear that it will ignore Congress even if lawmakers vote no to military intervention in Syria and launch the attack anyway.
Image: Wikimedia Commons
While Obama’s surprise decision to seek Congressional authorization for the attack has prompted speculation that he is creating a clever exit strategy after painting himself into a corner with a year of unsustainable “red line” rhetoric, administration officials have signaled that next week’s scheduled vote will make little difference to a decision that has already been made.
Fox News’ James Rosen was told by a senior State Department official that, “the president’s decision to take military action in Syria still stands, and will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes next week to approve the use of such force.”
Although Obama’s announcement that he would put the issue to Congress came as a surprise, the official said it had no impact on the fact that Obama has already decided to green light the attack no matter which way lawmakers vote.
“That’s going to happen, anyway,” the aide told Rosen.
“We don’t contemplate that the Congress is going to vote no,” said Kerry, adding that Obama has the right to order attacks “no matter what Congress does”.
Indeed, Obama himself alluded to the notion that the outcome of a Congressional vote had little significance during his speech on Saturday when he stated, “Our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive,” adding, “It will be effective tomorrow or next week or one month from now, and I am prepared to give that order.”
The Congressional vote seems less about getting the nod for a “limited” military strike and more about expanding the scope of the intervention and possibly greasing the skids for open ended war and regime change, with the White House’s draft proposal giving Obama “the authority to do way more” than surgical strikes, reports MSNBC.
According to Rand Paul, it’s 50/50 on whether Congress will give Obama the green light to launch an attack which is being opposed by an increasing number of both top brass and regular servicemembers within the US military.
However, with the administration already acknowledging that the vote will merely be ceremonial, and with more US warships moving towards Syria, it seems that the attempt to secure congressional approval is merely window dressing in anticipation of an attack that has already been decided upon.
Even though President Obama delayed his golf outing Saturday to announce that he will solicit authorization from Congress before launching a military attack on Syria, there are reports out of Washington that this is but a formality.
In a move that only adds to the utter confusion that defines the president’s foreign policy, a senior State Department official tells Fox News that Obama’s decision to take military action in Syria still stands, and will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes next week to approve the use of such force.
Chief Washington correspondent James Rosen reported that this official said Obama’s decision to seek a congressional vote was a surprise to members of the National Security Council, but insisted the request for Congress to vote did not supplant the president’s earlier decision to use force in Syria, only delayed its implementation.
“That’s going to happen, anyway,” the source told Rosen, adding that that was why the president, in his Rose Garden remarks, was careful to establish that he believes he has the authority to launch such strikes without congressional authorization.
Why would “a senior State Department official be so forthcoming?
There were suggestions that Secretary of State Kerry “lost” to the chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff in the interagency process and this was a way to refute this claim, according to Fox News.
“Absolutely untrue,” the Kerry aide said, adding that everything Kerry said in his dramatic remarks on Friday was after “fully consulting with the White House.”
Sounds like business as usual in the Obama administration.
President Obama gave the egotistical game away Friday when he referred to U.S. armed forces as “my military” during a White House news conference explaining pending action against Syria.
“… I have had my military and our team look at a wide range of options,” he said. “We have consulted with allies. We’ve consulted with Congress …” (Check out the video below)
Bad move.
A guy who ticked off half the country last year when he told Americans who own successful businesses “you didn’t build that” looks pretty hollow claiming ownership over something the country inarguably built collectively.
And it didn’t take long for Twitter to come alive:
Obamaphiles who are used to making excuses for His Eloquence will probably call it a slip of the tongue, but considering it was followed immediately by “our team,” you get the impression Obama was saying exactly what he thought.
He probably does think of the military as his own. And he’s got some reasons:
He’s got a lapdog secretary of defense in Chuck “I won’t be in a policy-making position” Hagel. He’s surrounded by generals who’ve spent five years coming up with rationalizations for liberal positions like why having gays openly serving in the military is a great idea, why women should be in combat, and how, given the witch-hunt atmosphere of sexual assault in the military these days, every 18-year-old man in uniform is a rapist-in-waiting.
But having reasons for thinking so is no excuse for blurting it out, particularly on the eve of attacking another country that poses no military threat to the United States whatsoever — and never has – in what is, at bottom, a fit of imperial pique. (And even emperors have the class to say “our.”)
One thing Obama’s going to learn, fast and hard, if he goes through with dragging this country into attacking Syria:
There really is no “I” in war.
************************
USS Nimitz carrier group sails into Red Sea in ‘prudent’ move
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON | Mon Sep 2, 2013 3:30pm EDT
(Reuters) – The USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and four other ships in its strike group moved into the Red Sea early on Monday, U.S. defense officials said, describing the move as "prudent planning" in case the ships are needed for military action against Syria.
