USA Holds Off Attack If Syria Turns Over All Chemical Weapons

[VICanucksfan5551]

Uh, Salmonberries, I think you should probably post all of those as links in a single post instead of spamming the whole page with articles.

[Salmonberries]

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/id...dChannel=0

Syrian Kurdish leader says Assad not to blame for attack

Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:11pm EDT

By Alexandra Hudson

BERLIN (Reuters) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would not be "so stupid" as to use chemical weapons close to Damascus, the leader of the country's largest Kurdish group said.

Saleh Muslim, head of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), said he doubted the Syrian president would resort to using such weapons when he felt he had the upper hand in the country's civil war.

He suggested last Wednesday's attack, which the opposition says was carried out by government forces and killed hundreds of people, was aimed at framing Assad and provoking an international reaction. Assad has denied his forces used chemical weapons.

"The regime in Syria ... has chemical weapons, but they wouldn't use them around Damascus, 5 km from the (U.N.) committee which is investigating chemical weapons. Of course they are not so stupid as to do so," Muslim told Reuters.

At the time of the incident, U.N. experts were already in Syria to investigate three previous alleged chemical attacks dating from months ago.

Muslim's PYD, which has well-armed and effective militias, has clashed with Assad's forces as well as rebels, but has allowed both to move through its territories during the war.

Some rebels and rival Kurdish groups accuse it of having been close to the state, a position Muslim disputes. He said Kurdish areas the PYD controlled were under attack from al Qaeda-linked rebels.

Muslim suggested "some other sides who want to blame the Syrian regime, who want to show them as guilty and then see action" lay behind the chemical attack, which has led to speculation that Western countries will order a military response.

He said that if the U.N. inspectors found evidence Assad was not behind the gassing and the rebels were, "everybody would forget it".

"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. Erdogan of Turkey?" Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have all strongly condemned Assad and backed the rebels.

Kurdish militias have sought to consolidate their grip in northern Syria after exploiting the chaos of the civil war over the past year by seizing control of districts as Assad's forces focused elsewhere.

The PYD said in July it aimed to set up a transitional council and their emerging self-rule is starting to echo the autonomy of Kurds in neighboring northern Iraq.

Muslim said he reassured officials during talks last month with Turkey's intelligence agency that the council was not a move to divide Syria - which would alarm Ankara, which is wary of deepening sectarian violence on its border.

Nonetheless, it highlights Syria's slow fragmentation into a Kurdish northeast, mainly government-held areas around Damascus, Homs and the Mediterranean, and a rebel swathe leading from Aleppo along the Euphrates Valley to Iraq.

(Editing by Alison Williams)

[Salmonberries]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,...62,00.html

Syrian rebels' senior official says Israel must urge intervention

Opposition source says Israel needs to prove its good intentions, persuade world to intervene in Syrian war

Roi Kais

Published: 08.25.13, 23:36 / Israel News

"If Israel wants to prove it has good intentions toward the Syrian people it must urge the international community to intervene in Syria," a senior official in the Syrian opposition told Ynet Sunday.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Israel must urge intervention in order to "save Syria and the Syrian people and prevent Syria's fall."

Quote:Related stories:

'US has little doubt chemical arms used in Syria'

Poll: Americans oppose US intervention in Syria

Israel estimates US will attack in Syria

He blamed Israel for giving the Syrian regime "diplomatic cover," and said it must be removed if Israel "wants to show the Syrian people it is not assisting the Syrian regime and the Syrian terror."

He estimated that eventually the world would intervene. "I have reason to believe that preparations for war have begun and that this intervention is extremely close," he said, but did not specify what his estimates were based on.

He added that "when the Syrian people started their revolution, they went out to the streets to take down the government and not the Syrian country. We must save the Syrian country and prevent the anarchy that will reign after Assad's regime falls."

Addressing the West's demand that conclusive evidence regarding the use of chemical weapons be presented, the source stressed, "The US, UK, France and Turkey have enough evidence that chemical weapons were used in Syria. What's missing is not proof, it's a willingness for military intervention."

