West Asia News and Discussions

[vinod]

The Geopolitics of Gas and the Syrian Crisis: Syrian “Opposition” Armed to Thwart Construction of Iran-Iraq-Syria Gas Pipeline

What has one of the most democratic countries of the Middle East, Syria, done to tick off some of its neighbors in the West, the fierce fighters for democracy? The irrationality and unscrupulousness of the approaches Western countries have taken to the Syrian crisis, when the same people who in Europe are considered terrorists are declared «freedom fighters» when it comes to Syria, becomes clearer in light of the economic dimension of the Syrian tragedy. There is every reason to think that by helping destroy its own cultural and historical roots in Syria, Europe is first and foremost fighting for energy resources. And a special role is played by natural gas, which is emerging as the main fuel of the 21st century. The geopolitical problems connected with its production, transportation and use are perhaps more than any other topic on the radar of Western strategists.

In the apt expression of F. William Engdahl, «Natural gas is the flammable ingredient that is fueling this insane scramble for energy in the region.» A battle is raging over whether pipelines will go toward Europe from east to west, from Iran and Iraq to the Mediterranean coast of Syria, or take a more northbound route from Qatar and Saudi Arabia via Syria and Turkey. Having realized that the stalled Nabucco pipeline, and indeed the entire Southern Corridor, are backed up only by Azerbaijan’s reserves and can never equal Russian supplies to Europe or thwart the construction of the South Stream, the West is in a hurry to replace them with resources from the Persian Gulf. Syria ends up being a key link in this chain, and it leans in favor of Iran and Russia; thus it was decided in the Western capitals that its regime needs to change. The fight for «democracy» is a false flag thrown out to cover up totally different aims.

It is not difficult to notice that the rebellion in Syria began to grow two years ago, almost at the same time as the signing of a memorandum in Bushehr on June 25, 2011 regarding the construction of a new Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline… It is to stretch 1500 km from Asaluyeh on the largest gas field in the world, North Dome/South Pars (shared between Qatar and Iran) to Damascus. The length of pipeline on the territory of Iran will be 225 km, in Iraq 500 km, and in Syria 500-700 km. Later it may be extended along the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea to Greece. The possibility of supplying liquefied gas to Europe via Syria’s Mediterranean ports is also under consideration. Investments in this project equal 10 billion dollars. (1)

This pipeline, dubbed the «Islamic pipeline», was supposed to start operation in the period from 2014 to 2016. Its projected capacity is 110 million cubic meters of gas per day (40 billion cubic meters a year). Iraq, Syria and Lebanon have already declared their need for Iranian gas (25-30 million cubic meters per day for Iraq, 20-25 million cubic meters for Syria, and 5-7 million cubic meters until 2020 for Lebanon). Some of the gas will be supplied via the Arab gas transportation system to Jordan. Experts believe that this project could be an alternative to the Nabucco gas pipeline being promoted by the European Union (with a planned capacity of 30 billion cubic meters of gas per year), which doesn’t have sufficient reserves. It was planned to run the Nabucco pipeline from Iraq, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan through the territory of Turkey. At first Iran was also considered as a resource base, but later it was excluded from the project. After the signing of the memorandum on the Islamic Pipeline, the head of the National Iranian Gas Company (NIGC), Javad Oji, stated that South Pars, with recoverable reserves of 16 trillion cubic meters of gas, is a «reliable source of gas, which is a prerequisite for the building of a pipeline which Nabucco does not have».It is easy to observe that about 20 billion cubic meters per year will remain from this pipeline for Europe, which would be able to compete with Nabucco’s 30 billion, but not the 63 billion from the South Stream.

A gas pipeline from Iran would be highly profitable for Syria. Europe would gain from it as well, but clearly someone in the West didn’t like it. The West’s gas-supplying allies in the Persian Gulf weren’t happy with it either, nor was would-be no. 1 gas transporter Turkey, as it would then be out of the game. The new «unholy alliance» which formed between them shamelessly declared its goal to be «protecting democratic values» in the Middle East, although logically speaking the U.S. and its allies ought to begin this with their own partners in the coalition against Syria from among the monarchies of the Persian Gulf, which are questionable in this regard.

The Sunnite countries also see the Islamic Pipeline from the viewpoint of interconfessional contradictions, considering it a «Shiite pipeline from Shiite Iran through the territory of Iraq with its Shiite majority and into the territory of Shiite-friendly Alawite Asad». As renowned researcher on energy issues F. William Engdahl writes, this geopolitical drama is intensified by the fact that the South Pars field lies in the Persian Gulf directly on the border between Shiite Iran and Sunnite Qatar. But tiny Qatar, which is no match for Iran in power, makes active use of its connections with the military presence of the U.S. and NATO in the Persian Gulf. On the territory of Qatar are a command node of the Pentagon’s Central Command of the U.S. Armed Forces, the headquarters of the Head Command of the U.S. Air Force, the No. 83 Expeditionary Air Group of the British Air Force and the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing of the U.S. Air Force. Qatar, in Engdahl’s opinion, has other plans for its share in the South Pars gas field and is not eager to join efforts with Iran, Syria and Iraq. It is not at all interested in the success of an Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, which would be completely independent of the transit routes of Qatar or Turkey leading to Europe. In fact, Qatar is doing all it can to thwart the construction of the pipeline, including arming the «opposition» fighters in Syria, many of whom come from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Libya. (2)

Qatar’s resolve is fed by the discovery by Syrian geological exploration companies in 2011 of Syria’s own large gas-producing area near the Lebanese border, not far from the Mediterranean port of Tartus which Russia leases, and the detection of a significant gas field near Homs. According to preliminary estimates, these discoveries should substantially increase the country’s gas reserves, which previously amounted to 284 billion cubic meters. The fact that the export of Syrian or Iranian gas to the European Union could take place through the port of Tartus, which has ties to Russia, is unsatisfactory to Qatar and its Western patrons as well. (3)

The Arabic newspaper Al-Akhbar cites information according to which there is a plan approved by the U.S. government to create a new pipeline for transporting gas from Qatar to Europe involving Turkey and Israel. The capacity of such a pipeline is not mentioned, but considering the resources of the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean region, it could exceed that of both the Islamic Pipeline and Nabucco, directly challenging Russia’s South Stream. The main developer of this project is Frederick Hoff, who is «in charge of gas issues in the Levant» and a member of the U.S. «Syrian Crisis Committee». This new pipeline is to begin in Qatar, cross Saudi territory and then the territory of Jordan, thus bypassing Shiite Iraq, and reach Syria. Near Homs the pipeline is to branch in three directions: to Latakia, Tripoli in northern Lebanon, and Turkey. Homs, where there are also hydrocarbon reserves, is the «project’s main crossroads», and it is not surprising that it is in the vicinity of this city and its «key», Al-Qusayr, that the fiercest fighting is taking place. Here the fate of Syria is being decided. The parts of Syrian territory where detachments of rebels are operating with the support of the U.S., Qatar and Turkey, that is, the north, Homs and the environs of Damascus, coincide with the route that the pipeline is to follow to Turkey and Tripoli, Lebanon. A comparison of a map of armed hostilities and a map of the Qatar pipeline route indicates a link between armed activities and the desire to control these Syrian territories. Qatar’s allies are trying to accomplish three goals: «to break Russia’s gas monopoly in Europe; to free Turkey from its dependence on Iranian gas; and to give Israel the chance to export its gas to Europe by land at less cost». (4) As Asia Times analyst Pepe Escobar indicated, the Emir of Qatar apparently made a deal with the «Muslim Brotherhood» according to which it will support their international expansion in exchange for a pact of peace within Qatar. A «Muslim Brotherhood» regime in Jordan and in Syria, supported by Qatar, would abruptly change the entire geopolitical world gas market – decidedly in favor of Qatar and to the detriment of Russia, Syria, Iran and Iraq. It would also be a crushing blow to China. (5)

The war against Syria is aimed at pushing this project through, as well as at the breakdown of the agreement between Tehran, Baghdad and Damascus. Its implementation has been halted several times due to military action, but in February 2013 Iraq declared its readiness to sign a framework agreement which would enable the construction of the pipeline. (6) It is worth noting that after this, more and more new groups of Iraqi Shiites have risen up in support of Asad; as The Washington Post admits, they have «no little battle experience» in confronting Americans in their country. Along with fighters from Lebanon’s Hezbollah, they make an ever more formidable force. (7) The stakes in the «elimination game» started in Syria by the West over the gas pipeline continue to grow. The end of the European Union’s embargo on supplying weapons to the Syrian opposition, which according to the BBC the majority of EU member countries were against (8) (democracy, where are you?), might not be able to help the rebels.

