3 sept 2013
Phosphorous shell explosion used against civilians during 2008 war on Gaza
Israeli writer wondered "why the world did not raise a finger when Israel used weapons prohibited by international law -white phosphorous and flechette rounds- against a civilian population in Gaza, and cluster munitions in Lebanon, while wanting to attack Syria fir using the same weapons!" Gideon Levy also wondered in his article published in Haaretz newspaper "What would happen If Israel were to use chemical weapons? Would the United States also say to attack it? And what would happen if the United States itself used such measures?"
In his attempt to highlight the international double-standard policy, he said "few words are needed to describe the weapons of mass destruction used by the United States, from the nuclear bombs in Japan to napalm in Vietnam,"
"…no one can seriously think that an American attack on the President Bashar Assad regime stems from moral considerations," he added.
The writer thought that "most Israelis who support an attack – 67 percent, according to a survey by the daily Israel Hayom – are out motivated by concern for the well-being of Syria’s citizens; the guiding principle is completely foreign: Strike the Arabs; it doesn’t matter why, it just matters how much – a lot," the writer clarified.
He believed that United States can never be a moral superpower "the country responsible for the most bloodshed since World War II – some say as many as 8 million dead at its hands – in Southeast Asia, South America, Afghanistan and Iraq – cannot be considered a “moral power,”
"Neither can the country in which a quarter of the world’s prisoners are incarcerated; where the percentage of prisoners is greater than in China and Russia; and where 1,342 people have been executed since 1976," he said.
"The attack on its way will be Iraq II. The United States - which was never punished for the lies of Iraq I and the hundreds of thousands who died in vain in that war - says a similar war should be launched. Once again without a smoking gun, with only partial evidence, and with red lines that President Barack Obama himself drew, and now he is obliged to keep his word…"
Israeli writer wondered "why the world did not raise a finger when Israel used weapons prohibited by international law -white phosphorous and flechette rounds- against a civilian population in Gaza, and cluster munitions in Lebanon, while wanting to attack Syria fir using the same weapons!" Gideon Levy also wondered in his article published in Haaretz newspaper "What would happen If Israel were to use chemical weapons? Would the United States also say to attack it? And what would happen if the United States itself used such measures?"
In his attempt to highlight the international double-standard policy, he said "few words are needed to describe the weapons of mass destruction used by the United States, from the nuclear bombs in Japan to napalm in Vietnam,"
"…no one can seriously think that an American attack on the President Bashar Assad regime stems from moral considerations," he added.
The writer thought that "most Israelis who support an attack – 67 percent, according to a survey by the daily Israel Hayom – are out motivated by concern for the well-being of Syria’s citizens; the guiding principle is completely foreign: Strike the Arabs; it doesn’t matter why, it just matters how much – a lot," the writer clarified.
He believed that United States can never be a moral superpower "the country responsible for the most bloodshed since World War II – some say as many as 8 million dead at its hands – in Southeast Asia, South America, Afghanistan and Iraq – cannot be considered a “moral power,”
"Neither can the country in which a quarter of the world’s prisoners are incarcerated; where the percentage of prisoners is greater than in China and Russia; and where 1,342 people have been executed since 1976," he said.
"The attack on its way will be Iraq II. The United States - which was never punished for the lies of Iraq I and the hundreds of thousands who died in vain in that war - says a similar war should be launched. Once again without a smoking gun, with only partial evidence, and with red lines that President Barack Obama himself drew, and now he is obliged to keep his word…"
Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reached an agreement late Tuesday on wording of a new resolution authorizing U.S. military force against the Syrian government.
The resolution would permit up to 90 days of military action against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, beginning with 60 days and the option of 30 more pending President Obama’s notification of Congress, according to a copy of the resolution provided by Senate aides.
The resolution also bars the deployment of U.S. combat troops into Syria, but would permit the deployment of a small rescue mission, in the event of an emergency, the aides said.
Obama also would be required within 30 days of enactment of the resolution to send Congress a plan for a diplomatic solution to end the violence in Syria, according to a senior Senate aide familiar with the agreement.
The committee is expected to begin debating the new resolution Wednesday and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is expected to schedule a vote for early next week, aides said.
The resolution would permit up to 90 days of military action against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, beginning with 60 days and the option of 30 more pending President Obama’s notification of Congress, according to a copy of the resolution provided by Senate aides.
The resolution also bars the deployment of U.S. combat troops into Syria, but would permit the deployment of a small rescue mission, in the event of an emergency, the aides said.
Obama also would be required within 30 days of enactment of the resolution to send Congress a plan for a diplomatic solution to end the violence in Syria, according to a senior Senate aide familiar with the agreement.
The committee is expected to begin debating the new resolution Wednesday and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is expected to schedule a vote for early next week, aides said.
News links Syria
Kerry presses lawmakers on Syria war
Israel, US give conflicting accounts of ballistic missile
Kerry presses lawmakers on Syria war
Israel, US give conflicting accounts of ballistic missile
Hamas movement announced on Tuesday that it was against any military strike against Syria or any other Arab country. Hamas said, in a statement commenting on military threats against Syria, that it has condemned and still is condemning the “brutal massacres” against the Syrian people over the past two and a half years especially the latest chemical attack in Ghouta.
Hamas affirmed its unwavering support for the Syrian people and their right to live in dignity and freedom, yet it was adamant on its principled position of rejecting any aggression or foreign military intervention against Syria or any Arab or Islamic country.
Hamas affirmed its unwavering support for the Syrian people and their right to live in dignity and freedom, yet it was adamant on its principled position of rejecting any aggression or foreign military intervention against Syria or any Arab or Islamic country.
Debbie Wasserman Shultz is the only Member of Congress I ever met who doesn’t just mouth AIPAC talking points. She says where they came from. I was talking with her about the situation on the West Bank and she cut me off, “Don’t bother. I’m AIPAC.”
Give her credit. There were rich donors to her campaign in the room (the non-AIPAC kind) and she dismissed them. “I’m AIPAC.”
It kind of explains this. After shocking Wolf Blitzer with the news that “dozens of countries” will support a US strike on Syria, she has no answer when he asks her to name one.
I guess AIPAC forgot to attach the second page to her script. Oh well. By the way, AIPAC’s Debbie is head of the Democratic National Committee.
What a tool
DNC Chair Says ‘Dozens Of Countries’ Ready To Support U.S. Action In Syria
Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) said Monday that "dozens of countries" will support the United States in carrying out a military strike against Syria.
Asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer which countries would use their own military power to attack Syrian targets, Schultz said she was "not at liberty to say."
"What I can tell you is that there are many nations who have committed to support the United States in our action," she told Blitzer, as quoted by CNN. "In both military and diplomatic and political support, there are dozens of nations who have committed to back us up. That's what I'm at liberty to say."
