syria (19)

US actions to weaken Syrian govt will empower ISIS – UK consultancyAny attempt to act against the Syrian government will make Islamic State and other terror groups in the country stronger, London-based consultancy IHS Markit said in a recent report, calling such situation an “inconvenient reality” for Washington.

Over the last 11 months, 43 percent of Islamic State (Is, formerly ISIS/ISIL) military actions carried out were against the Syrian government forces of President Bashar Assad, the open-source data gathered by IHS Markit’s Conflict Monitor revealed.

The US-backed “moderate opposition” accounted for 17 percent of IS fighting between April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017, with the remaining 40 percent being the jihadists’ skirmishes with rivaling rebel groups.

“It is an inconvenient reality that any US action taken to weaken the Syrian government will inadvertently benefit the Islamic State and other jihadist groups,” Columb Strack, senior Middle East analyst at IHS Markit, said as cited by the company’s website.

Strack described the current state of events in Syria by comparing Assad’s forces “the anvil to the US-led Coalition’s hammer.”

“While US-backed forces surround Raqqa, the Islamic State is engaged in intense fighting with the Syrian government around Palmyra and in other parts of Homs and Deir al-Zour provinces,” he said.

According to the analyst, weakening the Syrian forces, which are already overstretched on a large front, may lead to the jihadists moving from the desert to populated areas in the west of the country, which endangers such cities as Damascus and Homs.

Strack believes that Deir ez-Zor is currently the main strategic goal for Islamic State, as capturing the largest city in eastern Syria would allow the group to gain “a new major population center from which to run the Caliphate” after losing Mosul and Raqqa.

IHS Markit is considered on the leading providers of information, analysis and solution, boasting over 50,000 customers in highest business and political circles

.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wOAPxwYdug

Read More at https://www.infowars.com/us-actions-to-weaken-syrian-govt-will-empower-isis-uk-consultancy/

Read more…

     4064324969?profile=original                          SUSAN RICE LIED ABOUT SYRIA CHEMICAL WEAPONS

                                                                                      By 

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

  The chemical weapon attack by the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad on the rebel-held town Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib Province on April 4 once again underscores what a foreign policy failure President Obama was and what a serial liar Susan Rice is.

On January 16, 2017, Rice, who served as U.N. Ambassador during Obama’s first term and was rewarded for her Benghazi lies with the post of National Security Advisor, where she could be compelled to testify before Congress, 

Gave what amounted to an exit interview with NPR. During the interview she crowed about the Obama administration’s success in eliminating the threat of Syrian chemical weapons:

We were able to find a solution that didn't necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished. Our aim in contemplating the use of force following the use of chemical weapons in August of 2013 was not to intervene in the civil war, not to become involved in the combat between Assad and the opposition, but to deal with the threat of chemical weapons by virtue of the diplomacy that we did with Russia and with the Security Council. We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.

Tell that, Ms. Rice, to the children of Khan Sheikoun who succumbed to the horrible effects of the sarin gas dropped on them by Syrian forces with the support of their Russian allies. You and your boss colluded with the Russians to keep Assad in power and give Russia a free hand in Syria. Your claim of having removed the threat of Syrian chemical weapons was a lie, as phony as the statement President Onama made after the tragedy of Aleppo. As  CNBC reported the statement President Obama made as he washed his hands of all guilt and responsibility:

"With respect to Syria of what I have consistently done is taken the best course that I can to end the civil war and having also taken into account of the long-term national security interest of the United States," he said….

"Unless we were all in and willing to take over Syria, we were going to have problems," Obama said in the news conference, noting that it would have required "putting large numbers of U.S. troops on the ground, uninvited, without any international law mandate."…

"Responsibility for this brutality lies in one place alone: with the Assad regime and its allies Russia and Iran. And this blood and these atrocities are on their hands," Obama said.

No, sir the responsibility for this horror lies with you, and the blood of Aleppo and Khan Sheikoun is on your and Susan Rice’s hands. It is you who drew the red lines in Syria and there would be consequences if they were crossed. It is you who said Assad must go. There were no consequences and Assad, protected by Russia, is still there.

As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized on Obama’s disappearing red lines in Syria:

Syria's chemical weapons are on the move, their precursor chemicals having been mixed, a crossing of a line drawn by President Obama Aug. 20 when he said "a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." So our resolute president decides to draw another line — that if Syria's Bashar al-Assad makes use of those weapons, presumably against his own people or neighbors, he will face "consequences." …Obama's appeasement has come home to roost. Assad remembers how Clinton, appearing on CBS' "Face The Nation," dismissed the idea of U.S. military action or regime change in Syria, claiming that unlike Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, Assad was considered to be a "reformer" by "many of the members of Congress."

