Archive | September 25th, 2013


 (ii) The kill/casualty rates in this war favor the opposition—the regime ‘s forces are falling in larger numbers than are opposition fighters, who have a vastly larger pool of young men to draw from.   The research done by Jeffrey White, the military analyst at the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, gives a casualty rate [[[[[[(combining killed with wounded) of 213,000 combatants for the regime, compared to 90,000 for the opposition.]]]]Even if we assume that medical care is much better on the regime’s side, and more wounded regime soldiers retake the field, the opposition is still experiencing a significantly lower loss of men. [[[[[This conjecture is backed up by the available killed-in-action figures, which as of late June, 2013, were, according to White, 13,539 dead rebel combatants, 2,518 unidentified and non-Syrian rebel fighters, and 2,015 defected soldiers and officers.]]]]]  [[[[[[Compare those figures the regime’s KIA:  25,407 regular soldiers, 17,311 combatants for regime-loyal popular defense committees and the irregular shabbiha units, plus an addition 169 Lebanese Hizbollah]]]]].
Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA case officer, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the author of The Wave:  Man, God, and the Ballot Box in the Middle East.
[ed notes:but,but the zionist west has been pushing the zionist lie Assad killed 100 thousand people…they have again put their foot/hooves in their mouth’s again…thanks!!!


PNAC’s (war criminal)Donnelly,lets use Iraq model on Syria….Debate on U.S. intervention in Syria exposes clash of worldviews, audience opposition to military action

Researchers from two think tanks faced off in a debate on Monday over whether the United States should intervene in the ongoing Syrian civil war. The discussion included audience voting to gauge members’ progressing reactions. 
While 43 percent of the audience initially voted against intervention, this number increased to 61 percent by the end of the debate, all while the number of undecided votes decreased.Benjamin H. Friedman, a research fellow in defense and homeland security studies with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, argued that U.S. action in Syria would exacerbate the country’s civil war, promote regional instability and generate domestic pressure at home for ever-more-costly interventions.[[[[His remarks were consistently opposed by Tom Donnelly, a defense and security policy analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, who argued that an American exercise of power, following in the footsteps of the Bush administration’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, is essential to restore the regional balance of power and to end the slaughter of Syrian civilians.]]]]]
[ed notes:War Criminal Thomas Donnelly is a Ziocon,who was behind the project for new american century.” Donnelly has written, co-authored, or edited several books, including most recently Lessons for a Long War: How America Can Win on New Battlefields (2010), which he coauthored with fellow AEI scholar Frederick Kagan…Before coming to AEI, he served as the director of strategic communications and initiatives at Lockheed Martin [2002].Donnelly was deputy executive director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) (1999-2002)..besides that he authored following book …[Operation Just Cause: The Storming of Panama!]…yes he justified and claimed invasion of panama was just!!(over 10 thousand innocent civilians killed!!) how just was it? see Panama Deception …
also watch 
War By Deception (9/11, Iraq, PNAC , All Roads Lead To Israel) 
Audience members were provided with interactive mobile voting devices known as i>clickers. The i>clicker results showed opposition to intervention increased by the end of the debate, handing an easy victory to Friedman.Friedman cast U.S. military intervention in Syria as a serious policy blunder that could bog the United States down in a doomed democracy-building project and fail to promote political stability or liberalism in the Middle East.“It will not serve humanitarianism, it will not demonstrate U.S. credibility to carry out threats, to defend important allies or frighten enemies out of building nuclear weapons,” Friedman said. “It is more likely to exacerbate civil war and suffering in Syria, add to regional instability, further encourage Iran to build nuclear weapons and generate political pressure here for more costly action, which is also likely to fail.”Painting a scene of sectarian discord, violence and fractious infighting among rebel forces, Friedman said the United States lacked the power or resources necessary to install a stable, liberal political regime there and rejected the claim that intervention would improve humanitarian conditions for Syrian civilians.“U.S. military intervention is more likely to prolong Syria’s civil war than to end it,” Friedman said, noting that civil wars often result in harm to civilians by exposing them to direct violence, disrupting sanitation and health services and eroding national wealth.“And even if the rebels win, the chaotic outcomes I just described will not be conducive to human life in Syria. So I think if you want humanitarianism in Syria, you might advocate helping the Syrian government, because it is a government, and even a government that rules by appalling methods is better for life and health than the Hobbesian alternatives on offer.”He also disputed the claim — made both by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry in speeches earlier this month — that failing to act in Syria would damage U.S. credibility in the eyes of the international community.“When it comes to reckless military action in that region, the United States’ credibility is strong to a fault, and that’s particularly true since the Iraq War. U.S. credibility also is not as brittle as our foreign policy elite in Washington like to say,” he said. “The credibility of our commitments is unlikely to be enhanced by piling up more dumb ones, especially the unpopular and intentionally, explicitly feckless military action that the president proposes for Syria, which may simply show the limits of U.S. resolve.”

