Part 6: The Russians Looking Beyond Short Term Goals, Turn Down the Saudi Offer Which In Turn Triggers A Angry Response From the Saudis Who Promise That the Opposition Would No Longer Attend Peace Talks, Hinted on an Escalation of the Syrian Crisis and Even Going as Far as Threatening to Unleash Chechen Terrorist on the Russian Winter Olympic Games!!


telegraph
>>>> Excerpts..... [size=14pt]Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria[/size]

[size=14pt]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. [/size]

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

12:00PM BST 27 Aug 2013

The revelations come amid high tension in the Middle East, with US, British, and French warship poised for missile strikes in Syria. Iran has threatened to retaliate. .....................................


landdestroyer.
>>>> Excerpts.....[size=14pt]Bandar Bush, 'liberator' of Syria[/size]

By Pepe Escobar


August 13, 2013 "Information Clearing House - Talk about The Comeback Spy. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush (for Dubya he was like family), spectacularly resurfaced after one year in speculation-drenched limbo (was he or was he not dead, following an assassination attempt in July 2012). And he was back in the limelight no less than in a face-to-face with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Saudi King Abdullah, to quote Bob Dylan, "is not busy being born, he's busy dying". At least he was able to pick up a pen and recently appoint Bandar as head of the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate; thus in charge of the joint US-Saudi master plan for Syria.............................................................................

.........Prince Bandar, head of Saudi intelligence, allegedly confronted the Kremlin with a mix of inducements and threats in a bid to break the deadlock over Syria......................................................

Part 4: The Masters and Sponsors of the Powerful and Dreaded Jihadist Group, Al-Nusra Front Are Revealed

http://landdestroyer..com/2013/03/confirmed-us-shipping-weapons-to-syria.html
>>>> Excerpts.....[size=14pt]CONFIRMED: US Shipping Weapons to Syria - Al Nusra's "Mystery" Sponsors Revealed [/size]

[img]http://1.bp..com/-cyYkXXQAJtk/UVB_APlZEZI/AAAAAAAAHHU/5kuOEG5yxfk/s320/AlQaedaSyria.png[/img]
March 25, 2013 (LD) - While US President Barack Obama and the Western media lied in concert to the world regarding America's role in supporting terrorists operating in Syria, it is now revealed that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been shipping weapons to Syria via NATO-member Turkey and Jordan since at least early 2012.......................................................





Part 5: The Campaign to Subvert The Assad Government Falters, The Saudi’s, NATO, US and Others Become Desperate and Attempt to Buy the Russians Over to Drop Their Support of the Assad Administration. Their hatchet man, Bandar Ibn Sultan is Sent In as Emissary

http://rt.com/news/bandar-putin-assad-saudi-188/
Saudi Arabia dangles lucrative arms deal in front of Russia in exchange for dropping Assad – report


T-90 tank - like one of 150 Russia previously planned to supply to Saudi Arabia (RIA Novosti / Valeriy Melnikov)
.......................................................................

Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz, Chief of General Intelligence and Secretary-General of the National Security Council of Saudi Arabia, during his Moscow visit (RIA Novosti / Aleksey Nikolsky)

Part 3: Further Details About the Origins of These Foreign Fighters, Their Sponsors and Plans is Revealed

landdestroyer.
>>>> Excerpts.....[size=14pt]NATO Using Al Qaeda Rat Lines to Flood Syria With Foreign Terrorists[/size]

[size=14pt]2007-2008 US West Point reports reveal Al Qaeda network behind NATO's so-called "freedom fighters." Extremists in Syria were behind Iraq War foreign terrorist influx, not Syrian government.[/size]

by Tony Cartalucci

October 25, 2012 - The discredited and now obscure, defected Syrian ambassador Nawaf Fares, had claimed mid-summer of 2012 that the Syrian government had been behind the influx of foreign terrorists that entered Iraq during the later phases of the US-British occupation of Iraq. These terrorists took part in campaigns of sectarian-driven violence that divided and destroyed an already devastated Iraq. Fares spectacularly claimed that he himself was involved in organizing terrorist death squads in a hamhanded attempt to implicate the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad....................................................


dailymail
>>>> Excerpts.....[size=14pt]Britain secretly equipping Syrian rebels with latest satellite phones to help topple Assad[/size]

By Mark Nicol and Russell Myers

PUBLISHED: 00:59 GMT, 5 August 2012 | UPDATED: 16:54 GMT, 8 August 2012

British officials are secretly equipping Syrian rebel groups with satellite phones in a bid to topple President Bashar al-Assad

The supply of the latest generation of handsets is part of the Foreign Office’s mission to mould militias into a coalition capable of governing the country. The phones, used by the Ministry of Defence, are designed for rugged environments and are shock, dust and water resistant................................................



washingtonpost.com
>>>> Excerpts.....[size=14pt]Syrian rebels get influx of arms with gulf neighbors’ money, U.S. coordination[/size]

View Photo Gallery — Free Syrian Army fighters celebrating after destroying a government troops carrier on the outskirts of the rebel-held city of Rastan. View more photos of Syria’s main opposition army group.
By Karen DeYoung and Liz Sly, E-mail the writers

Syrian rebels battling the regime of President Bashar al-Assad have begun receiving significantly more and better weapons in recent weeks, an effort paid for by Persian Gulf nations and coordinated in part by the United States, according to opposition activists and U.S. and foreign officials..........................................