Yep, your Secretary of State and defeated presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called Assad a reformer:

Apparently neither Mrs. Clinton nor Defense Secretary Robert Gates sees Syria as an outlaw nation. Both said Sunday that Syria was different from Libya and that we would not be lobbing cruise missiles into Damascus in another "humanitarian" effort.

"Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer," Clinton said without disputing the assessment. She also drew a distinction between Libya's use of tanks and aircraft against its protesters and "police actions, which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see."

Obama and Clinton intervened in Libta to prevent the slaughter of civilians, turning Libya into a failed state and an incubator of terrorism. Yet both did nothing to prevent the slaughter in Syria when they could have easily. We sacrificed four brave Americans at Benghazi in pursuance of this failed policy.

Why did we do nothing in Syria? Perhaps for the same reason we did nothing to prevent Russia’s invasion of Ukraine  - the Iran deal. Obama, who once  promised Russian President Medvedev more “flexibility” after Obama’s reelection, didn’t want to offend Putin. He needed Russia’s help in securing the Iran deal. Taking out Assad would have offended Tehran. So Obama and Clinton sacrificed both Ukraine and Syria to get the Iran deal and put $150 billion in the hands of Iran, a state ponsor of terror and a mass murderer of U.S. troops in both Lebanon and Iraq.

This reformer moved his chemical weapons and you did nothing. He used his chemical weapons and you did nothing. Seeing no resistance Russia moved in to protect Assad and safeguard its access to the Syrian port of Tarus on th Mediterranean.

You could have done a lot, and it did not involve ground troops. You could have parked an aircraft carrier, 90,000 tons of American diplomacy, off the Syrian coast. You could have ordered aur strikes and destroyed the Syrian air force in 24 hours. Then you could have established a no-fly zone protecting a safe haven in Syria. You could have prevented the slaughter in Aleppo, as well as the flood of refugees into Europe. But you didn’t.

The rise of ISIS, which Obama calls ISIL so he can omit the “S” that stands for Syria, is a direct result of the vacuum he created In Iraq by his precipitous withdrawal after victory had been won.

President Bush left a stable Iraq, one where Shiite and Sunnis had learned to coexist and resist a common al-Qaida enemy. There were free and fair elections and we all remember the pictures of Iraqi women holding up their purple fingers indicating they had proudly voted in those elections. Now we have the mass graves of ISIS, beheadings and  what can only be called the ethnic cleansing of Christians.

It is a myth, as the White House now claims, that President Obama inherited an Iraqi mess from President Bush and had no choice but to withdraw U.S. troops in the absence of a status of forces agreement. The problem was not that Iraq and Prime Minister Maliki wanted the U.S. to leave, but that the force Obama wanted to leave was just too small. As Patrick Brennan has written in National Review:

These claims don’t jibe with what we know about how the negotiations with Iraq went. It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense, when the Defense Department and others were proposing more. Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him — the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence. In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.

Obama destroyed Libya for no god reason, and sacrificed Syria so that he could pursue the dangerous and flawed Iran deal. He created the vacuum ISIS filled in Iraq and Syria. The blood of Aleppo is on nobody’s hands but his, Hillaty Clinton’s and yours, Susan Rice.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.             

Read more…

Airport Worker Died For Islamic State

Fri, Sep 05 2014 00:00:00 E A14_ISSUES

Read more…

Obama Ignored Islamic State Intelligence For A Year

Thu, Sep 04 2014 00:00:00 E A14_ISSUES

Read more…

The Muslim world has been without a Caliph and Commander of the Faithful for ninety years, and now the new fundamentalist Islamic entity in Iraq and Syria known as the Islamic State has put forth a pretender to claim the title. At the age of 43, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi burst upon the national scene as the operational and political leader of ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria ), and now is the new spiritual leader of the newly proclaimed Islamic State.

Armed with a Ph.D. in Islamic studies, Abu Bakr was a cleric at the Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal Mosque in Samarra at the time of the US invasion of Iraq, He joined the Mujahideen Shura Council  (associated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and later to morph into ISIS) and battled US forces. As the Iraqi war continued, he rose through the ranks of Islamic militants and became the leader of ISIS in May of 2010. ISIS is considered an al Qaeda offshoot and a spawn of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). It even runs a "Zarqawi Camp" training center on the outskirts of the Syrian capital of Damascus named in his honor.

A caliphate was proclaimed on June 29, 2014 and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—now known as Amir al-Mu'minin Caliph Ibrahim—was named as its caliph. At the same time ISIS was renamed the Islamic State.

