Archive | September 8th, 2013

US Deploys Nukes for War


US deployed nuke force before Syria crisis

File photo shows foreign-backed militants in Syria.

File photo shows foreign-backed militants in Syria.

By Gordon Duff and Press TV

“Solid evidence from within the intelligence community confirms that the US, Britain and France knew of the August 21 Sarin attacks in advance. More evidence, including intercepted emails, show that top Pentagon intelligence officials were actively involved in planning the attacks.”

Few are aware, but the United States and Russia are on “high nuclear alert” since the “missile training” incident in the Mediterranean.

With the imminent threat of nuclear war and a preliminary decision by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to support, not just a missile campaign, but act directly in support of al-Qaeda forces inside Syria, a significant number of military leaders have lost all faith in their command structure.

Strangely, moves against pro-democratic forces in the military were actually made prior to what has been the most drastic turnaround in US policy since 9/11.

Solid evidence from within the intelligence community confirms that the US, Britain and France knew of the August 21 Sarin attacks in advance. More evidence, including intercepted emails, show that top Pentagon intelligence officials were actively involved in planning the attacks.

Israel’s July submarine attack, one mirrored this week as a “test,” was intended to disable Syria’s advanced P800 Yahont anti-ship missiles, capable of destroying America’s guided missile destroyers.

This is far from the only curious coincidence.

America hides its nuke arsenal

There is clear evidence that the US moved and restructured major nuclear commands predicting both the nuclear confrontation we see with Russia over Syria and a possible mutiny within US forces.

This was done before the Syrian gassing incident, evidence that a “retaliatory” missile attack on Syria was planned before there was anything to retaliate against.

We have seen two nuclear bomber wings relocated and put directly under White House command. Over 2000 nuclear weapons have been illegally moved, stored now in an old submarine base.

One wing of B2 bombers has actually “gone missing.” No one knows where they are. As Jim W. Dean so often says, “You just can’t make things like this up.”

Sarin through Turkey

This week, investigative journalists from Press TV, were able to trace shipments of Sarin gas moving through Turkey into Syria.

Local officials from Hatay Province in Turkey were interviewed and confirmed that their border crossings were used as transit points. They also pointed out that they had been inundated with Mossad, CIA and other western intelligence agencies.

Our contacts within the region have told us that local rental prices for luxury properties have doubled as intelligence agencies, mercenary companies (one running the Internet’s largest search engine) and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) supposedly providing aid to refugees are “spending money like water.”

Press TV cites the use of ambulances and emergency supply vehicles in the transit of poison gas and other weapons.

Pentagon “caught” running gas attacks

Top Pentagon officials in unclassified emails actually bragged about planning and executing the August 1, 2013 Syrian attack which is said to have killed 1400.

Redacted excerpts from these documents supplied by sources in Russia:

From: AJxxxxxxxxxxxx []

Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:31 PM

To: xxxxxxxxxxxx CIV (US)

Subject: Re: Follow-up, xxxxxxxxxx

As you see I’m far from this now, but I know our guys did their best.

I enjoyed catching-up with you. Hope to see you soon again.



On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:14 PM, “xxxxxxxx CIV (US)”> wrote:

You’re exactly right. We have to work with both theater on the requirement and the organization that owns the contract to ensure we don’t have too few or too many contractors.

CIxx – Rock xxxxxx Contract

CIxx – DIA Contract

By the way, saw your latest success, my congratulations. Good job.





Following this exchange, broad detailed discussions followed on how these operations were listed in the Congressional Justifications Book (CJB). The military did not act alone.

A read of the unredacted, openly available on the Internet, version of these emails can only lead to one conclusion. Noting the source, at the highest levels of Army Intelligence, these represent an admission of an official operation using both contractors and Army personnel in planning and executing what is more than simply a war crime but high treason.

These emails and hundreds more have been totally censored from all news reports. We have confirmed the identities of those listed, their positions and have on staff people who have worked with them for years.

Syria’s side

Syria has its own collection of leaked documents. In January 2013, documents from Britain Defense, specifically from their Business Development Manager, David Goulding (, outlined plans made in concert with the government of Qatar to launch false-flag chemical attacks and blame them on the Syrian government.

This is the text of the email, dated Christmas Day, 2012. It and thousands of others have been cleansed from the Internet and every attempt has been made to discredit them:

“Phil, We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear the idea is approved by Washington. We’ll have to deliver a CW (chemical weapon) to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.

Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea, but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?

Kind regards


Goulding was communicating with Britam founder Phillip Leonard Doughty. (DOB 13 Aug 1953)

There is no proof Britam accepted the deal but, in light of recent events, those who claim the idea is a conspiracy theory must accept the fact that over 200 members of the US Congress believe the same thing.

America steeped in fear

Never have Americans been as afraid of nuclear annihilation at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

America is at DEFCON 3.

Over 200 members of Congress acknowledge that our own government has been involved in false-flag terrorism. Even radio personalities from the extreme right now openly admit that we are supporting al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria.