While French President Francois Hollande has said his country is "ready to punish" Syria over its use of chemical weapons, other nations have not committed to military intervention or are opposed to it. The British parliament rejected military action last week despite strong support for a strike from Prime Minister David Cameron, and Russian President Vladmir Putin, a strong ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, called the idea that the Assad regime would have used chemical weapons "utter nonsense."
Give her credit. There were rich donors to her campaign in the room (the non-AIPAC kind) and she dismissed them. “I’m AIPAC.”
It kind of explains this. After shocking Wolf Blitzer with the news that “dozens of countries” will support a US strike on Syria, she has no answer when he asks her to name one.
I guess AIPAC forgot to attach the second page to her script. Oh well. By the way, AIPAC’s Debbie is head of the Democratic National Committee.
What a tool
DNC Chair Says ‘Dozens Of Countries’ Ready To Support U.S. Action In Syria
Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) said Monday that "dozens of countries" will support the United States in carrying out a military strike against Syria.
Asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer which countries would use their own military power to attack Syrian targets, Schultz said she was "not at liberty to say."
"What I can tell you is that there are many nations who have committed to support the United States in our action," she told Blitzer, as quoted by CNN. "In both military and diplomatic and political support, there are dozens of nations who have committed to back us up. That's what I'm at liberty to say."
While French President Francois Hollande has said his country is "ready to punish" Syria over its use of chemical weapons, other nations have not committed to military intervention or are opposed to it. The British parliament rejected military action last week despite strong support for a strike from Prime Minister David Cameron, and Russian President Vladmir Putin, a strong ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, called the idea that the Assad regime would have used chemical weapons "utter nonsense."
Russia reports detection of missile launch forcing Israel to admit it tested Anchor target missile together with US; test declared a success
Shortly after Russia announced it detected the launch of two ballistic missiles from the central part of the Mediterranean, Israel's Defense Ministry issued a statement saying it successfully tested an Anchor target missile.
The missile is part of Israel's Hetz anti-missile system. The test was carried out with the US Missile Defense Agency.
Russia's report said the launch was detected at 9:16 am Israel time while the Defense Ministry statement said the test took place at 9:15 am. It was further stated that the test was successful and was conducted in the Mediterranean from Air Force field in central Israel.
Also Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned against attacking the State of Israel. "The reality around us is changing. I want to say to anyone who wants to harm us – it is not advisable."
During the inauguration of a hi-tech park in Beersheba, he added, "Security is among things used to prevent overflow of the Negev with terrorists and infiltrators. We need to ensure our borders."
Earlier on Tuesday, Russian news agencies quoted the Defense Ministry as saying that Russian radar detected the launch of two ballistic "objects" towards the eastern Mediterranean from the central part of the sea.
Interfax news agency quoted a ministry spokesman as saying the launch was detected at 10:16 am Moscow time (0616 GMT) by an early warning radar station at Armavir, near the Black Sea, which is designed to detect missiles from Europe and Iran.
The agencies did not say who had carried out the launch and whether any impact had been detected. The ministry declined comment to Reuters.
Syrian state sources said the missiles had fallen harmlessly into the sea and there were no no signs of a missile attack or explosions in Damascus on Tuesday, Itar-Tass news agency said.
Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu had informed President Vladimir Putin of the launch.
"The trajectory of these objects goes from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea toward the eastern part of the Mediterranean coast," Interfax quoted the spokesman as saying. According to state-run Russian news agency RIA, which cited a source in Damascus, both missiles fell into the sea.
A ministry official had earlier criticized the United States for deploying warships in the Mediterranean close to Syria.
Shortly after Russia announced it detected the launch of two ballistic missiles from the central part of the Mediterranean, Israel's Defense Ministry issued a statement saying it successfully tested an Anchor target missile.
The missile is part of Israel's Hetz anti-missile system. The test was carried out with the US Missile Defense Agency.
Russia's report said the launch was detected at 9:16 am Israel time while the Defense Ministry statement said the test took place at 9:15 am. It was further stated that the test was successful and was conducted in the Mediterranean from Air Force field in central Israel.
Also Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned against attacking the State of Israel. "The reality around us is changing. I want to say to anyone who wants to harm us – it is not advisable."
During the inauguration of a hi-tech park in Beersheba, he added, "Security is among things used to prevent overflow of the Negev with terrorists and infiltrators. We need to ensure our borders."
Earlier on Tuesday, Russian news agencies quoted the Defense Ministry as saying that Russian radar detected the launch of two ballistic "objects" towards the eastern Mediterranean from the central part of the sea.
Interfax news agency quoted a ministry spokesman as saying the launch was detected at 10:16 am Moscow time (0616 GMT) by an early warning radar station at Armavir, near the Black Sea, which is designed to detect missiles from Europe and Iran.
The agencies did not say who had carried out the launch and whether any impact had been detected. The ministry declined comment to Reuters.
Syrian state sources said the missiles had fallen harmlessly into the sea and there were no no signs of a missile attack or explosions in Damascus on Tuesday, Itar-Tass news agency said.
Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu had informed President Vladimir Putin of the launch.
"The trajectory of these objects goes from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea toward the eastern part of the Mediterranean coast," Interfax quoted the spokesman as saying. According to state-run Russian news agency RIA, which cited a source in Damascus, both missiles fell into the sea.
A ministry official had earlier criticized the United States for deploying warships in the Mediterranean close to Syria.
Russia’s early warning radars detected the launch of two ballistic rockets in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, Russia’s Defense Ministry stated. Israel later claimed responsibility for firing the target test rockets.
The launch took place at 06:16 GMT Tuesday, according to Russia's Ministry of Defense.
The trajectory of the missiles is reported to have been from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea towards the eastern landmass. Both rockets have allegedly fallen into the sea, RIA Novosti news agency reported.
Russia’s President Putin has already been informed about the incident by Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu.
The Syrian embassy in Moscow currently has no information on the incident.
There were no rocket attack signals or blasts in Damascus, the Russian embassy in Syria noted.
Syria’s missile warning system has not detected any rockets landing on their territory, a Syrian security source told Lebanese channel al-Manar TV.
The Israeli military apparently have no data on the launch either. The UK has stressed that they “have nothing to do" with the launch.
No American ships or planes stationed in the Mediterranean have launched any missiles, US officials told CBS News.
A NATO spokesman said the alliance was trying to verify the reports. Until then, the bloc will not comment on the incident.
Armavir, an early warning system against missile attack, is situated in southern Russia. It is run by the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces. They provide radar coverage of the Middle East. There are two radars there, with one of them facing southwest and the other southeast.
The launch took place at 06:16 GMT Tuesday, according to Russia's Ministry of Defense.
The trajectory of the missiles is reported to have been from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea towards the eastern landmass. Both rockets have allegedly fallen into the sea, RIA Novosti news agency reported.
Russia’s President Putin has already been informed about the incident by Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu.
The Syrian embassy in Moscow currently has no information on the incident.
There were no rocket attack signals or blasts in Damascus, the Russian embassy in Syria noted.
Syria’s missile warning system has not detected any rockets landing on their territory, a Syrian security source told Lebanese channel al-Manar TV.
