[PAULYPOKER]

Chomsky: Syria strike would be 'war crime'



Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist,
logician, and political commentator and activist.



A US-led attack on Syria without United Nations support would be a war crime regardless of congressional approval, Noam Chomsky, the antiwar activist and author, said in response to President Barack Obama's announcement that he would seek Hill approval.


"As international support for Obama’s decision to attack Syria has collapsed, along with the credibility of government claims, the administration has fallen back on a standard pretext for war crimes when all else fails: the credibility of the threats of the self-designated policeman of the world," Chomsky told HuffPost in an email.

Chomsky recently traveled to the region to learn more about the Syria crisis, and his comments there led some to believe he was open to military intervention if negotiations failed to produce peace. "I believe you should choose the negotiating track first, and should you fail, then moving to the second option" -- backing the rebels -- "becomes more acceptable," he said.

But his comments to HuffPost indicate that he remains opposed to any military action that came without UN approval.

"[T]hat aggression without UN authorization would be a war crime, a very serious one, is quite clear, despite tortured efforts to invoke other crimes as precedents," he added.

Liberals more associated with the establishment than Chomsky, who have nevertheless tended to be critical of the president's foreign policy, cheered his decision to involve Congress as a step away from an increasingly imperial presidency and toward more democratic accountability of war making.

Chomsky upended the field of linguistics with a devastating critique of B.F. Skinner in 1959 that changed the way people think about human cognitive development. He has led a parallel career as a leading anarcho-syndicalist author, historian and activist. The Huffington Post

[PAULYPOKER]

US lawmaker:
Syria chemical evidence ‘pretty thin’


Representative Michael Burgess



A Texas Republican lawmaker says the Obama administration’s evidence that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against foreign-backed militants in Syria is “pretty thin.”


Representative Michael Burgess said Monday he was shown the evidence at a classified briefing on Sunday.

“Yes, I saw the classified documents yesterday. They were pretty thin,” The Hill quoted him as saying.

Burgess added the US claims, that the government of President Bashar al-Assad was the side that used chemical weapons, are “suspect.”

In an unclassified intelligence report on Friday, the US claimed the government of President Assad launched a chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21, killing hundreds of people. The Syrian government has strongly rejected the allegation.

Russia said the evidence Washington provided for such allegation is “inconclusive,” arguing a “regime of secrecy” by the West is unacceptable.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said the information provided to Russia was just “some sketches” and contained “no supporting facts.”

Former US congressman Ron Paul also said that the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria was a “false flag” likely carried out by the US-backed militant groups.

“The group that is most likely to benefit from that is al-Qaeda. They ignite some gas, some people die and blame it on Assad,” Paul, a long-time Republican representative from Texas, said during a Fox News interview filmed Wednesday.

Obama and his administration officials have launched intense lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill to gain US lawmakers’ approval for a proposed military strike against Syria.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have both promised to schedule a vote on Obama’s draft resolution authorizing the use of military force against Syria soon after federal lawmakers return to Capitol Hill from recess.

On Wednesday, US Secretary of State John Kerry plans to continue his lobbying efforts when he will meet with the House Foreign Affairs Committee and hold a classified briefing with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

He and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel will ask the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday to support President Obama’s resolution.

[PAULYPOKER]

Ron Paul says chemical attack in Syria was a ‘false flag’


Former US Representative Ron Paul


Former US congressman Ron Paul has said that a reported chemical weapons attack in Syria was a “false flag” likely carried out by the US-backed militant groups.


Washington has accused the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of launching a chemical attack against militant strongholds on August 21, and is preparing for what it calls a retaliatory military response.

“We are not really positive who set off the gas,” Paul, a long-time Republican representative from Texas, said during a Fox News interview filmed Wednesday.

“The group that is most likely to benefit from that is al-Qaeda. They ignite some gas, some people die and blame it on Assad,” he noted.

Paul said that the case for a military intervention in Syria resembles the scenario used prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq when the US accused the Saddam Hussein regime of having an active “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) program. The intelligence was later discredited.

“Just look at how many lies were told us about Saddam Hussein prior to that buildup. More propaganda. It happens all the time,” he stated. “I think it’s a false flag. I think really, indeed,” Paul said, referring to the reported use of chemical weapons in Syria.

The US released an intelligence report on Friday claiming the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack. The Syrian government has strongly rejected the allegation.

On Saturday, President Barack Obama, who had previously described the use of chemical weapons as a “red line”, announced that he had decided Washington should attack Syria. The president, however, said he would seek congressional approval for an attack.

[PAULYPOKER]

US risks making Syria another Iraq


Will President Obama now follow George W. Bush with a war of choice
in the Middle East?


The case for intervention in Syria is strangely reminiscent of the Iraq War. The planned US strike looks as if it rests on the same dubious logic. It could well have the same tragic consequences.


The British government has discovered the hard way that many of its people understand the troubling parallel. Not surprisingly, last Thursday the House of Commons firmly resisted government attempts to railroad it into giving the green light for a military strike.

Uncannily, Prime Minister David Cameron was following in the footsteps of Tony Blair. Like Blair he pressed the Obama administration to delay a strike until United Nations inspectors completed their investigation and until an attempt was made to get the necessary support from the UN Security Council.

Cameron's failure to persuade enough of his parliamentary colleagues of the wisdom of this approach has given the international community breathing space and the US time to think again.

In deciding what to do about Syria the White House and the US Congress would do well to recall the prelude to the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The issue then as now was weapons of mass destruction.

A UN inspection team, headed by Hans Blix, was in Iraq investigating the situation but had yet to complete its investigation.

Having sought but failed to get authorization from the UN Security Council, the Bush administration decided there was no point waiting any longer. The time had come to strike.

To gain international support for its decision the US produced evidence suggesting Saddam Hussein's regime was developing - and possibly intending to use - weapons of mass destruction. Most experts and governments - and world public opinion - remained unconvinced.

And so it was that the US set out on a military adventure, based at best on shaky legal grounds.

Getting rid of Saddam proved the easy part. No WMD were found. But what was meant to be a limited intervention turned out to be a protracted one that left the US demoralized and Iraq in ruins.

Prolonged sectarian violence, which continues to this day, has generated a destabilizing dynamic that now engulfs much of the Middle East.

Ten years later the Obama administration, with the support of a few European governments, is on the verge of embarking on a similarly ill-conceived expedition.

Last time it was Britain that bolstered an otherwise feeble coalition. This time the hope is that France will come to the party. Several Arab countries, including Egypt and Jordan, have already indicated they oppose military intervention.

