Posts from — August 2013

Alan Grayson on Syria: War is “not the right decision” – Listen to Interview

Saudi Arabia raises military alertness over Syria: sources
DOHA/CAIRO – 30 August, 2013 – Reuters

(Reuters) – 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.

“It is a must, no one knows what will happen,” he said.

The source said other countries in the region, including Jordan, Turkey and Israel, appeared also to have raised their level of military readiness.

A second source said Saudi Arabia’s defense readiness had been raised last week, and meant that all leave for the armed forces would be canceled.

The sources declined to give further details of what a change in alert level would mean, but analysts said it was likely some forces would be moved closer to national borders.

In Kuwait lawmakers have asked their government to inform them about plans for readiness to deal with repercussions of a strike on Syria, Kuwaiti newspapers reported.

The prime minister, Sheikh Jaber al-Mubarak al-Sabah, held an extraordinary cabinet meeting on Thursday, al-Watan reported.

Interior minister Sheikh Mohammad al-Hamad al-Sabah was told to take all necessary measures in case of an emergency that might arise as a result of strikes, the paper said.

Saudi Arabia, a major U.S. ally, Qatar and other Sunni Muslim powers back the mainly Sunni rebels battling Assad, who is from Syria’s minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shi’ite Islam. The rebels have been joined by foreign Sunni jihadis.

Assad enjoys military support from Iran, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and among Iraqi Shi’ites. …source

By ordering air strikes against Syria without UN security council support, Obama will be doing the same as Bush in 2003

Even if Assad used chemical weapons, the west has no mandate to act as a global policeman
Hans Blix – 28 August, 2013 – The Guardian

It is true that the UN security council is not a reliable global policeman. It may be slow to take action, or paralysed because of disagreement between members. But do we want the US or Nato or “alliances of willing states” as global policemen either? Unlike George Bush in 2003, the Obama administration is not trigger-happy and contemptuous of the United Nations and the rules of its charter, which allow the use of armed force only in self-defence or with an authorisation from the security council. Yet Obama, like Bush and Blair, seems ready to ignore the council and order armed strikes on Syria with political support from only the UK, France and some others.

Such action could not be “in self-defence” or “retaliation”, as the US, the UK and France have not been attacked. To punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons would be the action of self-appointed global policemen – action that, in my view, would be very unwise.

While much evidence points to the guilt of the Assad regime, would not due process require that judgment and consideration of action take place in the UN security council and await the report of the inspectors that the UN has sent to Syria – at the demand of the UK and many other UN members?

We may agree with John Kerry, the US secretary of state, that the use of gas is a “moral obscenity”, but would we not feel that “a measured and proportionate punishment”, like striking at some missile sites or helicopter bases, is like telling the regime that “you can go on with your war but do stay away from the chemical weapons”? And what is the moral weight of the condemnation by nuclear weapons states of the use of gas as a serious war crime when they themselves will not accept a norm that would criminalise any first use of their own nuclear weapons?

It is hard to avoid the impression that the political and military developments now in overdrive stem partly from pressure exerted by the rebel side to trigger an American military intervention – by trying to hold President Obama to an earlier warning to Assad that a use of chemical weapons would alter his calculation. Equally, if not more important, may be a need felt by the Obama administration to avoid criticism for being hesitant and passive – and appearing like a paper tiger to countries such as Iran that have been warned that the US will not allow them to have nuclear weapons.

In 2003 the US and the UK and an alliance of “friendly states” invaded Iraq without the authorisation of the security council. A strong body of world opinion felt that this constituted a violation and an undermining of the UN charter. A quick punitive action in Syria today without UN authorisation would be another precedent, suggesting that great military powers can intervene militarily when they feel politically impelled to do so. (They did not intervene when Iraq used chemical weapons on a large scale in the war with Iran in the 1980s.)

So, what should the world reaction be to the use of chemical weapons? Clearly, evidence available – both from UN inspectors and from member states – should be placed before and judged by the security council. Even if the council could only conclude that chemical weapons had been used – and could not agree that the Assad regime alone was responsible – there would be a good chance of unanimous world condemnation. Global indignation about the use of chemical weapons is of value to strengthen the taboo.

Condemnation is not enough. With 100,000 killed and millions of refugees, the civil war itself is a “moral obscenity”. The council must seek to achieve not just an end to chemical weapons use but an end to all weapons use, by a ceasefire. As was planned not long ago by the US and Russia, the council must seek to bring about a conference at which relevant parties and states can form an interim authority. The alternative is continued civil war in Syria and worsening international relations.

Is the ending of active hostilities totally unrealistic? Let us be clear that the government in Syria, as well as all rebel groups, depends upon a flow of weapons, munitions and money from the outside. Much is reported to come to the rebels from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey; and much is reported to come to the government from Russia and Iran. The supplier countries have leverage. Agreement should be sought, under the auspices of the security council, that all parties that have given such support demand that their clients accept a ceasefire – or risk losing further support. …more

Bahrain dialogue restarts after two-month break
28 August, 2013 – France 24 – AFP

AFP – Bahrain’s national dialogue launched in February and aimed at ending the Gulf monarchy’s political deadlock since a 2011 Shiite-led revolt resumed on Wednesday after a two-month summer break.

Opposition and government representatives took part in the Manama talks, participants said.

Led by the influential Shiite group Al-Wefaq, the opposition is taking part in the dialogue while keeping up street protests to call for reform in the Shiite-majority, Sunni-rule state.

Bahraini authorities in 2011 crushed mass pro-democracy demonstrations in the capital with the help of Saudi-led troops but sporadic protests have continued in the Shiite villages.

At least 80 people have been killed in Bahrain since Arab Spring-inspired pro-democracy protests erupted in February 2011, according to the International Federation for Human Rights. …more

Child wearing mask, to protect against his own kidnap, shows World how US supports Democracy in Bahrain

Who are these butchers, mass murderers and liars to pose as defenders and protectors of humanity? Their cynicism and hypocrisy are astounding. The truly appalling thing is that the vast majority of sane, moral humanity has to endure listening to these psychopaths who hold the rest of us ransom with their criminal insanity.

Western pathological liars hold world to ransom
28 August, 2013 – By Finian Cunningham – PressTV

The US, British and French governments have engaged in a decade of constant lies and war crimes around the world. The intermittent imperialist adventures of these capitalist powers over the past century have now subsumed into a seamless, never-ending state of permanent war on the world, as American fascist ideologues have long salivated for.

Syria is but their latest slaughter house, having unleashed a covert terror campaign on that country for the past two and half years using an array of mercenary death squads to topple the sovereign government of President Bashar al-Assad.

We now await phase two of the bloody Syrian operation – outright aerial bombardment and missile strikes, where the US, Britain and France act as the air force for the death squads on the ground. It’s an outrageous re-run of NATO’s regime change sacking of Libya during 2011.

Ten years ago, Washington and Britain launched a war on Iraq that resulted in as many as one million dead and an entire country still in ruins. That genocide was based then on blatant lies and fabrications concocted by the US and Britain. There is no dispute about that.

The world knows that the American and British governments indulged in an audacious hoax. Since then the world has not known one day of peace as the US and its cabal of allies launch murderous attack after murderous attack on one or another country.