The United States could help Syria in ways other than bombing the country, such as by harboring refugees, brokering a political settlement, pressuring Syrian leaders with sanctions or offering them safety if they do leave the country, Friedman added.
Dismissing Friedman as a “libertarian” in foreign policy matters and attributing current Middle Eastern dynamics to the “non-interventionist” policy of the Obama administration, Donnelly argued that the United States should intervene in Syria with ground forces to restore peace to a region that he claimed was unstable as a result of the ongoing American withdrawal from Afghanistan.“What I’d like to do this evening is to help you all get over your feelings of hostility toward George W. Bush and to think differently about the Iraq War and the Afghanistan war because if I look at the Middle East today, and I compare it to what it was in 2008, it looked a lot better to me in 2008 than it does now,” he said. “Syria is the poster child for that and the most obvious example of it, but it’s not the only example of it.”
Identifying the restoration of a favorable balance of power in the Middle East as a prime strategic objective, Donnelly said that intervention should involve the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, an extended occupation, reconstruction and efforts to prevent rebel forces from killing the Alawite Shia minority to which Assad belongs. Such an effort would not cripple the American economy and would be worth the cost, he said.“I’m not going to tell you that intervening in Syria in a way that would really make things better, make things more stable, is going to be cheap and easy and quick,” he said. “[But] it’s not going to be a disproportionate cost, because the rewards, the benefits, are going to outweigh the cost by a lot.”In addition to securing U.S. strategic objectives, like general stability and secure energy flows, Donnelly said that U.S. intervention was imperative to preserve American credibility and to prevent Assad’s regime from permitting further atrocities.“I don’t need to repeat the moral arguments because the Secretary of State made them very well — not simply about the chemical weapons line, but about the original red line, the ‘Assad must go’ red line,” he said. “To allow this portion of the world to witness a slaughter of this magnitude, and to let it go on, calls our moral conscience into question.”
Their remarks, punctuated by two question-and-answer sessions, drew active participation from the audience. The debate, entitled “Should the U.S. Intervene in Syria?” took place in the Whig Hall Senate Chamber and was moderated by Wilson School professor Aaron Friedberg. The event was jointly sponsored by the University chapter of the Alexander Hamilton Society and the American Whig-Cliosophic Society.
[ed notes: That one of Iraqs war (for israhell) architects demands regime change in Syria,alongside other notable zionists ,like wolfowitz,cheney,kagan,richard perle,douglas feith,MG paul e vallely,albright,kissinger,daniella pletka,rumsfeld should be reason enough for any so called rational human being to oppose it,even if they hate Assad…meanwhile Syrias opposition gladly welcomes and works with that alliance ,whos shared goals are strengthening and setting up israhell as the primary undisputed power in region after its long sought goal of breaking up of resistance axis,and overthrowing Assad…

Posted in USA, Iraq, SyriaComments Off on PNAC’s (war criminal)Donnelly,lets use Iraq model on Syria….Debate on U.S. intervention in Syria exposes clash of worldviews, audience opposition to military action

No way to keep U.S. arms out of (fake)enemy hands in Syria

[ed notes:of course not,because zionist ran us and allies are allowing and using its client regimes in  region to arm them,(wich make sthem freinds not enemies)knowingly,and keeping silent on that most pertinant fact!!!This gives zionist us plausible deniability,except everyone sees us (zionist ran)does not condemn or demand is proxy client regimes stop that aid in funds and arms going to extremists(who serve wests purposes, clearly!) 
Some of the U.S. weapons flowing to rebels in Syria are bound to fall into the hands of Islamic extremists, say analysts and a retired Army general just back from touring the country.The prediction is based on at least two realities.First, the Syrian rebels’ Supreme Military Council, which Washington selected to distribute the weapons, includes various groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, which wants to bring Islamic law to Damascus.
[ed note:u.s.(zionist ran) main ally turkey and qatar back mb,so us govt zionist ran obviousy hasnt stopped it nor does it want to.anyone ehar us protest it?no!!!
A report from a think tank at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., says the council’s top official, former Syrian armyGen. Salim Idriss, has no real control over rebel units, though Washington is trusting him to keep American arms from extremists.(while allowing saudis,qatar,turkey,kuwait,u.a.e. to arm extremists though)
Second, the council’s fighting group — the Free Syrian Army — operates brigades living and working with the Nusra Front, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group with about 6,000 members. Sometimes they fight among themselves; sometimes they cooperate.Reuters news agency reported Friday that two rebel groups, the Raqqah Revolutionary Brigades and God’s Victory Brigade, had abandoned the Free Syrian Army and pledged loyalty to al Qaeda.