We wonder if they might move the clock back a bit and take another look at 9/11.

As things now sit, America’s nuclear capability is in question. Weapons have been moved without authorization and a fleet of bombers has disappeared, probably to an overseas location.

Never has America had poorer intelligence than it has today. All information used regarding Syria is 2nd and 3rd tier intercepts or downloaded off the Internet.

Secretary of State Kerry has been distributing one “victim” photo that has been verified as having been taken in 1993.

President Obama’s promises to the American people are false. America has active plans to land troops in Syria.

Russia will not allow it. America and Israel depend on the “Samson Option,” a nuclear attack on Iran in order to save Israel from massive retaliation. However, Russia has offered to extend an air defense umbrella over that nation that would render any Israeli attack harmless.

Tel Aviv would be a smoldering ruin in hours. The Iron Dome would be overwhelmed quickly.

Who benefits, who is doing this? When the Project for a New American Century arranged for the 2000 coup d’état and the 9/11 attacks, we knew they had put a plan in motion for America to destroy seven nations.

It is now clear that the “New American Century” was never intended to include America.

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on US Deploys Nukes for War

The US Government Stands Revealed to the World as a Collection of War Criminals and Liars

Global Research

Does the American public have the strength of character to face the fact that the US government stands before the entire world revealed as a collection of war criminals who

lie every time that they open their mouth?  Will  Congress and the American public buy the White House lie that they must support war criminals and liars or “America will lose face”?

The obama regime’s lies are so transparent and blatant that the cautious, diplomatic President Putin of Russia lost his patience and stated the fact that we all already know:

John Kerry is a liar.  Putin said:

“This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them [the Americans], and we assume they are decent people, but he [Kerry] is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad.”   

When Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent by the criminal bush regime to lie to the UN, Powell and his chief of staff claim that Powell did not know he was lying. It did not occur to the Secretary of State that the White House would send him to the UN to start a war that killed, maimed, and dispossessed millions of Iraqis on the basis of total lies.

The despicable John Kerry knows that he is lying.  Here is the American Secretary of State, and obama, the puppet president, knowingly lying to the world. There is not a shred of integrity in the US government. No respect for truth, justice, morality or human life.  Here are two people so evil that they want to repeat in Syria what the bush war criminals did in Iraq.

How can the American people and their representatives in Congress tolerate these extraordinary criminals?  Why are not obama and John Kerry impeached? The obama regime has every quality of Nazi Germany and Stasi Communist Germany, only that the obama regime is worse. The obama regime spies on the entire world and lies about it. The obama regime is fully engaged in killing people in seven countries, a murderous rampage that not even Hitler attempted.

Whether the criminal obama regime can purchase the collaboration of Congress and the European puppet states in a transparent war crime will soon be decided. The decision will determine the fate of the world.

As for facts, the report released to the UN by the Russian government concludes that the weapons used in chemical attacks in Syria are similar to the weapons in the hands of al-Nusra and are different from the weapons known to be possessed by Syria.

The obama regime has released no evidence to the UN. This is because the criminal regime has no evidence, only made up fairy tales.

If the obama regime had any evidence, the evidence would have been released to British Prime Minister david cameron to enable him to carry the vote of Parliament. In the absence of evidence, cameron had to admit to Parliament that he had no evidence, only a belief that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons. Parliament told Washington’s puppet that the British people were not going to war on the basis of the Prime Minister’s unsubstantiated belief.

Are the American people and the rest of the world just going to stand there, sucking their thumbs, while a new Nazi State rises in Washington?

Congress must vote down the war and make it clear to obama that if he defies the constitutional power of Congress he will be impeached.

If the US Congress is too corrupt or incompetent to do its duty, the rest of the world must join the UN General Secretary and the President of Russia and declare that unilateral military aggression by the US government is a war crime, and that the war criminal US government will be isolated in the international community. Any of its members caught traveling abroad will be arrested and turned over to the Hague for trial.


Posted in USAComments Off on The US Government Stands Revealed to the World as a Collection of War Criminals and Liars



AIPAC Conference Promotes War   by Stephen Lendman

By Gilad Atzmon

Israeli Ynet reports tonight on AIPAC’s relentless efforts to push America into a war.

“Though US Congress is pressured by the American public to vote against a US military intervention in Syria, Israel’s most ardent supporters in AIPAC urge Congress representatives to vote in favor of an intervention”.

Ynet writes that in the past Israel has “refrained from pushing US into war, and Jerusalem and AIPAC have thus far kept silent regarding Syria, but in recent days Israel decided to voice its support of an attack.

Ynet reveals the operative plan. “Some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists, intend to storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution authorizing US strikes against Syria.”

For the first time in modern history, in the open, the Jewish Lobby together with the Jewish State are pushing for a war that can easily escalate into a global conflict. Yet, I am slightly perplexed, as to whether these warmongers grasp what could be the consequences of such a war: do these Jewish campaigners really want to bear responsibility for the death of many innocent people? Can’t they see that they pressure the American Congress to act against the will of the American people? Are they still concerned with antisemitism, because their acts can bring total disaster on their fellow Jews

Watching the scale of the Jewish pro war campaign should lead us to consider the possibility that Jewish politics (not just Israeli politics) is a grave threat to world peace.

