Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria
Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.
The revelations come amid high tension in the Middle East, with US, British, and French warship poised for missile strikes in Syria. Iran has threatened to retaliate.
The strategic jitters pushed Brent crude prices to a five-month high of $112 a barrel. “We are only one incident away from a serious oil spike. The market is a lot tighter than people think,” said Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review.
Leaked transcripts of a closed-door meeting between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan shed an extraordinary light on the hard-nosed Realpolitik of the two sides.
Prince Bandar, head of Saudi intelligence, allegedly confronted the Kremlin with a mix of inducements and threats in a bid to break the deadlock over Syria. “Let us examine how to put together a unified Russian-Saudi strategy on the subject of oil. The aim is to agree on the price of oil and production quantities that keep the price stable in global oil markets,” he said at the four-hour meeting with Mr Putin. They met at Mr Putin’s dacha outside Moscow three weeks ago.
“We understand Russia’s great interest in the oil and gas in the Mediterranean from Israel to Cyprus. And we understand the importance of the Russian gas pipeline to Europe. We are not interested in competing with that. We can cooperate in this area,” he said, purporting to speak with the full backing of the US.
The talks appear to offer an alliance between the OPEC cartel and Russia, which together produce over 40m barrels a day of oil, 45pc of global output. Such a move would alter the strategic landscape.
The details of the talks were first leaked to the Russian press. A more detailed version has since appeared in the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, which has Hezbollah links and is hostile to the Saudis.
As-Safir said Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said.
Prince Bandar went on to say that Chechens operating in Syria were a pressure tool that could be switched on an off. “These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria’s political future.”
President Putin has long been pushing for a global gas cartel, issuing the `Moscow Declaration’ last to month “defend suppliers and resist unfair pressure”. This would entail beefing up the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF), a talking shop.
Mr Skrebowski said it is unclear what the Saudis can really offer the Russians on gas, beyond using leverage over Qatar and others to cut output of liquefied natural gas (LGN). “The Qataris are not going to obey Saudi orders,” he said.
Saudi Arabia could help boost oil prices by restricting its own supply. This would be a shot in the arm for Russia, which is near recession and relies on an oil price near $100 to fund the budget.
But it would be a dangerous strategy for the Saudis if it pushed prices to levels that endangered the world’s fragile economic recovery. Crude oil stocks in the US have already fallen sharply this year. Goldman Sachs said the “surplus cushion” in global stocks built up since 2008 has been completely eliminated.
Mr Skrebowski said trouble is brewing in a string of key supply states. “Libya is reverting to war lordism. Nigerian is drifting into a bandit state with steady loss of output. And Iraq is going back to the sort of Sunni-Shia civil war we saw in 2006-2007,” he said.
The Putin-Bandar meeting was stormy, replete with warnings of a “dramatic turn” in Syria. Mr Putin was unmoved by the Saudi offer, though western pressure has escalated since then. “Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters,” he said, referring to footage showing a Jihadist rebel eating the heart and liver of a Syrian soldier.
Prince Bandar in turn warned that there can be “no escape from the military option” if Russia declines the olive branch. Events are unfolding exactly as he foretold.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... Syria.html
Syria
Re: Syria
What a bloody mess?
Don't you just love Muslims going about what they do best? Chop each other to kingdom come!
These two charts summarize the Syria cauldron with imminent attack on Syria by the United States, Britain and France.
Interesting to see that USA supports Syrian rebels who are also supported by Hamas and al-Qaeda, both of which the USA hates.
Don't you just love Muslims going about what they do best? Chop each other to kingdom come!
These two charts summarize the Syria cauldron with imminent attack on Syria by the United States, Britain and France.
Interesting to see that USA supports Syrian rebels who are also supported by Hamas and al-Qaeda, both of which the USA hates.
Re: Syria
Haha.. The brainwashing session have began.. The war propaganda is on and all the expert are back.. The tv screens are filled with scenes of horror and all this is reminding me of the beginning of the Afgan/Iraq war, where everything is gong to be analyzed, justified and bombarded!!
Syria’s cultural heritage looted and destroyed by ravages of
Syria’s cultural heritage looted and destroyed by ravages of war
As the world argues over how to prevent more civilian deaths in Syria, UNESCO warned on Thursday that a rich cultural heritage was being devastated by the conflict now in its third year.
Clashes have damaged historical sites and buildings throughout the country, from Aleppo’s Umayyad Mosque to the Crac des Chevaliers castle dating from the 13th century Crusades.
But the irreversible damage comes from the illegal looting for export of artefacts from archaeological sites, said the U.N. cultural arm’s assistant director-general for culture, Francesco Bandarin.
“We had it in Iraq, we had it in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Mali,” Bandarin said. “It is a typical by-product of war. Unfortunately it’s very difficult to stop.”
Organized, armed gangs sometimes involving hundreds of hired men who threaten local residents against retaliation are taking advantage of a lack of security at many archaeological digging sites.
A comparison of satellite images from before the crisis and today at Apamea, known for its extensive Hellenistic ruins, shows clearly the scale of looting and destruction, UNESCO said.
Precious objects have been identified for sale in Beirut and international police agency Interpol has confiscated 18 Syrian mosaics and 73 other artefacts at the Lebanese border, the agency said. It has appealed to neighbouring countries to better control their borders against the trafficking of art.
UNESCO’s warning comes as the West considers whether to launch a military strike against Syria in response to last week’s chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of people.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... e14026910/
As the world argues over how to prevent more civilian deaths in Syria, UNESCO warned on Thursday that a rich cultural heritage was being devastated by the conflict now in its third year.
Clashes have damaged historical sites and buildings throughout the country, from Aleppo’s Umayyad Mosque to the Crac des Chevaliers castle dating from the 13th century Crusades.
But the irreversible damage comes from the illegal looting for export of artefacts from archaeological sites, said the U.N. cultural arm’s assistant director-general for culture, Francesco Bandarin.
“We had it in Iraq, we had it in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Mali,” Bandarin said. “It is a typical by-product of war. Unfortunately it’s very difficult to stop.”
Organized, armed gangs sometimes involving hundreds of hired men who threaten local residents against retaliation are taking advantage of a lack of security at many archaeological digging sites.
A comparison of satellite images from before the crisis and today at Apamea, known for its extensive Hellenistic ruins, shows clearly the scale of looting and destruction, UNESCO said.
Precious objects have been identified for sale in Beirut and international police agency Interpol has confiscated 18 Syrian mosaics and 73 other artefacts at the Lebanese border, the agency said. It has appealed to neighbouring countries to better control their borders against the trafficking of art.
UNESCO’s warning comes as the West considers whether to launch a military strike against Syria in response to last week’s chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of people.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... e14026910/
Re: Syria
Cui bono? Who benefits?
The USA and its allies after oil grab.
Israelis want to destroy civilization in all Arab States so that they can continue expansion of Israel to include Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and parts of Iraq.
The Saudi and Arab Gulf Royal Families are too happy to let Americans plunder their wealth as long as their families are well taken care of.
Syria will be attacked because both Saudis and Israelis want it. Saudis spread terror among Muslims by financing al-Qaeda. This keeps al-Qaeda busy away from its own backyard. Syria is ruled by a nasty family from a fringe Shia sect. Its destruction would remove one ally that Iran has, another target of the 3-power axis. When Syria is taken out of equation, the axis will be free to target Iran. And the USA will have their wealth.
As far as the destruction of heritage is concerned, Saudis have no regret. They simply do not care as long as they get their petro-dollars. And Muslims the word over have neither the wealth nor the power to confront the axis. May God protect Muslims.
The USA and its allies after oil grab.
Israelis want to destroy civilization in all Arab States so that they can continue expansion of Israel to include Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and parts of Iraq.
The Saudi and Arab Gulf Royal Families are too happy to let Americans plunder their wealth as long as their families are well taken care of.
Syria will be attacked because both Saudis and Israelis want it. Saudis spread terror among Muslims by financing al-Qaeda. This keeps al-Qaeda busy away from its own backyard. Syria is ruled by a nasty family from a fringe Shia sect. Its destruction would remove one ally that Iran has, another target of the 3-power axis. When Syria is taken out of equation, the axis will be free to target Iran. And the USA will have their wealth.
As far as the destruction of heritage is concerned, Saudis have no regret. They simply do not care as long as they get their petro-dollars. And Muslims the word over have neither the wealth nor the power to confront the axis. May God protect Muslims.
Re: Syria
http://www.gloria-center.org/2013/08/al ... -in-syria/
Here is an article I read a couple of days ago, about Al qaede attacking and slaughtering innocent Kurdish women and children. So many different groups, in this small area is mind boggling..
Here is an article I read a couple of days ago, about Al qaede attacking and slaughtering innocent Kurdish women and children. So many different groups, in this small area is mind boggling..
Re: Syria
Obama a Bush clone in drive for Syrian invasion - Pushkov
The United States of America, under the leadership of Nobel Peace Prize winning President Barack Hussein Obama, is on the verge of invading the sovereign nation of Syria and beginning yet another war. The pretext for the unilaterally led invasion is one that the U.S. has been attempting to get the world to believe for approximately a year now, namely the supposed use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Army.
On Sunday the Russian Federation issued a warning to the United States using some of its strongest language yet. Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in an official statement: “We strongly urge those who, by attempting to impose their own results on the UN experts, are raising the possibility of a military operation in Syria to use their common sense and refrain from committing a tragic mistake".
Mr. Lukashevich was referring to the expected results of a mission by United Nations investigators, which has been welcomed and approved by the Syrian Government, to ascertain the usage of chemical weapons in Syria in light of a massive attack on August 21st which killed hundreds. Russia has also welcomed Damascus' decision to allow the UN inspectors to fulfill their mission and has repeatedly stated that the Syrian Government and President Bashar al-Assad’s approach has been constructive and positive. Russia has also noted on numerous occasions the lack of similar cooperation by the so-called armed “opposition” forces.
On Friday Mr. Lukashevich stated that the chemical weapons attack was pre-planned and that there is mounting evidence that it was organized as a provocation. “We’re getting more new evidence that this criminal act was of a provocative nature. In particular, there are reports that the materials used in the incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack. Thus, it was a pre-planned action”.
The Damascus chemical attack accusations indicate the launch of “another anti-Syrian propaganda wave” and, in this context, calls on the UN Security Council to immediately use force in Syria “heard from some EU capitals” are “unacceptable”, Lukashevich said.
The United States has planned a Syrian invasion and that is their goal. The use of chemical weapons, just like Sadam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction, is the pretext that the U.S. has determined they will use to invade the country and remove the elected leader of a secular country from power despite the fact that such an invasion will throw the entire Middle East into chaos and provoke armed conflict.
The United States has blindly refused to deal diplomatically with the Syrian Government instead following its own preconceived plan for the country. Not only has the U.S. refused to seek a diplomatic resolution to the internal conflict in the country, but the United States has imported, trained, funded, armed and otherwise supported every kind of extremist mercenary and radical element in a bid to force President Bashar al-Assad from power.
Evidence has shown that groups such as the U.S. backed terrorist group, the al-Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front, have been orchestrating attacks with (and stockpiling) chemical weapons against regular Syrian Army forces and civilians. On Sunday Al-Nusra pledged to attack Syria’s Alawites and President al-Assad.
It is important to note that not only would the Alawites be in danger if U.S. backed Islamic terrorists succeed in Syria but all minorities including Jews, Christians, other Muslim denominations, as well as ethnic minorities would also face what could become massive genocide and ethnic cleansing.
A witness on the ground, Journalist Yara Saleh of the Al-Ihbariya Syrian information channel, recently provided The Voice of Russia with details of a chemical weapons stash discovered near Damascus. She said: “The rebels launched two missiles filled with poisonous gas in the Jobar neighbourhood which caused Syrian soldiers’ nausea and asphyxia”.
“Some time later, when the Syrian army managed to take that suburb by storm, they found the warehouse and laboratory where shells were stored and stuffed with poisonous agents. Boxes with new gas masks were also found, they carried labels ‘Made in US’. The fact that the rebels did not use those gas masks proves that they had not been attacked with any poisonous gases”.
“Two glass vessels with labels ‘Made in Saudi Arabia’ were also found there. Weapons and explosives made in Saudi Arabia were found in Syria in the past as well. Experts will determine the contents of those vessels”.
“In addition, they found plastic vessels containing unidentified chemicals, some strange white powder and a lot of various explosives and munitions.”
“The Syrian government is concerned that the rebels might have more stocks of such chemical agents that they could use against civilians.”
These are not the first such reports but the United States has refused to listen to or consider any information that does not fit its preconceived invasion scenario. The U.S. also refuses, either due to ignorance or by design, to consider the fact that an armed invasion of Syria will throw the entire region into utter chaos and even place its staunch ally Israel in the worst danger it may ever have been in.
It would appear that the U.S. and Israeli military intelligence bodies believe they can contain the ensuing massive bloodshed, or at least they claim so to their respective populaces, but it is unlikely that they will escape unscathed. Obama has stated that there will be no U.S. troops in Syria, which means that the U.S. will attempt to fight its war by proxy or using air strikes and other means.
Another senior Russian official, Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Lower House of the Russian Parliament’s International Affairs Committee, lashed out at U.S. Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama, calling him a “clone” of George W. Bush in his drive for war.
“Obama is restlessly heading towards war in Syria as Bush was heading towards war in Iraq. Like in Iraq, this war would be illegitimate and Obama will become Bush’s clone,” said Pushkov.
Syria’s information minister, Omran Zoabi, said on Saturday that any US-led military action against Syria would be “no picnic”.
“US military intervention will create a very serious fallout and a ball of fire that will inflame the Middle East”, Syria’s official SANA news agency quoted him as saying.
United Nations inspectors are set to begin their work on Monday, hopefully Washington will await the results of those inspections before launching another near-sighted self-serving aggressive invasion of yet another small country.
John Robles
http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_08_25/Oba ... hkov-0775/
The United States of America, under the leadership of Nobel Peace Prize winning President Barack Hussein Obama, is on the verge of invading the sovereign nation of Syria and beginning yet another war. The pretext for the unilaterally led invasion is one that the U.S. has been attempting to get the world to believe for approximately a year now, namely the supposed use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Army.
On Sunday the Russian Federation issued a warning to the United States using some of its strongest language yet. Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in an official statement: “We strongly urge those who, by attempting to impose their own results on the UN experts, are raising the possibility of a military operation in Syria to use their common sense and refrain from committing a tragic mistake".
Mr. Lukashevich was referring to the expected results of a mission by United Nations investigators, which has been welcomed and approved by the Syrian Government, to ascertain the usage of chemical weapons in Syria in light of a massive attack on August 21st which killed hundreds. Russia has also welcomed Damascus' decision to allow the UN inspectors to fulfill their mission and has repeatedly stated that the Syrian Government and President Bashar al-Assad’s approach has been constructive and positive. Russia has also noted on numerous occasions the lack of similar cooperation by the so-called armed “opposition” forces.
On Friday Mr. Lukashevich stated that the chemical weapons attack was pre-planned and that there is mounting evidence that it was organized as a provocation. “We’re getting more new evidence that this criminal act was of a provocative nature. In particular, there are reports that the materials used in the incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack. Thus, it was a pre-planned action”.
The Damascus chemical attack accusations indicate the launch of “another anti-Syrian propaganda wave” and, in this context, calls on the UN Security Council to immediately use force in Syria “heard from some EU capitals” are “unacceptable”, Lukashevich said.
The United States has planned a Syrian invasion and that is their goal. The use of chemical weapons, just like Sadam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction, is the pretext that the U.S. has determined they will use to invade the country and remove the elected leader of a secular country from power despite the fact that such an invasion will throw the entire Middle East into chaos and provoke armed conflict.
The United States has blindly refused to deal diplomatically with the Syrian Government instead following its own preconceived plan for the country. Not only has the U.S. refused to seek a diplomatic resolution to the internal conflict in the country, but the United States has imported, trained, funded, armed and otherwise supported every kind of extremist mercenary and radical element in a bid to force President Bashar al-Assad from power.
Evidence has shown that groups such as the U.S. backed terrorist group, the al-Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front, have been orchestrating attacks with (and stockpiling) chemical weapons against regular Syrian Army forces and civilians. On Sunday Al-Nusra pledged to attack Syria’s Alawites and President al-Assad.
It is important to note that not only would the Alawites be in danger if U.S. backed Islamic terrorists succeed in Syria but all minorities including Jews, Christians, other Muslim denominations, as well as ethnic minorities would also face what could become massive genocide and ethnic cleansing.