Retired ArmyMaj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who in late August (at time of chemical attacks,see )
visited Free Syrian Army commanders in northern Syria, including the key city of Aleppo, said the two factions see themselves as allies, for now, and will share weapons.“In Aleppo, you see some of the al Qaeda units in some of the districts and you’ll see the Free Syrian Army,” Gen. Vallelysaid. “They are coexisting only to bring [President BasharAssad down. [ed note:whats amazing is how a zionist neocon general with close ties to israhell is among FSA and AL QAEDA deep inside Syria and noone abducts ,kidnaps or kills him,(journalists,civilians yes,him?no!obviously because hes directing the zionist project there,alongside both groups]
But the FSA have a plan. They will run al Qaeda out of the country, and they will form a new government.”Although Gen. Vallelyvouches(directs) for the 40 Free Syrian Army commanders with whom he met, he picked up on a disturbing theme: The commanders are deeply skeptical of Gen. Idriss, who spends his days in Istanbul.Commanders told Gen. Vallely that they think the CIA-delivered arms will fall into the hands of the “wrong elements” before any reach secular Free Syrian Army brigades in and around Aleppo, Syria’s largest city and economic center.Brotherhood ‘pawns’ Frederic Hof, who was a special adviser on Syria to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, supports Gen. Idriss as the best way to get arms to the right people. He said food and medical aid have been delivered through the general’s staff. The U.S. has tracked the shipments and believes the supplies ended up in the right places.Still, Mr. Hof, now an analyst at the Atlantic Council, concedes: “There is no 100 percent guarantee that every single thing is going to get to its intended source. I don’t think even UPS can do that. These extremists are already armed to the teeth. I don’t want to sound blase about it. It is a big issue. We’ll shoot for 100 percent, but our chances of getting it in a situation like this are not too good.”James Russell, a former Pentagon official who focused on foreign arms sales, said history shows that when U.S. officials introduce weapons into a foreign war, those arms come back to bite them.“I don’t know how we could possibly categorically state that the arms we provide will only remain with the groups we are supporting,” said Mr. Russell, an instructor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. “War is chaotic and confusing. We are not there to provide oversight.
Gen. Vallely founded the nonprofit group One of its top projects is to persuade the Obama administration to order airstrikes to bring down the Assad regime, which launched a poison gas attack Aug. 21 that killed more than 1,400 in a neighborhood near Damascus. He has submitted a target list to the Pentagon.He said Free Syrian Army commanders told him that some factions under the Supreme Military Council are “pawns” of the Muslim Brotherhood. The murky Islamist network has made a top priority of capitalizing on the chaos in Syria, especially since military leaders in Egypt are trying to destroy the movement there through attacks and arrests.The oil-rich emirate of Qatar, which funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to keep the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt, has sent huge cash payments to various rebel groups in Syria, Gen. Vallely said. Where one finds Qatari money, there is also the Muslim Brotherhood, he said.“The Muslim Brotherhood is a grand mafia,” he said. “They’re the smart guys. They’re planning everything. They’re getting the money.”
[ed notes:translation for the remedial…ziocons like vallely support ,back and direct FSA,but demonize mb rethorically because its hard to justify support to them openly on fox news after so many years of bashing them(rethorically of course) !demorat zionists on other hand support mushrikun brotherhood openly in this war,even though they dont explicitly name them,thats their camp!!!
The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point has studied the Free Syrian Army, and its latest analysis is not reassuring. Rather than anything resembling a cohesive armed force, the Free Syrian Army is a hodgepodge of fronts, militias and factions.
“The FSA has always been more of a brand name than an actual organization,” the report says.
Of the year-old Supreme Military Counciland Gen. Idriss, it says: “There is no evidence that it functions as a conventional military organization or that Idriss enjoys real control over member factions. To the contrary, member groups retain their separate identities and operational autonomy and proclaim loyalty to their own commanders.”The council’s single largest coalition is the Syria Islamic Liberation Front, which comprises more than 20 rebel groups. They include the Islamist Tawhid Brigade, which claims about 30 subfactions, the West Point study says.Another Supreme Military Council-sponsored fighting unit is the Durou al-Thawra Commission, which was set up in part by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.
[ed notes;also see…Video- Leader of FSA Brigade-”We will Stand with US & Israel”
FSA terrorists using israeli occupied golan height
FSA Terrorists & Israel Join Forces
Syrian rebel leader hints at Israel peace 

Posted in SyriaComments Off on No way to keep U.S. arms out of (fake)enemy hands in Syria

I$raHell: ‘The Worst State on the Planet’