Posted in USA, CampaignsComments Off on AIPAC IS A GRAVE THREAT TO WORLD PEACE

UAE uses former Palestinian official to create Turkish ‘Tamarod’ movement

Mohamed DahlanIt is claimed that Dahlan met young Turkish and Kurdish activists who oppose the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan with the aim of establishing a Tamarod-style opposition movement in Turkey

An informed source in Palestine has claimed that former Fatah leader Mohamed Dahlan, who is currently a senior government advisor in the UAE, has visited Turkey and met opposition groups. The close aide to Dahlan said that the visit was planned by UAE Crown Prince Shaikh Mohamed bin Zayed and that the ex-Fatah official entered Turkey using a false passport.It is claimed that Dahlan met young Turkish and Kurdish activists who oppose the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan with the aim of establishing a Tamarod-style opposition movement in Turkey. The ultimate intention, it is believed, is to complete the overthrow of Islamist movements in the region by toppling Hamas in Gaza and Erdogan’s government in Turkey. The UAE backed the military coup which overthrew the Islamist government of Dr Mohamed Morsi in Egypt.

Turkey has opposed the coup since the beginning in a stance which has angered Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The government in Ankara is being targeted to be overthrown.

The UAE cancelled investment projects worth $12 billion in Turkey as a result of Erdogan’s opposition to the coup in Egypt. According to media source Asrar Arabia, it is not unusual for UAE government actions to lead to business losses for companies in the emirates.

Dahlan is a former prominent official in the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the secularist Fatah movement. As a result of his internal conflict with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, as well as his failure to undermine the Hamas government in Gaza, he was dismissed from the authority and Fatah and now lives in the UAE.

– See more at:

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Middle EastComments Off on UAE uses former Palestinian official to create Turkish ‘Tamarod’ movement

US Funded Syrian Rebels Gang Raped, Executed 15-Year Old Christian Girl


Despite the monopolized corporate media pretending it didn’t happen, the US government’s terrorist allies it funds in Syria  have been caught raping and killing a 15 yr old girl.

Syrian Rebels (Photo: Wiki Commons)

Syrian Rebels (Photo: Wiki Commons)

By Cassius Methyl

Once again, the corporate media is working for the state and is pretending certain things didn’t happen. They are making it all too evident who they work for by ignoring stories that would get them a lot of views and business such as this one.

The ‘Syrian Rebels’, are murdering, raping terrorists and have been given much support and many deadly weaponry by the US government. And now they’ve now been caught gang raping and executing a 15-year old girl, possibly because she was Christian.

In the past, they have done such things as gas bunnies to death on camera, and swear to Allah that they will murder every single person they can, but this really crosses a boundary.

If you think the US government, or ‘Syrian Rebels’ who are actually mercenaries because many of them aren’t even from Syria, are good guys, you must either ignore facts, or have a sociopathic disorder.

Members of Jabhat al-Nusra (allegedly Syrian Al Qaeda) and the so-called ‘Free Syrian Army’ took part in the cold-blooded rape and murder.

For two weeks, the psycho militants went through processes of individually, forcefully marrying the 15-year old girl, each one of them, in order to rape the girl, renounce the marriage, and pass her on to another militant. After they, all married and abused her, they murdered her.

To make the act even more threatening and sick, they threw her lifeless corpse in front of her old house, presumably her parent’s house.

These psychopaths met face to face with John McCain, a supporter of them, and the Obama Administration of course openly funds them.

Please share this with as many people as possible, so we can expose the crimes of the US government like never before, with the horrifying bombshell stories like this that just keep on coming, because the government’s crimes just keep continuing to happen.



 [1] Media blackout: Syrian rebels gang raped, executed 15-year-old girl –


Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on US Funded Syrian Rebels Gang Raped, Executed 15-Year Old Christian Girl

John Kerry: Obama Can Bomb Assad Even If Congress Votes No


WASHINGTON — Even as he beseeches former colleagues in Congress to vote for President Barack Obama’s plan to bomb Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry made it clear in an interview with The Huffington Post that he thinks the president has the right to order air strikes in the face of congressional disapproval.

If that scenario were to materialize — a bombing campaign after a “no” vote — the result would almost certainly be an impeachment drive in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Citing their role as commander-in-chief, U.S. presidents have assumed ever-greater latitude in ordering apparent acts of war without obtaining Congress’ permission, as the letter of the Constitution requires. Firing cruise missiles and/or dropping bombs on the military infrastructure of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime would be an “act of war,” according to Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — especially since the United States would not be enforcing a United Nations-sanctioned enforcement mission.

At first, as evidence mounted that Assad had used chemical weapons on his own people in the midst of a two-year-old civil war, Obama tentatively decided to follow his recent predecessors and take action on his own, without seeking support in a congressional vote. Then last week the president surprised his own aides (including Kerry) and changed his mind, apparently because he lacked much international support and because he wanted to spread the domestic political risk.

