The Syria Thread 2011 - Present

[coffin_dodger]

The West Dethroned
Paul Craig Roberts 7th Sept 2013

“The European race’s last three hundred years of evolutionary progress have all come down to nothing but four words: selfishness, slaughter, shamelessness and corruption." Yan Fu

It only took the rest of the world 300 years to catch on to the evil that masquerades as “western civilization,” or perhaps it only took the rise of new powers with the confidence to state the obvious. Anyone doubtful of America’s responsibility for the evil needs to read The Untold History of the United States by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick.

The “New American Century” proclaimed by the neoconservatives came to an abrupt end on September 6 at the G20 meeting in Russia. The leaders of most of the world’s peoples told Obama that they do not believe him and that it is a violation of international law if the US government attacks Syria without UN authorization.

Putin told the assembled world leaders that the chemical weapons attack was “a provocation on behalf of the armed insurgents in hope of the help from the outside, from the countries which supported them from day one.” In other words, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Washington--the axis of evil.

China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, and Argentina joined Putin in affirming that a leader who commits military aggression without the approval of the UN Security Council puts himself “outside of law.”

In other words, if you defy the world, obama, you are a war criminal.

The entire world is waiting to see if the Israel Lobby can push obama into the role of war criminal. Many are betting that Israel will prevail over the weak american president, a cipher devoid of all principle. A couple of decades ago before the advent of the american sheeple, one of the last tough Americans, Admiral Tom Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly declared that “no US president can stand up to Israel.” America’s highest ranking military officer could not get an honest investigation of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty.

We are yet to see an american president who can stand up to Israel. Or, for that matter, a Congress that can. Or a media.

The obama regime tried to counter its smashing defeat at the G20 Summit by forcing its puppet states to sign a joint statement condemning Syria. However the puppet states qualified their position by stating that they opposed military action and awaited the UN report.

Most of obama’s bought-and-paid-for “supporters” are impotent, powerless. For example obama counts the UK as a supporting country because of the personal support of the discredited UK prime minister, david cameron, despite the fact that cameron was repudiated by the British Parliament in a vote that prohibits British participation in another of Washington’s war crimes. So, although cameron cannot bring the British people and the British government with him, obama counts the UK as a supporter of obama’s attack on Syria. Clearly, this is a desperate count of “supporting countries.”

The Turkish puppet government, which has been shooting its peacefully demonstrating citizens down in the streets, with no protest from obama or the Israel Lobby, supports “holding Syria accountable,” but not itself, of course, or Washington.

The puppet states of Canada and Australia, powerless countries, neither of which carry one ounce of world influence, have lined up to do the bidding of their Washington master. The entire point of having the top government job in Canada and Australia is the payoff from Washington.

The obama cipher also claims the support of Japan and the Republic of Korea, another two countries devoid of all diplomatic influence and power of any kind. Helpless Japan is on the verge of being destroyed by the Fukushima nuclear disaster, for which it has no solution. As the radiation leaks spread into the aquifer upon which Tokyo and surrounding areas rely, Japan is faced with the possibility of having to relocate 40 million people.

Saudi Arabia, implicated in the transfer to al-Nusra rebels of the chemical weapons used in the attack, supports Washington, knowing that otherwise its tyranny is toast. Even the neoconservatives headed by obama’s shrill National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, want to overthrow the Saudis.

Obama claims also to have support from France and Germany. However both Hollande and Merkel have stated clearly that a diplomatic solution, not war, is their first choice and that the outcome rests on the UN.

As for Italy and Spain’s support, both governments are hoping to be rewarded with the Federal Reserve printing enough dollars to bail out their indebted economies so that both governments are not overthrown in the streets for their acquiescence to the looting of their countries by international banksters. Like so many Western governments, those of Italy and Spain, and, of course, Greece, support the international banksters, not their own citizens.

The president of the European Commission has declared that the European Union, the central overlord over Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, does not support a military solution to the Syrian Crisis. “The European Union is certain that the efforts should be aimed at a political settlement,” Jose Manuel Barroso told reporters at the G20 meeting. The EU has the power to issue arrest warrants for the heads of EU governments that participate in war crimes.

What this reveals is that the support behind the liar obama is feeble and limited. The ability of the Western countries to dominate international politics came to an end at the G20 meeting. The moral authority of the West is completely gone, shattered and eroded by countless lies and shameless acts of aggression based on nothing but lies and self-interests. Nothing remains of the West’s “moral authority,” which was never anything but a cover for self-interest, murder, and genocide.

The West has been destroyed by its own governments, who have told too many self-serving lies, and by its capitalist corporations, who offshored the West’s jobs and technology to China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil, depriving the Western governments of a tax base and the support of its citizens.

It is difficult to know whether citizens in the West hate their corrupt governments any less than do Muslims, whose lives and countries have been devastated by Western aggression, or than do citizens of third world countries who have been impoverished by being looted by predatory First World financial organizations.

The idiot Western governments have pissed away their clout. There is no prospect whatsoever of the neoconservative fantasy of US hegemony being exercised over Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, South America, Iran. These countries can establish their own system of international payments and finance and leave the dollar standard whenever they wish. One wonders why they wait. The US dollar is being printed in unbelievable quantities and is no longer qualified to be the world reserve currency. The US dollar is on the verge of total worthlessness.

The G20 Summit made it clear that the world is no longer willing to go along with the West’s lies and murderous ways. The world has caught on to the West. Every country now understands that the bailouts offered by the West are merely mechanisms for looting the bailed-out countries and impoverishing the people.

In the 21st century Washington has treated its own citizens the way it treats citizens of third world countries. Untold trillions of dollars have been lavished on a handful of banks, while the banks threw millions of Americans out of their homes and seized any remaining assets of the broken families.

US corporations had their taxes cut to practically nothing, with few paying any taxes at all, while the corporations gave the jobs and careers of millions of Americans to the Chinese and Indians. With those jobs went US GDP, tax base, and economic power, leaving Americans with massive budget deficits, a debased currency, and bankrupt cities, such as Detroit, which once was the manufacturing powerhouse of the world.

How long before Washington shoots down its own homeless, hungry, and protesting citizens in the streets?

Washington represents Israel and a handful of powerful organized private interests. Washington represents no one else. Washington is a plague upon the American people and a plague upon the world.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/09 ... g-roberts/

[coffin_dodger]

Oldish story but stinky Saudi machinations revealed

Saudi Arabia Sent Death Row Inmates to Fight in Syria in Lieu of Execution
Posted GMT 1-20-2013

(AINA) -- A top secret memo sent by the Ministry of Interior in Saudi Arabia reveals the Saudi Kingdom sent death-row inmates, sentenced to execution by decapitation, to Syria to fight Jihad against the Syrian government in exchange for commuting their sentences.

According to the memo, dated April 17, 2012, the Saudi Kingdom negotiated with a total of 1239 inmates, offering them a full pardon and a monthly salary for their families, who were to remain in the Kingdom, in exchange for "...their training in order to send them to Jihad in Syria."

The memo was signed by Abdullah bin Ali al-Rmezan, the "Director of follow up in Ministry of Interior."

