Navigation
User login
Who's online
Syndicate
Blogroll feed
- Colonization by SARS-CoV-2 NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH INFECTION, (different, disimilar) screening study highlights:
- 2020: A Propaganda Masterpiece | Perspectives on the Pandemic XVII
- Covid Vaccine Effectiveness 2.9% ( Negligible to non existent effectiveness)
- Haiti and Cuba: Drug Running, Windward Passage, Panama - Location, location, location
- "Proof that puts an end to the Sars-CoV-2 Narrative" | Professor Sucharit Bhakdi
- Is That Rush for a Third Covid Vaccine Booster Jab Necessary?
- Russia, Iran, Turkey reject unilateral Syria Sanctions, Oppose Oil Theft & Separatist Ambitions
- Lockdown Lovers Lack Faith In Their Vaccine Saviour? From Fear To Folly
- Canada's Covid Vaccine Weekly Harm and Death Update; More Vaxxed Deaths and More People Who Die w Covid are Vaxxed
- Trudeau's Election Ploy- Identity Politics/Native Issues and Prepping the Arctic for Encircling Russia
- Part 2- Covid and Climate: Tales of Two Hysterias
- Turkey and US Negotiations Continue for Kabul (Hamid Karzai) Airport- Still No Final Agreement
- "Why most people who now die with Covid in England have had a vaccination" The Guardian
- Where’s the Anti Empire Media? US Still Plundering Syria w Their Kurdish Ally/Proxy Forces
- Kids Are Using Soft Drinks to Attain Actual Positive Results on COVID-19 Tests
American Everyman
Crooks And Liars
The Non-Attack On Syria - UPDATED
Russian Fleet entering the Mediterranean Sea
(UPDATE at foot of article)
In two previous articles (here and here), I pointed out how the US/israel/NATO advance on the rest of the world has been stopped by Russia declaring it will not allow a foreign country to intervene militarily in Syria. In other words, Russia is saying if the US (or anyone else) attacks Syria, Russia will retaliate in kind. And Russia has the missile technology to defeat the US forces and these missiles are in place both on land in Syria and on their naval vessels off the coast of Syria. This fundamental fact that Russia will fight back and that it will, in all likelihood, be victorious is being totally ignored (publicly) by western officials and their brothers and sisters in the news media.
It is essential to bear this fact in mind when considering what is being said and reported in the news. In spite of all the noise about the US attacking Syria, it is simply not going to happen. The US cannot chance coming off second best in a conflict with Russia.
It is also essential to bear in mind that the 'news' is propaganda from start to finish. The media works hand-in-hand with the government creating the cause for war. So this 'hand-in-hand' behaviour calls for planning in advance which means that what we receive via the teevee is scripted . . . . including the 'opposition'. The situation requires it to be scripted. It's a show no different to any other teevee show. The major 'news' outlets including the wire services are all controlled by jews and, of course, they are all major supporters of israel and it's various genocidal programs. Everything that is reported will have some level of deceit embedded in it because its purpose is to shape our thinking. So the question that needs to asked of oneself all the time is, "Why am I reading this in the news?"
To show how scripted it all is, take for instance Jordan's reported refusal to allow the US to launch an attack on Syria using Jordan's airfields. Jordan is a vassal state. It is totally dependent on the US and its allies. So why is it apparently defying the US? If it was genuinely against it and the US was seriously for it, then you would expect the Jordanian govt to approach the US privately. There would be dealing going on. Jordan would not dare to openly defy the US in public because this would require the US to retaliate publicly. You just don't do that sort of thing if you are a country like Jordan and your power (and protection) rests on being associated with the biggest tough in town. The only explanation that makes sense of Jordan's open refusal of airfield facilities is that it was done with US approval. The exact same thing applies to talk of Egypt closing of the Suez canal to American warships. It's scripted.
If anyone would doubt that the media are not complicit in all this, they need to ask themselves why no one in the media is asking, “What would be Al-Assad's motivation for killing his own citizens with chemical weapons?” It takes an op-ed in the China Daily to ask that obvious and fundamental question. In any murder investigation, the first question that is asked about any suspect is, “What's their motivation?” The China Daily article concludes after a moments reflection that it would be suicidal for Al-Assad to do so.
“Even those who are no fans of the Bashar al-Assad regime must question why the regime would use chemical weapons as government forces have just won the upper hand in the fight against the opposition, and it is clear such a move would be tantamount to suicide.”
So if the US has been stopped from attacking Syria by Russia, why is it talking as if an attack is imminent? And why is it scripting these impediments to attacking Syria from its allies? The talk, like any show, is for the audience. Part of this audience is the American public. The fear and loathing creates a suitable backdrop to advance the police state in the US. It allows for the militarisation of police forces and gets them to believe they are in a war zone and not amongst their fellow citizens.
Another crucial audience sector is the 'Syrian rebels' aka mercenaries. Either way, they are the proxy troops for NATO. The Syrian government have these NATO proxies on the run now and NATO are trying to prevent a rout; trying to prevent a wholesale retreat by these terrorists. So the US govt is making all these noises about attacks coming against Syria which would help the position of the proxies. But it is all bullshit. Israel, the US and the rest of NATO want the destruction of Syria if it can't take it over. This is Plan B. Destruction is always Plan B. To do this they need to keep the terrorist proxies fighting in Syria to the last man.
Another audience demographic is the Syrian population itself. All these threats of 'retaliatory' bombing (which would kill many Syrian civilians) because Al Assad supposedly killed many Syrian civilians, is designed to create panic and social disorder making it harder for the Syrian government to run the country while defending itself against armed invaders. The logic of killing people to protect them is straight out of “The Psychopathic Handbook”.
Yet another target for this nonsense spewing from the lips of various NATO government leaders and officials is Russia. It is always just possible they might be able to bluff Russia into backing down or at least making concessions to the US over their defence of Syria. It must be a wan hope, but hope springs eternal, especially when you are desperate.
source
The US is openly ignoring the roadblock that Russia has thrown up in front of it possibly in the hope that if the US doesn't seem to see it as a problem then maybe it will create doubt in the minds of the Russians (good luck with that one). But what it certainly does is draw the international public's attention away from this effective counter to the US Empire. The US does not want the world at large to understand the ramifications of what Russia has done; that it has put an end to the expansion and complete dominance of the US Empire. The American Century has not got out of its teens. It is vital for US commercial, corporate and government interests (same thing in the end) that the world continue to believe that the US is all powerful in spite of the countervailing reality. For one thing, the US would lose much of its influence over the Caucasus oil producing countries to the benefit of Russia and the current movement away from using the $US for international trade by a few countries could turn into a stampede and bring down the worlds biggest bully. Power is reliant on the perception of power.