On September 21, 2013, the Bilzerian Report, published as investigative study, calling Israel; The Worst Nation On the Planetbased on the following facts.
1. Between 2001 and 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Council sanctioned Israel more than any other nation on the planet.2. Racism against native Muslims, Christians and even fellow Jews. When black African Jews returned to Israel in 1969 under the Right of Return Act, the government ruled that they were not real Jews and therefore did not qualify for citizenship or any legal status. The black Hebrews were also denied state benefits and work permits. To this day black Jews are still not accepted by the Jewish community in Israel. Racial slurs, insults, and discrimination in housing rentals are commonplace.3. In Israel, it is against the law for a gentile to marry a Jew. Amnesty International has condemned their marriage policy as discriminatory towards Arabs. Under the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, Israel bars the immigrant reunification for family members of citizens of Israel and residents of Israeli-occupied territories in Palestine. Meaning that Palestinian families can be separated, legally.4. The Zionist regime has initiated wars, massacres and have used chemical weapons against its neighboring Arab nations. In 1982, the Israeli government allowed the massacre of more than 800 Palestinians in two refugee camps in occupied Beirut. In 2008, the Israeli government fired white phosphorous weapons into civilian areas in Gaza.5. Israeli leaders have no shame in lying to the world. For example, in 1992, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu falsely claimed that Iran was 3-5 years away from a nuclear weapon. Then in 2002, he publicly lied to America’s Congress about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction. Then in 2012, Netanyahu lied to the American people once again by claiming that Iran was only months away from nuclear weapons.6. Today, the Jewish Lobby is at its old tricks again by publicly pushing America to war with Syria. In fact, the push is so one-sided that many are now calling this an Jewish-lobby war. Almost every major Jewish group in America supports the invasion, and Obama actually recruited more than 250 Israel lobbyists to force undecided congressmen to vote for war.7. The Zionist entity is America’s greatest enemy. The US government has labeled Israel one of its greatest spy threats on numerous occasions, and for good reason. Israel has been caught spying on America, stealing US secrets, attacking American targets, and stealing US nuclear technology and equipment several times.8. Israel, the world’s loudest proponent of holocaust awareness, is actually a holocaust denier of non-Jewish people.9. Even though Israel receives more foreign aid than any other nation on the planet, it is one of the stingiest developed countries in the world. Israel is one of the richest countries in the world with 10,000 millionaires, but gives nearly 10 times less than the world average and gives the 4th least of any developed nation per capita, only barely beating out much poorer countries like Poland, Hungary, and Turkey. So while Israel took $12-17 billion in US aid, it only gave $141 million in foreign aid to nations in need of assistance in 2010.
10. The 9/11 was an Israeli project meant to increase American support for Israel against the Muslim world.
The above mentioned instances of Israeli racism, terrorism, subterfuge, etc… just scratch the surface of the totality of the destruction that the state of Israel has brought to this world. In fact, Israel’s founding was marred by Jewish terrorist attacks against British and European targets, and the massacre and displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. At least repressive nations such as North Korea and Iran, which do far less international and domestic harm than Israel, do not claim to be the only free democracies in their region that shares Western values. The hypocrisy and lies of Israel almost surpass its devastation,” concluded the report.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on I$raHell: ‘The Worst State on the Planet’

Open and brazen cooperation’ between govt and paramilitaries: Colombia Vice-President

Colombia’s Vice-President has admitted that the government did not stop paramilitary forces committing massacres during years of “open and brazen” cooperation.Angelino Garzon was speaking on Friday in Bucaramanga, northeast Colombia, during an event to mark the 1987 massacre of 19 people by alleged government and paramilitary forces in the Puerto Boyaca region of Boyaca department, near to Bogota.He said that such massacres would have been avoided if the government had acted.At the time of the massacre Garzon was a union leader in the area. According to news website El Heraldo, Garzon described himself as a “witness” to the “open and brazen” cooperation between the government and the AUC in the area.
“I saw how [the AUC] threatened us in the presence of state officials, I saw with my own eyes the cooperation between the local government, the army and the police with the paramilitaries in Puerto Boyaca.”Garzon was in Bucaramanga, Santander department, fulfilling obligations specified by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), who ruled in 2004 that the state erect a monument in memory of the 19 tradesmen who were killed. The IACHR also called on the government to give compensation to the families of the victims and open an investigation into the crime, among other things.Ten members of the AUC and two soldiers are currently serving sentences for their part in the massacre, in which the tradesmen were tortured, murdered, then thrown in a stream.
“It has been a titanic battle,” said Maria Pineda, family of one of the victims, to newspaper El Tiempo. “Days after the disappearances they [the paramilitaries] threatened us so that we would keep quiet. We’ve spent 26 years waiting for the truth to come out.”News website Vanguardia claims that the state is still refusing to condemn those members of the armed forces implicated in the massacre, despite the IACHR ruling that the state “violated the rights to personal liberty, humane treatment and life” of the victims.