The Israeli military apparently have no data on the launch either. The UK has stressed that they “have nothing to do" with the launch.
No American ships or planes stationed in the Mediterranean have launched any missiles, US officials told CBS News.
A NATO spokesman said the alliance was trying to verify the reports. Until then, the bloc will not comment on the incident.
Armavir, an early warning system against missile attack, is situated in southern Russia. It is run by the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces. They provide radar coverage of the Middle East. There are two radars there, with one of them facing southwest and the other southeast.
The Russian Defense Ministry says it has detected two ballistic “objects” fired toward the eastern part of the Mediterranean from the sea’s central part, Russia’s Ria Novosti reports.
The Russian news agency reported, however, that the objects detected by Russian radars have fallen into the sea.
Meanwhile, a Syrian security source said that Syria’s early warning radars did not detect any missiles.
The Russian embassy in Syria also said there are no signs of a missile attack in the Syrian capital, Damascus.
The Russian news agency reported, however, that the objects detected by Russian radars have fallen into the sea.
Meanwhile, a Syrian security source said that Syria’s early warning radars did not detect any missiles.
The Russian embassy in Syria also said there are no signs of a missile attack in the Syrian capital, Damascus.
2 sept 2013
A massive US and allied naval deployment is occurring in the Eastern Mediterranean off Syria’s coastline as well as in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.
While this display of military might may not be part of an immediate attack plan on Syria, it is creating an atmosphere of fear and panic within Syria.
The US Navy has deployed the USS San Antonio, an amphibious transport ship to the Eastern Mediterranean. The San Antonio is joining five US destroyers which “are already in place for possible missile strikes on Syria, a defense official said Sunday.”
The USS San Antonio, with several helicopters and hundreds of Marines on board, is “on station in the Eastern Mediterranean” but “has received no specific tasking,” said the defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. US Navy deploys five warships, one amphibious ship to Mediterranean for Syria
While the USS San Antonio has amphibious landing equipment, which can be used to land some six thousand sailors and marines, “no boots on the ground”, however, remains the official motto.
So why then has the US deployed its most advanced amphibious landing ship? The reports suggest that this is routine and there are no attack plans:
“No amphibious landing is in the works, however, as President Barack Obama has ruled out any “boots on the ground” (Ibid)
While this display of military might may not be part of an immediate attack plan on Syria, it is creating an atmosphere of fear and panic within Syria.
The US Navy has deployed the USS San Antonio, an amphibious transport ship to the Eastern Mediterranean. The San Antonio is joining five US destroyers which “are already in place for possible missile strikes on Syria, a defense official said Sunday.”
The USS San Antonio, with several helicopters and hundreds of Marines on board, is “on station in the Eastern Mediterranean” but “has received no specific tasking,” said the defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. US Navy deploys five warships, one amphibious ship to Mediterranean for Syria
While the USS San Antonio has amphibious landing equipment, which can be used to land some six thousand sailors and marines, “no boots on the ground”, however, remains the official motto.
So why then has the US deployed its most advanced amphibious landing ship? The reports suggest that this is routine and there are no attack plans:
“No amphibious landing is in the works, however, as President Barack Obama has ruled out any “boots on the ground” (Ibid)
USS San Antonio
There are currently five destroyers off the coast of Syria: the USS Stout, Mahan, Ramage, Barry and Graveley, not to mention the San Antonio amphibious landing vessel.
The destroyers are equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles which “are ready to fire … if Obama gives the order.”
On 28 August the U.S. Navy announced the deployment of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Stout en route to join four other destroyers “amid allegations that the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against civilians on August 21″.
In a not unusual twist, this deployment of US and allied naval forces preceded the chemical weapons attack which is being blamed on president Bashar al Assad.
According to Naval records, the guided missile destroyer USS Stout (DDG 55) departed Naval Station Norfolk, Va. on August 18, 2013, “for deployment to the U.S. 6th Fleet area of responsibility” (see image below upon its departure in Norfolk on August 18).
The USS Ramage destroyer left Naval Station Norfolk on August 13 for the Eastern Mediterranean, “to relieve the Mahan”.
Yet in fact what was decided was to deploy all five destroyers along the Syrian coastline. This decision was taken by the Pentagon well in advance of the chemical attacks of August 21, which constitute Obama’s pretext to intervene on humanitarian grounds.
The amphibious transport dock San Antonio, carrying elements of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, has joined the five Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, a defense official confirmed [August 30].
“No specific tasking has been received at this point,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The San Antonio is being kept in the sea as a prudent decision should ship capabilities be required.”
The five destroyers positioned near Syria are the: Barry, Gravely, Mahan, Ramage and Stout.
The Navy had been operating with three destroyers in the Med, and the Ramage and Stout were expected to replace Mahan and Gravely, respectively, when they arrived there this month. But officials decided to keep all five in place as the U.S. weighs an attack. Each destroyer is capable of carrying up to 90 Tomahawk cruise missiles, although they usually have fewer on hand during deployment. marinecorpstimes.com, August 30, 2013
There are currently five destroyers off the coast of Syria: the USS Stout, Mahan, Ramage, Barry and Graveley, not to mention the San Antonio amphibious landing vessel.
The destroyers are equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles which “are ready to fire … if Obama gives the order.”
On 28 August the U.S. Navy announced the deployment of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Stout en route to join four other destroyers “amid allegations that the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against civilians on August 21″.
In a not unusual twist, this deployment of US and allied naval forces preceded the chemical weapons attack which is being blamed on president Bashar al Assad.
According to Naval records, the guided missile destroyer USS Stout (DDG 55) departed Naval Station Norfolk, Va. on August 18, 2013, “for deployment to the U.S. 6th Fleet area of responsibility” (see image below upon its departure in Norfolk on August 18).
The USS Ramage destroyer left Naval Station Norfolk on August 13 for the Eastern Mediterranean, “to relieve the Mahan”.
Yet in fact what was decided was to deploy all five destroyers along the Syrian coastline. This decision was taken by the Pentagon well in advance of the chemical attacks of August 21, which constitute Obama’s pretext to intervene on humanitarian grounds.
The amphibious transport dock San Antonio, carrying elements of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, has joined the five Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, a defense official confirmed [August 30].
“No specific tasking has been received at this point,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The San Antonio is being kept in the sea as a prudent decision should ship capabilities be required.”
The five destroyers positioned near Syria are the: Barry, Gravely, Mahan, Ramage and Stout.
The Navy had been operating with three destroyers in the Med, and the Ramage and Stout were expected to replace Mahan and Gravely, respectively, when they arrived there this month. But officials decided to keep all five in place as the U.S. weighs an attack. Each destroyer is capable of carrying up to 90 Tomahawk cruise missiles, although they usually have fewer on hand during deployment. marinecorpstimes.com, August 30, 2013
USS Stout leaving Norfolk on August 18. USS Stout was used as part of Operation Odyssey Dawn in the 2011 US-NATO war on Libya.
