The strikes that the Obama administration favors, and that Congress is now debating, have a more limited purpose: to ensure that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad uses conventional weapons to massacre his people rather than the chemical variety that allegedly killed 1,400 in the suburbs of Damascus on Aug. 21.
<snip>
The hope is that U.S. intervention will encourage future tyrants to kill by firepower rather than by sarin gas. “The goal here is to deter dictators in 2022 from using chemical weapons on a mass scale against civilians,” said Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman of California, who supports the strikes. “That is a very abstract objective.”
<snip>
The U.S. is now debating a military campaign that marries the highest, most abstract idealism to the harshest, most unsettling pragmatism: Obama wants to punish Assad for violating the abstract norms of war even as he leaves Assad capable of continuing his massacre by more conventional means.
This is why there is no enthusiasm for intervening in Syria: Making the decision to punish Assad for using chemical weapons means explicitly making the decision not to stop him when he slaughters with conventional weapons. The brutality of what we are willing to accept tarnishes the better world we seek to preserve.
West Asia News and Discussions
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
This is why there is no enthusiasm for intervening in Syria
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
Ships in the region ...... looking at the way these ships are based and since Russian have access to small port there and many intelligence ship......it should be possible to them to gather intelligence and also provide early warning of missile attack.
http://i.imgur.com/8dcb00X.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8dcb00X.jpg
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
WP:
For France, U.S. delay on Syria fuels doubts
By Michael Birnbaum, E-mail the writer
PARIS — For French President François Hollande, it seemed like the perfect response: a lightning-quick strike on Syria to punish the government for an alleged chemical weapons attack.
But with President Obama’s surprise decision to ask Congress for a go-ahead on military action, Hollande has found himself embroiled in political controversy abroad and at home. Instead of vaunting Hollande as a warrior charging off to do battle, critics say he now looks more like a sidekick who was left in the lurch by his American ally. Meanwhile, the possibility of bombing Syria has proved deeply unpopular in French public opinion.
The U.S. delay has also exposed the limits of French military might and left Hollande in an isolated holding pattern that his critics charge is a national humiliation.
Hollande reversed his charge-ahead position Friday, saying that before committing France to military action, he would wait for U.N. weapons inspectors to issue their report, a process that could take weeks and could jeopardize a joint action with the United States should it decide to move against Syria before then.
The reversal after two days of politicking by Hollande and Obama to bring on more allies was all the more notable because the inspectors’ report is not expected to assess whether Assad’s forces used chemical weapons -- just whether they were used at all, a point made by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius earlier Friday as a reason not to wait for the report.
“There was never a question that France would intervene by itself,” Hollande told reporters in St. Petersburg at the end of a Group of 20 summit where he met with Obama to discuss Syria. “It makes sense to wait for Congress and the inspectors’ report. Once those pieces of information are in hand, I will address the nation and I will make a decision.”
The situation is a stark turnaround from the decade-old debate over Iraq, when France was the most prominent critic of U.S. intervention, questioning the evidence about the existence of an Iraqi chemical weapons program. That was the era when anti-French anger in the United States was so great that french fries turned into “freedom fries” and Americans derided the French as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.”
Until Friday, Hollande had been in front of the United States on Syria, having pushed to arm Syrian rebels since earlier this year while Obama preached caution. But with a British parliamentary decision to hold back from involvement, France’s isolation is inspiring nervousness at home, even as opposition politicians are split over whether to support Hollande.
“Militarily, there’s stuff that we could do. We could let fly a few dozen cruise missiles on certain lucrative targets in Damascus or elsewhere in Syria,” said François Heisbourg, a defense expert at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. “But to do that all on our own without any pretense of being representative of Europe or of NATO or of the U.N. Security Council? That is simply too much.”
The foot-tapping wait for the United States has, if anything, fed a perception here of French military weakness, rather than strength.
“It’s clear Mr. Hollande wanted an intervention which could not be implemented by France,” said Philippe Moreau Defarges, a foreign policy expert at the French Institute for International Relations in Paris. “If the U.S. doesn’t go, he will look ridiculous.”
France has participated in two major military campaigns in recent years — the 2011 action against Libyan autocrat Moammar al-Gaddafi and a January air-and-ground campaign in Mali, both of which were broadly popular in France.
Hollande’s Mali action, which gave a boost to his faltering polling numbers, may have pushed him to move more quickly on Syria, one analyst said.
“He might have overestimated the lessons of Mali,” said Karim Bitar, a Middle East expert at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations in Paris. “Syria is a completely different situation. He probably felt emboldened because things went pretty well in Mali.”
A campaign against Syria would be particularly difficult for France to pull off alone.
Unlike Libya or Mali, Syria has robust air-defense systems, making any aerial campaign deeply risky, defense experts say.
France is short on the radar-defeating weaponry that the United States could use to diminish or cripple Syrian antiaircraft systems. And unlike the United States, which has extensive capability to fire cruise missiles from ships off Syria’s Mediterranean coast, most of France’s cruise missiles need to be fired from planes, requiring separate infrastructure capabilities that France is also short on, such as air-to-air refueling.
“If we had to operate from [France], it would be extremely difficult. If the U.S. is part of the equation, it changes completely,” said Etienne de Durand, director of the Security Studies Center at the French Institute for International Relations. For example, France has 14 air-to-air refueling tankers, only some of which are available for use, while the United States has around 400, he said.
The gaps were apparent during the 2011 Libyan war, when France and Britain led the military action but the United States needed to provide much of the support infrastructure, including aerial refueling and drone surveillance. The dependence on the United States would be even greater without British involvement this time around, experts said.
Even basics such as the trove of cruise missiles are vastly different between France and the United States.
“You have way more cruise missiles than we do. It’s not even comparable,” Durand said. “If we were going to fire 200 of them into Syria, it would be like half the arsenal we have. We do not use them like you do. We use them to take out strategic targets.”
French military experts estimate that their country has roughly 400 to 500 cruise missiles in their arsenal. The French Defense Ministry declined to comment on how many it had in stock.
Internal divides
A Wednesday parliamentary debate revealed deep divides over how France should proceed, with opposition leaders saying they wanted a vote ahead of any French military action, but with many opposition members also saying they would not oppose limited strikes. French presidents have near-absolute powers on matters of war and peace, and any vote would be a dramatic break from precedent.
“It would have been more comfortable for there to have been a hit already,” said Hubert Vedrine, who was a Socialist foreign minister from 1997 to 2002. “Now there are all these political discussions coming up.”
Many political analysts say that much of the parliamentary concern over Syrian action is for domestic political consumption, and that the center-right former president Nicolas Sarkozy, whom the Socialist Hollande defeated in May 2012, would likely have pursued similar policies on Syria. Sarkozy has been silent on Syria, but a Friday article in the center-right Le Figaro newspaper cited unnamed Sarkozy allies saying that he supports military action.
The joint isolation on Syria has had at least one upside for the Franco-American relationship, said Heisbourg, the defense expert.
“It’s much nicer than being called cheese-eating surrender monkeys,” he said.
Elaine Cobbe contributed to this report.
For France, U.S. delay on Syria fuels doubts
By Michael Birnbaum, E-mail the writer
PARIS — For French President François Hollande, it seemed like the perfect response: a lightning-quick strike on Syria to punish the government for an alleged chemical weapons attack.
But with President Obama’s surprise decision to ask Congress for a go-ahead on military action, Hollande has found himself embroiled in political controversy abroad and at home. Instead of vaunting Hollande as a warrior charging off to do battle, critics say he now looks more like a sidekick who was left in the lurch by his American ally. Meanwhile, the possibility of bombing Syria has proved deeply unpopular in French public opinion.
The U.S. delay has also exposed the limits of French military might and left Hollande in an isolated holding pattern that his critics charge is a national humiliation.
Hollande reversed his charge-ahead position Friday, saying that before committing France to military action, he would wait for U.N. weapons inspectors to issue their report, a process that could take weeks and could jeopardize a joint action with the United States should it decide to move against Syria before then.
The reversal after two days of politicking by Hollande and Obama to bring on more allies was all the more notable because the inspectors’ report is not expected to assess whether Assad’s forces used chemical weapons -- just whether they were used at all, a point made by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius earlier Friday as a reason not to wait for the report.
“There was never a question that France would intervene by itself,” Hollande told reporters in St. Petersburg at the end of a Group of 20 summit where he met with Obama to discuss Syria. “It makes sense to wait for Congress and the inspectors’ report. Once those pieces of information are in hand, I will address the nation and I will make a decision.”
The situation is a stark turnaround from the decade-old debate over Iraq, when France was the most prominent critic of U.S. intervention, questioning the evidence about the existence of an Iraqi chemical weapons program. That was the era when anti-French anger in the United States was so great that french fries turned into “freedom fries” and Americans derided the French as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.”
Until Friday, Hollande had been in front of the United States on Syria, having pushed to arm Syrian rebels since earlier this year while Obama preached caution. But with a British parliamentary decision to hold back from involvement, France’s isolation is inspiring nervousness at home, even as opposition politicians are split over whether to support Hollande.