A witness on the ground, Journalist Yara Saleh of the Al-Ihbariya Syrian information channel, recently provided The Voice of Russia with details of a chemical weapons stash discovered near Damascus. She said: “The rebels launched two missiles filled with poisonous gas in the Jobar neighbourhood which caused Syrian soldiers’ nausea and asphyxia”.
“Some time later, when the Syrian army managed to take that suburb by storm, they found the warehouse and laboratory where shells were stored and stuffed with poisonous agents. Boxes with new gas masks were also found, they carried labels ‘Made in US’. The fact that the rebels did not use those gas masks proves that they had not been attacked with any poisonous gases”.
“Two glass vessels with labels ‘Made in Saudi Arabia’ were also found there. Weapons and explosives made in Saudi Arabia were found in Syria in the past as well. Experts will determine the contents of those vessels”.
“In addition, they found plastic vessels containing unidentified chemicals, some strange white powder and a lot of various explosives and munitions.”
“The Syrian government is concerned that the rebels might have more stocks of such chemical agents that they could use against civilians.”
These are not the first such reports but the United States has refused to listen to or consider any information that does not fit its preconceived invasion scenario. The U.S. also refuses, either due to ignorance or by design, to consider the fact that an armed invasion of Syria will throw the entire region into utter chaos and even place its staunch ally Israel in the worst danger it may ever have been in.
It would appear that the U.S. and Israeli military intelligence bodies believe they can contain the ensuing massive bloodshed, or at least they claim so to their respective populaces, but it is unlikely that they will escape unscathed. Obama has stated that there will be no U.S. troops in Syria, which means that the U.S. will attempt to fight its war by proxy or using air strikes and other means.
Another senior Russian official, Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Lower House of the Russian Parliament’s International Affairs Committee, lashed out at U.S. Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama, calling him a “clone” of George W. Bush in his drive for war.
“Obama is restlessly heading towards war in Syria as Bush was heading towards war in Iraq. Like in Iraq, this war would be illegitimate and Obama will become Bush’s clone,” said Pushkov.
Syria’s information minister, Omran Zoabi, said on Saturday that any US-led military action against Syria would be “no picnic”.
“US military intervention will create a very serious fallout and a ball of fire that will inflame the Middle East”, Syria’s official SANA news agency quoted him as saying.
United Nations inspectors are set to begin their work on Monday, hopefully Washington will await the results of those inspections before launching another near-sighted self-serving aggressive invasion of yet another small country.
John Robles
http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_08_25/Oba ... hkov-0775/
Obama’s intervention in Syria might make him a criminal terr
Obama’s intervention in Syria might make him a criminal terrorist supporter
As President Barack Obama weighs up a military strike in Syria, prominent legal and political experts consider possible scenarios for Mr Obama’s fate if he decides to pull the trigger. The Voice of Russia made a compilation of the most intriguing opinions, ranging from Obama facing a Hague Tribunal for war crimes, becoming an Al-Qaeda supporter, being perceived as a failed diplomat, and being seen as the undeserving recipient of his Nobel Peace Prize.
http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_08_31/Oba ... rter-9825/
As President Barack Obama weighs up a military strike in Syria, prominent legal and political experts consider possible scenarios for Mr Obama’s fate if he decides to pull the trigger. The Voice of Russia made a compilation of the most intriguing opinions, ranging from Obama facing a Hague Tribunal for war crimes, becoming an Al-Qaeda supporter, being perceived as a failed diplomat, and being seen as the undeserving recipient of his Nobel Peace Prize.
http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_08_31/Oba ... rter-9825/
Re: Syria
Regardless what Obama or anyone else does, This whole Syria situation was summarized on Friday Khutba by one of the Imam (prayer leader of the Masjid) who happens to be from Syria and returned to USA after his town was destroyed by Syrian Govt. His quotes
"The killing in Syria is not that Shias are killing Sunnis or that Sunnis are killing Shias but it a Muslim who is killing another Muslim, and it is because as Muslim we forgot that we will be answerable to Allah on the day of judgement why we went against the command of Allah who said do not kill your brothers and sisters. We have forgotten Allah and the day of judgment and now talk about Shia killing Sunni or Sunni killing Shia instead of Muslims killing Muslims"
It is shame that we Muslims are were good in blaming others for our own acts. Are we that stupid that we can blame USA-Israel for our own disunity. Unfortunately Muslim leadership and that includes Kothari Goons are so greedy and egoistical that they could care less about death and destruction of Muslim lives as long as they enjoy the worldly pleasures.
"The killing in Syria is not that Shias are killing Sunnis or that Sunnis are killing Shias but it a Muslim who is killing another Muslim, and it is because as Muslim we forgot that we will be answerable to Allah on the day of judgement why we went against the command of Allah who said do not kill your brothers and sisters. We have forgotten Allah and the day of judgment and now talk about Shia killing Sunni or Sunni killing Shia instead of Muslims killing Muslims"
It is shame that we Muslims are were good in blaming others for our own acts. Are we that stupid that we can blame USA-Israel for our own disunity. Unfortunately Muslim leadership and that includes Kothari Goons are so greedy and egoistical that they could care less about death and destruction of Muslim lives as long as they enjoy the worldly pleasures.
Attack on Syria may cause massive damage to the US
The United States of America and their leader Barrack Hussein Obama have spent billions of dollars in Syria, at a time when US taxpayers are suffering, attempting to bring about a change of regime. The money has been spent funding al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorists to destabilize the country, groups that they have parroted time and time again as being the number one enemies of the American people.
Their strategy was failing, like all of their strategies are bound to fail because they lack vision and true understanding of the world and its people. They created a red line, most likely launched a black operation to make that red line a reality and now with extreme desperate irrational urgency, they want to carry out their plan to attack Syria. That is their goal, they set it, and no matter what happens they will obtusely carry it out without regard for the consequences and without forward planning.
I would put forward that the goal of the United States is not to remove President Bashar Al-Assad, just as it is not to protect the Syrian people. As for Al-Assad he offered to step down multiple times in the past and if the true goal was simply removing him, they could have assassinated him years ago. Unless the CIA has grown completely incompetent that is.
As for the Syrian people, it is clear that all of the bloodshed and loss of life in the country has been caused because of, and almost exclusively by, the terrorist elements that the United States has been training, funding, arming and importing.
So if they do not want to remove Assad what do they want? Now this is part of the secret geopolitical agenda they seek for the Middle East. I would put forward that the real goal is to destabilize and destroy the country and the people and throw Syria into anarchy. This will create yet another weak and broken country from which they can steal resources and which they can manipulate as they wish. Look at the record: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and all of the other countries in the Middle East that they have destabilized and destroyed through other means.
Ala Zbigniew Brzeznski and his plans to destabilize Russia into sixty-some-odd autonomous republics, the plans for the Middle East are almost identical, and the people of all of these countries just get in the way. Why else attack countries that pose no threat? Iraq never threatened America, nor did Afghanistan or Libya. Neither has Syria.
These states did possess independent foreign policies and that has been their only crime. Other than of course, in the case of Iraq and Libya, the fact that hours before the attacks on their countries, the leaders changed the trade in oil from the dollar to the euro. Something that would completely destroy the United States if all of the countries of the world followed suit. Hence they need to destabilize the economy of Europe and all of the instruments that have been implemented to carry that out. The US cannot allow the euro to grow as an alternative currency, because the US economy will be destroyed. The United States has technically long been economically bankrupt. As for moral, well that is also obvious.
It is interesting to note, from a militarily strategic viewpoint, that by intentionally telegraphing that they are planning to attack, and even setting the date, they are guaranteeing that President Al-Assad will be protected and they are contributing to the massive civilian losses that will occur.
There will be no chance of a “surgical strike” because all of the important targets will already be moved or protected. So in order to achieve whatever military objectives there are this will require even more fire power and more missiles, something which of course will be very profitable and beneficial for Raytheon and all of the other US war contractors. Telegraphing will also allow for Syria to set up defenses, if it has not already, to knock all of the US’s million dollar missiles out of the sky. Something it has every right to do.
The plan to strike Syria is not only one of cowardice and an admission of utter and complete failure by the United States on the diplomatic front but it is also illegal without a United Nations resolution and an imminent threat to America itself. It is obviously cowardly because launching missiles while fearfully hiding behind a shield where there is no threat to yourself is not something that an honorable soldier on a battlefield would do. It is the tactic of a coward.
This tactic however is necessary for Obama because when the massive loss of American lives begins, the American people will rise up and no longer support all of the callous unthinking military adventures. Hence what some view as the illogical funding of Al-Qaeda and terrorists to carry out the dirty work.
What will happen when these terrorist elements begin to realize that they have been merely disposable pawns for the US and that they have been killing their own brothers and mothers and sisters? Of course the US has not thought of that. The backlash when Al-Qaeda and all of the motley groups of terrorists realize they have been killing their brethren for the enemy will be monumental and Americans will finally see what real terrorism is all about, I believe that is a given. But that is okay for Washington too, they have all of the plans in place and this will allow the military industrial complex to expand and invade even more countries. What are a few American lives?
What about Israel? As I have said in the past, in reality the United States does not care about Israel. The maelstrom that will occur if the US strikes Syria will be monumental and right in the middle of it will be the Jewish state. Washington, thousands of miles away, behind a missile shield, with all of its leaders protected and hiding in bunkers, will be safe. Of course the US has convinced Israel that they are safe, but I beg to differ.
Let this be a warning then to reactionary proponents of an attack on Syria: the results will be monumental and may lead to the self-destruction of America both economically and politically. Why? For one it will further bankrupt an already decimated economy. Two, it will also polarize enemies and cause countries around the world to strike back, meaning the world community may in fact realize that it is time to reign in and end the continual invasions and aggressive wars being waged by the US
This will be particularly true when it is revealed that the chemical attack in Syria was a black operation to give Obama his pretext to carry out another Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning-act-of-aggression. If the world wakes up that is.
This last point will no doubt fall on deaf ears, or in this case “on blind eyes”, but in reality the US is missing a very important opportunity in Syria, and that is a chance to rebuild its reputation and become a respected intelligent and grown up member and leader of the world community by simply promoting a peaceful resolution. The world is truly tired of US bombs and bellicose rhetoric and the actions of an arrogant one-world-power wantonly bashing and bullying its way across the globe.
My thoughts are with the Syrian people and my hope is that someone, somewhere, with the power to stop this madness will listen. How about it President of the United States of America Barrack Hussein Obama? Maybe it is time to use diplomacy and work for peace and to finally put the weapons down? You have a Nobel Peace Prize after all. Or does that mean nothing?
John Robles
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_08_2 ... e-US-1204/
Their strategy was failing, like all of their strategies are bound to fail because they lack vision and true understanding of the world and its people. They created a red line, most likely launched a black operation to make that red line a reality and now with extreme desperate irrational urgency, they want to carry out their plan to attack Syria. That is their goal, they set it, and no matter what happens they will obtusely carry it out without regard for the consequences and without forward planning.
I would put forward that the goal of the United States is not to remove President Bashar Al-Assad, just as it is not to protect the Syrian people. As for Al-Assad he offered to step down multiple times in the past and if the true goal was simply removing him, they could have assassinated him years ago. Unless the CIA has grown completely incompetent that is.
As for the Syrian people, it is clear that all of the bloodshed and loss of life in the country has been caused because of, and almost exclusively by, the terrorist elements that the United States has been training, funding, arming and importing.
So if they do not want to remove Assad what do they want? Now this is part of the secret geopolitical agenda they seek for the Middle East. I would put forward that the real goal is to destabilize and destroy the country and the people and throw Syria into anarchy. This will create yet another weak and broken country from which they can steal resources and which they can manipulate as they wish. Look at the record: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and all of the other countries in the Middle East that they have destabilized and destroyed through other means.
Ala Zbigniew Brzeznski and his plans to destabilize Russia into sixty-some-odd autonomous republics, the plans for the Middle East are almost identical, and the people of all of these countries just get in the way. Why else attack countries that pose no threat? Iraq never threatened America, nor did Afghanistan or Libya. Neither has Syria.
These states did possess independent foreign policies and that has been their only crime. Other than of course, in the case of Iraq and Libya, the fact that hours before the attacks on their countries, the leaders changed the trade in oil from the dollar to the euro. Something that would completely destroy the United States if all of the countries of the world followed suit. Hence they need to destabilize the economy of Europe and all of the instruments that have been implemented to carry that out. The US cannot allow the euro to grow as an alternative currency, because the US economy will be destroyed. The United States has technically long been economically bankrupt. As for moral, well that is also obvious.
It is interesting to note, from a militarily strategic viewpoint, that by intentionally telegraphing that they are planning to attack, and even setting the date, they are guaranteeing that President Al-Assad will be protected and they are contributing to the massive civilian losses that will occur.
There will be no chance of a “surgical strike” because all of the important targets will already be moved or protected. So in order to achieve whatever military objectives there are this will require even more fire power and more missiles, something which of course will be very profitable and beneficial for Raytheon and all of the other US war contractors. Telegraphing will also allow for Syria to set up defenses, if it has not already, to knock all of the US’s million dollar missiles out of the sky. Something it has every right to do.
The plan to strike Syria is not only one of cowardice and an admission of utter and complete failure by the United States on the diplomatic front but it is also illegal without a United Nations resolution and an imminent threat to America itself. It is obviously cowardly because launching missiles while fearfully hiding behind a shield where there is no threat to yourself is not something that an honorable soldier on a battlefield would do. It is the tactic of a coward.
This tactic however is necessary for Obama because when the massive loss of American lives begins, the American people will rise up and no longer support all of the callous unthinking military adventures. Hence what some view as the illogical funding of Al-Qaeda and terrorists to carry out the dirty work.
What will happen when these terrorist elements begin to realize that they have been merely disposable pawns for the US and that they have been killing their own brothers and mothers and sisters? Of course the US has not thought of that. The backlash when Al-Qaeda and all of the motley groups of terrorists realize they have been killing their brethren for the enemy will be monumental and Americans will finally see what real terrorism is all about, I believe that is a given. But that is okay for Washington too, they have all of the plans in place and this will allow the military industrial complex to expand and invade even more countries. What are a few American lives?
What about Israel? As I have said in the past, in reality the United States does not care about Israel. The maelstrom that will occur if the US strikes Syria will be monumental and right in the middle of it will be the Jewish state. Washington, thousands of miles away, behind a missile shield, with all of its leaders protected and hiding in bunkers, will be safe. Of course the US has convinced Israel that they are safe, but I beg to differ.
Let this be a warning then to reactionary proponents of an attack on Syria: the results will be monumental and may lead to the self-destruction of America both economically and politically. Why? For one it will further bankrupt an already decimated economy. Two, it will also polarize enemies and cause countries around the world to strike back, meaning the world community may in fact realize that it is time to reign in and end the continual invasions and aggressive wars being waged by the US
This will be particularly true when it is revealed that the chemical attack in Syria was a black operation to give Obama his pretext to carry out another Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning-act-of-aggression. If the world wakes up that is.
This last point will no doubt fall on deaf ears, or in this case “on blind eyes”, but in reality the US is missing a very important opportunity in Syria, and that is a chance to rebuild its reputation and become a respected intelligent and grown up member and leader of the world community by simply promoting a peaceful resolution. The world is truly tired of US bombs and bellicose rhetoric and the actions of an arrogant one-world-power wantonly bashing and bullying its way across the globe.
My thoughts are with the Syrian people and my hope is that someone, somewhere, with the power to stop this madness will listen. How about it President of the United States of America Barrack Hussein Obama? Maybe it is time to use diplomacy and work for peace and to finally put the weapons down? You have a Nobel Peace Prize after all. Or does that mean nothing?
John Robles
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_08_2 ... e-US-1204/
Saudi Prince Bandar behind chemical attack in Syria: Report
Saudi Prince Bandar behind chemical attack in Syria: Report
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/30 ... plied-gas/
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/30 ... plied-gas/
Is The Western Media Promoting War on Syria
Is The Western Media Promoting War on Syria?
As the United States threatens to target Syrian militarily, how can we expect the military strikes to be covered?
First, there are very few US or western journalists stationed in Syria , and many of the citizen reporters on the ground have become casualties, and/or have been intimidated and forced to leave.
That assures poor coverage of those who will be hurt or become predictable and disposable “collateral damage.”
