Iyke-D:
This is true trash. No mention was made about the 1300 gassed individuals. Assad and Russia are the saints.

Why exactly would Assad deploy chemical weapons in a war he was winning by a mile, knowing it would mean an attack from the west? And at a time they were UN inspectors in the country!!? WHY would he do that? What was his motive? To investigate culpability in a crime, you need to establish motive.

ibkgab001: Wikileaks is the answer but mind you there will be no SAFE world without america

''No safe world without America'' indeed. Is that the extent to which CNN has brainwashed your head?

Gentlemen, we need to ask ourselves some questions:

1) Why will the Syrian military use chemical weapons on their own stronghold, Damascus?


2) Who stands to gain more from these Chemical attacks?

3) Western powers are quick to blame the Assad regime for the attack. Where's the proof? And how're they sure the fanatic sunni groups they support isnt the culprit in this dastard act (instead of the more secular Syrian govt)?

Rossikk:

Why exactly would Assad deploy chemical weapons in a war he was winning by a mile, knowing it would mean an attack from the west? And at a time they were UN inspectors in the country!!? WHY would he do that? What was his motive? To investigate culpability in a crime, you need to establish motive.

Good question.

Honestly, this whole attack looks like a false flag operation were the Assad regime is blamed for the attack.

Just thought to share this. How true...

Underground:

Oh yes they (their government and the elites behind it) are evil, manipulative, deceitful, cunning and absolutely abhorrent but wiping them out ain't no walk in the park. As of now, no one can match them military and influence wise. Their decline will eventually happen but save any catastrophic event, it will take a while

yea bro i agree with u

[size=14pt]Debunking the "U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013"[/size]

Eric Draitser

StopImperialism.com


The document http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/USGassessmentonSyria08302013.pdf entitled “U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013”, released in tandem with public statements made by Secretary of State John Kerry, is merely summary of a manufactured narrative designed to lead the US into yet another criminal and disastrous war in the Middle East. Having been released prior to even preliminary reports from UN chemical weapons investigators on the ground in Syria, the document is as much a work of fiction as it is fact.

It begins with the conclusion that “The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013.” Naturally, one would immediately wonder how such a conclusion was reached when even the expert investigators on the ground have yet to conclude their own study. If these experts with years of training in the field of chemical weapons, toxicology, and other related disciplines, have yet to make such a determination, it would seem more than convenient that the US has already reached this conclusion.

Moreover, based on its own admissions as to the sources of this so-called “intelligence”, very serious doubt should be cast on such a dubious government report. The document explains that:

These all-source assessments are based on human, signals, and geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open-source reporting…In addition to US intelligence information, there are accounts from international and Syrian medical personnel; videos; witness accounts; thousands of social media reports from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area; journalist accounts; and reports from highly credible non-governmental organizations.


First and foremost, any critical reading of this document must begin with the notions of “human intelligence” and “witness accounts”. Such terminology indicates that the US is simply basing pre-conceived conclusions based on rebel sources and the much touted “activists” who seem to always be the sources quoted in Western media reports. Secondly, it is obvious that US officials have cherry-picked their eyewitness accounts as there are many, from both sides of the conflict, which directly contradict this so-called high-confidence assessment.

As reported http://landdestroyer..com/2013/08/syrians-in-ghouta-claim-saudi-supplied_29.html in the Mint Press News by Associated Press reporter Dale Gavlak, Syrians from the town of Ghouta – the site of the chemical attack – tell a very different story from the one being told by the US government. Residents provide very credible testimony that “certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.” What makes such testimony even more compelling is that it comes from anti-Assad Syrians, many of whom have seen their children die fighting Assad’s forces. One of the Ghouta residents described his conversations with his son, a fighter tasked with carrying the chemical weapons for the Nusra Front jihadi group, who spoke of Saudi-supplied weapons being unloaded and transported. His son later was killed, along with 12 other rebels, inside a tunnel used to store weapons.


Prince Bandar bin Sultan seen here commiserating with his fellow war criminal George W. Bush. Prince Bandar earned himself the nickname "Bandar Bush" because of his close friendship with both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush as well. Educated in the US, Bandar has long been understood to be the intermediary between Washington and Riyadh.


It is essential to also dispute the very notion that “social media reports” constitute credible evidence to be used in making a case for war. It is a long-established fact that US and other intelligence agencies are able to manipulate twitter, Facebook and other social media in whatever way they see fit. As the Guardian reported back in 2011:

The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda…each fake online persona must have a convincing background, history, and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be able to operate false identities from their workstations ‘without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries.’