According to the memo, prisoners were of the following nationalities: Yemenis, Palestinians, Saudis, Sudanese, Syrians, Jordanians, Somalis, Afghanis, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Iraqis, and Kuwaitis.

more at link inc docs

http://www.aina.org/news/20130120160624.htm

[justdrew]

it's too bad P.C.R. included South America in a "list of countries" though.

[KeenInsight]

There were also the 3 major 'prison breaks' in Iraq and Libya where known Al-Qaeda people had been incarcerated, and well-planned attacks broke free more than 3,000 militants.

[coffin_dodger]

Actions Opposing US Strike Against Syria
Here’s a list of Actions around the country that are taking place this week to oppose a US strike against Syria.
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/stop-syri ... a-actions/

[8bitagent]

Funniest mainstream news article of the week: "Saudi Arabia OK with strike on Syria"
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/08/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1

buawahahahahahahahah

That's like saying "British Petroleum OK with new BP oil rig production"

[8bitagent]

There were also the 3 major 'prison breaks' in Iraq and Libya where known Al-Qaeda people had been incarcerated, and well-planned attacks broke free more than 3,000 militants.

Of course. The globalists need more riled up jihadi tin men. No need for a new Dr Brian Oblivion/Goldstein. Saudi Arabia has since the early 80s been the factory pumping these 'mujahid' out for their clients, self interests or highest bidders. Flood a country with "jihadis" and call in the west to "solve" your new "al Qaeda" problem or use them to destabilize a region as the ultimate proxy. That one al Qaeda dude who stuck explosives up his ass and tried to kill the then head of Saudi intelligence to me was indicative of true blowback or flared egos, and not indicative of an al Qaeda/Saudi rift. They know who butters their bread

[parel]

Watch Videos White House is Showing Senators to Make Case for Syria Strike


CNN got its hands on videos that the White House is apparently showing a select group of senators in classified briefings meant to build the administration’s case for a limited strike on Syria. CNN got 13 different videos that Obama administration officials have shown to the Senate Intelligence Committee that allegedly depict scenes of the aftermath of an August 21 chemical weapons attack.

The White House has told senators it has been able to confirm the authenticity of the gruesome videos that show people, including several children, convulsing. Intelligence officials apparently told senators that the “symptoms shown in the videos are not just consistent with a chemical attack but specifically with a sarin gas attack,” CNN’s Jake Tapper says.

Video at link. Don't know how to post this one and did not watch it.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... %3Acontent

[JackRiddler]

Sigh, why would I ever get into any debates on Facebook? FB posts are lost an average of 20 minutes after you make them. I can come here and find stuff we all wrote that I remember from six years ago, and most of it is worth reviewing. But here we are. A new U.S. war is about to start, and really smart people are still resorting to the same moronic blah-blah to justify it as they did a jillion years ago, and sometimes you just gotta answer the crap.

So I'll preserve a couple of my comments here. First, some guy who says he's against the MIC but doesn't see any "viable options" for what to do about Syria.

First of all, from where does this idea come from that the U.S. is supposed to choose the "viable options" for Syria? In this world, there are actually countries who have not acted as serial killers of other nations. Brazil or Japan would have about 1000 times more legitimacy to choose a "viable option" for Syria than the U.S. does. As far as I know, neither of these two countries caused two million Iraqi refugees to flood into Syria at any point in the last 10 years, like the U.S. did. What happens in Syria has got to be about as much business to people in Brazil or Japan as it is to people in the U.S. I think Japan is closer and Brazil about as far away in distance. So how come no one's asking them to provide the "viable option" for Syria?

It's time to abandon the idea that the U.S. has a special place as the one that decides what happens everywhere else. You may of course object that only the U.S. has the power to drop bombs on Syria with impunity, despite being on the other side of the world. Sorry, from my perspective: that's the biggest problem!

As it happens, the U.S. is also a country that could convene a peace conference for the region. The U.S. could end the idiotic conflict with Iran and get the Saudis and Gulf states to stop supporting jihadis into Syria. The U.S. could bring Russia, EU, Iran, Iraq and the Syrian parties to the same table. Do that, damn it.

And then there was someone, along the same lines, whose idea of an argument was to ask opponents of the war what they "are doing to help people being killed in Syria."

...to respond to your question, which is strictly an emotional appeal: What are you doing to help people being killed in the Congo? Horrible things are happening in many places in the world, but no one thinks that U.S. bombs would improve the situation.

Asking such questions does not justify military strikes by the U.S. The Syrian situation is bad, but whether or not the United States military should be striking another country is also a U.S. matter for U.S. citizens to consider.

Only self-defense would ever justify unilateral military strikes by the U.S. Syria has not attacked the U.S.

The U.S. government has been responsible for by far the biggest international crimes of recent decades. The U.S.G. has no standing in morality or law to sit in judgement over the world's lesser criminals, including Assad.

The U.S.G. showed clearly in the last two years already that it has no interest whatsoever in the Syrian people, just as it demonstrated its general attitude to the lives of Arabs long ago, for example by murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (and causing two million of them to flee as refugees to Syria!).

I don't know what I'd think of a United Nations action with buy-ins from the other nations in the region. But I have no interest in seeing the U.S. unilaterally play world policeman in a situation that could set off a wider conflict.

The U.S. should be leading the way to a peace conference, or picking up the costs of refugee camps, rather than swinging around its big powerful missiles when almost all other nations are against a U.S. strike and 90% of public opinion is against it.

Finally, watch: The authorization to use military force in Syria is going to be voted down in the House. Under the U.S. constitution, the question of an intervention becomes moot, unless the Obama administration wants to violate the constitution (in the most obvious way of many so far) and go through impeachment.

So please no bullshit. In the long run, anything that justifies and strengthens U.S. imperialism is always bad. When the primary perpetrators of the Bush regime sit as defendants on charges of committing a war of aggression, the U.S. will have taken a small first step toward rejoining the international community of civilized nations that it pretends to lead.

Until then, the best thing it could do for the Middle East and for the American people would be to get the fuck out, stop giving military support of any kind, and stop interfering in any of these countries after 70+ years of utterly disastrous interventions.

Same idea, but mercifully compact:

t's funny, no one asked me what to do about Syria before now. Why not? Why is my opinion unimportant until the time comes for the U.S. to execute yet another act of military carnage?

[JackRiddler]

Wait, I forgot to post this it seems?

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/5/de ... tack_help#

Thursday, September 5, 2013
Syrians Debate: Will U.S. Attack Help the Opposition’s Struggle Against Assad?

As debate continues in Washington and worldwide over what action to take in Syria, we’re joined by two Syrian opposition activists with different takes on whether Congress should authorize military strikes. Joining us from London, Rim Turkmani of the Syrian political opposition group Building the Syrian State Current says the United States has a "historic opportunity" to help achieve a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Syria. "If the U.S. resorts to military power to end this, that means [it’s] failed politically," Turkmani says. Radwan Ziadeh, director of the Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies and the Syrian Center Political and Strategic Studies, and former director of foreign relations at the Syrian National Council, says there are no other options to a military solution in Syria, in which U.S. involvement could prove decisive. "We don’t have other options," Ziadeh says. "Otherwise, Assad will continue his killing machine."
Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: As the debate continues in Congress and worldwide over what action to be taken in Syria, we turn now to a debate between two members of the Syrian opposition on whether the U.S. Congress should authorize military strikes. On Wednesday, House Republican Congressman Mike McCaul of Texas questioned Secretary of State Kerry about the nature of the opposition in Syria.

