…from beneath the crooked bough, witness 230 years of brutal tyranny by the al Khalifas come to an end

US revealed as enemy of world
31 August, 2013 – By Finian Cunningham – PressTV

Can you believe how ridiculous these American puppets sound? What the deluded Americans do not seem to realize is that they are on their own. The only entities willing to support their aggression on Syria is Saudi Arabia and Israel. So, how’s that for credibility? The only support Washington can muster is from a feudal, sword-wielding, head-chopping regime and a criminal pariah genocidal state. Coalition of the Willing? More like Coalition of the Killing.
Related Interviews:

The United States of America stands exposed in the eyes of the entire world as the number-one terrorist threat to the future of humanity. Many have known this fact already, but now it is universally clear.

As the US prepares to launch an overt war on Syria (the covert war has been raging for 30 months), the vast majority of humanity can finally see through all its decades of pretense and conceit as the world’s model of democracy and international law. And what they see is the ugly opposite. The US is a terrorist state that holds international law, democracy and human rights in utter contempt. It is ready, as it always has been, to kill countless civilians for its selfish political ambitions. That is the conventional definition of “terrorism”.

Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad made a profound point recently when he said that his country has faced aggression for more than two years, but only now is the real enemy revealing itself – the US and its minions. But the US terrorist state is not just being called out over Syria. It is being revealed as the enemy to the entire world.

From past wars in the Caribbean, Central America, Philippines, Vietnam and Indochina, through coups and covert ops in Iran, Iraq, Africa, to recent killing fields in Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, the historical picture is now complete. All these conflicts and many more – too many to mention here – integrate into one indisputable truth. The US is the world’s biggest terror state. If it is not dealt with definitely, then the future of the world is in peril more than ever.

In previous crimes of aggression, the US ruling elite could invoke the spurious cover of “a coalition of the willing”, or the abused authority of the United Nations or NATO. It was able to do that through deployment of lies, fabrications and a supine mass media that would lend credibility to the mendacity. Now, thanks to alternative, critical media and instant global communications, the American lies don’t work any longer. In an instant, they are exposed; just like the attempt in the last few hours of US Secretary of State John to frame up Syria over alleged chemical weapons use.

The New York Times, BBC and the usual Western media mouthpieces for imperialist propaganda dutifully facilitated Kerry and his US state terrorism with bombastic, important-sounding headlines: “Kerry lays out evidence against Syria”. There was hardly a critical question raised, even though there are grounds for dozens such questions. Years ago, that kind of herd-think might have been enough to buy the US warmongers enough time to launch a war – but not any more. Within minutes of Kerry’s supposedly definitive condemnation, statements, articles, tweets and blogs were pulling the charade asunder, showing that apart from Western-media-amplified bombast, Kerry was not saying anything of value. It was just another risible repetition of earlier hyperbole and empty rhetoric. Or in short, lies.

The people of the world have reached a critical mass of intolerance towards the rogue terror states of the US, Britain, France, Israel and a few other accomplices. We have watched their relentless mass murder and exploitation of fellow humans in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. We have witnessed how this tiny group of state terrorists imposes on the vast majority of humanity their vile criminality and in the process then insult us with grotesque lies and justifications. We have seen how these rogue states have stolen land, poisoned people’s water, burnt their crops, dispossessed their homes, assassinated families with aerial drones and ground drones in the form of death squads. They have committed all these shocking crimes with lies and impunity to the point where now these state terrorists are operating in more than one country simultaneously in a permanent state of relentless war, pushing the very future of humanity to the brink.

However, despite this lawlessness and gangsterism, the people of the world are fighting back.

This week the British parliament voted against the London government’s arrogance to provide its usual criminal special relationship to the Americans. In the execution of past war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya – to mention a few – Washington could rely on the trusty British imperialists to give a veneer of “coalition of the willing”. British premier David Cameron’s plans to repeat the criminality by backing Washington’s plans to bomb Syria were dealt a crushing blow by the British parliament voting against any such military action. Cameron was forced to withdraw. The vote in the British parliament is not so much a sign of ethics among Britain’s political class. It is
more a reflection of the global awakening among ordinary citizens that this insane state terrorism must stop.