In a remarkable fashion, Abu Bakr has transformed a few shattered Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq terror cells who were on the verge of extinction into the fastest growing, wildly successful, and most dangerous militant group in the world. ISIS mutated and grew exponentially during the ongoing civil war in Syria as well as in the security vacuum that followed the departure of American forces from Iraq. In 2013 it absorbed  the Syrian opposition group Jabhat al-Nusra and added thousands of battle hardened fighters to its ranks. In 2014 Abu Bakr formerly broke ISIS away from Al-Qaeda to follow his own path and seek his own destiny on the world stage.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyzEVBAc8S4&feature=youtu.be

ISIS Leader Al-Baghdadi Calls to Wage Jihad, Says: Becoming a Caliph Is a Heavy Responsibility

Now Abu Bakr has hundreds of millions of dollars in his war chest, captured a vast horde of modern arms and ammunition of American origin from the collapsing Iraqi army, and has been reinforced by thousands of Jihadists from around the world eagerly traveling to join his Islamic State caliphate and fight a holy war. The newly self-anointed caliph seeks to follow in the footsteps of Muhammad himself and convert and conquer the world for Islam by the edge of the sword.

The eery truth, which few acknowledge and understand, is that Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and similar groups are following a purer form of Islam than many other Muslims. What Abu Bakr teaches, the tactics his army practices, and the reasons for the wars he now wages is far closer to the true teachings and actions of Muhammad and original Islam than most are ready to admit. Yet, such a statement is historically accurate.

ISIS has had tremendous success in attracting foreigners to its ranks with thousands flowing in from all over the world to join the fight. Its membership requirements are minimal and most foreign recruits are even allowed to fight in single nation battalions. It has become a recipe for success. This new conflict is just getting started and I suggest that you educate yourself on the new face of the old enemy the West and all civilized peoples are facing.

Currently, ISIS fields the most impressive and fanatical army in the Middle East and Abu Bakr has wielded it with great success. In just a few months of offensive operations it routed the Iraqi army, killed tens of thousands of its enemies, forced hundreds of thousands to flee before them, conquered vast swaths of territory, embarrassed the famed Kurdish Peshmerga, attracted tens of thousands of new recruits, and captured the attention of the world. Sheer will and ferociousness, a much deserved reputation for brutality, strategic alliances, and shrewd battlefield tactics have been a winning combination for Abu Bakr and his men. Creative tactics, recent atrocities, and battlefield successes have allowed him to redraw the map of the Middle East and probably drag the United States and its allies into a new war (or a new chapter of the old one if you prefer).

Osama bin Laden is dead and gone and Al-Qaeda is just a pale shadow of its former self. But a new bin Laden and a new terrorist army has arisen from chaos and conflict to take its place, carry on the vision of ruthless Jihad against the infidel, and proclaim the re-establishment of the caliphate.

Abu Bakr's five year plan for his Islamic State

ISIS is on the march

Read more…

West Point Report: Obama Watched Islamic State Grow

Fri, Aug 29 2014 00:00:00 E A14_ISSUES

Read more…

Putin on American Exceptionalism

Putin said a lot of things in his recent letter to the American people via an opinion article in the New York Times, and while some could be looked at a stretches of truth or reinterpretations of events (Putin is a politician after all), Putin did conclude his writing with a point about American Exceptionalism that, were it to come from someone other than the head of Russia, might actually have been paid attention to. Imagine someone else saying this so that you can read and try to comprehend what he is saying:

"My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal." - Putin

What do you think about Mr. Putin's words on American Exceptionalism? Does he have any truth in what he says? Is he just trying to distract us? Is he simply a Communist saying things, or do his words contain some semblance of truth?

Read more…

4063729299?profile=original                   Protesters Rally against Obama Syrian Military Strike

The red line in the sand was drawn by President Obama in August of 2012, and it was at that point he committed America to a rendezvous with war in Syria. The president only managed to respond publically in the hopes that the mainstream media and the liberals in the nation would view his tepid response as being presidential.

The president said this nearly as flippantly as he has commented on other pressing domestic or foreign issues, in the hope that his obedient mainstream media would ignore it and move on to shoring up his then re-election bid against challenger Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Since then, the president’s red line has moved with each international focus on the Syrian civil war conflict. In each event, Obama has kicked the can down the road. Several times this year when it was clear that according to international chemical weapon experts the deadly weapons of mass destruction were used, Obama feigned responsibility. This was not a failure to act, but a failure to lead.

