Thread: Stopping the War Agenda in Syria

Bollyn.com
Christopher Bollyn
9/08/2013

Stopping the War Agenda in Syria

The U.S. government insists it has the intelligence to prove it, but the American public has yet to see a single piece of concrete evidence — no satellite imagery, no transcripts of Syrian military communications — connecting the government of President Bashar Assad to the alleged chemical weapons attack last month that killed hundreds of people.

- "Lingering doubts over Syria gas attack evidence” by Zeina Karam and Kimberly Dozier, AP, September 8, 2013


Dennis Kucinich Warns of Regional War if Obama Rushes to Strike

U.S. officials have not presented any evidence to the public of scientific samples or intelligence information proving that sarin gas was used or that the Syrian government used it.

- "Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for U.S." by Mark Hosenball, Reuters, September 7, 2013
Our motto is: 'By way of deception, thou shalt do war.'

- “Confessions of an Ex-Mossad Agent” from Victor Ostrovsky's book By Way of Deception
It’s very possible that Obama is trying to provoke a strong reaction from Syria to give the U.S. public a reason to escalate the war. Any attack on Syria also has the possibility of bringing Iran into the conflict, since Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact. And this may be the ultimate goal: to provoke Iran into getting involved militarily, so that the U.S. would have a justification to expand the war into Iran, which has been in the U.S. crosshairs for years.

- “The Lie of ‘Limited War’ in Syria” by Shamus Cooke
Americans are understandably weary after the fiasco in Iraq and over a decade of war. How can this administration make a guarantee that our military actions will be limited? How can we guarantee that one surgical strike will have any impact other than to tighten the vise grip that Assad has on his power, or allow rebels allied with al Qaeda to gain a stronger foothold in Syria?
- Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico

Public opinion polls in the United States indicate that the public is strongly opposed to the Obama administration’s proposed military strikes against Syria. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll found that about 60 percent of the American population is opposed to the use of force.

Source: "Most in U.S. oppose Syria strike, Post-ABC poll finds"
Washington Post, September 3, 2013

It should be noted, however, that about 53 percent of the U.S. population believes there is "clear evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians." This is, however, an allegation which has not been proven, despite Secretary of State John Kerry’s vociferous claims that he has the evidence.

Source: "Public Opinion Runs Against Syrian Airstrikes"
Pew Research, September 3, 2013

What this figure represents is the power of propaganda, for this is what the controlled media wants the U.S. public to believe. The U.N. inspectors have not yet finished their work and the world has not seen any evidence to prove these serious allegations against the Syrian government, but only one-in-four Americans seem to understand that.

If a larger percentage of the U.S. public understood that we are being deceived about who used chemical weapons in Syria, a larger percentage would certainly be opposed to the Obama proposal to use military force against Syria. Once again, the U.S. is being deceived into waging war on allegations and fabrications.

There are two very good reasons to oppose any U.S. military action in Syria, the first being that there is no clear and indisputable evidence that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against civilians. The people who are calling for military action against Syria now are the same people who deceived the U.S. into war with Afghanistan and Iraq.

In both cases the United States went to war based on a moral outrage and threat – without showing the proof. Since 9-11, the U.S. has invaded two nations, killed an untold number of innocent people, and ruined the lives of thousands of American families, all based on fabricated evidence. This is why more than 80 percent of the British population demands that any military strikes against Syria be sanctioned by the United Nations, and 73 percent of those over age 65 is opposed to attacking Syria. The British remember very well what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq and don’t want to see it happen again.

The second reason is that any U.S. military action against Syria is likely to result in very serious consequences that cannot be predicted. Syria would be justified to strike back and has advanced weapons systems to do so. Syria has very powerful allies, including Russia, and has a mutual defense pact with Iran. This is why the Russians and Iranians are strongly urging the Obama administration not to attack Syria. They certainly don’t want to become embroiled in a war with the United States and hope that common sense will prevail, as it did in Britain when the Parliament rejected a similar use of force proposal put forward by Prime Minister David Cameron.