Now the US, Britain and France are preparing to move from covert terrorism in Syria to all-out war – a war that could engulf, not just the region, but the entire world. The grotesque spectacle of those criminal regimes posing as upholders of international and human rights is sickening beyond words.

The warping of common morals and words into ugly inversions is consistent with the depraved world of criminality that the Western rogue states have imposed on the planet.

Every word, every action that comes from Washington, London and Paris betrays these liars. American Vice President Joe Biden feigns solemnity and says “there is no doubt” that the Syrian government forces of Bashar al Assad used chemical weapons of mass destruction last week, killing hundreds of civilians in “a heinous crime”.

Britain’s David Cameron grimaced and speaks of “appalling suffering caused by the Syrian regime” while French President Francois Hollande tries to sound statesmanlike, saying his country was “ready to punish” those responsible for “murdering innocents”.

Who are these butchers, mass murderers and liars to pose as defenders and protectors of humanity? Their cynicism and hypocrisy are astounding. The truly appalling thing is that the vast majority of sane, moral humanity has to endure listening to these psychopaths who hold the rest of us ransom with their criminal insanity.

Their fraudulence and duplicity pokes through the hollow, fake bombast. The White House says it is going to release “intel” to show the Syrian government’s culpability – but not before it had already dispatched warships to the coast off Syria.

So if the White House has evidence against Assad’s government, where is it? Why doesn’t Washington submit it to the UN chemical inspectors who are currently in Damascus trying to gather facts on the alleged gas incident last week?

American, British and French military chiefs meet their Saudi, Qatari, Turk and Israeli counterparts to draw up strike plans on Syria. It is done with a telling haste that demonstrates their reckless drive for another war before evidence and facts emerge showing that the perpetrators of last week’s chemical gas attack near Damascus were actually the al Qaeda death squads whom the Western media have cloaked with the risible identify of “Syrian rebels”.

Joe Biden says “no doubt” and Francois Hollande contends that “there is every reason to believe” that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. So, which is? “No doubt” or “every reason to believe”? That hint of ambiguity nails the absolute lack of anything. …more

Israel: US Decision to Strike Syria Made Within Hours
By: Yahya Dbouk – 27 August, 2013 – Al Akhbar

The decision to attack Syria will be made within hours, Israeli media report, noting that it will be carried out – in a limited scope – by a broad alliance of Western, regional, and Arab countries.

Israel’s Channel 10 television station reported by way of its Washington correspondent that US President Barack Obama will decide on a military strike against Syria very soon, if not within a few hours. The report stressed the “symbolic nature” of the attack, suggesting that it will not change the balance of forces on the ground.

The channel added that the operation will involve a number of countries, led by the US, Britain, and France, with support from Turkey and several Arab countries in the Gulf and Jordan, pointing out that this was the reason behind Monday’s meeting of military chiefs from around the world in Amman.

Nevertheless, the channel went out of its way to stress that the attack is not intended to either topple the regime or change the balance of forces between Damascus and the opposition, indicating that “the basic idea is that the attack will be a message and no more.”

Western powers are confident that they can disable 80 percent of Syria’s missile and chemical weapons arsenal.
The strike will likely come from outside Syria’s airspace, in international waters, in the form of guided missiles, according to the report. As for the targets, it said they would include Syrian army operation and command centers, or military bases from which the chemical weapons used near Damascus were launched.

Aside from preparing the ground diplomatically, the station continued, the attack will have to await the arrival of additional naval vessels, most likely from Britain, which will participate in the bombardment. The channel quoted Israeli security sources dismissing Syria’s ability to respond by attacking Israel, particularly in light of the fact that its army has been bled dry over the past two years, adding that the Western powers are confident that they can disable 80 percent of Syria’s missile and chemical weapons arsenal.

Most Israeli media outlets spoke with certainty about an imminent attack, predicting that the whole affair will remain contained, given the limited nature of the strike. Haaretz placed Tel Aviv at the center of events after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s open declaration that the West must do something to deter Assad and prevent a victory for the “radical alliance led by Iran.”

The newspaper noted that Israel is no longer a spectator in the unfolding events and has been preparing for all scenarios, reinforcing its positions in the occupied Golan and against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Haaretz’s military correspondent wrote, “It is difficult to predict how Assad will respond to the attack, without igniting a wider war,” which the Americans fear could turn into “mission creep,” as was the case with Somalia in the early 1990s. …source

Buying chemical weapons material through the mail is quick and easy

Better Killing through Chemistry
By George Musser – Scientific American – 5 November, 2001

I was reading up on nuclear proliferation when our editorial assistant came by my office. “You’ve got a package downstairs,” he said. I took the elevator to the lobby of our building, scribbled my signature on the invoice and carried my box upstairs. I then had all the material I needed to make sarin nerve gas.

“IT’S A CINCH” to obtain off-the-shelf chemicals needed to make sarin nerve gas, as Scientific American editor George Musser found out.

Experts have been arguing for years over how realistic chemical terrorism is. Some believe it is just too hard to make and disperse deadly gases; others think we shouldn’t underestimate terrorists¿ ability and recklessness. But everyone agrees that we shouldn’t make it easy for them, which is why our experience is so sobering. The tightened security and heightened awareness following September 11 wasn’t enough to stop Scientific American, just a few blocks away from Grand Central station and one floor below American Media Group (whose Palm Beach, Fla., office had just received anthrax), from acquiring the precursors of one of the world’s most notorious chemical weapons.

It all started when James M. Tour, a well-known organic chemist at Rice University and sometime Scientific American author, began to ring the alarm bells about chemical terrorism. While serving on a U.S. Defense Department panel to study the possibility, Tour concluded that nothing stood in the way of someone trying to acquire the ingredients of a chemical weapon. In an essay last year in Chemical & Engineering News he argued for restricting the purchase of key chemicals. “They¿re too easily available,” Tour told me. “There are no checks and balances.”

Unfortunately, his essay seemed to fall into the same wastebaskets as previous such warnings. One defense analyst assured Tour that the feds already monitored “every teaspoonful” of potential weapons material.

So Tour decided to do a little test. He filled out an order form for all the chemicals needed to make sarin¿the nerve agent used by the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo in its 1994 and 1995 attacks¿and two of its relatives, soman and GF. His secretary then placed the order with Sigma-Aldrich, one of the nation¿s most reputable chemical suppliers. If any order should have rung the alarm bells, this one should have.

Instead Tour got a big box the next day by overnight mail. By following one of the well-known recipes for sarin-mixing, dimethyl methylphosphonate, phosphorus trichloride, sodium fluoride and alcohol in the right amounts and sequence he could have made 280 grams of the stuff or a comparable amount of soman or GF. (That¿s more than 100 teaspoonfuls.) All this for $130.20 plus shipping and handling.

(Incidentally, some people have asked whether it is foolish to list the ingredients here. The short answer is no. For a longer answer, click here. We aren’t telling terrorists anything they wouldn’t already know. We are, however, telling the rest of us what we need to know if we are to prevent terrorists from acquiring these materials.)