The French government has also backed off earlier bellicose bravado, with French President Francois Hollande belatedly calling for a “peaceful, political solution” over the Syrian crisis. Even Washington’s reliable Canadian puppet Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said that his country will not be getting involved military in Syria. It is also reported that 10 members of the NATO alliance – one-third of the total – are not willing to support American strikes. This latter grouping comprises the usual minions of the US. And we haven’t even yet acknowledged the more strident opponents, such as Russia, China, Iran and the majority of nations elsewhere in Asia, Africa and the Americas.

The people of the world have had it with elite Western rulers acting as terrorists who are holding humanity to ransom. The rulers are presiding not only over military terrorism. They are inflicting economic, social and ecological terrorism with their bankrupt capitalist smash-and-grab system. That system has reached the point of meltdown and that is why we are being pushed into relentless wars – in order for the rulers and their politician puppets to corner the remaining resources. The ultimate solution to end the wars is for the people to overthrow the economic system that US and Western elite rulers preside over. The insane criminality of the US rulers over Syria is exposing this historic challenge facing humanity.

After the British parliamentary setback the US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said: “Our approach is to continue to find an international coalition that will act together. It is the goal of President Obama and our government… whatever decision is taken, that it be an international collaboration and effort.”

Can you believe how ridiculous these American puppets sound? What the deluded Americans do not seem to realize is that they are on their own. The only entities willing to support their aggression on Syria is Saudi Arabia and Israel. So, how’s that for credibility? The only support Washington can muster is from a feudal, sword-wielding, head-chopping regime and a criminal pariah genocidal state. Coalition of the Willing? More like Coalition of the Killing. …more

The Saudi-Israeli Super Power Test Drive their New Lackey

Egypt’s counterrevolution and Syria’s civil war could herald the arrival of a new superpower coalition, an unlikely alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia, one with great political clout and the other with vast financial wealth, together flexing their muscles across the Middle East, writes Robert Parry.

The Saudi-Israeli Superpower
By Robert Parry – 29 August, 2013 – consortiumnews.com

The twin crises in Syria and Egypt have marked the emergence of a new superpower coalition in the Middle East, the odd-couple alliance of Israel and Saudi Arabia, with Jordon serving as an intermediary and the Persian Gulf oil sheikdoms playing a supporting role.

The potential impact of this new coalition can barely be overstated, with Israel bringing to the table its remarkable propaganda skills and its unparalleled influence over U.S. foreign policy and Saudi Arabia tapping into its vast reservoir of petrodollars and exploiting its global financial networks. Together the two countries are now shaping international responses to the conflicts in Syria and Egypt, but that may only be the start.

President George W. Bush meeting with then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan at the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas. (U.S. government photo)

Though Israel and Saudi Arabia have had historic differences – one a Jewish religious state and the other embracing the ultraconservative Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam – the two countries have found, more recently, that their interests intersect.

Both see Iran, with its Shiite rulers, as their principal regional rival. Both are leery of the populist Islamic movements unleashed by the Arab Spring. Both sided with the Egyptian military in its coup against the elected Muslim Brotherhood government, and both are pleased to see Syrian President Bashar al-Assad facing a possible military assault from the United States.

While the two countries could be accused of riding the whirlwind of chaos across the Middle East – inviting a possibility that the sectarian divisions and the political violence will redound negatively to their long-term interests – there can be little doubt that they are enjoying at least short-term gains.

In recent months, Israel has seen its strategic position enhanced by the overthrow of Egypt’s populist Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi, a political change that has further isolated the Hamas-led Palestinians in Gaza. Meanwhile, in Lebanon, the Shiite movement of Hezbollah has come under increasing military and political pressure after sending militants into Syria to support the embattled Assad regime.

Assad is an Alawite, a branch of Shiite Islam, and has been a longtime benefactor of Hezbollah, the political-military movement that drove Israeli forces out of southern Lebanon and has remained a thorn in Israel’s side. The growing sectarian nature of the Syrian civil war, with Sunnis leading the fight against Assad, also served to drive a wedge between Hamas, a Sunni movement, and two of its key benefactors, the Syrian government and its Iranian allies.

