The Syrian Protest

[SPECTRE1]

The questions not being asked

The Syrian government says that the claims they carried out the chemical attack are "an insult to common sense."

Indeed, there are some elementary questions that the most trained and well-paid journalists are simply glossing over or ignoring. Who stands to gain from this chemical attack? Who stands to lose? Why would the Syria government, enjoying the military initiative on the ground, and a decreasing likelihood of foreign intervention, do the one thing that would invite foreign intervention and swing the advantage to the rebels?

Why would the Syrian government carry out a chemical weapons attack the very day a UN team was set to arrive to investigate earlier chemical weapons incidents? (The UN attributed some of these previous chemical weapons attacks to the rebels, although this provoked no great outcry in the Western media or among their governments.)

Why would the Syrian government gas sleeping civilians in the middle of the night in an area that was not even an active warzone? The New York Times has fumbled around ridiculously to generate an answer: Assad wanted to make Syrian rebels return home from the front, Assad misjudged the international community, Assad just attacks civilians indiscriminately.

Why would the Assad government order sniper attacks on the UN inspectors they just invited into the country, hoping to prove the government's innocence of the chemical attacks and prevent intervention? And if sectors of rebels, instead of the government, are responsible for the sniper attack (which is far more logical), what do they have to hide?

We can speculate on a series of more plausible scenarios in which other parties — who actually would have something to gain from western intervention — could have carried out the chemical attack. But without the evidence, we must at least do what the U.S. government will not: ask the questions.

As the corporate media mobilizes for the war effort, all genuine progressive organizations, journalists and independent media, must mobilize for the anti-war effort.



You want to end the bloodshed, quick flooding the country with weapons. When did the U.S. start abiding by international law or any law at all.

 

[QueEx]

The questions not being asked

The Syrian government says that the claims they carried out the chemical attack are "an insult to common sense."

Indeed, there are some elementary questions that the most trained and well-paid journalists are simply glossing over or ignoring. Who stands to gain from this chemical attack? Who stands to lose? Why would the Syria government, enjoying the military initiative on the ground, and a decreasing likelihood of foreign intervention, do the one thing that would invite foreign intervention and swing the advantage to the rebels?

Why would the Syrian government carry out a chemical weapons attack the very day a UN team was set to arrive to investigate earlier chemical weapons incidents? (The UN attributed some of these previous chemical weapons attacks to the rebels, although this provoked no great outcry in the Western media or among their governments.)

Why would the Syrian government gas sleeping civilians in the middle of the night in an area that was not even an active warzone? The New York Times has fumbled around ridiculously to generate an answer: Assad wanted to make Syrian rebels return home from the front, Assad misjudged the international community, Assad just attacks civilians indiscriminately.

Why would the Assad government order sniper attacks on the UN inspectors they just invited into the country, hoping to prove the government's innocence of the chemical attacks and prevent intervention? And if sectors of rebels, instead of the government, are responsible for the sniper attack (which is far more logical), what do they have to hide?

We can speculate on a series of more plausible scenarios in which other parties — who actually would have something to gain from western intervention — could have carried out the chemical attack. But without the evidence, we must at least do what the U.S. government will not: ask the questions.

As the corporate media mobilizes for the war effort, all genuine progressive organizations, journalists and independent media, must mobilize for the anti-war effort.



You want to end the bloodshed, quick flooding the country with weapons. When did the U.S. start abiding by international law or any law at all. Use the military to bring in voting machines to vote for the regime they want.

I'm not really in favor of the action that appears destined, though I'm not sure at all that the Assad regime is blameless. On the other hand, I know the U.S. is not always blameless, either. I would be careful, however, to rely upon articles that appear to fit your mindset -- upon closer examination you might find their premises are unsupported.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Syria: Obama Joins Al-Qaeda...

