Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by JackRiddler » Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:08 pm
smiths » Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:51 pm wrote:if Syria doesnyt get attacked, and Cameron and Obama come out of it all neutered and humiliated, there's 1 person who deserves a lot of the credit ...
Edward Snowden
because if the UK MPs had taken that vote in May it would have gone the other way
Matthew Alford on Facebook wrote:
Iain Duncan Smith MP (parody account) (@IDS_MP):
"Feeling sad this morning. A lot of people are going to die because we couldn't kill them."
by justdrew » Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:28 pm
Hundreds fill New York’s Times Square to protest attack against Syria
By Agence France-Presse | Thursday, August 29, 2013 20:29 EDT
A Free Syrian Army fighter holds a position next to destroyed buses in Aleppo on May 9, 2013.
Hundreds of people protested at New York’s Times Square on Thursday over possible US plans to strike Syria’s regime which it believes to be behind a deadly chemical attack.
Supporters of Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad, backers of the opposition who want a US intervention, and Americans who say they can’t stomach another war all took to the iconic Manhattan Square.
“US, NATO, hands off Syria,” chanted hundreds of protesters, weaving through thousands of tourists, some carrying pictures of Assad, and some just declaring themselves against another US war.
Khaldon Makhoul, 43, a physician who moved from Syria to America 17 years ago, held a sign reading: “Syria=Iraq. Same Lies.”
“It is another lie and a lot of people are gonna die for nothing,” he told AFP. “Where is the chemical weapons? Until now we didn’t find it. US soldiers will die for nothing. Where is the evidence?”
Others, Syrians of Christian origin, carrying the country’s red-black-white flag, defended Assad and wrote off the accusations he was behind a deadly chemical attack last week as utter lies.
Retired school teacher Robert Shainwald said he was against any US involvement.
“I do not want this nation to become involved in yet another war. People always lose, no matter what side. Enough is enough. We should just stay the hell out.”
Away from the protesters, as tourists posed with Disney characters under the glare of massive screens, Jose Martinez, dressed as Spiderman, gave his view.
“I believe this is stupid. People killing people for no reason. The US is supposed to go (ahead with the strike). Just go, don’t even think about it. People are dying there, they don’t have the power to stop it.”
One street down a handful of backers of the Syrian opposition carried the black and green flag chanting: “Assad is a terrorist. Assad is Hitler.”
Occasionally as the other protesters walked past they traded angry insults, with police stationed watchfully between them.
Nezar Yabroudi, a driver originally from Damascus held up a sign carrying images of hundreds of dead children from the chemical attack.
“Mr President do you need more proof?” it read.
“People are dying everyday. How many massacres we have to wait, how many red lines?” Yabroudi told AFP referring to President Barack Obama’s promise last year that the use of chemical weapons would be a “red line.”
UN orders its inspectors out of Syria over fears of U.S. air strike
By Agence France-Presse | Thursday, August 29, 2013 18:05 EDT
UN weapons inspectors have been ordered to leave Syria early amid mounting anticipation of US-led military strikes.
As the five permanent members of the security council held a second emergency meeting on Syria in two days on Thursday evening, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, 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, with the analysis of samples a painstaking task. 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.
In Washington US intelligence officials were on Thursday seeking to persuade congressman of the evidence that the Syrian government was responsible for chemical weapons attacks, as the Obama administration resisted comparisons with the run-up to the Iraq war.
Congressmen, currently in recess, are due to participate in “unclassified briefing” via telephone conference.
Downing Street had suggested it received US assurances that the White House was willing to wait until Tuesday to give the House of Commons time for a second debate on British involvement in air strikes, but Whitehall sources have acknowledged it is possible the US could go ahead with an attack on Syria without Britain, possibly with France, where the president, François Hollande – another proponent of punitive action – is not constrained by a parliamentary system.
Josh Earnest, the White House’s deputy spokesman, asked about the possibility of “going it alone” at the daily briefing, repeatedly said it was in US “core national security interests” to enforce international chemical weapons norms. Earnest also provided the first formal confirmation of the kind of military offensive being considered. “What we’re taking about here is something that is discreet and limited.”
