After a extensive research on google and digging deeper into this story for the past two weeks, Im starting to gasp this and it doesn't surprise me that Br Porus was the only one who dared to give his opinion about this complex situation.. There is no doubt in my mind that the so called "Arab spring" was just another tool by the imperialist to farther there cause..
Here ( http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com.au/20 ... -dupe.html ) is very intresserting article about who, how, where and when all this was put in play and most of all, why.. It really puts the present situation in perspective..
While the US is building a massive arm, the Russia's are sending more ships to the region and china is also sending warships to "observe".. I believe the congress is going to vote for a strike and by next week it will be raining with tomahawk missiles in damascus..
Russia's and China are getting more and more involved and I believe they are going to do all in there power to stop this advancement before its gets right on there door steps..
This is going to be there battle ground, where all the big guns are going to come out and we will see a massive civilian death and sectarian violence will spread like a wild fire.. I pray for every soul in that region and I pray to God to help us all..
Syria
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: Syria
Here is an interesting clip of an arab league meeting where Gaddafi explains to everyone how the west will betray them sooner or later, here he is predicting his own future while Assad is clearly shown laughing at these comments believing it could never happen to him...
http://www.nidokidos.org/threads/204444
http://www.nidokidos.org/threads/204444
Re: Syria
There is no doubt in my mind that the so called "Arab spring" was just another tool by the imperialist to farther there cause.. correct: further THEIR cause
its gets right on there door steps.. correct: it gets right on THEIR battle ground
This is going to be there battle ground[/quote]
Difference between THERE and THEIR.
There: (over there) - eg there is no doubt - correct
Their: (belongs to them).
its gets right on there door steps.. correct: it gets right on THEIR battle ground
This is going to be there battle ground[/quote]
Difference between THERE and THEIR.
There: (over there) - eg there is no doubt - correct
Their: (belongs to them).
Syrian letter to the house of repentsevise
An important document being censored by the US press.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013 ... entatives/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013 ... entatives/
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: Syria
Why America cannot live without wars
WASHINGTON: On a day marking the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I-Have-A-Dream" civil rights speech, the United States is poised to unleash another nightmare some 10,000km away in the Middle-East. Washington's war machine is geared up for limited strikes against Syria because Damascus ostensibly crossed a red line by using chemical weapons against its own population, never mind that many regimes worldwide inflict atrocities against their own people by other means.
Why a President who came to office on the strength of his anti-war credentials - especially on the phony war foisted on Iraq - is running with the war hounds, is something of a mystery. But the rest of the Washington establishment is champing at the bit to unleash missiles on the Syrian regime, promising a short punitive strike, in keeping with the well-worn belief that America cannot live without a war.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was among those who indicated that the US was "ready to go" the moment President Barack Obama gave the sign. "We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfill and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take," Hagel said on Tuesday.
This, when a UN team is still investigating the reported use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the regime of Bashir al Assad and the rebels. The UN team has been asked to pack up and get out of the way. "We clearly value the UN's work - we've said that from the beginning - when it comes to investigating chemical weapons in Syria. But we've reached a point now where we believe too much time has passed for the investigation to be credible and that it's clear the security situation isn't safe for the team in Syria," State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Tuesday, echoing the kind of impatience that characterized the descent into the Iraq war.
If all this recalls the war against Iraq not too long ago, not many in Washington seem keen on remembering it. Instead, explanations are being proffered on how different this case is and how it will be a short, surgical strike, not really a war.
But America's discerning have long recognized that the country can never live without war. It is a country made for war. Small detail: Up until 1947, the Defense Department was called Department of War.
By one count, the United States has fought some 70 wars since its birth 234 years ago; at least 10 of them major conflicts. "We like war... we are good at it!" the great, insightful comedian George Carlin said some two decades ago, during the first Gulf War. "We are not good at anything else anymore... can't build a decent car or a television, can't give good education to the kids or health care to the old, but we can bomb the shit of out any country..."
"America's economy is a war economy. Not a manufacturing economy. Not an agricultural economy. Nor a service economy. Not even a consumer economy," business pundit Paul Farrell wrote during this Iraq War. "Deep inside we love war. We want war. Need it. Relish it. Thrive on war. War is in our genes, deep in our DNA. War excites our economic brain. War drives our entrepreneurial spirit. War thrills the American soul. Oh just admit it, we have a love affair with war."
And so, America will be off to another (limited) war shortly.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... government
WASHINGTON: On a day marking the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I-Have-A-Dream" civil rights speech, the United States is poised to unleash another nightmare some 10,000km away in the Middle-East. Washington's war machine is geared up for limited strikes against Syria because Damascus ostensibly crossed a red line by using chemical weapons against its own population, never mind that many regimes worldwide inflict atrocities against their own people by other means.
Why a President who came to office on the strength of his anti-war credentials - especially on the phony war foisted on Iraq - is running with the war hounds, is something of a mystery. But the rest of the Washington establishment is champing at the bit to unleash missiles on the Syrian regime, promising a short punitive strike, in keeping with the well-worn belief that America cannot live without a war.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was among those who indicated that the US was "ready to go" the moment President Barack Obama gave the sign. "We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfill and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take," Hagel said on Tuesday.
This, when a UN team is still investigating the reported use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the regime of Bashir al Assad and the rebels. The UN team has been asked to pack up and get out of the way. "We clearly value the UN's work - we've said that from the beginning - when it comes to investigating chemical weapons in Syria. But we've reached a point now where we believe too much time has passed for the investigation to be credible and that it's clear the security situation isn't safe for the team in Syria," State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Tuesday, echoing the kind of impatience that characterized the descent into the Iraq war.
If all this recalls the war against Iraq not too long ago, not many in Washington seem keen on remembering it. Instead, explanations are being proffered on how different this case is and how it will be a short, surgical strike, not really a war.
But America's discerning have long recognized that the country can never live without war. It is a country made for war. Small detail: Up until 1947, the Defense Department was called Department of War.
By one count, the United States has fought some 70 wars since its birth 234 years ago; at least 10 of them major conflicts. "We like war... we are good at it!" the great, insightful comedian George Carlin said some two decades ago, during the first Gulf War. "We are not good at anything else anymore... can't build a decent car or a television, can't give good education to the kids or health care to the old, but we can bomb the shit of out any country..."
"America's economy is a war economy. Not a manufacturing economy. Not an agricultural economy. Nor a service economy. Not even a consumer economy," business pundit Paul Farrell wrote during this Iraq War. "Deep inside we love war. We want war. Need it. Relish it. Thrive on war. War is in our genes, deep in our DNA. War excites our economic brain. War drives our entrepreneurial spirit. War thrills the American soul. Oh just admit it, we have a love affair with war."
And so, America will be off to another (limited) war shortly.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... government
Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?
Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-wh ... ck/5347542
http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-wh ... ck/5347542
A picture paints a thousand words!!
A picture paints a thousand words!!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Syria
Nigel Farage lambasts "extreme militarists" during Syria debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urIdnpb5sRc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urIdnpb5sRc
Obama’s Humiliating Defeat
Obama’s Humiliating Defeat
Wed, 09/11/2013 - 04:33 — Glen Ford
War Against Syria | Shock and Awe | Obama Syria Strike | Chemical Weapons Treaty
Printer-friendly version
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
When presidents fail, it is a public spectacle. In his rush into unprovoked war against Syria, President Obama overplayed his hand. Shortly before he appeared on television on Wednesday, “Obama’s handlers advised him that his political position was, for the time being, untenable.” But he’ll soon be back on the warpath, meaner and more aggressive than ever.
Obama’s Humiliating Defeat
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
“Obama will be back on the Syria warpath as soon as the proper false flag operations can be arranged.”
It was a strange speech, in which the real news was left for last, popping out like a Jack-in-the-Box after 11 minutes of growls and snarls and Obama’s bizarre whining about how unfair it is to be restrained from making war on people who have done you no harm. The president abruptly switched from absurd, lie-based justifications for war to his surprise announcement that, no, Syria’s turn to endure Shock and Awe had been postponed. The reader suddenly realizes that the diplomatic developments had been hastily cut and pasted into the speech, probably only hours before. Obama had intended to build the case for smashing Assad to an imperial peroration – a laying down of the law from on high. But his handlers threw in the towel, for reasons both foreign and domestic. Temporarily defeated, Obama will be back on the Syria warpath as soon as the proper false flag operations can be arranged.
The president’s roiling emotions, visible through his eyes, got in the way of his oratorical skills. But then, he didn’t have much material to work with, just an endless string of prevarications and half-truths strung almost randomly together. Obama, who was reluctantly asking permission from Congress to violate the most fundamental tenets of international law – permission that Congress is not empowered to give – framed Syria as a rogue nation because it has not signed a treaty on chemical weapons like “98 percent of humanity.” This makes Syria ripe for bombing. The president does not explain that Syria’s neighbors, Israel and Egypt – both U.S. allies – have also not signed the treaty. He does not suggest bombing Tel Aviv or Cairo.
“He was already priming the public to accept Assad’s guilt the next time chemical weapons explode in Syria.”
Obama claims that the U.S. has proof that “Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces.” Not a shred of evidence has been presented to back up this narrative – which, under the circumstances, tends to prove it is fiction. On the other hand, there are credible reports (everybody’s reports are more credible than the Americans), that rebels under U.S. allied control were told to prepare to go on the offensive following an American retaliation to a chemical attack that would be blamed on Assad’s forces – a story whose logic conforms to what actually occurred and answers the common sense question, Who profits?
Obama will not for long accept diplomatic delays in his war schedule. On Tuesday night, he was already priming the public to accept Assad’s guilt the next time chemical weapons explode in Syria. “If we fail to act,” said the president, “the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.” American and allied secret services will gladly arrange a replay.
Early in the speech, Obama raised the specter that, because of Assad’s mad chemical predilections, “our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield.” Moreover, “If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel.” At this point, the president was arguing for a punitive strike, and had taken on the persona of warlike Obama.
Near the end of the speech, Obama responds to those who want Assad “taken out” right away and permanently, rather than merely “degrading” his forces with calibrated strikes. Now speaking as the “moderate” Obama, the president makes the case that Assad has no “interest in escalation that would lead to his demise, and our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force.”
“Assad would not launch a chemical attack just a few miles away from United Nations inspectors that had just arrived in the country at his government’s request.”
The two Obamas are matched with two corresponding Assads. One Assad is a menace to the whole neighborhood and to himself, while the other Assad knows who to mess with and takes no risks with his own survival.
It would seem logical that the latter Assad, who is not prone to suicidal actions, would not launch a chemical attack just a few miles away from United Nations inspectors that had just arrived in the country at his government’s request.
The point here is not to argue with Obama’s logic, but to show how inconsistent, opportunistic and, at times, incoherent his reasoning is. He has not the slightest interest in truth or simple logic, only in what sounds right in the immediate context. Obama mixes his personas, and those of his nemesis, at the drop of a hat, because he is shameless and absolutely cynical – as befits a mass murderer.
Barack Obama pretends to believe – at least I hope he’s only pretending – that it was his idea to wait for a congressional debate before blasting Syria to smithereens. “So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security to take this debate to Congress.” He didn’t take the debate to Congress; the congressional detour was forced on the White House on August 31 when it became clear that Obama lacked both domestic and foreign support for a speedy strike. That was Obama’s first big defeat. The second was a knockout, after Russia and Syria seized on Secretary of State John Kerry’s “joke” about Assad giving up his chemical weapons, at which point Obama’s handlers advised him that his political position was, for the time being, untenable. He arrived in front of the cameras shaken, angry, and humiliated – with a patched together script and a mouth full of crow.