US Secretary of State John Kerry claims to have conclusive evidence that the Assad government has launched a chemical attack on its people, and argues that such actions must not go unpunished. Obama has spoken of a limited strike not aimed at regime change.

But what is the reality? The indications are that a chemical weapons attack did take place in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. But we know little about the chemicals used - though sarin gas has been mentioned frequently - the means of delivery or their provenance.

The US intelligence report released on Friday speaks of more than 1400 casualties - but this and other details given are asserted rather than demonstrated.

As for the sources of the evidence we are simply referred to general categories, much of it available on the public record, and generally regarded as less than conclusive.

As for motive, US policymakers remain remarkably silent. Why should Assad decide to use chemical weapons at a time when his forces are making considerable gains against the rebels? And why should he do it at the moment that UN inspectors are inside the country and within 10 minutes' reach of the site of destruction?

And the possibility of one or other of the rebel groups acquiring such weapons has been all too easily dismissed. It is only three months since Carla del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, announced she had "strong concrete suspicions" that rebels had used the nerve gas sarin.

The sarin attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995, which killed 13 people, severely injured 50 and caused temporary vision problems for nearly a thousand others, was the work of a small unaided cult group. One of the well organized and internationally supported rebel groups would, one assumes, be capable of inflicting much greater havoc.

With evidence that is still less than conclusive, Obama appears on the verge of repeating the mistakes of his predecessor - assuming he is able to persuade Congress to vote for the proposed strike.

If he does go ahead, he will, like Bush, be doing so on dubious legal grounds. Even if it is established that the Syrian army did carry out the chemical attack, the US is not under direct military threat - it is not therefore acting in self-defense. And, in the absence of UN Security Council authorization, which will not be forthcoming, the "responsibility to protect" principle does not allow third parties to take matters into their own hands.

In any case, why not wait, at least for the UN inspection team to complete its report? Why discredit the credibility of its investigation before it has had a chance to submit its report.

The Syrian government claims it has given the UN inspectors clear evidence that it was not responsible for the attack. Why not wait to see what the inspectors make of such claims?

If it goes ahead, a US military strike on Syria will be the ninth Western military intervention in a Muslim country in 15 years. The gains thus far for peace and security have been negligible and the costs for the authors and victims of intervention nothing short of horrendous.

A US military foray into Syria will reopen Pandora's box. What will the US do if, as seems likely, the planned "limited strike" fails to achieve its objective of intimidating Assad? In all probability, the US and its allies will be tempted to take additional military action, with incalculable consequences for Syria, and for regional and global security.

As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Pope Francis have stated in clear language, only a politically negotiated solution offers any prospect of peace in Syria and the reconstruction of that war-torn country.

An Australian government wishing to exercise the limited leverage afforded by membership of the Security Council would do well to press for this option in the difficult days and weeks ahead.

[PAULYPOKER]

Germ war: The US record


US sprayed Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.



The United States has deployed its CBW arsenal against the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Vietnam, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Haitian boat people and Canada, plus exposure of hundreds of thousands of unwitting US citizens to an astonishing array of germ agents and toxic chemicals, killing dozens of people.


The US experimentation with bio-weapons goes back to the distribution of cholera-infect blankets to American Indian tribes in the 1860s. In 1900, US Army doctors in the Philippines infected five prisoners with a variety of plague and 29 prisoners with Beriberi. At least four of the subjects died. In 1915, a doctor working with government grants exposed 12 prisoners in Mississippi to pellagra, an incapacitating disease that attacks the central nervous system.

After World War I, the United States went on a chemical weapons binge, producing millions of barrels of mustard gas and Lewisite. Thousands of US troops were exposed to these chemical agents in order to “test the efficacy of gas masks and protective clothing”. The Veterans Administration refused to honor disability claims from victims of such experiments. The Army also deployed mustard gas against anti-US protesters in Puerto Rico and the Philippines in the 1920s and 1930s.

In 1931, Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, then under contract with the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, initiated his horrific Puerto Rico Cancer Experiments, infecting dozens of unwitting subjects with cancer cells. At least thirteen of his victims died as a result. Rhoads went on to head the US Army Biological Weapons division and to serve on the Atomic Energy Commission, where he oversaw radiation experiments on thousands of US citizens. In memos to the Department of Defense, Rhoads expressed his opinion that Puerto Rican dissidents could be “eradicated” with the judicious use of germ bombs.

In 1942, US Army and Navy doctors infected 400 prisoners in Chicago with malaria in experiments designed to get “a profile of the disease and develop a treatment for it.” Most of the inmates were black and none was informed of the risks of the experiment. Nazi doctors on trial at Nuremberg cited the Chicago malaria experiments as part of their defense.

At the close of World War II, the US Army put on its payroll, Dr. Shiro Ishii, the head of the Imperial Army of Japan’s bio-warfare unit. Dr. Ishii had deployed a wide range of biological and chemical agents against Chinese and Allied troops. He also operated a large research center in Manchuria, where he conducted bio-weapons experiments on Chinese, Russian and American prisoners of war. Ishii infected prisoners with tetanus; gave them typhoid-laced tomatoes; developed plague-infected fleas; infected women with syphilis; performed dissections on live prisoners; and exploded germ bombs over dozens of men tied to stakes. In a deal hatched by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Ishii turned over more than 10,000 pages of his “research findings” to the US Army, avoided prosecution for war crimes and was invited to lecture at Ft. Detrick, the US Army bio-weapons center in Frederick, Maryland.

In 1950 the US Navy sprayed large quantities of serratia marcescens, a bacteriological agent, over San Francisco, promoting an outbreak of pneumonia-like illnesses and causing the death of at least one man, Ed Nevins.

A year later, Chinese Premier Chou En-lai charged that the US military and the CIA had used bio-agents against North Korea and China. Chou produced statements from 25 US prisoners of war backing him his claims that the US had dropped anthrax contaminated feathers, mosquitoes and fleas carrying Yellow Fever and propaganda leaflets spiked with cholera over Manchuria and North Korea.

From 1950 through 1953, the US Army released chemical clouds over six US and Canadian cities. The tests were designed to test dispersal patterns of chemical weapons. Army records noted that the compounds used over Winnipeg, Canada, where there were numerous reports of respiratory illnesses, involved cadmium, a highly toxic chemical.