A front page New York Times article on Friday reporting on Syria, carries no dateline and was filed from Beirut. The Times explains that mainstream journalists cannot work freely in Syria, and contends that social media offers better coverage.
The paper quotes Absi Smesem, Syrian journalist, as saying, “There are no objective sources of information on either side, neither with the regime nor the rebels .We need to get out of this Facebook phase, where all we do is whine and complain about the regime,” he said.
Writing on Salon, in a piece picked up by Mediachannel.org, Patrick L Smith indicts western “lapdog media,” asking,
“When was it that journalists began thinking of themselves as national security operatives? It is getting unbearable, this errand-boy act in the face of power. If journalists did their jobs properly we would get into fewer messes such as Syria and would be more nationally secure. As it is now, the press is a defective piece in the democratic mechanism.”
There will likely be western reporters embedded on – American naval ships expected to unleash “tomahawk “cruise missiles, but they realistically tell us except some technical details as the missiles lift off in in flashes. They certainly cannot report on expected civilian casualties and other likely collateral damage.
(The very use of the nickname “Tomahawk” is considered offensive to Native Americans who also resented the Navy Seals referring to Osama bin Laden as “Geronimo” in the raid that killed him. This use of racial stereotyping comes just days after the President, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, spoke at a ceremony praising the late Martin Luther King Jr, also an eloquent critic of U.S. militarism, a fact omitted in his remarks.)
The debate in the media and in Congress on the coming war is intensifying and seems to have forced President Obama to delay his promised “limited” missile attacks. He now says he going to wait for Congressional approval as dissent among legislators grows.
As a candidate in 2007, he said that unless the country is threatened presidents must win Congressional support for war like actions. As President, he seemed to have abandoned that earlier position until noisy protests on the right and left–and the actions of the British Parliament– led him to announce that he will now seek Congressional approval.
This development has more to do with anti-Obama Congressman in The Tea Party and other groups than demands by the press, although liberal and left critics have made made the planned missile strikes a bi-partisan cause.
The media coverage itself has become an issue too. Example: the Young Turks TV news show indicting news outlets for promoting war on Syria as it did for war on Iraq. In a heavily watched segment on YouTube, they challenged media cheerleading.
Liberal publications like Huffington Post also focus on media flaws, while conservative media dwell on the Obama’s reluctance, until today to bring his war appeal to a Republican-dominated Congress where more and more voices challenge unilateral military action and cite public opinion polls to back them up.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) notes: “One tendency in the corporate media seemed to be to jump to the conclusion that the chemical attacks were launched by the Assad regime, while admitting that perhaps this was not yet proven.” Suggestions that the “rebel forces” used sarin gas have not been proven either.
As the bombs and missiles are readied for use against preselected targets, we have Secretary of State Kerry, a one time anti-war activist, formerly a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, is leading the rhetorical charge for war.
The often-hawkish Washington Post reported, “Secretary of State John F. Kerry says President Obama is determined to hold Syria accountable for using chemical weapons and will decide soon how to respond. Kerry called Syria’s actions “a moral obscenity.” On Friday, he said he has “high confidence” that Assad “s regime is responsible. That sounds like faith-based reasoning since the actual facts cited were thin.
This is a unilateral determination on the part of the United States, to rush to war, even as UN inspectors who were in Syria, have yet to report the findings of their investigation. They are expected to confirm chemical weapons were used without saying who used them. UN Secretary General Ban is calling for a resumption of diplomacy and to let the inspectors finish their jobs
The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, citing their government’s intelligence services, insist that the Syrian government has been using chemical weapons all along, and speculates that there was some internal military screw-up in Syria that led to the recent mass gassing incident that was clearly not in its interest to be associated with.
Syria officially denies all responsibility, and, in the last day called on the UN to probe what they say are gas attacks by rebel forces. They accuse the Saudis of supplying chemical weapons to the militias they back.
As UN Secretary General calls on the US to take a diplomatic route, the reverberations of the British Parliament nixing U.K. involvement, widely seen as a “set back” to Prime Minister David Cameron’s government, is cited in the U.S. debate. Former British PM Tony Blair’s “dodgy” (i.e. misleading) dossier” justifying British backing of the Iraq War was widely referenced in the debate.
France’s former conservative government was among the biggest critics of US policy then, but now, under a nominal Socialist government, is backing Obama’s decision to go ahead with a bombing raid that experts say is expecting to be targeting 38 sites,
Others say that the West’s rush to war is intended to pre-empt any finding of responsibility by Syrian “rebels,” and, also, to try to alter the strategic balance of the internal military conflict that had running against the “rebel” offensive fighting the Assad government.
The United States initially called the UN involvement “too late,” a clear effort to pre-empt its relevance and ignore its findings.
This conjures up George Bush giving Saddam and his sons an ultimatum to leave Iraq in 48 hours. When the UN does not jump to Washington’s orders, it often become dispensable and ignored.
“Too late” on what calendars? The UN inspectors were fired upon before they could even get into position in rebel held territory.
Who did it? Was the Syrian government that invited them the culprits, or, more likely, the self-styled “rebels. Who would have the most to gain by delaying an investigation? The “rebels,” said to include 6000 jihadis from Al Qaeda and like-minded groups that would certainly have more of an interest in the keeping the question of responsibility muddled.
The chemical warfare controversy mushroomed just as US backed “rebels,” trained in Jordan, were being infiltrated into Syria. This calls into question President Obama’s claim that the missile attack he has authorized does not have any “regime-change” mission.
The US outrage over the use of chemical weapons is also selective and being questioned. Foreign Policy Magazine reported that the CIA now admits the the US was complicit when Saddam Hussein used nerve gas:
“The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America’s military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.”
So far, memories of the fabricated Iraq War rationalizations have hung over the issue, as has massive used by American forces of chemical agents like Napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam. Canada’s CBC wonders if any one will ever be able to confirm who used the gas.
Reported the NY Times, “The White House faces steep hurdles as it prepares to make the most important public intelligence presentation since February 2003, when Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made a dramatic and detailed case for war to the United Nations Security Council using intelligence — later discredited — about Iraq’s weapons programs.”
The best known UN weapons inspector at that time, former Swedish foreign minister Hans Blix, has just written in the Guardian that the US does not have the right to attack Syria.
“Unlike George Bush in 2003, the Obama administration is not trigger-happy and contemptuous of the United Nations and the rules of its charter, which allow the use of armed force only in self-defence or with an authorisation from the security council. Yet Obama, like Bush and Blair, seems ready to ignore the council and order armed strikes on Syria with political support from only the UK, France and some others,” he says.
Such action could not be “in self-defence” or “retaliation”, as the US, the UK and France have not been attacked,” he adds. “To punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons would be the action of self-appointed global policemen — action that, in my view, would be very unwise.”
Iraq war critics are now saying that the protests back then, might be what influenced the government now. Writes David Swanson, “Opposition to a U.S.-led attack on Syria is growing rapidly in Europe and the United States, drawing its strength from public awareness that the case made for attacking Iraq had holes in it.
A majority in the United States, still very much aware of Iraq war deceptions, opposes arming the “rebel” force in Syria, so heavily dominated by foreign fighters and al Qaeda. And a as many as 70 percent in recent polls oppose U.S. military action in Syria.”
This point of view had been all but missing in most press accounts but a new round of protests against the illegal nature of the planned attacks, held this weekend in London and Washington may put the issue more forcefully on the news agenda, even as the New York Times has run an op-ed calling for Washingtin to act even if it is illegal. It has since waffled editorially on the morality and logic of the planned attacks.
The Obama Administration has been scrambling to find support. Van Jones, a former Obama appointee who he forced out of his post after his history as a radical was questioned, is now an on-air commentator on CNN’s new version of “Crossfire” and seems to currying offical favor with an endorsement of Obama’s decision to strike Syria, the first voice on “the left” to do so.
More telling is that many members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans want Congess called back into session and are threatening to vote against the attack. Writes Kevin Zeese: “The irony of the Obama presidency may hinge on whether he attacks Syria. He began his presidency prematurely winning the Nobel Peace Prize and could end it being impeached for starting an illegal war without congressional or UN approval — violating both domestic and international law.”
Facts and arguments are being marshaled on all sides with Israeli intelligence claiming that it overheard phone conversations of Syrian Generals discussing their involvement. The Wall Street Journal examined the Israeli role concluding there is still no conclusive evidence.
An explosive potential angle in all this is that one of the media’s most powerful players now has an apparent self interest in encouraging a conflict that may rearrange existing borders.
Former British Ambassador Craig Murray reveals that Rupert Murdoch (along with Dick Cheney) is an investor and advisor to company named Genie Energy (NYSE: GNE, GNEPRA), that the government of Israel has awarded its subsidiary, Genie Israel Oil and Gas, Ltd., an exclusive petroleum exploration license covering 396.5 square kilometers in the Southern portion of the Golan Heights, a currently Israeli occupied zone.
(The SEC reported: “In November 2010, GOGAS sold a 0.5% equity interest to Rupert Murdoch for $1.0 million paid with a promissory note. The note is secured by a pledge of the shares issued in exchange for the note. The note accrues interest at 1.58% per annum, and the principal and accrued interest is due and payable on November 15, 2015.” )
I have not seen this connection explored in any major media outlet.
Washington is increasingly being isolated. China has urged a diplomatic resolution, the Arab League opposes military action, NATO is on the sidelines, and most of the Iraq-era ”coalition of the willing,” except France and Israel, have not rushed to be supportive.
At the same time, Russia is dispatching its own war ships to the region while its Intelligence service is offering counter-evidence that the so-called “rebels,” not the government, are to blame. Russia’s Putin is increasingly denouncing Obama’s stated intent to lob cruise missiles on to Syrian targets and demanding that he submit what evidence he has to the UN.
National Public Radio’s Greg Myre went back to examine earlier attacks of the type being consided to “punish” U.S. adversaries and enemies, claims they were largely unsuccessful, and fears they may lead to counter-attacks.
He writes, “The Obama administration and several before it have seen limited attacks as a way to send a tough message without drawing the U.S. into a larger conflict.
But critics say such strikes rarely, if ever, inflict serious damage or change the behavior of those targeted. And worse, limited U.S. military action has been followed by some of the deadliest attacks against American targets over the past three decades.”
Critics also fear that the Obama Administration will not let “the facts get in the way” of its decision to attack Syria. This war is supposedly modeled on the the earlier US attack on Kosovo. Most news accounts don’t remind readers that that went on for 78 days although this one is being sold as quick, surgical and not aimed at regime change.
They also don’t note that in 2013, according to the Institue of Public Accuracy, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 213 to 213, failed to give the President the constitutionally required authorization he needed to carry on the air war against Yugoslavia.
Today, Obama’s promise of bombing for peace–to uphold his “red line,” a phrase with origins in Israeli propaganda–rings hollow to many, while most experts (mostly from center and right think tanks) quoted in “mainstream” news papers say Obama’s threatened display of limited military muscle can not alter the conflict, and certainly not resolve it.
This press analysis itself has lacked balance and diversity because critics on the anti-war left are seldom quoted.
These issues may be urgent, but in late summer, with newsrooms downsized for vacations, and the public soaking up the last rays of summer or watching the U.S. Open tennis champioships, the troubling issues of a new war have only barely registered, even as a majority of the public who are following the coverage of the build-up to war are ‘agin, it while, true to form, a a majority of the pundits seem to be cheering it on.
New Dissector Danny Schechter blogs at newsdissector.net and edits Mediachannel.org. Comments to [email protected]
…read more
Republished from: Global Research
As the United States threatens to target Syrian militarily, how can we expect the military strikes to be covered?
First, there are very few US or western journalists stationed in Syria , and many of the citizen reporters on the ground have become casualties, and/or have been intimidated and forced to leave.
That assures poor coverage of those who will be hurt or become predictable and disposable “collateral damage.”
A front page New York Times article on Friday reporting on Syria, carries no dateline and was filed from Beirut. The Times explains that mainstream journalists cannot work freely in Syria, and contends that social media offers better coverage.
The paper quotes Absi Smesem, Syrian journalist, as saying, “There are no objective sources of information on either side, neither with the regime nor the rebels .We need to get out of this Facebook phase, where all we do is whine and complain about the regime,” he said.
Writing on Salon, in a piece picked up by Mediachannel.org, Patrick L Smith indicts western “lapdog media,” asking,
“When was it that journalists began thinking of themselves as national security operatives? It is getting unbearable, this errand-boy act in the face of power. If journalists did their jobs properly we would get into fewer messes such as Syria and would be more nationally secure. As it is now, the press is a defective piece in the democratic mechanism.”
There will likely be western reporters embedded on – American naval ships expected to unleash “tomahawk “cruise missiles, but they realistically tell us except some technical details as the missiles lift off in in flashes. They certainly cannot report on expected civilian casualties and other likely collateral damage.
(The very use of the nickname “Tomahawk” is considered offensive to Native Americans who also resented the Navy Seals referring to Osama bin Laden as “Geronimo” in the raid that killed him. This use of racial stereotyping comes just days after the President, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, spoke at a ceremony praising the late Martin Luther King Jr, also an eloquent critic of U.S. militarism, a fact omitted in his remarks.)
The debate in the media and in Congress on the coming war is intensifying and seems to have forced President Obama to delay his promised “limited” missile attacks. He now says he going to wait for Congressional approval as dissent among legislators grows.
As a candidate in 2007, he said that unless the country is threatened presidents must win Congressional support for war like actions. As President, he seemed to have abandoned that earlier position until noisy protests on the right and left–and the actions of the British Parliament– led him to announce that he will now seek Congressional approval.
This development has more to do with anti-Obama Congressman in The Tea Party and other groups than demands by the press, although liberal and left critics have made made the planned missile strikes a bi-partisan cause.
The media coverage itself has become an issue too. Example: the Young Turks TV news show indicting news outlets for promoting war on Syria as it did for war on Iraq. In a heavily watched segment on YouTube, they challenged media cheerleading.
Liberal publications like Huffington Post also focus on media flaws, while conservative media dwell on the Obama’s reluctance, until today to bring his war appeal to a Republican-dominated Congress where more and more voices challenge unilateral military action and cite public opinion polls to back them up.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) notes: “One tendency in the corporate media seemed to be to jump to the conclusion that the chemical attacks were launched by the Assad regime, while admitting that perhaps this was not yet proven.” Suggestions that the “rebel forces” used sarin gas have not been proven either.
As the bombs and missiles are readied for use against preselected targets, we have Secretary of State Kerry, a one time anti-war activist, formerly a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, is leading the rhetorical charge for war.
The often-hawkish Washington Post reported, “Secretary of State John F. Kerry says President Obama is determined to hold Syria accountable for using chemical weapons and will decide soon how to respond. Kerry called Syria’s actions “a moral obscenity.” On Friday, he said he has “high confidence” that Assad “s regime is responsible. That sounds like faith-based reasoning since the actual facts cited were thin.
This is a unilateral determination on the part of the United States, to rush to war, even as UN inspectors who were in Syria, have yet to report the findings of their investigation. They are expected to confirm chemical weapons were used without saying who used them. UN Secretary General Ban is calling for a resumption of diplomacy and to let the inspectors finish their jobs
The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, citing their government’s intelligence services, insist that the Syrian government has been using chemical weapons all along, and speculates that there was some internal military screw-up in Syria that led to the recent mass gassing incident that was clearly not in its interest to be associated with.
Syria officially denies all responsibility, and, in the last day called on the UN to probe what they say are gas attacks by rebel forces. They accuse the Saudis of supplying chemical weapons to the militias they back.
As UN Secretary General calls on the US to take a diplomatic route, the reverberations of the British Parliament nixing U.K. involvement, widely seen as a “set back” to Prime Minister David Cameron’s government, is cited in the U.S. debate. Former British PM Tony Blair’s “dodgy” (i.e. misleading) dossier” justifying British backing of the Iraq War was widely referenced in the debate.
France’s former conservative government was among the biggest critics of US policy then, but now, under a nominal Socialist government, is backing Obama’s decision to go ahead with a bombing raid that experts say is expecting to be targeting 38 sites,
Others say that the West’s rush to war is intended to pre-empt any finding of responsibility by Syrian “rebels,” and, also, to try to alter the strategic balance of the internal military conflict that had running against the “rebel” offensive fighting the Assad government.
The United States initially called the UN involvement “too late,” a clear effort to pre-empt its relevance and ignore its findings.
This conjures up George Bush giving Saddam and his sons an ultimatum to leave Iraq in 48 hours. When the UN does not jump to Washington’s orders, it often become dispensable and ignored.