Nor would delivering the agent be rocket science. To avoid handling poisons, terrorists could build a binary weapon, which performs the chemical reaction in situ. An off-the-shelf pesticide sprayer could then blow the miasma into a building ventilation system. Depending on how well the sprayer worked and how crowded the building was, 280 grams of sarin could kill between a few hundred and tens of thousands of people. The Aum attack on the Tokyo subway involved about 5,000 grams and left 12 people dead, but the cult didn’t use a sprayer. …source

Syria: France’s evidence of chemical weapons use increases with 14 samples
By Henry Samuel, Paris and Damien McElroy – 28 June 2013

The conclusive results were taken from the blood, urine, hair and clothes of people at the site of battles between President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and rebel fighters.

A first batch of results from three initial urine samples led Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, to declare earlier this month he was “in no doubt” that sarin gas had been used in Syria – at least once by the regime.

The fresh results “indicate the scale of sarin use by governmental forces in the months of April and May on the front lines,” according to Le Monde, whose reporters brought back most of the samples and struck a deal with the government to publish their findings.

The bulk of the new evidence was collected from 13 people mainly in the Damascus area and examined by France’s only certified chemical weapons test laboratory, the state-run centre du Bouchet.

Some came from clothes taken from unknown victims picked up from Jobar, a district of Damascus, during a chemical weapon attack at a time when rebels were fighting government troops.

One was from a T-shirt and a blood sample taken from a victim who reportedly later died after coming into contact with the nerve agent.

A 14th sample was apparently collected by the French state itself, after an April 29 helicopter attack by regime forces on Saraqeb, in the northwest province of Idlib. One woman died in the airborne chemical drop.

After this incident Mr Fabius said there was “no doubt that it was the regime and its accomplices” that deployed sarin.

However experts said that the new results were unlikely to convince Russia, which has previously rejected the French assertions.

“This level of evidence is much wider but you still wouldn’t get a conviction in a court on it because of the difficulty of proving who used it,” said Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commander of Britain’s WMD forces.

In all, sarin was found in eight urine samples, two hair samples, three clothes samples and one blood sample.

They were all provided by a doctor working in a medical centre in Kaffer Batner, a suburb of Damascus where victims were treated for chemical attacks mostly in Jobar, partially controlled by rebels. The doctor’s identity was kept secret for fear of reprisals.

The new results will increase pressure on the international community to act. President Barack Obama has indicated that conclusive proof of the use of chemical weapons would be a “game changer” for Washington.

Britain has come close to endorsing the French line, saying it was “highly likely” the nerve agent had been used and that “the room for doubt continues to diminish.” Any use of chemical weapons would amount to a war crime under international law. …source

A terrorist network, animated by Bandar bin Sultan, plans to destroy Lebanon
By Ghaleb Kandil – 26 August, 2013 – Voltaire.net

The plan of the head of Saudi intelligence, Bandar bin Sultan, to cause a general conflagration in Lebanon, is revealed. The commander of the Lebanese Army, General Jean Kahwaji and Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn, reported the existence of cells that project to put car bombs in all Lebanese regions. Facts have proved them right after the explosions in the southern suburbs of Beirut (27 dead and 330 wounded) and Tripoli (45 dead and over 600 injured). What happened in North Lebanon capital has shed light on the political and media entanglement of the terrorist network led by Bandar and his determination to plunge the country into a sectarian discord.

Most reactions after the bombings of Tripoli warned against discord. Senior political personalities of 8 and 14-March coalitions have expressed unequivocally support the Lebanese Army and security services in the fight against terrorist groups. They called to intensify their efforts to dismantle the networks that place car bombs.
At this stage, the investigation proved the existence of Takfirist cells responsible for firing rockets, explosions on the Beirut-Damascus road and in the Bekaa region, and car bombings. These extremist groups are funded by some Gulf countries and enjoy a political and security coverage provided by the Future Movement, under the pretext of mobilizing in support of Syrian rebels.

It is necessary to show that these cells, composed of nationals of the Gulf (especially Saudi), Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians, working to cause sectarian conflagration in Lebanon. Continue to ensure their coverage from the Future Movement, will cause severe losses to Lebanon. Saad Hariri’s party must announce clearly and openly his withdrawal of coverage to these extremists and should not provide them with protection for sectarian considerations.
The attacks in Tripoli, however, revealed the existence of a strong coordination on political and media levels to complement the work of the terrorist network led by Bandar. MP’s like Khaked Daher and Mouïn Merhebi and sheikhs close to al-Qaeda, as Bilal Baroudi, Dai al-Islam al- Chahhal and Omar Fostok, commented on the car bombings in terms that could cause sectarian strife and bloodshed. They accused, sometimes directly, Shiites of being behind the attacks against two Sunni mosques in Tripoli.

Audiovisual media, which offered generous forums for these extremist individuals, are also responsible for the spread of sectarian and confessional speeches.

The Lebanese authorities are challenged to act and react according to the state logic. They must take immediate measures to put an end to this media chaos that curb sectarian speech and dismantle the networks funded and led by Bandar bin Sultan, threatening the unity and existence of Lebanon. It is not allowed that the Army, the Resistance and some wise persons remain alone on the battlefield to defend Lebanon. …more

U.S threats intended to cover the losses of Bandar bin Sultan
by Wassim Raad –

U.S threats intended to cover the losses of Bandar bin Sultan
By Ghaleb Kandil – 26 August, 2013 – Voltaire.net

The new case of chemical weapons caused by the coalition of Western powers, Israel, retrograde Gulf monarchies, and executed by takfirist movements has fizzled because of the vigilance of the Syrian-Russian-Iranian alliance. Russian satellites are very active over Syria and the information gathered by the Syrian military command shows that the “chemical film” aims to serve as a pretext for aggression against Syria, to compensate for losses suffered by terrorist gangs sent from Jordan. These losses are estimated to be thousands of dead and wounded, during ambushes and counter-offensives launched by the Syrian army, especially around Damascus and in the region of Lattaquia, where regular troops recaptured the villages occupied by terrorists, who massacred hundreds of civilians.

The American media have spread information about the deployment of additional war ships in the Mediterranean and statements attributed to Barak Obama on examining various options, including military in Syria. Yet the American president and his staff had made clear that the United States is unable to bear the human, financial and military cost of an intervention in Syria. In addition, a NATO ground attack would be a blunder that would cost Americans a lot more than what they are capable of supporting.

Israel’s role in inciting aggression against Syria is now clear. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres called for direct intervention, saying that “it is time to get chemical weapons out of Syria.” This argument prove that the Gulf countries and Israel are, again, in the same trench.

The narrowness of the choices available to the United States and its allies is primarily due to the resistance of the Syrian government against the universal that targets the country. But also to the determination of its allies. The presence of the Russian fleet on the Syrian coast and the Mediterranean, and the support of Iran are essential. Moreover, this support has not denied these last hours. Responding to a possible military operation against Syria, Massoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, warned that “if the United States crossed the red line (in Syria) there will harsh consequences for the White House. ”

All these Western gestures intended to raise the morale of terrorist gangs, dominated by Takfirist, after the Syrian government had managed to bring into its fold thousands of rebel fighters. They also aim to hide the true purpose of the meeting of military staffs of a dozen countries in Jordan next week to intensify the involvement of intelligence services in Syria.