It is for this same reason that the US dares not engage Russia militarily. It cannot afford to be fought to a standstill or stand-off with Russia, let alone be defeated by it. And that is why the US is scripting the impediments to it's attack on Syria from Egypt and Jordan. It can't afford to tangle with Russia but it can't afford to be seen to not want to tangle with Russia, either.
The vote in Britain preventing Cameron going to war with Syria can be seen in the same light. It's like the dog that barks at you from behind the fence safe in the knowledge that the gate is firmly closed.
UPDATE
It seems the American administration is going to take the same way out as did the British by putting the question of attacking Syria to Congress and have the Congress bar the way to war to save face for the US administration with none other than John (bomb, bomb Iran) McCain and Lindsay (everything for israel) Graham leading the charge for the back door. From the ABC news article-However, Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham on Saturday said they could not support isolated military strikes on Syria that are not part of a bigger strategy.
"We cannot in good conscience (excuse me!? - ed) support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the president's stated goal of [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad's removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests," they said in a statement.
Meanwhile, US secretary of state John Kerry spoke to the Syrian opposition leader on Saturday to underscore the determination of the US to hold the Syrian government accountable, a State Department official said.
Mr Kerry spoke with Syrian opposition coalition president Ahmed Assi al-Jarba to underscore Mr Obama's "commitment to holding the Assad regime accountable for its chemical weapons attack against its own people on August 21st," the official said.
No doubt Kerry was hoping the 'Syrian opposition' would interpret the "commitment to holding the Assad regime accountable for its chemical weapons attack against its own people on August 21st," as meaning that the US still intended to attack Syria with missiles etc. when in fact they have no intention of doing so. It certainly is grand to have the US right behind you . . . if not exactly right beside you!
And more on Egypt's barring the Suez Canal to American warships
| (Google translation) IRIB-"No American war ship or British or else is allowed to pass through the Suez Canal ship," ordered the Egyptian Minister of Defense.
According Farsnews, citing Reuters, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi insisted that no authorization is given to warships that would hear attack Syria. The decision was taken as part of the Egyptian government to respect the joint defense agreement signed between Egypt and Syria, announced Reuters, making it difficult for the United States and Great Britain an attack against Syria, according to the same agency. |
Gosh, the poor United States is going to be hamstrung in its righteous strike against the Syrian govt (and killing Syrian people in the process) because their allies have no moral backbone and won't support them.
(How's that gate going? Still closed? Yep?
Good! Can we put another lock on it just to be sure?)
Comments
The Russians Are Coming...or are already here or something...
Thanks for the great analysis James. It seems no one else is talking about the Russian elephant in the room. All the commentary is about the details - who perpetrated the attack the gov or the rebels? was it even a sarin gas attack or some other chemical? why do the UN inspectors have such a limited mandate? which countries will go along with a US attack? mobilizations to demonstrate against the (non) attack, hysterical Israeli's clamoring for gas masks (Why would Syria attack Isreal in retaliation for a US strike? Makes more sense to me they would strike at the ships that are launching missiles at them.) etc. etc.
There is a massive amount of opinion being written and lots of fear and confusion being sown and everything else including events in Egypt has just dropped out of the news. All of this of course, misses the point that the US/Israel can't or won't attack Syria because the Russians have called their bluff. No where have I read a mention of the Russian pacific fleet parked off the coast of Cyprus, nor of their Black Sea fleet or their nuclear subs. And there is scant talk about their's (and Syria's) missile capability and the vulnerabilty of the US fleet to a missile attack. In fact, there seems to be very little, to no, awareness that there would a Syrian (and or Russian) response to a Shock and Awe Lite campaign on Syria. Which I guess is the point of all the words being printed because it props up the now shaky US/Israeli invincibility narrative. The idea they are all powerful. Everyone appears to be playing into it, knowingly or not.
On the other side (of all the western govs, lamestream and alternate media news hysteria) are the Russians - calm, reasoned, advocating caution, diplomacy, non interference and a political solution. It is masterful, really.
Unfortunately as you note, the evil ones will take maximum advantage of the fear and confusion they are sowing to strengthen the police state at home to deal with the inevitable backlash when the rabble figure out they are not all powerful and they have been conned. And of course, Plan B which is to create as much death and destruction as you can on your way out the door.
It is quite the show..
You make a lot of very good
You make a lot of very good points, McJ. A few simple questions and the official narrative falls apart. But in the absence of these simple questions, everyone is acting like Chicken Little . . . . except Russia.
The gas masks story is a good one. I think I'm going to buy some shares in israeli gas mask companies. They must be making a killing (sorry!) making masks for everyone in israel and re-issuing them every few years. I guess the israeli citizens are so panicked that they completely forget that they have cupboards full of them already.
Putin calls bullshit!
Well, maybe not 'bullshit'. But he did call it "nonsense". Telling it how it is.
"Moscow, (SANA)-President Vladimir Putin of Russia affirmed that the Syrian government has never used chemical weapons, describing the accusations against the Syrian army of using such weapons as "nonsense."
"Holding Syrian government responsible for the use of chemical weapon is a provocation and the calls for striking Syria were because of the victories achieved by the Syrian army and the retreat of the opposition's gunmen," Putin said in a statement in Vladivostok on Saturday.
The Russian president added that if Washington fails to show the proof, “that means there is none."
Putin also told the journalists that President Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, should think of the potential victims of a military attack against Syria.
The Russian President called for considering the trajectory of events over the past ten years as the US has always been making the first move to ignite armed confrontations in various parts of the world, which did not solve one single case in Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan.
"Regarding the position of our American colleagues, who affirm that government troops used ... chemical weapons, and say that they have proof; well, let them show it to the United Nations inspectors and the Security Council," Putin added, considering the excuse that the ''information are too classified to present them to anyone" as flimsy and shows their disrespect for their partners."
Read the rest here
The Congress vote for war . . . or maybe not
Obomba is going to put the case for war to Congress and ask for authorisation as soon as Congress reconvenes on Sept 9th. It is very considerate of him to abide by the Constitution for a change but 'why start now'?
As this article from the ABC in Australia notes, he runs the risk of having Congress vote against attacking Syria just as happened to Cameron in Britain. But that's exactly the point. Congress is going to make history and vote down the rush to war.
The 'walk-back' continues. The US doesn't dare to confront Russia head on. But it doesn't dare being seen to back down to Russia. So it will be Congress that backs down and for all the reasons except the real one.
if the congress says no
then he has his out. Hopefully he takes it and sends Israel packing!
good day all!
OK here are some thoughts
Obama going to Congress?
Why?
Fear of a high level military mutiny?
Spreading the responsibility around to both of the parties?
