West Asia News and Discussions

[habal]

Ok here are the children & women killed by your Kerry's moral force. Wanna take a peek ?

http://tomatobubble.com/id320.html

[member_27444]

Those pictures of Assad are doctored
And that of Kerry in that picture are out of vision(ary)
Campaign funds? For Assad of course

[member_27444]

Absolutely fun to watch gun video of the luckiest trucker one more time.
No stone for Assad (with due apologies ton Harold Robins of stone for Danny Fisher)
Assad is Cooked because the doctor orderd so.
Syria will sure go in flames like somebody poured a Jerry can oil and lit it ablaze

Another dictator for another president shall rise in some shale ridden country
I am looking to buy some shares as well!

[Anant]

Habal, with due respect, who cares? Stalin and the Russians nearly exterminated their entire population. They imprisoned their own nuclear scientists. All countries in their long history have blood on their hands. I am not making the argument that the US wears kid gloves or is a saint. What I am saying, and maybe you can read closely here, is that most countries frown on the wanton use of chemical and nuclear weapons especially on unarmed civilians that live within their own borders. And since Assad has done this by gassing kids and women among others, he gets to go down. Your disdain for the US is much appreciated but largely a straw argument here.

[member_27444]

So you have conclusive proof that Assad has done it
Now I am believer
I join the bombing gang
If you can't lick em join em is my motto

[habal]

all this is media manipulation to brainwash masses. US media has been caught red-handed many times. There is no one to punish them, because the wolf guards the hen house.

Major media bias is longstanding. It's blatant when America goes to war or plans one. Pseudo-left journalism followers expect better.

Too often they're betrayed. They're carpet-bombed with misinformation. They're fed support for imperial wars. They get it based on lies.

..

On August 28, it headlined "Getting Iran Wrong, by Way of Syria." It caught NPR's Lara Liasson lying.

Obama "has done everything he can to avoid another foreign military involvement, but he can't avoid it after the widespread use of chemical weapons on this scale," she said.

She referenced White House press secretary Jay Carney discussing "other potential users of chemical weapons."

She claimed "(o)ther potential users means Iran. This is not just about chemical weapons."

"It's not just about Assad. This is a proxy war. Iran, who is developing its own weapons of mass destruction, is currently backing the Syrian regime, and it is watching very carefully to see what the US does."

These and similar claims at best are unsubstantiated. Most often they're bald-faced lies. No evidence whatever links Syria to chemical weapons use any time throughout months of conflict.

None suggests Iran's developing nuclear or other WMDs. Baseless accusations persist. They're spurious. They're malicious. Pseudo-left journalists circulate them often. They do so disgracefully.

On October 1, 2012, FAIR headlined "Skepticism Essential in Syria Reporting," saying:

IF Stone was right. All governments lie, he said. So do media scoundrels. Pseudo-left ones are worst of all.

FAIR quoted Human Right Watch claiming Syrian forces fire indiscriminately into "populated neighborhoods."

It cited Reporters Without Borders wrongfully blaming Assad for insurgent crimes. It discussed media reports based on anti-Assad sources. It revealed lies supporting Washington's war on Syria.

On May 15, FAIR headlined "Iraq Then, Syria Now?"

Blatant misreporting supported Bush's Iraq war. That was then. This is now. History's repeating.

Lies beget more of them. A steady drumbeat supports war. New York Times editors said Obama's credibility's at stake. They support war based on lies. So do many pseudo-left media scoundrels.

John Pilger calls journalism the first casualty of war.

"Not only that," he said, it's "a weapon of war, a virulent censorship (and deception) that goes unrecognised in the United States, Britain and other democracies; censorship by omission, whose power is such that, in war, it can mean the difference between life and death for people in faraway countries...."

[vic]

A prolonged conflict with Syria and resulting Shia -Sunni struggle will suit Russian Ol exports just fine.

[Lalmohan]

A prolonged conflict with Syria and resulting Shia -Sunni struggle will suit Russian Ol exports just fine.

this is it my friends, this is it

its all boiling down to a whose zeb is bigger contest between obama and putin now with putin having called 'pussy' on obama and al-saud goading obama on to slap his zeb on the table

anant - there is no doubt that assad has killed many people, but the specific case of did he gas people in the suburbs of damascaus which is the declared causus belli of the US has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt

i dont mind the world going to war, but lets atleast go to war for the truth

[member_27444]

At the end of the day it all boils down to commerce

For whosoever commands the sea commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself

India must develop its navy so that future gun boat diplomacy will not encumber our freedom

[Muppalla]

Indian Navy has to build a good encryption and other non-intrudable communication systems for Navy. US did intrude into Indian Navy during Kargil standoff. No comments about recent sub sinking (accidented?)