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Free Syrian Army said in an interview that the rebels have information by which several Western countries made a decision to launch a military attack against the Syrian regime in response for the use of chemical weapons.

According to the spokesperson, "The world cannot bear the death of 1,500 people without acting."

Regarding the issue of intervention, US President Barack Obama discussed a possible coordinated international response to the reported use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria with French President Francois Hollande, the White House said on Sunday.

"President Obama and President Hollande discussed possible responses by the international community and agreed to continue to consult closely," the White House said in a statement.

The two leaders expressed grave concern about the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces against civilians near Damascus on Wednesday, the White House said, without giving any further details of the discussion.

[Salmonberries]

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/26/syria...or-us-war/

Syrian Rebels Demand Israeli Support for US War

Syria Could Target Israel When Attacks Begin

by Jason Ditz, August 26, 2013

Israel hasn’t exactly made a secret about its desire to see the US impose regime change in Syria, seeing the ouster of President Assad in favor of al-Qaeda dominated jihadists as really sticking it to Iran.

Still, Syrian rebel leaders say that Israel needs to stop being even nominally neutral, and must loudly endorse the planned US attack on Syria, if it wants to retain good relations with the post-war rebel government.

Of course “good relations” is a relative term, but it’s hard to imagine a violent Salafist regime being okay with Israel’s open-ended occupation of the Golan Heights simply because Israel endorsed the US war that installed them. Still, President Shimon Peres is already calling for UN intervention and forced disarmament.

The perception of Israeli involvement, especially since Israel has flat out attacked Syria several times in the past few months, is already clear in the Assad government’s mind, and officials say that Israel should expect to “come under fire” when the US attacks begin.

[Salmonberries]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...vice=print

Syria, the Saudi connection: The Prince with close ties to Washington at the heart of the push for war

David Usborne

Monday, 26 August 2013

He has been gone from the capital for eight years, but Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who as Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Washington wielded influence over no fewer than five different US presidents, has re-emerged as a pivotal figure in the struggle by America and its allies to tilt the battlefield balance against the regime in Syria.

Appointed by the Saudi king, his uncle, last year as the head of the Saudi General Intelligence Agency, Prince Bandar has reportedly for months been focused exclusively on garnering international support, including arms and training, for Syrian rebel factions in pursuit of the eventual toppling of President Bashar al-Assad.

It is a long-term Saudi goal, that in the past several days has been subsumed by the more immediate crisis over the purported use of chemical weapons by Damascus, which, according to Riyadh, must be met by a stern response. That message is being delivered to President Barack Obama by the current Saudi Ambassador in Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, who is a Bandar protégé.

It was Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency that first alerted Western allies to the alleged use of sarin gas by the Syrian regime in February.

While a trip earlier this month to the Kremlin to try to cajole President Vladimir Putin into withdrawing his support for President Assad reportedly failed, Prince Bandar automatically has greater leverage in Western capitals, not least because of friendships forged during his time in Washington. His most recent travels, rarely advertised, have taken him to both London and Paris for discussions with senior officials.

As ambassador, Prince Bandar left an imprint that still has not quite faded. His voice was one of the loudest urging the United States to invade Iraq in 2003. In the 1980s, Prince Bandar became mired in the Iran-Contra scandal in Nicaragua.

Months of applying pressure on the White House and Congress over Syria have slowly born fruit. The CIA is believed to have been working with Prince Bandar directly since last year in training rebels at base in Jordan close to the Syrian border.

The Saudis are “indispensable partners on Syria” and have considerable influence on American thinking, a senior US official told The Wall Street Journal yesterday. He added: “No one wants to do anything alone”.

[Salmonberries]

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/79968.aspx

Iraq opposes use of airspace to strike Syria

As Western nations deliberate military response to Syria, neighboring Iraq rejects use of its airspace or territory to attack war-torn country

AFP , Monday 26 Aug 2013

As chemicals slaughter more Syrians, world weighs options

Iraq said Monday it opposes the use of its airspace or territory in any attack on Syria, as Western powers warn of possible military action against Damascus.