The information circulating behind the diplomatic scenes ensure that extension was granted until the end of the year to chief of Saudi intelligence, Bandar bin Sultan, in an attempt to shift the balance in Syria. That is why he ordered the attacks in Lebanon in the hope of pushing Hezbollah to withdraw its fighters from Syria, where their participation has allowed the Syrian army to make significant success. At the same time, Bandar is trying to mobilize the largest number of Takfirists after thousands of mercenaries were killed.

The next four months will be characterized by a great military and political escalation, but it will not be able to cause major strategic changes. The Syrian state, its army and its allies are not willing to lose the initiative, despite the scale of the resources used by the “coalition of evil”, led by the United States. The Takfirists are rejected by the Syrian people and this reality won’t change. In addition, the “coalition of evil” is in a stalemate in Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, while Turkey saw its imperial ambitions fray, and Israel is unable to conduct further war. The ambush by the Resistance against a patrol of elite Israeli troops who crossed into Lebanon on August 7, came to remind the enemy of his impotence.

The next few months will prove that Bandar bin Sultan has managed to prolong the war in Syria. But it will show that his defeat will inaugurate a period of turmoil within the Wahhabi kingdom, and its attempts to buy for billions of dollars a role in Egypt will not help to offset its crushing defeat in Syria. …more

Ball of fire in Middle East’: Tehran, Damascus warn US against Syria strike
25August, 2013 – RT

Iran has warned the US not to cross “the red line” on Syria threatening it would have “severe consequences” for the White House. This follows a statement from Syrian officials who said a strike would create “very serious fallout” for the whole region.

“America knows the limitation of the red line of the Syrian front and any crossing of Syria’s red line will have severe consequences for the White House,” the Iranian Fars news agency quoted deputy chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, Massoud Jazayeri, as saying.

Syrian authorities also warned the United States against any military intervention, saying this would “inflame the Middle East”.

“US military intervention will create very serious fallout and a ball of fire that will inflame the Middle East,” Information Minister Omran Zoabi told the Syrian state news agency, SANA.

The warning comes as Western officials stated they are considering “a serious response” from the international community to the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Arab state.

On Saturday, British PM David Cameron’s spokesperson said that both the UK and the US have tasked officials to examine all the options.

At the same time, US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said that the Defense Department is “prepared to exercise whatever option – if he [Obama] decides to employ one of those options”.

Earlier on Friday Hagel suggested the Pentagon might move naval forces closer to Syria in case Obama decides to proceed.

However, US media reports that four US Navy Destroyers – USS Ramage, USS Gravely, USS Barry and USS Mahan – are being pre-positioned in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, although officials stress that the US Navy has received no orders to prepare for military action.

All four warships are said to have been equipped with cruise missiles.

It was initially planned that the USS Mahan would be replaced with the recently arrived USS Ramage, but navy commanders decided to change the agenda and now have four warships in the region instead of three.

Also, reports say that among the military options under consideration are missile strikes on Syrian units believed to be responsible for chemical attacks, or on Assad’s air force and ballistic missile sites.

Syrian rebels fighting to oust President Bashar Assad have accused government forces of attacking people in the Damascus suburbs with toxic gas on Wednesday, claiming it killed anywhere between ‘dozens’ to ‘1,300’. …more

Accusations that Syria used chemical weapon ‘against logic’ – Assad
26 August, 2013 – RT

Syrian leader Bashar Assad has stressed that the claims of his government using chemical weapons made by Western countries are “an insult to common sense” and “nonsense,” in an interview to Russia’s Izvestia newspaper.

“The statements made by the politicians in the USA and in other Western countries represent an insult to common sense and neglect of the public opinion of citizens in those countries. It’s nonsense: first, they bring charges, and then they collect evidence. And it’s one of the most powerful countries that does it – the US. They accused us on Wednesday, and in only two days the American leadership announces they started to collect the evidence.… They accuse our army of using chemical weapons in the area that’s reportedly controlled by the terrorists. In fact, there is no precise front line between the army and the insurgents in that area. And how can a government use chemical weapons – or any other weapons of mass destruction – in the area where government troops are concentrated? This is against elementary logic.”

The Syrian leader also indicated that not only the accusations stopped making sense, but the whole Western “peacemaking” plan in Syria has run amok: the Us and its allies have attempted to launch the mission, but failed to convince Russia and China to vote for it.

“They have failed to convince their peoples and the rest of the world that the policy, which they carry out in the Middle East, is smart and effective. Moreover, it appears that the situation here is different compared to the one in Egypt and Tunisia.”

“One and the same plot of the Arabic revolutions is no longer convincing. They may launch any kind of war but they don’t know how long it would last and how much of a territory it would cover. They have realized that their plot has gone out of control.”

The main cause of the continuing conflict, the Syrian leader pointed out, is the influx of tens of thousands of foreign insurgents that arrive in Syria every month and kill innocent people. What’s more, the terrorists are provided with money and weapons from abroad. And, according to Assad, world leaders don’t understand the dangers that terrorism may entail – despite past experience.

“Nowadays there are many politicians, although very few leaders, among the heads of states. The point is that they don’t know history and don’t learn its lessons. Some of them forget even the recent past. Have they learnt the lessons of past 50 years? Have they even glanced through the documents of their predecessors who failed in all wars they started since Vietnam? Have they realized those wars brought about nothing but havoc and instability in the Middle East and in other regions? To those politicians I would like to explain that terrorism isn’t a bargaining chip to pull out and use anytime one wants, and then put back. Terrorism, as a scorpion, can bite anytime. You can’t be for the terrorism in Syria and against it in Mali.”

However, Russia’s aid helps to improve at least the economic situation in the conflict-torn country, Assad indicated, not revealing any particular details though.

“I want to say that all contracts that have been concluded with Russia are being fulfilled. And no crisis or pressure from the US, Europe and the Gulf states interfered with the deliveries. Russia provides for Syria the things that are necessary for its protection, and the protection of its people. And the things Russia delivers to Syria according to our military contracts will undeniably lead to the improvement of the Syrian economy.” …source

“Using force without the approval of the UN Security Council is a very grave violation of international law,” Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters on Monday, saying military strikes would put coalition countries on “a very dangerous path, a very slippery path.”

“They (the West) have not been able to come up with any proof but are saying at the same time that the red line has been crossed and there can be no delay,” Lavrov said.

Calls for Restraint Rise as US/NATO Push for “Illegal” War in Syria
by Jon Queally – Common Dreams, 26 August, 2013

As the civil war in Syria continues, where are the calls for peace, a cease fire, and international diplomacy coming from? Not from the US or NATO. (File: Common Dreams)As all signs indicate a growing push for Western military intervention—war, that is—in Syria, have the U.S. and its “more than willing” coalition of NATO allies done anything to enact or facilitate a diplomatic solution?

And amid calls for missile strikes and possible air assaults against the government of President Bashar al-Assad in the wake of possible use of chemical weapons, has there been adequate consideration of the further violence and bloodshed that such attacks are likely to cause?

For many, the answer to both questions: No.