“Too late” on what calendars? The UN inspectors were fired upon before they could even get into position in rebel held territory.
Who did it? Was the Syrian government that invited them the culprits, or, more likely, the self-styled “rebels. Who would have the most to gain by delaying an investigation? The “rebels,” said to include 6000 jihadis from Al Qaeda and like-minded groups that would certainly have more of an interest in the keeping the question of responsibility muddled.
The chemical warfare controversy mushroomed just as US backed “rebels,” trained in Jordan, were being infiltrated into Syria. This calls into question President Obama’s claim that the missile attack he has authorized does not have any “regime-change” mission.
The US outrage over the use of chemical weapons is also selective and being questioned. Foreign Policy Magazine reported that the CIA now admits the the US was complicit when Saddam Hussein used nerve gas:
“The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America’s military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.”
So far, memories of the fabricated Iraq War rationalizations have hung over the issue, as has massive used by American forces of chemical agents like Napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam. Canada’s CBC wonders if any one will ever be able to confirm who used the gas.
Reported the NY Times, “The White House faces steep hurdles as it prepares to make the most important public intelligence presentation since February 2003, when Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made a dramatic and detailed case for war to the United Nations Security Council using intelligence — later discredited — about Iraq’s weapons programs.”
The best known UN weapons inspector at that time, former Swedish foreign minister Hans Blix, has just written in the Guardian that the US does not have the right to attack Syria.
“Unlike George Bush in 2003, the Obama administration is not trigger-happy and contemptuous of the United Nations and the rules of its charter, which allow the use of armed force only in self-defence or with an authorisation from the security council. Yet Obama, like Bush and Blair, seems ready to ignore the council and order armed strikes on Syria with political support from only the UK, France and some others,” he says.
Such action could not be “in self-defence” or “retaliation”, as the US, the UK and France have not been attacked,” he adds. “To punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons would be the action of self-appointed global policemen — action that, in my view, would be very unwise.”
Iraq war critics are now saying that the protests back then, might be what influenced the government now. Writes David Swanson, “Opposition to a U.S.-led attack on Syria is growing rapidly in Europe and the United States, drawing its strength from public awareness that the case made for attacking Iraq had holes in it.
A majority in the United States, still very much aware of Iraq war deceptions, opposes arming the “rebel” force in Syria, so heavily dominated by foreign fighters and al Qaeda. And a as many as 70 percent in recent polls oppose U.S. military action in Syria.”
This point of view had been all but missing in most press accounts but a new round of protests against the illegal nature of the planned attacks, held this weekend in London and Washington may put the issue more forcefully on the news agenda, even as the New York Times has run an op-ed calling for Washingtin to act even if it is illegal. It has since waffled editorially on the morality and logic of the planned attacks.
The Obama Administration has been scrambling to find support. Van Jones, a former Obama appointee who he forced out of his post after his history as a radical was questioned, is now an on-air commentator on CNN’s new version of “Crossfire” and seems to currying offical favor with an endorsement of Obama’s decision to strike Syria, the first voice on “the left” to do so.
More telling is that many members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans want Congess called back into session and are threatening to vote against the attack. Writes Kevin Zeese: “The irony of the Obama presidency may hinge on whether he attacks Syria. He began his presidency prematurely winning the Nobel Peace Prize and could end it being impeached for starting an illegal war without congressional or UN approval — violating both domestic and international law.”
Facts and arguments are being marshaled on all sides with Israeli intelligence claiming that it overheard phone conversations of Syrian Generals discussing their involvement. The Wall Street Journal examined the Israeli role concluding there is still no conclusive evidence.
An explosive potential angle in all this is that one of the media’s most powerful players now has an apparent self interest in encouraging a conflict that may rearrange existing borders.
Former British Ambassador Craig Murray reveals that Rupert Murdoch (along with Dick Cheney) is an investor and advisor to company named Genie Energy (NYSE: GNE, GNEPRA), that the government of Israel has awarded its subsidiary, Genie Israel Oil and Gas, Ltd., an exclusive petroleum exploration license covering 396.5 square kilometers in the Southern portion of the Golan Heights, a currently Israeli occupied zone.
(The SEC reported: “In November 2010, GOGAS sold a 0.5% equity interest to Rupert Murdoch for $1.0 million paid with a promissory note. The note is secured by a pledge of the shares issued in exchange for the note. The note accrues interest at 1.58% per annum, and the principal and accrued interest is due and payable on November 15, 2015.” )
I have not seen this connection explored in any major media outlet.
Washington is increasingly being isolated. China has urged a diplomatic resolution, the Arab League opposes military action, NATO is on the sidelines, and most of the Iraq-era ”coalition of the willing,” except France and Israel, have not rushed to be supportive.
At the same time, Russia is dispatching its own war ships to the region while its Intelligence service is offering counter-evidence that the so-called “rebels,” not the government, are to blame. Russia’s Putin is increasingly denouncing Obama’s stated intent to lob cruise missiles on to Syrian targets and demanding that he submit what evidence he has to the UN.
National Public Radio’s Greg Myre went back to examine earlier attacks of the type being consided to “punish” U.S. adversaries and enemies, claims they were largely unsuccessful, and fears they may lead to counter-attacks.
He writes, “The Obama administration and several before it have seen limited attacks as a way to send a tough message without drawing the U.S. into a larger conflict.
But critics say such strikes rarely, if ever, inflict serious damage or change the behavior of those targeted. And worse, limited U.S. military action has been followed by some of the deadliest attacks against American targets over the past three decades.”
Critics also fear that the Obama Administration will not let “the facts get in the way” of its decision to attack Syria. This war is supposedly modeled on the the earlier US attack on Kosovo. Most news accounts don’t remind readers that that went on for 78 days although this one is being sold as quick, surgical and not aimed at regime change.
They also don’t note that in 2013, according to the Institue of Public Accuracy, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 213 to 213, failed to give the President the constitutionally required authorization he needed to carry on the air war against Yugoslavia.
Today, Obama’s promise of bombing for peace–to uphold his “red line,” a phrase with origins in Israeli propaganda–rings hollow to many, while most experts (mostly from center and right think tanks) quoted in “mainstream” news papers say Obama’s threatened display of limited military muscle can not alter the conflict, and certainly not resolve it.
This press analysis itself has lacked balance and diversity because critics on the anti-war left are seldom quoted.
These issues may be urgent, but in late summer, with newsrooms downsized for vacations, and the public soaking up the last rays of summer or watching the U.S. Open tennis champioships, the troubling issues of a new war have only barely registered, even as a majority of the public who are following the coverage of the build-up to war are ‘agin, it while, true to form, a a majority of the pundits seem to be cheering it on.
New Dissector Danny Schechter blogs at newsdissector.net and edits Mediachannel.org. Comments to [email protected]
…read more
Republished from: Global Research
Your prediction..
Everyone,,
what do you think is going to happened next
?
what do you think is going to happened next
?Assad Blind to consequence
Assad Blind to consequence, the aggressor thrusts into war, unaware that he approaches the gates of hell.
Once extinguished, life becomes utterly irretrievable in the normal course of events. Thus, lethal warfare is a most somber matter; yet, too often, it is the province of the arrogant and foolish who from haughtiness or incapacity cannot properly gauge the attendant danger. War entices cowardly and diffident leaders into convincing themselves they must war to disguise the character flaws that trouble them. Into one or more of these categories fall the leaders of the three western nations – America, England and France – so bent on bombing Syria for alleged use of chemical weapons.
This Western trio for years has itched to sign the death warrants of the Assad regime. They no longer have to tolerate that itch. With the weapons allegation, they now rush to scratch from existence this government they long have detested.
Zealots of neo-conservative geopolitics in Western capitals have plotted to topple the houses of Hussein (Iraq), Gaddafi (Libya) and Assad (Syria). Toss in those unruly Iranian Shi’as as the ultimate objective. Already two targets have fallen to western intervention based on claims that later proved worse than false; they were fraudulent. Hussein’s Iraq was engulfed by massive war to rid that nation of weapons that did not exist. Its people still feel the bite of war and pinch of scarcity that war produces. The nation stands one major incident away from fully-outfitted civil war.
The West intervened in Libya, allegedly compelled by the humanitarian principle of a responsibility to protect innocent civilians from their despot. The claim rang hollow when made. In hindsight, it was purely counterfeit.
Western assertions that Gaddafi threatened to massacre Benghazi were fabricated pretexts to kill his regime and the man himself. The man never made the murderous exclamation. The lie justifies the vigorous bombing campaign that ensued, establishing a rather curious foreign policy tenet. The West will eagerly bomb a people to protect them from the violence of their government. The outcome of this distorted logic is to heap more pain and suffering on those who already have sampled the sour chalice. Under Gaddafi, Libyans had little freedom. They did have a semblance of social order and economy activity. Today, they have not gained freedom but have forfeited social order and economic activity as well. Western intervention has been a sad bargain for them. Theirs is now a land where political violence and economic depression are the daily fare. The West has abandoned the nation to its fractious aspects. Curiously, the responsibility to protect civilians that so provoked Western nations to chase Gaddafi into is grave seems not to endure with a sufficiency to establish a peace worthy of its name. The West used this rationale to unseat the enemy. Once the enemy is vanquished, the West blinds itself to the people’s suffering. In truth, the West cares little that civilians may perish. Its interest concerns in who kills them. If the killer is a foe, the West deems the action inhumane. If committed by an ally, the killing is considered the inescapable collateral damage of governance in a dangerous neighborhood. Why this curious and strange inconsistency?
The answer is simple. The ability to kill means the actor has eminent dominion over the subject people and place. The West seeks not to end killing but to rob its enemies of their lethal dominion in hopes of bestowing this power in a particular nation to those who would do the West’s bidding. Instead of being a new tool promoting justice and humanitarian mercy, the principle of a responsibility to protect civilians has become a caliginous device undermining the doctrine of noninterference in the domestic affairs of other nations. The powerful now use this new doctrine to encroach against nations that offend them. They speak in the tongue of angels but the motives behind their deeds are as sullen as the excesses of a bygone era.
If Assad should drown in the swell of civil war, Western arch-conservatives will rejoice. They will be three-quarters of the way to their dream of a politically conservative, economically pliant Middle East. Oil stocks and global shipping lanes will be secure for the near future. Israel will be also rid of an enemy. With Assad gone, only Iran remains as an obstacle. Already the rationale to crumple Iran – the nuclear specter – has been established.
This neo-conservative dream refuses to die although it is so and outdated that it disserves America’s imperial interests. Still, this vision influences Western foreign policy. Thus, part of America’s foreign policy establishment will ally with known terrorists such as al Qaeda and its cousin, al Nusra, although these groups have been more actively opposed to America than Gaddafi’s Libya or Assad’s Syria. Staunch neo-conservatives are so fixated on their old designs that they don’t truly understand how much the world has changed. In a bid to oust these established regimes, the hard-line neo-conservatives are willing give the more radical anti-western groups a chance to seize power in these strategic nations. Not only are the neo-cons blood hungry, their incarnadine lust cripples their capacity to think logically, endangering their interests as they rush headlong toward war.
Less rabid neo-conservatives realize the danger of abetting al-Qaeda and its franchisees. President Obama, that avowed fan of the President Bush, camps with this more straight-laced conservative group. He wants Assad subdued but is wary of handing the keys to the palace Syria to extremists as he has been done in Libya.
The melding of staunch and cautious neo-conservative thought has produced a most cynical policy. America does not seek the quick departure of Assad, fearing that radical elements will most profit from the void created. Thus, a policy has been fashioned to keep Syria in perpetual war, where neither side is strong enough to win nor so weak as to fold. Aside from the gold star of replacing Assad with a compliant American lackey, this “plan B” best protects Washington’s interests. Far from freeing the Syrian people from violence, American policy aims to make violence a way of life in Syria as it has become in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia and the Congo.
Statements of western leaders have been illuminating. Try as they can to peal the bell of humanitarian concern, their words reveal the ugliness inside hidden. British Foreign Secretary Hague proclaimed self-righteously that the world act because this was the first instance of chemical weapons use in the 21st century. Hague must do better at reading the newspaper and spend less time mesmerized by his own harangue. This is not even the first chemical attack of the year. There was an earlier attack in which dozens were killed. At that time, the West hoisted their arms in protest until the UN inspector concluded the opposition had deployed lethal sarin gas. The West quickly discounted this outrage, pressing the international media not to report it. American and its sidekicks were not truly interested in deterring the use of chemical weapons. They were more interested in finding a pretext to delve further into Syria to shift the balance of power.
If genuinely upset about chemical weapons, Western nations already would have bombed themselves for committing this transgression. When white phosphorus and depleted uranium are used in certain ways during military operations, they are classified as weapons. Such use is prohibited under most reasonable interpretations of international conventions. Yet, America used them and napalm in Iraq. Israel, the nation that purported provided America the communication intercepts implicating the Syrian government in the latest incident, resorted to white phosphorus against Palestinians during the 2008-09 Gaza uprising. None in the West clamored to sanction, much less bomb, Tel Aviv. The thought of America delivering a military blow to Israel for using illegal weapons so transcends the imagination as to be laughable.
Statements of American officials have been reprobate in their lack of clarity. Explaining the rush to war, President Obama maundered, “In a nation with the largest stockpile of chemical weapons, where they have been allied to known terrorist organizations in the past, where over time their control of chemical weapons may erode… these chemical weapons could be directed against us. We want to make sure this does not happen.” This statement is a potpourri of tortured reasoning. It will be recorded as one of Obama’s lesser, most naked moments when he bared the emptiness of his character. That he could make this statement only a day after his keynote address commemorating the 1963 March on Washington and Dr. King’s “Dream Speech” shows that Obama either lacks a memory or is a man with a most elastic moral composition. For him, right is not what you seek to find; it is merely what you say it to be.
According to Obama’s logic, Assad needs to be bombed because he is losing control over chemical stockpiles. This loss of control may soon allow terrorists to acquire use the weapons against America. This generates a few questions. If Assad has lost control over the weapons, why is America so adamant Assad directed this particular strike? If terrorists can imminently acquire these weapons and use them against America, doesn’t that mean they also have the ability to use them in Syria where the weapons are based?
On one hand, America alleges the opposition did not have the ability to launch this attack. On the other hand, America alleges segments of the opposition have the ability to use these weapons against America. Both statements cannot be true.
Bombing Assad, will secure the chemical stockpiles. Bombing will further loosen his hold, rendering the stockpiles more vulnerable to plunder by radicals. Bombing Assad enhances the possibility of al Qaeda acquiring the weapons. In other words, American action will turn these fears into a self-fulfilling prophecy. This, in turn, will allow the American military corporate condominium to further frighten the American public by claiming terrorists now hold lethal chemical weapons. This will be used as a rationale to increase security and police state tactics in America. Just wanting to be kept safe, the public will cower, dropping its inchoate concerns about internal surveillance and eavesdropping. The military/security machinery will further invade and erode American democracy, stone by stone, civil liberty by civil liberty. The American public will be as much a victim, albeit indirectly, of the bombing as the Syrian people.
While America rushes headlong into the bog, England temporarily rescued itself with a touch of sanity. PM Cameron wanted to join President Obama in this martial recreation. In a stark rebuke to the rashness of their leader, Parliament ruined Cameron’s war designs. The rebellion in parliament against Cameron’s warmongering shows that democracy still works on occasion. The true heroes were those parliamentarians of his Tory party who placed national interests above party loyalty. English people are tired of war. After Iraq, they are wary of being dragged into a fray based on dubious, hastily drawn conclusions.
Hoping to go into war with his junior partner Cameron, like the fictional heroes Batman and Robin, Obama is left to go it solo like the mythical cowboy hero, the Lone Ranger. Sure, the French want into the fray but that is a puny consolation prize. The French have a big appetite but hold a rather small cup and saucer. They can collar and bully weak African nations but Paris is no longer a genuine world power. The Gallic bull is but an old, flabby cow.
One feels some sympathy for Obama. Judging by his unintelligent stammering, his heart is not in this. But the weight of the military and political apparatus pushes him toward war. He is too weak to resist although the claim against Assad smells dubious. That Assad would launch attacks likely to invite a Western response when he was clearly winning the war makes little sense. Assad was eager to attend peace talks in Geneva where negotiations would memorialize his military gains. Why would he risk all on a tactical outburst of no military consequence? That he would do this the very day weapons inspectors arrived on his invitation makes even less sense. Also, if America truly wanted to get to the truth of the matter, why did it apply high-level pressure to dissuade the UN from carrying out the inspection of the incident?