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=98e5169e7334" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Farage: UK govt keenest of all on Syria intervention, decision already made


The British government is the most enthusiastic country in the entire international community to get involved in Syria, and the decision on intervention has already been made, believes leader of UK Independence Party Nigel Farage. READ MORE:http://on.rt.com/l31y76

RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UvxtJYlGb_o?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[MASTERBAKER]

PBS Obama interview on Syria (August 28th) "No decision yet"

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DRuRwZCEtGc?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[SPECTRE1]

<iframe width="960" height="720" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/0DskXYjOs-8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed. {emphasis ours}

You can't trust the government or the media at all. The American people do not want to be lied to or fed bullshit that will expose us to terrorist attacks. Why is the U.S. providing military support to a group of people that used chemical weapons per the UN?

I favor military intervention to establish elections.

 

[QueEx]

Interesting article C. Please don't forget to post the source.

Thanks.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

U.N. inspectors to leave Syria by Saturday morning to report on chemical weapons findings: chief


U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says the team will report to him as soon as they 'come out of' the country, which is under intense international pressure following reports that toxic nerve gas attacks killed hundreds in Damascus.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has cut short his trip in Austria to hear findings from the investigative team.


United Nations inspectors in Syria to determine whether forces have used chemical weapons in the civil war will continue their investigations until Friday and plan to leave by Saturday morning, the U.N. chief said.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, speaking in Vienna, said the team — which arrived in Syria on Aug. 18 — would report to him as soon as they "come out of" the country and that he had therefore cut short a trip to Austria. He had been due to address an economic forum in the village of Alpbach on Saturday.

Ban said he had spoken to President Obama on Wednesday about the situation in Syria, discussing how "we can expedite the process of investigation.

"I have also expressed my sincere wish that this investigation team should be allowed to continue their work as mandated by the member states," Ban told reporters.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/u-n-inspectors-leave-syria-saturday-chief-article-1.1440250#ixzz2dMmthM4j

A U.N. chemical weapons expert, wearing a gas mask, on Thursday inspects one of the sites of an alleged chemical weapons attack in the Damascus' suburb of Zamalka.


"I told him that we will ... share the information and our analysis of samples and evidence with members of the Security Council and United Nations members in general."

U.N. chemical weapons experts began a third day of investigations into an apparent poison gas attack last week which killed hundreds of civilians, visiting rebel-held territory outside Damascus.

"They (the inspection team) will continue investigation activities until tomorrow, Friday, and will come out of Syria by Saturday morning and will report to me," Ban said.

Obama made the case on Wednesday for a limited military strike against Syria in response to the chemical attack. Ban said anyone using poison gas must be held accountable but a peaceful solution was best.

"Use of chemical weapons by anyone, for any reason, under any circumstances is a crime against humanity and that must be held accountable," Ban said. "(At the same time) it is important that all the differences of opinions should be resolved by peaceful means, through dialogue."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/u-n-inspectors-leave-syria-saturday-chief-article-1.1440250#ixzz2dMmbCQka

[PDF]http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/781671/chemical-weapon-use-by-syrian-regime-uk.pdf[/PDF]

 

[thoughtone]

source: NBC News


Iran's president tweets condemnation of Syria chemical weapons attack

In a series of comments on Twitter over the past 24 hours, Iran’s new president said Iranian officials "completely and strongly condemn the use of chemical weapons in Syria," and urged the United Nations to "use all its might" to prevent more attacks.

He later slightly softened his tone, tweeting that the international community should show "prudence" in resolving the crisis in Syria.

Hassan Rouhani, who took office earlier this month, did not blame any of the players in Syria's civil war for the chemical weapons attacks, but did raise the possibility that Syrian rebels were responsible.

Rouhani’s online comments were generally more even-handed than statements made by other Iranian leaders, possibly reflecting his stated desire for improved relations with the West.

But Hooman Majd, an author and consultant to NBC News on Iranian affairs said that his tweets were his way of reflecting public sentiment in the Islamic Republic.
"This is a popularly elected president, reflecting what the population is feeling on something like this," said Majd. "He is speaking on behalf of the survivors of the chemical weapons attacks in Iran. It is not him challenging the leader (Ali Hosseini Khamenei) or condemning an ally."