Posted in South AmericaComments Off on Open and brazen cooperation’ between govt and paramilitaries: Colombia Vice-President

Now’s The Time To Strip I$raHell of its WMDs


By Gilad Atzmon

The Israelis are not very impressed with Hassan Rouhani, the new Iranian president. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu ordered Israel’s delegation to boycott his appearance at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday and later denounced Rouhani’s address there as “a cynical speech that was full of hypocrisy.”

But Israel seems to be alone this time.  Both the United States and other Western nations appeared to warmly welcome the new Iranian president at the UN. 

But did Rouhani present any radical change? Did he deliver new promises? Not at all. Like his predecessor, he made it clear that Iran is not going to give up on its right to proceed and develop nuclear energy. Like Ahmadinejad, Rouhani contended that  “nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran’s security and defence doctrine, and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions. Our national interests make it imperative that we remove any and all reasonable concerns about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.”

The President also suggested that the world should recognise Iran’s basic right to carry out all parts of its nuclear fuel cycle. In short, Iran is going ahead with its nuclear project. And this is indeed very good news.

So what changed really?  Only one thing, I guess. The nations seem to have changed their appetite. And they are somehow brave enough to admit it to themselves.

Due to some intense Jewish lobbying and the submissive nature of contemporary Western politicians, not many Western governments dare criticise Israel. They clearly fear Netanyahu and his network of 800 pound gorillas’. By means of kindness towards Israel’s ‘enemy’, our weak politicians have managed to find a way to deliver a message to Israel. Welcoming Rouhani at the UN was a clear message to the Jewish State and its supportive lobby: beware, we are gradually becoming tired of your dirty politics and pushing for wars.

Being an avid reader of Jewish history, I allow myself to say that the failure to read the writing on the wall is intrinsic to Jewish identity politics and culture. One might expect Israel and the Lobby to back off at this point. But this is not going to happen. Israel and the Lobby will act more obnoxiously. They will use every trick in their book to close this opening window of a dialogue and reconciliation.

Israel is doomed to bring a tragedy on itself and the region. Even God  won’t be able to save his chosen people from themselves. But there is something the UN can do: stripping Israel of its chemical, biological and nuclear arsenal. I can see such a demand brewing up and I would love to see it materialising soon.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Now’s The Time To Strip I$raHell of its WMDs

Breaking news on Partnership for Civil Justice Fund lawsuit on Cuban Five case


State Dept. now under court order to produce records

Reprinted from the website of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund

The PCJF filed a Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit against the U.S. State Department for its refusal to produce materials in its possession about secret payments by the U.S. government to Miami-based journalists who were reporting on the case of the Cuban Five prior to the trial, during the trial and while the jury was deliberating.

Now, as a result of the PCJF’s lawsuit, the State Department has been ordered to expeditiously produce responsive documents in its possession. The first round of production is ordered to begin in October.

“This is a major step forward in the effort to expose the truth about a terrible miscarriage of justice in this case. The documents that the State Department was refusing to produce cover a critical time period for the Cuban Five. The documents that were requested would cover the U.S. government’s payments to Miami-based journalists at the very time the U.S. government was prosecuting the Cuban Five,” stated attorney Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Executive Director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund.


Attorneys from the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) have filed a Freedom of Information Action (FOIA) lawsuit in June 2013 against the U.S. State Department for its refusal to produce responsive materials in its possession about secret payments by the U.S. government to Miami-based journalists who were reporting on the case of the Cuban Five prior to the trial, during the trial and while the jury was deliberating.

The FOIA demand was filed by Liberation Newspaper in October 2010 requesting documents about the government’s covert payments to journalists in Miami from 1998-2002. The Cuban Five were arrested on September 12, 1998, and the seven-month trial began in November 2000.

Attorney Carl Messineo, Legal Director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, explained the purpose of the lawsuit at the time of its filing in June 2013: “It appears the government manipulated domestic public opinion to advance their political and prosecution goals. This lawsuit seeks underlying records. They have no right to hide their misconduct.”

Posted in South AmericaComments Off on Breaking news on Partnership for Civil Justice Fund lawsuit on Cuban Five case

Syria Crisis: The maneuvers at the United Nations in perspective


Obama administration seeks to lay basis for UN-sanctioned assault

Having been forced to back off from a threatened military attack on Syria by intense international and domestic opposition, the Obama administration is now seeking to lay the basis for a UN Security Council-sanctioned assault.

On Sept. 13, an agreement was reached between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on a plan to dismantle Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons. The government of Syria expressed support for the agreement, while the Syrian armed opposition has condemned it.

