Saturday, September 7, 2013

False Flag Now & Through History

Throughout history, false flags have been used to create reasons for us to go into war.  Once again, we are on that track.  Why?  It's a big chess game and the end game is unknown.  Here we go again.  Anyone out there know why?

FIRST...Why we shouldn't get involved...

9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask

syriaForMax (2) The United States and allies are preparing for a possibly imminent series of limited military strikes against Syria, the first direct U.S. intervention in the two-year civil war, in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad’s suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.
If you found the above sentence kind of confusing, or aren’t exactly sure why Syria is fighting a civil war, or even where Syria is located, then this is the article for you. What’s happening in Syria is really important, but it can also be confusing and difficult to follow even for those of us glued to it.
Here, then, are the most basic answers to your most basic questions. First, a disclaimer: Syria and its history are really complicated; this is not an exhaustive or definitive account of that entire story, just some background, written so that anyone can understand it.
1. What is Syria?
Syria is a country in the Middle East, along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It’s about the same size as Washington state with a population a little over three times as large – 22 million.  Syria is very diverse, ethnically and religiously, but most Syrians are ethnic Arab and follow the Sunni branch of Islam. Civilization in Syria goes back thousands of years, but the country as it exists today is very young. Its borders were drawn by European colonial powers in the 1920s.
Syria is in the middle of an extremely violent civil war. Fighting between government forces and rebels has killed more 100,000 and created 2 million refugees, half of them children.
2. Why are people in Syria killing each other?
The killing started in April 2011, when peaceful protests inspired by earlier revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia rose up to challenge the dictatorship running the country. The government responded — there is no getting around this — like monsters. First, security forces quietly killed activists. Then they started kidnapping, raping, torturing and killing activists and their family members, including a lot of children, dumping their mutilated bodies by the sides of roads. Then troops began simply opening fire on protests. Eventually, civilians started shooting back.
Fighting escalated from there until it was a civil war. Armed civilians organized into rebel groups. The army deployed across the country, shelling and bombing whole neighborhoods and towns, trying to terrorize people into submission. They’ve also allegedly used chemical weapons, which is a big deal for reasons I’ll address below. Volunteers from other countries joined the rebels, either because they wanted freedom and democracy for Syria or, more likely, because they are jihadists who hate Syria’s secular government. The rebels were gaining ground for a while and now it looks like Assad is coming back. There is no end in sight.
3. That’s horrible. But there are protests lots of places. How did it all go so wrong in Syria? And, please, just give me the short version.
That’s a complicated question, and there’s no single, definitive answer. This is the shortest possible version — stay with me, it’s worth it. You might say, broadly speaking, that there are two general theories. Both start with the idea that Syria has been a powder keg waiting to explode for decades and that it was set off, maybe inevitably, by the 2011 protests and especially by the government’s overly harsh crackdown.
Before we dive into the theories, you have to understand that the Syrian government really overreacted when peaceful protests started in mid-2011, slaughtering civilians unapologetically, which was a big part of how things escalated as quickly as they did. Assad learned this from his father. In 1982, Assad’s father and then-dictator Hafez al-Assad responded to a Muslim Brotherhood-led uprising in the city of Hama by leveling entire neighborhoods. He killed thousands of civilians, many of whom had nothing to do with the uprising. But it worked, and it looks like the younger Assad tried to reproduce it. His failure made the descent into chaos much worse.
Okay, now the theories for why Syria spiraled so wildly. The first is what you might call “sectarian re-balancing” or “the Fareed Zakaria case” for why Syria is imploding (he didn’t invent this argument but is a major proponent). Syria has artificial borders that were created by European colonial powers, forcing together an amalgam of diverse religious and ethnic groups. Those powers also tended to promote a minority and rule through it, worsening preexisting sectarian tensions.
Zakaria’s argument is that what we’re seeing in Syria is in some ways the inevitable re-balancing of power along ethnic and religious lines. He compares it to the sectarian bloodbath in Iraq after the United States toppled Saddam Hussein, after which a long-oppressed majority retook power from, and violently punished, the former minority rulers. Most Syrians are Sunni Arabs, but the country is run by members of a minority sect known as Alawites (they’re ethnic Arab but follow a smaller branch of Islam). The Alawite government rules through a repressive dictatorship and gives Alawites special privileges, which makes some Sunnis and other groups hate Alawites in general, which in turn makes Alawites fear that they’ll be slaughtered en masse if Assad loses the war. (There are other minorities as well, such as ethnic Kurds and Christian Arabs; too much to cover in one explainer.) Also, lots of Syrian communities are already organized into ethnic or religious enclaves, which means that community militias are also sectarian militias. That would explain why so much of the killing in Syria has developed along sectarian lines. It would also suggest that there’s not much anyone can do to end the killing because, in Zakaria’s view, this is a painful but unstoppable process of re-balancing power.
The second big theory is a bit simpler: that the Assad regime was not a sustainable enterprise and it’s clawing desperately on its way down. Most countries have some kind of self-sustaining political order, and it looked for a long time like Syria was held together by a cruel and repressive but basically stable dictatorship. But maybe it wasn’t stable; maybe it was built on quicksand. Bashar al-Assad’s father Hafez seized power in a coup in 1970 after two decades of extreme political instability. His government was a product of Cold War meddling and a kind of Arab political identity crisis that was sweeping the region. But he picked the losing sides of both: the Soviet Union was his patron, and he followed a hard-line anti-Western nationalist ideology that’s now mostly defunct. The Cold War is long over, and most of the region long ago made peace with Israel and the United States; the Assad regime’s once-solid ideological and geopolitical identity is hopelessly outdated. But Bashar al-Assad, who took power in 2000 when his father died, never bothered to update it. So when things started going belly-up two years ago, he didn’t have much to fall back on except for his ability to kill people.
4. I hear a lot about how Russia still loves Syria, though. And Iran, too. What’s their deal?
Yeah, Russia is Syria’s most important ally. Moscow blocks the United Nations Security Council from passing anything that might hurt the Assad regime, which is why the United States has to go around the United Nations if it wants to do anything. Russia sends lots of weapons to Syria that make it easier for Assad to keep killing civilians and will make it much harder if the outside world ever wants to intervene.
The four big reasons that Russia wants to protect Assad, the importance of which vary depending on whom you ask, are: (1) Russia has a naval installation in Syria, which is strategically important and Russia’s last foreign military base outside the former Soviet Union; (2) Russia still has a bit of a Cold War mentality, as well as a touch of national insecurity, which makes it care very much about maintaining one of its last military alliances; (3) Russia also hates the idea of “international intervention” against countries like Syria because it sees this as Cold War-style Western imperialism and ultimately a threat to Russia; (4) Syria buys a lot of Russian military exports, and Russia needs the money.