The first set of tweets from Rouhani came in quick succession early Tuesday:

We completely & strongly condemn use of chemical weapons in #Syria because Islamic Republic of Iran is itself victim of chemical weapons 1/2
— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) August 27, 2013
​

<SCRIPT charset=utf-8 src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async></SCRIPT>

Iran suffered chemical weapons attacks by Iraqi forces during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war 2/2
— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) August 27, 2013
​

<SCRIPT charset=utf-8 src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async></SCRIPT>


The English-speaking president was referring to Iran's experience with chemical weapons at the hands of toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Tens of thousands of Iranian soldiers died when Iraq used nerve and blistering agents on its troops in battles for the southern marshlands in the 1980s, during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war.

His strongest comments followed:

Iran gives notice to international community to use all its might to prevent use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world, esp. in #Syria
— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) August 27, 2013
​

<SCRIPT charset=utf-8 src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async></SCRIPT>


Early Wednesday, however, he shifted to more cautious language:

As UN resumes investigations, President #Rouhani calls on intl community to show #prudence over #Syrian crisis and observe international law
— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) August 28, 2013​

<SCRIPT charset=utf-8 src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async></SCRIPT>’


That was followed by:

Any action on #Syrian crisis should be based on intl law, lead to more stability in region&reduce terrorism.Mid-East doesnt need another war
— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) August 28, 2013​

<SCRIPT charset=utf-8 src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async></SCRIPT>

At the same time Rouhani was tweeting his comments, other Iranian leaders were either warning about the unforeseen consequences that could arise from a U.S. strike against Syria or that it could trigger a military response against Israel.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned in a statement broadcast on Iranian state television that "the region is like a gunpowder store and the future cannot be predicted.”

“If (President Barack Obama) gets stuck in this trap, he will certainly leave behind bad memories of his presidency,” he added. “The intervention of America will be a disaster for the region.”

The most vitriolic claim came from Iranian legislator Mansur Haqiqatpur, who was quoted by the Fars news agency as saying, “In case of a U.S. military strike against Syria, the flames of outrage of the region’s revolutionaries will point toward the Zionist regime,” as reported by the New York Times.

At the same time, Iran's new foreign minister, Mohammed Javad Zarif, suggested the Syrian rebels may have gained access to nerve agents and carried out the attack on their own supporters. He urged that possibility be investigated.

The mixed messages are not unusual, said Majd, the NBC News consultant.

Government institutions in Iran "rarely speak with one voice," particulary at time of political transition, he said. He also noted that the regime itself "is much more guarded in its actions" than is reflected in the rhetoric of its leaders, whether "it's a statement that the U.S. might like, like this, or those made by Ahmadinejad on Israel, which the U.S. might not like."

Rouhani has said that he is hoping for better relations with the West, particularly the United States, and has appointed two U.S.-educated diplomats to the positions of foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator.

 

[QueEx]

<IFRAME SRC="http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2150618,00.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2150618,00.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>


​

 

[SPECTRE1]

1. We are going to find out 50 years from now, or your great grand kids, that the U.S. was behind some of these uprising. It took 60 years to find out the U.S. installed the Shah officially to get cheap oil, at the expense of the Iranian people.

There is probably some material information being withheld that would change our support.

Finding groups within a country and promising them support if they uprise against their government, rather than establishing American presence that could result in terrorist attacks. This could be a new tactic to support rival groups with money and weapons, than military aid when the government rightfully comes in with tanks to shut them down. The U.S. is getting involved because they promised these groups support to topple the regime.

2. The infantile and slanted coverage of this impending conflict. Who is Asad, was he democratically elected? Is he a Hugo Chavez of the Middle East, staunchly opposed to American imperialism in the region? I like to know more about this guy. Saddam was interviewed prior to the war.

I would also like to know more about the Syrian Rebels, what are their goals, why are they fighting the government. Do they represent the majority of the people?


There are plenty of videos on Youtube of rebels launching sarin gas. This action should have been taken than, rather than only responding to the alleged response of Assad.
Why our other countries not responding to the conflict?

3. I believe President Obama is looking at the big picture, a chemical attack by Syria could encourage other countries to stockpile and use these weapons during a conflict.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Wealthy Syrians ignore tensions

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yvxfRZTdX80?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Kuwaiti media say US attack on Syria ‘hours away’
Kuwaiti media have quoted sources in the Persian Gulf as saying
that Washington will launch strikes against Syria from Turkey and Cyprus,
'within hours'.

The Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Qabas quoted diplomatic sources in the
Persian Gulf on Saturday as saying that Washington will launch strikes against
Syria from a number of bases, including those in Turkey and Cyprus.
The sources said the attack could be hours away.


Another Kuwaiti daily, Al-Rai, cites sources as indicating that the
Syrian government has instructed his armed forces to defend their country - if
and when his country comes under attack.
The news item was posted on Israel Radio's website and first reported
by its Arab language correspondent.see more at : http://en.alalam.ir/news/1511811

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

all I am going to muthafuckin say
right muthafuckin now

is those muthafuckin arab racist mutts in that region of the so called middle east..

Are going to lose their stronghold, the same way they got it....

The Think They could take part in the dis-placement of the original Ancient Berbers, and live in that region happily ever after..

The Chosen People...cmon son!!!

women, children, everybody gettin it..

Thats how karma is, that bitch dont give a fuck!!

 

[QueEx]

Obama Rolls the Dice
Wants Congress to Vote on Syria


President Obama said on Saturday that he was ready to take
military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad, but
that he will seek the approval of Congress before carrying
out a military strike.

Obama says Congressional leaders have agreed to schedule a
debate and vote when they return to session.
​

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/31/obama-makes-statement-on-syria/2751085/

 

[spider705]

Definite roll of the dice, but he has to do this. If he acts on this without congressional approval it will go against his own words leading up to his 2008 presidential run.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 4

 

[QueEx]

Definite roll of the dice, but he has to do this. If he acts on this without congressional approval it will go against his own words leading up to his 2008 presidential run.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 4

No question. But the President had better bring his "A" game.

This will be "THE" opportunity that many in Congress have wanted for some time. I doubt seriously that this will be about whether and how an attack should proceed against Syria as much as it will be an opportunity for the Republican Jungle in the House to get its day against Barack Obama -- and they're salivating . . .

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

CIA stands for...

Conflict Instigating Association....

could I copyright that,

I just made it up but its just soo fuckin accurate..

 

[Cruise]

When I was a kid (long time ago),

it meant the

Criminals

Institute of

America.

 

[SPECTRE1]

The U.S. based on classified documents released in the past will lie, cheat, and steal to maintain access to oil because of its importance, impose plutocratic capitalism, or force U.S. transnational corporate domination on a country. You can look no further than Venezuela when its democratically elected leader was momentarily deposed to verify this statement.

The U.S. has zero credibility and it reflects with the world not supporting the U.S. cause in Syria trying to repair its goodwill by projecting itself as a force for good, when it is pure evil in many cases. Millions of people died in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, not a single country from the Middle East came to interfere at all despite the U.S. using WMD.

After spying on the EU and setting up fake internet cafes, they can't rely on or support anything the U.S. is proposing. There is also a media blackout just as in Iraq on providing any detailed information about Asad and his government and the Syrian rebels.

As with Al Qaeda, they took our assistance out of desperation, but despised the U.S., than turned around and attacked when the U.S. setup in Saudi Arabia after lying about Saddam amassing troops on the border. Many people around the world don't want to enter into any Master Slave relationship with the U.S. at all.

The repurcussion won't manifest itself initially, it will show up 7-8 years (similar to the first Gulf War) from now when the new Twin Towers is attacked again. The new Bin Laden will be able to recruit 40 people instead of 19 to suicide bomb or use chemical weapons again based on our indiscriminate attack now in Syria. The take down of the New York Times may be a hint of what to come in response.

<iframe width="960" height="720" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/RSm_0pSEACk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[MASTERBAKER]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/3CRVvxm-xqo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama was ready to order a military strike against Syria, with or without Congress' blessing. But on Friday night, he suddenly changed his mind.

Senior administration officials describing Obama's about-face Saturday offered a portrait of a president who began to wrestle with his own decision – at first internally, then confiding his views to his chief of staff, and finally summoning his aides for an evening session in the Oval Office to say he'd had a change of heart.