REP. MICHAEL McCAUL: I think what gives the Congress great pause and the American people great pause is there’s no good outcome here. They don’t see a good side versus a bad side. They see Assad as a bad actor who has used chemical weapons. There’s no question about that. But then, who is the other side? Who are the rebel forces? Who are they? I ask that in my briefings all the time, and every time I get briefed on this, it gets worse and worse, because the majority now of these rebel forces—and I say majority now—are radical Islamists pouring in from all over the world to come to Syria for the fight. And my concern is, any strike against this regime, as bad as it is, will empower these radical Islamists, these extremists.

SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: I just don’t agree that a majority are al-Qaeda and the bad guys. That’s not true. There are about 70,000 to 100,000 oppositionists. About somewhere maybe 15 to 25 percent might be in one group or another who are what we would deem to be bad guys. There are many different groups—al-Nusra, al-Sham Ahrar. There are different entities. And sometimes they’re fighting each other, even now. The general belief, there is a real moderate opposition that exists. General Idris is running the military arm of that. And our allies in this effort, our friends, from the Saudis to the Emiratis to the Qataris and others, are now, in a disciplined way, funneling assistance through General Idris and the moderate opposition, who are getting stronger as a result of it.

REP. MICHAEL McCAUL: And I get 40 seconds. But I—there are moderates there, but the briefings that I’ve received, unless I’ve gotten different ones or inaccurate briefings, is at 50 percent, and rising.

SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: Well, Mike—

REP. MICHAEL McCAUL: The freedom—these fighters coming globally are not coming in as moderates. They’re coming in as jihadists, and that’s my concern.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Texas Republican Congressmember McCaul questioning Secretary of State John Kerry at yesterday’s House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. And behind Kerry, throughout that hearing, you saw bloodied hands or red-stained hands behind him. The group CodePink had a line of people sitting silently with their hands up behind his head.

Well, right now in London we’re joined by Rim Turkmani, member of the Syrian political opposition group Building the Syrian State Current. And in Washington, D.C., we’re joined by Radwan Ziadeh, the former director of foreign relations at the Syrian National Council, director of the Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies and of the Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! And I’d like to begin with Radwan, Radwan Ziadeh in Washington. Do you support or oppose a U.S. strike on your country?

RADWAN ZIADEH: It’s not in this way. I think the question has to be reframed the way that you allow the Assad to continue the killings and to do more chemical attacks on the civilians, to allow the Assad to wage more massacres against the Syrian people, which more than 100,000 of people been killed, to pursue other options. All the options we’ve been tried with Assad—through negotiations, through political solution, through sanctions—none of—none of these actually convinced him to stop the killings machine he has started in March 2011. This is why using force as one of the options to protect the civilians became the last options we should go with it, because we don’t have other options. Otherwise, the Assad continue his killing machine. And maybe now Syria has became the largest humanitarian disaster in the world, with the number of the refugees to cross two million in the neighboring countries. This is why it’s became unmanageable crisis, unmanageable situation. And this is why we should not wait more and more. And this is why we support the Obama decision, we support the administration decision to use the force against the Assad regime to end the crisis and to open the political process for all the Syrians to participate to build a democratic Syria.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Rim Turkmani, a member of the Syrian political opposition group Building the Syrian State Current, what is your perspective on President Obama’s proposal?

RIM TURKMANI: I think the U.S. is already a part of this conflict. It’s not exactly true what previous discussions have mentioned, that this is only a civil war. There is a complex layer of civil war and proxy international war and regional war. So I think, yes, Obama—President Obama does have responsibility here, and they need to be a player. And I think they have to help us to end this regime and to prevent the use of chemical weapon by any party.

However, I think this is a historic opportunity in front of President Obama and the U.S. to demonstrate its political and diplomatic power. We all know that the U.S. is strong militarily. You know, you can measure that physically. But nobody can measure the political and diplomatic power and the force for peace, except in such times, in the times of international crisis. And if the U.S. resort to military power to end this, then that means basically that they failed politically. I would like President Obama to live up to the speech he delivered in Cairo shortly after he won, you know, his first elections, when he promised new relations with the Arab world and the Muslim world. And I would like to see, you know, such new relations, but I don’t see them coming through bombs. I want them to come through peace and diplomacy.

And that is not going to happen in Syria by complicating the already ongoing war with a new player, with a new strategy, that has a new—different aim to the rest of the parties, and is not even aiming to end this regime. And in my view, this is not all about Syrians at all. I mean, there is—as I said, there is a proxy war here. It’s very much about Russia and Iran and China, which hardly been mentioned in the discussions I heard earlier in your program. So, yeah, I would like to see America demonstrating its diplomatic and political power internationally, and protecting its red line in different ways.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Radwan Ziadeh, what about these questions that were raised by members of Congress about the composition of the opposition, of the influence of jihadists, not only within Syria, but flocking from around the world to Syria, on the opposition movement?

RADWAN ZIADEH: I mean, there is a lot of exaggeration in the media about the presence of the jihadists, of the Islamists. What’s happened in Syria being described wrongly as a civil war, because let’s have one example of the civil war in Peru as example, which between the security forces and Shining Path from 1980 to 2000. That’s left at least, for 20 years, 60,000 been killed. We have—in Syria, less than two years, we have more than 100,000. Why the number of casualties in Syria it’s higher, higher than any other normal civil war in other countries? Because the use of the air force from the Assad regime, the use of the chemical attacks, and the use, of course, of the missiles long range—long-range missiles, rockets.

And this is why it’s—the casualties or the civilians who’s been killed in these attacks by the Assad regime, it’s, we can say, 90 or 95 percent of the civilians, of the casualties. And this is why it’s an important to focus on this aspect rather than to focus on the issues—on the minor issues, the rising of jihadists, Islamists and all of that. The people who are fighting against the Assad regime, 90, 95 percent or 99 percent are Syrians, are Syrians who are, some of them, even doctors, engineers, who are taking arms to defend themselves, to defend their towns and cities against the Assad regime—

AMY GOODMAN: I want to—I want to—

RADWAN ZIADEH: —and against the Assad militias.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn back to David Shedd, who we played in a previous segment, the deputy director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA. It’s like the Pentagon’s CIA. He spoke in July at the Aspen Security Forum about the Syrian opposition.

DAVID SHEDD: I count no less than 1,200 disparate groups in the opposition. And so, to a large extent, the conditions of Syria benefit those who have a tendency toward or are actually in the far extreme, because what happens is, they go for the space and organization and certainly what they view as their mission vis-à-vis the Bashar Assad regime and its proxy fighters with Hezbollah and so forth. They are the most effective end of that spectrum of those 1,200 groups. They are increasingly stronger within the opposition in their relative capabilities against the regime. That is not a statement on the flow and the ebb that pertains to how the regime is doing against the opposition. But within the opposition, I think, to your question, I think the al-Nusra Front is gaining in strength and is a case of serious concern for us.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s David Shedd, the deputy director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. Rim Turkmani, can you respond?