US officials told their British counterparts they understood the demands of the UK parliamentary system, and set great store in the transatlantic “special relationship” but that other considerations including core American national interests could take precedence when Barack Obama made a final decision how to act.
It is understood that one of the factors involved in the discussions within the Obama administration was the need to uphold US credibility, particularly in anticipation of a looming confrontation with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.
The president appeared to hint at such considerations in a PBS television interview on Wednesday. “If we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying: ‘Stop doing this,’ this can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term,” he said.
Obama said he not made a final decision on air strikes but added: “We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out.”
Most observers said that US air strikes were still likely, even without UK participation, probably in the form of cruise missiles launched from American ships in the Mediterranean. But the parliamentary revolt in the UK and tepid support for military action in the US, provoked the first real doubts for several days that the Obama administration would carry out its threats.
“If the administration can’t even count on 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,” said Ken Pollack, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution thinktank.
Meanwhile, US and British government attempts to rally support for military action were damaged by the publication of an Associated Press report quoting unnamed US intelligence officials as describing the case against the Assad regime as no “slam-dunk”, adding that uncertainty remained over real control over Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles.
The basketball term slam-dunk, reflecting certainty of outcome, has haunting overtones in Washington as it was attributed to the then CIA director George Tenet in describing the intelligence case in the runup to the 2003 Iraq invasion for Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction. The AP report conflicts with the assertion by the UK joint intelligence committee on Thursday that “it is not possible for the opposition to have carried out a CW [chemical weapons] attack on this scale”.
The report quoted “multiple US officials” as pointing towards gaps in the US intelligence picture, in strong contrast to the certainty expressed by American leaders, including Barack Obama, and said the US intelligence evidence against Syria was “thick with caveats”. “It builds a case that Assad’s forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the US intelligence picture,” AP reported.
Thursday night’s second meeting of the permanent five security council members – the US, UK, France, Russia and China – was called by Russia, which is adamantly opposed to military intervention. An initial discussion of a British resolution calling for a UN mandate for armed action foundered on Wednesday in the face of Russian opposition.
In was not clear whether the Russians intended to bring new proposals to the table. The call for a meeting followed a telephone conversation between Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin, in which the German chancellor called on the Russian leader to seek a consensus alternative at the UN to military action.
“The chancellor called on the Russian president to use negotiations in the UN security council for a quick, unanimous international reaction,” a German government statement said after the call.
The accelerated departure of the UN weapons inspectors was reminiscent of similar hasty exit from Iraq more than a decade ago, after receiving a tip-off from western intelligence agencies that US air strikes against Saddam Hussein’s regime were imminent.
The inspectors, who have spent three days in the eastern Damascus suburbs where the 21 August mass killing of civilians took place, had so far sent none of the samples they had collected out of the country for tests, but would be carrying the samples with them when they left. Laboratory work would only begin once they had left Syria.
It is possible however Ban will ask for an interim report that could provide circumstantial evidence such as witness testimonies and the identification of the weapons and delivery systems used in the attack. That could provide part of what the UN has described as an “evidence-based narrative”, from which member states could draw their own inferences. It is not clear whether the head of the inspection mission, Åke Sellström, would agree to such a partial report under intense pressure from the secretary general and some security council members.
by seemslikeadream » Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:49 pm
Who Blocked Syrian Peace Talks?
August 30, 2013
Exclusive: Though the international press reported earlier this year that it was the Syrian opposition blocking peace talks, that reality has disappeared in recent U.S. articles which blame lack of negotiations on President Bashar al-Assad, all the better to build a propaganda framework for a wider war, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
Painful experiences of recent years should have taught the American people the danger that comes when the government and the mainstream press adopt a pleasing but false narrative, altering the facts to support a “good guy v. bad guy” scenario, such as is now being done regarding the history of Syrian peace talks.
The preferred narrative now is that American military force against Syria is needed not only to punish President Bashar al-Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons but to compel his participation in peace talks aimed at ending the civil war. That is a storyline that has slipped into U.S. “news” articles in recent days.
Syrian opposition leader Ahmad al-Jarba.
For instance, on Friday, the New York Times’ Michael Gordon stripped out the actual history of why the opposing sides of the Syrian civil war have not come together for planned meetings in Geneva. Instead, Gordon placed the blame on Assad and on obstacles partly the fault of the Russians, leaving out the fact that it was the U.S.-supported Syrian opposition that has repeatedly torpedoed the talks.
