LONDON (Reuters) - Israeli forces attacked a convoy on the Syrian-Lebanese border overnight, a Western diplomat and regional security sources said on Wednesday, as concern has grown in the Jewish state over the fate of Syrian chemical and advanced conventional weapons.
The sources, four in total, all of whom declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, had no further information about what the vehicles may have been carrying, what forces were used or where precisely the attack happened.
In the run-up to the raid, Israeli officials have been warning very publicly of a threat of high-tech anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles reaching Israel's enemies in the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah from Syria. They have also echoed U.S. concerns about Syria's presumed chemical weapons arsenal.
The Lebanese army reported a heavy presence of Israeli jets over its territory throughout the night.
"There was definitely a hit in the border area," one security source said. A Western diplomat in the region who asked about the strike said "something has happened", without elaborating.
An activist in Syria who works with a network of opposition groups around the country said that she had heard of a strike in southern Syria from her colleagues but could not confirm it. A strike just inside Lebanon would appear a less diplomatically explosive option for Israel to avoid provoking Syrian ally Iran.
Israeli Vice Premier Silvan Shalom said on Sunday that any sign that Syria's grip on its chemical weapons was slipping, as President Bashar al-Assad fights rebels trying to overthrow him, could trigger Israeli intervention.
well i guess its not long before israels little bitch boy country gets involved now...if i were a cartoonist i would draw bubba (israel) in stripes looking at mikey (us) also in stripes in such a way that says okay im getting that feeling boy its time...but im not a cartoonist so
israel went on offense and now they are going to ask us to protect them in case assad turns his weapons towards them. israel did not have to intervene. they chose to get involved, let them fight their own battles.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
israel went on offense and now they are going to ask us to protect them in case assad turns his weapons towards them. israel did not have to intervene. they chose to get involved, let them fight their own battles.
if theres one country that doesnt need protection, its israel. theyre armed to the teeth and are nuclear capable. unfortunately the irony is using those nuclear weapons may be the end of them as well. and i dont mean by retaliation... radiation travels and syria is way too close.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
israel went on offense and now they are going to ask us to protect them in case assad turns his weapons towards them. israel did not have to intervene. they chose to get involved, let them fight their own battles.
if theres one country that doesnt need protection, its israel. theyre armed to the teeth and are nuclear capable. unfortunately the irony is using those nuclear weapons may be the end of them as well. and i dont mean by retaliation... radiation travels and syria is way too close.
they would nuke iran before they nuke syria.
israel has the best air force in the region. they would most likely not even need ground forces to defeat iran.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
israel went on offense and now they are going to ask us to protect them in case assad turns his weapons towards them. israel did not have to intervene. they chose to get involved, let them fight their own battles.
if theres one country that doesnt need protection, its israel. theyre armed to the teeth and are nuclear capable. unfortunately the irony is using those nuclear weapons may be the end of them as well. and i dont mean by retaliation... radiation travels and syria is way too close.
they would nuke iran before they nuke syria.
israel has the best air force in the region. they would most likely not even need ground forces to defeat iran.
aah yes i forgot about the great persian devil.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I think that some sort of peace keeping mission preventing the government from massacring it's own people is a much more just cause than the two wars we currently find ourselves in, but that's just me.
Peace keeping mission in Syria??
Will you sign up to go do that? Thats more dangerous than war there!
Theres no time like the present
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
White House says Syrian regime has used chemical weapons
White House officials confirmed Thursday that intelligence officials believe the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons during its current civil war.
"Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin," Caitlin Hayden, National Security Council spokesperson wrote in an email to journalists following comments made by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel revealing the assessment.
The use of chemical weapons has been a hot-button point following President Barack Obama's declaration that the use of chemical weapons would be a "game changer" that could potentially trigger U.S. intervention.
I hope we don't send a whole army there now. This will be Obama's Iraq War if we do so.
It's not our war. We can aid them, but let's not make it our war.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Syria is a complete mess. If we wanted Assad out, we would've been there already. Dnt have to look that far back to see what happened in Libya. Chemical weapons being used by syria, I keep forgetting ONLY Israel and America are allowed to use them. IN NO WAY IM CONDONING USING THESE WEAPONS, but the hypocrisy is fucken a joke. Been there many times, country was an absolute gem until this shit happened. Can't wait to one day go back and visit. So sad..... :evil:
israel has been begging to get involved in this conflict. i say let them take care of it. if they want to intervene, why do we have to? they have one of the baddest air forces in the world. they don't need our help.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
In his press conference on Tuesday, President Obama acknowledged that Bashar al-Assad's forces deployed chemical weapons and said he would "have to rethink the range of options" to deal with the deteriorating situation in Syria. Later in the day, administration officials confirmed that "lethal weaponry" would be sent to the Syrian opposition, but it remains unclear what this entails.
One fear the Obama administration has had about arming Syria's rebels is that the arms might eventually be trafficked elsewhere. But throughout the ongoing debate, one option has remained largely overlooked: providing "smart gun" modified-Stinger missiles that would arm the rebels while minimizing the risks of those weapons being used to target us in the future. Effective safety mechanisms would prevent the missiles from falling into the wrong hands while boosting the moderates within the opposition and hastening the end of Assad's reign.