“He arrived in front of the cameras shaken, angry, and humiliated.”
The president who claimed that he could bomb the sovereign nation of Libya for seven months, overthrow its government and kill its president, without triggering the War Powers Act – and, further, that no state of war exists unless Americans are killed – told his Tuesday night audience that he opposes excessive presidential power. “This is especially true,” said Obama, with a straight face, “after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.”
In truth, it was the likelihood of rejection by American “people’s representatives” – just as British Prime Minister Cameron’s war plans were rejected by Parliament – that derailed Obama.
It took more than 1,500 words before Obama acknowledged the existence of the real world, in which he was compelled to “postpone” a congressional vote on the use of force while the U.S., Russia, China, France and Britain work on a UN resolution “requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control.” Syria has already agreed to the arrangement, in principle. Obama must bear, not only the bitter burden of defeat, but the humiliation of having to pretend that the UN route was his idea, all along.
Expect him back on the war track in no time flat. What else is an imperialist to do?
http://blackagendareport.com/content/ob ... ing-defeat
Wed, 09/11/2013 - 04:33 — Glen Ford
War Against Syria | Shock and Awe | Obama Syria Strike | Chemical Weapons Treaty
Printer-friendly version
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
When presidents fail, it is a public spectacle. In his rush into unprovoked war against Syria, President Obama overplayed his hand. Shortly before he appeared on television on Wednesday, “Obama’s handlers advised him that his political position was, for the time being, untenable.” But he’ll soon be back on the warpath, meaner and more aggressive than ever.
Obama’s Humiliating Defeat
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
“Obama will be back on the Syria warpath as soon as the proper false flag operations can be arranged.”
It was a strange speech, in which the real news was left for last, popping out like a Jack-in-the-Box after 11 minutes of growls and snarls and Obama’s bizarre whining about how unfair it is to be restrained from making war on people who have done you no harm. The president abruptly switched from absurd, lie-based justifications for war to his surprise announcement that, no, Syria’s turn to endure Shock and Awe had been postponed. The reader suddenly realizes that the diplomatic developments had been hastily cut and pasted into the speech, probably only hours before. Obama had intended to build the case for smashing Assad to an imperial peroration – a laying down of the law from on high. But his handlers threw in the towel, for reasons both foreign and domestic. Temporarily defeated, Obama will be back on the Syria warpath as soon as the proper false flag operations can be arranged.
The president’s roiling emotions, visible through his eyes, got in the way of his oratorical skills. But then, he didn’t have much material to work with, just an endless string of prevarications and half-truths strung almost randomly together. Obama, who was reluctantly asking permission from Congress to violate the most fundamental tenets of international law – permission that Congress is not empowered to give – framed Syria as a rogue nation because it has not signed a treaty on chemical weapons like “98 percent of humanity.” This makes Syria ripe for bombing. The president does not explain that Syria’s neighbors, Israel and Egypt – both U.S. allies – have also not signed the treaty. He does not suggest bombing Tel Aviv or Cairo.
“He was already priming the public to accept Assad’s guilt the next time chemical weapons explode in Syria.”
Obama claims that the U.S. has proof that “Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces.” Not a shred of evidence has been presented to back up this narrative – which, under the circumstances, tends to prove it is fiction. On the other hand, there are credible reports (everybody’s reports are more credible than the Americans), that rebels under U.S. allied control were told to prepare to go on the offensive following an American retaliation to a chemical attack that would be blamed on Assad’s forces – a story whose logic conforms to what actually occurred and answers the common sense question, Who profits?
Obama will not for long accept diplomatic delays in his war schedule. On Tuesday night, he was already priming the public to accept Assad’s guilt the next time chemical weapons explode in Syria. “If we fail to act,” said the president, “the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.” American and allied secret services will gladly arrange a replay.
Early in the speech, Obama raised the specter that, because of Assad’s mad chemical predilections, “our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield.” Moreover, “If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel.” At this point, the president was arguing for a punitive strike, and had taken on the persona of warlike Obama.
Near the end of the speech, Obama responds to those who want Assad “taken out” right away and permanently, rather than merely “degrading” his forces with calibrated strikes. Now speaking as the “moderate” Obama, the president makes the case that Assad has no “interest in escalation that would lead to his demise, and our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force.”
“Assad would not launch a chemical attack just a few miles away from United Nations inspectors that had just arrived in the country at his government’s request.”
The two Obamas are matched with two corresponding Assads. One Assad is a menace to the whole neighborhood and to himself, while the other Assad knows who to mess with and takes no risks with his own survival.
It would seem logical that the latter Assad, who is not prone to suicidal actions, would not launch a chemical attack just a few miles away from United Nations inspectors that had just arrived in the country at his government’s request.
The point here is not to argue with Obama’s logic, but to show how inconsistent, opportunistic and, at times, incoherent his reasoning is. He has not the slightest interest in truth or simple logic, only in what sounds right in the immediate context. Obama mixes his personas, and those of his nemesis, at the drop of a hat, because he is shameless and absolutely cynical – as befits a mass murderer.
Barack Obama pretends to believe – at least I hope he’s only pretending – that it was his idea to wait for a congressional debate before blasting Syria to smithereens. “So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security to take this debate to Congress.” He didn’t take the debate to Congress; the congressional detour was forced on the White House on August 31 when it became clear that Obama lacked both domestic and foreign support for a speedy strike. That was Obama’s first big defeat. The second was a knockout, after Russia and Syria seized on Secretary of State John Kerry’s “joke” about Assad giving up his chemical weapons, at which point Obama’s handlers advised him that his political position was, for the time being, untenable. He arrived in front of the cameras shaken, angry, and humiliated – with a patched together script and a mouth full of crow.
“He arrived in front of the cameras shaken, angry, and humiliated.”
The president who claimed that he could bomb the sovereign nation of Libya for seven months, overthrow its government and kill its president, without triggering the War Powers Act – and, further, that no state of war exists unless Americans are killed – told his Tuesday night audience that he opposes excessive presidential power. “This is especially true,” said Obama, with a straight face, “after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.”
In truth, it was the likelihood of rejection by American “people’s representatives” – just as British Prime Minister Cameron’s war plans were rejected by Parliament – that derailed Obama.
It took more than 1,500 words before Obama acknowledged the existence of the real world, in which he was compelled to “postpone” a congressional vote on the use of force while the U.S., Russia, China, France and Britain work on a UN resolution “requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control.” Syria has already agreed to the arrangement, in principle. Obama must bear, not only the bitter burden of defeat, but the humiliation of having to pretend that the UN route was his idea, all along.
Expect him back on the war track in no time flat. What else is an imperialist to do?
http://blackagendareport.com/content/ob ... ing-defeat
A Plea for Caution From Russia
"Putin wrote in an opinion piece posted in the new york times on syria"
A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opini ... wanted=all
A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opini ... wanted=all
Russia to expand Mediterranean fleet to 10 warships
Russia to expand Mediterranean fleet to 10 warships
http://rt.com/news/navy-warship-syria-m ... anean-800/
http://rt.com/news/navy-warship-syria-m ... anean-800/
Re: Syria
Kerry Slams Syria Deal, Pushes Idea of Attacking
Insists Syria's Pledge to Hand Over Arms Not Good Enough
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/09/12/kerr ... attacking/
Insists Syria's Pledge to Hand Over Arms Not Good Enough
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/09/12/kerr ... attacking/
Truth of US-Russia Confrontation
Aggression was over the Moment those Two Missiles were Fired
A well informed diplomatic source told As-Safir newspaper that “the US war on Syria had started and ended the moment those two ballistic missiles were fired, leaving inconsistent information, as Israel denied and Russia confirmed, until an Israeli statement was issued indicating they were fired in the context of an Israeli-US joint drill and fell in the sea, and that they were not related to the Syrian crisis.”
The source further told the Lebanese daily that “the US forces fired these two rockets from a NATO base in Spain, and were instantly detected by the Russian radars and confronted by the Russian defense systems, so one of them exploded in the airspace and the second one diverted towards the sea.”
In this context, the source pointed out that “the statement issued by the Russian Defense Ministry, which stated the detection of two ballistic missiles fired towards the Middle East, intended to neglect two points: the first was the location from which the two rockets were fired, and the second was their downing. Why? Because the moment the full military operation was launched, Head of the Russian Intelligence Service contacted the US intelligence and informed it that “hitting Damascus means hitting Moscow, and we have removed the term “downed the two missiles” from the statement to preserve the bilateral relations and to avoid escalation. Therefore, you must immediately reconsider your policies, approaches and intentions on the Syrian crisis, as you must be certain that you cannot eliminate our presence in the Mediterranean.”
“This unannounced direct confrontation between Moscow and Washington increased the Obama Administration’s confusion and certainty that the Russian side was ready to move until the end with the Syrian cause, and that the US did not have a way out of its impasse except through a Russian initiative which would save America’s face…” he added.
From this point, the diplomatic source clarified that “in order to avoid further US confusion, and after Israel denied knowing anything about the rocket firing in its first statement, which is the truth, Washington demanded Tel Aviv to adopt the rocket firing to save its face in front of the International Community, especially since these two rockets were the beginning of the US aggression on Syria and the announcement of the beginning of military operations, after which US President Barack Obama was supposed to go to the G20 Summit in Russia to negotiate the destiny of Syrian President Bashr Al-Assad. However, he went to find a way out of the impasse he’s in.”
The source further indicated that “after the US-Russia rocket confrontation, Moscow intended to increase its number of military experts in Russia, and added to its military units and destroyers to enhance its military presence in the Mediterranean. It also set a time for announcing about its initiative on stopping the aggression on Syria after the G20 Summit, after drawing a side scene on the sidelines of the summit which was followed by two successive visits for Iranian Foreign Minister, Hussein Amir Abdul Lahyan, and Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid Al-Moallem, in which a way out was agreed on with the Russian side, and it included a Syrian announcement on approving the Russian initiative regarding putting Syrian chemical weapons under international supervision and preparing Syria for joining the non-proliferation treaty.
Finally, the source pointed out that “One of the first results of the US-Russian military confrontation was the British House of Commons’ rejection to participate in a war on Syria. This was followed by European stances, most significantly, the German stance announced by Chancellor Angela Merkel."
Translated by Sara Taha Moughnieh
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adeta ... id=71&s1=1
A well informed diplomatic source told As-Safir newspaper that “the US war on Syria had started and ended the moment those two ballistic missiles were fired, leaving inconsistent information, as Israel denied and Russia confirmed, until an Israeli statement was issued indicating they were fired in the context of an Israeli-US joint drill and fell in the sea, and that they were not related to the Syrian crisis.”
The source further told the Lebanese daily that “the US forces fired these two rockets from a NATO base in Spain, and were instantly detected by the Russian radars and confronted by the Russian defense systems, so one of them exploded in the airspace and the second one diverted towards the sea.”
In this context, the source pointed out that “the statement issued by the Russian Defense Ministry, which stated the detection of two ballistic missiles fired towards the Middle East, intended to neglect two points: the first was the location from which the two rockets were fired, and the second was their downing. Why? Because the moment the full military operation was launched, Head of the Russian Intelligence Service contacted the US intelligence and informed it that “hitting Damascus means hitting Moscow, and we have removed the term “downed the two missiles” from the statement to preserve the bilateral relations and to avoid escalation. Therefore, you must immediately reconsider your policies, approaches and intentions on the Syrian crisis, as you must be certain that you cannot eliminate our presence in the Mediterranean.”