In other words, Israel is benefiting from the Sunni-Shiite divisions ripping apart the Islamic world as well as from the Egyptian coup which further weakened Hamas by re-imposing the Gaza blockade. Now, Israel has a freer hand to dictate a political solution to the already-weak Palestinian Authority on the West Bank when peace talks resume.

A Method to Neocon Madness

Giving Israel this upper hand has long been the goal of American neoconservatives, although they surely could not have predicted the precise course of recent history. The idea of “regime change” in Iraq in 2003 was part of a neocon strategy of making a “clean break” with frustrating negotiations in which Israel was urged to trade land for peace with the Palestinians.

The plan to dump negotiations in favor of confrontations was outlined in a 1996 policy paper, entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” and prepared by prominent neocons, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, for Benjamin Netanyahu’s campaign for prime minister.

In the document, the neocons wrote: “Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War.”]

The neocons failed to persuade President Bill Clinton to invade Iraq in the late 1990s, but their hopes brightened when George W. Bush became president in 2001 and when the American people were whipped into a state of hysteria by the 9/11 attacks.

Still, it appears that the neocons believed their own propaganda about the Iraqis welcoming American troops as liberators and accepting a U.S. puppet as their new leader. That, in turn, supposedly was to lead Iraq to establish friendly ties with Israel and give the U.S. military bases for promoting “regime change” in Syria and Iran.

In 2002, as President Bush was winding up to deliver his haymaker against Saddam Hussein, neocons passed around a favorite joke about where to go next after conquering Iraq. Should it be Syria or Iran, Damascus or Tehran? The punch line was: “Real men go to Tehran!”

However, the Iraq War didn’t work out exactly as planned. Bush did succeed in ousting Hussein from power and enjoyed watching him marched to the gallows, dropped through a trapdoor and hanged by the neck until dead. But the U.S. occupation touched off a sectarian bloodbath with Hussein’s Sunni minority repressed by the newly empowered Shiite majority. Sunni extremists flocked to Iraq from around the Middle East to kill both Iraqi Shiites and Americans. …more

There goes the neighborhood: Mideast prepping for Syria spillover into all-out religious war
By Shaun Waterman – 29 August, 2013 – The Washington Times

Top generals from the U.S. and its allies have been meeting this week to discuss the fallout from expected military strikes on Syria, as nations and markets around the region scramble to prepare for a wider conflict in the region.

Senior military officials from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Canada attended the two-day summit in Amman that wrapped up Monday, a U.S. military official told The Washington Times.

SEE ALSO: Obama may go solo with Syria strike; U.S., British lawmakers voice opposition

It was co-hosted by U.S. Central Command and the Jordanian Armed Forces and had been planned since June, said the official.

“The event provided a timely opportunity for the defense chiefs to meet … on issues such as the makeup of [Syrian] opposition forces and short- and long-term impacts of the growing refugee crisis, as well as concern for the spread of sectarian violence in the region.”

U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey and Jordan’s chief of staff, Gen. Mashal Mohammad al-Zaben attended the meeting, as well as Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, commander of U.S. Central Command.

The conference came as the U.S., France and Britain mulled a response to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s suspected chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of civilians.

In Washington, Defense Department spokesman George Little told The Associated Press earlier this week that the emergency summit in Amman aimed at achieving a better understanding of the impact of a broadening regional conflict might have, among other things.

Other nations in the region were scrambling to prepare for spillover from a U.S. strike, which Syria’s neighbors fear will draw them into a broader war in the Mideast between Sunni and Shiia Muslims.

SEE ALSO: White House selling ‘Peace on Earth’ for $18.95 (*Offer not valid in Syria)

Mr. Assad is an Alawite, a branch of the Shia school of Islam, which is also the official religion in theocratic Iran, his main sponsor in the region.

Iraq is majority Shia, and there is already a violent insurgency by Sunni terrorist groups there. Dozens die almost daily in car bomb and other terrorist attacks by al Qaeda-aligned Sunni extremists.