Creating the perception of legitimacy?
James you are making some really good points.
Dave says so too!
And I would agree completely the US leadership is in fear.
The US has always been a bully.
The US and Israel for that matter have always attacked the weakest.
All those things are true and what you are saying about the media is doubly true.
Here is my issue.
The US and company/NATO have plans to be the global army
The US and company/NATO have plans on balkanzing Russia, using low level warfare as we have been seeing now with Syria for the past two and 1/2 years.
As they have done that for a number of years now via Chech/Dag and Georgia (with little success)
If this is the agenda, why would the situation in Syria stop them?
The fact that Bandar is involved indicates IMO that the axis of evil
SA, Israel/US mean business.
These are in essence the players in the 9/11 attack. To kick off the whole global conquest.
Which is highly suggestive of false flag potential
I am seeing two options right now
The US full of fear backs down on the attack, but, ups the Jihadi onslaught
Or: They go kamikaze
I guess I am saying..... I want to be as confident as you James
But, I am not
With all my heart, though, I want you to be correct
Sounding noble in retreat
Hi Penn,
Obama going to Congress?
Why?
Fear of a high level military mutiny?
Spreading the responsibility around to both of the parties?
Creating the perception of legitimacy?
Yeah, all those things and you could say they all amount to Obomba protecting himself as much as he can from an inevitable backlash . . . if Congress votes for it.
But note the comments from the linked article from McCain and Lindsay Graham (of all people!)
However, Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham on Saturday said they could not support isolated military strikes on Syria that are not part of a bigger strategy.
"We cannot in good conscience (excuse me!?) support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the president's stated goal of [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad's removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests," they said in a statement.
These war mongers of the first degree are walking away already.
And note Kerry's words to the terrorists. Meanwhile, US secretary of state John Kerry spoke to the Syrian opposition leader on Saturday to underscore the determination of the US to hold the Syrian government accountable, a State Department official said.
You only have to reassure people when it looks like you are going to desert them. And they are in that process.
This is what it is about. Encouraging the terrorists to keep up the destruction without the US risking anything including taking the blame. In other words, your first option, Penny - The US full of fear backs down on the attack, but, ups the Jihadi onslaught
This is what it has always been about
Here is my issue. The US and
Here is my issue.
The US and company/NATO have plans to be the global army
The US and company/NATO have plans on balkanzing Russia, using low level warfare as we have been seeing now with Syria for the past two and 1/2 years.
As they have done that for a number of years now via Chech/Dag and Georgia (with little success)
If this is the agenda, why would the situation in Syria stop them?
Everything changed when Putin said he will not allow an attack on Syria and making it clear he will use the Russian military to enforce this decision. Up till then, the US has been systematically isolating Russia (and China) and attempting to weaken them by removing countries from their 'sphere of influence' one by one by non (direct) military means. Russia has now said, "enough!" And that is what has changed the situation in Syria and what has stopped the US from destroying much smaller and weaker countries.
Russia needs to put an end to this destructive campaign by the US (and israel) because they are well aware that it erodes their national security. They don't want to end up as the only country in the world that is left not owned by the US. Then they really would be vulnerable (which has been the US plan all along)
The US has been using proxies for the last twenty years to attack Russia's position. It has never confronted Russia directly and they are not about to start now. Especially now that Russia can defeat them using their missile technology. The time for Russia to take a stand is now.
totally agree
The time for Russia to take the stand is now
Was talking at the blog about that.
Many had been commenting that Russia would back down
I am of the mind they cannot and nor can China for that matter.
I read that both China and Russian delegates walked out on the Americans at one of the UN meeting
That is a big slap in the face in diplo-speak
and of course
Hi McJ!
Hi Penny
Hi Penny...
I will be putting something new up
at my place
"unfolding the future of the long war"
Rand plans for the ME much interesting stuff about the jihadi groups
Looking forward to it Pen.
Looking forward to it Pen.
I think that sums it up
I think that sums it up nicely. I have been thinking for several says now the attack was off. Good to see someone else noticed the Suez had been closed off.
There are some allegations out there that Al Sisi is Jewish. I don't know if true. However just the fact he did not want to send the Egyptian army to fight Syria and declare war on Ethiopia is a step in the right direction.
Erdogan indicated Israel was behind the overthrow, but in line with what you just outlined, it is probably another face saving maneuver. What could they say, well Morsi was our man and the Egyptian army stepped in because he was insane? No they had to appear to back it, just as Jordan must appear to have some say over who uses their country as a spring board to war. You have to keep up appearances. The way Russia cut through Georgia wasn't a big plus for western military planners.
There are a lot of stories floating around out there of the Chinese having some sort of EMP technology in their satellites also which are perplexing governments around the world as they seem to be rendezvousing with each other?
If British and American carriers were somehow hit with EMP and turned into floating barges, it would't look very good now would it.
It looks like the Saudisraelis will have to do this themselves if they want it done and that could lead to all kinds of repercussions such as an Iranian attack on the Saudi oil fields and capital. Iran is more than capable of doing this and they are said to have a drone force now as well as new killer hunting drones.
The report that Russia gave Syria 500 one half ton missiles and aimed them at Israel would also give one pause for concern.
One of the primary reasons for all of this is to run the pipeline through Syria and funnel the oil to Europe so they will not be so dependent on Russian oil. The fact the people (Britain, France) this was supposed to benefit backed down, tells us much. The Iraqi oil fields in the north that were stolen were handed over to the Kurds.
No doubt the air campaign was to have hit the Russian 24 barrel thermobaric artillery pieces brought into Syria bombed. They are said to be capable of wiping out entire grids of a battle field with above air explosions.
Thanks for your comment,
Thanks for your comment, Mick. A lot of what you say is backed up by VideoRebel in his article "Updated: 5 Minutes To Self-Immolation Of The Israeli Empire"
As McJ says, no one is considering the fact that Syria and Iran will strike back in the event of a US attack. Their target will be US ships to begin with and then any country that attacks them or allows their bases to be used in an attack.
Morsi was thrown out because he was 'not with the program' enough (amongst other things, no doubt). He was dragging his feet in taking on the next poisonous IMF loan. He was in a parlous position, in any case, as he had no control over the economy or the military. The Egyptian central bank is owned by the jews and the Egyptian military is owned by the US. Al-Sisi was brought to power by the US and he is not about to bite the hand that feeds him, nevermind doing it publicly. So, I think it is reasonable to conclude that his statement about closing the Suez canal to American and British warships was made with the US' approval. In fact, they would have scripted it which means the US needs excuses for not attacking Syria
The way Russia cut through Georgia wasn't a big plus for western military planners.