Iran’s thinking in supporting Assad is more straightforward. It perceives Israel and the United States as existential threats and uses Syria to protect itself, shipping arms through Syria to the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah and the Gaza-based militant group Hamas. Iran is already feeling isolated and insecure; it worries that if Assad falls it will lose a major ally and be cut off from its militant proxies, leaving it very vulnerable. So far, it looks like Iran is actually coming out ahead: Assad is even more reliant on Tehran than he was before the war started.
5. This is all feeling really bleak and hopeless. Can we take a music break?
Oh man, it gets so much worse. But, yeah, let’s listen to some music from Syria. It’s really good!
If you want to go old-school you should listen to the man, the legend, the great Omar Souleyman (playing Brooklyn this Saturday!). Or, if you really want to get your revolutionary on, listen to the infectious 2011 anti-Assad anthem “Come on Bashar leave.” The singer, a cement mixer who made Rage Against the Machine look like Enya,was killed for performing it in Hama. But let’s listen to something non-war and bit more contemporary, the soulful and foot-tappable George Wassouf:
Hope you enjoyed that, because things are about to go from depressing to despondent.
6. Why hasn’t the United States fixed this yet?
Because it can’t. There are no viable options. Sorry.
The military options are all bad. Shipping arms to rebels, even if it helps them topple Assad, would ultimately empower jihadists and worsen rebel in-fighting, probably leading to lots of chaos and possibly a second civil war (the United States made this mistake during Afghanistan’s early 1990s civil war, which helped the Taliban take power in 1996). Taking out Assad somehow would probably do the same, opening up a dangerous power vacuum. Launching airstrikes or a “no-fly zone” could suck us in, possibly for years, and probably wouldn’t make much difference on the ground. An Iraq-style ground invasion would, in the very best outcome, accelerate the killing, cost a lot of U.S. lives, wildly exacerbate anti-Americanism in a boon to jihadists and nationalist dictators alike, and would require the United States to impose order for years across a country full of people trying to kill each other. Nope.
The one political option, which the Obama administration has been pushing for, would be for the Assad regime and the rebels to strike a peace deal. But there’s no indication that either side is interested in that, or that there’s even a viable unified rebel movement with which to negotiate.
It’s possible that there was a brief window for a Libya-style military intervention early on in the conflict. But we’ll never really know.
7. So why would Obama bother with strikes that no one expects to actually solve anything?
Okay, you’re asking here about the Obama administration’s not-so-subtle signals that it wants to launch some cruise missiles at Syria, which would be punishment for what it says is Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians.
It’s true that basically no one believes that this will turn the tide of the Syrian war. But this is important: it’s not supposed to. The strikes wouldn’t be meant to shape the course of the war or to topple Assad, which Obama thinks would just make things worse anyway. They would be meant to punish Assad for (allegedly) using chemical weapons and to deter him, or any future military leader in any future war, from using them again.
8. Come on, what’s the big deal with chemical weapons? Assad kills 100,000 people with bullets and bombs but we’re freaked out over 1,000 who maybe died from poisonous gas? That seems silly.
You’re definitely not the only one who thinks the distinction is arbitrary and artificial. But there’s a good case to be made that this is a rare opportunity, at least in theory, for the United States to make the war a little bit less terrible — and to make future wars less terrible.
The whole idea that there are rules of war is a pretty new one: the practice of war is thousands of years old, but the idea that we can regulate war to make it less terrible has been around for less than a century. The institutions that do this are weak and inconsistent; the rules are frail and not very well observed. But one of the world’s few quasi-successes is the “norm” (a fancy way of saying a rule we all agree to follow) against chemical weapons. This norm is frail enough that Syria could drastically weaken it if we ignore Assad’s use of them, but it’s also strong enough that it’s worth protecting. So it’s sort of a low-hanging fruit: firing a few cruise missiles doesn’t cost us much and can maybe help preserve this really hard-won and valuable norm against chemical weapons.
You didn’t answer my question. That just tells me that we can maybe preserve the norm against chemical weapons, not why we should.
Fair point. Here’s the deal: war is going to happen. It just is. But the reason that the world got together in 1925 for the Geneva Convention to ban chemical weapons is because this stuff is really, really good at killing civilians but not actually very good at the conventional aim of warfare, which is to defeat the other side. You might say that they’re maybe 30 percent a battlefield weapon and 70 percent a tool of terror. In a world without that norm against chemical weapons, a military might fire off some sarin gas because it wants that battlefield advantage, even if it ends up causing unintended and massive suffering among civilians, maybe including its own. And if a military believes its adversary is probably going to use chemical weapons, it has a strong incentive to use them itself. After all, they’re fighting to the death.
So both sides of any conflict, not to mention civilians everywhere, are better off if neither of them uses chemical weapons. But that requires believing that your opponent will never use them, no matter what. And the only way to do that, short of removing them from the planet entirely, is for everyone to just agree in advance to never use them and to really mean it. That becomes much harder if the norm is weakened because someone like Assad got away with it. It becomes a bit easier if everyone believes using chemical weapons will cost you a few inbound U.S. cruise missiles.
That’s why the Obama administration apparently wants to fire cruise missiles at Syria, even though it won’t end the suffering, end the war or even really hurt Assad that much.
9. Hi, there was too much text so I skipped to the bottom to find the big take-away. What’s going to happen?
Short-term maybe the United States and some allies will launch some limited, brief strikes against Syria and maybe they won’t. Either way, these things seem pretty certain in the long-term:
• The killing will continue, probably for years. There’s no one to sign a peace treaty on the rebel side, even if the regime side were interested, and there’s no foreseeable victory for either. Refugees will continue fleeing into neighboring countries, causing instability and an entire other humanitarian crisis as conditions in the camps worsen.
• Syria as we know it, an ancient place with a rich and celebrated culture and history, will be a broken, failed society, probably for a generation or more. It’s very hard to see how you rebuild a functioning state after this. Maybe worse, it’s hard to see how you get back to a working social contract where everyone agrees to get along.
• Russia will continue to block international action, the window for which has maybe closed anyway. The United States might try to pressure, cajole or even horse-trade Moscow into changing its mind, but there’s not much we can offer them that they care about as much as Syria.
• At some point the conflict will cool, either from a partial victory or from exhaustion. The world could maybe send in some peacekeepers or even broker a fragile peace between the various ethnic, religious and political factions. Probably the best model is Lebanon, which fought a brutal civil war that lasted 15 years from 1975 to 1990 and has been slowly, slowly recovering ever since. It had some bombings just last week.