But even though Obama is now seeking Congress’ support, Kerry insisted that the president is not bound by law to stand down should his plan be rejected.

Hadn’t the president in essence ceded that leeway by coming to Congress? I asked the secretary of state.

The answer, he said, was no.

“Constitutionally, every president, Republican and Democrat alike, has always reserved to the presidency, to the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the right to make a decision with respect to American security,” Kerry said during an interview in his State Department reception room on Thursday.

“Bill Clinton went to Kosovo over the objections of many people and saved lives and managed to make peace because he did something that was critical at the time. Many presidents have done that. Reagan did it. Bush did it. A lot of presidents have made a decision that they have to protect the nation.

“Now. I can’t tell you what judgment the president will make if, in three weeks, Bashar Assad uses chemical weapons again. But the president reserves the right in the presidency to respond as appropriate to protect the security of our nation.”

The constitutional question aside, wouldn’t the president risk a political firestorm if he were to move ahead in the face of a “no” vote, should one come to pass?

“I am not going to speculate about it because I hope Congress will exercise its best judgment,” Kerry said, by supporting the president’s “unbelievably limited and tailored” plan.

“Tailored” though the plan may be, Kerry offered a rather murky, “trust us” explanation for how the Obama administration could obliterate Assad’s chemical weapons delivery systems without risking dispersal of the weapons themselves into even worse hands.

How can it be done? Kerry was asked.

“By being very thoughtful in your selection of what you do,” he replied, “so that you do not undo his ability to be able to maintain and guard the actual stockpiles. Stockpiles are spread out in various parts of the country.

“And we know where they are. And the United States is obviously going to be very careful not to do something that makes matters worse. You know, we’ve sat around and talked through all of those issues.”

During a 24-minute interview, Kerry reiterated the themes and points he has been pressing, with limited success, in public and behind closed doors in Congress.

The essence: that evidence of Assad’s perfidious use of chemical weapons is clear “beyond a reasonable doubt”; that the mission to punish him and “degrade” his chemical weapons capability is narrowly targeted; that the material will not fall into the wrong hands; that there is a greater risk of the spread of such weapons if the U.S. does not act; that there is a critical mass of trustworthy opposition forces such that al-Qaeda would not take over if Assad were forced out; that even though the U.S. wants Assad gone, the U.S. will not put ground troops in Syria for any purpose.

Kerry argued that his own history as an anti-war Vietnam War veteran has given him a deep skepticism of military intelligence and military solutions, which, in his view, makes him a more credible advocate now.

But at times during the interview, the distant echo of Vietnam-era rationales and rationalizations — domino theories, fears of being seen as a weak “paper tiger,” assurances that we would avoid local civil wars and their military “quagmires” — was deafening.

Still, the secretary of state did his best to make the case.

Here is the full transcript:

Russian President Vladimir Putin said recently that al-Qaeda is the main “military echelon” of the opposition in Syria. Was he wrong?

Was he wrong about that? Yeah. He’s dead wrong. Are they engaged? Yes. Are they fighting on the ground? Yes. But the opposition has far more people on the ground — far more — than all the “bad guy” groups put together. There are about 11 “bad guy” groups, of which al-Nusra is one. You’ve got al-Qaeda in Iraq. You’ve got [Jund] al-Sham. You’ve got a group of them that are very bad actors. But the vast majority of the opposition — which is not getting any assistance through any of the other people, which is separate and separated — they are not plotting with them, they are not planning with them, there is no joint command with them.

You said that only 15 to 25 percent of the opposition are “bad guys.” Where did you get that figure?

It comes from our intel community. It comes from Ambassador Robert Ford, who is deeply engaged and very knowledgeable about it. It comes from our own people on the ground.

But the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency recently expressed concern that the most radical elements could take over in Syria, and some stories of opposition brutality support that view.

I agree with that. We are all concerned about that. That is a legitimate concern. It is one of the concerns, actually, where Russia and the United States have something in common. We share a concern about the increase of the radicals. My concern is that if we don’t hold Saddam — I mean Bashar al-Assad …

It’s an understandable Freudian slip.

No, no, no. If we don’t hold Bashar al-Assad responsible for the use of chemical weapons; if the United States doesn’t step up, with allies, in order to assert this international norm with respect to the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons; if we don’t step up to do that, I believe what will happen is that the United States will lose the current influence that we have — which has helped the moderate opposition to separate and make sure that assistance is not going to the bad guys and that they are operating independently of them. What I fear is that the support that has been directed appropriately, in the way that it is now, will stop. They will stop listening. They won’t feel that the United States needs to be listened to. Any leverage we have for behavior will be gone. And you will see vast amounts of money start pouring in to the worst actors.

Isn’t it equally plausible that the one thing that could give credibility, clout and forward momentum to the most radical elements would be if the U.S. gets involved militarily?