Essentially then, the United States is using social media, a system over which they have control, to justify their pre-fabricated war narrative. Additionally, the idea that videos constitute a shred of evidence is laughable. As any investigator can tell you, videos are easily manipulated and, even if they are untouched, they cannot be used to assess the culprit of a crime. Videos merely show what is visible, not the underlying motives, means, and opportunity – all part of genuine investigation.

Finally, one must feel serious apprehension at the idea of journalist reports as being part of this pastiche called a “high confidence assessment,” for the simple reason that Western coverage of the conflict in Syria is mostly coming from journalists outside the country or those already sympathetic to the rebel cause. Whether they are paid propagandists or simply convenient tools used as mouthpieces of the corporate media, their reports are highly suspect, and certainly should have no role in shaping war-making policy.

It is critical to examine the “intelligence information” referred to in the assessment. It would seem that, according to the document itself, much of the case for war is based on human intelligence. Many news outlets have reported that the entire case against Assad is being based on an intercepted phone call provided to US intelligence by none other than the Israelis. Israel, with its long track record of fabricating intelligence for the purposes of war-making, is not exactly a neutral observer. As one of the principal actors in the region calling for the overthrow of the Assad government, Tel Aviv has a vested interest in ensuring a US intervention in Syria.

The ardently pro-Israel FOX News reported that:

The initial confirmation that the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad was responsible for a chemical weapons attack Aug. 21 came from a tip from the Israeli intelligence service…a special unit of the Israeli Defense Force – an intelligence unit that goes by the number 8200…helped provide the intelligence intercepts that allowed the White House to conclude that the Assad regime was behind the attack.

It would seem rather convenient that one of the primary beneficiaries of a war to topple Assad would be the primary source of the sole piece of evidence purportedly linking Assad to the attack. If this strikes you as at best a flimsy pretext for war, you would be correct.

The assessment also outlines the way in which Washington arrived at its conclusion that Assad carried out the attacks. The document states:

We assess with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack against opposition elements in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. We assess that the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely. The body of information used to make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the regime’s preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition.

In analyzing the above excerpt, it should be immediately clear to anyone who has been following events in Syria closely, that this conclusion is based on faulty premises and outright lies. First, the idea that it is “highly unlikely” that the chemical attack was carried out by the opposition is an impossible assertion to make given that there is abundant evidence that the “rebels” carried out chemical attacks previously. As the widely circulated video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Iqns5xeoYk showing rebels mounting chemical weapons onto artillery shells demonstrates, not only do they have the capability and delivery system, they have a significant supply of chemicals, certainly enough to have carried out the attack. Moreover, the multiple massacres carried out by Nusra Front and other extremist rebel factions demonstrates that such groups have no compunction whatsoever about killing innocent civilians en masse.

As for the claim that the US has based their conclusions at least in part on “the regime’s preparations for this attack”, this too is a dubious assertion simply because there has been no evidence provided whatsoever to support it. Ostensibly, the United States would like international observers to “take their word for it” that they have such evidence, but the fragile public simply cannot be allowed to see it. More echoes of Bush’s lies before the Iraq War.

And the so-called “post-attack observations” are again suspect because, as I have previously noted, the US has not bothered to wait for the results of the UN chemical weapons investigation. Therefore, these observations could only come from anti-Assad sources on the ground or international observers not present at the site who merely repeat the same information fed to them from those same anti-regime sources.

As if intended as a cruel joke to the reader, the document points out that, despite the claim that this is an irrefutable, evidence-based assessment, it is in fact based on nothing but hearsay and rumor. Buried at the end of the first page is the most important quote of all:

Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation [emphasis added].

So, the US is supposed to make war on a country that has not attacked it or any of its allies based on admittedly unconfirmed evidence? This would be laughable if it weren’t so utterly outrageous and criminal.

The “U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013” is a poorly constructed attempt to justify the politically, militarily, and morally unjustifiable war against Syria. It relies on lies, distortions, and obvious propaganda to create the myth that Assad is the devil incarnate and that the US, with its clear moral high-ground, must take it upon itself to once again wage war for the sake of peace. Nothing could be more dishonest. Nothing could be more disgusting. Nothing could be more American.


Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. He is the founder of StopImperialism.com and a regular contributor to CounterPunch, RT, Global Research, and a number of other news outlets.

