The Syria Thread 2011 - Present

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat May 04, 2013 12:15 am

Israel Bombs Syria as the U.S. Considers Its Own Military Options
By MICHAEL R. GORDON, ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 3, 2013

WASHINGTON — Israel aircraft bombed a target in Syria overnight Thursday, an Obama administration official said Friday night, as United States officials said they were considering military options, including carrying out their own airstrikes.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, left, with his British counterpart, Phillip Hammond, talked Thursday at the Pentagon about “the need for new options” if Syria uses chemical weapons.

American officials did not provide details on the target of the Israeli strike. But in late January, Israel carried out airstrikes against SA-17 antiaircraft missiles, which the Israelis feared were about to be moved to the Hezbollah Shiite militia in Lebanon.

Israel has been worried that chemical weapons and advanced arms might be transferred to Hezbollah from Syria, and the Israeli military has made clear that it is prepared to take action to stop such shipments.

President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has long had a close relationship with Hezbollah, and Syria has been a gateway for shipping Iranian weapons to the militia.

Hezbollah has sent trainers and advisers to Syria to help Mr. Assad with his war against the Syrian opposition, American officials say, and Syrian opposition officials report that Hezbollah fighters are also involved in the conflict.

The Israeli attacks came as the Obama administration, as part of its examination of possible responses to obtaining conclusive proof that Mr. Assad has used chemical weapons, is considering military options with allies that include attacking Syria’s antiaircraft systems, military aircraft and some of its missile fleet, according to senior officials from several countries.

Those officials say that attacking the chemical stockpiles directly has been all but ruled out. “You could cause exactly the disaster you are trying to prevent,” a senior Israeli military official said in an interview last week in Tel Aviv.

But by attacking Mr. Assad’s main delivery systems, the officials say, they would curtail his ability to transport those weapons any significant distance. “This wouldn’t stop him from using it on a village, or just releasing it on the ground, or handing something to Hezbollah,” said one European official who has been involved in the conversations. “But it would limit the damage greatly.”

The topic was alluded to on Thursday, when Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel met with his British counterpart and talked about “the need for new options” if Mr. Assad used his chemical arsenal, the officials said. But while the military has been developing and refining options for the White House for months, the discussion appears to have taken a new turn, officials say, as they struggle to determine whether the suspected use of sarin gas near Aleppo and Damascus last month was a prelude to greater use of such weapons.

“There are a lot of options on the table, and they’re generally carrying equal weight at the moment,” a senior administration official said Friday. He declined to discuss the others, though Mr. Hagel talked on Thursday about arming rebel groups

So far, President Obama has been reluctant to get involved in the Syrian conflict. He has ruled out placing American forces on the ground, a stance he reiterated on Friday at a new conference in San José, Costa Rica, where he was meeting with Latin American leaders.

Mr. Obama told reporters he did not foresee a situation in which “American boots on the ground in Syria would not only be good for America but also would be good for Syria,” adding that he had consulted with leaders in the Mideast who “agree with that assessment.”

When asked in recent days whether recent evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria crossed the “red line” he set in August, Mr. Obama described a lengthy series of questions he would need to have answered — including when and how chemical weapons were used — before he would take action. Even then, he made clear, he may choose something well short of military action.

By Israeli estimates, Syria has 15 to 20 major chemical weapons sites, many near airfields that would make transport by plane relatively easy. Military planners say they would want to avoid hitting the chemicals for fear of creating toxic sites that could injure or kill civilians.


Ideally, one American commander said, the stockpiles would be surrounded, protected and then incinerated, much as the United States has done with its chemical arsenal. But that takes years, and as one official said, “We don’t have years, and we can’t keep troops there.”
That is why attacking the delivery systems seems like the next best option to many in the administration. Israel was believed to be behind an attack on some Syrian missiles in February as they were about to be transported, presumably to Hezbollah. On Wednesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Israeli lawmakers that a Hezbollah missile attack, using chemical weapons, was one of his chief concerns.

If Mr. Obama and his allies proceeded with an attack on air defenses, missiles and the Syrian Air Force, they would most likely use Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from ships in the eastern Mediterranean and fighter jets that might be able to launch missiles without entering Syrian airspace. But it is unclear how effective those would be.

Mr. Obama has always made clear that any action should be taken with allies and neighbors. But NATO has been reluctant, and Russia, which keeps a naval base in Syria, has been opposed. Israeli officials have said that they do not want to go into Syria, fearing that any Israeli attack would fuel Mr. Assad’s argument that the civil war in his country is the result of foreign provocations. Some Israeli officials have argued that the Arab League should be in the vanguard of any attack, but it has shown little interest in direct military intervention in the Syrian conflict.

That has left the same trio that led the attack on Libya in 2011: the United States, Britain and France. There has been constant discussion among their militaries about “options of every kind,” one official involved in the talks said this week. “Clearly, an airstrike would be much more complex than in Libya,” the official said, noting that most of the targets there were in the desert.

The deliberations on how to respond militarily to any confirmed use of chemical weapons was taking place against the backdrop of some of the most intense conventional fighting in the two-year-old Syrian conflict, which has left more than 70,000 people dead.

Opposition activists and fighters in Syria accused Mr. Assad’s military of carrying out attacks for the second straight day on the Mediterranean seaport of Baniyas and the village of Bayda, where dozens of civilians, including children, were found dead Thursday, some stabbed and burned. The National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, the main anti-Assad political group, said in a statement that the attacks constituted another war crime by the government.

Syria’s official SANA news agency said nothing about civilian killings in Baniyas or Bayda in its dispatches on the fighting, asserting that its forces had “destroyed a number of terrorists’ dens and gatherings in several areas, killing and injuring many terrorists.” It also said insurgents had lobbed mortar shells at the Damascus airport, temporarily disrupting operations.


keep looking at those two awful boys
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby wordspeak2 » Sat May 04, 2013 10:43 pm

Video of this is the top post on Reddit right now: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comme ... apital_of/

I love how Israel hasn't officially taken credit for it. Haaretz is quoting the Syrian media in saying that Israel did it. Well, gee, I don't think there are a whole lot of other suspects. People are talking about thousands dead... not sure if that's true.
wordspeak2
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:20 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby barracuda » Sat May 04, 2013 11:39 pm



User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby Nordic » Sat May 04, 2013 11:45 pm

Why have ships loaded with Tomahawk missiles if you're not gonna use them?


And you gotta love the blatant hypocrisy of a country that turned a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons against the fish-in-a-barrel citizens of Gaza. By Israel. Oh, and how the US used white phosphorous and depleted uranium against the citizens of Fallujah.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby Simulist » Sun May 05, 2013 12:03 am

Nordic wrote:Why have ships loaded with Tomahawk missiles if you're not gonna use them?

The only other reason I can think of might be that, in order to have ships loaded with Tomahawk missiles, U.S. taxpayers had to BUY THEM first. And for the war profiteers running the so-called "defense" establishment, $$$,$$$,$$$.$$ are pretty much all that matters.


And you gotta love the blatant hypocrisy of a country that turned a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons against the fish-in-a-barrel citizens of Gaza. By Israel. Oh, and how the US used white phosphorous and depleted uranium against the citizens of Fallujah.

Agreed. Completely.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun May 05, 2013 5:19 pm

Syrian minister: Israeli strike 'opens up all options'
Following emergency cabinet meeting, Information Minister Zoabi tells reporters in Damascus reported Israeli strikes on Syria made Middle East 'more dangerous,' prove Jewish state's links to rebel 'terror cells.' Egypt, Arab League also condemn airstrike, urge UN action. IDF closes civilian airspace in north


Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun May 05, 2013 11:43 pm

Uber-Neocons: The Main Architects of Post-Assad Syria at Work
Sunday, 5. May 2013
Bush Era’s Good-Ol’ Familiar Faces Resurface again on Operation Syria
With the approaching Finale for Syria’s Assad the Uber-Neocon architects of US foreign policy have been hard at work. Assuming (albeit knowingly) the certainty of the soon-to-come end for Assad’s government, the neocon architects are drafting and crafting their objectives for the Post-Assad regime in Syria. I know the mainstream and pseudo-alternative media use the term “Neocon” loosely and willy-nilly, but I can assure you this is not the case with my usage of “Uber-Neocons’ here. You will see that clearly after reading the following facts.
Yesterday I found this ‘interesting’ article in the Turkish newspaper Zaman [All Emphasis Mine]:
Analysts Call on US to Cooperate with Turkey Toward New Gov’t in Syria
A group of US foreign policy analysts called on President Barack Obama and his government to work towards drawing a common road map with Turkey that will help ensure the formation of a democratic, impartial government in a post-conflict Syrian.
The US think-tank Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) recently formed its Turkey Task Force, co-chaired by former US Ambassadors to Turkey Mort Abramowitz and Eric Edelman. The task force released on Thursday its first report, which points to a critical need for Turkey and the US to cooperate to ensure the formation of a “stable and decent post-Assad Syria.”
The report also analyzes the differences between Turkish and the US interests in a post-Assad Syria, explaining why it is imperative that the US immediately engage with Turkey in establishing joint principles and plans after a possible ouster of the Assad regime.

Do you notice how many times the term “Post-Assad” is used? Also, pay attention to the analysts named in the article and note that we are looking at architects rather than analysts.
Immediately after reading the above article I went to Bipartisan Public Center’s website, and found that the Zaman article had missed the highly-important third name of the architects aka analysts who have already moved to phase 2, Post-Assad regime building, obviously due to their confidence of the soon-to-come fall of the current regime [All Emphasis Mine]:
Ridding Syria of President Bashar al-Assad has been the goal of the United States for almost two years. Should this objective be achieved, however, an enormous challenge will still remain: stabilizing and rebuilding Syria in a way that advances U.S. strategic goals and values. However, this will require the cooperation of Turkey—a U.S. ally with keen interests in Syria. Ankara’s interests, however, do not perfectly match Washington’s, posing the challenge for policymakers of finding the right tools to align more closely the two countries’ visions of Syria’s future.
Join BPC as it announces the creation of its Turkey Task Force, co-chaired by former Ambassadors to Turkey Morton Abramowitz and Eric Edelman, and releases a paper on the opportunities and obstacles to U.S.-Turkish cooperation towards a post-Assad Syria.

And then, at the bottom, BPC lists the task force principals which includes a third name:
Panel discussion and report release featuring
Mort Abramowitz
Co-chair, BPC Turkey Task Force
Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey

Ambassador Eric S. Edelman
Co-chair, BPC Turkey Task Force
Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey

Alan Makovsky
Senior Professional Staff Member, House Foreign Affairs Committee
That’s right. We get an additional name: Alan Makovsky.
Now, let us quickly check out the importance of these three personalities and what they have in common:
Those of you who have been following the Uber-Neocon circle and its Uber-Players should immediately recognize Morton Abramowitz. [All Emphasis Mine]:
Morton Abramowitz, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, establishes a number of blue-ribbon commissions, headed by a select group of foreign policy elite, to create a new post-Cold War foreign policy framework for the US. Some of the group’s members are Madeleine Albright, Henry Cisneros, John Deutch, Richard Holbrooke, Alice Rivlin, David Gergen, Admiral William Crowe, Leon Fuerth, as well as Richard Perle and James Schlesinger, the two token conservatives who quickly resign. The commission will issue a number of policy papers recommending the increased use of military force to intervene in the domestic conflicts of other countries.

After six years as the Carnegie Endowment’s president, Morton Abramowitz moves on to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Check out Abramowitz as a signatory to the infamous PNAC here. Now more on his background:
Morton Abramowitz writes a column in the Wall Street Journal calling for a drastic change in US policy toward Kosovo. Abramowitz is highly influential with the US foreign policy elite (see 1991-1997). He argues that the US should support full independence for Kosovo and outlines options the US should consider including bombing Serbia, removing Milosevic, arming and training the KLA, and turning Kosovo into a NATO protectorate through the use of ground forces.

I guess you all would agree with me on Abramowitz’ status as one of the crusty Uber-Neocon architects of our dirty foreign policies and even dirtier foreign operations.
Now, let’s move to the next architect, Eric Edelman. A couple of excerpts from an article that was written in 2007:
Edelman has close ties to Vice President Cheney and several other administration hardliners. He served under Cheney, then Secretary of Defense, in the first Bush administration. At that time, Cheney set up a “shop” to “think about American foreign policy after the Cold War, at the grand strategic level.” The project also included Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby. [New Yorker, 4/1/02]
From 2001-2003, Edelman served as a national security adviser to Cheney. In 2003, he was named as U.S. ambassador to Turkey, attempting to convince Turkey to cooperate with the Bush administration’s plans to invade Iraq. Turkish columnist Ibrahim Karagul noted, “Edelman is probably the least-liked and trusted American ambassador in Turkish history.”

A good thing this was written by staunch Democrats pre the Obama Administration. Considering Edelman’s current roles under the Obama administration we won’t be hearing much from that same group- the beauty of partisanship in the dumb-ification of Americans. Okay, let’s read more from commentaries and articles written by partisans way-back-when it was okay to expose and criticize Neocons:
But now I discover it was Eric Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. That makes a whole lot more sense–and really dictates the proper response. You see, Edelman is kind of a poor man’s Dougie Feith. A total shill–and Cheney asset–though apparently with less flair for propaganda. He’s the bright guy who first suggested leaking Plame’s identity to rebut Joe Wilson. And, as it turns out, he realized after he suggested to Libby that the information in question may have been classified.
After a June 2003 article about Iraq and the uranium issues that caused concern to Edelman and Libby, Edelman asked Libby whether information about how the Wilson trip came about could be shared with the press to rebut allegations that the Vice president sent Wilson. Edelman testified that Libby responded by indicating that there would be “complications” at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly. Ambassador Edelman indicated that he understood that he and Libby could not further discuss the matter because they were speaking on an open telephone line and Edelman understood that this might involve classified information.

I guess the above facts on Eric Edelman suffice in establishing him as one of the second-generation Uber-Neocons. Are you with me, so far? Good.
Now, let’s move to the down-played third name: Alan Makovsky. Since WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy) shows up as one of the common denominators among the long-term Uber-Neocons, we’ll start with Makovsky’s role there:
The Turkish Research Program is one of the centers of the institute.[24] The program was founded in 1995. Under the leadership of founding director Alan Makovsky and interim director Helena Kane Finn, the center introduced the Washington policymaking community to Turkey’s leading political, diplomatic, military, and academic figures.

More general background information on Alan Makovsky:
Alan O. Makovsky, a Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is a specialist on Middle Eastern and Turkish affairs. He joined The Washington Institute in May 1994 after eleven years in the U.S. Department of State, where he had served in a variety of capacities, most notably as Special Advisor to Special Middle East Coordinator Dennis Ross in 1993 and in 1992 as State Department liaison officer and political advisor to Operation Provide Comfort.

And here are a few words on his long-term role in the Turkish-Israeli lobby from an article in NYT:
Probably the most important development in Turkish foreign policy in the last year has been the rapid improvement of its ties with Israel, and this newly strengthened relationship was a topic of much discussion among Turks and Americans at the conference. Alan Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Middle East Politics called the speed with which Turkey and Israel have drawn together ”truly breathtaking” and described it as ”probably the most dramatic strategic development in the Middle East since the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty ended the prospect of a multi-front Arab assault on Israel.”

Makovsky as an ever-present figure in the infamous Turkish-Israeli Lobby ATC:
Speaking at the ATC meetings, Makovsky argued that the most serious problem between Turkey and the United States may stem from the Greek Cypriots’ possible membership in the EU. Indicating that Greece would tell the EU that if the Greek Cypriots are not admitted into the club, Athens would veto enlargement, Makovsky said Washington would have to make a choice: either support the Greek Cypriots’ membership at the expense of Turkey’s anger or oppose the membership. He stressed that the United Sates should not support the Greek Cypriots’ EU membership bid. He also said that he thought the new administration would endorse the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline project.

I have to reluctantly include an excerpt from a site and an author I truly dislike. The only reason I am including this is to show you the gang Alan Makovsky is an integral part of, so forgive me for the source:
The new Israeli-Turkish partnership is a great fit internationally as well. Foiled by human rights groups in Europe, and the Greek and Armenian lobbies in the United States, Turkey needs a reliable source of high-technology military equipment. The Israelis, always the odd man out in their region, are now not so much alone. As for the Turks, always relative strangers in Washington, they now have a well-connected ally, of whom they expect a great deal… And Ankara relies not just on Israelis; to make its case, it also counts on American Jews such as Morton Abramowitz, Douglas Feith, Alan Makovsky, Richard Perle, and Harold Rhode, and on institutions such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

Now, let me point out another major commonality between Eric Edelman and Alan Makovsky. Last week I wrote an article on the CIA’s Graham Fuller and his role in US BlackOps in Central Asia & the Caucasus, his intimate connections to the Boston Terror Attack, and very importantly, his presence in my State Secrets Privilege Gallery since 2008. It is time to revisit my SSP Gallery again: Click Here
Alan Makovsky and Eric Edelman have both been present together with Graham Fuller in that gallery since 2008.
When we check further we’ll see that Graham Fuller and Morton Abramowitz have also been intimately connected, including their partnership in books and policy paper projects.
There are not many political and intelligence related subjects where I publically engage in and declare ‘absolutism.’ However, there is one point in these areas that has achieved an ‘absolute’ status for me, and that is: There are no coincidences when it comes to the CIA and our foreign policy black deeds. Whether it is CIA’s Graham Fuller’s intimate connections to the Boston Terror Attack, or, Syria-Russia, or the same-old Uber-Neocon architects’ foot-prints and work in the background, a declaration of ‘simple coincidences’ is nothing short of denial.
I have been writing, analyzing and talking about the connections between the Boston Terror, CIA, Graham Fuller, Syria, Russia, and Caucasus-Central Asia. You can read my previous analyses at Boiling Frogs Post, and I encourage you to listen to my recent interview, and watch this video. The operatives and Uber-Neocon architects are now busy preparing the second phase for Syria.
# # # #
Sibel Edmonds is the Publisher & Editor of Boiling Frogs Post and the author of the Memoir Classified Woman: The Sibel Edmonds Story. She is the recipient of the 2006 PEN Newman’s Own First Amendment Award for her “commitment to preserving the free flow of information in the United States in a time of growing international isolation and increasing government secrecy” Ms. Edmonds has a MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George Mason University, a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby coffin_dodger » Mon May 06, 2013 4:37 am

Syria crisis: UN's del Ponte says evidence rebels 'used sarin' 6 May 2013 Last updated at 08:19

Testimony from victims of the Syrian conflict suggests rebels have used the nerve agent sarin, according to a leading United Nations investigator.

Carla del Ponte told Swiss TV there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".

However, she said her panel had not yet seen evidence of government forces using chemical weapons.

Syria has recently come under growing Western pressure over the alleged use of such weapons.

Ms del Ponte, who serves on the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said in an interview with Swiss-Italian TV: "Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals.

"According to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated."

Ms del Ponte, a former Swiss attorney-general and prosecutor with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, said the UN commission would need to hear further evidence from witnesses to verify what was known so far.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby 8bitagent » Mon May 06, 2013 6:20 am

ANTAKYA, Turkey -- War makes strange bedfellows. President Bashar Assad’s regime is in the unique position of being targeted both by Israel and supporters of al Qaeda.

It is hard to imagine more a diverse couple: Sworn enemies fighting against the same government.ANTAKYA, Turkey -- War makes strange bedfellows. President Bashar Assad’s regime is in the unique position of being targeted both by Israel and supporters of al Qaeda.

It is hard to imagine more a diverse couple: Sworn enemies fighting against the same government.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... syria?lite

Saudi Arabia has financed a large purchase of infantry weapons from Croatia and quietly funneled them to antigovernment fighters in Syria in a drive to break the bloody stalemate that has allowed President Bashar al-Assad to cling to power, according to American and Western officials familiar with the purchases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/world ... d=all&_r=0

Aw, it's like 9/11 all over again(or 80's mujahadeen)


Syria is such a surreal moment. Israel, Saudi/gulf/western backed al Qaeda linked militants all working to topple Assad. Is it me or has "al Qaeda" rarely ever targeted Israel or Israeli interests?
Kind of strange, that.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon May 06, 2013 8:55 am

Stealing Syria’s Oil
The EU/Al-Qaeda oil consortium
by Gearóid Ó Colmáin / May 4th, 2013

The decision of the European Union to lift the embargo on Syrian government’s energy exports by importing oil from the ‘armed opposition’ is another flagrant violation of international law. It violates the UN General Assembly declaration of 1962 on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources and is yet another violation of the 1981 UN declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States. But it is much more than a technical violation of the law. It marks the decent of civilization into barbarism.

London and Paris, have more than Washington, been at the forefront of aggression against Syria. In spite of the fact that it has now been confirmed by most media sources that the Syrian ‘opposition’ is Al-Qaeda, London and Paris persist in their insane drive to arm the terrorists, using the spurious argument that if they don’t arm the ‘moderates’ the ‘extremists’ will take over the country. However, in the words of the New York Times, ‘nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of’. The fact that the Syrian ‘rebels’ are, in fact, Al-Qaeda has even been admitted by the war-mongering French daily Le Monde. So, Paris and London are pushing for further arming of Al-Qaeda and the legalization of oil trading with the jihadi terrorists. In plain language this means that the loose, terrorist network known to the world as Al-Qaeda will soon become one of the EU’s partners in the oil business. A new absurd chapter in the Era of Terror is about to be enacted.

International law and its violators

The 1962 UN Resolution 1803 on the Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources states:

Violation of the rights of peoples and nations to sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources is contrary to the spirit and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and hinders the development of international co-operation and the maintenance of peace.

Japhat Al-Nostra and other Al-Qaeda affiliated groups do not in any way represent the Syrian people, nor do they constitute a sovereign state according to the categories of international law. The ‘armed opposition’ IS Al-Qaeda. Therefore, the European Union’s decision to officially buy oil from terrorist gangs currently occupying territories in the Syrian Arab Republic constitutes a heinous crime and makes a further mockery of the basic principles governing the relations between states.

The 1981 UN document explicitly condemns:

the increasing threat to international peace and security owing to frequent recourse to the threat or use of force, aggression, intimidation, military intervention and occupation, escalation of military presence and all other forms of intervention or interference, direct or indirect, overt or covert, threatening the sovereignty and political independence of other States, with the aim of overthrowing their Governments

The declaration goes on to categorically condemn the deployment of ‘armed bands’ and ‘mercenaries’ by states for the use of overthrowing the governments of other sovereign states:

Conscious of the fact that such policies endanger the political independence of States, freedom of peoples and permanent sovereignty over their natural resources, adversely affecting thereby the maintenance of international peace and security,

Conscious also of the imperative need for any threat of aggression, any recruitment, any use of armed bands, in particular mercenaries, against sovereign States to be completely ended, so as to enable the peoples of all States to determine their own political, economic and social systems without external interference or control,

Western governments, who for many years have been openly and shamelessly violating all known and agreed principles of international law, arming terrorist gangs who murder and maim civilians, funding common criminals who traffic drugs and recruit child-soldiers, have now descended to a new low by purchasing oil and gas from these same terrorist gangs, natural resources which are legally the property of the Syrian Arab Republic and its citizens.

EU governments colluding with terrorists

Europe’s descent into absolute moral turpitude and lawlessness is further reflected in the fact that EU authorities are doing nothing to prevent brainwashed Muslim youths from traveling to Syria in order to fight NATO’s war. Yet, the officials of EU states readily admit that hundreds if not thousands of jihadis from Britain, Ireland, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and other states are now joining the ranks of the so-called ‘Syrian rebels’. But they also admit that their only concern is that these terrorists might be a threat to European security if they ever return. The fact that these terrorists are putting bombs in busy market squares; cars; universities; schools; hospitals and mosques throughout Syria, and that US State Department’s own reports confirm this, doesn’t seem to bother the EU’s governments. Their only concern is that they might eventually bite the hand that feeds. The EU ‘anti-terror’ chief Gilles de Kerchove tells the BBC:

“Not all of them are radical when they leave, but most likely many of them will be radicalized there, will be trained. And as we’ve seen this might lead to a serious threat when they get back.”

We know from Israeli intelligence sources that most of the terrorists are being trained in US/NATO military bases in Turkey and Jordan.

So, why doesn’t the EU’s ‘anti-terror’ chief seem to know about this? This is the man responsible for protecting Europe from terrorism? As I reported before, France’s ‘anti-terror’ magistrate actually admitted on French state radio in January 11th that the French government was on the same side as Al-Qaeda in Syria:

There are many young jihadists who have gone to the Turkish border in order to enter Syria to fight Bachar’s regime, but the only difference is that there France is not the enemy. Therefore we don’t look on that in the same way. To see young men who are at the moment fighting Bachar Al-Assad, they will be perhaps dangerous in the future but for the moment they are fighting Bachar Al-Assad and France is on their side; they will not attack us.

The cynical double standard which states that all territories outside the EU are barbaric and therefore outside the realm of international law has now become a policy that goes unnoticed by Europe’s brainwashed masses. Euro-Atlantic powers are not only behaving like criminals but are now openly displaying their criminality. One should also note that the French government has now decided to call the Syrian president by his first name. Calling a state official by his first name is a sign of deep disrespect in French etiquette. Since the Sarkozy regime, French diplomacy has been dragged through the mud, with France’s diplomatic corps now behaving like a cross between spoilt brats and fascist thugs.

Syria’s Oil Geopolitics

The quest for sources of cheap energy is one of the geopolitical contexts driving the war in Syria. Christof Lehmann has written that the discovery of the Iranian Pars gas field in 2007 and Teheran’s plan to pipe the gas to the Eastern Mediterranean by constructing a pipeline through Iraq and Syria holds the potential of turning Iran into a global economic power, giving Teheran enormous leverage over the EU’s Middle East policy. This development would pose a threat to the Zionist entity. It would pose an existential threat to the despotic emirates of the Gulf, who depend on the power of the petro-dollar for their survival.

That is one of the reasons why NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council are using Al-Qaeda terrorists to break the Shite-led alliance of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. As Italian geographer Manlio Dinucci has reported, contrary to received opinion, Syria actually has massive energy reserves.

Dinucci writes:

The U.S. / NATO strategy focuses on helping rebels to seize the oil fields with a twofold purpose: to deprive the Syrian state of revenue from exports, already strongly decreased as a result of the EU embargo, and to ensure that the largest deposits pass in the future, through the ‘rebels’ under the control of the big Western oil companies.

The first implementation of the ‘humanitarian intervention’ ideology was during the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999. Since then, the truncated entity called Kosovo has become Europe’s number one criminal state, run by a convicted organ and drug trafficking mass murderer called Hacim Al Thaci, a protégé of Brussels and Washington. This is the kind of narco-mafia anti-state NATO has installed in Libya since the Blitzkrieg against that country in 2011 and it is the type of criminal regime that will rule over Syrians if NATO succeeds in bombing that country.

One can read hundreds of articles in the mainstream press about the criminality of the Kosovar regime and articles describing the chaos in post-Gaddafi Libya have not been rare. But the same media outlets will systematically ignore the fact that they were the ones cheering on the CIA’s Kossovo Liberation Army during the destruction of Yugoslavia. The same prestitutes are now pushing for more arming of the terrorists in Syria and for military intervention by NATO.

The closing of the European mind

The pontificators of European integration and Europe’s role in the world like to pepper their speeches with pompous references to the ‘rule of law’ and the universality of ‘European values’.

This specious rhetoric is unceasingly drummed into European students throughout our universities and institutions of higher learning and it is repeated ad nauseam by the mass media. The people now using Al-Qaeda terrorism to further their interests in the Middle East teach courses in prestigious European universities on ‘international relations’.

It is no wonder ordinary people are incapable of seeing and understanding what is happening before their very eyes. The sheer scale and complexity of the global institutional networks built upon an empire of lies, self-righteousness and deceit is simply too overwhelming for the unschooled intellect to comprehend. Something in our order-seeking minds rejects reality when its horror surpasses our horizons of tolerance and intelligibility. As a result, the mind recoils, filters out the real, preferring instead to see in our masters the expression of complex, contradictory and arcane policies, whose moral content is consigned to the studies of ‘experts’ and ‘specialists’, who are themselves the products and propagandists of the same corrupt institutions.

There are now so many academic institutions, conferences; foundations; think tanks; policy institutes and university courses proclaiming the virtues of ‘humanitarian intervention’ that it has acquired the status of a dogma. The repetition and reproduction of this dogma by the scholastics of neo-liberal academia has turned that which critical reason would normally scoff at into an a priori principle of ‘global governance’.

In chapter 22 of his seminal work on international law De Juri Belli ac Pacis, (On the Law of War and Peace), the great 17th century Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius wrote:

Some wars were founded upon real motives and others only upon colorful pretexts. This distinction was first noticed by Polybius, who calls the pretexts, profaseis and the real causes, aitias. Thus Alexander made war upon Darius, under the pretense of avenging the former wrongs done by the Persians to the Greeks. But the real motive of that bold and enterprising hero was the easy acquisition of wealth and dominion, which the expeditions of Xenophon and Agesilaus had opened to his view.

Little has changed since the days of Alexander the Great. Wars are still fought for pillage and plunder and the furtherance of empire. Polybius’s vocabulary of ‘profaseis’ and ‘aitias’ will be useful here. Since the start of the Syrian nightmare in 2011, the ‘profaseis’ propagated by corporate media agencies calling for military intervention in Syria has been the desire to ‘protect civilians’ from a ‘brutal regime’. Only the naïve and ignorant could now defend such nonsense as the same media agencies have finally admitted that the ‘opposition’ is in fact Al-Qaeda, a fact the alternative media have been pointing out since the beginning of the violence in Deraa in March 2011.

NATO’s ‘aitias’ in this conflict is clear: break up and destroy an independent sovereign state; rob and pillage all of its resources; rape and terrorize its citizens into submission by unleashing drugged and brain-washed death squads on the population; constantly blame all of this on the ‘regime’, then finish the country off with an intensive aerial bombing campaign before installing a crime syndicate to run the country. Finally, call that holocaust freedom. Call that holocaust democracy. It’s a tried and trusted formula which is now being deployed all over the world in NATO’s megalomaniacal drive for global supremacy.

Grotius again:

Others make -use of pretexts, which though plausible at first sight, will not bear the examination and test of moral rectitude, and, when stripped of their disguise, such pretexts will be found fraught with injustice. In such hostilities, says Livy, it is not a trial of right, but some object of secret and unruly ambition, which acts as the chief spring. Most powers, it is said by Plutarch, employ the relative situations of peace and war, as a current specie, for the purchase of whatever they deem expedient.

In the war-ravaged 17th century Europe of Hugo Grotius, to establish the distinction betweenprofaseis and aitias or the pretexts and real reasons for war was not considered heretical in the domain of rigorous juridical discourse. Today, those who make such distinctions are dismissed as ‘paranoid conspiracy theorists’. In an interview French sociologist Loic Wacquant argues that ‘never before have false thought and false science been so prolix and ubiquitous.’

In this age of technological lawlessness, the basic precepts of international and domestic law have been dismantled. With the promulgation of the Patriot Act and now the National Defense Authorization Act, the United States has regressed to the kind of juridical tyranny that preceded the drafting of the Petition of Right in the England of 1628, a document denouncing imprisonment without trial, torture and martial law and providing the legal and moral groundwork for the English Revolution of 1640.

Conclusion

It behooves us all to reflect upon the current war in the Levant. What we are witnessing is the destruction of the Westphalian state system and a return to the kind of chaos of the 17th century’s Thirty Years War, except this time it is festering on the borders of Europe where the principle ofbellum se ipsum alet, war will feed itself, is being acted out by private military corporations, drug gangs, terrorist networks and international crime syndicates linked directly and indirectly to the ideological state apparatuses of the Atlantic powers.

And so, the KLA have been training the ‘Syrian Free Army’, while Libya’s Islamic Fighting Group has also joined the ‘holy war’ in Syria. Like the Thirty Years War, the armed gangs and mercenaries are funding themselves by pillaging the local economies and selling their booty as contraband. Whole factories in Syria have been dismantled and stolen by mercenaries in the service of Turkey and Qatar, while the drug trade is now booming like never before. When one country is destroyed and reduced to despotic fiefdoms and emirates, Western corporations move in with their private military companies and proceed to pillage the country’s resources, unhindered by the rules and regulations of the Sovereign State. The terrorist hordes then move on to the next country on NATO’s hit list. This is NATO’s strategy of chaos, a form of liquid warfare that is spreading rapidly throughout the Southern Hemisphere.

Given the criminality of Western oil companies in the past, it is perhaps not entirely surprising that they would now, in the form of the EU, be openly buying oil from terrorist organizations. What is surprising, however, is the morbid insouciance of Europe’s populations. How could there be so many ‘respectable’ people in our media and academic institutions prepared to collaborate with these mobsters? Why have there been few if any significant demonstrations against NATO? How is it possible that the powers that be should be allowed to get away with such unmitigated criminality?

The Roman poet Horace wrote — neglecta solent incendia sumere vires — a neglected fire always gathers in strength. Since the destruction of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan by the Western-backed Mujahedeen terrorists in the 1979, sovereign states have fallen prey to mercenaries and terrorist gangs backed by Western imperialism, while civil liberties have been curtailed in America and Europe in the name of the ‘War on Terrorism’.

The fire has since spread to the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Côte d’Ivoire, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, DRC, Chechnya, Libya, and now Syria. If people don’t wake up and mobilize against the criminals planning these wars, the flames of destruction will eventually come home in the form of martial law, and a fascist, panopticon police state which will be deemed necessary during the prosecution of a Third World War against Iran, Russia and China. If this fire of terrorism is not put out in Syria, it will continue into the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Russian Federation and Eastern China until all possible resistance to NATO’s drive for ‘full spectrum dominance’ is eliminated and a tyrannical, corporate hyper-state rules over the planet.
World wars have happened in the past and given the scelerate Will-to-Power of our current rulers, there is no reason to believe that a world war will not happen again. Many in the West, inured to televised violence and indifferent to distant wars, have a tendency to believe that politics is a domain that does not affect them. But in the words of the French politician Charles de Montalambert ‘Vous avez beau ne pas vous occuper de politique, la politique s’occupe de vous tout de même.’[It is easy for you not to be concerned about politics, but politics, however, is concerned about you] In the light of current events the statement merits reflection.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue May 07, 2013 1:07 am

MAY 06, 2013

Silence Gives Consent
The US and Israel’s Syrian Airstrikes
by ROBERT FISK
Lights in the sky over Damascus. Another Israeli raid – “daring” of course, in the words of Israel’s supporters, and the second in two days – on Bashar al-Assad’s weaponry and military facilities and weapons stores. The story is already familiar: the Israelis wanted to prevent a shipment of Iranian-made Fateh-110 missiles reaching Hezbollah in Lebanon; they were being sent by the Syrian government. According, at least, to a ‘Western intelligence source’. Anonymous, of course. And it opens the old question: why when the Syrian regime is fighting for its life would it send advanced missiles out of Syria?

But the Syrians themselves have officially confirmed that military installations were hit by the Israelis. And not for the first time during the rebellion. The Fateh-110 – the new version, at least – has a range of perhaps 250km. And it could indeed reach Tel Aviv from southern Lebanon. If the Hezbollah has actually acquired any. But why would the Syrians send them, as US sources were also claiming last night, when the Americans themselves claimed only last December that the Syrians had used the same ground-to-ground missiles against rebel forces in Syria.

In other words, the Syrian regime was prepared to dispense with their rockets to Lebanon when they were already using them in the brutal war in Syria… Now there are other questions to be asked. If the Syrian air force can use their MiGs so devastatingly – and at such civilian cost – against their enemies inside Syria, why couldn’t they have sent their jets to protect Damascus and attack the Israeli aircraft? Isn’t the Syrian air force supposed to be guarding Syria from Israel? Or are the MiGs just not technically able to take on Israel’s state-of-the-art (American) hardware? Or would that just be a step too far?

Much more important, however, is the salient fact that Israel has now intervened in the Syrian war. It may say it was only aiming at weapons destined for the Hezbollah – but these were weapons also being used against rebel forces in Syria. By diminishing the regime’s supply of these weapons, it is therefore helping the rebels overthrow Bashar al-Assad. And since Israel regards itself as a Western nation – best friend and best US military ally in the Middle East, etc, etc – this means that “we” are now involved in the war, directly and from the air.

Let’s see if the US and the EU condemn Israel’s air attacks. I doubt it. Which would mean, if we are silent, that we approve of them. Silence, to quote Sir Thomas More, gives consent.

So now the Iranians and Hizballah are accused of intervening in Syria – true, though not to quite extent we are led to believe – and Qatar and Saudi Arabia funnel weapons to the rebels – true, but not quite enough weapons, as the Syrian rebels will tell you – and the Israelis have joined in. We are now militarily involved.


we are now militarily involved

Pushing for War with Syria
May 6, 2013
Exclusive: The dam holding back pressure for U.S. war in Syria is giving way with President Obama – like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike – seeming unable to stop the inevitable. Cheering on the impending flood are many of the same big-name pundits from the Iraq War, Robert Parry notes.


By Robert Parry

Israel’s bombing raids into Syria appear to have shattered whatever restraint remained in Official Washington toward the United States entering the civil war on the side of rebel forces that include radical jihadist elements. On Monday, the Washington Post’s neocon editors weighed in for U.S. intervention as did former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller.

Both the Post’s editors and Keller also were key advocates for invading Iraq in 2003 – and their continued influence reflects the danger of not imposing any accountability on prominent journalists who were wrong on Iraq. Those tough-guy pundits now want much the same interventionism toward Syria and Iran, which always were on the neocon hit list as follow-ons to Iraq.


Former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller.
The Post’s lead editorial on Monday urged U.S. intervention in Syria as part of a response to a growing regional crisis that one could argue was touched off – or made far worse – by President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003.

However, rather than trace the crisis back to Bush’s invasion of Iraq – which the Post eagerly supported – the editors lament the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq and President Barack Obama’s hesitancy to intervene in Syria. Noting the renewed sectarian violence in Iraq, the Post’s editors write “it also makes intervention aimed at ending the war in Syria that much more urgent.”

Meanwhile, across the top half of Monday’s Op-Ed page in the New York Times, Keller urged any pundit chastened by the disastrous Iraq War to shake off those doubts and get behind U.S. military intervention in Syria. His article, entitled “Syria Is Not Iraq,” is presented in the same “reluctantly hawkish” tone as his influential endorsement of aggressive war against Iraq in 2003.

Keller’s special twist now is that he is citing his misjudgment on Iraq as part of his qualifications for urging President Obama to cast aside doubts about the use of military force in Syria’s chaotic civil war and to jump into the campaign for regime change by helping the rebels overthrow Bashar al-Assad.

“Frankly I’ve shared his [Obama’s] hesitation about Syria, in part because, during an earlier column-writing interlude at the outset of the Iraq invasion, I found myself a reluctant hawk. That turned out to be a humbling error of judgment, and it left me gun-shy,” Keller wrote. “But in Syria, I fear prudence has become fatalism, and our caution has been the father of missed opportunities, diminished credibility and enlarged tragedy.”

For the rest of the lengthy article, Keller baited Obama by presenting him as something of a terrified deer frozen in mindless inaction because of the Iraq experience. Keller quoted hawkish former State Department official Vali Nasr as declaring that “We’re paralyzed like a deer in the headlights, and everybody keeps relitigating the Iraq war.”

Keller then added: “Whatever we decide, getting Syria right starts with getting over Iraq.”

No Lessons Learned

But Keller doesn’t seem to have learned anything significant from the Iraq catastrophe. Much as he and other pundits did on Iraq, they are putting themselves into the minds of Syria’s leaders and assuming that every dastardly deed is carefully calibrated when the reality is that Assad, like Saddam Hussein, has often behaved in a reactive manner to perceived threats.

Assad and many other Alawites (a branch of Shiite Islam) – along with many Christian Armenians who remain loyal to Assad – are terrified of what might follow a military victory by the Sunni majority, whose fighting forces are now dominated by Islamic extremists, many with close ties to al-Qaeda.

As the New York Times reported in its news page last month, the black flags of Islamist rule are spreading across “liberated” sectors of Syria.

“Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists,” wrote Times correspondent Ben Hubbard. “Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.

“Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.”

So, it might not be surprising that the Alawite (or Shiite) minority – not to mention Armenians whose ancestors fled south a century ago to escape a Turkish genocide – might be acting, to some degree, out of fear and panic. But to Keller and likeminded pundits, the “enemy” is always cruel, cunning and calculating while the American side is committed to peace and slow to take up the military option.

Keller wrote, “our reluctance to arm the rebels or defend the civilians being slaughtered in their homes has convinced the Assad regime (and the world) that we are not serious. … Assad has been sly about escalating his savagery by degrees — artillery, then aerial bombardment, then Scud missiles and now, apparently, chemical weapons — while staying just below whatever threshold of horror might shame us into responding.”

But does Keller really know this? Or is he speculating much as U.S. pundits did in their erroneous efforts to divine why Saddam Hussein insisted on hiding his WMD stockpiles and daring President Bush to launch an invasion? (Oh, that’s right, Hussein didn’t have any WMD stockpiles and indeed had truthfully admitted as much.)

No White Hats

The reality is that both sides in the Syrian conflict share the blame for atrocities. The murky moral situation was underscored again this weekend when a United Nations investigation found evidence that rebel forces used the nerve agent sarin on civilian targets but the UN team has not discovered evidence of chemical agents deployed by the government.

Also, though you wouldn’t know it from reading Keller and most other U.S. journalists, Assad has offered electoral and negotiated routes to resolve the conflict. The Russians, who support Assad, also have pushed for peace talks. Yet, given the long history of the dictatorial Assad dynasty, the opposition understandably has doubts about any offer of negotiations and some see no real option except a fight to the death.

However, as happened in Iraq, the U.S. press corps has opted largely for a black-and-white rendition of the Syrian civil war, with virtually all American pundits siding with the rebels and blaming the Assad regime for the tens of thousands of deaths. Much like during the stampede to war with Iraq, objectivity has largely disappeared from the mainstream American news media.

Today’s double standards regarding international law are another striking reminder of the Iraq War. In 2003, the U.S. news media rarely, if ever, mentioned how Bush’s invasion of Iraq was illegal, much as there is now almost no criticism of Israel for mounting a series of aerial attacks against Syrian targets.

One could only imagine the U.S. press reaction if Syria had been the one conducting bombing raids against Israel. Then, suddenly, international law would be picked up from the dustbin of history, dusted off and put on a pedestal. American pundits would immediately become experts on the universality of international law and how it forbids cross-border bombing raids. Indeed, such attacks might be deemed “terrorism.”

The Same Guiding Hands

In another unnerving similarity with the Iraq War, Keller and the Washington Post editors are back serving as the guiding hands to lead the American people to war. While the Post mostly beats the war drums loudly, Keller presents a quieter and more reasonable demeanor only grudgingly concluding that war is necessary.

That, of course, was exactly Keller’s role prior to the invasion of Iraq when he wrote an influential article entitled “I-Can’t-Believe-I’m-a-Hawk Club,” which counted himself among supposedly peace-loving American thinkers and writers who had clambered onto George W. Bush’s bandwagon to war.

On the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Keller reflected on his mistaken support of the Iraq War in a handwringing article. In it, he admitted that Iraq “had in the literal sense, almost nothing to do with 9/11” and recognized that the war had resulted in untold death and misery of its own.

The article, “My Unfinished 9/11 Business,” was filled with rationalizations about his post-9/11 feelings and those of other pro-Iraq-War pundits. Yet what was perhaps most striking about Keller’s article was that it lacked even a single reference to international law, or to the fact that Bush undertook the invasion in defiance of a majority on the UN Security Council and in violation of longstanding U.S.-enunciated principles against aggressive war.

At the Nuremberg Tribunals after World War II, the chief U.S. prosecutor, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, called a war of aggression “not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Jackson also vowed that the tribunals, in condemning Nazi officials and their propagandists for engaging in aggressive war and other crimes, were not simply acting out victor’s justice but that the same rules would apply to the nations sitting in judgment.

That, however, has turned out not to be the case. Though Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair undertook the invasion of Iraq without UN approval and under false pretenses, there has been no serious attempt to hold the invaders and their subordinates accountable.

Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other former U.S. officials have even admitted to ordering acts of torture (such as water-boarding prisoners), again in violation of international law, with little or no expectation that they will be punished. Nor presumably do Keller and other pro-invasion pundits foresee any adverse consequences from their own propagandistic support for the war.

If the Nuremberg principles were to be fully applied to the United States and Great Britain, the propagandists would share the dock with the political and military leaders. But Keller and his fellow “club” members apparently believe their worst punishment should be writing self-obsessed articles about how distraught they were over the war’s unintended consequences.

Excuses for War

For Keller’s part, his article on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 offered excuses for his Iraq War support ranging from his desire to protect his daughter who was born “almost exactly nine months after the attacks” on 9/11 to his accompaniment in his pro-war propaganda by “a large and estimable” group of fellow liberal hawks.

His list included “among others, Thomas Friedman of The Times; Fareed Zakaria, of Newsweek; George Packer and Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker; Richard Cohen of The Washington Post; the blogger Andrew Sullivan; Paul Berman of Dissent; Christopher Hitchens of just about everywhere; and Kenneth Pollack, the former C.I.A. analyst whose book, The Threatening Storm, became the liberal manual on the Iraqi threat.”

These “club” members expressed various caveats and concerns about their hawkishness, but their broad support for invading Iraq provided a powerful argument for the Bush administration which, as Keller noted, “was clearly pleased to cite the liberal hawks as evidence that invading Iraq was not just the impetuous act of cowboy neocons.”

Indeed, this “liberal-hawk” consensus further marginalized the few skeptics who tried to warn the American people that the WMD evidence was thin to non-existent and that occupying a hostile Arab nation was a fool’s errand that would start a new cycle of violence.

As the Iraq invasion was unleashed in March 2003 with all its “shock and awe” and the killing of young Iraqi soldiers and many civilians, Keller recalled his satisfaction in having taken the side of American military might.

When Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was driven from power three weeks later, Keller said he and nearly all other “club” members were “a little drugged by testosterone. And maybe a little too pleased with ourselves for standing up to evil and defying the caricature of liberals as, to borrow a phrase from those days, brie-eating surrender monkeys.”

Keller did allow that he and his “club” under-estimated the difficulties of installing “democracy” in Iraq and over-estimated the competence of Bush’s team. In retrospect, given the costs in blood and treasure among Americans and Iraqis, he acknowledged that “Operation Iraqi Freedom was a monumental blunder.”

But Keller behaved as if his engagement in self-aggrandizing self-criticism was punishment enough, not only for him and his fellow “liberal hawks” but apparently for Bush, Cheney, Blair and others who waged this war of aggression.

The fact that Keller didn’t even mention international law suggested that he remains a member in good standing of the “We’re-So-Special-We-Can-Do-Anything Club.” You might note that most of the “estimable” members of Keller’s hawk club remain highly regarded opinion leaders and some – like Friedman and Zakaria – retain big-dollar perches in the major news media. Keller got promoted to Times executive editor, arguably the top job in American journalism, after the case for war in Iraq was debunked.

Given that many worthy journalists have seen their careers ruined simply because they were accused of failing to meet some perfect standard of journalism – for instance, the late Gary Webb and his heroic reporting on Nicaraguan Contra drug trafficking – it was all the more striking that almost none of Keller’s club members have suffered professionally at all.

Now, Keller is back, afforded the entire top half of the New York Times’ Op-Ed page to tell Americans that they should forget about Iraq when getting in line for another war in neighboring Syria.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Tue May 07, 2013 6:59 pm

Thanks seemslikeadream for all the great links! This is an older one, but important in the context of exactly what we face if Israel/US/NATO escalation gets out of control: The Mother Of All Quagmires!

Iran Reaffirms Syria, Assad Alliance As Key To 'Resistance Front' Against Israel

AP | By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Posted: 01/26/2013 10:13 am EST | Updated: 01/27/2013 3:04 pm EST

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran considers any attack against Syria an attack on itself, an advisor to the Islamic Republic's supreme leader was quoted as saying Saturday, the strongest warning to date by a top Iranian official that Tehran will use any available means to keep the regime of President Bashar Assad in power.

Ali Akbar Velayati, an aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Syria plays a major role in the "resistance front" of anti-Israel states and militant groups.

"Syria plays a very key role in supporting, or God forbid destabilizing, the resistance front. For this same reason, an attack on Syria is considered attack on Iran and Iran's allies," Velayati was quoted by the semiofficial Mehr news agency as saying.

The comments reflect Iran's commitment to prevent the possible collapse of Assad, who is fighting a bloody war with rebels. More than 60,000 people have been killed since the conflict began in March 2011, according to the U.N.

Velayati, Iran's former foreign minister, said the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas would had been defeated in wars with Israel without Syrian support.

"If Syria didn't provide logistical support to Hezbollah, Hezbollah and Hamas would have not achieved victory in the 33-day and 22-day wars (respectively)," he said.

He was referring to the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War and Gaza War during the winter of 2008-2009. Both militant groups claimed victory although Israel has disputed this.

"Regional reactionary (regimes) and the West attacked the golden ring of resistance by targeting Syria," Mehr quoted him as saying, a reference to U.S. and Gulf Arab backing for the rebels.

Iran is Syria's most important ally in the Middle East. Tehran has provided Assad's government with military and political backing for years, and has kept up its strong support for the regime since the uprising began in March 2011.


I love Sibel Edmonds' hypothesis regarding US "guarantees" to Russia, but if Iran honors the alliance linked above that they have with Syria, all guarantees are off!
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby justdrew » Tue May 07, 2013 7:13 pm

god damn it if these assholes drag us into WW3 in Syria

These rebels are bloody fools. 50,000 dead, at their instigation. None of those people would be dead were there no armed rebellion. I'm assuming about 10,000 dead rebels and rest civilian, not sure what the actual breakdown is.

I can't fucking believe people can be so god damned casual about it, these bastards who want to pick up guns and kill for "their beliefs" (ie, "I believe I should have more power"), it's non-sense.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue May 07, 2013 11:30 pm

Pentagon Plans for the Worst in Syria
The Pentagon is stepping up plans to deal with a dangerous regional spillover from Syria's possible collapse, drawing up proposals including a Jordanian buffer zone for refugees secured by Arab troops.


By Adam Entous, Julian E. Barnes

Israeli soldiers held exercises in the Golan Heights near Syria on Tuesday. Associated Press
WASHINGTON—The Pentagon is stepping up plans to deal with a dangerous regional spillover from Syria’s possible collapse—a scenario it had recently seen as remote—drawing up proposals including a Jordanian buffer zone for refugees secured by Arab troops, said U.S. officials familiar with the discussion. The plans seek to minimize direct U.S. involvement, but they reflect [...]


Syria cut off from global Internet
global Internet companies say that Syria has been disconnected from "Internet communication with the rest of the world."
Internet connections between Syria and the outside world have been cut off, according to data from Google Inc and other global Internet companies.

Tuesday's shutdown effectively "disconnects Syria from Internet communication with the rest of the world,” according to companies that monitor online traffic around the world.

Google's Transparency Report pages showed traffic to Google services pages from the country, embroiled in a civil war that has lasted more than two years, suddenly stopping shortly before 1900 GMT. Google traffic reports continued to show no activity there about four hours after the drop-off.

"We've seen this twice before," said Christine Chen, Google's senior manager for free expression. "This happened in Syria last November and in Egypt during the Arab Spring."

Cause undetermined

It is virtually impossible to definitely determine the cause of such disruptions unless a party claims responsibility, experts said.

Jim Cowie, chief technology officer at Renesys, a US company that tracks global Internet traffic, said the outage looked similar to the one seen last November.

"We don't see any effects in neighbouring countries, and we don't see anything to suggest that the outage was caused by damage to one or another of the several cables that connect Syria with the outside world," he said.

The vast majority of websites within Syria were rendered unreachable as well, other experts said, as the county appeared to shut itself off.

As during Arab Spring disruptions, Google said its Speak2Tweet service, which broadcasts voice messages, was up and running in Syria for people with access to a phone.

Syrian authorities have cut phone and Internet service in select areas in the past to disrupt rebel communication when regime forces are conducting major operations.


Russians, U.S. agree to Syria talks, but anti-Assad opposition may refuse to participate
May 7
BY JONATHAN S. LANDAY AND HANNAH ALLAM
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The United States and Russia agreed Tuesday to try to convene an international conference on ending Syria’s brutal civil war – possibly by the end of May – but the effort appeared to run into trouble within hours of its announcement with the key U.S.-backed opposition group reiterating that it won’t attend talks involving top Assad regime officials.

Russians, U.S. agree to Syria talks, but anti-Assad opposition may refuse to participate

The bid to revive a long-stalled peace plan, unveiled in Moscow by Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, reflected both sides’ fears that worsening bloodshed, living conditions and waves of refugees are driving Syria to disintegration and threatening to plunge the region into sectarian mayhem.

“The alternative (to peace talks) is that there is even more violence,” Kerry told reporters after his five-hour meeting with Lavrov. “The alternative is that Syria heads closer to the abyss, if not over the abyss and into chaos.”

"The alternative is that the humanitarian crisis will grow,” he added. “The alternative is that there may be even a break up of Syria."

The pair met as the U.N. humanitarian agency said that the number of internally displaced people inside Syria had more than doubled to 4.25 million over the past two months, and two days after Israel stepped up its involvement with airstrikes on military targets in Damascus. Tensions also have soared over unproven allegations that chemical weapons have been used.

Kerry and Lavrov said they’d push President Bashar Assad’s regime and opposition leaders to attend an international peace conference that would seek to revive a June 2012 plan, known as the Geneva Communique, calling for the formation of a transitional government that included representatives of the warring sides.

“We undertake an obligation to use the possibilities that the U.S. and Russia have to bring both the Syrian government and the opposition to the negotiating table,” Lavrov said.

The Geneva Communique “should be the roadmap, the implemented manner by which the people of Syria could find their way to the new Syria, and by which the bloodshed, the killing, the massacres can end,” said Kerry. “The communique’s language specifically says that the government of Syria and the opposition have to put together, by mutual consent, the parties that will then become the transitional government itself.”

The top U.S. and Russian diplomats reached the agreement despite serious differences between the countries over the two-year civil war that U.N. estimates say has claimed more than 70,000 lives and driven millions into Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey.

Russia is Assad’s main foreign political and military supporter. The United States has been struggling to build a viable political opposition out of an amalgam of ideologically disparate sectarian actors even as Islamist groups allied with al Qaida have emerged as the most effective rebel force. The Obama administration is providing non-lethal aid to rebel groups while backing arms supplies to the insurgents from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.

The conference will be held “as soon as practical, possibly, hopefully, by the end of this month,” said Kerry, who met with Russian President Vladimir Putin before his talks with Lavrov

Kerry said that Assad’s role was left undecided “even though it’s impossible for me as an individual to understand how Syria could possibly be governed in the future by the man who has committed the things that we know have taken place.”

It was unclear whether that statement reflected a change in the Obama administration’s view, however. In Washington, President Barack Obama reiterated that Assad would have to step down before a meaningful peace process could begin.

The United States has “a moral obligation and a national security interest” to ensure “that we’ve got a stable Syria that is representative of all the Syrian people, and is not creating chaos for its neighbors. And that’s why for the last two years we have been active in trying to ensure that Bashar Assad exits the stage, and that we can begin a political transition process,” said Obama.

The administration, as well as the Syrian opposition and its other foreign supporters, has demanded that Assad leave power. Russia has said that there should be no preconditions to peace talks, but Lavrov indicated that Moscow won’t insist that Assad be part of a transitional government.

“I would like to emphasize that we do not, we are not interested in the fate of certain persons. We are interested in the fate of the total Syrian people,” he said in a formulation that Russia officials have used for months.

It remained highly uncertain that a conference will be held between the regime, which is dominated by Assad’s minority Alawites, a Shiite Muslim sect, and opposition groups that overwhelmingly comprise Syria’s long-oppressed majority Sunni Muslims and include hundreds of foreign jihadist fighters allied with al Qaida.

There is virtually no chance that the Islamist groups will participate.

Najib Ghadbian, the political representative to Washington of the U.S.-backed Syrian Opposition Coalition, told McClatchy that while his group awaits details of the new proposal, it remained opposed to talks with Assad or members of his inner circle.

“It seems like there’s nothing really new. We stand by our guidelines of any political settlement and that is: Assad and those with blood on their hands cannot be included,” Ghadbian said.

“The problem with Geneva from the beginning was the Russian understanding,” he said, referring to Moscow’s stance that Assad’s ouster wasn’t a pre-condition for negotiations.

“We want the Russians involved, but with that understanding. It would be totally unacceptable to have someone involved who’s killed 90,000 people and displaced 5 million,” he said, citing a U.S. estimate of the death toll.

Joshua Landis, director of Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, said that with Assad firmly in control of his forces and the war stalemated, he will insist on participating in any peace talks and “won’t want to talk to these people (rebel groups) he calls terrorists.”

“Assad feels he’s still in the driver’s seat and to a certain extent he is, even though he’s been attacked by the Israelis and lost half of his country,” said Landis. “His biggest trump card is that the West doesn’t like the opposition they have.”
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby justdrew » Thu May 16, 2013 1:39 am

well, I'm going to make a prediction on this one:

Assad is going nowhere, he's going to weather the storm.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 185 guests