RIM TURKMANI: Sure. No, it’s true that al-Qaeda exists now in Syria, and they proudly announce themselves, and they’re very active, and they’re very strong. And the regime actually avoids attacking them. So, the regime would, for example, rocket civilian areas in Aleppo and leave the headquarters of al-Qaeda, which are very—their coordinations are very well known. They will leave them safe. So, the regime is obviously benefiting from their existence.

However, I would like to point out that, whether al-Qaeda or non-al-Qaeda, the opponents of the regime are not only the armed groups. I would like to remind everybody, in the first six months nearly a million Syrians, if not more, demonstrated against the president, Assad, and those—only a small part of them joined the armed uprising. So, many of them went back home when the whole thing turned to a violent confrontation. By ending this war, we are going to shed light again on these nonviolent protesters, and they will become a much, much stronger player than any other player in all al-Qaeda. And this is the only way you can combat these al-Qaeda groups, by the social good power inside the society. You’re not going to end them by, you know, dropping bombs on them by the U.S.

It’s pointless to ignore them, like Radwan Ziadeh is trying to do. They exist. They’re extremely dangerous. And they’re going to oppose any authority. Whichever regime comes after Assad regime, these groups are going to be a opponent to it, and they’re going to fight it. They’re going to be a problem. They have a global agenda. But I would like to unleash the positive power of the Syrian society that we’ve seen, when the opportunity opened up for it, to stand up for this al-Qaeda mentality, which is very, very foreign to the very moderate and open-minded Syrian mentality that I know.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Radwan Ziadeh, I’d like to ask you about the role of the neighbors of Syria—Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Jordan. These countries, what has been their role in the continuing conflict in your country?

RADWAN ZIADEH: Just before, to mention here, what’s the difficulties in Syria, where actually the number of the casualties is much higher than other normal civil wars, because it’s happened in the civilian areas, like in Aleppo, as example, which a city, one of the historical cities in the world. And the fight actually within its—all cities and within—in the buildings and neighborhoods. And this is why the destruction is much, much higher than what we see in other—in other conflict areas.

And this is why the neighboring countries—what’s happened in Syria, the crisis in Syria, not only split the Security Council, also split the neighbors of Syria. Some countries who joined and support the Assad regime, like Iraq, the Iraqi government, and Hezbollah, a militia in Lebanon, would send fighters to fight along with the Assad side, and there is no much mention on that in the media. Those, they are fanatic, they are radical Shia group fighting with the Assad regime. And on other side you have Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, which, of course, they have an impact—an effect of what’s happened in Syria. I mean that what’s happened in Syria can spill over very easily to other weak states, like what’s happened in Lebanon. Until now, they are having difficulties to form government, because they have a split within the society, some of them the pro-Assad, others the support the Syrian people and the revolution. And maybe Turkey is the only country who has actually supported the Syria refugees with at least support from international community. I think this is why the responsibility more here on international community to support all of these countries to be able to provide the Syria refugees with the high international standards of respect and dignity, provide them with the food, water, shelter and all of these issues. It’s much needed, especially in Lebanon and Jordan.

AMY GOODMAN: Rim Turkmani, I wanted to ask about the role of Saudi Arabia. Ahmad Jarba, the new president of the opposition group, the Syrian National Coalition, who was raised by Kerry on Tuesday when he was speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as the credible leader of the Syrian opposition, is very close to Saudi Arabia. And, of course, Saudi Arabia is funding a lot of what’s going on with the rebels. Can you comment on this?

RIM TURKMANI: Yeah, I mean, al-Jarba is a leader of one group of the opposition, a group that is based outside Syria. He doesn’t represent the views of the Syrian inside Syria. At the end of the day, this promised military attack is going to affect, first and foremost, the Syrians inside Syria. And it will be the views of those people inside that I will be interested the most, not of al-Jarba or anybody else outside the country. And when I’m representing my views—you know, that’s all after talking to lots of people inside the country—I represent a political group that is mainly based inside Syria. Its leader still lives in Damascus. And they are very strongly against the regime and against this strike. And we’ve been actually against the way the U.S. interfered politically with this conflict from day one.

We thought there is a great opportunity in front of the U.S. here to play a very strong, brave political role. But what they demonstrated from day one is a failure to read the situation well. And you can judge that by the statement of Hillary Clinton by—she kept repeating, "Assad’s days are numbered. Assad’s days are numbered." And then it turned out that her days were numbered, and Assad stayed. I mean, isn’t that also something that shakes the U.S. credibility, its political credibility and potential? I think yes. And—

AMY GOODMAN: Rim Turkmani, we’re going to have to leave it there.

RIM TURKMANI: —the U.S. conclude to be a very weak political player in this conflict. And I think it’s time for it to change that.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us. Rim Turkmani is a member of the Syrian political opposition, Building the Syrian State Current. And I also want to thank our guest in Washington, Radwan Ziadeh, director of the Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies.

Creative Commons License The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to "democracynow.org". Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

[82_28]

This shit is the stupidest fucking shit I've ever heard of in my life that eloquently ends in death for some other. It's STUPID but it is also OFFICIAL DEATH, all innocent deaths regretted because we're the motherfucking USA. We've "reasoned and debated" the nuances and have come to the conclusion we're fucking with all of your minds and "patriotism" and its importance is coming to a close as we phase in the new software for YOU! More than likely a self-crash by the Democrats to usher in mas Fascism all controlled by Central Casting.

This place (USA) is a fucking joke. Fucking Double Bind if I've ever seen one. Truth be, the good Democrats of yon are being pilloried in order to get rid of them through technocracy. A mobile app should be able to rate who to "vote" for. What a shame. I am honestly glad my grandparents are dead. Even though they were mostly racist and shit in that "old skool way", they're turning in their graves.

[JackRiddler]

And now the case that Assad ordered the gas attack of August 21st has been reduced to not irrefutable, but compelling on the basis of common sense. I always make common sense decisions about which countries to bomb, what about you?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... print.html

White House: Irrefutable Assad link to gas attack lacking, but passes ‘common-sense test’

By Associated Press, Sunday, September 8, 2:24 AM

WASHINGTON — The White House asserted Sunday that a “common-sense test” dictates the Syrian government is responsible for a chemical weapons attack that President Barack Obama says demands a U.S. military response. But Obama’s top aide says the administration lacks “irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence” that skeptical Americans, including lawmakers who will start voting on military action this week, are seeking.

“This is not a court of law. And intelligence does not work that way,” White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said during his five-network public relations blitz Sunday to build support for limited strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“The common-sense test says he is responsible for this. He should be held to account,” McDonough said of the Syrian leader who for two years has resisted calls from inside and outside his country to step down.

Asked in another interview about doubt, McDonough was direct: “No question in my mind.”

The U.S., citing intelligence reports, says the lethal nerve agent sarin was used in an Aug. 21 attack outside Damascus, and that 1,429 people died, including 426 children.