The ensuing flurry of activity culminated Saturday afternoon in the White House Rose Garden when Obama stood under a sweltering sun, his vice president at his side, and told the American public the U.S. should launch a military strike to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad for a chemical weapons attack the U.S. says killed more than 1,400 people last week.

But first, he said, he'll ask permission from Congress.

___

By the time Obama's National Security Council met a week ago Saturday, a few days after the attack, it was clear the intelligence the U.S. had gathered corroborated the notion that a chemical attack had resulted in dramatic mass casualties, officials said. All the officials in this report demanded anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the president's decision-making by name.

As the meeting opened, Obama told his advisers the attack outside Damascus was precisely the type of scenario he had been concerned about last year, when he said Assad's large-scale use of chemical weapons would cross a red line for the U.S. and necessitate a response. Obama hadn't made a final decision, officials said, but he told aides his strong inclination was the U.S. must act.

By the end of the meeting, aides were no longer discussing whether to respond, but how and when.

___

Over the course of the next week, Obama's aides began making their case publicly, asking allies to support a military action and talking with lawmakers, who were away from Washington in the final throes of their August congressional recess.

Secretary of State John Kerry cut short his own vacation and was dispatched to say the U.S. had clear evidence of an attack in two impassioned State Department speeches.

"The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity," Kerry said Monday in the first address. "By any standard, it is inexcusable."

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, traveling in Asia, said the U.S. had moved military assets into place. "We are ready to go," Hagel said. The Navy beefed up its presence in the Persian Gulf region, increasing the number of aircraft carriers from one to two.

___

Away from Washington, the U.S. was running into obstacles in its search for a global coalition to bolster its case that a response was needed to show the world will not tolerate chemical weapons use.

Its own inspectors on the ground in Syria, the U.N. Security Council failed to reach agreement on Wednesday on authorizing the use of force, with Russia objecting to international intervention. Meanwhile, Obama declared publicly and unequivocally that the U.S. had concluded Assad's government carried out the attack.

Thursday brought another stinging setback when a vote in Britain's Parliament to endorse military action failed, all but guaranteeing Britain wouldn't play a direct role. But France's leader said he and Obama were in agreement and that France could go ahead with a strike.

___

In Washington, members of Congress from both parties were insisting Obama consult more closely with Congress before giving an order to begin hostilities. Dozens of lawmakers, most of them Republican, signed a letter saying Obama should not take military action without congressional approval, although administration officials insisted no congressional leaders or committee chairs made that request personally to the White House.

Obama's national security team was in agreement that while consulting with Congress was critical, there was no need for formal approval, officials said. Seeking a vote in Congress to authorize a strike wasn't even an option on the table.

___

All that changed Friday night, when Obama left the West Wing with his chief of staff, Denis McDonough. Under cloudy skies and temperatures nearing 90 degrees, the two walked on the White House grounds for the better part of an hour, and Obama confided in his adviser that he had changed his mind. He laid out an idea to ask Congress to approve a strike.

By 7 p.m., top aides including deputy national security advisers Ben Rhodes and Tony Blinken had been summoned to the Oval Office, where Obama shared the new plan. It was the right thing to do, the president said, and would make the U.S. stronger.

Aides went to work immediately, with some drafting an authorization that Congress could take up and others hashing out the timeline.

___

But the next morning, there was pushback from some on the president's team. The National Security Council convened Saturday to firm up the plan, with Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, national security adviser Susan Rice and others in attendance.

When Obama said he wanted to ask Congress for a vote, some of his advisers dissented. Officials wouldn't say which participants argued against Obama's proposal.

After a two-hour debate, Obama's team agreed to support Obama's decision, officials said. So Obama went upstairs and called the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to inform them of his about-face. He also notified French President Francois Hollande.

By mid-afternoon, Obama emerged in a steamy White House Rose Garden, surprising lawmakers, reporters and the public with news of his plan.

"I'm ready to act in the face of this outrage," Obama said. "Today I'm asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation."

Then Obama and Biden left the White House by motorcade to play a round of golf.

