8 sept 2013
|
|
Washington doesn't merely lack the legal authority for a military intervention in Syria. It lacks the moral authority. We're talking about a government with a history of using chemical weapons against innocent people far more prolific and deadly than the mere accusations Assad faces from a trigger-happy Western military-industrial complex, bent on stifling further investigation before striking.
Here is a list of 10 chemical weapons attacks carried out by the U.S. government or its allies against civilians. 1. The U.S. Military Dumped 20 Million Gallons of Chemicals on Vietnam from 1962 - 1971 |
During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military sprayed 20 million gallons of chemicals, including the very toxic Agent Orange, on the forests and farmlands of Vietnam and neighboring countries, deliberately destroying food supplies, shattering the jungle ecology, and ravaging the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Vietnam estimates that as a result of the decade-long chemical attack, 400,000 people were killed or maimed, 500,000 babies have been born with birth defects, and 2 million have suffered from cancer or other illnesses. In 2012, the Red Cross estimated that one million people in Vietnam have disabilities or health problems related to Agent Orange.
2. Israel Attacked Palestinian Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2008 - 2009
White phosphorus is a horrific incendiary chemical weapon that melts human flesh right down to the bone.
In 2009, multiple human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and International Red Cross reported that the Israeli government was attacking civilians in their own country with chemical weapons. An Amnesty International team claimed to find "indisputable evidence of the widespread use of white phosphorus" as a weapon in densely-populated civilian areas. The Israeli military denied the allegations at first, but eventually admitted they were true.
After the string of allegations by these NGOs, the Israeli military even hit a UN headquarters(!) in Gaza with a chemical attack. How do you think all this evidence compares to the case against Syria? Why didn't Obama try to bomb Israel?
3. Washington Attacked Iraqi Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2004
In 2004, journalists embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq began reporting the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah against Iraqi insurgents. First the military lied and said that it was only using white phosphorus to create smokescreens or illuminate targets. Then it admitted to using the volatile chemical as an incendiary weapon. At the time, Italian television broadcaster RAI aired a documentary entitled, "Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre," including grim video footage and photographs, as well as eyewitness interviews with Fallujah residents and U.S. soldiers revealing how the U.S. government indiscriminately rained white chemical fire down on the Iraqi city and melted women and children to death.
4. The CIA Helped Saddam Hussein Massacre Iranians and Kurds with Chemical Weapons in 1988
CIA records now prove that Washington knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons (including sarin, nerve gas, and mustard gas) in the Iran-Iraq War, yet continued to pour intelligence into the hands of the Iraqi military, informing Hussein of Iranian troop movements while knowing that he would be using the information to launch chemical attacks. At one point in early 1988, Washington warned Hussein of an Iranian troop movement that would have ended the war in a decisive defeat for the Iraqi government. By March an emboldened Hussein with new friends in Washington struck a Kurdish village occupied by Iranian troops with multiple chemical agents, killing as many as 5,000 people and injuring as many as 10,000 more, most of them civilians. Thousands more died in the following years from complications, diseases, and birth defects.
5. The Army Tested Chemicals on Residents of Poor, Black St. Louis Neighborhoods in The 1950s
In the early 1950s, the Army set up motorized blowers on top of residential high-rises in low-income, mostly black St. Louis neighborhoods, including areas where as much as 70% of the residents were children under 12. The government told residents that it was experimenting with a smokescreen to protect the city from Russian attacks, but it was actually pumping the air full of hundreds of pounds of finely powdered zinc cadmium sulfide. The government admits that there was a second ingredient in the chemical powder, but whether or not that ingredient was radioactive remains classified. Of course it does. Since the tests, an alarming number of the area's residents have developed cancer. In 1955, Doris Spates was born in one of the buildings the Army used to fill the air with chemicals from 1953 - 1954. Her father died inexplicably that same year, she has seen four siblings die from cancer, and Doris herself is a survivor of cervical cancer.
6. Police Fired Tear Gas at Occupy Protesters in 2011
The savage violence of the police against Occupy protesters in 2011 was well documented, and included the use of tear gas and other chemical irritants. Tear gas is prohibited for use against enemy soldiers in battle by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Can't police give civilian protesters in Oakland, California the same courtesy and protection that international law requires for enemy soldiers on a battlefield?
7. The FBI Attacked Men, Women, and Children With Tear Gas in Waco in 1993
At the infamous Waco siege of a peaceful community of Seventh Day Adventists, the FBI pumped tear gas into buildings knowing that women, children, and babies were inside. The tear gas was highly flammable and ignited, engulfing the buildings in flames and killing 49 men and women, and 27 children, including babies and toddlers. Remember, attacking an armed enemy soldier on a battlefield with tear gas is a war crime. What kind of crime is attacking a baby with tear gas?
8. The U.S. Military Littered Iraq with Toxic Depleted Uranium in 2003
In Iraq, the U.S. military has littered the environment with thousands of tons of munitions made from depleted uranium, a toxic and radioactive nuclear waste product. As a result, more than half of babies born in Fallujah from 2007 - 2010 were born with birth defects. Some of these defects have never been seen before outside of textbooks with photos of babies born near nuclear tests in the Pacific. Cancer and infant mortality have also seen a dramatic rise in Iraq. According to Christopher Busby, the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, "These are weapons which have absolutely destroyed the genetic integrity of the population of Iraq." After authoring two of four reports published in 2012 on the health crisis in Iraq, Busby described Fallujah as having, "the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied."
9. The U.S. Military Killed Hundreds of Thousands of Japanese Civilians with Napalm from 1944 - 1945
Napalm is a sticky and highly flammable gel which has been used as a weapon of terror by the U.S. military. In 1980, the UN declared the use of napalm on swaths of civilian population a war crime. That's exactly what the U.S. military did in World War II, dropping enough napalm in one bombing raid on Tokyo to burn 100,000 people to death, injure a million more, and leave a million without homes in the single deadliest air raid of World War II.
10. The U.S. Government Dropped Nuclear Bombs on Two Japanese Cities in 1945
Although nuclear bombs may not be considered chemical weapons, I believe we can agree they belong to the same category. They certainly disperse an awful lot of deadly radioactive chemicals. They are every bit as horrifying as chemical weapons if not more, and by their very nature, suitable for only one purpose: wiping out an entire city full of civilians. It seems odd that the only regime to ever use one of these weapons of terror on other human beings has busied itself with the pretense of keeping the world safe from dangerous weapons in the hands of dangerous governments.
Originally posted at www.policymic.com
2. Israel Attacked Palestinian Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2008 - 2009
White phosphorus is a horrific incendiary chemical weapon that melts human flesh right down to the bone.
In 2009, multiple human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and International Red Cross reported that the Israeli government was attacking civilians in their own country with chemical weapons. An Amnesty International team claimed to find "indisputable evidence of the widespread use of white phosphorus" as a weapon in densely-populated civilian areas. The Israeli military denied the allegations at first, but eventually admitted they were true.
After the string of allegations by these NGOs, the Israeli military even hit a UN headquarters(!) in Gaza with a chemical attack. How do you think all this evidence compares to the case against Syria? Why didn't Obama try to bomb Israel?
3. Washington Attacked Iraqi Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2004
In 2004, journalists embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq began reporting the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah against Iraqi insurgents. First the military lied and said that it was only using white phosphorus to create smokescreens or illuminate targets. Then it admitted to using the volatile chemical as an incendiary weapon. At the time, Italian television broadcaster RAI aired a documentary entitled, "Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre," including grim video footage and photographs, as well as eyewitness interviews with Fallujah residents and U.S. soldiers revealing how the U.S. government indiscriminately rained white chemical fire down on the Iraqi city and melted women and children to death.
4. The CIA Helped Saddam Hussein Massacre Iranians and Kurds with Chemical Weapons in 1988
CIA records now prove that Washington knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons (including sarin, nerve gas, and mustard gas) in the Iran-Iraq War, yet continued to pour intelligence into the hands of the Iraqi military, informing Hussein of Iranian troop movements while knowing that he would be using the information to launch chemical attacks. At one point in early 1988, Washington warned Hussein of an Iranian troop movement that would have ended the war in a decisive defeat for the Iraqi government. By March an emboldened Hussein with new friends in Washington struck a Kurdish village occupied by Iranian troops with multiple chemical agents, killing as many as 5,000 people and injuring as many as 10,000 more, most of them civilians. Thousands more died in the following years from complications, diseases, and birth defects.
5. The Army Tested Chemicals on Residents of Poor, Black St. Louis Neighborhoods in The 1950s
In the early 1950s, the Army set up motorized blowers on top of residential high-rises in low-income, mostly black St. Louis neighborhoods, including areas where as much as 70% of the residents were children under 12. The government told residents that it was experimenting with a smokescreen to protect the city from Russian attacks, but it was actually pumping the air full of hundreds of pounds of finely powdered zinc cadmium sulfide. The government admits that there was a second ingredient in the chemical powder, but whether or not that ingredient was radioactive remains classified. Of course it does. Since the tests, an alarming number of the area's residents have developed cancer. In 1955, Doris Spates was born in one of the buildings the Army used to fill the air with chemicals from 1953 - 1954. Her father died inexplicably that same year, she has seen four siblings die from cancer, and Doris herself is a survivor of cervical cancer.
6. Police Fired Tear Gas at Occupy Protesters in 2011
The savage violence of the police against Occupy protesters in 2011 was well documented, and included the use of tear gas and other chemical irritants. Tear gas is prohibited for use against enemy soldiers in battle by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Can't police give civilian protesters in Oakland, California the same courtesy and protection that international law requires for enemy soldiers on a battlefield?
7. The FBI Attacked Men, Women, and Children With Tear Gas in Waco in 1993
At the infamous Waco siege of a peaceful community of Seventh Day Adventists, the FBI pumped tear gas into buildings knowing that women, children, and babies were inside. The tear gas was highly flammable and ignited, engulfing the buildings in flames and killing 49 men and women, and 27 children, including babies and toddlers. Remember, attacking an armed enemy soldier on a battlefield with tear gas is a war crime. What kind of crime is attacking a baby with tear gas?
8. The U.S. Military Littered Iraq with Toxic Depleted Uranium in 2003
In Iraq, the U.S. military has littered the environment with thousands of tons of munitions made from depleted uranium, a toxic and radioactive nuclear waste product. As a result, more than half of babies born in Fallujah from 2007 - 2010 were born with birth defects. Some of these defects have never been seen before outside of textbooks with photos of babies born near nuclear tests in the Pacific. Cancer and infant mortality have also seen a dramatic rise in Iraq. According to Christopher Busby, the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, "These are weapons which have absolutely destroyed the genetic integrity of the population of Iraq." After authoring two of four reports published in 2012 on the health crisis in Iraq, Busby described Fallujah as having, "the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied."
9. The U.S. Military Killed Hundreds of Thousands of Japanese Civilians with Napalm from 1944 - 1945
Napalm is a sticky and highly flammable gel which has been used as a weapon of terror by the U.S. military. In 1980, the UN declared the use of napalm on swaths of civilian population a war crime. That's exactly what the U.S. military did in World War II, dropping enough napalm in one bombing raid on Tokyo to burn 100,000 people to death, injure a million more, and leave a million without homes in the single deadliest air raid of World War II.
10. The U.S. Government Dropped Nuclear Bombs on Two Japanese Cities in 1945
Although nuclear bombs may not be considered chemical weapons, I believe we can agree they belong to the same category. They certainly disperse an awful lot of deadly radioactive chemicals. They are every bit as horrifying as chemical weapons if not more, and by their very nature, suitable for only one purpose: wiping out an entire city full of civilians. It seems odd that the only regime to ever use one of these weapons of terror on other human beings has busied itself with the pretense of keeping the world safe from dangerous weapons in the hands of dangerous governments.
Originally posted at www.policymic.com
A prominent analyst says by falling into the Zionist trap of war on Syria, US President Barack Obama will provoke an "irreversible crisis" in the Middle East, putting another stain on his criminal track record, Press TV reports.
In an article published on Press TV website on Saturday, Iranian author and academic Dr. Ismail Salami said the Zionist lobby, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) are behind Obama’s war campaign against Syria.
“Obama had better think twice before harkening to any call for war coming from the Zionists. The list of his crimes is getting thicker and thicker every day and the Zionist rope he is holding onto is a rotten one indeed,” he wrote.
Salami lashed out at the US president for being “at every beck and call of his Zionist masters who deem no barrier in inflicting human losses and plunging the entire region into an eternally irreversible crisis.”
The war rhetoric against Syria intensified after foreign-backed opposition forces accused the government of President Bashar al-Assad of launching the chemical attack on militant strongholds in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21.
Damascus has vehemently denied the accusations, saying the attack was carried out by the militants themselves as a false-flag operation.
On August 31, Obama said he has decided that Washington must take military action against the Syrian government, which would mean a unilateral military strike without a UN mandate.
Obama said that despite having made up his mind, he will take the case to US Congress. But he added that he is prepared to order military action against the Syrian government at any time.
On Wednesday, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10-7 in favor of a resolution authorizing the Obama administration to attack Syria.
Obama administration officials have embarked upon an extensive lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill. Some 250 AIPAC leaders and lobbyists are reportedly planning to storm the halls on Capitol Hill next week to persuade the US lawmakers to vote for a draft resolution authorizing strikes on Syria.
Salami slammed Obama’s humanitarian claims vis-à-vis Syria and argued that the US president cannot show sympathy with the Syrian people “while he is sharply aware of the real culprit behind the recent chemical attacks on the one hand, and on the other, he is cold and indifferent towards the tragic fate of other women and children killed at his own behest in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, you name it.”
The analyst pointed to escalation of assassination drone attacks since Obama took office, noting, “The drone war that Obama accelerated to a deplorable degree is enough to nominate him as a war criminal in a fair court of law.”
“Sardonically, when Obama accepted the Nobel Peace prize in 2009, he had authorized more drone attacks than George W. Bush approved during his entire presidency,” Salami wrote.
The United States often uses its assassination drones to hit targets in Pakistan and some other countries including Yemen and Afghanistan.
Washington claims its drone strikes target militants; however, casualty figures show that Pakistani civilians are often the victims of the non-UN-sanctioned attacks.
Obama recently defended the use of the controversial drones as “self-defense.”
The UN says the US-operated drone strikes in Pakistan pose a growing challenge to the international rule of law.
In an article published on Press TV website on Saturday, Iranian author and academic Dr. Ismail Salami said the Zionist lobby, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) are behind Obama’s war campaign against Syria.
“Obama had better think twice before harkening to any call for war coming from the Zionists. The list of his crimes is getting thicker and thicker every day and the Zionist rope he is holding onto is a rotten one indeed,” he wrote.
Salami lashed out at the US president for being “at every beck and call of his Zionist masters who deem no barrier in inflicting human losses and plunging the entire region into an eternally irreversible crisis.”
The war rhetoric against Syria intensified after foreign-backed opposition forces accused the government of President Bashar al-Assad of launching the chemical attack on militant strongholds in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21.
Damascus has vehemently denied the accusations, saying the attack was carried out by the militants themselves as a false-flag operation.
On August 31, Obama said he has decided that Washington must take military action against the Syrian government, which would mean a unilateral military strike without a UN mandate.
Obama said that despite having made up his mind, he will take the case to US Congress. But he added that he is prepared to order military action against the Syrian government at any time.
On Wednesday, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10-7 in favor of a resolution authorizing the Obama administration to attack Syria.
Obama administration officials have embarked upon an extensive lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill. Some 250 AIPAC leaders and lobbyists are reportedly planning to storm the halls on Capitol Hill next week to persuade the US lawmakers to vote for a draft resolution authorizing strikes on Syria.
Salami slammed Obama’s humanitarian claims vis-à-vis Syria and argued that the US president cannot show sympathy with the Syrian people “while he is sharply aware of the real culprit behind the recent chemical attacks on the one hand, and on the other, he is cold and indifferent towards the tragic fate of other women and children killed at his own behest in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, you name it.”
The analyst pointed to escalation of assassination drone attacks since Obama took office, noting, “The drone war that Obama accelerated to a deplorable degree is enough to nominate him as a war criminal in a fair court of law.”
“Sardonically, when Obama accepted the Nobel Peace prize in 2009, he had authorized more drone attacks than George W. Bush approved during his entire presidency,” Salami wrote.
The United States often uses its assassination drones to hit targets in Pakistan and some other countries including Yemen and Afghanistan.
Washington claims its drone strikes target militants; however, casualty figures show that Pakistani civilians are often the victims of the non-UN-sanctioned attacks.