The number is higher than that, said Khalid Saleh, head of the press office at the anti-Assad Syrian Coalition who was in Washington to lobby lawmakers to authorize the strikes. Some of those involved in the attacks later died in their homes and opposition leaders were weighing releasing a full list of names of the dead.

But Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which collects information from a network of anti-government activists, says it has so far only been able to confirm 502 dead.

The actual tally of those killed by chemical weapons is scant compared to the sum of all killed in the upheaval: more than 100,000, according to the United Nations.

In an interview Sunday, Assad told U.S. journalist Charlie Rose there is not conclusive evidence about who is to blame for the chemical weapons attacks and again suggested the rebels were responsible. From Beirut, Rose described his interview, which is to be released Monday on the CBS morning program that Rose hosts, with the full interview airing later in the day on Rose’s PBS program.

Asked about Assad’s claims there is no evidence he used the weapons, Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters in London: “The evidence speaks for itself.”

At the same time, Obama has planned his own public relations effort. He has scheduled six network interviews on Monday and then a primetime speech to the nation from the White House on Tuesday, the eve of the first votes in Congress.

Sunday night, Obama dropped in on a dinner held by Vice President Joe Biden for Republican senators. Obama will meet with Senate Democrats Tuesday, a Senate aide said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publically discuss the meeting before its official announcement.

Obama faces a tough audience on Capitol Hill. A survey by The Associated Press shows that House members who are staking out positions are either opposed to or leaning against Obama’s plan for a military strike by more than a 6-1 margin.

“Lobbing a few Tomahawk missiles will not restore our credibility overseas,” said Rep. Mike McCaul, the Texas Republican who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee.

Added Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif.: “For the president to say that this is just a very quick thing and we’re out of there, that’s how long wars start.”

Almost half of the 433 House members and a third of the 100-member Senate remain undecided, the AP survey found. Two seats in the 435-member House are vacant.

“Just because Assad is a murderous tyrant doesn’t mean his opponents are any better,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

But some of Assad’s opponents are pleading for aid.

“The world is watching, and Syrians are wondering: When is the international community going to act and intervene to protect them?” said Saleh.

On Saturday, a U.S. official released a DVD compilation of videos showing attack victims that the official said were shown to senators during Thursday’s classified briefing. The graphic images have become a rallying point for the administration. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, also posted videos on the committee’s website.

But McDonough conceded the United States doesn’t have concrete evidence Assad was behind the chemical attacks.

Recent opinion surveys show intense American skepticism about military intervention in Syria, even among those who believe Syria’s government used chemical weapons on its people.

Congress, perhaps, is even more dubious.

“It’s an uphill slog,” said Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who supports strikes on Assad.

“I think it’s very clear he’s lost support in the last week,” Rogers added, speaking of the president.

Complicating the effort in the Senate is the possibility that 60 votes may be required to authorize a strike.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said he would consider a filibuster, but noted the delay tactic was unlikely to permanently nix a vote. Paul would, however, insist his colleagues consider an amendment to the resolution that would bar Obama from launching strikes if Congress votes against the measure.

Still, Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, has predicted authorization and McDonough, too, on Sunday telegraphed optimism.

“They do not dispute the intelligence when we speak with them,” McDonough said, of members of Congress.

But while the public discussion lacks a direct link between Assad and weapons, the private briefs are no better, two lawmakers said.

“The evidence is not as strong as the public statements that the president and the administration have been making,” said Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich. “There are some things that are being embellished in the public statements. ... The briefings have actually made me more skeptical about the situation.”

Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., said “they have evidence showing the regime has probably the responsibility for the attacks.”

But that’s not enough to start military strikes. “They haven’t linked it directly to Assad, in my estimation,” said McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

McDonough, an Obama foreign policy adviser dating back to his 2008 presidential campaign, said the dots connect themselves.

The material was delivered by “rockets which we know the Assad regime has and we have no indication that the opposition has.”

Congress resumes work Monday after its summer break, but a heated debate about Syria is already underway.

Vice President Joe Biden planned to host a dinner Sunday night for a group of Senate Republicans.

Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, plans to discuss Syria in a speech Monday at the New America Foundation and later meet with members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Bipartisan, classified briefings for Congress are set for Monday and Wednesday.

McDonough plans to meet Tuesday with the House Democratic Caucus.

Obama planned to address the nation on Tuesday ahead of Wednesday’s first showdown vote in the Senate over a resolution that would authorize the “limited and specified use” of U.S. armed forces against Syria for no more than 90 days and barring American ground troops from combat. A final vote is expected at week’s end.

A House vote appears likely during the week of Sept. 16.

McDonough spoke with ABC’s “This Week,” CBS’ ”Face the Nation,” NBC’s “Meet the Press,” CNN’s “State of the Union” and “Fox News Sunday.” McCaul and Sanchez were on NBC. Cruz appeared on ABC. Rogers and Amash spoke to CBS. Paul was interviewed on Fox. McKeon was on CNN.

___

Associated Press writers Deb Reichmann in London and Jim Kuhnhenn in Washington contributed to this report.

___

Follow Philip Elliott on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/philip_elliott

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© The Washington Post Company

Leaving aside the Republican discovery of critical thinking now that it's not Colin Powell feeding them the bullshit, I note as well that the admin has been presenting Congress with video of people dying horribly from inhaling gas and calling this "evidence," as though it says anything about who shot the gas.

[smiths]

a masterclass in propaganda by the eminent fuckwit extraordinaire Kneel Fuckyason

skillfully wheeling out classic concepts like

'in being against aerial bombardment the left is naive and doesn't understand the real world'
'killing innocent people with cruise missiles is the best way of preventing crimes against humanity'
'Palestine didn't exist, Israel was there with Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon at the Anglo-French carve-up'
'Iran is the real danger, nukes people, thats what we need to get onto'
'the forces of Radical Islam are on the march, but its impossible to identify a 'bad guy''
and finally
'America has exhibited inaction, it needs to get involved'

that cock knows that America has been involved for 2 years at least, he knows that this is the step towards Iran (and maybe Russia), and he knows that the Saudis and the Israelis are the rogues of the Middle East