“Militarily, there’s stuff that we could do. We could let fly a few dozen cruise missiles on certain lucrative targets in Damascus or elsewhere in Syria,” said François Heisbourg, a defense expert at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. “But to do that all on our own without any pretense of being representative of Europe or of NATO or of the U.N. Security Council? That is simply too much.”
The foot-tapping wait for the United States has, if anything, fed a perception here of French military weakness, rather than strength.
“It’s clear Mr. Hollande wanted an intervention which could not be implemented by France,” said Philippe Moreau Defarges, a foreign policy expert at the French Institute for International Relations in Paris. “If the U.S. doesn’t go, he will look ridiculous.”
France has participated in two major military campaigns in recent years — the 2011 action against Libyan autocrat Moammar al-Gaddafi and a January air-and-ground campaign in Mali, both of which were broadly popular in France.
Hollande’s Mali action, which gave a boost to his faltering polling numbers, may have pushed him to move more quickly on Syria, one analyst said.
“He might have overestimated the lessons of Mali,” said Karim Bitar, a Middle East expert at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations in Paris. “Syria is a completely different situation. He probably felt emboldened because things went pretty well in Mali.”
A campaign against Syria would be particularly difficult for France to pull off alone.
Unlike Libya or Mali, Syria has robust air-defense systems, making any aerial campaign deeply risky, defense experts say.
France is short on the radar-defeating weaponry that the United States could use to diminish or cripple Syrian antiaircraft systems. And unlike the United States, which has extensive capability to fire cruise missiles from ships off Syria’s Mediterranean coast, most of France’s cruise missiles need to be fired from planes, requiring separate infrastructure capabilities that France is also short on, such as air-to-air refueling.
“If we had to operate from [France], it would be extremely difficult. If the U.S. is part of the equation, it changes completely,” said Etienne de Durand, director of the Security Studies Center at the French Institute for International Relations. For example, France has 14 air-to-air refueling tankers, only some of which are available for use, while the United States has around 400, he said.
The gaps were apparent during the 2011 Libyan war, when France and Britain led the military action but the United States needed to provide much of the support infrastructure, including aerial refueling and drone surveillance. The dependence on the United States would be even greater without British involvement this time around, experts said.
Even basics such as the trove of cruise missiles are vastly different between France and the United States.
“You have way more cruise missiles than we do. It’s not even comparable,” Durand said. “If we were going to fire 200 of them into Syria, it would be like half the arsenal we have. We do not use them like you do. We use them to take out strategic targets.”
French military experts estimate that their country has roughly 400 to 500 cruise missiles in their arsenal. The French Defense Ministry declined to comment on how many it had in stock.
Internal divides
A Wednesday parliamentary debate revealed deep divides over how France should proceed, with opposition leaders saying they wanted a vote ahead of any French military action, but with many opposition members also saying they would not oppose limited strikes. French presidents have near-absolute powers on matters of war and peace, and any vote would be a dramatic break from precedent.
“It would have been more comfortable for there to have been a hit already,” said Hubert Vedrine, who was a Socialist foreign minister from 1997 to 2002. “Now there are all these political discussions coming up.”
Many political analysts say that much of the parliamentary concern over Syrian action is for domestic political consumption, and that the center-right former president Nicolas Sarkozy, whom the Socialist Hollande defeated in May 2012, would likely have pursued similar policies on Syria. Sarkozy has been silent on Syria, but a Friday article in the center-right Le Figaro newspaper cited unnamed Sarkozy allies saying that he supports military action.
The joint isolation on Syria has had at least one upside for the Franco-American relationship, said Heisbourg, the defense expert.
“It’s much nicer than being called cheese-eating surrender monkeys,” he said.
Elaine Cobbe contributed to this report.
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
The UN inspectors were there just to check if CW were used or not but not really on who really used it.
US and West has stated quite a few times that barring Assad Army no one has that capability not certainly the rebels.
So there is no prize in guess when UN says CW were used who will be blamed ........they are just waiting to provide some legitimacy to their strike.
Note the recent statement of Strong Reactions if its proved CW is used and not really on who used it. All grounds for punitive strike on the anvil.
US and West has stated quite a few times that barring Assad Army no one has that capability not certainly the rebels.
So there is no prize in guess when UN says CW were used who will be blamed ........they are just waiting to provide some legitimacy to their strike.
Note the recent statement of Strong Reactions if its proved CW is used and not really on who used it. All grounds for punitive strike on the anvil.
-
member_27444
- BRFite
- Posts: 488
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
I think like Germany France also depends on Russia for natural gas
Also historically France is closer to Russia than US
Just like Britain is usually hip joined to US
But when UK backed out I think Hollande saw it as opening to take UK seat on the donkey a la sancho Panza following Don to charge against the wind mills
If indeed the Syrian regime changed and KSA would replace the easier route to supply gas
Also historically France is closer to Russia than US
Just like Britain is usually hip joined to US
But when UK backed out I think Hollande saw it as opening to take UK seat on the donkey a la sancho Panza following Don to charge against the wind mills
If indeed the Syrian regime changed and KSA would replace the easier route to supply gas
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
reports from the g20 say it was bad tempered
in his home patch, putin probably took his shirt off and showed some judo moves to cameron and hollande
in his home patch, putin probably took his shirt off and showed some judo moves to cameron and hollande
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
O'Bomber in doubt? "To bomb or not to bomb,that is the Q....."
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/new ... 308075.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/?source=refresh
No attack on Syria, no matter what, opinion poll reveals
Public against any military attack on Syria, even if it is proved beyond doubt President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, an opinion poll reveals.
Tory MP urges US to pull back from attack on Syria
Russian supplying Syrian regime join arms fair in UK
'Syria military strikes will change nothing'
Bill Neely in Damascus: Syria's rebels and Assad's soldiers have killed each other by the thousands. But they agree on one thing: the military strike America is preparing will change nothing.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/new ... 308075.ece
Mood of the Brits:BARACK OBAMA last night dramatically delayed any military action in Syria for at least 10 days, saying he believed airstrikes were necessary but he would first seek authorisation from Congress.
“I’m confident in the case our government has made without waiting for United Nations inspectors,” he said. “We should have this debate because the issues are too big to have business as usual.”
The US president’s surprise decision, which the Syrian opposition claimed would embolden the Assad regime to carry out further attacks, represents a huge political gamble. Although the Senate is in Democrat hands, the House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans, many of whom are determined to oppose him at every turn.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/?source=refresh
No attack on Syria, no matter what, opinion poll reveals
Public against any military attack on Syria, even if it is proved beyond doubt President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, an opinion poll reveals.
Tory MP urges US to pull back from attack on Syria
Russian supplying Syrian regime join arms fair in UK
'Syria military strikes will change nothing'
Bill Neely in Damascus: Syria's rebels and Assad's soldiers have killed each other by the thousands. But they agree on one thing: the military strike America is preparing will change nothing.
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
I'm not sure about that... gorilla behaviour is a self-made myth that suits Unkil well, but not much more. The Iraq and Afgh interventions were both carried out by Neocons, and that too only under the cover of the public trauma following 9-11 (when GWB would have got voter support for virtually anything.) Other than that, the spectre of Vietnam still haunts the memories of the very large baby-boomer voting population in the US.Singha wrote:
US love it or hate it , did risk its blood and treasure to capture Iraq and Afghanistan. nobody counts as a gorilla unless they do this when their vital interests are at stake. even today , whatever be the media soundbytes I am sure atleast 3 marine MEUs are being kept on high readiness should a force landing be decided on, along with army units on the jordan and turkey front. sure it might take 2 months to move everything into place.....but they wont hesitate to pull the trigger if it comes to that. thats a gorilla behaviour.
The Clinton-Wilsonians are a different breed from the Neocons. Democrats have never, EVER, after LBJ had the guts to put troops on the ground anywhere (with the sole exception of Clinton's mostly humanitarian Haiti intervention, very close to their own backyard.) Kosovo was an air war. Libya was an air war. Syria/Lebanon in particular is a theatre that fills the US with dread as far as ground combat is concerned... remember Beirut 1983, when 241 marines were killed in a barracks bombing (the biggest single-day loss suffered by the USMC since Iwo Jima!)
Also, to those who think the Russians this time will subside into indifference after issuing a lot of sound and fury (as with Yugoslavia or Iraq 2003)... rhetoric apart, neither of those US initiatives posed as direct a threat to Russian interests as the Syria intervention would. Saddam was deposed for merely agreeing to trade oil for Francs and Roubles in addition to USD. That is a far more abstract threat than the effort to abort an Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, terminating at the Russian-controlled port of Tartus, or the plan to break up Syria so that its territory can be used for transit by a Qatar-sourced pipeline. These stratagems threaten core Russian interests: the monopoly over gas supply to Europe, and the very existence of its Shia proxies who buffer southern Russia against a GCC-based caliphate.
Let's see what happens, but I doubt Putin will countenance this as tamely as he did the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
Pipeline Politics and the Syrian War
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
if you (US) needlessly cries "wolf" (Afghanistan) , "wolf (Iraq)" when the real wolf comes (Syria), there is no support
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
the exploits of Kerry, McCain & Obama's 'freedom fighters'.