Indeed it wasn't! The Georgia conflict is a model of how I see things going in Syria. Putin will not hesitate to defend Russia's ally (and their own national interests). And the US and israel (who were behind the Georgian attack) will abandon the battlefield and their ally. Their ally in this case will be the mercenaries and terrorists paid for by NATO and friends. But, of course, they want to keep their terrorists in Syria doing maximum damage for as long as possible. Hence all the talk of attacks.
What you say makes sense
Could be shutting the suez was scripted, hadn't really thought of that.
The whole thing is pretty complex. There are new gold mines being found in the Sinai all the time. Plus Israel would like to give part of it to the Palestinians and move them out, solving a lot of problems for them.
Egypt has to be very careful of what they do, a strike on the Aswan dam would wreck the country with flooding.
Iran doesn't seem too crazy about Al Sisi either. The Saudis may well be a little skeptical of the MB as they might want to displace the ruling families one day. Of course many of the MB were trained in the madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan by the west. I am not an expert on it but maybe the frankenstein monster is hard to control now days.
Now they are saying Greece is considered providing a base to strike Syria. Wow you would think the Greeks have enough problems without getting mixed up in that one.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/01/321546/greek-government-slammed-...
I clustered a few links, yours included on this.
http://dublinsmick.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/the-bombing-of-syria-possibl...
Thanks
Thanks for the link over, Mick. What you say about the Muslim Brotherhood certainly seems to be the case. Power corrupts. The more power you give people, the harder it is to control them.
Refreshing truth
Here is a link to a video from PressTV (23 mins) featuring Lawrence Freeman from Executive Intelligence Review (EIR - i.e. LaRouche - yeah, I know!) who speaks some plain truths about the Syrian situation that the US has created.
“The real policy underlying this (US war on Syria) is that there is an alliance between the Obama administration, as there was with the Bush administration, and the Saudis through Prince Bandar and the British to overthrow these countries in the Middle East,” said Lawrence Freeman in a Sunday interview.
“They’ve done it to a number of countries and they want to continue their policy in Syria, which will spread to Lebanon and will spread to other countries as well,” he added. (assuming Russia will let them which it will not - ed)
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/01/321559/syria-war-ussaudi-plot-ag...
The tide is turning...
The tide is turning...
The gig is up, the veil is coming down, the party is almost over....
The author doesn't get this all right imho but he is moving in the right direction.
"Commentators in the West will surely declare that it was their democratic systems of government that forced US President Barack Obama to back down on attacking Syria. But the events that led up to Washington’s de-escalation suggest there were other factors at play.
When Obama stepped out into the White House Rose Garden to declare that, though still intent on attacking Syria, he wanted to get Congress’ approval first, the Pentagon must have breathed a sigh of relief, knowing full well that a military strike against Damascus could spark a major confrontation in the Middle East for which they were not adequately prepared.
The story starts shortly before the Israeli-Saudi intelligence operation that engineered the chemical attack near the Syrian capital. The Americans and Europeans had begun negotiating with the Russians and the Iranians for a political settlement, after having failed to remove the regime by force. The West’s only condition was that Bashar al-Assad would not be part of the solution, even proposing to Moscow that they would be willing to allow the Syrian president to pick a successor of his own choosing.
When the Russians – after extensive discussions with their allies – told Washington that it was difficult to accept such a condition, the West turned to Plan B, which was to raise the level of military support for the opposition and reorganize the armed groups fighting against the regime, allowing Saudi Arabia to take the lead in mobilizing them to up the ante on Damascus.
The goal was to squeeze Assad by launching major offensives from both the north and the south of the country, in addition to wreaking havoc on Hezbollah on its home ground and providing more appealing incentives for Syrian army officers to defect.
In the meantime, the regime and its allies were already in the process of consolidating military gains on a number of fronts by expanding the area under government control, particularly in the area around Damascus. One such operation was to be launched on the eve of the chemical attack on August 20 against opposition forces to the south and east of the capital.
After the opposition was quickly routed in the north as it tried to sweep through the coastal Latakia region, many of their regional and international backers understood that the only way to bring about a qualitative change on the ground was by drawing the West into a direct foreign military intervention in Syria – but a justification was necessary to prompt Washington to act.
It was for this reason that the “chemical massacre” in the Ghouta area around Damascus was carried out, most likely at the hands of the Saudi and Israeli intelligence. Barely an hour had passed before the orchestrated media campaign to get Assad was in full swing, followed by condemnations and threats from Western capitals.
Washington rushed to cash in on what they insisted was an imminent military attack by sending envoys to both Russia and Iran, giving the two countries a last opportunity to stand down before unleashing their missiles on Syria. But all the sabre-rattling was not enough to force any political concessions – even Assad informed his allies that he had chosen to take a stand.
The Americans tried to respond to this by showing that they were serious about a strike, moving additional naval vessels into the eastern Mediterranean, as well as increasing the number of fighter planes in bases around Syria. But again, Russia and Iran were unmoved, refusing to give Washington any guarantees that its limited strike would not turn into a broader, prolonged war, with devastating consequences for the region as a whole.
They backed their words with action, as Russia, Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah put their forces on high alert, ordering them to make preparations for a military confrontation. Most notably, Hezbollah directed its fighters to return to their bases, as it set up an operations room in coordination with Damascus to make effective use of their combined arsenal of rockets.
The first to buckle was that old hand at such affairs, the United Kingdom, whose parliament gave Prime Minister David Cameron a way out, putting their ally Washington in the uncomfortable position of going it alone. Suddenly, Obama, too, felt the need to consult the American public and seek the approval of their representatives in Congress.
Nevertheless, Obama – having lost the initiative – has but two choices before him: He either retreats and seeks out a political settlement, or enters into a military adventure, whose outcome he cannot control. The results of round one of this global confrontation in Syria provide yet another indicator that the days when the US can call the shots, without regard for the rest of the world, are on their way to becoming a relic of history."
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/full-story-why-obama-backed-down-syria
Great article, McJ
The al-Akhbar magazine comes from Lebanon so I'm guessing the author (also the editor) is getting his information about the diplomatic to-ings and fro-ings from a source within Hezbollah.
It pretty much sums up the position I've been writing about. Though I have some differences regarding the outcome or Obama's options-
"Nevertheless, Obama – having lost the initiative – has but two choices before him: He either retreats and seeks out a political settlement, or enters into a military adventure, whose outcome he cannot control."
And Putin is going to deny both options to him. Obama is not going to 'enter into a military adventure' as I've been saying because he can't afford to be seen as anything but totally dominant. American warships sinking in the Mediterranean (and the Persian Gulf) will kinda dent that image (which they rely on for so much) badly.