Having been delayed in carrying out a direct military attack, the United States, Britain and France are seeking to use any UN Security Council resolution as the basis for a renewed push toward a Pentagon bombing campaign. Russia and China, which hold the two other seats in the Security Council, are attempting to word any Syria resolution in a way that prevents it from being used or interpreted as a rationale for such an intervention.

France was the colonial power over Lebanon and Syria. Britain was the other major colonial power in the Middle East until the end of World War II. The United States took their place as the major imperial power in the region in the post-World II era.

The ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), which organized protests around the country in the weeks prior to Obama’s announcement that he was pulling back from an imminent military attack on Syria, stated: “We believe that the issue of chemical weapons is being used as a pretext for greater intervention by the United States, Britain and France to carry out a larger but unstated agenda in the Middle East, which is to destroy every single independent, nationalist government in this oil-rich region.”

The United States has more than 5,000 nuclear weapons and is providing more than $3 billion each year to Israel, which has a large stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and, even more importantly, a large number of nuclear weapons. When the United States demanded last week that Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile be destroyed, they made sure to avoid language calling for a regional ban on such weapons since it would have highlighted the fact that the U.S. government’s principal ally, Israel, possesses these weapons.

Maneuvers at the United Nations

The plan agreed to by Syria calls for the Syrian government to turn over a list of its chemical weapons and where they are stored by Sept. 21. UN weapons inspectors are to arrive in Syria by mid-November and the weapons are supposed to be destroyed by the middle of 2014.

The agreement is being turned into a UN Security Council resolution. Kerry is demanding that the resolution include authorization for military strikes on Syria if it is deemed to not having sufficiently complied with the resolution. But the Russian government opposes this provision, and Russia is one of the five states that have veto power in the Security Council.

Both Obama and Kerry have repeatedly threatened that the United States could still carry out a unilateral attack on Syria, regardless of the wording of a UNSC resolution.

Chemical weapons report—More questions

The rationale for the U.S. threats of military action was a chemical weapons attack in Ghouta and the surrounding area east of Syria’s capital Damascus on Aug. 21. Obama and Kerry have blamed the Syrian government for the attack from the start. More than a year ago, the President Obama declared that use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government would cross a “red line,” triggering a U.S. military response.

A team from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons had arrived in Syria on Aug. 18 to investigate an earlier alleged use of chemical weapons in the city of Aleppo.

That the Syrian government would launch a large-scale chemical weapons attack immediately after the arrival of the OPCW team in the country seems illogical, even more so given that the government forces have been making major gains in the war over the past several months.

The OPCW team conducted an investigation of the Aug. 21 attack and issued its report to the UN on Sept. 16 confirming that a chemical weapons attack had taken place, but not assigning responsibility. While the United States, Britain, France and Turkey have all blamed the Syrian government, the Syrian government has adamantly denied using chemical weapons and accused the opposition of staging a provocation to justify a U.S./NATO assault.

On Sept. 18, the Agence France Presse reported that the Syrian government had forwarded “new evidence showing it was opposition forces were behind the sarin attack” to the UN.

Besides responsibility for the Aug. 21 attack, the OPCW report leaves other unanswered questions. The Ghouta area is in Syrian opposition hands and the report states, regarding evidence the OPCW was collecting: “During the time spent at these locations, individuals arrived carrying other suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and possibly manipulated.”

The OPCW report does not include the estimated death toll. While the United States claims that at least 1,429 were killed, Britain and France have reported far lower figures, 350 and 281 respectively.

The report states that a deadly nerve gas, sarin, was delivered by M14 artillery rockets. But the question of whether the armed opposition possesses such munitions and sarin gas itself is not addressed.

There have been numerous reports of rebel forces possessing and seeking to produce sarin. On Sept. 13, the Los Angeles Times reported that a Turkish prosecutor had indicted six members of the Syrian opposition for attempting to procure precursor materials for creating sarin. The government of Turkey, it should be noted, has been strongly supporting the opposition.

The opposition Syrian National Coalition and “Free Syrian Army” have expressed bitter disappointment that the U.S./NATO air strikes they were hoping for did not materialize. They were counting on foreign intervention to tip the military balance in their favor, as it has become clear that they cannot win without it.

While it is worthwhile to skeptically examine the claims of those who are set on attacking Syria, the people’s opposition to a new imperial war against Syria should not be premised on whether or not chemical weapons were used either by pro-government forces or by the armed Syrian opposition. Rather it is necessary to expose the imperial motives of the United States, Britain and France, who are seeking any pretext to carry out their semi-colonial designs on the peoples of the region. These same imperialist forces have used nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Imperialist powers do not go to war because of “moral outrage” about the use of any particular weapon.