Jewish lobbies in US are a big force to complement & encourage the war-criminal gang of McCain, Kerry, Obama & Clinton. They are like the life-saving trickle for this group whenever the going gets tough, forever encouraging and goading vengeance and violence against someone who is perceived to be against politics of Israel or if no one is found then against anyone. they now intend to 'storm the Congress and force the members into taking a pro-Israel and pro-war stance'.
Constant war for Israel, 'gentiles make war' and 'shabbos goy in constant war' is their motto and battle-cry.
boy, they haven't yet had their enough of gentiles getting killed in war. More is always less. And less is never enough.
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_09_0 ... cial-2808/Syrian rebels threaten humanitarian workers, kill 11 - top UN official
"Armed groups openly threaten humanitarian workers in Syria, said top UN official Valerie Amos on Friday. The UN humanitarian chief also stated that 11 UN staff members have already been killed in the country, and cited several cases of abductions.
Humanitarian abuses and violence are on the rise in Syria, Amos said after a trip to Damascus.
She argued that over the past few weeks and months, UN workers have faced threats from various armed groups. She added that a number of volunteers from Syria’s Red Crescent Movement have been killed, along with UN staff, totaling 11 individuals. Amos also cited cases of staff abductions.
Amos stressed that “we take all the threats seriously” and despite the “very difficult and dangerous conditions,” humanitarian aid will be continued, as all organizations remain committed to the task.
She also said that the UN has around 4,500 staff in Syria who are working with non-governmental and community organizations in both government and opposition-controlled areas."
Jewish lobbies in US are a big force to complement & encourage the war-criminal gang of McCain, Kerry, Obama & Clinton. They are like the life-saving trickle for this group whenever the going gets tough, forever encouraging and goading vengeance and violence against someone who is perceived to be against politics of Israel or if no one is found then against anyone. they now intend to 'storm the Congress and force the members into taking a pro-Israel and pro-war stance'.
Constant war for Israel, 'gentiles make war' and 'shabbos goy in constant war' is their motto and battle-cry.
AIPAC IS A GRAVE THREAT TO WORLD PEACE
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 AT 10:33PM GILAD ATZMON
AIPAC Conference Promotes War by Stephen Lendman
By Gilad Atzmon
Israeli Ynet reports tonight on AIPAC’s relentless efforts to push America into a war.
“Though US Congress is pressured by the American public to vote against a US military intervention in Syria, Israel’s most ardent supporters in AIPAC urge Congress representatives to vote in favor of an intervention”.
Ynet writes that in the past Israel has “refrained from pushing US into war, and Jerusalem and AIPAC have thus far kept silent regarding Syria, but in recent days Israel decided to voice its support of an attack.
Ynet reveals the operative plan. “Some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists, intend to storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution authorizing US strikes against Syria.”
For the first time in modern history, in the open, the Jewish Lobby together with the Jewish State are pushing for a war that can easily escalate into a global conflict. Yet, I am slightly perplexed, as to whether these warmongers grasp what could be the consequences of such a war: do these Jewish campaigners really want to bear responsibility for the death of many innocent people? Can’t they see that they pressure the American Congress to act against the will of the American people? Are they still concerned with antisemitism, because their acts can bring total disaster on their fellow Jews
Watching the scale of the Jewish pro war campaign should lead us to consider the possibility that Jewish politics (not just Israeli politics) is a grave threat to world peace.
boy, they haven't yet had their enough of gentiles getting killed in war. More is always less. And less is never enough.
Last edited by habal on 08 Sep 2013 09:17, edited 1 time in total.
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
Or more probably they are just crying Wolf again.symontk wrote:if you (US) needlessly cries "wolf" (Afghanistan) , "wolf (Iraq)" when the real wolf comes (Syria), there is no support
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
Well, the Americans in recent history has been hoisting itself on its own petards. (Eyeeraak and Afghuneestaan. Oh, and why have I forgotten Vietnam?)). And now sharpening themselves another petard to hoist themselves on.
So if Putin has used back channels to make them switch into pause mode, he is doing them a big favour.
So if Putin has used back channels to make them switch into pause mode, he is doing them a big favour.
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
Kerry has opened his bag of lies again. He was addressing the French and saying Assad gassed Children. 
Can this guy speak anything even remotely resembling a half-truth. Jeez !!
A liar has found his munich moment. Does this signify anything to rest of humanity ? He should be procrastinating in some jail cell for lying to public but here he is on loose, but here in this crooked world, run by US and hoisted on it's petard, he is running from continent to continent trying to peddle his lies.
Does he even know that those children .. were Alawite children, the rebels kidnapped from somewhere. Is he aware that this information is now out in public space ?
A look at the youtube clip itself can confirm any suspiscions. there are rows of children without their parents, but just some bearded, sneaky-looking guys holding some bottles of drip. No crying mothers around, no father holding their children but just some young girls who looked like elder siblings. Also the children were seen wearing street clothes and day clothes and not in pyjamas as they were caught in their sleep at 3AM at night. This also proves that they were picked off from somewhere and had no change of clothes.
Children were running helter-skelter without their parents or elders around to support them. At first I had speculated that this might have been an orphanage. But that was wrong it seems now.
Now this Kerry may be a sneaky mephistopheles-worshipper on sly and have no moral remorse at any of this, but does he expect everyone to be as sneaky rat as him.
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/06/ob ... ian-intel/
Obama warned by all luminaries of NSA that he is on balzeboob's train-to-hell, but Obama + Kerry as we know are fully expected to reject any sane advice, as they are desperate to board the train.
Can this guy speak anything even remotely resembling a half-truth. Jeez !!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24004836John Kerry: "This is our Munich moment... this is not the time to be silent spectators to slaughter"
A liar has found his munich moment. Does this signify anything to rest of humanity ? He should be procrastinating in some jail cell for lying to public but here he is on loose, but here in this crooked world, run by US and hoisted on it's petard, he is running from continent to continent trying to peddle his lies.
Does he even know that those children .. were Alawite children, the rebels kidnapped from somewhere. Is he aware that this information is now out in public space ?
A look at the youtube clip itself can confirm any suspiscions. there are rows of children without their parents, but just some bearded, sneaky-looking guys holding some bottles of drip. No crying mothers around, no father holding their children but just some young girls who looked like elder siblings. Also the children were seen wearing street clothes and day clothes and not in pyjamas as they were caught in their sleep at 3AM at night. This also proves that they were picked off from somewhere and had no change of clothes.
Children were running helter-skelter without their parents or elders around to support them. At first I had speculated that this might have been an orphanage. But that was wrong it seems now.
Now this Kerry may be a sneaky mephistopheles-worshipper on sly and have no moral remorse at any of this, but does he expect everyone to be as sneaky rat as him.
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/06/ob ... ian-intel/
Obama warned by all luminaries of NSA that he is on balzeboob's train-to-hell, but Obama + Kerry as we know are fully expected to reject any sane advice, as they are desperate to board the train.
"Obama Warned on Syrian Intel"
"... "We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.” We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandum immediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised. Secretary of State John Kerry departs for a Sept. 6 trip to Europe where he plans to meet with officials to discuss the Syrian crisis and other issues. (State Department photo) The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond … the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the same advice today...
Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan
Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)
Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)
-
Manish_Sharma
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5128
- Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
My unexpert advice to Shri Putin,
1. Send an SS18 Satan missile with 6 more dummy models of the same to Iran, have them test this Satan missile (which had Reagen shitting bricks).
2. Help broker a secret deal between Iran and Bharat that 10 of our latest design warheads are taken there but nobody gets to look at them, then our Bhartiya scientists proceed to test them. While Iran announces to the world of testing 200 to 700kt warheads.
3. Russia, Bharat and Iran start doing business without dollar.
4. Also make NATO like pact between Russia, Vietnam, Iran & Bharat than if any country is attacked all the rest will come to help.
Biggest obstacle to this 'Mungeri Lal ka Sapna' is Bharat's current PM!
1. Send an SS18 Satan missile with 6 more dummy models of the same to Iran, have them test this Satan missile (which had Reagen shitting bricks).
2. Help broker a secret deal between Iran and Bharat that 10 of our latest design warheads are taken there but nobody gets to look at them, then our Bhartiya scientists proceed to test them. While Iran announces to the world of testing 200 to 700kt warheads.
3. Russia, Bharat and Iran start doing business without dollar.
4. Also make NATO like pact between Russia, Vietnam, Iran & Bharat than if any country is attacked all the rest will come to help.
Biggest obstacle to this 'Mungeri Lal ka Sapna' is Bharat's current PM!Re: West Asia News and Discussions
Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for U.S.
by Mark Hosenball, reuters.com
September 7th 2013 4:16 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With the United States threatening to attack Syria, U.S. and allied intelligence services are still trying to work out who ordered the poison gas attack on rebel-held neighborhoods near Damascus.
No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward.
While U.S. officials say Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons strike even if he did not directly order it, they have not been able to fully describe a chain of command for the August 21 attack in the Ghouta area east of the Syrian capital.
It is one of the biggest gaps in U.S. understanding of the incident, even as Congress debates whether to launch limited strikes on Assad's forces in retaliation.
After wrongly claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 U.S. invasion, the U.S. intelligence community, along with the Obama administration, are trying to build as solid a case as they can about what it says was a sarin nerve gas attack that killed over 1,400 people.