The left's irrational fear of American intervention

Not for the first time, human rights violations by a Middle Eastern tyrant pose a dilemma for leftists on both sides of the Atlantic.
On the one hand, they don't like reading about people being gassed. On the other, they are deeply reluctant to will the means to end the killing, for fear of acknowledging that western – meaning, in practice, American – military power can be a force for good.
Ever since the 1990s, when the United States finally bestirred itself to end the post-Yugoslav violence in the Balkans, I have made three arguments that the left cannot abide. The first is that American military power is the best available means of preventing crimes against humanity. The second is that, unfortunately, the US is a reluctant "liberal empire" because of three deficits: of manpower, money and attention. And the third is that, when it retreats from global hegemony, we shall see more not less violence.
Syria today is in the process of being partitioned. Note that something similar has already happened in Iraq.
What we are witnessing is not just the end of the Middle East of the 1970s. This could be the end of the Middle East of the 1920s. The borders of today, as is well known, can be traced back to the work of British and French diplomats during the first world war.
The infamous Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 was the first of a series of steps that led to the breakup of the Ottoman empire and the creation of the states we know today as Syria and Iraq, as well as Jordan, Lebanon and Israel.
Yet the president may not be able to sustain his brand of minimalist interventionism until 2016.
While all eyes are focused on chemical weapons in Syria, the mullahs in Iran continue with their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.
The latest IAEA report on this subject makes for disturbing reading. I find it hard to believe that even the pusillanimous Obama would be able to ignore evidence that Tehran had crossed that red line, even if it was drawn by the Israeli prime minister rather than by him.
The Middle East is not the Balkans. The population is larger, younger, poorer and less educated.
The forces of radical Islam are far more powerful. It is impossible to identify a single "bad guy" in the way that Slobodan Milosevic became the west's bete noire. And there are multiple regional players – Iran, Turkey, the Saudis, as well as the Russians – with deep pockets and serious military capabilities. All in all, the end of pan-Arabism is a much scarier process than the end of pan-Slavism. And the longer the US dithers, the bigger the sectarian conflicts in the region are likely to become.
The proponents of non-intervention – or, indeed, of ineffectual intervention – need to face a simple reality.
Inaction is a policy that also has consequences measurable in terms of human life. The assumption that there is nothing worse in the world than American empire is an article of leftwing faith. It is not supported by the historical record.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... tion-syria

[seemslikeadream]

Proxy Warfare in Syria

Making sense out of the cacophony of empire forces

by Claude Coulomb / September 7th, 2013

Having just passed the first hurdle (The Senate Foreign Relations Committee) towards military action in Syria and awaiting congressional approval; I can help but be reminded of Smedley Butler’s stance on the justifications for actions by military apparatus: “I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else.”

In the modern context of nation states, if diplomacy was the predominating factor, we would face a considerably different geopolitical landscape. The military rational would adopt a non interventionist approach. Few are those who argue, from an ethics perspective, that self-defense is unjustified, but empires old and new pervade this sense of better than thou. In the quest for hegemony, veiled by false pretense and ‘American exceptionalism’ branded nationalism, comes the misconception of the United-States as “moral world police”. Nobody granted them their mandate, it is a mandate seized by power without any sort of scruple.

Of the hundreds of wars and covert military operation the U.S. have been involved in, how many where in retaliation to a direct action against them (e.g., boots on the ground on American soil)? Yes there where tense moments like the Cuban missile crisis where there was significant threat, but when it comes to the thick of things it’s safe to say the U.S.’s general strategy is aggressive, arguably preemptive, but not defensive by any stretch of the imagination. Neocolonialism exemplifies itself through subjugating other countries (i.e. economic sanctions, embargoes, or worst invasion and occupation). Countless are the ways to advance the cause. “There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its ‘finger men’ to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.” Major General Butler’s analysis is quite accurate. In this corporatized age, corporate media serves its inherently subservient position, complicit in the machinations with its countless pundits parroting the national security state’s rhetoric. The amount of military expenditure on behalf of the ‘’world police’’ is unjustifiable, it spends more on its military than the next 13 nations combined. Then you have government officials, political puppets like Chuck Hagel and John Kerry defending the party line. The narrative reaches laughable grounds when Kerry lumps together Assad with Saddam Hussein. I can’t help but note the irony of the comparison. The juxtaposition with Hussein seems somewhat logical (each has quite the despotic record), unless we forget his gassing of the Kurds and the logistical support offered by the U.S. which facilitated the achievement. Not the most adroit comparison when considering Foreign Policy’s recent article confirming the matter by way of released CIA documents.

I don’t need to expand on the United-States prerogative, I’m afraid it’s quite evident. The precedent is unequivocal. Wars of aggression in the Middle East have become the norm with grave consequences for the people. A military strike on Syria would only exasperate the situation. Farfetched dreams of social change in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Libya, based on military aggression bear a testament to the fallacy of war in the quest for peace or liberation. Current conditions in those three countries demonstrate the failings of violent interventionism, without even mentioning the unfathomable amount of civilian casualties and the grim implications of most of their infrastructure being decimated.

Already 100,000 dead in Syria, several million displaced both internally and externally with a million of those refugees being children. A sea of young kids trying to make due in tent-city style relocation camps, such is an upbringing that leads to its fair share of scares. Some experience the often time awful ostracization of the expat. I recently saw this news piece by a locally well known French Canadian journalist in which these two young Syrians in Lebanon where selling balloons and trinkets on the strip to support their family. In reaction, some Lebanese where denouncing the arrival of refugees en mass. I couldn’t help but empathize wholeheartedly with the plight of these poor boys, their most primordial need of security stripped from them, their innocence forever tainted. Such is the byproduct of war, turpitude and the depletion of our moral fiber.

If social Darwinism was a religion, the military industrial complex would be its messiah, with its core mission of justifying and glorifying the notion of survival of the strongest and mightiest within the parameters of the struggle for existence. Distorting this manufactured notion without scientific basis and morphing it into thriving for more armament, weapons proliferation for the hegemonic power as well as its allies and lust for control on the world stage. Who cares about collateral damage, they’re just (drone-speak) bugsplats, who cares about civilian casualties, they’re “unpeople” anyways. Peace efforts are nonexistent. Closing embassies is the new normal. Diplomacy is de facto out of reach and taking for example; peacekeepers (blue berets/helmets) in the case of Canada, are but a minute fraction of what they once were.

With the war mongering intensifying in the media sphere, saber rattling from elected officials comes together in a concerto of sorts. In regards to chemical warfare, the red line narrative gained some credence through the 3 year conflict. Not based on fact, but based on superficial/inconclusive evidence and the perseverance of the propaganda from the establishment. Suspicions have been raised in both sides using chemical agents. Believe you me; if something could demonstrate without question the use of Sarin gas by Assad’s regime, it would have already been plastered on the news. But it isn’t, it doesn’t seem to stick, why then is it considered an almost certainty? Allegations by unofficial correspondents and “confirmation” by secret Intel just won’t cut it. Doesn’t this all sound like Iraq and W.M.D’s? Manufacturing the requirements for engagement? Although we can’t deny chemical agents were used, we can’t seem to confidently pin it on the suspect. In contrast to establishment analysts pointing the finger at Assad, there are strong allegations of chemical use by the rebels.

If Sarin gas is the red line, then what to make of beheadings, mass assassinations by shooting squads, killing of Christian minorities or partaking in “heart eating” by the opposition?

Albeit we are stuck in a narrow paradigm of good vs. evil, black and white without nuance; if ever there was no side to pick in a conflict, this is the conflict. The Assad regime is but a despotic hold on power, a dictatorship relegated from father to son, though it is important to mention that Assad has quasi-majority support. As far as the opposition goes, it consists of rebel factions which are compromising some legitimate Syrian insurrectionary forces, what I mean by that is that I don’t question that there are some with a genuine social-revolutionary agenda. The conflict did start out as a genuine revolution but it was in my estimation quickly high jacked by different well armed and well prepared actors vying for positioning, without necessarily the best intentions, and most likely financed by Saudi sheikhs with deep pockets filled with petro-dollars. I don’t question that there are many good willed seculars, liberals, socialists and anarchist striving for alternative frameworks, fighting against the Assad/official opposition binary; at the same time maybe there is not enough revolutionary fervor amongst the people. In making a comparison with another civil war, in Spain there was a strong libertarian and communist sentiment long before the war but it still wasn’t enough.

