Thread: Experts: U.S. Case that Syrian Government Responsible for Chemical Weapons Is Weak

Experts: U.S. Case that Syrian Government Responsible for Chemical Weapons Is Weak

Submitted by George Washington on 08/30/2013 15:33 -0400


Experts: U.S. Case that Syrian Government Responsible for Chemical Weapons Is Weak

French Oppose War Against Syria

The civil war in Syria started in March 2011. And see this.

However, the U.S. has been funding the Syrian opposition since 2006 … and arming the opposition since 2007.

So the American government’s argument that “we must stop Assad because he’s brutally crushing a spontaneous popular uprising” is false. The U.S. started supporting the rebels 5 years before the protests started.

Moreover, reports from mainstream media sources such as the New York Times, (and here), Wall Street Journal, USA Today, CNN,McClatchy (and here), AP, Time, BBC, the Independent, the Telegraph, Agence France-Presse, Asia Times, and the Star (and here) – confirm that supporting the rebels means supporting Al Qaeda and two other terrorist groups. Indeed, the the New York Times has reported that virtually all of the rebel fighters are Al Qaeda terrorists.
By supporting the rebels, we’re supporting our sworn terrorist enemies.

A War 20 Years In the Making

If there is any doubt about this timeline, please keep in mind that the U.S. and Britain considered attacking Syrians and then blaming it on the Syrian government as an excuse for regime change … 50 years ago (the U.S. just admitted that they did this to Iran)
And the U.S. has been planning regime change in Syria for 20 years straight.

The Last “Humanitarian War”

Libya’s Gaddafi claimed that the rebels in that country were actually Al Qaeda.That claim – believe it or not – has been confirmed.

According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:




The Hindustan Times reported:

“There is no question that al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition,” Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and a leading expert on terrorism, told Hindustan Times.

It has always been Qaddafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi.

(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion. But NATO planes stopped him, and protected Benghazi.)

Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya. Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled.

There is a direct connection to Syria. Specifically, CNN, the Telegraph, the Washington Times, and many other mainstream sources confirm that Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya have since flooded into Syria to fight the Assad regime. And the post-Gaddafi Libyan government is also itself a top funder and arms supplier of the Syrian opposition.

The Bottom Line

The bottom line is that there are no few good guys involved in the Syrian war.

The solution is not to bomb the country … or to send more arms to the rebels.

The solution is to make sure that less weapons – chemical and conventional – get into that tinder box of a country.

And to stay the h@!! out of a conflict which has no bearing on our national security.


http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...rising-started

25 Quotes About The Coming War With Syria That Every American Should See

By Michael Snyder, on August 29th, 2013

If Barack Obama is going to attack Syria, he is going to do it without the support of the American people, without the approval of Congress, without the approval of the United Nations, and without the help of the British. Now that the British Parliamenthas voted against a military strike, the Obama administration is saying that it may take "unilateral action" against Syria. But what good would "a shot across Syria's bow" actually do? A "limited strike" is not going to bring down the Assad regime and it is certainly not going to end the bloody civil war that has been raging inside Syria. Even if the U.S. eventually removed Assad, the al-Qaeda affiliated rebels that would take power would almost certainly be even worse than Assad. Even in the midst of this bloody civil war, the rebels have taken the time and the effort tomassacre entire Christian villages. Why is Barack Obama so obsessed with helping such monsters? There is no good outcome in Syria. The Assad regime is absolutely horrible and the rebels are even worse. Why would we want the U.S. military to get involved in such a mess?

It isn't as if it is even possible for the U.S. military to resolve the conflict that is going on in that country. At the core, the Syrian civil war is about Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam. It is a conflict that goes back well over a thousand years.

Assad is Shiite, but the majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict, because they would love to see the Assad regime eliminated and a Sunni government come to power in Syria. On the other side, Iran is absolutely determined to not allow that to happen.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have no problem with using Sunni terrorists (al-Qaeda) to achieve their political goals. And as a very important ally of the Saudis, the U.S. has been spending a lot of money to train and equip the "rebels" in Syria.

But there was a problem. The Syrian government has actually been defeating the rebels. So something had to be done.

If it could be made to look like the Assad regime was using chemical weapons, that would give the U.S. government the "moral justification" that it needed to intervene militarily on the side of the rebels. In essence, it would be a great excuse for the U.S. to be able to go in and do the dirty work of the Saudis for them.

So that is where we are today. The justification for attacking Syria that the Obama administration is giving us goes something like this...

-Chemical weapons were used in Syria.
-The rebels do not have the ability to use chemical weapons.
-Therefore it must have been the Assad regime that was responsible for using chemical weapons.
-The U.S. military must punish the use of chemical weapons to make sure that it never happens again.

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the world is not buying it. In fact, people are seeing right through this charade.

The U.S. government spends $52,000,000,000 a year on "intelligence", but apparently our intelligence community absolutely refuses to see the obvious. WND has been able to uncover compelling evidence that the rebels in Syria have used chemical weapons repeatedly, and yet government officials continue to insist over and over that no such evidence exists and that we need to strike Syria immediately.

Shouldn't we at least take a little bit of time to figure out who is actually in the wrong before we start letting cruise missiles fly?

Because the potential downside of an attack against Syria is absolutely massive. As I wrote about the other day, if we attack Syria we have the potential of starting World War 3 in the Middle East.

We could find ourselves immersed in an endless war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah which would be far more horrible than the Iraq war ever was. It would essentially be a war with Shia Islam itself, and that would be a total nightmare.