The Syrian government, backed by Russia, blames Sunni rebels for the gas attack. Russia says Washington has not provided convincing proof that Assad's troops carried out the attack and called it a "provocation" by rebel forces hoping to encourage a military response by the United States.
Identifying Syrian commanders or leaders as those who gave an order to fire rockets into the Sunni Muslim areas could help Obama convince a war-weary American public and skeptical members of Congress to back limited strikes against Assad.
But penetrating the secretive Syrian government is tough, especially as it fights a chaotic civil war for its survival.
"Decision-making at high levels within foreign governments is always a difficult intelligence target. Typically small numbers of people are involved, operational security is high, and penetration - through either human or technical means - is hard," said Paul Pillar, a former CIA expert on the Middle East.
One possible link between the gas attack and Assad's inner circle is the Syrian government body that is responsible for producing chemical weapons, U.S. and allied security sources say.
Personnel associated with the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Council (SSRC), which has direct ties to Assad's entourage, were likely involved in preparing munitions in the days before the attack, they say.
A declassified French intelligence report describes a unit of the SSRC, known by the code name "Branch 450", which it says is in charge of filling rockets or shells with chemical munitions in general.
U.S. and European security sources say this unit was likely involved in mixing chemicals for the August 21 attack and also may have played a more extensive role in preparing for it and carrying it out.
"BEST EVIDENCE"
Bruce Riedel, a former senior U.S. intelligence expert on the region and sometime advisor to the Obama White House, said that intelligence about the SSRC's alleged role is the most telling proof the United States has at hand.
"The best evidence linking the regime to the attack at a high level is the involvement of SSRC, the science center that created the (chemical weapons) program and manages it. SSRC works for the President's office and reports to him," Riedel said.
U.S. officials say Amr Armanazi, a Syrian official identified as SSRC director in a State Department sanctions order a year ago, was not directly involved.
Much of the U.S. claim that Assad is responsible was initially based on reports from witnesses, non-governmental groups and hours of YouTube videos.
U.S. officials have not presented any evidence to the public of scientific samples or intelligence information proving that sarin gas was used or that the Syrian government used it.
The United States has also not named any Syrian commanders it thinks gave the green light to fire gas-laden rockets into Ghouta.
But U.S. and allied security sources say they believe that Syrian military units responsible for the areas that were attacked were under heavy pressure from top commanders to wipe out a stubborn rebel presence there so government troops could redeploy to other trouble spots, including the city of Aleppo.
An analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, reported that a declassified U.S. government paper summarizing intelligence findings concludes that Syrian government officials were "witting and directed" the gas attack. But the evidence of who ordered it was not watertight, the analysis said.
The findings were partly based on intercepted communications "involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive" which "confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime," it said.
As more information has been collected and analyzed, early theories about the attack have largely been dismissed, U.S. and allied security sources said.
Reports that Assad's brother, Maher, a general who commands an elite Republican Guard unit and a crack Syrian army armored division, gave the order to use chemicals have not been substantiated, U.S. sources said. Some U.S. sources now believe Maher Assad did not order the attack and was not directly involved.
(Editing by Alistair Bell and Ken Wills)
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
Chinese boats chugging towards the mediterranean to watch the event of the millenium. *the humbling of a superpower*
It's a free show for all, only if you can watch your backside.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1C8QYZIrBk
then there is the summing up of the European race through this millenial event. Their contributions to mankind reduced to 4 words.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/09 ... g-roberts/
Libya Objects to Foreign Intervention In Syria. That's right. Liberated Libya doesn't wish their experience to be repeated.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/securit ... um=twitter
It's a free show for all, only if you can watch your backside.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1C8QYZIrBk
then there is the summing up of the European race through this millenial event. Their contributions to mankind reduced to 4 words.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/09 ... g-roberts/
lol“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"
Libya Objects to Foreign Intervention In Syria. That's right. Liberated Libya doesn't wish their experience to be repeated.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/securit ... um=twitter
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
Footage of chemical attack in Syria is fraud
http://rt.com/op-edge/mother-chemical-a ... fraud-509/
1st part.
"There is proof the footage of the alleged chemical attack in Syria was fabricated, Mother Agnes Mariam el-Salib, mother superior of St. James Monastery in Qara, Syria, told RT. She says she is about to submit her findings to the UN.
Mother Agnes, a catholic nun, who has been living in Syria for 20 years and has been reporting actively on what has been going on in the war-ravaged country, says she carefully studied the video featuring allegedly victims of the chemical weapons attack in the Syrian village of Guta in August and now questions its authenticity.
In her interview with RT, Mother Agnes doubts so much footage could have been taken in so little time, and asks where parents of the supposedly dead children are. She promises to send her report to the UN.
The nun is indignant with the world media for apparently turning a blind eye to the Latakia massacre by rebel extremists, which left 500 civilians including women and children dead.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry has called on the international community to pay attention to revelations made by Mother Agnes Mariam el-Salib.
RT: The United States has used internet photos and video footage of the supposed chemical weapons attack in Eastern Guta to build a case against the Syrian government. Have you been able to look at these files? What do you have to say about them?
Mother Agnes: I have carefully studied the footage, and I will present a written analysis on it a bit later. I maintain that the whole affair was a frame-up. It had been staged and prepared in advance with the goal of framing the Syrian government as the perpetrator.
The key evidence is that Reuters made these files public at 6.05 in the morning. The chemical attack is said to have been launched between 3 and 5 o’clock in the morning in Guta. How is it even possible to collect a dozen different pieces of footage, get more than 200 kids and 300 young people together in one place, give them first aid and interview them on camera, and all that in less than three hours? Is that realistic at all? As someone who works in the news industry, you know how long all of it would take.
The bodies of children and teenagers we see in that footage – who were they? What happened to them? Were they killed for real? And how could that happen ahead of the gas attack? Or, if they were not killed, where did they come from? Where are their parents? How come we don’t see any female bodies among all those supposedly dead children?
I am not saying that no chemical agent was used in the area – it certainly was. But I insist that the footage that is now being peddled as evidence had been fabricated in advance. I have studied it meticulously, and I will submit my report to the UN Human Rights Commission based in Geneva."
2nd part.
"RT: Recently you’ve visited Latakia and the adjacent areas, you’ve talked to the eyewitnesses to the massacre of civilians carried out in Latakia by Jabhat al-Nusra. What can you tell us about it?
MA: What I want to ask first of all is how the international community can ignore the brutal killing spree in Latakia on Laylat al-Qadr early in the morning of August 5, an attack that affected more than 500 people, including children, women and the elderly. They were all slaughtered. The atrocities committed exceed any scale. But there was close to nothing about it in the international mass media. There was only one small article in “The Independent”, I believe.
We sent our delegation to these villages, and our people had a look at the situation on-site, talked to the locals, and most importantly – talked to the survivors of the massacre.
I don’t understand why the Western media apply double standards in this case – they talk about mass murder that the use of chemical weapons resulted in non-stop, but they keep quiet about the Latakia massacre.
RT: Do you know anything about the fate of hostages captured in Latakia?
MA: In the village of Estreba they massacred all the residents and burnt down their houses. In the village of al-Khratta almost all the 37 locals were killed. Only ten people were able to escape.
A total of twelve Alawite villages were subjected to this horrendous attack. That was a true slaughterhouse. People were mutilated and beheaded. There is even a video that shows a girl being dismembered alive – alive! – by a frame saw. The final death toll exceeded 400, with 150 to 200 people taken hostage. Later some of the hostages were killed, their deaths filmed.
At the moment we are looking for the hostages and negotiating their release with the militants, but so far we haven’t managed to achieve that.
RT: We often hear reports of Christians being persecuted by the militants. Just the day before yesterday there was an attack in the village of Maaloula, where the majority of population is Christian. Are Christians in Syria facing grave danger?
MA: Everyone in Syria is facing grave danger. There was a case of Muslim religious leaders being kidnapped and beheaded. They were humiliated and tortured. Ismailis, the druze, Christians – people from all parts of Syrian society – are being mass murdered. I would like to say that if these butchers didn’t have international support, no one would have dared to cross the line. But today, unfortunately, the violation of human rights and genocide in Syria is covered up on the international level. I demand the international community stops assessing the situation in Syria in accordance with the interests of a certain group of great powers. The Syrian people are being killed. They fall victim to contractors, who are provided with weapons and sent to Syria to kill as many people as possible. The truth is, everywhere in Syria people are being kidnapped, tortured, raped and robbed. These crimes remain unpunished, because the key powers chose international terrorism as a way to destroy sovereign states. They’ve done it to other countries. And they will just keep doing it if the international community doesn’t say “Enough!"
3rd part.
"RT: You’ve managed to get hold of some sensitive information. Does this make you fear for your life as someone who keeps documents that may compromise the militants? Has anyone threatened you?
MA: You are right. I do get threatened. They are trying to discredit me. I know there is a book coming out soon in France that labels me as a criminal who kills people. But any believer should first and foremost trust their conscience, their belief in God, and that will help them save innocent lives. I don’t care much about my own life. My life is no more precious than that of any Syrian child, whose body could be used as evidence to justify wrongdoing. This is the biggest crime ever perpetrated in history.
RT: What should the Syrians do to stop the tragedy they are going through?