How many of you are aware that the Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda) terrorists a.k.a. "rebels" used chemical weapon in Khan AL-Assal near Aleppo in March 2013?
How many of you are aware that the U.N. (U.N. human rights investigator Carla del Ponte) found that evidence had emerged indicating that chemical weapons (used in March 2013 in Khan All-Assal) have been used by "Syrian rebels"?

http://www.france24.COM/en/20130506-syria-un-del-ponte-chemical-weapons-gas-rebels-assad

How many of you are aware that Turkey found sarin gas in homes of suspected Syrian Islamist terrorists back in May 2013?

http://rt.COM/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/

How many of you are aware that the U.N. investigators are in Syria based on Syria's demand to investigate the terrorist's use of chemical weapon?

How many of you know that France and UK have worked hard to prevent and delay the U.N. investigation of past chemical weapon attacks in Syria for 5 MONTHS?

How many of you know that the Syrian Army is winning the war in Syria against the Al-Qaeda terrorists?

Now what a coincidence that the chemical weapon attack happened on the same day when the U.N. investigators arrived in Damascus.

It makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever, for Assad to use chemical weapons. He has the least to gain and the most to lose. He has been inflicting heavy losses on the rebels and pushing them back and retaking lost territories the conventional way .

Now the US and the international community (sic) is saying that the Syrian governments decision to allow the inspectors access to the site of this latest attack is “too little, too late”. Weren’t the UN investigators in Syria in the first place to investigate attacks purportedly carried about the rebels (sic) way back in March – over 5 months before the investigators arrived? Why is this two delay to reach the site such a sticking point all of a sudden? Mind boggling hypocrisy!!!

Abi dem wan do coup for America make dem collect the country back from violators of their constitution and international law




[size=14pt]An Appeal to Gen. Dempsey on Syria[/size]


August 30, 2013

Gen. Martin Dempsey, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, has spoken soberly about the dangers from any military strike on Syria, but press reports indicate President Obama is still set on launching cruise missiles in the coming days, an action that former U.S. intelligence professionals say should prompt Dempsey’s resignation.

MEMORANDUM FOR: General Martin Dempsey, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

SUBJECT: Syria and Our Oath to Defend the Constitution

Dear Gen. Dempsey:

Summary: We refer to your acknowledgment, in your letter of July 19 to Sen. Carl Levin on Syria, that a “decision to use force is not one that any of us takes lightly. It is no less than an act of war.” It appears that the President may order such an act of war without proper Congressional authorization.

As seasoned intelligence and military professionals solemnly sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, we have long been aware that – from private to general – it is one’s duty not to obey an illegal order. If such were given, the honorable thing would be to resign, rather than be complicit.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In responding to questions on military options voiced at your re-nomination hearing on July 18, your letter to the chair of the Committee on Armed Services reflects that you acknowledge Congress’s Constitutional role with respect to U.S. “acts of war.” Equally important, you addressed these words to Sen. Levin: “You deserve my best military advice on how military force could be used in order to decide whether it should be used.” (emphasis in your letter).

The options your letter addressed regarding potential use of military force included five being considered at the time: (1) Train, Advise, Assist the Opposition; (2) Conduct Limited Stand-off Strikes; (3) Establish a No-Fly Zone; (4) Establish Buffer Zones; (5) Control Chemical Weapons. You were quite candid about the risks and costs attached to each of the five options, and stressed the difficulty of staying out of the Syrian civil war, once the U.S. launched military action.

‘Tailored, Limited’ Strike Option

Presumably, there has not been enough time to give Sen. Levin’s committee an equivalent assessment of the implications of the new option described by the President Wednesday evening as a “tailored, limited” response to the chemical weapons attack on August 21 that he has been told was carried out by Syrian government forces. President Obama said, without elaboration, that a retaliatory strike is “needed … to protect U.S. security.”

It is precisely this kind of unsupported claim (so embarrassingly reminiscent of the spurious ones used more than a decade ago to “justify” attacks on Iraq) that needs to be subjected to rigorous analysis by both the Pentagon and Congress BEFORE the President orders military action. For some unexplained reason of urgency, that order may come within the next day or two. With no wish to prejudge the results of analysis presumably under way, we feel it our responsibility to tell you now that, speaking out of several hundred years of collective experience in intelligence and national security matters, we strongly believe that the President’s reference to a military strike on Syria being “needed to protect U.S. security” cannot bear close scrutiny.

In all candor, the credibility of his chief national security advisers – and his own credibility – have been seriously damaged in recent months, giving all the more urgency and importance to the need for Congress to exercise its Constitutional role regarding war. And, as usual, there are serious problems with the provenance and nature of the “intelligence” that is being used to support the need for military action.

