Even if Assad Used Chemical Weapons, The West Has No Mandate to Act as a Global Policeman

NOVANEWS
By ordering air strikes against Syria without UN security council support, Obama will be doing the same as Bush in 2003

George Bush, the then US president, waves to US navy personnel at Mayport Naval Station, in Jacksonville, Florida, 13 February 2003, after urging the United Nations to uphold its relevance by enforcing demands that the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, disarm. (Photograph: Larry Downing/Reuters)It is true that the UN security council is not a reliable global policeman. It may be slow to take action, or paralysed because of disagreement between members. But do we want the US or Nato or “alliances of willing states” as global policemen either? Unlike George Bush in 2003, the Obama administration is not trigger-happy and contemptuous of the United Nationsand the rules of its charter, which allow the use of armed force only in self-defence or with an authorisation from the security council. Yet Obama, like Bush and Blair, seems ready to ignore the council and order armed strikes on Syria with political support from only the UK, France and some others.

Such action could not be “in self-defence” or “retaliation”, as the US, the UK and France have not been attacked. To punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons would be the action of self-appointed global policemen – action that, in my view, would be very unwise.

While much evidence points to the guilt of the Assad regime, would not due process require that judgment and consideration of action take place in the UN security council and await the report of the inspectors that the UN has sent to Syria – at the demand of the UK and many other UN members?

We may agree with John Kerry, the US secretary of state, that the use of gas is a “moral obscenity”, but would we not feel that “a measured and proportionate punishment”, like striking at some missile sites or helicopter bases, is like telling the regime that “you can go on with your war but do stay away from the chemical weapons”? And what is the moral weight of the condemnation by nuclear weapons states of the use of gas as a serious war crime when they themselves will not accept a norm that would criminalise any first use of their own nuclear weapons?

It is hard to avoid the impression that the political and military developments now in overdrive stem partly from pressure exerted by the rebel side to trigger an American military intervention – by trying to hold President Obama to an earlier warning to Assad that a use of chemical weapons would alter his calculation. Equally, if not more important, may be a need felt by the Obama administration to avoid criticism for being hesitant and passive – and appearing like a paper tiger to countries such as Iran that have been warned that the US will not allow them to have nuclear weapons.

In 2003 the US and the UK and an alliance of “friendly states” invaded Iraq without the authorisation of the security council. A strong body of world opinion felt that this constituted a violation and an undermining of the UN charter. A quick punitive action in Syria today without UN authorisation would be another precedent, suggesting that great military powers can intervene militarily when they feel politically impelled to do so. (They did not intervene when Iraq used chemical weapons on a large scale in the war with Iran in the 1980s.)

So, what should the world reaction be to the use of chemical weapons? Clearly, evidence available – both from UN inspectors and from member states – should be placed before and judged by the security council. Even if the council could only conclude that chemical weapons had been used – and could not agree that the Assad regime alone was responsible – there would be a good chance of unanimous world condemnation. Global indignation about the use of chemical weapons is of value to strengthen the taboo.

Condemnation is not enough. With 100,000 killed and millions of refugees, the civil war itself is a “moral obscenity”. The council must seek to achieve not just an end to chemical weapons use but an end to all weapons use, by a ceasefire. As was planned not long ago by the US and Russia, the council must seek to bring about a conference at which relevant parties and states can form an interim authority. The alternative is continued civil war in Syria and worsening international relations.

Is the ending of active hostilities totally unrealistic? Let us be clear that the government in Syria, as well as all rebel groups, depends upon a flow of weapons, munitions and money from the outside. Much is reported to come to the rebels from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey; and much is reported to come to the government from Russia and Iran. The supplier countries have leverage. Agreement should be sought, under the auspices of the security council, that all parties that have given such support demand that their clients accept a ceasefire – or risk losing further support.

Posted in Syria, USA0 Comments

President Obama, The Price for Using the ’63 Movement is a Peace Conference on Syria

NOVANEWS

Yesterday, on August 28, fifty years after the historic March on Washington, President Obama participated in celebrations on the Lincoln Memorial steps. At the same time, he’s considering authorizing military action in Syria. I’m sorry Mr. President, but you cannot simultaneously commemorate a nonviolent movement and contemplate military strikes.

U.S. President Barack Obama waves at the end of his speech during a ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, August 28, 2013. (REUTERS/Jason Reed)

The King family charged for use of Dr. King’s words and image on the Memorial so many have visited. If there can be a charge for the use of a man’s words can’t there also be a charge for use of his movement?

What would be a fair price? It can’t be more lofty presidential words. President  Obama has given us volumes of words—on closing Guantanamo, ending torture, and respecting the Constitution, even as he’s expanded the war on terror, and let loose another on Americans’ rights with NSA spying and wiretaps.  There have been no trials for war criminals or war profiteers or banksters, but there have been agonizing trials for whistleblowers, the poor and the weakest amongst us.