Gordon wrote: “State Department officials initially said the peace conference might occur before the end of May, but plans became bogged down in differences between the United States and Russia, and the conference has yet to be held.
“And the Obama administration [regarding its expected missile strike against Syrian government positions] did not articulate a comprehensive military strategy that would — in concert with allies — be certain to weaken the Assad government to the point that it would be willing to cede power and negotiate.”
So, you are supposed to believe that “our” side – the brave “opposition” in league with the U.S. State Department – is ever so reasonable, wanting peace and eager to negotiate, but that “their” side – both the evil Assad and his troublemaking Russian allies – is unwilling to take difficult steps for peace.
Except that this storyline from Gordon and other mainstream journalists isn’t accurate. Indeed, from May to July. the U.S. news media, including the New York Times, reported a different scenario: that Assad had agreed to participate in the Geneva peace talks but that the opposition was refusing to attend.
On July 31, for example, Ben Hubbard of the New York Times reported that “the new conditions, made by the president of the opposition Syrian National Coalition, Ahmad al-Jarba, … reflected a significant hardening of his position. He said that the opposition would not negotiate with President Bashar al-Assad or ‘his clique’ and that talks could begin only when the military situation in Syria was positive for rebel forces.”
The opposition has spelled out other preconditions, including the need for the United States to supply the rebels with more sophisticated weapons and a demand that Assad’s Lebanese Hezbollah allies withdraw from Syria. The most recent excuse for the rebels not going to Geneva is the dispute over Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons.
Yet, even if Gordon and other mainstream journalists sympathize with the opposition’s reasons for staying away from the peace talks, reporters shouldn’t alter the narrative to shape U.S. public opinion. That is a case of journalistic malfeasance reminiscent of the way the Times and other news outlets manufactured a case for war with Iraq in 2002-2003.
Indeed, Gordon played a key role in that propaganda effort as well, coauthoring with Judith Miller the infamous Times article on Sept. 8, 2002, touting the false claim that Iraq was purchasing aluminum tubes for use in building nuclear weapons, the story that gave rise to the memorable refrain from President George W. Bush and his aides that they couldn’t let “the smoking gun” be “a mushroom cloud.”
Though Miller eventually was forced to resign from the Times – after her level of collaboration with the Bush administration’s neocons was exposed – Gordon escaped any serious accountability, remaining the newspaper’s chief military correspondent.
But Gordon is far from alone these days in spinning a more pleasing black-and-white narrative about Syria. It apparently seems to many mainstream U.S. journalists that it’s nicer to portray “our” side as favoring peace and going the extra mile to negotiate a cease-fire and “their” side as intransigent and eager for more bloodshed.
And, if the facts don’t support that scenario, you just leave out some and make up others.
by barracuda » Sat Aug 31, 2013 12:05 am
by Brentos » Sat Aug 31, 2013 12:30 am
by smiths » Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:29 am
In 1949 a "Political Action Team" was set up that went and made friends with the head of the Syrian army, Husni al-Za'im ...
"The political action team suggested to Za'im the idea of a coup d'etat, advised him how to go about it, guided him through the intricate preparations in laying the groundwork for it...Za'im was 'the American boy'. "
And Za'im promised the Americans he would throw all the corrupt politicians in jail, reform the country, recognise the new state of Israel, and then bring in proper democracy. All the Americans were convinced that it was a brilliant plan - except for one man, a young political officer called Deane Hinton. Copeland describes a moment when they were out in Damascus planning the coup when Hinton turned to the rest of the group and said:
"I want to go on record as saying that this is the stupidest, most irresponsible action a diplomatic mission like ours could get itself involved in, and that we've started a series of these things that will never end."
Deane was promptly kicked out of the group and ostracised. The coup happened in March 1949.
It was the first post-war military coup in the Middle East. It was a great success and the American celebrated "opening the door to Peace and Progress"
But then Za'im immediately went back on all his promises and turned into a violent tyrant. He got so bad that five months later a group of his subordinates surrounded his house and shot him to bits. And then they mounted another violent coup, this time with no promises. As Copeland noted - Hinton had been right. The Americans had started something - they had "opened the door to the Dark Ages" in Syria.