In your July 19 letter to Sen. Levin you emphasized: “As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that the use of force will move us toward the intended outcome. … Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid. We should act in accordance with the law, and to the extent possible, in concert with our allies and partners.” (emphasis supplied)

This last sentence raises, first and foremost, the question of what the Constitution says of the role of Congress in authorizing a military attack that, in your words, “is no less than an act of war” (further discussed below).

It also raises the important issue of how seriously we should take the result of democratic Parliamentary procedures among our allies. Although not legally required to do so, British Prime Minister David Cameron on Thursday sought Parliamentary approval for military action against Syria and was rebuffed. With as much grace as he could summon, Cameron said the British people had expressed their will and he would not flout it (even though he could do so, legally in the British system):

“It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the government will act accordingly,” a tense-looking Cameron said immediately after the vote.

French President Francois Hollande has said his country may still strike Syria to “punish” it for allegedly using chemical weapons, despite the British Parliament’s failure to endorse military action. If Fiji can be lined up again, that would make a coalition of at least three.

The Fundamentals: Congress’s Role

Before the President spoke on Wednesday, the ranking member on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Jerrold Nadler issued a formal statement titled: Constitution Requires Congressional Authorization on Use of Force Against Syria. Nadler wrote:

“The Constitution requires that, barring an attack on the United States or an imminent threat to the U.S., any decision to use military force can only be made by Congress – not by the President. The decision to go to war – and we should be clear, launching a military strike on another country, justified or not, is an act of war – is reserved by the Constitution to the American people acting through their elected representatives in Congress.

“Since there is no imminent threat to the United States, there is no legal justification for bypassing the Constitutionally-required Congressional authorization. ‘Consultation’ with Congress is not sufficient. The Constitution requires Congressional authorization.

“The American people deserve to have this decision debated and made in the open, with all the facts and arguments laid out for public review and debate, followed by a Congressional vote. If the President believes that military action against Syria is necessary, he should immediately call Congress back into session and seek the Constitutionally-required authorization.”

As of Thursday, more than a third of the House of Representatives have spoken out against being marginalized, as they were before Libya, many insisting that there be Congressional debate and a vote before any military strike on Syria.

In addition, Republican House Speaker John Boehner sent Obama a letter Wednesday urging him to “make the case to the American people and Congress for how potential military action will secure American national security interests, preserve America’s credibility, deter the future use of chemical weapons, and, critically, be a part of our broader policy and strategy.”

The President called Boehner on Thursday to brief him “on the status of deliberations over Syria,” according to a Boehner spokesman, who added that, “during the call, the speaker sought answers to concerns outlined in his letter, including the legal justification for any military strike.” After the call, Boehner reportedly complained that his questions had not been answered.

Holding Congress in Contempt

Elementary school children learn that, in view of the Founders’ experience with English kings, it was not by chance that, in crafting the Constitution, they took care to give to our elected representatives in Congress the exclusive “Power To declare War [and] To raise and support Armies.” (Article 1, Section . The somber historical consequences of letting this key power of Congress fall into disuse after WWII – in effect, allowing Presidents to act like Kings – speak eloquently to the folly of ignoring Article 1, Section 8.

And yet, there is no sign that President Barack Obama intends to request Congressional authorization (as opposed to “consultation” with chosen Members) before he orders military action against Syria. Indeed, he and his top appointees have been openly contemptuous of the Constitutional role of Congress in such matters.

Obama’s former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was smoother and more wise-old-handish than his predecessors in emasculating Congressional power. Thanks to Panetta, we have direct insight into how the Obama administration may strike Syria with very little consultation (not to mention authorization) from Congress.

Several of us remember watching you in some distress sitting next to your then-boss Panetta as he tried to put Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) in his place, at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7, 2012. Chafing belatedly over the unauthorized nature of the war in Libya, Sessions asked repeatedly what “legal basis” would the Obama administration rely on to do in Syria what it did in Libya.

Panetta stonewalled time after time, making it abundantly clear that the Obama administration does not believe it needs Congressional approval for wars like the one in Libya. “I am really baffled,” said Sessions. “The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the U.S. military [in combat] is the Congress and the President and the law and the Constitution.”

Panetta’s response did nothing to relieve Sessions’s bafflement: “Let me just for the record be clear again, Senator, so there is no misunderstanding. When it comes to national defense, the President has the authority under the Constitution to act to defend this country, and we will, Sir.”

You will remember Panetta’s attitude, which Sen. Sessions called “breathtaking.” You said nothing then, and we can understand that. But, frankly, we are hoping that you had that awkward experience in mind when you reminded Sen. Levin that, “We should act in accordance with the law.”