Obama recently defended the use of the controversial drones as “self-defense.”
The UN says the US-operated drone strikes in Pakistan pose a growing challenge to the international rule of law.
7 sept 2013
A hypocrite’s work is never done. Thus the need for our Nobel Prize bearing Commander in Chief to execute a needless and devastating war of aggression on a country preoccupied by its own civil war.
He should pin that prize to his lapel when he announces his surgical strike on Syria. Let’s be clear: wars of aggression are, by the standards we set at the Nuremburg Nazi trials, the “supreme international crime.” Crimes for which Nazis were put to death.
Anyone who pulls the trigger on a war of aggression is, by our own measure, a war criminal. But President Barack Obama needn’t worry about being isolated by his action-the annals of the American presidency are chock full of war criminals. He’ll have good company in the pantheon of imperial lore.
Of the numberless hypocrisies of the administration, this one is particularly crude. The White House claims to need to punish Syria’s Bashar al-Assad government for the unproven use of chemical weapons (sarin) in Ghouta. Not only does this atrocity, committed by unidentified actors in a civil, ethnic, sectarian, and proxy conflict within Syria, somehow make Syria a national security threat to the United States, but it also suggests we deplore the use of chemical weapons.
Neither is remotely true. I think the former could be true if we do bomb Syria, as it may incite Syrians to plot against the empire that slaughtered its men, women and children. The latter cannot be true by virtue of the fact that chemical weapons are a primary element in our military arsenal, and have been repeatedly handed over to unreliable allies or deployed ourselves, against Vietnam most notably, but recently against Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.
The author of the August 21st attack has yet to be identified. Suspects include Syria, one of the rebel groups, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. The White House report offered plenty of unverified claims said to be drawn from “streams of intelligence.” Nobody outside the beltway bubble is convinced.
We can, however, have “high confidence” in our assessment that the US will use chemical weapons itself if it attacks Syria. At least three sources of American firepower potentially threaten to deposit a destructive payload of depleted uranium on Syrian society and soil should we attack. Destroyers in the Eastern Mediterranean are likely to fire Tomahawk missiles, which have long been rumored to contain depleted uranium, either in their tip or wing. However, this has been disputed by the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW). At the very least, Naval combat crafts are equipped with anti-missile Gatling guns that use shells with tungsten or depleted uranium. This has been conceded by the military itself. Likewise, A-10 anti-tank aircraft are known to use depleted uranium bullets.
Depleted uranium, although not outlawed by the International Convention of Chemical Weapons (ICCW), are uranium wastes, the leftovers from the uranium that can be usefully enriched. According to Global Research, depleted uranium found its way into the American arsenal thanks to the fact that there are enormous amounts of it leftover from the enrichment process, and that it is cheap to produce. (There is something deeply ironic here, although I’m not sure just what.)
But the primary feature of DU is its armor-piercing capability. Not only is it the heaviest of elements, DU bullets keep their shape on impact, thanks to their hideous “self-sharpening ability”, and the fact that they burst into flame on impact, generating radioactive dust. This naturally finds its way into the lungs of those nearby (who are perhaps lending “material support” to rebels, instantly nominating themselves for a double-tap drone strike should the DU not do its lethal work fast enough). Depleted uranium often produces radioactive poisoning, and potentially cancer, as former workers at a US arms plant unhappily discovered. It is also likely to generate deformities in the DNA of the local birth population, as Fallujah has lately experienced. This cruel fate is often referred to by the lovely phrase, “mutagenic potential.”
In any case, we’ve left enough in the ground in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere for some viable case studies. Naturally, the development of leukemia in 76% of mice injected with DU, a study conducted by our own Armed Forces Radiobiology Institute, has been yawningly ignored by the Pentagon, although there is some suggestion that the upper echelons of international power have suppressed the growing movement to ban depleted uranium. The courageous claimant here is former WHO scientist Keith Baverstock, who eloquently concluded that, “politics has poisoned the well from which democracy must drink.” The wells from which multitudes of Arabs must drink, too.
But DU is only the leading villain in an ensemble cast of malign characters. Alongside it one can observe the flesh-eating effects of white phosphorous ‘shake-n-bake’ bombs, napalm and “mark 77 firebombs,” a mix of kerosene and polystyrene similar to napalm, all used to great effect in Iraq.
American-made cluster bombs are an Israeli favorite, such as when it wants to blow up unsuspecting Arab farmers in southern Lebanon. Yet there they sit, our leaders Obama and Kerry, the urbane sophist and his zombie accomplice, mirroring our nation in miniature: a country whose signal conflicts seemed to carry the mantle of liberty, against the British then the Nazis, but which has since devolved, to borrow anthropologist F.G. Bailey’s phrase, into “a babel of inconsistent moralities.”
Largely owing to our commitment to chemical weapons, internationalist efforts to ban WMDs in the Middle East have met with typical disinterest. U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 twists in the wind. Agreed to in 1991 to provide a legal umbrella for the U.S. attack on Iraq, it calls for a WMD-free zone in the Middle East and the banning of chemical and biological weapons.
Naturally, the looming regional hegemon Israel is the obvious roadblock to the realization of this initiative. In a forgotten instance of considerable irony, Syria proposed the same concept to the Security Council with a draft resolution in 2003, but then U.N. ambassador John Negroponte noted that we might consider it, but then hysterically added-as if snapping to his senses-that this didn’t mean we would “adopt it, embrace it or endorse it in any way, shape or form.” In other words, best to shelve it with all the other useful ideas the U.S. has nixed since the founding of the U.N.
If you’re looking for a link between our degraded civil rights and our depleted uranium, look no further. There it is, in the White House report and its dearth of actual evidence. If only they had added an addendum with the dozens of YouTube videos that factor heavily in their portfolio of supposition.
But what reason is there, truly, for yours or my indefinite detention, for the continuous invasion of our privacy, the usurpation of legislative power (the people’s tribune) by that of the executive (the ghost of monarchy), and the evisceration of the sovereignty of other nations like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and soon Syria? Whether shot from ships or fired from jets, depleted uranium bullets and shells will strike innocent targets with the same fact-less impunity with which our rights are denied. We live in a counterfactual epoch, where the shrill presence of conjecture disguises the voluminous absence of evidence. Hypocrites lie, victims die.
He should pin that prize to his lapel when he announces his surgical strike on Syria. Let’s be clear: wars of aggression are, by the standards we set at the Nuremburg Nazi trials, the “supreme international crime.” Crimes for which Nazis were put to death.
Anyone who pulls the trigger on a war of aggression is, by our own measure, a war criminal. But President Barack Obama needn’t worry about being isolated by his action-the annals of the American presidency are chock full of war criminals. He’ll have good company in the pantheon of imperial lore.
Of the numberless hypocrisies of the administration, this one is particularly crude. The White House claims to need to punish Syria’s Bashar al-Assad government for the unproven use of chemical weapons (sarin) in Ghouta. Not only does this atrocity, committed by unidentified actors in a civil, ethnic, sectarian, and proxy conflict within Syria, somehow make Syria a national security threat to the United States, but it also suggests we deplore the use of chemical weapons.
Neither is remotely true. I think the former could be true if we do bomb Syria, as it may incite Syrians to plot against the empire that slaughtered its men, women and children. The latter cannot be true by virtue of the fact that chemical weapons are a primary element in our military arsenal, and have been repeatedly handed over to unreliable allies or deployed ourselves, against Vietnam most notably, but recently against Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.
The author of the August 21st attack has yet to be identified. Suspects include Syria, one of the rebel groups, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. The White House report offered plenty of unverified claims said to be drawn from “streams of intelligence.” Nobody outside the beltway bubble is convinced.
We can, however, have “high confidence” in our assessment that the US will use chemical weapons itself if it attacks Syria. At least three sources of American firepower potentially threaten to deposit a destructive payload of depleted uranium on Syrian society and soil should we attack. Destroyers in the Eastern Mediterranean are likely to fire Tomahawk missiles, which have long been rumored to contain depleted uranium, either in their tip or wing. However, this has been disputed by the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW). At the very least, Naval combat crafts are equipped with anti-missile Gatling guns that use shells with tungsten or depleted uranium. This has been conceded by the military itself. Likewise, A-10 anti-tank aircraft are known to use depleted uranium bullets.
Depleted uranium, although not outlawed by the International Convention of Chemical Weapons (ICCW), are uranium wastes, the leftovers from the uranium that can be usefully enriched. According to Global Research, depleted uranium found its way into the American arsenal thanks to the fact that there are enormous amounts of it leftover from the enrichment process, and that it is cheap to produce. (There is something deeply ironic here, although I’m not sure just what.)
But the primary feature of DU is its armor-piercing capability. Not only is it the heaviest of elements, DU bullets keep their shape on impact, thanks to their hideous “self-sharpening ability”, and the fact that they burst into flame on impact, generating radioactive dust. This naturally finds its way into the lungs of those nearby (who are perhaps lending “material support” to rebels, instantly nominating themselves for a double-tap drone strike should the DU not do its lethal work fast enough). Depleted uranium often produces radioactive poisoning, and potentially cancer, as former workers at a US arms plant unhappily discovered. It is also likely to generate deformities in the DNA of the local birth population, as Fallujah has lately experienced. This cruel fate is often referred to by the lovely phrase, “mutagenic potential.”
In any case, we’ve left enough in the ground in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere for some viable case studies. Naturally, the development of leukemia in 76% of mice injected with DU, a study conducted by our own Armed Forces Radiobiology Institute, has been yawningly ignored by the Pentagon, although there is some suggestion that the upper echelons of international power have suppressed the growing movement to ban depleted uranium. The courageous claimant here is former WHO scientist Keith Baverstock, who eloquently concluded that, “politics has poisoned the well from which democracy must drink.” The wells from which multitudes of Arabs must drink, too.
But DU is only the leading villain in an ensemble cast of malign characters. Alongside it one can observe the flesh-eating effects of white phosphorous ‘shake-n-bake’ bombs, napalm and “mark 77 firebombs,” a mix of kerosene and polystyrene similar to napalm, all used to great effect in Iraq.
American-made cluster bombs are an Israeli favorite, such as when it wants to blow up unsuspecting Arab farmers in southern Lebanon. Yet there they sit, our leaders Obama and Kerry, the urbane sophist and his zombie accomplice, mirroring our nation in miniature: a country whose signal conflicts seemed to carry the mantle of liberty, against the British then the Nazis, but which has since devolved, to borrow anthropologist F.G. Bailey’s phrase, into “a babel of inconsistent moralities.”
Largely owing to our commitment to chemical weapons, internationalist efforts to ban WMDs in the Middle East have met with typical disinterest. U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 twists in the wind. Agreed to in 1991 to provide a legal umbrella for the U.S. attack on Iraq, it calls for a WMD-free zone in the Middle East and the banning of chemical and biological weapons.
Naturally, the looming regional hegemon Israel is the obvious roadblock to the realization of this initiative. In a forgotten instance of considerable irony, Syria proposed the same concept to the Security Council with a draft resolution in 2003, but then U.N. ambassador John Negroponte noted that we might consider it, but then hysterically added-as if snapping to his senses-that this didn’t mean we would “adopt it, embrace it or endorse it in any way, shape or form.” In other words, best to shelve it with all the other useful ideas the U.S. has nixed since the founding of the U.N.
If you’re looking for a link between our degraded civil rights and our depleted uranium, look no further. There it is, in the White House report and its dearth of actual evidence. If only they had added an addendum with the dozens of YouTube videos that factor heavily in their portfolio of supposition.
But what reason is there, truly, for yours or my indefinite detention, for the continuous invasion of our privacy, the usurpation of legislative power (the people’s tribune) by that of the executive (the ghost of monarchy), and the evisceration of the sovereignty of other nations like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and soon Syria? Whether shot from ships or fired from jets, depleted uranium bullets and shells will strike innocent targets with the same fact-less impunity with which our rights are denied. We live in a counterfactual epoch, where the shrill presence of conjecture disguises the voluminous absence of evidence. Hypocrites lie, victims die.
6 sept 2013
Press TV has conducted an interview with Mark Dankof, political commentator, about a new video footage showing foreign-backed militants in Syria killing seven captured government soldiers execution style.
What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.
Press TV: Well once again we are seeing just another horrific crime that has been committed by these insurgents. The more we see at these various video clips it seems they are more adamant that the United States and its allies want to support these terrorists. Why is that the case?
Dankof: Well it's clearly the case because Israel gets whatever it wants. The fact of the matter is between the Zionist ...[entity] of Israel and the Zionist occupied American government.
War crimes are okay as long as they are being committed by people that control the Israeli government or people who are fulfilling the Israeli agenda.
The United States had no problem with Saddam Hussein using chemical gas during the Iran-Iraq war against Iran, the United States has said nothing about Israel use of white phosphorous munitions both in Gaza, Operation Cast Lead in 2009 or Israeli induced white phosphorous murders in southern Lebanon in that conflict.
But the fact of the matter is what is most revelatory here is that a global research article that came out today, Michel Chossudovsky site shows that Americans opposed this conflict overwhelmingly, an American involvement in this conflict by surfing like a 499 to 1 margin in regard to calls being made to their congressmen and senators and yet obviously most people have concluded that the vote is going to go the other way because of the Israeli lobbies that control the American Congress and Senate as well as the executive branch of the government.
One other thing is that there are several polls that have been conducted by Israeli newspapers that show that Israel wants an attack on Syria, but it does not overwhelmingly, its people do not want the Israeli defense forces doing it. They want the United States and European powers to do it on their behalf.
This is what's going on here. It's clearly illegal, it is dreadful, it is murderous and once again the criminality of the Zionist regime over many years is unfortunately now mirrored by the criminality of an American government that has been in league with these people since the late 1940’s.
Press TV: Well, we are looking at these type of individuals and these horrific crimes that they have committed. How likely is the United States support for this type of element likely to backfire when you are training, when you are funding, when you are arming people that appeared to not have any type of moral conscience, then isn’t it likely that it will basically come back and hunt them?
Dankof: Well I think that that's true in terms of international opinion and blowback. What I'm waiting for is to see whether or not the people of the United States get off their high dance and turn off Thursday night football tonight, the opening of the NFL season and start caring about what these policies that their government is supporting are doing not only to our image in the world but in fact they are going to result in more of hundreds and millions and billions of dollars ultimately being spent by the United States government on these murderous activities as well as the deaths not only a thousands, potentially a millions of innocent people in the Middle East over time but the deaths of more American men and women for absolutely nothing other than the Israeli agenda.
And until the American public figures this out, it seems that the Zionist occupied government of United States and the media, the American media that is aiding these people would just continue but more of the same.
But Paul Craig Roberts is in effect correct. They will run out of men, they will run out of money at some point, they are already out of credibility and the fact of the matter is that there is a super whining in all of this, it is that the American empire is quite likely ultimately to collapse as the result of these policies and maybe to be replaced again by what my forefathers would have referred to as the old American Republic that was ruled by a constitution and a rule of law. (Video on the link)
What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.
Press TV: Well once again we are seeing just another horrific crime that has been committed by these insurgents. The more we see at these various video clips it seems they are more adamant that the United States and its allies want to support these terrorists. Why is that the case?
Dankof: Well it's clearly the case because Israel gets whatever it wants. The fact of the matter is between the Zionist ...[entity] of Israel and the Zionist occupied American government.
War crimes are okay as long as they are being committed by people that control the Israeli government or people who are fulfilling the Israeli agenda.
The United States had no problem with Saddam Hussein using chemical gas during the Iran-Iraq war against Iran, the United States has said nothing about Israel use of white phosphorous munitions both in Gaza, Operation Cast Lead in 2009 or Israeli induced white phosphorous murders in southern Lebanon in that conflict.
But the fact of the matter is what is most revelatory here is that a global research article that came out today, Michel Chossudovsky site shows that Americans opposed this conflict overwhelmingly, an American involvement in this conflict by surfing like a 499 to 1 margin in regard to calls being made to their congressmen and senators and yet obviously most people have concluded that the vote is going to go the other way because of the Israeli lobbies that control the American Congress and Senate as well as the executive branch of the government.
One other thing is that there are several polls that have been conducted by Israeli newspapers that show that Israel wants an attack on Syria, but it does not overwhelmingly, its people do not want the Israeli defense forces doing it. They want the United States and European powers to do it on their behalf.
This is what's going on here. It's clearly illegal, it is dreadful, it is murderous and once again the criminality of the Zionist regime over many years is unfortunately now mirrored by the criminality of an American government that has been in league with these people since the late 1940’s.