Obama is not going to get a diplomatic solution from Russia or Iran except the one the Russians themselves have been advocating i.e. Geneva 11. There will be no face saving for Barry and his Neocon advisors. Putin has said of the Neocons, "They will screw and screw (the US) until they screw up". That time is now and Putin is not about to let them off the hook.
One prediction of the author's that I totally agree with is this-
"The results of round one of this global confrontation in Syria provide yet another indicator that the days when the US can call the shots, without regard for the rest of the world, are on their way to becoming a relic of history."
Russia and Iran have been aware of this for some time. It's now time for the Americans to understand it.
Anyway, good catch, McJ. Thanks
Sick of the lies?
Eloquence in the passion, the
Eloquence in the passion, the outrage. So well said.
I have another video from the same courageous woman. I say 'courageous' because it takes courage to face the truth of your own country and the truth of the psychopathic ethos it runs by. This psychopathic ethos that has destroyed so many countries and is now intent on physically destroying its host country (it destroyed it spiritually long long ago).
This lady's call is nothing less than a call to redemption.
Sick of the Lies? Putin certainly is!
"Speaking to his human rights council, Putin recalled watching a congressional debate where Kerry was asked about al Qaeda. Putin said he had denied that it was operating in Syria, even though he was aware of the al Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra group.
Putin said: "This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them (the Americans) and we assume they are decent people, but he is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad."
What is surprising is that it is all over the MSM in the US. This excerpt comes from CBSnews
Another report this time from Russia - RiaNovosti
And for contrast
to the constant stream of lies, arrogance and megalomania from a war criminal who has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, we have this man-
James for some clarity?
I linked to this piece at my blog
with this intro
*"James@ WinterPatriot wrote a very good piece regarding the Syrian situation. James is confident the attack on Syria will not happen and has put forth a very good article explaining why he holds this opinion.
Definitely worth a read! Thank you James for your insights."*
I described you as being confident. Is this fair or inaccurate?
Trying to present your view of this situation without my influence
If it does not sufficiently or adequately describe how you feel please let me know?
Striving for accuracy.
And while your there, what do you think of Israel in all this?
The joker.
The missile fire yesterday, wondered if it was a test or provocation?
Thanks for the link over,
Thanks for the link over, Pen, and the nice words! Yes, it's fair to say I'm confident. I've held this view for a while now and as events unfold I become even more sure about it all. It seems to me that Putin knows exactly how they think. And more to the point, he knows how to deal with them.
Putin wants all the parties to stop fighting and killing people and to sit down and negotiate a peace settlement. The worst that can happen is that Russia ends up in a shooting match with the US and probably israel, too. And he's prepared for that because ultimately Russia's security is at stake. That is why he is so hard for the US to deal with and why he will prevail (for everybody's benefit).
We are getting so much noise and bluster from Obama Kerry etc and now israel with their firing of the missile in the Mediterranean. It is sort of thing I expect and I'm sure Putin does too. Anything and everything short of an attack. That is why he can remain steadfast in the face of all the dire threats and predictions. And if he remains steadfast at the G20 conference, the US and israel will have to bring the rebels/terrorists to the negotiating table for Geneva 11 or look like the death dealers they all are to everybody. If that happens, they will become international pariahs (more than they are now!) and no one will want to have anything to do with them. The US's power will disappear like like a cloud on a hot day. And israel with it.
The missile firing is part of the bluster and fear-making. No doubt, israel and the US were monitoring how the Russians were monitoring the firing and trying to get some useful info from it. They would have wanted to see how the Syrians reacted as well. And, of course, they will want Russia and Syria to think that it is intelligence gathering to by useful for an upcoming missile strike. But it is bluff. They're trying to rattle Putin before the G20 conference so they can get a concession from him. Putin's past behaviour tells me they won't get it.
I still agree with you
The senate foreign relations committee passed a resolution trying to make this look like a done deal. I don't believe this will ever pass however. The risks are too great
And Russia is now threatening in so many words to sell more advanced weaponry to Iran and others if this happens. It of course would be against international law but possibly his position is if nobody follows international law, why should russia.
votes and threats
Yes, the senate committee vote is pretty meaningless. I believe it was done in an attempt to put pressure on Putin before the G20 meeting. Same goes for the israeli missile firing.
Why would it be against international law to sell more advanced weapons to Iran and others?
S-300s
I keep reading there was some type Un embargo that Russia signed onto via the UN quite some time ago that forbid the S-300 sales to Iran. At any rate Russia held up sending them because of this and I believe Iran has taken it to international court. The S-300 at present (they say) are still sitting in Russia. I do read at times articles indicating that Iran is making their own now. Russia could get irritated and send S400 and S-500 missiles there the way things are going.
It is becoming more and more like the twilight zone. Bela Pelosi says she doesn't think this had to be passed by the senate but she is glad bama went that route. (she doesn't think the constitution matters any more?)
I am truly getting some troll commenters on my site lately!
Thanks Mick
I am truly getting some troll commenters on my site lately!
You must be doing something right, Mick!
China sends 1000 marines to Syrian Coast with ? S-300 China
http://telegrafist.org/2013/09/04/83711/
It seems China is indeed getting involved here. The type naval ships which lead to speculation of the Chinese version of the S-300 missile system. It certainly bolsters your position that there is not going to be a US strike for now anyway.
I had 4 boys show up (one of them under whereiseverybody saying the heb dublin is the only one that comments) at the same time telling me I must be bro krapner's brother, Dublin must be a hebe, how long does it take to get a post on this site, does the hebe want us to send some money, yada yada.
Translation
The hasbara must be in hyperdrive by now
Thanks for the link, Mick. I'll include a translation for others below (although there is no mention of the 1000 marines. Though you would expect an amphibious assault craft sailing so far to be carrying some marines with or without S300 missiles)
If, indeed, this ship is delivering S300 missiles, it makes a certain sense. It is a huge statement to the US and the rest of the world and a huge statement of support for Syria.
From Telegrafist (Russian)
The authors openly admit that the ships would not be how to participate in a potential conflict, and only watch the actions of NATO and Russian ships.
The ships were sent to the coast of Syria is unknown. Meanwhile, the social network vkontakte, with reference to a confidential source has information that the Chinese ship project Jinggangshan was seen when passing through the Red Sea to the Suez Canal.
"2:0 ago the pepelac flew past us toward the Suez Canal. Hull number 999. Speed 14 knots, so have specific guidelines to be at some point. We are now in the Red Sea where the heart, "written by the author.
The trip number has subsequently managed to find out that this is a Chinese amphibious assault ship-dock Jinggangshan, which can carry on board a landing craft air cushion or other oversized cargoes.