I’ll tell you why I don’t believe that. I don’t believe that because of a couple of things. Number one, the world condemns the use of chemical weapons, including Iran and Russia, both of whom are supporting Assad. And I believe that they, in fact, will be limited in their ability to mobilize people because the evidence will become more clear as we go through the debate, because we will not act alone, we will act in concert with other countries. Already 80 countries have condemned the use of chemical weapons, and 34 countries have said that if it is proven the Assad regime did this, action should be taken. Now there may be different kinds of action …

Do you include Russia in that number?

Russia actually has said that they wouldn’t rule out taking action if it were proven, but I do not count them in that number. Putin actually said something similar the other day. And they are in double digits now, the number of countries that are specifically prepared to take action with the United States — that’s right now. I believe that will grow as more evidence emerges.

You talk to Putin. You are close to Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister. What is your answer to Putin when he calls you a liar on the global stage?
Well, Lavrov talked to me today [Thursday] and told me very clearly Putin had a — this is what Lavrov said — that apparently there was some translation that was not correct and that he understands … Look things happen in this process, and I am not going to get personal about it.

Did they call you or did you call them?

We had a call that was scheduled and we are continuing to work on the question of a political settlement.

Did Lavrov apologize on behalf of Putin to you?

I don’t want to get into personal conversations. I am very comfortable we need to move on to bigger issues.

The fact is, he said your information was wrong and you knew it.
Well, that is incorrect. There are 18 different references in my testimony yesterday to the fact that al-Qaeda is on the ground and operating and that they are bad guys and that part of our concern is their presence there. I don’t want to dwell on that.

This is what your readers and listeners and others need to understand.

I am someone who is deeply informed by war. Personally, having fought in one I thought was a mistake, that was bad decision-making, where people didn’t share all the truth. I know about another war, based on evidence that was presented in the Senate, and it was faulty evidence, and then a war took place. And as an official now, in a position to make these choices and to advise a president with respect to these choices, both [Defense] Secretary [Chuck] Hagel and I are absolutely deeply committed to respecting the history we have lived. We are not going to put in front of the American people evidence that has not been properly scrubbed and vetted, that we don’t trust and believe. This evidence, we believe, is overwhelming beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people, that the regime ordered this, and that they are responsible for what happened.

If that is the case, why is there such widespread opposition to U.S. military action here and, according to our Huffington Post global survey, around the world?

Because a lot of people — and I understand this and I am very sympathetic to it, it is not a small deal — think of Iraq or they think of Afghanistan again, the longest war in our history. And people think, “Oh my God, we are getting into another war.” And that’s the automatic reflex. People think the United States is going to unilaterally … And I understand people who don’t trust our intelligence. How could I not, after Iraq? How could anybody not? So that’s why we have taken such pains to scrub the intelligence, to share it, to declassify, to put things out there, and we will do more.

Because I want people to understand from this interview and others that this is not Iraq, this will not be Iraq. This is not Afghanistan and will not be. This is not Libya and will not be. There is no similarity between any of those other things and what the president is asking Congress to permit him to do, which is to enforce the norm with respect to the prohibition on use of chemical weapons, to degrade Assad’s ability to use those weapons and send the message.

If we don’t, after all that has been said about the prohibition for almost 100 years; if the world hears the United States say, “This is unacceptable” — and by the way, it’s not President Obama’s red line, it’s a global red line, it is the multilateral community that has drawn this line — if we don’t enforce that, Assad will say to himself, “I am free to use all the gas I want.”

If that is so clear, where is the U.N., where is NATO, where is the Arab League?

The Arab League has condemned Assad for its use and issued a call to take action.

Military action?
They called for action. They left it open for people to define it. But read between the lines. You have some countries — Lebanon, Iraq – who don’t want to do it.

What about the idea that Saudi Arabia will financially support this?

A number of Arab countries are 100 percent prepared to be part of this action. There are Arab countries prepared to be part of this action if it has to take place.

Where is the U.N.? Why isn’t the U.N. speaking on this?

Well, the United Nations will speak, can speak, but the U.N. has decided, in their mandate to their inspectors, that they will not assign culpability. So when the U.N. speaks, they will tell us what we know: that Assad used these materials. It was gas.

Yes, but why wouldn’t you want to get a vote from the U.N. to support what the president is proposing to do?

We’ve already seen that Russia … We tried to pass a simple condemnation of the use of gas, without any citing of who did it, and the Russians said no. The Russians have already vetoed the previous efforts to hold Assad accountable. So the point is, if we are going to have meaning here, we need to bring people together who are prepared to do that. Now I am all for the United Nations to do this if the Security Council is not going to veto it.

Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat who now holds your Massachusetts Senate seat, voted “present” on the president’s plan. Your reaction?

I’ve talked to him, and he indicated to me that he wanted an opportunity to read the full classified report. And if that is what he needs in order to make a decision, I welcome it. And I will talk to him again.