Meanwhile, during his absence on the international stage as America’s Commander in Chief, he looked the other way as 100,000 plus Syrians died in the conflict. He first spoke about regime change in 2011, during the Syrian street demonstrations, but did little else, but played golf and found new and innovative ways to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

Now, with the world watching Obama could not kick the can down the road because videos surfaced showing 1,400 Syrian victims of Sarin of a gas attack. The horror of seeing women and children murdered by yet unproven rebel or government officials had to move Obama to unavoidable action. Now in front of the entire nation and the world he had to accept responsibility for his own August 2012 words which have come back to haunt him.

Yet, he even managed to dither back and forth about what he said and what he meant. In each incarnation of Obama’s remembrance of how he would punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, he somehow could not make up his mind about sending Assad a well telegraphed love tap of missiles to keep him in line, while the Syrian president moved all of his military assets and chemical stockpiles.

While Obama could not determine which account of the red line he would erase next, country after country, including Britain have decided he had not made the case for war. In fact, according to the Washington Post they found 208 solid no votes against Obama's war resolution. Even as late as Sunday afternoon, ABC News has the House members leaning heavily in favor of voting the Syrian military use resolution down to defeat.

( click to read more )

Read more…

What I did today

I wrote a short note to Timmie Kaine. What do you all think . Too nice?I said it first but now news sites are using it. Fools. Any congress member voting for a no win situation like Syria is a fool. Your buddy Barack , is setting the whole congress up for the blame. Assad is not the bad guy here, Obama is. He is supporting radical Muslim fighters and the Muslim brotherhood. If you can't see that you ARE a FOOL. Do you really think a Lilly white Christian like your self is going to be one of the elites when Obama destroys this country?Fool. Get your head out of obamas ass and stand up for our country, or expect to look for a new job and a new home out of Virginia when this is over. The true American Patriots will keep our country. No thanks to fools like you.If you have the balls reply with your pitiful excuses. Fool
Read more…

Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?

There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.

The extent of US foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the “horror” of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light.

On August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major and irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and representatives of Qatari, Turkish, and US Intelligence [“Mukhabarat Amriki”] took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors. Very senior opposition commanders who had arrived from Istanbul briefed the regional commanders of an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development” which would, in turn, lead to a US-led bombing of Syria.

The opposition forces had to quickly prepare their forces for exploiting the US-led bombing in order to march on Damascus and topple the Bashar al-Assad Government, the senior commanders explained. The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive.

Indeed, unprecedented weapons distribution started in all opposition camps in Hatay Province on August 21-23, 2013. In the Reyhanli area alone, opposition forces received well in excess of 400 tons of weapons, mainly anti-aircraft weaponry from shoulder-fired missiles to ammunition for light-guns and machineguns. The weapons were distributed from store-houses controlled by Qatari and Turkish Intelligence under the tight supervision of US Intelligence.

These weapons were loaded on more than 20 trailer-trucks which crossed into northern Syria and distributed the weapons to several depots. Follow-up weapon shipments, also several hundred tons, took place over the weekend of August 24-25, 2013, and included mainly sophisticated anti-tank guided missiles and rockets. Opposition officials in Hatay said that these weapon shipments were “the biggest” they had received “since the beginning of the turmoil more than two years ago”. The deliveries from Hatay went to all the rebel forces operating in the Idlib-to-Aleppo area, including the al-Qaida affiliated jihadists (who constitute the largest rebel forces in the area).

Several senior officials from both the Syrian opposition and sponsoring Arab states stressed that these weapon deliveries were specifically in anticipation for exploiting the impact of imminent bombing of Syria by the US and the Western allies. The latest strategy formulation and coordination meetings took place on August 26, 2013. The political coordination meeting took place in Istanbul and was attended by US Amb. Robert Ford.

More important were the military and operational coordination meetings at the Antakya garrison. Senior Turkish, Qatari, and US Intelligence officials attended in addition to the Syrian senior (opposition) commanders. The Syrians were informed that bombing would start in a few days.

“The opposition was told in clear terms that action to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime could come as early as in the next few days,” a Syrian participant in the meeting said. Another Syrian participant said that he was convinced US bombing was scheduled to begin on Thursday, August 29, 2013. Several participants — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that the assurances of forthcoming bombing were most explicit even as formally Obama is still undecided.

The descriptions of these meetings raise the question of the extent of foreknowledge of US Intelligence, and therefore, the Obama White House. All the sources consulted — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that officials of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” actively participated in the meetings and briefings in Turkey. Therefore, at the very least, they should have known that the opposition leaders were anticipating “a war-changing development”: that is, a dramatic event which would provoke a US-led military intervention.