Part 4: The Masters and Sponsors of the Powerful and Dreaded Jihadist Group, Al-Nusra Front Are Revealed

http://landdestroyer..com/2013/03/confirmed-us-shipping-weapons-to-syria.html
>>>> Excerpts.....[size=14pt]CONFIRMED: US Shipping Weapons to Syria - Al Nusra's "Mystery" Sponsors Revealed [/size]

[img]http://1.bp..com/-cyYkXXQAJtk/UVB_APlZEZI/AAAAAAAAHHU/5kuOEG5yxfk/s320/AlQaedaSyria.png[/img]
March 25, 2013 (LD) - While US President Barack Obama and the Western media lied in concert to the world regarding America's role in supporting terrorists operating in Syria, it is now revealed that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been shipping weapons to Syria via NATO-member Turkey and Jordan since at least early 2012.......................................................





Part 5: The Campaign to Subvert The Assad Government Falters, The Saudi’s, NATO, US and Others Become Desperate and Attempt to Buy the Russians Over to Drop Their Support of the Assad Administration. Their hatchet man, Bandar Ibn Sultan is Sent In as Emissary

http://rt.com/news/bandar-putin-assad-saudi-188/
Saudi Arabia dangles lucrative arms deal in front of Russia in exchange for dropping Assad – report


T-90 tank - like one of 150 Russia previously planned to supply to Saudi Arabia (RIA Novosti / Valeriy Melnikov)
.......................................................................

Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz, Chief of General Intelligence and Secretary-General of the National Security Council of Saudi Arabia, during his Moscow visit (RIA Novosti / Aleksey Nikolsky)

Part 3: Further Details About the Origins of These Foreign Fighters, Their Sponsors and Plans is Revealed

landdestroyer.
>>>> Excerpts.....[size=14pt]NATO Using Al Qaeda Rat Lines to Flood Syria With Foreign Terrorists[/size]

[size=14pt]2007-2008 US West Point reports reveal Al Qaeda network behind NATO's so-called "freedom fighters." Extremists in Syria were behind Iraq War foreign terrorist influx, not Syrian government.[/size]

by Tony Cartalucci

October 25, 2012 - The discredited and now obscure, defected Syrian ambassador Nawaf Fares, had claimed mid-summer of 2012 that the Syrian government had been behind the influx of foreign terrorists that entered Iraq during the later phases of the US-British occupation of Iraq. These terrorists took part in campaigns of sectarian-driven violence that divided and destroyed an already devastated Iraq. Fares spectacularly claimed that he himself was involved in organizing terrorist death squads in a hamhanded attempt to implicate the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad....................................................


dailymail
>>>> Excerpts.....[size=14pt]Britain secretly equipping Syrian rebels with latest satellite phones to help topple Assad[/size]

By Mark Nicol and Russell Myers

PUBLISHED: 00:59 GMT, 5 August 2012 | UPDATED: 16:54 GMT, 8 August 2012

British officials are secretly equipping Syrian rebel groups with satellite phones in a bid to topple President Bashar al-Assad

The supply of the latest generation of handsets is part of the Foreign Office’s mission to mould militias into a coalition capable of governing the country. The phones, used by the Ministry of Defence, are designed for rugged environments and are shock, dust and water resistant................................................



washingtonpost.com
>>>> Excerpts.....[size=14pt]Syrian rebels get influx of arms with gulf neighbors’ money, U.S. coordination[/size]

View Photo Gallery — Free Syrian Army fighters celebrating after destroying a government troops carrier on the outskirts of the rebel-held city of Rastan. View more photos of Syria’s main opposition army group.
By Karen DeYoung and Liz Sly, E-mail the writers

Syrian rebels battling the regime of President Bashar al-Assad have begun receiving significantly more and better weapons in recent weeks, an effort paid for by Persian Gulf nations and coordinated in part by the United States, according to opposition activists and U.S. and foreign officials..........................................

Smart move to seek congressional approval. I don't think Obama really wants to attack Syria. Its the war mongers that dominate Washington that want such action. People like McCain and Graham paid for by the weapons industry

This is not about saving face anymore but about doing the right thing which is to go about it in a constitutional manner..

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.)

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.)

Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack


Militants tell AP reporter they mishandled Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, causing accident

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 30, 2013

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press journalist Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

Image: YouTube

“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,”writes Gavlak.

Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak.

His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha.

According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels.

“More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government,” writes Gavlak.

If accurate, this story could completely derail the United States’ rush to attack Syria which has been founded on the “undeniable” justification that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR).

Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in providing rebels, whom they have vehemently backed at every turn, with chemical weapons, is no surprise given the revelations earlier this week that the Saudis threatened Russia with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi unless they abandoned support for the Syrian President.

“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 allegedly told Vladimir Putin, the Telegraph reports.

The Obama administration is set to present its intelligence findings today in an effort prove that Assad’s forces were behind last week’s attack, despite American officials admitting to the New York Times that there is no “smoking gun” that directly links President Assad to the attack.

US intelligence officials also told the Associated Press that the intelligence proving Assad’s culpability is “no slam dunk.”

As we reported earlier this week, intercepted intelligence revealed that the Syrian Defense Ministry was making “panicked” phone calls to Syria’s chemical weapons department demanding answers in the hours after the attack, suggesting that it was not ordered by Assad’s forces.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/

Syrians in Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack


This article is a collaboration between Dale Gavlak reporting for Mint Press News (also of the Associated Press) and Yahya Ababneh.

Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.

Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.

The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was “a judgment … already clear to the world.”

However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe 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.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.

Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.

The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.
More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.

Saudi involvement
In a recent article for Business Insider, reporter Geoffrey Ingersoll highlighted Saudi Prince Bandar’s role in the two-and-a-half year Syrian civil war. Many observers believe Bandar, with his close ties to Washington, has been at the very heart of the push for war by the U.S. against Assad.