Most of the rebels fighting Damascus are also Sunnis, and many are linked with al Qaeda in Iraq.

Jordan is ruled by a Sunni monarchy, as are the Gulf states, though they all have Shiite populations of varying sizes. Bahrain, home of the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, has a majority Shiite population.

Lebanon, the country worst hit so far by violent spillover from Syria, is a religious and ethnic patchwork of Muslims, Christians, Arabs and others. It is led by the Iranian-backed Shiite militant group Hezbollah, which has been fighting alongside government forces in Syria to such deadly effect.

This week, Hezbollah’s political heartlands in Beirut’s suburbs have been struck by indiscriminate and deadly car bombs blamed on Sunni extremists.

And with the threat of a U.S. strike looming, refugees are arriving in Lebanon from Syria the at the rate of 1,000 every day, according to U.N. figures released Thursday. …more

NATO Will Not Take Part in a Syria Strike: Anders Fogh Rasmussen
Shia Post -30 August, 2013

NATO will not take part in military intervention in Syria, the alliance’s Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, told Denmark’s Politiken newspaper.

“I don’t foresee any NATO role in an international response to the regime,” Rasmussen said, adding that individual countries would decide whether to take part in any military action.

He stressed there could be “no doubt” that the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad was responsible for using toxic gas against civilians near Damascus on August 21, as it “had a store of chemical weapons and the means needed to perform an attack.”

However, NATO’s Secretary-General said he didn’t think intervention was the best way to solve the crisis, adding that a political solution would be “sustainable.

“It demands an international response, so it doesn’t happen again,” Rasmussen said.

The NATO secretary general has in the past insisted on the need for a political solution to the Syrian crisis. …source

Are Westerners Ready to Bomb Syria?
by Thierry Meyssan – Voltaire Network – Damascus (Syria) – 30 August 2013

(Damascus, August 27) – What bee has the Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Barack Obama, got in his bonnet? Sunday, August 25, the White House issued a statement in which an anonymous senior official said that there is “little doubt” of the use by Syria of chemical weapons against its opposition. The statement added that Syria ’s agreement to let the UN inspectors in the area is “too late to be credible .”

If the use of chemical weapons on the outskirts of Damascus, Wednesday, August 21, 2013 is likely, the Security Council of the United Nations has not concluded that it was the work of the Syrian government. At an emergency meeting held at the request of the West, the ambassadors were surprised to see their Russian colleague present satellite photos showing the firing of two rounds at 1:35 am from the rebel zone Duma in rebel areas affected by gas (at Jobar and between Arbin and Zamalka ) at times coinciding with the related disorders. The pictures do not tell us whether they were chemical shells, but they suggest that the “Brigade of Islam”, which occupies Duma, has hit three birds with the same stone: first, to remove the support of its rivals in the opposition; second, accuse Syria of using chemical weapons; finally, disrupt the offensive of the Syrian Arab army clearing the capital.

If the Syrian government, similar to its enemy, Israel, is not a signatory to the Convention against chemical weapons and has large stocks, the jihadists also have some, as confirmed by Carla Del Ponte, to the fury of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. In December, the Free Syrian Army released a video showing a chemical laboratory and threatening the Alawites. This week, the government discovered several caches of chemical weapons, gas masks and antidotes in the suburbs of Damascus. The products came from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United States and the Netherlands. Also, it is at the request of the Syrian government, not the West, that UN inspectors are present in Syria for two weeks to investigate allegations of use. Finally, on 29 May 29, 2013, the Turkish police arrested a dozen members of the Al-Nosra Front and seized chemical weapons that were to be used in Syria.

However, on Friday, President Obama met his National Security Council to review the attack options against Syria in the presence of Ambassador Samantha Power, leader of liberal hawks. He decided to strengthen the U.S. military presence in the Mediterranean by sending a fourth destroyer, loaded with cruise missiles, the USS Ramage. This is in addition to the USS Gravely, the USS Barry and USS Mahan, which remains in the zone when it should return to port.