The U.S. is currently providing the resistance with non-lethal aid, such as body armor and night-vision goggles. While certainly useful, there is a growing consensus, reflected in the recent remarks by administration officials, that supplying lethal assistance will be necessary to shift the balance in favor of the opposition. The obvious problem with providing traditional weaponry to the resistance is that those same weapons could be pointed at us down the line. This is a reasonable fear, based on our own experience in Afghanistan.
Thirty years ago, the CIA armed the Afghan mujahedeen with Stinger missiles to target Soviet planes and helicopters after the 1979 invasion. While the mission is widely credited with helping to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan -- and hastening the fall of the Kremlin -- the U.S. has had to worry for decades about unaccounted for Stingers that could be used to target civilian airliners or U.S. military personnel. With the presence of a number of extremist elements within the Syrian resistance, particularly the Al-Nusra Front aligned with Al Qaeda, we will have to live with the possibility that our weapons end up in the wrong hands even after taking the best precautions in selecting which rebels to arm.
To ensure that the rebels can attack the Syrian Air Force now without being able to use the weapons later against U.S. forces, we should focus on creative ways of limiting how and when the weapons are utilized. As with "smart gun" technology in the domestic market, safeguards can be placed on Stinger missiles to restrict their use and vastly minimize the collateral damage of arming the rebels. In effect, this technology would ensure that any weapon we give the resistance would be ineffective in the wrong hands. Anthony Cordesman, a former Defense Department official, has outlined a variety of potential options, including GPS-based limitations that would only allow the missile to be fired in Syria, installing batteries with expiring lifespans on the missile, or requiring a launch code that could be regularly changed.
These modified-Stinger missiles could be used to target the Syrian Air Force and remove the military's largest advantage over the rebels. Assad's military has ruthlessly used jets to target civilian populations and rebel groups. Human Rights Watch has criticized Syria for utilizing "imprecise and inherently indiscriminate" bombs, such as cluster bombs, and hitting civilian targets, including hospitals. In fact, throughout the rebellion, the Syrian resistance has tried to conduct costly ground assaults on air bases because of the importance of air power to Assad's military. Without the ability to meaningfully confront Syrian air power, the resistance is left with little hope.
Skeptics will point to the prospect of enemies of the U.S. bypassing the technological safeguards. While this is always possible, technological mishaps are a concern with all weapons and not exclusive to this context. Moreover, even if the safeguards can be circumvented, it is unlikely that battle-hardened Islamists will have the technological capacity to re-activate the weapons. These weapons reaching the black market also shouldn't be a major concern, as the likelihood of failure will complicate the terrorists' ability to barter the weapons in an international trade. While there is no way to ensure with full confidence that the weapons will never be used against us, incorporating safeguard technology is most definitely an improvement over the status quo: handing over traditional weaponry.
Safeguard technologies will not eliminate the risks of the Stingers falling into the wrong hands but they will tilt the scales in favor of the rebels while making the risks far more manageable. By delivering a stronger tool to the moderate forces within the resistance, the armament program would help to bolster their position in the resistance and thereby increase U.S. influence in a post-Assad Syria. As Dennis Ross has noted, the Islamist groups have proven themselves in Syria because they have had weapons supplied to them from outside forces. And as we've seen elsewhere, the best-armed elements generally dominate once the regime falls. To bolster the position of the moderates, we need to ensure that they are receiving arms that allow them to take on a meaningful role in the conflict.
Certainly, there are no perfect options in Syria. But taking advantage of innovative technologies might be one of the best paths available to us.
The rebels are backed by al Qaeda. Are they now our allies?
Weren't they our allies before they were our enemies? :think:
I feel for the Syrians but I agree with you that this is not our war (again) and we should not go into Syria but if we must, and it is starting to look like we are, then let Congress make that determination.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
Here are the people calling for war in Syria: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013 ... -in-syria/
...
Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John McCain of Arizona, Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan Republican are the people you need to write to because they are the ones calling for U.S. invlovement in Syria.
But, they say, "We don't want 'Boots on the ground'". They want 'International Troops' to do our bidding. How is that going to work?
...
Also, providing arms to the rebels.. the rebels are al Qaeda!!! so, is the rebels win, a state run by al Qaeda emerges. Are these Representatives crazy or assholes or just playing politics in order to use our military... again?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Here are the people calling for war in Syria: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013 ... -in-syria/
...
Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John McCain of Arizona, Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan Republican are the people you need to write to because they are the ones calling for U.S. invlovement in Syria.
But, they say, "We don't want 'Boots on the ground'". They want 'International Troops' to do our bidding. How is that going to work?
...
Also, providing arms to the rebels.. the rebels are al Qaeda!!! so, is the rebels win, a state run by al Qaeda emerges. Are these Representatives crazy or assholes or just playing politics in order to use our military... again?
these are the same guys who want to cut budgets and deficits.
how do they propose we go about paying for this little involvement??
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I'll be honest, I haven't really paid much attention to Syria and obviously I should have. However, this brief piece on NPR was interesting and really made me sit up and take notice.
In his press conference on Tuesday, President Obama acknowledged that Bashar al-Assad's forces deployed chemical weapons and said he would "have to rethink the range of options" to deal with the deteriorating situation in Syria. Later in the day, administration officials confirmed that "lethal weaponry" would be sent to the Syrian opposition, but it remains unclear what this entails.