In 1951 the US Army secretly contaminated the Norfolk Naval Supply Centerin Virginia with infectious bacteria. One type was chosen because blacks were believed to be more susceptible than whites. A similar experiment was undertaken later that year at Washington, DC’s National Airport. The bacteria was later linked to food and blood poisoning and respiratory problems.

Savannah, Georgia and Avon Park, Florida were the targets of repeated Army bio-weapons experiments in 1956 and 1957. Army CBW researchers released millions of mosquitoes on the two towns in order to test the ability of insects to carry and deliver yellow fever and dengue fever. Hundreds of residents fell ill, suffering from fevers, respiratory distress, stillbirths, encephalitis and typhoid. Army researchers disguised themselves as public health workers in order to photograph and test the victims. Several deaths were reported.

In 1965 the US Army and the Dow Chemical Company injected dioxin into 70 prisoners (most of them black) at the Holmesburg State Prison in Pennsylvania. The prisoners developed severe lesions which went untreated for seven months. A year later, the US Army set about the most ambitious chemical warfare operation in history.

From 1966 to 1972, the United States dumped more than 12 million gallons of Agent Orange (a dioxin-powered herbicide) over about 4.5 million acres of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The government of Vietnam estimated the civilian casualties from Agent Orange at more than 500,000. The legacy continues with high levels of birth defects in areas that were saturated with the chemical. Tens of thousands of US soldiers were also the victims of Agent Orange.

In a still classified experiment, the US Army sprayed an unknown bacterial agent in the New York Subway system in 1966. It is not known if the test caused any illnesses.

A year later, the CIA placed a chemical substance in the drinking water supply of the Food and Drug Administration headquarters in Washington, DC. The test was designed to see if it was possible to poison drinking water with LSD or other incapacitating agents.

In 1969, Dr. D.M. McArtor, the deputy director for Research and Technology for the Department of Defense, asked Congress to appropriate $10 million for the development of a synthetic biological agent that would be resistant” to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease”.

In 1971 the first documented cases of swine fever in the western hemisphere showed up in Cuba. A CIA agent later admitted that he had been instructed to deliver the virus to Cuban exiles in Panama, who carried the virus into Cuba in March of 1991. This astounding admission received scant attention in the US press.

In 1980, hundreds of Haitian men, who had been locked up in detention camps in Miami and Puerto Rico, developed gynecomasia after receiving “hormone” shots from US doctors. Gynecomasia is a condition causing males to develop full-sized female breasts.

In 1981, Fidel Castro blamed an outbreak of dengue fever in Cuba on the CIA. The fever killed 188 people, including 88 children. In 1988, a Cuban exile leader named Eduardo Arocena admitted “bringing some germs” into Cuba in 1980.

Four years later an epidemic of dengue fever struck Managua, Nicaragua. Nearly 50,000 people came down with the fever and dozens died. This was the first outbreak of the disease in Nicaragua. It occurred at the height of the CIA’s war against the Sandinista government and followed a series of low-level “reconnaissance” flights over the capital city.

In 1996, the Cuba government again accused the US of engaging in “biological aggression”. This time it involved an outbreak of thrips palmi, an insect that kills potato crops, palm trees and other vegetation. Thrips first showed up in Cuba on December 12, 1996, following low-level flights over the island by US government spray planes. The US was able to quash a United Nations investigation of the incident.

At the close of the Persian Gulf War, the US Army exploded an Iraqi chemical weapons depot at Kamashiya. In 1996, the Department of Defense finally admitted that more than 20,000 US troops were exposed to VX and sarin nerve agents as a result of the US operation at Kamashiya. This may be one cause of Persian Gulf War Illness, another cause is certainly the experimental vaccines unwittingly given to more than 100,000 US troops.

[Darkside Magick]

Now let it be first understood that I am a god of War and of Vengeance ---The book of the law

[allin1]

keep them coming please

[PAULYPOKER]

Who benefits from a war between the United States and Syria?




US President Barack Obama receives a gift of gold necklace from
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, June 3, 2009.




Someone wants to get the United States into a war with Syria very, very badly. Cui bono is an old Latin phrase that is still commonly used, and it roughly means “to whose benefit?” The key to figuring out who is really behind the push for war is to look at who will benefit from that war.


If a full-blown war erupts between the United States and Syria, it will not be good for the United States, it will not be good for Israel, it will not be good for Syria, it will not be good for Iran and it will not be good for Hezbollah. The party that stands to benefit the most is Saudi Arabia, and they won’t even be doing any of the fighting. They have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict in Syria, but so far they have not been successful in their attempts to overthrow the Assad regime. Now the Saudis are trying to play their trump card - the U.S. military. If the Saudis are successful, they will get to pit the two greatest long-term strategic enemies of Sunni Islam against each other - the U.S. and Israel on one side and Shia Islam on the other. In such a scenario, the more damage that both sides do to each other the happier the Sunnis will be.

There would be other winners from a U.S. war with Syria as well. For example, it is well-known that Qatar wants to run a natural gas pipeline out of the Persian Gulf, through Syria and into Europe. That is why Qatar has also been pouring billions of dollars into the civil war in Syria.

So if it is really Saudi Arabia and Qatar that want to overthrow the Assad regime, why does the United States have to do the fighting?

Someone should ask Barack Obama why it is necessary for the U.S. military to do the dirty work of his Sunni Muslim friends.

Obama is promising that the upcoming attack will only be a “limited military strike” and that we will not be getting into a full-blown war with Syria.

The only way that will work is if Syria, Hezbollah and Iran all sit on their hands and do nothing to respond to the upcoming U.S. attack.

Could that happen?

Maybe.

Let’s hope so.

But if there is a response, and a U.S. naval vessel gets hit, or American blood is spilled, or rockets start raining down on Tel Aviv, the U.S. will then be engaged in a full-blown war.

That is about the last thing that we need right now.

The vast majority of Americans do not want to get embroiled in another war in the Middle East, and even a lot of top military officials are expressing “serious reservations” about attacking Syria according to the Washington Post…

The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.

Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.

For the United States, there really is no good outcome in Syria.

If we attack and Assad stays in power, that is a bad outcome for the United States.

If we help overthrow the Assad regime, the rebels take control. But they would be even worse than Assad. They have pledged loyalty to al-Qaeda.

So why in the world should the United States get involved?

… If the Saudis want this war so badly, they should go and fight it. Everyone knows that the Saudis have been bankrolling the rebels. At this point, even CNN is openly admitting this:

It is an open secret that Saudi Arabia is using Jordan to smuggle weapons into Syria for the rebels. Jordan says it is doing all it can to prevent that and does not want to inflame the situation in Syria.