Press TV: Well, we are looking at these type of individuals and these horrific crimes that they have committed. How likely is the United States support for this type of element likely to backfire when you are training, when you are funding, when you are arming people that appeared to not have any type of moral conscience, then isn’t it likely that it will basically come back and hunt them?
Dankof: Well I think that that's true in terms of international opinion and blowback. What I'm waiting for is to see whether or not the people of the United States get off their high dance and turn off Thursday night football tonight, the opening of the NFL season and start caring about what these policies that their government is supporting are doing not only to our image in the world but in fact they are going to result in more of hundreds and millions and billions of dollars ultimately being spent by the United States government on these murderous activities as well as the deaths not only a thousands, potentially a millions of innocent people in the Middle East over time but the deaths of more American men and women for absolutely nothing other than the Israeli agenda.
And until the American public figures this out, it seems that the Zionist occupied government of United States and the media, the American media that is aiding these people would just continue but more of the same.
But Paul Craig Roberts is in effect correct. They will run out of men, they will run out of money at some point, they are already out of credibility and the fact of the matter is that there is a super whining in all of this, it is that the American empire is quite likely ultimately to collapse as the result of these policies and maybe to be replaced again by what my forefathers would have referred to as the old American Republic that was ruled by a constitution and a rule of law. (Video on the link)
4 sept 2013
Former US congressman Ron Paul says the United States is planning to strike Syria because Damascus is the doorstep for entering Iran.
“The whole theory is we’re going to Syria because that’s the way you march into Iran,” Paul said in an interview with CNN on Tuesday.
“At the same time, we’ve made it tougher... We’ve made it tougher for people who want to live in peace… and now we’re just stirring it up in Syria,” he argued.
US President Barack Obama, who is waiting for congressional authorization to attack Syria, won critical support from key congressional leaders on Tuesday to launch military strikes against Syria.
Following a meeting with Obama, House Speaker John Boehner said the US has "enemies around the world that need to understand that we're not going to tolerate this type of behavior. We also have allies around the world and allies in the region who also need to know that America will be there and stand up when it's necessary."
Ron Paul also criticized the Obama administration for interfering in the internal affairs of Syria.
“It's a civil war and there's no way you're going to figure it out. I smell Iraq all over again. I remember the assurances that were given us 10 years ago and members of Congress believed that. But let me tell you, the situation is a lot different. The American people are on my side on this issue today and there's a lot more people in Congress now who are saying, it makes no sense,” he said.
“And just listen to the military commanders. They said, you know, we don't even have the money for this. We have to have a supplemental. Now, how about all these warmongers getting ready to bomb and kill and invade or do whatever they think necessary and they don't even have the money and then they have to appropriate the money, which means more money drained from our economy,” Paul argued.
Paul also experienced “technical difficulties” with his satellite connection during his interview with CNN.
Meanwhile, recent polls show the American people are against Syria war under the pretext of the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.
An ABC News/Washington Post poll released Tuesday said 59 percent of Americans oppose unilateral US military action. Pew Research also found that opponents of a strike outnumber supporters, 48 percent to 29 percent.
“The whole theory is we’re going to Syria because that’s the way you march into Iran,” Paul said in an interview with CNN on Tuesday.
“At the same time, we’ve made it tougher... We’ve made it tougher for people who want to live in peace… and now we’re just stirring it up in Syria,” he argued.
US President Barack Obama, who is waiting for congressional authorization to attack Syria, won critical support from key congressional leaders on Tuesday to launch military strikes against Syria.
Following a meeting with Obama, House Speaker John Boehner said the US has "enemies around the world that need to understand that we're not going to tolerate this type of behavior. We also have allies around the world and allies in the region who also need to know that America will be there and stand up when it's necessary."
Ron Paul also criticized the Obama administration for interfering in the internal affairs of Syria.
“It's a civil war and there's no way you're going to figure it out. I smell Iraq all over again. I remember the assurances that were given us 10 years ago and members of Congress believed that. But let me tell you, the situation is a lot different. The American people are on my side on this issue today and there's a lot more people in Congress now who are saying, it makes no sense,” he said.
“And just listen to the military commanders. They said, you know, we don't even have the money for this. We have to have a supplemental. Now, how about all these warmongers getting ready to bomb and kill and invade or do whatever they think necessary and they don't even have the money and then they have to appropriate the money, which means more money drained from our economy,” Paul argued.
Paul also experienced “technical difficulties” with his satellite connection during his interview with CNN.
Meanwhile, recent polls show the American people are against Syria war under the pretext of the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.
An ABC News/Washington Post poll released Tuesday said 59 percent of Americans oppose unilateral US military action. Pew Research also found that opponents of a strike outnumber supporters, 48 percent to 29 percent.
3 sept 2013
From 2003 to 2012, over two thousand doctors and nurses, and over four hundred academics, have been assassinated in Iraq. Others have emigrated due to violence in the region. In 1990, there were about thirty thousand registered doctors in Iraq. By 2008, more than fifteen thousand had already left the country. Then there is the high unemployment that has been ravaging sections of the region, combining with the fact that educational institutions have been in decline.[1]
John Tirman of The Nation reported in 2009 that about 1 million people have been killed in Iraq, 4.5 million have been displaced. The war produced one to two million widows, and about five million orphans.[2] Those figures are probably higher.
Israel is continuing this form of ethnic cleansing by destroying Palestinian “unrecognized” villages and replacing them with Israeli buildings.[3]
If Israel is a “villa in the jungle,” as Ehud Barak put it,[4] then it seems to follow that the Palestinians are just “dogs” and “roaches in a bottle,” as Chief of Staff of the IDF Moshe Dayan (1915-1981) and Rafael Eitan (1929-2004) believed, respectively.[5]
This is the freedom that the neoconservatives have brought to Iraq; this is the sort of heaven these intellectual and political geniuses are seeking in the Middle East, and all of that has been done for Israel. Right before America invaded Iraq, Benjamin Netanyahu declared,
“I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime [which was] feverishly trying to acquire nuclear weapons.”[6]
What is even heartbroken is that the ideological agenda of the neoconservative movement progressively attacks Christian families and neighborhoods in the Middle East.
Doug Bandow of the National Interest had the guts in 2010 to declare that “the historic Christian community has been largely destroyed” in Iraq after the war, where hundreds of Christians have been killed and exiled to other countries such as Syria and Lebanon.[7]
John Tirman of The Nation reported in 2009 that about 1 million people have been killed in Iraq, 4.5 million have been displaced. The war produced one to two million widows, and about five million orphans.[2] Those figures are probably higher.
Israel is continuing this form of ethnic cleansing by destroying Palestinian “unrecognized” villages and replacing them with Israeli buildings.[3]
If Israel is a “villa in the jungle,” as Ehud Barak put it,[4] then it seems to follow that the Palestinians are just “dogs” and “roaches in a bottle,” as Chief of Staff of the IDF Moshe Dayan (1915-1981) and Rafael Eitan (1929-2004) believed, respectively.[5]
This is the freedom that the neoconservatives have brought to Iraq; this is the sort of heaven these intellectual and political geniuses are seeking in the Middle East, and all of that has been done for Israel. Right before America invaded Iraq, Benjamin Netanyahu declared,
“I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime [which was] feverishly trying to acquire nuclear weapons.”[6]
What is even heartbroken is that the ideological agenda of the neoconservative movement progressively attacks Christian families and neighborhoods in the Middle East.
Doug Bandow of the National Interest had the guts in 2010 to declare that “the historic Christian community has been largely destroyed” in Iraq after the war, where hundreds of Christians have been killed and exiled to other countries such as Syria and Lebanon.[7]
We are witnessing the same thing in Syria, where the Christian minority has been targeted by the Syrian rebels/terrorists.[8] And by October 2012, it was clear that by supporting the Syrian terrorists, the U.S. ended up supporting “hardline Islamic Jihadis,” says David Sanger of the New York Times.[9] Just recently, it has been reported that more than two million civilians fled the country.[10]
The rebels themselves have been known to support “senseless destruction, criminal behavior and the cold-blooded killing of prisoners.”[11] By the end of November 2012, the Syrian war had caused at least 40,000 people to leave their homeland, and
“1.2 million have been driven from their homes within the country, according to the United Nations refugee agency. Some 2.5 million people need humanitarian assistance, and the number keeps climbing.”
That particular month turned out to be a bad omen for the Syrians as well, as they faced “the onslaught of winter with inadequate shelter,” with many possessing “little more than a T-shirt and flip-flops.” With the temperature reaching zero degrees at night, 27-year old Mohamed Khair al-Oraiby lamented, “We already wake up early because it is so cold.”[12]
Bandow continues to say that “many advocates claim Iraq is now a great success. But not for Iraq’s Christians.”[13] People like Benjamin Weinthal are now talking about “The Mideast’s Vanishing Christians.”[14]
In October 2012, a bomb blasted a Beirut Christian community, and the New York Times was quick to jump to the conclusion that Assad was behind it,[15] forgetting that Assad has been friends with the Christian communities and that they too saw that if Assad is overthrown, the Christian communities will have problems with the new regime.
According to the reasoning by the New York Times, Assad was just dumb, killing his own allies for no reason. But only a week before the bombing, the Syrian rebels threatened to attack Beirut.[16] None of that was put into consideration by the New York Times.
Who is behind this?
The rebels themselves have been known to support “senseless destruction, criminal behavior and the cold-blooded killing of prisoners.”[11] By the end of November 2012, the Syrian war had caused at least 40,000 people to leave their homeland, and
“1.2 million have been driven from their homes within the country, according to the United Nations refugee agency. Some 2.5 million people need humanitarian assistance, and the number keeps climbing.”
That particular month turned out to be a bad omen for the Syrians as well, as they faced “the onslaught of winter with inadequate shelter,” with many possessing “little more than a T-shirt and flip-flops.” With the temperature reaching zero degrees at night, 27-year old Mohamed Khair al-Oraiby lamented, “We already wake up early because it is so cold.”[12]
Bandow continues to say that “many advocates claim Iraq is now a great success. But not for Iraq’s Christians.”[13] People like Benjamin Weinthal are now talking about “The Mideast’s Vanishing Christians.”[14]
In October 2012, a bomb blasted a Beirut Christian community, and the New York Times was quick to jump to the conclusion that Assad was behind it,[15] forgetting that Assad has been friends with the Christian communities and that they too saw that if Assad is overthrown, the Christian communities will have problems with the new regime.
According to the reasoning by the New York Times, Assad was just dumb, killing his own allies for no reason. But only a week before the bombing, the Syrian rebels threatened to attack Beirut.[16] None of that was put into consideration by the New York Times.
Who is behind this?
Bandow did not tell us who those advocates were, nor did Weinthal describe the forces behind the vanishing Christians in the Middle East. Weinthal ended up putting the blame only on Hamas, at least in the Gaza Strip, and then on Egypt’s former president Mohamed Morsi.[17]
In other words, the neoconservatives destroyed the Christian community in many parts of the Middle East and then blamed it on the Muslims! Raymond Ibrahim, in his book Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, never even remotely suggests that the neoconservative ideology is part of the problem.[18]
This is called divide and conquer. For example, Obama in particular has never ceased to follow the neoconservative dream in the Middle East. He is currently seeking Congressional approval to strike Syria.
But how do the neoconservatives respond? Peter Wehner of Commentary currently declares that Obama is “doing nothing to achieve that end”![19] Max Boot of the same magazine comes up with similar conclusions.[20]
John Podhoretz, son of Norman Podhoretz and editor of Commentary, argues that Obama made it clear that he does not need Congressional approval to strike Syria, and Obama needs to be true to his words.[21]
William Kristol approvingly published an article by neoconservative James Ceaser arguing that the law ought to be changed. The law ought to give the president enough power to go to war without Congressional approval.[22] This will give the neoconservatives complete control over our foreign policy.
But suppose Obama continues to push Congress to attack Syria and America actually invades Syria. How do you think the neoconservatives will respond?
Consider the title of this book by David Limbaugh: The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama’s War on the Republic.
In other words, the neoconservatives destroyed the Christian community in many parts of the Middle East and then blamed it on the Muslims! Raymond Ibrahim, in his book Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, never even remotely suggests that the neoconservative ideology is part of the problem.[18]
This is called divide and conquer. For example, Obama in particular has never ceased to follow the neoconservative dream in the Middle East. He is currently seeking Congressional approval to strike Syria.
But how do the neoconservatives respond? Peter Wehner of Commentary currently declares that Obama is “doing nothing to achieve that end”![19] Max Boot of the same magazine comes up with similar conclusions.[20]
John Podhoretz, son of Norman Podhoretz and editor of Commentary, argues that Obama made it clear that he does not need Congressional approval to strike Syria, and Obama needs to be true to his words.[21]
William Kristol approvingly published an article by neoconservative James Ceaser arguing that the law ought to be changed. The law ought to give the president enough power to go to war without Congressional approval.[22] This will give the neoconservatives complete control over our foreign policy.
But suppose Obama continues to push Congress to attack Syria and America actually invades Syria. How do you think the neoconservatives will respond?
Consider the title of this book by David Limbaugh: The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama’s War on the Republic.
In other words, the neo-Bolsheviks/neoconservatives will never take responsibility for the chaos they have created in the Middle East and elsewhere. Obama even got Zionist puppets John McCain and Lindsey Graham onboard,[23] but not a single neoconservative like Limbaugh will even suggest that they are partly responsible for the problem. Daniel Greenfield of FrontPage Magazine is upset because Obama is pushing Congress to go to war with Syria.[24] But Greenfield has not written a single piece about the neoconservatives who are pushing for the war.
(We see the same thing in America, when evidence indicated that the Protestant movement in the United States was in steep decline. One writer attributed this to secularism,[25] without even mentioning the major forces behind secularism. The man who has been called “the father of secularism” is none other than the late Paul Kurtz.[26])
Historian Aaron B. O’Connell of the United States Navy for example talks about “the permanent militarization of America,”[27] but dares not say that the people behind this are none other than the neoconservatives.
The neoconservative movement, as we have demonstrated in other articles, is a Jewish intellectual and political movement which precipitated the war in Iraq and created political entropy in the country.
Iraq was not a threat to America by any stretch of the imagination,[28] but the neoconservatives unleashed a plethora of hoaxes and pathetic fabrications which eventually convinced the American people that Iraq was an imminent threat. Bush was partly a puppet in the process.
“Prince of Darkness” Richard Perle for example bragged about how Bush knew very little about foreign policy and that he and other neoconservatives had to coach him.[29]
Now it is Iran that is an existential threat, despite the fact that for almost three thousand years, Jewish artifacts of all kinds have played a vital role in Iran among the Jewish community, where they largely enjoyed the ambiance,[30] and despite the fact that noted political scientists such as Kenneth Waltz have made it clear that a nuclear Iran is not a threat to the Middle East or America.
According to Waltz,
“Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East. In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist. It is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced.”[31]
Other scholars like Paul R. Pillar made similar arguments.[32]
Ethnic Cleansing
Israel never ceased to wipe out the Palestinians. The 1982 massacre is a classic example, where Israeli military allowed Lebanese militia to attack Palestinian refugees; they “raped, killed and dismembered at least 800 civilians, while Israeli flares illuminated the camps’ narrow and darkened alleyways.”[33]
One year later, an Israeli investigation commission found Israel “indirectly responsible” for the massacre, and Ariel Sharon an accomplice.[34] How did the Israeli officials get the U.S. involved?
According to declassified documents found in the Israel State Archives, they convinced U.S. officials that Beirut had terrorist cells, and in the end allowed the slaughter of Palestinian civilians whom the U.S. had previously vowed to protect.[35] Ariel Sharon said that Beirut had from 2,000 to 3,000 terrorists.
(We see the same thing in America, when evidence indicated that the Protestant movement in the United States was in steep decline. One writer attributed this to secularism,[25] without even mentioning the major forces behind secularism. The man who has been called “the father of secularism” is none other than the late Paul Kurtz.[26])
Historian Aaron B. O’Connell of the United States Navy for example talks about “the permanent militarization of America,”[27] but dares not say that the people behind this are none other than the neoconservatives.
The neoconservative movement, as we have demonstrated in other articles, is a Jewish intellectual and political movement which precipitated the war in Iraq and created political entropy in the country.
Iraq was not a threat to America by any stretch of the imagination,[28] but the neoconservatives unleashed a plethora of hoaxes and pathetic fabrications which eventually convinced the American people that Iraq was an imminent threat. Bush was partly a puppet in the process.