This massive naval deployment which also includes strategic submarines was ordered prior to the tragic event of August 21, which begs the question:
If the chemical weapons attack is a justification for intervening, why was the order to launch an R2P “humanitarian” naval operation against Syria decided upon “Prior” to August 21?
Was there advanced knowledge or intelligence regarding the timing and occurrence of the 21 August Chemical Weapons attack?
A strike against Syria in the immediate short-term is unlikely. Obama announced on August 31st that he would seek formal approval of the US Congress, which reconvenes on September 9.
With independent news reports providing firm evidence that the US sponsored Al Qaeda rebels (recruited and trained by Allied Special Forces) have chemical weapons in their possession, this delay does not favor the president’s political credibility.
This massive naval deployment which also includes strategic submarines was ordered prior to the tragic event of August 21, which begs the question:
If the chemical weapons attack is a justification for intervening, why was the order to launch an R2P “humanitarian” naval operation against Syria decided upon “Prior” to August 21?
Was there advanced knowledge or intelligence regarding the timing and occurrence of the 21 August Chemical Weapons attack?
A strike against Syria in the immediate short-term is unlikely. Obama announced on August 31st that he would seek formal approval of the US Congress, which reconvenes on September 9.
With independent news reports providing firm evidence that the US sponsored Al Qaeda rebels (recruited and trained by Allied Special Forces) have chemical weapons in their possession, this delay does not favor the president’s political credibility.
Moreover, there is evidence that the US sponsored rebels used chemical weapons against civilians. (see image right) In providing those chemical weapons to al Qaeda “rebels”, the US-NATO-Israel alliance is in violation of international law, not to mention their own anti-terrorist legislation.
Overtly supporting Al Qaeda has become the “New Normal”.
When the various pieces of evidence are put together, the picture which emerges is that of a covert “flag flag operation” carried out by the US sponsored “rebels” and special forces, intent upon blaming president Bashar Al Assad for killing his own people. As mentioned above, the naval deployment was decided upon ex ante, before the 21 August chemical Weapons attack.
This diabolical false flag attack which consists in killing civilians and blaming the Syrian government constitutes the justification for military intervention on “humanitarian grounds”.
The US and its allies are still in the process of deploying their naval forces off the Syrian coastline.
The Pentagon has confirmed that aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and its carrier strike group has moved into the Red Sea from the Indian Ocean, but, according to official statements, “it has not been given orders to be part of the planning for a limited U.S. military strike on Syria”
“The official said the carrier strike group has not been assigned a mission and the move to the Red Sea was a prudent move in case its resources are needed to “maximize available options”.
The other ships in the USS Nimitz strike group are: USS Princeton and three destroyers: USS William P. Lawrence, USS Stockdale and USS Shoup.
Overtly supporting Al Qaeda has become the “New Normal”.
When the various pieces of evidence are put together, the picture which emerges is that of a covert “flag flag operation” carried out by the US sponsored “rebels” and special forces, intent upon blaming president Bashar Al Assad for killing his own people. As mentioned above, the naval deployment was decided upon ex ante, before the 21 August chemical Weapons attack.
This diabolical false flag attack which consists in killing civilians and blaming the Syrian government constitutes the justification for military intervention on “humanitarian grounds”.
The US and its allies are still in the process of deploying their naval forces off the Syrian coastline.
The Pentagon has confirmed that aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and its carrier strike group has moved into the Red Sea from the Indian Ocean, but, according to official statements, “it has not been given orders to be part of the planning for a limited U.S. military strike on Syria”
“The official said the carrier strike group has not been assigned a mission and the move to the Red Sea was a prudent move in case its resources are needed to “maximize available options”.
The other ships in the USS Nimitz strike group are: USS Princeton and three destroyers: USS William P. Lawrence, USS Stockdale and USS Shoup.
USS Nimitz
Latest reports are that The USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier and strike group is in the northern Arabian Sea.
Meanwhile reports confirm that France has dispatched its anti-air warfare frigate “Chevalier Paul” to the eastern Mediterranean.
The French warship is joining the flotilla of US and British warships “including US navy destroyers and British and American submarines, which are armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles.”
Syria is being portrayed in the French media as the aggressor:
The Chevalier Paul vessel is one of France’s “most up-to-date destroyers of the Horizon-class, …[ it ] will be “extremely useful” if Syria decides to launch its air attacks against the international flotilla.”
Nuclear-powered French aircraft carrier the Charles de Gaulle remains in dock at the southern French naval port Toulon, according to news agencies.”
Russian Warships to the Syrian Coastline
A critical situation is unfolding:
Moscow has announced that is also sending two warships to the Eastern Mediterranean to reinforce its naval strength which operates out of Russia’s naval base at the port of Tartus in Southern Syria.
The agency quoted a source in the armed forces’ general staff as saying an anti-submarine vessel and a missile cruiser would be sent in the coming days because the situation “required us to make some adjustments” in the naval force. French and Russian warships ‘head for Syria’ – SYRIA – FRANCE 24
Syria’s Air Defense System
The Russian built S-300 is functional. The deployment of the S-300 Surface to Air Missile system in Syria has been on the drawing board of the Russian Ministry of Defense since 2006.
Latest reports are that The USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier and strike group is in the northern Arabian Sea.
Meanwhile reports confirm that France has dispatched its anti-air warfare frigate “Chevalier Paul” to the eastern Mediterranean.
The French warship is joining the flotilla of US and British warships “including US navy destroyers and British and American submarines, which are armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles.”
Syria is being portrayed in the French media as the aggressor:
The Chevalier Paul vessel is one of France’s “most up-to-date destroyers of the Horizon-class, …[ it ] will be “extremely useful” if Syria decides to launch its air attacks against the international flotilla.”
Nuclear-powered French aircraft carrier the Charles de Gaulle remains in dock at the southern French naval port Toulon, according to news agencies.”
Russian Warships to the Syrian Coastline
A critical situation is unfolding:
Moscow has announced that is also sending two warships to the Eastern Mediterranean to reinforce its naval strength which operates out of Russia’s naval base at the port of Tartus in Southern Syria.
The agency quoted a source in the armed forces’ general staff as saying an anti-submarine vessel and a missile cruiser would be sent in the coming days because the situation “required us to make some adjustments” in the naval force. French and Russian warships ‘head for Syria’ – SYRIA – FRANCE 24
Syria’s Air Defense System
The Russian built S-300 is functional. The deployment of the S-300 Surface to Air Missile system in Syria has been on the drawing board of the Russian Ministry of Defense since 2006.
Syria also possesses the Pechora-2M air defense system, The Pechora-2M is a sophisticated ground to air multiple target system which can also be used against cruise missiles.
Had this air defense not been in place, the implementation of a US-NATO led “no fly zone” would no doubt have been contemplated at an earlier date.
Had this air defense not been in place, the implementation of a US-NATO led “no fly zone” would no doubt have been contemplated at an earlier date.