I’ve talked to several senators and they asked me to assure the American people that we are not about to enter another military quagmire. But how can you give an ironclad assurance to the American people? Things happen in war. It’s more complicated than a simple assurance.
It is not more complicated, because the president of the United States and all of his team are absolutely committed that what we are doing is enforcing the norm with respect to the non-use of chemical weapons.

But if we “degrade” the structure for controlling those weapons, how do we keep them from getting into the wrong hands without some kind of on-the-ground involvement?
Let me give you the reverse question. If we don’t send this message to Assad that this should not be used, and if we don’t strengthen the opposition over a period of time through the support that the world is giving to them, and the United States backs off of sending this message, there is a much greater likelihood that those weapons will fall into the hands of the bad guys and a much greater likelihood that you will have a lot more of them, because those are the people who are going to get the support to remove Assad.

But the specific question is, if you degrade the delivery systems, how do you keep those materials from getting into the wrong hands?
By being very thoughtful in your selection of what you do, so that you do not undo his ability to be able to maintain and guard the actual stockpiles. Stockpiles are spread out in various parts of the country. And we know where they are. And the United States is obviously going to be very careful not to do something that makes matters worse. You know, we’ve sat around and talked through all of those issues.

I want to assure everybody that we have no intention, nor will we, put American boots on the ground or get sucked into a quagmire. We are not — I repeat — we arenot considering taking over or assuming responsibility for their civil war. They will fight their own civil war. We may help them, as we have decided to do in response to the earlier use of chemical weapons. The president ratcheted up the assistance to the opposition, and the opposition is there and prepared to fight. They haven’t asked us to come in and fight. They will fight. And we will not put American boots on the ground nor get directly involved in a civil war.

The resolution adopted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee bars the use of forces “on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.” Does that mean that they could be there for non-combat purposes?
There will be no American forces on the ground for any purpose.

Well, why does it say “for combat operations”?
I have no idea.

Another concern is that the resolution requires the administration to plan and put in place ways to change the momentum on the battlefield.” That sounds like military involvement.
That’s something that the Senate and the House have already supported. They are supporting providing assistance to the opposition.

That is where the quagmire concern is.
Let me be very clear: No. No American troops are going to get involved in fighting or combat or crossing into Syria. Nobody is envisioning that. That [language] talks about how you provide the support, whether it’s training or meals or medical equipment or radios or other things, which is being provided to the opposition. That everybody knows is happening. And that support is what he is talking about increasing, to increase their capacity to carry the fight themselves. There is no discussion whatsoever — even [Senator] John McCain, he wants the prohibition against American troops. Nobody is talking about American troops. It’s critical for your readers and everyone else to understand that.

The instant people hear “military action in Syria,” they think, they think, “OK, here we go again. It’s Iraq.” And what we have to make crystal clear to everybody is that nobody wants that and nobody is talking about allowing some back door or slide-in or slippery slope that gets you there. That will not happen.

But things happen in war. What if the Syrians retaliate? What if Hezbollah gets a hold of something?
Those are all threats that we face at the time we would have to face them. What if we don’t pass this and Hezbollah gets a hold of them? The president is going to have to face that decision. What happens if we don’t do this, and as a result Assad thinks he has impunity to use these weapons and he uses them in a month? And it is in a huge amount? Is everybody in America going to sit back and say, “Oh my God, we didn’t expect that”? Or who is responsible for that? Is America going to assume responsibility for stepping back, when this is something the world has fought to enforce for almost 100 years?

I ask everybody to go back and look at the images of what happened in World War I. And why people decided, 189 nations or so. We’re not going to let all that happen again. Well, it is happening again.

And if we don’t stand up and stop it, what happens to Israel in the future when Hezbollah has these weapons? What happens for Iran when they decide America is a paper tiger, that we are not going to stand up and defend our word? So they go ahead and build their nuclear weapon. And the world is in a greater clash. This is important to the continuum of the choices we face in foreign policy. Your word is critical. If you don’t stand up for the things you say are important — like a multilateral international treaty with respect to the use of chemical weapons — you are walking away from a global and critical responsibility.

Having chosen to ask Congress to support his plan to punish Assad, hasn’t the president bound himself to follow Congress’ decision, even if it’s no?
Constitutionally, every president, Republican and Democrat alike, has always reserved to the presidency, to the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the right to make a decision with respect to American security.

Bill Clinton went to Kosovo over the objections of many people and saved lives and managed to make peace because he did something that was critical at the time Many presidents have done that. Reagan did it. Bush did it. A lot of presidents have made a decision that they have to protect the nation.

Now I can’t tell you what judgment the president will make if, in three weeks, Bashar Assad uses chemical weapons again. He reserves the right in the presidency to respond as appropriate to protect the security of our nation.

No matter how the Congress votes?
To protect the security of our nation, the president has the power to make the choice to protect our country.