 

[QueEx]

​

 

[QueEx]

​

 

[QueEx]

​

 

[SPECTRE1]

This makes no sense, think of chemical weapons as nuclear bombs. The FSA aligns themselves with a foreign power/enemy by receiving military aid and weapons with elements of Al-Qaeda. They launch a nuclear bomb (chemical weapon) at the government causing mass deaths, and inflicting fear on the military.

I believe a government has every right to respond in kind to a group of people that aligned themselves with a foreign power. I would support U.S. and international intervention if the FSA had not used Sarin. What message are we sending to people that uprise in the future that you can stockpile nuclear weapons and chemical weapons, launch them at your government and the UN and U.S. will intervene to protect you from the repercussions?

It would be no different than Russia launching a nuclear attack at a city, the U.S. would respond in kind with nuclear weapons. China, after seeing the U.S. use nuclear weapons launches an attack of its own because the U.S. used nuclear weapons at Russia. China is playing the role of the U.S. in using the excuse of WMD to intervene. Or a group of people that have received military aid from North Korea and seeking to topple the U.S. government launches a chemical attack in Washington D.C. causing mass deaths.

Unfortunately, the media blackouts all the information and focuses on the use of WMD by the state against people of Syria who have aligned themselves with a foreign power/enemy. The media has become a propaganda tool of the state to influence popular opinion. The Arab League does not want unilateral U.S. intervention in this region at all.

We should be cutting off support to the FSA and sending a message that the U.S. will not support any group that utilizes chemical weapons.

 

[QueEx]

This makes no sense . . .

The FSA aligns themselves with a foreign power/enemy by receiving military aid and weapons with elements of Al-Qaeda. They launch a nuclear bomb (chemical weapon) at the government causing mass deaths, and inflicting fear on the military.

I believe a government has every right to respond in kind to a group of people that aligned themselves with a foreign power.


I would support U.S. and international intervention if the FSA had not used Sarin.

Unfortunately, the media blackouts all the information and focuses on the use of WMD by the state against people of Syria who have aligned themselves with a foreign power/enemy. The media has become a propaganda tool of the state to influence popular opinion.


We should be cutting off support to the FSA and sending a message that the U.S. will not support any group that utilizes chemical weapons.

It would be hard to argue against your logic if your underlying facts are true. I have no idea which side, if either, has used chemical agents. But you seem so sure that the FSA has used them and that the Syrian government has not or has used them only in retaliation.

I don't know that we have enough info to decide which elements have used or initiated the use of chemical agents. What 'Facts' make you so certain it was only the FSA or that the FSA initiated the use ???

 

[QueEx]

Intercepted call bolsters Syrian
chemical-weapons charge, Germans say

This image provided by Shaam News Network on Thursday, Aug. 22, 2013, has
been authenticated based on its contents and other AP reporting. It purports to
show bodies of victims of an attack on Ghouta, Syria | Uncredited/AP


BERLIN — German intelligence intercepted a phone call between a Hezbollah commander and an unidentified official at an Iranian embassy that provided evidence that the Syrian government was behind the alleged Aug. 21 chemical-weapons attack, a German newsmagazine has reported.

Tuesday’s report was based on a classified briefing that German Foreign Intelligence Chief Gerhard Schindler gave selected German lawmakers Monday, according to the magazine, Der Spiegel.

A senior U.S. official, speaking only on the condition of anonymity because the information is classified, said the intercepted call wasn’t the same communication that American officials had cited to bolster their case that Syrian President Bashar Assad was responsible for the attack.

“We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence,” said a U.S. assessment released last week.

According to Der Spiegel, one of the parties in the intercepted phone call was a “high-ranking member of Hezbollah,” the militant Lebanese movement that’s sent fighters to support the Assad government. That Hezbollah member told the Iranian that “Assad had lost his temper and committed a huge mistake by giving the order for the poison gas use," according to the magazine’s account.
​

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/04/201193/intercepted-call-bolsters-syrian.html#storylink=cpy

 

[QueEx]

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Regional economic effects of a Syrian strike

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FuEEl5Ih0cU?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Cruise]

Typical us state-run media propaganda source vs. Independents

DC News parrots whatever the United States government tells them, no matter what.