In 1963, Dr. King talked about the “fierce urgency of now.” This is your “now”, Mr. President. It’s time not to speak, but to act. The price for your commemoration of the ’63 march should be a Peace Conference.

As Patrick Cockburn,  who’s covered the region thoughtfully for years puts it today, only a peace conference can do for Syria what airstrikes and armed intervention can not. Only a peace conference can “bring to an end the present bloody stalemate.”

Air strikes have a habit of leading to intervention, reprisals, more slaughter, more arms races.  When the end we seek is “a community at peace with itself,” as King put it, only nonviolence stands a chance of success.

President Obama needs to walk back from his “red line” pledge of action in Syria, regardless of the consequences to his image or himself.  Moral courage is called for. But the movement he praised today was built by much costlier personal sacrifice.

Dr. King and Obama have something in common: they both received a Nobel Peace Prize.  Of his own, King said “I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was also a commission, a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for the brotherhood of man.”

A world as horrified by the prospect of more bloodshed as it is by the blood that has already been shed, wonders what King would do today, and waits upon a president.

Posted in Syria, USA0 Comments

Insiders Admit: US Intel on Syria ‘No Slam Dunk’

NOVANEWS
As the rush to war continues, another familiar scene in which  administration claims on intelligence don't live up to scrutiny
- Jon Queally

Though officials at the highest levels of US government—including Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama himself—have gone public this week to announce the certainty of U.S. intelligence that links an alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria last week to the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad, the Associated Press reports on Thursday, citing both intelligence officials and anonymous government sources, that the evidence so far compiled is by no means “a slam dunk”.

A U.N. chemical weapons expert, wearing a gas mask, holds a plastic bag containing samples from one of the sites of an alleged chemical weapons attack in the Ain Tarma neighbourhood of Damascus August 29, 2013. (Credit: Reuters/Mohamed Abdullah)According to AP:

multiple U.S. officials used the phrase “not a slam dunk” to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet’s insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a “slam dunk” — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria includes a few key caveats — including acknowledging that the U.S. intelligence community no longer has the certainty it did six months ago of where the regime’s chemical weapons are stored, nor does it have proof Assad ordered chemical weapons use, according to two intelligence officials and two more U.S. officials.

Though all the officials AP spoke with did so “on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the intelligence report publicly,” the internal intelligence report referred to is the one that will be presented to members of some members of Congress on Thursday as the intelligence committees from both the House and Senate are expected to be briefed on what the U.S. government says it knows, and at least to some extent, what it doesn’t know about what happened in Syria.

Among the deficiencies in that knowledge, the report continues:

Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad’s supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as the U.S. rhetoric increased. But.that lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad’s military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.

Over the past six months, with shifting front lines in the 2½-year-old civil war and sketchy satellite and human intelligence coming out of Syria, U.S. and allied spies have lost track of who controls some of the country’s chemical weapons supplies, according to the two intelligence officials and two other U.S. officials.

U.S. satellites have captured images of Syrian troops moving trucks into weapons storage areas and removing materials, but U.S. analysts have not been able to track what was moved or, in some cases, where it was relocated. They are also not certain that when they saw what looked like Assad’s forces moving chemical supplies, those forces were able to remove everything before rebels took over an area where weapons had been stored.

In addition, an intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.

These insights—as difficult tp corroborate for the general public as the administration’s public claims perhaps—herald back to more fundamental to more fundamental questions about the rush to intervene in Syria with so many “what ifs” still circling, especially when the regional stakes are so high and the standing and widely shared belief that a US military strike—with or without quality intelligence or all the right information—will only make matters worse in the region, not better.

Posted in Syria, USA0 Comments

Iraq Redux? Obama says ‘Trust Us’ as UN Retreats from Syria

NOVANEWS
Political  battles get in the way of an immediate  US/NATO attack, but the gears of war still grinding hard
- Jon Queally

President Obama laid out his case for a military attack on Syria on Wednesday night, though providing evidence and a compelling reason for intervention was nowhere to be found. (Image: PBS screengrab)An early withdrawal of the UN investigative team that is trying to determine exactly what happened during a suspected chemical attack near Damascus last week is offering an eery reminder of events that took place before the US began its invasion of Iraq in 2003, with the fear that once international observers have gone a US/NATO attack on Syria would be greenlighted for later in the weekend or early next week.

Though speculation based on anonymous reporting from high level officials in the US and Europe indicated a US-led campaign might start as early as Thursday, indications from both the US and UK show that though the rush to attack has been slowed by political opposition, the push for war continues.