As a result Syria was torn apart by miltary coups throughout the early 1950s. Then in 1954 the parliamentary system was restored. The politicians - and most of the Syrian people - were now terrified of America, not just because of the interventions and the coup, but also because of their support for Israel. In response the new government turned to the Soviet Union for economic aid and friendship.
by bluenoseclaret » Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:00 pm
Iran is ever more deeply involved in protecting the Syrian government. Thus a victory for Bashar is a victory for Iran. And Iranian victories cannot be tolerated by the West
Before the stupidest Western war in the history of the modern world begins – I am, of course, referring to the attack on Syria that we all yet have to swallow – it might be as well to say that the cruise missiles which we confidently expect to sweep onto one of mankind’s oldest cities have absolutely nothing to do with Syria.
They are intended to harm Iran. They are intended to strike at the Islamic republic now that it has a new and vibrant president – as opposed to the crackpot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – and when it just might be a little more stable.
Iran is Israel’s enemy. Iran is therefore, naturally, America’s enemy. So fire the missiles at Iran’s only Arab ally.
There is nothing pleasant about the regime in Damascus. Nor do these comments let the regime off the hook when it comes to mass gassing. But I am old enough to remember that when Iraq – then America’s ally – used gas against the Kurds of Hallabjah in 1988, we did not assault Baghdad. Indeed, that attack would have to wait until 2003, when Saddam no longer had any gas or any of the other weapons we had nightmares over.
And I also happen to remember that the CIA put it about in 1988 that Iran was responsible for the Hallabjah gassings, a palpable lie that focused on America’s enemy whom Saddam was then fighting on our behalf. And thousands – not hundreds – died in Hallabjah. But there you go. Different days, different standards.
And I suppose it’s worth noting that when Israel killed up to 17,000 men, women and children in Lebanon in 1982, in an invasion supposedly provoked by the attempted PLO murder of the Israeli ambassador in London – it was Saddam’s mate Abu Nidal who arranged the killing, not the PLO, but that doesn’t matter now – America merely called for both sides to exercise “restraint”. And when, a few months before that invasion, Hafez al-Assad – father of Bashar – sent his brother up to Hama to wipe out thousands of Muslim Brotherhood rebels, nobody muttered a word of condemnation. “Hama Rules” is how my old mate Tom Friedman cynically styled this bloodbath.
Anyway, there’s a different Brotherhood around these days – and Obama couldn’t even bring himself to say “boo” when their elected president got deposed.
But hold on. Didn’t Iraq – when it was “our” ally against Iran – also use gas on the Iranian army? It did. I saw the Ypres-like wounded of this foul attack by Saddam – US officers, I should add, toured the battlefield later and reported back to Washington – and we didn’t care a tinker’s curse about it. Thousands of Iranian soldiers in the 1980-88 war were poisoned to death by this vile weapon.
I travelled back to Tehran overnight on a train of military wounded and actually smelled the stuff, opening the windows in the corridors to release the stench of the gas. These young men had wounds upon wounds – quite literally. They had horrible sores wherein floated even more painful sores that were close to indescribable. Yet when the soldiers were sent to Western hospitals for treatment, we journos called these wounded – after evidence from the UN infinitely more convincing than what we’re likely to get from outside Damascus – “alleged” gas victims.
So what in heaven’s name are we doing? After countless thousands have died in Syria’s awesome tragedy, suddenly – now, after months and years of prevarication – we are getting upset about a few hundred deaths. Terrible. Unconscionable. Yes, that is true. But we should have been traumatised into action by this war in 2011. And 2012. But why now?
I suspect I know the reason. I think that Bashar al-Assad’s ruthless army might just be winning against the rebels whom we secretly arm. With the assistance of the Lebanese Hezbollah – Iran’s ally in Lebanon – the Damascus regime broke the rebels in Qusayr and may be in the process of breaking them north of Homs. Iran is ever more deeply involved in protecting the Syrian government. Thus a victory for Bashar is a victory for Iran. And Iranian victories cannot be tolerated by the West.