Ingersoll referred to an article in the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks alleging that Bandar offered Russian President Vladimir Putin cheap oil in exchange for dumping Assad.

“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,” Ingersoll wrote.

“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,” Bandar allegedly told the Russians.

“Along with Saudi officials, the U.S. allegedly gave the Saudi intelligence chief the thumbs up to conduct these talks with Russia, which comes as no surprise,” Ingersoll wrote.

“Bandar is American-educated, both military and collegiate, served as a highly influential Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., and the CIA totally loves this guy,” he added.

According to U.K.’s Independent newspaper, it was Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency that first brought allegations of the use of sarin gas by the regime to the attention of Western allies in February.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the CIA realized Saudi Arabia was “serious” about toppling Assad when the Saudi king named Prince Bandar to lead the effort.

“They believed that Prince Bandar, a veteran of the diplomatic intrigues of Washington and the Arab world, could deliver what the CIA couldn’t: planeloads of money and arms, and, as one U.S. diplomat put it, wasta, Arabic for under-the-table clout,” it said.

Bandar has been advancing Saudi Arabia’s top foreign policy goal, WSJ reported, of defeating Assad and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies.

To that aim, Bandar worked Washington to back a program to arm and train rebels out of a planned military base in Jordan.

The newspaper reports that he met with the “uneasy Jordanians about such a base”:

His meetings in Amman with Jordan’s King Abdullah sometimes ran to eight hours in a single sitting. “The king would joke: ‘Oh, Bandar’s coming again? Let’s clear two days for the meeting,’ ” said a person familiar with the meetings.

Jordan’s financial dependence on Saudi Arabia may have given the Saudis strong leverage. An operations center in Jordan started going online in the summer of 2012, including an airstrip and warehouses for arms. Saudi-procured AK-47s and ammunition arrived, WSJ reported, citing Arab officials.

Although Saudi Arabia has officially maintained that it supported more moderate rebels, the newspaper reported that “funds and arms were being funneled to radicals on the side, simply to counter the influence of rival Islamists backed by Qatar.”

But rebels interviewed said Prince Bandar is referred to as “al-Habib” or ‘the lover’ by al-Qaida militants fighting in Syria.

Peter Oborne, writing in the Daily Telegraph on Thursday, has issued a word of caution about Washington’s rush to punish the Assad regime with so-called ‘limited’ strikes not meant to overthrow the Syrian leader but diminish his capacity to use chemical weapons:

Consider this: the only beneficiaries from the atrocity were the rebels, previously losing the war, who now have Britain and America ready to intervene on their side. While there seems to be little doubt that chemical weapons were used, there is doubt about who deployed them.


It is important to remember that Assad has been accused of using poison gas against civilians before. But on that occasion, Carla del Ponte, a U.N. commissioner on Syria, concluded that the rebels, not Assad, were probably responsible.

Some information in this article could not be independently verified. Mint Press News will continue to provide further information and updates .

Dale Gavlak is a Middle East correspondent for Mint Press News and the Associated Press. Gavlak has been stationed in Amman, Jordan for the Associated Press for over two decades. An expert in Middle Eastern Affairs, Gavlak currently covers the Levant region of the Middle East for AP, National Public Radio and Mint Press News, writing on topics including politics, social issues and economic trends. Dale holds a M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Chicago. Contact Dale at dgavlak@mintpressnews.com

Yahya Ababneh is a Jordanian freelance journalist and is currently working on a master’s degree in journalism, He has covered events in Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Libya. His stories have appeared on Amman Net, Saraya News, Gerasa News and elsewhere.

http://landdestroyer..com/2013/08/syrians-in-ghouta-claim-saudi-supplied_29.html

Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack


Militants tell AP reporter they mishandled Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, causing accident

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 30, 2013

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press journalist Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

Image: YouTube

“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,”writes Gavlak.

Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak.

His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha.

According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels.

“More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government,” writes Gavlak.

If accurate, this story could completely derail the United States’ rush to attack Syria which has been founded on the “undeniable” justification that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR).

Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in providing rebels, whom they have vehemently backed at every turn, with chemical weapons, is no surprise given the revelations earlier this week that the Saudis threatened Russia with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi unless they abandoned support for the Syrian President.

“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 allegedly told Vladimir Putin, the Telegraph reports.

The Obama administration is set to present its intelligence findings today in an effort prove that Assad’s forces were behind last week’s attack, despite American officials admitting to the New York Times that there is no “smoking gun” that directly links President Assad to the attack.

US intelligence officials also told the Associated Press that the intelligence proving Assad’s culpability is “no slam dunk.”

As we reported earlier this week, intercepted intelligence revealed that the Syrian Defense Ministry was making “panicked” phone calls to Syria’s chemical weapons department demanding answers in the hours after the attack, suggesting that it was not ordered by Assad’s forces.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/

Syrians in Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack


This article is a collaboration between Dale Gavlak reporting for Mint Press News (also of the Associated Press) and Yahya Ababneh.

Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.

Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.

The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was “a judgment … already clear to the world.”

However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe 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.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.

Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.

The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.
More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.

Saudi involvement
In a recent article for Business Insider, reporter Geoffrey Ingersoll highlighted Saudi Prince Bandar’s role in the two-and-a-half year Syrian civil war. Many observers believe Bandar, with his close ties to Washington, has been at the very heart of the push for war by the U.S. against Assad.

Ingersoll referred to an article in the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks alleging that Bandar offered Russian President Vladimir Putin cheap oil in exchange for dumping Assad.

“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,” Ingersoll wrote.

“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,” Bandar allegedly told the Russians.