[Anand K]

Season Unending, Rolling War, Endless War etc are terms being used around the globe. Fact of the matter is - in a single generation, the US has entered (as in boots on the ground) two serious armed conflicts and are upon the 3rd one now. Well, they might limit to airstrikes but still.....

Maybe they realized they can do limited (in length) engagements with quite limited casualties (due to overwhelming all-aspect superiority against minnows), achieve the short term gains and pull out pretty much unscathed, leaving others to deal with the blowback and cleanup the mess. The added advantage in supporting these Sandn1gger Springs is the inevitable tribal/clan conflicts and civil wars which will sap the opposition to the US any forestall any chance of Pan-Islamic consolidation.

One can make out those who will prosper by this sort of thing but what benefit this Long War will yield to the American *people* is another matter though.

[anmol]

Sen. John McCain on Syria: 'This is really about Iran'

[member_20317]

Yet, on this board, some rich conspiratorial sources have been rolled out to support Assad.

Most of who are posting anti-war stands, here are people with long memories. Mostly Hindu types. Assad is not being supported out of any love for him. But this whole war is a lie just the way the Afpak one before this, the Iraq war before that and a million such wars that have been imposed upon this world. Those earlier wars are yet to be accounted for and you want a new one.

Just one of these wars is gonna end it all for these war-monger Americans.

BTW why is it difficult for you to believe that certain Indians can take a stand against this war. I mean the Uropains do that regularly. At least of other wars they do. So do the Russians and Chinese. Americans also took an anti-war stance with the Viet war, though under different circumstances.

How is habal's stand on this war, different from the stand of some of the peace loving countries of the world on other wars.

Maybe I am a minority here but I will rejoice Assad's death.

Ok. Probably that helps your cause.

[member_27444]

Current thinking is Kosovo doctrine aka yugo gone so will Syria break up into multiple entities

[Muppalla]

The crusade that Bush mentioned after 9/11 is really going on. It will be just foolish to think that operation reorganize ME is NOT going on. Time will tell if US or the West will succeed or not. The first part is the create friendly regimes:
(1) Iraq is a friendly regime
(2) To put Saudis in their place, Iran needs to be friendly
(3) To make Iran friendly it has to be attacked.
(4) If Iran is attacked, it can stop all Oil flow
(5) First get Oil via alternative routes
(6) The best alternative is to get Oil from Iraq via Syria to Mediterranean Sea
(7) So regime changes in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya are completed to isolate Syria
(8) Once regime is friendly in Syria the Oil continuity is ensured
(9) Now attack Iran and make it friendly
(10) Now call all Sunni stuff is Al-Qaida and make Shias as moderate
(11) Merge Iran-Iraq minus Kurdistan to create alternative power to Arabs
(12) Destroy the kingdom of Saudis and make it look like Egypt

The outcome and results of this continuous military engagement of US in ME will be pretty good for it and salient features are:
(1) Dominate the Oil flow and counter Russia's growth as Oil driven power drive
(2) Hezbollah may become kaput
(3) If in the process Golan heights are transferred to Israel with a firm Palestinian state then that will resolve the headache of West

[habal]

Indians have most to lose if Syria is Gaddafied. Because after Syria, it will be Iran in crosshairs. Lack of genuine geo-political sense prevents many from seeing what is coming. And it will come in some form or another.

Once Iran falls, Indian economy will also fall, because it will not be able to afford fluctuating and expensive gasoline paid in dollars anymore. It cannot afford it now, in future, it will be able to afford it even lesser.

Then we fall into economic dis-repair from the economic despair territory. Syria had endured some 8 years of economic despair for this conflict to get violent. Syrian agriculture being destroyed was primary reason for Syrian civil strife.

India is taking same route. Give it a decade, after Syria, it will be India's turn.

The deposed Digvijay and Rahul will testify before US Congress how 'limited' and 'narrow' action against India is important to prevent muslims being denied civil liberties and so on.

Or else Kiran Bedi or Kejdiwal will testify before US Congress on how corrupt Indian politicians are and need to be sanctioned or 'limited' or 'narrow' action being taken to save millions of Indian poor from grinding poverty caused by political malfeasance.

Biggest joke will be on those Indians who are cheerleading from US. While the Indians in India will have to suffer all the consequences.

[anmol]

Is U.S. military Saudi mercenary force?
wnd.com | Nov 30th -0001

I can’t believe what I’m hearing in Washington these days.

Did John Kerry, who achieved national fame as an anti-war protester, really say that the Arabs have agreed to pay for the overthrow of the Syrian regime?

Did the man who opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein after he voted for it in the U.S. Senate become the No. 1 war hawk in the country?

Did the man who accused U.S. military men in Vietnam of routinely committing all manner of atrocities a la Genghis Khan suddenly come to the conclusion that missiles are more discriminating in their destructive power than soldiers with consciences?

Honestly, the hypocrisy of the political left is so thick and so blatant I can’t believe duplicitous, double-talking monsters like Kerry and Barack Obama and Chuck Hagel and Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are even taken seriously any more.

Why does anyone believe anything they say?

Please don’t tell me they are anti-war. They are anti-war only when it suits their purpose. They are anti-war only when the going gets tough. They are anti-war only when they are not running things. They are anti-war only when it is convenient for them. They are anti-war only when it is politically expedient for them.

There is no principle in them whatsoever.

They are liars – pure and simple.

Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore

I can almost understand John “the poker player” McCain. He never met a war he didn’t like. I get that. He’s dead wrong. But at least there is some consistency. He’s a hawk. On Syria intervention, his only question is whether lobbing some cruise missiles at unspecified targets is doing enough. He doesn’t know good guys from bad guys or bad guys from really bad guys. He’s become a walking anachronism. But, give him his due, he’s consistent – even if he’s consistently wrong.

How does one begin to comprehend the newfound machismo and phony bravado of the Obama inner circle?

How does Kerry, after dining so famously with Bashar Assad, his wife and Teresa Heinz-Kerry and characterizing the Syrian leader as a positive force for peace and stability in the Middle East, now enthusiastically call for bombing him?

I’ll tell you how.

I’ve said it before.

And since I said it others have come suddenly come to the same conclusion.

The Saudis are demanding it.

Kerry as much as admitted it when he said “the Arabs” are willing to finance the whole war with Syria. What Arabs do you think he means? It’s not Jordan. It’s not Egypt. It’s the oil sheikhs.

And we all know when the Saudis speak those who listen and respond adoringly wind up as wealthier men after they leave their temporary elected or appointed political offices. It’s a better deal than the K Street lobbyists offer.

Jimmy Carter is no longer farming for peanuts after doing their bidding.

Bill and Hillary Clinton no longer have to worry about writing any more unjustifiably big-advance, low-selling books.

George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush certainly don’t have to worry about where their bread is buttered.

And we all know Kerry, who twice fell in love with and married heiresses, is always looking for opportunities for more personal wealth.

Could it be that simple?

Just study Occam’s razor, the principle that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions is probably right.

That leads me to conclude that these men and women are content with the hideous, almost unspeakable notion that the U.S. military can and should be used as a Saudi mercenary force if it is in their best personal interests.

I know it’s almost too unbelievably horrific to imagine, but try to explain why American leaders are seriously debating a wildly unpopular military attack on a faraway nation that poses no threat to U.S. security and is disconnected with any U.S. vital interests.

This is what Congress should be investigating. This is what Congress should be holding hearings about. This is what Congress should be debating – not whether to authorize an attack Syria, but why the executive branch is so determined to do so, with or without Congress’ approval.

[member_27444]

Lets be optimistic our oil minister has said there is lot of shale, we are on the verge of breeding our own fuel we develop electric nano
We don't need any oil or grease the palms
Clean electric clean coal with only one ash we can do it alone

[habal]

West's wars of choice target the weak
By Dan Glazebrook

The major difference between Syria now and Libya then is not, in fact, one of evidence, mass pressure, or "war fatigue", but one of strength.

Parliament has not changed its ways; it is acting now just as it did in 2011, 2003 and, indeed, 1782, according to a very consistent principle - wars of choice should only be waged against the weak and isolated. Libya and Iraq were both of these things; Syria is neither. Libya and Iraq had both subjected themselves to comprehensive disarmament programs prior to being attacked, and both were without strong powerful allies willing to defend them.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_Eas ... 60913.html

[anmol]

[habal]

forces all-lied to US are full of lies

Britain, France, Germany & Israel Lie For Obama

By Stephen Lendman
9-4-13


Obama rages for more war. He intends more mass killing and destruction. Attacking Syria is virtually certain. It's just a matter of when.

It's likely shortly after Congress reconvenes on September 9. So-called token strikes conceal planned shock and awe.

Tomahawk cruise missiles usually carry 1,000 lb. warheads. Hundreds may be launched over several days.

Doing so will cause extensive destruction. Perhaps thousands will die. Many more will be injured. If damage assessment is insufficient, more strikes will follow.

Bombs away is longstanding US policy. America's a killing machine. It's history is bloodstained. More lawless aggression is imminent. It's based on lies.

John Kerry replicated Colin Powell's moment three times. He lied repeatedly. So-called evidence he claimed about Assad using chemical weapons is fabricated. None exists.

It's baseless. It's fake. It's manufactured out of whole cloth. No evidence links Syria to chemical weapons use. None!! Claiming otherwise reflects Obama's rage for war.

Britain, France, Germany and Israel are imperial partners. Lies are contagious. They're spreading their own.

On September 1, the Express UK headlined "Senior Syrian military chiefs tell captain: fire chemicals or be shot," saying:

"British intelligence chiefs have intercepted radio messages in which senior Syrian military chiefs are heard ordering the use of chemical weapons."

"The dramatic revelation, disclosed by a high-placed RAF source, came as the defiant Syrian government declared it was 'fully ready' with 'its finger on the trigger' for an expected US attack."

The unnamed RAF officer lied, saying:

"The commander of the artillery battery told the regional commander that he would not comply and there was a heated exchange."

"He was told in direct language that unless the order was carried out, he would be shot."

"A total of 27 chemical artillery shells were then fired at the suburb in a 14-minute period."

"The conversation was monitored and recorded by British officers based at the remote mountain-top RAF Troodos Signals Intelligence listening post in Cyprus and within minutes details of the conversation had been relayed to GCHQ, Whitehall and the Pentagon," said the Express.

On September 2, AFP headlined "French intel says 'massive use' of chemical weapons by Syria regime," saying:

"A French intelligence report released Monday said there was 'massive use of chemical agents' in an August 21 attack in Syria and that only the regime could have been responsible."

AFP's report followed French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault saying:

Syria "launched an attack on some suburbs of Damascus held by units of the opposition, combining conventional means with the massive use of chemical agents."

John Kerry claimed 1,429 killed. "French intelligence had counted at least 281," said AFP. Actual numbers are unknown. They're likely many fewer than higher estimates.

So is the cause of death. Natural News editor Mike Adams headlined "Bombshell: Syria's 'chemical weapons' turn out to be sodium fluoride used in the US water supply and sold at Wal-Mart."

He called the chemical weapons narrative claimed by Kerry and others "an outlandish hoax."

He cited the London Independent's report about Britain providing Syria with two chemicals able to produce nerve gas.

What are they, asked Adams? "You won't believe me when I tell you. They are: sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride."

The Independent's "headline describes 'nerve gas chemicals' and the subhead (calls them) 'sodium fluoride' and 'potassium fluoride.' "

According to Adams, so-called toxic chemicals evidence is "nothing more than hair samples of people who drank sodium fluoride."

"Tests done on Syrian citizens using ICP-MS (instrumentation) would not be able to distinguish between sodium fluoride and sarin exposure in terms of the detection of elemental fluorine."

Sarin's chemical formulation includes fluorine, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and phosphorous. Four elements occur naturally. Fluorine doesn't. It's used in sodium fluoride.

ICP-MS testing can intentionally "blur" evidence, said Adams. Doing so can make sodium fluoride appear like sarin "signatures." That's "precisely" what Kerry claimed.

He faked so-called evidence to fit policy. So did US allies their way.

On September 3, Russia Today headlined "German intelligence concludes sarin gas used on Assad's orders - reports," saying:

Germany's BND claims "enough evidence to conclude (Assad) ordered suspected chemical attack in Syria, Germany’s Der Spiegel reports, quoting the results of a secret security briefing."

Der Spiegel headlined "Syria crisis: BND captures evidence of use of poison gas by Assad regime."

"The German intelligence is certain that (Assad's) responsible for the poison gas attack in Syria."

"Even though there is no definitive proof, (there are) many clues. A wiretapped telephone call from the BND could be decisive."

BND president Gerhard Schindler cited "a lack of clear evidence." He lied claiming only Syria's government has the ability to produce sarin and launch it using rockets.

BND's analysis "is consistent with the findings presented by the United States," said Der Spiegel.

Schindler lied saying insurgents "were not in a position to carry out such a concerted attack."

US officials "reported only in abstract," he said. He admitted Germany has no definitive proof.

It won't participate in America's attack. It's targeting Assad its own way. It claims its own fake evidence.

So-called intercepted communications don't exist. Claiming otherwise is a convenient canard. Germany can claim whatever it wishes. So can Washington, Britain, France and Israel.

On September 1, Haaretz headlined "Report: Syrians used chemical weapons repeatedly against rebels," saying:

An unnamed "senior Israeli official said that, so far, small quantities of chemical weapons have been used in all cases, and in low dosages."

At the same time, he said:

"Neither Israel nor the United States has intelligence information directly connecting Assad or his close associates to the attack on August 21."

"However, there is no doubt that there has been use of chemical weapons by elements in the Syrian army."

Evidence consists largely of so-called intercepted communications. They don't exist. They're fake. No verifiable evidence corroborates them.

Assad strongly denies using chemical weapons any time throughout months of conflict. He's done it publicly. France's Le Figaro interviewed him. It headlined "Assad's warning to France."

Le Figaro's George Malbrunot asked him to prove a negative.

"Can you prove to us that your army did not use chemical weapons on 21 August in the Damascus suburb, during attacks that killed more than a thousand people, as you are accused of by Barack Obama and Francois Hollande," he asked?

Assad: "It is for those who are making the accusations to provide the proof."

"We have challenged the United States and France to put forward a single proof."

"Obama and Hollande have been unable to do so, even to their own people."

"Supposing our army wishes to use weapons of mass destruction."

"Is it possible that it would do so in a zone where it is located and where (our) soldiers were wounded by these arms, as United Nations inspectors have noted during visits to hospitals where they were treated? Where is the logic," he asked?

Assad called the region "a powder key, and today the flame is coming very near." The "fuse is getting shorter."

"Everyone will lose when the powder keg explodes. Chaos and extremism will spread. There is a risk of regional war."

"Whoever contributes to the terrorists' financial or military strengthening is the enemy of the Syrian people. Whoever works against the interests of Syria and its citizens is an enemy."

Assad called Obama weak, saying:

"If (he) was strong, he would have said publicly: 'We have no evidence of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian State.' "

"He would have said publicly: 'The only way to proceed is through UN investigations."

..

[SSridhar]

India Not in Favour of Armed Action for Regime Change in Syria: Man Mohan Singh - Economic Times

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said that whatever action is required in Syria should be under the UN framework, amid growing pressure on US President Barack Obama from his Russian counterpart and other world leaders not to attack the Arab country.

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 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 favour 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 authorise the action if it is necessary.

G20 leaders remain divided over the Syrian conflict as they entered the second and final day of the summit.

According to Italian Premier Enrico Letta, the splits were confirmed during the working dinner. In a tweet, he said that "the G20 has just now finished the dinner session, at which the divisions about Syria were confirmed".

A spokesman for the Russian presidency said a US strike on Syria would "drive another nail into the coffin of international law".

With the US looking increasingly isolated over Syria, Putin has made no secret of his opposition to US military intervention. Putin this week said any military strikes without UN approval would be "an aggression".

Apologists for the US & UK would now start reviling India's correct stand.

[Aditya_V]

But US action looks inevitable, lets hope its not like Libya as that would encourage only future actions.

[Singha]

around 22 years after the event, has the oil production of Iraq reached back to 1990 levels?

[vishvak]

Also, what is the total demand now versus total discoveries of usable oil. This after shale oil and oil shale etc should be no issue at all no?

[pankajs]

Apologies if this has been posted before.

Obama Can't Win

Because you've heard this one before, right? An American president tells the world that brief, decisive military action is necessary to keep a murderous Middle Eastern despot from using weapons of mass destruction. The world is skeptical (as is the U.S. public). Declassified U.S. intelligence reports are bandied about. Foreign leaders remain unconvinced, urging patience and diplomacy as U.N. inspectors prepare a report of their own. The American president insists he'll use force unilaterally if necessary, and dares Congress to disagree. Congress caves.

The first time -- that would be Iraq, for those of you who are new around here -- things ended badly. You'll recall that the intelligence turned out to have been cooked (if not cooked through, it was at least half-baked). The U.N. secretary-general declared the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq illegal. And despite early Bush administration promises that the use of U.S. military force would be limited in scope and duration, the United States soon found itself embroiled in a multi-sided conflict that lasted eight years, cost more than a trillion dollars and killed nearly 4,500 American servicemembers (not to mention untold thousands of Iraqis).

You may also recall a young senator named Barack Obama, whose principled opposition to the Iraq War brought him national fame. In October 2002, Obama had this to say about the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq:

I don't oppose all wars ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war ... I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity ... But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors ... I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.

It was a good speech. The kind of speech -- full of passion and honesty and good sense -- that eventually propelled Obama into the White House.

Ten years later, of course, it's President Obama who finds himself trying to sell a U.S. military intervention to a reluctant world. The ironies are staggering, and sad.

<snip>

It's painful to see Obama, who was once so famously moved by Samantha Power's book on the Rwandan genocide, insist that a hundred thousand dead Syrians is very sad, but not America's problem. Most of the dead civilians unwisely got themselves killed in the traditional manner, with bullets and bombs; it's only the 1,400 Syrians killed by chemical weapons who merit U.S. action (as opposed to U.S. sympathy). Why? Because for some reason the international laws prohibiting chemical weapons require reaffirmation through the use of U.S. military force, whereas the international laws prohibiting other war crimes require no such reaffirmation.

It's painful to see the president insist that the United States doesn't want regime change, in one of the few situations in which urging regime change would surely be justified. Assad is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of his own citizens in a brutal, ongoing conflict, and we don't hope he'll be ousted?

Most of all, it's painful to see this president -- the man who once spoke so eloquently against "rash wars" driven by "cynicism" and "politics" -- going to war to solely because he's boxed himself into a rhetorical corner. Sure, "credibility" is important -- but is living up to one thoughtless remark about red lines more important than avoiding pointless, poorly thought-through military action?

Oddly, many in the media seem convinced that Obama's pledge to seek congressional authorization for a Syria intervention was a clever gamble. It wasn't. It was, to paraphrase Obama, a dumb gamble. That's because there is now no good outcome for Obama, only a range of painfully ironic outcomes.

Read the rest

[pankajs]

How the Loneliest Job in the World Got Even Lonelier

[JwalaMukhi]

India's crude oil imports from Iran year 2009 - 16% of total imports
India's crude oil imports from Iran year 2012 - 6% of total imports

India's crude oil imports from Iran year 2015 -- ?

Overall India should be working overtime to reduce dependency on foreign oil and should be pioneering alternatives. Simultaneously it should be working to secure its interests from who can actually meet the demands, and not indulge in pie in the sky dreams like having a pipeline from Iran to India via pak. That kind of idealism and romanticism is good for earlier India with nostalgic feelings of India - name your country bhai bhai scheme.
If India is content with Nehruvian growth of rates, attracted to perennial slogans of garbi hatao, it can continue on the path of romantic dreams with Iran. For a futuristic India, that trajectory is unwise.

[habal]

there used to be an Indian Prime Minister by name of Gulzari Lal Nanda. His speeches used to be in this fashion:

1. Hamein gareebi door karna hain.
2. Hamein berozgari door karna hain.
3. Hamein bhookmari par kabza karna hain.
4. Hamein aurto ko samman dilwana hain.
5. Hamein bachchon ka shuposhan karna hain.
6. Hamein apne desh ko sudhrid banana hain.

err .. theek hain janab .. lekin yeh sab karega kaun.

[member_27444]

He was unique in many ways
True Gandhian
Man with only one lung
Man who was sworn twice as interim PM
He died bikari while hatao ing bikari

[Garooda]

Amateur Video of RPG being fired at ships in the Suez Canal. Not sure how credible though.



Reuters_Video

[Pranav]

Footage of chemical attack in Syria is fraud - http://rt.com/op-edge/mother-chemical-a ... fraud-509/

[Garooda]

Great URL with Images of international Aircraft Carriers and other Naval Vessels

[Austin]

Putin: Syria chemical attack is ‘rebels' provocation in hope of intervention’
http://rt.com/news/putin-g20-syria-meeting-511/

The alleged chemical weapons use in Syria is a provocation carried out by the rebels to attract a foreign-led strike, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the G20 summit.

There was no 50/50 split of opinion on the notion of a military strike against the Syrian President Bashar Assad, Putin stressed.

Only Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and France joined the US push for intervention, he said, adding that the UK Prime Minister’s position was not supported by his citizens.

Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa and Italy were among the major world’s economies clearly opposed to military intervention.

President Putin said the G20 nations spent the “entire” Thursday evening discussing the Syrian crisis, which was followed by Putin’s bilateral meeting with UK Prime Minister David Cameron that lasted till 3am Moscow time.

Russia “will help Syria” in the event of a military strike, Putin stressed as he responded to a reporter’s question at the summit.

[vishvak]

Footage of chemical attack in Syria is fraud - http://rt.com/op-edge/mother-chemical-a ... fraud-509/

So genocides and mass attacks,rapes,pillage is going all over Syria. Those who are silent on it seem to be the most secular- Arap Sunni axis, Turkey, NATO, US. Something similar to what was going on in EBengal perhaps.

[Garooda]

Interesting article. I'm sure it has been or being discussed on other BR threads.

Secret Agenda in Syria?
Page 1 of Page 3

September 4, 2013 In an August 2013 article titled “ Larry Summers and the Secret ‘End-game’ Memo,” Greg Palast posted evidence of a secret late-1990s plan devised by Wall Street and U.S. Treasury officials to open banking to the lucrative derivatives business. To pull this off required the relaxation of banking regulations not just in the US but globally. The vehicle to be used was the Financial Services Agreement of the World Trade Organization.

The “end-game” would require not just coercing support among WTO members but taking down those countries refusing to join. Some key countries remained holdouts from the WTO, including Iraq, Libya, Iran and Syria. In these Islamic countries, banks are largely state-owned; and “usury” – charging rent for the “use” of money – is viewed as a sin, if not a crime. That puts them at odds with the Western model of rent extraction by private middlemen. Publicly-owned banks are also a threat to the mushrooming derivatives business, since governments with their own banks don’t need interest rate swaps, credit default swaps, or investment-grade ratings by private rating agencies in order to finance their operations.

Bank deregulation proceeded according to plan, and the government-sanctioned and -nurtured derivatives business mushroomed into a $700-plus trillion pyramid scheme. Highly leveraged, completely unregulated, and dangerously unsustainable, it collapsed in 2008 when investment bank Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, taking a large segment of the global economy with it. The countries that managed to escape were those sustained by public banking models outside the international banking net.

These countries were not all Islamic. Forty percent of banks globally are publicly-owned. They are largely in the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—which house forty percent of the global population. They also escaped the 2008 credit crisis, but they at least made a show of conforming to Western banking rules. This was not true of the “rogue” Islamic nations, where usury was forbidden by Islamic teaching. To make the world safe for usury, these rogue states had to be silenced by other means. Having failed to succumb to economic coercion, they wound up in the crosshairs of the powerful US military.

Here is some data in support of that thesis.

The End-game Memo

In his August 22nd article, Greg Palast posted a screenshot of a 1997 memo from Timothy Geithner, then Assistant Secretary of International Affairs under Robert Rubin, to Larry Summers, then Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. Geithner referred in the memo to the “end-game of WTO financial services negotiations” and urged Summers to touch base with the CEOs of Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citibank, and Chase Manhattan Bank, for whom private phone numbers were provided.

The game then in play was the deregulation of banks so that they could gamble in the lucrative new field of derivatives. To pull this off required, first, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the 1933 Act that imposed a firewall between investment banking and depository banking in order to protect depositors’ funds from bank gambling. But the plan required more than just deregulating US banks. Banking controls had to be eliminated globally so that money would not flee to nations with safer banking laws. The “endgame” was to achieve this global deregulation through an obscure addendum to the international trade agreements policed by the World Trade Organization, called the Financial Services Agreement. Palast wrote:

Until the bankers began their play, the WTO agreements dealt simply with trade in goods–that is, my cars for your bananas. The new rules ginned-up by Summers and the banks would force all nations to accept trade in "bads" – toxic assets like financial derivatives.

[Garooda]

Page 2 from the above link.

Until the bankers' re-draft of the FSA, each nation controlled and chartered the banks within their own borders. The new rules of the game would force every nation to open their markets to Citibank, JP Morgan and their derivatives "products."

And all 156 nations in the WTO would have to smash down their own Glass-Steagall divisions between commercial savings banks and the investment banks that gamble with derivatives.

The job of turning the FSA into the bankers' battering ram was given to Geithner, who was named Ambassador to the World Trade Organization.

WTO members were induced to sign the agreement by threatening their access to global markets if they refused; and they all did sign, except Brazil. Brazil was then threatened with an embargo; but its resistance paid off, since it alone among Western nations survived and thrived during the 2007-2009 crisis. As for the others:

The new FSA pulled the lid off the Pandora's box of worldwide derivatives trade. Among the notorious transactions legalized: Goldman Sachs (where Treasury Secretary Rubin had been Co-Chairman) worked a secret euro-derivatives swap with Greece which, ultimately, destroyed that nation. Ecuador, its own banking sector de-regulated and demolished, exploded into riots. Argentina had to sell off its oil companies (to the Spanish) and water systems (to Enron) while its teachers hunted for food in garbage cans. Then, Bankers Gone Wild in the Eurozone dove head-first into derivatives pools without knowing how to swim–and the continent is now being sold off in tiny, cheap pieces to Germany.

The Holdouts

That was the fate of countries in the WTO, but Palast did not discuss those that were not in that organization at all, including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. These seven countries were named by U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.) in a 2007 “Democracy Now” interview as the new “rogue states” being targeted for take down after September 11, 2001. He said that about 10 days after 9-11, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq. Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

What did these countries have in common? Besides being Islamic, they were not members either of the WTO or of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That left them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland. Other countries later identified as “ rogue states” that were also not members of the BIS included North Korea, Cuba, and Afghanistan.

The body regulating banks today is called the Financial Stability Board (FSB), and it is housed in the BIS in Switzerland. In 2009, the heads of the G20 nations agreed to be bound by rules imposed by the FSB, ostensibly to prevent another global banking crisis. Its regulations are not merely advisory but are binding, and they can make or break not just banks but whole nations. This was first demonstrated in 1989, when the Basel I Accord raised capital requirements a mere 2%, from 6% to 8%. The result was to force a drastic reduction in lending by major Japanese banks, which were then the world’s largest and most powerful creditors. They were undercapitalized, however, relative to other banks. The Japanese economy sank along with its banks and has yet to fully recover.

Among other game-changing regulations in play under the FSB are Basel III and the new bail-in rules. Basel III is slated to impose crippling capital requirements on public, cooperative and community banks, coercing their sale to large multinational banks.

[Garooda]

Page 3 from the above link.

The “bail-in” template was first tested in Cyprus and follows regulations imposed by the FSB in 2011. Too-big-to-fail banks are required to draft “living wills” setting forth how they will avoid insolvency in the absence of government bailouts. The FSB solution is to “bail in” creditors – including depositors – turning deposits into bank stock, effectively confiscating them.

The Public Bank Alternative

Countries laboring under the yoke of an extractive private banking system are being forced into “structural adjustment” and austerity by their unrepayable debt. But some countries have managed to escape. In the Middle East, these are the targeted “rogue nations.” Their state-owned banks can issue the credit of the state on behalf of the state, leveraging public funds for public use without paying a massive tribute to private middlemen. Generous state funding allows them to provide generously for their people.

Like Libya and Iraq before they were embroiled in war, Syria provides free education at all levels and free medical care. It also provides subsidized housing for everyone (although some of this has been compromised by adoption of an IMF structural adjustment program in 2006 and the presence of about 2 million Iraqi and Palestinian refugees). Iran too provides nearly free higher education and primary health care.

Like Libya and Iraq before takedown, Syria and Iran have state-owned central banks that issue the national currency and are under government control. Whether these countries will succeed in maintaining their financial sovereignty in the face of enormous economic, political and military pressure remains to be seen.

As for Larry Summers, after proceeding through the revolving door to head Citigroup, he became State Senator Barack Obama’s key campaign benefactor. He played a key role in the banking deregulation that brought on the current crisis, causing millions of US citizens to lose their jobs and their homes. Yet Summers is President Obama’s first choice to replace Ben Bernanke as Federal Reserve Chairman. Why? He has proven he can manipulate the system to make the world safe for Wall Street; and in an upside-down world in which bankers rule, that seems to be the name of the game.

[Philip]

Yes,its all about oil-translate that into $$$.Control over every nation's finances is the ultimate goal of the western bankers,who are a "nation" unto themselves.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/s ... s-g20-live
Syria crisis 'splits' G20 – live updates

• US accuses Russia of holding UN hostage over Syria
• Cameron pledges an extra £52m for Syrian refugees
• US withdraws staff from Lebanon
• Russia sends another ship to the eastern Mediterranean
• Blair: Syria hesitancy prompted by Iraq 'difficulties'

[Singha]

^ looks like the jihadis have a nice new game now .... sit in the orchards and farms on the suez and shoot at the huge ships passing meters from them
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Video- ... nal-325370