"We do not agree to any use of our airspace ... to attack any neighbouring country through our land," Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's spokesman told AFP, asked if Baghdad would authorise the use of its airspace in any action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

"Our position is fixed on this subject."

The West appears to be moving closer to a military response over last Wednesday's suspected deadly chemical weapons attack near Damascus that shocked the world after grisly pictures emerged of dead children with horrific injuries.

Washington and its allies have pointed the finger of blame at Assad's regime for the alleged attack, the latest atrocity in a conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 100,000 people since March 2011.

Iraq has sought to publicly avoid taking sides in the civil war between Assad and rebels seeking his ouster, but the conflict has spilled over the border on several occasions.

The United States has repeatedly called on Iraq to stop flights allegedly carrying arms from Iran to the Syrian regime. Iraq insists Iran has reduced flights transporting arms to Syria but said Baghdad cannot stop them completely.

[Salmonberries]

There's a link function, Salmonberries

[Salmonberries]

http://rt.com/usa/us-syria-strike-chemical-060/

Obama reportedly considering two-day strike on Syria

Published time: August 27, 2013

White House officials say the United States may launch a limited military strike on Syria as early as this Thursday as the intelligence community prepares to release a report justifying action and allies are rallied.

Senior officials in the Obama administration told the Washington Post for an article published on Tuesday that the White House is weighing a limited strike on Syria and said on condition of anonymity that “We’re actively looking at the various legal angles that would inform a decision.”

According to the Post, the likely response from Washington would be a sea-to-land strike from the Mediterranean that would last no longer than two days and would not be directed towards targets where the chemical weapons arsenal is believed to be stored.

But while an attack is all but imminent and will likely be launched from warships already mobilized in the Mediterranean by the week’s end, public support in the US has teetered towards nil as of late. The Obama administration says there is undeniable proof that chemical weapons were used on civilians outside of Damascus on August 21, but a five-day-long Reuters poll taken during that time concluded only nine percent of Americans favor intervention.

Notwithstanding that lack of support, US Secretary of State John Kerry hinted Monday at a response which will jolt Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and ideally worsen the odds that his regime will implement chemical warheads again.

Despite insistence from Assad and allies in Russia that the Syrian government is not guilty of using chemical weapons, Sec. Kerry said during a press conference on Monday that “our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts, informed by conscious and guided by common sense.” Kerry called Assad’s reported attempt to cover-up the alleged use of chemical weapons “cynical” and said, “President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people.”

One day earlier, Sec. Kerry admitted that Pres. Obama was considering his options with regards to a strike and was to meet with lawmakers in Congress as well as with international leaders. According to the Post article, however, the president may forego getting approval from Capitol Hill and will instead rely on striking Syria due to “undeniable,” as the White House puts it, war crimes.

“The administration has said that it will follow international law in shaping its response,” Karen DeYoung and Anne Gearan wrote for the Post, adding, “But much of international law is untested, and administration lawyers are also examining possible legal justifications based on a violation of international prohibitions on chemical weapons use, or on an appeal for assistance from a neighboring nation such as Turkey.” Additionally, the US has already received assurance of support from Britain, France and Turkey.

According to senior administration officials who spoke to CBS News on condition of anonymity, Pres. Obama met with his national security team this past weekend and has ordered that a declassified intelligence report showing the rationale for any attack on Syria be released before it occurs.

While only nine percent of the respondents polled in the Reuters survey between August 19 and 23 said they want the White House to respond to Assad’s reported use of chemical weapons immediately, 25 percent said they would favor intervention if the US concludes with certainty that those warheads were illegally used. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from earlier in the month found that 30.2 percent of Americans would support intervention if Assad is linked to using chemical weapons.

Sec. Kerry said the indiscriminate slaughter of women and children apparently being carried out by the Assad regime constitutes a “moral obscenity.”

[Salmonberries]

http://rt.com/news/sea-hack-nyt-site-twitter-077/

http://rt.com/news/syria-foreign-minister-strike-050/

http://rt.com/op-edge/farage-syria-atack-uk-067/

[Salmonberries]

[Buddhas Hand]

1) nowhere in the Quran states that a Muslim is able to have intercourse let alone marry a girl that has not hit puberty, wherever you got that information is false and invalid.