“Along with Saudi officials, the U.S. allegedly gave the Saudi intelligence chief the thumbs up to conduct these talks with Russia, which comes as no surprise,” Ingersoll wrote.

“Bandar is American-educated, both military and collegiate, served as a highly influential Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., and the CIA totally loves this guy,” he added.

According to U.K.’s Independent newspaper, it was Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency that first brought allegations of the use of sarin gas by the regime to the attention of Western allies in February.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the CIA realized Saudi Arabia was “serious” about toppling Assad when the Saudi king named Prince Bandar to lead the effort.

“They believed that Prince Bandar, a veteran of the diplomatic intrigues of Washington and the Arab world, could deliver what the CIA couldn’t: planeloads of money and arms, and, as one U.S. diplomat put it, wasta, Arabic for under-the-table clout,” it said.

Bandar has been advancing Saudi Arabia’s top foreign policy goal, WSJ reported, of defeating Assad and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies.

To that aim, Bandar worked Washington to back a program to arm and train rebels out of a planned military base in Jordan.

The newspaper reports that he met with the “uneasy Jordanians about such a base”:

His meetings in Amman with Jordan’s King Abdullah sometimes ran to eight hours in a single sitting. “The king would joke: ‘Oh, Bandar’s coming again? Let’s clear two days for the meeting,’ ” said a person familiar with the meetings.

Jordan’s financial dependence on Saudi Arabia may have given the Saudis strong leverage. An operations center in Jordan started going online in the summer of 2012, including an airstrip and warehouses for arms. Saudi-procured AK-47s and ammunition arrived, WSJ reported, citing Arab officials.

Although Saudi Arabia has officially maintained that it supported more moderate rebels, the newspaper reported that “funds and arms were being funneled to radicals on the side, simply to counter the influence of rival Islamists backed by Qatar.”

But rebels interviewed said Prince Bandar is referred to as “al-Habib” or ‘the lover’ by al-Qaida militants fighting in Syria.

Peter Oborne, writing in the Daily Telegraph on Thursday, has issued a word of caution about Washington’s rush to punish the Assad regime with so-called ‘limited’ strikes not meant to overthrow the Syrian leader but diminish his capacity to use chemical weapons:

Consider this: the only beneficiaries from the atrocity were the rebels, previously losing the war, who now have Britain and America ready to intervene on their side. While there seems to be little doubt that chemical weapons were used, there is doubt about who deployed them.


It is important to remember that Assad has been accused of using poison gas against civilians before. But on that occasion, Carla del Ponte, a U.N. commissioner on Syria, concluded that the rebels, not Assad, were probably responsible.

Some information in this article could not be independently verified. Mint Press News will continue to provide further information and updates .

Dale Gavlak is a Middle East correspondent for Mint Press News and the Associated Press. Gavlak has been stationed in Amman, Jordan for the Associated Press for over two decades. An expert in Middle Eastern Affairs, Gavlak currently covers the Levant region of the Middle East for AP, National Public Radio and Mint Press News, writing on topics including politics, social issues and economic trends. Dale holds a M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Chicago. Contact Dale at dgavlak@mintpressnews.com

Yahya Ababneh is a Jordanian freelance journalist and is currently working on a master’s degree in journalism, He has covered events in Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Libya. His stories have appeared on Amman Net, Saraya News, Gerasa News and elsewhere.

http://landdestroyer..com/2013/08/syrians-in-ghouta-claim-saudi-supplied_29.html

Assad 1 - Western Axis 0

Thank God that at least some people still have their senses intact and won't be railroaded into another war instigated by their American and Israeli masters.....


British leader loses vote on Syria response
By Matt Smith and Frederik Pleitgen, CNN
August 29, 2013 -- Updated 2154 GMT (0554 HKT)
Watch this video
Heated moments in the UK debate on Syria
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

NEW: UK lawmakers vote down Cameron's call for military action
U.N. Security Council meeting ends without a consensus, diplomat says
It's "highly likely" Syria's regime is responsible for the chemical weapons attack, UK says
Remember war dead before rushing to strike us, Syria warns British parliament

(CNN) -- [Breaking news alert, 5:52 p.m. ET]

British Prime Minister David Cameron was dealt a blow Thursday in his push for a strong response, including possible military action, against Syria after the House of Commons voted down the measure.

The vote, 285-to-272, came just minutes after member of Parliament rejected a Labour Party motion calling for additional time for U.N. weapons inspectors to gather evidence over whether President Bashar al-Assad's forces used chemical weapons in suburban Damascus.

[Breaking news alert, 5:23 p.m. ET]

A closed-door meeting of the U.N. Security Council ended Thursday with no agreement on a resolution to address the crisis in Syria, a Western diplomat told CNN's Nick Paton Walsh on condition of anonymity.

"It was clear there was no meeting of minds, and no agreement on the text. It is clear that our approaches are very different and we are taking stock (of the next steps)," the diplomat said.

The members of the Security Council expect U.N. weapons inspectors to brief Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon shortly after they depart Syria on Saturday. Ban, in turn, will swiftly brief the Security Council on the findings, the diplomat said.

[Original story published, 4:25 p.m. ET]

U.N., British Parliament weigh response to Syria's chemical weapon use

U.N. Security Council members discussed Syria behind closed doors Thursday as British Prime Minister David Cameron argued the use of chemical weapons requires Western intervention in that nation's civil war.

Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee has concluded it was "highly likely" that Syrian government forces used poison gas outside Damascus last week in an attack that killed at least 350 people, according to a summary of the committee's findings released Thursday. Speaking in the House of Commons, Cameron said failure to respond would undo "decades of painstaking work" to prevent such weapons from being unleashed.