Over the weekend, the Assad government acquiesced to demands to give UN inspectors access to the site outside Damascus where a suspected chemical gas attack took place last week. However, Western governments were quick to rebuff the gesture, saying that it was “too late” and claiming that their own intelligence—though offering little insight or details to how they achieved it—left “little doubt” that government forces were behind the attack.

“Here’s the core question now, in regard to Syria: if it’s true that President Bashar al-Assad’s government used poison gas in an incident that killed hundreds of people, at least, in the suburbs of Damascus, can the United States avoid military action in response? The answer is: yes. And it should.” –Bob Dreyfuss, The Nation

As The Independent reported on Monday, “Western countries, including Britain, are planning to take unilateral military action against the Assad regime within two weeks in retaliation” for the alleged attack.

Across corporate media outlets and cable news channels on Monday, talk about U.S. missile strikes—most likely from U.S. battleships stationed in the Mediterranean Sea—were being discussed as an almost “foregone conclusion.” Citing high-level talks at the White House and between Washington and its European allies over the weekend, reports indicated events are moving rapidly toward a NATO-driven coalition military assault on Syria, similar to that done to Libya in 2011 or Sarajevo in the 1990s.

As was reported by numerous outlets, it is likely that this coalition—led by the U.S., France, and Britain—would not be looking for support or official sanction at the UN due to the assumption that Russia—a permanent member of the Security Council—would veto any effort to authorize an assault.

On Monday, Russia all but conceded that assumption and said that any military attack on Syria by Western nations would be both a “catastrophe” for the region and a violation of international law.

“Using force without the approval of the UN Security Council is a very grave violation of international law,” Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters on Monday, saying military strikes would put coalition countries on “a very dangerous path, a very slippery path.”

Lavrov continued, warning that strikes would deepen Syria’s conflict, creating more violence, not less. “This is not just an illusion, it is a grave mistake that will not lead to any peace, but only mark a new, even bloodier stage of the war in Syria,” he said.

“They (the West) have not been able to come up with any proof but are saying at the same time that the red line has been crossed and there can be no delay,” Lavrov said.

He also compared the rhetoric over Syria to that made in the lead up to U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the NATO-led assault on Libya in 2011. “The intimidation campaign has already begun, the events in Iraq ten years ago and in Libya, more recently, began the same way,” Lavrov said. He also called out the hypocritical nature of US foreign policy by adding, “You cannot fight with a regime only because you don’t like the dictator that heads it, and then not fight another regime where you like the authoritarian ruler.”

But Russia, with its well known and highly referenced history of backing the Assad regime against Western powers, is not alone in calling for restraint even as U.N. inspectors finally reached the scene of the alleged gas attack on Monday—though not without incident—to begin their investigation into the available facts.

Worried that the pace of events was scuttling a chance for a diplomatic solution, The Nation’s Bob Dreyfuss was among those calling for a path forward that didn’t involve Tomahawk cruise missiles, writing:

Here’s the core question now, in regard to Syria: if it’s true that President Bashar al-Assad’s government used poison gas in an incident that killed hundreds of people, at least, in the suburbs of Damascus, can the United States avoid military action in response? The answer is: yes. And it should.

That doesn’t mean that the United States ought to do nothing. The horrific incident, reported in detail by Doctors Without Borders, demands action. But the proper response by the United States is an all-out effort to achieve a ceasefire in the Syrian civil war. It’s late in the game but it can be done. The first step would be for Washington to put intense pressure on Saudi Arabia, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, and Turkey, to halt the flow of weapons to the Syrian rebels, while simultaneously getting Russia and Iran to do the same. A concerted, worldwide diplomatic effort along those lines could work, but there’s zero evidence that President Obama has even thought of that.

Indeed, it seems clear now that the United States is about to launch a series of cruise missile strikes against Syrian targets, including military command centers, airports, and other facilities. A US naval buildup in the eastern Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria, is underway, including four destroyers carrying cruise missiles. Ominously, the United States yesterday rejected as “too late” a Syrian offer – which, indeed, may have been disingenuous – to allow United Nations inspectors to visit the site where the gas was reportedly used. Virtually the entire Obama administration national security team huddled in the White House yesterday to decide what to do about Syria.

But it’s not just The Nation where warnings are circulating. As the Wall Street Journal reports:

Officials cautious of intervening say targeted strikes to punish Mr. Assad for using chemical weapons risk triggering a bloody escalation. If the regime digs in and uses chemical weapons again, or launches retaliatory attacks against the U.S. and its allies in the region, Mr. Obama will come under fierce pressure to respond more forcefully, increasing the chances of full-scale war, the officials say.

The WSJ also cites weekend comments from Syria’s Minister of Information Omran al-Zoubi who said that an attack by U.S./NATO forces would unleash “chaos” and a “ball of fire and flames” that would “consume not only Syria but the entire Middle East.”

And the Independent’s Partick Cockburn—who has been both circumspect about the chemical weapons claims but also willing to say that evidence is piling up that Assad’s military may have been behind the massacre—argues that European leaders and President Obama himself may well absorb the risks of a wider regional escalation in the name of saving face over earlier statements about “red lines” and chemical weapons. Cockburn writes:

The firing of Tomahawk cruise missiles from four American destroyers in the Mediterranean at targets in Syria are among the actions being telegraphed ahead by the US, Britain and France as the most likely form of retribution for the Syrian army’s alleged chemical attack on civilians in Damascus.

The units and bases from which the US believes rockets carrying poison gas were fired will be probable targets. So too would be Syrian airfields and probably the bases of elite units frequently deployed against the rebels.

If these attacks do take place, with Britain and France in a supporting role, then President Barack Obama will make them heavy enough to be more than a slap on the wrist but not so devastating that they herald the US becoming a participant in the war. It will not be an easy balancing act: ineffective air strikes that the Syrian government can shrug off would be a demonstration of weakness rather than strength. But strikes by missiles and possibly military aircraft will mean the US is crossing a Rubicon, committing itself more than ever before against President Bashar al-Assad and in favour of the armed opposition. This may mean that if there are missile strikes they will be limited in their timescale but heavier and more destructive than expected.

However, as Just Foreign Policy’s Robert Naiman pointed out in an interview with Common Dreams last week, “there is no silver bullet of military action when dealing with chemical weapons. Military intervention is not going to control chemical weapons. ”

“We saw that in Libya,” Naiman said.”Intervention didn’t control weapons, it set them free.”

“We need to be working through international diplomacy, through the UN,” he concluded. …more

The War Drive Against Syria
25 August, 2013 – World Socialist Web Site

Ten years after the US government went to war in Iraq on the basis of lies about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction (WMD), a no less grotesque provocation is being concocted by Paris, London, and Washington to justify a new war of aggression against Syria.

The allegations that the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad carried out mass chemical weapons attacks last Wednesday in Ghouta, near Damascus, lack any credibility.

The Assad regime has no motive to carry out such an attack. Until Wednesday, its forces were handily defeating the US-backed opposition militias without using chemical weapons. Due to their lack of popular support and the repeated defeats they have suffered, the opposition is disintegrating into bands of looters and murderers—a state of affairs confirmed by Al Qaeda-linked opposition forces’ declaration that after the Ghouta attack, they will kill any member of Assad’s Alawite faith they capture.