Check out my article below and then see how much you trust the way this ^^^ paragraph is phrased, esp the highlighted line....
One fear the Obama administration has had about arming Syria's rebels is that the arms might eventually be trafficked elsewhere. But throughout the ongoing debate, one option has remained largely overlooked: providing "smart gun" modified-Stinger missiles that would arm the rebels while minimizing the risks of those weapons being used to target us in the future. Effective safety mechanisms would prevent the missiles from falling into the wrong hands while boosting the moderates within the opposition and hastening the end of Assad's reign.
The U.S. is currently providing the resistance with non-lethal aid, such as body armor and night-vision goggles. While certainly useful, there is a growing consensus, reflected in the recent remarks by administration officials, that supplying lethal assistance will be necessary to shift the balance in favor of the opposition. The obvious problem with providing traditional weaponry to the resistance is that those same weapons could be pointed at us down the line. This is a reasonable fear, based on our own experience in Afghanistan.
Thirty years ago, the CIA armed the Afghan mujahedeen with Stinger missiles to target Soviet planes and helicopters after the 1979 invasion. While the mission is widely credited with helping to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan -- and hastening the fall of the Kremlin -- the U.S. has had to worry for decades about unaccounted for Stingers that could be used to target civilian airliners or U.S. military personnel. With the presence of a number of extremist elements within the Syrian resistance, particularly the Al-Nusra Front aligned with Al Qaeda, we will have to live with the possibility that our weapons end up in the wrong hands even after taking the best precautions in selecting which rebels to arm.
The US has no right to unilaterally decide to "shift the balance" in a conflict that supposedly has nothing to do with them. Yet it happens in...well...every conflict. It's sad and disappointing to know that there are many out there supporting war....and of those who oppose, many don't begin their "we aren't the world's police" speeches until it comes to the point of military intervention. The US and her allies have been funding and training the 'opposition' since the beginning.
Funding the mujahideen is credited with driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan? What drew the USSR there in the first place? (obama's mentor Zbig could answer that best)......Funding the mujahideen is also credited with making Al Qaeda a bona fide terrorist organization, and in turn, 9/11.
We will have to live with this possibility? Holy conditioning language. This guy is just beatin the war drums....
To ensure that the rebels can attack the Syrian Air Force now without being able to use the weapons later against U.S. forces, we should focus on creative ways of limiting how and when the weapons are utilized. As with "smart gun" technology in the domestic market, safeguards can be placed on Stinger missiles to restrict their use and vastly minimize the collateral damage of arming the rebels. In effect, this technology would ensure that any weapon we give the resistance would be ineffective in the wrong hands. Anthony Cordesman, a former Defense Department official, has outlined a variety of potential options, including GPS-based limitations that would only allow the missile to be fired in Syria, installing batteries with expiring lifespans on the missile, or requiring a launch code that could be regularly changed.
These modified-Stinger missiles could be used to target the Syrian Air Force and remove the military's largest advantage over the rebels. Assad's military has ruthlessly used jets to target civilian populations and rebel groups. Human Rights Watch has criticized Syria for utilizing "imprecise and inherently indiscriminate" bombs, such as cluster bombs, and hitting civilian targets, including hospitals. In fact, throughout the rebellion, the Syrian resistance has tried to conduct costly ground assaults on air bases because of the importance of air power to Assad's military. Without the ability to meaningfully confront Syrian air power, the resistance is left with little hope.
Indiscrimminate bombs such as cluster bombs? Fuck the atlantic. I searched their site and couldn't find a single mention of Israels use of nearly 2000 cluster bombs in Lebanon in 06 (that equates to over a million 'bomblets'...cute)....not one mention, so I can't compare how that was reported with this article....but, here is an example of how CNN covered the Israeli crime:
Israel: cluster bomb use was legal http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/ ... ter.bombs/
JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Israel's military advocate general said the use of cluster bombs by the country's armed forces during last year's war with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon was done so in accordance with international law and, as a result, he will not file charges against any military officers who ordered their use.....(etc).
Skeptics will point to the prospect of enemies of the U.S. bypassing the technological safeguards. While this is always possible, technological mishaps are a concern with all weapons and not exclusive to this context. Moreover, even if the safeguards can be circumvented, it is unlikely that battle-hardened Islamists will have the technological capacity to re-activate the weapons. These weapons reaching the black market also shouldn't be a major concern, as the likelihood of failure will complicate the terrorists' ability to barter the weapons in an international trade. While there is no way to ensure with full confidence that the weapons will never be used against us, incorporating safeguard technology is most definitely an improvement over the status quo: handing over traditional weaponry.
Safeguard technologies will not eliminate the risks of the Stingers falling into the wrong hands but they will tilt the scales in favor of the rebels while making the risks far more manageable. By delivering a stronger tool to the moderate forces within the resistance, the armament program would help to bolster their position in the resistance and thereby increase U.S. influence in a post-Assad Syria. As Dennis Ross has noted, the Islamist groups have proven themselves in Syria because they have had weapons supplied to them from outside forces. And as we've seen elsewhere, the best-armed elements generally dominate once the regime falls. To bolster the position of the moderates, we need to ensure that they are receiving arms that allow them to take on a meaningful role in the conflict.
Certainly, there are no perfect options in Syria. But taking advantage of innovative technologies might be one of the best paths available to us.