"The global consensus against the use of chemical weapons will be fatally unraveled," he said. "A 100-year taboo will have been breached."

But the debate appears to be putting the brakes on possible strikes against Syria, even as the United States moved an additional warship into the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

"It certainly seemed 48 hours ago that there was an all-party consensus that Parliament today would be endorsing the bombing of Syria this weekend, and I think people have pulled back from that," said Diane Abbott, a Commons member from the opposition Labour Party.

In Washington, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said President Barack Obama was still weighing a potential response, but said his administration was working on a "compressed timeline."

And in New York, the Security Council convened Thursday afternoon in a session called by Russia, Syria's leading ally, a Western diplomat told CNN.

Why Russia, Iran and China are standing by Assad

U.N. weapons inspectors are now in Syria trying to confirm the use of chemical weapons. The inspectors are expected to leave the country by Saturday morning, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government denies using the weapons against opposition forces and says its troops were the victims, not perpetrators, of recent gas attacks; but both British and U.S. officials say the rebels have no capability to use poison gas on the scale of the August 21 attack near Damascus, which opposition sources said killed more than 1,300.

"There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of CW by the opposition," Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee concluded in a document released Thursday. "The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility."

Chemical weapons in Syria: How did we get here?

Cameron opened an emergency session of the Commons on Thursday by saying the debate was not about regime change or invasion. And he said his government would not act without first hearing from the U.N. inspectors, giving the world body a chance to weigh in and giving Parliament another chance to vote.

But the prime minister said failing to act would give Syrian President Bashar al-Assad the unmistakable signal that he could use poison gas "with impunity." The British dossier on Syria also concluded the Syrian government had used chemical weapons on 14 previous occasions, and Cameron said al-Assad stepped up their use last week as a sort of test for the world.

"He wants to know whether the world will respond to the use of these weapons," the prime minister said.

Many members of Parliament uneasy

But memories of more than a decade of bruising warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan hung over the debate, with many members sounding uneasy about committing British forces to another Middle Eastern conflict.

"We cannot ignore the calamitous lessons of the Iraq war. We need safeguards. We need a coherent strategy that takes into account the consequences," said MP Angus Robertson, the Scottish National Party's spokesman on defense issues. Without a clear understanding of the consequences and a legal basis for military action, Robertson said his party -- which holds six seats in the Commons -- would oppose any strikes.

The government said it could justify the use of force against Syria on humanitarian grounds, to stop the suffering, even if the United Nations declined to authorize a strike.

"The aim is to relieve humanitarian suffering by deterring or disrupting the further use of chemical weapons," the government said in a statement released Thursday.

UK Government's legal position on Syrian regime's chemical weapon use

Syria's government offered its own arguments against such an intervention. In an open letter to British lawmakers expected to vote Thursday on a motion blocking military action without a U.N. resolution, the speaker of Syria's parliament riffed on British literary hero William Shakespeare, saying: "If you bomb us, shall we not bleed?"

But in a veiled warning to the United Kingdom, the letter also invoked Iraq, a conflict justified on the grounds that Iraq had amassed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was working toward a nuclear bomb -- claims that were discovered to have been false after the 2003 invasion.

"Those who want to send others to fight will talk in the Commons of the casualties in the Syrian conflict. But before you rush over the cliffs of war, would it not be wise to pause? Remember the thousands of British soldiers killed and maimed in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, both in the war and in the continuing chaos."

British Commons Speaker John Bercow published the letter, which was dated Thursday. And al-Assad has vowed to defend his country against any outside attack.

"The threats of launching an aggression against Syria will increase its commitments to its rooted principles and its independent decision that originated from the will of its people, and Syria will defend itself against any aggression," the Syrian president said Thursday in a speech to Yemeni politicians.

Syria: Who wants what after chemical weapons horror

Obama faces calls for American vote on force

Across the Atlantic, Obama said in a televised interview Wednesday that he has no doubt Syria used chemical weapons on its own people. He said government claims that the opposition used them were impossible.

"We do not believe that, given the delivery systems, using rockets, that the opposition could have carried out these attacks. We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out. And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences," he said on "PBS NewsHour" Wednesday.

Obama said that he has not made a decision about whether to conduct a military strike in Syria. A senior administration official said the United States would continue to consult with British officials, but declined to say if the slowdown in London would affect U.S. decision-making on Syria.

Obama and his top advisers are holding extensive talks with American allies as they ponder their options. But the president is facing doubts at home as well: More than 160 members of Congress, including 63 Democrats, have now signed letters calling for either a vote or at least a "full debate" before any U.S. action.

Ghitis: 5 reasons U.S. must intervene in Syria

The author of one of those letters, Rep. Barbara Lee, said Obama should seek "an affirmative decision of Congress" before committing American forces.

"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," wrote Lee, D-California.

More than 90 members of Congress, most of them Republican, signed another letter by GOP Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia. That letter urged Obama "to consult and receive authorization" before authorizing any such military action.

Congress is currently in recess until September 9. But Sen. Tim Kaine said on CNN's "New Day" that "I definitely believe there needs to be a vote."

Opinion: Why western intervention in Syria will leave chaos

"I think there's ample work the president can do in consultation with the congressional leadership about this until we're back," said Kaine, a Virginia Democrat. "I think we are going to be back soon, and it would be completely consistent with the president's prudence up to this point for him to continue to have that dialogue."

Obama spokesman Earnest said Obama believes in "robust" consultations with Congress, and national security officials will provide an unclassified briefing for members of Congress on Thursday evening. Members will be invited to join a conference call with top administration officials, including National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, he said.