As the Guardian reports, domestic politics in the UK have slowed Prime Minister David Cameron’s hopes that approval for military action could sidestep Parliament.

Meanwhile, in a televised interview on PBS news on Wednesday night, President Obama said “no decision” has been made on attacking Syria though he spent the majority of the interview laying out his administration’s case for why the US and its NATO and Gulf state allies may soon launch such an attack.

Asked what US military action—at this point still assumed to be a volley of cruise missiles from US warships in the Mediterranean or an aerial bombing campaign—would accomplish, Obama said that it would give the government of President Bashar al-Assad “a pretty strong signal not to do it again,” meaning using chemical weapons.

Though the US has now repeatedly says it “knows” that the Assad regime was directly behind the attacks, they have offered no verifiable evidence to the public.

And some members of Congress are also trying to put the brakes on the attack, saying that even if chemical weapons are determined to have been used by Assad, the role for a US military campaign should not be a foregone conclusion.

“Even if he (Syrian President Bashar Assad) did use chemical weapons, that doesn’t give the president the authority to attack Syria” without going to Congress, said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. “Our troops aren’t being attacked, our nation isn’t being attack. He has a responsibility to consult Congress first.”

And former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix goes a step further than that, saying that the argument for a US campaign against Syria is fundamentally flawed, with or without approval from Congress. In an op-ed in the Guardian on Thursday, he writes:

In 2003 the US and the UK and an alliance of “friendly states” invaded Iraq without the authorisation of the security council. A strong body of world opinion felt that this constituted a violation and an undermining of the UN charter. A quick punitive action in Syria today without UN authorisation would be another precedent, suggesting that great military powers can intervene militarily when they feel politically impelled to do so. (They did not intervene when Iraq used chemical weapons on a large scale in the war with Iran in the 1980s.)

So, what should the world reaction be to the use of chemical weapons? Clearly, evidence available – both from UN inspectors and from member states – should be placed before and judged by the security council. Even if the council could only conclude that chemical weapons had been used – and could not agree that the Assad regime alone was responsible – there would be a good chance of unanimous world condemnation. Global indignation about the use of chemical weapons is of value to strengthen the taboo.

Watch Obama’s full PBS interview here:

Posted in Iraq, Syria, USA0 Comments

‘I$raHell may be behind Syrian chemical weapons use’

NOVANEWS

Former Bush administration official says Syrian chemical weapons use might’ve been “false flag operation” of I$raHell.

Retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson.

Retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson. Photo: Screenshot

A former senior official in the Bush administration said on Thursday the use of chemical weapons in Syria might have been a “false flag operation” of I$raHell, meant to implicate Syrian President Bashar Assad.

"We don’t know what the chain of custody is. This could’ve been an I$raHell false  flag operation, it could’ve been an opposition in Syria... or it could’ve been an actual use by Bashar Assad. But we certainly don’t know with the  evidence we’ve  been  given. And what I’m  hearing  from the  intelligence  community  is  that  that evidence is really flakey,'' retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, told Cenk Uygur in an interview with Current TV.

Given this “flimsy evidence,” Wilkerson doesn’t believe a red line has been crossed in Syria, and that the US should not base its intervention in the war-torn country based on such evidence.

Wilkerson criticized Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu harshly, saying there is a“geostratigically, geopolitical inept regime in Tel Aviv right now.”

Click for full JPost coverage

"We saw really startling evidence of that in the fact that [US] President [Barack] Obamahad to tell Bibi Netanyahu, 'pick up the phone, you idiot, and call Ankara and get yourself out of this strategic isolation you're in right now, do a reconciliation with Turkeythe most powerful country in the region,'otherwise Bibi probably wouldn't have done it," he said.

He also said the prime minister was “clueless” as to the grave security situation I$raHell is in.

Posted in Syria, USA, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

U.S. military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a U.S. strike on Syria

NOVANEWS

washingtonpost.com

The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.

Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.

Former and current officers, many with the painful lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan on their minds, said the main reservations concern the potential unintended consequences of launching cruise missiles against Syria.

Some questioned the use of military force as a punitive measure and suggested that the White House lacks a coherent strategy. If the administration is ambivalent about the wisdom of defeating or crippling the Syrian leader, possibly setting the stage for Damascus to fall to fundamentalist rebels, they said, the military objective of strikes on Assad’s military targets is at best ambiguous.

“There’s a broad naivete in the political class about America’s obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve,” said retired Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the run-up to the Iraq war, noting that many of his contemporaries are alarmed by the plan.

New cycle of attacks?

Marine Lt. Col. Gordon Miller, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, warned this week of “potentially devastating consequences, including a fresh round of chemical weapons attacks and a military response by Israel.”