2) Many sources claim that Aisha did Marry the prophet at a young age but she also did not live with him until many years later when she hit puberty.

3) also her age is still up in the air no one can clearly prove that she married at the age of 9, I have read articles that say otherwise.

4) For example up until the year 1869 the age of consent in MOST STATES IN THE USA was 7 years old!!!!!!!! that was like 200 years ago.. and we are talking about 1400 years ago where societies norm was much different then what it is now. Things happening today that seem normal to us may be rejected by generations before us and vice versa. Not condoning marriage with girls under the age of 10 (still don't believe to be true).

5) If people believe this to be surprising or scary then they really need to go research other religions where there is no age of consent to marriage, where you are able to have intercourse with a 3 year old. Not going to bring up any names but this has been going on longer then any of us care to know and although it is wrong, the state of mind 1400 years ago was alot different then it is now.

[Buddhas Hand]

Putin Orders Massive Strike Against Saudi Arabia If West Attacks Syria

A grim “urgent action memorandum” issued today from the office of President Putin to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is ordering a “massive military strike” against Saudi Arabia in the event that the West attacks Syria.

According to Kremlin sources familiar with this extraordinary “war order,” Putin became “enraged” after his early August meeting with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan who warned that if Russia did not accept the defeat of Syria, Saudi Arabia would unleash Chechen terrorists under their control to cause mass death and chaos during the Winter Olympics scheduled to be held 7-23 February 2014 in Sochi, Russia.

Lebanese newspaper As-Safir confirmed this amazing threat against Russia saying that Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord by stating: “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us.”

Prince Bandar went on to say that Chechens operating in Syria were a pressure tool that could be switched on an off. “These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria’s political future.”

London’s The Telegraph News Service further reported today that Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria, an offer Putin replied to by saying “Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters” [Putin said referring to footage showing a Jihadist rebel eating the heart and liver of a Syrian soldier HERE], and which Prince Bandar in turn warned that there can be “no escape from the military option” if Russia declines the olive branch.

Critical to note, and as we had previously reported on in our 28 January 2013 report “Obama Plan For World War III Stuns Russia,” the Federal Security Services (FSB) confirmed the validity of the released hacked emails of the British based defence company, Britam Defence that stunningly warned the Obama regime was preparing to unleash a series of attacks against both Syria and Iran in a move Russian intelligence experts warned could very well cause World War III.

According to this FSB report, Britam Defence, one of the largest private mercenary forces in the world, was the target of a “massive hack” of its computer files by an “unknown state sponsored entity” this past January who then released a number of critical emails between its top two executives, founder Philip Doughty and his Business Development Director David Goulding.

The two most concerning emails between Doughty and Goulding, this report says, states that the Obama regime has approved a “false flag” attack in Syria using chemical weapons, and that Britam has been approved to participate in the West’s warn on Iran, and as we can read:

Email 1: Phil, We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington. We’ll have to deliver a CW (chemical weapon) to Homs (Syria), a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record. Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion? Kind regards David

Email 2: Phil, Please see attached details of preparatory measures concerning the Iranian issue. Participation of Britam in the operation is confirmed by the Saudis.

With the events now spiraling out of control in Syria, and London’s Independent News Service now reporting that Prince Bandar is “pushing for war,” Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich further warned the West today by stating, “Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa.”

Heedless of Russian warnings which have fallen on deaf ears, however, British Prime Minister David Cameron this morning recalled the British Parliament to vote on attacking Syria as the Obama regime abruptly cancelled their meeting with Russia scheduled for tomorrow on finding a path to peace for Syria, and the West begins its plans to attack the Syrian nation “within days.”

As Syria itself has warned that should it be attacked by the West there will be “global chaos,” the Western peoples themselves have not been told of the fact that on 17 May 2013, Putin ordered Russian military forces to “immediately move” from Local War to Regional War operational status and to be “fully prepared” to expand to Large-Scale War should either the US or EU enter into the Syrian Civil War, a situation they are still in at this very hour.