“This unannounced direct confrontation between Moscow and Washington increased the Obama Administration’s confusion and certainty that the Russian side was ready to move until the end with the Syrian cause, and that the US did not have a way out of its impasse except through a Russian initiative which would save America’s face…” he added.
From this point, the diplomatic source clarified that “in order to avoid further US confusion, and after Israel denied knowing anything about the rocket firing in its first statement, which is the truth, Washington demanded Tel Aviv to adopt the rocket firing to save its face in front of the International Community, especially since these two rockets were the beginning of the US aggression on Syria and the announcement of the beginning of military operations, after which US President Barack Obama was supposed to go to the G20 Summit in Russia to negotiate the destiny of Syrian President Bashr Al-Assad. However, he went to find a way out of the impasse he’s in.”
The source further indicated that “after the US-Russia rocket confrontation, Moscow intended to increase its number of military experts in Russia, and added to its military units and destroyers to enhance its military presence in the Mediterranean. It also set a time for announcing about its initiative on stopping the aggression on Syria after the G20 Summit, after drawing a side scene on the sidelines of the summit which was followed by two successive visits for Iranian Foreign Minister, Hussein Amir Abdul Lahyan, and Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid Al-Moallem, in which a way out was agreed on with the Russian side, and it included a Syrian announcement on approving the Russian initiative regarding putting Syrian chemical weapons under international supervision and preparing Syria for joining the non-proliferation treaty.
Finally, the source pointed out that “One of the first results of the US-Russian military confrontation was the British House of Commons’ rejection to participate in a war on Syria. This was followed by European stances, most significantly, the German stance announced by Chancellor Angela Merkel."
Translated by Sara Taha Moughnieh
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adeta ... id=71&s1=1
US-Russia deal demands many ground troops in Syria. Here's w
US-Russia deal demands many ground troops in Syria. Here's why
Analysis: The chemical weapons plan seems great, but could require 75,000 soldiers. If the US won't send them, will Russia?
BUZZARDS BAY, Mass. — As game-changing events go, it was remarkably restrained: neither US Secretary of State John Kerry nor Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov seemed overly excited by Saturday’s announcement of a framework agreement between their two countries on securing and destroying Syria’s immense stockpile of chemical weapons.
Kerry gave some hint of the problem by invoking an old Russian proverb made famous in the 1980s by Ronald Reagan, “doveryai no proveryai” or “trust but verify.”
It was in need of an update, Kerry said.
“We have committed to a standard that says verify and verify,” he said, speaking at a press conference in Geneva. Forget the trust.
Looking at the diplomats’ stony faces, one could not help but think that they shared the same reservations expressed by many informed observers.
“Beware of this deal,” Amy Smithson, an expert on chemical weapons at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California, told The New York Times earlier in the week. “It’s deceptively attractive.”
The plan outlined by the United States and Russia provides a lickety-split approach to dealing with Syria’s chemical weapons that glosses over many devilish details.
Within a week, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must provide a comprehensive list of his chemical weapons, along with their locations. By November, the plan has weapons specialists from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons completing their initial on-site inspections. The agreement also envisages the “complete elimination of all chemical weapons material and equipment in the first half of 2014.”
Given the size of Assad’s stockpiles and the challenges of dealing with them in the midst of a brutal and fragmented civil war, this timeline might seem a tad rosy.
Assad has “one of the biggest chemical weapons programs in the region and even in the world," according to Dieter Rothbacher, a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. "It took us three years to destroy that stuff under UN supervision in Iraq."
It is not difficult to understand why so many people embraced the so-called Russian proposal.
It saves Assad from potentially destabilizing military action, and spares the American president a humiliating showdown with Congress. It also burnishes Russian President Vladimir Putin’s diplomatic credentials, with some pundits already talking of nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize.
But if experts are to be believed, this plan may turn out to be a lot more dangerous than the “unbelievably small” strikes previously contemplated by President Barack Obama.
Within Syria, where groups like pro-regime Lebanese militia Hezbollah and anti-Assad Al Qaeda-affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra are muddying the waters as they add to the violence, the task of locating, securing, and destroying Syria’s immense stores of chemical weapons will be nearly impossible without military intervention.
“We’re talking boots on the ground,” a former United Nations weapons inspector from Iraq told The New York Times anonymously. “We’re not talking about just putting someone at the gate. You have to have layers of security.”
It wouldn't just be a few boots either, according to Rothbacher. "There are calculations that to secure (the weapons) up to 75,000 ground troops are needed," he told Reuters.
But that is a taboo subject, especially for the White House, which has been at pains to assure a skeptical American public that they are not going to get dragged into another Middle East conflict.
“We do not envision boots on the ground,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said replying to a reporter’s question on Wednesday.
However, he did not slam the door completely.
“The process by which chemical weapons would be identified, verified, secured, and removed from Assad’s control is obviously a complicated one,” he added. “And… I don't pretend to know all the parameters of what that would look like.”
It might, in fact, look very much like war.
“Obama's wrong,” wrote Joshua Foust, an analyst on international security. “Syria's chemical weapons require boots on the ground.”
Protecting weapons inspectors, safeguarding weapons depots and ensuring that none of the groups involved in Syria’s conflict gets any ideas about hijacking them will be next to impossible without a ceasefire, he said.
“Unfortunately a ceasefire is even less likely than deploying thousands of troops,” wrote Foust. “Even if Russia could get the Assad regime to agree to one — it never has — the many pro-government militias that have sprung up near cities like Aleppo probably wouldn’t obey it anyhow … That leaves troops — tens of thousands of troops — as the only remotely feasible way to carry out the dismantling plan for Syria’s chemical weapons.”
But whose troops would they be?
House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers volunteered the Arab League, which, he said, is "willing to provide the support we need, including troops to go in and help secure those weapons systems, because they know how dangerous it is if it proliferates around the Levant."
Foust remained skeptical.
“I think Rogers is a bit optimistic about the League's capacity to take direct action,” Foust told GlobalPost. “They tend to prefer conferring legitimacy on western militaries rather than getting their hands dirty.”
Cheryl Rofer, a chemist who supervised a team responsible for destroying chemical warfare agents at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, told Foreign Policy magazine that the only two entities that really know how to get rid of chemical weapons are the Russian and American militaries.
Those specially trained troops would need to stay in Syria for years given the amount of time it would take to build and then operate the disposal facilities, she added.
The American public has made it clear that it is in no mood for more foreign adventures; even after Obama’s plea to the nation Tuesday most poll respondents were opposed to intervention in Syria.
Foust speculated that the Russians could step in — but that would be a difficult sell in Washington. While Americans might balk at being the world’s policeman, they do not seem ready to cede the privilege to anyone else, especially Moscow.
There is still a lot of Cold War-style enmity toward Russia and its leaders, as became apparent on Thursday, when the Russian president published an op-ed piece in The New York Times taking Obama to task for his bellicose stance:
“It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States,” wrote Putin. “Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force.”
This was too much for America’s lawmakers.
House Speaker John Boehner declared himself “insulted” by the piece, while Sen. Bob Menendez, chair of the Senate Foreign relations Committee, was more graphic.
"I almost wanted to vomit," he said.
While the denizens of Capitol Hill nurse their hurt feelings and delicate digestions, the rebel groups that are the supposed beneficiaries of Washington’s largesse are furious at what they see as betrayal.
“What about the murderer Bashar who gave the order? Should we forget him?” Gen. Salim Idriss, the commander of the rebel Free Syrian Army, said at a televised press conference in Istanbul Saturday. “We feel let down by the international community. We don’t have any hope.”
In short, the “diplomatic” solution touted in Geneva will most likely require tens of thousands of troops and a commitment that could last for a decade and cost billions, if not trillions, of dollars. It has already alienated the groups the United States is supposed to be supporting in Syria's civil war and could place weapons inspectors in the crossfire.
Hardly a win-win situation.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... d?page=0,0
Analysis: The chemical weapons plan seems great, but could require 75,000 soldiers. If the US won't send them, will Russia?
BUZZARDS BAY, Mass. — As game-changing events go, it was remarkably restrained: neither US Secretary of State John Kerry nor Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov seemed overly excited by Saturday’s announcement of a framework agreement between their two countries on securing and destroying Syria’s immense stockpile of chemical weapons.
Kerry gave some hint of the problem by invoking an old Russian proverb made famous in the 1980s by Ronald Reagan, “doveryai no proveryai” or “trust but verify.”
It was in need of an update, Kerry said.
“We have committed to a standard that says verify and verify,” he said, speaking at a press conference in Geneva. Forget the trust.
Looking at the diplomats’ stony faces, one could not help but think that they shared the same reservations expressed by many informed observers.
“Beware of this deal,” Amy Smithson, an expert on chemical weapons at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California, told The New York Times earlier in the week. “It’s deceptively attractive.”
The plan outlined by the United States and Russia provides a lickety-split approach to dealing with Syria’s chemical weapons that glosses over many devilish details.
Within a week, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must provide a comprehensive list of his chemical weapons, along with their locations. By November, the plan has weapons specialists from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons completing their initial on-site inspections. The agreement also envisages the “complete elimination of all chemical weapons material and equipment in the first half of 2014.”
Given the size of Assad’s stockpiles and the challenges of dealing with them in the midst of a brutal and fragmented civil war, this timeline might seem a tad rosy.
Assad has “one of the biggest chemical weapons programs in the region and even in the world," according to Dieter Rothbacher, a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. "It took us three years to destroy that stuff under UN supervision in Iraq."
It is not difficult to understand why so many people embraced the so-called Russian proposal.
It saves Assad from potentially destabilizing military action, and spares the American president a humiliating showdown with Congress. It also burnishes Russian President Vladimir Putin’s diplomatic credentials, with some pundits already talking of nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize.
But if experts are to be believed, this plan may turn out to be a lot more dangerous than the “unbelievably small” strikes previously contemplated by President Barack Obama.
Within Syria, where groups like pro-regime Lebanese militia Hezbollah and anti-Assad Al Qaeda-affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra are muddying the waters as they add to the violence, the task of locating, securing, and destroying Syria’s immense stores of chemical weapons will be nearly impossible without military intervention.
“We’re talking boots on the ground,” a former United Nations weapons inspector from Iraq told The New York Times anonymously. “We’re not talking about just putting someone at the gate. You have to have layers of security.”
It wouldn't just be a few boots either, according to Rothbacher. "There are calculations that to secure (the weapons) up to 75,000 ground troops are needed," he told Reuters.
But that is a taboo subject, especially for the White House, which has been at pains to assure a skeptical American public that they are not going to get dragged into another Middle East conflict.
“We do not envision boots on the ground,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said replying to a reporter’s question on Wednesday.
However, he did not slam the door completely.
“The process by which chemical weapons would be identified, verified, secured, and removed from Assad’s control is obviously a complicated one,” he added. “And… I don't pretend to know all the parameters of what that would look like.”
It might, in fact, look very much like war.
“Obama's wrong,” wrote Joshua Foust, an analyst on international security. “Syria's chemical weapons require boots on the ground.”
Protecting weapons inspectors, safeguarding weapons depots and ensuring that none of the groups involved in Syria’s conflict gets any ideas about hijacking them will be next to impossible without a ceasefire, he said.