And Assad certainly knows who is behind the civil war in his country. The following is an excerpt from a recent interview with Assad:

Of course it is well known that countries, such as Saudi Arabia, who hold the purse strings can shape and manipulate them to suit their own interests.

Ideologically, these countries mobilize them through direct or indirect means as extremist tools. If they declare that Muslims must pursue Jihad in Syria, thousands of fighters will respond. Financially, those who finance and arm such groups can instruct them to carry out acts of terrorism and spread anarchy. The influence over them is synergized when a country such as Saudi Arabia directs them through both the Wahhabi ideology and their financial means.

And shortly after the British Parliament voted against military intervention in Syria, Saudi Arabia raised their level of “defense readiness” from “five” to “two” in a clear sign that they fully expect a war to happen:

Saudi Arabia, a supporter of rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, has raised its level of military alertness in anticipation of a possible Western strike in Syria, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.

The United States has been calling for punitive action against Assad’s government for a suspected poison gas attack on a Damascus suburb on August 21 that killed hundreds of people.

Saudi Arabia’s defense readiness has been raised to “two” from “five”, a Saudi military source who declined to be named told Reuters. “One” is the highest level of alert.

And guess who has been supplying the rebels in Syria with chemical weapons?

According to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak, it has been the Saudis…

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak.

And this is a guy that isn’t just fresh out of journalism school. As Paul Joseph Watson noted, “Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News.”

The Voice of Russia has also been reporting on Gavlak’s bombshell findings…

The rebels noted it was a result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

As Gavlak reports, Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels died in a weapons storage tunnel. The father stated the weapons were provided to rebel forces by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K’. “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

Gavlak also refers to an article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks stating that Prince Bandar threatened Russian President Vladimir Putin with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if Russia doesn’t agree to change its stance on Syria.

“Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” the article stated.

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Saudi Prince allegedly told Vladimir Putin.

Yes, the Saudis were so desperate to get the Russians to stand down and allow an attack on Syria that they actually threatened them. Zero Hedge published some additional details on the meeting between Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan and Russian President Vladimir Putin…

Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. … As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”

It is good of the Saudis to admit they control a terrorist organization that “threatens the security” of the Sochi 2014 Olympic games, and that house of Saud uses “in the face of the Syrian regime.” Perhaps the next time there is a bombing in Boston by some Chechen-related terrorists, someone can inquire Saudi Arabia what, if anything, they knew about that.

But the piece de resistance is what happened at the end of the dialogue between the two leaders. It was, in not so many words, a threat by Saudi Arabia aimed squarely at Russia:

As soon as Putin finished his speech, Prince Bandar warned that in light of the course of the talks, things were likely to intensify, especially in the Syrian arena, although he appreciated the Russians’ understanding of Saudi Arabia’s position on Egypt and their readiness to support the Egyptian army despite their fears for Egypt’s future.

The head of the Saudi intelligence services said that the dispute over the approach to the Syrian issue leads to the conclusion that “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation.”

At the end of the meeting, the Russian and Saudi sides agreed to continue talks, provided that the current meeting remained under wraps. This was before one of the two sides leaked it via the Russian press.

Are you starting to get the picture?

The Saudis are absolutely determined to make this war happen, and they expect us to do the fighting.

And Barack Obama plans to go ahead and attack Syria without the support of the American people or the approval of Congress.

According to a new NBC News poll that was just released, nearly 80 percent of all Americans want Congress to approve a strike on Syria before it happens.

And according to Politico, more than 150 members of Congress have already signed letters demanding that Obama get approval from them before attacking Syria…

Already Thursday, more than 150 members of Congress have signaled their opposition to airstrikes on Syria without a congressional vote. House members circulated two separate letters circulated that were sent to the White House demanding a congressional role before military action takes place. One, authored by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), has more than 150 signatures from Democrats and Republicans. Another, started by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), is signed by 53 Democrats, though many of them also signed Rigell’s letter.

But Obama has already made it perfectly clear that he has no intention of putting this before Congress.

He is absolutely determined to attack Syria, and he is not going to let the U.S. Congress or the American people stop him.

Let’s just hope that he doesn’t start World War III in the process.

[allin1]

They are seeking congress approval for an act of war against Syria with Kerry assuring the senate that they don't want to go to war in Syria.

[pronk]

Obama is trying hard to earn his second gold necklace

[PAULYPOKER]

We are all al-Qaeda now, if Obama says so?






“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. He rots the soul of a nation - he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city - he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.” - Cicero, 42 BC


The political earth is shifting under our feet here in the US. There is talk now of something that most felt would be a down the road event... that America may be reaching a ‘tipping point’. I define that to mean a much larger number coming to understand that our present form of government has failed us, including the balance of powers doctrine which the Founding Fathers carefully built into our system.

They did not have a crystal ball, and could not see that outside forces could combine with disloyal, greedy and even treasonous rogue elements inside multiple branches of the our government to literally co-opt the country into being a tool for these outside forces.

The recent case in Syria of the highly suspicious chemical attack (I am being kind here) has generated the lowest support numbers for American military action that anyone here can remember. But if that was not bad enough the Obama administration made another mistake.

Their official position was, “We have the power to do it, so it does not matter what the people think.” That was a very dumb move on their part and I think they will look back on it so.

A two-sided coin seems to be in play here. On June 21st Obama sent a War Powers justification notice to Congress regarding the 700 troops and the missile batteries being sent to Jordan. On June 27th he effectively nullified the War Powers Act by saying he was not going to use it anymore as American constitutional foundations were being undermined by using the act for continual war without Congressional consent.

A week ago Obama said he would seek UN approval for a Syrian strike, and absent that only a sizable international coalition would make an attack diplomatically justifiable, but said getting that done would be ‘problematic’. Then days later he flips again saying that he has the authority to punish the use of WMD (but not when we, the Israelis or our allies use it). After the US has supported the killing of 100,000 Syrians, countless wounded and 8 million homeless in its disastrous regime-change ploy, we accuse Syria of a horrible crime.

And now, until he flips again, Obama is saying he wants Congress to have a debate and a vote, but still insists he has the power to launch an attack anyway. Are you getting a bit confused? This all looks like a superpower in panic mode. But why?

The White House public policy advisers must have rocks in their heads thinking that Americans can’t remember all the juiced up Intel reporting that took us into series of disastrous wars that significantly endangered our national security, and still is. One really has to look back at it all and ask if that was not really their objective.