The official opposition consists of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) which is made up mostly of Syrian Armed Forces deserters. What requires most worries is that one of the main protagonists: Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda affiliate) is gaining momentum amongst the lot. There’s seems to be a flagrant conflict of ideals and logistics amongst the different factions, the sectarianism is undeniable. Infighting seems to be an integral part of the rebel factions which seems to predict potential chaos in the ensuing result of the power vacuum that would be generated by a toppled regime, a refrain that rings true to recent western foreign policy. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan… Syria, Iran… And the beat goes on. As Tariq Ali recently stated: “The idea that Saudia, Qatar, Turkey backed by NATO are going to create a revolutionary democratic or even a democrat set-up is challenged by what is happening elsewhere in the Arab world.”

We the people, including the Syrians don’t need a dictator ousted and replaced by another; we need to change the regime, we need to change the institution. But alas, this regional proxy war is far from the best grounds for revolutionary struggle, social and political change seems a long way off.

The cluster fuck becomes a massive shit storm when we truly acknowledge the adversaries squaring off: we have a Saudi, Turkish, Qatari and the Western alliance backing the opposition, against a coalition consisting of Iran-Hezbollah-Syria and to a smaller extent, Iraq. By extension we need to also include Russia which funds Assad regime’s armament, and China which also has a lot at play in this regional war.

Added to the underlying antecedent of long time conflict between Sunni and Shia sects, there are the obvious entailments regarding Israel; hoping for destabilization of Hezbollah, it stands to gain significantly from the conflict. Finally let’s consider once again the jihady element at play, it is a dead giveaway of the present and future extremism entailed, the atrocious acts committed by some components of the opposition are completely appalling. To put it bluntly, in a war with no side warranting defense, the west (U.S., Britain, Canada) are siding with the same side as the Jihadists. Canada sending $50 millions for propaganda measures, the U.S. sending countless arms, of course Putin feeding Assad’s regime with armament is just as despicable. But let me concentrate on the fact that as a Canadian taxpayer I’m funding extremist groups. Religious fundamentalism is not something I’m too comfortable financing, and in this paradigm of parliamentarism, where representative governance is our main limiting parameter; we the populace, have to pursue the only means with the possibility to enact change.

World record social mobilization against the Iraq war failed but we need to build from that. No more sitting idle, this conflict as gone on too long, without any glimmer of hope in sight. There’s an antiwar movement building, hundreds of years in the making. Foundations have been laid previously by generations of work consisting in struggle and solidarity. Anarchists have been opposed to imperialism and the machinations of war for centuries and regardless of irreconcilable differences, proprietarians (“libertarians“/an-caps) agree in unison.

Examples have been set forth like the opposition to the Vietnam War, but the left definitely needs reinvigorating and a reassessment of tactics. Whether withholding taxes a’ la Thoreau our taking part in a general strike, we need to step it up a notch to prevent further escalation. International workers solidarity is imperative. To counter the scale of this current calamity, we must unite our voices and announce clearly the will of the people. The assaults against our collective welfare will no longer be tolerated. To oppose a force of this magnitude we must channel our strength in number, but the only true way to enact change is to strike a blow at the essence of instigation, the one common denominator: the state.

With states come conflict, with states come war. A single clog or one measly monkey wrench won’t put a stop to the momentum of the gears of war. We need to put to a stop the current functioning of things, stop this societal cancer that won’t end till it’s rid of us all. Fictional boundaries need to come down, for the only action that I can see that would make the current order falter, would be global general strikes and/or a soldiers strike (abstaining from service/hanging up their boots). Everything brought to a standstill. War has retarded progress long enough. Our indignation must grow louder, bringing the “national security state” to its knees. No force will ever capable to contend with its military strength. So we must attack it with reason.

I don’t know exactly what we need to do, but actions needs to materialize now, it’s already too late. If we need to occupy the stoop of every American embassy now until we get justice, so be it. Sending a delegation of peace activists from throughout the world, directly to war torn Syria to dissuade a U.S. strike, is an initiative presently considered. The human shields initiative strikes me as a warrantable tactic to pursue, but it would only achieve the desired results with significant numbers participating.

Proxy wars are a known tool for the U.S. in their quest for hegemony. I believe you’ll find it hard to disagree with that. Whether it is funding Pashtun “radicals”, contras or one of the more recent instances, the U.S. only looks at short term, often time shallow strategic goals. Only to see it backfire in most instances. The problem with backing military juntas and the like, as well as propping up horrendous regimes, is that for the military-industrial complex there is no ethic standard for qualifying an ally.

We are just pumping taxpayer dollars, giving arms to extremist groups. With the U.S.’s recent diplomatic record, alongside its intrusive interventionist foreign policy, in contrast to what polls show as far as what the American populace wants, it’s a travesty. A strike on Syria is against the will of the people and Obama acknowledges that, with only 10 to 20 some odd percent support from the constituency, how does this constitute democracy?

We all know the U.S. is the bully on the block when it comes to Geo-politics and has been for hundreds of wars spanning about a hundred years. The question is do Americans and their allies’ populace, do we continue sitting idle and let the trend go uninterrupted? This trend which has been the well known byproduct of the nation state alongside colonialism/neo-colonialism, do we let petty jingoism, unabashed nationalism blind our view? Good old Smedley butler said it best about a hundred years ago: war is a racket.

We have to all look at it from a pragmatic international/global perceptive. We have to forgo the usual political parameters taken in matters of war. We need to try harder, keep agitating and raise awareness… and more. We need to emphasize the social implications of war.

Because when all is said and done, your privilege of not living in a war torn country is geographical luck of the draw. I think we should encourage public discourse, failing to do so and failing to make a change in the course of history will sadly lead us to our demise. Blind fate, in regards to the state, poisons the aspirations of the people.

I repeat myself there is no side to root for. What’s before us is a powder keg to diffuse. It’s long gone from a social revolution or a civil war. It’s a regional imperial proxy war in the quest for claiming economic and political capital, with quite a few different actors involved.

The autocratic Malawi regime in place is ruthlessly belligerent in regards to human rights. Then, there are the equally unappealing Russian and Shia allies. In contrast, there is the equally or even more totalitarian opposition made up of Sunni Muslims from inland, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the like, as well as radical groups like Al-Qaeda funneling from Afghanistan and Pakistan. All of these lovely people jockeying for power.

All the while the west is vying for its interest as usual, funding extremists, funding their armament. Funding proxies like it knows best. Same as when it helped create Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to combat Soviet invasion. The irrationality of backing them one day, then the next using them and boasting them as the biggest threat to national security.

The Syrian people are suffering incredibly for this, and are paying the most significant price. Their lives destroyed and in shambles, unfathomable amount of civilian casualties, and for what? Geopolitical interests, religious feuding, imperialism, fattening the military-industrial complex’s pockets.

Let’s denounce these wars; castigate these players involved for thinking Syrian’s homes are just a playground for wanton killing and willy-nilly bloodshed, they need to be held accountable. The responsibility rests on our shoulders, we might not agree with the direction of our western “representative democracies”, but it’s our responsibility to deviate the indented actions, failing to do so results in our culpability in the matter.