“Unfortunately a ceasefire is even less likely than deploying thousands of troops,” wrote Foust. “Even if Russia could get the Assad regime to agree to one — it never has — the many pro-government militias that have sprung up near cities like Aleppo probably wouldn’t obey it anyhow … That leaves troops — tens of thousands of troops — as the only remotely feasible way to carry out the dismantling plan for Syria’s chemical weapons.”
But whose troops would they be?
House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers volunteered the Arab League, which, he said, is "willing to provide the support we need, including troops to go in and help secure those weapons systems, because they know how dangerous it is if it proliferates around the Levant."
Foust remained skeptical.
“I think Rogers is a bit optimistic about the League's capacity to take direct action,” Foust told GlobalPost. “They tend to prefer conferring legitimacy on western militaries rather than getting their hands dirty.”
Cheryl Rofer, a chemist who supervised a team responsible for destroying chemical warfare agents at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, told Foreign Policy magazine that the only two entities that really know how to get rid of chemical weapons are the Russian and American militaries.
Those specially trained troops would need to stay in Syria for years given the amount of time it would take to build and then operate the disposal facilities, she added.
The American public has made it clear that it is in no mood for more foreign adventures; even after Obama’s plea to the nation Tuesday most poll respondents were opposed to intervention in Syria.
Foust speculated that the Russians could step in — but that would be a difficult sell in Washington. While Americans might balk at being the world’s policeman, they do not seem ready to cede the privilege to anyone else, especially Moscow.
There is still a lot of Cold War-style enmity toward Russia and its leaders, as became apparent on Thursday, when the Russian president published an op-ed piece in The New York Times taking Obama to task for his bellicose stance:
“It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States,” wrote Putin. “Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force.”
This was too much for America’s lawmakers.
House Speaker John Boehner declared himself “insulted” by the piece, while Sen. Bob Menendez, chair of the Senate Foreign relations Committee, was more graphic.
"I almost wanted to vomit," he said.
While the denizens of Capitol Hill nurse their hurt feelings and delicate digestions, the rebel groups that are the supposed beneficiaries of Washington’s largesse are furious at what they see as betrayal.
“What about the murderer Bashar who gave the order? Should we forget him?” Gen. Salim Idriss, the commander of the rebel Free Syrian Army, said at a televised press conference in Istanbul Saturday. “We feel let down by the international community. We don’t have any hope.”
In short, the “diplomatic” solution touted in Geneva will most likely require tens of thousands of troops and a commitment that could last for a decade and cost billions, if not trillions, of dollars. It has already alienated the groups the United States is supposed to be supporting in Syria's civil war and could place weapons inspectors in the crossfire.
Hardly a win-win situation.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... d?page=0,0
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
![[img]http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/3266/nkjp.jpg[/img]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/837/nkjp.jpg/){kind=link}
Vladimir Putin: Leader of the Free World?
When even the New York Times admits that Barack Obama has been outfoxed, outsmarted and outplayed, you know he has really been outfoxed, outsmarted and outplayed.
Continue reading here http://frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spe ... e-world-2/
Continue reading here http://frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spe ... e-world-2/
The Truth against the Mainstream Media
The Truth against the Mainstream Media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVfRZdR9Kqc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVfRZdR9Kqc
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: Syria
Poor and desperate, Syrian refugees beg on Yemen's streets
"If they remove the chemical weapons, but he stays on as president, the problem hasn't been solved,"
"There is nowhere else to go to now. We're begging on the streets," said Mustafa, who, dressed in black from head to toe, stationed herself at one of Sanaa's main thoroughfares hoping cars would slow down to pay her a few Yemeni riyals.
Bruno Geddo, UNHCR's representative in Yemen, says the country already hosts 240,000 refugees from Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Iraq. But the scale of the Syrian conflict, which has virtually laid waste to Mustafa's home town of Aleppo, seems to have prompted people "to run in all directions".
The Syrian civil war, pitting rebel groups against President Bashar al-Assad, has created two million refugees, primarily in the neighbouring countries of Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq. With no end in sight after more than two years, those neighbours are increasingly wary conflict could spread to their soil.
Many refugees endure hard camp conditions as prospects of a speedy return home fade, eking out a living as best they can.
But for some desperate Syrians the cost of living even in those tent cities is too high. Yemen, where nearly half of 25 million inhabitants are either hungry or on the edge of hunger, offers a last hope of sanctuary for a growing number.
Mustafa said she and her family paid for their flight to Yemen, where Syrian families do not generally require a visa.
"It's cheaper here. People are kind and honourable," the elderly woman told Reuters, though she acknowledged beggars from other countries like Somalia occasionally harassed them for encroaching on what they consider their territory.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/poor-desperate ... 59949.html
"If they remove the chemical weapons, but he stays on as president, the problem hasn't been solved,"
"There is nowhere else to go to now. We're begging on the streets," said Mustafa, who, dressed in black from head to toe, stationed herself at one of Sanaa's main thoroughfares hoping cars would slow down to pay her a few Yemeni riyals.
Bruno Geddo, UNHCR's representative in Yemen, says the country already hosts 240,000 refugees from Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Iraq. But the scale of the Syrian conflict, which has virtually laid waste to Mustafa's home town of Aleppo, seems to have prompted people "to run in all directions".
The Syrian civil war, pitting rebel groups against President Bashar al-Assad, has created two million refugees, primarily in the neighbouring countries of Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq. With no end in sight after more than two years, those neighbours are increasingly wary conflict could spread to their soil.
Many refugees endure hard camp conditions as prospects of a speedy return home fade, eking out a living as best they can.
But for some desperate Syrians the cost of living even in those tent cities is too high. Yemen, where nearly half of 25 million inhabitants are either hungry or on the edge of hunger, offers a last hope of sanctuary for a growing number.
Mustafa said she and her family paid for their flight to Yemen, where Syrian families do not generally require a visa.
"It's cheaper here. People are kind and honourable," the elderly woman told Reuters, though she acknowledged beggars from other countries like Somalia occasionally harassed them for encroaching on what they consider their territory.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/poor-desperate ... 59949.html
Assad: We have weapons that could blindside Israel
Assad: We have weapons that could blindside Israel
Syrian president says West is only seeking to strip him of his chemical weapons in order to tip balance of power in Jerusalem’s favor
Syria has deterrent weapons, more advanced than anything in its chemical arsenal, that could blindside Israel in mere moments, Syrian President Bashar Assad claimed Thursday.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/assad-we-h ... de-israel/
Syrian president says West is only seeking to strip him of his chemical weapons in order to tip balance of power in Jerusalem’s favor
Syria has deterrent weapons, more advanced than anything in its chemical arsenal, that could blindside Israel in mere moments, Syrian President Bashar Assad claimed Thursday.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/assad-we-h ... de-israel/
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: Syria
Israel Attacks in Syria
Today, October 31, 2013, the largest paid Hebrew newspaper (Yediot Ahronot) and a leading portal well connected to army sources (walla!) reported on a successful attack on a military base near the port of Latakia* in Syria. They claim that Russia al-Yum, a Russian channel in Arabic, quoted the same source. At the time these lines were written, there was no confirmation of the event by Western sources.
The reported attack was on an anti-aircraft base of the Syrian army, and was conducted by unidentified ships. The witnesses reported heavy damage. The report has a sound base. Last July, the same base had been unsuccessfully attacked by Israel. Even pro-Israeli CNN reported that Israel was behind a series of explosions in Latakia on the night of July 5, which reportedly targeted the Yakhont anti-ship missiles. Israel did not issue an official response to the report. Later on, officials told the New York Times that the targeted Yakhont missiles had been removed from launchers before the attack.
It may turn out to have been a masterful strike on the West by Syria. The move stopped the USA's Barbarossa on Syria and the possibility that the USA would use Agent Orange against Syria. This was achieved without affecting the Syrian military capabilities in a chemical confrontation with Israel.
Sharing this assessment is Israel. On October 6, 2013, the Israeli Prime Minister Bureau and the government decided to scrap the Haifa Chemicals Ammonia Tank near Haifa, defining the move as having "National Importance and Urgency." This is quite unusual for a single tank of a chemical product. Yet, as analyzed in Israel Disbands Own Chemical Weapon Threatening Haifa, most of Israel can easily became a new Bhopal.+ Any Israeli chemical attack on Syria can be retaliated conventionally while causing more damage than a direct chemical weapons attack.
Beyond its massive chemical industry, Israel has a stockpile of chemical weapons. Historian Avner Cohen wrote in his book, Israel and the Bomb that David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, ordered the development of chemical weapons during the Sinai Campaign in 1956. Israel, under the orders of Netanyahu, had publicly used biological weapons in the assassination attempt of Khaled Mashal, Jordan forced Israel to acknowledge and provide the antidote.
Israel is one of the few countries which is not a ratifying party to The Chemical Weapons Convention.++ It signed the convention in 1993, but by not ratifying the accord it declines to subject itself to the treaty. Following Syria's announcement that it will dismantle its chemical weapons, Israel was called on, mainly by Russia and Syria, to ratify the convention as well.
On the same day Syria ended the dismantlement of its chemical weapons, newspaper Haaretz announced with the typical delay in such cases, "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened the cabinet a few weeks ago to discuss Israel's policy on the pact, which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons." He and Minister of Defense Ya'alon led to a decision to maintain Israel's existing policy on the matter.
It is impossible to end such an article without addressing the figurehead of the main user of chemical weapons in human history. President Obama, in order to keep the credibility of your country, please show that you advocate one law and one moral code for everybody. It is time for the international community to address the Israeli weapons of mass destruction. Would you, please, lead an international force to Tel Aviv?
http://www.roitov.com/articles/latakiaattack.htm
Today, October 31, 2013, the largest paid Hebrew newspaper (Yediot Ahronot) and a leading portal well connected to army sources (walla!) reported on a successful attack on a military base near the port of Latakia* in Syria. They claim that Russia al-Yum, a Russian channel in Arabic, quoted the same source. At the time these lines were written, there was no confirmation of the event by Western sources.
The reported attack was on an anti-aircraft base of the Syrian army, and was conducted by unidentified ships. The witnesses reported heavy damage. The report has a sound base. Last July, the same base had been unsuccessfully attacked by Israel. Even pro-Israeli CNN reported that Israel was behind a series of explosions in Latakia on the night of July 5, which reportedly targeted the Yakhont anti-ship missiles. Israel did not issue an official response to the report. Later on, officials told the New York Times that the targeted Yakhont missiles had been removed from launchers before the attack.
It may turn out to have been a masterful strike on the West by Syria. The move stopped the USA's Barbarossa on Syria and the possibility that the USA would use Agent Orange against Syria. This was achieved without affecting the Syrian military capabilities in a chemical confrontation with Israel.
Sharing this assessment is Israel. On October 6, 2013, the Israeli Prime Minister Bureau and the government decided to scrap the Haifa Chemicals Ammonia Tank near Haifa, defining the move as having "National Importance and Urgency." This is quite unusual for a single tank of a chemical product. Yet, as analyzed in Israel Disbands Own Chemical Weapon Threatening Haifa, most of Israel can easily became a new Bhopal.+ Any Israeli chemical attack on Syria can be retaliated conventionally while causing more damage than a direct chemical weapons attack.