The Pechora-2M is a surface-to-air anti-aircraft short-range missile system designed for destruction of aircraft, cruise missiles, assault helicopters and other air targets at ground, low and medium altitudes.
Moreover, in response to the US-allied missile deployments of Patriot missiles in Turkey, Russia delivered advanced Iskander missiles to Syria, which are now fully operational.
The Iskander is described as a surface-to-surface missile system “that no missile defense system can trace or destroy”:
The superior Iskander can travel at hypersonic speed of over 1.3 miles per second (Mach 6-7) and has a range of over 280 miles with pinpoint accuracy of destroying targets with its 1,500-pound warhead, a nightmare for any missile defense system.
Moreover, in response to the US-allied missile deployments of Patriot missiles in Turkey, Russia delivered advanced Iskander missiles to Syria, which are now fully operational.
The Iskander is described as a surface-to-surface missile system “that no missile defense system can trace or destroy”:
The superior Iskander can travel at hypersonic speed of over 1.3 miles per second (Mach 6-7) and has a range of over 280 miles with pinpoint accuracy of destroying targets with its 1,500-pound warhead, a nightmare for any missile defense system.
Iskander Mach 6-7
Concluding Remarks
The World is at a dangerous crossroads.
The US and allied naval deployment in the Eastern Mediterranean with US-NATO warships is contiguous to the deployment of Russian warships out of Russia’ naval base in Tartus.
Syria has an advanced air defense system which will be used in the case of a US sponsored attack. Russian military advisers are assisting Syrian forces.
Syria also has significant ground forces.
Syria has been building up its air defense system with the delivery and installation over the last few years of the Russian S300 system.
History tells us that wars are often triggered unexpectedly as a result of “political mistakes” and human error. The latter are all the more likely within the realm of a divisive and corrupt political system in the US and Western Europe.
US-NATO military planning is overseen by a centralised military hierarchy. Command and Control operations are in theory “coordinated” but in practice they are often marked by human error. Intelligence operatives often function independently and outside the realm of political accountability.
While military planners are acutely aware of the dangers of escalation, civilian politicians responding to dominant economic interests ultimately decide on the launching of a major theater war.
Any form of US-NATO direct military intervention against Syria would destabilize the entire region, potentially leading to escalation over a vast geographical area, extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with Tajikistan and China.
Military planning involves intricate scenarios and war games by both sides including military options pertaining to advanced weapons systems. A Third World War scenario has been contemplated by US-NATO-Israeli military planners since early 2000.
Escalation is an integral part of the military agenda. War preparations to attack Syria and Iran have been in “an advanced state of readiness” for several years.
We are dealing with complex political and strategic decision-making involving the interplay of powerful economic interest groups, the actions of covert intelligence operatives.
In the case of Syria, US intelligence and its Western and Israeli counterparts are supporting an armed insurgency largely integrated by Al Qaeda mercenaries and death squads.
The role of war propaganda is paramount not only in molding public opinion into accepting a war agenda, but also in establishing a consensus within the upper echelons of the decision-making process. A selective form of war propaganda intended for “Top Officials” (TOPOFF) in government agencies, intelligence, the Military, law enforcement, etc. is intended to create an unbending consensus in favor of War and the Police State.
For the war project to go ahead, it is essential that both politicians and military planners are rightfully committed to leading the war “in the name of justice and democracy”. For this to occur, they must firmly believe in their own propaganda, namely that war is “an instrument of peace and democracy”.
They have no concern for the devastating impacts of advanced weapons systems, routinely categorized as “collateral damage”, let alone the meaning and significance of pre-emptive warfare, using nuclear weapons.
I should be noted that the Humanitarian warfare consensus is extremely fragile will large sector of public opinion taking a stance against the war-makers.
Wars are invariably decided upon by civilian leaders and corporate interests rather than by the military. War serves dominant economic interests which operate from behind the scenes, behind closed doors in corporate boardrooms, in the Washington think tanks, etc.
Realities are turned upside down. War is peace. The Lie becomes the Truth.
War propaganda, namely media lies, constitutes the most powerful instrument of warfare.
Without media disinformation, the US-NATO-Israel led war agenda would collapse like a deck of cards. The legitimacy of the war criminals in high office would be broken.
It is therefore essential to disarm not only the mainstream media but also a segment of the self proclaimed “progressive” alternative media, which has provided legitimacy to NATO’s “Responsibility to protect” (R2P) mandate, largely with a view to dismantling the antiwar movement.
The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A war on Iran would involve, as a first step, the destabilization of Syria as a nation state. Military planning pertaining to Syria is an integral part of the war on Iran agenda.
The war on Syria could evolve towards a US-NATO-Israel military campaign directed against Iran, in which Turkey and Israel would be directly involved.
It is crucial to spread the word and break the channels of media disinformation.
A critical and unbiased understanding of what is happening in Syria is of crucial importance in reversing the tide of military escalation towards a broader regional war.
Our objective is ultimately to dismantle the US-NATO-Israeli military arsenal and restore World Peace.
It is essential that people in the US, Canada, UK, France, Italy, Israel, Turkey and around the World prevent this war from occurring.
Updated September 03, 2013
Spread the word. Forward this article. Post it on Facebook.
[part of these concluding remarks was written in August 2012]
Concluding Remarks
The World is at a dangerous crossroads.
The US and allied naval deployment in the Eastern Mediterranean with US-NATO warships is contiguous to the deployment of Russian warships out of Russia’ naval base in Tartus.
Syria has an advanced air defense system which will be used in the case of a US sponsored attack. Russian military advisers are assisting Syrian forces.
Syria also has significant ground forces.
Syria has been building up its air defense system with the delivery and installation over the last few years of the Russian S300 system.
History tells us that wars are often triggered unexpectedly as a result of “political mistakes” and human error. The latter are all the more likely within the realm of a divisive and corrupt political system in the US and Western Europe.
US-NATO military planning is overseen by a centralised military hierarchy. Command and Control operations are in theory “coordinated” but in practice they are often marked by human error. Intelligence operatives often function independently and outside the realm of political accountability.
While military planners are acutely aware of the dangers of escalation, civilian politicians responding to dominant economic interests ultimately decide on the launching of a major theater war.
Any form of US-NATO direct military intervention against Syria would destabilize the entire region, potentially leading to escalation over a vast geographical area, extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with Tajikistan and China.
Military planning involves intricate scenarios and war games by both sides including military options pertaining to advanced weapons systems. A Third World War scenario has been contemplated by US-NATO-Israeli military planners since early 2000.
Escalation is an integral part of the military agenda. War preparations to attack Syria and Iran have been in “an advanced state of readiness” for several years.
We are dealing with complex political and strategic decision-making involving the interplay of powerful economic interest groups, the actions of covert intelligence operatives.
In the case of Syria, US intelligence and its Western and Israeli counterparts are supporting an armed insurgency largely integrated by Al Qaeda mercenaries and death squads.