“Prince of Darkness” Richard Perle for example bragged about how Bush knew very little about foreign policy and that he and other neoconservatives had to coach him.[29]
Now it is Iran that is an existential threat, despite the fact that for almost three thousand years, Jewish artifacts of all kinds have played a vital role in Iran among the Jewish community, where they largely enjoyed the ambiance,[30] and despite the fact that noted political scientists such as Kenneth Waltz have made it clear that a nuclear Iran is not a threat to the Middle East or America.
According to Waltz,
“Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East. In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist. It is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced.”[31]
Other scholars like Paul R. Pillar made similar arguments.[32]
Ethnic Cleansing
Israel never ceased to wipe out the Palestinians. The 1982 massacre is a classic example, where Israeli military allowed Lebanese militia to attack Palestinian refugees; they “raped, killed and dismembered at least 800 civilians, while Israeli flares illuminated the camps’ narrow and darkened alleyways.”[33]
One year later, an Israeli investigation commission found Israel “indirectly responsible” for the massacre, and Ariel Sharon an accomplice.[34] How did the Israeli officials get the U.S. involved?
According to declassified documents found in the Israel State Archives, they convinced U.S. officials that Beirut had terrorist cells, and in the end allowed the slaughter of Palestinian civilians whom the U.S. had previously vowed to protect.[35] Ariel Sharon said that Beirut had from 2,000 to 3,000 terrorists.
The American envoy in the Middle East, Morris Draper, basically said that Sharon was lying. Lawrence S. Eagleburger, then Secretary of State, declared:
“We appear to some to be the victim of deliberate deception by Israel.”[36]
During his conversation with Sharon, Draper knew that the United States was not standing behind Sharon’s evil pursuit, but Sharon ended an agreement on his own terms. It was reported that Draper told Sharon,
“You should be ashamed. The situation is absolutely appalling. They’re killing children! You have the field completely under your control and are therefore Zionist, was outraged.”
Secretary of State George P. Shultz declared that the United States was also an accomplice in allowing Israel to manipulate them in order to massacre civilians. But no sanctions were pronounced on Israel. Nothing was done. Why?
Nicholas A. Veliotes, then the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, gave us an indirect answer:
“Vintage Sharon. It is his way or the highway.”[37]
Scholar Seth Anziska declares, “The Sabra and Shatila massacre severely undercut America’s influence in the Middle East, and its moral authority plummeted.”[38]
The Neoconservatives vs. America
“We appear to some to be the victim of deliberate deception by Israel.”[36]
During his conversation with Sharon, Draper knew that the United States was not standing behind Sharon’s evil pursuit, but Sharon ended an agreement on his own terms. It was reported that Draper told Sharon,
“You should be ashamed. The situation is absolutely appalling. They’re killing children! You have the field completely under your control and are therefore Zionist, was outraged.”
Secretary of State George P. Shultz declared that the United States was also an accomplice in allowing Israel to manipulate them in order to massacre civilians. But no sanctions were pronounced on Israel. Nothing was done. Why?
Nicholas A. Veliotes, then the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, gave us an indirect answer:
“Vintage Sharon. It is his way or the highway.”[37]
Scholar Seth Anziska declares, “The Sabra and Shatila massacre severely undercut America’s influence in the Middle East, and its moral authority plummeted.”[38]
The Neoconservatives vs. America
The dominance of the neoconservative agenda had a trajectory effect in America, which induced the war in Iraq and left us in debt. Some economists thought that the war in Iraq would only cost three trillion dollars.[39] But it has been reported that the war itself will more than likely cost us at least six trillion dollars in the long run.[40] [40]
The wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, and other parts in the Middle East have cost billions of dollars. By 2010, the war in Afghanistan had already surpassed the $12 billion mark.[41]
By January 2011, it was reported that the U.S. had wasted $12 billion in Afghanistan.[42] In the same month, the budget deficit was reaching the $1.48 trillion mark,[43] while the U.S. debt was nearly $14.3 trillion.[44]
It has reported recently that a war with Syria will cost America greatly: just one cruise missile alone costs about $1.1 million, and there are five U.S. Navy destroyers carrying those cruise missiles.
“The destroyers generally carry dozens of them… The ships, missiles and salaries are already paid for. There may be an incremental cost in the tens of millions for operating the ships outside their routine operating schedule.”[45]
By the summer of 2012, the U.S. debt has already reached the $16 trillion mark.[46] In other words, trillions of dollars have been spent for wars when they could have helped reboot the economy. The indirect consequence? We produce Guantanamo whereas in the past torture was completely foreign to America.[47]
Perhaps one of the rare areas neoconservative policies have affected America is in the decline of the European population. People are having fewer children, since the economy does not allow the average family to put food on the table.
This means that the worldwide population—most particularly in Europe—is in decline. And that has spread to America. As it turned out, by the spring of 2012, “White births are no longer a majority in the United States.”[48]
The article hints that one of the causes is the economy. In this fragile economy, almost no one is exempt, including 62-year-old folks who thought that they were safe with their mortgage, only to find that they had been ripped off.[49]
Marriage is a central component in any society, and the ancient Greco-Roman world suffered in this area because to some extent they held marriage “in low esteem.” It was such a problem that in 131 B.C., the Roman censor Quintus Caecilius wanted to make marriage compulsory.[50]
The wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, and other parts in the Middle East have cost billions of dollars. By 2010, the war in Afghanistan had already surpassed the $12 billion mark.[41]
By January 2011, it was reported that the U.S. had wasted $12 billion in Afghanistan.[42] In the same month, the budget deficit was reaching the $1.48 trillion mark,[43] while the U.S. debt was nearly $14.3 trillion.[44]
It has reported recently that a war with Syria will cost America greatly: just one cruise missile alone costs about $1.1 million, and there are five U.S. Navy destroyers carrying those cruise missiles.
“The destroyers generally carry dozens of them… The ships, missiles and salaries are already paid for. There may be an incremental cost in the tens of millions for operating the ships outside their routine operating schedule.”[45]
By the summer of 2012, the U.S. debt has already reached the $16 trillion mark.[46] In other words, trillions of dollars have been spent for wars when they could have helped reboot the economy. The indirect consequence? We produce Guantanamo whereas in the past torture was completely foreign to America.[47]
Perhaps one of the rare areas neoconservative policies have affected America is in the decline of the European population. People are having fewer children, since the economy does not allow the average family to put food on the table.
This means that the worldwide population—most particularly in Europe—is in decline. And that has spread to America. As it turned out, by the spring of 2012, “White births are no longer a majority in the United States.”[48]
The article hints that one of the causes is the economy. In this fragile economy, almost no one is exempt, including 62-year-old folks who thought that they were safe with their mortgage, only to find that they had been ripped off.[49]
Marriage is a central component in any society, and the ancient Greco-Roman world suffered in this area because to some extent they held marriage “in low esteem.” It was such a problem that in 131 B.C., the Roman censor Quintus Caecilius wanted to make marriage compulsory.[50]
America is facing a similar situation. With student loans burying the average student in debt, where some owe as much as $85,000,[51] it certainly will take a while for those students to get out of the sinkhole. By September 2012, it was reported that one in five U.S. households suffered from student loan debt.[52] What is more disheartening is that some borrowers have tricked students so that those students have no way to get out of debt.[53]
One student, Jenny Hecht, is a graduate from the University of Michigan with a master’s degree in social work. She has a job that pays less than $40,000 a year with a student loan of $75,000. Although she seems to be happy with her livelihood, she complains,
“I don’t want to sound like a victim, because I chose this career. We live a modest lifestyle. We’re able to pay our bills and stay afloat, except that this student loan debt is hanging over our heads always.”[54]
Ann Marie Gorden is another student with a debt of $130,000. In her first job, Gorden only made $28,000 a year with a loan payment of $700 on her back which only covered the interest. Thankfully, she found a new job where she made $45,000 a year.[55] Still, that is not enough to cover the debt, which will economically cripple her for years to come—if not her lifetime.
Aaron Marks, who graduated in 2012 from Carnegie Mellon University with a business degree, owes $191,000 in student loans. Marks knew what was happening, but nevertheless lamented,
“You don’t really think about what it actually means to have a house worth of debt, on a higher interest rate than a mortgage, until you’re getting close to graduating and thinking about having to repay them.”[56]
At the same time, United States was planning to send millions of dollars to Libya to allegedly combat Islamic extremists.[57]
Counter-terrorism vs. America
One student, Jenny Hecht, is a graduate from the University of Michigan with a master’s degree in social work. She has a job that pays less than $40,000 a year with a student loan of $75,000. Although she seems to be happy with her livelihood, she complains,
“I don’t want to sound like a victim, because I chose this career. We live a modest lifestyle. We’re able to pay our bills and stay afloat, except that this student loan debt is hanging over our heads always.”[54]
Ann Marie Gorden is another student with a debt of $130,000. In her first job, Gorden only made $28,000 a year with a loan payment of $700 on her back which only covered the interest. Thankfully, she found a new job where she made $45,000 a year.[55] Still, that is not enough to cover the debt, which will economically cripple her for years to come—if not her lifetime.
Aaron Marks, who graduated in 2012 from Carnegie Mellon University with a business degree, owes $191,000 in student loans. Marks knew what was happening, but nevertheless lamented,
“You don’t really think about what it actually means to have a house worth of debt, on a higher interest rate than a mortgage, until you’re getting close to graduating and thinking about having to repay them.”[56]
At the same time, United States was planning to send millions of dollars to Libya to allegedly combat Islamic extremists.[57]
Counter-terrorism vs. America
Then we have the so-called counterterrorism movement unleashed by the neoconservative circle. Counterterrorism has become, in the words of Paul R. Pillar, “an increasingly institutionalized killing machine that appears destined to operate indefinitely against a continually replenished list of targets.”[58] Pillar continues to argue that the counterterrorism advocates failed to learn that
“terrorism is not something with a beginning and an end. It is instead a tactic that has persisted throughout history. And yet the notion of a beginning and an end persists in thinking in this country about terrorism.
“The counterterrorism machine has gotten cranked up to run in ways that would not be acceptable to most Americans if it were to run forever, and yet there is no evident point at which, once turned on, it should be turned off.”[59]
Pillar could not be any more right. Even by October 2012, most Americans do not want the U.S. to intervene in the Middle East.[60]
It is this so-called counterterrorism that drove president after president to wage detrimental wars in the Middle East, and even Obama, who was viewed as an intermission from perpetual wars, is responsible for the killings of hundreds of civilians, including women and children, in places like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.[61]
In Pakistan alone, it has been reported that some 400 civilians were killed by drones since 2004.[62] Obama continued the same perpetual war in the Middle East.[63] But that never stops him from accusing Assad of killing civilians.[64]
Secretary of State John Kerry does the same thing, saying that laboratory tests proved that the Assad government has used chemical weapons.[65] Anders Rasmussen, NATO’s secretary-general, declared that he has seen concrete evidence showing that the Syrian government was responsible for the act.[66]
“terrorism is not something with a beginning and an end. It is instead a tactic that has persisted throughout history. And yet the notion of a beginning and an end persists in thinking in this country about terrorism.
“The counterterrorism machine has gotten cranked up to run in ways that would not be acceptable to most Americans if it were to run forever, and yet there is no evident point at which, once turned on, it should be turned off.”[59]
Pillar could not be any more right. Even by October 2012, most Americans do not want the U.S. to intervene in the Middle East.[60]
It is this so-called counterterrorism that drove president after president to wage detrimental wars in the Middle East, and even Obama, who was viewed as an intermission from perpetual wars, is responsible for the killings of hundreds of civilians, including women and children, in places like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.[61]
In Pakistan alone, it has been reported that some 400 civilians were killed by drones since 2004.[62] Obama continued the same perpetual war in the Middle East.[63] But that never stops him from accusing Assad of killing civilians.[64]
Secretary of State John Kerry does the same thing, saying that laboratory tests proved that the Assad government has used chemical weapons.[65] Anders Rasmussen, NATO’s secretary-general, declared that he has seen concrete evidence showing that the Syrian government was responsible for the act.[66]
There was just one problem: Kerry and Rasmussen failed to tell the press where to get those laboratory tests. You make an extraordinary claim, which has the potential to create chaos in the Middle East if followed through, then you pull back and say that the evidence for the assertion is classified!
Assad had to be really stupid to use chemical weapons when he knew very well that the Zionist regime would use that excuse to invade Syria in a heartbeat. But judging from numerous interviews, Assad does not seem to be an irrational person.[67 video's]
Assad had to be really stupid to use chemical weapons when he knew very well that the Zionist regime would use that excuse to invade Syria in a heartbeat. But judging from numerous interviews, Assad does not seem to be an irrational person.[67 video's]
|
|
|
Assad proved to be an enemy of the Zionist regime when he stated in 2006 that the Jews “tried to kill the principles of all religion with the same mentality in which they betrayed Jesus Christ and the same way they tried to and kill the Prophet Muhammad.”[68]
Assad said he opposed anti-Semitism and has even made it clear that the Syrian people are also part of the Semitic peoples. Assad even supported the initiative of rebuilding synagogues in Damascus back in 2011.[69]
But those initiatives will never satisfy the Zionist regime because it wants to have total domination. Therefore it was inevitable that Assad would find himself in the Middle of what seems to be an unresolved conflict. It was also inevitable that the Zionist machine would summon some of the ridiculous statements about Assad, including his alleged use of chemical weapons.
In response, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared,
“If there truly is top secret information available, the veil should be lifted. This is a question of war and peace. To continue this game of secrecy is simply inappropriate.”[70]
As a faithful Zionist and “born-again neocon,” Obama has desperately tried to persuade Congress and even marshaled a campaign without any evidence to invade Syria.[71] The Zionist regime continues to propound the lie that Syria has used chemical weapons, but international chemical weapons experts are widely skeptical about the claim.[72] Richard Guthrie, former leader of the Chemical Biological Warfare Project of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, declared,
“There are lots of things that aren’t spelled out. That’s the difficulty. There’s still problem of, Trust us, we have more intelligence.’”[73]
Here is something very important to consider. The Obama administration also kept saying that they are intervening in Syria largely for humanitarian reasons and for saving previous lives.
Just recently, Khalid Shakfeh, an eighteen-year old University of South Florida microbiology student, went to Syria with his family and the Syrian American Council on Spring Break and brought humanitarian supplies with them. As soon as he came back to America to continue his studies, he was approached by the MacDill-based U.S. Special Operations Command, a military operation, about his activity![74]
Counter-terrorism is a Zionist invention
Assad said he opposed anti-Semitism and has even made it clear that the Syrian people are also part of the Semitic peoples. Assad even supported the initiative of rebuilding synagogues in Damascus back in 2011.[69]
But those initiatives will never satisfy the Zionist regime because it wants to have total domination. Therefore it was inevitable that Assad would find himself in the Middle of what seems to be an unresolved conflict. It was also inevitable that the Zionist machine would summon some of the ridiculous statements about Assad, including his alleged use of chemical weapons.
In response, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared,
“If there truly is top secret information available, the veil should be lifted. This is a question of war and peace. To continue this game of secrecy is simply inappropriate.”[70]
As a faithful Zionist and “born-again neocon,” Obama has desperately tried to persuade Congress and even marshaled a campaign without any evidence to invade Syria.[71] The Zionist regime continues to propound the lie that Syria has used chemical weapons, but international chemical weapons experts are widely skeptical about the claim.[72] Richard Guthrie, former leader of the Chemical Biological Warfare Project of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, declared,
“There are lots of things that aren’t spelled out. That’s the difficulty. There’s still problem of, Trust us, we have more intelligence.’”[73]
Here is something very important to consider. The Obama administration also kept saying that they are intervening in Syria largely for humanitarian reasons and for saving previous lives.
Just recently, Khalid Shakfeh, an eighteen-year old University of South Florida microbiology student, went to Syria with his family and the Syrian American Council on Spring Break and brought humanitarian supplies with them. As soon as he came back to America to continue his studies, he was approached by the MacDill-based U.S. Special Operations Command, a military operation, about his activity![74]
Counter-terrorism is a Zionist invention
Yet by September 2012, the United States removed the terrorist label from MEK,[75] although it remained a violent terrorist organization,[76] whose members were trained by the Mossad to kill Iranian scientists.[77] In other words, MEK is not a terrorist organization because the neoconservatives dictate to us what is and is not a terrorist organization. In a nutshell, the average American and our precious soldiers are simply exhausted. They simply do not want to hear about another war in the Middle East for Israel. Brilliant politician Justin Amash declared,
“I’ve been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces. The message I constantly hear: Please vote no on military action against Syria.’”[78] Here is the assessment of an active-duty soldier, “rank of Sergeant First Class”:
“We are stretched thin, tired, and broke…. We are too tired to put boots on the ground… My gut is telling me that we don’t need to be World Police. And if we don’t have the UN for back up, it’s just too much for us to take on.