With Putin’s previous order, and as we had reported on in our 17 May report “Russia Issues “All-Out War” Alert Over Syria,” and now combined with his new ordering of massive retaliatory strikes against Saudi Arabia, any attack on Syria is viewed by Russia as being an attack on itself.

And as we had previously explained in great detail, the fight over Syria, being led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and their lap-dog Western allies, has but one single objective: To break Russia’s hold on the European Union natural gas market which a pipeline through Syria would accomplish, and as reported by London’s Financial Times News Service this past June:

“The tiny gas-rich state of Qatar has spent as much as $3bn over the past two years supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government, but is now being nudged aside by Saudi Arabia as the prime source of arms to rebels.

The cost of Qatar’s intervention, its latest push to back an Arab revolt, amounts to a fraction of its international investment portfolio. But its financial support for the revolution that has turned into a vicious civil war dramatically overshadows western backing for the opposition.

Qatar [also] has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world’s biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).”

And in what is, perhaps, the most unimaginable cause to start World War III over Syria was noted by Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Aleksandr Lukashevich who said this past week: “We’re getting more new evidence that this criminal act was of a provocative nature,” he stressed. “In particular, there are reports circulating on the Internet, in particular that the materials of the incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack. Thus, it was a pre-planned action.”

For the West to have so sloppily engineered yet another “false flag” attack to justify a war where they posted the videos of this so-called chemical weapons attack a full day before it was said to occur is the height of arrogance and disdain, but which their sleep-walking citizens, yet again, will fall for as they have done so many times in the past.

http://www.eutimes.n...rd...cks-syria/

[Salmonberries]

I find this Chilling , According to Kremlin sources familiar with this extraordinary “war order,” Putin became “enraged” after his early August meeting with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan who warned that if Russia did not accept the defeat of Syria, Saudi Arabia would unleash Chechen terrorists under their control to cause mass death and chaos during the Winter Olympics scheduled to be held 7-23 February 2014 in Sochi, Russia.

Lebanese newspaper As-Safir confirmed this amazing threat against Russia saying that Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord by stating: “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us.” One nation threating another with terrorists acts while that nation is holding one of the worlds big sporting events

[Buddhas Hand]

I've got my survival thing together pretty much, but I could use some of that soylent green of yours if you have any to spare?Russia takes out Saudi; I'm off to the bush.

See ya folks!

[GLASSJAW]

Any NYT subscribers here? The website has been down for some time now, and just a few minutes ago CNN reported this:

http://www.cnn.com/2...tack/index.html

Apparently the NYT suspects the external attacks coming from the Syrian Electronic Army?

er, nevermind: http://www.ctvnews.c...redit-1.1429773

guess the electronic army has claimed responsibility.

[Salmonberries]

Now that the Russian Orthodox Church is becoming the real power in Russia this has the potential to be the flashpoint between the Christian and Muslim worlds that many have been expecting for the last ten years . EDIT .........Soylent Green Is only for the Elites but I can spare you some

[Salmonberries]

Sorry folks. Two more and done okay.

The heir to Blair: David Cameron makes 'moral case' for attack on Syria ahead of National Security Council Meeting

No sign that Britain will wait for mandate from UN Security Council as PM faces crucial test of authority with Parliament recall for debate on Thursday

Britain has a responsibility to take action to punish the “morally indefensible” use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime even without a UN mandate, David Cameron has suggested.

In his first public comments on the crisis, the Prime Minister has said that the Government was considering “legal and proportionate” means to “deter and degrade” Assad’s chemical weapons capability.

Syria crisis: UK and US vow that any military response is 'not about regime change' as Parliament is recalled

But Mr Cameron and his deputy, Nick Clegg, appeared to imply that such action could take place without a mandate from the UN Security Council – or without waiting for weapons inspectors to report on their examination of the site of the alleged attack in Damscus last week, during which hundreds are reported to have died. Foreign Office lawyers and the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, are understood already to have examined the legal route for military intervention in Syria using a controversial UN “ humanitarian” exemption that allows action without the Security Council’s authority.