MA: The Syrians themselves can do nothing to stop it. They can only rely on the international community, friendly nations, world powers, such as Russia, China, and India. With a lot of enthusiasm we did welcome the news that the British parliament voted against the participation of their country in the possible war against Syria. There is a terrorist war going on against Syria right now. The international community and Syria’s friends should join forces and say: Enough! And they need to use every opportunity to do that. Otherwise this threat Syria is facing now will turn into a threat to universal peace.
RT: What should the Vatican and other hubs of Christianity do to put an end to this tragedy?
MA: The Pope says he has no planes, no bombs, and no armed forces. Instead, he has the power of the truth, and the truth he has told. There are messages coming from everywhere in the world urging against a military intervention in Syria. Those who want to hear them will. The Pope, the patriarchs, Nobel Prize winners, including women, keep saying the same in unison: Let’s stop fighting. No conflict can be solved by military means. Stop adding fuel to the flame!
All the prominent public figures in the world have risen to speak against the war. Everyone has spoken their mind, but the US prefers to turn a deaf ear. The world public opinion has turned against the US. It’s the first time in history that America is alone. They are claiming that they are backed by ten countries. But I insist they aren’t, because the people of these countries disagree with their governments. Even the American people disagree with their government.
RT: Do you believe that this tragedy will end and Syria will remain a homeland for all Syrians, regardless of their ethnical or religious identity?
MA: I’m not Syrian myself, but I’ve been living in Syria for 20 years. I’d like to remind everyone that Damascus is the most ancient capital in the world. I would like to remind everyone that Syria is the cradle of civilization. I would like to remind everyone that this is the holy land that gave birth to the main world religions. What is happening in Syria should serve as a lesson for everyone. I mean that in existential rather than political sense. I am convinced that with God’s help the Syrian people will be able to remain strong, heal their wounds, reconcile and chase out all the foreign mercenaries and terrorists. I believe there will be peace in Syria. But for that we need help from the international community."
-
member_27444
- BRFite
- Posts: 488
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
It is said that Amrikhan can listen to almost every electromagnetic wave communication from deep space to terra firma objects.
They record constantly everything almost penta penta bytes a second.
Ofcourse it is impossible to do data mining on such vast data with few minutes, but wrt Syria,
we have the following
Geo co ordinates of the region
we know the players mostly
we know who is on whose side mostly
we know the goals of each at least overtly
then what is the problem for Khan saab to give complete and clinching evidence of what, who, where, when and how?
ok to say that will reveal what unkil is monitoring holds no water. Snow and Asange have revealed that such systems and capability exists.
so whats the big deal?
therefore it is not the case of so called egalitarian motives or to deter even more evil . this sirs and madams is hog wash and stinks to high
They record constantly everything almost penta penta bytes a second.
Ofcourse it is impossible to do data mining on such vast data with few minutes, but wrt Syria,
we have the following
Geo co ordinates of the region
we know the players mostly
we know who is on whose side mostly
we know the goals of each at least overtly
then what is the problem for Khan saab to give complete and clinching evidence of what, who, where, when and how?
ok to say that will reveal what unkil is monitoring holds no water. Snow and Asange have revealed that such systems and capability exists.
so whats the big deal?
therefore it is not the case of so called egalitarian motives or to deter even more evil . this sirs and madams is hog wash and stinks to high
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
Yes, maybe after UN submit its reportLilo wrote:Or more probably they are just crying Wolf again.symontk wrote:if you (US) needlessly cries "wolf" (Afghanistan) , "wolf (Iraq)" when the real wolf comes (Syria), there is no support
But in any case, you can add Vietnam and Korea also to the wolf's list
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
The true reasons why the US is lusting after Syria and wants regime change there,to control its oil reserves larger than that of Kuwait.As they say,it's still "all about oil".
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/culture ... osses.html
6 Reasons Why Attacking Syria is a Really Stupid Idea
By Ben Cohen · September 06,2013
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/09/6-rea ... upid-idea/
We’ve been back and forth on the issue of Syria here at the Banter for several weeks now with readers and contributors split as to what the US should (or shouldn’t do). As the Obama administration gets closer and closer to unilaterally attacking the Assad government, one thing is clear: we have absolutely no idea whether bombing them will do anything to stop the raging civil war.
This obviously prompts the question, why do it?
Here are 6 reasons why not:
1. It’s illegal. An attack on Syria without international support and the authorization from the UN would be completely illegal under international law – in fact technically a war crime. As Craig Martin, Associate Professor of Law, Washburn University School of Law GET writes in the Huffington Post:
To assess the legality of the strikes we need to look at the international law legal regime on the use of force, established with the U.N. system after World War II. It prohibits any and all use of force against other states (Art. 2(4) of the U.N. Charter), except for the purpose of individual or collective self-defense (Art. 51), or as authorized by the U.N. Security Council for the purposes of restoring or maintaining collective security (Arts. 39-42).
There is absolutely no way an attack on Syria is justified given international support has collapsed and Syria isn’t attacking America. Americans generally have a pretty low opinion of the UN and international law (Goddamit we’re Americans so we can do whatever the hell we want!), but if the US is going to insist everyone else (ie. Syria) respect international law, then maybe it should too.
2. There are no good outcomes. Even with a very basic understanding of the crisis in Syria (here’s a helpful guide in the Washington Post if you’re stuck) it’s clear that every type of intervention has serious pitfalls. Getting rid of Assad’s secular government would leave a massive power vacuum with militant Islamists likely to assume control. Bombing him without getting rid of him empowers him in the long run as Assad will make a reputation for himself standing up to the Western Imperialists. Both ensure internecine warfare between the Alawites, Sunnis and Jihadist groups continues with a strong possibility of massive escalation.
3. It’s politically incredibly dangerous for Obama. The President is stuck between a rock and a hard place – he can’t get anything past Congress at home and he’s constantly battling childish Republican attempts to defund Obamacare, pin conspiracies on him (Benghazi), and wreck the economy by stopping him from raising the debt ceiling. If this gets bungled, the Republicans will have a field day and take him to the cleaners. Given there are no good military options, there’s a good chance an attack will make it worse (see no.2 above) and open Obama up to attacks from literally everyone, including the left.
4. Public opinion. Public opinion is firmly against an attack on Syria. Just take a look at some sample polls:
2013-09-03-SyriaAirStrikes.png
PEW Research 48% against.
W,Post/ABC....59% agains
NBC....50% against.
Huff Post/You Gov....41% against.
The highest % in favour was 43% in the Huff Post.
Not all political decisions should be made with poll numbers in mind, but the data shows conclusively that Americans don’t want their government to get involved in yet another war in the Middle East. Given they are the ones who will be paying for it, it seems reasonable to respect their opinions.
5. Blowback. This is the term the CIA uses for “unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the aggressor”. Should the US get involved in Syria, there will no doubt be consequences for its actions. Americans are for the most part, completely removed from the violence their military inflicts around the world and are flabbergasted when it hits them at home. While the attacks on 9/11 were monstrous crimes, they were not (at least to the historically aware) surprising. The US has propped up and installed numerous dictators in the Middle East, funded brutal wars, and abused its people (with chemical weapons it should be added) for decades. There’s no way of knowing how an attack on Syria will come back to haunt America, but given the anger and resentment felt towards the US in the region, it’s a good bet military action won’t go unnoticed.
6. Obama’s ruined second term. War is a serious matter and committing to an act of extreme violence should be carefully considered and thought out beforehand. It seems to me that the Obama Administration has boxed itself in on the issue and may well commit to action knowing it doesn’t have a good exit strategy. Obama may well end up going to war to save face while ruining his entire second term in office when dealing with the fallout. Obama, like every other President, has done much right and much wrong thus far in office. He still has the ability to do great things, but not if he is engaged in a long term struggle in Syria. It is not a war he can win, and not a war he’ll want his legacy to be defined by.
.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/culture ... osses.html
Syria has two oil refineries, one in Homs and the other in Baniyas. Regarding natural gas, exploration was carried out in the Syrian desert and the Euphrates fields. Moreover, the regions along the Syrian coast look promising in that regard. In 2005, Inseis, a Norwegian company, explored offshore regions and acquired 5000 km (roughly 3100 miles) of two-dimensional data. This data was later handed over to another Norwegian company that specializes in analyzing field surveys. An oil wealth amounting to 30 billion barrels in around 13 coastal fields was discovered. Additionally, a 2 to 4 km (1.2 to 2.5 miles) wide region, believed to be rich in oil, was not included in the study.
It was determined that four fields out of the 13, extending from the Lebanese border to the city of Baniyas on the Syrian coast, contain an amount of oil equivalent to all of Kuwait’s reserves. These fields alone are able to produce 1.6 billion barrels per day. The production rate of the remaining oil fields, which constitute 35% of all of Syria’s fields, falls somewhere in between Kuwait and Iran’s rates. This data clarifies the role Turkey is playing in the conflict. In the same context, Russia has sent a ship to explore the Syrian waters, opening to door for further exploration and conflict.