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

Meanwhile, additional data from Damascus about the actual chemical attack increases the doubts about Washington’s version of events. Immediately after the attack, three hospitals of Doctors Without Borders (MSF: médecins sans frontières) in the greater Damascus area treated more than 3,600 Syrians affected by the chemical attack, and 355 of them died. MSF performed tests on the vast majority of those treated.

MSF director of operations Bart Janssens summed up the findings: “MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack. However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events — characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers — strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent.” Simply put, even after testing some 3,600 patients, MSF failed to confirm that sarin was the cause of the injuries. According to MSF, the cause could have been nerve agents like sarin, concentrated riot control gas, or even high-concentration pesticides. Moreover, opposition reports that there was distinct stench during the attack suggest that it could have come from the “kitchen sarin” used by jihadist groups (as distinct from the odorless military-type sarin) or improvised agents like pesticides.

Some of the evidence touted by the Obama White House is questionable at best.

A small incident in Beirut raises big questions. A day after the chemical attack, Lebanese fixers working for the “Mukhabarat Amriki” succeeded to convince a Syrian male who claimed to have been injured in the chemical attack to seek medical aid in Beirut in return for a hefty sum that would effectively settle him for life. The man was put into an ambulance and transferred overnight to the Farhat Hospital in Jib Janine, Beirut. The Obama White House immediately leaked friendly media that “the Lebanese Red Cross announced that test results found traces of sarin gas in his blood.” However, this was news to Lebanese intelligence and Red Cross officials. According to senior intelligence officials, “Red Cross Operations Director George Kettaneh told [them] that the injured Syrian fled the hospital before doctors were able to test for traces of toxic gas in his blood.” Apparently, the patient declared that he had recovered from his nausea and no longer needed medical treatment. The Lebanese security forces are still searching for the Syrian patient and his honorarium.

On August 24, 2013, Syrian Commando forces acted on intelligence about the possible perpetrators of the chemical attack and raided a cluster of rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar. Canisters of toxic material were hit in the fierce fire-fight as several Syrian soldiers suffered from suffocation and “some of the injured are in a critical condition”.

The Commando eventually seized an opposition warehouse containing barrels full of chemicals required for mixing “kitchen sarin”, laboratory equipment, as well as a large number of protective masks. The Syrian Commando also captured several improvised explosive devices, RPG rounds, and mortar shells. The same day, at least four HizbAllah fighters operating in Damascus near Ghouta were hit by chemical agents at the very same time the Syrian Commando unit was hit while searching a group of rebel tunnels in Jobar. Both the Syrian and the HizbAllah forces were acting on intelligence information about the real perpetrators of the chemical attack. Damascus told Moscow the Syrian troops were hit by some form of a nerve agent and sent samples (blood, tissues, and soil) and captured equipment to Russia.

Several Syrian leaders, many of whom are not Bashar al-Assad supporters and are even his sworn enemies, are now convinced that the Syrian opposition is responsible for the August 21, 2013, chemical attack in the Damascus area in order to provoke the US and the allies into bombing Assad’s Syria. Most explicit and eloquent is Saleh Muslim, the head of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) which has been fighting the Syrian Government. Muslim doubts Assad would have used chemical weapons when he was winning the civil war.

“The regime in Syria … has chemical weapons, but they wouldn’t use them around Damascus, five km from the [UN] committee which is investigating chemical weapons. Of course they are not so stupid as to do so,” Muslim told Reuters on August 27, 2013. He believes the attack was “aimed at framing Assad and provoking an international reaction”. Muslim is convinced that “some other sides who want to blame the Syrian regime, who want to show them as guilty and then see action” is responsible for the chemical attack. The US was exploiting the attack to further its own anti-Assad policies and should the UN inspectors find evidence that the rebels were behind the attack, then “everybody would forget it”, Muslim shrugged. “Who is the side who would be punished? Are they are going to punish the Emir of Qatar or the King of Saudi Arabia, or Mr Erdo?an of Turkey?”

And there remain the questions: Given the extent of the involvement of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” in opposition activities, how is that US Intelligence did not know in advance about the opposition’s planned use of chemical weapons in Damascus?

It is a colossal failure.

And if they did know and warned the Obama White House, why then the sanctimonious rush to blame the Assad Administration?

Moreover, how can the Obama Administration continue to support and seek to empower the opposition which had just intentionally killed some 1,300 innocent civilians in order to provoke a US military intervention?

Yossef Bodansky, Senior Editor, GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs

Copyright Defense and Foreign Affairs and Oilprice.com 2013

Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?