“We still haven’t finished Afghanistan; I just don’t see how we can take on another war, or even military actions that don’t affect us. I can’t stand to sit by and watch innocent lives be taken in such a horrible manner, but we can’t really do this alone…”[79]
James Madison and Richard Nixon vs. the Neo-Bolsheviks
“I’ve been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces. The message I constantly hear: Please vote no on military action against Syria.’”[78] Here is the assessment of an active-duty soldier, “rank of Sergeant First Class”:
“We are stretched thin, tired, and broke…. We are too tired to put boots on the ground… My gut is telling me that we don’t need to be World Police. And if we don’t have the UN for back up, it’s just too much for us to take on.
“We still haven’t finished Afghanistan; I just don’t see how we can take on another war, or even military actions that don’t affect us. I can’t stand to sit by and watch innocent lives be taken in such a horrible manner, but we can’t really do this alone…”[79]
James Madison and Richard Nixon vs. the Neo-Bolsheviks
In the 1790s, James Madison, speaking in a cogently prophetic voice, wrote:
“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debt and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended.”[80]
Madison was more right than he ever imagined. The best way to bring “the many under the dominion of the few” is to create perpetual wars, and perpetual wars will inevitably give the few powers over us all.
Who is largely responsible for this mess? Perhaps it is time to bring in Richard Nixon. He said that the Jews in America largely “put the Jewish interest above America’s interest, and it’s about goddamn time that the Jew in America realizes he’s an American first and a Jew second.”[81]
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported, “Nixon accused the Jews of holding American foreign policy ‘hostage to Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union,’ and added that ‘the American people are not going to let them destroy our foreign policy — never!’”[82]
If Nixon is to be correct, the American people must rise to the challenge. The vast majority of Americans did a great job in resisting a war with Syria. Only nine percent of the population actually supported a strike against Syria.[83] This once again shows that the Zionist regime can be challenged and defeated. It is not too late.
In order to defeat the Zionist regime, there ought to be a thorough investigation on those double agents who pretend to protect America but are traitors and spies for the terrorist state known as Israel. John Kerry in particular is a classic example of a double agent.
When Congress was giving him a hard time about the issues in Syria, Kerry called his boss, Benjamin Netanyahu, “with a reassuring message: the Obama administration is determined to take action against Bashar Assad’s regime in response to the August 21 chemical weapons attack.”[84]
“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debt and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended.”[80]
Madison was more right than he ever imagined. The best way to bring “the many under the dominion of the few” is to create perpetual wars, and perpetual wars will inevitably give the few powers over us all.
Who is largely responsible for this mess? Perhaps it is time to bring in Richard Nixon. He said that the Jews in America largely “put the Jewish interest above America’s interest, and it’s about goddamn time that the Jew in America realizes he’s an American first and a Jew second.”[81]
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported, “Nixon accused the Jews of holding American foreign policy ‘hostage to Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union,’ and added that ‘the American people are not going to let them destroy our foreign policy — never!’”[82]
If Nixon is to be correct, the American people must rise to the challenge. The vast majority of Americans did a great job in resisting a war with Syria. Only nine percent of the population actually supported a strike against Syria.[83] This once again shows that the Zionist regime can be challenged and defeated. It is not too late.
In order to defeat the Zionist regime, there ought to be a thorough investigation on those double agents who pretend to protect America but are traitors and spies for the terrorist state known as Israel. John Kerry in particular is a classic example of a double agent.
When Congress was giving him a hard time about the issues in Syria, Kerry called his boss, Benjamin Netanyahu, “with a reassuring message: the Obama administration is determined to take action against Bashar Assad’s regime in response to the August 21 chemical weapons attack.”[84]
Obama did almost the same thing with respect to Iran.[85] Later, Obama let the world, including his boss, know that Congress will give the go-ahead on Syria.[86] The terrorist state responded by testing its missile in the Mediterranean.[87] Kerry doesn’t apologize to the American people who try to pay their taxes and support the terrorist state; Kerry called “King Bibi.” Behind closed doors, the Israeli officials talked about how the U.S. must act quickly in Syria.[88]
In a desperate attempt to convince the American people that Assad needs to go, Kerry says:
“Bashar al-Assad now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein who have used these weapons in time of war.”[89]
Wait a minute. I thought the Holocaust establishment says that the Holocaust is unique and cannot be compared to any other crime in history?
Dethrone the Neo-Bolsheviks from their Political Power
In a desperate attempt to convince the American people that Assad needs to go, Kerry says:
“Bashar al-Assad now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein who have used these weapons in time of war.”[89]
Wait a minute. I thought the Holocaust establishment says that the Holocaust is unique and cannot be compared to any other crime in history?
Dethrone the Neo-Bolsheviks from their Political Power
If the Zionists/neo-Bolsheviks/neoconservatives are giving their allegiance to terrorism such as the Syrian rebels, they ought to be dethroned from their political power. If they are going to destroy our foreign policy, why should we give them a political platform to do so?
More recently, the Washington Post declares that soldiers with post-traumatic stress are still being redeployed in Afghanistan. Many of those soldiers lost their marriages because of the perpetual wars, and many are physically and emotionally crippled. As the report puts it:
“A diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder is not a barrier to being redeployed…. there is the young sergeant whose previous tour in Afghanistan — a relentless blur of firefights and rocket attacks — has left him unable to sleep.
“There is the officer who returned home from Iraq and screamed in nightmares for his men to take cover, until his wife woke him up, bewildered.
“There is the battalion commander, Lt. Col. Daniel Morgan, who watched as his marriage nearly disintegrated over the course of several deployments and who found himself sitting at a beach house in North Carolina a few years ago, stung by his inability to communicate.
“The men are not at home recovering. They are back in one of the most dangerous stretches of Afghanistan.”[90]
In other words, nothing is too great a risk for the terrorist state known as Israel. Politico has recently admitted that the war with Syria would be good for Israel.[91]
Let us all continue to challenge the terrorist state. As Solzhenitsyn put it, “One word of truth outweighs the world.”
[1] See Irena L. Sargsyan, “Iraq’s Endless Humanitarian Crisis,” National Interest, October 9, 2012.
[3] Mark Byrnes, “Israel Looks Poised to Demolish Its Bedouin Villages,” The Atlantic Cities, August 30, 2013.
[4] Quoted in Jodi Rudoren, “Amid Chaos, Israelis Take a Stoic View,” NY Times, August 28, 2013.
[6] Quoted in John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007), 237.
[7] Doug Bandow, “The Plight of Christians in Iraq,” National Interest, Nov. 2, 2010.
[8] See Angela Shanahan, “Christians a Target for Syrian Rebels We Back,” The Australian, October 13, 2012; Alexandra Sandels and Patrick J. McDonnell, “Syria Christian Refugees in Lebanon Fear Islamist Rebels,” LA Times, August 22, 2012; Mark Field, “How Rent-a-Mob Jihadis are Tormenting a Benighted Christian Minority in Bashar al-Assad’s Syria,” Independent, October 14, 2012.
[9] David E. Sanger, “Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria,” NY Times, October 15, 2012.
[10] Nick Cumming-Bruce, “Flow of Refugees Out of Syria Passes Two Million,” NY Times, September 3, 2013.
[11] Anne Barnard, “Missteps by Rebels Erode their Support among Syrians,” NY Times, November 8, 2012.
[12] Neil MacFarquhar, “Cold Ravages Syria Refugees as Aid Falters,” NY Times, November 24, 2012.
[13] Bandow, “The Plight of Christians in Iraq,” National Interest.
[14] Benjamin Weinthal, “The Mideast Vanishing Christians,” National Interest, August 21, 2012.
[15] Anne Barnard, “”Bomb Blast Kills at Least 8 Including Top Security Official,” NY Times, October 19, 2012.
[16] Jason Ditz, “Syria Rebels Threaten Attacks in Lebanese Capital,” Antiwar.com, October 9, 2012.
[17] Barnard, “”Bomb Blast Kills at Least 8,” NY Times.
[18] Raymond Ibrahim, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (WA: Regnery Publishing, 2013).
[19] Peter Wehner, “Thinking Through Our Syrian Options,” Commentary, September 1, 2013.
[20] Max Boot, “Obama’s Path Forward on Syria,” Commentary, September 1, 2013; see also “the Price of Vacillation,” Commentary, September 3, 2013.
[21] John Podhoretz, “Obama’s Bizarre Syria Policy,” Commentary, August 31, 2013.
[22] William Kristol, “Congressional Republicans: Hail Ceaser!,” Weekly Standard, September 3, 2013.
[24] Daniel Greenfield, “Obama’s Plan to Blame Syria on Congress,” FrontPageMag.com, September 2, 2013.
[25] Lewis McCrary, “The End of Protestant America,” National Interest, October 12, 2012.
[27] Aaron B. O’Connell, “The Permanent Militarization of America,” NY Times, November 4, 2012.
[28] See Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); John J. Mearsheimer, Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).
[29] For further detail, see Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism, Vol. I.
[30] Naomi Pfefferman, “An Exhibition of Iranian Jews,” JewishJournal.com, October 10, 2012.
[31] Kenneth W. Waltz, “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2012.
[32] Paul R. Pillar, “We Can Live With a Nuclear Iran,” Washington Monthly, March/April 2012.
[33] Seth Anziska, “A Preventable Massacre,” NY Times, September 16, 2012.
[34] Ibid.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid.
[39] See Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes, The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict (New York: W. W. Norton, 2008).
[41] Richard Wolf, “Afghan War Costs Now Outpace Iraq’s,” USA Today, May 13, 2010.
[42] “U.S. Risks Wasting $12 Billion in Afghan Army Aid,” Reuters.com, January 26, 2011.
[43] Richard Cowan and Kim Dixon, “Budget Deficit to Hit $1.48,” Reuters.com, January 27, 2011.
[44] “Q+A: $14.3 Trillion Debt Limit Looms Closer,” Reuters.com, January 27, 2011.
[45] Tom Vanden Brook, “War Costs Could Escalate Quickly,” USA Today, August 31, 2013.
[46] Ashley Southal, “As Convention Opens, Debt Clock Ticks,” NY Times, August 27, 2012.
[48] Sabrina Tavernise, “Whites Account for Under Half of Births in U.S.,” NY Times, May 17, 2012.
[49] Jessica Silver-Greenberg, “A Risky Lifeline for Seniors is Costing Some Their Homes,” NY Times, October 14, 2012.
[50] Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 117
[51] Ron Lieber, “Answering Questions on Student Loan and the Murky Future,” NY Times, September 14, 2012.
[52] Hope Yen, “Student Loan Debt Hits Record 1 in 5 U.S. Households,” Christian Science Monitor, September 27, 2012.
[53] See “Student Debt Debacles,” NY Times, October 24, 2012.
[54] Amanda Paulson, “Life with Big Student Debt: Tales from Four College Graduates,” Christian Science Monitor.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Eric Schmidt, “U.S. to Help Create an Elite Libyan Force to Combat Islamic Extremists,” NY Times, Oct. 15, 2012.
[58] Paul R. Pillar, “Poorly Learned Lessons
about Terrorism,” National Interest, October 25, 2012.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Conor Friedersdorf, “A Majority of Voters Want America to Stop Intervening Abroad So Much,” Atlantic, October 22, 2012; Paul Richter, “Most Americans Want Less Foreign Involvement, Polls Show,” LA Times, October 27, 2012.
[61] Timothy P. Carney, “Obama’s Free Ride on Killer Drones and Illegal Wars,” Washington Examiner, October 24, 2012.
[63] See Glenn Greenwald, “Obama Moves to Make the War on Terror Permanent,” Guardian, October 24, 2012.
[64] Peter Baker and Jonathan Weisman, “Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria,” NY Times, August 31, 2013.
[65] “Kerry: Tests Prove Sarin Gas Used in Syrian Chemical Attack,” Jerusalem Post, September 1, 2013.
[68] Quoted in “The Disappearance of the Jews,” The Economist, May 10, 2001.
[69] Massoud A. Derhally, “Jews in Damascus Restore Synagogues as Syria Tries to Foster Secular Image,” Bloomberg, February 7, 2011.
[71] Michael R. Gordon and Jackie Calmes, “Obama Starts Lobbying Blitz for Support of Strike on Syria,” NY Times, September 1, 2013.
[72] See for example Terry Atlas, “Shadow of False Iraq Intelligence Hangs Over Syria Strike,” Bloomberg, August 29, 2013.
[73] Quoted in Lindsay Wise and Anita Kumar, “Chemical Weapons Experts Weigh in on Syria Intelligence Report,” McClatchy Newspaper, August 30, 2013.
[75] Scott Shane, “Iranian Dissidents Convince U.S. to Drop Terror Label,” NY Times, September 21, 2012.
[76] Paul Pillar, “More Posturing on Iran,” National Interest, September 23, 2012.
[77] “Mossad training terrorists to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials claim…but is Israel’s real target Obama?,” Daily Mail, February 10, 2012.
[78] Quoted in Paul Szoldra, “Soldiers Speak Out on Syria: ‘We are Stretched Thin, Tired, and Broke,’” Business Insider, September 1, 2013.
[79] Ibid.
[80] Quoted in Michael Scheuer, “The Limits of U.S. Financial Power,” National Interest, September 3, 2013.
[81] Quoted in “New Nixon Tapes Show More Anti-Semitism,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, August 22, 2013.
[82] Ibid.
[84] Quoted in Barak Ravid, “Kerry Assures Netanyahu: Assad Will Be Held Accountable for Syria Gas Attack,” Haaretz, September 2, 2013.
[85] Herb Keinon, “Obama Assures Netanyahu on Iran,” Jerusalem Post, September 2, 2013.
[89] Nick Gass, “Kerry: Cases Against Assad the Same,” Politico, September 1, 2013.
[90] Kevin Sieff, “In Afghanistan, Redeployed U.S. Soldiers Still Coping with Demons of Post-Traumatic Stress,” Washington Post, August 18, 2013.
[91] Jonathan Allen, “White House to Congress: Help Protect Israel,” Politico, September 1, 2013.
More recently, the Washington Post declares that soldiers with post-traumatic stress are still being redeployed in Afghanistan. Many of those soldiers lost their marriages because of the perpetual wars, and many are physically and emotionally crippled. As the report puts it:
“A diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder is not a barrier to being redeployed…. there is the young sergeant whose previous tour in Afghanistan — a relentless blur of firefights and rocket attacks — has left him unable to sleep.
“There is the officer who returned home from Iraq and screamed in nightmares for his men to take cover, until his wife woke him up, bewildered.
“There is the battalion commander, Lt. Col. Daniel Morgan, who watched as his marriage nearly disintegrated over the course of several deployments and who found himself sitting at a beach house in North Carolina a few years ago, stung by his inability to communicate.
“The men are not at home recovering. They are back in one of the most dangerous stretches of Afghanistan.”[90]
In other words, nothing is too great a risk for the terrorist state known as Israel. Politico has recently admitted that the war with Syria would be good for Israel.[91]
Let us all continue to challenge the terrorist state. As Solzhenitsyn put it, “One word of truth outweighs the world.”
[1] See Irena L. Sargsyan, “Iraq’s Endless Humanitarian Crisis,” National Interest, October 9, 2012.
[3] Mark Byrnes, “Israel Looks Poised to Demolish Its Bedouin Villages,” The Atlantic Cities, August 30, 2013.
[4] Quoted in Jodi Rudoren, “Amid Chaos, Israelis Take a Stoic View,” NY Times, August 28, 2013.
[6] Quoted in John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007), 237.
[7] Doug Bandow, “The Plight of Christians in Iraq,” National Interest, Nov. 2, 2010.
[8] See Angela Shanahan, “Christians a Target for Syrian Rebels We Back,” The Australian, October 13, 2012; Alexandra Sandels and Patrick J. McDonnell, “Syria Christian Refugees in Lebanon Fear Islamist Rebels,” LA Times, August 22, 2012; Mark Field, “How Rent-a-Mob Jihadis are Tormenting a Benighted Christian Minority in Bashar al-Assad’s Syria,” Independent, October 14, 2012.