Published on Sep 6, 2013
September 6 2013 Breaking News Attack Plan US Preparing For Larger Air Attack B2 Stealth Bombers in Syria - Last Days final hour End Times News Prophecy update

Senate Panel Backs Use of Force Against Syria - Measure Says Goal Should Be to Change the Momentum on the Battlefield Pentagon Plans More Firepower
Pentagon Considering Use of Air Force Bombers In Syria Attack Plan

WASHINGTON—A key Senate panel on Wednesday backed President Barack Obama's request to strike Syria, while the Pentagon prepared to employ greater firepower to reach a shifting array of military targets.

The revised options under development, which reflect Pentagon concerns that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has dispersed his military equipment, include the use of Air Force bombers to supplement the four Navy destroyers armed with missiles that are deployed in the eastern Mediterranean. Initially, Pentagon planners said they didn't intend to use aircraft in the proposed strikes.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution concerning Syria's civil war by speeding up a negotiated removal of Mr. Assad. The measure would ban the use of ground forces in Syria "for the purpose of combat operations" and sets a 60-day limit for Mr. Obama to launch strikes. It includes a possible 30-day extension if Mr. Obama determined that was needed to meet the resolution's goals.

The measure passed only after the committee added amendments by Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) designed to set a broader strategy. The amendment, co-sponsored by Sen. Chris Coons (D., Del.) also called for an increase in U.S. efforts to provide lethal and nonlethal support for "vetted" elements of the Syrian rebel opposition.

The vote laid bare divisions in both political parties. Seven Democrats and three Republicans voted for the resolution; two Democrats and five Republicans voted against it.
ABC News: US is planning an aerial strike in addition to a salvo of Tomahawk missiles from Navy destroyers; New York Times: Obama ordered expansion of list of targets following reports Assad moved troops, equipment.\

degrade Mr. Assad's overall military strength—suggesting a broader purpose.

"Is there a downstream collateral benefit to what will happen in terms of the enforcement of the chemical weapons effort? The answer is yes, it will degrade his military capacity," Secretary of State John Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Taking out Mr. Assad's helicopters, for example, would have a significant impact. The regime uses them to transport troops and supplies. Without them, Mr. Assad would have to rely more heavily on ground convoys, which are easier to attack.

The White House declined to comment on the possible use of bombers or any other targeting changes. A senior administration official said the scope of targets never had been limited to Syria's chemical weapons.

The Pentagon's new planning stems from Mr. Assad moving equipment, including Russian-made helicopters, to bases around the country while the U.S. debates, a change that could require the Pentagon to use many more Tomahawk cruise missiles and other types of munitions than initially envisioned.

Moreover, U.S. officials say, Mr. Assad has moved aircraft and other equipment into hardened bunkers and shelters. In some cases, destroying these hardened targets, officials say, could require the use of multiple Tomahawks.

The Navy destroyers in the Mediterranean carry about 40 Tomahawks each. Air Force bombers could carry dozens more munitions, potentially allowing the U.S. to carry out follow-on strikes if the first wave doesn't destroy the targets.

Among options available are B-52 bombers, which can carry cruise missiles; low-flying B1s that are based in Qatar and carry long-range, air-to-surface missiles; and B-2 stealth bombers, which are based in Missouri and carry heavy guided bombs.

Like Mr. Assad, the Pentagon is trying to take advantage of the extra time before a U.S. strike. A senior U.S. official said that Mr. Assad's movement of equipment has helped the Pentagon identify additional targets at previously unknown locations.

In testimony before Congress, officials have said they intend to "degrade" Mr. Assad's ability to deliver chemical weapons. That could include Syria's aircraft and mobile-launch systems.

Administration officials wouldn't say whether a "change of momentum" meant a wider set of targets could be hit with no connection to Mr. Assad's chemical-weapons capabilities. But a U.S. official said targets could include government buildings such as the Defense Ministry. Previously, officials said the targets would include command-and-control sites, artillery batteries and intelligence facilities. Read More


Politicians enraged that Britain gave export licenses to sell Syria 'nerve gas chemicals'

Published time: September 02, 2013 19:41
Edited time: September 04, 2013 09:05
U.N. chemical weapons experts, wearing gas masks, inspect one of the sites of an alleged chemical weapons attack in the Damascus' suburb of Zamalka suburbs (Reuters / Mohammad Abdullah)
Download video (13.24 MB)
MPs demanded an explanation from government ministers Monday after finding out that the UK granted licenses to export chemicals to Syria that could have been used to produce nerve gas. The licenses were granted on the eve of the Syrian civil war.
Export licenses for sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride were granted in January 2012, in the full knowledge that both substances “could also be used as precursor chemicals in the manufacture of chemical weapons,” according to a report published by the House of Commons Committee on Arms Export Controls in July. 
Angus Robertson, a Scottish National Party MP, told RT that the issue was raised in the House of Commons during defense questions on Monday after unrest surrounding the issue bubbled over the weekend. 
“Defense ministers had to explain why it was that the UK would even consider granting an export license,” he said, adding that it was "impossible to tell" whether rebels could have got hold of the chemicals should they have made it into the country.

Both sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride are capable of being used in the production of sarin, a neurotoxic gas. Large doses of sarin can lead to paralysis, loss of consciousness, convulsions and respiratory failure, eventually resulting in death.