Allegations that Assad used chemical weapons serve only one purpose: to give Washington and its allies a pretext to attack Syria, which they have repeatedly threatened to do if a chemical attack by the regime occurred. If a chemical weapon attack did take place in Ghouta, François Hollande, David Cameron, and Barack Obama know far more about its execution than does Bashar al-Assad.

Before any proof of a chemical attack had emerged, and before any investigation had even begun—indeed, in less time than police departments take to issue an indictment in a routine street crime—French and British officials were calling for war with Assad. The day after the alleged attack, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius insisted that “force” was the only appropriate response.

Obama administration officials even said that they did not want a UN investigation or the collection of evidence before proceeding with their war plans. They told the New York Times yesterday that, with target lists for US strikes in Syria already circulating at the White House, they were “determined not to be drawn into a protracted debate over gaining access for United Nations investigators, because of doubts that they could now produce credible findings.”

The Obama administration’s claims that it is going to war because it is concerned that a “red line” of chemical weapons use has been breached is utterly fraudulent. It does not intend to investigate what occurred in Ghouta. Rather, it wants to obtain a pretext for war that it can present as “credible” to the media, to justify military action that it intends to pursue regardless of whether the Assad regime used any chemical weapons.

Paris, London, and Washington are rushing into a war with far-reaching implications. US guided missile destroyers are heading to the eastern Mediterranean to get in position to strike Syria, and military planners are preparing a massive bombing campaign and stepped-up weapons shipments to Islamist opposition militias in Syria. They are dismissing blunt warnings by Syria’s allies, Iran and Russia, that a US attack on Syria will have dire consequences throughout the region.

The geostrategic and economic interests driving war preparations against Syria were spelled out in a long statement by one of US imperialism’s leading strategists, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, issued two days after the alleged chemical attack. …more

Ignored by English-language media, rural uprisings spread across industries as hundreds of thousands protest US-backed govt

Colombia Nationwide Strike Against ‘Free Trade,’ Privatization, Poverty
by Sarah Lazare – Common Dreams, 25 August, 2013

Protests in Sincelejo (Photo: Marcha Patriotica)A nationwide strike in Colombia—which started as a rural peasant uprising and spread to miners, teachers, medical professionals, truckers, and students—reached its 7th day Sunday as at least 200,000 people blocked roads and launched protests against a U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement and devastating policies of poverty and privatization pushed by US-backed right-wing President Juan Manuel Santos.

“[The strike is a condemnation] of the situation in which the Santos administration has put the country, as a consequence of its terrible, anti-union and dissatisfactory policies,” declared the Central Unitaria de Trabajadores (CUT), the country’s largest union, in a statement.

The protests and strikes, largely ignored in the English-language media, have been met with heavy crackdown from Colombia’s feared police, with human rights organization Bayaca reporting shootings, torture, sexual assault, severe tear-gassing, arbitrary arrests, and other abuses on the part of state agents. Colombia’s Defense Minister Juan Carlos Pinzon recently claimed that the striking workers are being controlled by the “terrorist” Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), in a country known for using unverified claims of FARC connections as an excuse to launch severe violence against social movements.

“Violent clashes continue in rural areas where farmers and truck drivers have been setting up roadblocks since Monday, and the Santos administration has deployed 16,000 additional military personnel to ‘control the situation,'” Neil Martin of the Colombia-based labor solidarity organization Paso International told Common Dreams Sunday. “There have not been deaths reported in relation to this violence, but human rights organizations and YouTube videos have documented military personnel beating protestors, stealing supplies, carrying out vandalism unwarranted arrests, and generally inciting violence.”

Protesters are levying a broad range of concerns about public policies that devastate Colombia’s workers, indegenous, and Afro-Colombian communities. The US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement has forced small farmers to compete with subsidized US products, made them more vulnerable to market fluctuations, and eroded their protections and social safety nets through the implementation of neoliberal policies domestically. Farmers are demanding more protections and services in a country beset with severe rural poverty.

Meanwhile, the Colombian government is handing out sweetheart deals to international mining companies while creating bans and roadblocks for Colombian miners. Likewise, the government is giving multinational food corporations access to land earmarked for poor Colombians. Healthcare workers are fighting a broad range of reforms aimed at gutting and privatizing Colombia’s healthcare system. Truckers are demanding an end to low wages and high gas prices.

“This is the third or fourth large-scale non-military rural uprising this year,” Martin told Common Dreams.

Colombian workers organizing to improve their lives are met with an onslaught of state violence: Colombia is the deadliest country in the world for union activists, according to the AFL-CIO Solidarity Center, and 37 activists were murdered in Colombia in the 1st half of 2013 alone, leading news weekly Semana reports. …more

Anti-Syria Western axis coming apart
26 August, 2013 – By Finian Cunningham – PressTV

The recent spate of military setbacks heralding eventual defeat for the Western-led axis has created a new dynamic of calculations among the protagonists. This is typical of a criminal conspiracy coming unstuck. The different priorities of the protagonists start to diverge; that dynamic then induces feelings of distrust, treachery and resentment.”
As in all criminal conspiracies when results do not go according to plan, the protagonists start blaming one another; and because of the treacherous nature of the conspiracy, the partners-in-crime are eventually prone to feelings of distrust, resentment and paranoia.

This splintering and bickering can be seen in the Western-led axis against Syria. In recent weeks, we have signs of emerging rivalries, spats and distrust that all point to the axis coming apart.

That may be the important backdrop to this week’s alleged chemical weapons attack near Damascus, in which over 100 people were killed.

Suspicion points to the atrocity being ultimately the work of Saudi Arabia or Israel, or both, in an attempt to trigger a full-scale Western military intervention. This despicable act is more a sign of desperation stemming from failing cracks in the Western-led axis against Syria. It is an attempt to bring about cohesion in the axis, which has in recent weeks seen its various adherents drifting apart as a result of the losing war situation.

Thus, this past week we witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of Saudi King Abdullah rebuking the United States for “ignorant meddling” in Egypt; we also saw NATO member Turkey accusing Israel of fomenting the military coup in Egypt against Ankara’s allied Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi; and then the US slapped down Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan for leveling such accusations against its client in Tel Aviv.

Before that rash of grouching, the Persian Gulf Arab sheikhdoms were aggrieved by Washington’s unprecedented closure of embassies throughout the region over an alleged terror threat. There were even paranoid accusations from the monarchs that the US was trying to destabilize their autocratic rule.

Within the Persian Gulf oil monarchs, there has of course been a seething rivalry between the dominant Saudi Arabia and the upstarts of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. This came to the fore last month when the House of Saud pushed Qatar out of the driving seat for gun-running in the Western-led axis against Syria.

Why these tensions within the Western-led axis are emerging now is because of the imminent failure of the military option for regime change in Syria. The main Western powers of the US, Britain and France seem to have given up the ghost on overthrowing the Damascus government through covert state-sponsored terrorism. Turkey’s Recep Erdogan has also reportedly decided to back off from supporting the Takfiri militants in Syria, probably reflecting his government’s concern that the repercussions of blowback terrorism are destabilizing Ankara’s internal authority.

Saudi Arabia and Israel appear to be still committed to the militarist option, not only in Syria, but also in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere.