"This call is something that we have been working to schedule for a number of days now, but it is just part of the ongoing, robust consultation that this administration believes is important for us to have with Congress," Earnest said. As for a vote on military action, that's "presupposing a decision that has not been made," he told reporters.

Iran: U.S. military action in Syria would spark 'disaster'

CNN's Holly Yan, Nick Paton Walsh, Jim Acosta, Max Foster and Bharati Naik contributed to this report.
18080

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/europe/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Extremists Ravaging Syria Created by US in 2007

US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel funded and have backed regional army of terrorists since 2007 specifically to overthrow Syria and Iran.
by Tony Cartalucci

May 11, 2012 - A 2007 New Yorker article written by renowned journalist Seymour Hersh revealed a plan under the Bush Administration to organize, arm, train, and deploy a regional army of terrorists, many with ties directly to Al Qaeda, in a bid to destabilize and overthrow both Syria and Iran. The plan consisted of US and Israeli backing, covertly funneled through Saudi proxies to conceal Washington and Tel Aviv's role, in building the sectarian extremist front.

According to Seymour Hersh's 2007 article, "The Redirection: Is the Administration's new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?," (1) Saudi Arabia, a more credible candidate for openly interfacing with the militants, openly admitted that it was a danger, but that they "created it," and therefore could "control it," in meetings with Washington. The plan called for not only setting up terrorist enclaves in nations neighboring Syria, including Lebanon, Jordan, and US-occupied Iraq, but also for building up the Muslim Brotherhood, both inside Syria's borders and beyond - including in Egypt.

Hersh's work now holds new relevance as revelations that indeed a sectarian-extremist element is behind the violence in Syria, including a horrific bombing in Damascus (2) that has killed scores and injured hundreds. That these terrorist elements are openly supported by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, with militants and weapons flowing in from the above mentioned Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon, (3) just as planned in 2007, shows clearly that the US-Israeli-Saudi plan is unfolding as intended.

As the West feigns shock and horror over the rise of their terrorist front, from Egypt to Syria, and beyond, along with the resurrection of the Muslim Brotherhood, who Hersh confirmed was already benefiting from US and Saudi aid in 2007, it is clear that in reality this is the fruition of a complex premeditated plan, years in the making.

The accomplices include Neo-Conservatives Dick Cheney, Elliott Abrams, and Zalmay Khalilzad - who also serves on the board of the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy, (4) a chief facilitator of the US-engineered "Arab Spring" (5) destabilization that brought the Muslim Brotherhood (purposefully) back onto the Middle East's political landscape. This after Arab nations fought long difficult battles against the Brotherhood's brand of violent extremism and anti-secular policies. Martin Indyk of the US State Department under former President Clinton, a former Ambassador to Israel, and a director at the corporate-financier funded think-tank, the Brookings Institution, was also mentioned in Hersh's report, and was a co-author of the infamous 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, (6) openly declaring US machinations in bringing down the Iranian government, including the use of listed terrorist organizations.


Image: Twin car bombings in Damascus Syria kill scores and maim hundreds - the final result of years of US-Israeli-Saudi backing of vicious terrorists, admitted in both Seymour Hersh's 2007 article, "The Redirection," as well as across US policy think-tanks openly conspiring to fund and arm listed terrorist organizations for use against Syria, Iran, and even Pakistan.
....

Saudi Arabia's Prince Bandar is noted by Hersh as instrumental in coordinating efforts between the Saudis, Israel, and the United States, while the political party built up around pro-Saudi Lebanese tycoon Rafic Hariri set the groundwork in Lebanon for the creation of staging points for the violent terrorist front.

With sectarian-extremists committing increasingly frequent and violent atrocities across Syria, the US and the Western media in general, have attempted to portray it as a natural progression of Syria's internal conflict - when in reality, based on Hersh's report and confirmed again more recently as the source of the rebels' funding and support is revealed, it is clearly the result of this long-planned act of foreign aggression against Syria, perpetrated by the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and their terrorist proxies in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Hersh's report had warned of the tragic consequences to be expected once this terrorist-front had been unleashed, namely, according to former CIA agent Robert Baer in Lebanon, " Sunni Arabs carrying out a "cataclysmic conflict." Baer warned of the need to protect Christians from a predictable onslaught by terrorist extremists - an onslaught now playing out against Syria's 10% Christian population, according to the LA Times' "Church fears 'ethnic cleansing' of Christians in Homs, Syria," (7) and more recently in USA Today's distorted, but still telling, "Christians in Syria live in uneasy alliance with Assad, Alawites." (

Christians are not the only minorities being targeted by the US-Israeli-Saudi terrorist front, but all minorities are as is secularism itself, being systematically attacked, as is the case in the wake of the NATO-backed dismemberment of Libya. (9)

As the US attempts to portray terrorist violence in Syria as the fault of Syria's government for not yielding to "international" pressure - we must remember that while they are absolutely correct - it is not because the Syrian government has reaped the consequences of inciting its own people to violence, but is instead suffering at the hands of a sectarian-extremist front, created by the West and its allies years in advance for the sole purpose of sowing terror to destabilize, divide, and forever destroy Syria and Iran. Should Syria or Iran fall to such machinations, their fate will be no different than that of Libya, now lying in absolute ruin, without a government, without law, but with torturers and militants roaming the streets and preying on the population as Libya's oil is pilfered by foreign contractors.