Western intervention in Syria is likely to take the form of limited cruise missile strikes against regime targets and sites identified with chemical weapons sites. It is expected to take place within the next 10 days.

Mr Cameron spoke to US President Barack Obama ahead of the NSC meeting last night, a Downing Street spokesperson confirmed, where both leaders "agreed that all the information available confirmed a chemical weapons attack had taken place, noting that even the Iranian president and Syrian regime had conceded this." Mr Cameron and Mr Obama also "both agreed they were in no doubt that the Assad regime was responsible", the spokesperson added.

In echoes of Tony Blair’s argument that there was a “moral case” for the war in Iraq even without a UN mandate, Mr Cameron said the use of chemical weapons was “morally indefensible” and Britain could not “let that stand”. But unlike Mr Blair he insisted Western action was “not about getting involved in a Middle Eastern war”.

“I understand people’s concerns about war in the Middle East, about getting sucked into the situation in Syria,” he said. “This is not about wars in the Middle East, this is not even about Syria. It’s about the use of chemical weapons and making sure as a world we deter their use and deter the appalling scenes we have all seen on our TV screens.”

“It must be right to have some rules in our world and try to enforce those rules,” Mr Cameron added. “Any action we take or others take would have to be legal, would have to be proportionate, it would have to be specific to deter and degrade the future use of chemical weapons.”

The Prime Minister said there was never 100 per cent certainty or a single piece of irrefutable evidence of their use, but said the world had agreed almost a century ago they should not be used.

But his stance was attacked by the former Chief UN Weapons Inspector at the time of the Iraq War. Hans Blix said Mr Cameron “ doesn’t seem to care much about international legality”.

“As far as they are all concerned, a criminal act has been committed so now they must engage in what they call retaliation,” he said.

“I don’t see what they are retaliating about. The weapons weren’t used against them. If the aim is to stop the breach of international law and to keep the lid on others with chemical weapons, military action without first waiting for the UN inspector report is not the way to go about it.”

Although action based on self-defence has been dismissed as inappropriate by London and Washington, senior Foreign Office lawyers and Mr Grieve believe humanitarian intervention, based on “ overwhelming humanitarian necessity”, was correctly applied by Tony Blair when he authorised force in Kosovo in 1999, and can be used again.

Mr Cameron initially focused on the “humanitarian” exemption to plan action in Libya, but eventual UN backing rendered it unnecessary.

Following the Kosovo action, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee criticised the “humanitarian” justification as being “ illegal” but nevertheless backed its use as “legitimate”.

Russia has dismissed the use of the humanitarian route as illegal. The country’s deputy Prime Minister, Dmitry Rogozin, went further by accusing the West of behaving like a “monkey with a grenade” over Syria.

Mr Cameron also announced that MPs would be given a vote on a motion during an emergency sitting of the House of Commons on Thursday to discuss Syria.

After speaking to Mr Cameron, Labour leader Ed Miliband said he would consider giving Labour backing to action but only on the basis it could proved to be legal.

“The use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians is abhorrent and cannot be ignored,” he said. “When I saw the Prime Minister this afternoon I said to him the Labour Party would consider supporting international action but only on the basis that it was legal, that it was specifically limited to deterring the future use of chemical weapons and that any action contemplated had clear and achievable military goals. We will be scrutinising any action contemplated on that basis.”

The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg added that he agreed with Mr Cameron on the need for action.

“If we stand idly by we set a very dangerous precedent indeed, where brutal dictators and brutal rulers will feel they can get away with using chemical weapons on a larger and larger scale in the future,” he said.

“So what we’re considering is a serious response to that. What we are not considering is regime change, trying to topple the Assad regime, trying to settle the civil war in Syria one way or another. That needs to be settled through a political process.”

But the Prime Minister is likely to face significant opposition to any intervention and is likely to face intense questioning over how he can justify the legality of any action without a UN mandate.

Richard Ottaway, chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, said international law had changed since intervention in Kosovo, when intervention was justified on the basis overwhelming humanitarian need.

“That doctrine [now] only supports intervention with the backing of a UN resolution, so if China and Russia veto any resolution, then clearly an intervention would not have the legal authority,” he told the BBC.