Dear Obama policy wonks and CIA people, we remember what a hoax our secret agent ‘Curve Ball’ was, and we don’t believe he scammed you. We think you let yourself be scammed by him as part of your own scam.

We remember the yellow cake hustle, the sacrificing of Colin Powell, and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld playing used car salesman on CNN while he showed made in Hollywood underground cities that Al-Qaeda had in Afghanistan. Yes... it was all bogus, and we remember.

People do not think that it was misinformation, but fraudulent evidence use to fool the public, to herd us like lemmings to the sea. Rumsfeld is despised in the military and Intelligence community now, along with Bush and Cheney and the rest of the NeoCon traitors.

We remember Wolfowitz testifying how two years of Iraqi oil production would cover the entire cost of the Iraq war. I could go on and on but we all know now it was just one long record of failure after failure, except for all the contractor money that was made by all those who thought a multi-decade War on Terror was just wonderful.

But this week we saw two significant segments of American society begin to awaken from their long slumber, the silent majority and American veterans and their families. Among the roughly 10% of Americans polled who supported an attack on Syria were all the pro-Israel American Jews, and the hard core Christian Zionists. What was missed is that most of the CZ’s seemed to be absent from the pro-military strike numbers. Even their leadership seemed to be keeping their heads down.

The rank and file military folks, they know they have been misused in the past and are a little more savvy about spotting another bogus national security threat being used as a cover for something else.

They sense the justification for a Syria attack as part of America’s post Soviet collapse continuation of commercial wars to secure and protect markets for multinational corporations, thus reducing the American people to plantation livestock and military cannon fodder.

They are seeing an insider government rogue element intermarriage with these supra-multinational corporations, including the banksters, as the most dangerous national threat that America has been facing. They are of course 100% right.

When Obama used Vietnam anti-war veteran John Kerry to trot out that pitiful excuse for evidence that Syria would pull a chemical weapons attack in areas where their ground forces had been succeeding, he shot himself in the foot. Absent was any mention of motivation, or the already known Intel of the rebels having chemical weapons and having used them.

Obama has now aligned himself with the depredations of the Bush II regime. His administration is now being viewed as a national security threat in itself. Obama, the Brits and the French have all been quiet on the major terrorism operations being run out of Saudi Arabia by Prince Bandar. They have murdered more people in Syria than were lost in New York City on 911. Syria has been getting the ‘911 treatment’ once a month, compliments of the protector of the free world.

Those who conspired to bring this about are guilty of crimes against humanity under international law. The charge is simply conspiracy to commit terrorism, and taking direct action to effect such. This is like... a really really big crime. The last time I looked, diplomatic immunity did not protect you from that.

The world knows now that the ‘Iran has nuclear weapons’ scare was all hype, created to build support for a hope for strike against Iran. The economic consequences of that misadventure would have tanked the world economy. What people, what nation would want to risk such a financial catastrophe when we have learned that the world financial system is a house of cards, constructed as such to benefit the few at the expense of the many?

The only entities who would be from such a disaster would be those who could profit from it. Why do some multinational corporations have intelligence capabilities that surpass many countries? Why does one of the major Internet companies have a paramilitary division, getting secret government contracts, including running assassination teams, unbeknownst to their shareholders? Do you think they are doing this for some public interest, or perhaps their own?

We must do more than just stop this contrived attack on Syria. We must break the machine the planned and pushed for it. We have to dig down to the bedrock and pull our home grown deeply embedded national security threats out by the roots. We must do this to defend ourselves. They have already killed us, on 911, and gotten away with it. That makes them extremely dangerous.

The phony war machine crowd will be cranking up their Congressional lobbyists this next week. The American public will need to put the fear into their Congressmen like they have never seen before. And we have to up the stakes for this fight. We have to start dialing back on where a penetration into the White House could then trigger a phony war based on phony Intel. And we have to clean out Israeli espionage in Congress as it is a constant knife to the throat of our country.

And we might want to put the Jim Dean trump card down on the table... no more internal investigations, period, as they are not worth spit. It makes no difference if they are military, Justice Dept, White House, FBI, CIA, or NSA. They can all be rigged via high level political obstruction of justice. Yes, we have knowledge of many FBI Israeli espionage investigations being stopped due to one call from the White House, which is nothing more than high treason.

We need a fourth branch of government whose sole job is to ride herd and root out corruption and treason in government, all branches of it. And such a fourth branch has to be answerable only to the people, where no political entity has veto power.

Only then we will be able to go down to the bedrock, and disinfect our house, and only then will we ever have any national security in any sense of the word. The only good thing that can come out of all this Iran/Syrian phone threat scam is that we use it as a launching pad to restart America all over again.

Our Intel files hold almost everything needed to prosecute the massive criminal empire that is protected by the highest political powers, because they are partners. They have all the bank transactions, all the emails, phone calls... and data mining can deliver them to the prosecutors offices on a conveyor belt.

We must make a pledge to each other that Syria is the last time we are going to let them pull this crap on us again. Large numbers of people in our government know who all the real bad guys are, but they aren’t telling. They are afraid.

We are going to have to figure out how to bring them over to our side or they will continue to make us all al-Qaeda funders and affiliates. God help us all... to save us from these barbarians in suits.

JD/HSN

[PAULYPOKER]

Striking Syria: Illegal and immoral



US President Barack Obama said he will ask the US Congress to authorize
military action against Syria.


If I were very optimistic, I'd say that President Obama is hoping that Congress will follow the example of the British parliament, and vote against his proposed military strike on Syria. It would let him off the hook - he could avoid an illegal, dangerous, immoral military assault and say it's Congress' fault.


But unfortunately, I don't think that much optimism is warranted. Obama's speech - not least his dismissal of any time pressure, announcing that his commanders have reassured him that their preparations to fire on command are not time-bound - gives opponents of greater US intervention in Syria a week or more to mobilize, to build opposition in Congress and in the public, and to continue fighting against this new danger. As the president accurately described it, "some things are more important than partisan politics". For war opponents in Congress, especially President Obama's progressive supporters, keeping that in mind is going to be difficult but crucial.

Obama said he will "seek Congressional authorization" for a military strike on Syria. He said he believes US policy is "stronger" if the president and Congress are united, but made clear his belief that he "has the authority to strike without" congressional support. That's the bottom line. The first question shouted by the press as he left the White House rose garden was "will you still attack if Congress votes no?" He didn't answer.