The officials said the Nimitz entered the Red Sea around 6 a.m. EDT (1000 GMT), but the strike group had not received any orders to move into the Mediterranean, where five U.S. destroyers and an amphibious ship, the USS San Antonio, remain poised for possible cruise missile strikes against Syria.
Moving the Nimitz into the Red Sea was aimed at putting more U.S. assets in place if they are needed to support what U.S. officials still describe as a limited attack against Syria after it used chemical weapons against civilians.
"It does place that strike group in a position to respond to a variety of contingencies," said one official, who was not authorized to speak publicly.
The nuclear-powered Nimitz is accompanied by the Princeton, a cruiser, and three destroyers – the William P. Lawrence, Stockdale and Shoup, according to the officials.
They said there had been no change regarding six U.S. Navy ships now in the eastern Mediterranean, but military planners were reassessing the situation given a delay in the cruise missile strikes that had been expected this past weekend.
President Barack Obama on Saturday backed off imminent strikes by the destroyers off the coast of Syria until Congress had time to vote its approval. Defense officials said the delay gave them more time to reassess which ships and other weapons will be kept in the region – and whether some may be allowed to leave. Congress returns to Washington September 9.
The U.S. Navy doubled its presence in the eastern Mediterranean in the past week, effectively adding two destroyers to the three that generally patrol the region, and diverting the San Antonio, which carries four massive CH-53 helicopters and 300 Marines, from another mission.
Two of the destroyers were due to be relieved but are now serving along with the ships that were to replace them.
PRUDENT DEPLOYMENT
It was not immediately clear how long those ships would be asked to remain in the eastern Mediterranean, but officials suggested that changes could be made to the current fleet there in coming days.
The destroyers are carrying a combined load of about 200 Tomahawk missiles, but officials say a limited strike on Syria could be accomplished with half that number.
Retired Admiral Gary Roughead, who served as chief of naval operations during the 2011 strikes on Libya, said the Navy’s decision to move the carrier into the Red Sea meant it was closer to the "points of tension."
"It’s a prudent move that provides for maximum naval flexibility in the region," Roughead, who is now a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, told Reuters. "It is not unusual to move carriers around in North Arabian Sea and Red Sea as events dictate."
Reuters reported Sunday that officials had rerouted the Nimitz carrier group, which was due to sail east around Asia to return to its home port in Everett, Washington, after being relieved in recent days by another aircraft carrier, the USS Harry S. Truman.
Officials said the USS Kearsarge, a large-deck amphibious ship, remained in North Arabian Sea, and there were no plans to move the ship into the Red Sea.
The Kearsarge, which carries 6 AV-8B Harriers, 10-12 V-22 Ospreys and helicopters, played a key role in the 2011 strikes on Libya. Two Ospreys launched from the ship helped rescue a downed F-15 pilot during that operation.
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Jackie Frank and Philip Barbara)
A deluge of duty military personnel as well as many veterans are taking to Twitter to express their opposition to the Obama administration’s plan to launch an attack on Syria.
After numerous US servicemembers posted photos of themselves holding up signs on Twitter refusing to fight on the side of Al-Qaeda in Syria, the meme developed into several different hashtag trends, including #IdidntJoin and #VetsOnSyria.
Congressman Justin Amash, a vocal critic of the Obama administration’s build-up to war, has been inundated with tweets from active duty military members and veterans in anticipation of a House vote on authorization of military action which is set to take place next week.
As we reported earlier, opposition to an attack on Syria is by no means only reserved to regular servicemembers. Numerous top brass have also gone public to express their concerns and Pentagon officials are even leaking information in a desperate bid to derail the path to war.
Many members of Congress have expressed dissatisfaction at the evidence presented to them by the administration in behind closed door meetings.
In a related development, the French government released an intelligence report today which alleged “massive use of chemical agents” by the Syrian government last month. The report was “based… in part on dozens of videos culled by French intelligence services.” In other words, this damning “intelligence” report relies primarily on YouTube videos of the attack, which offer no clues whatsoever to who the culprits even were.
President Bashar Al-Assad also warned today that potential western military intervention in Syria could spark a “regional war,” adding that “chaos and extremism will spread” if Obama green lights an attack which he has signaled will take place no matter which way Congress votes.
Read a selection of tweets received by Congressman Amash from current and former members of the military below
.
Below are some more images from the #IdidntJoin meme.
French president Francois Hollande has called for bombing Syria. Photo: Guillaume Paumier
Socialists love war. Mussolini was a socialist before he invented fascism. He engaged in mass murder in Libya, Somalia, Ethiopia and helped his fascist buddy Franco win the Spanish Civil War. Hitler was a socialist, although establishment historians deny this. Nazi, after all, is short for Nationalsozialismus, or national socialism. Hitler came to power with the help of German industrialists and American bankers. It was the ruling elite who fostered socialism and fascism, the most effective control systems yet imposed on humanity.