We remind that according to several sources in Syria could be the Chinese equivalent of c-300. Meanwhile, officially this information no one has confirmed a Chinese amphibious ships were not observed in the ports of Syria.
source
Russia sends warship with ‘special cargo’ towards Syria
From AlArabiya (quoting AFP, Moscow)
The large landing ship Nikolai Filchenkov will on Friday leave the Ukrainian port city of Sevastopol for the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk, from where it will head to Syria’s coast, the Interfax news agency quoted a source from the Saint Petersburg-based central naval command as saying.
“The ship will make call in Novorossiisk, where it will take on board special cargo and set off for the designated area of its combat duty in the eastern Mediterranean,” the source said.
The source did not specify the nature of the cargo.
Russia has kept a constant presence in the eastern Mediterranean during the Syrian crisis.
In recent days Russia has made steps to beef up its naval grouping in the region.
The Russian destroyer Smetlivy will soon join the group in the region as well as the destroyer Nastoichivy, Interfax has said.
The anti-submarine ship Admiral Panteleyev has already entered its zone of operation as the flagship of the current rotation of the Mediterranean grouping, a military source has told the news agency.
Already in place in the eastern Mediterranean is the frigate Neustrashimy, as well as the landing ships Alexander Shabalin, the Admiral Nevelsky and the Peresvet.
They are expected to be joined by the large landing ships Novocherkassk and Minsk and the missile cruiser Moskva. The reconnaissance ship Priazovye is also on its way to join the group.
The U.S. already has a strong naval presence in the region and any U.S. military action against Syria is widely expected to be launched from the sea.
You've got to wonder what they are anticipating with so many amphibious assault craft.
It seems the Chinese and Russians are using the time that Oboma's referral of the vote to Congress has given them to apply a little pressure of their own.
Can you imagine the panic if the Russian and Chinese marines landed on the beach at Tel Aviv? Or Haifa and followed the IDF into Lebanon sandwiching them with Hezbollah in front of them? And the US standing off at sea just like they did to Poor ole' Georgia?
Just a thought.
H/T to anon commenter at Penny's
Heating up
They certainly are ratcheting up the pressure. I read today that weasel Obomba said it wasn't him that set a 'Red Line' that it was the people of the world and the international community that set the 'Red Line' (or something like that...I can't be bothered to find the link
)
http://www.examiner.com/article/chinese-russian-warships-and-marines-hea...
The RFS Moskva will be joined by a destroyer from Russia’s Baltic fleet and a frigate from the Black Sea fleet.
According to Russia’s Interfax news agency, the battle cruiser Moskva is heading to the Gibraltar Straits, and in approximately 10 days it will enter the east Mediterranean, where it will take command of the Russian ships already on station.
Russia is also sending a reconnaissance ship to the region, which reportedly would operate separately from the main naval flotilla.
As previously covered by Examiner.com on Aug. 25, 2013, the small but growing Russian task force in the eastern Mediterranean waters consist of a guided missile destroyer, the RFS Admiral Panteleyev, two amphibious warfare ships the RFS Peresvet and the RFS Admiral Nevelskoi, complete with approximately 2,000 Russian Marines, as well as a oil tanker and an ocean going tug.
Also cited was yet a third Russian amphibious assault ship with an unknown compliment of Marines as slated to join the fleet.
Between their Marines and Naval Infantry landing troops, the Russians could conceivably land a regiment's worth of combat troops in the region.
China Enters The Possible Fray...
Unconfirmed by Western media, the Russian news aggregate Telagrafist is citing various sources that the Chinese amphibious assault warship, the CNS (Chinese Navy Ship) Jing Gangshan is heading towards the eastern Mediterranean potential powder keg to "observe" American and Russian warships.
However, the Kenyan news portal CoastWeek.com via Google News reported on Aug. 27, 2013 that the Jing Gangshan is currently steaming in the Gulf of Aden pulling pirate escort duty for commercial shipping.t
Unreleased to the Western media, it is unknown if or how many Chinese Marines are embarked aboard the Jing Gangshan, but she is designed to transport upwards of 1,000 Marines and their equipment.
From the Gulf of Aden to the eastern Mediterranean waters takes approximately five days sailing time."
The video below shows the Jing Gangshan warship in action during an exercise earlier this year.
.
Operation, Tip of the Iceberg
I asked in my first comment above why Syria would attack Israel in retaliation for a strike by the US. It was a bit of a rhetorical question as I am aware the Syrians know Israel is behind the war in their country. I did however think it would make more sense for the Syrians to strike back at the US ships that would be firing on them rather than open up another front against Israel. What is not clear to me is if the Syrians have the capability to do that. Can their missiles reach the US fleet? Do they have those S300 or other missiles in place and ready?
As pointed out in the article above that Mick linked there seems to be a suggestion that the Chinese warship may be carrying the Chinese equivalent of these missiles. "We remind that according to several sources in Syria could be the Chinese equivalent of c-300." Will they be delivering them to Syria?
Anyways, in this article from Al Akbhar, Sharmine Narwani explains that if the US attacks Syria; Syria, Iran and Hezbollah will attack Israel with all they have. Which of course will cause mass panic in Israel. And I imagine the average Israeli who buys into their goverment's BS will be in for a big surprise. Question is, what will the Isarelis do? In desperation to save themselves will they choose the Samson option? Negotiate a cease fire, in which case they lose and it is all over for them? ...Hmmmm....
"Informed insiders have confirmed that Syria and Hezbollah plan to retaliate against Israel in the event of an American-led military attack on Syria. Says one: “if even one US missile hits Syria, we will take this battle to Israel.”
An official who spoke to me on the condition that neither his name or affiliation is published, says the decision to retaliate against Israel “has been taken at the highest levels within the Syrian state and Hezbollah.”
...
"Why attack Israel after a US strike?
Israel has been itching for a fight since their 2006 defeat by Hezbollah,” explains an observer close to the Lebanese resistance group. “They have led this campaign to draw the US into a confrontation with Syria because they are worried about being left alone in the region to face Iran. This has become an existential issue for them and they are now ‘leading’ from behind America’s skirts.”
The "Resistance Axis" which consists of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and a smattering of other groups, has long viewed attacks on one of their members as an effort to target them all.
And Israeli aggression against this axis reached a new high in 2013, with missile strikes and airstrikes unseen for many years in the Levant.
Israel has reportedly conducted at least three separate, high profile missile strikes against Syria this year, effectively ending a 40-year ceasefire between the neighboring states. The last overt violation of this uneasy truce was in 2007 when the Jewish state destroyed an alleged nuclear site inside Syria.
Then two weeks ago, Israel launched its first airstrike in Lebanon since the 2006 war, bombing a Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–General Command (PFLP-GC) target in an entirely unprovoked attack. Earlier, four rockets had been launched into Israel from Lebanese territory, but an unrelated Al Qaeda-linked group took credit for that incident.