There is little question that the Obama administration was blindsided by the British parliament's vote against the prime minister's proposal to endorse war. They were prepared to go to war without United Nations authorization, but were counting on the UK as the core partner in a new iteration of a Bush-style "coalition of the willing." Then NATO made clear it would not participate, and the Arab League refused to endorse a military strike. France may stay in Obama's corner, but that won't be enough.

And Congress was getting restive, with more than 200 members signing one or another letter demanding that the White House consult with them. Too many pesky journalists were reprinting Obama's own words from 2007, when then-candidate Obama told the Boston Globe that "the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

All of that led to the drive towards war slowing a bit. But it didn't stop. And that's a problem. Because whatever Congress may decide, a US military strike against Syria will still be illegal, immoral and dangerous, even reckless in the region and around the world. Congress needs to say no.

Illegal

However frustrated US presidents may be with the UN Security Council's occasional refusal to give in to their pressure, the law is clear. The United Nations Charter, the fundamental core of international law, may be vague about a lot of things. But it is unequivocal about when military force is legal, and when it isn't. Only two things make an act of war legal: immediate self-defense, which clearly is not the case for the US The horrific reality of chemical weapons devastated Syrian, not American lives. This is not self-defense. The other is if the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, authorizes the use of force in response to a threat to international peace and security. That's the authorization President Obama knows he cannot get - certainly Russia and China would veto, but right now a British veto would certainly be a possibility if Cameron wanted to respond to his public. And it's not at all clear a US resolution to use force would even get the nine necessary votes of the 15 Council members. The US is thoroughly isolated internationally.

The problem for President Obama is he still is determined to use military force, despite the requirements of international law. He says he doesn't need that authority - that maybe he'll use the 1999 Kosovo precedent to "go around" the Security Council. The problem, of course, is that the 1999 US-NATO assault on Serbia and Kosovo was illegal - faced with a sure Russian veto, Bill Clinton simply announced he would not ask for Council permission. Instead, he would get permission from the NATO high command. But aside from the hammer-and-nail problem (if you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail; if you're NATO military leaders looking for re-legitimation, everything looks like it needs a military solution), nothing in international law allows NATO to substitute for the Security Council. The Charter was specifically designed to make it difficult to get authorization for military force - its whole raison d'etre is to stand against the scourge of war. So any new decision to go to use military force without Council authority means that use of force is illegal.

Right now, in Syria, that means that members of Congress have the chance to prevent another illegal US war. If Congress should approve it, likely for political or partisan reasons that have nothing to do with Syria, their vote would mean direct complicity in an illegal and immoral war.

Immoral

Pentagon officials have confirmed what logic tells us all: every use of military force threatens civilian lives. More than 100,000 Syrians have been killed in this civil war so far, and hundreds more were killed in what appears to be (remember, we still don't know for sure) a chemical strike last week - US cruise missile strikes won't bring any of them back, and more important, won't protect any Syrian civilians from further threat. To the contrary, low-ranking conscript troops and civilians are almost certain to be injured or killed. Reports out of Syria indicate military offices and more being moved into populated areas - that shouldn't come as a surprise given the nature of the Syrian regime. But the knowledge makes those contemplating military force even more culpable.

Dangerous

A US military strike on Syria will increase levels of violence and instability inside the country, in the region, and around the world. Inside Syria, aside from immediate casualties and damage to the already shattered country, reports are already coming in of thousands of Syrian refugees returning from Lebanon to "stand with their government" when the country is under attack. It could lead to greater support to the brutal regime in Damascus. In Kosovo, more Kosovars were forcibly expelled from their homes by the Serbian regime after the NATO bombing began than had happened before it started; Syrian civilians could face similar retaliation from the government.

A US strike will do nothing to strengthen the secular armed opposition, still largely based in Turkey and Jordan, let alone the heroic but weakened original non-violent democratic opposition forces who have consistently opposed militarization of their struggle and outside military intervention. Those who gain will be the most extreme forces within the opposition, particularly those such as the Jubhat al-Nusra which are closest to al-Qaeda. They have long seen the US presence in the region as a key recruitment tool and a great local target.

There is also the danger of escalation between the US and Russia, already at odds in one of the five wars currently underway in Syria. So far that has been limited to a war of words between Washington and Moscow, but with the G-20 meeting scheduled for next week in St Petersburg, President Putin may feel compelled to push back more directly, perhaps with new economic or other measures.

Crucially, a military strike without United Nations authorization undermines the urgent need for serious, tough diplomacy to end the Syrian war. The US just cancelled a meeting with Russia to talk about negotiations; a couple of months ago, Russia cancelled one. They both must be pushed to meet urgently to arrange and implement an immediate ceasefire and an arms embargo on all sides in Syria.

And finally, what happens the day after? If Syria retaliates against a US missile strike - with an attack on a US warship, or a US base in a neighboring country, or on US troops in the region, or against Israel ... do we really think the US will simply stand back and say "no, this was just a one-time surgical strike, we won't respond"? What happens when that inevitable response pushes the US closer towards direct full-scale involvement in the Syrian civil war?

The word to Congress now must be - you got the vote. That's important, because now you can use that vote to say NO to military action.

What should the US do?

First thing, stop this false dichotomy of it's either military force or nothing. The use of chemical weapons is a war crime, it is indeed what Secretary Kerry called a "moral obscenity". Whoever used such a weapon should be held accountable. So what do we do about it?

First, do no harm. Don't kill more people in the name of enforcing an international norm.

Recognize that international law requires international enforcement; no one country, not even the most powerful, has the right to act as unilateral cop. Move to support international jurisdiction and enforcement, including calling for a second UN investigation to follow-up the current weapons inspection team, this one to determine who was responsible for the attack.

Recommend that whoever is found responsible be brought to justice in The Hague at the International Criminal Court, understanding that timing of such indictments might require adjustment to take into account ceasefire negotiations in Syria.

President Obama can distinguish himself powerfully from his unilateralist predecessor by announcing an immediate campaign not only to get the Senate to ratify the International Criminal Court, but to strengthen the Court and provide it with serious global enforcement capacity.

Move urgently towards a ceasefire and arms embargo in Syria. Russia must stop, and must push Iran to stop arming and funding the Syrian regime. The US must stop, and must push Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan and others to stop arming and funding the opposition, including the extremist elements. That won't be easy - for Washington it may require telling the Saudis and Qataris that if they don't stop, we will cancel all existing weapons contracts with those countries. (As my colleague David Wildman has said, why don't we demand that the Pentagon deal with arms producers the way the Department of Agriculture deals with farmers - pay them not to produce weapons? And then the money can be used to retool their factories to produce solar panels instead of Tomahawk missiles, and the workers stay on the job….)