[9] David E. Sanger, “Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria,” NY Times, October 15, 2012.
[10] Nick Cumming-Bruce, “Flow of Refugees Out of Syria Passes Two Million,” NY Times, September 3, 2013.
[11] Anne Barnard, “Missteps by Rebels Erode their Support among Syrians,” NY Times, November 8, 2012.
[12] Neil MacFarquhar, “Cold Ravages Syria Refugees as Aid Falters,” NY Times, November 24, 2012.
[13] Bandow, “The Plight of Christians in Iraq,” National Interest.
[14] Benjamin Weinthal, “The Mideast Vanishing Christians,” National Interest, August 21, 2012.
[15] Anne Barnard, “”Bomb Blast Kills at Least 8 Including Top Security Official,” NY Times, October 19, 2012.
[16] Jason Ditz, “Syria Rebels Threaten Attacks in Lebanese Capital,” Antiwar.com, October 9, 2012.
[17] Barnard, “”Bomb Blast Kills at Least 8,” NY Times.
[18] Raymond Ibrahim, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (WA: Regnery Publishing, 2013).
[19] Peter Wehner, “Thinking Through Our Syrian Options,” Commentary, September 1, 2013.
[20] Max Boot, “Obama’s Path Forward on Syria,” Commentary, September 1, 2013; see also “the Price of Vacillation,” Commentary, September 3, 2013.
[21] John Podhoretz, “Obama’s Bizarre Syria Policy,” Commentary, August 31, 2013.
[22] William Kristol, “Congressional Republicans: Hail Ceaser!,” Weekly Standard, September 3, 2013.
[24] Daniel Greenfield, “Obama’s Plan to Blame Syria on Congress,” FrontPageMag.com, September 2, 2013.
[25] Lewis McCrary, “The End of Protestant America,” National Interest, October 12, 2012.
[27] Aaron B. O’Connell, “The Permanent Militarization of America,” NY Times, November 4, 2012.
[28] See Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); John J. Mearsheimer, Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).
[29] For further detail, see Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism, Vol. I.
[30] Naomi Pfefferman, “An Exhibition of Iranian Jews,” JewishJournal.com, October 10, 2012.
[31] Kenneth W. Waltz, “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2012.
[32] Paul R. Pillar, “We Can Live With a Nuclear Iran,” Washington Monthly, March/April 2012.
[33] Seth Anziska, “A Preventable Massacre,” NY Times, September 16, 2012.
[34] Ibid.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid.
[39] See Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes, The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict (New York: W. W. Norton, 2008).
[41] Richard Wolf, “Afghan War Costs Now Outpace Iraq’s,” USA Today, May 13, 2010.
[42] “U.S. Risks Wasting $12 Billion in Afghan Army Aid,” Reuters.com, January 26, 2011.
[43] Richard Cowan and Kim Dixon, “Budget Deficit to Hit $1.48,” Reuters.com, January 27, 2011.
[44] “Q+A: $14.3 Trillion Debt Limit Looms Closer,” Reuters.com, January 27, 2011.
[45] Tom Vanden Brook, “War Costs Could Escalate Quickly,” USA Today, August 31, 2013.
[46] Ashley Southal, “As Convention Opens, Debt Clock Ticks,” NY Times, August 27, 2012.
[48] Sabrina Tavernise, “Whites Account for Under Half of Births in U.S.,” NY Times, May 17, 2012.
[49] Jessica Silver-Greenberg, “A Risky Lifeline for Seniors is Costing Some Their Homes,” NY Times, October 14, 2012.
[50] Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 117
[51] Ron Lieber, “Answering Questions on Student Loan and the Murky Future,” NY Times, September 14, 2012.
[52] Hope Yen, “Student Loan Debt Hits Record 1 in 5 U.S. Households,” Christian Science Monitor, September 27, 2012.
[53] See “Student Debt Debacles,” NY Times, October 24, 2012.
[54] Amanda Paulson, “Life with Big Student Debt: Tales from Four College Graduates,” Christian Science Monitor.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Eric Schmidt, “U.S. to Help Create an Elite Libyan Force to Combat Islamic Extremists,” NY Times, Oct. 15, 2012.
[58] Paul R. Pillar, “Poorly Learned Lessons
about Terrorism,” National Interest, October 25, 2012.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Conor Friedersdorf, “A Majority of Voters Want America to Stop Intervening Abroad So Much,” Atlantic, October 22, 2012; Paul Richter, “Most Americans Want Less Foreign Involvement, Polls Show,” LA Times, October 27, 2012.
[61] Timothy P. Carney, “Obama’s Free Ride on Killer Drones and Illegal Wars,” Washington Examiner, October 24, 2012.
[63] See Glenn Greenwald, “Obama Moves to Make the War on Terror Permanent,” Guardian, October 24, 2012.
[64] Peter Baker and Jonathan Weisman, “Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria,” NY Times, August 31, 2013.
[65] “Kerry: Tests Prove Sarin Gas Used in Syrian Chemical Attack,” Jerusalem Post, September 1, 2013.
[68] Quoted in “The Disappearance of the Jews,” The Economist, May 10, 2001.
[69] Massoud A. Derhally, “Jews in Damascus Restore Synagogues as Syria Tries to Foster Secular Image,” Bloomberg, February 7, 2011.
[71] Michael R. Gordon and Jackie Calmes, “Obama Starts Lobbying Blitz for Support of Strike on Syria,” NY Times, September 1, 2013.
[72] See for example Terry Atlas, “Shadow of False Iraq Intelligence Hangs Over Syria Strike,” Bloomberg, August 29, 2013.
[73] Quoted in Lindsay Wise and Anita Kumar, “Chemical Weapons Experts Weigh in on Syria Intelligence Report,” McClatchy Newspaper, August 30, 2013.
[75] Scott Shane, “Iranian Dissidents Convince U.S. to Drop Terror Label,” NY Times, September 21, 2012.
[76] Paul Pillar, “More Posturing on Iran,” National Interest, September 23, 2012.
[77] “Mossad training terrorists to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials claim…but is Israel’s real target Obama?,” Daily Mail, February 10, 2012.
[78] Quoted in Paul Szoldra, “Soldiers Speak Out on Syria: ‘We are Stretched Thin, Tired, and Broke,’” Business Insider, September 1, 2013.
[79] Ibid.
[80] Quoted in Michael Scheuer, “The Limits of U.S. Financial Power,” National Interest, September 3, 2013.
[81] Quoted in “New Nixon Tapes Show More Anti-Semitism,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, August 22, 2013.
[82] Ibid.
[84] Quoted in Barak Ravid, “Kerry Assures Netanyahu: Assad Will Be Held Accountable for Syria Gas Attack,” Haaretz, September 2, 2013.
[85] Herb Keinon, “Obama Assures Netanyahu on Iran,” Jerusalem Post, September 2, 2013.
[89] Nick Gass, “Kerry: Cases Against Assad the Same,” Politico, September 1, 2013.
[90] Kevin Sieff, “In Afghanistan, Redeployed U.S. Soldiers Still Coping with Demons of Post-Traumatic Stress,” Washington Post, August 18, 2013.
[91] Jonathan Allen, “White House to Congress: Help Protect Israel,” Politico, September 1, 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…"
US prepares plans for entire Middle East: Expert
As the United States gears up for a potential military offensive against Syria, a Washington-based Syrian political commentator says the US has devised plans for the entire Middle East.
“We know that they [the US] have their plans not even in Syria, they have them in all the Middle East,” Nagham Salman told Press TV in an interview on Tuesday.
“So the American plan is to hurt and to weaken the Syrian government and to build up an opposition,” she added.
She noted that the al-Qaeda terrorist group is operating in Syria and supporting most of the military groups active there.
“So the US unfortunately is not making any kind of their war against the terrorism. On the contrary, they are fighting side by side with al-Qaeda in Syria,” the expert stated.
She pointed to Iran’s repeated warnings that any military attack against Syria will spread all over the region and said the Islamic Republic and Russia would stand by Syria in case of military action against Damascus.
“I think that Iran and Russia, they will not abandon Syria. Of course they will be involved but maybe will not be involved in the war for Syria. They will support the Syrian government, they will support the Syrian army, as they always did, and this is what we also expect as the Syrian citizens,” Salman pointed out.
She, however, emphasized that Iran, Syria, Lebanon's Hezbollah resistance movement, and maybe some Palestinian resistance groups will not allow the US to attack Syria in order to topple President Bashar al-Assad and prepare the ground for a possible strike against Tehran.
The call for military action against Syria intensified after foreign-backed opposition forces accused the government of President Bashar al-Assad of launching a chemical attack on militant strongholds in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21.
On Saturday, US President Barack Obama said he would seek a congressional authorization for an attack against Syria as Washington "cannot and will not turn a blind eye” to an alleged chemical attack in the Arab state. The Obama administration has, however, said it "has the right" to attack Syria even if the Congress does not approve the measure.
Syria has been gripped by deadly unrest since 2011. According to reports, the Western powers and their regional allies -- especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey -- are supporting the militants operating inside Syria.(Video on the link)
As the United States gears up for a potential military offensive against Syria, a Washington-based Syrian political commentator says the US has devised plans for the entire Middle East.
“We know that they [the US] have their plans not even in Syria, they have them in all the Middle East,” Nagham Salman told Press TV in an interview on Tuesday.
“So the American plan is to hurt and to weaken the Syrian government and to build up an opposition,” she added.
She noted that the al-Qaeda terrorist group is operating in Syria and supporting most of the military groups active there.
“So the US unfortunately is not making any kind of their war against the terrorism. On the contrary, they are fighting side by side with al-Qaeda in Syria,” the expert stated.
She pointed to Iran’s repeated warnings that any military attack against Syria will spread all over the region and said the Islamic Republic and Russia would stand by Syria in case of military action against Damascus.
“I think that Iran and Russia, they will not abandon Syria. Of course they will be involved but maybe will not be involved in the war for Syria. They will support the Syrian government, they will support the Syrian army, as they always did, and this is what we also expect as the Syrian citizens,” Salman pointed out.
She, however, emphasized that Iran, Syria, Lebanon's Hezbollah resistance movement, and maybe some Palestinian resistance groups will not allow the US to attack Syria in order to topple President Bashar al-Assad and prepare the ground for a possible strike against Tehran.
The call for military action against Syria intensified after foreign-backed opposition forces accused the government of President Bashar al-Assad of launching a chemical attack on militant strongholds in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21.
On Saturday, US President Barack Obama said he would seek a congressional authorization for an attack against Syria as Washington "cannot and will not turn a blind eye” to an alleged chemical attack in the Arab state. The Obama administration has, however, said it "has the right" to attack Syria even if the Congress does not approve the measure.
Syria has been gripped by deadly unrest since 2011. According to reports, the Western powers and their regional allies -- especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey -- are supporting the militants operating inside Syria.(Video on the link)
1 sept 2013
In Syria, Iran and Lebanon, the president’s decision to seek Congressional approval for a military strike is recognized as proof of weakness and hesitancy. In Jerusalem, too.
Bashar Assad can relax. Barack Obama blinked, and entrusted the decision on whether to attack Syria to Congress.
It may be that this was a necessary step from Obama’s point of view. It may be that it was a wise decision politically, in an America traumatized by Iraq and Afghanistan. But the smiles on the faces of decision-makers in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, on hearing Obama’s Saturday speech, tell their own story.
Until Saturday, Obama’s Middle East policies were generally regarded by the Arab world as confused and incoherent. As of Saturday, he will be perceived as one of the weakest presidents in American history.
That scent of weakness has emphatically reached Iran. Amir Mousavi, the head of Tehran’s Center for Strategic Defense Studies, told Al-Jazeera in the immediate wake of the speech that Obama is uncertain and hesitant. At around the same time, Revolutionary Guards commander Mohammad Ali Jafari boasted that “the United States is mistaken if it thinks that the reaction to a strike on Syria will be limited to Syrian territory.”
This was likely part of an effort to deter members of Congress from supporting military intervention against the Assad regime for its use of chemical weapons. In an act of solidarity, meanwhile, an Iranian parliamentary delegation, led by Alaeddin Boroujerdi, who heads the Security and Foreign Policy Committee and is close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is currently on a visit to Damascus.
Drawing the connection between Syria and Iran is unavoidable. If after Assad’s use of weapons of mass destruction to kill what Secretary of State John Kerry specified were 1,429 of his own people, Obama hesitates — when Assad has no real capacity to substantially harm American interests — what is he likely to do if Iran decides to develop nuclear weapons? Khamenei and his advisers recognize that the likelihood of this administration using military force against a country with Iran’s military capability are very low, if not nonexistent.
And they’re not the only ones who realize this. The same conclusions are being drawn by Hezbollah and al-Qaeda.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet colleagues, who will doubtless have been watching the Rose Garden speech, will have internalized what they had long suspected: that Washington will not be the place from which good news will emanate about thwarting Iran’s nuclear drive.
Meantime, Syria now returns to the routine of civil war. The Syrian army is fighting bitter battles against rebel forces across the country, and Assad is utilizing his air force to bomb residential neighborhoods — not, heaven forbid, with chemical weapons, merely with conventional weaponry.
It is clear to the Assad regime that an American response will ultimately come. But it will be limited and weak — of a scale that will enable Bashar Assad not merely to survive, but to hail victory.
Bashar Assad can relax. Barack Obama blinked, and entrusted the decision on whether to attack Syria to Congress.
It may be that this was a necessary step from Obama’s point of view. It may be that it was a wise decision politically, in an America traumatized by Iraq and Afghanistan. But the smiles on the faces of decision-makers in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, on hearing Obama’s Saturday speech, tell their own story.
Until Saturday, Obama’s Middle East policies were generally regarded by the Arab world as confused and incoherent. As of Saturday, he will be perceived as one of the weakest presidents in American history.
That scent of weakness has emphatically reached Iran. Amir Mousavi, the head of Tehran’s Center for Strategic Defense Studies, told Al-Jazeera in the immediate wake of the speech that Obama is uncertain and hesitant. At around the same time, Revolutionary Guards commander Mohammad Ali Jafari boasted that “the United States is mistaken if it thinks that the reaction to a strike on Syria will be limited to Syrian territory.”
This was likely part of an effort to deter members of Congress from supporting military intervention against the Assad regime for its use of chemical weapons. In an act of solidarity, meanwhile, an Iranian parliamentary delegation, led by Alaeddin Boroujerdi, who heads the Security and Foreign Policy Committee and is close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is currently on a visit to Damascus.
Drawing the connection between Syria and Iran is unavoidable. If after Assad’s use of weapons of mass destruction to kill what Secretary of State John Kerry specified were 1,429 of his own people, Obama hesitates — when Assad has no real capacity to substantially harm American interests — what is he likely to do if Iran decides to develop nuclear weapons? Khamenei and his advisers recognize that the likelihood of this administration using military force against a country with Iran’s military capability are very low, if not nonexistent.
And they’re not the only ones who realize this. The same conclusions are being drawn by Hezbollah and al-Qaeda.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet colleagues, who will doubtless have been watching the Rose Garden speech, will have internalized what they had long suspected: that Washington will not be the place from which good news will emanate about thwarting Iran’s nuclear drive.
Meantime, Syria now returns to the routine of civil war. The Syrian army is fighting bitter battles against rebel forces across the country, and Assad is utilizing his air force to bomb residential neighborhoods — not, heaven forbid, with chemical weapons, merely with conventional weaponry.
It is clear to the Assad regime that an American response will ultimately come. But it will be limited and weak — of a scale that will enable Bashar Assad not merely to survive, but to hail victory.
Israel wants to believe the US will yet intervene to stop Assad’s use of chemical weapons, undoing some of the damage caused by the president’s zigzag. For the leadership here, the alternative is too awful to contemplate.
The Israeli political and security leadership is privately horrified by President Barack Obama’s 11th-hour turnaround on striking Syria — a decision he took alone, after he had sent his Secretary of State John Kerry to speak out passionately and urgently in favor of military action. It is now fearful that, in the end, domestic politics or global diplomacy will ultimately lead the US to hold its fire altogether.
It is worried, furthermore, at the ever-deeper perception of Obama’s America in the Middle East as weak, hesitant and confused — most especially in the view of the region’s most radical forces, notably including Bashar Assad, Hezbollah, and Iran.
And it is profoundly concerned that the president has set a precedent, in seeking an authorization from Congress that he had no legal requirement to seek — and that Congress was not loudly demanding — that may complicate, delay or even rule out credible action to thwart a challenge that dwarfs Assad’s chemical weapons capability: Iran’s drive to nuclear weapons.