He added: “Unlawful is probably a slightly exaggerated phrase. I think there is no legal support for an intervention of this nature rather than describing it as illegal.”

Andrew Bridgen, who sent a letter signed by 81 fellow Conservatives to Mr Cameron demanding a vote earlier this year, said: “The House is going to seek assurance on the grounds for action, that there is compelling evidence it is the Assad regime that launched the chemical attacks - that will need to be proved and explained.

“We will need the aims of any action and limits and scope of action, and information on who else will be involved.”

Syria and Iraq: The parallels

Is/was intervention legal?

David Cameron

The Prime Minister knows that intervention in Syria is highly unlikely to be authorised by a United Nations resolution because Russia and China would veto it. He insists that any military action will be legal, proportionate and a specific response to last week's attack on Syrian citizens with chemical weapons. UK officials argue that Syria has breached the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention which bans them, and that justifies action. But legal doubts remain.

Tony Blair

The former Prime Minister, who backed intervention in Syria today, failed to secure a further UN resolution authorising action in Iraq and relied on a previous one passed after the Gulf War. Lord Goldsmith, his Attorney General, denied claims he was pressurised by Blair allies to change his legal advice to give the all-clear for war but doubts about its legality have never been lifted.

Are/were the weapons' inspectors getting enough time?

David Cameron

The PM wants to study the report by UN inspectors who on Monday visited the site of last week's attack, though it is unclear whether they will be able to give a definitive verdict. But Hans Blix, who was the chief UN arms inspector in Iraq, warned today that the “political dynamics” in Syria are running ahead of the “due process”.

Tony Blair

The former PM clashed with Mr Blix, who complained he was denied the “space and time” needed to search for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Mr Blair was convinced, wrongly, that Iraq possessed them but was frustrated at the regime's alleged obstruction of the inspectors' work and their failure to find a “smoking gun” that would have justified war.

Has/had Parliament been properly consulted?

David Cameron

The PM today tried to defuse growing demands for Parliament to be consulted by recalling MPs from their summer break four days early to discuss Syria on Thursday. But some Conservative MPs are demanding a Commons vote to authorise specific action; they doubt they will be granted that in case Mr Cameron suffered a humiliating defeat.

Tony Blair

The former PM conceded a Commons vote on Iraq after Cabinet pressure and did win Parliament's backing for his Government's position. But during the build-up to the invasion, he was criticised for ignoring critics among MPs and denying a proper Cabinet debate. The long-delayed Chilcot inquiry into the conflict is looking closely at whether Mr Blair promised the US President George Bush that Britain would join military action a year before it happened.

Is/was his party behind him?

David Cameron

No. Many Tory MPs are worried that “mission creep” will suck Britain into an Iraq-style quagmire and want clear goals. They want hard proof that the Assad regime was behind last week's attack. In June, more than 80 Tories demanded a Commons vote before the UK sent arms to the anti-Assad rebels, helping to deter Mr Cameron from such a course.

Tony Blair

No. Some 139 Labour MPs voted against the Iraq war in March 2003, the largest ever rebellion against a Labour Government. Mr Blair won the crucial Commons vote by 412 votes to 149, was forced to rely on the support of most Conservative MPs. The Liberal Democrats opposed the war but Nick Clegg is arguing that Syria is very different and is backing Mr Cameron.

Is/was public opinion behind him?

David Cameron

It is not yet clear whether the British people will support limited action over chemical weapons. But after Iraq and Afghanistan, they are likely to be cautious about any intervention. A YouGov survey at the weekend found that three-quarters (74 per cent) oppose sending British troops to fight alongside anti-Assad forces and two-thirds (66 per cent) are oppose giving them full-scale military supplies.

Tony Blair

Before the 2003 invasion, opinion polls showed that a majority of people supported military action, some by a 2-1 margin. But the bloody aftermath and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction turned opinion round. A YouGov survey marking the war's 10th anniversary this year found that 55 per cent thought the military action was wrong and 30 per cent right.

Are/were we America's poodle?