There will be no winners if Syria falls, no appeasing the reckless forces of terror manufactured and thrust at the Syrian people. Only unity and perseverance will save Syria from suffering Libya's fate. The Arab World itself must make a reassessment in the midst of a geopolitical landscape manipulated by the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, pitting Muslim against Muslim for the sake of destroying the stability needed for all to prosper.

ocelot2006: you're sure 'bout that pumpkin? Reality's totally different from what you watch in the movies oh

He has had too much of Uncle Sam's Koolaid! Too much Hollywood inbetween

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!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_al-Assal_massacre

MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX How the US Militay Industrial Complex, Corporate Financiers and so-called
Think Tanks Continually Looks For New Enemies and Is Surrounding China and Russia at the Moment

http://landdestroyer..com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html
http://landdestroyer..com/2012/01/think-tanks-explained.html
http://www.voltairenet.org/China-s-Land-Bridge-to-Turkey
http://www.infowars.com/think-tank-calls-on-us-to-deploy-another-warship-to-threaten-iran/
http://landdestroyer..com/2012/07/russia-vs-wall-streets-ngos.html


I would love to post more but it would be flagged as SPAM!

Msgamble: The sectarian conflict nature is 'external views'? Then tell me the reasons Assad used bulk or most of his army protecting non-voilent alawite heartland? Why rebels contain 95% sunni fighter(iran called them 'takfiris'-sunni name in iran)?..why US run to Nato council? Nato is a military alliance, going to war unilatery without concensus will leads to overwhelming international condemnation n member will feel undermined..why didn't US go arrest swonden in Russia? Assange is more of problem than swonden,yet he stay at 'little Ecuadorian' embassy in london, is more of UN reaction cos it can't be done without voilent..US diminshing world power? With 11 aircraft carrier to Russia 1,US's ICBM of 4500km range..some say US has the most powerful missile sheild? No, the most powerful is advance Russian S-300(can target 6 target at a times)..U're truly novice in international circle

Yes, America's military might and prowess is undeniable: The well tested and proven drone crafts; 11 carrier groups out of which an astonishing 10 are super carriers with 3 more on the way; military bases all over the world; the ability to deploy forces at a moment's notice,a war hardened and experienced military; some of the most advanced and fearsome military hardware such the X-47B drone capable of landing on aircraft carriers, the highly secret X-37B space warfare military shuttle,the X-51 hypersonic scramjet, the troubled but advanced F-22 Raptor fighter jet together with the upcoming F-35 strike fighter jet, the stealth B-2 bombers, etc; the unmatched $600 billion - and counting - defense budget; the inescapable control, creation and ownership of most of the technologies and tech companies behind the digital/internet age that we just can't live without and so on, etc

BUT remember that Nazi Germany too had the latest technologies as well such as the V2 rockets, the first jet fighter the Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe, the Tiger II tank and the harbinger of the modern assault rifle: the Sturmgewehr 44 but all these couldn't help the Germans win the war. It was too little, too late and by the time these weapons came on board, their military had been stretched thin and they had committed to too many misguided campaigns.

The Russians and Chinese undeniably may be playing catch up with the Americans but they aren't asleep either. It is plain obvious that the new theatre of war will be against the Chinese and the Russians as evidenced by the manner in which these two countries are being surrounded by American military bases such as the new ones in The Philippines and Australia and the increasing number of ex-Soviet countries - despite the assurances and promises of the deceitful and greedy Americans - signing up to join NATO. China and Russia are frantically modernizing their militaries and some of the awesome weaponry on display within America's arsenal will also be available to the Chinese and Russians circa 2020

America's debt is spiraling out of control. It's economy is in tatters, it's cities are getting bankrupt and I am afraid it is digging itself into a whole in which there is no escape.

NaWetinNa: This is for Demdem, airfinance, Owobo Brown, Broken TV, malele, REALITY 101, Freiburger, sanniemoe, A-ZeD,

CFCfan, Mee234

Some atrocities committed by the American govt. JUST A LIL' SOME:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/28/world/meast/guantanamo-guard/(Prisoner abuse at Guantanamo bay)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_americas (Terror training by US govt to South American
govts)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles (hypocrisy of US, harboring of terrorists, and
subversion of govts using these terrorists)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_affair

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/12/01/the-lost-opportunity-of-iran-contra/(subversion of Nicaraguan
govt, support of rebels with drug links)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_invasion (attempt to overthrow Cuban govt)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor (campaign of political repression involving
assassination and intelligence operations officially implemented in 1975 by the right-wing dictatorships of
the Southern Cone of South America. It is estimated that a minimum of 60,000 deaths can be attributed to
Condor,[2] possibly more.[3][4][5] Condor's key members were the governments in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay,
Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil. The United States provided support, with Ecuador and Peru joining later in more
peripheral roles)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_and_CIA_interrogation_manuals (CIA torture manuals: The
likes of General Pinochet learnt from the best)

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat[/url] The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in
Iran as the 28 Mordad coup[3]) was the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of
Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the
United Kingdom and the United States under the name TPAJAX Project.[4] The coup saw the transition of
Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United
States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[5]


[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat[/url] 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
(overthrow of Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, the democratically-elected President of Guatemala)

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Rold%C3%B3s_Aguilera[/url] (Assassination of Presdident of Ecuador in
1981)

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Torrijos [/url](Assassination of President of Pananma in 1981)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista (Support of a brutal dictator that protected
American interests. At the beginning of 1959 United States companies owned about 40 percent of the Cuban sugar
lands – almost all the cattle ranches – 90 percent of the mines and mineral concessions – 80 percent of the
utilities –practically all the oil industry – and supplied two-thirds of Cuba's imports.