“This is why they are included on the Australia Group chemical weapons precursors list and are listed in Annex I of Council Regulation 428/2009, meaning a licence is required for their export from the EU,” the report said. 
In the 1950s, the US and the USSR produced sarin gas for military purposes, and Syria has fallen under suspicion of owning Soviet-made supplies. US Secretary of State John Kerry alleged on Sunday that it was used in the attack in the eastern Damascus suburb of Ghouta on August 21 in which several hundred people were thought to have died. The accusation came as the UN is still far from finishing testing the samples they collected at the site of the alleged attack.
On Monday, the British government gave an explanation as to why an export license was granted for the passage of chemicals that were supposedly bound for a company based in Syria.  
“We issued licenses for sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride. The exporter and recipient company demonstrated that the chemicals were for a legitimate civilian end-use, which was for metal finishing of aluminum profiles used in making aluminum showers and aluminum window frames,” Oliver Fry, a spokesperson from the UK’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, told RT via e-mail. 
It remains unclear exactly who was to receive the shipments as the company they were being supplied to has stayed anonymous.

“I’m still concerned, however, as the chemical licenses were issued at a time when the situation in Syria had already deteriorated,” said Robertson.  
Members of Parliament are seen attending a session of Parliament in the House of Commons in London (Reuters / UK Parliament via Reuters TV)
Members of Parliament are seen attending a session of Parliament in the House of Commons in London (Reuters / UK Parliament via Reuters TV)

However the shipment never reached the Arab country.
“The export itself did not take place, so the chemicals did not make their way to Syria,” Robertson said. “The UK rescinded the export licenses when the EU told the UK to do it... Frankly the problem is that the UK was prepared to grant to an export license in the first place.”
The EU later imposed new sanctions, with licenses being revoked in July 2012.

“The sanctions included prohibitions on the sale, supply, transfer or export of certain dual-use items and chemicals (including sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride) which might be used for internal repression or in the manufacture of items which might be used for internal repression,”the House of Commons Committee on Arms Export Controls report stated. 
Free Syrian Army fighters clean and inspect their weapon in Raqqa province, eastern Syria September 1, 2013 (Reuters / Nour Fourat)
Free Syrian Army fighters clean and inspect their weapon in Raqqa province, eastern Syria September 1, 2013 (Reuters / Nour Fourat)

The potential of the chemicals is undisputed.
Fluoride is key to making these munitions,” Professor Alastair Hay, an expert in environmental toxicology at Leeds University, told the Daily Record on Sunday. However, it is unknown whether they were a contributing factor. 
Whether these elements were used by Syria to make nerve agents is something only subsequent investigation will reveal,” Hay said.

UK government 'hypocritical' on Syria

The dichotomy between UK claims and actual practice were highlighted by Mark Bitel of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (Scotland). “The Government is hypocritical to talk about chemical weapons if it’s granting licences to companies to export to regimes such as Syria,” he said. 
“We saw David Cameron, in the wake of the Arab Spring, rushing off to the Middle East with arms companies to promote business.” 
MP Angus Robertson echoed the sentiment on Monday. 
“There’s also a parallel development, he told RT. “Ministers are having to acknowledge that the UK trained senior Assad military officers in the UK over a number of years. Now, both of these cases show to me an utter inconsistency on the basis of decisions that have been taken here in London. 
He added that the UK had a dubious track record in providing potentially lethal equipment overseas. 
“The UK has form in this sort of thing – being prepared to sell military hardware and other things that can be used for the production of weapons, and in this case chemicals which could – in circumstances  be used to produce chemical weapons. And we do have to ask ourselves why with the situation already having deteriorated so badly that the UK was even prepared to grant an export license where these chemicals do have a potential dual use. Yes, for manufacturing purposes, but also for the production of chemical weapons,” said Roberstson. 