Stand against further escalation of the Syrian civil war by voting no on any authorization for US military strikes.

AT/HJ

[CountNo_Account]

Chomsky is a comm-ski...

[PAULYPOKER]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09...-syria-crisis/

The anti-Syrian government foreign mercenaries acquired Sarin Gas
eight months ago, this is the 2nd or 3rd attempt they have made to use chemical weapons and blame the action on the legitimate Syrian government forces.
It is not unreasonable to believe that Israeli or US-backed paramilitary organizations or intelligence networks intentionally provided the "rebels" with the gas,
the plan being to use the Sarin on innocent Syrian civilians, then blame the
"Assad regime" (who over 90% of the people support) - here we are,
and you know what the "Israeli" intelligence was ? an "intercepted" conversation in Arabic of an unnamed Syrian officer saying "what the fkk did you do".
This is all lies, people. Do you believe in killing and possibly dying for lies ?

[robzilla]

So u are infavor of gassing thousands of people. Asaad used gas several times, not just in August. Plus, the FSA doesn't have the missiles or rockets used to launch a gas attack. And why would they gas themselves?

[pronk]

Use your head Robzilla, this is how aggressors usually start the wars and it's called "false flag" to begin with. In this case we've picked Syria as the next target one month after Iraq war begun but Syrian government didn't go along with our game of cat and mouse for 11 years and finally our regime with the help of Saudi and Jordanian intelligence who actually supplied sarin gas to terrorists to be used on innoccent people, has a good chance to launch a new war to "punish" evil regime.

[allin1]

So u are infavor of gassing thousands of people. Asaad used gas several times, not just in August. Plus, the FSA doesn't have the missiles or rockets used to launch a gas attack. And why would they gas themselves?

First of all, you logic doesn't make sense. By not approving an act of war (bombing Assad forces in Syria) it doesn't mean you are in favor of gassing thousands of people. The logic is ridiculous. By this logic, the UK parliament by voting against military action in Syria supports the chemical attacks? No logic in such a conclusion.

100.000 deaths in Syria was not a problem because the deaths were ... "organic" ? 1500 by gas and suddenly it's ok to go against international law and make an act of war by bombing Syria and risk starting a regional war between Syria+Hezbollah+Iran vs Israel+USA.

First of all we haven't seen any concrete evidence that the chemical attack was made by Assad forces. Could have been anyone employed by Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran or even more likely Hezbollah, specially made so they would lure the Americans to make the first act of war.

Second, why would Assad gas his people the exact day UN inspectors arrived in the country to analyze prior chemical attacks? Makes no sense unless Assad deliberately wants to lose power, and I doubt that he does, or unless he actually wants a US attack so that he and/or Hezbollah could justify an attack on US allies in the region.

The problem with the US is not the crazy people running the show, but the uneducated people that buy into these justifications for war and just stand and watch.

[robzilla]

First of all, you logic doesn't make sense. By not approving an act of war (bombing Assad forces in Syria) it doesn't mean you are in favor of gassing thousands of people. The logic is ridiculous. By this logic, the UK parliament by voting against military action in Syria supports the chemical attacks? No logic in such a conclusion.

100.000 deaths in Syria was not a problem because the deaths were ... "organic" ? 1500 by gas and suddenly it's ok to go against international law and make an act of war by bombing Syria and risk starting a regional war between Syria+Hezbollah+Iran vs Israel+USA.

First of all we haven't seen any concrete evidence that the chemical attack was made by Assad forces. Could have been anyone employed by Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran or even more likely Hezbollah, specially made so they would lure the Americans to make the first act of war.

Second, why would Assad gas his people the exact day UN inspectors arrived in the country to analyze prior chemical attacks? Makes no sense unless Assad deliberately wants to lose power, and I doubt that he does, or unless he actually wants a US attack so that he and/or Hezbollah could justify an attack on US allies in the region.

The problem with the US is not the crazy people running the show, but the uneducated people that buy into these justifications for war and just stand and watch.

Bombing Asaad is simply punishment, and has nothing to do with a USA takeover. Personally, I think a no vote by the UK does give support to Asaad for future gassings.

[allin1]

Bombing Asaad is simply punishment, and has nothing to do with a USA takeover. Personally, I think a no vote by the UK does give support to Asaad for future gassings.

They voted no because the evidence is not compelling. Could have been Hezbollah not Assad. Even Putin said that he wouldn't rule out military action against Assad as long as the evidence regarding the use of chemicals by his forces is solid. In that case UN would make a strike legal according to international law. If US goes alone without UN approval it is an act of war that is against international law.

[robzilla]

By the way, who used the weapons is not part of the UN mandate. So, it isn't relevant.

[allin1]

By the way, who used the weapons is not part of the UN mandate. So, it isn't relevant.

Perfect. Then why rush and break international law when you can wait for a UN resolution?

[robzilla]

by the way, I don't think Obama cares either way. This is more of a "told you so" moment. Obama said, chems were the "red line", and it was crossed. If he does nothing, his threats are meaningless. If congress votes no, then it's on them, and if more chems are released then Obama can say I told you so.

[robzilla]

Perfect. Then why rush and break international law when you can wait for a UN resolution?

International law has already been broken by gassing civilians.

[allin1]

International law has already been broken by gassing civilians.

Then let the UN come to a conclusion regarding this. If the UN will say, "yes chems were used but we shouldn't do anything about it", then the US has the right to say UN is full of crap and go ahead with the attacks. Until then, it looks more like a bully acting because of other regional interests that have nothing to do with punishment for chem attacks.

Leaving that aside I still consider that the big problem is that you could bomb the heck out of Asaad and then realize that Hezbollah was behind the chem attacks.

[robzilla]

Perfect. Then why rush and break international law when you can wait for a UN resolution?

There can not be a UN resolution because Russia and China veto it.

[PAULYPOKER]

The US/World, military, does not spend 26 times more on defense offensive weapons than every other country on earth for nothing ya know............

[robzilla]

Then let the UN come to a conclusion regarding this. If the UN will say, "yes chems were used but we shouldn't do anything about it", then the US has the right to say UN is full of crap and go ahead with the attacks. Until then, it looks more like a bully acting because of other regional interests that have nothing to do with punishment for chem attacks.

Leaving that aside I still consider that the big problem is that you could bomb the heck out of Asaad and then realize that Hezbollah was behind the chem attacks.

Hezbollah is fighting on the SAA side, not the FSA side.