When asked whether Syrian allies Russia and Iran would participate in retaliatory strikes against Israel or other targets, the official indicated that both countries would back these efforts, but provided no information on whether this support would include direct military engagement."
...
"While Israel plays heavily in the background, by turns provoking and encouraging western military intervention in Syria, it publically denies any role in this business.
Just this week, Israeli President Shimon Peres attempted to distance the Jewish state from events in Syria by insisting: “It is not for Israel to decide on Syria, we are in a unique position, for varying reasons there is a consensus against Israeli involvement. We did not create the Syrian situation.”
He’s right about one thing. Any visible Israeli military intervention in Syria will likely raise the collective ire of Arabs throughout the region. But Peres is being disingenuous in suggesting that Israel hasn’t played a pivotal role in dragging the region to the brink of a dangerous confrontation.
In fact, since its establishment as a state, Israel has possibly never been more motivated to force a military confrontation in the Mideast:
The Arab uprisings, a shift in the global balance of power, increased isolation and the waning influence of Israel’s superpower US ally have all served to remind Israel that it stands increasingly alone in the Mideast in confronting its longtime adversaries - Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and various Palestinian resistance groups.
Before a US exit from the region becomes patently clear to one and all, Israel needs to disarm its foes – and it needs the Americans to do that. For years, the Israeli establishment has regularly threatened military strikes against Iran, in most part attempting to inextricably embroil Washington in this military venture.
Forcing 'red line' narratives into western political discourse – whether it be the use of chemical weapons in Syria or a civilian nuclear program in Iran – has become a clever way to commit allies to an Israeli military agenda."
...
"If ever there was a real 'red line' in the region, this is it. Any "limited” or “broad” military intervention in Syria is simply unacceptable to Syria, Iran, Russia, Hezbollah, China and a whole host of other nations that want to turn the page on US hegemonic aspirations in the region and beyond.
Washington has miscalculated in thinking that an attack in any shape or form would be palatable to its quite incredulous adversaries. They are all intimately familiar with the slippery slope of American interventionism and its myriad unintended consequences.
Israel, in particular, appears to be victim to a false sense of security. Analysts and commentators there seem to think that the lack of a Syrian military response to recent Israeli missile strikes is a trend likely to continue. Or that Hezbollah and Iran would have no 'grounds' to climb aboard a counterattack if Syria were attacked.
But the fact is that, to date, no member of the Resistance Axis has faced a collective western-Israeli-GCC effort to strike a blow at their core. This promised US-plus-allies strike against Syria makes their calculation an easy one: there is nowhere to go but headfirst into the fracas."
...
"This is no different than Libya, Afghanistan or Iraq. Israelis and Americans need to understand that language and behavior threatening 'regime-change' gives their adversaries only one choice: to retaliate with all their capabilities and assets on all fronts. Washington just made this existential. No more games, no more rhetoric. Any strike on Syria will be 'war on.' In US military parlance: a 'full-spectrum operation' will be heading your way. And you can call it Operation "Tip of the Iceberg" out of sheer accuracy, for a change."
Thanks for posting this
Thanks for posting this article, McJ. It is very good. The two paragraphs copied below seem to sum up the situation very well for me-
"Washington has miscalculated in thinking that an attack in any shape or form would be palatable to its quite incredulous adversaries. They are all intimately familiar with the slippery slope of American interventionism and its myriad unintended consequences.
Israel, in particular, appears to be victim to a false sense of security. Analysts and commentators there seem to think that the lack of a Syrian military response to recent Israeli missile strikes is a trend likely to continue. Or that Hezbollah and Iran would have no 'grounds' to climb aboard a counterattack if Syria were attacked.
The US keeps pounding two themes; that Syria used chemical weapons and that the US bombing response will be 'limited' and perhaps symbolic. Whenever psychopaths keep repeating a word, phrase or concept, you can be 100% sure that it is a lie. They are attempting to brainwash you. The US bombing will be anything but limited. History alone tells us this.
The time has come for the "Resistance" powers to confront the bully directly because they know it will be much worse for themselves and everybody else if they don't. It is as simple as that. This has always been the case, of course, but this situation with it's lies and consequences is so 'in your face' that it is impossible for Russia China Iran and Hezbollah to interpret this naked aggression any other way.
These countries in combination are in a unique position to bring America's (and israel's) rampaging to an end and I'm sure they all see that and they will probably never get a better opportunity to do so.
If anyone is in doubt about this, they need to ask themselves, "Why is the US so intent on convincing Russia to stand aside?" "Why do they need Russia to abandon Syria?"
These are simple but serious questions the reader will be well served in asking them self. Write down your answer or answers for yourself if you can. It is an instructive exercise.
Significantly larger attack
The source of this report is JPost.
"Report: US strike on Syria to be 'significantly larger than expected'
Submitted by Bob-45 on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 14:59
in
Peace / War
ABC News: US is planning an aerial strike in addition to a salvo of Tomahawk missiles from Navy destroyers; New York Times: Obama ordered expansion of list of targets following reports Assad moved troops, equipment.
Despite statements from both US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that a US-led strike on Syria would be a "limited and tailored" military attack, ABC News reported on Thursday that the strike planned by Obama's national security team is "significantly larger" than most have anticipated.
According to ABC News, in additional to a salvo of 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from four Navy destroyers stationed in the eastern Mediterranean, the US is also planning an aerial campaign that is expected to last two days.
This campaign potentially includes an aerial bombardment of missiles and long range bombs from US-based B-2 stealth bombers that carry satellite-guided bombs, B-52 bombers, that can carry air-launched cruise missiles and Qatar-based B-1s that carry long-range, air-to-surface missiles, both ABC News and The New York Times reported..
["Syria and her allies response was 'significantly larger than expected, including the complete destruction of Tel Aviv and Haifa, the US Embassy in Baghdad and US forces in Afghanistan and South Korea." (Nah, I made that up.}"
."
"["Syria and her allies
"["Syria and her allies response was 'significantly larger than expected, including the complete destruction of Tel Aviv and Haifa, the US Embassy in Baghdad and US forces in Afghanistan and South Korea." (Nah, I made that up.}"
."
There is much to lose for them in not directly attacking Syria now but there is much more to lose if they do . . . . and they know it. Their hope is to increase the threats short of carrying them out in the hope that one or more of the Resistance countries will buckle. That is what we are seeing.
As Dr Phil might say, "How's that working for you Obomba?"
Haha
Hahaha
"As Dr Phil might say, "How's that working for you Obomba?"
"Well, Dr. Phil to tell ya the truth. It is a bit of a headache."