The role of war propaganda is paramount not only in molding public opinion into accepting a war agenda, but also in establishing a consensus within the upper echelons of the decision-making process. A selective form of war propaganda intended for “Top Officials” (TOPOFF) in government agencies, intelligence, the Military, law enforcement, etc. is intended to create an unbending consensus in favor of War and the Police State.
For the war project to go ahead, it is essential that both politicians and military planners are rightfully committed to leading the war “in the name of justice and democracy”. For this to occur, they must firmly believe in their own propaganda, namely that war is “an instrument of peace and democracy”.
They have no concern for the devastating impacts of advanced weapons systems, routinely categorized as “collateral damage”, let alone the meaning and significance of pre-emptive warfare, using nuclear weapons.
I should be noted that the Humanitarian warfare consensus is extremely fragile will large sector of public opinion taking a stance against the war-makers.
Wars are invariably decided upon by civilian leaders and corporate interests rather than by the military. War serves dominant economic interests which operate from behind the scenes, behind closed doors in corporate boardrooms, in the Washington think tanks, etc.
Realities are turned upside down. War is peace. The Lie becomes the Truth.
War propaganda, namely media lies, constitutes the most powerful instrument of warfare.
Without media disinformation, the US-NATO-Israel led war agenda would collapse like a deck of cards. The legitimacy of the war criminals in high office would be broken.
It is therefore essential to disarm not only the mainstream media but also a segment of the self proclaimed “progressive” alternative media, which has provided legitimacy to NATO’s “Responsibility to protect” (R2P) mandate, largely with a view to dismantling the antiwar movement.
The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A war on Iran would involve, as a first step, the destabilization of Syria as a nation state. Military planning pertaining to Syria is an integral part of the war on Iran agenda.
The war on Syria could evolve towards a US-NATO-Israel military campaign directed against Iran, in which Turkey and Israel would be directly involved.
It is crucial to spread the word and break the channels of media disinformation.
A critical and unbiased understanding of what is happening in Syria is of crucial importance in reversing the tide of military escalation towards a broader regional war.
Our objective is ultimately to dismantle the US-NATO-Israeli military arsenal and restore World Peace.
It is essential that people in the US, Canada, UK, France, Italy, Israel, Turkey and around the World prevent this war from occurring.
Updated September 03, 2013
Spread the word. Forward this article. Post it on Facebook.
[part of these concluding remarks was written in August 2012]
Aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) in the Arabian Sea, seen in an Aug. 29, 2013 US Navy handout image
The USS Nimitz aircraft carrier is moving westward toward the Red Sea, although it has not yet received orders to support a potential US strike on Syria, ABC News reported Monday.
The Nimitz carrier strike group, which includes a guided missile cruiser and four destroyers, was kept in the Indian Ocean for a "prudent responsible decision," an official told the television channel.
A defense official confirmed to AFP that the carrier was in the region but declined to give a specific location.
"Overlap of Navy vessels is routine as responsibilities are passed and the number of ships in a given area of responsibility vary," the official said.
"However, we are preserving options by keeping some additional ships in the region to include the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier."
The nuclear-powered carrier was set to head back to its home port in Everett, Washington, after a months-long deployment to the Arabian Sea when it reportedly received orders to stay in the area.
But it has not been assigned a specific mission and defense officials described the move as "prudent positioning," according to ABC.
Five US destroyers are now positioned in eastern Mediterranean waters, up from the usual three that normally focus on countering Iranian ballistic missile threats to Europe.
The destroyers -- the USS Stout, Mahan, Ramage, Barry and Graveley -- are ready to fire cruise missiles if President Barack Obama gives the order.
The USS San Antonio, a Navy amphibious ship with several helicopters and hundreds of Marines on board, has also been ordered to be stationed in the eastern Mediterranean but a defense official said it has "received no specific tasking."
No amphibious landing is in the works, however, as Obama has ruled out any "boots on the ground" if the US takes military action against the Syrian regime.
In a surprise move, Obama has delayed the threat of missile strikes against Damascus that had appeared imminent, saying he would first seek formal approval from Congress.
The USS Nimitz aircraft carrier is moving westward toward the Red Sea, although it has not yet received orders to support a potential US strike on Syria, ABC News reported Monday.
The Nimitz carrier strike group, which includes a guided missile cruiser and four destroyers, was kept in the Indian Ocean for a "prudent responsible decision," an official told the television channel.
A defense official confirmed to AFP that the carrier was in the region but declined to give a specific location.
"Overlap of Navy vessels is routine as responsibilities are passed and the number of ships in a given area of responsibility vary," the official said.
"However, we are preserving options by keeping some additional ships in the region to include the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier."
The nuclear-powered carrier was set to head back to its home port in Everett, Washington, after a months-long deployment to the Arabian Sea when it reportedly received orders to stay in the area.
But it has not been assigned a specific mission and defense officials described the move as "prudent positioning," according to ABC.
Five US destroyers are now positioned in eastern Mediterranean waters, up from the usual three that normally focus on countering Iranian ballistic missile threats to Europe.
The destroyers -- the USS Stout, Mahan, Ramage, Barry and Graveley -- are ready to fire cruise missiles if President Barack Obama gives the order.
The USS San Antonio, a Navy amphibious ship with several helicopters and hundreds of Marines on board, has also been ordered to be stationed in the eastern Mediterranean but a defense official said it has "received no specific tasking."
No amphibious landing is in the works, however, as Obama has ruled out any "boots on the ground" if the US takes military action against the Syrian regime.
In a surprise move, Obama has delayed the threat of missile strikes against Damascus that had appeared imminent, saying he would first seek formal approval from Congress.
The leadership of Palestinian factions and popular committees in Beirut has declared rejection of the planned American strike against Syria. The leadership in a statement on Monday refused any attack on any Arab country and called on all Syrians to agree on a peaceful solution to their problem that would preserve Syria’s security, stability and role in the region.
It affirmed that all factions would continue confronting “Zionist occupation”, rejecting settlements, protecting Jerusalem, and demanding freedom for all Palestinian prisoners.
The leadership stressed the importance of maintaining security and stability of the Palestinian community in Lebanon and protecting Lebanese-Palestinian relations.
It affirmed that all factions would continue confronting “Zionist occupation”, rejecting settlements, protecting Jerusalem, and demanding freedom for all Palestinian prisoners.
The leadership stressed the importance of maintaining security and stability of the Palestinian community in Lebanon and protecting Lebanese-Palestinian relations.
Palestinians walk near the controversial Israeli barrier as they cross into Jerusalem at an Israeli checkpoint in the West Bank town of Bethlehem, July 26, 2013
For the first time in decades, a major confrontation is about to take place in the Middle East in which Palestinians are totally uninvolved. The expected attack against Syria and the potential for the widening of the theater of war to neighboring countries has so far totally excluded Palestine. One informal chart shows lines of support and hatred between the various countries and parties in the region, with no mention of Palestine and Palestinians.