The rest of the world is looking at facts. Judging by the way you believe all that garbage these idiots run about Detroit, I can tell you are a faithful party member of the empire.

intercepted call bolsters syrian
chemical-weapons charge, germans say

this image provided by shaam news network on thursday, aug. 22, 2013, has
been authenticated based on its contents and other ap reporting. It purports to
show bodies of victims of an attack on ghouta, syria | uncredited/ap


berlin — german intelligence intercepted a phone call between a hezbollah commander and an unidentified official at an iranian embassy that provided evidence that the syrian government was behind the alleged aug. 21 chemical-weapons attack, a german newsmagazine has reported.

Tuesday’s report was based on a classified briefing that german foreign intelligence chief gerhard schindler gave selected german lawmakers monday, according to the magazine, der spiegel.

A senior u.s. Official, speaking only on the condition of anonymity because the information is classified, said the intercepted call wasn’t the same communication that american officials had cited to bolster their case that syrian president bashar assad was responsible for the attack.

“we intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on august 21 and was concerned with the u.n. Inspectors obtaining evidence,” said a u.s. Assessment released last week.

According to der spiegel, one of the parties in the intercepted phone call was a “high-ranking member of hezbollah,” the militant lebanese movement that’s sent fighters to support the assad government. That hezbollah member told the iranian that “assad had lost his temper and committed a huge mistake by giving the order for the poison gas use," according to the magazine’s account.
​

read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/04/201193/intercepted-call-bolsters-syrian.html#storylink=cpy

 

[MASTERBAKER]

US warned of Syria 'sophisticated air defense'
Part of channel(s): Syria (current event)

A political analyst has cautioned the US against launching a military attack on Syria, saying the Middle Eastern country has sophisticated air defense capabilities, Press TV reports.


"I think the Americans have to think twice before they start a war...; the Americans cannot put any limit to this war," Hisham Jaber, a retired army general from Beirut, told Press TV on Thursday.

Jaber said the most important military capability of Syria is its air defense systems, including the S-200, which can intercept missiles violating its airspace.

"The question is, first of all, will Syria defend itself? The answer is yes. Syria will use [its] air defense systems, like S-200, to intercept ... [US] Tomahawk" missiles, he said.

The comments come amid the growing talk of war against Syria.

The war rhetoric against the Middle Eastern country first gained momentum on August 21, when the militants operating inside Syria and the foreign-backed Syrian opposition claimed that over a thousand people had been killed in a government chemical attack on the outskirts of Damascus.

Damascus categorically rejected the accusation.

Nevertheless, a number of Western countries, including the US, France, and the UK, quickly started campaigning for war.

Since then, media outlets have reported US plans for likely surgical attacks, which would be in the form of "cruise-missile strikes," and "could rely on ... US destroyers in the Mediterranean [Sea]."

Blatant calls for war by the US President Barack Obama administration have not faded despite reluctance by some of its closest allies to engage in any military intervention in Syria.

Obama has said his administration will first seek authorization for the attack from a skeptical Congress.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dGLaJyINOBg?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[SPECTRE1]

The military should not be used for this half ass attemp, remove him from power or don't take action. As the case with Saddam Hussein, he attempted to retaliate by plotting an assassination attempt, after the U.S. left him in power with the first Gulf War. No telling what else he tried to do afterwards, if he worked with terrorist, he could have done the same thing with 9/11. Bin Laden goal or issue with removing the U.S. military force from Saudi Arabia, matches something that Saddam would want. Saddam could have infiltrated Al-Qaeda and redirected them towards conflict with the U.S. The same thing was done with the Black Panthers with Richard Aoki, an FBI informant; redirecting their activity towards something the FBI wanted.

Qaddafi is another leader that was messed with by the military and bombed an airliner in revenge working with terrorist groups.

Assad will be looking for revenge if he suffers an attack and remains in power.

In late-April 1993, the United States learned that terrorists had attempted to assassinate Bush during his visit to Kuwait. The Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 persons suspected in the plot to kill Bush using explosives hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser. The Kuwaitis recovered the Landcruiser, which contained between 80 and 90 kilograms of plastic explosives connected to a detonator ( the Bush device or Bush explosive device ). The Kuwaitis also recovered ten cube-shaped plastic explosive devices with detonators (the cube-bombs ) from the Landcruiser. Some of the suspects reportedly confessed that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS ) was behind the assassination attempt.