And there folks is US foreign policy in a nutshell. Just exchange the word 'moderate' for 'puppet'....
Long but worth a read....and yes, it's a blog...I've found this guy's abit sensationalist...but most of the info he posts is footnoted/linked and seems credible enough....he does much more in-depth reporting than you'll ever see in the mainstream.
West’s WMD Lies Fray as Syrian Army Overruns Terrorist Proxies Absurd "chemical weapons" claims begin to fall apart amidst NATO's desperate bid to save its collapsing terror front in Syria
According to the White House itself, there is no evidence that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons of any kind during the two year conflict the West itself has created and continues to perpetuate. Indeed, a letter from the White House via the Washington Post exposed just how tenuous the evidence actually is (emphasis added):
Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin. This assessment is based in part on physiological samples. Our standard of evidence must build on these intelligence assessments as we seek to establish credible and corroborated facts. For example, the chain of custody is not clear, so we cannot confirm how the exposure occurred and under what conditions. We do believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime.
The US and its allies have declared the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government a “red line,” that if crossed would incur a direct military intervention which may include air and missile strikes, the establishment of a Libyan-style no-fly-zone, and perhaps even a ground invasion. Surely, the Syrian government would gain nothing from using chemical weapons if by doing so, would give the West a war it has been seeking with Syria and its ally Iran for over a decade.
Syria is Already Winning the War… With Conventional Weapons
Additionally, by all accounts, including now even the Western media, the Syrian Arab Army has turned the tide and is overrunning NATO’s Al Qaeda proxies across the country, including in areas considered “rebel held.” Idlib in particular has seen several stunning victories for the Syrian government, despite the province’s proximity to NATO-member Turkey, who is openly shipping torrents of weapons, cash, and terrorists over the border.
In the Independent’s article titled, “They may be fighting for Syria, not Assad. They may also be winning: Robert Fisk reports from inside Syria,” it was reported that:
The army believe they are at last winning back ground from the Free Syrian Army and the al-Nusra Islamist fighters and the various al-Qa’ida satellites that now rule much of the Syrian countryside. From Point 45 they are scarcely a mile and a half from the Turkish frontier and intend to take the ground in between. Outside Damascus they have battled their way bloodily into two rebel-held suburbs. While I was prowling through the mountaintop positions, the rebels were in danger of losing the town of Qusayr outside Homs amid opposition accusations of the widespread killing of civilians. The main road from Damascus to Latakia on the Mediterranean coast has been reopened by the army.
The Independent continues with a very telling remark (emphasis added):
Bashar’s Special Forces now appear confident, ruthless, politically motivated, a danger to their enemies, their uniforms smart, their weapons clean. Syrians have long grown used to the claims by Israel – inevitably followed by the Washington echo machine – that chemical weapons have been used by Bashar’s forces; as an intelligence officer remarked caustically in Damascus: “Why should we use chemical weapons when our Mig aircraft and their bombs cause infinitely more destruction?”
The True Nature of Chemical Warfare – Lessons From the 1980′s Iran-Iraq War
MiGs, artillery, and superior ground forces are indeed vastly more effective than chemical weapons used on any scale, especially in the minute quantities the US is attempting to accuse the Syrian government of using. For a Western population weaned on Hollywood movies, ridiculous TV shows, and an endless torrent of misinformation from their corporate media news outlets, chemical weapons have been portrayed as “weapons of mass destruction,” with even small amounts causing catastrophic devastation.
Under the best conditions and with vast amounts of chemical agents, large casualties can be produced. But history has shown that generally, anything less than these circumstances would be a waste of time, resources, and of course in Syria’s case, politically and strategically unjustifiable.
A document produced by the US Marine Corps, titled, “Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War” under “Appendix B: Chemical Weapons,” a comprehensive look at the all-out chemical warfare that took place during the devastating 8 year conflict is carefully documented. Several engagements are studied in detail, revealing large amounts of chemical agents deployed mainly to create areas of denial.
The effectiveness and lethality of chemical weapons is summarized in the document as follows (emphasis added):
Chemical weapons require quite particular weather and geographic conditions for optimum effectiveness. Given the relative nonpersistence of all agents employed during this war, including mustard, there was only a brief window of employment opportunity both daily and seasonally, when the agents could be used. Even though the Iraqis employed mustard agent in the rainy season and also in the marshes, its effectiveness was significantly reduced under those conditions. As the Iraqis learned to their chagrin, mustard is not a good agent to employ in the mountains, unless you own the high ground and your enemy is in the valleys.
We are uncertain as to the relative effectiveness of nerve agents since those which were employed are by nature much less persistent than mustard. In order to gain killing concentrations of these agents, predawn attacks are best, conducted in areas where the morning breezes are likely to blow away from friendly positions.
Chemical weapons have a low kill ratio. Just as in WWl, during which the ratio of deaths to injured from chemicals was 2-3 percent, that figure appears to be borne out again in this war although reliable data on casualties are very difficult to obtain. We deem it remarkable that the death rate should hold at such a low level even with the introduction of nerve agents. If those rates are correct, as they well may be, this further reinforces the position that we must not think of chemical weapons as “a poor man’s nuclear weapon.” While such weapons have great psychological potential, they are not killers or destroyers on a scale with nuclear or biological weapons.