Clearly, there is an important Constitutional issue here. The question is whether you will again choose to be silent, or whether you will give Secretary Chuck Hagel and the President notice that your oath to support and defend the Constitution precludes complicity in end-running Congress on Syria.

If, Resign

We do not understand why the White House has so far been unwilling to await the results of the UN inspection in Damascus, but we are all too familiar with what happens once the juggernaut starts rolling to war. However, if despite Thursday’s vote in the British Parliament and the increased opposition in Congress to war without the authorization of Congress, the President decides to order an attack on Syria, we urge you to act in accordance with your solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution, as well as your own conscience.

In such circumstances, we believe strongly that you should resign and explain your reasons at once to the American people.

Very Respectfully,

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

William Binney, Senior Scientist, NSA (ret.)

Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)

Dan Ellsberg, VIPS Member Emeritus

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Ray McGovern, CIA (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)

Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)

Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)

Larry Wilkerson, Col., US Army (ret); Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell

Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)

Zane2point4:

You are obviously the biggest liar of the century,when did this happened,pls gv us source,or did it ever appear in news headline,russia can never attack israel,infact that was the 3rd time israel is hitting on targets inside syria,that was even why russia was afraid to deliver the s-300 missiles promised to syria.

then you most be the biggest clown the world have ever seem! why don't you google for facts? Did israel loose any f16? They attributed the f16 crash to technical failure; why haven't they carried out another strike on syria is the plane wasn't shot down? Did you hear a rumour that an american f22 was downed in jordan very close to syria border? Stop restricting where you get your infos on the internet to only western sources. If syria or russia had not shot down any of those planes the america and her allies would have destroyed syria a country of 23m people by now. So get your facts right and stop being pro west with all their propagandas.

Demdem:

crap.

You say crap because you don't know! Why don't you search if israel lost any f16 same time as the attack on syria? Why is it that israel grounded all their f16 immediately after the attack?why have they not carried out another strike? Their is a site why says that an american f22 was shot down in jordan very close to the syrian border why make america to delay their attack on syria. You people only believe the propaganda west put out for their brain washed people; why is the west delaying their strike on syria after amassing ships and other heavy weapons on the Mediterranean? Its simple, syria and russia did react and they found out that syria still retain some capabilities.

https://www.google.com.ng/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://m.liveleak.com/view%3Fi%3D7f4_1377959586&ved=0CBwQFjABahUKEwiwsbnM1f_IAhVJWRQKHSAVBNU&usg=AFQjCNEtUVEYqAJfN-RZ8JZeDYJfseqQ1g

malele:


So hitler that attacked russians and captured some countries was caused by america.
The crisis in egypt was caused by america
The problem in syria was caused by america,
Iran that is threaten isreal is also caused by america
If there is crisis in ur country come 2015, u will still point america.

if u don't know,if not for america most countries wont be existing by now

hitler---Was backed by America and Canada and even the brits... it was their game... after U.S lost World war 1 that saw about 6 empires fall. Then World 2 went on...

Crisis in Egypt was sponsored by Turkey(The Brotherhood regime) backed by U.Sa (Anglozionist Emire) master planner were CIA. They know how to plan Revolutions very well. The Arab spring was there game changer but Egypt took it back from them.... Nice one there Egypt..

Crisis in Nigeria... Is from Anglozionist EMpire.. Boko haram is Wahabis Saudi Arabia terrorist organization or affiliate or franchise backed by the Anglozionist Empire.
The decision has been made since they invaded Iraq under the pretext of 9/11 inside job.

Their aim is to the invade(Via 4th generation warfare like proxies,biological warfare), destroy, conquer and rule Nigeria. This decision was made since they invaded Iraq. About 6 countries were on their immediate list.

Now Biafra started again.. This is their Plan.. Where did the Biafra come from UK.. His pirated radio where did he operate from UK..
The same Enemy.. Anglozionist empire...

Why are they doing this ?.. very simple..
Any country that is becoming very independent and taking independent foreign policy that run counter to their interest will be invaded, destroyed, conquer and ruled. Just like in the Berlin conference.

Nigeria has crossed that red-line since the days of Apartheid Regime. We were directly sponsoring the regime that save South Africa.. How many people remember Murtala's speech? and few weeks after the speech he died..

2) The Liberia we liberated from U.S hegemony is another crossing the red-lines..ok. Get the facts right.

Angloionist Empire = Anglo America + Anglo Saxons + The Zionist Isreal + all their permanent puppets(all the countries in EU,Saudi Arabia, Japan, Turkey, Qatar) and temporary puppets.. Radio Biafra or the Biafran ideology, boko haram, isis, Deash, can be refereed here to as their temporary puppets or proxies.