While the international media has joined their financial sponsors in hastily concluding that Assad is the culprit, reasonable alternative theories must be investigated before a conclusion can be had on a matter freighted with such consequence. As President Obama implied, Assad may have lost control of portions of his stockpile in the miasma of war. Such weapons do not wonder the streets ownerless. Someone quickly assumes possession. Others may have gotten hold of them.
Clearly losing the war, the opposition has much to gain by staging an attack then blaming Assad for the carnage. This would compel the West to increase their support and attack Assad, thus rescuing the opposition from impending defeat. Western clandestine agencies have been operating in the Syrian theatre for months. These agencies have the assets and guile to stage this operation while casting responsibility toward Assad. Moreover, these agencies also have motive to do this. Should their governments join the battle against Assad, the importance of these agencies will increase as will their funding.
Assad is malign soul and he might well have commissioned this tragedy. However, his guilt is unlikely and thus far unproven. Even if he did this, American intervention will cause more harm than good. To engage in a policy that encourages perpetual war weakens America’s already dwindling legitimacy. To do so in the face of broad global opposition is to make a mockery of the international legal system America purports to champion.
In retrospect, President Obama must rue the moment he said that use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a “red line.” Rarely has a leader placed himself, his nation and an entire region in such a predicament with the careless utterance of two words.
I have no idea of the line’s true color but Obama certainly straddles a line separating caution from rashness and the arrogance of dumb power. It is tragic that the mighty are rarely wise. Muczh grief could be eliminated. By uttering this dangerous flippancy, Obama assured the world that chemical weapons would be used. Now he feels he must strike Syria or his credibility is at stake. This is silly.
Credibility is not at stake. Vanity is. Obama has killed bin Laden, bombed Libya, Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan into smithereens. No one questions his love of bombing real and imaginary foes. To argue that he must act because he said he would act is to impose an adolescent form of reasoning on the world’s most elevated seat of national power. It is a request begging us to forgive the original folly (issuing the unwise threat) that we may also adopt the mad logic of fighting for the sole reason of not losing face. In any event, Obama should not worry of loss of face. His actions through all of this shows he has two faces. The man has, at least, one to spare. Better to lose face than lose the slim chance of peace.
A minor tactical strike by America accomplished little. After the massive post-incident media and political buildup, a tactical incision would be worse than nothing. Arch conservatives would be biting at his heels and head to do more. He will comply as he always has. The logic of America’s illogical position requires that it strike repeatedly and with such force as to alter the balance of power which now heavily favors Assad. The more America invests itself in this melee, the more it must defeat Assad. The more it must defeat him, the more America must invest itself in war. This Nobel Peace Prize winning president has just purchased a pivotal seat in someone else’s war with the very words of his own mouth. Those who would rule the world should first control their tongues and the heady exuberance the muscle and might of high office often bring.
http://www.codewit.com/middle-east/1185 ... es-of-hell
Once extinguished, life becomes utterly irretrievable in the normal course of events. Thus, lethal warfare is a most somber matter; yet, too often, it is the province of the arrogant and foolish who from haughtiness or incapacity cannot properly gauge the attendant danger. War entices cowardly and diffident leaders into convincing themselves they must war to disguise the character flaws that trouble them. Into one or more of these categories fall the leaders of the three western nations – America, England and France – so bent on bombing Syria for alleged use of chemical weapons.
This Western trio for years has itched to sign the death warrants of the Assad regime. They no longer have to tolerate that itch. With the weapons allegation, they now rush to scratch from existence this government they long have detested.
Zealots of neo-conservative geopolitics in Western capitals have plotted to topple the houses of Hussein (Iraq), Gaddafi (Libya) and Assad (Syria). Toss in those unruly Iranian Shi’as as the ultimate objective. Already two targets have fallen to western intervention based on claims that later proved worse than false; they were fraudulent. Hussein’s Iraq was engulfed by massive war to rid that nation of weapons that did not exist. Its people still feel the bite of war and pinch of scarcity that war produces. The nation stands one major incident away from fully-outfitted civil war.
The West intervened in Libya, allegedly compelled by the humanitarian principle of a responsibility to protect innocent civilians from their despot. The claim rang hollow when made. In hindsight, it was purely counterfeit.
Western assertions that Gaddafi threatened to massacre Benghazi were fabricated pretexts to kill his regime and the man himself. The man never made the murderous exclamation. The lie justifies the vigorous bombing campaign that ensued, establishing a rather curious foreign policy tenet. The West will eagerly bomb a people to protect them from the violence of their government. The outcome of this distorted logic is to heap more pain and suffering on those who already have sampled the sour chalice. Under Gaddafi, Libyans had little freedom. They did have a semblance of social order and economy activity. Today, they have not gained freedom but have forfeited social order and economic activity as well. Western intervention has been a sad bargain for them. Theirs is now a land where political violence and economic depression are the daily fare. The West has abandoned the nation to its fractious aspects. Curiously, the responsibility to protect civilians that so provoked Western nations to chase Gaddafi into is grave seems not to endure with a sufficiency to establish a peace worthy of its name. The West used this rationale to unseat the enemy. Once the enemy is vanquished, the West blinds itself to the people’s suffering. In truth, the West cares little that civilians may perish. Its interest concerns in who kills them. If the killer is a foe, the West deems the action inhumane. If committed by an ally, the killing is considered the inescapable collateral damage of governance in a dangerous neighborhood. Why this curious and strange inconsistency?
The answer is simple. The ability to kill means the actor has eminent dominion over the subject people and place. The West seeks not to end killing but to rob its enemies of their lethal dominion in hopes of bestowing this power in a particular nation to those who would do the West’s bidding. Instead of being a new tool promoting justice and humanitarian mercy, the principle of a responsibility to protect civilians has become a caliginous device undermining the doctrine of noninterference in the domestic affairs of other nations. The powerful now use this new doctrine to encroach against nations that offend them. They speak in the tongue of angels but the motives behind their deeds are as sullen as the excesses of a bygone era.
If Assad should drown in the swell of civil war, Western arch-conservatives will rejoice. They will be three-quarters of the way to their dream of a politically conservative, economically pliant Middle East. Oil stocks and global shipping lanes will be secure for the near future. Israel will be also rid of an enemy. With Assad gone, only Iran remains as an obstacle. Already the rationale to crumple Iran – the nuclear specter – has been established.
This neo-conservative dream refuses to die although it is so and outdated that it disserves America’s imperial interests. Still, this vision influences Western foreign policy. Thus, part of America’s foreign policy establishment will ally with known terrorists such as al Qaeda and its cousin, al Nusra, although these groups have been more actively opposed to America than Gaddafi’s Libya or Assad’s Syria. Staunch neo-conservatives are so fixated on their old designs that they don’t truly understand how much the world has changed. In a bid to oust these established regimes, the hard-line neo-conservatives are willing give the more radical anti-western groups a chance to seize power in these strategic nations. Not only are the neo-cons blood hungry, their incarnadine lust cripples their capacity to think logically, endangering their interests as they rush headlong toward war.
Less rabid neo-conservatives realize the danger of abetting al-Qaeda and its franchisees. President Obama, that avowed fan of the President Bush, camps with this more straight-laced conservative group. He wants Assad subdued but is wary of handing the keys to the palace Syria to extremists as he has been done in Libya.
The melding of staunch and cautious neo-conservative thought has produced a most cynical policy. America does not seek the quick departure of Assad, fearing that radical elements will most profit from the void created. Thus, a policy has been fashioned to keep Syria in perpetual war, where neither side is strong enough to win nor so weak as to fold. Aside from the gold star of replacing Assad with a compliant American lackey, this “plan B” best protects Washington’s interests. Far from freeing the Syrian people from violence, American policy aims to make violence a way of life in Syria as it has become in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia and the Congo.
Statements of western leaders have been illuminating. Try as they can to peal the bell of humanitarian concern, their words reveal the ugliness inside hidden. British Foreign Secretary Hague proclaimed self-righteously that the world act because this was the first instance of chemical weapons use in the 21st century. Hague must do better at reading the newspaper and spend less time mesmerized by his own harangue. This is not even the first chemical attack of the year. There was an earlier attack in which dozens were killed. At that time, the West hoisted their arms in protest until the UN inspector concluded the opposition had deployed lethal sarin gas. The West quickly discounted this outrage, pressing the international media not to report it. American and its sidekicks were not truly interested in deterring the use of chemical weapons. They were more interested in finding a pretext to delve further into Syria to shift the balance of power.
If genuinely upset about chemical weapons, Western nations already would have bombed themselves for committing this transgression. When white phosphorus and depleted uranium are used in certain ways during military operations, they are classified as weapons. Such use is prohibited under most reasonable interpretations of international conventions. Yet, America used them and napalm in Iraq. Israel, the nation that purported provided America the communication intercepts implicating the Syrian government in the latest incident, resorted to white phosphorus against Palestinians during the 2008-09 Gaza uprising. None in the West clamored to sanction, much less bomb, Tel Aviv. The thought of America delivering a military blow to Israel for using illegal weapons so transcends the imagination as to be laughable.
Statements of American officials have been reprobate in their lack of clarity. Explaining the rush to war, President Obama maundered, “In a nation with the largest stockpile of chemical weapons, where they have been allied to known terrorist organizations in the past, where over time their control of chemical weapons may erode… these chemical weapons could be directed against us. We want to make sure this does not happen.” This statement is a potpourri of tortured reasoning. It will be recorded as one of Obama’s lesser, most naked moments when he bared the emptiness of his character. That he could make this statement only a day after his keynote address commemorating the 1963 March on Washington and Dr. King’s “Dream Speech” shows that Obama either lacks a memory or is a man with a most elastic moral composition. For him, right is not what you seek to find; it is merely what you say it to be.
According to Obama’s logic, Assad needs to be bombed because he is losing control over chemical stockpiles. This loss of control may soon allow terrorists to acquire use the weapons against America. This generates a few questions. If Assad has lost control over the weapons, why is America so adamant Assad directed this particular strike? If terrorists can imminently acquire these weapons and use them against America, doesn’t that mean they also have the ability to use them in Syria where the weapons are based?
On one hand, America alleges the opposition did not have the ability to launch this attack. On the other hand, America alleges segments of the opposition have the ability to use these weapons against America. Both statements cannot be true.
Bombing Assad, will secure the chemical stockpiles. Bombing will further loosen his hold, rendering the stockpiles more vulnerable to plunder by radicals. Bombing Assad enhances the possibility of al Qaeda acquiring the weapons. In other words, American action will turn these fears into a self-fulfilling prophecy. This, in turn, will allow the American military corporate condominium to further frighten the American public by claiming terrorists now hold lethal chemical weapons. This will be used as a rationale to increase security and police state tactics in America. Just wanting to be kept safe, the public will cower, dropping its inchoate concerns about internal surveillance and eavesdropping. The military/security machinery will further invade and erode American democracy, stone by stone, civil liberty by civil liberty. The American public will be as much a victim, albeit indirectly, of the bombing as the Syrian people.
While America rushes headlong into the bog, England temporarily rescued itself with a touch of sanity. PM Cameron wanted to join President Obama in this martial recreation. In a stark rebuke to the rashness of their leader, Parliament ruined Cameron’s war designs. The rebellion in parliament against Cameron’s warmongering shows that democracy still works on occasion. The true heroes were those parliamentarians of his Tory party who placed national interests above party loyalty. English people are tired of war. After Iraq, they are wary of being dragged into a fray based on dubious, hastily drawn conclusions.
Hoping to go into war with his junior partner Cameron, like the fictional heroes Batman and Robin, Obama is left to go it solo like the mythical cowboy hero, the Lone Ranger. Sure, the French want into the fray but that is a puny consolation prize. The French have a big appetite but hold a rather small cup and saucer. They can collar and bully weak African nations but Paris is no longer a genuine world power. The Gallic bull is but an old, flabby cow.
One feels some sympathy for Obama. Judging by his unintelligent stammering, his heart is not in this. But the weight of the military and political apparatus pushes him toward war. He is too weak to resist although the claim against Assad smells dubious. That Assad would launch attacks likely to invite a Western response when he was clearly winning the war makes little sense. Assad was eager to attend peace talks in Geneva where negotiations would memorialize his military gains. Why would he risk all on a tactical outburst of no military consequence? That he would do this the very day weapons inspectors arrived on his invitation makes even less sense. Also, if America truly wanted to get to the truth of the matter, why did it apply high-level pressure to dissuade the UN from carrying out the inspection of the incident?
While the international media has joined their financial sponsors in hastily concluding that Assad is the culprit, reasonable alternative theories must be investigated before a conclusion can be had on a matter freighted with such consequence. As President Obama implied, Assad may have lost control of portions of his stockpile in the miasma of war. Such weapons do not wonder the streets ownerless. Someone quickly assumes possession. Others may have gotten hold of them.
Clearly losing the war, the opposition has much to gain by staging an attack then blaming Assad for the carnage. This would compel the West to increase their support and attack Assad, thus rescuing the opposition from impending defeat. Western clandestine agencies have been operating in the Syrian theatre for months. These agencies have the assets and guile to stage this operation while casting responsibility toward Assad. Moreover, these agencies also have motive to do this. Should their governments join the battle against Assad, the importance of these agencies will increase as will their funding.
Assad is malign soul and he might well have commissioned this tragedy. However, his guilt is unlikely and thus far unproven. Even if he did this, American intervention will cause more harm than good. To engage in a policy that encourages perpetual war weakens America’s already dwindling legitimacy. To do so in the face of broad global opposition is to make a mockery of the international legal system America purports to champion.
In retrospect, President Obama must rue the moment he said that use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a “red line.” Rarely has a leader placed himself, his nation and an entire region in such a predicament with the careless utterance of two words.
I have no idea of the line’s true color but Obama certainly straddles a line separating caution from rashness and the arrogance of dumb power. It is tragic that the mighty are rarely wise. Muczh grief could be eliminated. By uttering this dangerous flippancy, Obama assured the world that chemical weapons would be used. Now he feels he must strike Syria or his credibility is at stake. This is silly.
Credibility is not at stake. Vanity is. Obama has killed bin Laden, bombed Libya, Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan into smithereens. No one questions his love of bombing real and imaginary foes. To argue that he must act because he said he would act is to impose an adolescent form of reasoning on the world’s most elevated seat of national power. It is a request begging us to forgive the original folly (issuing the unwise threat) that we may also adopt the mad logic of fighting for the sole reason of not losing face. In any event, Obama should not worry of loss of face. His actions through all of this shows he has two faces. The man has, at least, one to spare. Better to lose face than lose the slim chance of peace.
A minor tactical strike by America accomplished little. After the massive post-incident media and political buildup, a tactical incision would be worse than nothing. Arch conservatives would be biting at his heels and head to do more. He will comply as he always has. The logic of America’s illogical position requires that it strike repeatedly and with such force as to alter the balance of power which now heavily favors Assad. The more America invests itself in this melee, the more it must defeat Assad. The more it must defeat him, the more America must invest itself in war. This Nobel Peace Prize winning president has just purchased a pivotal seat in someone else’s war with the very words of his own mouth. Those who would rule the world should first control their tongues and the heady exuberance the muscle and might of high office often bring.
http://www.codewit.com/middle-east/1185 ... es-of-hell
CNN Caught Staging News Segments on Syria With Actors
Anderson Cooper and CNN have been caught staging fake news about Syria to justify military intervention.
http://www.pakalertpress.com/2013/08/31 ... th-actors/
http://www.pakalertpress.com/2013/08/31 ... th-actors/
US military revolt against Obama’s decision to 'support Al-Q
US military revolt against Obama’s decision to 'support Al-Qaeda in Syria'
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 service members 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. Others have posted their photos on Twitter alongside the hashtag..
Continue reading here http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_09_0 ... #239895308
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 service members 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. Others have posted their photos on Twitter alongside the hashtag..
Continue reading here http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_09_0 ... #239895308
Criminal insanity of US regime
They say absolute power corrupts absolutely. That adage applies more than ever to the president of the United States, his administration and the Wall Street flunkies that sit in Congress.
But the corruption extends beyond the usual meaning of a dysfunctional moral compass to include the incapacity for intelligent reasoning and self-reflection. The political class of most powerful country on earth has been so over-indulged in arrogance and hubris that it is no longer able to realize how ridiculous it appears to the rest of the world. In short, criminal insanity seems to be the condition of US rulers and their puppets, including those in the mass media.