Yossef Bodansky

Read more…

IMHO

Good day Patiots, Here's what I'm am thinking, Syria is a problem that we should stay out of, but our president says we have to help. Here's the rub, Obamacare is coming quick and Obama thinks he can tie congress up with Syria until Oct. 1 and the chance to kill Obamacare goes out the window. Not forgetting Obama has not found a way to help hisMuslim Brotherhood buddies win in Syria. There were some very small articles leaning toward the Syrian rebels orFree Syrian Army or whatever name they call themselves today had mishandled the WMD's and let the gas loose.If the Free Army unleashed the gas Obama cannot attack Assad and help the MB. What's a stupid ass to do?Tie congress up until Oct 1, get Obamacare thru then just forget about Syria since Assad may not have caused the gas attacks.How can WE THE PEOPLE let Syria and the rest of our middle eastern "friends" know it is Obama stirring the stink up.
Read more…

4063727539?profile=original

 

Today on the Chris Wallace show, John Kerry was trying to defend his boss' flip flop on decision to use military force on Syria. Barry, being great on foreign affairs, can't make a decision. Why?  He has made many decisions before without Congress. I feel it is because he can't be seen in the Muslim community harming Muslims.

So, Barry, having a little human rights conscience, figures we have to do something.  But, if he delays action by waiting for congress to return from recess, the terrorists (Muslims) responsible will have time to duck and cover.

The presidential buzz phrase is, per Kerry today, " If the president takes issue to Congress, it will make America stronger".  I call BS!

Read more…

Obama- The American TIGER

Sadly, today Obama made America into a PAPER tiger.

Just like when Obama usually voted present while in the Illinois State House he chose to vote present today. Also, after Kerry stated how bad it was and how action must be taken now the President  said we can wait a couple of weeks. Then he and Biden went out and played golf. How important those poor souls must feel in Syria and how they must now realize how many Americans feel too. Very disappointed and sad about our Leader. Prepared to give an order, but doesn't, critical response needed, but delay, doesn't need approval, but will wait for it.  

After saying there was a red line and then blinking. While Syria is not a direct threat, but a moral responsibility as a world super power to stop mass murder weights on our country.

The UN, where we pay 25% of the base budget is a worthless, spy den where many of the members oppose the US at every turn. Our self interest, protection and our Constitution are the only things that matter, not the UN.

The issue now is that Iran, Muslim terrorists, N. Korea, Chinese and Russia will see a paper tiger. After drawing a line and doing nothing with Iran and now Syria what can the world do without recourse from the US? Iran is building nuclear weapons, China takes technology, spies, builds the military ASAP and manipulates currency to maintain a trade advantage, terrorists kill America soldiers and others without over whelming reaction from the US, we tolerate open hostile teachings within our border by Muslim activists , we tolerate the same from illegals and leave our borders open, grant asylum to Mexicans while denying the same to German home school parents and their children.

Our Congress and President will have weekend cookouts, the President will travel overseas and nothing happens. Our Congress takes no action while the war on coal and many aspects of America continue to be waged by Obama, much less what happens in Syria.  

Read more…

While Kerry and Obama say that using chemical weapons is unacceptable they must have forgotten their thoughts on Bush and Iraq. Saddam Hussein gassed an entire village of Kurds  which killed about 5,000 people and everything else alive in that village. Then he continued his aggression against other states and implied he had other weapons of mass destruction, although, as Mr. Kerry said this week chemical weapons are considered in that category. Biden called for Bush's impeachment, Kerry and Obama criticized Bush's war in Iraq for several reasons and yet Obama is expected to attack Syria for one of the same reasons, WMD use. Iraq invaded other nations, attempted to kill President Bush SR., interrupted oil production and supply routes, caused terrible environmental oil spills. Bush had a UN coalition of 30 plus nations and a UN mandate. 

Regardless, if you supported the Iraq action or not, my point is that Obama and his team are hypocrites. I think using  WMD now for action in Syria and criticizing Bush in the past is being hypocritical. It is terrible using chemical weapons, but anything that kills innocent civilians is also terrible. Will we police the entire world? I do think the UN and/or NATO should do something to punish the use of Chemical weapons and we are a part of those groups. Maybe Biden, Kerry and Obama should have  thought glass houses before they all stoned Bush? But then, if they did I guess they would not be politicians.

I wonder, if Hillary would just say, " What difference does it make".

Read more…

Foreign Deaths Syria, Egypt and Mexico?

Yes, it is terrible about all of the foreign violence and deaths. But, what about the 45,000 plus people murdered in MEXICO in the last few years. Yes, more than all of those other places far away and our troop losses in two wars! I care about all of them and especially Muslim terrorists killing everyone everywhere. What should we do about the country south of our border and the literal bleed over our border into various cities in America?

