Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by CriticalSilver, May 5, 2013.
Very interesting read re: intel on syria
Nobel Peace Prize laurete, Mairead Maguire tells her account of her visit to Syria. While Maguire was in Syria she discovered that the people the U.S. are funding are violent groups and do not want peace in Syria. Her her view is that Syria is being used as a proxy war by the U.S., Great Britain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
That's my understanding of it.
It's all a larger game being played.
That very interesting, but very understated.
BOMBSHELL! Belgian Journalist held prisoner in Syria confirms that the poison gas attack was carried out by FSA 'rebels,' NOT Bashar al-Assad
I heard of the prisoners release a few days ago, here's the news story:
It now appears that the vote on striking Syria has been delayed pending a deal sponsored by Russia for placing any Syrian chemical weapons under international control.
and on queue, the warmongers turn their attention back on Iran ...
Just as Ron Paul detailed over 12 months ago when he first became aware that plans to attack Syria had been finalised ...
The transparency of their duplicity and warmongering is outrageous and farcical. The USA administrative regime send money and weapons to Al Ciada for them to run rampant across Syria, destroying civilian infrastructure, terrorising communities and committing atrocities all over the place and then decry the violence that is occurring. Ridiculous!
Why wouldn't Al Ciada terrorists sponsored by the USA, who cut out and eat the organs of their victims, use chemical weapons to as a means to pull the USA into the war. At the very least there is an element of doubt about whether they are trustworthy. The idea that these politicians have any moral authority to launch strikes against Syria is insulting to anyone with a heatbeat. Why do they bother to even pretend? Why don't they just do whatever the hell they plan on doing?
If Syria is a pretext for initiating hostilities just so they can attack Iran, what will they do if they fail to launch their campaign for open war in Syria? Will their war plans for Iran work if Syria is still in play? Will the threat of failure in Syria be of such significance to their Iranian plans that they will initiate a strike anyway? Will the pressures of a failing economy and failing currency increase their urgency to act before they lose the financial power to do so? Are failures and missteps being made in their rush that will ultimately unhinge their Iranian war plans and doom them to failure?
There are so many intriguing questions about what's going on now that they have blinked, lost the momentum to strike and lost trust and support of the people. But the desperation of USA administration for war is becoming increasingly transparent and clear to all observers.
With September 11 approaching tomorrow, does the fact that the USA is sponsoring Al Ciada even register? Does it matter? Does any one care?
If there is a vote then the outcome will be not to bomb syria.. Yall should see all of the peace signs in my city and people protesting not to bomb them.
Of course it matters. This is actually a big deal in America. Also, i read something about the usa just wanting to bomb syria just so we could bomb the al qaeda camps while bombing the stuff obama wants to bomb
Obama gears for all-out push on Syria
Monday, September 09, 2013 08:01am
Washington is engaged in a diplomatic offensive at home and abroad with US President Barack Obama gearing for an all-out push to persuade sceptical Americans to back strikes against the Syrian regime.
With US politicians returning on Monday from a summer break and set to debate whether to approve limited US military action in Syria, a crucial week looms for America with the US commander-in-chief facing a defining moment in his two-term presidency.
Secretary of State John Kerry has continued a diplomatic offensive in Europe to lay out the case against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, accused of unleashing chemical weapons against his people last month, as the US also seeks to build global support for US strikes.
Assad, in a rare interview with a US network, denied ordering the suspected August 21 attack on a Damascus suburb, and issued a veiled warning to the American people not to become militarily involved in the rebellion against him which has cost some 100,000 lives since it erupted in March 2011.
But after talks with Arab League leaders in Paris, Kerry said: 'All of us agree, not one dissenter, that Assad's deplorable use of chemical weapons... crosses an international global red line.'
After winning only limited global backing though at last week's G20 summit, Obama will blitz US networks on Monday evening before addressing the American people from the Oval Office on Tuesday aiming to lay out the case to deepen US involvement in a two-year-old war which has claimed over 100,000 lives.
The stakes are high, with Obama far from guaranteed of winning a green light from Congress, amid American fears of being dragged deeper into the conflict and the risk of dangerous repercussions for allies such as Israel, which on Sunday deployed its Iron Dome missile defence system west of Jerusalem.