“If President [Bashar al-Assad] were to absorb the strikes and use chemical weapons again, this would be a significant blow to the United States’ credibility and it would be compelled to escalate the assault on Syria to achieve the original objectives,” Miller wrote in a commentary for the think tank.

A National Security Council spokeswoman said Thursday she would not discuss “internal deliberations.” White House officials reiterated Thursday that the administration is not contemplating a protracted military engagement.

Still, many in the military are skeptical. Getting drawn into the Syrian war, they fear, could distract the Pentagon in the midst of a vexing mission: its exit from Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are still being killed regularly. A young Army officer who is wrapping up a year-long tour there said soldiers were surprised to learn about the looming strike, calling the prospect “very dangerous.”

“I can’t believe the president is even considering it,” said the officer, who like most officers interviewed for this story agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity because military personnel are reluctant to criticize policymakers while military campaigns are being planned. “We have been fighting the last 10 years a counterinsurgency war. Syria has modern weaponry. We would have to retrain for a conventional war.”

Dempsey’s warning

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned in great detail about the risks and pitfalls of U.S. military intervention in Syria.

“As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that use of force will move us toward the intended outcome,” Dempsey wrote last month in a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.”

Dempsey has not spoken publicly about the administration’s planned strike on Syria, and it is unclear to what extent his position shifted after last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack. Dempsey said this month in an interview with ABC News that the lessons of Iraq weigh heavily on his calculations regarding Syria.

“It has branded in me the idea that the use of military power must be part of an overall strategic solution that includes international partners and a whole of government,” he said in the Aug. 4 interview. “Simply the application of force rarely produces and, in fact, maybe never produces the outcome we seek.”

The recently retired head of the U.S. Central Command, Gen. James Mattis, said last month at a security conference that the United States has “no moral obligation to do the impossible” in Syria. “If Americans take ownership of this, this is going to be a full-throated, very, very serious war,” said Mattis, who as Centcom chief oversaw planning for a range of U.S. military responses in Syria.

The potential consequences of a U.S. strike include a retaliatory attack by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah — which supports Assad — on Israel, as well as cyberattacks on U.S. targets and infrastructure, U.S. military officials said.

“What is the political end state we’re trying to achieve?” said a retired senior officer involved in Middle East operational planning who said his concerns are widely shared by active-duty military leaders. “I don’t know what it is. We say it’s not regime change. If it’s punishment, there are other ways to punish.” The former senior officer said that those who are expressing alarm at the risks inherent in the plan “are not being heard other than in a pro-forma manner.”

President Obama said in a PBS interview on Wednesday that he is not contemplating a lengthy engagement, but instead “limited, tailored approaches.”

A retired Central Command officer said the administration’s plan would “gravely disappoint our allies and accomplish little other than to be seen as doing something.”

“It will be seen as a half measure by our allies in the Middle East,” the officer said. “Iran and Syria will portray it as proof that the U.S. is unwilling to defend its interests in the region.”

Still, some within the military, while apprehensive, support striking Syria. W. Andrew Terrill, a Middle East expert at the U.S. Army War College, said the limited history of the use of chemical weapons in the region suggests that a muted response from the West can be dangerous.

“There is a feeling as you look back that if you don’t stand up to chemical weapons, they’re going to take it as a green light and use them on a recurring basis,” he said.

An Army lieutenant colonel said the White House has only bad options but should resist the urge to abort the plan now.

“When a president draws a red line, for better or worse, it’s policy,” he said, referring to Obama’s declaration last year about Syria’s potential use of chemical weapons. “It cannot appear to be scared or tepid. Remember, with respect to policy choices concerning Syria, we are discussing degrees of bad and worse.”

Posted in USA0 Comments

Kerry’s Choice: The Document

NOVANEWS
Posted on by 

Insane

This pic is by Skulz the great.

A unique source to the Searching for al-Khidr blog called “Edward’s Ghost” has supplied us with the ORIGINAL four-page document that Israeli Suckretary of State for American Affairs, John Fucking Kerry, relied on during his insane press conference yestereday.  You can read it below.  Apparently the original author(s) didn’t think this thing would ever see the light of day. Then they had to scramble like hell to polish it up once they realized that Kerry was actually going to release this piece of shit to the public.  But in an exclusive Searching for al-Khidr report you can read the original right here.

As an aide to Shas Party members, we will soon provide an audio file of the document being read by a space alien.

Enjoy.

Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013

The Israeli Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. We further assess that the regime used a nerve agent in the attack. These all-source assessments are based on human, signals, and geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open source reporting. Our classified assessments have been shared with the Israeli-controlled Congress and key international partners. To protect sources and methods, we cannot publicly release all available intelligence, and in fact we won’t release anything – but what follows is an unclassified summary of the Zionist bullshit that Israeli’s spies working inside the White House want you to believe.