White House Document “Proving” Syria’s Guilt Doesn’t Pass Smell Test

Americans have been repeatedly told that Al Qaeda under the helm of the late Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Formulated in the wake of the tragic events of september 11, 2001, the U.S. and its allies launched a “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) directed against the numerous “jihadist” Al Qaeda affiliated terror formations in the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia and South East Asia. The first stage of the “Global War on Terrorism” was the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan.
In the wake of 9/11, the” Global War on Terrorism” served to obfuscate the real economic and strategic objectives behind the US-led wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
The Patriot legislation was implemented. The national security doctrine stated unequivocally that the American Homeland was to be protected against “Islamic terrorists”.
For the last 13 years, war on terrorism rhetoric has permeated political discourse at all levels of government. Al Qaeda related threats and occurrences are explained –by politicians, the corporate media, Hollywood and the Washington think tanks– under a single blanket “bad guys” heading, in which Al Qaeda (“the outside enemy of America”) is casually and repeatedly pinpointed as “the cause” of numerous terror events around the World.
But somehow, in the last few months, this  “Al Qaeda paradigm” has shifted. The American public has become increasingly skeptical regarding the validity of the “Global War on Terrorism”
In recent months, with the unfolding events in Syria, something rather unusual has occurred, which has had a profound impact on the public’s perception and understanding of Obama’s “Global War on Terrorism”.
The US government is actively and openly supporting Syria’s Al Nusrah, the main fighting force affiliated to al Qaeda, largely composed of foreign mercenaries.
Tax dollars are relentlessly channeled to the “rebels”. In turn, Secretary of State John Kerry meets with rebel commanders who oversee the Al Qaeda affiliated entity.
Is this part of a “new normal”: the unity of opposites whereby “terrorism” and “counter-terrorism” are merged into a single foreign policy focus?
Is it “politically correct” for a US Senator to mingle with leaders of a terrorist organization, while at the same time paying lip service to the “Global War on Terrorism”?
While this may be “business as usual” for the US Secretary of State, American servicemen and women are now “refusing to fight” a war in favor of terrorism under the emblem of the “Global War on Terrorism”.
Channeling money and weapons to Al Qaeda in Syria is carried out “in the open”, via the US State Department and the Pentagon rather than in the context of a covert CIA operation.
John McCain enters Syria illegally and poses for photo ops with Al Qaeda leaders.
Hawkish US Senator John McCain (C) poses with infamous kidnapper in Syria, Mohamed Nour (seen with his hand on his chest and holding a camera)
Hawkish US Senator John McCain (C) poses with infamous kidnapper in Syria, Mohamed Nour (seen with his hand on his chest and holding a camera)
The Movement within the US Armed Forces
Needless to say, this mingling of politicians and terrorists strikes at the very foundations of the “Global War on Terrorism”.
Despite the tide of media disinformation, people are increasingly aware that these US sponsored rebels are not “revolutionaries” and that US military aid is being channeled to the terror brigades.
A spontaneous movement on social media networks has emerged involving active members of the armed forces.
“I will not fight for al Qaeda”.
“Obama, I will not fight for your al Qaeda rebels in Syria.”
“Our government tells us that we are fighting a war on terrorism.” That is what is taught to new recruits in the Armed Forces. “We’re spreading democracy by combating terrorism”.
Yet in recent months, millions of Americans have become aware of the fact that the Obama administration is lying.
Supporting the Terrorists
Barack Obama and John Kerry are not fighting terrorism. Quite the opposite: They are actively supporting Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria, who are responsible for the most despicable crimes, killings and atrocities directed against the civilian population.
These crimes have been amply documented.  Beheadings, executions of children. The most gruesome massacres.
The Al Nusrah brigades have performed thousands of executions. A recently released video reveals how two young boys are executed following the reading of a death sentence.”In the video can be seen a terrorist reading death sentence to the boys, gunfire is heard, boys fall dead.”
Screenshot YouTube
 Are these the people who are being supported by the US government?
The terrorists are directly recruited by the Western military alliance.  They are trained in Saudi Arabia and Qatar in liaison with the US and NATO.
These are the rebels who, according to CNN, have also been trained by Western special forces in the use of chemical weapons. And they have used chemical weapons against innocent Syrian civilians.
US servicemen and women are adamant. “I did not join the army to fight for al Qaeda.”
We were recruited to wage a “Global War on Terrorism” and now our government is collaborating with Al Qaeda.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich said “striking Syria would make the U.S. Military ‘Al-Qaeda’s Air Force’”.
The concept which is spreading across the land is that the Obama administration is supporting Al Qaeda.