According the US military’s own conclusions, the use of chemical weapons only enhance conventional warfare, but are not suitable for wiping out large swaths of enemy troops. Their effectiveness is such that the Syrian government could not justify their use, thus risk incurring direct Western military intervention. Therefore, for what strategic purpose would the Syrian Arab Army deploy chemical agents on a “small scale?” If the Syrian military already holds the initiative with far more effective conventional weapons, what purpose besides inviting the West to intervene militarily, could using quantities of chemical agents far too small to achieve any tactical gain serve?
A Desperate Fabrication – Remember “Curveball”
Conversely, it appears much more likely that such “small scale” use of chemical agents has been used to fabricate a badly needed justification for war with Syria, and open the door for the West to intervene on behalf of a devastated proxy force that is being finally swept away by the Syrian Arab Army.
Almost immediately after the US and its allies attempted to accuse Syria of using chemical weapons on a “small scale,” global backlash recalled similar allegations, which turned out also to be fabricated, in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
In the British Independent’s 2012 article, “Man whose WMD lies led to 100,000 deaths confesses all: Defector tells how US officials ‘sexed up’ his fictions to make the case for 2003 invasion,” it was stated:
A man whose lies helped to make the case for invading Iraq – starting a nine-year war costing more than 100,000 lives and hundreds of billions of pounds – will come clean in his first British television interview tomorrow.
“Curveball”, the Iraqi defector who fabricated claims about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, smiles as he confirms how he made the whole thing up. It was a confidence trick that changed the course of history, with Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi’s lies used to justify the Iraq war.
He tries to defend his actions: “My main purpose was to topple the tyrant in Iraq because the longer this dictator remains in power, the more the Iraqi people will suffer from this regime’s oppression.”
The Independent continues:
But Mr Janabi, speaking in a two-part series, Modern Spies, starting tomorrow on BBC2, says none of it was true. When it is put to him “we went to war in Iraq on a lie. And that lie was your lie”, he simply replies: “Yes.”
US officials “sexed up” Mr Janabi’s drawings of mobile biological weapons labs to make them more presentable, admits Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, General Powell’s former chief of staff. “I brought the White House team in to do the graphics,” he says, adding how “intelligence was being worked to fit around the policy”.
How “intelligence was being worked to fit around the policy,” indeed is the most important aspect of the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, and is without doubt what is being done in Washington, Doha, Riyadh, and Tel Aviv in regards to Syria now.
Those behind the current conspiracy against Syria hope that the public possesses no understanding whatsoever regarding chemical weapons and their true tactical utility as well as their many limitations. They hope that the public never fully realizes that “small scale” use is essentially an admission that the weapons were not used tactically, but at best, used to fabricate a pretext for war by the West and its terrorist proxies.
As the West realizes how politically unsustainable yet another war waged on a blatantly false pretense will be, it may turn to even uglier options in order to topple the Syrian government and to save face after a humiliating stand-down from their “red line.” The West’s legitimacy has long since been exhausted. Its reputation has been permanently disfigured by special interests that have commandeered and abused it.
While Syria and its allies continue to fight against this proxy-war of aggression, it is incumbent upon the rest of us to identify the corporate-financier special interests behind this war, boycott and permanently replace them with local solutions. If allowed to succeed in grave injustices against the Syrian people, these interests will be emboldened to abuse, exploit, and torment others, including those within their own borders
Comments
It needs to be resolved quickly though.
I think we are heading for a situation like Libya / Mali where a dictator w/ lots of weapons loses control and the crazies get them.
http://news.yahoo.com/israel-hits-target-syria-border-area-sources-113955592.html
LONDON (Reuters) - Israeli forces attacked a convoy on the Syrian-Lebanese border overnight, a Western diplomat and regional security sources said on Wednesday, as concern has grown in the Jewish state over the fate of Syrian chemical and advanced conventional weapons.
The sources, four in total, all of whom declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, had no further information about what the vehicles may have been carrying, what forces were used or where precisely the attack happened.
In the run-up to the raid, Israeli officials have been warning very publicly of a threat of high-tech anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles reaching Israel's enemies in the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah from Syria. They have also echoed U.S. concerns about Syria's presumed chemical weapons arsenal.
The Lebanese army reported a heavy presence of Israeli jets over its territory throughout the night.
"There was definitely a hit in the border area," one security source said. A Western diplomat in the region who asked about the strike said "something has happened", without elaborating.
An activist in Syria who works with a network of opposition groups around the country said that she had heard of a strike in southern Syria from her colleagues but could not confirm it. A strike just inside Lebanon would appear a less diplomatically explosive option for Israel to avoid provoking Syrian ally Iran.
Israeli Vice Premier Silvan Shalom said on Sunday that any sign that Syria's grip on its chemical weapons was slipping, as President Bashar al-Assad fights rebels trying to overthrow him, could trigger Israeli intervention.
israel went on offense and now they are going to ask us to protect them in case assad turns his weapons towards them. israel did not have to intervene. they chose to get involved, let them fight their own battles.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
if theres one country that doesnt need protection, its israel. theyre armed to the teeth and are nuclear capable. unfortunately the irony is using those nuclear weapons may be the end of them as well. and i dont mean by retaliation... radiation travels and syria is way too close.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
israel has the best air force in the region. they would most likely not even need ground forces to defeat iran.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
aah yes i forgot about the great persian devil.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Peace keeping mission in Syria??