As for civilization and justice, when profit is at stake, sentiment doesn’t matter. The main thing is not to play the wrong card in this unfair game that smells of blood and gas.

[Kati]

Only one thing is standing on the way of US Congress to authorizing the force in Syria - that is the Strong US Public opinion.
Some congressmen/women are very nervous since the election is just around the corner.
Please go to www.newsmax.com
and cast your vote....see how strongly (by 90% to 10%) US public are against the community organizer launching another attack to help the Al Qaeda bretheren.

[member_20317]

Ombaba ka parthian shot. He will not get a third chance.

[Philip]

Fear and loathing in St Petersburg: Cameron forced to shrug off Putin ‘snub’

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 00966.html

Vladimir Putin’s spokesman was forced to deny on Thursday that he had dismissed the UK as “a small island no one pays any attention to” as the G20 summit in St Petersburg opened in acrimony.

David Cameron responded to the alleged snub, which was reported to have been made by Dmitry Peskov in a briefing to Russian journalists, by saying that he did not accept Mr Peskov had used the words “for a moment”. But a No 10 source urged Mr Putin’s office to clarify his position, saying: “As host of guests from the world’s leading countries, I’m sure the Russians will want to clarify these reported remarks, particularly at a G20 where it’s a very British agenda on trade and tax.”

And today the Prime Minister told reporters: "Britain may be a small island, but I would challenge anyone to find a country with a prouder history, a bigger heart or greater resilience.

“We are very proud of everything we do as a small island - a small island that has the sixth-largest economy, the fourth best-funded military, some of the most effective diplomats, the proudest history, one of the best records for art and literature and contribution to philosophy and world civilisation.”

The incident was particularly troublesome for Mr Cameron who has been fighting accusations that he has been sidelined by the world’s most powerful nations following Parliament’s rejection of British military involvement in Syria and the revelation that he will not be holding one-to-one talks with Barack Obama during the two-day event in Russia.

The controversy erupted as an emboldened Mr Putin changed the G20 agenda – which was originally focused on trade and tax matters – to include a dinner discussion about Syria. His move brought the conflict to the heart of the summit, possibly in the hope that Mr Obama would be seen to have no majority support for military strikes on the Assad regime, which he favours in retaliation for the chemical attack on the Ghouta suburb of Damascus on 21 August.

Mr Putin – who has supported President Assad throughout the two-year civil war – was judged to have won the first round of his showdown with Mr Obama. A number of leaders sounded cool, and in some cases hostile, to the US President’s call for action. China’s Deputy Finance Minister, Zhu Guangyao, told a briefing: “Military action would have a negative impact on the global economy, especially on oil prices.”

The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who is at the G20, added: “A political solution is the only way to end the bloodshed in Syria.” Even the Pope appealed for G20 leaders to “lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution”, writing in a letter to Mr Putin that there should be a renewed commitment to seek … a peaceful solution … unanimously supported by the international community”.

The emerging positions left the Russian President looking pleased as he waited outside the ornate Constantine Palace to greet guests who together represent two-thirds of the world’s population. None of the guests was more eagerly anticipated than Mr Obama, who emerged from of his armour-plated limousine and extended a stiff handshake. Looking stern at first, Mr Obama praised the beauty of the palace and then grinned for the cameras as he and Mr Putin shook hands vigorously. The Russian President smiled, but the 20-second exchange was anything but warm. The White House went out of its way to say that Mr Obama would not be holding any one-on-one sessions with the Russian leader at the summit.

Mr Cameron urged Mr Obama to go ahead with strikes even though Britain will play no part in them. “Having set a red line on the further big use of chemical weapons it would be wrong if America were to step back, to do nothing. That would send a signal to Assad and also to dictators everywhere,” he told the BBC.

Meanwhile, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is not a G20 member, issued strong support for President Assad. He called accusations of chemical weapons use a “pretext” to launch strikes.

Earlier Mr Peskov, in the same contentious briefing said the US should wait for a report by UN inspectors before intervening militarily, adding that American evidence “was quite far from being convincing”.

St Petersburg Diary: Driving issues

Boy racers

Presidential one-upmanship was supposed to be confined to Syria, and not how each of the world leaders arrived. Each dignitary was allocated a perfectly adequate Mercedes. It wasn’t, it seems, quite adequate enough for Mr Obama who instead insisted on arriving in the Beast – his armour-plated limo – after a grand show from Air Force One. At least this time the Beast behaved itself. During his most recent trip to Ireland it got stuck on a sleeping policeman.

Alphabet soup

A game of diplomatic musical chairs seemed to have spared red faces at last night’s formal dinner, where guests were seated in alphabetical order. Using the Cyrillic alphabet – as might have been expected for a meeting in Russia – Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin would have faced the uncomfortable prospect of being forced to sit next to each other. Thankfully, one bright official thought up the idea that the Roman equivalent might be used instead.

PS: "Codger" Cameron has been stung by the truth of the statements,allegedly made by the Russians,and thus has gone overboard in his wild and ridiculous mouthings.As for its "history",its colonial past is one best forgotten,especially if he wants to make the Commonwealth an institution of some residual value.I'm sure that CW leaders will look at his mouthings and shake their heads in disbelief.It appears that nothing has changed mentally for neo-imperialists and neo-colonialists.

[Austin]

So the entire BRICS nation has opposed any US strikes which is a good sign that these nation agree on not only Economic Issues but also key Geo-Strategic ones... not to mention some European nations as well as Indonesia and South American ones.

Obama has set himself in trap on this issue and now he has to go ahead with the strike to keep The President words.

To his bad luck he will also remember well that most people in US never really supported this strike........ What a pity .....He did pretty well to stay away from war and stop what was ongoing .....wonder how he fell into this trap perhaps Israel and Saudi pressure ......and an opportunity to prove how pro-yehudi he is.....atleast in the eyes of Israel he will be a superstar after this strike.

[Philip]

O'Bomber's middle name ,"Hussein" should clinch the issue.He is totally in cahoots with his Saudi and oily Gulfers.Great will be his post-presidential existence,he will want for nothing.Just look at how former US Deputy "Tiny B.Liar" is milking the cash cow of the talk circuit to the tune of millionseach year for supporting the US in illegally invading Iraq? Just look at how he willl never want for paper to wipe his a*se!

Maybe Hussein O'Bomber ,from being so familiar with bovine faeces,will get more from shi*pot manufacturers!

Who says Blair's a busted flush? Former PM is paid £50,000 for speech to conference of toilet roll manufacturers
By Simon Walters
7 November 2010

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2e8R492Rh

Tony Blair's lucrative speaking career plumbs new depths this week when he is paid an estimated £50,000 to address a conference of toilet roll and disinfectant manufacturers.

He is keynote speaker on Thursday at the ISSA Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association conference in Orlando, Florida.

ISSA stands for International Sanitary Supply Association and guests have had to make ‘donations’ of up to $1,000 to secure the best seats for Mr Blair’s speech at 8.30am.

The conference is attended by thousands of executives from firms selling products from vacuum cleaners to tampons and lavatories.

Whether Mr Blair will stay to see a series of demonstrations is not known.

As a former budding rock singer who loves to hang out with the likes of Bono and Mick Jagger, to whom he gave a knighthood, he might be more interested in the ISSA karaoke evening – though he would have to perform for free.

Either way Mr Blair, who has earned £20 million from public speaking since he left power three years ago, will doubtless regard the hygiene trade summit as another highly successful, profitable day.

As well as being paid for a speech that is expected to last no longer than 40 minutes, it is understood that free flights will be provided to and from the event by Diversey,
a giant American hygiene firm.

The breathless billing for Mr Blair’s speech reveals the organisers’ glee at his decision to turn up.

‘Don’t miss the keynote address at ISSA/INTERCLEAN North America 2010 by Tony Blair, former Prime Min­ister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,’ it declares.

Keynote speech: The ISSA website has a glowing profile of former PM Tony Blair who will receive £50,000 for his speech

The ISSA website’s glowing profile of Mr Blair has cleaned up his record in office as thoroughly as any of the stain-removers on show.

It says: ‘During his ten years as Prime Minister, Mr Blair transformed Britain’s public services through a program [sic] of investment and reform in schools and hospitals, resulting in more children achieving better school results and more people receiving faster access to health care, with improved survival rates for ­cancer and heart disease.

‘He has been a strong advocate of a values-based, activist and multilateralist foreign policy – an agenda that combined tackling terrorism and intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Sierra Leone.’

Nowhere is there any mention of the scandal of the non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, dirty tricks by his spin doctors, Labour sleaze involving wealthy donors, the death of Ministry of Defence weapons expert Dr David Kelly or Mr Blair’s failure to ‘transform’ the economy, instead leaving the country crippled by debt.

Earlier this year, Mr Blair was paid £350,000 for four hours’ work during a Far East tour.

Wife Cherie has also shown her money-making skills by selling items on eBay, including his autograph.

Last night Mr Blair’s spokesman justified Thursday’s talk by saying previous speakers at the ISSA event included Margaret Thatcher, George Bush Senior and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

PS:The happy fate of all former British PMs what?
PPS:Time to pull the chain what?!

[Garooda]

Party specific politics at play in the military.

[member_27444]

Philip sir
Do you have to pile on Tony Blair about tissue forum when the issue on hand is Syria ?

[darshhan]

It seems Amrerica has completely aligned itself to Sunni Muslim Camp's interests and is behaving like a hitman for various Sunni Countries like Saudi Arabia, pakistan, Qatar etc.

[member_27444]

Unkil has his and only his interests at the core of its policies and programmers.
It always feels creating a small monster can be easily managed if its big monster is for the world to manage.
Besides every president has to start his own war. Yes Afghanistan was Bush legacy handed over to the current incumbent expanded.

So Syria will bear the stamp of the current one when it starts.
Buchanan is absolutely right the next republican will inherit a war just the current one did.

This going to be gulf of Tonkin incident for the current one

"American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression", announced a Washington Post headline on Aug. 5, 1964.
That same day, the front page of the New York Times reported: "President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin."

But there was no "second attack" by North Vietnam — no "renewed attacks against American destroyers." By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War.
A pattern took hold: continuous government lies passed on by pliant mass media...leading to over 50,000 American deaths and millions of Vietnamese casualties.
The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2 — and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a "deliberate attack" on a pair of U.S. ships two days later.
The truth was very different.
Rather than being on a routine patrol Aug. 2, the U.S. destroyer Maddox was actually engaged in aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuvers — in sync with coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force.

Time to play

[Prem]

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.
2err .. theek hain janab .. lekin yeh sab karega kaun.

Be Nice, he was my blood relative;-(
Jansanghi used to taunt my Dad because of him.

[Prem]

It seems Amrerica has completely aligned itself to Sunni Muslim Camp's interests and is behaving like a hitman for various Sunni Countries like Saudi Arabia, pakistan, Qatar etc.

Think China !! Now left with Loola Langra Shia world to allign with. Paki are not factor but Nauqars.

[member_27444]

No PRC is smart they butter both sides they have curried favors with KSA via Paki bums whose locks are with them. For Iran at a price they will supply via NoKo designs etc

[chetak]

The Geopolitics of Gas and the Syrian Crisis: Syrian “Opposition” Armed to Thwart Construction of Iran-Iraq-Syria Gas Pipeline

What has one of the most democratic countries of the Middle East, Syria, done to tick off some of its neighbors in the West, the fierce fighters for democracy? The irrationality and unscrupulousness of the approaches Western countries have taken to the Syrian crisis, when the same people who in Europe are considered terrorists are declared «freedom fighters» when it comes to Syria, becomes clearer in light of the economic dimension of the Syrian tragedy. There is every reason to think that by helping destroy its own cultural and historical roots in Syria, Europe is first and foremost fighting for energy resources. And a special role is played by natural gas, which is emerging as the main fuel of the 21st century. The geopolitical problems connected with its production, transportation and use are perhaps more than any other topic on the radar of Western strategists.

In the apt expression of F. William Engdahl, «Natural gas is the flammable ingredient that is fueling this insane scramble for energy in the region.» A battle is raging over whether pipelines will go toward Europe from east to west, from Iran and Iraq to the Mediterranean coast of Syria, or take a more northbound route from Qatar and Saudi Arabia via Syria and Turkey. Having realized that the stalled Nabucco pipeline, and indeed the entire Southern Corridor, are backed up only by Azerbaijan’s reserves and can never equal Russian supplies to Europe or thwart the construction of the South Stream, the West is in a hurry to replace them with resources from the Persian Gulf. Syria ends up being a key link in this chain, and it leans in favor of Iran and Russia; thus it was decided in the Western capitals that its regime needs to change. The fight for «democracy» is a false flag thrown out to cover up totally different aims.

It is not difficult to notice that the rebellion in Syria began to grow two years ago, almost at the same time as the signing of a memorandum in Bushehr on June 25, 2011 regarding the construction of a new Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline… It is to stretch 1500 km from Asaluyeh on the largest gas field in the world, North Dome/South Pars (shared between Qatar and Iran) to Damascus. The length of pipeline on the territory of Iran will be 225 km, in Iraq 500 km, and in Syria 500-700 km. Later it may be extended along the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea to Greece. The possibility of supplying liquefied gas to Europe via Syria’s Mediterranean ports is also under consideration. Investments in this project equal 10 billion dollars. (1)

This pipeline, dubbed the «Islamic pipeline», was supposed to start operation in the period from 2014 to 2016. Its projected capacity is 110 million cubic meters of gas per day (40 billion cubic meters a year). Iraq, Syria and Lebanon have already declared their need for Iranian gas (25-30 million cubic meters per day for Iraq, 20-25 million cubic meters for Syria, and 5-7 million cubic meters until 2020 for Lebanon). Some of the gas will be supplied via the Arab gas transportation system to Jordan. Experts believe that this project could be an alternative to the Nabucco gas pipeline being promoted by the European Union (with a planned capacity of 30 billion cubic meters of gas per year), which doesn’t have sufficient reserves. It was planned to run the Nabucco pipeline from Iraq, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan through the territory of Turkey. At first Iran was also considered as a resource base, but later it was excluded from the project. After the signing of the memorandum on the Islamic Pipeline, the head of the National Iranian Gas Company (NIGC), Javad Oji, stated that South Pars, with recoverable reserves of 16 trillion cubic meters of gas, is a «reliable source of gas, which is a prerequisite for the building of a pipeline which Nabucco does not have».It is easy to observe that about 20 billion cubic meters per year will remain from this pipeline for Europe, which would be able to compete with Nabucco’s 30 billion, but not the 63 billion from the South Stream.

A gas pipeline from Iran would be highly profitable for Syria. Europe would gain from it as well, but clearly someone in the West didn’t like it. The West’s gas-supplying allies in the Persian Gulf weren’t happy with it either, nor was would-be no. 1 gas transporter Turkey, as it would then be out of the game. The new «unholy alliance» which formed between them shamelessly declared its goal to be «protecting democratic values» in the Middle East, although logically speaking the U.S. and its allies ought to begin this with their own partners in the coalition against Syria from among the monarchies of the Persian Gulf, which are questionable in this regard.

The Sunnite countries also see the Islamic Pipeline from the viewpoint of interconfessional contradictions, considering it a «Shiite pipeline from Shiite Iran through the territory of Iraq with its Shiite majority and into the territory of Shiite-friendly Alawite Asad». As renowned researcher on energy issues F. William Engdahl writes, this geopolitical drama is intensified by the fact that the South Pars field lies in the Persian Gulf directly on the border between Shiite Iran and Sunnite Qatar. But tiny Qatar, which is no match for Iran in power, makes active use of its connections with the military presence of the U.S. and NATO in the Persian Gulf. On the territory of Qatar are a command node of the Pentagon’s Central Command of the U.S. Armed Forces, the headquarters of the Head Command of the U.S. Air Force, the No. 83 Expeditionary Air Group of the British Air Force and the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing of the U.S. Air Force. Qatar, in Engdahl’s opinion, has other plans for its share in the South Pars gas field and is not eager to join efforts with Iran, Syria and Iraq. It is not at all interested in the success of an Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, which would be completely independent of the transit routes of Qatar or Turkey leading to Europe. In fact, Qatar is doing all it can to thwart the construction of the pipeline, including arming the «opposition» fighters in Syria, many of whom come from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Libya. (2)

Qatar’s resolve is fed by the discovery by Syrian geological exploration companies in 2011 of Syria’s own large gas-producing area near the Lebanese border, not far from the Mediterranean port of Tartus which Russia leases, and the detection of a significant gas field near Homs. According to preliminary estimates, these discoveries should substantially increase the country’s gas reserves, which previously amounted to 284 billion cubic meters. The fact that the export of Syrian or Iranian gas to the European Union could take place through the port of Tartus, which has ties to Russia, is unsatisfactory to Qatar and its Western patrons as well. (3)

The Arabic newspaper Al-Akhbar cites information according to which there is a plan approved by the U.S. government to create a new pipeline for transporting gas from Qatar to Europe involving Turkey and Israel. The capacity of such a pipeline is not mentioned, but considering the resources of the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean region, it could exceed that of both the Islamic Pipeline and Nabucco, directly challenging Russia’s South Stream. The main developer of this project is Frederick Hoff, who is «in charge of gas issues in the Levant» and a member of the U.S. «Syrian Crisis Committee». This new pipeline is to begin in Qatar, cross Saudi territory and then the territory of Jordan, thus bypassing Shiite Iraq, and reach Syria. Near Homs the pipeline is to branch in three directions: to Latakia, Tripoli in northern Lebanon, and Turkey. Homs, where there are also hydrocarbon reserves, is the «project’s main crossroads», and it is not surprising that it is in the vicinity of this city and its «key», Al-Qusayr, that the fiercest fighting is taking place. Here the fate of Syria is being decided. The parts of Syrian territory where detachments of rebels are operating with the support of the U.S., Qatar and Turkey, that is, the north, Homs and the environs of Damascus, coincide with the route that the pipeline is to follow to Turkey and Tripoli, Lebanon. A comparison of a map of armed hostilities and a map of the Qatar pipeline route indicates a link between armed activities and the desire to control these Syrian territories. Qatar’s allies are trying to accomplish three goals: «to break Russia’s gas monopoly in Europe; to free Turkey from its dependence on Iranian gas; and to give Israel the chance to export its gas to Europe by land at less cost». (4) As Asia Times analyst Pepe Escobar indicated, the Emir of Qatar apparently made a deal with the «Muslim Brotherhood» according to which it will support their international expansion in exchange for a pact of peace within Qatar. A «Muslim Brotherhood» regime in Jordan and in Syria, supported by Qatar, would abruptly change the entire geopolitical world gas market – decidedly in favor of Qatar and to the detriment of Russia, Syria, Iran and Iraq. It would also be a crushing blow to China. (5)

The war against Syria is aimed at pushing this project through, as well as at the breakdown of the agreement between Tehran, Baghdad and Damascus. Its implementation has been halted several times due to military action, but in February 2013 Iraq declared its readiness to sign a framework agreement which would enable the construction of the pipeline. (6) It is worth noting that after this, more and more new groups of Iraqi Shiites have risen up in support of Asad; as The Washington Post admits, they have «no little battle experience» in confronting Americans in their country. Along with fighters from Lebanon’s Hezbollah, they make an ever more formidable force. (7) The stakes in the «elimination game» started in Syria by the West over the gas pipeline continue to grow. The end of the European Union’s embargo on supplying weapons to the Syrian opposition, which according to the BBC the majority of EU member countries were against (8) (democracy, where are you?), might not be able to help the rebels.

As for civilization and justice, when profit is at stake, sentiment doesn’t matter. The main thing is not to play the wrong card in this unfair game that smells of blood and gas.

^^^
+1

Now we know why the saudi ayrabs are sooooooooooooo eager to bugger syria

The "Greater Israel" Plan and thwarting a pipeline

From the White House propaganda office: "There is little doubt - and there should be no doubt..."

What is this really about?

It's certainly not about chemical weapons.

Did you know that Israel has long had plans for a "Greater Israel" that would have Israel not only taking Palestinian lands but also Syria, Lebanon and anything else not nailed down?

Did you know that Iran has an agreement in place to pipe their fossil fuel output through Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and on to Europe via tanker?

Now you you understand why Syria is being targeted now? -

See more at: http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/the- ... BYT2r.dpuf

[member_27444]

Some bloggers used to po poh the thread new great game. Most of these ideas and what if scenarios
We're touched upon if not discussed.

Ramanji and Kaushal ji used to contribute a lot along with other luminaries of yesterday days

...........

So this war must be named Gas wars

For one side Natural Gas for others Nerve gas

For the media talking heads and pundits its HOT GAS time

[Kati]

Has BHO started backpedalling on Syria now? Looks like....going by the latest media shows.

[Rudradev]

The Geopolitics of Gas and the Syrian Crisis: Syrian “Opposition” Armed to Thwart Construction of Iran-Iraq-Syria Gas Pipeline

In fact, Qatar is doing all it can to thwart the construction of the pipeline, including arming the «opposition» fighters in Syria, many of whom come from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Libya. (2)


A «Muslim Brotherhood» regime in Jordan and in Syria, supported by Qatar, would abruptly change the entire geopolitical world gas market – decidedly in favor of Qatar and to the detriment of Russia, Syria, Iran and Iraq. It would also be a crushing blow to China. (5)

Fascinating article, and makes a lot of sense. Of course, its main focus is on Syria as the epicenter of geopolitical competition between Russia/Iran and West/Turkey/GCC for controlling the principal route of natural gas supply to Europe.

However, from the Indian interest point of view, it is these two bolded excerpts quoted above that are most interesting.

Firstly, it is interesting that Pakistanis are fighting on the West/Turkey/GCC side against the Syrian government... an uncanny echo of their role as "freedom fighting" Salafist jihadis during the Soviet-Afghan war. No doubt the ISI is involved in this, perhaps actively diverting some of its most intractable cadres away from Af-Pak and into Syria at Washington's special request. This shows that recently reported Russian/Iranian attempts to improve relations with Pakistan have hit something of a roadblock... the Pakis are still willing to participate in American machinations against core Russian and Iranian interests.

But this, in turn, makes the second bolded excerpt even more interesting. Why would the victory of West/Turkey/GCC in Syria be a "crushing blow to China"? Is it because China has invested heavily in the Iran-Iraq-Syria "Islamic Pipeline" which the entire Syrian "opposition" has been sponsored by the West/Turkey/GCC to scuttle? But that's only a $10B pipeline... which is really not a whole lot in geopolitical terms, and only some small part of it must have come from Beijing if at all.

So what, then, is the "crushing blow" this article speaks of? I am especially interested, because it seems that this may be another fragile spot (besides the Uighur-Islamist tension) in the tarrel/deepel Chini-Paki relationship. Pakistan is helping the side in Syria whose victory would somehow cause a "crushing blow" to China.

It is not entirely clear which side India should take in this conflict, if any. Much as we are inherently inclined to sympathize with the victim of Western colonial exploitation... in this case the Assad government... it is worth looking harder at the China connection here, and seeing if perhaps this has any bearing on the increasingly aggressive behaviour of China towards its own neighbours.

[RamaY]

Ramanaji,

If West Asia == Bharat with kingdoms, do you think what is happening in me today == Bharat of 1800s?

[RamaY]

Rudradev ji

Whom should india face first? China or Pakistan?

I think it is Pakistan for separation of china from Pakistan can make china a possible candidate for dharmic force. I am still searching or PVNR inner view that says India must side with China.

Once we get back our POK, china will be a friend of India, IMHO.

I think it is time for NJ-BR meet. Where is ShauryaT garu? Pls tell him to forgive me and arrange for NJ-meet.

[JwalaMukhi]

Has BHO started backpedalling on Syria now? Looks like....going by the latest media shows.

Unkil is no mere pushover, of being a Gandhian forgiver. Unkil will take steps - misguided or otherwise to address the problem. One doesn't get to unkilland, mess with it and escalate cost in terms of inconvenience, security rampups yada yada and get away free. It doesn't matter who did it. Unkil will reshape the ME region to suit its interests. So ME is in for a churning, and the prevention of it is difficult. It would have been lot easier for the ME to have their killings etc., confined to ME theater. Once it spilled over across the ocean to US, all bets are off.

US is not going to be content with just getting few tents and camels. US will plan and execute to reshape the ME so any of the ME problems stays in ME and other immediate surroundings. They are in it for long haul, only the tactics will change. War is politics by other means only.

[chanakyaa]

there is a school of thought that believes, Obama is being set up to fail in Syria.

Based on the recent developments including how mainstream media is spinning the story, it looks like that school of though has very high odds of succeeding....

[member_27444]

Blow to China?
Indeed it is
US and the west has taken note of PRC strategic inroads it has made in cornering major mineral sources and huge projects in Africa.

Strictly speaking US has banned trade with Iran and arm twisted india as well. so budding long term and strategic inroads in the back yard of US and Israel?

So any ,even a pawn promotion by china today would mature into a minister a couple of years down the lane

[SSridhar]

Will Help Damascus if Attacked: Putin - Vladimir Radyuhin, The Hindu

Russia will help Syria if it comes under attack, President Vladimir Putin has said, stressing that a majority of world leaders attending a G20 summit in St. Petersburg came out against military intervention.

Asked at a post-summit press conference if Russia would continue to support the Syrian government in the event of a U.S. military strike Mr. Putin said: “Will we help Syria? We will. We are already helping, we’re sending arms [and] cooperating in the economic sphere. I hope we will expand our cooperation in the humanitarian sphere, including relief aid to support civilians who have found themselves in a very dire situation in that country.”

The Russian leader said G20 was divided on the Syrian crisis but a great majority of the world leaders gathered in St. Petersburg clearly opposed unilateral military intervention in Syria.

“I can tell you who favoured military action. It is the U.S., Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and France, while British Prime Minister’s support for the U.S. was not shared by his citizens,” Mr. Putin said.

“Now, who were categorically against: Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa and Italy.”

Mr. Putin said he took note of the “unexpectedly” strong stand taken by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh against unilateral military action.

Syria was not on official agenda of the G20 summit, but the world leaders spent the “entire” Thursday evening discussing the Syrian crisis over dinner which stretched late into the night, Mr. Putin said.

The Russian President said he had a “substantive, constructive” 20-minute meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama on the sidelines of the G20 summit, but failed to bridge their differences over Syria.

“Growing support”

At a separate press conference, Mr. Obama claimed growing support from other nations, but did not say if any other country apart from France was ready to join in his move.

[chanakyaa]

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.

^^^^Errr....habalji, bit too negative. If you choose not to be India prime minister, either b'cas private sector is too lucrative or you think politics is not for you, this outcome is one of many possibilities. But this outcome is only possible b'cas of you only b'cas of you for not taking the rein of your country in your own hand. Same thing applies to me. Gandhiji did not waste his life blaming Indians for British rule, he instead said F*ck the Brits (not literally) and decided to make a difference without having a slightest clue that one day he will become Mahatma G. from a ordinary G.

[Agnimitra]

Rudradev guru, I have no idea what the author meant by "crushing blow", but its an occasion to observe a few trends:

Firstly, it is interesting that Pakistanis are fighting on the West/Turkey/GCC side against the Syrian government... an uncanny echo of their role as "freedom fighting" Salafist jihadis during the Soviet-Afghan war. No doubt the ISI is involved in this, perhaps actively diverting some of its most intractable cadres away from Af-Pak and into Syria at Washington's special request. This shows that recently reported Russian/Iranian attempts to improve relations with Pakistan have hit something of a roadblock... the Pakis are still willing to participate in American machinations against core Russian and Iranian interests.

Pak is too heavily dependent at an economic and labour-export level to GCC. The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline would have build a solid steel economic backbone to a contiguous Shi'a area, further buttressing the Shi'ite crescent. The GCC shares the same South Pars oilfield area with Iran from where the oil will come, but they want the pipeline route and destination to be different - and out of Shi'a control. The destination they may want will be Jordan. That is a better route than Qatar-Iraq-Turkey, because Iraq was proving to be a problem.

In this regard, Qatari Sheikh Hammad has been indicating that change in Jordan will be after Syria. Thus, they are pushing for Muslim Brotherhood influence in Jordan, and possibly want to topple the Hashemi monarchy there, in addition to making Jordan an outlet and destination for oil pipelines from the region (Qatar has already promised Jordanians free gas). So according to this plan, exports would leave Jordan from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Gulf of Suez and onward to the Mediterranean. (Suez Canal operations remained notably undisturbed amid all the MB-created turmoil in Egypt.) Thus, we see Qatar in direct competition with Iran (as a producer), Syria (as a destination), and Iraq (as a transit country).

Focus on Jordan may also be related to another insecurity - the Jordanian monarchy is Hashemi - from the Prophet Muhammad's clan - and the Caliph must be of Hashemi or at least Quraishi racial lineage as per Islamic Shariah law. So with revolution and counter-revolution dynamic moving in that direction, the Jordanian monarchy has a USP that probably makes other Arab royalty feel a little insecure. So that node of the Hashemi power needs to be dissolved before the Hashemi claim can pop up from a more suitable location for Caliphate purposes. Thus, a reengineering of the Islamic core lands is underway, and Pak is merely a mercenary and tool in all of this.

But this, in turn, makes the second bolded excerpt even more interesting. Why would the victory of West/Turkey/GCC in Syria be a "crushing blow to China"? Is it because China has invested heavily in the Iran-Iraq-Syria "Islamic Pipeline" which the entire Syrian "opposition" has been sponsored by the West/Turkey/GCC to scuttle? But that's only a $10B pipeline... which is really not a whole lot in geopolitical terms, and only some small part of it must have come from Beijing if at all.

China's biggest supplier is Saudi, but China's own biggest oilfield investments so far are in Iraq followed by Iran. Secondly, the Iran-China relationship has progressed to the point where Iran is far more dependent on China than the other way round - thus giving China more room to explore other polygamous relationships in the region. Thirdly, some of Iran's tactical cards tend to irk China at least as much as they do the US (such as threats to disrupt the Straits of Hormazd). Further, China has been increasingly courted by the GCC, not least because the Arab Spring kind of revolutionary winds were seen as troubling to, both, the Sheikhdoms as well as Middle Kingdom. However, learning from its conduct before the invasion of Libya, China played it more low-key in condemning US/NATO intervention in Syria, and has allowed Russia to take the lead. The US dependence on ME oil is on the decline, while China's is on the steep incline. US involvement in the ME is basically to have control on panda's jugular. China tried to use Iran as a hedge against US influence in the region, but the game has proved to be far too complex for that and the US has a clear advantage in the region. All-in-all, I don't think "crushing blow" was meant in anything more than a sense of solidifying that advantage.

What this could mean is that, if China and India can take care of TSP between themselves, they can form a credible front along with Iran to balance the equation out in the ME. But so far the Maino-MMS government has been rather too pro-US over the last decade. Moreover, taking care of TSP is not so easy, because should China let Munna go, then Munna-Unkil relationship will blossom again. After all, at the Deep State level, Pak has shown that it is far closer to the US and the Turk-Arab-Pak Caliphate hierarchy it is engineering than Pak is to China.

In short, I have no clue how to answer the question. But just threw a few thoughts out there.

[habal]

"Will we be helping Syria? We will", Vladimir Putin



"Will we be helping Syria? We will", Vladimir Putin said at a press conference following the G20 summit in St. Petersburg on Friday. The US and other countries will put themselves outside the law if they launch a military operation in Syria, Putin added.

"I presume that everything concerning the so-called use of chemical weapons is a provocation on the part of the fighters, who expect assistance from the outside, I mean assistance from the countries that have supported them from the very start. This is the essence of this provocation," Putin said.

"The use of force on a sovereign state is only possible if it is done in self-defense and, as we know, Syria is not attacking the US, or under a decision made by the UN Security Council," he continued.

"As one participant in our discussion said, those who act otherwise put themselves outside the law", said Putin.

"At this time, which is generally difficult for the world economy, it would be counterproductive to destabilize the situation in the Middle East, to say the least," Putin added.

The United States, Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and France supported a military operation against Syria, while Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa and Italy opposed the option at the G20 summit, President Vladimir Putin said.

"You said the vote was 50/50. This is not quite so and I can tell you who was in favor of military operations. As you know, these are the United States, Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and France," he responded to a journalist who suggested that the G20 were divided approximately 50/50 over the need for a military strike on Syria.

Putin ent on to say "Categorical objections were raised by Russia, China, India and Indonesia and I would like to call your attention to the fact that this is the world's largest Islamic country, in terms of population, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa and Italy".

The Russian leader had not forgotten that British Prime Minister David Cameron spoke for a military intervention in Syria but the national parliament voted down the proposition.

"The German Federal Chancellor is also extremely cautious. Germany is not going to get involved in any military operations," Putin said.

He said that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon opposed military operations against Syria, too. Putin also said he was surprised with the positions of certain G20 states on Syria.

"The Indian prime minister unexpectedly said last night that he was categorically against any military operation. The position of the President of Indonesia, which is the largest Islamic country in the world with a population of, I think, 350 million, came as a surprise to me. The Brazilian President took an absolutely firm stand and the South African President did, too," the Russian leader said."

http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_09_06/Rus ... utin-7536/

[anmol]

This is from right wingers, but have some more information from the author of article which accused US of knowing about chemical attack in advance.

This Is the Mysterious Scholar Behind the Syria Theory Rush Limbaugh Talked About This Week
by Sara Carter, theblaze.com
September 6th 2013 5:45 PM

Rush Limbaugh raised the issue on Tuesday. The Russians have been adamant that it's a possibility. The administration is denying it. And yet some have expressed concerns it could be true. The "it" is the possibility that the Syrian rebels - not Bashar Al Assad - are the ones who used chemical weapons recently in Syria.

The article - "Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack" - was written by Yossef Bodansky, a once sought after analyst who made numerous appearances on C-Span and other prominent news outlets. He raised the possibility that the rebels and[/i] the U.S. administration were behind any chemical weapons attack. And it was his article that Limbaugh spent parts of two hours discussing on Tuesday.

But try finding Bodansky. It's hard. He is now more of a "mystery man."


TheBlaze spent several days trying to track the man down, who is now senior editor for Defense & Foreign Affairs magazine. Bodansky's Amazon.com bio also lists him as "a former senior consultant for the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of State," and says he is a visiting scholar at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).


When we finally reached his colleague of more than 50-years, Gregory Copley (editor-in-chief of the magazine), we were told that Bodansky "no longer does interviews."

But Copley, who is also president of the International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA), defended the work. He said his intelligence analysis group believes "the U.S. knew in advance of the attacks in Syria."

"That's where we stand," he added.

He also said Bodansky, who was once director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare from 1988 to 2004, compiled three reports on the Syrian chemical attacks. TheBlaze was given all of Bodansky's reports.

Bodansky, who also is director of research at the International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA), contends that prior to the chemical weapons attack, Syrian opposition were given weapons from Turkish and Qatari intelligence personnel with the support of U.S. intelligence operatives in advance of the attacks.

This reporter questioned Bodansky's theory, asking Copley if this is in fact true, "what about the evidence found by Great Britain, Germany, Israel, France and the Arab League that suggests Assad was responsible for the attacks, can they be wrong?"

Copley, whose intelligence collection group is based in Washington D.C., said none of the countries mentioned have provided solid evidence that Assad initiated the attack.

"If you read Mr. Bodansky's first piece, the U.S. was actively knowledgable of the impending attack and had forces in the region ramping up additional supplies to the rebels on the ground," Copley added. But not just did the U.S. have knowledge, he claims, but the American government was even an active player in insuring those attacks would take place.


Copley said "canisters" were used in the chemical attack and that the canisters contained markings from Saudi Arabia. He added that no evidence has been presented by the U.S. that Assad's regime used rockets to deliver the Sarin, and that his group gathered intelligence that verified that "Saudis were in touch with the U.S. on the impending chemical strike in Syria."


That information was garnered from Turkish sources, who said U.S. intelligence "promised the Syrian rebel groups that they were going to deliver an incident that would allow the U.S. to invade." In other words, he has no doubt the Obama administration was behind the attack.

However, U.S. officials told TheBlaze that this is "nothing more than lies and disinformation."

"The U.S., France, Germany and many other nations have tangible evidence that the chemical attack was initiated by (President Bashar Al) Assad," the official said. "The White House released time-line intelligence on the attack and the evidence points to Assad, not rebels and certainly not the U.S. This is a pure lie filled with propaganda that only serves the Syrian regime, Russia, Iran and any other enemy of America."

Copley said Bodansky's research is solid and countered that the administration "has not produced solid evidence linking Assad to the attack. If Germany and Israel also have evidence of the attack, why don't they produce it for the world to see?"

Limbaugh asked his audience to think about the number of news articles and people who question the evidence that Assad's regime was responsible for the Syrian attack.

"Four different people now, and the third one was just this morning, are asking, "What if Bashar didn't do it? What if Bashar is being framed?" Limbaugh said before reading old headlines suggesting Syrian rebels may have gotten control of some chemical weapons in the past.

He then went on to reference Bodansky's article that states "there is a growing volume of new evidence" that the White House knew and possibly helped plan a Syrian chemical weapon attack by the opposition.

Bodansky lists a number of meetings between major state players prior to the chemical bombings that "raise the question of the extent of foreknowledge of US Intelligence, and therefore, the Obama White House."

"All the sources consulted - both Syrian and Arab - stressed that officials of the 'Mukhabarat Amriki' actively participated in the meetings and briefings in Turkey," Bodansky writes. "Therefore, at the very least, they should have known that the opposition leaders were anticipating 'a war-changing development': that is, a dramatic event which would provoke a US-led military intervention."

He continues:

"The mere fact that weapon storage sites under the tight supervision of US Intelligence were opened up and about a thousand tons of high-quality weapons were distributed to the opposition indicates that US Intelligence anticipated such a provocation and the opportunity for the Syrian opposition to exploit the impact of the ensuing US and allied bombing. Hence, even if the Obama White House did not know in advance of the chemical provocation, they should have concluded, or at the very least suspected, that the chemical attack was most likely the ‘war-changing development' anticipated by the opposition leaders as provocation of US-led bombing. Under such circumstances, the Obama White House should have refrained from rushing head-on to accuse Assad's Damascus and threaten retaliation, thus making the Obama White House at the very least complicit after the act."

Still, Limbaugh was skeptical.

"I'm not asserting any of this to be true," Limbaugh said. "I just found it now in a very credible place, and you know me. I don't go with the flow of conventional wisdom - and I'm not a conspiracy kook, either. This makes perfect sense to me that Bashar could be set up. So I'm just putting this out as a possibility, because it's already out there. I didn't put it out there.

"I'm just reminding you and sharing with you what's there," he added. "It's up to you."

[habal]

It is not just Obama regime, but also the Bush regime before it .. this entire group must be tried at the Hague for war crimes of varying magnitude if the world bodies like UN need to emerge out of this with some respect.

After all these lies not making it, there is only one option of a massive false flag to restore the liars honour. This is very likely now.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/09 ... and-liars/

The US Government Stands Revealed to the World as a Collection of War Criminals and Liars
September 6, 2013
3:12 PM

"Does the American public have the strength of character to face the fact that the US government stands before the entire world revealed as a collection of war criminals who lie every time that they open their mouth? Will Congress and the American public buy the White House lie that they must support war criminals and liars or “America will lose face”?"

"...How can the American people and their representatives in Congress tolerate these extraordinary criminals? Why are not obama and John Kerry impeached? The obama regime has every quality of Nazi Germany and Stasi Communist Germany, only that the obama regime is worse. The obama regime spies on the entire world and lies about it. The obama regime is fully engaged in killing people in seven countries, a murderous rampage that not even Hitler attempted."

"...If the US Congress is too corrupt or incompetent to do its duty, the rest of the world must join the UN General Secretary and the President of Russia and declare that unilateral military aggression by the US government is a war crime, and that the war criminal US government will be isolated in the international community. Any of its members caught traveling abroad will be arrested and turned over to the Hague for trial."

[Philip]

Well,the official truth will out 50 years hence,just like the acknowledgement by the CIA now that they plotted the coup that ousted Mossadegh! This whole Syrian chem attack looks mighty suspicious,as the CIA/Saudi financed,armed and trained "rebels" were on their last legs,desperate for a miracle from hell,.which now seems to have been allegedly delivered by war criminal marshal O'Bomber and his Deputy in from the desert Prince Bandar.Hussein is now working hard to get a posse strung together.


Obama assembles fragile alliance blaming Assad for chemical attacks
11 G20 countries sign statement calling for 'strong response' to chemical weapons, but Putin says most oppose military action

Patrick Wintour in St Petersburg
The Guardian, Friday 6 September 2013 21.03 BST
Barack Obama in Saint Petersburg, where he said most G20 countries believed Bashar al-Assad was behind chemical attacks in Syria. Photograph: Yuri Kochetkov/EPA

Barack Obama left a fractious G20 summit in St Petersburg on Friday after assembling a fragile alliance of countries accusing Bashar al-Assad of being responsible for using poison gas against civilians. However, the US president left behind a defiant Russian counterpart threatening unspecified military support for Syria if America attacks.

Vladimir Putin claimed that a majority of the G20 opposed any US-led intervention, and gave no ground by continuing to insist that the chemical weapons attacks were a provocation by Syrian rebels designed to win international backing for an attack on the Assad regime. David Cameron described Putin's position as impossible.

Putin revealed that he and Obama had had a one-to-one meeting lasting around 30 minutes in which they had discussed Syria. Both men had listened to the other's position but they had not agreed, he said.

British sources suggested that Obama, struggling to put together a majority in the US Congress for military strikes, may have to wait for up to a fortnight for a vote in the House of Representatives, where opposition is strong.

Echoing that timing, the French president, François Hollande, the only definite European supporter of a military strike, said he did not expect a congressional vote in the US until the UN weapons inspectors had reported on whether there had been a chemical attack on 21 August. Cameron added that no one doubted there had been an attack, not even Syria; the dispute was over culpability, he said.

In a minor diplomatic advance for Obama, 11 of the G20 nations signed a joint statement at the end of the two-day summit calling for "a strong international response to a grave violation of the world's rules" in response to last month's chemical weapons attack in Ghouta, east of the Syrian capital, Damascus.

The signatories, including the UK, the US and France, said evidence "points clearly to the Syrian government being responsible for the attack which is part of a pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime" and warned it would not be possible to achieve a UN consensus on action.

The signatories also "recognise that the UN security council remains paralysed, as it has been for two and a half years. The world cannot wait for endless failed processes that can only lead to suffering in Syria. We support efforts by the US and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons."

The painfully constructed wording stops short of explicit support for a punitive, but limited, military strike by the US. Yet the statement represents more international sympathy than seemed likely at the summit's outset. Other signatories included Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain and Turkey – a coalition that may sway some US congressmen weighing up whether to defy domestic America opinion and back military strikes. A Downing Street source claimed the statement "backs US efforts and the American president has clearly set out his intended military response".

Russia, China, South Africa, Indonesia, Argentina and Brazil were among those that refused to sign. But it was the absence of German chancellor Angela Merkel's signature that was the most frustrating – a result deemed to be a blow to the Franco-German alliance.

Obama, who will address the American people next Tuesday in a televised address, was equivocal on whether he would persuade Congress. "It's conceivable at the end of the day I don't persuade a majority of the American people that it's the right thing to do," he said. "And then each member of Congress is going to have to decide."

The president said he could ignore a rejection of military action by Congress, but hinted such defiance would be hard to justify. A resolution is likely to be voted upon in the Senate on Wednesday after it was formally introduced on Friday. Obama said during remarks at the end of the summit that he put the issue before Congress "because I could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad's use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States".

"The majority of the room is comfortable with our conclusion that Assad, the Assad government, was responsible for their use," he said, adding that this was disputed by Putin.

A number of countries believed that any military force needed to be decided at the UN security council (UNSC), a view he said he did not share. "Given security council paralysis on this issue, if we are serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use then an international response is required, and that will not come through security council action," Obama said. That view was shared by Cameron, who argued that world morality could not be "contracted out to the UNSC".

Putin offered a different interpretation of the state of world opinion at his closing press conference. He said: "Will we be helping Syria? We will. And we are already helping – we send arms, we co-operate in the economic sphere."

In many of the private sessions, the Russian president has appeared agnostic on whether the poison gas was used by Assad's forces or rebels. But in public he took a harder line: "I presume that everything concerning the so-called use of chemical weapons is a provocation on the part of the fighters, who expect assistance from the outside, I mean assistance from the countries that have supported them from the very start. This is the essence of this provocation."

He went to argue that the use of force against Syria would be illegitimate. "The use of force on a sovereign state is only possible if it is done for self-defence – and as we know Syria is not attacking the US – or under a decision made by the UN security council," Putin said. "As one participant in our discussion said, those who act otherwise put themselves outside of law."

He said it was not true to assert opinion had been 50-50 divided at the summit. He claimed only Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and France supported military operations against Syria, while Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa and Italy opposed the option at the summit. Russia also warned the US and its allies against striking any chemical weapon storage facilities in Syria. The Russian foreign ministry said such targeting could release toxic chemicals and give militants or terrorist access to chemical weapons.

"This is a step toward proliferation of chemical weapons not only across the Syrian territory but beyond its borders," the Russian statement said.

The Kremlin said on Friday that Russia was boosting its naval presence in the Mediterranean, moving warships into the area and stoking fears about a larger international conflict if the United States orders air strikes.

Illustrating the risks associated with a strike, the US state department ordered non-essential American diplomats to leave Lebanon, a step under consideration since last week when Obama said he was contemplating military action against the Syrian government.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ma-failure

20 and Syria: a forlorn display

The St Petersburg summit shows that while the US has no real global rivals, it can no longer rely on getting its own way
Editorial
The Guardian, Friday 6 September 2013

Friday marked the G20 forum's first big test on a major non-financial crisis. Its performance can only be described as a failure. Not because the St Petersburg summit failed to agree on a solution to the catastrophe in Syria. To expect 20 powerful states (and assorted representatives of multilateral institutions) to shake hands on some kind of a deal was always highly implausible, given that neither Barack Obama nor David Cameron has yet managed to secure the backing of even their own parliaments. Similarly, while all the late-night chest-beatings (aka "candid and constructive conversations"), drippings of poison in journalists' ears and rows over seating plans may have been diverting, they are the meat and drink of international diplomacy. No, the far graver problem exposed this week was that of world leaders palpably losing faith in the very process of international diplomacy that they are meant to be driving forward.

Most striking in this regard was Mr Cameron's call to bypass the UN and press ahead with "action" on Syria. The UK has been a member of the UN since its founding in 1945; it sits permanently on the security council. To talk about this international organisation, as the prime minister did yesterday, as serving only to "contract out our foreign policy, our morality, to the potential of a Russian veto" is frankly silly. But it also speaks of a doubt in the prime minister's mind that he, and the other proponents of imminent military action, can actually win the argument. The same suspicion can be traced in Mr Obama's refusal yesterday to talk about what he would do should next week's congressional vote go against him. Part of what makes multilateralism such a noble ideal is its assertion that countries should not be allowed to get their way merely by bullying, but must argue it out with other nations as equals. Whatever Mr Cameron and Mr Obama's frustrations with Vladimir Putin, it is very dangerous indeed for them to disavow an entire process simply because other participants refuse to do what they want. But for their part, the refusal of Russia and China to engage in serious discussion also knocks the wheels out from under the multilateral vehicle.

Despite the Commons vote, the prime minister was one of President Obama's most outspoken supporters. That, his team will hope, will be the abiding memory of a summit that was predicted to be a humiliation for the prime minister after the almost unprecedented defeat last week. But no one who recalls the George W Bush cheery "Yo, Blair!" moment at a previous St Petersburg summit will doubt how many different messages can emerge from beyond the formal summit news conference at global gatherings. Mr Cameron achieved one small coup when he engaged President Obama in an informal conversation on the fringes of the dinner, during which other world leaders, including Germany's Angela Merkel, joined them. Leveraging more humanitarian relief is another area where Mr Cameron could hope to exercise some power. He chaired a meeting to raise the question of improving access to Syria's estimated 4 million internally displaced people but, despite committing Britain to donate a further £52m, there was no rush to contribute more aid to a UN fund of £4bn that is still less than half funded.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was fashionable to describe this as Washington's "unipolar moment": its chance to reshape the world without resistance from the old Soviet Union. What this week confirmed is that the Bush wars and then the subprime crisis have effectively ended that moment of uncontested supremacy. This is not to say that the US has any equal rivals for global dominance, but nor can it rely any more on always getting its way, or even count on British support. That loss of power and control could be seen quite directly in Mr Obama's impatience yesterday

[member_27444]

Noam Chomsky

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/0 ... 51911.html

[Austin]

There was a Dem Senator who in an interview at CNN today mentioned that the Classified Briefing changed his mind to think that Assad was the one who did carry out Chemical Attacks and if American People would ever get access to those briefings which he cannot share due to confidential reason , the American Public too at large would change its mind.

He said open source information available was not sufficient enough.

So what is the information US has on Assad that it is reluctant to share it in Public or in UNSC if it is so compelling ? It would just make its case more stronger , why is it reluctant to share ?

[TSJones]

like Sarah Palin says "let Allah sort them out".

Who cares about chemical weapons ban, that was so like yesterday. passe.

After all, dead is dead.

Enjoy the show!

[Vayutuvan]

TSJ make some sense (or is it some marine speak?)

[member_27444]

At last comic relief

If and only if there is irrevocable proof that exists to prove Assad regime did use chemical weapons.
Where is the reason to hide?

If that is not the reason why call a dog names before hitting.

But then visionary and potential president of US Sarah palein pronounces Allah who Akbar
Then all is well in this world

And the stately ships go on
To their haven under the hill;
But O for the touch of a vanish'd hand,
And the sound of a voice that is still!

Break break lord Alfred Tennyson

[Vayutuvan]

Habal ji so Den Hague or the ICJ can indict and sentence both Presidents Bush and Obama. US response is "OK that's all well and good - come and get them". You do know don't you the privation suffered by Indonesia, Belgian Congo, artificial Hutu-Tutsi division and the resulting bad blood?

[Rudradev]

Deleted own trolling.

[TSJones]

delete useless

[habal]

How can Russian Navy help Syria?

http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_09_07/How ... yria-3673/

"Russia is concentrating its navy forces in the Mediterranean Sea because of the unstable situation in and around Syria. It is no secret that, unfortunately, a threat of a large-scale war in that country sharply increased within the last several days.

Searching for new possibilities

At present, there are 10 Russian navy ships and several submarines (the concrete number is not revealed) in the Mediterranean Sea. There has never been such a large concentration of Russian navy forces in this region since 1992, when, soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a Soviet Mediterranean navy squadron was disbanded.

Russia concentrated its forces there not only to show how strong it can be. The threat of a war in Syria is demanding that Russia should be ready for a quick and adequate reaction.

7 of these 10 Russian ships are large landing ships. Out of them, 2 belong to the Russian Pacific Navy, 2 – to the Baltic Navy, and 3 – to the Black Sea Navy. Some of them have been in open sea for quite a long time – thus, the ship “Alexander Shibalin” left the Russian port of Baltiysk in December 2012.

There are several reasons why Russia concentrated large landing ships near Syria. One of them is that the ships are helping to create an unhampered channel for supplying Syria's legitimate government with arms to fight against terrorists. Such a strong presence of Russian forces in this regions are minimizing the possibility of new incidents like the one that took place in the summer of 2012, when the Russian cargo ships “Aloed”, that was carrying helicopters for the Syrian regime, was stopped on its way to Syria.

The second reason why the Russian ships are now on duty I the Syrian waters is that this ships, if it becomes necessary, will be used for evacuating Russian citizens – both those who are constantly living in Syria and those who have come here on business.

Not only monitoring

It is expected that in the nearest few days, this group of Russian ships in the Mediterranean Sea will be joined by Russian missile cruiser “Moskva”, which, before that, carried out several tasks in the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. “Moskva” will be the “nucleus” of the Russian squadron, because it has a powerful radio location system and a long-range missile system.

“Moskva's” reconnaissance system can create such a wide radio location field that it can cover the entire Mediterranean Sea. If the cruiser's reconnaissance systems “notice” American missiles approaching Syria, they will immediately signal about that both to Moscow and to Damascus.

However, the abilities of the Russian squadron are wide but still limited. Although the vessels that are forming this squadron are military ships, they are planned to be used manly for transporting cargoes and people. Ships of this type cannot be used as “full-fledged” landing ships that can provide a long-term presence of a mariner group with an aircraft coverage in the region. This will be possible if the Russian squadron included one or two landing ships of the “Mistral” type – but the ship which is expected to be Russia's main ship of the Mystral type, called “Vladivistok”, is still being built in the French port of Saint-Nazaire.

An aircraft carrier would have made the Russian squadron even stronger, but it is expected that the only aircraft carrier that Russia has now will appear in the Mediterranean Sea in December 2013. The possibility to build more aircraft carriers is now being discussed in Russia."

a full fledged landing ship is what the Chinese Jingianshan is.

they lack an aircraft carrier, maybe the UPA khajoors after getting airdropped from sky by 'quantitative easing' can think about it.

[habal]

General Dempsey again proves to be an unyielding irritant. How do the liars & budding war criminals and famous ex-war criminals intend to deal with him

a) accidented
b) retired
c) replaced
d) suicided
e) new role

Gen Martin Dempsey Warns Not To Strike Syria US Not Ready A Fools Errand McCain Calls Dempsey “Disingenuous”
September 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM
"Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey has told Obama that a strike on Syria will end in involvement with Iran and Russia. Senator John McCain responded that Dempsey’s warnings are “disingenuous.”

"...Estimating that action could cost the $1 billion a month and require “thousands” of ground troops, Dempsey said strikes would be “no less than an act of war” with no guarantee of success.

Dempsey said intervention would likely embolden extremist groups.

“...Estimating that action could cost the $1 billion a month and require “thousands” of ground troops, Dempsey said strikes would be “no less than an act of war” with no guarantee of success.
We have learned from the past 10 years… that it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state,” Dempsey added."

"...According to The Guardian article, retired Army colonel Bob Killebrew said Dempsey is an “absolute straight shooter” and his reluctance to get involved in Syria is likely “the opinion of all the chiefs.”

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2013/09/ ... ingenuous/

[Philip]

O'Bomber would do well to read from the pages of history and see what a former renowned Sec. of State and anti-Communist,Dean Acheson,famous for his barb about "Gt.Britain,has lost an empire and has not yet found a role",said about other US calamities,etc.

Vietnam was worse than immoral — it was a mistake.

On the France's Indochina involvement: "They were engaged in the most dangerous of all activities – deceiving themselves...France was engaged in a task beyond her strength, indeed, beyond the strength of any external power unless it was acting in support of the dominant local will and purpose."

How could the USA champion individual freedom in the world generally while denying it to an important minority in its own country.

I did not share President's view on the Palestine solution...The number that could be absorbed by Arab Palestine without creating a grave political problem would be inadequate, and to transform the country into a Jewish state capable of receiving a million or more immigrants would vastly exacerbate the political problem and imperil not only American but all Western influence in the Near East."

"Throughout the Near East lay rare tinder for anti-Western propaganda: a Moslem culture and history, bitter Arab nationalism galled by Jewish immigration under British protection and with massive American financial support, the remnants of a colonial status, and a sense of grievance that a vast natural resource was being extracted by foreigners under arrangements thought unfair to those living on the surface. This tinder could be, and was, lighted everywhere..."

"Force can overcome force, but a free society cannot long steel itself to dominate another people by sheer force."