It’s a bipartisan consensus: the Republican leadership in the US Congress and the Senate have endorsed support and financial aid to the al Nusrah brigades in Syria.
In the eyes of public opinion, the Global War on Terrorism has, so to speak, fallen flat.
Who is Supporting Whom? Who is Waging a War of Aggression?
The spontaneous movement in the armed forces is based on the notion that the “US government is supporting al Qaeda”.
The corporate media has failed to reveal the nature of the longstanding relationship between Al Qaeda and the US government, which goes back to the Soviet-Afghan war.
Al Qaeda –the “outside enemy of America” as well as the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks– is a creation of the CIA. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are often referred to as “intelligence assets”
From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of “Islamic brigades”.
Propaganda purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and “kill the evidence” on how this “outside enemy” was fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”.
The Global War on Terrorism is not geared towards curbing the “Islamic jihad”.  The significant development of “radical Islam” in the wake of the Cold War was consistent with Washington’s hidden agenda. The latter consists in sustaining rather than combating international terrorism, with a view to creating factional divisions within countries and destabilizing national societies.
The numerous al Qaeda affiliated entities are routinely used in CIA covert operations. They are recruited, trained and indoctrinated under the supervision of the CIA and its intelligence counterparts in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar and Israel. Unknown to the American public, the US has spread the teachings of the “Islamic jihad” in textbooks “Made in America”, developed at the University of Nebraska
Al Qaeda is an intelligence asset which serves the interests of the US administration.
With regard to Syria, the US government is not “supporting Al Qaeda” Quite the opposite, the Al Qaeda mercenaries in Syria, recruited and trained in Saudi Arabia and Qatar,  are “supporting the US government”. They are being used by the US military intelligence apparatus. They are paid killers.
Their actions are implemented as part of a military agenda; they are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance. The atrocities committed by the terrorists are the direct result of paramilitary training and indoctrination. The US government is behind this process. Obama is responsible for the crimes committed by the “rebels” against the Syrian people.
Concluding Remarks
We are at an important crossroads. The “Global War on Terrorism” constitutes the cornerstone of war propaganda. Yet at the same time the lies which uphold the GWOT are no longer credible and the thrust and effectiveness of the propaganda campaign are threatened.
No one can reasonably believe in a “war on terrorism” which consists in channeling money and weapons to the terrorists. Its a non sequitur.
“Support to terrorists”, portrayed as “revolutionaries” cannot be heralded as part of a foreign policy agenda which officially consists in “going after the terrorists”.
But Obama desperately needs to hold on to the “Global war on Terrorism”. It’s the cornerstone of US military doctrine. It’s a worldwide crusade.
Without the “Global War on Terrorism”, the Obama administration does not have a leg to stand on: its military doctrine collapses like a deck of cards.
Undermining the credibility of the “Global War on Terrorism” is a powerful instrument of counter-propaganda.
We call on people across the land: Mobilize against Obama’s war.
The war on Syria is illegal and criminal.
The President and Commander in Chief’s decision to support Al Qaeda in Syria is in violation of international law and US anti terrorism legislation .
US and coalition troops have a moral and legal obligation to refuse to fight in Obama’s “humanitarian war” on Syria, which consists in supporting Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists.
The President and Commander in Chief has blatantly violated all tenets of domestic and international law. So that making an oath to “obey orders from the President” is tantamount to violating rather than defending the US Constitution.
“The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.” (Mosqueda, US troops have “A Duty To Disobey all Unlawful orders”. )
“Refusing to fight” an illegal war implies a rejection of the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief.  It denies the Obama administration the authority to conduct an illegal and criminal war on behalf of the American people.
And the American people must support the US servicemen and women who refuse to fight in an illegal war.
Obama is a war criminal. He is supporting terrorists, who are his paid killers. Amply documented Syria’s rebels have been trained in the use of chemical weapons and they have used chemical weapons against innocent civilians.
The Global War on Terrorism is a fabrication and a lie.
War is an illegal undertaking.
According to Nuremberg jurisprudence, the ultimate war crime consists in starting a war. Obama and his European counterparts including David Cameron and Francois Hollande are responsible for the supreme crime: “the crime against peace.” This war is illegal irrespective of a decision of the UN Security Council to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations…   Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.” UN Charter – 1: Purposes and Principles  