Today, Americans have a better understanding of how a small group of Zionist extremists dedicated to a misguided notion of Greater Israel can deceive the United States into waging disastrous and costly wars. We are at a very crucial point where Americans and Europeans need to stand shoulder-to-shoulder and firmly and openly reject the Zionist deceptions that are designed only to further their insane war agenda. We must stop the Zionist war agenda before it destroys the world.

Sources:
"CIA commandos, US special forces entered Syria: Report," PressTV, August 23, 2013
www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/23/320094/us-forces-cia-men-enter-syria/
"Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for U.S." by Mark Hosenball, Reuters, September 7, 2013
http://news.yahoo.com/direct-between-assad-gas-attack-elusive-u-022850951.html
"Lingering doubts over Syria gas attack evidence” by Zeina Karam and Kimberly Dozier, AP, September 8, 2013
news.yahoo.com/lingering-doubts-over-syria-gas-attack-evidence-072755287.html
"Most in U.S. oppose Syria strike, Post-ABC poll finds," Washington Post, September 3, 2013
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/03/most-in-u-s-oppose-syria-strike-post-abc-poll-finds/
"Public Opinion Runs Against Syrian Airstrikes," Pew Research Center, September 3, 2013
www.people-press.org/2013/09/03/public-opinion-runs-against-syrian-airstrikes/
"Russia's President Putin warns US over Syria action," BBC News, September 4, 2013
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23955655
"Syria crisis: The British public has its say as two-thirds oppose strikes," The Independent, September 3, 2013
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-crisis-the-british-public-has-its-say-as-twothirds-oppose-strikes-8795319.html
"The Lie of 'Limited War' in Syria," by Shamus Cooke, The Workers Action, September 2, 2013
www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/18548-the-lie-of-limited-war-in-syria
"U.S. public opposes Syria intervention as Obama presses Congress," Reuters, September 3, 2013
www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-syria-crisis-usa-idUSBRE97T0NB20130903

http://bollyn.com/#article_14289

Will Congress Betray America for Israel?

Updated September 8, 2013

JUDAS ISCARIOT - Will the members of the U.S. Congress stand up for America - or will they betray their nation for a few pieces of silver?
The Israel lobby is squeezing every member of Congress to vote for war against Syria.

U.S. officials have not presented any evidence to the public of scientific samples or intelligence information proving that sarin gas was used, or that the Syrian government used it.

- "Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for U.S." by Mark Hosenball, Reuters, September 7, 2013
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has joined the Israeli lobby AIPAC in an all-out public campaign for a U.S. war on Syria… Yet, is it really wise for Jewish organizations to put a Jewish stamp on a campaign to drag America into another war that a majority of their countrymen do not want to fight?

- “Just Whose War Is This?” by Patrick J. Buchanan, September 6, 2013
From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the legions against a race of fanatics whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but of human kind.

- Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon, 1776
Twelve years after 9-11, we face a very similar situation to the one we faced in the fall of 2001 after the terror atrocities at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The United States is, once again, preparing to attack (i.e. aggress) a war-torn nation in the Middle East based on specious claims and unproven allegations of involvement by the government of that nation in a moral outrage.

The fact that the same tactic of deception that was used after 9-11 to invade Afghanistan and Iraq is being employed, once again, by the very same people, to drag the United States into yet another ill-advised war in the Middle East strongly validates my thesis that 9-11 was a false-flag terror operation, designed and carried out by Israeli military intelligence and Zionist fifth columnists (i.e. sayanim) to bring the U.S. military into the region to support Israeli hegemony and advance the extremist Zionist notion of Greater Israel.