The American president and his cronies on Capitol Hill preen and talk as if into a charmed mirror that reflects loveliness to the beholder, yet the rest of the world sees ghastly, frightening clowns, loaded up on self-righteousness, delusion, inordinate firepower and a reckless ease for squeezing the trigger.
Indeed, such is the ridiculous posing by Washington that the US – the world’s number-one terrorist state – seems to have added a new weapon to its arsenal of planet-destroying armaments – one that induces uncontrollable laughter in victims to the point of death from asphyxiation or from a busted gut.
President Barack Obama may have been testing out this new “mass laughter” weapon last weekend when he announced that he was seeking approval from Congress to launch military strikes on Syria. This was after his administration accused the Syrian government of “murdering over 1,000 of its own people” with chemical weapons in the suburbs of Damascus on 21 August.
The death of hundreds of innocent civilians, including women and children, is certainly no laughing matter. But it is a cruel mockery to their memory that the US president should try to use these deaths as an excuse to escalate his transparent and criminal agenda for regime change in Syria.
While the Americans huff and puff that they have “high confidence” in their secret allegations against the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad, the rest of the world is more convinced that it is the US-backed mercenaries who committed mass murder with chemical weapons supplied by Washington’s ally Saudi Arabia.
So out-of-control is the delusional US president that it took his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, to make a telephone call and remind Obama that he is a Nobel Peace Laureate and should act accordingly instead of playing with fire that might engulf the region and the entire globe.
“I would like to address Obama as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. Before using force in Syria, it would be good to think about future casualties,” Putin said, as if he was addressing an imbecile, which he was. “Russia is urging you to think twice before making a decision on an operation in Syria.”
Apart from the world’s most reactionary and lawless regimes, Saudi Arabia and Israel, the rest of humanity is also urging the American government to think twice before it murders countless more people in a region already teetering on the brink of conflagration. Even the normally gung-ho British have backed away from such reckless adventurism.
Obama says that he “only” intends “limited missile strikes” on Syria as a “punitive” measure to deter the future of chemical weapons.
In his address from the White House Rose Garden on Saturday, Obama spoke with words scented with cloying hypocrisy. “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? We are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye.”
This is from the leader of the same terror state that supplied former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein with chemicals weapons and the coordinates to gas thousands of Iranians and Kurds during the 1980s; it is the same United States of terror that dropped white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah and others in 2005-2006 during its genocidal war of illegal occupation; it is the same terror state that poisoned Iraq and generations of children with depleted uranium; the same terror state that supplies Israel and other allies such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain with a plethora of toxic chemicals that are then fired into civilian homes every day of the week.
Nobody in their right mind believes a word that the US rulers are saying about chemical weapons in Syria. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted how the US says it has “super convincing” evidence that the Syrian government is responsible yet the Americans won’t present the supposed intelligence.
Lavrov also hinted at the lunacy of official American thinking by pointing out the contradiction in Washington’s claims to support the elusive peace conference in Geneva but not before unleashing a blitzkrieg on the country.
“And after they bomb Syria, they will be ready for convening the conference called Geneva II,” said the Russian diplomat, as if describing a bloodthirsty psychopath, which is actually appropriate.
The US stands virtually alone in the face of humanity with its self-righteous regard to bomb any one it wants to based on its own outrageous self-serving lies. Even its plaything puppets like UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, Canada’s Prime Minster Stephen Harper, the pathetic Arab League and NATO’s Anders Fogh Rasmussen have all distanced themselves from the proposed US military attack on Syria.
“I’m comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable,” said Obama.
Comfortable? With committing a war of aggression by launching hundreds of cruise missiles on a sovereign country that has not and does not threaten the US?
What Obama means by the UN Security Council being paralyzed is that it refuses to bend over backwards to satisfy Washington’s criminal bloodlust and state terror.
Part of this terrorism is to put a gun to the head of Syria and the rest of the world as the next few days go by waiting for the US Congress to deliberate on whether or not to grant itself the right to bomb another country – premised on its arrogant delusions of grandeur and raving fabrications.
To this end, Obama said: “Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs [General Martin Dempsey] has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I’m prepared to give that order.”
Such crazed, self-indicting ranting would be funny, if it weren’t so appallingly criminal.
Source : http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2013/09/ ... us-regime/
But the corruption extends beyond the usual meaning of a dysfunctional moral compass to include the incapacity for intelligent reasoning and self-reflection. The political class of most powerful country on earth has been so over-indulged in arrogance and hubris that it is no longer able to realize how ridiculous it appears to the rest of the world. In short, criminal insanity seems to be the condition of US rulers and their puppets, including those in the mass media.
The American president and his cronies on Capitol Hill preen and talk as if into a charmed mirror that reflects loveliness to the beholder, yet the rest of the world sees ghastly, frightening clowns, loaded up on self-righteousness, delusion, inordinate firepower and a reckless ease for squeezing the trigger.
Indeed, such is the ridiculous posing by Washington that the US – the world’s number-one terrorist state – seems to have added a new weapon to its arsenal of planet-destroying armaments – one that induces uncontrollable laughter in victims to the point of death from asphyxiation or from a busted gut.
President Barack Obama may have been testing out this new “mass laughter” weapon last weekend when he announced that he was seeking approval from Congress to launch military strikes on Syria. This was after his administration accused the Syrian government of “murdering over 1,000 of its own people” with chemical weapons in the suburbs of Damascus on 21 August.
The death of hundreds of innocent civilians, including women and children, is certainly no laughing matter. But it is a cruel mockery to their memory that the US president should try to use these deaths as an excuse to escalate his transparent and criminal agenda for regime change in Syria.
While the Americans huff and puff that they have “high confidence” in their secret allegations against the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad, the rest of the world is more convinced that it is the US-backed mercenaries who committed mass murder with chemical weapons supplied by Washington’s ally Saudi Arabia.
So out-of-control is the delusional US president that it took his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, to make a telephone call and remind Obama that he is a Nobel Peace Laureate and should act accordingly instead of playing with fire that might engulf the region and the entire globe.
“I would like to address Obama as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. Before using force in Syria, it would be good to think about future casualties,” Putin said, as if he was addressing an imbecile, which he was. “Russia is urging you to think twice before making a decision on an operation in Syria.”
Apart from the world’s most reactionary and lawless regimes, Saudi Arabia and Israel, the rest of humanity is also urging the American government to think twice before it murders countless more people in a region already teetering on the brink of conflagration. Even the normally gung-ho British have backed away from such reckless adventurism.
Obama says that he “only” intends “limited missile strikes” on Syria as a “punitive” measure to deter the future of chemical weapons.
In his address from the White House Rose Garden on Saturday, Obama spoke with words scented with cloying hypocrisy. “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? We are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye.”
This is from the leader of the same terror state that supplied former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein with chemicals weapons and the coordinates to gas thousands of Iranians and Kurds during the 1980s; it is the same United States of terror that dropped white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah and others in 2005-2006 during its genocidal war of illegal occupation; it is the same terror state that poisoned Iraq and generations of children with depleted uranium; the same terror state that supplies Israel and other allies such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain with a plethora of toxic chemicals that are then fired into civilian homes every day of the week.
Nobody in their right mind believes a word that the US rulers are saying about chemical weapons in Syria. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted how the US says it has “super convincing” evidence that the Syrian government is responsible yet the Americans won’t present the supposed intelligence.
Lavrov also hinted at the lunacy of official American thinking by pointing out the contradiction in Washington’s claims to support the elusive peace conference in Geneva but not before unleashing a blitzkrieg on the country.
“And after they bomb Syria, they will be ready for convening the conference called Geneva II,” said the Russian diplomat, as if describing a bloodthirsty psychopath, which is actually appropriate.
The US stands virtually alone in the face of humanity with its self-righteous regard to bomb any one it wants to based on its own outrageous self-serving lies. Even its plaything puppets like UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, Canada’s Prime Minster Stephen Harper, the pathetic Arab League and NATO’s Anders Fogh Rasmussen have all distanced themselves from the proposed US military attack on Syria.
“I’m comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable,” said Obama.
Comfortable? With committing a war of aggression by launching hundreds of cruise missiles on a sovereign country that has not and does not threaten the US?
What Obama means by the UN Security Council being paralyzed is that it refuses to bend over backwards to satisfy Washington’s criminal bloodlust and state terror.
Part of this terrorism is to put a gun to the head of Syria and the rest of the world as the next few days go by waiting for the US Congress to deliberate on whether or not to grant itself the right to bomb another country – premised on its arrogant delusions of grandeur and raving fabrications.
To this end, Obama said: “Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs [General Martin Dempsey] has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I’m prepared to give that order.”
Such crazed, self-indicting ranting would be funny, if it weren’t so appallingly criminal.
Source : http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2013/09/ ... us-regime/
??Re: Syria
We are all al-Qaeda now, if Obama says so?
Tue Sep 3, 2013 3:8AM GMT
9
357
21
By Jim W. Dean
Obama has now aligned himself with the depredations of the Bush II regime. His administration is now being viewed as a national security threat in itself. Obama, the Brits and the French have all been quiet on the major terrorism operations being run out of Saudi Arabia by Prince Bandar. They have murdered more people in Syria than were lost in New York City on 911. Syria has been getting the ‘911 treatment’ once a month, compliments of the protector of the free world.”
Related Interviews:
‘US Syria attack to constitute war crime’
‘Game is up for Obama war on Syria’
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. He rots the soul of a nation - he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city - he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.” - Cicero, 42 BC
The political earth is shifting under our feet here in the US. There is talk now of something that most felt would be a down the road event... that America may be reaching a ‘tipping point’. I define that to mean a much larger number coming to understand that our present form of government has failed us, including the balance of powers doctrine which the Founding Fathers carefully built into our system.
They did not have a crystal ball, and could not see that outside forces could combine with disloyal, greedy and even treasonous rogue elements inside multiple branches of the our government to literally co-opt the country into being a tool for these outside forces.
The recent case in Syria of the highly suspicious chemical attack (I am being kind here) has generated the lowest support numbers for American military action that anyone here can remember. But if that was not bad enough the Obama administration made another mistake.
Their official position was, “We have the power to do it, so it does not matter what the people think.” That was a very dumb move on their part and I think they will look back on it so.
A two-sided coin seems to be in play here. On June 21st Obama sent a War Powers justification notice to Congress regarding the 700 troops and the missile batteries being sent to Jordan. On June 27th he effectively nullified the War Powers Act by saying he was not going to use it anymore as American constitutional foundations were being undermined by using the act for continual war without Congressional consent.
A week ago Obama said he would seek UN approval for a Syrian strike, and absent that only a sizable international coalition would make an attack diplomatically justifiable, but said getting that done would be ‘problematic’. Then days later he flips again saying that he has the authority to punish the use of WMD (but not when we, the Israelis or our allies use it). After the US has supported the killing of 100,000 Syrians, countless wounded and 8 million homeless in its disastrous regime-change ploy, we accuse Syria of a horrible crime.
And now, until he flips again, Obama is saying he wants Congress to have a debate and a vote, but still insists he has the power to launch an attack anyway. Are you getting a bit confused? This all looks like a superpower in panic mode. But why?
The White House public policy advisers must have rocks in their heads thinking that Americans can’t remember all the juiced up Intel reporting that took us into series of disastrous wars that significantly endangered our national security, and still is. One really has to look back at it all and ask if that was not really their objective.
Dear Obama policy wonks and CIA people, we remember what a hoax our secret agent ‘Curve Ball’ was, and we don’t believe he scammed you. We think you let yourself be scammed by him as part of your own scam.
We remember the yellow cake hustle, the sacrificing of Colin Powell, and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld playing used car salesman on CNN while he showed made in Hollywood underground cities that Al-Qaeda had in Afghanistan. Yes... it was all bogus, and we remember.
People do not think that it was misinformation, but fraudulent evidence use to fool the public, to herd us like lemmings to the sea. Rumsfeld is despised in the military and Intelligence community now, along with Bush and Cheney and the rest of the NeoCon traitors.
We remember Wolfowitz testifying how two years of Iraqi oil production would cover the entire cost of the Iraq war. I could go on and on but we all know now it was just one long record of failure after failure, except for all the contractor money that was made by all those who thought a multi-decade War on Terror was just wonderful.
But this week we saw two significant segments of American society begin to awaken from their long slumber, the silent majority and American veterans and their families. Among the roughly 10% of Americans polled who supported an attack on Syria were all the pro-Israel American Jews, and the hard core Christian Zionists. What was missed is that most of the CZ’s seemed to be absent from the pro-military strike numbers. Even their leadership seemed to be keeping their heads down.
The rank and file military folks, they know they have been misused in the past and are a little more savvy about spotting another bogus national security threat being used as a cover for something else.
They sense the justification for a Syria attack as part of America’s post Soviet collapse continuation of commercial wars to secure and protect markets for multinational corporations, thus reducing the American people to plantation livestock and military cannon fodder.
They are seeing an insider government rogue element intermarriage with these supra-multinational corporations, including the banksters, as the most dangerous national threat that America has been facing. They are of course 100% right.
When Obama used Vietnam anti-war veteran John Kerry to trot out that pitiful excuse for evidence that Syria would pull a chemical weapons attack in areas where their ground forces had been succeeding, he shot himself in the foot. Absent was any mention of motivation, or the already known Intel of the rebels having chemical weapons and having used them.
Obama has now aligned himself with the depredations of the Bush II regime. His administration is now being viewed as a national security threat in itself. Obama, the Brits and the French have all been quiet on the major terrorism operations being run out of Saudi Arabia by Prince Bandar. They have murdered more people in Syria than were lost in New York City on 911. Syria has been getting the ‘911 treatment’ once a month, compliments of the protector of the free world.
Those who conspired to bring this about are guilty of crimes against humanity under international law. The charge is simply conspiracy to commit terrorism, and taking direct action to effect such. This is like... a really really big crime. The last time I looked, diplomatic immunity did not protect you from that.
The world knows now that the ‘Iran has nuclear weapons’ scare was all hype, created to build support for a hope for strike against Iran. The economic consequences of that misadventure would have tanked the world economy. What people, what nation would want to risk such a financial catastrophe when we have learned that the world financial system is a house of cards, constructed as such to benefit the few at the expense of the many?
The only entities who would be from such a disaster would be those who could profit from it. Why do some multinational corporations have intelligence capabilities that surpass many countries? Why does one of the major Internet companies have a paramilitary division, getting secret government contracts, including running assassination teams, unbeknownst to their shareholders? Do you think they are doing this for some public interest, or perhaps their own?
We must do more than just stop this contrived attack on Syria. We must break the machine the planned and pushed for it. We have to dig down to the bedrock and pull our home grown deeply embedded national security threats out by the roots. We must do this to defend ourselves. They have already killed us, on 911, and gotten away with it. That makes them extremely dangerous.
The phony war machine crowd will be cranking up their Congressional lobbyists this next week. The American public will need to put the fear into their Congressmen like they have never seen before. And we have to up the stakes for this fight. We have to start dialing back on where a penetration into the White House could then trigger a phony war based on phony Intel. And we have to clean out Israeli espionage in Congress as it is a constant knife to the throat of our country.
And we might want to put the Jim Dean trump card down on the table... no more internal investigations, period, as they are not worth spit. It makes no difference if they are military, Justice Dept, White House, FBI, CIA, or NSA. They can all be rigged via high level political obstruction of justice. Yes, we have knowledge of many FBI Israeli espionage investigations being stopped due to one call from the White House, which is nothing more than high treason.
We need a fourth branch of government whose sole job is to ride herd and root out corruption and treason in government, all branches of it. And such a fourth branch has to be answerable only to the people, where no political entity has veto power.
Only then we will be able to go down to the bedrock, and disinfect our house, and only then will we ever have any national security in any sense of the word. The only good thing that can come out of all this Iran/Syrian phone threat scam is that we use it as a launching pad to restart America all over again.
Our Intel files hold almost everything needed to prosecute the massive criminal empire that is protected by the highest political powers, because they are partners. They have all the bank transactions, all the emails, phone calls... and data mining can deliver them to the prosecutors offices on a conveyor belt.
We must make a pledge to each other that Syria is the last time we are going to let them pull this crap on us again. Large numbers of people in our government know who all the real bad guys are, but they aren’t telling. They are afraid.