Syrian Government Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21

A large body of terrorist sources indicates that a chemical weapons attack took place in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. In addition to Israeli  intelligence information, there are accounts from international and Syrian medical personnel; videos; witness accounts; gazillions of social media reports from at least 12 thousand different locations in the Damascus area; journalist accounts; and reports from highly credible nongovernmental organizations such as AIPAC and the ADL.  (My God, what a bunch of shit this is! I can’t believe they are going to buy this.)

A preliminary Israeli government assessment determined that 1,429,003 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 1,426,003 children, though this assessment will certainly evolve as we obtain more information. In Israel gas masks, provided for free by the American tax payer, are being handed out to all Jews who are then putting them up for sale on Ebay.

We (note to Shas Party members: “we” means Israel’s spies inside the White House) assess with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack against opposition elements in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. We assess that the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely. (Hahahaha, Bandar made us put that line in.) The body of information used to make this assessment includes fake intelligence pertaining to the regime’s preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of pure Zionist bullshit about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack one-liners we came up with while snorting coke in the Oval Office, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition. Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the Israeli Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation. We will continue to seek additional information to create even more gaps in your understanding of what took place.

Background:

The Syrian regime, like Israel and most white governments, maintains a stockpile of numerous chemical agents, including mustard, sarin, and VX and has thousands of munitions that can be used to deliver chemical warfare agents.

Syrian President Bashar al-Asad is the ultimate decision maker for the chemical weapons program and members of the program are carefully vetted to ensure security and loyalty. No other government on earth would do this of course. Only the evil, rotton, anti-semitic secular Ba’th regime would, but we digress. The Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC) – which is subordinate to the Syrian Ministry of Defense – manages Syria’s chemical weapons program.  This of course doesn’t mean a fucking thing.

We (did we mention that the word “we” means Israel’s spies in the White House,?) assess with high confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year, including in the Damascus suburbs. I mean, who wouldn’t do this? Hell, we’d gas all the fucking Palestinians we could and right there on the Temple Mount itself if we thought we could get away with it. Hmmm, not a bad idea, but we digress. This assessment is based on multiple streams of  100% grade A Zionist bullshit including reporting of Israeli, er, Syrian officials planning and executing chemical weapons attacks and laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin. We assess that the opposition has not used chemical weapons. (Holy fucking shit, we are such liars.)

The Israeli, oops, we keep making that mistake, the Syrian regime has the types of munitions that we assess were used to carry out the attack on August 21, and has the ability to strike simultaneously in multiple locations. We have seen no indication that the opposition has carried out a large-scale, coordinated rocket and artillery attack like the one that occurred on August 21. Hopefully they’ll be able to soon though, but we digress.

We assess that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons over the last year primarily to gain the upper hand or break a stalemate in areas where it has struggled to seize and hold strategically valuable territory. In this regard, we continue to judge that the Israeli regime views chemical weapons as one of many tools in its arsenal, including air power and ballistic missiles, which they indiscriminately use against the opposition. Did we say “Israeli” again? Well, you know what we mean. Oh and Barry, don’t forget those pictures we have of you at Man’s Country. But we digress.

The Syrian regime has initiated an effort to rid the Damascus suburbs of crazy religious wackos supported by the legitimately elected government of Saudi Arabia using the area as a base to stage attacks against civilian targets in the capital. The regime has failed to clear dozens of Damascus neighborhoods of these flaming organ eating nutcases, including neighborhoods targeted on August 21, despite employing nearly all of its conventional weapons systems. This means, of course, that the Syrian military isn’t an actual threat to anyone, especially us (“us” being Israel – please make sure Shas Party members realize this.)  We are just plain fucking guessing that the regime’s frustration with its inability to secure large portions of Damascus may have contributed to its decision to use chemical weapons on August 21. (Actually, we are just plain fucking lying, but Americans are so stupid they won’t know the difference.)

Preparation:

We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel – including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC – were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. (That is, they were at some party the night before and they made the best fucking Martinis, but we digress.)  In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack. (Geospatial intelligence – that ought to impress everyone, even that Angry Arab dude.)

Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. This is according to  reports we got from anonymous internet sources that Anne Barnhard uses.) On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks. We assess that only Israelis should be allowed to have gas masks.  Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to use chemical weapons provided to them by us, Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and Micronesia.

The Attack: (Shit, wish we could have scary movie music playing now.)

Multiple streams of Facebook reports indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Youtube detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area, well, they controlled back in May, but now, well not so much,  struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah.  (Use as many Arabic names as possible. No one can fucking pronounce them and it looks really impressive, almost as impressive as “geospatial”.) This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack, though we do not rule out the user of phasers and other technology Syria has acquired from anti-semitic space aliens.