Saturday, he called British Prime Minister David Cameron on the phone. And on Sunday, he spoke with French President Francois Hollande. The three men agreed that intervention was necessary without specifying how. Sunday again, the Secretary of State John Kerry called his British, French, Canadian and Russian counterparts to say that the United States was convinced that Syria had crossed the “red line”. If the first three speakers listened at attention, Russia’s Sergey Lavrov expressed surprise that Washington pronounced itself before the report of the UN inspectors. He referred to the “extremely grave consequences” that would result form an intervention in the region.

Monday, the French defense minister, Jean -Yves Le Drian, was in Qatar and was to go to the UAE to coordinate with them. While the Israeli national security adviser, General Yaakov Amidror, was received at the White House. During a telephone conversation between the British Prime Minister David Cameron and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the latter stressed that there was no evidence of use of chemical weapons by Syria. For his part, the Chinese Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Li Baodong, called his U.S. counterpart, Wendy R. Sherman, to urge the United States to exercise restraint. Aware of the risk of a regional war in which Christians would suffer, Pope Francis reiterated his call for peace.

Should we therefore think that the West will go to war without a mandate from the Security Council, as NATO did in Yugoslavia? This is unlikely because at the time Russia was in ruins. Today, after issuing three vetoes to protect Syria, it must intervene or forsake any international action. However Sergey Lavrov has wisely rejected a Third World War. He said that his country was not ready to go to war against anyone, even over Syria. It could therefore be an indirect intervention in support of Syria, as China did during the Vietnam War .

Iran then, through its Deputy Chief of Staff, Massoud Jazayeri, indicated that the attack on Syria would be crossing the “red line” and that if it took this step, the White House would endure “serious consequences.” Though Iran has neither the resources of Russia, nor alliances, it is certainly one of the top 10 global military powers. Therefore, to attack Syria is to run the risk of retaliation against Israel and uprisings in much of the Arab world, including Saudi Arabia. The recent intervention of the Lebanese Hezbollah and the statements of its Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, such as the Palestinian organization PFLP- General Command, leave no doubt.

Questioned by the Russian press, Syrian President Bashar al -Assad, said: “The statements made by US politicians, Western and other countries is an insult to common sense and an expression of contempt for the public opinion of their peoples. This is nonsense: first accuse, then gather evidence. This task is carried out by a powerful country, the United States ( … ) This kind of accusation is a purely political response to the series of victories won by government forces against the terrorists. ”

In Russia, the President of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Duma, the journalist and geopolitician, Alexei Pushkov, commented on his Twitter account : ” Washington and London have pronounced Assad guilty before the conclusions of UN inspectors . They will accept nothing but a guilty verdict . Any other verdict will be rejected. ”

The notion of a new war in Syria squares badly with the economic problems of the United States and Europe. If selling weapons is a way to earn money, destroying a state without hope of return in the short or medium term can worsen the situation.

According to a Reuters / Ipsos poll conducted after the August 21st attack, 60% of the US public opposed intervention in Syria against 9% who supported it . If they were convinced of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, they remained 46% in opposition to the war and 25% in support. The same survey indicates that U.S. respondents are even less fond of secret war : 89 % said the US should not arm the rebels, against 11% who want to arm them more. Finally, four options were offered to respondents : airstrikes ( supported by 12%), creating a no-fly zone ( 11%), the financing of a multinational force ( 9%), and direct U.S. action ( 4%).

In France, Le Figaro, published by the arms dealer Dassault, asked its readers and, at the end of the day, 79.60 % opposed the war versus 20.40% in support. It will certainly be difficult to reverse public opinion and go to war.

Another interpretation of events is possible: some videos showing the victims of chemical attacks actually circulated on the Internet a few hours before the attacks. It will always be possible for Westerners to “discover” the deception in time and backtrack. However, the case of chemical weapons in Iraq has shown that Westerners could lie to the international community and escape with impunity once their evil deed is accomplished.