We are going to have to figure out how to bring them over to our side or they will continue to make us all al-Qaeda funders and affiliates. God help us all... to save us from these barbarians in suits.
Tue Sep 3, 2013 3:8AM GMT
9
357
21
By Jim W. Dean
Obama has now aligned himself with the depredations of the Bush II regime. His administration is now being viewed as a national security threat in itself. Obama, the Brits and the French have all been quiet on the major terrorism operations being run out of Saudi Arabia by Prince Bandar. They have murdered more people in Syria than were lost in New York City on 911. Syria has been getting the ‘911 treatment’ once a month, compliments of the protector of the free world.”
Related Interviews:
‘US Syria attack to constitute war crime’
‘Game is up for Obama war on Syria’
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. He rots the soul of a nation - he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city - he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.” - Cicero, 42 BC
The political earth is shifting under our feet here in the US. There is talk now of something that most felt would be a down the road event... that America may be reaching a ‘tipping point’. I define that to mean a much larger number coming to understand that our present form of government has failed us, including the balance of powers doctrine which the Founding Fathers carefully built into our system.
They did not have a crystal ball, and could not see that outside forces could combine with disloyal, greedy and even treasonous rogue elements inside multiple branches of the our government to literally co-opt the country into being a tool for these outside forces.
The recent case in Syria of the highly suspicious chemical attack (I am being kind here) has generated the lowest support numbers for American military action that anyone here can remember. But if that was not bad enough the Obama administration made another mistake.
Their official position was, “We have the power to do it, so it does not matter what the people think.” That was a very dumb move on their part and I think they will look back on it so.
A two-sided coin seems to be in play here. On June 21st Obama sent a War Powers justification notice to Congress regarding the 700 troops and the missile batteries being sent to Jordan. On June 27th he effectively nullified the War Powers Act by saying he was not going to use it anymore as American constitutional foundations were being undermined by using the act for continual war without Congressional consent.
A week ago Obama said he would seek UN approval for a Syrian strike, and absent that only a sizable international coalition would make an attack diplomatically justifiable, but said getting that done would be ‘problematic’. Then days later he flips again saying that he has the authority to punish the use of WMD (but not when we, the Israelis or our allies use it). After the US has supported the killing of 100,000 Syrians, countless wounded and 8 million homeless in its disastrous regime-change ploy, we accuse Syria of a horrible crime.
And now, until he flips again, Obama is saying he wants Congress to have a debate and a vote, but still insists he has the power to launch an attack anyway. Are you getting a bit confused? This all looks like a superpower in panic mode. But why?
The White House public policy advisers must have rocks in their heads thinking that Americans can’t remember all the juiced up Intel reporting that took us into series of disastrous wars that significantly endangered our national security, and still is. One really has to look back at it all and ask if that was not really their objective.
Dear Obama policy wonks and CIA people, we remember what a hoax our secret agent ‘Curve Ball’ was, and we don’t believe he scammed you. We think you let yourself be scammed by him as part of your own scam.
We remember the yellow cake hustle, the sacrificing of Colin Powell, and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld playing used car salesman on CNN while he showed made in Hollywood underground cities that Al-Qaeda had in Afghanistan. Yes... it was all bogus, and we remember.
People do not think that it was misinformation, but fraudulent evidence use to fool the public, to herd us like lemmings to the sea. Rumsfeld is despised in the military and Intelligence community now, along with Bush and Cheney and the rest of the NeoCon traitors.
We remember Wolfowitz testifying how two years of Iraqi oil production would cover the entire cost of the Iraq war. I could go on and on but we all know now it was just one long record of failure after failure, except for all the contractor money that was made by all those who thought a multi-decade War on Terror was just wonderful.
But this week we saw two significant segments of American society begin to awaken from their long slumber, the silent majority and American veterans and their families. Among the roughly 10% of Americans polled who supported an attack on Syria were all the pro-Israel American Jews, and the hard core Christian Zionists. What was missed is that most of the CZ’s seemed to be absent from the pro-military strike numbers. Even their leadership seemed to be keeping their heads down.
The rank and file military folks, they know they have been misused in the past and are a little more savvy about spotting another bogus national security threat being used as a cover for something else.
They sense the justification for a Syria attack as part of America’s post Soviet collapse continuation of commercial wars to secure and protect markets for multinational corporations, thus reducing the American people to plantation livestock and military cannon fodder.
They are seeing an insider government rogue element intermarriage with these supra-multinational corporations, including the banksters, as the most dangerous national threat that America has been facing. They are of course 100% right.
When Obama used Vietnam anti-war veteran John Kerry to trot out that pitiful excuse for evidence that Syria would pull a chemical weapons attack in areas where their ground forces had been succeeding, he shot himself in the foot. Absent was any mention of motivation, or the already known Intel of the rebels having chemical weapons and having used them.
Obama has now aligned himself with the depredations of the Bush II regime. His administration is now being viewed as a national security threat in itself. Obama, the Brits and the French have all been quiet on the major terrorism operations being run out of Saudi Arabia by Prince Bandar. They have murdered more people in Syria than were lost in New York City on 911. Syria has been getting the ‘911 treatment’ once a month, compliments of the protector of the free world.
Those who conspired to bring this about are guilty of crimes against humanity under international law. The charge is simply conspiracy to commit terrorism, and taking direct action to effect such. This is like... a really really big crime. The last time I looked, diplomatic immunity did not protect you from that.
The world knows now that the ‘Iran has nuclear weapons’ scare was all hype, created to build support for a hope for strike against Iran. The economic consequences of that misadventure would have tanked the world economy. What people, what nation would want to risk such a financial catastrophe when we have learned that the world financial system is a house of cards, constructed as such to benefit the few at the expense of the many?
The only entities who would be from such a disaster would be those who could profit from it. Why do some multinational corporations have intelligence capabilities that surpass many countries? Why does one of the major Internet companies have a paramilitary division, getting secret government contracts, including running assassination teams, unbeknownst to their shareholders? Do you think they are doing this for some public interest, or perhaps their own?
We must do more than just stop this contrived attack on Syria. We must break the machine the planned and pushed for it. We have to dig down to the bedrock and pull our home grown deeply embedded national security threats out by the roots. We must do this to defend ourselves. They have already killed us, on 911, and gotten away with it. That makes them extremely dangerous.
The phony war machine crowd will be cranking up their Congressional lobbyists this next week. The American public will need to put the fear into their Congressmen like they have never seen before. And we have to up the stakes for this fight. We have to start dialing back on where a penetration into the White House could then trigger a phony war based on phony Intel. And we have to clean out Israeli espionage in Congress as it is a constant knife to the throat of our country.
And we might want to put the Jim Dean trump card down on the table... no more internal investigations, period, as they are not worth spit. It makes no difference if they are military, Justice Dept, White House, FBI, CIA, or NSA. They can all be rigged via high level political obstruction of justice. Yes, we have knowledge of many FBI Israeli espionage investigations being stopped due to one call from the White House, which is nothing more than high treason.
We need a fourth branch of government whose sole job is to ride herd and root out corruption and treason in government, all branches of it. And such a fourth branch has to be answerable only to the people, where no political entity has veto power.
Only then we will be able to go down to the bedrock, and disinfect our house, and only then will we ever have any national security in any sense of the word. The only good thing that can come out of all this Iran/Syrian phone threat scam is that we use it as a launching pad to restart America all over again.
Our Intel files hold almost everything needed to prosecute the massive criminal empire that is protected by the highest political powers, because they are partners. They have all the bank transactions, all the emails, phone calls... and data mining can deliver them to the prosecutors offices on a conveyor belt.
We must make a pledge to each other that Syria is the last time we are going to let them pull this crap on us again. Large numbers of people in our government know who all the real bad guys are, but they aren’t telling. They are afraid.
We are going to have to figure out how to bring them over to our side or they will continue to make us all al-Qaeda funders and affiliates. God help us all... to save us from these barbarians in suits.
Dangerous Crossroads. A War on Syria, Prelude to a World War
Dangerous Crossroads. A War on Syria, Prelude to a World War III Scenario?
Note: The Global Research website at globalresearch.ca as well as our French language site mondialisation.ca have experienced technical difficulties in the course of the last few days.
The site became inaccessible. Several important articles were no longer available. An earlier version of this article was posted on August 29, prior to the difficulties experienced by Global Research. The original version of this article is no longer accessible. GR Editor, M. Ch.
Read article here http://www.globalresearch.ca/dangerous- ... io/5347370
Note: The Global Research website at globalresearch.ca as well as our French language site mondialisation.ca have experienced technical difficulties in the course of the last few days.
The site became inaccessible. Several important articles were no longer available. An earlier version of this article was posted on August 29, prior to the difficulties experienced by Global Research. The original version of this article is no longer accessible. GR Editor, M. Ch.
Read article here http://www.globalresearch.ca/dangerous- ... io/5347370
Obama: As Warlike as Bush, and Just as Lonely
Obama: As Warlike as Bush, and Just as Lonely
Most of the planet recoils from President Obama’s plans to smash the Syrian state – as do a majority of Americans. “The First Black U.S. President now finds himself more alone in the world than George Bush, and with even less support at home.”
“U.S. imperialism has no option but to bang its military fist on the table to reset the global game board.”
With obscene imperial arrogance, President Obama proclaimed that the “world” – not he – has drawn a bloody “red line” in Syria. “I didn’t set a red line,” said Obama, at a stop in Sweden on his way to a Group of 20 nations meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia. “The world set a red line.”
That’s news to the rest of the planet, including most of the Group of 20 and the meeting’s host, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who described Obama’s claims that Syria used sarin gas against civilians in rebel-held areas as “completely ridiculous.” “It does not fit any logic,” said Putin, since Syrian President Assad’s forces “have the so-called rebels surrounded and are finishing them off.”
It’s news to China, which will surely join Russia in vetoing any Security Council motion to provide legal cover for Obama’s aggression. And it’s news to the usually compliant UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who this week reaffirmed that “the Security Council has primary responsibility for international peace and security" and “the use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations Charter and or when the Security Council approves such action.”
It’s news to Great Britain, America’s temporarily wayward poodle, whose parliament rejected any military entanglement in Obama’s red line. As esteemed political analyst William Blum points out, 64 percent of the people of France oppose their government’s planned participation Obama’s Battle of the Red Line.
Apparently, a young and impressionable Obama took the 1985 USA for Africa song “We are the World” too literally, and believes that all one need do is sing or shout the words to make it so.
“64 percent of the people of France oppose their government’s planned participation Obama’s Battle of the Red Line.”
A new Reuters poll shows 56 percent of the American public oppose U.S. intervention in Syria, with only 19 percent backing Obama. The First Black U.S. President, who was hired (by corporate sponsors, and later elected) to put a new face on U.S. imperial policy after his predecessor’s defeat and international isolation over Iraq, now finds himself more alone in the world than George Bush, and with even less support at home.
Nevertheless, Obama will doubtless press forward with his aggression, for the same reason that Bush defied world opinion and a vibrant domestic anti-war movement, ten years ago. U.S. imperialism has no option but to bang its military fist on the table to reset the global game board, just as it attempted – and ultimately failed – to do in Iraq in 2003, and as a unified NATO temporarily accomplished, after a 7-month bombing campaign, in Libya in 2011.
Obama’s Syria crisis is another chapter in the Euro-American response to the so-called “Arab Spring” that threatened to upset western dominance in the center of global energy extraction – the end game for global capitalism as we know it. Within a week of Mubarak’s fall from power in Egypt, the U.S. State Department informed the press corps that Washington prefers monarchs to autocrats in the Middle East – a very loud signal that the U.S. had suddenly become far more dependent on the royal thieves of the Persian Gulf, the only Arab forces in the region on which the U.S. could depend. Peering into the abyss of sustained popular agitation in the Arab world, the U.S. and its European and royal Arabian allies attempted to leap ahead of the curve of events with a massive display of NATO force against Libya and a mobilization of jihadists in the region, mustered mainly by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The goal was to transform the character of the Arab Spring into a battle against secular socialist regimes in Tripoli and Damascus, along with a general Sunni jihad against heretical Shiites of one sect or another. The mission was to remove those states whose very existence threatened the monarchies while at the same time diverting the masses’ energies into sectarianism. (All of which is fine with Israel, whose strategy since its founding has been to foster chaos and division in the Arab world.)
“Both sides in Egypt’s divided society now accuse the other of being allied with Enemy Number One: the U.S.”
Libya fell with the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi (Hillary Clinton: “We came, we saw, he died"), but the Assad government in Syria has held on for almost three years, and was prevailing in its battle against the U.S./Saudi/Qatari-backed jihadists. The 2011 game plan was coming undone. This summer in Egypt, where the West’s nightmare of eviction from the entire Mideast began two and a half years ago, the military seized total power and went on a killing spree against the Muslim Brotherhood, exponentially complicating the U.S. regional jihadist strategy. General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s government, which is carrying out a ghastly pogrom against its own Islamists, opposes the U.S. strike against Syria and tells its followers that the U.S. might turn against the Egyptian military regime, next. (This, despite massive infusions of cash from the Arab monarchs to the military government.) Both sides in Egypt’s divided society now accuse the other of being allied with Enemy Number One: the U.S. The crisis that Washington hoped to get ahead of, with the attack on Libya, had metastasized. Egypt was wholly unmanageable, and Syria was defeating Washington’s jihadists.
Thus, the transparent frame-up of Assad, with direct U.S. participation. It was a panicky move, with the fate of the Empire at stake. Mistakes in execution were surely made, and will come to light – which is why U.S. intelligence agencies hedge their accusations against Assad, leaving room to construct alternative scenarios as the original fable falls apart under the weight of facts and logic.
Obama may well get permission from the U.S. Congress to smash the Syrian state. The president reserves the right to launch the attack, unilaterally, and will not be punished if he does so. It is quite possible that Assad will soon be dead, and Al-Nusra jihadists will be cutting off heads in what’s left of central Damascus. But one thing is certain: the U.S. has no long term allies among the Arab people – certainly not the jihadists, who will also turn on their royal paymasters at the first opportunity. The game board cannot be reset – not for long – and, at some point in the not too distant future, the U.S. will be ejected from much of the Arab world.
Obama lays down his red line because – as in 2011 – he has no other options. It has been a twisted “Arab Spring” – but, for U.S. imperialism, it is winter in Arabia.
http://blackagendareport.com/content/ob ... ust-lonely
Most of the planet recoils from President Obama’s plans to smash the Syrian state – as do a majority of Americans. “The First Black U.S. President now finds himself more alone in the world than George Bush, and with even less support at home.”
“U.S. imperialism has no option but to bang its military fist on the table to reset the global game board.”
With obscene imperial arrogance, President Obama proclaimed that the “world” – not he – has drawn a bloody “red line” in Syria. “I didn’t set a red line,” said Obama, at a stop in Sweden on his way to a Group of 20 nations meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia. “The world set a red line.”
That’s news to the rest of the planet, including most of the Group of 20 and the meeting’s host, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who described Obama’s claims that Syria used sarin gas against civilians in rebel-held areas as “completely ridiculous.” “It does not fit any logic,” said Putin, since Syrian President Assad’s forces “have the so-called rebels surrounded and are finishing them off.”
It’s news to China, which will surely join Russia in vetoing any Security Council motion to provide legal cover for Obama’s aggression. And it’s news to the usually compliant UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who this week reaffirmed that “the Security Council has primary responsibility for international peace and security" and “the use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations Charter and or when the Security Council approves such action.”
It’s news to Great Britain, America’s temporarily wayward poodle, whose parliament rejected any military entanglement in Obama’s red line. As esteemed political analyst William Blum points out, 64 percent of the people of France oppose their government’s planned participation Obama’s Battle of the Red Line.
Apparently, a young and impressionable Obama took the 1985 USA for Africa song “We are the World” too literally, and believes that all one need do is sing or shout the words to make it so.
“64 percent of the people of France oppose their government’s planned participation Obama’s Battle of the Red Line.”
A new Reuters poll shows 56 percent of the American public oppose U.S. intervention in Syria, with only 19 percent backing Obama. The First Black U.S. President, who was hired (by corporate sponsors, and later elected) to put a new face on U.S. imperial policy after his predecessor’s defeat and international isolation over Iraq, now finds himself more alone in the world than George Bush, and with even less support at home.