While the Obama administration was forced to pull back from military strikes, it has not given up on the objective it shares with the 11 other presidencies dating back to World War II: domination of the oil-rich and strategic Middle East. That means the anti-war movement must stay on alert.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syria Crisis: The maneuvers at the United Nations in perspective

Syrian “Intelligence” Dubious and of I$raHell Origin, warn Analysts


“The priority Israeli objective is becoming crystal clear.” A large number of senior analysts, CIA officers, senior U.S. military  personnel, judges and even the Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Middle East have written an open letter to the Obama warning that the “intelligence” being used to promote an attack on Syria is “dubious” because it comes from Israel.

The astonishing and unprecedented warning is signed by an impressive list of people, which includes: Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former); Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.); Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan; Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.); W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.); David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.); Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.); Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.); Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.); Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq; Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.); and Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.).


Calling themselves Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), the group have published their memorandum to the president. It is quoted in full below.


FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Is Syria a Trap?

Precedence: IMMEDIATE

We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this.

In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”

We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandum immediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq.

Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised.

The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond …  the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the same advice today.

Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus.

They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal.

That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue.

They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps even you.

We have observed John Brennan closely over recent years and, sadly, we find what our former colleagues are now telling us easy to believe.

Sadder still, this goes in spades for those of us who have worked with him personally; we give him zero credence.

And that goes, as well, for his titular boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has admitted he gave “clearly erroneous” sworn testimony to Congress denying NSA eavesdropping on Americans.

Intelligence Summary or Political Ploy?

That Secretary of State John Kerry would invoke Clapper’s name this week in Congressional testimony, in an apparent attempt to enhance the credibility of the four-page “Government Assessment” strikes us as odd.

The more so, since it was, for some unexplained reason, not Clapper but the White House that released the “assessment.”

This is not a fine point. We know how these things are done. Although the “Government Assessment” is being sold to the media as an “intelligence summary,” it is a political, not an intelligence document.

The drafters, massagers, and fixers avoided presenting essential detail. Moreover, they conceded upfront that, though they pinned “high confidence” on the assessment, it still fell “short of confirmation.”

Déjà Fraud: This brings a flashback to the famous Downing Street Minutes of July 23, 2002, on Iraq.

The minutes record the Richard Dearlove, then head of British intelligence, reporting to Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior officials that President Bush had decided to remove Saddam Hussein through military action that would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.”

Dearlove had gotten the word from then-CIA Director George Tenet whom he visited at CIA headquarters on July 20.

The discussion that followed centered on the ephemeral nature of the evidence, prompting Dearlove to explain: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

We are concerned that this is precisely what has happened with the “intelligence” on Syria.

The Intelligence

There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters — providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters.

The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.

According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured.

We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no reliable physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in chemical weapons.

In addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major, irregular military surge.

Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and Qatari, Turkish and U.S. intelligence officials took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, now used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors.

Senior opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the regional commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development,” which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.

At operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior commanders of the Syrian opposition, the Syrians were told that the bombing would start in a few days.

Opposition leaders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government

The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive. And they were.

A weapons distribution operation unprecedented in scope began in all opposition camps on August 21-23. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by Qatari and Turkish intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S. intelligence officers.

Cui bono?

That the various groups trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have ample incentive to get the U.S. more deeply involved in support of that effort is clear.

Until now, it has not been quite as clear that the Netanyahu government in Israel has equally powerful incentive to get Washington more deeply engaged in yet another war in the area.

But with outspoken urging coming from Israel and those Americans who lobby for Israeli interests, this priority Israeli objective is becoming crystal clear.

Reporter Judi Rudoren, writing from Jerusalem in an important article in Friday’s New York Times addresses Israeli motivation in an uncommonly candid way.

Her article, titled “Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria,” notes that the Israelis have argued, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria’s two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome. Rudoren continues:

“For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.

“‘This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,’ said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. ‘Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.’”

We think this is the way Israel’s current leaders look at the situation in Syria, and that deeper U.S. involvement – albeit, initially, by “limited” military strikes – is likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict in Syria. The longer Sunni and Shia are at each other’s throats in Syria and in the wider region, the safer Israel calculates that it is.

That Syria’s main ally is Iran, with whom it has a mutual defense treaty, also plays a role in Israeli calculations. Iran’s leaders are not likely to be able to have much military impact in Syria, and Israel can highlight that as an embarrassment for Tehran.

Iran’s Role

Iran can readily be blamed by association and charged with all manner of provocation, real and imagined. Some have seen Israel’s hand in the provenance of the most damaging charges against Assad regarding chemical weapons and our experience suggests to us that such is supremely possible.

Possible also is a false-flag attack by an interested party resulting in the sinking or damaging, say, of one of the five U.S. destroyers now on patrol just west of Syria.