Israel’s Channel 2 reported Sunday night that, once Obama had zigzagged to his decision not to strike for now, the White House contacted Israel’s leadership to convey the news. The goal, successfully achieved, was to ensure that there would be no avalanche of publicly aired criticism of the president by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ministers. Only the hawkish minister of housing, Uri Ariel, defied the prime minister’s restraining order, complaining bitterly in an Army Radio interview Sunday morning that Assad was a cowardly murderer “who needs to be taken care of, already.” Ariel thus earned himself a dressing-down by Netanyahu, who told him at the Cabinet table that personally attacking the president of the United States did not serve Israel’s “security interests.”
But privately, Israel’s silently appalled political and security leaderships have no doubt that Obama’s last-minute change of heart harms Israel’s security interests far more critically than any marginal minister’s inconvenient outburst possibly could.
Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel are reported to have briefed Israel’s leaders to the effect that Obama’s firm intention remains to strike back at Assad for what Kerry said Friday was the carefully planned August 21 use of chemical weapons to kill over 1,400 of his own Syrian people.
The Israeli leadership wants to believe that this is the case. The notion that the US would turn its back on the toxic crimes of a murderous dictator, whom Kerry bracketed Sunday with Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein, is too dire to consider in an Israel facing more than one hostile regime relentlessly seeking to exploit any military and moral weakness in order to expedite the Jewish state’s demise.
Though dutifully silent in public, Jerusalem has quickly internalized the damage already done — by the sight of an uncertain president, all too plainly wary of grappling with a regime that has gradually escalated its use of poison gas to mass murder its own people; a regime, moreover, that can do relatively little damage to the United States, and whose threats Israel’s leadership and most of its people were taking in their stride.
At the very least, Obama has given Assad more time to ensure that any eventual strike causes a minimum of damage, and to claim initial victory in facing down the United States. At the very least, too, Obama has led the Iranians to believe that presidential promises to prevent them attaining nuclear weapons need not necessarily be taken at face value.
If a formidable strike does ultimately come, some of that damage can yet be undone, the Israeli leadership believes. American military intervention can yet be significant — in deterring Assad from ongoing use of chemical weapons, and bolstering American influence and credibility in the region.
But if Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, who will be hosting the G20 later this week, inserts himself into the equation, and Obama is distracted by endless machinations ostensibly designed to see Assad stripped of his chemical weapons, machinations that ultimately are sure to lead nowhere, the damage will only deepen. If there is no strike, the United States — hitherto Israel’s only dependable military ally — will be definitively perceived in these parts as a paper tiger, with dire implications for its regional interests. And for Israel.
Jerusalem is worried, too, of a direct line between requesting Congressional approval for military action against Syria — a relatively straightforward target — and feeling compelled to honor the precedent, should the imperative arise, by requesting Congressional approval for military action against Iran — a far more potent enemy, where legislators’ worries about the US being dragged deep into regional conflict would be far more resonant.
Israel remains hopeful that, to put it bluntly, Obama’s America will yet remember that it is, well, America. The alternative, it rather seems, is something the leadership in Jerusalem finds too awful to so much as contemplate just yet.
The Israeli political and security leadership is privately horrified by President Barack Obama’s 11th-hour turnaround on striking Syria — a decision he took alone, after he had sent his Secretary of State John Kerry to speak out passionately and urgently in favor of military action. It is now fearful that, in the end, domestic politics or global diplomacy will ultimately lead the US to hold its fire altogether.
It is worried, furthermore, at the ever-deeper perception of Obama’s America in the Middle East as weak, hesitant and confused — most especially in the view of the region’s most radical forces, notably including Bashar Assad, Hezbollah, and Iran.
And it is profoundly concerned that the president has set a precedent, in seeking an authorization from Congress that he had no legal requirement to seek — and that Congress was not loudly demanding — that may complicate, delay or even rule out credible action to thwart a challenge that dwarfs Assad’s chemical weapons capability: Iran’s drive to nuclear weapons.
Israel’s Channel 2 reported Sunday night that, once Obama had zigzagged to his decision not to strike for now, the White House contacted Israel’s leadership to convey the news. The goal, successfully achieved, was to ensure that there would be no avalanche of publicly aired criticism of the president by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ministers. Only the hawkish minister of housing, Uri Ariel, defied the prime minister’s restraining order, complaining bitterly in an Army Radio interview Sunday morning that Assad was a cowardly murderer “who needs to be taken care of, already.” Ariel thus earned himself a dressing-down by Netanyahu, who told him at the Cabinet table that personally attacking the president of the United States did not serve Israel’s “security interests.”
But privately, Israel’s silently appalled political and security leaderships have no doubt that Obama’s last-minute change of heart harms Israel’s security interests far more critically than any marginal minister’s inconvenient outburst possibly could.
Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel are reported to have briefed Israel’s leaders to the effect that Obama’s firm intention remains to strike back at Assad for what Kerry said Friday was the carefully planned August 21 use of chemical weapons to kill over 1,400 of his own Syrian people.
The Israeli leadership wants to believe that this is the case. The notion that the US would turn its back on the toxic crimes of a murderous dictator, whom Kerry bracketed Sunday with Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein, is too dire to consider in an Israel facing more than one hostile regime relentlessly seeking to exploit any military and moral weakness in order to expedite the Jewish state’s demise.
Though dutifully silent in public, Jerusalem has quickly internalized the damage already done — by the sight of an uncertain president, all too plainly wary of grappling with a regime that has gradually escalated its use of poison gas to mass murder its own people; a regime, moreover, that can do relatively little damage to the United States, and whose threats Israel’s leadership and most of its people were taking in their stride.
At the very least, Obama has given Assad more time to ensure that any eventual strike causes a minimum of damage, and to claim initial victory in facing down the United States. At the very least, too, Obama has led the Iranians to believe that presidential promises to prevent them attaining nuclear weapons need not necessarily be taken at face value.
If a formidable strike does ultimately come, some of that damage can yet be undone, the Israeli leadership believes. American military intervention can yet be significant — in deterring Assad from ongoing use of chemical weapons, and bolstering American influence and credibility in the region.
But if Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, who will be hosting the G20 later this week, inserts himself into the equation, and Obama is distracted by endless machinations ostensibly designed to see Assad stripped of his chemical weapons, machinations that ultimately are sure to lead nowhere, the damage will only deepen. If there is no strike, the United States — hitherto Israel’s only dependable military ally — will be definitively perceived in these parts as a paper tiger, with dire implications for its regional interests. And for Israel.
Jerusalem is worried, too, of a direct line between requesting Congressional approval for military action against Syria — a relatively straightforward target — and feeling compelled to honor the precedent, should the imperative arise, by requesting Congressional approval for military action against Iran — a far more potent enemy, where legislators’ worries about the US being dragged deep into regional conflict would be far more resonant.
Israel remains hopeful that, to put it bluntly, Obama’s America will yet remember that it is, well, America. The alternative, it rather seems, is something the leadership in Jerusalem finds too awful to so much as contemplate just yet.
And this time, it’s hard to see who will be able to stop him.
Netanyahu hasn’t said anything publicly, but the consensus here is that the lesson he’s taking from Obama’s refusal to bomb Syria straight away, and instead to turn to Congress for approval, is that the U.S. president can’t be trusted to keep his word about preventing Iran from going nuclear – so he, Netanyahu, must prepare to carry out the task alone. And the consensus seems to be that this is the correct conclusion, too.
“Netanyahu was right when he sought to act on his own. No others will do the job,” wrote Yedioth Ahronoth columnist Yoaz Hendel, who used to be the PM’s hasbara chief.
Herb Keinon, the Jerusalem Post’s pro-government diplomatic correspondent, wrote:
The lack of a strong international response in the face of rows and rows of gassed bodies wrapped eerily in white shrouds just 220 kilometers from Jerusalem might not compel Israel to take action against Assad, but it surely may compel it to think twice about relying on the world to rid it of the Iranian nuclear menace.”
Even Haaretz’s liberal military affairs reporter Amos Harel seems to see the wisdom in this view:
The theory that the U.S. will come to Israel’s aid at the last minute, and attack Iran to lift the nuclear threat, seems less and less likely. … With the U.S. administration’s year of hesitancy since Assad first deployed chemical weapons, American difficulty in building an international coalition for a strike in Syria, and [U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin] Dempsey’s excuses, it’s no wonder that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is becoming increasingly persuaded that no one will come to his aid if Iran suddenly announces that it is beginning to enrich uranium to 90 percent.”
I think it is pretty obvious that this indeed is Netanyahu’s thinking. He wanted to bomb Iran last year, sometime before the U.S. presidential election in November; what stopped him (and his partner, then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak) was the opposition of Israel’s military-intelligence leadership, headed by IDF Chief Benny Gantz. Afterward Netanyahu went to the UN and drew a cartoon bomb with a red line, saying that Iran would cross it and come within reach of a nuclear bomb “next spring, at most by next summer, at current [uranium] enrichment rates.”
Then, two months ago, Bibi’s red line got effectively erased as the moderate Hassan Rouhani was elected to succeed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran, and the West gained new hope that diplomacy could ensure that Iran didn’t go nuclear. Netanyahu, of course, considered that the usual Western liberal naiveté, but it seemed too outrageous for Israel to go bombing Iran on its own, with all the consequences that could bring, when the US and other world powers not only opposed an attack but were actively trying to persuade Iran, with its new, reformist president, into seeing things their way. The military option against Iran was “off the table” for a year or so, before it appeared. The opposition from Israel’s warrior class remained fully in place. Netanyahu couldn’t have persuaded them otherwise, and may not even have wanted to, given the international mood.
All that may very well have changed last night. As the commentators quoted above and others are saying, Netanyahu’s well-known dictum that “Israel can only depend on itself” has been vindicated by the performance of Obama and the rest of the world in the Syrian crisis. The U.S. president can’t be trusted to bomb Iran’s nukes, and since, according to Netanyahu, his government and even the Israeli military-intelligence establishment, a nuclear-armed Iran “is not an option,” that would seem to knock the legs out from under the argument made by Gantz and the rest of the war council in favor of restraint.
That argument, which was made in leaks to the media by the warriors and publicly by President Shimon Peres, and which backed by a majority of the Israeli public in polls, was that the wisest course by far was to let America bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities because it had the military means to do so much more decisively than could Israel. Another, related argument was that if Israel attacked Iran without U.S. support, it would be politically calamitous. A third, related argument was that at best, an Israeli strike would set back Iran’s nuclear program by a year or so, which was not worth the missiles and political isolation Israel would get in return. The conclusion from all three arguments was: Trust Obama, at least until he gives Israel reason not to trust him.
That reason was just provided last night from the podium on the White House lawn. Even if Congress agrees to an attack on Syria and Obama carries it out, the likely limits on such a strike, and above all Obama’s extremely uncertain route to executing it (if he does), will not redeem his newly dashed reputation among the tough guys who run this country. It appears Netanyahu has won the argument. In a month or so, after the High Holidays, I expect the countdown to resume on an Israeli strike on Iran, and this time I don’t know who will be able to stop it.
Netanyahu hasn’t said anything publicly, but the consensus here is that the lesson he’s taking from Obama’s refusal to bomb Syria straight away, and instead to turn to Congress for approval, is that the U.S. president can’t be trusted to keep his word about preventing Iran from going nuclear – so he, Netanyahu, must prepare to carry out the task alone. And the consensus seems to be that this is the correct conclusion, too.
“Netanyahu was right when he sought to act on his own. No others will do the job,” wrote Yedioth Ahronoth columnist Yoaz Hendel, who used to be the PM’s hasbara chief.
Herb Keinon, the Jerusalem Post’s pro-government diplomatic correspondent, wrote:
The lack of a strong international response in the face of rows and rows of gassed bodies wrapped eerily in white shrouds just 220 kilometers from Jerusalem might not compel Israel to take action against Assad, but it surely may compel it to think twice about relying on the world to rid it of the Iranian nuclear menace.”
Even Haaretz’s liberal military affairs reporter Amos Harel seems to see the wisdom in this view:
The theory that the U.S. will come to Israel’s aid at the last minute, and attack Iran to lift the nuclear threat, seems less and less likely. … With the U.S. administration’s year of hesitancy since Assad first deployed chemical weapons, American difficulty in building an international coalition for a strike in Syria, and [U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin] Dempsey’s excuses, it’s no wonder that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is becoming increasingly persuaded that no one will come to his aid if Iran suddenly announces that it is beginning to enrich uranium to 90 percent.”
I think it is pretty obvious that this indeed is Netanyahu’s thinking. He wanted to bomb Iran last year, sometime before the U.S. presidential election in November; what stopped him (and his partner, then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak) was the opposition of Israel’s military-intelligence leadership, headed by IDF Chief Benny Gantz. Afterward Netanyahu went to the UN and drew a cartoon bomb with a red line, saying that Iran would cross it and come within reach of a nuclear bomb “next spring, at most by next summer, at current [uranium] enrichment rates.”
Then, two months ago, Bibi’s red line got effectively erased as the moderate Hassan Rouhani was elected to succeed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran, and the West gained new hope that diplomacy could ensure that Iran didn’t go nuclear. Netanyahu, of course, considered that the usual Western liberal naiveté, but it seemed too outrageous for Israel to go bombing Iran on its own, with all the consequences that could bring, when the US and other world powers not only opposed an attack but were actively trying to persuade Iran, with its new, reformist president, into seeing things their way. The military option against Iran was “off the table” for a year or so, before it appeared. The opposition from Israel’s warrior class remained fully in place. Netanyahu couldn’t have persuaded them otherwise, and may not even have wanted to, given the international mood.
All that may very well have changed last night. As the commentators quoted above and others are saying, Netanyahu’s well-known dictum that “Israel can only depend on itself” has been vindicated by the performance of Obama and the rest of the world in the Syrian crisis. The U.S. president can’t be trusted to bomb Iran’s nukes, and since, according to Netanyahu, his government and even the Israeli military-intelligence establishment, a nuclear-armed Iran “is not an option,” that would seem to knock the legs out from under the argument made by Gantz and the rest of the war council in favor of restraint.
That argument, which was made in leaks to the media by the warriors and publicly by President Shimon Peres, and which backed by a majority of the Israeli public in polls, was that the wisest course by far was to let America bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities because it had the military means to do so much more decisively than could Israel. Another, related argument was that if Israel attacked Iran without U.S. support, it would be politically calamitous. A third, related argument was that at best, an Israeli strike would set back Iran’s nuclear program by a year or so, which was not worth the missiles and political isolation Israel would get in return. The conclusion from all three arguments was: Trust Obama, at least until he gives Israel reason not to trust him.
That reason was just provided last night from the podium on the White House lawn. Even if Congress agrees to an attack on Syria and Obama carries it out, the likely limits on such a strike, and above all Obama’s extremely uncertain route to executing it (if he does), will not redeem his newly dashed reputation among the tough guys who run this country. It appears Netanyahu has won the argument. In a month or so, after the High Holidays, I expect the countdown to resume on an Israeli strike on Iran, and this time I don’t know who will be able to stop it.
The United States has proof sarin gas was used in a Damascus attack, Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday, as he urged Congress to vote for military action against the Syrian regime.
Hair and blood samples given to the United States from emergency workers on the scene of last month's attack in the Syrian capital have showed signs of the powerful sarin nerve gas, Kerry told NBC and CNN television.
In what he called "a very important recent development... in the last 24 hours, we have learned through samples that were provided to the United States and that have now been tested from first responders in East Damascus, (that) hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin," Kerry told NBC's Meet the Press.
"Each day that goes by, this case is even stronger. We know that the regime ordered this attack. We know they prepared for it. We know where the rockets came from. We know where they landed," he added on CNN.
"We know the damage that was done afterwards. We've seen the horrific scene all over the social media, and we have evidence of it in other ways, and we know that the regime tried to cover up afterwards."
Kerry blitzed the Sunday morning television talk shows to relaunch his bid to build the case for US military strikes in Syria after President Barack Obama called for Congress to vote to authorize action.
He urged his former colleagues in Congress to give Obama a green-light for strikes against the regime of President Bashar Assad.
In a huge political gamble, Obama has committed the fate of US action to lawmakers, lifting the threat of immediate strikes.
Obama said he had decided an August 21 chemical weapons attack on a Damascus suburb that Washington says killed more than 1,400 people was so heinous that he would respond with a limited US military strike.