A humanitarian nightmare: 110,000 dead in Syria. 2 million refugees. 5 million displaced.

In Uncategorized on September 3, 2013 at 7:19 pm
A Syrian woman in a refugee camp.
A Syrian woman in a refugee camp.
(Washington, D.C.) — Whatever your politics, whatever your views of how the West should act — or not act — militarily in Syria, one thing is painfully clear: a humanitarian nightmare is unfolding in that Arab Muslim country.
A terrible evil has been unleashed. Syria is imploding. And its hard to imagine putting the country back together any time soon. Indeed, we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of Syria as we’ve known it.
Jesus Christ told us to, “love your neighbor,” and “love your enemies.” Christians need to be praying for the Lord to show mercy to the people of Syria. But we also need to be doing what we can to care for the hungry, thirsty and suffering — the widows, the orphans, those who are wounded physically, and those who have been traumatized emotionally and spiritually. T
he United Nations has taken the lead in trying to provide humanitarian relief. But Christian relief organizations — The Joshua Fund included — are also trying to help. That said, the needs are overwhelming. And the obstacles to getting aid to the many people who need it most are enormous.
Consider the horror show unfolding at present:
  • “More than 110,000 people have died in Syria’s 2 1/2-year-old conflict, and more than half of those killed were civilians, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Sunday,” Reuters reports. “The Observatory, a British-based rights group which opposes Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s rule, said at least 5,833 children were among the dead.”
  • “‘More than 110,371 people have fallen since the day the first martyr of the revolution died on March 18, 2011 in Deraa province, to August 31, 2013,’ the Observatory said in a statement. It said 56,138 of those killed were civilians….’With such a massive and frightening number of victims that have fallen because of the international community’s silence, the Observatory renews its call for the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, as well as all people with a conscience, to work seriously to end the killing in Syria,’ it added.”
  • Meanwhile, “international aid to Syrians uprooted by civil war is a ‘drop in the sea’ of what is needed, a top UN official said Monday, estimating that five million Syrians have been displaced inside the country,” the AP reports. “In addition, 2 million Syrians have fled to neighboring countries, according to UN figures. The total, of about 7 million, amounts to nearly one-third of Syria’s population….Before the outbreak of the conflict, Syria had a population of about 23 million people.”
  • “Whatever efforts we have exerted and whatever the UN has provided in humanitarian aid, it is only a drop in the sea of humanitarian needs in Syria,” he said. The funding gap “is very, very wide,” he added