[seemslikeadream]

Published on Saturday, September 7, 2013 by Mondoweiss
Shady PR Operatives, Pro-Israel Ties, Anti-Castro Money: Inside the Syrian Opposition’s DC Spin Machine
by Max Blumenthal
During the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Syria on September 3, Secretary of State John Kerry and Senator John McCain both cited a Wall Street Journal editorial by Elizabeth O’Bagy to support their assessment of the Syrian rebels as predominately “moderate,” and potentially Western-friendly.

“She works with the Institute of War,” Kerry said of O’Bagy. “She’s fluent in Arabic and spent an enormous amount of time studying the opposition and studying Syria. She just published this the other day. Very interesting [Wall Street Journal] article, which I commend to you.”

Kerry added, “I just don’t agree that a majority are al-Qaida and the bad guys.”

What Kerry and McCain neglected to mention was that O’Bagy had been recently hired as the political director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF), a little known outfit that functions as a lobbying arm of the Syrian opposition in Washington.

Until today, O’Bagy had failed to note her role as a paid Syrian opposition lobbyist in her Wall Street Journal byline and did not note the position in her official bio at the Institute for the Study of War. Only after a storm of criticism did the Wall Street Journal insert a note in O’Bagy’s recent op-ed disclosing her paid position at SETF. O’Bagy was also compelled to amend her bio with a lengthy clarification about her work at SETF.

But her work at the Institute for the Study of War should have been enough to set off alarm bells.

“Logrolling for war”

The Institute for the Study of War’s (ISW) board of directors is led by William Kristol. Kimberly Kagan, the group’s president, was on General Stanley McChrystal’s strategic review team in 2009, advocating for a dramatic expansion of the US presence in Afghanistan. Her husband is Frederick Kagan, the AEI fellow who is the uncle of fellow neocon Robert Kagan.

In its 2011 annual report [PDF], the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) detailed its close working relationship with Palantir Technologies, a private surveillance firm contracted by Bank of America in 2011 in an unsuccessful plot to dismantle Anonymous and sabotage Glenn Greenwald.

The report listed New York Times reporter Michael Gordon as “ISW’s journalist in residence.” Back in January 2013, Gordon published an article pushing claims that Syrian army forces had used sarin gas, thus crossing Obama’s “red line” and triggering a US intervention. Noting that the State Department could not confirm the information in Gordon’s report, former Defense Intelligence Agency officer Pat Lang accused Gordon of “logrolling for war in Syria.”

Despite his past affiliation with a think tank dedicated to pushing for US intervention in Syria, Gordon remains on the Times’ Syria beat.

Rebel marketing

When O’Bagy took to Twitter to boast about McCain’s “shout out” to her during the Senate hearing on Syria, the conservative writer Charles C. Johnson (who recently reported on O’Bagy’s lobbying) asked her if she was in fact employed by the Syrian Emergency Task Force.

“Yes I do humanitarian aid work through the organization,” O’Bagy told Johnson. “Can’t go to Syria frequently and not help the people.”

But O’Bagy’s work has less to do with tending to the needs of war-stricken refugees than it does with leveraging the media to agitate for US intervention. Indeed, she has been among the most prominent and widely cited commentators marketing the Syrian rebels as a bunch of America-friendly moderates.

As she said during an August 26 appearance on Fox News, “What I’ve tried to show through this research and by traveling around with many of these rebel groups is that there are actually a majority of the opposition that would be aligned with U.S. interests.”

The Cuban Connection

Last summer, I encountered an exceptionally talkative young Syrian man at a tweet-up of Middle East-oriented activists in Washington DC’s Woodley Park area. Having learned that I was a journalist, he struck up a conversation, telling me eagerly about his work on behalf of the Syrian opposition through something called the Syrian Emergency Task Force.

About thirty seconds into our chat, I could tell that the young man was not the most sophisticated operator. “We’re really trying to get in with the Jews,” he told me. “We feel like the Americans really listens to them the most, so we’re working with them all we can.”

“We prefer to be referred to as the yahood,“ I responded in a deadpan tone, prompting nervous laughter from a few friends who were listening in on the conversation.

Unfazed by the sarcastic aside, the activist told me about meetings at WINEP and entreaties to AIPAC. He mentioned Radwan Ziadeh, director of the Syrian Center for Political & Strategic Studies, as a key emissary between SETF and pro-Israel lobbyists.

Ziadeh appeared at the American Jewish Committee’s 2011 Global Forum to make the case for Western intervention in Syria. Ziadeh was among the self-proclaimed “foreign policy experts” who signed an August 27 open letter to Obama calling for military intervention in Syria. Other “experts” lending their names to the letter included Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams, Governor Tim Pawlenty, and veteran anti-abortion activist Gary Bauer.

As our conversation continued, the Syrian activist revealed to me a recent training session SETF had arranged between Syrian opposition figures and Cuban exiles in Coral Gables, Florida. Florida’s Republican Gov. Rick Scott attended the seminar, he said with pride, greeting a who’s who of hardline anti-Castro activists who had spent decades pushing for the overthrow of Cuba’s socialist regime.

When I returned home, I searched for details of the meeting and discovered a single press release posted on the anti-Castro web portal Directorio. I could find no coverage of the seminar in any US media.

According to the press release, participants in the seminar pledged “To coordinate all of our political, diplomatic, logistic and humanitarian efforts in pursuit of the liberation of Cuba and Syria; hence constituting a United Front for Freedom and Democracy; Therefore, the Cuban Resistance and the Syrian Revolution jointly declare: The people want the overthrow of the dictatorial regimes of Assad and Castro.”

On its website, SETF cites as one of its landmark achievements securing $1 million in humanitarian aid “from the Cuban-American community.”

WINEP ties, pressing for regime change

At the helm of the SETF, which is registered as a 501 c-4 lobbying organization, is a previously unknown activist named Mouaz Moustafa. Back in May, Moustafa arranged a meeting between John McCain and a group of Free Syrian Army fighters. The photo-op quickly transformed into a public relations disaster when Lebanon’s The Daily Star reported that one of the man posing with McCain had kidnapped 11 Shiite pilgrims a year before.

Since emerging as SETF’s Executive Director, Moustafa has forged close ties with WINEP, the neocon-oriented think tank founded as an ancillary of AIPAC. Formerly listed as a WINEP “expert” – his page on the think tank’s site has disappeared – Moustafa spoke at WINEP’s Soref Symposium this year.

By Moustafa’s side at the conference was Louay Sakka, the founder of the Syrian Support Group, the only organization licensed by the US government to send financial and supposedly non-lethal support to the Free Syrian Army. In soliciting donations, the group notes, “We leave it up to the people on the ground to judge how financial assistance can best put to use.”

With Congress set to vote on a resolution authorizing the US to strike Syria, SETF has issued an action alert on its website urging supporters to light up congressional phone lines urging “yes” votes. In a call with the White House, SETF urged much broader action in Syria than the “limited strikes” Obama has asked Congress to authorize. The group is dedicated to regime change, and is pressing for any and all military measures to accomplish the mission — even, apparently, boots on the ground.