[PAULYPOKER]

Ron Paul warns Syria is the way US 'marches into Iran'



Ron Paul criticized the Obama administration for interfering in the
internal affairs of Syria.



Former US congressman Ron Paul says the United States is planning to strike Syria because Damascus is the doorstep for entering Iran.

“The whole theory is we’re going to Syria because that’s the way you march into Iran,” Paul said in an interview with CNN on Tuesday.

“At the same time, we’ve made it tougher... We’ve made it tougher for people who want to live in peace… and now we’re just stirring it up in Syria,” he argued.

US President Barack Obama, who is waiting for congressional authorization to attack Syria, won critical support from key congressional leaders on Tuesday to launch military strikes against Syria.

Following a meeting with Obama, House Speaker John Boehner said the US has "enemies around the world that need to understand that we're not going to tolerate this type of behavior. We also have allies around the world and allies in the region who also need to know that America will be there and stand up when it's necessary."

Ron Paul also criticized the Obama administration for interfering in the internal affairs of Syria.

“It's a civil war and there's no way you're going to figure it out. I smell Iraq all over again. I remember the assurances that were given us 10 years ago and members of Congress believed that. But let me tell you, the situation is a lot different. The American people are on my side on this issue today and there's a lot more people in Congress now who are saying, it makes no sense,” he said.

“And just listen to the military commanders. They said, you know, we don't even have the money for this. We have to have a supplemental. Now, how about all these warmongers getting ready to bomb and kill and invade or do whatever they think necessary and they don't even have the money and then they have to appropriate the money, which means more money drained from our economy,” Paul argued.

Paul also experienced “technical difficulties” with his satellite connection during his interview with CNN.

Meanwhile, recent polls show the American people are against Syria war under the pretext of the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll released Tuesday said 59 percent of Americans oppose unilateral US military action. Pew Research also found that opponents of a strike outnumber supporters, 48 percent to 29 percent.

AGB/HJ

[PAULYPOKER]

US war on Syria prelude to a World War III scenario: Professor



The US has sent a fifth destroyer armed with cruise missiles to the
eastern Mediterranean.




Michel Chossudovsky, renowned Canadian professor and award-winning author, argues that a US plan for military intervention in Syria is aimed at integrating its “four distinct war theaters”-- Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya-- setting the stage for “a World War III scenario.”


“An attack on Syria would lead to the integration of these separate war theaters, eventually leading towards a broader Middle East-Central Asian war,” the professor writes in an opinion piece for Global Research.

Chossudovsky says that the United States is fueling “civil wars” in multiple countries namely Yemen, Somalia, Egypt, Mali and Niger through sponsoring al-Qaeda affiliated groups, essentially preparing the ground for US military intervention often in the forms of counter-terrorism operations.

“Public opinion is largely unaware of the grave implications of these war plans which could potentially lead humanity into a World War III scenario,” he warns.

The Obama administration has claimed the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was behind a recent deadly chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus, even though there is no evidence linking the attack to the government forces. The White House is gearing up for military strikes on Syrian targets.

Citing an August 2012 Los Angeles Times report, Chossudovsky says preparations for “a false flag chemical weapons attack” in Syria began more than a year ago when the Pentagon dispatched “small teams of special operations troops” to the Arab country to destroy its alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

“These initial US sponsored WMD special team operations had established the likely scenario of a staged false flag chemical weapons attack.”

US, NATO and Israeli military planners have laid the groundwork for a “humanitarian” military involvement in Syria for years, Chossudovsky says.

He asserts that the US and its regional allies, namely Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have been sponsoring and arming the militant groups in Syria, some of which have been responsible for gruesome terrorist attacks against the civilian population, as “mass civilian casualty events” play a central role in US military doctrine.

“Civilian casualties are triggered with a view to drumming up public support for war on humanitarian grounds.”

“MI6, CIA and Mossad operatives as well as Western Special Forces had integrated rebel forces from the very outset. The high profile terrorist attacks were coordinated by highly trained military contractors and intelligence operatives,” the professor adds.

Another “integral” component of US military agenda, according to Chossudovsky, is “escalation.”

“Were a US-NATO military operation to be launched against Syria, the broader Middle East Central Asian region extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with China would be engulfed in the turmoil of an extended regional war.”

Israel and Turkey would also cooperate with the US in both the air campaign and the deployment of ground forces, Chossudovsky argues.

A US-led military attack against Syria, the professor warns, will have serious repercussions in other parts of the world especially South East Asia and the Far East where the US is countering China and Russia as part of its “pivot to Asia” strategy.

HJ/HJ

[sourtwist]

This is very confusing to me

[muldoon]

Assad is no saint, but he's also not insane. Really tough to understand why he'd utilize a weapon of this sort when he is flat out crushing the rebels already (same for Hezbollah which makes zero sense)

It's a tough spot.

For those who want to compare it to Iraq? Call me when Obama invades the wrong country with no exit strategy and funnels 40 billion into a company Joe Biden used to run.

[pronk]

Hezbollah is fighting on the SAA side, not the FSA side.

He meant Al-Qaida. Hezbollah are the good guys.

[robzilla]

He meant Al-Qaida. Hezbollah are the good guys.

Ha Ha... I wouldn't call Hezbollah the good guys. The SAA are basically are bunch of civilians forced in by conscription and forces sent in from Iran. The FSA side was mostly para-millitary and Syrian army defectors, but they've have to join forces with militia, civilians, street gang types, and quazi jehadists. There is a vid online that shows the FSA announcing who they've joined with, and there is about 12-15 different groups, and only 1 could be considered Al Queda.

[allin1]

Hezbollah is fighting on the SAA side, not the FSA side.

I know. They are helping Asaad, but if they did the chem attack and not Asaad forces, it will not look good if US punishes Asaad.

There can not be a UN resolution because Russia and China veto it.

If UN comes with evidence for the attack they might not veto it. If they do, then you can go an bomb in Syria. but I am still not convinced that the evidence is solid.

http://rt.com/op-edge/saudi-chemical...an-attack-421/

http://rt.com/news/syria-strike-nuclear-disaster-427/

[allin1]

He meant Al-Qaida. Hezbollah are the good guys.

I ment Hezbollah and they are not the good guys. They are helping Assad, they were founded by Iran, and right now they are more dangerous then Al-Qaida because if they improve their weapons they could kill more people (mostly Israelis) than Al-Qaida did. That's why Israel bombed Syria this year, they were trying to prevent Hezbollah from receiving weapons.