But, in a move which could reshape the balance of power between Capitol Hill and the presidency, he said he believed it was important to secure support from Congress to wage war.
Obama will be relatively confident of winning a vote in the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats and includes a number of Republicans, like Senator John McCain, who have argued for military action against Syria.
But it would be hazardous to predict how the vote will go in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which will debate Syria as soon as it comes back into session on September 9.
Kerry told NBC he believed the call for action would be approved by Congress.
"I do not believe the Congress of the United States will turn its back on this moment... I believe Congress will pass it," he said.
"I don't believe that my former colleagues in the United States Senate and the House will turn their backs on all of our interests, on the credibility of our country, on the norm with respect to the enforcement of the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, which has been in place since 1925," Kerry said.
"The Congress adopted the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Congress has passed the Syria Accountability Act. Congress has a responsibility here too."
Hair and blood samples given to the United States from emergency workers on the scene of last month's attack in the Syrian capital have showed signs of the powerful sarin nerve gas, Kerry told NBC and CNN television.
In what he called "a very important recent development... in the last 24 hours, we have learned through samples that were provided to the United States and that have now been tested from first responders in East Damascus, (that) hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin," Kerry told NBC's Meet the Press.
"Each day that goes by, this case is even stronger. We know that the regime ordered this attack. We know they prepared for it. We know where the rockets came from. We know where they landed," he added on CNN.
"We know the damage that was done afterwards. We've seen the horrific scene all over the social media, and we have evidence of it in other ways, and we know that the regime tried to cover up afterwards."
Kerry blitzed the Sunday morning television talk shows to relaunch his bid to build the case for US military strikes in Syria after President Barack Obama called for Congress to vote to authorize action.
He urged his former colleagues in Congress to give Obama a green-light for strikes against the regime of President Bashar Assad.
In a huge political gamble, Obama has committed the fate of US action to lawmakers, lifting the threat of immediate strikes.
Obama said he had decided an August 21 chemical weapons attack on a Damascus suburb that Washington says killed more than 1,400 people was so heinous that he would respond with a limited US military strike.
But, in a move which could reshape the balance of power between Capitol Hill and the presidency, he said he believed it was important to secure support from Congress to wage war.
Obama will be relatively confident of winning a vote in the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats and includes a number of Republicans, like Senator John McCain, who have argued for military action against Syria.
But it would be hazardous to predict how the vote will go in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which will debate Syria as soon as it comes back into session on September 9.
Kerry told NBC he believed the call for action would be approved by Congress.
"I do not believe the Congress of the United States will turn its back on this moment... I believe Congress will pass it," he said.
"I don't believe that my former colleagues in the United States Senate and the House will turn their backs on all of our interests, on the credibility of our country, on the norm with respect to the enforcement of the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, which has been in place since 1925," Kerry said.
"The Congress adopted the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Congress has passed the Syria Accountability Act. Congress has a responsibility here too."
Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Harris & Ewing bw photo portrait, 1919.jpgWoodrow Wilson: Sinking of the Lusitania–World War I, 1917-1918
If President Barack Obama and his administration are not lying in the lead-up to a probable bombing campaign of Syria it will be a rare exception among US Presidents, particularly since their public duplicity concerning war dates to at least the early twentieth century.
Indeed, being forthrightly dishonest to the American people concerning the rationales for engaging in foreign wars has become a century-old White House tradition.
The historical record of past presidents’ prewar and wartime hucksterism is unambiguous, greatly contributing to the immense bloodshed and destruction that continues under the country’s reckless international leadership to this day.
“It is a war against all nations. American ships have been sunk, American lives taken, in ways which it has stirred us very deeply to learn of, but the ships and people of other neutral and friendly nations have been sunk and overwhelmed in the waters in the same way. There has been no discrimination. The challenge is to all mankind. Each nation must decide for itself how it will meet it. The choice we make for ourselves must be made with a moderation of counsel and a temperateness of judgment befitting our character and our motives as a nation. We must put excited feeling away. Our motive will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of right, of human right, of which we are only a single champion.” April 2, 1917.
If President Barack Obama and his administration are not lying in the lead-up to a probable bombing campaign of Syria it will be a rare exception among US Presidents, particularly since their public duplicity concerning war dates to at least the early twentieth century.
Indeed, being forthrightly dishonest to the American people concerning the rationales for engaging in foreign wars has become a century-old White House tradition.
The historical record of past presidents’ prewar and wartime hucksterism is unambiguous, greatly contributing to the immense bloodshed and destruction that continues under the country’s reckless international leadership to this day.
“It is a war against all nations. American ships have been sunk, American lives taken, in ways which it has stirred us very deeply to learn of, but the ships and people of other neutral and friendly nations have been sunk and overwhelmed in the waters in the same way. There has been no discrimination. The challenge is to all mankind. Each nation must decide for itself how it will meet it. The choice we make for ourselves must be made with a moderation of counsel and a temperateness of judgment befitting our character and our motives as a nation. We must put excited feeling away. Our motive will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of right, of human right, of which we are only a single champion.” April 2, 1917.
FDR in 1933.jpgFranklin D. Roosevelt: Embargo against Japan, Pearl Harbor—World War II, 1941-1945
“Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.” December 8, 1941
A middle-aged Caucasian male wearing a dark business suit and wireframe glasses is depicted smiling pensively at the camera in a black-and-white photo.Harry S. Truman: Threat of Communism, Violation of UN Charter–Korean War 1950-1953
“On Sunday, June 25th, Communist forces attacked the Republic of Korea. This attack has made it clear, beyond all doubt, that the international Communist movement is willing to use armed invasion to conquer independent nations. An act of aggression such as this creates a very real danger to the security of all free nations. The attack upon Korea was an outright breach of the peace and a violation of the Charter of the United Nations. By their actions in Korea, Communist leaders have demonstrated their contempt for the basic moral principles on which the United Nations is founded. This is a direct challenge to the efforts of the free nations to build the kind of world in which men can live in freedom and peace. This challenge has been presented squarely. We must meet it squarely. . . .” July 19, 1950.
“Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.” December 8, 1941
A middle-aged Caucasian male wearing a dark business suit and wireframe glasses is depicted smiling pensively at the camera in a black-and-white photo.Harry S. Truman: Threat of Communism, Violation of UN Charter–Korean War 1950-1953
“On Sunday, June 25th, Communist forces attacked the Republic of Korea. This attack has made it clear, beyond all doubt, that the international Communist movement is willing to use armed invasion to conquer independent nations. An act of aggression such as this creates a very real danger to the security of all free nations. The attack upon Korea was an outright breach of the peace and a violation of the Charter of the United Nations. By their actions in Korea, Communist leaders have demonstrated their contempt for the basic moral principles on which the United Nations is founded. This is a direct challenge to the efforts of the free nations to build the kind of world in which men can live in freedom and peace. This challenge has been presented squarely. We must meet it squarely. . . .” July 19, 1950.
37 Lyndon Johnson 3×4.jpgLyndon B. Johnson: Tonkin Gulf Incident, “Domino Effect”—Vietnam War, 1964-1974; “War on Poverty”
“Last night I announced to the American people that the North Vietnamese regime had conducted further deliberate attacks against U.S. naval vessels operating in international waters, and therefore directed air action against gunboats and supporting facilities used in these hostile operations. This air action has now been carried out with substantial damage to the boats and facilities. Two U.S. aircraft were lost in the action. After consultation with the leaders of both parties in the Congress, I further announced a decision to ask the Congress for a resolution expressing the unity and determination of the United States in supporting freedom and in protecting peace in southeast Asia. These latest actions of the North Vietnamese regime have given’ a new and grave turn to the already serious situation in southeast Asia.” August 5, 1964.
“Last night I announced to the American people that the North Vietnamese regime had conducted further deliberate attacks against U.S. naval vessels operating in international waters, and therefore directed air action against gunboats and supporting facilities used in these hostile operations. This air action has now been carried out with substantial damage to the boats and facilities. Two U.S. aircraft were lost in the action. After consultation with the leaders of both parties in the Congress, I further announced a decision to ask the Congress for a resolution expressing the unity and determination of the United States in supporting freedom and in protecting peace in southeast Asia. These latest actions of the North Vietnamese regime have given’ a new and grave turn to the already serious situation in southeast Asia.” August 5, 1964.
Richard Nixon.jpgRichard M. Nixon: “Vietnamization”; Bombing of Cambodia, 1969-1973; “War on Crime”
“Tonight, American and South Vietnamese units will attack the headquarters for the entire Communist military operation in South Vietnam … This is not an invasion of Cambodia … We take this action not for the purpose of expanding the war into Cambodia but for the purpose of ending the war in Vietnam and winning the just peace we all desire. We have made we will continue to make every possible effort to end this war through negotiation at the conference table rather than through more fighting on the battlefield…. The action that I have announced tonight puts the leaders of North Vietnam on notice that we will be patient in working for peace; we will be conciliatory at the conference table, but we will not be humiliated. We will not be defeated.” April 30, 1970.
“Tonight, American and South Vietnamese units will attack the headquarters for the entire Communist military operation in South Vietnam … This is not an invasion of Cambodia … We take this action not for the purpose of expanding the war into Cambodia but for the purpose of ending the war in Vietnam and winning the just peace we all desire. We have made we will continue to make every possible effort to end this war through negotiation at the conference table rather than through more fighting on the battlefield…. The action that I have announced tonight puts the leaders of North Vietnam on notice that we will be patient in working for peace; we will be conciliatory at the conference table, but we will not be humiliated. We will not be defeated.” April 30, 1970.
Official Portrait of President Reagan 1981.jpgRonald Reagan: Threat to American medical students—Invasion of Grenada, 1983; Bombing of Libya, 1986; US vs. “Evil Empire”–Cold War 1981-1989; “I don’t recall.”—Iran-Contra; “War on Drugs”
“In all, Reagan said ‘I don`t recall’ or ‘I can`t remember’ 88 times in the eight hours of testimony on Iran-Contra on Feb. 16-17, 1990,” the New York Times observes.
“I remember being told that there were certain levels of government or agencies and so forth that were not prohibited by the Boland Amendment, and I remember that. And this was in connection with my telling us that we must stay within the law and so forth. And I never challenged or questioned what I was told about that or something else because, not being a lawyer myself, but being surrounded by a number of them in government, I figured that I was hearing the truth when they told me that something could be done and still be exempt from the Boland Amendment.” February 16-17, 1990.
“In all, Reagan said ‘I don`t recall’ or ‘I can`t remember’ 88 times in the eight hours of testimony on Iran-Contra on Feb. 16-17, 1990,” the New York Times observes.
“I remember being told that there were certain levels of government or agencies and so forth that were not prohibited by the Boland Amendment, and I remember that. And this was in connection with my telling us that we must stay within the law and so forth. And I never challenged or questioned what I was told about that or something else because, not being a lawyer myself, but being surrounded by a number of them in government, I figured that I was hearing the truth when they told me that something could be done and still be exempt from the Boland Amendment.” February 16-17, 1990.
George H. W. Bush, President of the United States, 1989 official portrait.jpgGeorge H. W. Bush: “Drug indicted dictator” Manuel Noriega—Invasion of Panama, 1989; “Incubator Babies Story”–Gulf War, 1991; “War on Drugs” (continued)
“And I am very much concerned, not just about the physical dismantling but of the brutality that has now been written on by Amnesty International confirming some of the tales told us by the Amir of brutality. It’s just unbelievable, some of the things at least he reflected. I mean, people on a dialysis machine cut off, the machine sent to Baghdad; babies in incubators heaved out of the incubators and the incubators themselves sent to Baghdad. Now, I don’t know how many of these tales can be authenticated, but I do know that when the Amir was here he was speaking from the heart. And after that came Amnesty International, who were debriefing many of the people at the border. And it’s sickening.” October 9, 1990.
“And I am very much concerned, not just about the physical dismantling but of the brutality that has now been written on by Amnesty International confirming some of the tales told us by the Amir of brutality. It’s just unbelievable, some of the things at least he reflected. I mean, people on a dialysis machine cut off, the machine sent to Baghdad; babies in incubators heaved out of the incubators and the incubators themselves sent to Baghdad. Now, I don’t know how many of these tales can be authenticated, but I do know that when the Amir was here he was speaking from the heart. And after that came Amnesty International, who were debriefing many of the people at the border. And it’s sickening.” October 9, 1990.
Bill Clinton.jpgWilliam J. Clinton: “Humanitarian Intervention”—NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1995; “Humanitarian Intervention”—NATO bombing of Yugoslavia 1999
“Our humanitarian coordinator, Brian Atwood, who just returned from the region, has described an elderly Albanian woman he met in a camp outside Tirana. She saw all the male members of her family and most of the men in her village rounded up by Serbian authorities, tied up, doused with gasoline, and set on fire in front of their families. It’s the kind of story that would be too horrible to believe if it were not so consistent with what so many other refugees have been saying. What we need to remember is that this is the result of a meticulously planned campaign, not an isolated incident of out-of- control rage, a campaign organized by the government of Belgrade for a specific political purpose –to maintain its grip over Kosovo by ridding the land of its people. This policy must be defeated.” April 28, 1999.
“Our humanitarian coordinator, Brian Atwood, who just returned from the region, has described an elderly Albanian woman he met in a camp outside Tirana. She saw all the male members of her family and most of the men in her village rounded up by Serbian authorities, tied up, doused with gasoline, and set on fire in front of their families. It’s the kind of story that would be too horrible to believe if it were not so consistent with what so many other refugees have been saying. What we need to remember is that this is the result of a meticulously planned campaign, not an isolated incident of out-of- control rage, a campaign organized by the government of Belgrade for a specific political purpose –to maintain its grip over Kosovo by ridding the land of its people. This policy must be defeated.” April 28, 1999.
George-W-Bush.jpegGeorge W. Bush: “Al Qaeda” attack of 9/11—Afghanistan, 2001-present, “War on Terror,”—2001-present; 9/11 and Iraq’s alleged “Weapons of Mass Destruction”–Iraq 2003-present
“Facing clear evidence or peril, we cannot wait for the final proof–the smoking gun–that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.” October 6, 2002.
“Facing clear evidence or peril, we cannot wait for the final proof–the smoking gun–that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.” October 6, 2002.
U.S. President Barack Obama is photographed standing in front of the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office of the White House, December 6, 2012.Barack H. Obama: “Humanitarian Intervention” and “Responsibility to Protect”—NATO Bombing, Guerrilla War in Libya, 2011; “Humanitarian Intervention” and “Responsibility to Protect”—Guerrilla War in Syria 2011-present
“In a volatile situation like this one, it is imperative that the nations and peoples of the world speak with one voice, and that has been our focus … Yesterday a unanimous U.N. Security Council sent a clear message that it condemns the violence in Libya, supports accountability for the perpetrators, and stands with the Libyan people. Like all governments, the Libyan government has a responsibility to refrain from violence, to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need, and to respect the rights of its people. It must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities, and face the cost of continued violations of human rights.” February 22, 2011
Prof. James Tracy’s work on media history, politics and culture has appeared in a wide variety of academic journals, edited volumes, and alternative news and opinion outlets. Tracy is a contributor to Project Censored’s forthcoming book, Censored 2014: Fearless Speech in Fateful Times; The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2012-2013. Additional writings and information are accessible at memoryholeblog.com.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-century-of-lies-the-rationales-for-in-foreign-wars-a-century-old-white-house-tradition/5347442
“In a volatile situation like this one, it is imperative that the nations and peoples of the world speak with one voice, and that has been our focus … Yesterday a unanimous U.N. Security Council sent a clear message that it condemns the violence in Libya, supports accountability for the perpetrators, and stands with the Libyan people. Like all governments, the Libyan government has a responsibility to refrain from violence, to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need, and to respect the rights of its people. It must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities, and face the cost of continued violations of human rights.” February 22, 2011
Prof. James Tracy’s work on media history, politics and culture has appeared in a wide variety of academic journals, edited volumes, and alternative news and opinion outlets. Tracy is a contributor to Project Censored’s forthcoming book, Censored 2014: Fearless Speech in Fateful Times; The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2012-2013. Additional writings and information are accessible at memoryholeblog.com.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-century-of-lies-the-rationales-for-in-foreign-wars-a-century-old-white-house-tradition/5347442
|
|
Both Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan have said the chemical weapon attack in Syria looks like a false flag event designed as a pretext for America to attack.
Russia president Vladamir Putin also said the chemical attack looks like the rebels carried it out themselves to use as a justification for the U.S. to get involved. |