It remains unclear whether Obama would decide to go it alone if he fails to win congressional approval.
While a resolution for a military strike is likely to pass the Senate controlled by Obama's Democrats, according to a Washington Post survey some 224 of the current 433 members of the Republican dominated House were either 'no' or 'leaning no' on military action as of Friday.
A large number, 184, were undecided, with just 25 backing a strike.
The Arab League? The Arab League! Making decisions for the world? What right has a bunch of inbred, totalitarian, oppressive families got to do with defining what is morally acceptable to the world? Is this the best that this John Kerry jackass can come up with, the Arab League as a basis for moral authority?
You know what happens to dissenters in the Arab League? ... Regime Change. Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt ... they all suffered "regime change" under military force.
And guess who the Arab League send to investigate crimes against humanity committed against civilians? ... "Mohammad Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi, who served as head of Omar al-Bashir's military intelligence, while war crimes including genocide were allegedly committed on his watch."
And guess who is voting as a member of the Arab League? ... the Syrian National Coalition ... aka rebels, aka Al Ciada!
Goodness sake, this Kerry guy is a jackass of historic proportions. I bet he said that with a straight face as well, looking deep into the camera with his best paternal glare.
My god! The Arab League as justification for launching missiles!!
There is something seriously amiss at the moment in the world when Putin is the shining light of reasonableness and fair play. It is as if a bunch of amoral, unethical psychopathic vandals have got their hands on the military levers and are chaotically pulling and pushing them to see what damage they can do.
If they consult with the Arab League to determine what passes for global ethics, they may as well consult with North Korea on the qualities of good governance, reliable national institutions and social services.
They chop people's heads off in Saudi Arabia for crying out loud.
That's okay then.
And praise be to all the saints that this is so.
I read on Zerohedge that there is a groundswell of public dissention growing as well.
Not too mention many Jihadists are walking amongst us in the streets of Sydney and Melbourne. Take one look at the main Sydney paper and nearly every crime boss, shooting, gang member, rapist are of the same Jihadist background.
Wonderful isn't it? These people have contributed so much to the development and wellbeing of Australia (the ALP would have you believe).
Bombing the al Qaeda camps? Given that obama is sending them arms, I don't see it.
This is not going away, but the real game has moved out of the shadows. It is now squarely about the US administrative regime and the Russian administrative regime.
Combine this analysis of the US not being strategically able to let this initiative succeed with Syria demanding conditions of the chemical weapons handover include the US administration ceasing to supply the Al Ciada terrorists that have been employed to destabilise their country, then the whole thing will surely end in acrimony.
US weapons 'now reaching Syrian rebels'
Thursday, September 12, 2013 03:51pm
The US has begun funnelling weapons and technical equipment to rebel fighters in Syria, the Washington Post reports.
Citing US and Syrian sources, the US daily wrote late on Wednesday that the CIA had begun delivering shipments of lethal aid in the past fortnight.
The newspaper reported on its website that the US State Department has sent separate shipments of vehicles and other materials, including new types of non-lethal gear, sophisticated communications equipment and advanced combat medical kits.
The CIA, contacted by AFP late on Wednesday, said it had no comment on the Washington Post report.
The arms shipments - which the daily said are limited to light weapons and other munitions that can be tracked - arrive at a crucial moment in the bloody stand-off between the rebels and the Damascus government.
The Post cited US officials who said the goal of the non-lethal assistance is to help foster cohesion among units of Syria's disjointed armed opposition.
US President Barack Obama on Tuesday agreed to give international diplomacy a chance to resolve the conflict before unleashing military strikes.
The long-awaited military aid comes one day after the US president told the American people in a nationally broadcast address that he was deferring taking military action in Syria to study a Russian initiative which would see Damascus relinquish its chemical weapons.
He made his appeal to US lawmakers after a weeks-long build-up to war in which he sought congressional approval for military strikes against Syria for using chemical weapons on its own people.
But the US leader in his speech late Tuesday gave assurances that there would be no military force for the moment, given the Russian plan.
'This initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad's strongest allies.'
Separate names with a comma.