David Cameron

The PM's aides insist not, arguing that there is a growing international coalition for action to be taken against President Assad. Mr Cameron has been at the forefront of demands to help the Syrian rebels. So has France, which strongly opposed the Iraq war. British officials point to the Arab League's belief that the Assad regime was responsible for last week's attack.

Tony Blair

The former PM always denied the charge but never escaped its shadow. His close personal relationship with George Bush fuelled such suspicions, as did his desire to slay the ghosts of Old Labour's anti-Americanism. He could have pursued a “European solution” to Iraq but decided to “be there” if the US acted, even turning down a last-minute offer by the US President to let the UK opt out.

Andrew Grice

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pol...86783.html

[Salmonberries]

ROBERT FISK

Tuesday 27 August 2013

Does President Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side?

‘All for one and one for all’ should be the battle cry if the West goes to war against Assad’s Syrian regime

If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.

Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.

Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa’ida for intelligence help – after all, this is the group with “boots on the ground”, something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa’ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa’ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world.

There will be some ironies, of course. While the Americans drone al-Qa’ida to death in Yemen and Pakistan – along, of course, with the usual flock of civilians – they will be giving them, with the help of Messrs Cameron, Hollande and the other Little General-politicians, material assistance in Syria by hitting al-Qa’ida’s enemies. Indeed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the one target the Americans will not strike in Syria will be al-Qa’ida or the Nusra front.

And our own Prime Minister will applaud whatever the Americans do, thus allying himself with al-Qa’ida, whose London bombings may have slipped his mind. Perhaps – since there is no institutional memory left among modern governments – Cameron has forgotten how similar are the sentiments being uttered by Obama and himself to those uttered by Bush and Blair a decade ago, the same bland assurances, uttered with such self-confidence but without quite enough evidence to make it stick.

In Iraq, we went to war on the basis of lies originally uttered by fakers and conmen. Now it’s war by YouTube. This doesn’t mean that the terrible images of the gassed and dying Syrian civilians are false. It does mean that any evidence to the contrary is going to have to be suppressed. For example, no-one is going to be interested in persistent reports in Beirut that three Hezbollah members – fighting alongside government troops in Damascus – were apparently struck down by the same gas on the same day, supposedly in tunnels. They are now said to be undergoing treatment in a Beirut hospital. So if Syrian government forces used gas, how come Hezbollah men might have been stricken too? Blowback?

And while we’re talking about institutional memory, hands up which of our jolly statesmen know what happened last time the Americans took on the Syrian government army? I bet they can’t remember. Well it happened in Lebanon when the US Air Force decided to bomb Syrian missiles in the Bekaa Valley on 4 December 1983. I recall this very well because I was here in Lebanon. An American A-6 fighter bomber was hit by a Syrian Strela missile – Russian made, naturally – and crash-landed in the Bekaa; its pilot, Mark Lange, was killed, its co-pilot, Robert Goodman, taken prisoner and freighted off to jail in Damascus. Jesse Jackson had to travel to Syria to get him back after almost a month amid many clichés about “ending the cycle of violence”. Another American plane – this time an A-7 – was also hit by Syrian fire but the pilot managed to eject over the Mediterranean where he was plucked from the water by a Lebanese fishing boat. His plane was also destroyed.

Sure, we are told that it will be a short strike on Syria, in and out, a couple of days. That’s what Obama likes to think. But think Iran. Think Hezbollah. I rather suspect – if Obama does go ahead – that this one will run and run.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comm...86680.html

[RUPERTKBD]

O Rupert, you probably should have done a little, just a little research, before making such far-reaching attacks on me.

First of all I'd like to start it off with a quote. A quote from the US ambassador to Canada from 2001-2005, Paul Cellucci, who on March 25, 2003 (5 days after the US attacks on Iraq began) said this:

“… ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel… will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly… than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.”

[mdehaan]

Yes....that's because they are purposely trying to deflate the value of their dollar, like I said before. You're also looking at "monetary base", which is different than actual currency.

Anyways, this is the end of this conversation. You still haven't demonstrated how this is related to what's going on in Syria in any way, and I don't want to take this topic any further off topic.