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/culture ... z2eHWrM5x7
6 Reasons Why Attacking Syria is a Really Stupid Idea
By Ben Cohen · September 06,2013
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/09/6-rea ... upid-idea/
We’ve been back and forth on the issue of Syria here at the Banter for several weeks now with readers and contributors split as to what the US should (or shouldn’t do). As the Obama administration gets closer and closer to unilaterally attacking the Assad government, one thing is clear: we have absolutely no idea whether bombing them will do anything to stop the raging civil war.
This obviously prompts the question, why do it?
Here are 6 reasons why not:
1. It’s illegal. An attack on Syria without international support and the authorization from the UN would be completely illegal under international law – in fact technically a war crime. As Craig Martin, Associate Professor of Law, Washburn University School of Law GET writes in the Huffington Post:
To assess the legality of the strikes we need to look at the international law legal regime on the use of force, established with the U.N. system after World War II. It prohibits any and all use of force against other states (Art. 2(4) of the U.N. Charter), except for the purpose of individual or collective self-defense (Art. 51), or as authorized by the U.N. Security Council for the purposes of restoring or maintaining collective security (Arts. 39-42).
There is absolutely no way an attack on Syria is justified given international support has collapsed and Syria isn’t attacking America. Americans generally have a pretty low opinion of the UN and international law (Goddamit we’re Americans so we can do whatever the hell we want!), but if the US is going to insist everyone else (ie. Syria) respect international law, then maybe it should too.
2. There are no good outcomes. Even with a very basic understanding of the crisis in Syria (here’s a helpful guide in the Washington Post if you’re stuck) it’s clear that every type of intervention has serious pitfalls. Getting rid of Assad’s secular government would leave a massive power vacuum with militant Islamists likely to assume control. Bombing him without getting rid of him empowers him in the long run as Assad will make a reputation for himself standing up to the Western Imperialists. Both ensure internecine warfare between the Alawites, Sunnis and Jihadist groups continues with a strong possibility of massive escalation.
3. It’s politically incredibly dangerous for Obama. The President is stuck between a rock and a hard place – he can’t get anything past Congress at home and he’s constantly battling childish Republican attempts to defund Obamacare, pin conspiracies on him (Benghazi), and wreck the economy by stopping him from raising the debt ceiling. If this gets bungled, the Republicans will have a field day and take him to the cleaners. Given there are no good military options, there’s a good chance an attack will make it worse (see no.2 above) and open Obama up to attacks from literally everyone, including the left.
4. Public opinion. Public opinion is firmly against an attack on Syria. Just take a look at some sample polls:
2013-09-03-SyriaAirStrikes.png
PEW Research 48% against.
W,Post/ABC....59% agains
NBC....50% against.
Huff Post/You Gov....41% against.
The highest % in favour was 43% in the Huff Post.
Not all political decisions should be made with poll numbers in mind, but the data shows conclusively that Americans don’t want their government to get involved in yet another war in the Middle East. Given they are the ones who will be paying for it, it seems reasonable to respect their opinions.
5. Blowback. This is the term the CIA uses for “unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the aggressor”. Should the US get involved in Syria, there will no doubt be consequences for its actions. Americans are for the most part, completely removed from the violence their military inflicts around the world and are flabbergasted when it hits them at home. While the attacks on 9/11 were monstrous crimes, they were not (at least to the historically aware) surprising. The US has propped up and installed numerous dictators in the Middle East, funded brutal wars, and abused its people (with chemical weapons it should be added) for decades. There’s no way of knowing how an attack on Syria will come back to haunt America, but given the anger and resentment felt towards the US in the region, it’s a good bet military action won’t go unnoticed.
6. Obama’s ruined second term. War is a serious matter and committing to an act of extreme violence should be carefully considered and thought out beforehand. It seems to me that the Obama Administration has boxed itself in on the issue and may well commit to action knowing it doesn’t have a good exit strategy. Obama may well end up going to war to save face while ruining his entire second term in office when dealing with the fallout. Obama, like every other President, has done much right and much wrong thus far in office. He still has the ability to do great things, but not if he is engaged in a long term struggle in Syria. It is not a war he can win, and not a war he’ll want his legacy to be defined by.
.
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
CrossTalk: G20 Showdown?
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/08/ameri ... l-weapons/
America Does Not have the Right to Lecture Syria on Chemical Weapons
By Ben Cohen · August 28,2013
America Does Not have the Right to Lecture Syria on Chemical Weapons
By Ben Cohen · August 28,2013
Add Vietnam and Agent Orange to the list,but Yanqui apologists will say that it all happened in the last century.So to did Hitler,etc. whom Kerry is comparing the Syrian regime to.assad_obama_0303
It looks like we’re set for another showdown in the Middle East – this time a probable arial assault on Syria led by the US, France and Britain. According to reports from the group ‘Doctors Without Borders’ President Bashar Assad’s government was responsible for a chemical attack on civilians outside Damascus on Aug. 21, killing 355 people.
In response, the Obama Administration has been ratcheting up its rhetoric against Assad, with Joe Biden telling an American Legion audience in Houston that, “No one doubts that innocent men, women and children have been the victims of chemical weapons attacks in Syria, and there’s no doubt who’s responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria: the Syrian regime.” Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel stated yesterday that the military was ready to take “whatever option the president wishes to take.”
It seems entirely reasonable to assume that the ‘Doctors Without Borders’ account is accurate – Assad has a particularly nasty history of violence against his own people and has resorted to increasingly brutal measures to repress opposition groups in Syria. The civil war raging in the Middle Eastern country shows no sign of abating, and has caused a serious humanitarian crisis. Over 100,000 have been killed thus far, and the violence has created in excess of 2 million refugees. Assad is refusing to bend to international pressure to step down. The U.N. have now released a report stating that ‘some chemical substance’ was used, and it is clear; Assad is a ruthless despot with little regard for human rights. There is an argument to be made that an intervention in Syria would do some good. At some point, the international community has an obligation to stop brutality and human rights abuses if it can do so without causing more damage.
The problem is, if a consensus cannot be reached, does America have the right to intervene in another country in the name of human rights?
There are a few things worth bearing in mind when deciding whether to get behind another military intervention in the Middle East. Firstly, would it do any good? The answer to that isn’t clear – it may or may not be constructive to bomb pro Assad forces and other strategic targets to quell the violence. Intervention in other country’s civil wars is a notoriously risky endeavor with little guarantee of success. The US hasn’t exactly had a good run of it in the past 60 years (the US exacerbated internecine warfare in both Vietnam and Iraq for example) so it’s track record should be taken into account.
Secondly, does the US have the moral authority to attack another country for human rights abuses? For anyone with the vaguest understanding of history, the answer is pretty clear. The United States has a pretty horrendous record on human rights, most recently in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not only did the US illegally invade both nations, it also committed numerous war crimes against their populations. In Fallujah, US forces used chemical weapons (white phosphorous) to flush out insurgents, and in Afghanistan, US soldier routinely committed war crimes against innocent civilians. The Wikileaks leaks showed the extent of US crimes in both countries, evidence that should definitively end the argument that the US wields any sort of moral authority around the world. To boot, America has a history of bankrolling despots (Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, Mobutu Sese Seko, Mohamed Suharto, Pol Pot, etc etc) all of whom brutalized their own people with little acknowledgment from the American government.
Thirdly, what are the actual reasons why the US is considering an attack on Syria? Given there are war crimes being committed around the world on scales far larger than Syria it stands to reason that the US isn’t getting involved due to its compassion for the Syrian people. Although Syria does not have huge oil resources, they are substantial (around 24% of Syria’s GDP, 25% of budget revenues and 40% of export revenues). There are also large untapped oil fields from the Lebanese border to the Syrian coast that, according to reports from Inseis, a Norwegian company, contain an amount of oil “equivalent to all of Kuwait’s reserves”. China and Russia have both condemned the proposed Western assault, clearly a sign that they feel their interests are at stake. The Saudis have apparently just offered Russia a huge oil deal if they back off of their support of Syria, further proof that the world’s interest has little to do with the plight of Syrians and more about their energy resources.
If Syria’s main export were bananas, it’s safe to say we wouldn’t be hearing too much about it.
There’s also the domestic political situation Obama is contending with. He’s being attacked from all sides – the left won’t leave him alone over the NSA scandal, the right is refusing to pass any of his legislation through congress, and the economy isn’t exactly booming. A fail safe way of drawing attention away from a bad political situation is to have a quick, dominant war where the Commander in Chief gets to look presidential and patriotic. Obama knows the game he’s playing and understands this could be an opportunity to boost his poll numbers. Hawks like John McCain have been banging the drums for war with Syria for months, and Obama could do quite nicely parading around the country with his old nemesis after bashing up Assad.
Americans should be very, very skeptical any time a bad guy is announced by their leaders. No one knew who Bashar Assad was a couple of years ago, yet now he is a bonafide evil doer who must be stopped at any cost.
It’s a familiar script that has played itself out one too many times in recent years. The US government embroils itself in a war with a country most of its citizens know nothing about – it goes on longer than expected, it costs a lot of money, and lots of people die. There’s also the exacerbated hatred of America and the increased threat of terrorism that comes from intervening in someone else’s country.
Thankfully, the American public seems to be adamantly against an intervention in Syria, with polling numbers showing that a proposed war is less popular than Congress itself - a sure sign that it’s a very, very bad idea.
-
Samudragupta
- BRFite
- Posts: 625
- Joined: 12 Nov 2010 23:49
- Location: Some place in the sphere
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
Overt American intervention has the only one objective....to draw Iran into overt intervention in Syria.....in as much any action that brings Iran into an open conflict(an all out one unlike the covert war that is being played now) with the Arabs is a move that should be supported from the Indian POV.....Russian Bear is playing a spoilsport here for their own ego.....
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
& while we keep squabbling over the details, Kerry never stops lying. Not for a minute. He doesn't take a break. Even when overwhelming evidence and that too from his own intelligence agencies is stacked up against him.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... 5L20130905
This is about regime change, and oil is just maybe one of the motives or benefits to the lackies or hangers-on of the war-criminal gang that may accrue. There is a reason why they have left all the countries they invaded without leadership, structure or direction. Don't let them get away easy by giving them the 'oil excuse'. A bunch of war-criminals would love nothing better than someone making the 'oil-excuse' for them.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... 5L20130905
this guy will go on and on unless someone locks him up in a padded jail cell.(Reuters) - Secretary of State John Kerry's public assertions that moderate Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence appear to be at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements.
At congressional hearings this week, while making the case for President Barack Obama's plan for limited military action in Syria, Kerry asserted that the armed opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "has increasingly become more defined by its moderation, more defined by the breadth of its membership, and more defined by its adherence to some, you know, democratic process and to an all-inclusive, minority-protecting constitution.
"And the opposition is getting stronger by the day," Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday.
U.S. and allied intelligence sources and private experts on the Syrian conflict suggest that assessment is optimistic.
While the radical Islamists among the rebels may not be numerically superior to more moderate fighters, they say, Islamist groups like the al Qaeda-aligned Nusra Front are better organized, armed and trained.
Sorry to say this, but that is rubbish. War for oil is a pretext that the west wants the commons to believe as it's 'hidden motivation'. Because when it comes to money, or oil, people are conditioned to accept that 'anything goes', this is in subtext that human conscience has been programmed to accept from time immemorial. That the powerful will wring the weak for wealth or oil.Philip wrote:The true reasons why the US is lusting after Syria and wants regime change there,to control its oil reserves larger than that of Kuwait.As they say,it's still "all about oil".
This is about regime change, and oil is just maybe one of the motives or benefits to the lackies or hangers-on of the war-criminal gang that may accrue. There is a reason why they have left all the countries they invaded without leadership, structure or direction. Don't let them get away easy by giving them the 'oil excuse'. A bunch of war-criminals would love nothing better than someone making the 'oil-excuse' for them.
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
squeak squeak .. rukiye rukiye .. main bhi hoon .. theek hain
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Striki ... 7-357.html
Striking Russia through Syria
9/7/2013
.. the last grotesque convulsions of a dying empire indeed. Gets more grotesque by the minute .. like a rabid dog in it's last steps .. unless a kind-hearted soul takes pity, puts it down and helps it out of misery.Any action in Syria should be under UN framework: Singh
http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS ... 0713104159
The Syrian issue dominated a long dinner meeting of G20 leaders including Obama last night hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin at the end of the first day’s deliberations during which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made an intervention.
Planning Commission Deputy Chairperson Montek Singh Ahluwalia said that it was also the prime minister’s view that the world community should wait for the report of the UN inspectors on the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria.
The prime minister also told his fellow G20 leaders that India condemns the use of chemical weapons whether in Syria or anywhere in the world, Ahluwalia, who was present at the dinner meeting, told reporters here.
Singh also told the leaders that one needs to be certain what has happened in Syria even if there is some probability of use of chemical weapons.
Syrian opposition and the West have accused President Bashar Al-Assad’s forces of using chemical weapons on August 21 in a Damascus suburb, a charge denied by the government.
Ahluwalia said the indication given by the prime minister was that one should wait for the report of the UN team of inspectors.
The prime minister made it clear that whatever action is required in Syria should be under the auspices of the UN and not outside its framework.
According to Ahluwalia, who is the ‘Sherpa’ for India at the summit, the prime minister also said that India was not in favor of armed action aimed at any regime change as this would be violation of international law.
The meeting was also told that the UN Security Council should authorize the action if it is necessary. . UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon briefed the G20 leaders on the current efforts by the UN inspectors who are operating in “difficult circumstances.”
Ahluwalia said the indications given by Ban was that the report by the UN team is expected to come out sooner or later.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Striki ... 7-357.html
Striking Russia through Syria
9/7/2013
We're witnessing the last grotesque convulsions of a dying empire. As it threatens humanity with annihilation, it's also nauseating the still sane among us with an unending farce, as in the hypocrite Kerry declaring, "this is not the time to be silent spectators to slaughter," but John, you lying cynic, the world has been asked to be a mute audience to American mass murder for how long now? But Johnny wants more, much more.
Feigning outrage, the former anti-war darling and Democratic Presidential candidate was talking about the Syria chemical attack, which was likely the work of America itself, through its crazed terrorists, though Washington is trying hard to convince incredulous listeners that Assad somehow did this just so the US of A could have the excuse to destroy him, along with thousands of innocent Syrians. Putin called this explanation nonsense, and even branded Kerry a liar, and the UN has even concluded that an earlier chemical attack, also blamed on Assad, was committed by the American-backed "rebels."
As in so many other wars, the US must save civilians by killing or maiming them, as well as poisoning their environments for centuries. Though the US routinely targets civilian infrastructures such as electrical stations and water treatment plants, and uses war means that murder long after the last bullet is fired, as in cluster bombs and depleted uranium, for example, it is now acting livid over Assad's alleged use of sarin.
But in his ketchup-bleeding heart, Kerry knows full well that America's aggression against Syria is not over sarin but natural gas. First of, Syria's biggest supporter, Russia, is the world's leading exporter of this stuff, and supplies Europe with nearly 40% of its needs, so that's a lot of leverage, Watson. If overly irked by America's puppets in NATO, Russia can retaliate by turning off the gas, as has been done several times already.
To wiggle out of this dependence, another source of natural gas was needed, and Qatar proposed a pipeline to Europe by way of Syria, except Assad would not acquiesce. Russia is Assad's main protector, after all, and Russian navy ships have docked in the Syrian port of Tartus since 1971. Rebuffed, the US, France, England, Germany, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and others decided to back terrorists to unseat Assad. Aiming to destroy Syria, this charming group calls itself the Friends of Syria, naturally. A long time enemy of Syria, Israel also supports this hostility, though its escalation might just wipe a good chunk of this pariah state off the map.
Syria has agreed to a pipeline originating from Iran, however. A much less significant source of natural gas than Qatar, Iran will hardly dent Russia's profits, and since it's also a Russian ally, the gas flow to Europe will still be controlled by Moscow. So Russia has Europe by the balls, so to speak, especially in winter, when enough people freeze to death as is. Many countries are entirely dependent on Russian natural gas, while France only imports a manageable 14%, and the UK, none, so they can afford to kiss Uncle Sam's withered ass a bit harder, though the Brits, interestingly this time, have opted out of the current madness.
A war on Syria, then, is an attack on Russia itself, and that's why Russian warships are patrolling the Mediterranean. Countering the American menace, Russia will certainly be no silent spectator, and to show support for Russia and Syria, a Chinese warship has also shown up, with more coming. Though Washington talks of a "warning shot across the bow" or "tailored strike," a quickie hit and run that won't distract too much from the exhilarating start of football season, World War III might just erupt, for we haven't been this close to universal calamity in half a century.
Two weeks ago, only 9% of Americans favored a military strike against Syria, but now, with such an onslaught of propaganda, up to 42% support it, but this figure might be exaggerated since it is reported by NBC News, a subsidiary of war profiteering General Electric.
Voices of dissent have surfaced even in the mainstream media, however, for wiser heads can't help but realize that a war against Syria and Russia will bring much grief and terror to us all, including those busy watching a missed tackle or punt return. The New York Times even showed on its front page a photo of Syrian "rebels" about to execute kneeling, shirtless prisoners, with their heads close to the ground. Much more damning images exist, and the Times has surely known about them, but it is choosing to feature this now, as if to put the kibosh on Obama and his war mongers. CNN televised war nut McCain being challenged by outraged citizens at a town meeting, though it did allow the old POW to have the last word in a live interview.
As America oscillates over its death wish, Obama is himself blinking, and we can only hope that Barack will just go on unleashing unnatural, gaseous nonsense, and not Tomahawk missiles towards Damascus. It's hard to believe, but this man has turned out to be more preposterous than Bush, so if the trend holds, our next President will be a Mummer, some Lucha Libre guy or, why not, a real rodeo clown. In any case, it was quite a spectacle to see Obama fly to Russia to become Putin's court jester, for he delivered one joke after another, most of them unintended.
En route to Saint Petersburg, Obama stopped in Sweden, and there, promised that he would bug Putin about Raoul Wallenberg, a Swedish diplomat who died in Soviet custody in 1945. The Nobel Peace laureate never wastes a chance to appear humanitarian and noble, and the Swedes had also done him a favor by prosecuting Assange over that CIA-staged threesome, but the real reason Obama dug up this man, one suspects, was to draw a parallel between Wallenberg's protection of Jews in World War II with himself trying to "save" Syrians today. Brilliant! He's evoking this famous saver of Jews to mass murder more Arabs. In the process, though, he will trigger the deaths of countless others, maybe even you.
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
If you look at chemical attack on kidnapped children with beards in hospital helping out, reminds of Godhra attack on Hindu pilgrims who were burnt alive.
There was a railway enquiry or one man board set up by railway ministry who declared that the fire was by accident and the enquiry commission was later judged illegal by Gujarat High Court.
The enquiry board made scientific observations only, but didn't ask train drivers, guards, security personnel, other passengers any questions.
The UN enquiry committee is not going to ask any questions about:
who are the kids - details, past, burial locations.
where are parents of kids - same as above.
Who are the beards - who are their backers
Detailed chemical analysis
Media doctors UN has not asked any of these questions.
The entire structure - hospitals, beards, doctors, UN enquiry, rebel area- is secular.
There was a railway enquiry or one man board set up by railway ministry who declared that the fire was by accident and the enquiry commission was later judged illegal by Gujarat High Court.
The enquiry board made scientific observations only, but didn't ask train drivers, guards, security personnel, other passengers any questions.
The UN enquiry committee is not going to ask any questions about:
who are the kids - details, past, burial locations.
where are parents of kids - same as above.
Who are the beards - who are their backers
Detailed chemical analysis
Media doctors UN has not asked any of these questions.
The entire structure - hospitals, beards, doctors, UN enquiry, rebel area- is secular.
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
WoW this is truly Amazing , In the lines of there is no AQ elements in rebels.habal wrote:At congressional hearings this week, while making the case for President Barack Obama's plan for limited military action in Syria, Kerry asserted that the armed opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "has increasingly become more defined by its moderation, more defined by the breadth of its membership, and more defined by its adherence to some, you know, democratic process and to an all-inclusive, minority-protecting constitution.
Why does it remind me of similar assertion made by Colin Powel during GW 2 that they had Intelligence "Slam Dunk" that Iraq had WMD.
I wonder how does one get away with such a lie
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
In the same way one got away with the WMD lie, how else ?Austin wrote:I wonder how does one get away with such a lie
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
As I was saying.....SSridhar wrote:Will Help Damascus if Attacked: Putin - Vladimir Radyuhin, The Hindu
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
True , when proven wrong on WMD they changed their line to , Democracy is Good for Iraq and Eyerq is good without Saddam.SSridhar wrote:In the same way one got away with the WMD lie, how else ?Austin wrote:I wonder how does one get away with such a lie
I bet these days more people are dying in Iraq every day due to sectarian terrorism strike then they did during Saddam time.
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
Dont expect help in form of Russia fighting for Syria but help in terms of supplying Arms and Humanitarian Aid which is any way they are doing.Sanku wrote:As I was saying.....SSridhar wrote:Will Help Damascus if Attacked: Putin - Vladimir Radyuhin, The Hindu
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
General Wesley Clark in this interview to CNN says , US needs Exclusion Zone for Freedom of Action and should tell the Russians to stay out of the way so that we dont accidentally hit them with Cruise Missile ......seems like a warning in a form of advise
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com ... out-syria/
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com ... out-syria/
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
don't break your teeth in a fit of rage as you read this
http://friendsofsyria.co/2013/09/08/kil ... war-crime/
http://friendsofsyria.co/2013/09/08/kil ... war-crime/
...
All observers have noted the high proportion of children among the victims. The United States has counted 426, or more than a third. Some observers, but neither those of the US nor their French counterparts, were intrigued to find that victims were almost all of the same age and they had no families to cry over them. Stranger still, the gas would have killed children and adult men, but would have spared women.
The wide distribution of satellite channel images of victims allowed Alawite families near Latakia to recognize their children who had been abducted two weeks prior by the “rebels.” This identification was long in coming because there are few survivors of the massacre by the allies of the United States, the United Kingdom and France in loyalist villages where more than a thousand bodies of civilians were discovered in mass graves.
Americans, British and French agree that the victims were killed by nerve gas that could be sarin or contain sarin. They claim to base their findings on their own analysis, carried out in their laboratories on samples collected by each of their services. However, the UN inspectors, who came on site to collect other samples will give their verdict in a dozen days. Indeed, the analyzes carried out by the Americans, British and French are unknown to the world scientific community for whom culturing tissue samples requires a much longer period.
Though it is clear that the children died of chemical poisoning, it is not at all certain that they were gassed. The videos show that the dying produce a white foam while sarin causes yellow emissions.
The three Western powers also agreed to attribute the responsibility for this event to various extents to the Syrian Arab army. The U.S. Director of Intelligence says that its services observed the Syrian military, during the previous four days, mixing chemicals. The chairman of the British Intelligence Committee, Jon Day, assures that the Syrian Arab army is not at its first attempt and has used gas 14 times since 2012 [4] that is to say as many cases as reports of the use of chemical weapons by the United States during the Second Gulf War.
The revelations of the US, British and French services are corroborated by a telephone interception. A senior official of Syrian defense would have made a panicked call to the head of the chemical gases unit about the massacre. However, the interception was not made by the Americans, British or French, but was provided by Unit 8200 of the Israeli Mossad [5].
In summary, US, British and French services are 100% certain that the Syrian Arab army gassed an unknown number of civilians:
1. For this they would have used a new kind of old sarin gas that does not affect women.
2. For four days, the United States observed the preparing of the crime without intervening.
3. The day before use, the magic gas killed children who were kidnapped by jihadists two weeks earlier and more than 200 miles away.
4. These events are known through authentic films made and sometimes posted in advance on YouTube.
5. They are confirmed by a telephone interception produced by the Israeli enemy.
6. Western secret services have a secret method for identifying sarin gas without having to culture human tissue.
7. As it would be the fifteenth such operation, the “régime” would have crossed a “red line ” and should be “punished” by bombing it to deprive it of its means of defense.
In international law, war propaganda is the most serious crime because it makes all other crimes possible.
Translation
Roger Lagassé
Source
Al-Watan (Syrie)
Share this:
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
Exactly. The operative word is right there at the beginning of your comment "It is said..."Amyrao wrote:It is said that Amrikhan can listen to almost every electromagnetic wave communication from deep space to terra firma objects.
They record constantly everything almost penta penta bytes a second.
Ofcourse it is impossible to do data mining on such vast data with few minutes, but wrt Syria,
we have the following
Geo co ordinates of the region
we know the players mostly
we know who is on whose side mostly
we know the goals of each at least overtly
then what is the problem for Khan saab to give complete and clinching evidence of what, who, where, when and how?
ok to say that will reveal what unkil is monitoring holds no water. Snow and Asange have revealed that such systems and capability exists.
so whats the big deal?
therefore it is not the case of so called egalitarian motives or to deter even more evil . this sirs and madams is hog wash and stinks to high
-
JwalaMukhi
- BRFite
- Posts: 1635
- Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
It will be remiss, if the focus gets too much on who is right, who is wrong, instead of what are the most likely scenarios.
Lot of emotion is being poured into the analysis, and hence the prescription for India tends to be rehash of what is romantic, bordering on morality preachers who have nothing to learn or offer concretely.
What is most troubling is not what India can offer concretely, but the inability to read the situation correctly and take action to secure India's interests.
The correct read of the situation is - the US establishment is not having trouble about reshaping Syria, the trouble is what is the degree of engagement that is being debated. US will continue to stay engaged, atleast that part should be clear.
Even when US role is grudgingly acknowledged, there seems to be lot of fantasy about how that engagement would turn into world war III and doomsday for earth. How putin is going to flex his muscles to romantic notions of India banding up with Iranians, to quite possibly advising India to send war ships in support of Syria.
Most realistic analysis would focus on what is most likely to happen not on doomsday scenarios. Such doomsday/world war III, focus is to cripple actual analysis based on realism. Syria is going down one way or the other, with or without Russian bravado. The inability of India to correctly read the tea leaves (based on most likely scenarios) might once again become obvious.
Lot of emotion is being poured into the analysis, and hence the prescription for India tends to be rehash of what is romantic, bordering on morality preachers who have nothing to learn or offer concretely.
What is most troubling is not what India can offer concretely, but the inability to read the situation correctly and take action to secure India's interests.
The correct read of the situation is - the US establishment is not having trouble about reshaping Syria, the trouble is what is the degree of engagement that is being debated. US will continue to stay engaged, atleast that part should be clear.
Even when US role is grudgingly acknowledged, there seems to be lot of fantasy about how that engagement would turn into world war III and doomsday for earth. How putin is going to flex his muscles to romantic notions of India banding up with Iranians, to quite possibly advising India to send war ships in support of Syria.
Most realistic analysis would focus on what is most likely to happen not on doomsday scenarios. Such doomsday/world war III, focus is to cripple actual analysis based on realism. Syria is going down one way or the other, with or without Russian bravado. The inability of India to correctly read the tea leaves (based on most likely scenarios) might once again become obvious.
Re: West Asia News and Discussions
Every country is going down one way or the other. The question is what times, what form and at what cost to which enemies.JwalaMukhi wrote:Syria is going down one way or the other
This thread has already been waiting for Assadfall for about 2 years, now, and in that space, Egypt has turned around already. I would wait before holding a requiem for Syria at the moment.