Beyond its massive chemical industry, Israel has a stockpile of chemical weapons. Historian Avner Cohen wrote in his book, Israel and the Bomb that David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, ordered the development of chemical weapons during the Sinai Campaign in 1956. Israel, under the orders of Netanyahu, had publicly used biological weapons in the assassination attempt of Khaled Mashal, Jordan forced Israel to acknowledge and provide the antidote.
Israel is one of the few countries which is not a ratifying party to The Chemical Weapons Convention.++ It signed the convention in 1993, but by not ratifying the accord it declines to subject itself to the treaty. Following Syria's announcement that it will dismantle its chemical weapons, Israel was called on, mainly by Russia and Syria, to ratify the convention as well.
On the same day Syria ended the dismantlement of its chemical weapons, newspaper Haaretz announced with the typical delay in such cases, "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened the cabinet a few weeks ago to discuss Israel's policy on the pact, which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons." He and Minister of Defense Ya'alon led to a decision to maintain Israel's existing policy on the matter.
It is impossible to end such an article without addressing the figurehead of the main user of chemical weapons in human history. President Obama, in order to keep the credibility of your country, please show that you advocate one law and one moral code for everybody. It is time for the international community to address the Israeli weapons of mass destruction. Would you, please, lead an international force to Tel Aviv?
http://www.roitov.com/articles/latakiaattack.htm
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: Syria
Syria crisis: Saudi Arabia to spend millions to train new rebel force
Riyadh 'fighting two wars in Syria' as new force Jaysh al-Islam excludes al-Qaida affiliates in bid to defeat Assad regime
Saudi Arabia is preparing to spend millions of dollars to arm and train thousands of Syrian fighters in a new national rebel force to help defeat Bashar al-Assad and act as a counterweight to increasingly powerful jihadi organisations.
Syrian, Arab and western sources say the intensifying Saudi effort is focused on Jaysh al-Islam (the Army of Islam or JAI), created in late September by a union of 43 Syrian groups. It is being billed as a significant new player on the fragmented rebel scene.
The force excludes al-Qaida affiliates such as the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra, but embraces more non-jihadi Islamist and Salafi units.
According to one unconfirmed report the JAI will be trained with Pakistani help, and estimates of its likely strength range from 5,000 to more than 50,000. But diplomats and experts warned on Thursday that there are serious doubts about its prospects as well as fears of "blowback" by extremists returning from Syria.
The Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, is also pressing the US to drop its objections to supplying anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles to the JAI. Jordan is being urged to allow its territory to be used as a supply route into neighbouring Syria.
In return, diplomats say, Riyadh is encouraging the JAI to accept the authority of the US and western-backed Supreme Military Council, led by Salim Idriss, and the Syrian Opposition Coalition.
"There are two wars in Syria," said Mustafa Alani, an analyst for the Saudi-backed Gulf Research Centre. "One against the Syrian regime and one against al-Qaida. Saudi Arabia is fighting both."
In one indication of its growing confidence – and resources – the JAI this week advertised online for experienced media professionals to promote its cause.
The appearance of an "Army of Muhammad" – with its equally obvious Islamic resonance – appears to be part of the same or related effort proposed by Syrian Sunni clerics to unite disparate rebel groups into a 100,000-strong force by March 2015.
It is too early, however, to see any impact of the Saudi move on the ground. "Militarily it's not significant," said one senior western official.
"They have a lot of money but very poor intelligence and human resources and organisational skills. They are very dependent on the western military. They are too used to having relationships with clients and using personal networks.
"That's why they've been forced to turn to Syrian groups which already have military credibility. They are becoming less selective and more realistic and putting aside their reservations about who they support. But I doubt they are able to unify the whole thing. The Saudis say 'you should unite and we will give you money.' But some will end up getting more money than others and the coalition will break apart."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/n ... ebel-force
Riyadh 'fighting two wars in Syria' as new force Jaysh al-Islam excludes al-Qaida affiliates in bid to defeat Assad regime
Saudi Arabia is preparing to spend millions of dollars to arm and train thousands of Syrian fighters in a new national rebel force to help defeat Bashar al-Assad and act as a counterweight to increasingly powerful jihadi organisations.
Syrian, Arab and western sources say the intensifying Saudi effort is focused on Jaysh al-Islam (the Army of Islam or JAI), created in late September by a union of 43 Syrian groups. It is being billed as a significant new player on the fragmented rebel scene.
The force excludes al-Qaida affiliates such as the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra, but embraces more non-jihadi Islamist and Salafi units.
According to one unconfirmed report the JAI will be trained with Pakistani help, and estimates of its likely strength range from 5,000 to more than 50,000. But diplomats and experts warned on Thursday that there are serious doubts about its prospects as well as fears of "blowback" by extremists returning from Syria.
The Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, is also pressing the US to drop its objections to supplying anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles to the JAI. Jordan is being urged to allow its territory to be used as a supply route into neighbouring Syria.
In return, diplomats say, Riyadh is encouraging the JAI to accept the authority of the US and western-backed Supreme Military Council, led by Salim Idriss, and the Syrian Opposition Coalition.
"There are two wars in Syria," said Mustafa Alani, an analyst for the Saudi-backed Gulf Research Centre. "One against the Syrian regime and one against al-Qaida. Saudi Arabia is fighting both."
In one indication of its growing confidence – and resources – the JAI this week advertised online for experienced media professionals to promote its cause.
The appearance of an "Army of Muhammad" – with its equally obvious Islamic resonance – appears to be part of the same or related effort proposed by Syrian Sunni clerics to unite disparate rebel groups into a 100,000-strong force by March 2015.
It is too early, however, to see any impact of the Saudi move on the ground. "Militarily it's not significant," said one senior western official.
"They have a lot of money but very poor intelligence and human resources and organisational skills. They are very dependent on the western military. They are too used to having relationships with clients and using personal networks.
"That's why they've been forced to turn to Syrian groups which already have military credibility. They are becoming less selective and more realistic and putting aside their reservations about who they support. But I doubt they are able to unify the whole thing. The Saudis say 'you should unite and we will give you money.' But some will end up getting more money than others and the coalition will break apart."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/n ... ebel-force
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: Syria
The West Begins Its Scenario In Syria
It has been two years that the people of Syria have sacrificed their energy, property, body and soul for the sake of winning freedom and independence from the murdering regime. Earlier, the Syrian revolutionaries already sought assistance from the UNITED NATIONS, but the result was nothing. As for the Islamic nations, especially the Arab, they showed solidarities that are varied. Ranging from direct funds and arms aids, such as by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Direct political supports such as by Egypt, Palestine and Turkey. As well as nominal supports at best by the Muslim countries of the world in general. Of course, this is the official stance of the countries, whereas the Muslim people of the world are already showing a solidarity that should be appreciated.
In these two years, America and the UN have deliberately let the war prolong, so that all the infrastructures of Syria are destroyed. In that way, for the next dozen of years, the people of Syria will be preoccupied with the reconstruction of their country.
Next, after all the plans that they have worked on nearly ripen, and the government of Bashar's regime is already on the brink of collapse, America along with its UN start to seek their interests in Syria.
The latest news mentioned that America and a number of European countries such as France, have already started sending arms aid to Syria. And the most important question is: Who are the recipients of the arms aid?
It is impossible for those arms to be given to Liwa' al-Sham or Jabhat al-Nusrah, which are clearly anti America and the Zionist.
What are the tactics of America and its allies in trying to control Syria?
The RULES OF THE GAMES of America & Co. in Syria are:
1. For the preparation to welcome Bashar's fall, America and its allies have prepared an organization and militia formed inside and outside Syria, which are loyal to the interests of the West.
2. Those organization and militia are then supported with big funds and sophisticated weapons, and then they are made to penetrate the organizations and militias of the fighters that are present in Syria.
3. Besides that, they have also set up armed militias from the ethnic of Kurdistan and allowed the militias of Shi'ah Alawiyah, Iran, Hizbullah, etc. to remain to exist.
4. In that way, after the fall of Bashar, the people of Syria would be divided and easy to be pitted against each other.
When necessary, then America through its Intelligence will kill a majority of the leaders of the struggle, and accuse certain militia as the culprit.
5. If they're fighting each other, then they are not entitled to take part in the Government. They will be isolated towards the outskirts of Syria, so they are not able to participate in building the infrastructures or receive funds aid.
6. The result, the one that has the authority in the Government, and is receiving huge foreign funds aid -in the West's plan-, is only the bad element that is loyal to the Western interests.
Although the plots of the West and the enemies of Islam are so fierce, our hope on Allah's help is much greater. On the condition that the Islamic fighters maintain the solidarity and unity, obeying all the commandments of Allah, as well as avoiding all His prohibitions.
The ability of the people of Syria to know who the true warrior is, who is sincere and deserves to be supported, and who will only be the “accomplices” of the West and Iran, in this case is very urgent. The people must be united under the leaders who are sincere, just and independent.
It is time that the Muslims of the world prepare whatever they have, to help the people of Syria rebuild their nation and country.
And it is time we all realize who are friends and who are foes.
Claiming to be an Islamic country, or having Islam as religion, but are actively murdering and fighting the Muslims, is a clear nifaq and fusuq, and must be halted!
***
Adapted from the article of Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Saleh al-Munajjid, entitled: "Al Amal Billah Yaghlubu Makhawif al-Mustaqbal al-Mur'ibah." (The Big Hope On Allah, Beats The Dreadful Future).
It has been two years that the people of Syria have sacrificed their energy, property, body and soul for the sake of winning freedom and independence from the murdering regime. Earlier, the Syrian revolutionaries already sought assistance from the UNITED NATIONS, but the result was nothing. As for the Islamic nations, especially the Arab, they showed solidarities that are varied. Ranging from direct funds and arms aids, such as by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Direct political supports such as by Egypt, Palestine and Turkey. As well as nominal supports at best by the Muslim countries of the world in general. Of course, this is the official stance of the countries, whereas the Muslim people of the world are already showing a solidarity that should be appreciated.
In these two years, America and the UN have deliberately let the war prolong, so that all the infrastructures of Syria are destroyed. In that way, for the next dozen of years, the people of Syria will be preoccupied with the reconstruction of their country.
Next, after all the plans that they have worked on nearly ripen, and the government of Bashar's regime is already on the brink of collapse, America along with its UN start to seek their interests in Syria.
The latest news mentioned that America and a number of European countries such as France, have already started sending arms aid to Syria. And the most important question is: Who are the recipients of the arms aid?
It is impossible for those arms to be given to Liwa' al-Sham or Jabhat al-Nusrah, which are clearly anti America and the Zionist.
What are the tactics of America and its allies in trying to control Syria?
The RULES OF THE GAMES of America & Co. in Syria are:
1. For the preparation to welcome Bashar's fall, America and its allies have prepared an organization and militia formed inside and outside Syria, which are loyal to the interests of the West.
2. Those organization and militia are then supported with big funds and sophisticated weapons, and then they are made to penetrate the organizations and militias of the fighters that are present in Syria.
3. Besides that, they have also set up armed militias from the ethnic of Kurdistan and allowed the militias of Shi'ah Alawiyah, Iran, Hizbullah, etc. to remain to exist.
4. In that way, after the fall of Bashar, the people of Syria would be divided and easy to be pitted against each other.
When necessary, then America through its Intelligence will kill a majority of the leaders of the struggle, and accuse certain militia as the culprit.
5. If they're fighting each other, then they are not entitled to take part in the Government. They will be isolated towards the outskirts of Syria, so they are not able to participate in building the infrastructures or receive funds aid.