Local social media reports generated by IDF agents of a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs began at 2:30 a.m. local time on August 21. Within the next four hours there were 6 million social media reports on this attack from at least 666 different locations in the Damascus area. Multiple accounts described chemical-filled rockets impacting opposition-controlled areas.

Three hospitals in the Damascus area received approximately 3,600 patients displaying symptoms consistent with nerve agent exposure in less than three hours on the morning of August 21, according to a highly credible international humanitarian organization, the ADL. The reported symptoms, and the epidemiological pattern of events (now that’s great phrase)  – characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers – were consistent with mass exposure to a nerve agent. We also received reports from international and Syrian medical personnel on the ground.

We have identified one hundred thousand videos attributed to the attack, many of which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting physical signs consistent with, but not unique to, nerve agent exposure. The reported symptoms of victims included unconsciousness, foaming from the nose and mouth (just like Shas Party members)  constricted pupils, rapid heartbeat, and difficulty breathing and just plain being fucking dead.  Several of the videos show what appear to be numerous fatalities with no visible injuries, which is consistent with death from chemical weapons, and inconsistent with death from small-arms, high-explosive munitions or blister agents that Israel normally deploys against helpless victims.  At least 12 locations, one for each of the tribes, are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at the general times and locations described in the footage.

We  are lying our asses off when we say that the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information associated with this chemical attack. But even though they can fake these videos, the case of the videos being real does not rule out that the attacks were carried out by the religious wackos we support.

We have a body of information, including past Syrian practice, that leads us to conclude that regime officials were witting of and directed the attack on August 21. We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence. (Of course he is working for us, but we digress.)  On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations. At the same time, the regime intensified the artillery barrage targeting many of the neighborhoods where chemical attacks occurred.  In the 24 hour period after the attack, we detected indications of artillery and rocket fire at a rate approximately four times higher than the ten preceding days. We continued to see indications of sustained shelling in the neighborhoods up until the morning of August 26. We had hoped this would discourage the UN inspectors from going in, but they went in anyway. We tried to kill them, but changed our minds.

To conclude, there is a substantial body of information that implicates the Isaeli government’s responsibility (shit, we did it again) the Syrian government’s responsibility in the chemical weapons attack that took place on August 21.As indicated, there is additional intelligence that remains classified because of imaginary sources and methods concerns that is being provided to Congress and international partners. Much of that intelligence consists of Congressmen getting blow jobs from children under the age of 18.

Posted in Syria, USA0 Comments

This decline Obama hit Syria .. Russian trap story and the great victory Syrian

NOVANEWS

 

Was a surprise U.S. President’s decision to delegate his powers to declare war to the U.S. Congress.

Where the U.S. President has the power to wage war without reference to Congress and can go to war for a period of 60 days prior to its review of the U.S. Congress. 
Obama has used this power through a military campaign against Libya completely ignoring the U.S. Congress .. It also ignored the former American presidents Congress when war Hnhm.
, and it .. فادعاءات Obama that he wants to يستفتي American democracy before going to such a strike can not be explained only that the withdrawal of tactical and escape from confrontation, why flee the U.S. president after his motorcycle for blow firm on Syria?
talking military source Syrian every Sham how سخريته ease the occurrence of Obama into the trap of Russian ambush him Lavrov, source asserts that it is obvious to any researcher or expert strategic depth perception strategic relationship and integration between Syria and Russia, it can not be for the Russians never abandon Syria, do not love them, but rather to link their national security and interests of national Syria ( We were deployed in times of Sham comprehensive analytical article about the reasons for the Russians stuck in Syria and its leadership under the title: Are the Russians abandoned President Assad?)
you can follow the news on the following link:
http://shamtimes.net/news_de1.php?PartsID=1&NewsID=10448

What do Lavrov is to implicate U.S. President confrontation with Syria considered Americans easy and فهموها it fell Rossi after he announced Lavrov said Russia would not at war for one, was then pull the rug from under their feet in agreement with the Syrians and the Iranians, causing the United States a humiliating defeat even before the launch of a rocket one.
what happened is a victory Syrian Free on the United States of America will have devastating consequences for the Syrian opposition, which lost its paper the strongest (U.S. intervention) and witnessed the defeat of her master the greatest in the White House.
As for why the decline Obama we will try to summarize the reasons therefore:
1 – the Russians: who after توريطهم the Americans and give them the green light and a placebo to hit Syria returned to pass messages warning of the attack on Syria, and this obviously can not be for the Russians after he gambled on the Syrian regime everything to abandon him, and why?.
2 – Iranians: Relationship Syria – Iran is not a relationship alliance only, is a full link and unite the draft strategic one .. Iranians consider Syria a red line below A regional war and this is not an analysis but it is a decision issued by the Iranian Iranian Supreme Leader himself, why? The reasons are many .. Including those related to national security, Iran and the Iranian strategy and some of which is ideological and legitimate and some of which is historic governing coalition between these two countries in 30 years.
3 – Hezbollah: source confirmed every Sham that Hezbollah was ready just to go to war with Syria, and that he was attending to the Americans and Israelis big surprises have reached this information and warnings for the leadership of the United States.
4 – Syrian army and its military capabilities: leak shortly before an interview with a U.S. general said on his tongue:
U.S. general to channel CNN American says angry ..