Anyone else notice how bedraggled Obama looks as opposed to Putin who is the picture of health?
That hole
"It's a strange thing, Doc, but the more I keep digging, the darker it's getting!"
It is strange!
It is strange how that works!
You might even say...
You might even say it is enlightening.
Darkness vs the light
You might even say it is enlightening.
Very profound
It is so nice to see Obomba caught in a double bind of his own making, for a change. I have to wonder if he is more afraid of his handlers and their expectations of him drawing a compromise, any compromise, from Putin than he is of the Russian response.
To make it worse, Obomba is in a parlous position to negotiate because of his own long history of lies. No one can believe him now. He's between a rock and a hard place and perhaps he's about to be squashed if he can't get Putin to save him from his handlers.
Perhaps Obomba could ask the (in)famous oligarch Mikhail Kodorkovsky about the chances of “being let out of jail” by Putin.
Gotta love this move
Ya just gotta love this move by the Russians.
"In what may well prove to be one of the greatest moves since the days of the great Russian chess masters, Sergey Lavrov has beaten the imperialists at their own game. That was a brilliant move on behalf of Syria and Russia, as a direct response to Kerry's "off hand" remark, who issued a challenge saying that if Syria were to surrender her entire chemical weapons stockpile to the UN for int'l control and oversight, then this whole thing could be avoided. No sooner did that come out of his mouth, (there were White House officials already contradicting Kerry) then Russia proposed the very same thing to Syria which Syria then accepted. Nicely played Mr. Lavrov, my hat goes off to you.
But then again, this doesn't mean Syria will not be attacked. Kerry just screwed up because this war was never about chemical weapons in the first place." ~ Aden Abdullahi
http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-chemical-attack-israel-618/
"A chemical attack may be launched on Israel by Syrian rebels from government-controlled territories as a "major provocation," multiple sources told RT.
The report comes as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov proposed that Syria puts its chemical weapons arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction in order to prevent a possible military strike against the war-torn country.
Moscow also urged Syrian authorities to join the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The offer has already been passed over to Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem, who met Lavrov in Moscow for talks on Monday.
“We don’t know if Syria will accept the offer, but if imposing international control over chemical weapons stored in the country can help to avoid military strikes, we are immediately going to start working with Damascus,” Lavrov said.
The Syrian Foreign Ministry has welcomed Moscow's initiative, “based on the Syrian’s government care about the lives of our people and security of our country,” Muallem said later on Monday.
Meanwhile, US National Security Adviser Susan Rice made a statement saying that Damascus' alleged "use of chemical weapons against its own people" posed a threat to US national security. “The use of chemical weapons also directly threatens our closest ally in the region, Israel,” she said, speaking at the New America Foundation in Washington.
"The use of chemical weapons also directly threatens our closest ally in the region, Israel." —@AmbassadorRice on #Syria
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 9, 2013
The statement was made shortly after RT published a report about the possibility of a chemical provocation.
A few hours earlier, US Secretary of State John Kerry said that to avoid a military operation, Syrian President Bashar Assad has a week to surrender control of “every single bit” of his stock of chemical weapons to the international community. “But he isn't about to do it and it can't be done,” he added, speaking at a media conference in London as he wrapped up his European tour in a move to garner support for the Obama-proposed “limited” strike against Syria.
The US Administration has blamed the Syrian government for the alleged chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. Washington has maintained it has the intelligence to prove it, but has so far refused to make public a single piece of concrete evidence that would link the Assad regime to the deadly incident.
On Sunday, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee released a series of 13 videos showing what is purported to be proof of chemical weapons use in Syria. The disturbing images of the victims of the alleged attack were earlier shown during a closed-door briefing to a group of senators, as Obama is trying to get authorization from Congress for the military strike on Syria. The administration told senators that the authenticity of the videos was verified by the intelligence community, reported CNN, which first aired the graphic material.
The videos depict scenes of convulsing children, men vomiting and struggling to breathe, and also what appeared to be dozens of dead bodies wrapped up in white sheets, lying side by side. But the footage still does not provide an answer to the question of who was behind the attack. The Syrian government and the opposition forces point the finger of blame at each other.
It also remains unclear as to why exactly President Assad would order a chemical attack at a time when a group of UN experts were carrying out an investigation in the country.
There is proof the footage of the alleged chemical attack in Syria was fabricated, Mother Agnes Mariam el-Salib, mother superior of the St. James Monastery in Qara, Syria, told RT. She added that she plans to submit her findings to the UN. "
Hahahahah :)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/09/us-syria-crisis-kerry-lavrov-i...
"(Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov his comments about Syria averting a U.S. military strike by turning over its chemical weapons within a week were rhetorical and not meant to be a proposal, a senior U.S. Official said on Monday.
Kerry also voiced "serious skepticism" when Lavrov offered to explore the idea, saying that the United States would take a look at any serious proposal, but this could not be a reason to slow the White House's efforts to secure congressional authorization to use force against Syria, the official told reporters traveling back from London with Kerry."
Checkmate
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/deal-or-no-deal-john-kerrys-...
"When it comes to diplomacy, Russia is playing chess, Syria is playing checkers and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is playing tiddlywinks. On Monday, Kerry said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could avoid having his country bombed into oblivion by turning over "every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week." Of course Kerry just assumed that Assad would never do such a thing, but the Russians immediately pounced on his statement. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov quickly announced that Russia would encourage Syria to turn over their chemical weapons to international control in exchange for a guarantee that the U.S. will not attack, and subsequently Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem stated that his government was prepared for "full cooperation with Russia to remove any pretext for aggression." Later on Monday, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon indicated that he is thinking about asking the UN Security Council to support such a deal.
Do you know what they call such a move in chess?
Checkmate."
In hindsight
I have always thought winter patriot had very good insight. He was right you see on calling off the Syria strike for now. Many are taking credit for this but are way behind this site. I don't say this because I (agreed
)
James at one time was truly convinced I was the worst disinfo trash artist because I post on the nefilim. I can understand that. I however try and fill in blanks that the mainstream leaves out. It can be strange at times. When you discuss it you will be pegged as a forerunner for project blue beam etc etc.
At any rate this site pegged there will be no strike on Syria way ahead of others. The logistics, you know, does not only entail what they are saying but why are they saying it. Something to keep in mind and a great credit to this site for pointing this out.
Thanks again, Mick
You have made my day!
But that was early days.
I had my differences with you way back, I admit, and I was probably a bit of a smart-arse about it a couple of times
BTW, I need to point out that this is a community site with other bloggers here apart from myself. One of them, of course, is Winter Patriot himself (aka WP or Winter). So we are separate people. It's a little confusing, I know.
Just noticed this
Yes I will send you an email.
Post new comment