A war against Syria is not in America’s national interest any more than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were. All things considered, the idea of any U.S. military action in Syria is an extremely ill-advised adventure. There is absolutely nothing good that could come from the U.S. getting into a war with Syria and it would put the United States on war footing against Iran and Russia, Syria’s main allies in the region. Syria has a mutual defense pact with Iran that would make a war with Syria a regional war from the start. This is how the World Wars of the 1900s began.
“A RACE OF FANATICS”

THE GODFATHER OF THE FRAUDULENT "WAR ON TERROR" - Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been pushing the United States to wage war against Iran for years. He is one of the Israeli architects of the fraudulent "War on Terror," which he has promoted since the late 1970s. A U.S. attack on Syria would result in war with Iran because the two countries have a mutual defense pact. This is how World Wars begin.

The state of Israel is the only nation that actively pushes the idea of the United States going to war against Syria and Iran. Israel is headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, a Zionist fanatic from a political party founded by terrorists, (i.e. Likud). This is not hyperbole; the Likud coalition was founded in the 1970s by some of the most ruthless terrorists of all time, e.g. Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir.

Today, the Likud party is headed by the sons and daughters of the people who used terrorism and massacres to carry out their racist policy of ethnic cleansing of Palestine of its native population in the 1940s. Netanyahu and his colleagues in the Likud party are Zionist fanatics of the most extreme sort who dream of creating a state of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. Terrorism is still their preferred tactic to achieve their strategic goals.

Netanyahu has called for military action to be taken against Iran from the podium of the United Nations.

Netanyahu actually told the New York Times on 9-11 that the terror atrocity was “very good” for U.S.-Israeli relations. Later, in April 2008, at an Israeli religious college, Netanyahu said: "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq."

The struggle in Iraq took the lives of more than 5,000 Americans and many times that number of wounded and killed Iraqis as we funded and participated in the barbaric and criminal destruction of the most advanced nation in the Middle East.

In spite of Netanyahu’s obscene comments about 9-11 being “very good” and how Israel was benefiting from “the American struggle in Iraq,” he received 29 standing ovations during a May 2011 speech to the U.S. Congress. How can it be that a Zionist fanatic who openly espouses such un-American views can receive 29 standing ovations from the U.S. Congress?

LIKE TRAINED SEALS the U.S. Congress gave 29 standing ovations to the Zionist extremist leader who said the terror attacks of 9-11 were "very good". Go figure.

This is the fundamental question we need to keep in mind as the members of Congress deliberate on their crucial vote to either support or reject President Obama’s plan to engage the U.S. military against Syria. The standing ovations for Netanyahu in Congress are a reflection of the power of the Israel lobby at work. The members of Congress who applauded this Zionist fanatic are traitors who have betrayed their nation for a couple pieces of silver.

At this crucial point, with the peace of the world hanging in the balance, how will the U.S. Congress vote? Will the members of Congress stand up for America - or will they betray their country and sell their souls for Greater Israel?

http://bollyn.com/#article_14289

Democrat Says Obama Risks Impeachment if He Goes Around Congress and Attacks Syria