We should stop foreign aid, strengthen our military and put troops on our border helping to actually seal it ASAP. WE have bad guys coming over with criminals mixed in with people who just want to work.  Now, over 15% of Mexico's population is in the US illegally. Billions were given to illegals in just earned income credit, not to mention other benefits. I know our government tells people that, if you do not have a social security number you can still apply for food stamps and other assistance. I am sure there is no abuse of these programs, Yeah right. Regardless, we need to address the violence and illegals issue. How many illegals and related gang members are in our jails? Google it and you might be surprised. What does that cost? We are so PC that we will not place troops on the border like we did in the 1800's, but we should do so and reduce troops over seas. WE need a fence to keep people out not in the US. The border fence is not the Berlin wall , as we will let anyone leave that wants to leave.

Obama has stated he want to weaken the US military cutting 12 brigades and greatly reduce spending. If allowed he will gut the military to levels not seen since before WWII. As then, enemies will think we are so weak and unable to respond that  world wide violence and attacks will increase. We know Hitler thought it would take us 20 years to respond to him and that encouraged him to attack other countries. He was wrong then, as we had a great manufacturing base. Now, as we have allowed our manufacturing to exit, incurred high electricity costs and have one of the highest in the world corporate tax while we allow credits for foreign tax and business relocation we can not react as quickly.

We sit on more oil reserves than all of the rest known oil reserves in the world and yet we have no energy policy and import half of our oil. This money spent on oil imports empowers our enemies and fuels the world wide terrorists organizations.  WE do not use our tremendous natural gas and coal reserves. In fact drilling on federal land is down  and oil production is only up because of private land production. the EPA and other agencies. My point is that if we used our domestic energy resources, become energy independent ASAP in a Manhattan type effort, cut foreign oil imports to zero, maintained a strong military, bring down electricity costs and fuel costs, used energy to decrease unemployment it would be better for America. Peace through strength is better than Obama's weak, lead from behind and a watered down federally feed education system. Anything that weakens the US and weakens State control, is bad for America and in turn is bad for the world.  

Read more…

 

By Oscar Y. Harward

 

SC Sen. Lindsey ‘Flimsy’ Graham says he believes that the Republicans may be “in a demographic death spiral”.  Sen. Graham, the only ones that may apply are Moderate to Liberal Republicans In Name Only (RINO) like you, Sen. Lindsey ‘Flimsy’ Graham (R-SC) who are attempting to redirect our Conservative South Carolina and other states to a more-Liberal Democrat Party. 

 

You, Liberal Democrats, and RINO members of your ‘Gang of Eight’ want to add an additional $6.38 Trillion of National Debt to (y)our children, and their children, just to subsidize and grant ‘Amnesty’ to 11 Million ‘illegal immigrants’.

 

Sen. Graham was the Majority Senate Manager in President Bill Clinton’s Impeachment trial in 1999 for his removal from office; however, Sen. Graham was ‘ineffective’ in swaying some of his fellow Republicans and most Democrats; ending as a failure of removal on a 50 to 50 vote.  SCOTUS did later find President Obama guilty to ‘lying’ under oath; denying him to ever act as an attorney in the US Supreme Court.

 

‘Flimsy’ Graham verbalizes that he is ‘pro-life’; however, ‘Flimsy’ Graham makes it clear how he votes contradictory to his own words, as he votes in support of President Obama’s two most left-wing, anti-Christian, Pro-abortion SCOTUS nominees ever, and others.  Wasn’t it ‘Flimsy’ Graham who said in support of President Obama’s nominees, “Elections have consequences,”

 

South Carolinians have a lot of good ‘old-fashion’ ‘common-sense’; an ‘element’ lacking in ‘Flimsy’ Graham.  Giving credit where credit is earned, ‘Flimsy’ Graham is usually reliable in supporting our US Military, but isn’t he on that payroll, also?

 

There is serious concern asking ‘Flimsy’ Graham and others as to why should the USA send and/or provide our men and women of our US Military, any military equipment, financial resources, or anything else for either member side in the ‘civil war’ in Syria; whereas, both sides in this war ‘openly’ hate the USA and everything America is supposed to represent?  Americans and/or our other resources should not be sent anywhere in the world, just to die. 

 

It is apparent that being a US Senator must be a very easy job.  With an assembly of taxpayers’ paid staff, ‘Flimsy’ Graham spends a considerable amount of time ‘chasing’ TV Media cameras.

 

South Carolina has many potential 2014 GOP Senatorial nominees who will be more respectful to their citizens, their political values and their principles.