If you are going to pick a fight with those guys, you better pack a lunch. They fight dirty and they are absolutely relentless. They will never forget and they will never, ever forgive.

A full-blown war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah would be a fight to the death, and they would not hesitate to strike soft targets all over the United States. I don't think that most Americans have any conception of what that could possibly mean.

If the American people are going to stop this war, they need to do it now. The following are 25 quotes about the coming war with Syria that every American should see...

1. Barack Obama, during an interview with Charlie Savage on December 20, 2007: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
2. Joe Biden, during a television interview in 2007: "The president has no constitutional authority ... to take this nation to war ... unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him."
3. U.S. Representative Ted Poe: "Mr. President, you must call Congress back from recess immediately to take a vote on a military strike on Syria. Assad may have crossed a red line but that does not give you the authority to redline the Constitution."
4. U.S. Representative Kurt Schrader: "I see no convincing evidence that this is an imminent threat to the United States of America."
5. U.S. Representative Barbara Lee: "While we understand that as commander-in-chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our national interests from direct attack, Congress has the constitutional obligation and power to approve military force, even if the United States or its direct interests (such as its embassies) have not been attacked or threatened with an attack."
6. The New York Times: "American officials said Wednesday there was no 'smoking gun' that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation."
7. U.S. Senator Rand Paul: "The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring in to power people friendly to the United States."
8. U.S. Senator Tim Kaine: "I definitely believe there needs to be a vote."
9. Donald Rumsfeld: "There really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation."
10. Robert Fisk: "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."
11. Former congressman Dennis Kucinich: "So what, we’re about to become al-Qaeda’s air force now?"
12. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem: "We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves."
13. A Syrian Army officer: "We have more than 8,000 suicide martyrs within the Syrian army, ready to carry out martyrdom operations at any moment to stop the Americans and the British. I myself am ready to blow myself up against US aircraft carriers to stop them attacking Syria and its people."
14. Khalaf Muftah, a senior Ba'ath Party official: "We have strategic weapons and we’re capable of responding."
15. An anonymous senior Hezbollah source: "A large-scale Western strike on Syria will plunge Lebanon virtually and immediately into the inferno of a war with Israel."
16. Ali Larjiani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament: "...the country which has been destroyed by the terrorists during the past two years will not sustain so much damage as the warmongers will receive in this war."
17. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "Starting this fire will be like a spark in a large store of gunpowder, with unclear and unspecified outcomes and consequences"
18. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards: (an attack on Syria) "means the immediate destruction of Israel."
19. Israeli President Shimon Peres: "Israel is not and has not been involved in the civil war in Syria, but if they try to hurt us, we will respond with full force."
20. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "We are not part of the civil war in Syria, but if we identify any attempt whatsoever to harm us, we will respond and we will respond in strength."
21. The Jerusalem Post: "The lines between Hezbollah and the Syrian regime are so blurred that Israel will hold Damascus responsible if Hezbollah bombards Israel in the coming days, Israeli officials indicated on Wednesday."
22. Ron Paul: "The danger of escalation with Russia is very high"
23. Pat Buchanan: "The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war."
24. Retired U.S. General James Mattis: "We have no moral obligation to do the impossible and harm our children’s future because we think we just have to do something."
25. Syrian refugee Um Ahmad: "Isn't it enough, all the violence and fighting that we already have in the country, now America wants to bomb us, too?"

Be Sociable, Share!

August 29th, 2013 | Tags: Attack Syria, Barack Obama, Coming War,Every American, Horrible, Michael T. Snyder, Military Strike, Syria,Syrian Rebels, The U.S. Military, War With Syria | Category:Commentary

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...can-should-see

And Another Deserts As NATO Says Obama On His Own

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/30/2013 15:35 -0400


They are falling like flies... following the British vote not to join Obama in his latest crusade, it s now NATO's turn as Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen tells Dutch TV2 that "NATO will have no role in any military action in Syria." Of course, there's still the French; and as Rasmussen notes, should any retaliatory action take place to endanger NATO member Turkey then the situation may well change. Quoted as urging a political resolution rather than military, and supportive of the UN inspectors, Rasmussen added "A sustainable solution is a political solution. But an international reaction is necessary."

Via TV2 (via Google Translate),

NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, setting the stage for the defense alliance NATO will have no role in any military action in Syria.

...

"I predict not a NATO role in what I here call an international reaction to the regime in Damascus, says Anders Fogh Rasmussen at a press conference in Vejle.

However, it can change the situation if NATO member Turkey, which shares a border with Syria is attacked. At present, Nato keen rockets along the border in order to respond to any aggression.

But even Fogh therefore does not foresee that NATO should play a role, so he believes that some form of military intervention would be important to give a clear message that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.

- There is not a long-term military solution to this. A sustainable solution is a political solution. But an international response is needed, says Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

He does not believe that there is no doubt that President Bashar al-Assad's regime used chemical weapons.

- Everyone knows that there has been a chemical attack place. Everyone has seen the terrible pictures, so there's no discussion about that there has been a chemical attack place.

- Then there is a discussion about who is behind. And when you look at who has stocks and capacity, it is the regime. There is not much to suggest that it is the opposition that is behind.

- And it requires a cynicism beyond what is reasonable to believe that the opposition stand behind a chemical attack in an area they already largely control, says Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

Fogh stresses, however, that NATO countries support the study by UN weapons inspectors is currently doing. Inspectors are expected to leave Syria Saturday.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...-obama-his-own