Will you sign up to go do that? Thats more dangerous than war there!
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
GOOD!
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
Oh I get it now fearOFfreedom, less government HERE and MORE government THERE.... :fp:
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
White House says Syrian regime has used chemical weapons
White House officials confirmed Thursday that intelligence officials believe the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons during its current civil war.
"Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin," Caitlin Hayden, National Security Council spokesperson wrote in an email to journalists following comments made by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel revealing the assessment.
The use of chemical weapons has been a hot-button point following President Barack Obama's declaration that the use of chemical weapons would be a "game changer" that could potentially trigger U.S. intervention.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-says-syrian-regime-used-chemical-weapons-164620417--politics.html;_ylt=At5Cp_9PaU01CfOyNRNjFn.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNrbmQ5Z2J0BG1pdANNZWdhdHJvbiBGUARwa2cDMmQ3NzM2ZTEtZDJjYS0zOTQzLTkzMzUtY2FlMDIxYzY2MWUxBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNtZWdhdHJvbgR2ZXIDNzYzNTg5ZDMtYWRjYy0xMWUyLTliZmUtNWRjOWY2NmU3MjQ5;_ylg=X3oDMTFkcW51ZGliBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3BtaA--;_ylv=3
WOOT!!
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It's not our war. We can aid them, but let's not make it our war.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... us/275475/
In his press conference on Tuesday, President Obama acknowledged that Bashar al-Assad's forces deployed chemical weapons and said he would "have to rethink the range of options" to deal with the deteriorating situation in Syria. Later in the day, administration officials confirmed that "lethal weaponry" would be sent to the Syrian opposition, but it remains unclear what this entails.
One fear the Obama administration has had about arming Syria's rebels is that the arms might eventually be trafficked elsewhere. But throughout the ongoing debate, one option has remained largely overlooked: providing "smart gun" modified-Stinger missiles that would arm the rebels while minimizing the risks of those weapons being used to target us in the future. Effective safety mechanisms would prevent the missiles from falling into the wrong hands while boosting the moderates within the opposition and hastening the end of Assad's reign.
The U.S. is currently providing the resistance with non-lethal aid, such as body armor and night-vision goggles. While certainly useful, there is a growing consensus, reflected in the recent remarks by administration officials, that supplying lethal assistance will be necessary to shift the balance in favor of the opposition. The obvious problem with providing traditional weaponry to the resistance is that those same weapons could be pointed at us down the line. This is a reasonable fear, based on our own experience in Afghanistan.
Thirty years ago, the CIA armed the Afghan mujahedeen with Stinger missiles to target Soviet planes and helicopters after the 1979 invasion. While the mission is widely credited with helping to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan -- and hastening the fall of the Kremlin -- the U.S. has had to worry for decades about unaccounted for Stingers that could be used to target civilian airliners or U.S. military personnel. With the presence of a number of extremist elements within the Syrian resistance, particularly the Al-Nusra Front aligned with Al Qaeda, we will have to live with the possibility that our weapons end up in the wrong hands even after taking the best precautions in selecting which rebels to arm.
To ensure that the rebels can attack the Syrian Air Force now without being able to use the weapons later against U.S. forces, we should focus on creative ways of limiting how and when the weapons are utilized. As with "smart gun" technology in the domestic market, safeguards can be placed on Stinger missiles to restrict their use and vastly minimize the collateral damage of arming the rebels. In effect, this technology would ensure that any weapon we give the resistance would be ineffective in the wrong hands. Anthony Cordesman, a former Defense Department official, has outlined a variety of potential options, including GPS-based limitations that would only allow the missile to be fired in Syria, installing batteries with expiring lifespans on the missile, or requiring a launch code that could be regularly changed.
These modified-Stinger missiles could be used to target the Syrian Air Force and remove the military's largest advantage over the rebels. Assad's military has ruthlessly used jets to target civilian populations and rebel groups. Human Rights Watch has criticized Syria for utilizing "imprecise and inherently indiscriminate" bombs, such as cluster bombs, and hitting civilian targets, including hospitals. In fact, throughout the rebellion, the Syrian resistance has tried to conduct costly ground assaults on air bases because of the importance of air power to Assad's military. Without the ability to meaningfully confront Syrian air power, the resistance is left with little hope.
Skeptics will point to the prospect of enemies of the U.S. bypassing the technological safeguards. While this is always possible, technological mishaps are a concern with all weapons and not exclusive to this context. Moreover, even if the safeguards can be circumvented, it is unlikely that battle-hardened Islamists will have the technological capacity to re-activate the weapons. These weapons reaching the black market also shouldn't be a major concern, as the likelihood of failure will complicate the terrorists' ability to barter the weapons in an international trade. While there is no way to ensure with full confidence that the weapons will never be used against us, incorporating safeguard technology is most definitely an improvement over the status quo: handing over traditional weaponry.
Safeguard technologies will not eliminate the risks of the Stingers falling into the wrong hands but they will tilt the scales in favor of the rebels while making the risks far more manageable. By delivering a stronger tool to the moderate forces within the resistance, the armament program would help to bolster their position in the resistance and thereby increase U.S. influence in a post-Assad Syria. As Dennis Ross has noted, the Islamist groups have proven themselves in Syria because they have had weapons supplied to them from outside forces. And as we've seen elsewhere, the best-armed elements generally dominate once the regime falls. To bolster the position of the moderates, we need to ensure that they are receiving arms that allow them to take on a meaningful role in the conflict.