Part of the reason for confidence that Palestinians will not be on the receiving end of any retaliatory attack is the simple fact that in all direct and indirect threats by the Syrian government against Israel, Turkey and Jordan, the Palestinians have never been mentioned. In fact, Syrians, and for that matter, many other Arab regional powers, are competing to support Palestinians the most.
Syria holds a political dilemma for the Palestinians. Palestinian refugees in the Yarmouk camp in Damascus, the largest in Syria, have been caught between both sides and suffered as a result. In the Aug. 21 chemical attacks, many Palestinians were reportedly killed, including two families from Jenin and Nazareth who lost a total of 31 family members.
Talking to Palestinians of all walks of life, one gets a sense of total relaxation regarding their own situation, though they are generally interested in the ultimate outcomes for the region. They watch Israelis rushing to obtain gas masks but make little protest that no one has thought of them.
This complacency might be misplaced. Although remote in distance, a possible attack on Syria could provoke retaliation that might fall dangerously close to Palestine. Palestinians still remember vividly the preparations for the Iraqi scud missile attacks. At first, Palestinians were caught up in the Israeli frenzy to create an environment safe from chemical weapons. But as they saw the scuds fly over the West Bank toward Israeli coastal towns, they went to their rooftops to see the missiles above their heads.
Palestinians working in Israel, however, are not in such a comfortable position. In recent years, the number of Palestinians from Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank working deep in Israel has risen, and it is estimated that 80,000 to 100,000 Palestinians are now working there. The social problems and violence that Israelis have had with African workers has prompted Israeli employers to rehire Palestinian laborers, who return to their villages each night rather than linger in Israeli towns.
The situation for Palestinian citizens of Israel is also not so easy. Palestinians in the Galilee and in mixed towns like Haifa, Jaffa, Akko and Lod are not as apathetic, as they could easily become victims of a possible Syrian retaliatory attack.
Political analysts have largely discounted the possibility of a major Syrian retaliatory attack against Israel. While it has become customary to threaten the region’s biggest US ally, it is difficult to imagine the Syrian regime would risk its position only to make a political statement. Israel, while claiming neutrality to the current Syrian crisis, has publicly made it clear it will react forcefully to any attack against it. Syrians are quite aware the Israelis would not hesitate to respond forcefully to any attack.
While Palestinians wait to see the results of the current Syrian conflict, they are aware that peace talks are continuing with Israel, albeit in low profile and on a low burner. In a strange way, some Palestinians in the West Bank are glad that for once, they are not in the eye of a violent Middle Eastern storm.
Daoud Kuttab is a contributing writer for Al-Monitor's Palestine Pulse. A Palestinian journalist and media activist, he is a former Ferris Professor of journalism at Princeton University and is currently the director-general of Community Media Network, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to advancing independent media in the Arab region. On Twitter: @daoudkuttab
For the first time in decades, a major confrontation is about to take place in the Middle East in which Palestinians are totally uninvolved. The expected attack against Syria and the potential for the widening of the theater of war to neighboring countries has so far totally excluded Palestine. One informal chart shows lines of support and hatred between the various countries and parties in the region, with no mention of Palestine and Palestinians.
Part of the reason for confidence that Palestinians will not be on the receiving end of any retaliatory attack is the simple fact that in all direct and indirect threats by the Syrian government against Israel, Turkey and Jordan, the Palestinians have never been mentioned. In fact, Syrians, and for that matter, many other Arab regional powers, are competing to support Palestinians the most.
Syria holds a political dilemma for the Palestinians. Palestinian refugees in the Yarmouk camp in Damascus, the largest in Syria, have been caught between both sides and suffered as a result. In the Aug. 21 chemical attacks, many Palestinians were reportedly killed, including two families from Jenin and Nazareth who lost a total of 31 family members.
Talking to Palestinians of all walks of life, one gets a sense of total relaxation regarding their own situation, though they are generally interested in the ultimate outcomes for the region. They watch Israelis rushing to obtain gas masks but make little protest that no one has thought of them.
This complacency might be misplaced. Although remote in distance, a possible attack on Syria could provoke retaliation that might fall dangerously close to Palestine. Palestinians still remember vividly the preparations for the Iraqi scud missile attacks. At first, Palestinians were caught up in the Israeli frenzy to create an environment safe from chemical weapons. But as they saw the scuds fly over the West Bank toward Israeli coastal towns, they went to their rooftops to see the missiles above their heads.
Palestinians working in Israel, however, are not in such a comfortable position. In recent years, the number of Palestinians from Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank working deep in Israel has risen, and it is estimated that 80,000 to 100,000 Palestinians are now working there. The social problems and violence that Israelis have had with African workers has prompted Israeli employers to rehire Palestinian laborers, who return to their villages each night rather than linger in Israeli towns.
The situation for Palestinian citizens of Israel is also not so easy. Palestinians in the Galilee and in mixed towns like Haifa, Jaffa, Akko and Lod are not as apathetic, as they could easily become victims of a possible Syrian retaliatory attack.
Political analysts have largely discounted the possibility of a major Syrian retaliatory attack against Israel. While it has become customary to threaten the region’s biggest US ally, it is difficult to imagine the Syrian regime would risk its position only to make a political statement. Israel, while claiming neutrality to the current Syrian crisis, has publicly made it clear it will react forcefully to any attack against it. Syrians are quite aware the Israelis would not hesitate to respond forcefully to any attack.
While Palestinians wait to see the results of the current Syrian conflict, they are aware that peace talks are continuing with Israel, albeit in low profile and on a low burner. In a strange way, some Palestinians in the West Bank are glad that for once, they are not in the eye of a violent Middle Eastern storm.
Daoud Kuttab is a contributing writer for Al-Monitor's Palestine Pulse. A Palestinian journalist and media activist, he is a former Ferris Professor of journalism at Princeton University and is currently the director-general of Community Media Network, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to advancing independent media in the Arab region. On Twitter: @daoudkuttab
According to the UN approximately 100,000 Syrians died since the start of the uprising in March 2011 and another 1.5 million people have fled the country. A chemical weapons attack near Damascus on August 21 killed hundreds of Syrians. International governments disaggree about ther perpretarators of the attack, with some claiming the Assad regime is to blame, other's stating the Syrian opposition staged the attack, and others yet fear the attack was staged by the US or Israel. Diplomatic developents and tensions are escalating rapidly. The report below follows major recent developments.
Mon Sep 2, Russia Unconvinced of US Allegations against Assad Regime
Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, announced this morning that he is unconvinced by the US’s evidence that the alleged chemical attack outside Damascus on August 21 was perpetrated by the Assad regime.
Lavrov, who spoke at the Moscow Institute of International Relations, repeated his position, condemning any international military action against Syria and called instead for dialogue.
Sun Sep 1, Division in Arab League over Action Against Assad Regime
Arab League foreign ministers urged the international community and the United Nations to take "deterrent" action against the Syrian regime over its alleged use of chemical weapons.