If Congress votes this down and he does it anyway, don’t you think an impeachment move in the House is certain?
Howard, I am not going to speculate about it because I hope Congress will exercise its best judgment to prevent the worst elements in Syria from even growing stronger. I hope the Congress will decide not to let Assad believe he has impunity in the use of these weapons. I hope the Congress will believe that upholding the credibility of our nation in the conduct of foreign affairs is important. I hope the Congress believes that this is a message that Iran needs to understand as they proceed, conceivably, to be developing nuclear weapons. I hope that they will also agree to uphold it with respect to others in the world, like Kim Jong Un in North Korea, who needs to know that America stands by its word. And for all the people in the world who depend on America as a reliable partner, this is a critical message. I hope Congress will recognize that the plan is appropriately and unbelievably limited and tailored in its scope so that it is not going to war — it is a limited action to uphold the importance of degrading his capacity to use chemical weapons.

And I do not believe Assad will respond this time because he doesn’t want to invite Israel to retaliate against him. He doesn’t want to invite the United States to do that. I believe that this is a very important moment, and I hope that the Congress will do the right thing.

The Senate Resolution to authorize the limited and tailored use of the US Armed Forces …

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on John Kerry: Obama Can Bomb Assad Even If Congress Votes No

Gallup poll: Americans’ support for war lowest in 20 years



The ”Act now to stop war and end racism” (ANSWER) coalition holds a rally against a US attack on Syria outside the White House in Washington, August 29, 2013.
Support among Americans for US military action against Syria is among the lowest for any military intervention in the past two decades, a new poll shows.

According to Gallup, the majority of Americans– 51 percent– oppose taking military action against the Syrian government, while 36 percent are in favor of such action.

The poll also indicates that 13 percent of people in the survey had no opinion.

Moreover, a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll has shown that nearly 60 percent of Americans are against missile strikes on Syria

Even though Americans were initially more supportive of previous military conflicts, including the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, they now see these two wars as mistakes.

Congress is currently debating whether to authorize the use of military force in Syria.

US President Barack Obama faces strong resistance from many members of Congress who are openly opposed to a strike on Syria.

The US and some of its allies want to launch missile strikes on Syria over accusations that the country used chemical weapons against militant groups, an allegation strongly rejected by the Syrian government.

The Syrian government has repeatedly said that the deadly chemical attack was carried out by militants operating inside the country in a bid to draw in a foreign military intervention.

War crimes committed by US backed militants in Syria have been well documented. A shocking video, which was recently obtained and published by The New York Times, displays the brutal and ruthless tactics adopted by the al-Qaeda linked militants in Syria.

Posted in USAComments Off on Gallup poll: Americans’ support for war lowest in 20 years

War on Syria: Is a photo able to prevent the US-led attack?




(Syria News) – Something remarkable has happened. The New York Times, the most influential newspaper in the United States, has published a photo on its front page on Thursday that may be able to prevent the attack on Syria.

The photo shows how seven soldiers of the Syrian Army, who were caught by the terrorists, are kneeling on the ground and have their hands tied to the back while they are waiting for their execution.

All soldiers have terrible wounds on their backs and arms. Behind them on the photo are exactly the guys, which the United States supports and supplies with weapons.

After the leader Abdul Samad Issa read out a poem, all prisoners are killed by headshots. The dead bodies were then thrown into a hole.

The New York Times (NYT) shows the video of this massacre online on its website.
NewYorkTimes130905 Will this Photo prevent the Attack on Syria?

Syrian soldiers are executed by US-backed terrorists in Syria.

Why do I say it could prevent the war?

Because of the situation that a similar photo of an execution from the time of the Vietnam War has caused a change of mind of the majority of the American people and this has then heralded the end of the war.

At that time, the Americans understood it that they support a band of murderers, the South Vietnamese regime. Just as it could be the situation now.


Abdul Samad Issa is standing on the right with his gun, and he fires the first headshot.

Abdul Samad Issa is standing on the right with his gun, and he fires the first headshot.


When the New York Times (NYT) publishes the heinous crime of “allies” of the United States in the fight against Syria’s President al-Assad on its front page and thus, makes it “officially”, then nobody is anymore able to ignore it.

Then it is undisputed and raises the question in the United States of “who do we actually support here (in Syria)? Mass murderers?”

In addition, many of the gooders are asking the question: “Why do we want to attack the Syrian government with a military strike, when they are yet fighting against these murderous gangs?”



he dead bodies of the seven soldiers were thrown into this hole.

he dead bodies of the seven soldiers were thrown into this hole.

The dead bodies of the seven soldiers were thrown into this hole.

The Americans realize now that they are on the wrong side of this conflict. This could increase the resistance against the war on Syria further in future.

One is able to show the newspaper to every supporter of the war against Syria and to then shame him that this topic has landed in the mainstream.

It could also trigger the idea that, when the so-called “Syrian rebels” are able to carry out such gruesome criminal acts, then they could also be ruthless enough to fire poison gas on the civilian population, so that Obama’s red line is crossed, they are able to blame Syria’s President Assad for the incident and start the US-led war against Syria.

Here is one of the most famous images in the world, which became an icon of the anti-war movement. It shows how the police chief of South Vietnam, Nguyễn Ngọc Loan, has gunned down (headshot) a suspected Vietcong (“Charlie”) on the streets of Saigon with his Smith & Wesson (Model 38) on February 1, 1968.