On April 29, 1993, CIA bomb technicians compared the Bush explosive device to two known Iraqi explosive devices found in different Middle-Eastern countries in 1990 and 1991 (the Middle-East devices ) . The technicians reported that the remote control firing mechanism in the Bush device was identical to those in the Middle-East devices. Additionally, the technicians reported that blasting caps from the Bush device appeared to be identical to those found in one of the Middle-East devices. The technicians later concluded that the circuit board from the Bush device also closely resembled circuit boards from the Middle-East devices.

In early-May 1993, the FBI sent personnel to Kuwait to interview the suspects and examine the physical evidence. FBI Special Agents, along with representatives of the Secret Service and State Department, interviewed 16 suspects, some more than once. Two of the suspects, Wali 'Abd Al-Hadi 'Abd Al-Hasan Al-Ghazali ( Al-Ghazali ) and Ra'd 'Abd Al-Amir 'Abbud Al-Asadi ( Al-Asadi ), admitted during the FBI interviews that they had participated in the plot at the direction of the IIS.


On June 2, 1993, representatives of the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and others in the Department of Justice (DOJ) discussed the results of their investigations with representatives of the Clinton Administration. Three weeks later, the DOJ and CIA reported their conclusions. The DOJ and CIA reported that it was highly likely that the Iraqi Government originated the plot and more than likely that Bush was the target. Additionally, based on past Iraqi methods and other sources of intelligence, the CIA independently reported that there was a strong case that Saddam Hussein directed the plot against Bush.

 

[Fuckallyall]

Definite roll of the dice, but he has to do this. If he acts on this without congressional approval it will go against his own words leading up to his 2008 presidential run.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 4

He's long since abandoned his campaign rhetoric.

Senator Obama would have moved to impeach President Obama.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

US will bomb Syria with long-range bombers (B-52/B2), official says

An American national security official has reportedly outlined Washington’s war strategies for Syria, saying the US administration is preparing to use B-2 and B-52 bombers for a potential military strike against the country.

President Barack Obama’s national security team is preparing for a “significantly larger military attack than most had anticipated,” ABC News reported.

The unnamed official told ABC News the military action could do more damage to forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “in 48 hours than the Syrian rebels have done in nearly two years of civil war.”

“The air campaign which is expected to last at least two days will potentially include an aerial bombardment of missiles and long range bombs fired from B-2 and B-52 bombers flying from the United States,” according to the ABC News report by Jonathan Karl.
“That in addition to a relentless assault of Tomahawk missiles fired from those four Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean. Those ships are loaded with nearly 200 missiles, plans call for firing the vast majority of them,” it added.

In an interview with CNN, a US official also characterized the long-range bombers as options.

"You can employ stand-off weapons from an aircraft, just as easily as from a ship or submarine. Aerial assets can be used from a distance," he said.

Other reports also indicated that the US military was preparing to employ greater firepower to reach shifting military targets.

“The revised options under development include the use of Air Force bombers to supplement US destroyers in the Mediterranean,” The Wall Street Journal said.

The B-2 and B-52 bombers are equipped with joint air-to-surface missiles, designed to destroy both mobile and fixed targets. The missiles' primary advantage is that they allow pilots to operate outside the lethal range of most hostile air defense systems.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/0...b2-b52/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter



Below are some example of B52 bombers and its devastating affect.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HeAQudbZsDA?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/t41WD_40tq8?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And here is the stealth B2

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VU7cTfdxOkY?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[MASTERBAKER]

the shocking videos lawmakers saw


see my thread on mainboard

http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?p=13437269#post13437269

 

[QueEx]

The U.S.[,] based on classified documents released in the past[,] will lie, cheat, and steal to maintain access to oil because of its importance, impose plutocratic capitalism, or force U.S. transnational corporate domination on a country.

If you're going to "presume" everything is a lie, why even be concerned about the truth ???