Authoritarian control freaks have used the policy of siege socialism to consolidate power and impose iron-fisted rule. Hitler used it to conquer the Sudetenland and then the rest of Europe. Socialists opposed to imperialism and violence perpetuated by the state often understand how communists use naked and violent power to conquer and dominate. Michael Parenti, for instance, writes how the Soviet system was a form of siege socialism, a “beleaguered and therefore unattractive and grim kind of socialism,” asJacques T. Pauwels writes.
Socialism’s love affair with violence continues to this day. Thus it is not surprising that Francois Hollande – the current president of France, the first secretary of the French Socialist Party and a co-prince of Andorra – is one of Obama’s most ardent supporters. Like Obama, Hollande wants to illegally bomb Syria and either kill (like Gaddafi was killed) or merely depose its current leader, Bashar al-Assad.
Despite the fact the French people, like the American people, are not interested in attacking Syria, Hollande has enthusiastically called for attacking the country. “The chemical massacre of Damascus cannot and must not remain unpunished,” Hollande said in an interview on Friday with the newspaper Le Monde, according to USA Today. “There are few countries that have the capacity to inflict a sanction by the appropriate means. France is one of them. We are ready,” he said.
Hollande cited a document handed down from French intelligence and leaked to the Journal du Dimanche. It states that the Syrian government has “several hundred tons of mustard gas” and “sarin (gas)” and claims that at least 281 deaths can be attributed to the attack in areas outside Damascus.
Although widely viewed as a milquetoast socialist bureaucrat, Hollande showed his chops and taste for state violence and intervention in the affairs of other countries in January when he sent troops to chase Islamic fanatics around northern Mali. Now he wants to send troops into Syria – or at least stand on the sidelines cheering as the United States bombs the country back to the Stone Age.
Obama is a socialist, too, although not of the European pedigree, a lineage that produced some of the worst mass murderers in history. That’s why he loves war and organized mass murder just like his comrade Francois Hollande. War is a political tool same as rigging election boxes and strong-arming the opposition.
Of course, this really isn’t fair. Because Obama and Hollande, while they might be politically socialist, have very little to do with the decisions that lead to war and invading small and largely defenseless countries. Despite the control system – socialism, communism, and “democracy” (where we are said to control ourselves) – the global elite invariably use violence to gain control and steal valuable assets.
“War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it,” said Mussolini, the Nietzsche-loving nihilist, socialist journalist, newspaper editor, and fascist dictator.
Such machismo is no longer required as an excuse to wage state violence against targeted victims. Now we do it for the children. Government wages modern war under the banner of humanitarianism. It’s even more effective when a woman – for instance, Samantha Power – does the arguing that neighborhoods in Damascus should be leveled in exchange for a dictator using chemical weapons (never mind this cannot be verified).
It works much more effectively than the old style of conquering nations and shuffling around pawns on the geopolitical chessboard.
BREAKING: DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUST LEGALIZE MARIJUANA?
Posted by Michael Lotfi
August 30, 2013
As states continue to nullify federal laws against marijuana and hemp, the federal government has been faced with an important question. It’s been more than 75 years, and marijuana and hemp still remain illegal. Never mind the total lack of reasoning behind the federal government’s ban. Is it time to end the law?
Less than 24 hours ago, it all came crashing down. According to the Associated Press, the justice department said that states can allow citizens to use the drug, license people to grow it and allow them to purchase it in stores. As long as the drug is kept away from the black market, children and federal property– It’s a go!
According to Mike Maharrey, national communications director for the Tenth Amendment Center:
“The genie is out of the bottle and she won’t ever go back in. The feds have lost and they know it. No matter how Holder and the DEA couch their words in an attempt to maintain an illusion of control, state actions continue to effectively nullify these unconstitutional marijuana laws.“
When asked if the federal government just essentially legalized marijuana Maharrey responded:
“The announcement makes it clear the feds have no will to fight the states on weed. They can call it an “illegal drug” all they want, but if they can’t, or won’t, stop people from using marijuana, their “law” means nothing.”
The recent surge in nullification has sent states fighting against the federal government on pot use. It would seem that the federal government just gave up. A major victory for the states- no doubt.
Real News, False Flag News, Globalization News, Zionist Illuminati News, Agenda 21 News, Police State News… All the News you Dont get and Wont get on the Controlled Mainstream Media Giant Networks
By Michael Snyder, on September 3rd, 2013 
, 
Canadians Under News Tyranny 