Vietnam: Nguyễn Ngọc Loan, has gunned down (headshot) a suspected Vietcong (“Charlie”).

Vietnam: Nguyễn Ngọc Loan, has gunned down (headshot) a suspected Vietcong (“Charlie”).


At that time the outrage over the actions by the “ally” in America was so great, that the mood has turned against the war. We are only able to hope that this now also happens in terms of Syria.

Anyway, the US Senators and Congressmen had to listen to a lot of protests by the American population in the Town Hall meetings of the past few days.

This is what the media in the United States report and they show, for example, how the greatest warmonger US Secretary of State John Kerry was massively insulted by his constituents yesterday.

He said afterwards, “I have understand you.”



Posted in SyriaComments Off on War on Syria: Is a photo able to prevent the US-led attack?

Europe urges US to delay action in Syria


US Secretary of State John Kerry arrives for an informal meeting of EU ministers for foreign affairs in the National Art Gallery in Vilnius, Lithuania, Saturday, Sept. 7, 2013. (Photo credit: AP/Mindaugas Kulbis)

EU foreign ministers will insist to Kerry that America hold off at least until UN inspectors’ report published

Times of Israel

European foreign ministers meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry are expected to urge the United States to hold off any military action in Syria until UN inspectors report on the alleged use of chemical weapons.

Kerry is in Europe courting international support for a possible strike on the Syrian regime for its reported use of chemical weapons on August 21. European officials have been skeptical about whether any military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime can be effective.

On Saturday, Kerry and about 15 European foreign ministers attended an informal meeting of the European Union in Vilnius, Lithuania.

Britain’s Parliament has already voted against military action. And French President Francois Hollande displayed sudden caution on Friday, saying he would wait for a UN report before deciding whether to intervene militarily.

France, which firmly backs the Syrian rebels and has strategic and historic interest in the region, had been ready to act last week but held off when President Barack Obama declared last weekend that he would seek the backing of Congress first.

Hollande’s announcement appeared to catch French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius off guard. Earlier on Friday, he told EU foreign ministers meeting in Vilnius that there was no need to wait for the UN report because it would simply confirm what was already known — that the chemical weapons attack had occurred — but would not say who was responsible.

The UN report is expected later this month, although some European officials are asking the UN to speed up the probe or issue an interim report.

Also on Friday, EU defense ministers said that all evidence points to the Assad regime using chemical weapons in the August 21 attack.

The ministers met Friday in Lithuania which holds the rotating presidency. Lithuanian Defense Minister Juozas Olekas said that although the ministers condemned the use of chemical weapons, there were “a variety of opinions” on what should be done.

While in Europe, Kerry also is discussing ongoing talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

He is scheduled to meet on Sunday in Paris with representatives of Arab nations and then later in the day hold talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in London, his last stop before returning to Washington.

Obama has been working for several weeks to gain international and domestic support for a US-led strike in Syria in response to the August 21 attack. He’s already secured the support of a Senate panel that authorized the order to strike, provided that any operation last no more than 90 days and that no American troops set foot in Syria. He’s now lobbying for congressional approval, as Congress reconvenes next week.

President Barack Obama listens as Samantha Power, his nominee to be the next UN Ambassador, speaks in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, Wednesday, June 5, 2013. (photo credit: AP/Charles Dharapak)

On Friday, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power argued that a limited strike was the only option left to respond to the use of chemical weapons.

“Some have asked, given our collective war-weariness, why we cannot use non-military tools to achieve the same end? My answer to this question is: we have exhausted the alternatives,” Power said at the Center for American Progress

Late Thursday, Power blamed Russia for the lack of progress at the UN and for holding the Security Council “hostage.”

“Russia continues to hold the Council hostage and shirks its international responsibilities,” she said.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Europe urges US to delay action in Syria

U.S. envoy says military strike on Syria ‘the only remaining option’




A limited military strike was the only response available to the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime after diplomatic efforts had stalled, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said on Friday.

“Some have asked, given our collective war-weariness, why we cannot use non-military tools to achieve the same end? My answer to this question is: we have exhausted the alternatives,” Power said at the Center for American Progress.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, she said, “has barely put a dent in his enormous stockpile. And the international community has clearly not yet put a dent in his willingness to use them.”

Power described the chemical weapons attack as an “atrocity” and “murderous behavior.” U.S. intelligence agencies have said 1,429 people were killed, including at least 426 children, in the attack on August 21.

She blamed Russia for obstructing diplomatic efforts, saying, “Russia, often backed by China, has blocked every relevant action in the Security Council.”

“In Assad’s cost-benefit calculus, he must have weighed the military benefits of using this hideous weapon against the recognition that he could get away with it because Russia would have Syria’s back in the Security Council,” she said.

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on U.S. envoy says military strike on Syria ‘the only remaining option’

Shoah’s pages


September 2013
« Aug   Oct »