Syria: Cameron and Obama agree to military strike over chemical weapons [Archive] - SHTF Ready - Survival, Disaster and Emergency Readiness Forum

The Stig

08-25-2013, 08:48 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/25/us-naval-forces-move-closer-to-syria-hagel-suggests/#ixzz2cz9g6GMR) at foxnews.com

Syria warns against foreign involvement in conflict; Hagel says US prepared for 'all contingencies'
Published August 25, 2013
FoxNews.com

US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has said that President Obama has asked the military to "prepare options for all contingencies" as the crisis in Syria deepens following reports of a chemical weapons attack by that country's government earlier this week.

Speaking in Malaysia Sunday, where he was starting a planned one-week tour of Asia, Hagel said that the administration was still weighing whether or not to use military force against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Among the factors being discussed, Hagel said, were an intelligence assessment of the attack as well as possible international support for a military operation and what he described as legal issues.

"President Obama has asked the Defense Department to prepare options for all contingencies. We have done that and we are prepared to exercise whatever option -- if he decides to employ one of those options,'' Hagel said.

Obama had met earlier Saturday with top national security advisers, but will continue to gather facts before deciding on a course of action, the White House said.

Meanwhile Fox News has confirmed that four U.S. Navy Destroyers are being pre-positioned in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, although no immediate instructions beyond deployment have been issued.

A senior State Department official also told Fox News that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke Saturday with the foreign ministers of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey, as well as the Secretary of the Arab League to discuss the allegation of a chemical weapons attack by the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Kerry also spoke to Syrian foreign minister Walid al-Muallim Thursday to say that the Syrian government should allow an international weapons inspection team to visit the site in the eastern suburbs of Damascus, rather than continue to attack the area, thus blocking access and destroying any potential evidence. Kerry also told Muallim that he had received assurances from the rebel Free Syrian Army that the UN inspectors would receive safe conduct to and from the area.

Syria's government has warned that any U.S.-led military action would be "no picnic," as Syrian Information Minister Omran Zoabi told the country's official news agency, SANA. Zoabi added "U.S. military intervention will create a very serious fallout and a ball of fire that will inflame the Middle East," according to Reuters. Zoabi also told SANA that the Assad government would not allow inspectors to visit the site as it was not on a previously agreed list of sites where allegations of chemical warfare had been made against Assad's troops.

However, Iranian state TV reported Sunday that the Syrian government had told Tehran it would allow inspectors to visit the site of the reported attack. According to Reuters, Iran's Press TV reported that Mohammed Javad Zarif spoke to his Italian counterpart Emma Bonino by phone Saturday and said "We are in close contact with the Syrian government and they have reassured us that they had never used such inhumane weapons and would have the fullest cooperation with the U.N. experts to visit the areas affected."

Also Sunday, the deputy chief of staff of Iran's armed forces appeared to warn the US against taking military action in Syria. Massoud Jazayeri was quoted by the Fars news agency as saying "America knows the limitation of the red line of the Syrian front and any crossing of Syria's red line will have severe consequences for the White House,'' according to Reuters.

Also Sunday, prominent Israeli Cabinet ministers called for a US-led response, though the type of response they sought was not specified. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the alleged chemical attack a "terrible crime," and told his Cabinet Sunday that "this situation cannot continue", according to the Associated Press. Justice Minister Tzipi Livni told Israel Radio that a US response to the alleged poison gas attack would help discourage future chemical weapons use, but also have security implications for Israel.

Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz told Army Radio the attack required a response. He said the chances that Syria would attack Israel as a result of US action were slim but that the army should be prepared for such an eventuality.

The reports of thousands killed or stricken by chemical weapons Wednesday near Damascus are merely the latest allegations about such tactics in the Middle East country's roughly 2-year-long civil war.

The president said last year that the use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashar Assad would "cross a red line." But the White House has been reluctant to take direct military actions, instead supplying rebel forces with non-lethal aid, weighing military options and trying to garner innernational support.

In Saturday's meeting, the president and his National Security Council considered eyewitness accounts and medical-records reports but "the U.S. intelligence community continues to gather facts to ascertain what occurred," the White House said.

Obama also discussed the Syria situation Saturday with British Prime Minister David Cameron.

According to the White House, the leaders expressed their "grave concern" about the reported use of chemical weapons and promised to continue to consult closely about "possible responses by the international community."

The White House meeting was attended by at least 15 members of the president’s security council including Vice President Joe Biden, Kerry, and Hagel, who participated via video conference from Kuala Lumpur.

Hagel suggested Friday that the Pentagon might move Naval forces closer to Syria in preparation for a possible decision by Obama to order military strikes.

However, a senior U.S. defense officials told the Associated Press that the Navy has already sent a fourth warship armed with ballistic missiles into the eastern Mediterranean Sea, but without immediate orders for any missile launch into Syria.

U.S. Navy ships are capable of a variety of military action, including launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, as they did against Libya in 2011 as part of an international action that led to the overthrow of the Libyan government.

Syrian state media accused rebels of using chemical arms against government troops in clashes Saturday near Damascus, while Doctors Without Borders said it has tallied 355 deaths from the purported chemical weapons attack on Wednesday.

The international aid group said three hospitals it supports in the eastern Damascus region reported receiving roughly 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms" over less than three hours on Wednesday morning when the attack in the eastern Ghouta area took place. Of those, 355 died.

The state media said Saturday the army offensive in Jobar, near Damascus, had forced the rebels to resort to chemical weapons "as their last card." State TV broadcast images of plastic jugs, gas masks, vials of an unspecified medication, explosives and other items that it said were seized from rebel hideouts. It did not, however, show any video of soldiers reportedly affected by toxic gas in the fighting.

Obama acknowledged in a CNN interview earlier this week that the episode is a "big event of grave concern" that requires American attention. He said any large-scale chemical weapons usage would affect "core national interests" of the United States and its allies. But nothing he said signaled a shift toward U.S. action.

During an interview earlier this week with CNN, the president made no mention of the red line that U.S. intelligence officials say has been breached at least on a small scale several times since.

U.S. confirmation took more than four months after rebels similarly reported chemical attacks in February, though in this instance a U.N. chemical weapons team is already on the ground in Syria. Assad's government, then as now, has denied the claims as baseless.

James Rosen and Jennifer Griffin of Fox News, The Associated Press, and Reuters contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/25/us-naval-forces-move-closer-to-syria-hagel-suggests/#ixzz2d13IKLyp

The Stig

08-25-2013, 09:04 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130825) at Reuters

Syria lets U.N. inspect gas attack site, Washington says too late

Syria's Information Minister: "We have never used chemical weapons in any shape or form"
11:37am EDT

By Oliver Holmes

BEIRUT | Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:37pm EDT

(Reuters) - Syria agreed on Sunday to let the United Nations inspect the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack, but a U.S. official said such an offer was "too late to be credible" and Washington was all but certain the government had gassed its own people.

The U.S. remarks appeared to signal that a military response was more likely. A senior senator said he believed President Barack Obama would ask for authorization to use force when Congress returns from recess next month.

The comments follow forceful remarks from other Western powers, including Britain and France, which also believe President Bashar al-Assad's government was behind a massive poison gas attack that killed many hundreds of people last week.

Foreign powers have been searching for a response since the killings in a Damascus suburb, which if confirmed would be the world's worst chemical weapons attack in 25 years.

The United Nations said Damascus had agreed to a ceasefire while a U.N. team of experts inspect the site from Monday. Syria confirmed it had agreed to allow the inspections.

The scale of Wednesday's attack has led to calls for a strong response from the United States, a year after President Barack Obama declared the use of chemical weapons to be a "red line" that would draw serious consequences.

A senior U.S. official said Washington was still weighing how to respond but there was very little doubt that the Syrian government had used a chemical weapon against civilians.

"Based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts and other facts gathered by open sources, the U.S. intelligence community, and international partners, there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident," the U.S. official said.

"At this juncture, any belated decision by the regime to grant access to the U.N. team would be considered too late to be credible, including because the evidence available has been significantly corrupted as a result of the regime's persistent shelling and other intentional actions over the last five days."

Syria's information minister said any U.S. military action would "create a ball of fire that will inflame the Middle East".

He said Damascus had evidence chemical weapons were used by rebels fighting to topple Assad, not by his government. That argument is given credence by Assad's ally Moscow, but dismissed by Western countries which say they believe the rebels have no access to poison gas or the big weapons needed to deliver it.

Western leaders have been phoning each other in recent days and issuing declarations promising some kind of response.

"We cannot in the 21st century allow the idea that chemical weapons can be used with impunity," British Foreign Secretary William Hague said. "We believe it's very important that there is a strong response and that dictators ... know that the use of chemical weapons is to cross a line and that the world will respond when that line is crossed."

French President Francois Hollande's office said: "France is determined that this act does not go unpunished."

Senator Bob Corker, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, said he had spoken to the Obama administration about its plans and believed the president would seek authorization for intervention after Congress convenes on September 9.

"I think we will respond in a surgical way and I hope the president as soon as we get back to Washington will ask for authorization from Congress to do something in a very surgical and proportional way," he told Fox News Sunday.

The team of U.N. chemical weapons inspectors arrived in Syria three days before Wednesday's incident to investigate previous reports of chemical weapons use.

Since Wednesday, the 20-strong team has been waiting in a Damascus luxury hotel a few miles from the site of what appears to have been the world's worst chemical weapons attack since Saddam Hussein's forces gassed thousands of Iraqi Kurds in 1988.

Their movements must be agreed with the Syrian government, and their inability to reach the site of attacks just a short drive away was symbolic of the failure of global diplomacy to have any real impact during two and a half years of war.

State television showed footage of tanks moving on Sunday into what it said was the eastern Damascus suburb of Jobar, one of the districts where the mass poisoning occurred.

Opposition activists in Damascus said the army was using surface-to-surface missiles and artillery in the area.

"The fact is that much of the evidence could have been destroyed by that artillery bombardment," said Britain's Hague.

Obama met his top military and national security advisers on Saturday to debate options. U.S. naval forces have been repositioned in the Mediterranean to give Obama the option of an armed strike.

Assad's two main allies spoke out in his defense. Iran, echoing Obama's own language, said Washington should not cross a "red line" by attacking Syria. Russia welcomed the decision to allow the U.N. investigation and said it would be a "tragic mistake" to jump to conclusions over who was to blame.

It is not clear how much impact the U.N. investigation would have on decision-making by Western countries.

In past incidents, the United States, Britain and France obtained what they said was their own proof Assad used small amounts of chemical arms. But if the U.N. team obtains independent evidence, it could be easier to build a diplomatic case for intervention.

Throughout a war that has killed more than 100,000 people, the United States and its allies have yet to take direct action, despite long ago saying Assad must be removed from power.

In June, after concluding that Assad's forces had used a small amount of nerve gas, Obama authorized sending U.S. weapons to Syrian rebels. Those shipments were delayed due to fears radical Sunni Islamist groups in the opposition could gain further ground in Syria and become a threat to the West.

But Obama's administration is reluctant to be drawn deep into another war in the Muslim world after pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq and preparing to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Senator Jack Reed from Obama's Democratic Party said any response had to have international military support and Washington could not get into a "general military operation".

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed in a Reuters/Ipsos poll published on Saturday opposed U.S. intervention. Nine percent thought Obama should act.

The Syrian opposition says between 500 and well over 1,000 civilians were killed by gas in munitions fired by pro-government forces. The medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres said three hospitals near Damascus had reported 355 deaths in the space of three hours out of about 3,600 admissions with neurotoxic symptoms.

The head of the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front rebel group has pledged to target communities from Assad's Alawite sect with rockets in revenge.

"For every chemical rocket that had fallen on our people in Damascus, one of their villages will, by the will of God, pay for it," Abu Mohammad al-Golani said in a recording on YouTube.

(Additional reporting by Khaled Yacoub Oweis in Amman, Mahmoud Habboush in Dubai Yeganeh Torbati in Dubai; Writing by Philippa Fletcher and Peter Graff; Editing by Jon Boyle)

The Stig

08-25-2013, 09:06 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-us-russia-idUSBRE97O09W20130825) at Reuters

Russia warns U.S. not to repeat in Syria past mistakes in region

MOSCOW | Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:37pm EDT

(Reuters) - Russia warned the United States on Sunday against repeating past mistakes, saying that any unilateral military action in Syria would undermine efforts for peace and have a devastating impact on the security situation in the Middle East.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said its statement was a response to U.S. actions to give it the option of an armed strike against Syria.

It drew a parallel between reports Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces had used chemical weapons and Washington's 2003 intervention in Iraq following accusations by then-President George Bush's administration that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction.

"We once again decisively urge (the United States) not to repeat the mistakes of the past and not to allow actions that go against international law," the ministry said.

"Any unilateral military action bypassing the United Nations will ... lead to further escalation (in Syria) and will affect the already explosive situation in the Middle East in the most devastating way."

Moscow said any military action would severely hamper joint U.S.-Russian efforts for an international peace conference to end a civil war that has killed more than 100,000 people.

"The threat to use force against the Syrian regime sends the (Syrian) opposition conflicting signals," the ministry said. "All sponsors of the opposition, which have influence over it, must seek the fastest possible agreement from Bashar al-Assad's opponents to hold talks."

U.S. President Barack Obama met his security advisers on Saturday to debate options following reports of the alleged chemical attack. U.S. naval forces have been repositioned in the Mediterranean to give Washington the option of an armed strike.

Syria's opposition accused Assad's forces of gassing many hundreds of people - by one report as many as 1,300 - on Wednesday. Syria said earlier on Sunday it had agreed to let the experts visit the site.

Russia, which has suggested that Syrian rebels may have carried out the attack, also said on Sunday that assigning blame too soon over the alleged poison gas strike would be a "tragic mistake", before a U.N. investigation on Monday.

(Reporting by Alissa de Carbonnel; Editing by Jon Boyle and Pravin C

Brownwater Riverrat 13

08-26-2013, 01:31 AM

Well, we know Obama hasn't followed through on any of his "cross this line" threats as of yet. So we look like we can be taken advantage of due to weak ass leadership. Our credibility is shit thanks to him with our allies, same with our military who for the most part has no respect for their "CinC" (Commander in Chief).

bacpacker

08-26-2013, 01:54 AM

One question comes to my mind. Why would Assad kill his own people when he is clearly beating the shit out of the opposition (who is mainly MB/AlQuaida) and bring the wrath of the rest of the world down on himself? Seems much more likely the rebels set this off to garner support from outsiders since they have been getting the shit kicked out of them.

I just don't see anything to gain by taking sides here. They both HATE us and there really is nothing there we want/need.

ak474u

08-26-2013, 02:49 AM

The Stig

08-26-2013, 11:52 AM

Original story HERE (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10265765/Navy-ready-to-launch-first-strike-on-Syria.html) at the Telegraph

Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria

Britain is planning to join forces with America and launch military action against Syria within days in response to the gas attack believed to have been carried out by President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against his own people.

By Tim Ross and Ben Farmer

10:00PM BST 25 Aug 2013

Royal Navy vessels are being readied to take part in a possible series of cruise missile strikes, alongside the United States, as military commanders finalise a list of potential targets.

Government sources said talks between the Prime Minister and international leaders, including Barack Obama, would continue, but that any military action that was agreed could begin within the next week.

As the preparations gathered pace, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, warned that the world could not stand by and allow the Assad regime to use chemical weapons against the Syrian people “with impunity”.

Britain, the US and their allies must show Mr Assad that to perpetrate such an atrocity “is to cross a line and that the world will respond when that line is crossed”, he said.

British forces now look likely to be drawn into an intervention in the Syrian crisis after months of deliberation and international disagreement over how to respond to the bloody two-year civil war.

The possibility of such intervention will provoke demands for Parliament to be recalled this week.

The escalation comes as a direct response to what the Government is convinced was a gas attack perpetrated by Syrian forces on a civilian district of Damascus last Wednesday.

The Assad regime has been under mounting pressure to allow United Nations inspectors on to the site to establish who was to blame for the atrocity. One international agency said it had counted at least 355 people dead and 3,600 injured following the attack, while reports suggested the true death toll could be as high as 1,300.

Syrian state media accused rebel forces of using chemical agents, saying some government soldiers had suffocated as a result during fighting.

After days of delay, the Syrian government finally offered yesterday to allow a team of UN inspectors access to the area. However, Mr Hague suggested that this offer of access four days after the attack had come too late.

“We cannot in the 21st century allow the idea that chemical weapons can be used with impunity, that people can be killed in this way and that there are no consequences for it,” he said.

The Foreign Secretary said all the evidence “points in one direction”, to the use of illegal chemical agents by Assad regime forces.

A Government source added that even if UN inspectors visited the site of the attack, “we would need convincing by the UN team that this was not the regime’s attack because we believe everything points to the fact that it was”.

Officials said the Assad regime has continued bombarding the area in the days since the attack, making it likely that any evidence which could establish who was responsible will have been destroyed.

Mr Cameron interrupted his holiday in Cornwall for talks with Mr Obama, François Hollande, the French president, and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. After discussions via a secure telephone line over the weekend, all the leaders agreed on the need for a “serious response”. Government sources confirmed that military action was among the options “on the table” but said no decisions had been taken.

The Prime Minister, however, is believed to have abandoned hope of securing any further meaningful response from the UN amid opposition from Russia.

Labour said Parliament must be recalled if Mr Cameron was considering a military response, but Downing Street sources said this may not be necessary as the Prime Minister retained the right to act urgently if required.

Mr Cameron will face criticism for any British military involvement from many MPs, who believe the Armed Forces are already overstretched and must not be committed to another distant conflict.

Any retaliatory attack would be likely to be launched from the sea as the Syrian air force is judged to be strong enough to shoot down enemy jets.

A Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarine is said to be in the region while a number of warships recently left Britain for exercises in the Mediterranean.

Commanders may also need to make use of the RAF base at Akrotiri, Cyprus for air support.

If military action is approved, the first wave of missiles could start within a week.

Military sources suggested the early hours of the 2011 campaign against Col Muammar Gaddafi could form a template for any operation. The Libya campaign began with a blitz of Tomahawk cruise missiles from US warships and from a British Trafalgar Class submarine.

The Royal Navy declined to comment on the current positions of its submarines, but they regularly pass through the area on their way to the Suez Canal.

America’s Sixth Fleet currently has four guided missile destroyers in the area, each of which could join the attack.

The Royal Navy also has its rapid response task force in the Mediterranean. The group includes two frigates and the helicopter carrier HMS Illustrious.

Navy sources said there were no plans to change the exercises, but the group provided “strategic contingency” if needed.

The Stig

08-26-2013, 12:11 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171302#.UhtFuD-2aTY) at isrealnationnews

UN Inspectors in Syria Come under Sniper Fire
Inspectors were forced to abandon their investigation of chemical attack after they were shot at near Damascus.

By Arutz Sheva
First Publish: 8/26/2013, 2:48 PM

A car carrying United Nations inspectors was shot at "multiple times" by snipers Monday as it headed to the scene of a suspected chemical weapons attack in which the Syrian regime is believed to have targeted its own people.

The inspectors were forced to abandon their investigation after they were shot at near Damascus. The experts were targeted as they traveled in a convoy. One car was damaged but no injuries was reported.

"The first vehicle of the chemical weapons investigation team was deliberately shot at multiple times by unidentified snipers," said UN spokesman Martin Nesirky. The spokesman for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the vehicle had been forced to return to a government checkpoint.

The six-car convoy containing the UN chemical weapons investigation team earlier left a hotel and headed toward the scene of the alleged poison gas attack on the outskirts of Damascus, in an area known as Eastern Ghouta.

Dressed in blue UN body armor, the team of experts were accompanied by local security forces and an ambulance.

Hundreds of civilians were killed on Wednesday in the suspected poison gas attack.

The Stig

08-26-2013, 12:15 PM

Original story HERE (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323407104579034633663263254.html?m od=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_4) at wall street journal

U.S. Talks Tough on Syria, Ramps Up Attack Planning

By
ADAM ENTOUS
in Washington and
SAM DAGHER
in Damascus

The Obama administration hardened its stance against Syria and stepped up plans for possible military action, dismissing as too late the regime's offer to let United Nations officials inspect areas where the U.S. believes Damascus used chemical weapons last week.

The White House and Pentagon signaled the U.S. wasn't backing away from a possible showdown despite apparent efforts by the Syrian government to ease tensions by letting U.N. inspectors visit areas near the capital where hundreds were killed, allegedly by chemical weapons.

If he decides to act militarily, Mr. Obama would prefer to do so with U.N. Security Council backing, but officials said he could decide to work instead with international partners such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the Arab League.
Syria in the Spotlight

"We'll consult with the U.N. They're an important avenue. But they're not the only avenue," a senior administration official said.

In recent days, the Pentagon has moved more warships into place in the eastern Mediterranean and U.S. war planners have updated military options that include cruise-missile strikes on regime targets, officials said. The White House held high-level meetings over the weekend, but officials said late Sunday that Mr. Obama had yet to decide how to proceed.

The U.S. had urged the Syrians to let U.N. inspectors visit the areas that were bombarded on Wednesday in suspected chemical attacks that opposition groups said killed more than 1,000 people. But the U.S. concluded that evidence at the scene has since been compromised due to continued Syrian shelling and the likely dissipation of any poison gases.

The administration also stepped up its diplomatic outreach to European and Middle Eastern allies this weekend in what officials described as an effort to build a consensus. A day after consulting with British Prime Minister David Cameron, Mr. Obama spoke Sunday with French President François Hollande about "possible responses by the international community," the White House said.

Administration lawyers have been crafting legal justifications for an intervention without U.N. approval that could be based on findings that Mr. Assad used chemical weapons and created a major humanitarian crisis.

The developments reflect a striking shift in tone by the administration that could signal growing support for military action. The White House has guarded against deep U.S. involvement since the start of the civil war in Syria in 2011. But over the past year, Mr. Obama has authorized an expanding Central Intelligence Agency role amid signs that Mr. Assad was prevailing with the help of his allies Iran and Hezbollah of Lebanon, officials said.

A final assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies on Mr. Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons could be completed soon, clearing the way for Mr. Obama to decide how to respond. Statements Sunday by senior officials and lawmakers suggested the White House was closer than ever to a decision to strike.

The White House hasn't said which chemical agents it believes were used nor how many people it believes were killed in the alleged chemical-arms attack. That determination could be a major factor for Mr. Obama in deciding what to do, officials said.

A senior administration official stressed that Mr. Obama could act now because of the scale of casualties in last week's incident. Previously, the U.S. accused Mr. Assad of using of chemical weapons only on a small scale.

British, French, Turkish and Israeli officials also have accused the Syrian regime in the suspected chemical attack.

Syria has denied using chemical weapons, and a Syrian army spokesman said Saturday that it found chemicals in liquid form and U.S.-made gas masks in a rebel hideout. The spokesman said this constituted "definitive proof" that it was rebels who used the chemical weapons last week, not the Syrian military.

Syria's Minister of Information Omran al-Zoubi, speaking on a Lebanese news channel, warned Saturday against a military strike. "The chaos and the ball of fire and flames will consume not only Syria but the entire Middle East," he said.

The White House's reluctance to intervene more forcefully in Syria over the last 2½ years has fueled criticism from some U.S. lawmakers and regional allies.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, traveling in Malaysia, said Sunday that the U.S. was weighing both the risks of taking action as well as the costs of not acting. Mr. Hagel said it was critical for the U.S. government and its allies to determine "what would be the objective" of any actions against the Syrian government.

Officials cautious of intervening say targeted strikes to punish Mr. Assad for using chemical weapons risk triggering a bloody escalation. If the regime digs in and uses chemical weapons again, or launches retaliatory attacks against the U.S. and its allies in the region, Mr. Obama will come under fierce pressure to respond more forcefully, increasing the chances of full-scale war, the officials say.

In keeping with Mr. Obama's goal of avoiding deep U.S. involvement, the leading military options presented to the White House wouldn't require American warplanes to fly through Syria's heavily guarded airspace, officials briefed on the plans say.

Rather, the options call for pinpoint strikes with cruise missiles, most likely from warships that have been moved into the eastern Mediterranean, within striking distance of Damascus.

Officials who support intervening say the biggest danger for the U.S. would be for Mr. Obama to threaten to take military action now and then not follow through. They say Mr. Assad would interpret inaction by the U.S. as a green light to step up his offensive and use chemical weapons in the conflict on a wider scale.