Nevertheless, Obama will doubtless press forward with his aggression, for the same reason that Bush defied world opinion and a vibrant domestic anti-war movement, ten years ago. U.S. imperialism has no option but to bang its military fist on the table to reset the global game board, just as it attempted – and ultimately failed – to do in Iraq in 2003, and as a unified NATO temporarily accomplished, after a 7-month bombing campaign, in Libya in 2011.
Obama’s Syria crisis is another chapter in the Euro-American response to the so-called “Arab Spring” that threatened to upset western dominance in the center of global energy extraction – the end game for global capitalism as we know it. Within a week of Mubarak’s fall from power in Egypt, the U.S. State Department informed the press corps that Washington prefers monarchs to autocrats in the Middle East – a very loud signal that the U.S. had suddenly become far more dependent on the royal thieves of the Persian Gulf, the only Arab forces in the region on which the U.S. could depend. Peering into the abyss of sustained popular agitation in the Arab world, the U.S. and its European and royal Arabian allies attempted to leap ahead of the curve of events with a massive display of NATO force against Libya and a mobilization of jihadists in the region, mustered mainly by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The goal was to transform the character of the Arab Spring into a battle against secular socialist regimes in Tripoli and Damascus, along with a general Sunni jihad against heretical Shiites of one sect or another. The mission was to remove those states whose very existence threatened the monarchies while at the same time diverting the masses’ energies into sectarianism. (All of which is fine with Israel, whose strategy since its founding has been to foster chaos and division in the Arab world.)
“Both sides in Egypt’s divided society now accuse the other of being allied with Enemy Number One: the U.S.”
Libya fell with the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi (Hillary Clinton: “We came, we saw, he died"), but the Assad government in Syria has held on for almost three years, and was prevailing in its battle against the U.S./Saudi/Qatari-backed jihadists. The 2011 game plan was coming undone. This summer in Egypt, where the West’s nightmare of eviction from the entire Mideast began two and a half years ago, the military seized total power and went on a killing spree against the Muslim Brotherhood, exponentially complicating the U.S. regional jihadist strategy. General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s government, which is carrying out a ghastly pogrom against its own Islamists, opposes the U.S. strike against Syria and tells its followers that the U.S. might turn against the Egyptian military regime, next. (This, despite massive infusions of cash from the Arab monarchs to the military government.) Both sides in Egypt’s divided society now accuse the other of being allied with Enemy Number One: the U.S. The crisis that Washington hoped to get ahead of, with the attack on Libya, had metastasized. Egypt was wholly unmanageable, and Syria was defeating Washington’s jihadists.
Thus, the transparent frame-up of Assad, with direct U.S. participation. It was a panicky move, with the fate of the Empire at stake. Mistakes in execution were surely made, and will come to light – which is why U.S. intelligence agencies hedge their accusations against Assad, leaving room to construct alternative scenarios as the original fable falls apart under the weight of facts and logic.
Obama may well get permission from the U.S. Congress to smash the Syrian state. The president reserves the right to launch the attack, unilaterally, and will not be punished if he does so. It is quite possible that Assad will soon be dead, and Al-Nusra jihadists will be cutting off heads in what’s left of central Damascus. But one thing is certain: the U.S. has no long term allies among the Arab people – certainly not the jihadists, who will also turn on their royal paymasters at the first opportunity. The game board cannot be reset – not for long – and, at some point in the not too distant future, the U.S. will be ejected from much of the Arab world.
Obama lays down his red line because – as in 2011 – he has no other options. It has been a twisted “Arab Spring” – but, for U.S. imperialism, it is winter in Arabia.
http://blackagendareport.com/content/ob ... ust-lonely
The BBC and the Imperial mindset
Yes, I know I keep banging on about the BBC but it is such an influential power, not only nationally but also globally, so much so that its pronouncements are most often taken as gospel (objective, impartial, unbiased). But any reading of the history of the BBC should disabuse you of this piece of fiction.
continue reading here; http://williambowles.info/2013/09/03/th ... am-bowles/
continue reading here; http://williambowles.info/2013/09/03/th ... am-bowles/
News of the Syrian war what you're not being told
News of the Syrian war what you're not being told
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk
Egypt Closes Suez Canal To All US Military Ships Citing
Egypt Closes Suez Canal To All US Military Ships Citing Defence Pact With Syria
The first thing Abdel Fattah al-Sisi Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, not to enter any US military chartered a tanker to the Suez Canal to hit Syria, stressing Egypt’s commitment to joint defence agreement between Egypt and Syria.
If true, and there is no confirming this as of yet, as say bravo to Gen. al-Sisi. Granted the guy has slaughtered hundreds of his own countrymen the last couple weeks but at least he has the balls to standup to us and islamic extremism. -Mort
UPDATE: Egypt’s Tamarud, the group of ‘rebels’ who toppled Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi from power on July 3rd, campaign spokesperson, said in a statement that “it is a national duty to support the Syrian army” and denounced “people who betray their country.”
http://beforeitsnews.com/middle-east/20 ... 53790.html
The first thing Abdel Fattah al-Sisi Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, not to enter any US military chartered a tanker to the Suez Canal to hit Syria, stressing Egypt’s commitment to joint defence agreement between Egypt and Syria.
If true, and there is no confirming this as of yet, as say bravo to Gen. al-Sisi. Granted the guy has slaughtered hundreds of his own countrymen the last couple weeks but at least he has the balls to standup to us and islamic extremism. -Mort
UPDATE: Egypt’s Tamarud, the group of ‘rebels’ who toppled Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi from power on July 3rd, campaign spokesperson, said in a statement that “it is a national duty to support the Syrian army” and denounced “people who betray their country.”
http://beforeitsnews.com/middle-east/20 ... 53790.html
WESTERN POWERS USE AL-QAEDA REBELS TO PLANT ANOTHER FALSE FL
How many more times is the world community of nations going to allow itself to be herded into a pen of public opinion that is based completely on falsehoods and sophistry?
How many more times will the military powers of the planet allow themselves to be fraudulently sold a case for war by the very perpetrators of the provocation (aka False Flag operation)?
How easy is it for a chemical weapons attack to be staged in broad daylight without anyone knowing the true origin or the culprit’s identities?
It’s very easy. Just as it has always been easy for warmongering countries to start their premeditated wars with false flag wherever they decide to plant them.
However, the world has changed dramatically over the past 20 years. It is now connected by a world wide web with an internet available to anyone who cares to research and investigate this latest, and quite obvious, false flag operation. No, the controllers of the political elite are not liking that at all. Unless, of course, their primary goal is to create distraction anyway they can so that the gravest issues confronting humankind are never addressed.
CONTROL THE MEDIA, CONTROL THE LIES
Let’s face it — John Kerry has so bungled this false flag accusation phase that one wonders how he ever got the job! Quite stunning is the level of incompetence to ever come out of State. And that’s after the likes of Hilary Clinton, Colin Powell, and Condoleeza Rice have held the post.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how ridiculously easy it is to blame any attack on anybody they want. After all they completely lock down their engineered crime scenes around the world, just as they totally control the mainstream media (MSM).
Where it concerns the MSM the patented MO is known as manufactured consent, poll engineering, shaping public opinion, preplanned outcomes, and manipulation of the data. It is also known as disinfo, misinfo, and false info.
In the words of the infamous but valuable “Downing Street memo” during the run-up to the Iraq war, it was quite aptly described as “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” The fabricated evidence then enabled Tony Blair to misrepresent the case for war before the British public. The rest is history. Look at the extremely sorry state of Iraq today compared to where it was under Saddam Hussein. Is that what they are doing to Syria this very moment?
How convenient it was in the rush to war against Iraq just as it has been convenient in the rush to war against Syria. “Fixing” the false ‘facts’ about Syria’s involvement with a sarin gas attack, as well as the false flag ‘intelligence’ concerning the Assad Administration’s use of these chemical weapons. Really, how easy is it for the governments and militaries of the world to fabricate false evidence like this? Very easy indeed!
How much easier is it to goad the always willing MSM to jump on board the bandwagon to promote such a destructive and falsehood-filled narrative?
Doesn’t anyone believe in the Ten Commandments any more? Whether you come from a Christian background or not, you might remember the one that exhorts us (all of us) not to bear false witness against our neighbor.
Of course, this very same commandment bumps right up against another famous statement that goes like this: “By Way Of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War.”
Perhaps it is time to determine just who it really is who that is responsible for planting so many false flags all over the world.
Author’s Note:
When it comes to the relentless war-making over the past century, one truly wonders if there would have been any wars at all had there not been false flag operations to provoke them. An objective and thoughtful 100 year retrospective will indicate that each major (and minor) war was initiated on the basis of a false flag perpetrated against the chosen targets of those who wish to control the world, and especially its resources.
Read more: http://www.storyleak.com/western-powers ... z2e3fpObDz
How many more times will the military powers of the planet allow themselves to be fraudulently sold a case for war by the very perpetrators of the provocation (aka False Flag operation)?
How easy is it for a chemical weapons attack to be staged in broad daylight without anyone knowing the true origin or the culprit’s identities?
It’s very easy. Just as it has always been easy for warmongering countries to start their premeditated wars with false flag wherever they decide to plant them.
However, the world has changed dramatically over the past 20 years. It is now connected by a world wide web with an internet available to anyone who cares to research and investigate this latest, and quite obvious, false flag operation. No, the controllers of the political elite are not liking that at all. Unless, of course, their primary goal is to create distraction anyway they can so that the gravest issues confronting humankind are never addressed.
CONTROL THE MEDIA, CONTROL THE LIES
Let’s face it — John Kerry has so bungled this false flag accusation phase that one wonders how he ever got the job! Quite stunning is the level of incompetence to ever come out of State. And that’s after the likes of Hilary Clinton, Colin Powell, and Condoleeza Rice have held the post.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how ridiculously easy it is to blame any attack on anybody they want. After all they completely lock down their engineered crime scenes around the world, just as they totally control the mainstream media (MSM).
Where it concerns the MSM the patented MO is known as manufactured consent, poll engineering, shaping public opinion, preplanned outcomes, and manipulation of the data. It is also known as disinfo, misinfo, and false info.
In the words of the infamous but valuable “Downing Street memo” during the run-up to the Iraq war, it was quite aptly described as “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” The fabricated evidence then enabled Tony Blair to misrepresent the case for war before the British public. The rest is history. Look at the extremely sorry state of Iraq today compared to where it was under Saddam Hussein. Is that what they are doing to Syria this very moment?
How convenient it was in the rush to war against Iraq just as it has been convenient in the rush to war against Syria. “Fixing” the false ‘facts’ about Syria’s involvement with a sarin gas attack, as well as the false flag ‘intelligence’ concerning the Assad Administration’s use of these chemical weapons. Really, how easy is it for the governments and militaries of the world to fabricate false evidence like this? Very easy indeed!
How much easier is it to goad the always willing MSM to jump on board the bandwagon to promote such a destructive and falsehood-filled narrative?
Doesn’t anyone believe in the Ten Commandments any more? Whether you come from a Christian background or not, you might remember the one that exhorts us (all of us) not to bear false witness against our neighbor.
Of course, this very same commandment bumps right up against another famous statement that goes like this: “By Way Of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War.”
Perhaps it is time to determine just who it really is who that is responsible for planting so many false flags all over the world.
Author’s Note:
When it comes to the relentless war-making over the past century, one truly wonders if there would have been any wars at all had there not been false flag operations to provoke them. An objective and thoughtful 100 year retrospective will indicate that each major (and minor) war was initiated on the basis of a false flag perpetrated against the chosen targets of those who wish to control the world, and especially its resources.
Read more: http://www.storyleak.com/western-powers ... z2e3fpObDz
Russia to Keep Helping Syria in Case of Airstrikes Putin
Russia to Keep Helping Syria in Case of Airstrikes Putin
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130906/18321 ... Putin.html
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130906/18321 ... Putin.html
Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To S
Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria
A majority of U.S. citizens believe congressional leaders in both the House and Senate must be sent to war-torn Syria immediately.
WASHINGTON—As President Obama continues to push for a plan of limited military intervention in Syria, a new poll of Americans has found that though the nation remains wary over the prospect of becoming involved in another Middle Eastern war, the vast majority of U.S. citizens strongly approve of sending Congress to Syria.
The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.
“I believe it is in the best interest of the United States, and the global community as a whole, to move forward with the deployment of all U.S. congressional leaders to Syria immediately,” respondent Carol Abare, 50, said in the nationwide telephone survey, echoing the thoughts of an estimated 9 in 10 Americans who said they “strongly support” any plan of action that involves putting the U.S. House and Senate on the ground in the war-torn Middle Eastern state. “With violence intensifying every day, now is absolutely the right moment—the perfect moment, really—for the United States to send our legislators to the region.”
“In fact, my preference would have been for Congress to be deployed months ago,” she added.
Citing overwhelming support from the international community—including that of the Arab League, Turkey, and France, as well as Great Britain, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Japan, Mexico, China, and Canada, all of whom are reported to be unilaterally in favor of sending the U.S. Congress to Syria—the majority of survey respondents said they believe the United States should refocus its entire approach to Syria’s civil war on the ground deployment of U.S. senators and representatives, regardless of whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons or not.
In fact, 91 percent of those surveyed agreed that the active use of sarin gas attacks by the Syrian government would, if anything, only increase poll respondents’ desire to send Congress to Syria.
Public opinion was essentially unchanged when survey respondents were asked about a broader range of attacks, with more than 79 percent of Americans saying they would strongly support sending Congress to Syria in cases of bomb and missile attacks, 78 percent supporting intervention in cases of kidnappings and executions, and 75 percent saying representatives should be deployed in cases where government forces were found to have used torture.
When asked if they believe that Sen. Rand Paul should be deployed to Syria, 100 percent of respondents said yes.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that sending Congress to Syria—or, at the very least, sending the major congressional leaders in both parties—is the correct course of action,” survey respondent and Iraq war veteran Maj. Gen. John Mill said, noting that his opinion was informed by four tours of duty in which he saw dozens of close friends sustain physical as well as emotional injury and post-traumatic stress. “There is a clear solution to our problems staring us right in the face here, and we need to take action.”
“Sooner rather than later, too,” Mill added. “This war isn’t going to last forever.”
http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-m ... ong,33752/
A majority of U.S. citizens believe congressional leaders in both the House and Senate must be sent to war-torn Syria immediately.
WASHINGTON—As President Obama continues to push for a plan of limited military intervention in Syria, a new poll of Americans has found that though the nation remains wary over the prospect of becoming involved in another Middle Eastern war, the vast majority of U.S. citizens strongly approve of sending Congress to Syria.
The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.
“I believe it is in the best interest of the United States, and the global community as a whole, to move forward with the deployment of all U.S. congressional leaders to Syria immediately,” respondent Carol Abare, 50, said in the nationwide telephone survey, echoing the thoughts of an estimated 9 in 10 Americans who said they “strongly support” any plan of action that involves putting the U.S. House and Senate on the ground in the war-torn Middle Eastern state. “With violence intensifying every day, now is absolutely the right moment—the perfect moment, really—for the United States to send our legislators to the region.”
“In fact, my preference would have been for Congress to be deployed months ago,” she added.
Citing overwhelming support from the international community—including that of the Arab League, Turkey, and France, as well as Great Britain, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Japan, Mexico, China, and Canada, all of whom are reported to be unilaterally in favor of sending the U.S. Congress to Syria—the majority of survey respondents said they believe the United States should refocus its entire approach to Syria’s civil war on the ground deployment of U.S. senators and representatives, regardless of whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons or not.
In fact, 91 percent of those surveyed agreed that the active use of sarin gas attacks by the Syrian government would, if anything, only increase poll respondents’ desire to send Congress to Syria.
Public opinion was essentially unchanged when survey respondents were asked about a broader range of attacks, with more than 79 percent of Americans saying they would strongly support sending Congress to Syria in cases of bomb and missile attacks, 78 percent supporting intervention in cases of kidnappings and executions, and 75 percent saying representatives should be deployed in cases where government forces were found to have used torture.
When asked if they believe that Sen. Rand Paul should be deployed to Syria, 100 percent of respondents said yes.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that sending Congress to Syria—or, at the very least, sending the major congressional leaders in both parties—is the correct course of action,” survey respondent and Iraq war veteran Maj. Gen. John Mill said, noting that his opinion was informed by four tours of duty in which he saw dozens of close friends sustain physical as well as emotional injury and post-traumatic stress. “There is a clear solution to our problems staring us right in the face here, and we need to take action.”
“Sooner rather than later, too,” Mill added. “This war isn’t going to last forever.”
http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-m ... ong,33752/