Certainly, there are no perfect options in Syria. But taking advantage of innovative technologies might be one of the best paths available to us.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Weren't they our allies before they were our enemies? :think:
I feel for the Syrians but I agree with you that this is not our war (again) and we should not go into Syria but if we must, and it is starting to look like we are, then let Congress make that determination.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Right?
H---C
.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013 ... -in-syria/
...
Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John McCain of Arizona, Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan Republican are the people you need to write to because they are the ones calling for U.S. invlovement in Syria.
But, they say, "We don't want 'Boots on the ground'". They want 'International Troops' to do our bidding. How is that going to work?
...
Also, providing arms to the rebels.. the rebels are al Qaeda!!! so, is the rebels win, a state run by al Qaeda emerges. Are these Representatives crazy or assholes or just playing politics in order to use our military... again?
Hail, Hail!!!
how do they propose we go about paying for this little involvement??
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/01/180361623/analysts-divided-on-u-s-arming-syrian-rebels
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Funding the mujahideen is credited with driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan? What drew the USSR there in the first place? (obama's mentor Zbig could answer that best)......Funding the mujahideen is also credited with making Al Qaeda a bona fide terrorist organization, and in turn, 9/11.
We will have to live with this possibility? Holy conditioning language. This guy is just beatin the war drums.... Indiscrimminate bombs such as cluster bombs? Fuck the atlantic. I searched their site and couldn't find a single mention of Israels use of nearly 2000 cluster bombs in Lebanon in 06 (that equates to over a million 'bomblets'...cute)....not one mention, so I can't compare how that was reported with this article....but, here is an example of how CNN covered the Israeli crime:
Israel: cluster bomb use was legal
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/ ... ter.bombs/
JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Israel's military advocate general said the use of cluster bombs by the country's armed forces during last year's war with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon was done so in accordance with international law and, as a result, he will not file charges against any military officers who ordered their use.....(etc).
And there folks is US foreign policy in a nutshell. Just exchange the word 'moderate' for 'puppet'....
West’s WMD Lies Fray as Syrian Army Overruns Terrorist Proxies
Absurd "chemical weapons" claims begin to fall apart amidst NATO's desperate bid to save its collapsing terror front in Syria
According to the White House itself, there is no evidence that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons of any kind during the two year conflict the West itself has created and continues to perpetuate. Indeed, a letter from the White House via the Washington Post exposed just how tenuous the evidence actually is (emphasis added):
Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin. This assessment is based in part on physiological samples. Our standard of evidence must build on these intelligence assessments as we seek to establish credible and corroborated facts. For example, the chain of custody is not clear, so we cannot confirm how the exposure occurred and under what conditions. We do believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime.
The US and its allies have declared the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government a “red line,” that if crossed would incur a direct military intervention which may include air and missile strikes, the establishment of a Libyan-style no-fly-zone, and perhaps even a ground invasion. Surely, the Syrian government would gain nothing from using chemical weapons if by doing so, would give the West a war it has been seeking with Syria and its ally Iran for over a decade.
Syria is Already Winning the War… With Conventional Weapons
Additionally, by all accounts, including now even the Western media, the Syrian Arab Army has turned the tide and is overrunning NATO’s Al Qaeda proxies across the country, including in areas considered “rebel held.” Idlib in particular has seen several stunning victories for the Syrian government, despite the province’s proximity to NATO-member Turkey, who is openly shipping torrents of weapons, cash, and terrorists over the border.
In the Independent’s article titled, “They may be fighting for Syria, not Assad. They may also be winning: Robert Fisk reports from inside Syria,” it was reported that:
The army believe they are at last winning back ground from the Free Syrian Army and the al-Nusra Islamist fighters and the various al-Qa’ida satellites that now rule much of the Syrian countryside. From Point 45 they are scarcely a mile and a half from the Turkish frontier and intend to take the ground in between. Outside Damascus they have battled their way bloodily into two rebel-held suburbs. While I was prowling through the mountaintop positions, the rebels were in danger of losing the town of Qusayr outside Homs amid opposition accusations of the widespread killing of civilians. The main road from Damascus to Latakia on the Mediterranean coast has been reopened by the army.
The Independent continues with a very telling remark (emphasis added):
Bashar’s Special Forces now appear confident, ruthless, politically motivated, a danger to their enemies, their uniforms smart, their weapons clean. Syrians have long grown used to the claims by Israel – inevitably followed by the Washington echo machine – that chemical weapons have been used by Bashar’s forces; as an intelligence officer remarked caustically in Damascus: “Why should we use chemical weapons when our Mig aircraft and their bombs cause infinitely more destruction?”
The True Nature of Chemical Warfare – Lessons From the 1980′s Iran-Iraq War
MiGs, artillery, and superior ground forces are indeed vastly more effective than chemical weapons used on any scale, especially in the minute quantities the US is attempting to accuse the Syrian government of using. For a Western population weaned on Hollywood movies, ridiculous TV shows, and an endless torrent of misinformation from their corporate media news outlets, chemical weapons have been portrayed as “weapons of mass destruction,” with even small amounts causing catastrophic devastation.