Fulgencio Batista murdered 20,000 Cubans in seven years ... and he turned Democratic Cuba into a complete
police state – destroying every individual liberty. Yet our aid to his regime, and the ineptness of our
policies, enabled Batista to invoke the name of the United States in support of his reign of terror.
Administration spokesmen publicly praised Batista – hailed him as a staunch ally and a good friend – at a
time when Batista was murdering destroying the last vestiges of freedom, and stealing hundreds of millions of
dollars from the Cuban people, and we failed to press for free elections. John F. Kennedy)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment The Tuskeegee Syphilis experiment conducted
between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama by the U.S. Public Health Service to study the natural progression
of untreated syphilis in poor, rural black men who thought they were receiving free health care from the U.S.
government??For participating in the study, the men were given free medical care, meals, and free burial
insurance. They were never told they had syphilis, nor were they ever treated for it. According to the Centers
for Disease Control, the men were told they were being treated for "bad blood", a local term for various
illnesses that include syphilis, anemia, and fatigue.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401378/Agent-Orange-Vietnamese-children-suffering-effects-
herbicide-sprayed-US-Army-40-years-ago.html[/url]
Agent Orange:one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its chemical warfare
program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were
killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experimentThe syphilis experiments in Guatemala were
United States-led human experiments conducted in Guatemala from 1946 to 1948, during the administration of
President Truman and President Juan José Arévalo with the cooperation of some Guatemalan health ministries and
officials.[1] Doctors infected soldiers, prostitutes, prisoners and mental patients with syphilis and other
sexually transmitted diseases, without the informed consent of the subjects, and treated most subjects with
antibiotics.



[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt[/url] (The United States and
Spain quickly acknowledged the de facto pro-US Carmona government, but ended up condemning the coup after it
had been defeated
Rear Admiral Carlos Molina, a central leader of the coup, later said that "We felt we were acting with US
support . . . we agree that we can’t permit a communist government here. The US has not let us down yet."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan The American government cant even apologize
for killing Pakistani soldiers.

By the way, in case you didn't know, America sold the first nuclear reactor to Iran: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran but as long as you do not kowtow to their interests, you become a pariah, rogue state!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre (Massacre of unarmed civilians -including women and
children by the Americans during the Vietnam war)

[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-
rape.html[/url] (Abu Ghraib prison prisoner abuse)

The Iran/Saudi Ambassador Plot: (By the way, you heard anything about this lately? Nah, I didn't think
so!!)
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/11/05/dissecting-the-iran-terror-plot/
http://landdestroyer..com/2011/10/iran-links-us-funded-terrorists-to.html

Thank you o jare!

AND ABOUT THIS CHEMICAL ATTACK PURPORTEDLY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSAD GOVERNMENT:

1.Why did the attack coincide with the arrival of U.N. weapons inspectors and no rebels were killed?
You would think if Assad's forces was using it, they would aim to kill rebels - first and foremost and
civilian would be collateral damage.


2. Furthermore, you would think the Syrian army would have advanced and taken control of that area - given the
fact that they had supposedly fired chemical weapons into that area.

So why are the "rebels" still in control of that area?

Surely if you are an army commander who has just gassed the area of combatants and civilians, you would order
your men to go clear the area of any remaining resistance.


3. Lastly, what is the strategic importance of that area, that drove the Syrian army to resort to desperate
measures like using chemical weapons.The Syrian army was already making considerable gains against the
"rebels" in a conventional manner so why the sudden need to use chemical weapons?

As a matter of fact, it is the "rebels" themselves that have been caught manufacturing and using chemical
weapons and when a similar but smaller attack was carried out in Aleppo, a leading UN Investigator voiced his
suspicions that the "rebels" most likely were behind the attacks based on the accounts of the victims he spoke
to. Below are all the stories in case you missed it:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article178710.html
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=11173
http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/06/syria-rebels-caught-with-sarin-gas-in.html
[url]http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-attack-rebels-848/http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/09/us-syria-
crisis-chemical-russia-idUSBRE9680YZ20130709[/url]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

It makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever, for Assad to use chemical weapons. He has the least to gain and the
most to lose.

Let go of CNN, BBC, Fox News, MSNBC and the rest of the propaganda peddling mainstream media. Read and watch
the following instead:

http://landdestroyer..com
http://www.tomdispatch.com
http://consortiumnews.com
http://activistpost.com
http://infowars.com
http://rt.com
http://presstv.com

Listen to, log unto and follow Gerald Celente, Max Keiser, Mark Dice, Webster G.Tarpley, Alex Jones,
WeAreChange,The Vigilant Citizen, Broc West, Wayne Madsen, WikiLeaks, Russell Brand, Adam Kokesh, Ron Paul,
TomDispatch, Luke Rudkowski, Glenn Greenwald, Jason Bermas,Paul Craig Roberts,etc and get enlightened.


A COUNTRY THAT HAS OVER 860 BASES IN OVER 40 COUNTRIES AND US TERRITORIES IN THE WORLD IS AN EMPIRE AND IS NOT
READY TO LIVE IN PEACE IF IT'S INTERESTS ISN'T GUARANTEED FIRST. A GANGSTER STATE THAT HAS NO REGARDS WHATSOEVER FOR
INTERNATION LAW, HIGHLY HYPOCRITICAL AND DOES AS IT WISHES WITH IMPUNITY AND TOTAL DISREGARD FOR THE HUMAN
RIGHTS OF ITS' ENEMIES OR EVEN IT'S CITIZENS!! A COUNTRY THAT HAS BEEN BEHIND ASSASSINATIONS, ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATIONS, FAUX REVOLUTIONS AND GOVERNMENT OVERTHROWS MORE THAN ALL OTHER COUNTRIES COMBINED!! AMERIKA IS A THREAT TO WORLD PEACE.SIMPLE!!! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!