Read more…

 

By Oscar Y. Harward

 

SC Sen. Lindsey ‘Flimsy’ Graham says he believes that the Republicans may be “in a demographic death spiral”.  Sen. Graham, the only ones that may apply are Moderate to Liberal Republicans In Name Only (RINO) like you, Sen. Lindsey ‘Flimsy’ Graham (R-SC) who are attempting to redirect our Conservative South Carolina and other states to a more-Liberal Democrat Party. 

 

You, Liberal Democrats, and RINO members of your ‘Gang of Eight’ want to add an additional $6.38 Trillion of National Debt to (y)our children, and their children, just to subsidize and grant ‘Amnesty’ to 11 Million ‘illegal immigrants’.

 

Sen. Graham was the Majority Senate Manager in President Bill Clinton’s Impeachment trial in 1999 for his removal from office; however, Sen. Graham was ‘ineffective’ in swaying some of his fellow Republicans and most Democrats; ending as a failure of removal on a 50 to 50 vote.  SCOTUS did later find President Obama guilty to ‘lying’ under oath; denying him to ever act as an attorney in the US Supreme Court.

 

‘Flimsy’ Graham verbalizes that he is ‘pro-life’; however, ‘Flimsy’ Graham makes it clear how he votes contradictory to his own words, as he votes in support of President Obama’s two most left-wing, anti-Christian, Pro-abortion SCOTUS nominees ever, and others.  Wasn’t it ‘Flimsy’ Graham who said in support of President Obama’s nominees, “Elections have consequences,”

 

South Carolinians have a lot of good ‘old-fashion’ ‘common-sense’; an ‘element’ lacking in ‘Flimsy’ Graham.  Giving credit where credit is earned, ‘Flimsy’ Graham is usually reliable in supporting our US Military, but isn’t he on that payroll, also?

 

There is serious concern asking ‘Flimsy’ Graham and others as to why should the USA send and/or provide our men and women of our US Military, any military equipment, financial resources, or anything else for either member side in the ‘civil war’ in Syria; whereas, both sides in this war ‘openly’ hate the USA and everything America is supposed to represent?  Americans and/or our other resources should not be sent anywhere in the world, just to die. 

 

It is apparent that being a US Senator must be a very easy job.  With an assembly of taxpayers’ paid staff, ‘Flimsy’ Graham spends a considerable amount of time ‘chasing’ TV Media cameras.

 

South Carolina has many potential 2014 GOP Senatorial nominees who will be more respectful to their citizens, their political values and their principles.

Read more…

4063643596?profile=original.

Business Insider - Military & Defense.
Dec. 17, 2012.

www.businessinsider.com/did-we-just-kill-a-kid-nicola-abe-der-spiegel-brandon-bryant-2012-12

[Note: Iraq's main export is Oil.
Afghanistan's main export is Opium - What are we fighting for?].

.

The New Mexico desert gets blistering hot, but inside the small windowless container where Brandon Bryant worked as a drone operator for the U.S. Air Force it stays a cool 63 degrees all year long.

Nicola Abé at der Spiegel spoke with Bryant, no longer in the Air Force, who relays a disturbing and tragic scene from his time inside that isolated container in the American desert.

Sixty-three finger numbing degrees and Bryant describes sitting with a group of other pilots looking at more than a dozen computer monitors. The crew are directing drones over Afghanistan 6,250 miles away and the screens jump with a two to five second delay, as infrared video sent from the UAVs whips through the air to New Mexico.

When the order to fire on a target arrives, Bryant paints the roof of a hut with the laser that will guide in a Hellfire missile released by the pilot beside him.

"These moments are like in slow motion," he says to Abé.

No doubt, because on this occasion Bryant says a child walked from behind the building at the last second. Too late for him to do anything else but ask the other pilot, "Did we just kill a kid?"

From der Spiegel:

"Yeah, I guess that was a kid," the pilot replied.

"Was that a kid?" they wrote into a chat window on the monitor.

Then, someone they didn't know answered, someone sitting in a military command center somewhere in the world who had observed their attack. "No. That was a dog," the person wrote.

They reviewed the scene on video. A dog on two legs?

The article follows another widely publicized story from the Marine Times about children killed by Americans on Afghan soil published just weeks ago. While obviously a tragedy for the victims and their families, Bryant describes the incredible toll taken on U.S. troops required to obey orders producing such dire results.

From his mother's couch in Missoula, Montana Bryant talks of his 6,000 Air Force flight hours and says he used to dream in infrared. "I saw men, women and children die during that time," he says. "I never thought I would kill that many people. In fact, I thought I couldn't kill anyone at all."

The three part article digs deeply into the life of a troubled former servicemember and the war-fighting policies that don't look to be changing anytime soon.

Read it in full here.

.

Read more…