Our mainstream media could be counted on to milk that for all it’s worth, and you would find yourself under still more pressure to widen U.S. military involvement in Syria – and perhaps beyond, against Iran.

Iran has joined those who blame the Syrian rebels for the August 21 chemical incident, and has been quick to warn the U.S. not to get more deeply involved. According to the Iranian English-channel Press TV, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javid Zarif has claimed: “The Syria crisis is a trap set by Zionist pressure groups for [the United States].”

Actually, he may be not far off the mark. But we think your advisers may be chary of entertaining this notion. Thus, we see as our continuing responsibility to try to get word to you so as to ensure that you and other decision makers are given the full picture.

Inevitable Retaliation

We hope your advisers have warned you that retaliation for attacks on Syrian are not a matter of IF, but rather WHERE and WHEN. Retaliation is inevitable.

For example, terrorist strikes on U.S. embassies and other installations are likely to make what happened to the U.S. “Mission” in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, look like a minor dust-up by comparison.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syrian “Intelligence” Dubious and of I$raHell Origin, warn Analysts

Syrian War Lobby: Jewish Supremacist Misdirection Exposed



The collapse—for the meanwhile—of the pro-intervention in the Syrian war lobby has seen the Jewish Supremacists scurrying for cover after the massive publicizing of their plans to push America into another war for I$raHell.


First off the mark was the overtly pro-Zionist Times of Israel, run by well-known “single loyalty” Jewish hasbara (propaganda) specialist David Horovitz.

In an article supposedly dealing with an historical interview with Eitan Haber, Yitzhak Rabin’s closest aide, on the 20th anniversary of the Olso Accords, Horovitz quoted Haber as saying that when a Jewish politician becomes prime minister of Israel, “they realize how utterly dependent Israel is on the US.”

Referring specifically to Benjamin Netanyahu, Haber is quoted in the article as follows:

“And what is it that the Likud leader didn’t know 20 years ago, that he does know as prime minister today? That only when you make it to the Prime Minister’s Office, says Haber, do you understand the extent to which Israel “is dependent on America. For absolutely everything — in the realms of diplomacy, security, even economically… Slowly your tone changes, because you understand that without the spare parts [from the US], your entire air force is grounded. And when you have no air force you have no defenses. You can barely do anything without America. Her diplomatic support, defensive support, economic support. We are in America’s little pocket.”

This is classic Jewish Supremacist misdirection at work. They take a truth, and then add a suitable sprinkling of distortions and lies to produce a “conclusion” which is the exact opposite of reality—it is the Big Lie technique perfected.

The truth is that Israel is dependent upon the U.S. for everything, as Haber correctly says—and in particular the Israeli military machine which is used to attack and suppress Palestinians and Arab neighbors.

(This reality is also the reason why Islamists commit acts of terrorism against America and western nations—but of course Haber or Horovitz would never admit that.)

However, Haber then completely distorts the reason why Israel is dependent upon America.

He tries to make out that America supports Israel “because it wants to”—whereas in reality Jewish power in America controls the mass media, the politics and the economy in a matrix of power which ensures that Israel is always supported.

It is not Israel that “is in America’s pocket” but rather America in Israel’s pocket—precisely the opposite of what Haber and Horovitz have said.

The second example of Jewish Supremacist misdirection appeared in the latest issue of The New York Jewish Week.

An article titled Jewish Leaders Push Back On ‘Warmonger’ Accusation says that “With President Barack Obama calling Russia’s proposal to collect and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons a “potential breakthrough,” many in the organized Jewish community are concerned their support for military force against Syria will be seen as leading the charge to war.

“As Chemi Shalev, a leading columnist for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, wrote Tuesday, “Israel and its supporters and lobbyists are in danger of being stranded and depicted as frustrated warmongers.”

This assessment is of course completely accurate and reflects the truth—but the Jewish Week goes on to quote Rabbi Gerald Skolnik, president of the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly, as saying:

“We are a people with a right to have an interest; we have a dog in this fight. I don’t think the response of the Jewish community has been heavy-handed or that we pushed the president to do anymore than he is inclined to do.”

This view was repeated by David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, who claimed that they had supported the war effort because “we believe it is in America’s national security interests. This is the one and only reason.”

This is, of course, yet another outright lie. The Syrian war is not in “America’s national interests” but it most certainly is in Israel’s interests—and this was why the organized Jewish lobby was pushing so hard to get America into it.

This, and other forms of misdirection are likely to increase over the next few weeks as the Jewish lobby tries to disentangle itself from the pro-war effort (at least until they try again).

Readers and observers should be aware of this tactic, and do all they can to counter it.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syrian War Lobby: Jewish Supremacist Misdirection Exposed

Shoah’s pages


September 2013
« Aug   Oct »