Lavrov Kahrh that talk of honor .. .
the one hand say that Russia اتنوي to go to war with one of this historic decision, since the days of the Soviets we know in America, well, on the other hand offers Russia to Syria, the latest air defense systems, marine and rockets land of the land in the world.
that Russia offers Syria jewels of Russian weapons and strongest in the areas defense and missile programs.
اقمارنا Industrial appear daily patrols of ships Russian off the coast of Syria based monitoring and gathering information about our fleet sixth to mention the satellites Russian and complexes eavesdropping and reconnaissance affiliate that subjugated them fully in the service of troops Assad.
says Lavrov said that Russia is arming Syria under formal contracts … Well …
I called the whole country in the world get a weapon that you get Syria and quantity …
and yesterday comes out we Assad to preach the existence of secret deals between the two sides!!! For me this NATO demonic wish to fall today before tomorrow, but, all those who believe that Russia will abandon Syria is a fool!!
leaks to the Americans during the last hours of intelligence information, confirming possession of Syria to Russian weapons very sophisticated it may be, including missiles S-300 and other They are capable of causing significant damage and harm is not likely U.S. forces attacking and that is not able to prolong the war, that Americans will be exposed to losses surprised the world and will be unable to restore the prestige and the prestige of their fleet VI.
5 – clear messages from the axis of resistance to war While erupt will be a comprehensive extends to Israel and the Gulf states, which would threaten the world’s supply of oil, and the ability of Americans to afford the results and the cost of such a scenario, especially with the strong opposition to intervention in Syria by the American public and the international and survival alone in front after the withdrawal of the most important allies ( British).
all these reasons prompted Obama to escape from confrontation and to refer the case to the U.S. Congress, which is expected to vote no to a strike, why not?
because Obama and Congress controlled by the Israeli lobby and Israel’s interests, even if in the interest of Israel, the implementation of a strike to Obama evade them, and this also means that Congress will vote no to save Obama from the predicament, and because of this strike will not bring only disaster to the Jewish state.

And in all cases, and both got hit or did not get the lion’s achieved a great victory and earn great popularity through his defiance and breaking the prestige of the most powerful nation in the world and forcing the president to back off.

 

Posted in Syria, USA0 Comments

This decline Obama hit Syria .. Russian trap story and the great victory Syrian


 

 

Sunday, September 01, 2013


Special times Sham

Was a surprise U.S. President’s decision to delegate his powers to declare war to the U.S. Congress.

Where the U.S. President has the power to wage war without reference to Congress and can go to war for a period of 60 days prior to its review of the U.S. Congress. 
Obama has used this power through a military campaign against Libya completely ignoring the U.S. Congress .. It also ignored the former American presidents Congress when war Hnhm.
, and it .. فادعاءات Obama that he wants to يستفتي American democracy before going to such a strike can not be explained only that the withdrawal of tactical and escape from confrontation, why flee the U.S. president after his motorcycle for blow firm on Syria?
talking military source Syrian every Sham how سخريته ease the occurrence of Obama into the trap of Russian ambush him Lavrov, source asserts that it is obvious to any researcher or expert strategic depth perception strategic relationship and integration between Syria and Russia, it can not be for the Russians never abandon Syria, do not love them, but rather to link their national security and interests of national Syria ( We were deployed in times of Sham comprehensive analytical article about the reasons for the Russians stuck in Syria and its leadership under the title: Are the Russians abandoned President Assad?)
you can follow the news on the following link:

http://shamtimes.net/news_de1.php?PartsID=1&NewsID=10448


What do Lavrov is to implicate U.S. President confrontation with Syria considered Americans easy and فهموها it fell Rossi after he announced Lavrov said Russia would not at war for one, was then pull the rug from under their feet in agreement with the Syrians and the Iranians, causing the United States a humiliating defeat even before the launch of a rocket one.
what happened is a victory Syrian Free on the United States of America will have devastating consequences for the Syrian opposition, which lost its paper the strongest (U.S. intervention) and witnessed the defeat of her master the greatest in the White House.
As for why the decline Obama we will try to summarize the reasons therefore:
1 – the Russians: who after توريطهم the Americans and give them the green light and a placebo to hit Syria returned to pass messages warning of the attack on Syria, and this obviously can not be for the Russians after he gambled on the Syrian regime everything to abandon him, and why?.
2 – Iranians: Relationship Syria – Iran is not a relationship alliance only, is a full link and unite the draft strategic one .. Iranians consider Syria a red line below A regional war and this is not an analysis but it is a decision issued by the Iranian Iranian Supreme Leader himself, why? The reasons are many .. Including those related to national security, Iran and the Iranian strategy and some of which is ideological and legitimate and some of which is historic governing coalition between these two countries in 30 years.
3 – Hezbollah: source confirmed every Sham that Hezbollah was ready just to go to war with Syria, and that he was attending to the Americans and Israelis big surprises have reached this information and warnings for the leadership of the United States.
4 – Syrian army and its military capabilities: leak shortly before an interview with a U.S. general said on his tongue:
U.S. general to channel CNN American says angry ..

Lavrov Kahrh that talk of honor .. .
the one hand say that Russia اتنوي to go to war with one of this historic decision, since the days of the Soviets we know in America, well, on the other hand offers Russia to Syria, the latest air defense systems, marine and rockets land of the land in the world.
that Russia offers Syria jewels of Russian weapons and strongest in the areas defense and missile programs.
اقمارنا Industrial appear daily patrols of ships Russian off the coast of Syria based monitoring and gathering information about our fleet sixth to mention the satellites Russian and complexes eavesdropping and reconnaissance affiliate that subjugated them fully in the service of troops Assad.
says Lavrov said that Russia is arming Syria under formal contracts … Well …
I called the whole country in the world get a weapon that you get Syria and quantity …
and yesterday comes out we Assad to preach the existence of secret deals between the two sides!!! For me this NATO demonic wish to fall today before tomorrow, but, all those who believe that Russia will abandon Syria is a fool!!
leaks to the Americans during the last hours of intelligence information, confirming possession of Syria to Russian weapons very sophisticated it may be, including missiles S-300 and other They are capable of causing significant damage and harm is not likely U.S. forces attacking and that is not able to prolong the war, that Americans will be exposed to losses surprised the world and will be unable to restore the prestige and the prestige of their fleet VI.
5 – clear messages from the axis of resistance to war While erupt will be a comprehensive extends to Israel and the Gulf states, which would threaten the world’s supply of oil, and the ability of Americans to afford the results and the cost of such a scenario, especially with the strong opposition to intervention in Syria by the American public and the international and survival alone in front after the withdrawal of the most important allies ( British).
all these reasons prompted Obama to escape from confrontation and to refer the case to the U.S. Congress, which is expected to vote no to a strike, why not?
because Obama and Congress controlled by the Israeli lobby and Israel’s interests, even if in the interest of Israel, the implementation of a strike to Obama evade them, and this also means that Congress will vote no to save Obama from the predicament, and because of this strike will not bring only disaster to the Jewish state.

And in all cases, and both got hit or did not get the lion’s achieved a great victory and earn great popularity through his defiance and breaking the prestige of the most powerful nation in the world and forcing the president to back off.

 

Posted in Russia, Syria, USA0 Comments

How To Wage War: U.S. Propaganda Exposed

NOVANEWS

We were lied to about the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, and now Syria, as the U.S. Government is ready to justify a new war any way possible.

WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 14: U.S. President George W. Bush speaks to rescue workers, firefighters and police officers from the rubble of Ground Zero September 14, 2001 in New York City. Standing with Bush is retired firefighter Bob Beckwith and at (R) is New York Governor George Pataki. (Photo by Eric Draper/White House/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON, DC – SEPTEMBER 14: U.S. President George W. Bush speaks to rescue workers, firefighters and police officers from the rubble of Ground Zero September 14, 2001 in New York City. Standing with Bush is retired firefighter Bob Beckwith and at (R) is New York Governor George Pataki. (Photo by Eric Draper/White House/Getty Images).

 

“One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror”— Former U.S. President, George W. Bush.

The fact of the matter is, the U.S. Government and American press is down-right dirty when it comes to using wartime propaganda. In fact news agencies like CNN have even be caught staging great spectacles[1], working off the “laws of power”.

The following video produced by TrurthstreamMedia.com, gives you a feel for the true nature of the U.S. Government and their long history of trickery.

 

Sources:

[1] CNN Caught Staging News Segments on Syria With Actors -Intellihub.com

[2] Syria Is a Lie - YouTube.com

Posted in Iraq, Syria, USA0 Comments

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

Shoah’s pages

Join our mailing list

* = required field