And while we’re on the subject of war, what happened to those magnificent Palestinian-Israeli negotiations that John Kerry was boasting about? While we express our anguish at the hideous gassings in Syria, the land of Palestine continues to be gobbled up. Israel’s Likudist policy – to negotiate for peace until there is no Palestine left – continues apace, which is why King Abdullah of Jordan’s nightmare (a much more potent one than the “weapons of mass destruction” we dreamed up in 2003) grows larger: that “Palestine” will be in Jordan, not in Palestine.
But if we are to believe the nonsense coming out of Washington, London, Paris and the rest of the “civilised” world, it’s only a matter of time before our swift and avenging sword smiteth the Damascenes. To observe the leadership of the rest of the Arab world applauding this destruction is perhaps the most painful historical experience for the region to endure. And the most shameful. Save for the fact that we will be attacking Shia Muslims and their allies to the handclapping of Sunni Muslims. And that’s what civil war is made of.
by seemslikeadream » Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:06 pm
, Gerasa News and elsewhere.Syrians in Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack
by Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh, August 31, 2013
Print This | Share This
Dale Gavlak assisted in the research and writing process of this article, but was not on the ground in Syria. Reporter Yahya Ababneh, whom the report was written in collaboration with, was the correspondent on the ground in Ghouta who spoke directly with the rebels, their family members, victims of the chemical weapons attacks and local residents.
Gavlak is a MintPress News Middle East correspondent who has been freelancing for the AP as a Amman, Jordan correspondent for nearly a decade. This exclusive report is not an Associated Press article, rather it is exclusive to MintPress News.
Ghouta, Syria – As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.
Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.
The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was “a judgment … already clear to the world.”
However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.
“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.
“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”
“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.
A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.
“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.
Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.
The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.
More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.
Saudi involvement
In a recent article for Business Insider, reporter Geoffrey Ingersoll highlighted Saudi Prince Bandar’s role in the two-and-a-half year Syrian civil war. Many observers believe Bandar, with his close ties to Washington, has been at the very heart of the push for war by the U.S. against Assad.
Ingersoll referred to an article in the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks alleging that Bandar offered Russian President Vladimir Putin cheap oil in exchange for dumping Assad.
“Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” Ingersoll wrote.
“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Bandar allegedly told the Russians.
“Along with Saudi officials, the U.S. allegedly gave the Saudi intelligence chief the thumbs up to conduct these talks with Russia, which comes as no surprise,” Ingersoll wrote.
“Bandar is American-educated, both military and collegiate, served as a highly influential Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., and the CIA totally loves this guy,” he added.
According to U.K.’s Independent newspaper, it was Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency that first brought allegations of the use of sarin gas by the regime to the attention of Western allies in February.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the CIA realized Saudi Arabia was “serious” about toppling Assad when the Saudi king named Prince Bandar to lead the effort.
“They believed that Prince Bandar, a veteran of the diplomatic intrigues of Washington and the Arab world, could deliver what the CIA couldn't: planeloads of money and arms, and, as one U.S. diplomat put it, wasta, Arabic for under-the-table clout,” it said.
Bandar has been advancing Saudi Arabia’s top foreign policy goal, WSJ reported, of defeating Assad and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies.
To that aim, Bandar worked Washington to back a program to arm and train rebels out of a planned military base in Jordan.
The newspaper reports that he met with the “uneasy Jordanians about such a base”:
"His meetings in Amman with Jordan's King Abdullah sometimes ran to eight hours in a single sitting. "The king would joke: 'Oh, Bandar's coming again? Let's clear two days for the meeting,' " said a person familiar with the meetings."
Jordan's financial dependence on Saudi Arabia may have given the Saudis strong leverage. An operations center in Jordan started going online in the summer of 2012, including an airstrip and warehouses for arms. Saudi-procured AK-47s and ammunition arrived, WSJ reported, citing Arab officials.
Although Saudi Arabia has officially maintained that it supported more moderate rebels, the newspaper reported that “funds and arms were being funneled to radicals on the side, simply to counter the influence of rival Islamists backed by Qatar.”
But rebels interviewed said Prince Bandar is referred to as “al-Habib” or ‘the lover’ by al-Qaida militants fighting in Syria.