The charges from jihadists and their Western sponsors emerged while the Syrian Arab Army launched a major offensive, “Shield of Damascus” to free the capital. The shot of the two shells of the “Brigade of Islam” came at the beginning of the offensive, which continued for 5 days and resulted in significant losses among jihadists (at least 1,500 killed and wounded of the about 25,000 present). All this agitation may be only psychological warfare to both hide this defeat and attempt to cripple the Syrian offensive. This is especially a way for Washington to test the Iranian response after the election of Sheikh Hassan Rohani to his presidency. And it is now clear that the latter will not oppose the policy of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

However, during the war against Libya, I had underestimated the ability of the United States to violate all the rules, including those of NATO. Basing myself on documents from the Atlantic Alliance, I insisted on the long resilience of the Libyan Jamahiriya confronting its armed opposition. I ignored the holding of a secret meeting on the NATO base in Naples behind the back of the Atlantic Council. At the time, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Turkey, Israel, Qatar and Jordan secretly planned the use of Alliance assets to bomb Tripoli. Not trusting their allies, whom they knew would be opposed to an attack so costly in human lives, they had not informed them. The Atlantic Alliance was no longer an Alliance proper but an ad hoc coalition. In a few days, the taking of Tripoli caused at least 40,000 deaths, according to internal reports of the Red Cross. Such a manoeuvre may be being organized : the Chiefs of Staff of approximately the same states, plus Saudi Arabia and Canada, are gathered since Sunday and until tonight in Amman under the chairmanship of the CentCom commander, General Lloyd J. Austin III. They are considering five options: supplying weapons to the Contras, targeted bombings, creating a no-fly zone, establishment of buffer zones and land invasion.

President Barack Obama could well follow the war plan drawn up by his predecessor George W. Bush on 15 September 2001, who foresaw, in addition to attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, those of Libya and Syria, as was revealed by the former Commander of NATO, General Wesley Clark. Except that, for the first time, the target has serious allies.

However, the new U.S. rhetoric contradicts all the efforts of the Obama administration for the last year that sought to eliminate obstacles to the holding of the Geneva 2 Conference: resignation of General David Petraeus and supporters of the secret war, non-reappointment of Hillary Clinton and the ultra-Zionists ; indictment of irreducible opponents of an alliance with Russia, especially within NATO and the missile shield . It also contradicts the efforts of John Brennan to cause clashes in the Syrian armed opposition to demand the abdication of the Emir of Qatar, and to threaten Saudi Arabia.

On the Syrian side, we are preparing as much as is possible for any eventuality, including the NATO bombing of command centers and ministries coordinated with an assault by jihadists against the capital. However, the most likely option is not triggering a regional war that would overwhelm the Western powers. It is an attack in the fall, supervised by Saudi Arabia and endorsed by the fighters it is currently recruiting . Eventually, this operation could be supported by the Arab League. …more

Obama says Syria chemical weapons attack threatens Israel, Jordan
By Steve Holland, Jeff Mason – Reuters – 30 August, 2013

WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama said on Friday the chemical weapons attack in Syria threatened U.S. allies Israel, Turkey and Jordan and that while “nobody ends up being more war weary than me” he is considering a narrow, limited U.S. response.

Obama, speaking to reporters at a meeting he held with Baltic leaders, said the United States must be prepared to act unilaterally if necessary to uphold what he called an international norm against the use of chemical weapons as part of U.S. obligations as a world leader.

As he spoke, the U.S. intelligence community released a report that said an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb killed 1,429 people, including at least 426 children.

Obama, in the position of trying to persuade Americans weary of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to accept another U.S. involvement, insisted any military action he takes on Syria will be narrow and limited and not an open-ended, long-term commitment, nor would it involve U.S. troops on the ground.

“I assure you nobody ends up being more war weary than me, but what I also believe is that part of our obligations as a leader in the world is making sure that when you have a regime that is willing to use weapons that are prohibited by international norms on … people, including children, that they are held to account,” he said.

The United States and its allies have been unable to break through a deadlock in the U.N. Security Council given Russian and Chinese opposition to taking steps against the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Given U.N. Security Council paralysis around the issue, he said, “a lot of people think something should be done but nobody wants to do it.”
…more

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