The recent spate of military setbacks heralding eventual defeat for the Western-led axis has created a new dynamic of calculations among the protagonists. This is typical of a criminal conspiracy coming unstuck. The different priorities of the protagonists start to diverge; that dynamic then induces feelings of distrust, treachery and resentment.

For nearly two and half years, Syria has been targeted by a relentless covert war of aggression aimed at destabilizing the country and instigating regime change. The Western axis sponsoring the covert war comprises primarily the United States and the former colonial powers Britain and France, along with their regional proxies Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey.

The military option for regime change in Syria is proving to be a failure. The turning point was the battle for Qusayr when the Syrian army liberated the key mid-regional town. Since then, the Western-backed mercenaries have been decisively on the retreat, engaging in more and more sickening atrocities. The elusive goal of overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad has created a sense of defeatism among the Western-led conspiracy.

This explains why the Americans, British and French have not delivered on promised weaponry to the foreign militants in Syria, despite having given the official go-ahead for this supply more than two months ago. This delay has engendered bitter resentment among the mercenaries and their Saudi paymaster towards the Western governments, whom they accuse of betraying.

Notably too when the Saudi-backed exile group, the Syrian National Coalition, sent its top delegates to the US at the end of July to drum up weapons and materials, they came away jilted and empty handed. The SNC delegation, headed up by Saudi protégé Ahmad al-Jarba, was told by US Secretary of State John Kerry that there was “no military solution” to the Syrian problem, and that they would have to sit down to negotiate with the government in Damascus. …more

Alexander Lukashevich, spokesman for the country’s foreign ministry, said: “All these things force us to remember the events of 10 years ago, when false information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was used as a pretext by the U.S., who went around the UN on an undertaking, the consequences of which are well-known to all. We again firmly urge to not repeat the mistakes of the past, and not to allow actions that are out of accord with international rights.”

UN inspectors’ car ‘deliberately shot at multiple times’ by snipers in Syria
By Albina Kovalyova, Alastair Jamieson and Catherine Chomiak – NBC News – 26 August, 2013

A United Nations team investigating claims of a poison-gas attack in a rebel-held suburb of the Syrian capital collected blood samples and interviewed survivors Monday despite being temporarily turned back by sniper fire.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said the team had completed its first day of inspection as he chided the regime and opposition forces to ensure “the safety and security of the investigation teams.”

The six-car convoy carrying the team was initially thwarted and forced to return to a government checkpoint after being “deliberately” targeted while driving in the capital.

“Despite such very difficult circumstances, our team returned to Damascus and replaced their car and proceeded to a suburb of Damascus to carry on their investigation,” the secretary-general said.

“They visited two hospitals, they interviewed witnesses, survivors and doctors, they also collected some samples.”

The investigation centers around a rebel-held suburb of Damascus known as Eastern Ghouta, where activists say rockets loaded with poison gas killed hundreds of civilians on Wednesday, many of them women and children.

Dressed in blue U.N. body armor, the team was accompanied by security forces and an ambulance.

There’s a sense of urgency at the White House about the ongoing issues in Syria. NBC’s Kristen Welker reports.

Earlier, Reuters cited residents saying that at least one mortar bomb fell in the area near the Four Seasons hotel, where the U.N. officials are staying. Syrian state media said the bombs had been fired by “terrorists,” the term it uses for rebels fighting President Bashar Assad.

White House officials said Sunday there was “very little doubt” that the Syrian government was responsible and had used chemical weapons to kill hundreds of civilians.

President Barack Obama has already discussed “possible responses by the international community” with allies including Britain and France, with limited airstrikes emerging as the most likely option.

Britain said it would be possible to respond to the “outrages” in Syria without the unanimous backing of the U.N. Security Council.

“We cannot in the 21st century allow the idea that chemical weapons can be used with impunity,” British foreign secretary William Hague said Monday. “The Prime Minister has discussed that with President Obama, they are agreed there must be a serious response by the international community.”

He added that Britain and other U.S. allies were “in close consultation…every hour” and that details of the international response “will emerge in due course.”

But Russia criticized the tough talk, warning the U.S. that the recent escalation in pressure by Washington and its allies echoed the preamble to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Alexander Lukashevich, spokesman for the country’s foreign ministry, said: “All these things force us to remember the events of 10 years ago, when false information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was used as a pretext by the U.S., who went around the UN on an undertaking, the consequences of which are well-known to all. We again firmly urge to not repeat the mistakes of the past, and not to allow actions that are out of accord with international rights.”

Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov later echoed those comments, telling a Moscow news conference that military action without U.N. Security Council approval would be “a very grave violation of international law.”

“If anybody thinks that bombing and destroying the Syrian military infrastructure, and leaving the battlefield for the opponents of the regime to win, would end everything – that is an illusion,” Lavrov said.

In an interview with a Russian newspaper, Assad denied that his forces had used chemical weapons and predicted that any U.S. military intervention in his country would be unsuccessful.

“Failure awaits the United States as in all previous wars it has unleashed, starting with Vietnam and up to the present day,” he told the pro-Kremlin Izvestia newspaper. “Would any state use chemical or any other weapons of mass destruction in a place where its own forces are concentrated? That would go against elementary logic.”

The Obama administration does not want to act unilaterally, an official said Sunday. The official added that the president has not yet determined whether to take action, but wants to have a clear plan in place for how to proceed in the event of U.S. military intervention.

A senior member of the administration said any decision would be based on U.S. intelligence in addition to any findings by U.N. inspectors. The investigators have a mandate to determine if chemical weapons were used, but do not have a mandate to determine who used them, the official said. …source

More Evidence Points To The Syrian Rebels
By: CTuttle, 24 August 24, 2013 – FDL

As U.S. Forces Prepare to Act on Syria as Chemicals Alleged. A lot of new developments have since arisen that points the finger squarely at the Syrian Rebels and not the Syrian Regime. First off, it is almost certain that military grade Chemical Weapons were not used, instead, it is likely that it was some combination of Toxic Industrial Chemicals! (PDF6pgs)

From the Huffington Post…

…Jean Pascal Zanders, an independent researcher who specializes in CBW and disarmament, said that in videos of the aftermath of the attacks, the hue of the victims’ faces appeared to show many suffered from asphyxiation. However, he said the symptoms they exhibited were not consistent with mustard gas or the nerve agents VX or sarin. Mustard gas would cause blistering of the skin and discoloration, while the nerve agents would produce severe convulsions in the victims and also affect the paramedics treating them, neither of which was evident from the videos or reports. “I’m deliberately not using the term chemical weapons here,” he said. “There’s plenty of other nasty stuff that was used in the past as a chemical warfare agent, so many industrial toxicants could be used too.”

Now, as I’ve noted before, prior to the new findings in those Rebel-held tunnels…

Syrian rebels’ Damascus chemical cache found by Syrian Army

A video shot by RT’s sister channel Russia Al Youm shows an old, partly ruined building which was set up as a laboratory. After entering the building, Syrian Army officers found scores of canisters and bags laid on the floor and tables. According to a warning sign on the bags, the “corrosive” substance was made in Saudi Arabia.