6. The result, the one that has the authority in the Government, and is receiving huge foreign funds aid -in the West's plan-, is only the bad element that is loyal to the Western interests.
Although the plots of the West and the enemies of Islam are so fierce, our hope on Allah's help is much greater. On the condition that the Islamic fighters maintain the solidarity and unity, obeying all the commandments of Allah, as well as avoiding all His prohibitions.
The ability of the people of Syria to know who the true warrior is, who is sincere and deserves to be supported, and who will only be the “accomplices” of the West and Iran, in this case is very urgent. The people must be united under the leaders who are sincere, just and independent.
It is time that the Muslims of the world prepare whatever they have, to help the people of Syria rebuild their nation and country.
And it is time we all realize who are friends and who are foes.
Claiming to be an Islamic country, or having Islam as religion, but are actively murdering and fighting the Muslims, is a clear nifaq and fusuq, and must be halted!
***
Adapted from the article of Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Saleh al-Munajjid, entitled: "Al Amal Billah Yaghlubu Makhawif al-Mustaqbal al-Mur'ibah." (The Big Hope On Allah, Beats The Dreadful Future).
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: Syria
Bibi and Bandar Badger Obama: Better Six Billion than Six Trillion!
Franklin Lamb
Damascus
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states—Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—along with certain Arab League countries, plus Turkey and Israel, have this past week reportedly committed themselves to raising nearly $6 billion to “beef up” the just-hatched Islamic Front (IF) in Syria. These “best friends of America” want the Obama administration to sign onto a scheme to oust the Syrian government by funding, arming, training, facilitating and generally choreographing the movement of fighters of this new front, a front formed out of an alliance of seven putatively “moderate” rebel factions.
Representatives of Saudi intelligence chief Bandar bin Sultan reportedly told staff members on Capitol Hill that committing several billions to defeat the Assad regime by supporting the IF makes fiscal sense and will cost much less than the six trillion dollar figure tallied by the recent study by Brown University as part of its Costs of War project. According to the 2013 update of the definitive Brown study, which examined costs of the US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, the total amount for all three topped six trillion dollars.This never before released figure includes costs of direct and indirect Congressional appropriations, lost equipment, US military and foreign contractors fraud, and the cost of caring for wounded American servicemen and their families.
Among the Islamist militia joining the new GCC-backed coalition are Aleppo’s biggest fighting force, Liwa al-Tawhid (Tawhid Brigade), the Salafist group Ahrar al-Sham, Suqour al-Sham, al-Haq Brigades, Ansar al-Sham and the Islamic Army, which is centered around Damascus. The Kurdish Islamic Front also reportedly joined the alliance.
IF’s declared aim is to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government, whatever the human and material cost it may require, and replace it with an “Islamic state.” Abu Firas, the new coalition’s spokesman, declared that “we now have the complete merger of the major military factions fighting in Syria.”
Formally announced on 11/22/13, the IF includes groups from three prior umbrella organizations: the Syrian Islamic Front (SIF), the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front (SILF), and the Kurdish Islamic Front (KIF). From the SIF, Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya (HASI), Kataib Ansar al-Sham, and Liwa al-Haqq all joined, as did the KIF as a whole, and former SILF brigades Suqur al-Sham, Liwa al-Tawhid, and Jaish al-Islam. None of these groups have been designated foreign terrorist organizations by the US, and therefore, as an Israeli official argued in a meeting with AIPAC and Congress this week, nothing stands in the way of US funding and support for them. The Israeli official in question is the country’s new national security advisor, Yossie Cohen, who assures key congressional leaders that the tens of thousands of rebels making up the IF will all support “one policy and one military command.” Cohen also pledges that the new group is not as “insane” as other Muslim militia—Daash or al-Nusra or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, for instance—that comprise the IF’s chief rivals. Cohen and AIPAC are further telling Congress members and congressional staffers that the emergence of the IF is one of the war’s most important developments, and he vows that the new organization in effect brings seven organizations into a combined force that will fight under one command, a force estimated by the CIA to number at around 75,000 fighters. Reportedly the objective will link the fight in the north with that in the south in a manner that will stretch loyalist forces, and the Saudi-Israel team is also asking the Obama Administration to more than double the monthly “graduation class” of CIA-trained rebels in Turkey, Syria and Jordan—from its current level of 200 per month, up to 500 a month.
What the GCC/Arab League/Israeli team is asking of its western allies (meaning of course mainly the US) is to immediately fund the IF to the tune of $ 5.5 billion. This, Israeli security officials argue, is pocket change compared to the $6 trillion spent in US terrorist wars of the past decade. Plus it will have the presumed “benefit” of toppling the Assad regime and truncating Iran’s growing influence. The plan has reportedly been dismissed by some in the Obama administration as “risible and pathetic.” Nonetheless, Tel Aviv, the US Congressional Zionist lobby, and to a lesser extent Ankara, are pressing ahead under the assumption that linking with the IF now makes sense and that they can take their chances will al-Qaeda later. Ironically these are some of the same voices from AIPAC’s Congressional Team who four years ago were claiming that al-Qaeda was “on the ropes and will soon collapse.” Yet they are optimistic that if Assad goes, “we can deal with the terrorists and it won’t cost six trillion dollars.”
One House member who strongly agrees with AIPAC is Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who recently declared that “in my heart I am a Tea Party guy.” A member of the House Armed Services Committee, Hunter believes the US should use nuclear weapons against Tehran. In a Fox TV interview this week he declared his opposition to any talks with Iran, insisting that US policy should include a “massive aerial bombardment campaign” utilizing “tactical nuclear devices” to set Iran “back a decade or two or three.”
According to sources in Aleppo and Damascus, the IF’s top leadership positions have been parceled out among five of the seven groups. This at least is as of 12/5/13. Four days after the IF was announced, the organization released an official charter. In terms of its basic architecture, the document is similar to that put out by the SIF in January, but the new version is filled with more generalities than other militia proclamations, and seems designed to accommodate differing ideas among member groups. The charter calls for an Islamic state and the implementation of sharia law, though it does not define exactly what this means. The IF is firmly against secularism, human legislation (i.e., it believes that laws come from God, not people), civil government, and a Kurdish breakaway state. The charter states that the group will secure minority rights in post-Assad Syria based on sharia, which could mean the dhimma (“protected peoples”) system, or de facto second-class citizenship for Christians and other
Franklin Lamb
Damascus
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states—Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—along with certain Arab League countries, plus Turkey and Israel, have this past week reportedly committed themselves to raising nearly $6 billion to “beef up” the just-hatched Islamic Front (IF) in Syria. These “best friends of America” want the Obama administration to sign onto a scheme to oust the Syrian government by funding, arming, training, facilitating and generally choreographing the movement of fighters of this new front, a front formed out of an alliance of seven putatively “moderate” rebel factions.
Representatives of Saudi intelligence chief Bandar bin Sultan reportedly told staff members on Capitol Hill that committing several billions to defeat the Assad regime by supporting the IF makes fiscal sense and will cost much less than the six trillion dollar figure tallied by the recent study by Brown University as part of its Costs of War project. According to the 2013 update of the definitive Brown study, which examined costs of the US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, the total amount for all three topped six trillion dollars.This never before released figure includes costs of direct and indirect Congressional appropriations, lost equipment, US military and foreign contractors fraud, and the cost of caring for wounded American servicemen and their families.
Among the Islamist militia joining the new GCC-backed coalition are Aleppo’s biggest fighting force, Liwa al-Tawhid (Tawhid Brigade), the Salafist group Ahrar al-Sham, Suqour al-Sham, al-Haq Brigades, Ansar al-Sham and the Islamic Army, which is centered around Damascus. The Kurdish Islamic Front also reportedly joined the alliance.
IF’s declared aim is to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government, whatever the human and material cost it may require, and replace it with an “Islamic state.” Abu Firas, the new coalition’s spokesman, declared that “we now have the complete merger of the major military factions fighting in Syria.”
Formally announced on 11/22/13, the IF includes groups from three prior umbrella organizations: the Syrian Islamic Front (SIF), the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front (SILF), and the Kurdish Islamic Front (KIF). From the SIF, Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya (HASI), Kataib Ansar al-Sham, and Liwa al-Haqq all joined, as did the KIF as a whole, and former SILF brigades Suqur al-Sham, Liwa al-Tawhid, and Jaish al-Islam. None of these groups have been designated foreign terrorist organizations by the US, and therefore, as an Israeli official argued in a meeting with AIPAC and Congress this week, nothing stands in the way of US funding and support for them. The Israeli official in question is the country’s new national security advisor, Yossie Cohen, who assures key congressional leaders that the tens of thousands of rebels making up the IF will all support “one policy and one military command.” Cohen also pledges that the new group is not as “insane” as other Muslim militia—Daash or al-Nusra or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, for instance—that comprise the IF’s chief rivals. Cohen and AIPAC are further telling Congress members and congressional staffers that the emergence of the IF is one of the war’s most important developments, and he vows that the new organization in effect brings seven organizations into a combined force that will fight under one command, a force estimated by the CIA to number at around 75,000 fighters. Reportedly the objective will link the fight in the north with that in the south in a manner that will stretch loyalist forces, and the Saudi-Israel team is also asking the Obama Administration to more than double the monthly “graduation class” of CIA-trained rebels in Turkey, Syria and Jordan—from its current level of 200 per month, up to 500 a month.
What the GCC/Arab League/Israeli team is asking of its western allies (meaning of course mainly the US) is to immediately fund the IF to the tune of $ 5.5 billion. This, Israeli security officials argue, is pocket change compared to the $6 trillion spent in US terrorist wars of the past decade. Plus it will have the presumed “benefit” of toppling the Assad regime and truncating Iran’s growing influence. The plan has reportedly been dismissed by some in the Obama administration as “risible and pathetic.” Nonetheless, Tel Aviv, the US Congressional Zionist lobby, and to a lesser extent Ankara, are pressing ahead under the assumption that linking with the IF now makes sense and that they can take their chances will al-Qaeda later. Ironically these are some of the same voices from AIPAC’s Congressional Team who four years ago were claiming that al-Qaeda was “on the ropes and will soon collapse.” Yet they are optimistic that if Assad goes, “we can deal with the terrorists and it won’t cost six trillion dollars.”
One House member who strongly agrees with AIPAC is Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who recently declared that “in my heart I am a Tea Party guy.” A member of the House Armed Services Committee, Hunter believes the US should use nuclear weapons against Tehran. In a Fox TV interview this week he declared his opposition to any talks with Iran, insisting that US policy should include a “massive aerial bombardment campaign” utilizing “tactical nuclear devices” to set Iran “back a decade or two or three.”
According to sources in Aleppo and Damascus, the IF’s top leadership positions have been parceled out among five of the seven groups. This at least is as of 12/5/13. Four days after the IF was announced, the organization released an official charter. In terms of its basic architecture, the document is similar to that put out by the SIF in January, but the new version is filled with more generalities than other militia proclamations, and seems designed to accommodate differing ideas among member groups. The charter calls for an Islamic state and the implementation of sharia law, though it does not define exactly what this means. The IF is firmly against secularism, human legislation (i.e., it believes that laws come from God, not people), civil government, and a Kurdish breakaway state. The charter states that the group will secure minority rights in post-Assad Syria based on sharia, which could mean the dhimma (“protected peoples”) system, or de facto second-class citizenship for Christians and other
THE SYRIAN WAR’S PRIVATE DONORS LOSE FAITH
Jamaan Herbash used to smile when he talked about Syria. When I met the former Kuwaiti parliamentarian, a year ago, just outside Kuwait City, he scrolled through snapshots of Syria on his iPhone as if they were vacation pictures. One showed him with Free Syrian Army fighters in Aleppo, another was of an F.S.A. hospital that he had helped to fund. He told me that he was even conducting human-rights training for moderate rebel brigades. He was evidently proud of his work, and his face softened as he talked about his most recent visit to Syria. He said that other countries should be doing more to help the rebels, like supplying anti-aircraft weapons to the F.S.A. In the meantime, he explained, private donors were trying to make up the difference: “People pay for their own travel and make sure they convey their donations hand to hand, so the money is disbursed in a very clean manner, untainted by any corruption.”