Arab officials have told their American counterparts that the U.S. needs to intervene now because failure to do so will be interpreted by Iran as a sign that the U.S. will do nothing to stop Tehran from building a nuclear bomb.

A guiding principle for Mr. Obama has been to take steps in Syria with the least risk of drawing the U.S. into the conflict, which has become a messy regional proxy war in which fighters linked to al Qaeda play an increasingly important part in the fight against Mr. Assad. The U.S. wants Mr. Assad to go but doesn't want to empower the Islamists either, officials and diplomats say.

U.S. and Arab officials who advocate limited American strikes say they won't only send a message to Mr. Assad's forces that chemical weapons use won't be tolerated but could create rifts within the Syrian regime and military that could undercut Mr. Assad's hold on power down the road.

Russia put Washington on notice Sunday that it would oppose any unilateral military action in Syria. The Russian Foreign Ministry drew a parallel between reports of chemical-weapons use and Washington's 2003 intervention in Iraq following what proved to be unfounded U.S. accusations that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's government had weapons of mass destruction.

In the past, U.N. Security Council resolutions seeking to punish Mr. Assad have been blocked by Russia, which was critical of the NATO-led mission in Libya in 2011.

Administration lawyers have, however, developed alternative legal approaches that Mr. Obama could opt to use to justify a military intervention without U.N. backing, including a finding that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons contrary to "established international norms," officials said. Administration lawyers based these approaches on President Bill Clinton's justification for the Kosovo bombing campaign in 1999, which wasn't authorized by the U.N. Security Council.

On Sunday, the U.N. said its inspection team was preparing to start its fact-finding mission on Monday after Syria said it would allow U.N. personnel now in Damascus immediate access to the affected areas.

"The team must be able to conduct a full, thorough and unimpeded investigation," said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Sunday night. However, the team is only mandated to determine if chemical weapons were used, not who used them, Mr. Ban's spokesman said.

Syrian state television, airing a statement attributed to the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said agreement was reached following a meeting between Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem and Angela Kane, the U.N. disarmament chief, who arrived in Damascus on Saturday. The Syrian statement said the timing of the visit would be coordinated between the U.N. team led by Swedish scientist Ake Sellstrom and the Syrian government.

However, it wasn't clear how the U.N. team would be able to start the work given the continuing military campaign. All areas in question have been sealed off by the military and strenuous restrictions were imposed at checkpoints.

Human-rights groups say victims of Wednesday's attack bear the hallmarks of sarin nerve gas. Doctors Without Borders said over the weekend that three opposition-run hospitals it supports in Damascus reported receiving about 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms" over less than three hours on Wednesday. Of those, 355 died, the Paris-based group said.

U.S. officials said the Syrian regime's unwillingness to allow inspectors to enter the area over the past five days has degraded their ability to conduct a thorough assessment.

"If the Syrian government had nothing to hide and wanted to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons in this incident, it would have ceased its attacks on the area and granted immediate access to the U.N. five days ago," a senior White House official said.

"At this juncture, the belated decision by the regime to grant access to the U.N. team is too late to be credible, including because the evidence available has been significantly corrupted as a result of the regime's persistent shelling and other intentional actions over the last five days," the official added.

The official said that—based on the reported number of victims, the reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured and other information—"there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident."

— Julian E. Barnes in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and Gary Fields and Carol E. Lee in Washington contributed to this article.

Write to Adam Entous at adam.entous@wsj.com and Sam Dagher at sam.dagher@wsj.com

idahobob

08-26-2013, 03:20 PM

We take out the Aasad government and install the muslim brotherhood.

Chemical attack, my ass. They tried this one last January and it did not fly. So now they give us the same old, same old, crap. Next there will be some pretext to take out the gov, in Egypt, since they have thrown out the muslim brotherhood.

Damned satan worshiping, communist pigs in D.C.

Bob
III

The Stig

08-26-2013, 03:37 PM

They are certainly pushing this one hard. I can't go to a website now without "attacking Syria" being the major focus.

I guess we got things working so well in Egypt it's time to change our focus and fix the shit out of some other countries.

bacpacker

08-26-2013, 04:35 PM

Just a thought. Who runs the national bank in Syria? I know Lybia ran their own befor Kadaffi was killed. No longer. My bet is Syria isnt under a federal reserve type system like just about every other country in the world is.

The Stig

08-26-2013, 10:47 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/world/middleeast/syria-assad.html?_r=0) at the New York Times

John Kerry's Statement on Syria: Secretary of State John Kerry said evidence “strongly indicates” that chemical weapons were used in Syria.
By MICHAEL R. GORDON, ALAN COWELL and RICK GLADSTONE
Published: August 26, 2013 680 Comments

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the use of chemical weapons in attacks on civilians in Syria last week was undeniable and that the Obama administration would hold the Syrian government accountable for a “moral obscenity” that had shocked the world’s conscience.

U.N. chemical weapons experts visited a hospital where wounded people affected by an apparent gas attack are being treated, in the Damascus suburb of Mouadamiya.

In some of the administration’s most strident language yet, Mr. Kerry accused the Syrian government of cynically seeking to cover up the use of the weapons, rejected its denial of responsibility for a “cowardly crime.”

Mr. Kerry’s remarks, in a prepared statement he read at the State Department, reinforced the administration’s toughening stance on the Syria conflict, which is now well into its third year, and he suggested that the White House, in consultation with America’s allies, was moving closer to a military response.

“The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity,” Mr. Kerry said.

“By any standard, it is inexcusable,” he went on . “And despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable.”

Mr. Kerry also said the Syrian government’s refusal to allow immediate access to the attack sites last Wednesday was a telling indicator that it was trying to hide responsibility. Even though the Syrian government finally permitted a United Nations team to investigate starting Monday, he said, the government’s authorization was “too late” to be credible.

“Our sense of basic humanity is offended not only by this cowardly crime but also by the cynical attempt to cover it up,” he said.

Mr. Kerry spoke hours after United Nations inspectors were finally allowed access to one of the attack sites. Despite shooting from unidentified snipers that disabled their convoy’s lead vehicle, the inspectors still managed to visit two hospitals, interview witnesses and doctors and collect patient samples for the first time since the attack last week that claimed hundreds of lives.

Far more of the lengthy story at NYT's online link above.

Stg1swret

08-26-2013, 11:32 PM

Another CF in the making. Let them pound the crap out of each other , no need for us to get involved.

The Stig

08-27-2013, 11:34 AM

Original story HERE (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-obama-determined-to-hold-syria-accountable-for-using-chemical-weapons/2013/08/26/599450c2-0e70-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html?hpid=z1) at Washington Post

After Syria chemical allegations, Obama considering limited military strike

By Karen DeYoung and Anne Gearan, Published: August 26 E-mail the writers

President Obama is weighing a military strike against Syria that would be of limited scope and duration, designed to serve as punishment for Syria’s use of chemical weapons and as a deterrent, while keeping the United States out of deeper involvement in that country’s civil war, according to senior administration officials.

The timing of such an attack, which would probably last no more than two days and involve sea-launched cruise missiles — or, possibly, long-range bombers — striking military targets not directly related to Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, would be dependent on three factors: completion of an intelligence report assessing Syrian government culpability in last week’s alleged chemical attack; ongoing consultation with allies and Congress; and determination of a justification under international law.
Should Western countries intervene in the Syrian conflict?

Such a move, designed as deterrent as well as punishment, would keep the U.S. from engaging deeper.
The world has mostly rejected chemical weapons

Relatives in Nazareth, Israel, mourn victims and wonder what happened.

“We’re actively looking at the various legal angles that would inform a decision,” said an official who spoke about the presidential deliberations on the condition of anonymity. Missile-armed U.S. warships are already positioned in the Mediterranean.

As the administration moved rapidly toward a decision, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said the use of chemical weapons in an attack Wednesday against opposition strongholds on the outskirts of Damascus is now “undeniable.”

Evidence being gathered by United Nations experts in Syria was important, Kerry said, but not necessary to prove what is already “grounded in facts, informed by conscience and guided by common sense.”

The team of U.N. weapons investigators on Monday visited one of three rebel-held suburbs where the alleged attack took place, after first being forced to withdraw when their vehicles came under sniper fire. The Syrian government, which along with Russia has suggested that the rebels were responsible for the chemical attack, agreed to the U.N. inspection over the weekend.

Videos and statements by witnesses and relief organizations such as Doctors Without Borders have proved that an attack occurred, Kerry said. The U.S. intelligence report is to be released this week.

Among the factors, officials said, are that only the government is known to possess chemical weapons and the rockets to deliver them, and its continuing control of chemical stocks has been closely monitored by U.S. intelligence.

There's a lot more of the article at the Washington Post website.

Looks like TPTB are really pushing this agenda hard.

The Stig

08-27-2013, 11:39 AM

Original story HERE (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800)at BBCnews

Syria crisis: Russia and China step up warning over strike

Russia and China have stepped up their warnings against military intervention in Syria, with Moscow saying any such action would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region.

UN weapons inspectors in the western district of Muadhamiya. 26 Aug 2013 The UN team spoke to witnesses and survivors in
Russia and China have stepped up their warnings against military intervention in Syria, with Moscow saying any such action would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region.

The US and its allies are considering launching strikes on Syria in response to deadly attacks last week.

The US said there was "undeniable" proof of a chemical attack, on Monday.

UN chemical weapons inspectors are due to start a second day of investigations in the suburbs of Damascus.

The UN team came under sniper fire as they tried to visit an area west of the city on Monday.

A spokesman for UK Prime Minister David Cameron says the UK is making contingency plans for military action in Syria.

Mr Cameron has cut short his holiday and returned to London to deal with the Syrian crisis.

"The administration has deliberately left itself almost no room for manoeuvre - its credibility would now be zero if it failed to take some form of military action”

Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich has called on the international community to show "prudence" over the crisis and observe international law.

"Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," he said in a statement.

Late on Monday, the US said it was postponing a meeting on Syria with Russian diplomats, citing "ongoing consultations" about alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Hours later, Russia expressed regret about the decision. The two sides had been due to meet in The Hague on Wednesday to discuss setting up an international conference on finding a political solution to the crisis.

The Russian deputy defence minister, Gennady Gatilov said working out the political parameters for a resolution on Syria would be especially useful, with the threat of force hanging over the country.

On Monday, Mr Cameron spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin who said there was no evidence yet that Syria had used chemical weapons against rebels, Mr Cameron's office said.

The official Chinese news agency, Xinhua, said Western powers were rushing to conclusions about who may have used chemical weapons in Syria before UN inspectors had completed their investigation.

Both the Syrian government and rebels have blamed each other for last Wednesday's attacks.

US officials said there was "little doubt" that President Bashar al-Assad's government was to blame.

UN inspectors spent nearly three hours in the western district of Muadhamiya on Monday where they visited two hospitals and interviewed survivors, eyewitnesses and doctors.

A UN spokesman said they had collected some samples.

Earlier in the day, the UN convoy came under fire from unidentified snipers and was forced to turn back before resuming its journey.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned the shooting and asked the UN team in Syria to register a complaint.

'Accountability'

In the most forceful US reaction yet, US Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday described the recent attacks in the Damascus area as a "moral obscenity".

He said the delay in allowing UN inspectors to the sites was a sign the Syrian government had something to hide.

He said Washington had additional information about the attacks that it would make public in the days ahead.

"What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality," Mr Kerry said at a news conference on Monday.

"Make no mistake, President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people."

John Kerry: "There is a clear reason that the world has banned entirely the use of chemical weapons"

Washington has recently bolstered its naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean and military leaders from the US, UK and their allies have convened a meeting in Jordan.

Analysts believe the most likely US action would be sea-launched cruise missiles targeting Syrian military installations.

But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters on Monday the West had not produced any proof that President Assad's forces had used chemical weapons.

He was responding to suggestions from some Western countries that military action against the Syrian government could be taken without a UN mandate.

Mr Lavrov said the use of force without Security Council backing would be "a crude violation of international law".

Earlier, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague told the BBC an international military response to the suspected use of chemical weapons would be possible without the backing of the UN.

The UN Security Council is divided, with Russia and China opposing military intervention and the UK and France warning that the UN could be bypassed if there was "great humanitarian need".

In a column in The Times newspaper, former UK PM Tony Blair has written that if the West does not intervene to support freedom and democracy in Egypt and Syria, the Middle East will face catastrophe

The UN says more than 100,000 people have been killed since the uprising against President Assad began more than two years ago. The conflict has produced more than 1.7 million registered refugees.

The Stig

08-27-2013, 05:46 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/26/syria-warplanes-cyprus-tensions-damascus) at the guardian

Syria crisis: warplanes spotted in Cyprus as tensions rise in Damascus

Signs of advanced readiness at likely hub of air campaign as UN inspection team comes under fire near site of alleged chemical attack

The Guardian, Monday 26 August 2013 14.51 EDT

UN chemical weapons experts visit people affected by the apparent gas attack in Damascus suburb
UN chemical weapons experts visit people affected by the apparent gas attack in Damascus suburb. Photograph: Stringer/Reuters

Warplanes and military transporters have begun arriving at Britain's Akrotiri airbase on Cyprus, less than 100 miles from the Syrian coast, in a sign of increasing preparations for a military strike against the Assad regime in Syria.

Two commercial pilots who regularly fly from Larnaca on Monday told the Guardian that they had seen C-130 transport planes from their cockpit windows as well as small formations of fighter jets on their radar screens, which they believe had flown from Europe.

Residents near the British airfield, a sovereign base since 1960, also say activity there has been much higher than normal over the past 48 hours.

If an order to attack targets in Syria is given, Cyprus is likely to be a hub of the air campaign. The arrival of warplanes suggests that advanced readiness – at the very least – has been ordered by Whitehall as David Cameron, Barack Obama and European leaders step up their rhetoric against Bashar al-Assad, whose armed forces they accuse of carrying out the chemical weapons attack last Wednesday that killed many hundreds in eastern Damascus.

The standoff between Syria and the west intensified when a UN inspection team came under sniper fire as it approached the site of the suspected chemical weapons attack.

A spokesman for the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said the vehicle was "deliberately shot at multiple times" by unidentified snipers while travelling in the buffer zone between rebel and government-controlled territory.

After replacing the vehicle, the team returned to the area, where they met and took samples from victims of the apparent poisoning. The attack on the inspectors came shortly after Ban said there could be "no impunity" for the use of chemical weapons, saying the international community owed it to the families of the victims to take action in Syria.

Speaking in Seoul, Ban said the UN inspection could not be delayed. "Every hour counts," he said. "We have all seen the horrifying images on our television screens and through social media. Clearly this was a major and terrible incident."

A Syrian doctor who runs a makeshift medical clinic in the Mouadamiya district of west Ghouta in Damascus, where the chemical weapons attack is said to have taken place, spoke to the Guardian by Skype after meeting the inspection team.

"The UN inspection committee was supposed to come at 10am today," Dr Abu Akram said. "The route between the Four Seasons Hotel [where the inspectors were staying] and Mouadamiya is only 15 minutes. But UN convoy was targeted by gunfire and when they are arrived we could see bullet traces on their cars. They arrived at 2pm."

He said there had been doctors with the UN team, who took blood and urine samples, as well as strands of hair, from the victims in the hospital. They also recorded statements on from the victims on video.

"They visited the hospital and talked to more than 20 victims," he said. "They were supposed to stay for six hours but they stayed for an hour and a half only."

Akram said he then accompanied the team to the site where a chemical rocket had fallen, where they collected samples from the soil and animals. "They took a chicken [but] they refused to take the chemical rocket," Akram said, speculating that the Syrian regime had refused permission for the team to take military hardware.

After an a hour and a half, the inspectors received an order from the Syrians to leave immediately, he said. "The security forces told the committee if they do not leave now, they cannot guarantee their security. They could not visit the main six sites where the chemical rockets had fallen and lots of people were killed," he added.

Akram said his clinic had received about 2,000 victims of the gas attack, about 500 of them in a critical condition. "Eighty people were pronounced dead at the hospital and I now have 20 victims in intensive care, he said."

The UN team spoke to his patients and asked them where they had been when the rockets landed. "Most of the people were civilians, sleeping at their homes," he said. "The committee did not visit any house in the district. We asked them if they could supply us with medical aid but they said that they do not have the authority to do so."
Likely targets in Syria Likely targets in Syria

The US, Britain and their allies are likely to wait until the UN team has compiled its report and left Syria before carrying out any air strikes against the government. If the strikes go ahead, they are expected to focus on the strongest sinews of the Assad regime's power.

Hitting stockpiles of chemical weapons could appear more proportionate but that would bring with it the risk of dispersing neurotoxins over a wide area, potentially causing even more harm than Wednesday's gas attack.

For that reason, military experts think that if the western allies do decide to strike, they will aim to deliver a punishment and a deterrent against any further chemical weapons use.

To do so, they will probably concentrate their fire on the regime's greatest strength – the elite units on which it relies militarily and which are most tied to its chemical weapons programme.

Foremost among these is the 4th armoured division, an overwhelmingly Alawite formation headed by the president's brother, Maher al-Assad. It has its headquarters in the Mazzeh military complex in the southern suburbs of Damascus.

Another likely target is the regime's Republican Guard, another Allawite diehard unit, which is deployed around the presidential palace and in the Qasioun military complex to the north of the Syrian capital.

Much will depend on whether the chosen option is a strictly limited strike with a handful of cruise missiles, intended as demonstration of intent, or a more complex, further-reaching campaign involving waves of stealth bombers.

That would involve a huge amount of ordnance being targeted at Syria's substantial air defences, which include multiple arrays of Russian-made missiles. Such a campaign would dramatically increase the risk of causing casualties among civilians and perhaps even Russian advisers, who western intelligence officials say are present in Syria helping the regime's troops train on and maintain the anti-aircraft missiles.

Both options have shortcomings. The more limited version could be rejected by the regime's friends and foes as "pin-prick strikes" with political rather than military significance. The longer, more complex option threatens to drag the US, Britain and their allies into a more open-ended conflict that would help Assad to define his role as a bulwark of resistance against western imperialism.

The Stig

08-27-2013, 05:50 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/08/27/France-Ready-to-Punish-Syria-for-Chemical-Weapon-Attack) at breitbart

France Ready to 'Punish' Syria for Chemical Weapon Attack
by Elizabeth Sheld 27 Aug 2013, 8:48 AM PDT 35 post a comment

President Francois Hollande said on Tuesday France is prepared to "punish" those responsible for gassing innocent civilians in Damascus.

Speaking to an annual meeting in Paris of dozens of French ambassadors posted around the world. "France is ready to punish those who took the decision to gas the innocent. "

Hollande stated it seemed certain that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad was behind the chemical attack.

Last Thursday, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius spoke to BFM-TV saying the country was prepared to retaliate with force if the use of chemical weapons were confirmed. "If it is proven, France's position is that there must be a reaction," Fabius said.

But he elaborated that while there would need to be a "reaction with force," it would be "impossible" to send ground troops. On Friday Laurent said "All the information at our disposal converges to indicate that there was a chemical massacre near Damascus and that the Bashar regime is responsible," while visiting Ramallah in the West Bank.

ladyhk13

08-27-2013, 10:28 PM

This is a civil war we need to stay out of.no matter which side we chose we lose. Why would we get involved? Because we see kids dying? Kids are dying all over the world. If we had a civil war here I would be pissed if another country invaded to help either side. Get out of the Middle East and let them deal with their own problems unless they become a direct threat to our ally Israel or attack our embassies. Drill our own oil right here at home and work with Canada on the pipeline so we don't need ANY mid east oil. Non of those Muslim countries give a crap about us and most hate us and our Christianity....you can't push our politics and way of life on barbarians.

bacpacker

08-28-2013, 01:16 AM

Here is a little different take on it. The way things have been going on the last several years, it is hard to argue with. Time will tell how true it is.

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/9339#more-9339

Intelligence insider: Syria, World War III & the hidden objective
hagmann082613

Image courtesy of Canada Free Press

Please comment on this article at Canada Free Press

By Douglas J. Hagmann

26 August 2013: ”Pay attention! You are seeing the opening acts to a global war, to World War III. Refer to the information I gave you right after the attacks in Benghazi, specifically to the information contained in ‘Lemmings…at the precipice of WW III‘ and you will see that everything I divulged to you was precisely correct. World War III will begin in Syria, and no one on the planet (and Americans in particular) will be left untouched by what is about to take place. This has been planned for some time, and we are now seeing it happen right in front of us.” Those are the words of a trusted source with deep ties to the intelligence community, before providing more insight into what we might expect as this ‘crisis’ escalates and “Syria explodes.”

As I wrote in that article published on October 8, 2012, “All that is needed now is for a dutiful media to present one image, a video, or some other proof that Assad or someone else is using, or has their hands on, unconventional weapons. This will provide the necessary pretext for the U.S. and NATO, to intervene and ramp up the war against Assad. The UN will assist, and the red line will then have been crossed.” That will be the trigger event for U.S. involvement, and the escalation into a global conflict.

We are now at that critical moment, as the images of the use of chemical weapons are all over the news, and all fingers are pointing to Assad as the culprit. Just as predicted, The Guardian among other media outlets reported that “David Cameron and Barack Obama moved the West closer to military intervention in Syria on Saturday as they agreed that last week’s alleged chemical weapon attacks by the Assad regime had taken the crisis into a new phase that merited a ‘serious response.’” But it’s a lie, a magic show, to keep people’s attention away from something much bigger on the horizon.

Syria through the lens of the Arab Spring & Benghazi

“The entire scenario we are seeing is one big magic act that began long ago, and Syria is just the ‘flash-bang’ diversion of the act, albeit a vital one. To understand how we got here is critically important, as it identifies the larger agenda or the big picture too few are seeing and too many are attempting to hide.

Consider the blatant continuity of agenda that has spanned several American presidential administrations, both Republican and Democrat, Progressive and Conservative. This transcends political parties and the ‘political theater’ that has been designed to keep Americans occupied. Both political parties, however, are unified under a much larger globalist agenda, which explains why the policies of the Bush ‘dynasty’ have been exponentially increased under the Obama ‘regime.’

“Think about it. The anti-Assad ‘rebels’ are losing, they’re in retreat, because the exposure to the arms and weapons running from Benghazi caused the architects of this conflict to lay low for awhile. That gave us some time, but it did not change their objective of overthrowing Assad and taking Syria for the Muslim Brotherhood. The anti-Assad rebels cannot survive without Western assistance. Considering that, what sense would it make for Assad to use chemical weapons, especially as international observers were in getting position to investigate the situation, against rebels in retreat? It makes no sense, unless you understand the larger objective and the ‘big picture.’”

“Okay, so explain the big picture,” I asked my source. “And please do it in a way that I can explain it to my neighbor, or my family, so they too can understand what we’re seeing.” What follows is an uninterrupted monologue from my intelligence insider.

The big picture explained

“Here’s the global picture. When you see it, it will make sense. This is about reshaping the entire power structure of not just the Middle East, but of the world.”

“Remember that the 2001 attacks against the U.S. was the catalyst for our military operations in Afghanistan, and then ostensibly Iraq under George W. Bush, a so-called ‘conservative republican.’ We could have gone into Afghanistan, cleaned up what we needed to, and come home. Instead, while still in Afghanistan, we went into Iraq after convincing the world they had weapons of mass destruction. Remember that George H. W. Bush, also a ‘conservative republican,’ engaged Iraq in ‘Gulf War I’ in 1990. Essentially, we’ve been in Iraq for the last quarter of a century! Why? Think about that.”

“And, we’ve been in Afghanistan for the last dozen years or so. Why? Oil and opium. It’s a ‘international bankers war.’ [Note that a recent report from 'The Guerrilla Economist lays this out here, excerpted as follows]: ”…[L]arge US military bases are on the very path of the purposed [Caspian Sea oil] pipeline. This as well that some of the proceeds from the lucrative opium trade will find its way back to US banks which will launder the money in order to help fund Unocal in the purposed pipe building project. Win Win.”

“Oh, and by the way, if you mention Iran’s nuclear ambitions, why did we wait so long to really address this and keep Israel from doing so before any action would require a very protracted military campaign? Keep that in the back of your mind.”

“Now here’s another important part of the magic act. After eight years of George Bush, Americans were weary of war. So, a little known man named Barack Hussein Obama was selected to run against John McCain in 2008. Why Obama and not Hillary? Because the real power players needed a man with Muslim Brotherhood connections to accomplish what was needed in the Middle East. Think back to his Cairo speech. Consider that all of his campaign promises to end the wars were not only broken, but the wars and unrest were expanded by his policies, or the policies of those who put him into power.”

“So we’ve stayed in Afghanistan and in Iraq.” Then comes the Arab Spring, which was planned years in advance. It was not some serendipitously spontaneous movement by oppressed people longing for democracy, but a Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood plan to regain control of what was once the Ottoman Empire, this time on steroids. People must think bigger, outside of the confines of the Middle East.”

“As much as I don’t like the thought of saying this, Putin was correct in asking what sense it makes to destabilize the entire Middle East, especially Syria, a client state of Russia. In the context of regional affairs, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Now, we are going to send cruise missiles into Syria… to hit what? Chemical weapons stockpiles stored in densely populated areas? How is this going to help the Syrians? The refugees fleeing from Syria?”

“I’ve told you, and you have written that we are implementing the Saudi agenda across the Middle East. But who is behind the Saudis? It is the international banking cartel, those ‘too big to jail,’ who are behind the Saudis. It’s their war and they’re funding all sides of the conflict. No matter what, they win. But what do they win?”

“Admittedly it’s difficult if not nearly impossible to tell all the players without a scorecard, and even then, the players will change their uniforms to keep everyone confused. But here’s the important part. Syria is a proxy state for Russia, as is Iran. China has interests in Iran as well. If you look at all of the major powers, they all have interests in the Middle East. So who will we, the U.S. ultimately be fighting when Syria explodes? Russia. And what will be the blowback? That’s important to understand, for it is also the objective.”

The rest of the article can be found at the link above.

eagle326

08-28-2013, 11:43 AM

This along with the guy from D.H.S. and you have two possible war front openings to battle. Never have one front if you're capable of more ; this way you stretch the enemies resources. Or so they believe.

Richarddbeck

08-28-2013, 01:13 PM

Surprise surprise. Senator John Mccain thinks we need to give weapons to the rebels and attack/bomb the Syrian military. Here is the interview I captured a couple minutes ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8vCuJHKWLg&feature=youtu.be

MegaCPC

08-28-2013, 02:59 PM

I wonder where the WMDs came from...

idahobob

08-28-2013, 03:18 PM

bacpacker

08-28-2013, 04:30 PM

That man is an IDIOT!

WMD's hell Iran and Iraq both used them in their war in the 80's. Saddam used them against the Kurds after G.H.W Bush pulled back after the 1st Gulf War. I just heard one of the talking heads mention that on the news over the weekend. I thought funny thing that wasn't brought up when W sent troops to Iraq. Syria has had them all along to. Most likely Eygpt as well.

Stormfeather

08-28-2013, 04:31 PM

I wonder where the WMDs came from...

They are leftovers from Saddam Husseins arsenal. . . duh. . .I thought everyone knew that?!?!

The Stig

08-28-2013, 05:53 PM

Original story HERE (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324591204579039011328308776.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop) at wallstreetjournal

Loose Lips on Syria
U.S. leaks tell Assad he can relax. The bombing will be brief and limited.

An American military attack on Syria could begin as early as Thursday and will involve three days of missile strikes, according to "senior U.S. officials" talking to NBC News. The Washington Post has the bombing at "no more than two days," though long-range bombers could "possibly" join the missiles. "Factors weighing into the timing of any action include a desire to get it done before the president leaves for Russia next week," reports CNN, citing a "senior administration official."

The New York Times, quoting a Pentagon official, adds that "the initial target list has fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria's Russian-made attack helicopters are deployed." The Times adds that "like several other military officials contacted for this report, the official agreed to discuss planning options only on condition of anonymity."

Thus do the legal and moral requirements of secret military operations lose out in this Administration to the imperatives of in-the-know spin and political gestures.

It's always possible that all of this leaking about when, how and for how long the U.S. will attack Syria is an elaborate head-fake, like Patton's ghost army on the eve of D-Day, poised for the assault on Calais. But based on this Administration's past behavior, such as the leaked bin Laden raid details, chances are most of this really is the war plan.

Which makes us wonder why the Administration even bothers to pursue the likes of Edward Snowden when it is giving away its plan of attack to anyone in Damascus with an Internet connection. The answer, it seems, is that the attack in Syria isn't really about damaging the Bashar Assad regime's capacity to murder its own people, much less about ending the Assad regime for good.

"I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday. Translation: We're not coming for you, Bashar, so don't worry. And by the way, you might want to fly those attack choppers off base, at least until next week.

So what is the purpose of a U.S. attack? Mr. Carney elaborated that it's "about responding to [a] clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons." He added that the U.S. had a national security interest that Assad's use of chemical weapons "not go unanswered." This is another way of saying that the attacks are primarily about making a political statement, and vindicating President Obama's ill-considered promise of "consequences," rather than materially degrading Assad's ability to continue to wage war against his own people.

It should go without saying that the principal purpose of a military strike is to have a military effect. Political statements can always be delivered politically, and U.S. airmen should not be put in harm's way to deliver what amounts to an extremely loud diplomatic demarche. That's especially so with a "do something" strike that is, in fact, deliberately calibrated to do very little.

We wrote Tuesday that there is likely to be no good outcome in Syria until Assad and his regime are gone. Military strikes that advance that goal—either by targeting Assad directly or crippling his army's ability to fight—deserve the support of the American people and our international partners. That's not what this Administration seems to have in mind.

The Stig

08-28-2013, 05:55 PM

Original story HERE (http://news.sky.com/story/1134277/syria-phone-calls-prove-regime-behind-attack)at skynews

Syria: Phone Calls 'Prove' Regime Behind Attack
A call in which a Syrian official demands an explanation for the use of chemical weapons is reportedly overheard by US spies.
5:56pm UK, Wednesday 28 August 2013

By Sky News US Team

The US is certain an alleged poison gas attack in Syria was carried out by the regime of President Bashar al Assad after listening to intercepted telephone calls, according to reports.

US intelligence services overheard panicked conversations in which a Syrian defence official demanded an explanation for the attack from a leader of a chemical weapons unit, according to the Foreign Policy website.

The phone calls, as well as photo evidence and local accounts, are reportedly part of the portfolio of evidence the US is preparing before proceeding with a response - possibly a military strike - in the coming days.

But the intercept raises questions about the nature of last Wednesday's attack in the capital Damascus that is believed to have killed hundreds of people, including civilians.

If a Syrian defence official was questioning the chemical weapons unit about the assault, it raises the possibility that it was a rogue event.
President Obama The Obama administration insists the Syrian government must be punished

Or was it cleared at the highest levels, without the say-so from mid-level defence officials?

"It's unclear where control lies," one US intelligence official told Foreign Policy.

"Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"

The Syrian regime has denied carrying out the attack, saying it was actually the rebels who were behind it with the aim of portraying the Assad government in a bad light.

US officials are mulling what type of military strike in Syria might deter future chemical weapons attacks and are trying to assess how President Assad would respond, two officials said.

The Obama administration has insisted the Syrian government must be punished for its alleged use of toxic gas on civilians last week but said regime change was not on the agenda.

UN inspectors car UN inspectors have been gathering evidence at the site of the attack

US intelligence agencies are preparing a report laying out the evidence against Mr Assad's government on chemical weapons.

The classified version would be sent to key members of Congress, and a declassified version would be released publicly.

However, the White House says it was already convinced and was planning a possible military response and is seeking support from international partners including Britain and France.

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are meeting informally to discuss the language of a resolution drafted by Britain that would authorise the use of military force against Syria.

But Russia, a Syrian ally and a permanent member of the Security Council, is all but certain to veto a resolution authorising force.

Meanwhile, the UK parliament was being recalled for a debate and vote on the Syrian crisis on Thursday.

British Prime Minister David Cameron insists any use of force would only be a response to the use of banned chemical weapons and would be legal and proportionate.

*cough* Gulf of Tonkin *cough*

The Stig

08-28-2013, 06:04 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171373#.Uh47Pz-2aTY) at isrealinationalnews

Khamenei: Region is Like a Gunpowder Depot, US Attack a Disaster
Britain to present a draft to the UN Security Council Wednesday "authorizing necessary measures to protect civilians" in Syria.

By Kochava Rozenbaum & Gil Ronen
First Publish: 8/28/2013, 2:02 PM

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the US on Wednesday not to attack Syria.

"The US intervention will be a disaster for the region," Khamenei said as he spoke with the cabinet of Iranian President Hassan Rowhani, state television reported.

"The region is like a gunpowder storage depot. (Its) future cannot be predicted" in case of a military strike against Syria, he added.

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Araqchi rejected reports that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had flown in to Iran as an “amusing joke.”

Araqchi told the official news agency IRNA that the news is false and was “mostly like[ly] a funny joke made up by the Zionists.”

The United Kingdom has drafted a resolution concerning a possible strike on Syria which will be discussed at a meeting Wednesday with representatives of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The resolution would contain wording "authorizing necessary measures to protect civilians."

BBC News reported that the information was posted by UK Prime Minister David Cameron via Twitter.

Meanwhile, a squad of UN weapons inspectors continued investigations into the alleged chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of people on August 21. The investigation had been suspended after investigators were shot at near Damascus by unidentified snipers on Monday.

A spokesperson for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that the inspectors were to “conduct on-site fact-finding activities” following General Ban Ki-moon's appeal to the council to take action.

"The body interested with maintaining international peace and security cannot be 'missing in action'," said General Ban Ki-moon. "The council must at last find the unity to act. It must use its authority for peace," he added.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said in a separate message regarding the council that, "we've always said we want the UN Security Council to live up to its responsibilities on Syria. Today they have an opportunity to do that.”

The draft resolution that the UK will put forward would condemn the "chemical weapons attack by Assad", he added.

The opposition

Russia and China have previously prevented resolutions critical of Syria and plan to block any text deemed to authorize military action.

The Russian Foreign Ministry called upon the international community to make sure that their investigation into the use of chemical weapons by Syria be carried out in a fair and professional manner.

Russia, China and Iran have previously warned against launching an attack on the war-ravaged country, where more than 100,000 people are thought to have died in two years of fighting.

Stormfeather

08-28-2013, 07:55 PM

This is starting to develop into a real foreboding situation, as many have said already, its a powder keg getting ready to ignite. some of the folks I have talked to said its almost perfect storm of a situation to lead to something even more dire.
While I agree with the Gov't takeover in Egypt, its almost like watching a train wreck as things seem to multiply over and over on itself, one event leading to another, where it slips even closer to the precipice of war. The only question that seems to remain, it where will that war take us as a country, and what can we as Americans expect as the result?
Syria doesnt have the capabilities to wage conventional war on the USA, it has too much internal strife going on, so that leads to believe that if Syria wants to retaliate for any actions taken upon their country, they will have to resort to COIN, which while is a disheartening thought, severely limits their actions available. As Americans in SmallTown USA, I wouldnt worry so much, bigger cities however, I would definitely just up my situational awareness more. Even if it wanted to, it would still take them months to work out an effective plan that would actually be employable, and give results. So, that being said, be careful, be observant, be vigilant, you never know what is stirring in the weeds.

One pictorial I found interesting, the types of weapons they are using, and how they are even using a improvised slingshot as a delivery method. Syrian rebels taking it back old school style.

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/improvised-weapons-of-syria-slideshow/

NWPilgrim

08-29-2013, 12:27 AM

I don't think Russia will sit on their thumbs and just watch us attack Syria. There will be payback.

eagle326

08-29-2013, 01:10 AM

Our troops have been at war for over 10 years with many deployments and are battle weary to say the least. Russian troops for their part are at home well rested after Afganistan war.
Our troops are spread thin overseas and if they get stupid enough to put boots on the ground in Syria we're even more at risk to ourselves as a nation.

Yes perfect storm senario as stated by Stormy for the Russians to make a grab for some prime real estate and for a corrupt U.S. government to try something really stupid against it's own people.

Man I'm glad we're ants and not frogs.

The Stig

08-29-2013, 01:13 AM

Original story HERE (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_JORDAN_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-28-08-50-02) at AP

Jordan: No attack on Syria from our soil

By JAMAL HALABY
Associated Press

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) -- Jordan will not be used as a launching pad for attacks on Syria and the kingdom favors a diplomatic solution to the crisis, a Jordanian government spokesman said Wednesday.

A U.S.-led strike on Syria in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by President Bashar Assad's regime likely would involve cruise missile attacks from the sea, which would not need to cross or make use of Jordanian territory.

But the remarks underline the U.S. ally's efforts to avoid further friction with its larger neighbor for fear that Assad or his Iranian backers could retaliate.

The remarks come a day after Jordan hosted a meeting of top commanders from Western and Middle Eastern countries, including some that are likely to participate in a military action.

"Jordan will not be a launching pad for any military action against Syria," said spokesman Mohammad Momani, who is also the country's information minister.

He said Jordan prefers a "diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis" and called on the international community to "consolidate efforts in that regard."

Tuesday, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, met with Arab and Western peers to discuss ways to bolster the security of Syria's neighbors against possible attacks, chemical or other, by Assad's regime, a Jordanian security official said. Army chiefs of staff from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Canada also attended the meeting in Jordan.

Syrian state radio, quoting an unnamed political commentator, accused Jordan in news bulletins Tuesday of participating in a U.S.-led "aggression" for hosting the meeting.

Similar meetings took place earlier this year in Britain and Qatar. The Jordanian official said more meetings were planned in the near future. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not allowed to speak publicly to journalists.

Hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled into Jordan from Syria. On Wednesday, a representative of the United Nations' refugee agency said as many as 200 enter Jordan daily, but none had come from the area affected by the alleged chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Syria's capital, Damascus.

Meanwhile, the Islamic Action Front, the political arm of Jordan's Muslim Brotherhood, condemned a possible U.S. military intervention in Syria.

"It will not help the Syrian people, but aims first and foremost at boosting American and Zionist interests by weakening and dividing Syria and imposing a political regime that would be a puppet to the Americans," the group said in a statement.

The group also warned of the "serious repercussions" on the Palestinian issue, saying a weakened Syria would allow Israel to impose "self-tailored solutions to the lingering Arab-Israeli conflict."

---

Associated Press writer Dale Gavlak contributed to this report.

Brownwater Riverrat 13

08-29-2013, 04:30 AM

The syrians have learned to adapt overcome and improvise. Take a close look people we could end up being the one's using the same shit. I'm not liking any of this one bit, this clown who thinks he's king of these United States is going to put us in deeper than anyone can dig us out of. Once this war begins there won't be any turning back. I'm still waiting to hear any responses from Russia and China and the rest of the Hee-Haw gang. We all know he's going to do what he wants to do and drop bombs or launch missiles into syria. He's not going to ask for permission, so it's just a matter of what's going to be the effect on us Law abiding citizens here. I'm just babbling pissed off about the whole thing. Because.................our elected officials are going to allow him to do it.

NWPilgrim

08-29-2013, 05:09 AM

When Russia and China are silent it means they are getting ready and confident. If they were loud and threatening it would because they were weak and trying to bluff.

The Stig

08-29-2013, 11:17 AM

Original story HERE (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_SYRIA_INTELLIGENCE_DOUBTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-29-03-11-56) at the AP

Aug 29, 6:54 AM EDT

AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'

By KIMBERLY DOZIER and MATT APUZZO
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.

President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.

"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," Obama said in an interview with "NewsHour" on PBS. "And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences."

However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture - a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" - intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad's forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture. Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, U.S. officials and congressional aides said.

The complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White House's full-steam-ahead approach to the Aug. 21 attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to al-Qaida-backed rebels later. Administration officials said Wednesday that neither the U.N. Security Council, which is deciding whether to weigh in, or allies' concerns would affect their plans.

Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad's supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as U.S. rhetoric builds. That lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad's military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.

Over the past six months, with shifting front lines in the 2 1/2-year-old civil war and sketchy satellite and human intelligence coming out of Syria, U.S. and allied spies have lost track of who controls some of the country's chemical weapons supplies, according to one senior U.S. intelligence official and three other U.S. officials briefed on the intelligence shared by the White House as reason to strike Syria's military complex. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the Syrian issue publicly.

U.S. satellites have captured images of Syrian troops moving trucks into weapons storage areas and removing materials, but U.S. analysts have not been able to track what was moved or, in some cases, where it was relocated. They are also not certain that when they saw what looked like Assad's forces moving chemical supplies, those forces were able to remove everything before rebels took over an area where weapons had been stored.

In addition, an intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.

So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that links between the attack and the Assad government are "undeniable," U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said.

Ideally, the White House seeks intelligence that links the attack directly to Assad or someone in his inner circle to rule out the possibility that a rogue element of the military decided to use chemical weapons without Assad's authorization. Another possibility that officials would hope to rule out: that stocks had fallen out of the government's control and were deployed by rebels in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war.

The U.S. has devoted only a few hundred operatives, between intelligence officers and soldiers, to the Syrian mission, with CIA and Pentagon resources already stretched by the counterterrorism missions in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, as well as the continuing missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said.

The quest for added intelligence to bolster the White House's case for a strike against Assad's military infrastructure was the issue that delayed the release of the U.S. intelligence community's report, which had been expected Tuesday.

The uncertainty calls into question the statements by Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden.

"We know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons," Kerry said. "We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place."

On Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said it didn't really matter whether the administration knew those details with total certainty.

"We ultimately, of course, hold President Assad responsible for the use of chemical weapons by his regime against his own people, regardless of where the command and control lies," Harf said.

The CIA, the Pentagon and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Still, many U.S. lawmakers believe there is reasonable certainty Assad's government was responsible and are pressing the White House to go ahead with an armed response.

"Based on available intelligence, there can be no doubt the Assad regime is responsible for using chemical weapons on the Syrian people," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Short of putting troops on the ground, I believe a meaningful military response is appropriate."

Others, both Democrats and Republicans, have expressed serious concern with the expected military strike.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Wednesday that all the evidence points in one direction.

"There is no evidence that any opposition group in Syria has the capability let alone the desire to launch such a large-scale chemical attack," Hague told British broadcaster Sky News.

Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron has recalled Parliament to debate the issue Thursday.

---

Associated Press writers Bradley Klapper, Julie Pace and Lara Jakes contributed to this report.

---

The Stig

08-29-2013, 11:21 AM

Original story HERE (http://news.yahoo.com/on-syria--obama-says-eyeing-%E2%80%98shot-across-the-bow%E2%80%99-222156121.html) at yahoo news

On Syria, Obama says eyeing ‘shot across the bow’

Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News

President Barack Obama promised Wednesday that any U.S. military strike at Syria would be a “shot across the bow” that avoids seeing America pulled into “any kind of open-ended conflict.”

Speaking in a wide-ranging interview with PBS Newshour, Obama insisted he has not made a decision on how best to respond to the alleged massacre of civilians by forces loyal to Syrian strongman Bashar Assad using chemical weapons.

But “if, in fact, we can take limited, tailored approaches, not getting drawn into a long conflict — not a repetition of, you know, Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about — but if we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, stop doing this, that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term,” the president said.

That would send the Assad regime “a pretty strong signal, that in fact, it better not do it again."
Obama, making his first public remarks on the crisis since a CNN interview that aired Friday, rejected claims that rebels fighting to topple Assad were behind the Aug. 21 attack.

“We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out. And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences,” he said.

“I have no interest in any kind of open-ended conflict in Syria, but we do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable,” he said.

Obama said the use of chemical weapons threatens “not only international norms but also America’s core self-interest,” pointing to allies such as Turkey, Jordan and Israel that neighbor Syria and noting the presence of U.S. military bases in the region.

“We cannot see a breach of the nonproliferation norm that allows, potentially, chemical weapons to fall into the hands of all kinds of folks,” he said, warning that Syria's civil war could ultimately "erode" Assad's grip on his chemical weapons.

Obama's comments came as Republican House Speaker John Boehner placed new pressure on the president to explain "personally" how military action would serve U.S. goals and why such action would be legal without explicit authorization from Congress.

Separately, the administration planned to give the chairmen and ranking members of key congressional committees as well as the top leaders from each party in each chamber a classified briefing Thursday on the case against Assad, two officials said.

The Stig

08-29-2013, 11:25 AM

Original story HERE (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10272555/Cameron-backs-down-on-urgent-Syria-strikes.html) at the Telegraph

Cameron backs down on urgent Syria strikes
David Cameron backed down and agreed to delay a military attack on Syria following a growing revolt over the UK's rushed response to the crisis on Wednesday night.

By Peter Dominiczak, Tim Ross and Robert Winnett

10:00PM BST 28 Aug 2013

The Prime Minister has now said he will wait for a report by United Nations weapons inspectors before seeking the approval of MPs for “direct British involvement” in the Syrian intervention.

Downing Street said the decision to wait for the UN was based on the “deep concerns” the country still harbours over the Iraq War.

MPs had been recalled to vote on a motion on Thursday expected to sanction military action. Instead, after a Labour intervention, they will debate a broader motion calling for a “humanitarian response”.

A second vote would be required before any British military involvement. This could now take place next week.

In a statement on Wednesday night Downing Street said that it only wanted to proceed on a “consensual basis” and was now wary about becoming embroiled in another divisive conflict in the Middle East in the wake of Iraq.
Related Articles

Senior sources had previously suggested that Britain would take part in strikes as soon as this weekend which meant an emergency recall of Parliament was necessary on Thursday.

However, following Labour threatening not to support the action and senior military figures expressing concerns over the wisdom of the mission, the Prime Minister on Wednesday night agreed to put British involvement on hold.

The climbdown is likely to be seen as an embarrassment for Mr Cameron as he was determined to play a leading role in British military strikes, which had been expected this weekend.

The new strategy emerged after days of wrangling with Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, and after a succession of senior Tories had spoken out in the strongest terms against an intervention.

There were growing doubts that Mr Cameron would be able to secure a Commons majority before the UN reported back on last week’s gas attacks in Damascus that killed hundreds and injured thousands more.

Protesters gather on Whitehall outside Downing Street to campaign for no international military intervention in the ongoing conflict in Syria (Getty Images)

Labour had demanded the Prime Minister agree to hold a second vote in the Commons after the UN inspectors concluded their work.

However, during a tense telephone call between the two party leaders at 5.15pm Mr Cameron “totally ruled out” giving MPs a second vote – which would have left Downing Street’s plan for a weekend offensive in tatters.

Labour then immediately announced that it would order its MPs to vote against the Government’s motion authorising military strikes. Just minutes before 7pm Downing Street was forced to redraft the planned motion saying that “before any direct British involvement … a further vote in the House of Commons will take place”.

On Wednesday night, a senior Conservative source said: “Labour has been playing politics when they should have been thinking about the national interest. Their position has changed continuously over the last 24 hours — finally ending in demands they had never even hinted at before.”

The Americans were consulted before Mr Cameron’s decision was announced and senior White House officials are said to have made it clear that they “respect the British Parliament”.

The move came just three hours after William Hague, the Foreign Secretary said it was “very important” for the UK not to leave it too long before launching strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

MPs will still debate and vote on a broader motion in the Commons on Thursday.

They will be asked to support the Government’s motion which states that a “strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons.”

However, crucially the motion then adds: “Before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place.”

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, said: “We are ensuring the House of Commons has the final say before any direct British involvement — one vote tomorrow, and another one if and when we are asked to participate directly.”

UN weapons inspectors are not due to leave Syria until Friday, making it unlikely a second vote will take place before next week. Government sources said it was not inconceivable a second vote could be held late on Friday or even on Saturday.

Ahead of Thursday’s vote, MPs will be given a dossier of evidence by Downing Street that Whitehall sources have described as “utterly compelling” proof of Assad’s involvement in chemical atrocities against his own people.

It will include details of YouTube videos believed to show atrocities being committed by the Syrian regime. Mr Hague had on Wednesday reiterated that Britain must react urgently to do “what is necessary” to protect civilians and prevent further chemical weapons attacks by Assad’s regime.

Nato indicated its strong backing for Britain and the United States by saying that the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons “cannot go unanswered”.

Mr Cameron had drawn up plans to force his MPs to back a motion that the party’s whips are said to have warned was leading to anger among a growing number of backbenchers.

Several junior members of the Government have spoken publicly over their concerns and there were indications that there could have been resignations if a compelling case for British involvement was not made. Guy Opperman, parliamentary private secretary to Mark Harper, a Home Office minister, said that he was not in favour of “any military action”.

“For my part I see no plan, as yet, and more importantly, no strategy and exit,” he wrote on his website.

Other Conservative MPs including Sir Gerald Howarth, a former defence minister, Nick de Bois, the secretary of the powerful 1922 committee and Richard Drax, a former soldier, also expressed serious concerns. Tory grandees joined former military leaders and high-profile church figures to warn of the dangers of intervening.

However, Mr Cameron’s decision to delay also attracted criticism from within his own party. Douglas Carswell, a Conservative MP, mocked the government’s climbdown.

He said: “What to do when you cannot command a majority in Commons for Syria strikes? Table motion about something else. This is how we are governed.”

The team of 20 UN inspectors has been in Syria since Aug 18 looking into three earlier suspected chemical attacks.

Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN and Arab League special envoy to Syria, said the death toll from the “substance” used in last week’s attack — widely thought to be the nerve agent sarin — could rise to about 1,000.

The Stig

08-29-2013, 11:28 AM

Original story HERE (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-hollande-idUSBRE97S0CU20130829) at Reuters

France: political solution the ultimate goal for Syria

(Reuters) - French President Francois Hollande said on Thursday that Syria needed a political solution, but that could only happen if the international community could halt killings like last week's chemical attack and better support the opposition.

Hollande sounded a more cautious note than earlier in the week, when he said France stood ready to punish those behind the apparent poison gas attack that killed hundreds of civilians in Damascus.

He indicated that France was looking to Gulf Arab countries to step up their military support to the opposition to President Bashar al-Assad, after Paris said this week it would do so.

"Everything must be done for a political solution but it will only happen if the coalition is able to appear as an alternative with the necessary force, notably from its army," Hollande told reporters after meeting the head of the opposition Syrian National Coalition, Ahmed Jarba.

"We will only manage this if the international community can put a temporary stop to this escalation in violence, of which the chemical attack is just one example," Hollande said.

France took no part in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which it strongly opposed, but joined Britain, the United States and others in military intervention that helped oust Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Hollande sent troops to the west African nation of Mali this year to drive out Islamist rebels.

French diplomatic sources said Hollande spoke with Jarba about providing more military means, after Jarba told the daily Le Parisien the opposition needed much more help from outside.

Jarba also urged Western powers to carry out a swift retaliatory strike against Assad, whom they hold responsible for the use of chemical weapons. The Syrian government denies it.

"France will give all its aid - political, but also humanitarian and material, and we will use all the influence we have in the Gulf Arab countries so that this can be organized," Hollande told reporters.

President Barack Obama has made a case for a limited military strike against Syria in response to the alleged chemical attack, but any action could be slowed by the presence of U.N. weapons inspectors near Damascus and the need to ease divisions in Britain and among U.S. lawmakers.

Britain wants the U.N. Security Council to see the weapons inspectors' findings before any strike is launched, and its parliament is to hold two votes before any such action is taken.

"Assad's regime has complete support from Russia, Hezbollah and Iran. We have nothing. Our allies have given us none of what we have asked for. We need real support," Jarba told Le Parisien.

"If Western states, which profess democratic and humanist values, stay quiet, Assad will deduce that there is no obstacle to him carrying out crimes. Our people risk being exterminated."

A French warship, the Chevalier Paul, has left its dock at the Mediterranean port of Toulon, shipping authorities told Reuters, though they declined to confirm a media report that the frigate was headed to Syria. Military sources said France's Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier was still docked in Toulon.

(Reporting by John Irish and Catherine Bremer; Writing by Catherine Bremer; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

Stg1swret

08-29-2013, 12:13 PM

Thought this might shed some light on some of the reasons attacking Syria is a bad idea:

Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
August 28, 2013

While most of the country is obsessing over Miley Cyrus, the Obama administration is preparing a military attack against Syria which has the potential of starting World War 3. In fact, it is being reported that cruise missile strikes could begin “as early as Thursday“. The Obama administration is pledging that the strikes will be “limited”, but what happens when the Syrians fight back? What happens if they sink a U.S. naval vessel or they have agents start hitting targets inside the United States? Then we would have a full-blown war on our hands. And what happens if the Syrians decide to retaliate by hitting Israel? If Syrian missiles start raining down on Tel Aviv, Israel will be extremely tempted to absolutely flatten Damascus, and they are more than capable of doing precisely that. And of course Hezbollah and Iran are not likely to just sit idly by as their close ally Syria is battered into oblivion. We are looking at a scenario where the entire Middle East could be set aflame, and that might only be just the beginning. Russia and China are sternly warning the U.S. government not to get involved in Syria, and by starting a war with Syria we will do an extraordinary amount of damage to our relationships with those two global superpowers. Could this be the beginning of a chain of events that could eventually lead to a massive global conflict with Russia and China on one side and the United States on the other? Of course it will not happen immediately, but I fear that what is happening now is setting the stage for some really bad things. The following are 22 reasons why starting World War 3 in the Middle East is a really bad idea…
#1 The American people are overwhelmingly against going to war with Syria…
Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.
About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria’s civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.
#2 At this point, a war in Syria is even more unpopular with the American people than Congress is.
#3 The Obama administration has not gotten approval to go to war with Syria from Congress as the U.S. Constitution requires.
#4 The United States does not have the approval of the United Nations to attack Syria and it is not going to be getting it.
#5 Syria has said that it will use ”all means available” to defend itself if the United States attacks. Would that include terror attacks in the United States itself?
#6 Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem made the following statement on Tuesday…
“We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves”
#7 Russia has just sent their most advanced anti-ship missiles to Syria. What do you think would happen if images of sinking U.S. naval vessels were to come flashing across our television screens?
#8 When the United States attacks Syria, there is a very good chance that Syria will attack Israel. Just check out what one Syrian official said recently…
A member of the Syrian Ba’ath national council Halef al-Muftah, until recently the Syrian propaganda minister’s aide, said on Monday that Damascus views Israel as “behind the aggression and therefore it will come under fire” should Syria be attacked by the United States.
In an interview for the American radio station Sawa in Arabic, President Bashar Assad’s fellow party member said: “We have strategic weapons and we can retaliate. Essentially, the strategic weapons are aimed at Israel.”
Al-Muftah stressed that the US’s threats will not influence the Syrain regime and added that “If the US or Israel err through aggression and exploit the chemical issue, the region will go up in endless flames, affecting not only the area’s security, but the world’s.”
#9 If Syria attacks Israel, the consequences could be absolutely catastrophic. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is promising that any attack will be responded to “forcefully“…
“We are not a party to this civil war in Syria but if we identify any attempt to attack us we will respond and we will respond forcefully”
#10 Hezbollah will likely do whatever it can to fight for the survival of the Assad regime. That could include striking targets inside both the United States and Israel.
#11 Iran’s closest ally is Syria. Will Iran sit idly by as their closest ally is removed from the chessboard?
#12 Starting a war with Syria will cause significant damage to our relationship with Russia. On Tuesday, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said that the West is acting like a “monkey with a hand grenade“.
#13 Starting a war with Syria will cause significant damage to our relationship with China. And what will happen if the Chinese decide to start dumping the massive amount of U.S. debt that it is holding? Interest rates would absolutely skyrocket and we would rapidly be facing a nightmare scenario.
#14 Dr. Jerome Corsi and Walid Shoebat have compiled some startling evidence that it was actually the Syrian rebels that the U.S. is supporting that were responsible for the chemical weapons attack that is being used as justification to go to war with Syria…
With the assistance of former PLO member and native Arabic-speaker Walid Shoebat, WND has assembled evidence from various Middle Eastern sources that cast doubt on Obama administration claims the Assad government is responsible for last week’s attack.
You can examine the evidence for yourself right here.
#15 As Pat Buchanan recently noted, it would have made absolutely no sense for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons on defenseless women and children. The only people who would benefit from such an attack would be the rebels…
The basic question that needs to be asked about this horrific attack on civilians, which appears to be gas related, is: Cui bono?
To whose benefit would the use of nerve gas on Syrian women and children redound? Certainly not Assad’s, as we can see from the furor and threats against him that the use of gas has produced.
The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war.
#16 If the Saudis really want to topple the Assad regime, they should do it themselves. They should not expect the United States to do their dirty work for them.
#17 A former commander of U.S. Central Command has said that a U.S. attack on Syria would result in “a full-throated, very, very serious war“.
#18 A war in the Middle East will be bad for the financial markets. The Dow was down about 170 points today and concern about war with Syria was the primary reason.
#19 A war in the Middle East will cause the price of oil to go up. On Tuesday, the price of U.S. oil rose to about $109 a barrel.
#20 There is no way in the world that the U.S. government should be backing the Syrian rebels. As I discussed a few days ago, the rebels have pledged loyalty to al-Qaeda, they have beheaded numerous Christians and they have massacred entire Christian villages. If the U.S. government helps these lunatics take power in Syria it will be a complete and utter disaster.
#21 A lot of innocent civilians inside Syria will end up getting killed. Already, a lot of Syrians are expressing concern about what “foreign intervention” will mean for them and their families…
“I’ve always been a supporter of foreign intervention, but now that it seems like a reality, I’ve been worrying that my family could be hurt or killed,” said one woman, Zaina, who opposes Assad. “I’m afraid of a military strike now.”
“The big fear is that they’ll make the same mistakes they made in Libya and Iraq,” said Ziyad, a man in his 50s. “They’ll hit civilian targets, and then they’ll cry that it was by mistake, but we’ll get killed in the thousands.”
#22 If the U.S. government insists on going to war with Syria without the approval of the American people, the U.S. Congress or the United Nations, we are going to lose a lot of friends and a lot of credibility around the globe. It truly is a sad day when Russia looks like “the good guys” and we look like “the bad guys”.
What good could possibly come out of getting involved in Syria? As I wrote about the other day, the “rebels” that Obama is backing are rabidly anti-Christian, rabidly anti-Israel and rabidly anti-western. If they take control of Syria, that nation will be far more unstable and far more of a hotbed for terrorism than it is now.
And the downside of getting involved in Syria is absolutely enormous. Syria, Iran and Hezbollah all have agents inside this country, and if they decide to start blowing stuff up that will wake up the American people to the horror of war really quick. And by attacking Syria, the United States could cause a major regional war to erupt in the Middle East which could eventually lead to World War 3.
I don’t know about you, but I think that starting World War 3 in the Middle East is a really bad idea.
Let us hope that cooler heads prevail before things spin totally out of control.
This article was posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 at 5:38 am
Tags: foreign affairs, government corruption, war

Richarddbeck

08-29-2013, 12:39 PM

I'm a designer for a military contractor. I've been in this business long enough to see the the dirty underside of it. I can tell you the main reason the united states goes in and attacks countries like this is. The government can then buy more product from their financial donors... Then they give these weapons to other countries. First they need to create the demand. The easiest way to do that is by blowing up all their current toys. Just watch in 10 years we'll be selling fighter jets to Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

I understand that if the current policy (America being the world police) changes I'll loose my job. I would rather loose my job then loose my country. We are out of money as a country and need to stop spending it on this kind of stuff. I think we should mind our own business and let the Syrians fight their own war.

On the flip side I know things will never change. That why I got the job that I have. I figure it will be the last industry to go belly up.

Stormfeather

08-29-2013, 07:12 PM

So, status as of today. . .

Russia has launched a warship and a sub in the Med to patrol the waters near Syria.
Jordan says we cannot use the country as a jump off point if we pursue Syria.
Iran says it will jump into the fray if anyone retaliates.
Iran says it will back Syria it it is attacked.
MSM says 60% of the US is against retaliation in Syria. (I dont know how they came up with these numbers, since nobody asked me!)

All in all, I think things are progressing nicely, Obama is trying to find a way to suspend the Constitution, having a country attack us in retaliation for them using Chem/Bio warfare seems a good enough reason to suspend the Constitution, dont you guys think? So today I worked on canning some more veggies, and next taking stock of supplies and relaxing after that. Lets face it, if its going to happen, its going to happen. We are s far down the food chain, we arent even considered crumbs. The best we can do is be prepared for the possible consequences of the aftermath.

bacpacker

08-29-2013, 07:25 PM

To those bastards more like fleas on cold dog shit!

The Stig

08-29-2013, 08:23 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/28/israeli-intelligence-first-confirmed-assad-regime-behind-alleged-chemical/) at foxnews

Israeli intelligence first confirmed Assad regime behind alleged chemical attack
Jennifer Griffin

By Jennifer Griffin, Ed Henry, Bret Baier
Published August 28, 2013
FoxNews.com

The initial confirmation that the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad was responsible for a suspected chemical weapons attack Aug. 21 came from a tip from the Israeli intelligence service, western intelligence sources tell Fox News.

A special unit of the Israeli Defense Force -- an intelligence unit that goes by the number 8200, which is a military intelligence listening unit -- has been cooperating with the NSA, sources tell Fox News.

This Israeli intelligence unit helped provide the intelligence intercepts that allowed the White House last weekend to conclude that the Assad regime was behind the attack.

Initially, according to well-placed U.S. intelligence sources, there was apparent confusion over whether chemical weapons were used and who gave the orders, but the U.S. now has access to intercepted conversations.

The administration also has satellite images that suggested the Assad regime was in the process of covering up the chemical attack by shelling the area where most of the deaths from the alleged chemical attack had occurred.

“We believe that it's too late for the U.N. inspection to be credible given the mass shelling that the regime has done in the affected areas,” State Department spokesman Marie Harf told reporters. “And we're going to make our own decisions on our own timeline about our response. Obviously we will continue consultations with our international partners around the world but we are making decisions based on our own timeline."

The Obama administration has not yet released intelligence on last week’s chemical weapons attack in Syria, in part because of concerns over what could be declassified.

However, President Obama in an interview with PBS Wednesday declared unequivocally that the United States has "concluded" that the Syrian government carried out the attack.

The report is considered a key component in the administration’s public case for intervention – and a possible military strike – in Syria.

Officials originally suggested the report would be released as early as Tuesday, but now there are hints the release may not come until at least Thursday.

The intelligence community is working through concerns about which intelligence is de-classified, because it could reveal sources and methods.

The timing of the release is important, though, because the more the report is delayed, the longer it will be before the administration steps up its public case for military action -- if they choose that route.

A senior administration official told Fox News on Wednesday that once the intelligence community finishes its formal assessment of the chemical attack, a larger and classified report will be sent to Congress that will have a lot more detail. Then the administration will publicly release a smaller declassified version.

“It is important to remember that the protection of sources and methods must be taken into account when the intelligence community determines what information can be declassified and released to the public,” the senior administration official said.

“While the Congress will receive a classified version of the assessment that includes the broad range of intelligence collected, the intelligence information we are able to provide publicly will be limited in scope.”

A senior U.S. official also confirmed a report that initially appeared in the Wall Street Journal that National Security Adviser Susan Rice wanted to get the U.N. inspectors out of Syria last weekend because the U.S. already believed it had the information it needed to confirm the Syrian government’s culpability.

A White House official would not comment on internal deliberations between Rice and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power.

The Wall Street Journal quoted from an email that Rice reportedly sent Sunday to Power and others within the administration.

"The investigation is. . .too late, and will actually tell us what we already know: CW was used," Ms. Rice wrote, using the abbreviation for chemical weapons. "It won't even tell us by whom, which we already know."

U.N. inspectors have permission to be in Syria until Sunday.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/28/israeli-intelligence-first-confirmed-assad-regime-behind-alleged-chemical/#ixzz2dOL18Vp1

Stg1swret

08-29-2013, 08:57 PM

The King of the United States won't do anything until after the G20 summit. After that all bets are off. Watch gas prices start to go up again as this crisis develops.

ak474u

08-29-2013, 10:32 PM

I say we do nada. If I see 2 crackheads killing each other, I won't step in, so why help 2 terrorist factions decide who is the bigger terrorist? Right now, the jihadis are actively fighting on 4 fronts, that reduces the number of them crossing into Afghanistan to kill our guys. I say let them kill each other for a few more years before doing anything. Breaking news: UK says no way Jose to attacking Syria.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/29/syria-strike-push-hits-hurdles/

bacpacker

08-29-2013, 11:59 PM

The new from the UK is the best I've heard all week. Hopefully our congress will grow a pair as well.

Brownwater Riverrat 13

08-30-2013, 12:26 AM

OK, here it is in a nut shell. I know some of you "old timers" have heard me say this before. Here in the the good old US of A, they (terrorists) have already put many cells in place due to our stringent border security (sarcasm). They have been here for many years. Over these many years they have fortified their existence and planned many strategies. They have developed many simple yet destructive "toys" to use against us. You've seen the examples. Given the many previous articles posted in this thread and thanks to our members diligent research. We can see that if......correction, when this person who refuses to listen to the people and elected officials voted in by us, uses our military to strike Syria. These various fore mentioned "cells" will most likely decide to strike from within our own borders. We.......correction.....the administration will of course blame it on some poor kid who's lost and has a hard time living here in the US or some stupid shit excuse. But in all honesty he's (you know who)going to unleash a serious shit storm. But seriously if he does this we are going to have a more serious threat right here at home I'm afraid. He pushes that button they will call their people here in our country to arms and activate their cells. I'm not crazy or "tin foil" I did 22 yrs in the military spending 9 yrs in the "gulf" and have known that these things do in fact exist. The only thing is "when"..............this guy's putting us in some deep shit if he goes forward. He's never listened before, what makes anyone think he's going to listen now, he'll do what he wants. Sooooooooo, let us all continue to prepare and elevate our situational awareness. Eternal vigilance.........

So are my words for the day. Other than I love this country and I really hate this shit!

2die4

08-30-2013, 12:32 AM

Regardless if we stick our noses in this mess or not this will be a nightmare. I fear for my brothers and sisters in uniform that are on that side of the world.

Brownwater Riverrat 13

08-30-2013, 12:50 AM

Regardless if we stick our noses in this mess or not this will be a nightmare. I fear for my brothers and sisters in uniform that are on that side of the world.

Yes, they took an oath, and GOD speed. These would be "unlawful orders" in my opinion, but I am here and gathering "armchair intell". But these come from a higher office and you have to do what you have to do. A majority of them will be questioning them....... yet again I take that back. A majority of them really do not know what the real situation is. So they will carry them out regardless. Thinking they are doing just cause.

DE OPPRESSO LIBER "Free the Oppressed"

The Stig

08-30-2013, 12:57 AM

Original story HERE (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579042571741346530.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories) at wallstreetjournal

U.K. Parliament Rejects Syria Action

By
CASSELL BRYAN-LOW

LONDON—Britain will not participate in any military strike against Syria after its parliament defied Prime Minister David Cameron by voting against a measure supporting the principle of intervention in the Syrian crisis.

The rebuke to Mr. Cameron leaves the U.S. facing the possibility that it will take action against Syria without the help of major allies such as Britain.

The vote is also a tough blow to Mr. Cameron's domestic political fortunes. Since taking office in 2010, he has on numerous occasions been undercut not just from opposition parties, but also from rebel elements within both his own Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, the junior member of the UK's governing coalition.

British Prime Minister David Cameron says that while there is no doubt that chemical weapons were used in Syria, the U.K. has not yet made the decision to act.

The U.K. government published its legal justification for military action in Syria.

That was the cocktail that once again bit Mr. Cameron in the Syria vote late Thursday. The government lost a vote–by a tally of 285 to 272–that would have supported in principle military intervention in Syria, where Western governments have said President Bashar al-Assad's regime carried out a deadly chemical-weapons attack on civilians last week. Members of all major parties– including Mr. Cameron's Tories–opposed the measure.

Mr. Cameron said that it's clear that the British Parliament, reflecting the view of the British people, doesn't want to see the U.K. get involved in military action and "the government will act accordingly."

While the government doesn't require parliamentary approval to take military action, it would now be politically difficult to do so. A further parliamentary vote had been due to take place early next week on whether the U.K. should be directly involved in that action. A spokesman for the prime minister confirmed that the U.K. will now not take part in the Syrian action.

Mr. Cameron's defense secretary, Philip Hammond, said the U.S. "will be disappointed that Britain will not be involved." Mr. Hammond, speaking in an interview with British Broadcasting Corporation, said he still expected other countries to continue to look at a response.

The outcome raises questions about an international response in Syria. It could make it more difficult for U.S. President Barack Obama and other Western allies to convince their own publics of the need for intervention in Syria.

The Obama administration is prepared to act in Syria without Britain, U.S. officials said after the vote, saying the options under consideration are smaller in scale and would not require a coalition to be effective.

The outcome of the U.K. vote also raises questions about Mr. Cameron's authority. The prime minister, who wasn't required to hold a parliamentary vote but chose to, had personally laid out his case at length to parliament earlier in the day about why military action was needed and why it would be justified, citing humanitarian grounds and the need to prevent the use of chemical weapons in the future.

The prime minister had earlier in the week hoped to secure parliamentary support for U.K. to launch military action following Thursday's debate. But, under pressure from politicians across all the major parties, he was forced to change tack late Wednesday. He said he would give parliament a vote before any direct British involvement in military action, once the U.N. weapons inspectors report their findings. That was designed to avoid a repeat of the country's swift backing for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"I am of course deeply mindful of the lessons of previous conflicts and in particular the deep concerns in the country about what went wrong with the Iraq conflict in 2003," Mr. Cameron told politicians Thursday. But he called Syria "fundamentally different" on the grounds that the justification for intervention isn't based on a specific piece or pieces of intelligence but a broader array of evidence as well as the fact there is more untied support within the international community of the need for action.

Still, Mr. Cameron failed to present incontrovertible evidence linking the Assad regime to the attacks in Syria last week. Mr. Cameron didn't provide detail of intelligence to support his conclusions, but highlighted "open source" evidence such as extensive video footage and the fact that Assad regime was capable of such an attack and was the opposition wasn't.

"Let's not pretend there is one smoking piece of intelligence" that proves the Syrian government used chemical weapons last week, said Mr. Cameron. "This is a judgment," the prime minister said, adding he believes there is enough evidence to conclude the regime is responsible and should be held accountable.

His maneuvering failed to secure sufficient support from politicians, who voiced a range of concerns during Thursday's parliamentary debate. Those included: what evidence is there that military action would prevent the future use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, would it escalate violence in Syria, and what implications would it have on the stability of the Middle East region.

There has also been skepticism among some politicians and members of the public about the evidence that Mr. Cameron says showed the Assad regime used chemical weapons.

Mr. Cameron pointed to an assessment from the government's Joint Intelligence Committee that said there is "little serious dispute" that chemical weapons were used and concluded "it is highly likely that the [Assad] regime was responsible" for the attacks that caused hundreds of deaths.

The parliamentary defeat is the latest in a string of embarrassments the prime minister has faced since taking office in 2010, particularly on the issue of Europe where Mr. Cameron on repeatedly struggled to control rebels within his Tory party.

The prime minister has also faced significant opposition from within his party on other issues, such as same-sex marriage.

The spokesman for Mr. Cameron played down the challenge Thursday's vote loss presented for the prime minister, saying that it had been a close vote and that the party continued to support him on key issues such as the economy and education.
—Nicholas Winning in London, Sam Dagher in Damascus and Stacy Meichtry in Paris contributed to this article.

Write to Cassell Bryan-Low at cassell.bryan-low@wsj.com

British Parliament says NO to Syria action.

The Stig

08-30-2013, 01:01 AM

Original story HERE (http://news.sky.com/story/1134531/syria-russia-and-us-send-warships-to-med) at Skynews

Syria: Russia And US Send Warships To Med
Russia is said to be deploying warships as the US boosts its military capacity in the region with a guided missile destroyer.
8:07pm UK, Thursday 29 August 2013

Russia and the US have sent further warships to boost their military capacity in the Mediterannean as expectations grow of an imminent strike on Syria.

Syria's ally Russia is sending an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the Mediterranean, according to Russian news agency Interfax.

An armed forces source reportedly said the planned deployment was in response to the "well-known situation" - a clear reference to the conflict in Syria.

The navy has denied the deployment is linked to events in Syria, saying it is part of a planned rotation of its ships in the Mediterranean.

U.N. chemical weapons experts wearing gas masks carry samples collected from one of the sites of an alleged chemical weapons attack while escorted by Free Syrian Army fighters in the Ain Tarma neighbourhood of Damascus UN inspectors continue their investigations but will leave on Friday

In the US, a defence official has said a fifth destroyer, the USS Stout, has been deployed to the Mediterranean and is "heading and moving east".

The guided missile destroyer is due to relieve the Mahan, but both ships might remain in place for the time being, the official said.

Other destroyers in the region - the Ramage, the Barry and the Gravely - criss-cross the Mediterranean and could launch their Tomahawk missiles toward Syria if so directed by US President Barack Obama.
President Assad of Syria President Assad was shown on state TV meeting Yemeni politicians

As military action inched closer, Syrian President Bashar al Assad's forces removed several Scud missiles and dozens of launchers from a base north of Damascus, possibly to protect them from bombardment, opposition sources claimed.

The White House said it is on track to release an unclassified intelligence report on Syria this week, although the information is not a "slam-dunk" that will make an open and shut case for military action.

A spokesman added that what the US is contemplating in terms of its response is "very discrete and limited".

Russia and the US have taken part in an "urgent" meeting of the five permanent UN Security Council members in New York - the second such meeting in two days.

Russia is strongly against any military intervention in Syria, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov believing it would seriously destabilise the region.
Sergei Lavrov Mr Lavrov has warned against an attack without Security Council approval

Mr Lavrov has said any attack without UN Security Council approval would be a "crude violation" of international law.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin has spoken to German leader Angela Merkel by phone, with the pair agreeing the Syrian conflict can be solved politically, the chancellor's spokesman said.

"The chancellor called on the Russian president to use negotiations in the UN Security Council for a quick, unanimous international reaction," he added.

Public opinion in Germany is overwhelmingly against military action in Syria, less than four weeks before an election in which Mrs Merkel hopes to win a third term.

The warship reports come after US President Barack Obama said the US had studied evidence and concluded that the Syrian government was behind the alleged attack.

Mr Obama said any strike would be to "send a shot across the bow" and give a "pretty strong signal that [Syria] better not do it again".
GERMANY-ENERGY-MERKEL Military action is unpopular in Germany, where Mrs Merkel faces an election

He added the US had not yet made a firm decision about how to respond, but that it could take action even without the backing of allies or the United Nations.

The president's national security adviser Susan Rice, intelligence director James Clapper, defence secretary Chuck Hagel and secretary of state John Kerry are to brief Congress on Syria later, according to Reuters.

Questions are said to remain about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons and whether President Assad himself explicitly ordered the alleged attack.

Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta told state radio that his country condemned the Assad regime but would not join any military operation without UN Security Council authorisation.

The Syrian leader was shown meeting Yemeni politicians on state television on Thursday.

It quoted President Assad as saying the country would defend itself in the face of any aggression.

A draft resolution by the UK on authorising a strike failed to win the approval of the UN Security Council on Wednesday as Russia reiterated its objections.

China has also entered the discussion and warned the West against any military action.

"China calls on all parties to exercise restraint and remain calm and to remain committed to the correct track of political solutions," Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said.

British involvement in any strike will be debated today by politicians in the House of Commons.

Meanwhile, United Nations weapons inspectors set out on Thursday morning for the Damascus suburbs in a third day of investigations.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has pleaded for all sides to hold off on any military strikes.

He said his inspection team would soon finish its investigation, leaving Syria on Friday and reporting their findings to him the following day.

Samples they have collected will go to labs around Europe for testing, AP reported.

Last week's alleged chemical attack is claimed to have killed 1,300 people.

Brownwater Riverrat 13

08-30-2013, 01:36 AM

All the banter about about the US ships are simple to explain. The Navy is on duty 24-7-365 we have what is known as the 6th Fleet stationed in the Med. They are there all the time and can move around all the time and in striking distance of pretty much all of the surrounding countries. A Carrier Battle group usually consists of a Carrier a pair of Ageis cruisers, a pair of Arleigh Burke destroyers and a few frigates (anti-sub warfare) not to mention some fast attack subs and maybe a few boomers. The latter you are not supposed to know about. Oh lest we forget the Oilers for support, replenishment ships. These maintain the seapower in the Med. The old standard rotation was 6 months. In the above article this could be rotation time, they can keep the current battle group on station for an extended period of time due to "operational commitments" BTDT (been there done that) Lybia 1986. 9 months, fun, fun, fun. We stayed at sea for 67 days straight. That's why we have replenishment ships. Hope this helps explain some things for those who don't understand how the Navy works.

Now when you see things on the news it's not always as it seems. It's exaggerated somewhat distorted, we are already there. They just like to make it sound like we were sent there. Here is a website that will explain the Fleet locations and missions if you are interested. http://navysite.de/navy/fleet.htm

So Don't always believe what is said about what the news says about Navy ship movements. They usually already there anyway.

Brownwater Riverrat 13

08-30-2013, 02:33 AM

Here is a list of Russia's Current naval assets as 2010.

Ships in service
Aircraft carriers (1)
Heavy missile cruisers (1)
Cruisers (4)
Destroyers (13)
Ballistic missile submarines (11)
Cruise missile submarines (6)
Nuclear attack submarines (14)
Conventional attack submarines (18)
Frigates (4)
Corvettes (74)
Minesweepers (34)
Missile hovercraft (2)
Landing Ships (19)
Landing craft (1)
Amphibious hovercraft (2)
Special purpose submarines (2)

Ships in reserve
Heavy missile cruisers (3)
Destroyers (5)
Ballistic missile submarines (2)
Cruise missile submarines (2)
Nuclear attack submarines (5)
Conventional attack submarines (2)
Corvettes
Special purpose submarines (1)

There are some ships listed for new construction as well but I don't their status.
The way the Russian's designed their ships is "more is better", they put more missiles and gun mounts on their ships and they look menacing. However the reliability has always been marginal at best. At the end of the cold war they had a huge Navy but most of their shit was broke and in the yards. They sold off a shit load of surplus to allot of third world countries like India and the like. You might remember the sub explosion the other day? Russian, fresh from the russian ship yard, worked good huh? Not saying that they (the Russians)are not a threat but they will inflict damage. Putin will use his assets. If he's moving his ships into the area then take a look at what they said he is moving. He will use it for an at sea battle. Ship to ship. This will be one hell of a fight but I'm sure our technology will prove supreme. Putin, is old KGB he will not back down, he'll take his shirt off for this one.............

Now let's look at China.
A summary of ships listed below is as follows; 698 ships total!
one aircraft carrier
three amphibious transport docks
92 landing ship tanks and landing ship medium
26 destroyers
45 frigates
62 submarines (of which 11 are nuclear-powered)
eight corvettes
122 missile boats
231 patrol vessels
107 mine countermeasures vessels
five replenishment oilers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Chinese_Navy_ships#Nuclear-powered_submarines

1-Golf and 12-Kilo class subs came from Russia, 4-Sovremenny class destroyers imported from Mother Russia as well. China poses a serious sea power threat, they building another carrier that is supposed to be bigger than the current one. So what does that mean for us? Well shit, per capita China has us out numbered but it's vessels could use some upgrading.

Let's go back to what can they do to us. If both countries don't want us to get involved and shove a stick in Syria's spokes. China's Navy can strike our 7th Fleet assets with ease and move straight across the pacific. Forward strike with an EMP and hey the west coast is the new HONG KONG. Russia can't really do shit but antagonize us in the med but the rag heads can do the most damage from within our own borders. If they used an EMP as well then it's game over. The UN can use it's "peace keeping forces" to help us out eh?

But that's just my opinion right. So this is how our little buddies are sitting as far as the Navy goes. What are your thoughts?

MegaCPC

08-30-2013, 01:13 PM

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb146/megacpc/IQIhIgh_zps2503c594.jpg (http://s210.photobucket.com/user/megacpc/media/IQIhIgh_zps2503c594.jpg.html)

Stg1swret

08-30-2013, 01:35 PM

The Med is pretty much an American lake. We have long range anti submarine assets in Italy and Spain. Russia needs to move their ships through one of two choke points Gibraltar or the Dardanelles, neither a great option. China has its own issues as they have just started blue water ops. working in your own littoral waters is one thing, blue water ops is another. The biggest threat from either side is their air power and diesel powered subs. Russian built nuke subs are noisy and easy to detect. There surface craft as Riverrat says look impressive , but they were designed for redundancy since they have limited repair capability at sea.

The Russian navy will put on a show of force, the Chinese will bluster and talk, but will not get directly involved. If China wants to do us damage, all they have to do is dump the US debt they are carrying.

The latest news is that we will go it alone, and on Saturday, ending the missile lobbing campaign on Tuesday.France says they will support us, now that is a comforting thought, Great Brittan and Germany want no part of this. How this will play out is anybodies guess.Our leadership has made the wrong call every time, and I don't expect this time to be any different. Should we actually launch, and the Arab countries follow through on their threat to attack Israel, it is going to get messy and not be a short little attack, but a prolonged conflict. The UN is useless. Standby, check your preps, and if the balloon goes up, check your six.

The Stig

08-30-2013, 01:54 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html?hp&_r=0) at the New York Times

Obama Set for Limited Strike on Syria as British Vote No
Mohamed Abdullah/Reuters

A United Nations team on Thursday with a sample from one of the sites in the Damascus area where a chemical weapons attack is suspected. World leaders reacted to the heightened expectation of an attack, and Ban Ki-moon urged restraint.
By MARK LANDLER, DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON — President Obama is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria, administration officials said Thursday, despite a stinging rejection of such action by America’s stalwart ally Britain and mounting questions from Congress.
Related

The negative vote in Britain’s Parliament was a heavy blow to Prime Minister David Cameron, who had pledged his support to Mr. Obama and called on lawmakers to endorse Britain’s involvement in a brief operation to punish the government of President Bashar al-Assad for apparently launching a deadly chemical weapons attack last week that killed hundreds.

The vote was also a setback for Mr. Obama, who, having given up hope of getting United Nations Security Council authorization for the strike, is struggling to assemble a coalition of allies against Syria.

But administration officials made clear that the eroding support would not deter Mr. Obama in deciding to go ahead with a strike. Pentagon officials said that the Navy had now moved a fifth destroyer into the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Each ship carries dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles that would probably be the centerpiece of any attack on Syria.

Even before the parliamentary vote, White House officials said, Mr. Obama decided there was no way he could overcome objections by Russia, Syria’s longtime backer, to any resolution in the Security Council.

Although administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision, all indications suggest that a strike could occur soon after United Nations investigators charged with scrutinizing the Aug. 21 attack leave the country. They are scheduled to depart Damascus on Saturday.

The entire story is available at the link above

The Stig

08-30-2013, 01:56 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/obama-strike-syria-britain-vote) at the Guardian

Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force

White House forced to consider unilateral strikes against Assad after British PM unexpectedly loses key motion on intervention

Barack Obama's plans for air strikes against Syria were thrown into disarray on Thursday night after the British parliament unexpectedly rejected a motion designed to pave the way to authorising the UK's participation in military action.

The White House was forced to consider the unpalatable option of taking unilateral action against the regime of Bashar al-Assad after the British prime minister, David Cameron, said UK would not now take part in any military action in response to a chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus last week.

Although Britain's support was not a prerequisite for US action, the Obama administration was left exposed without the backing of its most loyal ally, which has taken part in every major US military offensive in recent years.

Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for Obama's national security council, indicated the administration would consider acting unliaterally. "The US will continue to consult with the UK government – one of our closest allies and friends. As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States.

"He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."

The US appears to have taken British support for granted. Hours before the vote, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Diane Feinstein, expressed confidence that Britain would join any strike.

Feinstein, a Democrat and staunch administration ally, told Time magazine: "I think the UK makes a difference. I think if the president were to decide to go there's a very high likelihood that the United Kingdom would be with us."

The timing of the British vote, 272 to 285 against the government, was disastrous for Obama. Less than 30 minutes after the vote, senior intelligence officials began a conference call with key members of Congress, in an attempt to keep US lawmakers on side.

Congressional leaders and the chairs and ranking members of national security committees were briefed by the most senior US intelligence officials, amid signs that some of the support for military strikes against Syria was fading.

The officials said there was "no doubt" that chemical weapons were used in Syria last week, Reuters reported. Obama aides cited intercepted communications of Syrian officials and evidence of movements by Syria's military around Damascus before the attack that killed more than 300 people, said Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House foreign affairs committee.

The 90-minute briefing was conducted by secretary of state John Kerry, secretary of defense Chuck Hagel, national security adviser Susan Rice, among others.

After the briefing, Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate armed services committee, urged a cautious approach. "I have previously called for the United States to work with our friends and allies to increase the military pressure on the Assad regime by providing lethal aid to vetted elements of the Syrian opposition.

"Tonight, I suggested that we should do so while UN inspectors complete their work and while we seek international support for limited, targeted strikes in response to the Assad regime's large-scale use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people."

The UN has said more time should be given to diplomacy, and France, which earlier this week declared its support for taking action against Syria, is now calling for more time so UN inspections can be completed. A session of the United Nations security council in New York, called by Russia, broke up without agreement.

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, instructed the 20-strong inspection team in Damascus to leave on Saturday, a day ahead of schedule. Ban also announced that the team would report to him immediately on departure, raising the possibility that the UN could issue an interim report on the 21 August chemical attacks that left hundreds of people dead.

The inspectors had not been due to deliver their findings for a week at least. The demand for a rushed early assessment reflects the fraught atmosphere at the UN triggered by US threats to launch punitive air strikes within days.

Shortly before Britain's parliamentary vote, the New York Times quoted senior administration officials saying the US administration was prepared to launch strikes on Syria without a UN security council mandate or the support of allies such as Britain.

Earlier on Thursday, Joshua Earnest, the White House deputy spokesman, seemed to confirm that was a possibility when he was asked whether the US would "go it alone". He repeatedly said it was in US "core national security interests" to enforce international chemical weapons norms. "The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests of America," he said. Any strikes would be "discreet and limited", he said.

However, Earnest also stressed the broad international support for the US position – backing that now appears to be dissipating. The Arab League has blamed Syria for the chemical attack, but stopped short of advocating punitive strikes by the US.

In recent days, Obama has spoken personally with leaders of France, Australia, Canada and Germany. But none were as important as Britain, a traditional ally during US military actions which has been lobbying behind the scenes for months for a tougher action on Syria.

Ken Pollack, a fellow from the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy, said that with continuing uncertainty over the intelligence picture, and no obvious legal mandate for military action, the US will be desperate to secure more international backing to argue that intervention is "legitimate".

"If the administration can't even count of the full-throated support of our closest ally, the country that stuck by us even during the worst days of Iraq, that legitimacy is going to be called into question," he said.

Now that the UK parliament has rejected an attack on Syria, Washington's space for planning one is likely to be constrained, particularly as the Obama administration prepares to release its intelligence tying Assad to the 21 August gas attack. An unclassified report is due to be published on Friday.

Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA Middle East analyst and Georgetown professor, said the loss of British support would lead to more "intense" scrutiny of the US case for action against Syria. "The UK is, in many important respects, the most important ally of the United States," said Pillar. "This action by parliament is unquestionably significant in that regard."

ak474u

08-30-2013, 03:47 PM

I heard somewhere our friends in Iraq allowed a whole squadron of Bear bombers to overnight at their airbase the other day. Wonder where they're headed?

The Stig

08-30-2013, 05:20 PM

Original story HERE (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_NATO_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-30-12-51-23) at the AP

Aug 30, 12:51 PM EDT

NATO chief: No plans for alliance action in Syria

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) -- NATO's chief has said for the first time the alliance has no plans for military action in Syria because of the alleged use of chemical weapons against its civilians.

Asked about the alleged deadly attack in a suburb of Damascus on Aug. 21, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen pointed the finger at Syrian forces. "It demands cynicism beyond what is reasonable to believe that the opposition is behind a chemical attack in an area it already largely controls," he said.

On Wednesday, Fogh Rasmussen said, "Any use of such weapons is unacceptable and cannot go unanswered. Those responsible must be held accountable."

But on Friday he told reporters in Denmark that NATO has no plans to intervene in Syria, which would require the approval of all of its 28 members.

© 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

herofb

08-30-2013, 07:42 PM

I'm writing from Turkey so honestly I can mention that you can forget about news because especially at nights I started to hear jets so this means there are huge preperations for the attack which I never support

Edit: mahbe this is just a video game or just news from miles away for you but for me as we are a neighbour there is a risk that shtf is coming for me

Note: at some parts in Turkey (400 miles far away from me) you can be shot by just a shotgun because there is only a fence between us so I mean we are that close to Syria

bacpacker

08-30-2013, 10:06 PM

I have been wondering about you Hero. Stay safe.

herofb

08-30-2013, 11:14 PM

Actually i dont think i will be directly effected by war but if something serious will happen this can cause some problems like empty super markets , increasing crime , internal terrorists waiting for disorder or Syrias response to big cities so i already stocked food and water but i have to increase quantitiy of ammunation for my shotgun , for sure i'll be pleaed to advises

Stg1swret

08-31-2013, 11:00 PM

It now appears that Congress will weigh in on whether or not military action will be taken against Syria.

herofb

08-31-2013, 11:32 PM

Today i counted 24 jets flying to the east which it 8 times more than yesterday

The Stig

08-31-2013, 11:52 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/syria-crisis-shock-as-david-camerons-commons-fiasco-prompts-president-obama-to-seek-a-congressvote-backing-military-action-8792910.html)at The Independant

Syria crisis: Shock as David Cameron's Commons fiasco prompts President Obama to seek a Congress
vote backing military action

President makes strong case for air strikes - but there is no guarantee the legislature will back him

David Usborne
New York

Sunday 01 September 2013

Pulling back from the brink, a lonely President Barack Obama said last night that he would attempt to wrest authorisation from the US Congress before ordering military strikes over Syria – thereby putting an unexpected brake on what had seemed like impending action.

Mr Obama made clear that he had the authority to order a strike in response to the Assad regime using chemical weapons against civilians, and stands ready to do so at any time. But announcing a delay that stunned many, he pledged: "I will seek authorisation for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress. We should have this debate because the issues are too big for business as usual."

In a statement from the Rose Garden that was watched by the world, Mr Obama reiterated the US intelligence conclusion that the Syrian regime was responsible for the gas attacks. "This attack is an assault on human dignity," he declared, and warned that it could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons.

"This menace must be confronted. But having made my decision as commander-in-chief, I am also mindful that I am president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy."

With Congress not due to return to Washington until 9 September, the decision means any attack will not happen before the G20 summit in St Petersburg later this week. His about-turn will sit well with many members of Congress, with the UN, and even, to a degree, with Russia, a Syrian ally.

Polls in the US suggest the public is divided on the wisdom of strikes against Syria and, by a very wide margin, convinced that Mr Obama should at least consult Congress first. The decision is nonetheless a high-stakes gamble by the President. While he may win Senate support, the House of Representatives may baulk. Thus he could be stymied by Congress as David Cameron was by Parliament. There is also the risk that the Assad regime will use the pause to commit new atrocities.

But he may have bought himself some goodwill on Capitol Hill. "The President's role as commander-in- chief is always strengthened when he enjoys the expressed support of the Congress," noted Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader in the Senate. In a statement the leadership of the majority Republicans in the House applauded the decision, but said debate would address "serious, substantive questions being raised".

In the speech, the President described Britain as "our closest ally" and acknowledged that what had happened in Parliament last week had shaped his strategy. In a tweet last night, Mr Cameron stated: "I understand and support Barack Obama's position."

The announcement will be viewed in No 10 as a victory for Mr Cameron's approach, despite the mistakes about parliamentary tactics and the misreading of the Conservative Party's mood. However, Congress will be emboldened by how Parliament voted last Thursday. There will also be relief in No 10 and the Foreign Office at the President's reaffirmation of the special relationship, after the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, earlier rebuffed Britain and described France, willing participants in a strike, as "our oldest ally".

Mr Obama's move means the issue will likely dominate the G20 summit, distracting from other issues, including Egypt. It will give Vladimir Putin, the Russian President and summit host, a stage on which to counter Mr Obama. Speaking earlier yesterday, he bluntly challenged the logic of the US intelligence. "While the Syrian army is on the offensive, saying that it is the Syrian government that used chemical weapons is utter nonsense," he said. "I would like to address Obama as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate: before using force in Syria, it would be good to think about future casualties."

On Friday, the US administration released an unclassified version of its intelligence assessment, concluding it had "high confidence" that the regime was responsible for the gas attacks. Mr Kerry gave a passionate defence of the administration, saying 1,429 people had been killed, far higher than earlier estimates.

The legal justification of executing strikes without congressional authority (or UN mandate) was already fuzzy. But by deferring to Congress, Mr Obama is setting a precedent that he – and future presidents – may come to rue, particularly if it is interpreted as a surrender of executive authority.

Confirming that a team of UN inspectors had pulled out from Syria earlier in the day, a UN spokesman rejected as "grotesque" any notion it had done so to give space for US strikes. The team crossed into Lebanon by car and flew to the Netherlands with samples gathered in the affected areas of the Damascus suburbs. The material includes urine and blood samples from victims, and soil samples.

The UN had urged Mr Obama to await the inspectors' findings. "The UN mission is uniquely capable of establishing in an impartial and reliable manner the facts of any use of chemical weapons based directly on evidence collected on the ground," the spokesman, Martin Nesirky, said, adding that results will provide "a picture of what happened". But officials with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in the Hague said it could take three weeks to compile final results.

For the Syrian opposition, the pull-back by the US will be a huge disappointment. Only hours earlier Qassim Saadeddine, spokesman for the rebels' Supreme Military Council, spoke to Reuters of their readiness to take advantage of any injury to the regime. "The hope is to take advantage when some areas are weakened by any strikes. We ordered some groups in each province to ready their fighters for when the strike happens."

It also represents a new challenge for President François Hollande whose commitment to support America may now face a blowback in a parliamentary debate later this week. A survey released by Le Parisien showed 64 per cent of respondents opposed military action, 58 per cent did not trust Mr Hollande to conduct it, and 35 per cent feared it could "set the entire region ablaze".

The Stig

08-31-2013, 11:53 PM

Original story HERE (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/31/20273128-the-white-house-walk-and-talk-that-changed-obamas-mind-on-syria?lite) at nbc news

The White House walk-and-talk that changed Obama's mind on Syria
By Chuck Todd, NBC News Chief White House Correspondent

A stroll around the White House grounds with his top adviser on Friday evening changed President Barack Obama’s mind about getting Congress to sign off on a military strike in Syria, senior White House officials told NBC News.

Obama had been leaning toward attacking Syria without a congressional vote for the past week, the officials said. Obama was convinced he had the evidence to back up a strike and as a result dispatched Secretary of State John Kerry to make a passionate case for U.S. action. But only hours after Kerry called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "a thug and a murderer" and accused his regime of using chemical weapons to kill 1,429 people, Obama changed his mind as he walked across the South Lawn with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, the officials said.

Returning from that walk, the president called his advisers in the early evening to inform them of his new decision.

The plan was immediately met with robust resistance from a whiplashed Obama team who had listened to Kerry lay out the administration's strongest case yet for action against Assad. "My friends, it matters here if nothing is done," Kerry had argued. "It matters if the world speaks out in condemnation and then nothing happens."

Obama's National Security Council had believed since last weekend that requiring a vote was not even on the table and that “consultation” in the form of congressional briefings and behind-the-scenes conversation was all that would be needed before a strike. One senior official noted that no key leaders in Congress had specifically requested a vote on military intervention.

Officials said that after the president met with national security advisers on Aug. 24, they determined the evidence showed Syria’s Assad regime had used chemical weapons in an attack earlier this month. At that time, the president indicated he was leaning toward a strike.

But a growing number of Congressional members were beginning to question the administration’s strategy by the end of the week. And an NBC News poll released Friday morning showed that nearly 80 percent of Americans agreed that the president should seek approval in advance of taking military action.

Officials said Obama also was influenced by Thursday’s lively debate in the House of Commons, where Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote in Parliament to authorize participation in an allied strike against Syria. Cameron had been a staunch advocate of military action but was chastened in the wake of the vote. “It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action,” Cameron said. “I get that, and the government will act accordingly.”

While Obama's advisers argued Friday night in private that the humiliating defeat for Cameron starkly illustrated the risks of asking for congressional input, the president responded that the vote in Parliament demonstrated exactly why he should seek a vote on this side of the Atlantic, senior officials told NBC News.

And, the president insisted, seeking legislative backing was the approach most consistent with his philosophy. While debate within the administration continued into late Friday, by Saturday morning the senior advisers acquiesced.

Speaking to the nation early Saturday afternoon, Obama said he was “mindful that I'm the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

The president also noted, “while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.”

White House aides said they are fairly confident that Congress will grant them the authority to launch a strike, although they maintain that Obama would be acting within his constitutional authority even if Congress rejects the authorization and Obama orders military intervention.

Congress is not scheduled to return to Washington for debate until Sept. 9. The administration decided not to call them back early due to the Jewish holidays this week, a delay that the Pentagon also signed off on, saying that the wait won’t diminish U.S. military capabilities in the region. There’s an upside to that cooling-off period too, aides said. The delay gives Obama time to make his case to Congress and to keep pushing for international support.

“Here's my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community,” the president said Saturday. “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?”

While the United States does not believe it needs military help in a strike, Obama will push allies for political backing when he attends the G20 summit in Russia next week.

Reaction from Congress was mostly positive in the hours after Obama detailed his position. A statement from House Speaker John Boehner other GOP leaders stated: “We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised” and noted Congress would begin debate when they return to Washington. And House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said, "President Obama is right that the debate and authorization by Congress for action will make our country and the response in Syria stronger.”

But a key group of Syrian rebels who have been fighting the Assad regime reacted in surprise and anger to the decision.

"The death will continue in Syria because of the (failure of the) leadership of the United States to act decisively at this point," said Louay Safi, a spokesman for the Syrian National Council. "Obama had the moral responsibility (to) act and not waiver."

Carrie Dann contributed to this report.

The Stig

09-01-2013, 11:26 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.dw.de/turkey-weighs-military-options-in-syria/a-17050564) at Deutche Welle

Syria
Turkey weighs military options in Syria

Ankara has warned that, should UN approval for action against Syria fail, Turkey will join forces with any international coalition against the Syrian regime. Opposition parties have strongly opposed these plans.

Turkey is considering its options with regard to joining a possible US-led international coalition against the Syrian regime, government officials announced on Tuesday (27.08.2013). However, great security risks, as well as legal and political challenges, limit the Turkish government's room for maneuver.

"If a coalition of countries [against the Syrian regime, ed.] were to emerge, Turkey would take part in such an international coalition," said Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc on Tuesday. "This international coalition is likely to be a coalition of at least 20, 25 countries. Turkey may take part in such a coalition in order to end this massacre in Syria," he added, and suggested that any such involvement would have humanitarian aims.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu also described the poison gas attack in Syria as a "crime against humanity" and stressed that such a crime "cannot go unpunished." He reiterated that Ankara's priority was still for the UN Security Council to reach a united position on Syria. Ankara, however, has become increasingly frustrated with the Security Council's inaction.

Difficult decisions ahead

For more than two years, Turkey has been calling for multilateral UN intervention in Syria and the establishment of a no-fly zone, but so far it has failed to convince its Western allies and regional partners. Now, amid mounting expectations of US-led military intervention in Syria, Turkey too has started to review its contingency plans for possible action against the Syrian regime.

"Turkey wants to play a significant role in future developments," Serkan Demirtas, an Ankara-based foreign policy journalist, told DW. "But many things are still unclear. The political and military talks between the allies and partners are still ongoing."

Turkey shares a 910-kilometre border with neighboring Syria. The conflict in Syria over the past two and a half years has negatively affected the security situation in Turkey's border region and created new threats for the country, which is a member of NATO.

Some Turkish observers point out that if Turkey participates directly in military operations by an international coalition, this could create greater security challenges for the country. A possible retaliation by the Syrian regime using chemical weapons continues to be a major concern for Turkish political and military leaders.

In the event of any international military action, Ankara's contribution is expected to be mostly in the form of intelligence, as well as humanitarian and logistical support. The Turkish government is also likely to open its military bases to the coalition forces, if this action is requested by its allies and the parties can agree on the details.

Turkey is home to Incirlik and Izmir, two of the nearest NATO air bases to Syria.

The strategically-important Incirlik air base has been used for US-led strikes in the past, such as those on Iraq in 1990.

The base was also one of the most important hubs for providing logistical support to US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, including humanitarian airlift operations and special operations missions. Recently a US Patriot missile system was deployed at the base to defend against a possible Syrian attack.

Legal and political challenges

While opening Incirlik and other bases to coalition forces would be one way for the Turkish government to support an international coalition, legal and political challenges limit Turkey's room for maneuver in this respect.
Soldiers of the German armed forces Bundeswehr stand next the Patriot system before the arrival of Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel at a Turkish military base in Kahramanmaras February 24, 2013. REUTERS/Murad Sezer (TURKEY - Tags: POLITICS MILITARY) Germany's Patriot missiles are ready and waiting on the Turkish border

"According to a 1980 agreement between the US and Turkey, and its additional protocol that defines the rules for the usage of Incirlik by Americans for military operations, there should be either a UN Security Council decision or a NATO decision that would constitute the legal base for such an operation," Cagri Erhan, a professor at Ankara University, told DW.

If neither NATO nor the Security Council have approved it, deployment of US or coalition forces to Turkish bases must be approved in advance by the Turkish parliament. In March 2003, the Turkish parliament rejected a resolution authorizing the deployment of US forces to Turkey with the aim of opening up a northern front in the war against Saddam Hussein's regime. Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) failed to get the resolution passed despite having a parliamentary majority at the time.

On Tuesday, Deputy Prime Minister Arinc said that the government intended to prepare a new resolution to join any international coalition and take action against Syria. But opposition parties insist that such a move would be a clear breach of the constitution, as the Turkish constitution seeks "international legitimacy" for such military operations.

"Any intervention without the authorization of a UN resolution may spark a regional fire," warned Faruk Logoglu, a former Turkish ambassador and deputy chairman of the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP). "It doesn't matter how many countries support such an intervention: this will not have international legitimacy," he stressed. "Turkey should first wait for the report by UN experts on the poison gas attack in Syria, and the decision of UN Security Council."
DW.DE

The Stig

09-01-2013, 11:42 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-sharply-steps-up-criticism-of-us-over-syria/2013/08/31/532c48ea-1238-11e3-a2b3-5e107edf9897_story.html) at The Washington Post

Russia sharply steps up criticism of U.S. over Syria

By Will Englund, Published: August 31 E-mail the writer

MOSCOW – Russia dramatically escalated its denunciations of American threats to attack Syrian military targets on Saturday, with President Vladimir Putin saying it would have been “utter nonsense” for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons as the Obama administration alleges.

The president says the White House will seek congressional authorization for a strike.

Speaking out for the first time since an apparent chemical weapons attack near Damascus on Aug. 21, Putin called on President Obama to find a nonviolent way out of the crisis.

“I would like to address Obama as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate: Before using force in Syria, it would be good to think about future casualties,” Putin told Russian news agencies in Vladivostok during a tour of the country’s flood-stricken Far East.

“Russia is urging you to think twice before making a decision on an operation in Syria,” he said.

The White House argued Friday that intelligence shows more than 1,400 people died from exposure to chemical weapons in an attack carried out by the Syrian military.

Putin said he was sure the attack was the work of rebels trying to provoke international — and especially American — involvement in the Syrian conflict. The government of Bashar al-Assad, he said, would have had no reason to use chemical weapons at a time when it had gained the upper hand in the fighting.

Doing so, he said, would have been “utter nonsense’’ – with the clear implication that that is how he would characterize the American allegations.

On top of that, he said, the Obama administration’s “claims that proof exists, but is classified and cannot be presented to anybody, are below criticism. This is plain disrespect for their partners.”

Putin’s comments were soon underlined by a stern statement from the Foreign Ministry. After U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul had finished a meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Saturday, the ministry declared, “Russia has expressed its conviction that any forceful action against Syria that the U.S. could carry out in circumvention of the U.N. Security Council would be an act of aggression and a gross violation of international law.”

Putin said he was surprised by the vote in Britain’s Parliament on Thursday not to join a U.S. attack on Syrian military targets. “It shows that there are people guided by common sense there,” he said.

Putin said he and Obama have not discussed Syria since the alleged chemical weapons attack occurred.

The Russian president is fond of needling his opponents, often adopting a tone of apparent reasonableness tinged with a considerable amount of condescension. A U.S. assault on Assad’s government would do nothing to hurt his standing, at home or in many countries abroad, where his contempt for Washington tends to play very well.

“The U.S. president and I certainly discussed this problem at the G-8” summit in June in Northern Ireland, Putin said Saturday. “And, by the way, we agreed then that we would jointly facilitate peace negotiations in Geneva, and the Americans committed themselves to bringing the armed opposition to these negotiations. I understand this is a difficult process, and it looks like they haven't succeeded in this.”

Obama arrives in St. Petersburg for the G-20 meeting on Thursday and leaves on Friday. The purpose of the gathering is to discuss economic growth, but the White House acknowledges there will be plenty of conversation about Syria on the side. There are currently no plans for a one-on-one meeting between Putin and Obama, who earlier this month decided not to attend a Moscow summit with the Russian president.

On Friday, the head of the foreign affairs committee of the lower house of parliament, Alexei Pushkov, said the Nobel committee should strip Obama of his 2009 Peace Prize if he launches an attack on Syria.

The Stig

09-02-2013, 02:30 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/02/us-syria-crisis-ships-idUSBRE9810DA20130902) at Reuters

USS Nimitz carrier moves into Red Sea

WASHINGTON | Mon Sep 2, 2013 9:46am EDT

(Reuters) - The USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and four other ships in its strike group moved into the Red Sea early on Monday, U.S. defense officials said, describing the move as "prudent planning" in case the ships are needed for military action against Syria.

The officials said the Nimitz entered the Red Sea around 6 a.m. EDT, but the strike group had not received any orders to move into the Mediterranean, where five U.S. destroyers and an amphibious ship remain poised for possible cruise missile strikes against Syria.

Moving the Nimitz into the Red Sea was aimed at putting more U.S. assets in place if they are needed to support what U.S. officials still describe as a limited attack against Syria after it used chemical weapons against civilians.

"It does place that strike group in a position to respond to a variety of contingencies," said one official, who was not authorized to speak publicly.

The nuclear-powered Nimitz is accompanied by the Princeton, a cruiser, and three destroyers - the William P. Lawrence, Stockdale and Shoup, according to the officials.

They said there had been no change regarding six U.S. Navy ships now in the eastern Mediterranean, but military planners were reassessing the situation given a delay in the cruise missile strikes that had been expected this past weekend.

President Barack Obama on Saturday backed off imminent strikes by five destroyers off the coast of Syria until Congress had time to vote its approval. Defense officials said the delay gave them more time to reassess which ships and other weapons will be kept in the region - and whether some may be allowed to leave. Congress returns to Washington September 9.

The U.S. Navy doubled its presence in the eastern Mediterranean in the past week, effectively adding two destroyers to the three that generally patrol the region.

The destroyers are carrying a combined load of about 200 Tomahawk missiles, but officials say a limited strike on Syria could be accomplished with half that number.

Reuters reported Sunday that officials had rerouted the Nimitz carrier group, which was due to sail east around Asia to return to its home port in Everett, Washington, after being relieved in recent days by another aircraft carrier, the USS Harry S. Truman.

Officials said the USS Kearsarge, a large-deck amphibious ship, remained in North Arabian Sea, and there were no plans to move the ship into the Red Sea.

The Kearsarge, which carries 6 AV-8B Harriers, 10-12 V-22 Ospreys and helicopters, played a key role in the 2011 strikes on Libya. Two Ospreys launched from the ship helped rescue a downed F-15 pilot during that operation.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; editing by Jackie Frank)

Stg1swret

09-04-2013, 12:08 PM

fROM tOWNHALL.COM http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kateandrews/2013/09/03/during-senate-hearing-on-syria-secretary-kerry-unwilling-to-rule-out-use-of-us-military-troops-on-the-ground-n1690610

SEPTEMBER 4, 2013
Syria Hearing: Secretary Kerry Refuses to Rule Out Use of U.S. Ground Troops

Kate Andrews
9/3/2013 8:30:00 PM - Kate Andrews

Secretary of State John Kerry’s refusal to rule out the use of U.S. military forces on the ground in Syria shook the otherwise supportive Senators during Tuesday’s hearing on the ‘Authorization of Use of Force in Syria’.

The hearing -- held by the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations -- questioned Mr. Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey on the President’s proposal to use “limited force” against Syria as a direct response to the Regime’s use of chemical weapons.

Senator Menendez, the Chairman of the committee, delivered the opening remarks and declared his support for President Obama’s proposed plan:

“I support the President’s decision to use military force in the face of this horrific crime against humanity.”

“Are we so tired of war that will are willing to silence our conscience?”

Over the course of almost four hours, Kerry, Hagel and Dempsey took turns arguing that a military strike against the Syrian regime was necessary to preserve U.S. national interests and credibility, and to protect the safety of U.S. allies in the region.

In an effort to ease skeptics of the chemical attack, Kerry was adamant that the Regime’s use of chemical weapons had been proven by intelligence “beyond a reasonable doubt”:

“We can tell you beyond any reasonable doubt that our evidence proves that the Assad Regime prepared for this attack…we have physical evidence of where the rockets came from and when. Not one rocket landed in Regime-controlled territory.”

Kerry went on to assert that the Syrian Regime’s use of chemical weapons and the instability of the region was a direct threat to U.S. national interest and required immediate action:

“We have allies there…we have deep interests there.”

We need “to avoid the creation of a safe haven in Syria or a base of operations of extremists to use these weapons against our friends.”

Hagel echoed Kerry’s statements by asserting the need to preserve “international norms” in terms of warfare and the treatment of civilians. He warned that breaking treaties like the Chemical Weapons Convention would “embolden other regimes,” like Iran or North Korea, “to acquire and use chemical weapons.”

The Secretary of Defense also argued that voting against Syrian intervention could potentially harm the United States’ credibility, referencing Syria’s defiance of President’s Obama self-implemented “red-line” against chemical attacks.

“The word of the United States must mean something,” he declared.

General Dempsey was unwilling to publicly answer questions regarding the military tactics being considered for the strike, but he made clear that the objectives given to him by the Commander-in-Chief were to “deter” the Syrian Regime from any further use of chemical weapons.

The majority of Senators on the committee, including Chairman Menendez, were in favor of a limited attack on the Syrian Regime based on humanitarian grounds. However, Secretary Kerry’s unwillingness to rule out the use of U.S. military troops on the ground in Syria raised questions from both skeptics and supporters.

When asked to include a provision in the authorization that would prohibit the use of U.S. military troops on the ground, Kerry was willing to pledge the President’s promise not to use troops, but he was not willing to propose an amendment:

“I don’t want to take off the table an option…to secure our country.”

Later in the hearing, Kerry clarified his statement to say that “President has no intention…to put American troops on the ground, in the fighting of this civil war. “ It was noted by several Senators, however, that this clarification still leaves an opening for the use of troops to protect the United States’ ‘national interest,’ which had a broad and open-ended definition.

The Secretaries and General met some opposition from Senators who remained unconvinced that a military attack on the Syrian Regime would ensure a desirable outcome. Senator Marco Rubio stated that the drawn-out decision to intervene in Syria has left the U.S, “with options, all of which are less than ideal.”

He raised concerns that Assad and his Regime would weather the “limited attacks” and claim victory once they ended; General Dempsey responded by suggesting that any military strategy would have further military attacks prepared in case Assad tried to claim victory; only furthering Rubio’s worry that the attacks would not be as “limited” as the interventionists claim.

Senator Rand Paul pressured Secretary Kerry to ensure that the vote of Congress would direct the actions of the President and would not be for symbolic purposes only:

“Only if our vote is binding is it meaningful,” he concluded.

Kerry claimed he was unable to make a promise on behalf of the President, which only pushed Paul’s skepticism further, generating a heated debate between the Secretary and the Senator over the ability to ensure the military attacks lead to a desirable outcome.

“Will the region be more stable or less stable,” Paul demanded to know. The Secretary assured Paul that the region would be more stable after U.S. military intervention, though Paul clearly remained unconvinced.

Though the majority of the Senate committee seemed to support U.S. intervention in Syria, the debate is far from over. When Congress reconvenes on September 9th, both the House and the Senate with debate the potential consequences of a military strike against Syria. With the President and the public opinion split, the vote for intervention could swing in either direction.

NWPilgrim

09-04-2013, 03:49 PM

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/is-the-united-states-going-to-go-to-war-with-syria-over-a-natural-gas-pipeline

Article says the real reason for toppling Assad is to put in govt that will allow Qatar to send LNG to Europe via pipeline going through Syria, and/or allow Saudis to control it. Either way Russia loses gas business and not happy.

This is a valid matter to discuss openly in Congress if it is in our national interest. I don't think so. But our president should not be deceiving us as to the real reason. We are lap fogs to the Saudis.

The Stig

09-04-2013, 08:55 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/politics/us-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_t1) at CNN

Obama: it's the world's 'red line' on Syria; Senate panel backs plan for military strike
By Tom Cohen, CNN
updated 3:57 PM EDT, Wed September 4, 2013

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama said Wednesday that the world set a red line against chemical weapons use that he now seeks to apply to Syria, while a Senate committee approved a resolution authorizing the U.S. military attack that he is planning.

By a 10-7 vote, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the resolution that authorizes a limited military response, giving Obama an initial victory in his push to win congressional approval.

The measure now goes to the full Senate for debate next week. The Democratic-led chamber is expected to pass it, but the outcome is less clear in the Republican-led House where top diplomatic and military officials made their case on Wednesday for action.

In Sweden on the first of a three-day overseas trip that includes the G-20 summit in Russia, Obama told reporters that the red line he spoke of last year regarding Syria's use of chemical weapons came from international treaties and past congressional action, rather than something he "made up."

Obama also insisted he had the authority to order attacks -- expected to be cruise missile strikes on Syrian military command targets -- even if Congress rejects his request for authorization.

America "recognizes that if the international community fails to maintain certain norms, standards, laws, governing how countries interact and how people are treated, that over time this world becomes less safe," Obama said. "It becomes more dangerous not only for those people who are subjected to these horrible crimes, but to all of humanity."

He cited World War II as an example, saying "the people of Europe are certainly familiar with what happens when the international community finds excuses not to act." At the same time, "as commander in chief, I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America's national security," Obama said.

Conservative critics have said Obama painted himself into a corner with his statement last year that Syria's use of chemical weapons was a red line that would change his approach to its civil war.

Obama: It is the world's red line

"A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized," Obama said in August 2012. "That would change my calculus."

Now, critics on the right say, he must respond to an alleged chemical weapons attack outside Damascus by the Syrian regime that Secretary of State John Kerry said killed more than 1,400 people or lose credibility.

The administration and top congressional leaders attempted to blunt that criticism on Tuesday during debate on Capitol Hill. Even House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, said any president would have drawn that red line based on international norms.

Obama made that same argument on Wednesday, saying: "I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line."

"The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war," he said at a joint news conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt on the first day of a four-day trip that includes the G-20 summit in Russia.

"Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty," Obama continued. "Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the 'Syria Accountability Act' that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for."

Sounding exasperated, Obama added: "That wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There's a reason for it."

Obama prods international community to act

Asked about whether he was seeking to save face, Obama insisted that "my credibility is not on the line -- the international community's credibility is on the line."

He framed the question for the United Nations and the global community at large as: "Are we going to try to find a reason not to act? And if that's the case, then I think the (world) community should admit it."

Opposition by Russia, a Syrian ally, has scuttled U.S. and British efforts to get the U.N. Security Council to authorize a military response against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

U.N. inspectors returned from Syria last week from their mission to confirm if chemical weapons were used, but Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday it would take three weeks for samples collected to analyzed and results announced.

"I respect the U.N. process," Obama said while standing next to Reinfeldt, who opposes military intervention without U.N. approval.

"We agree that the international community cannot be silent," Obama added, saying also that the U.N. investigators had done "heroic work."

Noting the U.N. team's mandate was only to determine the use of chemical weapons, and not identify who used them, Obama repeated past statements that U.S. intelligence has confirmed chemical weapons use beyond any reasonable doubt and has further confirmed that al-Assad's regime "was the source."

"I do think that we have to act, because if we don't, we are effectively saying that even though we may condemn it and issue resolutions and so forth and so on, somebody who is not shamed by resolutions can continue to act with impunity," Obama said.

International norms then "begin to erode," he added, and "other despots and authoritarian regimes can start looking and say, 'that's something we can get away with.'"

He described the intended U.S. response as "limited in time and in scope, targeted at the specific task of degrading (al-Assad's) capabilities, and deterring the use of those weapons, again."

More than 100,000 killed in Syrian conflict

The United Nations has said more than 100,000 people -- including many civilians -- have been killed since the popular uprising spiraled into a civil war in 2011.

In Washington, the resolution passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee set a 60-day deadline for use of force in Syria, with an option for an additional 30 days.

An amendment accepted by the panel from Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Christopher Coons of Delaware added language to say the military response was intended to reverse Assad's battlefield momentum, a stronger objective than degrading the Syrian regime's chemical weapons capabilities as Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the committee on Tuesday.

If Assad "remains in an advantageous position, he will never leave Syria," said McCain, who has been pushing for a more robust U.S. response. "He has to know that he is losing and that way you get a negotiated settlement for his departure."

The resolution also makes clear there would be no U.S. boots on the ground as part of a response in Syria.

After the vote, senators on the panel made statements that explained their thinking, with some calling for more efforts to build an international coalition before any attack takes place.

"Vietnam started with U.S. advisers and a limited Naval presence. It led to an all-out war," noted Democratic Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, who opposed the resolution.

Kerry, Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared before the Senate panel on Tuesday to press for approval of authorization.

Tough questioning by House panel

The same trio then faced questions on Wednesday before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, with Republican Chairman Ed Royce of California saying the administration's Syria policy had been adrift for two years.

At the same time, Royce acknowledged there were "no easy answers" on Syria, and attempting to deter chemical weapons use was worth considering despite public skepticism for U.S. military involvement.

Kerry said Obama sought authorization for a response to the use of banned weapons, not a full military intervention.

"We are not asking America to go to war," he said. "We all agree, there will be no American boots on the ground."

On Tuesday, the leaders of both parties in the House of Representatives emerged from a White House meeting to support Obama's call for American strikes.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters the use of poison gas was "a barbarous act" to which only the United States is capable of responding. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, added that Washington must respond to actions "outside the circle of civilized human behavior."

In a written statement later, Boehner said it is up to Obama "to make his case to the American people and their elected representatives" -- including securing support from individual members.

"All votes authorizing the use of military force are conscience votes for members, and passage will require direct, continuous engagement from the White House," the speaker said.

Most of the focus of administration lobbying has been on the House, which returns from its summer recess on Monday. Opposition by liberal Democrats and libertarian conservatives to U.S. military action, as well as the bitterly partisan political environment of the Republican-led chamber, make passage of Obama's authorization proposal uncertain.

In the Senate, a Democratic source familiar with Majority Leader Harry Reid's thinking told CNN that Reid is confident any authorization measure will pass his chamber. The source said it is likely 60 votes will be needed to overcome a filibuster, and Reid thinks the votes are there.

CNN's Jake Tapper, Dana Bash, Deirdre Walsh, Elise Labott, Barbara Starr and Matt Smith contributed to this report, which was written by Tom Cohen in Washington.

The Stig

09-04-2013, 09:24 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23849587) at BBC News

Syria crisis: Where key countries stand

The US and its allies are considering military action against sites in Syria. But what do countries in the region and beyond think about any possible action?
Outside the region

US

Following a cautious reaction to the initial reports of a chemical weapons attack, American rhetoric has hardened. Secretary of State John Kerry said the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government was "undeniable" and a "moral obscenity".

Washington has recently bolstered its naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, prompting speculation that preparation for an attack is under way. Analysts believe the most likely US action would be sea-launched cruise missiles targeting Syrian military installations. However, support for military action among the US public is not clear cut, with opinion polls suggesting about half of Americans oppose even a limited strike.

UK

A government motion in support of military action in Syria has been rejected by MPs in Parliament, forcing the UK to rule itself out of any joint intervention.

This was seen as a blow for the government of Prime Minister David Cameron. However, the prime minister says he supports the idea - even though he respects the vote.

France

French President Francois Hollande has said France is prepared to go ahead with military intervention, even though the UK will play no part in any action.

"France wants firm and proportionate action against the Damascus regime," he told a French newspaper, and indicated it could come within the week.

France has been amongst the most hawkish Western countries with regard to Syria, being the first Western power to recognise the main opposition coalition as the Syrian people's legitimate representative. In May, France, along with the UK, successfully lobbied for the EU's arms embargo to be lifted so as to allow further supplies to the rebels.

Russia

Russia is one of Mr Assad's most important international backers and has stressed the need for a political solution to the crisis.

It has sharply criticised any possibility of Western strikes on Syria, saying action taken outside the UN Security Council threatened "catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and Northern Africa".

China

China has joined Russia in blocking resolutions critical of Syria at the UN Security Council. It has also criticised the prospect of strikes against Syria.

The official Chinese news agency, Xinhua, said Western powers were rushing to conclusions about who might have used chemical weapons in Syria before UN inspectors had completed their investigation.

Germany

Berlin has ruled itself out of participation in any military action. Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle told a German newspaper that "such participation has not been sought nor is it being considered by us".

Germany has said in the past that proof of the use of chemical weapons by the government of Bashar al-Assad would demand "consequences" but has not set out what those consequences should be.

Inside the region

Turkey

The Turkish government has been one of the most vocal critics of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad since early on in the uprising. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told Turkey's Milliyet newspaper that the country was ready to join an international coalition for action against Syria even in the absence of agreement at the UN Security Council.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia has been a rival of the Syrian government for years and has been particularly active in pushing for action against Mr Assad.

At a meeting of the Arab League on 1 September, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal called for "all legal means possible" to be used to stop the bloodshed in Syria.

Qatar

Thought to be one of the main suppliers of weapons to Syrian rebels, Qatar has expressed support for the proposed US strike on Syria. The Qatari foreign minister told the BBC on 3 September that outside military intervention had become a necessity to protect the Syrian people.

"We wouldn't have hoped for military intervention, for sure, but it's become a necessity now with the regime did not leave any chance for a solution after using weapons of mass destruction. This is the so-called 'lesser of two evils'," he said.

Israel

The Israeli government has refrained from commenting publicly on whether or not it supports US strikes on Syria, wanting to avoid being connected to such action should it take place. Any backing by Israel could be seen in the Arab world as evidence of collusion in US decision-making, and turn public opinion in the region against military intervention. Israel also wants to avoid giving reason to Hezbollah, Syria's and Iran's militant Shia Islamist ally in Lebanon, to attack it, ostensibly in retaliation for a US strike on Syria.

Israel sees the US approach to a possible strike on Syria as a sign of how far it will go to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. There is great concern in Israel that President Obama's decision to seek authorisation from Congress will be perceived in the region as a sign of weakness, especially by Iran.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned Damascus and its allies against trying to draw Israel into the Syrian conflict, saying on 27 August: "We are not part of the civil war in Syria, but if we detect any attempt to harm us we will respond, and do so powerfully."

Lebanon

There is deep division in the country between supporters and opponents of President Assad.

Lebanese Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour told Lebanese radio that he did not support the idea of strikes on Syria, saying: "I don't think this action would serve peace, stability and security in the region."

Two bomb attacks which killed almost 60 people in Lebanon in August were linked to tensions over the Syrian conflict. Hezbollah has openly taken part in combat in Syria on the side of the government, and there have been reports of some in the Sunni community fighting on the side of the rebels. In addition, the country is already playing host to the largest number of Syrian refugees of any country.

Jordan

Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour said on 4 September that Jordan would back limited military action if it was proved that chemical weapons had been used in Syria and it had been approved by the US Congress.

Mr Ensour told the BBC that international law on the use of chemical weapons was very clear, and expressed hope that an agreement between nations would soon be reached.

"If there is proof, proof that is very clear, how can the UN Security Council hinder any measures? That will be very, very difficult to justify."

But he said any action must be "limited" and target Syria's chemical weapons' capabilities without causing civilian casualties, adding: "If the strikes are not surgical, and not exact and not very well contained, then it will be very dangerous and very risky."

Jordan is currently home to half a million Syrian refugees. The government has called for a political solution to its neighbour's conflict, but is also believed to have facilitated the supply of weapons to rebel fighters in southern Syria in early 2013.

Iran

Iran has been Syria's main backer in the region since well before the current conflict and has been highly critical of any prospect of intervention.

It has warned a top UN official visiting Tehran of "serious consequences" of any military action.

Foreign ministry spokesman Abbas Araqchi also repeated claims that it was in fact rebels who used chemical weapons, AFP reports.

Iraq

Iraq has not been as critical of Syria as some other Arab countries and will also be concerned at the effect that any escalation in Syria could have on increasing sectarian violence.

"We have been against any military action, and we are hoping for a peaceful political solution to the crisis," said Ali al-Musawi, media adviser to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.

Egypt

Egypt's military-backed interim government has come out strongly against a US strike on Syria, saying it rejects any such action without the authorization of the UN.

Ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi took a strong stand against Syria, cutting off relations and calling for a no-fly zone, but the military has been more circumspect. It rejects international intervention and is wary of giving any advantage to Islamist rebel groups. Egyptian public opinion - among both supporters and opponents of Mr Morsi - is also firmly against US military intervention in an Arab country.

The Stig

09-05-2013, 03:43 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/syria-china-russia-opposing-military-strikes) at the Guardian

Syria crisis: China joins Russia in opposing military strikes

Chinese intervention comes as leaders gather for G20 summit hosted by Vladimir Putin, who has threatened to send a missile shield to Syria if US launches attack without UN backing

China has joined Russia in opposing military strikes on Syria, saying it would push up oil prices and create an economic downturn.

The Chinese intervention came as G20 leaders gathered in Saint Petersburg on Thursday for a summit likely to be dominated by Syria. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is expected to allow the issue on to the agenda for dinner, reflecting the reality that the fate of the world economy is inextricably intertwined with the risk of a Middle East conflagration.

The Chinese deputy finance minister, Zhu Guangyao, told a pre-G20 briefing: "Military action would have a negative impact on the global economy, especially on oil prices – it will cause a hike in the oil price."

The UN special envoy on Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, is rushing to the summit to update G20 leaders on the state of stalled peace talks.

It also emerged that the pope had written to Putin, reportedly saying military action would be a futile pursuit.

In a sign of tensions before the summit, Putin called the US secretary of state a liar for claiming al-Qaida did not have a significant presence in Syria. He said US bombing of Syria could lead to highly dangerous attacks on Syrian nuclear reactors.

EU leaders have expressed concern at the pace of the drive to war. The president of the European commission, José Manuel Barroso, said consensus in the international community was needed on Syria and argued that efforts should be focused on a political solution.

Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European council, said: "No military solution to the Syrian conflict."

Italy's prime minister, Enrico Letta, said the summit was the last opportunity for negotiated and political solutions to Syria's civil war. He urged Putin to avoid a final break with Washington over Syria, adding that concern over Syria had hit maximum levels.

In contrast, the French foreign minister said: "The position of France is to punish and negotiate." Laurent Fabius told France 2 television before travelling to the summit: "We are convinced that if there is no punishment for Mr Assad, there will be no negotiation. Punishment will allow negotiation, but obviously it will be difficult."

The French parliament has discussed President François Hollande's decision to join the planned US air strikes, but did not hold a vote.

The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, referring to Brahimi's travel to Saint Petersburg, said: "While the world is focused on concerns about the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria we must push even harder for the international conference on Syria to take place in Geneva. A political solution is the only way to end the bloodshed in Syria."

Western leaders are likely to pile pressure on Putin by challenging his claims that chemical weapons have not been used by the Assad regime. German intelligence was the latest to release new information linking the chemical attacks on 21 August to Assad forces. Syria rejects the charge and, like Russia, blames the rebels.

David Cameron flew in to Saint Petersburg from the UK, and Barack Obama arrived from Sweden, which he had visited on Wednesday.

Cameron is not expected to hold a formal bilateral meeting with the US president, who is leading the international drive for armed reprisals for Assad's apparent chemical weapons attacks.

The White House says Obama will also not hold formal one-on-one talks with Putin, who is hosting the summit.

Putin is threatening to send a missile shield to Syria if the US launches an attack without the authority of the United Nations.

The G20 summit had been expected to focus on the world economy and growth, but will now be dominated by the Middle East crisis, even if the formal agenda remains fixed on the slowdown of growth in emerging markets.

Obama, speaking in Sweden before the summit, denied that his political credibility was at stake but admitted relations with Russia had hit a wall. He said he had not set the red lines requiring a military response if the Syrian government deployed chemical weapons.

"The world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons was abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war," he said. "That was not something I just kind of made up, I did not pluck it out of thin air."

He added: "My credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

"Keep in mind, I'm somebody who opposed the war in Iraq, and I'm not interested in repeating mistakes about basing decisions on faulty intelligence," the US president said at a news conference in Stockholm.

On Tuesday Obama had portrayed his plans for US military action as part of a broader strategy to topple Assad, as the White House's campaign to win over sceptics in Congress gained momentum.

Obama arrives at the summit with his hand strengthened by the growing impression that he will win the support of Congress next week to take military action. In signs that the political tide was slowly turning his way in Washington, the Senate foreign relations committee on Wednesday agreed on a draft resolution backing the use of US military force in Syria.

It authorises strikes against the Syrian regime within a 60-day window, extendable to 90 days, as requested by the White House. But it also includes tougher wording introduced by the hawkish Republican senator John McCain, which makes it "the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria".

Obama also retains the support of the French and the personal backing of Cameron, even though the British government is now debarred from joining any action owing to last week's mishandled Commons vote.

The resolution will be put before the full Senate for a vote on Monday, where it is expected to pass. Obama faces a tougher battle in the House of Representatives, whose foreign affairs committee heard testimony from the secretary of state, John Kerry, on Wednesday. Kerry warned a sceptical and sometimes raucous panel that failing to strike Syria would embolden al-Qaida and raise to 100% the chances that Assad would use chemical weapons again.

Cameron is expected to announce further British intelligence to persuade Putin that Assad forces were responsible. He is also likely to press on the need for clear humanitarian corridors in Syria to boost aid to trapped refugees, as well as call for an end to the bureaucratic delays preventing aid workers reaching Syria.

That bold part.....yea....that could get messy

The Stig

09-05-2013, 04:07 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171638#.UiisAz-2aTY) at Isreal National News

Syria: We Will Never Give In

Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Muqdad says Syria has taken "every measure" to retaliate against a potential strike.

By Elad Benari, Canada

First Publish: 9/4/2013, 10:33 PM

Syria said Wednesday it was mobilizing its allies against a possible U.S.-led military strike over a suspected gas attack and would never give in, even if a third world war erupts.

In an exclusive interview with the AFP news agency, Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Muqdad said Syria had taken "every measure" to retaliate against a potential strike, but refused to provide any clue as to what that might mean.

He insisted that Russia had not wavered in its support for its long-time ally, despite comments by President Vladimir Putin suggesting a more conciliatory tone towards the West. Putin said in an interview Wednesday that his country may support a UN resolution on punitive military strikes in Syria if it is proved that Damascus used poison gas on its own people.

"The United States is currently mobilizing its allies for an aggression against Syria," Muqdad told AFP, adding that Damascus was therefore doing the same and that its allies were "offering it all sorts of support."

"Iran, Russia, South Africa and some Arab countries have rejected this aggression and are ready to face this war that the United States and its allies, including France, will declare against Syria", he said, without elaborating.

"The Syrian government will not change position even if there is World War III. No Syrian can sacrifice the independence of his country," declared Muqdad.

The comments come as U.S. President Barack Obama is busy trying to convince Congress to approve a strike against the regime of Bashar Al-Assad in retaliation for a suspected deadly poison gas attack on August 21.

France is pushing, along with the United States, for military strikes, with President Francois Hollande having said "this crime cannot remain unpunished."

The French parliament was debating the issue on Wednesday, and Muqdad lashed out at Paris, saying its stand on Syria was "shameful."

"It's shameful that the French president... says 'if Congress approves, I go to war, otherwise I won't go', as if the French government had no say in the matter," Muqdad told AFP.

Regarding Russia and Putin’s comments, Muqdad stressed that Moscow had not wavered in its support of Damascus.

"The Russian position is unchanged; it's a responsible position of a friend that is in favor of peace," he said.

Syrian leaders have talked tough since the West began hinting that it would strike in Syria in retaliation for the August 21 chemical attack, which the U.S. said killed more than 1,400 people, including some 400 children.

Assad challenged the United States and France on Monday to produce proof that his regime attacked civilians with poison gas, warning in an interview that any military strikes against Syria would risk triggering a regional war.

"The Middle East is a powder keg, and today the flame is coming very near. We cannot talk merely about the Syrian response, but about what might take place after the first strike. But nobody knows what will happen. Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes. Chaos and extremism will spread. There is a risk of regional war," Assad told the French newspaper Le Figaro.

Despite the threats, reports have indicated that the Syrian government has moved its political offices to schools and universities to seek safe haven in case of a military attack by the West.

One report said that Assad was in an underground bunker at an unknown location, which serves as an operational headquarters in advance of the U.S. attack on Syrian targets.

(Arutz Sheva’s North American Desk is keeping you updated until the start of Rosh Hashanah in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.)

bacpacker

09-06-2013, 01:41 AM

I have found some "possible" answers to what has us ready to hit Syria. This article goes through quite a progression.

http://thenewsdoctors.com/why-sryia-its-not-what-you-think-its-not-what-youve-been-told/

Published On: Thu, Sep 5th, 2013
TheNewsDoctors Exclusive | By TheNewsDoctors
Why Sryia? It’s Not What You Think, & It’s Not What You’ve Been Told

Sun Tzu said that “All war is deception.” Syria like Iraq and Afghanistan before it is no different. Let us look at the real reason why the globalist corporations and banking interests are fixated on this nation. A fixation that started over a decade ago.
A fixation that has the potential to lead to a major global war as key world powers are now involved.
Why Syria? It is THE way to break Russia.

War Bird

From V, SteveQuayle.com:

If one remembers in the late 90′s the ruling party in Afghanistan was the Taliban. They have rested most of the control of the nation from their Northern Alliance adversaries and were enjoying favor from Washington. Then it was discovered that this mountainous grave yard of empires can serve a purpose in running a gas as well as an oil pipeline dubbed the famous Caspian Pipeline. Ring a bell?

The objective of the pipeline was to run a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Azerbaijan, through Georgia and into to Turkey onto the destined Euro-Mediterranean markets. All the while bypassing Russia and allowing at that time the European Economic Community to be free of Russian Natural Gas and Gazprom.

In Early 2000 there was a meeting between leaders of the Taliban and Assistant Secretary of State, Political Crony and Known Leaker of the Valerie Plame CIA agent scandel, Richard Armitage. Armitage gave them an offer that they could not refuse. Run a secondary pipeline through Afghanistan as well and into Pakistan, out to the Arabian Sea. All facilitated by Unocal and their now famous or infamous,depends how you look at it employee Hamid Karzai. Unfortunately for the Taliban they refused. Armitage it was reported stated to the visiting Taliban delegation, “You can take the offer either with a carpet of Gold or a Carpet of Bombs.”

Fast Forward one year and Afghanistan is invaded, the Taliban overthrown and Unocal employee Hamid Karzai is put in power as president. The shocking thing is this, If one takes the time to look at the Afghanistan map, large US military bases are on the very path of the purposed pipeline. This as well that some of the proceeds from the lucrative opium trade will find it’s way back to US banks which will launder the money in order to help fund Unocal in the purposed pipe building project. Win Win.

So what does this have to do with Syria. Syria is the final chess piece of a move to cut Russia’s lucrative lock in Natural Gas and Oil that it supplies to Europe. If this connection is cut in any way it will bring severe consequences to the Russian economy as well as Russia’s natural gas company Gazprom. This is a move that the US stands to gain from.

The trouble for Syria began with two things. First the discovery of natural gas in the Mediterranean right off the coast of Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Read that list again, especially LEBANON and SYRIA, is the picture becoming clearer? This discovery took place about a decade ago, the thing is though there already exists within the middle east a Liquid Natural Gas Producing power house. That my friends is the tiny nation of Qatar.

Now here is where you need to put your thinking caps on. Qatar is floating in LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) It has over 77 Billion Tonnes in Reserve and that is with a moratorium in place. The problem is that Qatar would love to sell it’s LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is their regional big brother Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said “NO” to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. So what is the oil rich micro mite to do? Simple cut a deal with the biggest bully in the neighborhood, you guessed it, the US.

As recently as May of this year deals have been put in place by Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International, a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets.. So little Qatar is anxious, power hungry and dangerous, the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why Natural Gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long.

Enter Nabucco signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009 it was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Is it not interesting that the main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now, the ones so spoken of in the news are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. Coincidentally folks those happen to be the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising having spent over $3 billion so far in conflict. The other side of the story is that Saudi Arabia also financiers anti-Assad groups in Syria. You see the Saudis do not want to be marginalized by their ambitious little brother, thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Hence this is the reason why you have two somewhat opposing factions in Syria. On one side you have the Qatari backed Muslim Brotherhood and it’s subsidiaries who have very close ties with the Emir of Qatar. On the other side you have the Saudi backed Wahhabi AL-Queda and it’s subsidiaries. Hence you have various levels of atrocities from the cannibalism of the Wahabis to the Christian slaughter of the “Brotherhood”. These all have Qatari and Saudi fingerprints all over them.

In the background of this den of Jackals is the chief Hyena the US ready to spread Love and Democracy not by war but “Kinetic Action”. You see as the economy in the US crumbles, Pax Americana is in it’s final death rattles, it desires to see it’s age old rival Russia knocked off it’s energy pedestal in the highly lucrative Euro market. It also is anxious to get a piece of the Natural Gas Pie. Folks you have to understand that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are proxy puppet states to the Anglo-American powers. The US will stand to gain immensely no matter which faction topples Assad. In fact deals have been cut since 2009. Again the problem is Russia stands in the way.

The recent Cyprus bail in was not something that was just a simple bank failures, which was inevitable but it was primarily designed to go after the wealth of the Russian Oligarchs who coincidentally have strong ties with the Russian energy sector. Lucky for them they were warned in advanced by a Cypriot banker and they were able to liquidate before they lost everything. This has not gone unnoticed by Putin. Why do you think that immediately after the Cyprus fiasco Russian warships docked there the following week? This was Putin sending a very strong message to the Western Banksters that Russian interests will not be messed with.

Russia is now forced to draw the line, a very hard line in the sand. Syria is much more than losing a strategic port in the Natural Gas rich middle east. It is about losing the entire European region to Middle Eastern and Caspian Energy interests. Russia cannot allow that, this is why they are moving their military assets in place. This is also why resource hungry China cannot have it’s natural gas flow interrupted as well and have sided with the Russians when it comes to Syria.

Folks this is the real reason for Benghazi it is much more than giving arms to Al-Queda, and theories about shooting down Western Airliners. It about arming a large rag tag mercenary army that will help engage the Russians on the ground when the time comes. That is what Benghazi is all about- it is another Bear trap just like Afghanistan was for the Russians. Facing Guerrilla tactics in the desert by religious zealots is a situation that Russia is trying to avoid. So the answer to ending all of these problems for Russia is to engage the Americans directly. We are leaving them no choice. This is the reason for Benghazi.

Why Syria? It is THE way to break Russia.

- - - Updated - - -

Similar story, different source.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/

Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?
By Michael Snyder, on September 3rd, 2013

PipelineWhy has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe. Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region. On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom. Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time. The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009...

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

"We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.

"For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world's leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline. Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route. The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian...

In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia. So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people. In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely...

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.

But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.

If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants...

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be "allied" with?

And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.

If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive. In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American "boots on the ground"...

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used. Four points are worth making about these purposes. First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.). Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.” Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”). Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described. Some questions for Congress to ponder:

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power? Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.

(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?

What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out...

I'll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he's five years old. We're not talking about war; we're talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, 'Well, what do you think?' He said, 'I think no war.'

Unfortunately, his grandmother and most of our other insane "leaders" in Washington D.C. seem absolutely determined to take us to war.

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline?

bacpacker

09-06-2013, 01:52 AM

And then conformation from the mouth of one of our so called leaders.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411806/Offer-table-Arab-countries-pay-scale-U-S-invasion-Syria-says-Secretary-State-John-Kerry.html

John Kerry reveals Arab countries have offered to PAY America to carry out full-scale invasion of Syria

By David Martosko

PUBLISHED: 16:20 EST, 4 September 2013 | UPDATED: 17:49 EST, 4 September 2013

Secretary of State John Kerry said during a hearing Wednesday in the House of Representatives that counties in the Arab world have offered to foot the entire bill for a U.S. military mission that destroys the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria.

'With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assist, the answer is profoundly yes,' Kerry said. 'They have. That offer is on the table.'

Kerry, with a cadre of anti-war activists sitting behind him and holding red-painted hands aloft in protest, declined to name the countries that have proposed opening their purses.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, an anti-war protester himself 40 years ago, is cast in the role of war consigliere to the president. He said Wednesday that Arab countries had offered to pay America's expenses for a military operation if it ousts Bashar al-Assad from Syria

The guided-missile destroyer USS Barry, foreground, is one of four US Navy destroyers to be deployed in the Mediterranean Sea on Sept. 3, all of which are combat ready against Syria if the order for a strike is given

Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen had asked Kerry to comment on the expenses related to carrying out attacks on Syria if Congress were to authorize them.

Following through on a use-of-force resolution, she said, 'could potentially cost ... billions.'

But Kerry said other nations that see Assad as a destabilizing force in the region have proposed to cover the costs.

More...

Senate committee authorizes military action in Syria - but won't hear Rand Paul amendment saying the Constitution forbids Obama from striking without Congress
Assad 'launched chemical attack in moment of panic because he was scared rebels would take Damascus', say spies as Russia sends missile cruiser to Mediterranean
Could Syrian defector provide proof Assad used chemical weapons on his own people? Forensic expert prepares to reveal evidence as it emerges regime's troops are hiding among civilians ahead of possible airstrikes
The 'calamity of the century': Syrian civil war prompts world's biggest refugee crisis as UN reveals TWO MILLION people have fled fighting

As for 'the details of the offer, and the proposal on the table,' Ros-Lehtinen asked Kerry, 'what are the figures we are talking about?

'We don’t know what action we [will be] engaged in right now,' Kerry replied, 'but they have been quite significant. I mean, very significant.'

'In fact, some of them have said that if the U.S. is prepared to go do the whole thing, the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost. That’s how dedicated they are to this.'

Kerry: Arab countries willing to pay for US attack on Syria
Turkish soldiers already regularly patrol a long border with Syria, making that nation one of several with an interest in seeing Assad depart the region

Turkish soldiers already regularly patrol a long border with Syria, making that nation one of several with an interest in seeing Assad depart the region

Kerry quickly clarified that the Pentagon was not planning to shake a tin cup in the Middle East in the hope of collecting donations.

'Obviously, that is not in the cards and nobody is talking about it,' he said. 'But they are talking about taking seriously getting this job done.'

Kerry also closed the loop on an embarrassing episode from his Senate testimony on Tuesday, when he said he wouldn't rule out the use of ground troops if hostilities in Syria were to escalate.

'There will be no boots on the ground,' he said Wednesday.

'The president has said that again and again. And there is nothing in this authorization that should contemplate it. And, we reiterate, no boots on the ground.'

MailOnline asked three different defense and national security analysts to estimate the cost of a 90-day military action in Syria, to include – at minimum – small arms for anti-Assad resistance groups, missiles and armed drones launched from the Mediterranean Sea, and military flights over Syria, launched from Turkey, after weapons stockpiles and anti-aircraft positions are destroyed.

While cautioning that their estimates must not be attributed to them by name, and with a caveat expressed by one analyst that 'this is all educated guesswork,' the estimates ranged from $5 to $21 billion.

'You'd think rocket and jet fuel would be cheaper in that part of the world,' said one, 'but no such luck. This won't be a cheap mission.'

Kerry isn't saying which Arab world leader or leaders offered to pay for a U.S.-led invasion of Syria, but candidates include Sheikh Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa of Bahrain, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey, and President Michel Suleiman of Lebanon. Those withe the most money to spend include King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Emir Sabah IV Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah of Kuwait

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411806/Offer-table-Arab-countries-pay-scale-U-S-invasion-Syria-says-Secretary-State-John-Kerry.html#ixzz2e4a5eOm2

- - - Updated - - -

I don't have links tonight, but have saw some reports of Rush Limbaugh talking about the Saudi's giving the chemical weapons to a group of rebels who then took it into the tunnels they are using to fight from and promptly releasing it, killing themselves and all the others. The plan was to set it off and blame the Assad gov for it.

Who knows if this is true, but with all the crap going on in the whole region, it may not be far from the truth.

Twitchy

09-06-2013, 04:06 AM

We are going to be in a world of hurt if Obama / Congress does strike Syria...

izzyscout21

09-06-2013, 01:23 PM

Iran

Iran has been Syria's main backer in the region since well before the current conflict and has been highly critical of any prospect of intervention.

It has warned a top UN official visiting Tehran of "serious consequences" of any military action.

Foreign ministry spokesman Abbas Araqchi also repeated claims that it was in fact rebels who used chemical weapons, AFP reports.

http://southweb.org/lifewise/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/iran.jpg

bacpacker

09-07-2013, 02:34 AM

Here is a new story I just found. Quite a different take on possible outcomes than is getting much discussion.

http://blogs.csoonline.com/global-security/2759/could-syria-launch-major-cyberattack-against-usa

Could Syria launch a major cyberattack against the USA?
Are US businesses ready?
Posted September 02, 2013 to Global Security |
As the US government debates the pros and cons of a use of force against Syria over the coming days and weeks, should our leaders also consider whether pro-Syrian forces might launch a cyberattack against US critical infrastructure in retaliation?
There are many important questions that are surfacing regarding this topic. Some of these include: How dangerous could an online attack really be? What is the most likely scenario? Are owners and operators of US critical infrastructure ready to defend the power grid, transportation systems our water supply and more? Are there steps that chief information security officers (CISOs) and other technology leaders should be taking now to prepare? Or, is any cyberthreat resulting from current events in the Middle East just overblown?
My view: American businesses should hope for the best, while preparing for the worst.
Recent Warnings of Coming Cyberattack
Yesterday, I posted this blog over at Govtech.com which highlighted Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano’s outgoing speech at the National Press Club last week. Here is an excerpt that I think everyone who has a role in protecting critical infrastructure in America should take very seriously:
“Our country will, for example, at some point, face a major cyber event that will have a serious effect on our lives, our economy, and the everyday functioning of our society.
While we have built systems, protections and a framework to identify attacks and intrusions, share information with the private sector and across the government, and develop plans and capabilities to mitigate the damage, more must be done, and must be done quickly....”
Background of the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA)
There has been plenty of press coverage regarding the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA). Krebs on Security recently provided this background piece on the SEA and their potential capabilities. Most recently, the SEA was able to bring down the New York Times.
But can they much more? Or, if they work with others who may sympathize with their viewpoint on world-events, could they cause serious damage – such as the “major cyber event” described by Secretary Napolitano?
These questions have become hot topics online. Consider these three perspectives:
How Serious is the Threat of a Syrian Cyberattack?
US Threat: Syria to retaliate with a cyber attack?
How Real is the Threat of Syrian Cyber Retaliation?

Be Prepared
While opinions vary widely on the SEA’s cyber capability to cause harm, businesses are preparing. National Public Radio (NPR) reported that US firms are taking notice:
"A lot of companies are coming and asking us to do assessments on the Syrian Electronic Army and other actors in the broader region and how they may suffer attacks in the coming weeks from them," says Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer at CrowdStrike, which provides companies with cybersecurity advice and assistance.
"My phone has been buzzing off the hook over the last few days because of this," he says.
At the same time, as the NPR report makes clear, there has not been any special alerts by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or others to take special steps – at least not yet.
Bloomberg ran this piece last week which offered suggestions for banks and utilities to prepare for a possible Syrian cyberattack. I think these words from Michael Chertoff, who is the former Secretary of DHS are very important and relevant:
“The line between national security and private security is eroding,” said Chertoff, founder of a Washington consulting company. “It is a reasonable concern to be prepared for the possibility of some kind of retaliation -- asymmetric retaliation -- if we take action in Syria.”
The question remains, are we ready? If the Congress votes for military action, we are about to find o
- See more at: http://blogs.csoonline.com/global-security/2759/could-syria-launch-major-cyberattack-against-usa#sthash.nCy1F2nv.dpuf

Stg1swret

09-07-2013, 04:10 PM

More news :http://rt.com/news/naval-forces-syria-strike-514/

RT
September 7, 2013

Mounting pressure for a Western strike on Syria has seen naval forces both friendly and hostile to Damascus build up off the embattled country’s coastline.

Credit: Public Domain
Credit: Public Domain

The potential of a US strike against Syria in response to an August 21 chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb gained steam on Wednesday, when a resolution backing the use of force against President Bashar Assad’s government cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a 10-7 vote.

President Obama has decided to put off military action until at least September 9, when the seemingly recalcitrant US House of Representatives reconvenes to vote on the measure.

Following the August 21 Ghouta Attack, which killed anywhere between 355 to 1,729 people, the diplomatic scramble to launch or stave off a military strike on Syria was mirrored by the movement of naval forces in the Eastern Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria.

The deployment of US and allied naval warships in the region has been matched by the deployment of Russian naval warships in the region.

While the Western vessels have in many cases been deployed in the event a military strike against Syria gets a green light, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Russia’s naval presence is needed to protect national security interests and is not a threat to any nation.

Below is a brief summary of the naval hardware currently amassed off Syria’s shores.

USA

The US Navy has five Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers off the coast of Syria, which its top admiral says is “fully ready” for a wide range of possible actions.

The USS Ramage, USS Mahan, USS Gravely and USS Barry are each armed with dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a range of about 1,000 nautical miles (1,151 miles) and are used for precise targeting.

The ships are also equipped with surface-to-air missiles capable of defending the vessels from air attacks.

On August 29, the USS Stout was sent to relieve the USS Mahan, but a defense official told AFP that both ships might remain in the area for the time being.

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday that the US ships are prepared for what he called a “vast spectrum of operations,” including launching Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets in Syria, as was done in Libya in 2011, and protecting themselves in the event of retaliation, AP reports.

In addition to the destroyers, the United States may well have one of its four guided missile submarines off the coast of Syria. At one time these subs were equipped with nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. Nowadays, they are capable of carrying up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

It was also announced on Monday that the US had deployed the USS San Antonio, an amphibious transport ship, to the Eastern Mediterranean.

The USS San Antonio, with several helicopters and hundreds of Marines on board, is “on station in the Eastern Mediterranean” but “has received no specific tasking,” a defense official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

The deployment of the USS Antonio comes despite promises from President Obama that no amphibious landing is on the agenda, as the US has ostensibly ruled out any “boots on the ground.”

While the wording of the draft resolution set to be put before the House does not permit a ground invasion, the wording of the text could potentially allow troops to carry out non-offensive operations within Syria, including securing chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities.

On Monday, it was also announced the USS Nimitz super carrier had moved into the Red Sea, though it had not been given orders to be part of the planning for a limited US military strike on Syria, US officials told ABC News.

The other ships in the strike group are the cruiser USS Princeton and the destroyers USS William P. Lawrence, USS Stockdale and USS Shoup.

The official said the carrier strike group has not been assigned a mission, but was shifted in the event its resources are needed to “maximize available options.”

The USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier and strike group is also in the northern Arabian Sea.

Russia

Russia, Syria’s longtime ally and primary arms supplier, has its only overseas naval base located in the Syrian port of Tartus, which has reportedly been used to support Russia’s growing number of naval patrols on the Mediterranean. However, Russia insists recent efforts to bolster its naval presence in the region are not in response to Western threats of a military strike.

Reported movements of many Russian ships in the region are coming from anonymous Russian defense ministry sources and have not been confirmed. RT contacted the Russian Navy to ask for confirmation of the reported ship movements, though no comment was forthcoming.

On Friday, for example, the large landing ship, Nikolai Filchenkov, was reportedly dispatched from the Ukrainian port city of Sevastopol for the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk, from where it is eventually expected to reach the Syrian coast, a source told Interfax News Agency.

“The ship will make call in Novorossiisk, where it will take on board special cargo and set off for the designated area of its combat duty in the eastern Mediterranean,” the source said.

RIA news agency quoted an unnamed senior naval source as saying on Friday that the frigate, Smetlivy, would leave for the Mediterranean on September 12-14, and the corvette Shtil and missile boat Ivanovets would approach Syria at the end of the month.

The Russian destroyer Nastoichivy, which is the flagship of the Baltic fleet, is also expected to join the group in the region.

Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov, who was unable to comment on specific reports, said on Thursday the Russian navy currently had a “pretty strong group” there.

“The Russian navy does not intend to take part directly or indirectly in a possible regional conflict,” he told the state Rossiya 24 broadcaster.

“Our navy vessels are a guarantee of stability, guarantee of peace, an attempt to hold back other forces ready to start military action in the region.”

Also reportedly in place in the eastern Mediterranean are the frigate Neustrashimy, as well as the landing ships Alexander Shabalin, the Admiral Nevelsky and the Peresvet.

They are expected to be joined by the guided-missile cruiser Moskva.

The Moskva, set to arrive in a little over a week’s time, will take over operations from a naval unit in the region.

“The plans of the naval unit under the command of Rear Admiral Valery Kulikov had to be changed a little. Instead of visiting a Cape Verde port, the cruiser Moskva is heading to the Strait of Gibraltar. In about ten days, it will enter the eastern Mediterranean, where it will replace the destroyer Admiral Panteleyev as the flagship of the operative junction of the Russian Navy,” a source told Interfax on Wednesday.

Panteleyev incidentally, only arrived in the east Mediterranean Sea on Wednesday after leaving the Far-Eastern port city of Vladivostok on March 19 to join the Russian standing naval force as its flagship.

The SSV-201 reconnaissance ship, Priazovye, is also reportedly on its way to join the group in the Eastern Mediterranean. Accompanied by the two landing ships, Minsk and Novocherkassk, the intelligence ship passed through the ‘Istanbul Strait’ on Thursday, which helps form the boundary between Europe and Asia.

France

On August 31, French military officials confirmed the frigate Chevalier Paul, which specializes in anti-missile capabilities, and the transport ship, Dixmude, were in the Mediterranean. French officials denied they are in the region to participate in military action against Syria, but were rather taking part in training and operation preparations.

Despite their presence in the region, France currently has no ship-based missiles, so any offensive action would come from the air in the form of long-range Scalp missiles, similar to those the nation used in Kosovo in 1999 and in Libya in 2011, Time reports.

Italy

Two Italian warships set sail for Lebanon on Wednesday in a bid to protect 1,100 Italian soldiers in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, Syria’s southeastern neighbor, Agence France Presse reported.

The Italian ANSA news agency reported that a frigate and a torpedo destroyer boat departed from Italy’s southeastern coast on Wednesday and would provide additional protection to the soldiers in the event the Syrian conflict further deteriorates.

UK

As of August 29, the Royal Navy’s Response Force Task Group was deployed in the Mediterranean as part of long-planned exercise Cougar 13. The force includes helicopter carrier HMS Illustrious, type-23 frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Montrose, amphibious warship HMS Bulwark and six Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships.
The Trafalgar-class nuclear submarine HMS Tireless was also believed to be in the area at the time, after it was detected in Gibraltar.

On the same day that British media started touting Britain’s “arsenal of military might” which would be available in the event of intervention, British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes. In light of the shocking parliamentary defeat, Foreign Secretary William Hague said the UK would only be able to offer the US “diplomatic support.”

The UK’s Conservative Chancellor, George Osborne, confirmed that the UK would not seek a further vote on action in Syria.

The real question now is will we strike Syria, and if so what will the response if any be. The pucker factor is pretty high.

Stg1swret

09-07-2013, 04:16 PM

More news:full story herehttp://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/high-level-u-s-intelligence-officers-syrian-government-didnt-launch-chemical-weapons.html

Numerous Intelligence Officials Question Administration’s Claims
Washington’s Blog
September 7, 2013
Preface: Without doubt, intelligence is being manipulated to justify war against Syria. Here, here,here, here and here.
Without doubt, the Syrian rebels had access to chemical weapons … and have apparently used them in the recent past.
Associated Press reported last week:
An intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.
So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that links between the attack and the Assad government are “undeniable,” U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad’s orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said.
***
Another possibility that officials would hope to rule out: that stocks had fallen out of the government’s control and were deployed by rebels in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war.
Reuters notes today:
With the United States threatening to attack Syria, U.S. and allied intelligence services are still trying to work out who ordered the poison gas attack on rebel-held neighborhoods near Damascus.
No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward.
Indeed, numerous intelligence officers say that the rebels likely carried out the August 21st attack.
For example, the Daily Caller reports:
The Obama administration has selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes on Syria, former military officers with access to the original intelligence reports say, in a manner that goes far beyond what critics charged the Bush administration of doing in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war.
According to these officers, who served in top positions in the United States, Britain, France, Israel, and Jordan, a Syrian military communication intercepted by Israel’s famed Unit 8200 electronic intelligence outfit has been doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.
***
The doctored report was picked up on Israel’s Channel 2 TV on Aug. 24, then by Focus magazine in Germany, the Times of Israel, and eventually by The Cable in Washington, DC.
According to the doctored report, the chemical attack was carried out by the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division of the Syrian Army, an elite unit commanded by Maher al-Assad, the president’s brother.
However, the original communication intercepted by Unit 8200 between a major in command of the rocket troops assigned to the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division, and the general staff, shows just the opposite.
The general staff officer asked the major if he was responsible for the chemical weapons attack. From the tone of the conversation, it was clear that “the Syrian general staff were out of their minds with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade in express defiance of their instructions,” the former officers say.
According to the transcript of the original Unit 8200 report, the major “hotly denied firing any of his missiles” and invited the general staff to come and verify that all his weapons were present.
The report contains a note at the end that the major was interrogated by Syrian intelligence for three days, then returned to command of his unit. “All of his weapons were accounted for,” the report stated.
***
An Egyptian intelligence report describes a meeting in Turkey between military intelligence officials from Turkey and Qatar and Syrian rebels. One of the participants states, “there will be a game changing event on August 21st” that will “bring the U.S. into a bombing campaign” against the Syrian regime.
The chemical weapons strike on Moudhamiya, an area under rebel control, took place on August 21. “Egyptian military intelligence insists it was a combined Turkish/Qatar/rebel false flag operation,” said a source familiar with the report.
[A "false flag" is a ploy for starting war which has been used by governments around the world for thousands of years.]
Agents provacateurs are as old as warfare itself. What better than a false flag attack, staged by al Qaeda and its al Nusra front allies in Syria, to drag the United States into a war?
And 12 very high-level former intelligence officials wrote the following memorandum to Obama today:
We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”
***
There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters — providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.
According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured.
We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no reliable physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in chemical weapons.
In addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major, irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and Qatari, Turkish and U.S. intelligence officials took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, now used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors.
Senior opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the regional commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development,” which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.
At operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior commanders of the Syrian opposition, the Syrians were told that the bombing would start in a few days. Opposition leaders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government
The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive. And they were. A weapons distribution operation unprecedented in scope began in all opposition camps on August 21-23. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by Qatari and Turkish intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S. intelligence officers.
This article was posted: Saturday, September 7, 2013 at 5:34 am

The Stig

09-15-2013, 11:52 AM

Original story HERE (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/14/securing-syrias-weapons-may-require-us-troops.html?comp=7000023317828&rank=1) at millitary.com

Securing Syria's Weapons May Require US Troops

Sep 14, 2013

Military.com| by Richard Sisk

The White House and the Pentagon have repeatedly ruled out "boots on the ground" in Syria, but Defense Department officials were less certain Thursday on whether U.S. military personnel might be sent to help secure or destroy Syria's chemical weapons.

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little gave a vague answer when asked if U.S. troops were prepared to assist should an international agreement allow Russia to take control of the tons of chemical weapons believed to be in the stockpiles of President Bashar al-Assad.

"I'm not going to speculate on who may or may not be participating in a process that may or may not take place," Little said. "We've got to see where the process goes" before the U.S. military considers involvement, he said.

The first steps in the process were taking place in Geneva, where Secretary of State John Kerry was meeting for a second day with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Moscow's proposal to have international teams take control of the chemical weapons.

Syria has tentatively agreed to the Russian initiative and also agreed to join the international ban on chemical and biological weapons.

Lavrov has urged the U.S. to speed the negotiations by dropping the threat to launch strikes on Syria, but Little said "the threat of military action is driving the process forward."

To back up the threat, the U.S. was keeping four destroyers off the Syrian coast and the Nimitz carrier strike group in the Red Sea, though some of the ships may be replaced if the negotiations are drawn out, Little said.

"We have a mix of assets that would be available" to back up the threat, Little said. He wouldn't comment on whether submarines were also in the Mediterranean to join with the surface ships in launching Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles. Little stressed that "we remain fully prepared to act" in the event that the talks with the Russians fail.

Any strike on Syria would also likely include B-52 bombers and possibly B-2 Spirit bombers firing cruise missiles from "stand-off" positions beyond the range of Syrian air defenses.

In a phone call Friday morning to British Defense Minister Philip Hammond, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel provided an "update on U.S. activities in the eastern Mediterranean" in response to the alleged Syrian chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 on the Damascus suburbs, Little said.

Little declined comment on whether Hammond and Hagel discussed the possible use by the U.S. of the British airbase at Akrotiri on Cyprus, which is about 160 miles from the Syrian coast.

Last Sunday, the British Ministry of Defense confirmed that Typhoon interceptors had scrambled from Akrotiri to confront Syrian fighters that had flown into international air space near Cyrpus.

In a statement, the Ministry of Defense said that "Typhoon Air Defense Aircraft operated from RAF (Royal Air Force) Akrotiri to investigate unidentified aircraft to the east of Cyprus; the aircraft were flying legally in international airspace and no intercept was required."

The Syrian planes were believed to have been two Russian-made Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircraft that were flying "low and fast," the Daily Mail newspaper reported.

Before the stunning Aug. 30 vote by the British parliament against the use of force in Syria, Britain had sent six Typhoons to Akrotiri.

"This is purely a prudent and precautionary measure to ensure the protection of UK interests and the defense of our Sovereign Base Areas at a time of heightened tension in the wider region. This is a movement of defensive assets operating in an air-to-air role only," an RAF spokesman said at the time.

At the White House Friday, President Obama discussed Syria with the visiting Amir of Kuwait, Sheikh Jaber al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah. Kuwait has been one of the Gulf states along with Qatar and Saudi Arabia that have been supplying the rebels in Syria with money and, allegedly, arms.

"Our two countries are in agreement that the use of chemical weapons that we saw in Syria was a criminal act," Obama said. "I shared with the Amir my hope that the negotiations that are currently taking place between Secretary of State Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov in Geneva bear fruit."

Obama said "any agreement needs to be verifiable and enforceable and we agreed that, ultimately, what's needed for the underlying conflict is a political settlement."

The Stig

09-15-2013, 12:03 PM

Original story HERE (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171883#.UjWhnT-2aTY) at Isrealnationnews.com

Report: Assad Scattering Chemical Weapons

Despite agreeing to part ways with his deadly arsenal, Wall Street Journal says the Assad regime is playing a game of hide and seek.

By Adam Ross
First Publish: 9/13/2013, 9:56 AM

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, Bashar Al-Assad has begun scattering his massive stockpile of chemical weapons to as many as 50 different sites across the country.

The US newspaper claimed in a report Friday that a secretive military unit at the center of the Syrian chemical weapons program had been charged with moving the lethal stockpile, making it difficult for the international community to track. The newspaper cited US and Europeans intelligence agencies as saying: "Unit 450 is in charge of mixing and deploying chemical munitions, and it provides security at chemical sites."

The move is in contrast to commitments made by Assad to hand over his chemical weapons in a Russian deal that would prevent a military strike on his regime. As recently as Friday morning, the UN announced that it had received a letter from the Syrian government asking to join the Chemical Weapons Convention, an international arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons.

The US threatened an attack on Syrian military installations following its accusation that Assad was behind a sarin gas attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta on August 21 the US says killed more than 1400 civilians.

The report in the Wall Street Journal quoted US officials as saying the recent move had led to increased doubts among intelligence agencies as to the locations of Syria's chemical weapons:

"We know a lot less than we did six months ago about where the chemical weapons are," one official was quoted as saying.

The report also suggested that any future US strike would need to be careful it did not destabilize unit 450 which it said had Syria's estimated 1000 tonnes of chemical weapons under tight security.

"If you attack them you may reduce the security of their weapons, which is something we certainly don't want," the report quoted Jeffrey White, a veteran of the Defense Intelligence Agency and a defense fellow at The Washington Institute.

The report also stated that although tracking the movement of the weapons was not always easy to do, when chemical munitions were deployed in the field, Unit 450 would need to pre-deploy heavy equipment to chemical mixing areas, which the US. and Israel were able to track.

As US-Russian talks to formulate a response to the crisis continue in Geneva, US Secretary of State John Kerry issued a warning to the Syrian President that a US strike was still possible.

From the "well, no shit Sherlock" files......

The Stig

09-16-2013, 12:28 AM

Original story HERE (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10311007/Syria-nearly-half-rebel-fighters-are-jihadists-or-hardline-Islamists-says-IHS-Janes-report.html) at the Telegraph

Syria: nearly half rebel fighters are jihadists or hardline Islamists, says IHS Jane's report

Nearly half the rebel fighters in Syria are now aligned to jihadist or hardline Islamist groups according to a new analysis of factions in the country's civil war.

By Ben Farmer, Defence Correspondent, and Ruth Sherlock in Beirut

7:17PM BST 15 Sep 2013

Opposition forces battling Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria now number around 100,000 fighters, but after more than two years of fighting they are fragmented into as many as 1,000 bands.

The new study by IHS Jane's, a defence consultancy, estimates there are around 10,000 jihadists - who would include foreign fighters - fighting for powerful factions linked to al-Qaeda..

Another 30,000 to 35,000 are hardline Islamists who share much of the outlook of the jihadists, but are focused purely on the Syrian war rather than a wider international struggle.

There are also at least a further 30,000 moderates belonging to groups that have an Islamic character, meaning only a small minority of the rebels are linked to secular or purely nationalist groups.

The stark assessment, to be published later this week, accords with the view of Western diplomats estimate that less than one third of the opposition forces are "palatable" to Britain, while American envoys put the figure even lower.
Related Articles

Fears that the rebellion against the Assad regime is being increasingly dominated by extremists has fuelled concerns in the West over supplying weaponry that will fall into hostile hands. These fears contributed to unease in the US and elsewhere over military intervention in Syria.

Charles Lister, author of the analysis, said: "The insurgency is now dominated by groups which have at least an Islamist viewpoint on the conflict. The idea that it is mostly secular groups leading the opposition is just not borne out."

The study is based on intelligence estimates and interviews with activists and militants. The lengthy fighting has seen the emergence of hundreds of separate rebel bands, each operating in small pockets of the country, which are usually loyal to larger factions.

Two factions linked to al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) - also know as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS) - have come to dominate among the more extremist fighters, Mr Lister said. Their influence has risen significantly in the past year.

"Because of the Islamist make up of such a large proportion of the opposition, the fear is that if the West doesn't play its cards right, it will end up pushing these people away from the people we are backing," he said. "If the West looks as though it is not interested in removing Assad, moderate Islamists are also likely to be pushed further towards extremists."

Though still a minority in number, ISIL has become more prominent in rebel-held parts of Syria in recent months. Members in northern Syria have sought to assert their dominance over the local population and over the more moderate rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The aim of moderate rebel fighters is the overthrow of their country's authoritarian dictator, but jihadist groups want to transform Syria into a hard-line Islamic state within a regional Islamic "caliphate".

These competing visions have caused rancour which last week erupted into fighting between ISIL and two of the larger moderate rebel factions.

A statement posted online by Islamists announced the launch of an ISIL military offensive in the eastern district of Aleppo which it called "Cleansing Evil". "We will target regime collaborators, shabiha [pro-Assad militias], and those who blatantly attacked the Islamic state," it added, naming the Farouq and Nasr factions.

Al-Qaeda has assassinated several FSA rebel commanders in northern Latakia province in recent weeks, and locals say they fear this is part of a jihadist campaign to gain complete control of the territory.

As well as being better armed and tougher fighters, ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusra have taken control of much of the income-generating resources in the north of the country, including oil, gas and grain.

This has given them significant economic clout, allowing them to "win hearts and minds" by providing food for the local population in a way that other rebel groups cannot.

ISIS has also begun a programme of "indoctrination" of civilians in rebel-held areas, trying to educate Syria's traditionally moderate Sunni Muslims into a more hard-line interpretation of Islam.

In early September, the group distributed black backpacks with the words "Islamic State of Iraq" stamped on them. They also now control schools in Aleppo where young boys are reportedly taught to sing jihadist anthems.

"It seems it is some sort of a long-term plan to brainwash the children and recruit potential fighters," said Elie Wehbe, a Lebanese journalists who is conducting research into these activities.

From the "well no shit" files......