Peter Oborne, writing in the Daily Telegraph on Thursday, has issued a word of caution about Washington’s rush to punish the Assad regime with so-called ‘limited’ strikes not meant to overthrow the Syrian leader but diminish his capacity to use chemical weapons:
"Consider this: the only beneficiaries from the atrocity were the rebels, previously losing the war, who now have Britain and America ready to intervene on their side. While there seems to be little doubt that chemical weapons were used, there is doubt about who deployed them.
"It is important to remember that Assad has been accused of using poison gas against civilians before. But on that occasion, Carla del Ponte, a U.N. commissioner on Syria, concluded that the rebels, not Assad, were probably responsible."
Some information in this article could not be independently verified. Mint Press News will continue to provide further information and updates .
Dale Gavlak is a Middle East correspondent for Mint Press News and has reported from Amman, Jordan, writing for the Associated Press, NPR and BBC. An expert in Middle Eastern affairs, Gavlak covers the Levant region, writing on topics including politics, social issues and economic trends. Dale holds a M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Chicago. Contact Dale at dgavlak@mintpressnews.com
Yahya Ababneh is a Jordanian freelance journalist and is currently working on a master's degree in journalism, He has covered events in Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Libya. His stories have appeared on Amman Net, Saraya News
by seemslikeadream » Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:53 pm
by parel » Sat Aug 31, 2013 10:28 pm
by Ben D » Sat Aug 31, 2013 11:00 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/president-pulls-lawmakers-into-box-he-made.html?_r=0
President Pulls Lawmakers Into Box He Made
By MARK LANDLER Published: August 31, 2013
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s aides were stunned at what their boss had to say when he summoned them to the Oval Office on Friday at 7 p.m., on the eve of what they believed could be a weekend when American missiles streaked again across the Middle East.
In a two-hour meeting of passionate, sharp debate in the Oval Office, he told them that after a frantic week in which he seemed to be rushing toward a military attack on Syria, he wanted to pull back and seek Congressional approval first.
He had several reasons, he told them, including a sense of isolation after the terrible setback in the British Parliament. But the most compelling one may have been that acting alone would undercut him if in the next three years he needed Congressional authority for his next military confrontation in the Middle East, perhaps with Iran.
If he made the decision to strike Syria without Congress now, he said, would he get Congress when he really needed it?
“He can’t make these decisions divorced from the American public and from Congress,” said a senior aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations. “Who knows what we’re going to face in the next three and a half years in the Middle East?”
The Oval Office meeting ended one of the strangest weeks of the Obama White House, in which a president who had drawn a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons, and watched Syrian military forces breach it with horrific consequences, found himself compelled to act by his own statements. But Mr. Obama, who has been reluctant for the past two years to get entangled in Syria, had qualms from the start.
Even as he steeled himself for an attack this past week, two advisers said, he nurtured doubts about the political and legal justification for action, given that the United Nations Security Council had refused to bless a military strike that he had not put before Congress. A drumbeat of lawmakers demanding a vote added to the sense that he could be out on a limb.
“I know well we are weary of war,” Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden on Saturday. “We’ve ended one war in Iraq. We’re ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military.”
by justdrew » Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:11 am
And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military.
- Obama
by Nordic » Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:39 am
justdrew » Sat Aug 31, 2013 11:11 pm wrote:And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military.
- Obama
ok, I take it all back, well played big O. Now consolidate and pivot
by justdrew » Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:42 am
Nordic » 31 Aug 2013 22:39 wrote:justdrew » Sat Aug 31, 2013 11:11 pm wrote:And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military.
- Obama
ok, I take it all back, well played big O. Now consolidate and pivot
You're joking, right?
by Ben D » Sun Sep 01, 2013 6:01 am
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/01/us-syria-crisis-france-idUSBRE98002W20130901
France will not act alone in Syria, PM to meet parliament heads
PARIS | Sun Sep 1, 2013 4:46am EDT
(Reuters) - French Interior Minister Manuel Valls said on Sunday France would not act alone in Syria but would await a decision by the U.S. Congress on whether to launch an attack against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
"France cannot go it alone," Valls told Europe 1 radio. "We need a coalition.",
France's prime minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, is scheduled to meet with the heads of the two houses of parliament and the opposition on Monday to discuss the Syrian situation ahead of a parliamentary debate on Wednesday.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 161 guests