However, some influential members of the League, including Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Tunisia and Algeria, have expressed opposition to foreign military intervention.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal told the meeting, "opposition to international action only encourages the [Syrian] regime to pursue its crimes".
Egypt's foreign minister announced that his nation objected to "any aggression in Syria".
Sep 1, Syrian Opposition Calls for Action Against Assad Regime
The head of the Syrian National Coalition, Ahmed al-Jarba, told the meeting that the "war machine" of Assad must be stopped.
"I am here before you today to appeal to your brotherly and humanitarian sentiments and ask you to back the international operation against the destructive war machine," he said.
Sun Sep 1, Assad Claims Syria is Capable of Confronting Attack
"Syria ... is capable of confronting any external aggression," Syrian state television quoted Assad as saying during Sunday’s meeting with Iranian officials.
"The American threats of launching an attack against Syria will not discourage Syria away from its principles ... or its fight against terrorism [the Syrian Opposition] supported by some regional and Western countries, first and foremost the United States of America."
Sun Sep 1, Kerry Claims US Decided to take Military Action Against Syria
John Kerry said the Obama administration has already made a decision to take military action on Syria, in an interview with NBC News.
“He [US President Obama] believes we need to move. He’s made his decision. Now it’s up to the Congress of the United States to join him in affirming the international norm with respect to enforcement against the use of chemical weapons.
Sun Sep 1, Russia Sends Intelligence Vessel to Coast of Syria
Russia sent a reconnaissance vessel, SSV-201 intelligence ship Priazovye, from its Black Sea fleet to the coast of Syria. "The crew have the mission ... of collecting operative information in the region of an escalating conflict," a military source told the Interfax news agency in a report on Monday.
Meanwhile Moscow watches closely the “Western” developments for military action against the Damascus regime.
Sat Aug 31, Obama Seeks Congressional Authorization
US President Barack Obama decided to allow US lawmakers to vote on whether the US will take action against Syria. This decision momentarily lifts the threat of immediate strikes.
Congress is due back from its summer recess on September 9. Kerry told NBC he believed the call for action would be approved by Congress.
Fri Aug 30, US report claims Syrian Government is Responsible for Attack
The US released an intelligence report on Friday claiming the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack. The Syrian government strongly rejected the allegation.
John Kerry, US secretary of state, stated on NBC and CNN television that hair and blood samples provided to the US from first responders on the scene of the attack in Damascus "have tested positive for signatures of Sarin."
Wed Aug 28, Former US Rep Claims Chemical Weapon Attack is Conspiracy
Former US congressman Ron Paul has said that a reported chemical weapons attack in Syria was a “false flag” likely carried out by the US-backed militant groups in Syria.
During the Fox News interview he said, “The group that is most likely to benefit from that is al-Qaeda. They ignite gas, some people die and everyone blames it on Assad.”
Paul compared the US’s claims over the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime to the scenario used prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In 2003 the US accused Saddam Hussein’s regime of having an active “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) program. This “intelligence” was later discredited.
“Just look at how many lies were told [to] us about Saddam Hussein prior to that buildup. More propaganda. It happens all the time,” he stated. “I think it’s a false flag,” Paul said, referring to the reported use of chemical weapons in Syria.
Mon Sep 2, Russia Unconvinced of US Allegations against Assad Regime
Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, announced this morning that he is unconvinced by the US’s evidence that the alleged chemical attack outside Damascus on August 21 was perpetrated by the Assad regime.
Lavrov, who spoke at the Moscow Institute of International Relations, repeated his position, condemning any international military action against Syria and called instead for dialogue.
Sun Sep 1, Division in Arab League over Action Against Assad Regime
Arab League foreign ministers urged the international community and the United Nations to take "deterrent" action against the Syrian regime over its alleged use of chemical weapons.
However, some influential members of the League, including Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Tunisia and Algeria, have expressed opposition to foreign military intervention.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal told the meeting, "opposition to international action only encourages the [Syrian] regime to pursue its crimes".
Egypt's foreign minister announced that his nation objected to "any aggression in Syria".
Sep 1, Syrian Opposition Calls for Action Against Assad Regime
The head of the Syrian National Coalition, Ahmed al-Jarba, told the meeting that the "war machine" of Assad must be stopped.
"I am here before you today to appeal to your brotherly and humanitarian sentiments and ask you to back the international operation against the destructive war machine," he said.
Sun Sep 1, Assad Claims Syria is Capable of Confronting Attack
"Syria ... is capable of confronting any external aggression," Syrian state television quoted Assad as saying during Sunday’s meeting with Iranian officials.
"The American threats of launching an attack against Syria will not discourage Syria away from its principles ... or its fight against terrorism [the Syrian Opposition] supported by some regional and Western countries, first and foremost the United States of America."
Sun Sep 1, Kerry Claims US Decided to take Military Action Against Syria
John Kerry said the Obama administration has already made a decision to take military action on Syria, in an interview with NBC News.
“He [US President Obama] believes we need to move. He’s made his decision. Now it’s up to the Congress of the United States to join him in affirming the international norm with respect to enforcement against the use of chemical weapons.
Sun Sep 1, Russia Sends Intelligence Vessel to Coast of Syria
Russia sent a reconnaissance vessel, SSV-201 intelligence ship Priazovye, from its Black Sea fleet to the coast of Syria. "The crew have the mission ... of collecting operative information in the region of an escalating conflict," a military source told the Interfax news agency in a report on Monday.
Meanwhile Moscow watches closely the “Western” developments for military action against the Damascus regime.
Sat Aug 31, Obama Seeks Congressional Authorization
US President Barack Obama decided to allow US lawmakers to vote on whether the US will take action against Syria. This decision momentarily lifts the threat of immediate strikes.
Congress is due back from its summer recess on September 9. Kerry told NBC he believed the call for action would be approved by Congress.
Fri Aug 30, US report claims Syrian Government is Responsible for Attack
The US released an intelligence report on Friday claiming the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack. The Syrian government strongly rejected the allegation.
John Kerry, US secretary of state, stated on NBC and CNN television that hair and blood samples provided to the US from first responders on the scene of the attack in Damascus "have tested positive for signatures of Sarin."
Wed Aug 28, Former US Rep Claims Chemical Weapon Attack is Conspiracy
Former US congressman Ron Paul has said that a reported chemical weapons attack in Syria was a “false flag” likely carried out by the US-backed militant groups in Syria.
During the Fox News interview he said, “The group that is most likely to benefit from that is al-Qaeda. They ignite gas, some people die and everyone blames it on Assad.”
Paul compared the US’s claims over the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime to the scenario used prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In 2003 the US accused Saddam Hussein’s regime of having an active “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) program. This “intelligence” was later discredited.
“Just look at how many lies were told [to] us about Saddam Hussein prior to that buildup. More propaganda. It happens all the time,” he stated. “I think it’s a false flag,” Paul said, referring to the reported use of chemical weapons in Syria.