The one map that shows why Syria is so complicated

Click to enlarge. Each color represents an ethnic or religious group. (The Gulf/2000 Project at Columbia University)
Click to enlarge. Each color represents an ethnic or religious group. (Michael Izady / The Gulf/2000 Project at Columbia University)
Now that the United States is strongly signaling that it will lead some form of limited offshore strikes against Syria in response to suspected chemical weapons attacks on civilians, one point you’re going to hear repeated over and over about the country is that it’s complicated. And that’s no joke, as the above map helps to drive home.
The map, from Columbia University’s really exceptional Gulf/2000 Project, shows the different ethnic and linguistic groups of the Levant, the part of the Middle East that’s dominated by Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Each color represents a different group. As you can see, there are a lot of groups swirled together. There are enclaves, and there is overlap.
Ethnic and linguistic breakdowns are just one part of Syria’s complexity, of course. But they are a really important part. The country’s largest group is shown in yellow, signifying ethnic Arabs who follow Sunni Islam, the largest sect of Islam. Shades of brown indicate ethnic Kurds, long oppressed in Syria, who have taken up arms against the regime. There are also Druze, a religious sect, Arab Christians, ethnic Armenians and others.
Syria is run by Alawites, a minority sect of Islam whose members include President Bashar al-Assad and many in his inner circle. They’re indicated in a greyish green, clustered near the Mediterranean coast. Although Alawites make up only 12 percent of the Syrian population, they are playing a crucial role in the war, fighting to prop up Assad’s regime.
There are a couple of ways to think about what this map says about the Syrian civil war, beyond the strategic implications of where Assad is strongest (along the Alawite-heavy coast) and where he’s weak (in the Kurdish regions, for example).
The first is what you might call the Fareed Zakaria case for why Syria is imploding (he didn’t invent this argument but is a major proponent). Zakaria starts with the premise that Syria, like many other Middle Eastern (and African) countries, has highly artificial borders that were created by European colonial powers. Those powers also tended to promote a minority and rule through it. This tactic badly exacerbated some preexisting sectarian tensions. It also forced countries into unsustainable power imbalances, with minorities ruling over majorities. That’s not actually how Assad came into power — his father seized it in a coup — but Zakaria’s thesis is that what we’re seeing in Syria is in some ways the inevitable re-balancing of power along ethnic and religious lines, with the Sunni Arab majority retaking control from the Alawite minority. He compares the situation to post-2003 Iraq, when members of the Shiite majority violently took power from the Sunni minority that, under Saddam Hussein, had ruled them. That would explain why so much of the killing in Syria has been along sectarian lines. It would also suggest that there’s not much anyone can do to end the killing because, in his view, this is a painful but unstoppable process.
The other way to look at this is that it’s a war first and a sectarian conflict second. Religious and ethnic antagonisms have been around for many, many generations in the Levant, including Syria. Maybe what’s happening is that the war began for political reasons — people protesting dictatorship, the dictatorship overreaching in suppressing those protests by force, things spiraling out of control until it’s civil war — but that the fighting is causing people to retreat to sectarian identities and antagonisms, to make the old divisions deeper and more vicious. Sectarian conflict, after all, can have its own self-reinforcing logic: Alawites are bonding together in part because they fear, not without reason, that they’ll be slaughtered in Sunni revenge killings if Assad loses. Sunnis see Alawite militias forming and thus perceive all Alawites as their enemies, so they start attacking members of that religious sect, which makes other Alawites more likely to form in-group militias. And on.
Of course, something as complicated as sectarian conflict in a country with many religious and ethnic groups could never really be defined by one neat theory. There are likely many different factors behind what’s happening. But this map is a helpful way to start understanding it. The version up top is actually cropped; the full-size version is below. Click either to enlarge them.
Click to enlarge. Each color represents an ethnic or religious group. (The Gulf/2000 Project at Columbia University)
Click to enlarge. Each color represents an ethnic or religious group. (Michael Izady / The Gulf/2000 Project at Columbia University)



No comments: