The Syria Thread 2011 - Present

[norton ash]

G'head, g'head. See if we close the Strait of Hormuz. Yeah, I thought so.
-- Iran

[seemslikeadream]

Syria crisis: France is no longer shoulder-to-shoulder with US

‘Cheese-eating surrender monkeys’ again risk American wrath as François Hollande steps back from air strikes
John Lichfield Author Biography

Thursday 29 August 2013

Beyond reasonable doubt? Evidence on Syrian chemical atrocity fails to convince


François Hollande – who has to date found himself in the unusual position for a French president of being the staunchest backer of proposed American military action – appeared today to back away from immediate air strikes against Syria by talking of the importance of a “political solution” to the crisis.

After a meeting at the Elysée Palace with Ahmad al-Jarba, the leader of the Western-backed opposition group Syrian National Coalition, Mr Hollande also warned that peace would be impossible if the international community failed to “put an end” to “the escalation of violence” such as last week’s alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians in a Damascus suburb.

Overall, however, Mr Hollande’s remarks were more cautious than his previous statement on Tuesday when he said that France was “ready to punish those who took the iniquitous decision to gas innocent people”. It appears that the President has been obliged to touch the brake to stay in line with hesitations in the United States and with the parliamentary procedure started in the UK.

“Everything must be done to find a political solution but it will not arrive unless the Coalition is capable of acting as an alternative (government),” he said. “We will not get there unless the international community puts an end to this escalation of violence of which this chemical massacre is only one example.”



His remarks appeared to disappoint Mr Jarba, who called for “a punitive strike against the regime”.

France, like Britain, is said to have told the United States that it is ready to play an auxiliary role in any missiles or air strikes against Syria. French officials said that Mr Hollande is personally convinced that the gas attack near Damascus was carried out by the Assad regime.

The French defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said today that the armed forces were ready to “respond to the requests and the decisions of the President once he reaches that point”. A French anti-aircraft frigate moved into the eastern Mediterranean in recent days.

President Hollande has the power to engage French forces without parliamentary approval so long as the action does not last longer than four months. Timing is, however, critical. Diplomats suggest that Mr Hollande would be reluctant to act with the US alone. Any western intervention may, therefore, have to wait until the British parliamentary procedure is completed.

French public opinion is heavily weighted against any military action in Syria – even one approved by the United Nations Security Council. Almost all senior political figures on the left and the right have approved Mr Hollande’s hints that France is ready to act with the US and the UK. The only exception is the former centre-right Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, who led France’s opposition to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The French position is markedly different to that of 10 years ago when the government of President Jacques Chirac was derided by certain figures for its opposition to the Iraq invasion. The then US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused France of representing “old Europe” and certain elements of the American press dismissed French officials as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys”.

According to an IFOP poll, 59 per cent of French voters oppose French involvement in an air-strike in Syria. The poll found that UN action would be supported by 55 per cent of French people – so long as the French military does not take part.

[seemslikeadream]

U.S. deploys fifth warship near Syria


The Pentagon is moving the Stout, a guided-missile destroyer, to the eastern Mediterranean Sea. (Gary A. Prill / U.S. Navy/ AFP/Getty Images / March 2, 2011)

By David S. Cloud
August 29, 2013, 12:25 p.m.

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon is moving a fifth warship armed with cruise missiles to the eastern Mediterranean Sea, giving the U.S. more firepower for a possible attack on Syria in response to alleged use of chemical weapons, a defense official said.

The guided-missile destroyer Stout is expected to arrive in the area Thursday, joining four other missile-carrying U.S. destroyers within range of Syria.

Each can carry up to 90 cruise missiles, though experts say they are likely carrying about half that number. Cruise missiles have a range of nearly 1,000 miles, allowing the vessels carrying them to stay well out of range of Syria's anti-ship missiles, even when they launch the missiles.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the United States would not act alone in any attack on Syria.

“We continue to consult with our allies,” Hagel said at a news conference in Brunei after a meeting of regional defense chiefs in Indonesia. “And as I think has been made very clear by President Obama -- and I have said it on a number of occasions -- if any action would be taken against Syria, it would be an international collaboration.”

Obama administration officials are scheduled to brief lawmakers late Thursday on the intelligence that U.S. officials say indicates Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government used chemical weapons in an Aug. 21 attack that is believed to have killed hundreds of people in rebel strongholds on the outskirts of Damascus.

The Obama administration has been moving toward a strike against Syria in response to the alleged attack, but when such a response might occur remains unclear.

The Syrian government denies using chemical weapons in the war and has pointed the finger at rebels, who have been engaged in a civil war with regime forces since early 2011.

United Nations chemical weapons experts now in Syria to investigate the alleged attack are expected to leave by Saturday and report to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the Security Council on Sunday or Monday.

[seemslikeadream]

Syria, Iran threaten retaliation; Russia sends warships

Host Carly Mallenbaum talks with USA TODAY World Editor William Dermody about the crisis in Syria.
Oren Dorell, USA TODAY 4:40 p.m. EDT August 29, 2013


Syrian allies Iran and Russia are working together to prevent a Western military attack on Syria, the Iranian president said, as Russia said it is sending warships to the Mediterranean, where U.S. ships are already in position.

Despite the tough words, however, analysts say Syria's allies options against the United States are limited.

"The Russians can help Syria politically and diplomatically in the United Nations, and provide supplies, but they're not nearly as capable as they were at the end of the Cold War," said Chris Harmer, an analyst at the Institute for the Study of War who worked on military plans for the Persian Gulf as a commander in the Navy.

Both Iran and Russia would work in "extensive cooperation" to prevent any military action against Syria, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in statements carried by several Iranian state-controlled media outlets. Western military action against Syria would be an "open violation" of international laws, he said.

"Military action will bring great costs for the region," Rouhani said, and "it is necessary to apply all efforts to prevent it."

Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, chief of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards, told the Tasnim news website, that an attack on Syria "means the immediate destruction of Israel."
Mohammad_Ali_Jafari

Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, on Sept. 3, 2007.(Photo: Mehdi Chasemi, AP)

The statements came as Russia asked for an urgent meeting on Syria at the United Nations Security Council, the Associated Press reported, citing a U.N. diplomat.

Russian state-owned media reported Thursday that two Russian warships were sailing for the eastern Mediterranean Sea to protect Russian interests as tensions escalate in the region.

The ships, a missile cruiser and a large anti-submarine vessel, are traveling from the North Atlantic and will arrive in a number of days, Reuters reported.

Harmer said the ships may resupply Assad's forces or evacuate more Russian citizens or Russian materiel from its navy base at the Syrian port of Tartous.

But as far as taking on U.S. Navy, "they're not built for that," Harmer said.

Iran and Syria have threatened to retaliate against Israel and other U.S. allies in the Middle East in the event of a U.S. attack on Syria. Both countries have rockets that can reach Israel and U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its proxy, the Lebanese Shiite terror group, Hezbollah, have world-wide network it can use to target countries that support the military strike.

Story: Syria Iran threats not empty words

Hundreds of Syrians were killed Aug. 21 in an attack that the Syrian opposition and the White House attribute to chemical weapons.

U.S. intelligence reports support "two facts," State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters Thursday: "First that chemical weapons were used August 21 in Syria, and that the Assad regime is responsible for that use."

President Obama said Thursday he has not made a decision on whether to launch what he called "a shot across the bow" that would send a message to Syria it "better not do it again."

Iran's reaction would depend on the scale of any U.S. attack, and it may not react at all, says Karim Sadjapour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who has has high-level contacts in the Iranian regime.

"Iran talks about Syria in the same way the U.S. talks about Israel, (as) an indispensable regional ally whose national security is sacrosanct," Sadjapour said. But "it's unclear whether Tehran would see it in their interests to go to war. Especially if a U.S. military attack is intended only to bruise, not end, the Assad regime."
Syrian women, who live in Beirut, hold candles and placards during a vigil against the alleged chemical weapons attack on the suburbs of Damascus, in front of the United Nations headquarters in Beirut.
Syrian women, who live in Beirut, hold candles and placards during a vigil against the alleged chemical weapons attack on the suburbs of Damascus, in front of the United Nations headquarters in Beirut. Hussein Malla, AP
Fullscreen

Syrian women, who live in Beirut, hold candles and placards during a vigil against the alleged chemical weapons attack on the suburbs of Damascus, in front of the United Nations headquarters in Beirut.
Syrians try to identify the dead Wednesday near Damascus in an image provided to the Associated Press, which authenticated the image independently. A toxic gas attack was blamed for killing at least 100 people, including many children as they slept.
A Syrian girl gets treated at a makeshift hospital in Arbeen town, Damascus, in an image provided to the Associated Press, which authenticated the image independently.
A Syrian man and woman mourn after an alleged poisonous gas attack by regime forces in Damascus, in an image given to the Associated Press, which authenticated it independently.
A Syrian soldier holds his AK-47 with a sticker of Syrian President Bashar Assad that reads "Syria is fine," as he stands guard at a checkpoint in Damascus.
A Syrian soldier searches the trunk of a car at a checkpoint in Damascus.

Next Slide

Iran has provided Syrian President Bashar al-Assad billions of dollars to prosecute his civil war, which the United Nations says has killed more than 100,000 Syrians so far, Sadjapour said.

Iran has also sent militia members and its Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps to fight alongside and in command of Syrian government troops, according to Phillip Smyth, who documents Shiite militias fighting in Syria on the Jihadology web site. Smyth says dozens of active or allegedly-retired members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have been killed in the Syrian fighting.

But Iranian threats to help Syria against the USA is a bluff, Harmer said.

"The Iranians aren't going to do anything here," Harmer said.

While Iran may want to retaliate, it usually does so through Hezbollah, which "is task saturated between helping Assad stay in power, and protecting Shia neighborhoods in Beirut from retaliatory car bombs," Harmer said. "I don't think Iran can run the risk of retaliating on their own."

The last time Hezbollah launched a barrage of rockets against Israel, in 2006, it suffered a withering counter attack and ground invasion that left its rocket stores decimated, its villages in southern Lebanon badly damaged and its infrastructure in Beirut in shambles.

And the last Last time Iran faced the USA was in the 1980s during the "Tanker War" in the Persial Gulf, when Iran and Iraq, at war with each other, targeted ships serving the other country.

Iran attacked U.S. flagged tankers and suffered extensive damage to several Iranian patrol boats and other military ships without inflicting any damage on the U.S. military vessels, Harmer said.

"The Iranians have experience with the United States. It hasn't gone well for them," he said. "They are not going to do so in reaction to a U.S. strike on Syria."

[solace]

The UK is out

UK Prime Minister Cameron loses Syria war vote

LONDON (AP) -- British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes Thursday, a stunning defeat for a government which had been poised to join the U.S. in strikes to punish Bashar Assad's regime for an alleged chemical weapons attack this month.

Cameron's nonbinding motion was defeated 285-272 and he conceded after the vote that "the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action."

The prime minister said in terse comments while he believes in a "tough response" to the use of chemical weapons, he would respect the will of the House of Commons....

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ ... 9-17-43-07

[seemslikeadream]

U.S. Is Prepared to Act in Syria Without Coalition
Officials Say Options Under Consideration in Syria are Smaller in Scale

By
CAROL E. LEE


WASHINGTON—The Obama administration laid the groundwork for unilateral military action in Syria, a shift officials said reflected the U.K.'s abrupt decision not to participate and concerns that President Bashar al-Assad was using the delayed Western response to disperse his military assets around the country.

The push for a quick international strike to punish Syria appeared in disarray on Thursday, after British lawmakers defeated a government motion in support of military action rejected. The vote in the House of Commons was 285-272.

Officials said Mr. Obama is prepared to act in coming days without Britain, noting that unlike U.S. involvement in the 2011 military operation in Libya, the options under consideration in Syria are smaller scale and would not require a coalition to be effective.

"Here, what's being contemplated is of such a limited and narrow nature that it's not as if there's a similar imperative for bringing in different capabilities from different countries," a senior administration official said. "We believe it's important that there be diplomatic support from key allies, and we think we're getting that."

After a week of U.S. saber rattling that raised expectations about an imminent attack on Syria by a U.S.-led coalition, the White House still had yet to release details about the intelligence, but said it conclusively shows the Assad regime was behind last week's alleged widespread use of chemical weapons.


U.S. intelligence agencies believe the main poison used was likely sarin and now estimate the death toll at between 500 to 1,000 people, according to a senior U.S. official.

As support sagged abroad, the White House scrambled Thursday to shore up support at home by meeting with lawmakers and by providing them with some of the findings of the intelligence agencies. But neither Mr. Obama nor his aides have made a public case to support their claims about Mr. Assad's role in the attack despite repeated promises to do so.

One member of the House intelligence committee who has been briefed on the intelligence, said that the administration still hasn't provided iron-clad evidence connecting the attack to the Assad regime.

"The evidence is substantial but I'm still very interested in the clinical work that is being done by the United Nations," said Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.). "I would want to know what the answers are to the clinical piece before I would be ready to say that it's confirmed."

Also on Thursday, U.S. President Barack Obama spoke with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who said the consequences of the chemical-weapons attack in Syria should be addressed by the United Nations Security Council, signaling Germany's hesitation about endorsing a quick military response.

Russia, a supporter of the Assad regime, called a meeting of the permanent members of the Security Council to discuss Syria on Thursday afternoon in New York.

But the meeting, with no sign of progress on an agreement, started breaking up after less than an hour, with the ambassadors of China, France, Britain, Russia and the U.S. steadily walking out, the Associated Press reported.

An earlier council meeting on Syria on Wednesday resulted in disagreement on a British draft resolution that would authorize "all necessary measures" to prevent Syria from carrying out further chemical attacks.

Ms. Merkel and Mr. Obama agreed in the phone call that the Aug. 21 attack represented a "grave violation of international law," the German chancellor's spokesman said.

"Chancellor Merkel and President Obama agreed to continue to coordinate with each other about a possible international reaction to this crime," the statement said.

Earlier Thursday, the chancellery said Ms. Merkel also spoke with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. The two agreed that the Syrian conflict "can only be solved politically," the chancellery said.

[8bitagent]

Coalition of the....uno? No wait, Saudi Arabia and Israel stand behind Ameriduh.

[KeenInsight]

Amen to BPH.

Even in the Reagan administration, the targets were the same: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria.

The sad part is many Americans still think stuff like this is just "entertainment" and "oh, that's just conspiracy stuff." Even the movie Good Will Hunting predicted and WARNED the public about all this NSA shit.

When its fucking real.

Its a collision of think-tanks that are purposely making these things happen and they are fooling politicians - they are controlling the narrative in the background. And what does it all come down to? The need for more money and the need for more resources, they are like the equivalent of a crack cocaine addict that needs their next fix.

And when you combine so many different apparatus that nobody knows who the hell is doing what, its a system ripe for corruption.

When you have CIA Directors saying shit like this,



Then there is no turning back.

And when you have Generals telling people on the record like this:



If you were to go up to some unassuming person like many of those, "Are Americans Dumb - Duuuur" surprise street videos and asked:

"Did you know it is now admitted historical fact that the reason for the U.S. to go to war in Vietnam, Gulf War 1, and Gulf War 2, were based on pre-meditated lies?"

Or "Did you know that the reason for the second Iraq War was because a man claimed to U.S. intelligence services Saddam had WMD's - a lie that cost the lives of 100,000+ Iraqi lives?"



You might get three respones,

"No, really? Wow I didn't know that..."
"Yeah, but it won't happen again - just some flukes..."
"Yup, its how it always starts..."

The majority being the first two responses, but these days more people are moving to options 2 and 3 with the advent of social media and alternative media gaining ground.

While the politicians bumble on like an angry Roman Senate - where they actually collude and come to the same conclusions and have no real differences.

General Wesley Clark in a 2007 speech in California discussed a 1991 conversation between himself and then Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz indicated that America had 5-10 years to clean up old Soviet “client regimes,” namely Syria, Libya, Iran, and Iraq, before the next super power rose up to challenge Western hegemony. Also in 2007, it was revealed by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker piece titled, “The Redirection,” that the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia were conspiring to arm and fund Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda-linked terrorists to create a regional sectarian bloodbath designed to subsequently overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran in a proxy war.

[smiths]

if Syria doesnyt get attacked, and Cameron and Obama come out of it all neutered and humiliated, there's 1 person who deserves a lot of the credit ...
Edward Snowden
because if the UK MPs had taken that vote in May it would have gone the other way

[Panic Weather]

here, take a look at the ravings of an incompetent megalomaniac war criminal...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/28/rumsfeld-obama-hasnt-justified-syria-attack/

What explains Rumsfeld (Team Bush) not supporting Bandar Bush, who is at the heart of the rebel support?

Is it possible that this is a larger black op than people are alert for?

With a long history of provoking reactionary responses from their opposition, from playing dumb & using mentally-challenged frontmen to reinforce the image that "they're too dumb to pull it off", to demoralizing the opposition with taunts of "yeah, we did it, what are you gonna do about it?" (regarding torture and even 9/11), the mechanics and psychometrics of reaction and reactionary psychology are very much on the minds of Karl Rove & pals.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 85049.html

It was Prince Bandar Bush’s intel­li­gence agency that first alerted West­ern allies to the alleged use of sarin gas by the Syr­ian regime in February. . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riggs_Bank

. . . A Saudi named Omar al-Bayoumi housed and opened bank accounts for two of the 9/11 hijack­ers. About two weeks after the assis­tance began, al-Bayoumi’s wife began receiv­ing monthly pay­ments total­ing tens of thou­sands of dol­lars from Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the wife of Saudi ambas­sador and Bush fam­ily con­fi­dant, Prince Ban­dar bin Sul­tan, through a Riggs bank account. [1] (Jonathan Bush, uncle of Pres­i­dent George W. Bush, was an exec­u­tive at Riggs Bank dur­ing this period.) . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan

Bandar advo­cated Sad­dam Hussein’s over­throw in Iraq in March 2003.[12] He encour­aged mil­i­tary action against Iraq and sup­ported Dick Cheney’s agenda for “The New Mid­dle East”, which called for pro-democracy pro­grams in both Syria and Iran. . . .

Let's pause and not be manipulated by Rumsfeld's moment of choosing to break his long silence. Certainly there's more significant purpose here than meets the eye.

[coffin_dodger]

A question they must now be pondering (as if they haven't already) is - how can we change the public mood in the UK to support the destruction of Syria and the ongoing dismantling of any uncompliant parts of the Arab world?

This vote has given them a good fix on the general mood of the UK - and it could be argued that it gives it a clearer picture for how they should move forward. 'Standard' false flags have gotten a bit old-fashioned and too open to scrutiny in the digital age. Maybe something subtle and as yet unseen in practice - a new tactic - or maybe something so terrifying that most everyone will know someone who is affected. Or perhaps as simple as the US going it alone and when retaliated against, 'the UK must stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our Americam cousins in their hour of need' card will be played. Whatever happens, I can't see the UK establishment not blowing some shit up - it's just too tempting whilst this febrile atmosphere prevails.

[smiths]

whats brilliant about this article is not the fact that he states that an attack would be outside the law, or that everyone knew America was lying going into Iraq, or that the rebels have the most to gain from a chemical attack, or even that America is a rogue nation ...

its that the former Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, is saying it all


Would any US attack on Syria have any standing in international law?

An attack by the United States alone? Not at all. War is outlawed absolutely except for self-defence or except [in the case of] sanctions of the Security Council.
Now if every country is going to interpret, well say, “I have a right to go to war, why should America have the right to go to war, not Vietnam, not China, not somebody else?”, then the only way you can stop total chaos is by having pretty rigid rules. Now, the British parliament has voted (285 to 272) against going to war.
It’s a major slap in the face for David Cameron who’s been like a child with a new toy in promoting the benefit of a response. The trouble is, people aren’t always fools and politicians who try to take them to be fools, at some point, get caught out.

]What does the Commons vote tell us about world opinion on attacking Syria?

I think it reminds us of Iraq. At the time of Iraq, there were many people who believed – no, not believed, who knew – that Britain and America were lying and that the Australian government was lying. Whether the Australian government bothered to find out for itself, or whether it was blindingly following America, I suppose you’d have to ask the government of the day, but there was enough evidence around to know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and Syria so far bears a horrible resemblance.
They’re saying that Syria had used these chemical weapons. But in every statement I’ve seen from the White House and indeed from British intelligence, qualifications like this were used – “it’s highly likely; it’s probable that” – in other words, even those sources have not ruled out the possibility that somebody else used the chemical weapons and sought to blame the Syrian government for it.

UN representative Carla Del Ponte said earlier in the year there was evidence the rebels had used chemical weapons on Assad’s forces.

That does not surprise me at all because if you look at the straight, common-sense logic or interpretation, whose interests is this in?
Assad, presumably, is not totally stupid and he would know that in the current environment, where many people are against him anyway, that if he uses weapons of mass destruction against civilians – and nobody disputes that chemical weapons have been used, that part of it is not a dispute, or to me it should not be – he would know that that would give people like Cameron impetus. I think Obama has always been reticent, he’s always had some doubts, but there are people in America who’ve be putting enormous pressure on Obama, and hitherto he has been holding back. But that reticence certainly doesn’t apply to everyone in America or other people who have wanted action taken a long time ago.
Assad would know that if he uses chemical weapons, that gives those who want a war the perfect opportunity to have a massive attack against him, and that is a massive advantage to the rebels.
The rebels on the other hand know that if they can somehow use chemical weapons and blame the government of Assad, then that’s going to be of enormous advantage to them. So the common sense interpretation of the use of chemical weapons, there is an interest in the rebels using them, if they can do it and blame Assad and there’s also an equivalent interest in Assad not using the weapons.
And that – coupled with the fact that the inspections team has not been allowed to finish its job, coupled with the fact that many will remember the lies in relation to Iraq – has created a great deal of doubt in many people’s minds.

Australia takes the Security Council presidency on Monday. What role should we be playing, as literally the missiles are ready to be fired?

We should play a role since we are chairman or president or custodian of the rules and laws of the Security Council. I happen to believe – I would like to think wrongly – that we will do what America asks us to do. We have not had an independent mind on serious foreign policy issues and it’s time we stopped being America’s lackey.

Given the House of Commons vote in the United Kingdom – and the UK has traditionally acted, as it did in Iraq and Libya, as the fig leaf for United States – if the US goes it alone, will they be acting as a rogue nation?

Well they’re certainly acting outside the law. You would do well in The Conversation to publish or provide a link to an article by Morton Abramowitz called How America’s Exceptionalism Dooms US Foreign Policy. He was one of the founders of the International Crisis Group.
America believes the rules established for ordinary mortals do not have to be followed by America because America is exceptional. These views have become all the more prevalent since 1990. For the first time we have an America virtually without restraint because even though America was the most powerful single nation, they treaded gently if they were touching the others’ basic interests. They avoided conflict and avoided undue provocation.
You know, people were talking about mutually assured destruction, but there was some kind of mutual restraint which each imposed on the other. Since 1990, America reigned supreme and has none of that restraint.
That makes America a quite different country to one that existed before and you’ve got a combination of the ideas of American exceptionalism, which have gained much more strength that they’ve ever had in America, although they’ve been there from the birth of the nation. There have been many presidents who’ve claimed they’ve had a direct line to God. We in Australia may think that’s improbable, but McKinley, when he was announcing America engaging in war to capture the Philippines, he was saying before going into the Philippines that God told him to take the Philippines.
Well you know that might sound ludicrous, but it’s actually what happened and now we have an America where the idea of the manifest destiny, America’s duty to persuade, if not force the rest of the world to be in America’s image, that’s not operating under any sense of restraint.

http://theconversation.com/malcolm-fras ... egal-17681

[slimmouse]

A question they must now be pondering (as if they haven't already) is - how can we change the public mood in the UK to support the destruction of Syria and the ongoing dismantling of any uncompliant parts of the Arab world?

This vote has given them a good fix on the general mood of the UK - and it could be argued that it gives it a clearer picture for how they should move forward. 'Standard' false flags have gotten a bit old-fashioned and too open to scrutiny in the digital age. Maybe something subtle and as yet unseen in practice - a new tactic - or maybe something so terrifying that most everyone will know someone who is affected. Or perhaps as simple as the US going it alone and when retaliated against, 'the UK must stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our Americam cousins in their hour of need' card will be played. Whatever happens, I can't see the UK establishment not blowing some shit up - it's just too tempting whilst this febrile atmosphere prevails.

Im very thrilled at the news personally. What I would be looking at if possible, is to ratchet up the pressure on those MPS who voted with the Govnt on this bill, since I have no doubt that they are not representing the views of their constituents on this issue.

With regards to alternatives to false flags, I honestly dont think they have anything else in the locker. Its either that or more fuck off lies. How else can those who fundamentally support a morally bankrupt system proceed?

The trouble is, that it now appears that its not just a few people who are onto them.

[coffin_dodger]

Syria crisis: Incendiary bomb victims 'like the walking dead'

29 August 2013 Last updated at 22:43 BST

A BBC team inside Syria filming for Panorama has witnessed the aftermath of a fresh horrific incident - an incendiary bomb dropped on to a school playground in the north of the country - which has left scores of children with napalm-like burns over their bodies.

Eyewitnesses describe a fighter jet dropping the device, a low explosion, followed by columns of fire and smoke.

Ian Pannell and cameraman Darren Conway's report contains images viewers may find extremely distressing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

I find it telling that the BBC could not find a single victim willing to proclaim 'Assad dun it' - a soundbite they would have been extremely keen to find and promote. In fact, no mention whatsoever of 'whodunnit'.

[JackRiddler]

Coalition of the....uno? No wait, Saudi Arabia and Israel stand behind Ameriduh.

Yes, they stand behind and will assist. Long as they won't have to say so officially. Oops.

Kuwait & Qatar & possibly Turkey.