When I saw Herbash again, nine months later, in October, he looked weary. His beard, scraggly and untrimmed, in the style of strict Islamists, framed exasperated eyes, and his feet fidgeted as we talked about the deteriorating state of the rebellion against Bashar al-Assad. “It’s clear that there is a war of exhaustion in Syria now,” he said, reversing his earlier prediction that the rebels were only months away from victory. More extreme fighters had taken control, and the rebels were so disorganized that many of them were primarily fighting among themselves. Herbash was still raising money—a poster outside his home urged people to contribute: “THEIR CHILDREN ARE BEING KILLED WHILE OUR CHILDREN ARE ENJOYING THE BOUNTIES OF LIFE”—but his optimism had faded.
On Wednesday, Kuwait hosted an international donors’ conference, chaired by Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. Secretary-General, which aimed to raise some of the $6.5 billion that the U.N. estimates will be needed for humanitarian relief in Syria in 2014. The Emir of Kuwait, Sheikh Sabah al-Sabah, made the largest pledge, five hundred million dollars; the United States added three hundred and eighty million. In all, the conference generated $2.4 billion, well short of its goal. But, even before the event began, Herbash was convinced that it would make little difference. Last year, the Kuwaiti government’s donation was channelled through the U.N., which under international law must work with the Syrian government—the al-Assad regime—to coördinate relief efforts. That aid hadn’t helped the refugees, not even a little, Herbash wrote on Twitter on Wednesday morning. So, he asked, why not give the money to private Kuwaiti charities to disperse?
Since the Syrian revolution began, in 2011, private Kuwaiti donors like Herbash have been among its most generous patrons, providing what likely amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars to the armed opponents of Assad. The majority of Kuwaitis—like most of the rebels—are Sunni; the Syrian regime and its Army are predominantly Alawites, a small Shiite sect that counts Assad among its members. With its open political atmosphere and its weak terror-financing laws, Kuwait also serves as a hub for private donors across the Gulf.
At the beginning of 2013, Herbash still thought that the moderate rebels of the F.S.A. could win the war. At that point, the Syrian conflict had produced fewer than five hundred thousand refugees, and, he believed, the opposition controlled seventy per cent of Syrian land. Today, there are at least 2.4 million Syrian refugees, with another 6.5 million Syrians displaced inside the country itself. The regime has reclaimed territory, and bitter fighting has erupted between mainstream-opposition fighters and the Al Qaeda affiliate called the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), whose reputation for ruthlessness has shocked even the strictest of the Islamist rebels. Earlier this month, ISIS ceded territory that had come under assault from other rebel groups—including Jabhat al-Nusra, another brigade linked to Al Qaeda—but regained some of it in fierce fighting in the past week, which has claimed over a thousand lives.
As the war took a more sectarian and extremist turn, so, too, did its private funders. As the grandmothers, wives, brothers, and even children in Kuwait who had donated to the rebels watched as the conflict turned fratricidal, they wondered what they had given their money to. But the funding didn’t stop—instead, it simply flowed in more extreme directions. Moderates like Herbash have essentially been eclipsed by donors who have fewer qualms about the tactics of the most violent jihadist groups. When I spoke to Herbash in October, he lamented the emergence of hundreds of new rebel brigades, each one accountable only to its own funders.
Private funding from around the Persian Gulf to the rebels peaked in 2012, just as the once peaceful revolution was transforming into an armed uprising. This was no coincidence: in Kuwait, groups and individuals had pushed for—and funded—the creation of new brigades, which they had helped to shape ideologically. Fund-raisers appealed to potential donors with a simple Koranic verse: “He who prepares a jihadist for the sake of Allah has received the reward of being a jihadist himself.” The words were splashed on posters and put into tweets. Kuwaiti Sunnis opened their pocketbooks. The rich transferred funds directly, and more modest contributors sold their cars and their best jewelry in order to send cash to Syria.
Herbash won’t say how much money he has raised, only that it is not enough. His home is always open for donations, and his phone is always on. During special fund-raising campaigns, he hosts evening discussions where donors can contribute money and bring their questions or concerns. According to the poster for an event this past summer, Herbash was among eighteen donors who opened his home for a campaign “to prepare twelve thousand jihadists for the sake of Allah.” (One of the other donors who participated told me that his own efforts had raised three hundred and fifty thousand dollars in a single night.)
For the rebel fighters, winning money from donors has been a cutthroat competition. New brigades designated representatives in the community of Syrians in Kuwait to solicit donations. In Kuwait’s diwaniyas (the spaces in private homes used for evening gatherings), competing Syrian representatives sparred over which brigade could claim the most martyrs and which had fought the most difficult battles. The competition for funds sparked what one Syrian called “the YouTube phase” of the war, in which each brigade produced videos to publicize its importance and its manpower, many of which included words of praise and thanks for individual benefactors.
When Herbash adopted the Syrian cause, he already had big-tent appeal. In his years in local politics, he had won the support of religious hard-liners, for his unassailable poise, and of moderates, for his consistent advocacy of greater democracy in Kuwait. (That reputation made him a formidable political opponent, and in 2010 his diwaniya was stormed by government forces as part of a crackdown on the domestic political opposition.)
By early 2013, Herbash had built a reputation as one of the most effective, and one of the most moderate, fund-raisers for both the Syrian opposition and humanitarian relief. He was unafraid to criticize the rebels and unambiguous in his denunciations of violence against civilians. “We are keen on working with some of the moderate brigades, which we trust won’t cause any problems if the regime falls,” he said in October. “I am talking about brigades that are keen on protecting the Syrian people, because for sure we don’t want to repeat what happened in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq; we want to provide support for moderate Islamic brigades.”
But the conflict in Syria has not favored moderation, inside the country or abroad. Atrocities have mounted, battles have taken a greater civilian toll, and logic can’t explain away the horror. Funders have gravitated toward extremist by pinning a sectarian or absolutist narrative to their recipient brigades. Many Kuwaiti clerics have taken to giving Syrian fighters advice on social media about how to behave—a sort of reply to the brigades’ postings on YouTube and Twitter.
Today, Herbash’s diwaniya is an exception among the increasingly extreme donors backing the Syrian uprising. Last summer, a high-profile group led by the Salafi cleric Shafi Al Ajmi raised money to “liberate the coast” of Syria. That operation, carried out by brigades that included ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, resulted in massacres of Alawite civilians. Before the offensive, Ajmi had promised that the donations would be used to “buy what is needed to expel the Safavids” (a Salafist pejorative for Shiites). Some clerics have received government censure for their outwardly sectarian tone—Ajmi was barred from his own television show, for example—but their work largely continues, facilitated by social media, a surplus of suffering in Syria, and deep connections with wealthy contributors around the Gulf.
Herbash and several other moderate fund-raisers, meanwhile, have found themselves in the strange position of campaigning against other anti-Assad groups in Syria, particularly ISIS and its ambitious leader, the Iraqi Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. When infighting between rebel groups in Aleppo flared up last week, Herbash denounced on Twitter what he called Baghdadi’s “sedition.” In another tweet, from December, he wrote, “God help the people of Aleppo, for they face assault from Hezbollah in the front and ISIS in the back.” “The Free Army in Syria needs one thing,” he said, when we met in October. “If the world wants to help it for real, it needs to be a national liberation army, and not an army that serves Saudi Arabia or America or Turkey or Jordan or Qatar, because we’re talking about different agendas now.”
Herbash continues his work with undiminished zeal; he is one of the few private donors who still believes that the moderate rebels of the F.S.A. should, and could, win the day. But many Gulf citizens, disgusted by the sectarian rhetoric and merciless bloodshed, have ceased giving money, leaving moderate fund-raisers with a thinning flock. “The popularity for the Syrian crisis in the beginning was maybe a hundred or ninety per cent,” one Syrian in Kuwait involved in the fund-raising process said. “Now that’s not more than five per cent. They were generous at first, but they changed.”
Dalaa Al Mufti, a liberal Syrian-Kuwaiti writer, told me that this disillusionment has affected humanitarian aid as well. A year ago, so many donated blankets had piled up on the back staircase of her well-manicured home that her family had trouble going up and down. Mufti had independently solicited money and supplies from her friends and family and, eventually, from the general public. (She sent it to Syria through a network of expatriates based in Kuwait.) When I first met her, in February of 2013, she told me that Kuwaitis were so desperate to give that she spent all day fielding text messages and tweets about donations. One Kuwaiti woman, Mufti remembered, began to cry on the phone, worried that she wasn’t doing enough to help the Syrian people. When asking for donations, Mufti told me at the time, “I’ve never heard a no.”
But now the contributions have dried up. “People say to me, This is not what we sent our money for—so they could kill each other,” Mufti said. “Some people have told me directly that, with what is happening, they wish Bashar would stay, because dictatorship is bad, but a political dictatorship is much easier than a religious dictatorship. Of course, there is a sect of people who are all for this. They say, Kill the Shiites, but the enlightened people will say, That this is not what we wanted.”
Elizabeth Dickinson, a former Gulf correspondent for The National, is the author of “Who Shot Ahmed? A Mystery Unravels in Bahrain’s Botched Arab Spring.” She lives in Abu Dhabi.
Above: Free Syrian Army members in Darkoush. April 21, 2013. Photograph by Esa Alexander/The Times/Gallo Images/Getty.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... faith.html
When I saw Herbash again, nine months later, in October, he looked weary. His beard, scraggly and untrimmed, in the style of strict Islamists, framed exasperated eyes, and his feet fidgeted as we talked about the deteriorating state of the rebellion against Bashar al-Assad. “It’s clear that there is a war of exhaustion in Syria now,” he said, reversing his earlier prediction that the rebels were only months away from victory. More extreme fighters had taken control, and the rebels were so disorganized that many of them were primarily fighting among themselves. Herbash was still raising money—a poster outside his home urged people to contribute: “THEIR CHILDREN ARE BEING KILLED WHILE OUR CHILDREN ARE ENJOYING THE BOUNTIES OF LIFE”—but his optimism had faded.
On Wednesday, Kuwait hosted an international donors’ conference, chaired by Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. Secretary-General, which aimed to raise some of the $6.5 billion that the U.N. estimates will be needed for humanitarian relief in Syria in 2014. The Emir of Kuwait, Sheikh Sabah al-Sabah, made the largest pledge, five hundred million dollars; the United States added three hundred and eighty million. In all, the conference generated $2.4 billion, well short of its goal. But, even before the event began, Herbash was convinced that it would make little difference. Last year, the Kuwaiti government’s donation was channelled through the U.N., which under international law must work with the Syrian government—the al-Assad regime—to coördinate relief efforts. That aid hadn’t helped the refugees, not even a little, Herbash wrote on Twitter on Wednesday morning. So, he asked, why not give the money to private Kuwaiti charities to disperse?
Since the Syrian revolution began, in 2011, private Kuwaiti donors like Herbash have been among its most generous patrons, providing what likely amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars to the armed opponents of Assad. The majority of Kuwaitis—like most of the rebels—are Sunni; the Syrian regime and its Army are predominantly Alawites, a small Shiite sect that counts Assad among its members. With its open political atmosphere and its weak terror-financing laws, Kuwait also serves as a hub for private donors across the Gulf.
At the beginning of 2013, Herbash still thought that the moderate rebels of the F.S.A. could win the war. At that point, the Syrian conflict had produced fewer than five hundred thousand refugees, and, he believed, the opposition controlled seventy per cent of Syrian land. Today, there are at least 2.4 million Syrian refugees, with another 6.5 million Syrians displaced inside the country itself. The regime has reclaimed territory, and bitter fighting has erupted between mainstream-opposition fighters and the Al Qaeda affiliate called the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), whose reputation for ruthlessness has shocked even the strictest of the Islamist rebels. Earlier this month, ISIS ceded territory that had come under assault from other rebel groups—including Jabhat al-Nusra, another brigade linked to Al Qaeda—but regained some of it in fierce fighting in the past week, which has claimed over a thousand lives.
As the war took a more sectarian and extremist turn, so, too, did its private funders. As the grandmothers, wives, brothers, and even children in Kuwait who had donated to the rebels watched as the conflict turned fratricidal, they wondered what they had given their money to. But the funding didn’t stop—instead, it simply flowed in more extreme directions. Moderates like Herbash have essentially been eclipsed by donors who have fewer qualms about the tactics of the most violent jihadist groups. When I spoke to Herbash in October, he lamented the emergence of hundreds of new rebel brigades, each one accountable only to its own funders.
Private funding from around the Persian Gulf to the rebels peaked in 2012, just as the once peaceful revolution was transforming into an armed uprising. This was no coincidence: in Kuwait, groups and individuals had pushed for—and funded—the creation of new brigades, which they had helped to shape ideologically. Fund-raisers appealed to potential donors with a simple Koranic verse: “He who prepares a jihadist for the sake of Allah has received the reward of being a jihadist himself.” The words were splashed on posters and put into tweets. Kuwaiti Sunnis opened their pocketbooks. The rich transferred funds directly, and more modest contributors sold their cars and their best jewelry in order to send cash to Syria.
Herbash won’t say how much money he has raised, only that it is not enough. His home is always open for donations, and his phone is always on. During special fund-raising campaigns, he hosts evening discussions where donors can contribute money and bring their questions or concerns. According to the poster for an event this past summer, Herbash was among eighteen donors who opened his home for a campaign “to prepare twelve thousand jihadists for the sake of Allah.” (One of the other donors who participated told me that his own efforts had raised three hundred and fifty thousand dollars in a single night.)
For the rebel fighters, winning money from donors has been a cutthroat competition. New brigades designated representatives in the community of Syrians in Kuwait to solicit donations. In Kuwait’s diwaniyas (the spaces in private homes used for evening gatherings), competing Syrian representatives sparred over which brigade could claim the most martyrs and which had fought the most difficult battles. The competition for funds sparked what one Syrian called “the YouTube phase” of the war, in which each brigade produced videos to publicize its importance and its manpower, many of which included words of praise and thanks for individual benefactors.
When Herbash adopted the Syrian cause, he already had big-tent appeal. In his years in local politics, he had won the support of religious hard-liners, for his unassailable poise, and of moderates, for his consistent advocacy of greater democracy in Kuwait. (That reputation made him a formidable political opponent, and in 2010 his diwaniya was stormed by government forces as part of a crackdown on the domestic political opposition.)
By early 2013, Herbash had built a reputation as one of the most effective, and one of the most moderate, fund-raisers for both the Syrian opposition and humanitarian relief. He was unafraid to criticize the rebels and unambiguous in his denunciations of violence against civilians. “We are keen on working with some of the moderate brigades, which we trust won’t cause any problems if the regime falls,” he said in October. “I am talking about brigades that are keen on protecting the Syrian people, because for sure we don’t want to repeat what happened in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq; we want to provide support for moderate Islamic brigades.”
But the conflict in Syria has not favored moderation, inside the country or abroad. Atrocities have mounted, battles have taken a greater civilian toll, and logic can’t explain away the horror. Funders have gravitated toward extremist by pinning a sectarian or absolutist narrative to their recipient brigades. Many Kuwaiti clerics have taken to giving Syrian fighters advice on social media about how to behave—a sort of reply to the brigades’ postings on YouTube and Twitter.
Today, Herbash’s diwaniya is an exception among the increasingly extreme donors backing the Syrian uprising. Last summer, a high-profile group led by the Salafi cleric Shafi Al Ajmi raised money to “liberate the coast” of Syria. That operation, carried out by brigades that included ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, resulted in massacres of Alawite civilians. Before the offensive, Ajmi had promised that the donations would be used to “buy what is needed to expel the Safavids” (a Salafist pejorative for Shiites). Some clerics have received government censure for their outwardly sectarian tone—Ajmi was barred from his own television show, for example—but their work largely continues, facilitated by social media, a surplus of suffering in Syria, and deep connections with wealthy contributors around the Gulf.
Herbash and several other moderate fund-raisers, meanwhile, have found themselves in the strange position of campaigning against other anti-Assad groups in Syria, particularly ISIS and its ambitious leader, the Iraqi Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. When infighting between rebel groups in Aleppo flared up last week, Herbash denounced on Twitter what he called Baghdadi’s “sedition.” In another tweet, from December, he wrote, “God help the people of Aleppo, for they face assault from Hezbollah in the front and ISIS in the back.” “The Free Army in Syria needs one thing,” he said, when we met in October. “If the world wants to help it for real, it needs to be a national liberation army, and not an army that serves Saudi Arabia or America or Turkey or Jordan or Qatar, because we’re talking about different agendas now.”
Herbash continues his work with undiminished zeal; he is one of the few private donors who still believes that the moderate rebels of the F.S.A. should, and could, win the day. But many Gulf citizens, disgusted by the sectarian rhetoric and merciless bloodshed, have ceased giving money, leaving moderate fund-raisers with a thinning flock. “The popularity for the Syrian crisis in the beginning was maybe a hundred or ninety per cent,” one Syrian in Kuwait involved in the fund-raising process said. “Now that’s not more than five per cent. They were generous at first, but they changed.”
Dalaa Al Mufti, a liberal Syrian-Kuwaiti writer, told me that this disillusionment has affected humanitarian aid as well. A year ago, so many donated blankets had piled up on the back staircase of her well-manicured home that her family had trouble going up and down. Mufti had independently solicited money and supplies from her friends and family and, eventually, from the general public. (She sent it to Syria through a network of expatriates based in Kuwait.) When I first met her, in February of 2013, she told me that Kuwaitis were so desperate to give that she spent all day fielding text messages and tweets about donations. One Kuwaiti woman, Mufti remembered, began to cry on the phone, worried that she wasn’t doing enough to help the Syrian people. When asking for donations, Mufti told me at the time, “I’ve never heard a no.”
But now the contributions have dried up. “People say to me, This is not what we sent our money for—so they could kill each other,” Mufti said. “Some people have told me directly that, with what is happening, they wish Bashar would stay, because dictatorship is bad, but a political dictatorship is much easier than a religious dictatorship. Of course, there is a sect of people who are all for this. They say, Kill the Shiites, but the enlightened people will say, That this is not what we wanted.”
Elizabeth Dickinson, a former Gulf correspondent for The National, is the author of “Who Shot Ahmed? A Mystery Unravels in Bahrain’s Botched Arab Spring.” She lives in Abu Dhabi.
Above: Free Syrian Army members in Darkoush. April 21, 2013. Photograph by Esa Alexander/The Times/Gallo Images/Getty.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... faith.html
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
ASSAD BIDS FAREWELL TO SALIM IDRIS;
And so, once again, president bids farewell to another disgraced wretch who fantasized about days of glory and triumph. Saleem Idrees now joins the ranks of other luminaries to whom Dr. Assad bade farewell: HILLARY CLINTON, MUHAMMAD MORSI, SILVIO BERLUSCONI, NICOLAS SARKOZY, JOSE ZAPATERO, PRINCE FATSO/MADAME BANANA, GUIDO WESTERWELLE AND SO MANY OTHERS TOO NUMEROUS TO NAME.
According to sources, Idrees will retire to a comfortable cottage on Ellesmere Island in Canada where he hopes to spend the rest of his life defending the endangered species called “Inflated Generals”. This Miles Gloriosus will form a new force called the ‘Free Syrian Coalition for Polar Equality and Revolutionary Scientific Patter. (FSCPERS!)” We we wish him the best of luck.
Other sources claim he will join a former colleague, Riyaadh Al-As’ad, in Holland where he expects to thrive as a tulip salesman. A minority say he plans to set up a brothel franchise with “Pimp-Whiz”, Ahmad Jarba in the Red Light District of Antwerp. GOOD BYE, SALEEM, WE’RE GOING TO MISS YOUR INCOMPETENCE.
But, who is his replacement? Get this, it’s somebody even dumber. A know-nothing hot-air purveyor —- A colonel, no less, called ‘Abdul-Ilaah Al-Basheer. In the tradition of the Fake Syrian Army, he was elected because of his talent for “rampant corruption”, “absence of morals” and “incontrovertible incompetence”. His stinking traitor rat son was killed by our NDF in January of 2014.
Best of luck.
Source .. syria perspective
According to sources, Idrees will retire to a comfortable cottage on Ellesmere Island in Canada where he hopes to spend the rest of his life defending the endangered species called “Inflated Generals”. This Miles Gloriosus will form a new force called the ‘Free Syrian Coalition for Polar Equality and Revolutionary Scientific Patter. (FSCPERS!)” We we wish him the best of luck.
Other sources claim he will join a former colleague, Riyaadh Al-As’ad, in Holland where he expects to thrive as a tulip salesman. A minority say he plans to set up a brothel franchise with “Pimp-Whiz”, Ahmad Jarba in the Red Light District of Antwerp. GOOD BYE, SALEEM, WE’RE GOING TO MISS YOUR INCOMPETENCE.
But, who is his replacement? Get this, it’s somebody even dumber. A know-nothing hot-air purveyor —- A colonel, no less, called ‘Abdul-Ilaah Al-Basheer. In the tradition of the Fake Syrian Army, he was elected because of his talent for “rampant corruption”, “absence of morals” and “incontrovertible incompetence”. His stinking traitor rat son was killed by our NDF in January of 2014.
Best of luck.
Source .. syria perspective
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
**Video of a Major Ambush by Syrian Army**
Video of a Major Ambush by Syrian Army Eliminates Over 175 Wahhabi Rat Terrorists in Eastern Ghouta
The Syrian Army was able to successfully set up an ambush in the town of al-Otaiba in Eastern Ghouta that led to the death of over 175 terrorists from Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islam Brigade who were trying to exit the Ghouta area towards Jordan. Most of the terrorists have been reported to be Saudi, Qatari, and Chechen rats. The video reveals a recording of the actual detonation of the ambush, which was carried out in two waves.
warning video contains graphic content
http://youtu.be/ViusZthiSmw
warning video contains graphic content
http://youtu.be/ViusZthiSmw
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.