Now, while I suspect the Saudis, British MP Galloway thinks it’s the Israelis…

“If there’s been any use of nerve gas, it’s the rebels that used it…If there has been use of chemical weapons, it was Al Qaeda who used the chemical weapons,” claims Galloway in a video distributed on the internet.

“Who gave Al Qaeda the chemical weapons? Here’s my theory: Israel gave them the chemical weapons.”

Btw, whatever happened to the initial 1,300 dead that was(is) wildly hyped about in our MSM…?

Now, contrary to PM Cameron’s assertion that Assad refuses to allow the UN inspectors access…

Prime Minister David Cameron discussed the situation in Syria with President Obama and Prime Minister Harper.

The Prime Minister also spoke to Prime Minister Harper who agreed that the situation was extremely troubling and that the international community must respond appropriately.‬

Well, lah di da…

Syria will let UN inspectors probe chemical attack: FM

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem says Damascus will provide the UN team with access to the site of the recent alleged chemical attack in the country.

In a telephone conversation with his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, on Saturday, al-Muallem added that his respective country has cooperated with the UN team of chemical experts present in the country.

He added that Damascus is now holding talks with the UN inspectors on the access to the site of the alleged chemical attack.

Now, as Obama adds another Ballistic Missile Cruiser to the Eastern Mediterranean… Putin Responds To Syria Escalation: May “Reinforce Naval Grouping In Mediterranean” Following US Buildup

Speaking of Russia, Putin’s been keeping a very close eye on Syria, as As-safir reported that Russian satellites had tracked the origin of the attack to a rebel held area…

“The Russian said that the rockets, two of the manufacture of domestic and carrying chemicals, set off from the area controlled by «the banner of Islam», led by Zahran Alwash, the most prominent forces of the armed opposition in Gota.” [Google translate]

And, if there was any doubt about the Syrian Rebels possibly using chemical weapons…

Syria Rebels: We’ll Use Chemical Weapons, Too

The rebel commanders announced that thus far, their forces had refrained from taking over the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons stores, but they will no longer set any limitations on themselves in the fight against the Assad regime.

…more

Bahrain has seen dozens of Children even Infant skilled by CS Gassing

BCHR releases report detailing attacks on children in Bahrain
23 August, 2013

BCSIR ReportThe BCHR has released a new report detailing the authorities’ attacks on children, and violations of the Convention of the Rights of the Child. The Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed its concern “at the considerable delay since 2002 in the adoption of the Child Rights” and it called upon the state party ‘to adopt, as a matter of urgency, the Child Rights” and other laws concerning the family and civil society. However, no progress has been made to date in this area.

Instead, there has been an increasing number of attacks reported on children, including torture, forced disappearances, beatings, psychological mistreatment, and attacks on schools. The report includes recommendations for how the government must reform its methods in order to comply with the international treaties to which it is a party. …source

The US Must Not Bear Silent Witness to Another Crackdown in Bahrain
by Jeffrey Bachman and Matar Ebrahim Matar – 14 August, 2013 – by The Guardian UK

A Bahraini protestor stands amidst tear gas fired by riot police during clashes following a protest against the ruling regime in the village of Diraz. (Photograph: Mohammed Al-Shaikh/AFP/Getty)While the US media focuses on events in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere, the people of Bahrain continue to risk their freedom, their mental and physical well-being, and their lives, to carry on with their demands for democracy and human rights. Members of the political opposition, human rights activists, doctors and ordinary Bahraini citizens have been arbitrarily detained, charged with crimes such as “inciting hatred of the regime” and “attempting to overthrow the government”, tortured as a form of punishment and as a means to acquiring forced confessions, and killed by excessive use of force.

The popular protest movement in Bahrain began on 14 February 2011. At one point, early in the uprising, an estimated quarter of Bahrain’s population participated in nonviolent protests. That is equivalent to 75 million Americans protesting simultaneously. The Bahraini regime and its Gulf Co-operation Council partners, led by Saudi Arabia, crushed the protests with overwhelming force.

Yet, Bahraini people still do not have the overt support of the US government – despite President Obama’s (and other administration officials’) claims that the United States stands with all who have democratic aspirations.

This week, on 14 August, following in the footsteps of Egypt’s revolutionary reboot, Bahrainis who oppose the repressive monarchy will begin their own “Tamarod movement”. The date is significant because it is the day Bahrain achieved independence from its British colonizers, and also because it marks two-and-a-half years since the start of Bahrain’s movement for democracy and human rights.

Members of Bahrain’s Tamarod movement first announced their plans for 14 August on 4 July. Despite having more than a month to make the necessary arrangements to allow Bahrainis to safely and securely act on their rights as protected under the UN’s international covenant on civil and political rights, to which Bahrain is a party, the repressive ruling family has, instead, categorically denied Bahrainis their right to protest. And it has threatened those who challenge its dictates. Bahrain’s interior ministry has warned Bahrainis:

Not to respond or react to incitement from political events and social media posts that use ‘Rebellion 14 August’ and encourage the overthrow of the government. Rallies and activities that affect security, public order, civil peace and the interests of the people are against the law. Participants will have legal procedures taken against them.

More recently, Bahrain’s national assembly made 22 recommendations, all of which were endorsed by the king of Bahrain, which it claims are necessary in response to increasing unrest in Bahrain. Although the Bahraini regime has proclaimed its commitment to the reforms laid out in the Bahrain independent commission of inquiry’s report (pdf), the disturbingly draconian policies authorized by the king demonstrate otherwise.

The first of the 22 decrees announces that their purpose is to toughen terrorism laws in order to allow for swift action to protect national security. If the Bahraini regime were only targeting those who have resorted to violence, an argument could be made in support of such efforts. But this has not been the case. According to Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB):

The Bahrain government frequently abuses ambiguous definitions of ‘terrorism’ and related national security crimes in order to justify the arbitrary arrest, detention and sentencing of bloggers, medical professionals and prominent human rights activists.

The government of Bahrain’s real intentions become clearer much later in the list of decrees. The 16th decree states:

Basic liberties, particularly freedom of opinion, should be affected so as to strike a balance between law enforcement and human rights protection.

Under this decree, the Bahraini regime has given itself the power to control, not freedom of speech, which would also be unacceptable, but freedom of opinion.

The 17th decree states:

Examination of the educational policies of the kingdom and review and change educational curricular in a way that protects society from violence and terrorist actions and improves the behavior of students.

Related, the final decree states:

Launching programmes to rehabilitate youths who were exploited in various crimes.

The Bahraini regime has, for all intents and purposes, authorized the re-engineering of its educational system into one based entirely in state propaganda. By protection of society from “violence and terrorist actions”, it means suppression of protest and demands for democratic reforms and respect for human rights. By “rehabilitate youths”, it means the re-education of youth who dare participate in the protests.

These actions cannot be ignored, no matter how important a strategic ally we are told Bahrain is. The United States failed Bahrainis the first time around because it was more concerned with supporting Bahrain’s despotic regime which hosts the US navy’s fifth fleet, appeasing Saudi Arabia, and acting on its geopolitical strategic interests against Iran, than it was with the legitimate aspirations of the citizens of Bahrain – aspirations similar to those the US has previously lent its support. …more