Syria presents a constitutional moment


By: George Will
9/9/2013 01:46 PM

In London exile in 1940, Charles de Gaulle decided “it was up to me to take responsibility for France” (“c’etait a moi d’assumer la France ”). No U.S. president should assume he is, as de Gaulle almost mystically did, the nation, or is solely responsible for it. Remember this Tuesday when Barack Obama defends his choice to attack Syria.
U.S. power and security are somewhat dependent on a president’s stature, which should not be diminished unnecessarily. Neither, however, should America’s well-being be equated with a president’s policy preferences or political health. The real but limited importance of presidential prestige, and the real but limited diminution of it that would result from blocking Obama’s attack, both matter. But so do the manifest and manifold weaknesses of his argument.
George Orwell, who said insincerity is the enemy of clear language, would understand why our government talks of “quantitative easing” rather than printing money, and uses “enhanced interrogation” and “extraordinary rendition” rather than more concrete denotations. The debate about Syria has featured a peculiar phrase, “the vetted opposition.”
Used by those advocating intervention, it implies that most anti-Assad fighters have been investigated enough to dispel doubts about them as appropriate beneficiaries of U.S. actions. But John McCain’s breezy assurance (”I have met them”) is insufficient. Skepticism is warranted, given the prodigies of confusion in administration statements, including historical amnesia.
Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons is only his most recent, and he is not the first to have used such weapons in war since the 1925 Geneva Protocol proscribing them. But because attacking Syria is said to be necessary as reinforcement of the 1925 “norm,” it matters that the norm has been violated before. In the 1960s, Egypt used chemical weapons against Yemen. Saddam Hussein used them not only against disobedient Iraqis but in the 1980-88 war with Iran. A March 23, 1984, CIA report said: “Iraq has begun using nerve agents … [which] could have a significant impact on Iran’s human wave tactics, forcing Iran to give up that strategy.” A new article by Shane Harris and Matthew M. Aid in Foreign Policy says that in 1988:
“The United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.”
U.S. officials denied acquiescing in such attacks because Iraq never announced them. But Harris and Aid quote retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, a military attache in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, saying, “The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew.”
The argument for attacking Syria to strengthen a “norm” may be weaker than the argument for Congress halting the attack to strengthen constitutional balance. The outcome of the vote on attacking Syria may be less important than the fact of the vote. Through the physics of our Madisonian politics — one institution’s action producing another’s reaction — the nation has reached a constitutional moment.
Every policy choice occurs in a context conditioned by other choices. Barack Obama’s Syrian choice comes after multiple executive excesses that have provoked Congress to react against its marginalization, a product of its supine passivity regarding Obama’s unilateral lawmaking.
It is unfortunate that a foreign policy decision has catalyzed congressional resistance to presidential aggrandizement on many fronts. But no congressional vote about Syria can damage the presidency as much as Obama has done by overreaching, and by sophistical rhetoric that refutes his appeals for unconditional trust. The shriveling of his presidency probably became irreversible when laughter greeted his sophomoric claim that not he but “the world” drew a red line regarding chemical weapons.
After incessant calls for “bipartisanship” to supplant “obstructionism,” there has emerged a broad bipartisan coalition to obstruct his Syrian policy. His policy is doomed without many Democratic senators swallowing their pride, disregarding past convictions and becoming presidential poodles. Such canine obedience will express obedience to progressivism’s unchanging essence — exaltation of executive discretion and disparagement of the separation of powers. That is, implacable impatience with Madison’s constitutional architecture.
Obama hardly has de Gaulle’s kind of mystical identification of himself with his nation, or de Gaulle’s desperate reason for such a conflation. However, Obama’s recent references to “my military” have a French antecedent in Louis XIV’s l’etat c’est moi. This president has inadvertently made the case for strengthening the presidency by pruning the office’s pretensions.


http://www.humanevents.com/2013/09/0...tional-moment/

Russia 'to renew offer to supply S-300s to Iran'

Obama's idea of "Never Forget" is to aid terrorist by way of Syria...

9/11: Never Forget? - Joe For America

Remember this? 9/11/2001: Nineteen Al Qaeda terrorists use four hijacked airplanes to knock down both World Trade Center Towers in New York City, hit the Pentagon in Washington DC, and fail in an attempt to crash into the White House in Washington DC. They kill roughly 3000 Americans and plunge the US into a decade of war around the world against this shadowy secret society of holy murderers, brigands, pirates, and drug smugglers. And today… 9/11/2013: The President of the United States is seriously arguing that the entire arsenal of the United States of America should be used in support of Al Qaeda in its rebellion against a tyrant in Syria who is insufficiently similar to Al Qaeda in his ideology. Al Qaeda’s air force has grown from four planes to the entire arsenal of democracy. Is this what it looks like to never forget the past, or is this what forgetting looks like?

Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2013/09/911...IOI4oCyFaZ8.99