Under the best conditions and with vast amounts of chemical agents, large casualties can be produced. But history has shown that generally, anything less than these circumstances would be a waste of time, resources, and of course in Syria’s case, politically and strategically unjustifiable.
A document produced by the US Marine Corps, titled, “Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War” under “Appendix B: Chemical Weapons,” a comprehensive look at the all-out chemical warfare that took place during the devastating 8 year conflict is carefully documented. Several engagements are studied in detail, revealing large amounts of chemical agents deployed mainly to create areas of denial.
The effectiveness and lethality of chemical weapons is summarized in the document as follows (emphasis added):
Chemical weapons require quite particular weather and geographic conditions for optimum effectiveness. Given the relative nonpersistence of all agents employed during this war, including mustard, there was only a brief window of employment opportunity both daily and seasonally, when the agents could be used. Even though the Iraqis employed mustard agent in the rainy season and also in the marshes, its effectiveness was significantly reduced under those conditions. As the Iraqis learned to their chagrin, mustard is not a good agent to employ in the mountains, unless you own the high ground and your enemy is in the valleys.
We are uncertain as to the relative effectiveness of nerve agents since those which were employed are by nature much less persistent than mustard. In order to gain killing concentrations of these agents, predawn attacks are best, conducted in areas where the morning breezes are likely to blow away from friendly positions.
Chemical weapons have a low kill ratio. Just as in WWl, during which the ratio of deaths to injured from chemicals was 2-3 percent, that figure appears to be borne out again in this war although reliable data on casualties are very difficult to obtain. We deem it remarkable that the death rate should hold at such a low level even with the introduction of nerve agents. If those rates are correct, as they well may be, this further reinforces the position that we must not think of chemical weapons as “a poor man’s nuclear weapon.” While such weapons have great psychological potential, they are not killers or destroyers on a scale with nuclear or biological weapons.
According the US military’s own conclusions, the use of chemical weapons only enhance conventional warfare, but are not suitable for wiping out large swaths of enemy troops. Their effectiveness is such that the Syrian government could not justify their use, thus risk incurring direct Western military intervention. Therefore, for what strategic purpose would the Syrian Arab Army deploy chemical agents on a “small scale?” If the Syrian military already holds the initiative with far more effective conventional weapons, what purpose besides inviting the West to intervene militarily, could using quantities of chemical agents far too small to achieve any tactical gain serve?
A Desperate Fabrication – Remember “Curveball”
Conversely, it appears much more likely that such “small scale” use of chemical agents has been used to fabricate a badly needed justification for war with Syria, and open the door for the West to intervene on behalf of a devastated proxy force that is being finally swept away by the Syrian Arab Army.
Almost immediately after the US and its allies attempted to accuse Syria of using chemical weapons on a “small scale,” global backlash recalled similar allegations, which turned out also to be fabricated, in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
In the British Independent’s 2012 article, “Man whose WMD lies led to 100,000 deaths confesses all: Defector tells how US officials ‘sexed up’ his fictions to make the case for 2003 invasion,” it was stated:
A man whose lies helped to make the case for invading Iraq – starting a nine-year war costing more than 100,000 lives and hundreds of billions of pounds – will come clean in his first British television interview tomorrow.
“Curveball”, the Iraqi defector who fabricated claims about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, smiles as he confirms how he made the whole thing up. It was a confidence trick that changed the course of history, with Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi’s lies used to justify the Iraq war.
He tries to defend his actions: “My main purpose was to topple the tyrant in Iraq because the longer this dictator remains in power, the more the Iraqi people will suffer from this regime’s oppression.”
The Independent continues:
But Mr Janabi, speaking in a two-part series, Modern Spies, starting tomorrow on BBC2, says none of it was true. When it is put to him “we went to war in Iraq on a lie. And that lie was your lie”, he simply replies: “Yes.”
US officials “sexed up” Mr Janabi’s drawings of mobile biological weapons labs to make them more presentable, admits Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, General Powell’s former chief of staff. “I brought the White House team in to do the graphics,” he says, adding how “intelligence was being worked to fit around the policy”.
How “intelligence was being worked to fit around the policy,” indeed is the most important aspect of the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, and is without doubt what is being done in Washington, Doha, Riyadh, and Tel Aviv in regards to Syria now.
Those behind the current conspiracy against Syria hope that the public possesses no understanding whatsoever regarding chemical weapons and their true tactical utility as well as their many limitations. They hope that the public never fully realizes that “small scale” use is essentially an admission that the weapons were not used tactically, but at best, used to fabricate a pretext for war by the West and its terrorist proxies.
As the West realizes how politically unsustainable yet another war waged on a blatantly false pretense will be, it may turn to even uglier options in order to topple the Syrian government and to save face after a humiliating stand-down from their “red line.” The West’s legitimacy has long since been exhausted. Its reputation has been permanently disfigured by special interests that have commandeered and abused it.
While Syria and its allies continue to fight against this proxy-war of aggression, it is incumbent upon the rest of us to identify the corporate-financier special interests behind this war, boycott and permanently replace them with local solutions. If allowed to succeed in grave injustices against the Syrian people, these interests will be emboldened to abuse, exploit, and torment others, including those within their own borders
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ca/2013/0 ... -army.html