Tuesday, 3 September 2013
HACKED USA INTELLIGENCE EMAIL SHOWS USA GOVERNMENT WAS INVOLVED IN SYRIA CHEMICAL ATTACK.
Obama to still war with SYRIA even if congress approval fails.
Grassroots pressure has forced President Obama to seek approval from Congress for an attack on Syria. But Obama is hell-bent on
ordering a missile assault on that country, and he has two very important aces in the hole.
The administration is about to launch a ferocious propaganda blitz that will engulf a wide range of U.S. media. And as a fallback,
the president is reserving the option of attacking Syria no matter what Congress does.
surprise announcement Saturday that he will formally ask Congress for
authorization of military action against Syria, the impassioned pitches from top U.S. officials in late August seemed to be closing
arguments before cruise missiles would hit Syrian targets. But the pre-bombing hyper spin has just gotten started.
The official appeals for making war on yet another country will be ferocious. Virtually all the stops will be pulled out; all kinds of
media will be targeted; every kind of convoluted argument will be employed.
Hell hath no fury like war-makers scorned. Simmering rage will be palpable from political elites who do not want to see Congress set
an unprecedented precedent: thwarting the will of a president who wants Pentagon firepower unleashed on another country.
President Obama and top Democrats such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will twist every arm they can to get a “yes” vote
for attacking Syria. Meanwhile, most mainline media pundits, numbingly addicted to war, will often chastise and denigrate foes of
authorization.
But we have a real chance to prevent a U.S. attack. One cogent argument after another, from intelligence veterans and policy
analysts and weapons experts , has debunked the messaging for war on Syria. And some members of Congress — not nearly
enough, but some — have begun to speak up with cogent opposition.
One of NPR’s inside-the-box hosts of “All Things Considered” on August 30 asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) about the Obama
administration’s claim that missile strikes on Syria would be “a limited action” and not “war.” Congresswoman Lofgren replied: “I
think that anyone who argues that shooting missiles and dropping bombs on another country is not an act of war has got some
further education warranted. If somebody shot cruise missiles at Washington for only one day, we would still consider it an act of
war, wouldn’t we?”
Not many members of Congress have Lofgren’s clarity, and many of their votes on authorization are up for grabs. Each of us can
help affect the outcome by demanding that our senators and representative oppose the war resolution. We should make our voices
heard in all sorts of public venues.
The president’s move for a congressional vote should cause a major escalation of anti-war activism. A straw in the wind: during
just a few hours after Obama’s announcement on Saturday afternoon, nearly 10,000 people took the initiative via RootsAction.org
to email members of Congress with a “No Attack on Syria” message.
National opinion polling and momentum inside Congress indicate that we can defeat Obama’s war resolution. It’ll be a tremendous
fight, but we can prevail.
But even if Obama loses the vote in Congress, there’s a very real danger that he will proceed with ordering an attack on Syria.
Burying the lead almost a dozen paragraphs into a September 1 news story, the New York Times mentioned in passing: “White
House officials indicated that Mr. Obama might still authorize force even if Congress rejected it.”
A careful reading of Obama’s Rose Garden announcement on Saturday verifies that he never quite said he will abide by the decision
of Congress if it refuses to approve an attack on Syria. Instead, the president filled his statement with hedging phrases, detouring
around any such commitment with words like these:
“I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. … And I’m prepared to give that
order. But … I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”
“I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.”
“Over the last several days, we’ve heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this
morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they’ve agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress
comes back into session.”
“And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.”
“I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move
forward together as one nation.”
At the grassroots, people across the United States will be working very hard to prevent congressional approval of an attack on Syria.
That activism is imperative. But we should also understand that Obama has not committed himself to abide by the decision that
Congress makes.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share
Syrias war was planned years ago.
On April 6, 2009, Seymour Hersh headlined "Syria Calling," saying:
When Israel's December 2008/January 2009 Cast Lead war on Gaza
ended, so did "promising peace talks between Israel and Syria."
For almost a year, both countries negotiated. They did so in Istanbul
through intermediaries. Many complicated issues were resolved.
Diplomatic normalization was agreed on in principle.
At a mid-January Qatar summit, Assad called Israel's war "the
language of blood." He wanted Arab League members to boycott
Israel. He urged closing Israeli embassies throughout the region.
He wanted all "direct or indirect ties" severed. He ended discussions
over Golan Heights issues.
He emailed Hersh saying Israel was "doing everything possible to
undermine the prospects for peace." At the same time, he remained
committed to "closing the deal," Hersh said.
"We have to wait a little while to see how things will evolve and how
the situation will change," Assad said. "We still believe that we need
to conclude a serious dialogue to lead us to peace."
At the time, US and other government officials said renewed Israeli/
Syrian talks on Golan were highly likely.
They depended largely on Washington acting as mediator. Doing so
would let Obama engage in Middle East peace negotiations.
According to Hersh:
"A senior Syrian official explained that Israel's failure to unseat
Hamas from power in Gaza, despite the scale of the war, gave Assad
enough political room to continue the negotiations without losing
credibility in the Arab world."
"Assad also ha(d) the support of Arab leaders...invested in the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process."
"A major change in American policy toward Syria (was) clearly under
way. The return of the Golan Heights (was) part of a broader strategy
for peace in the Middle East that include(d) countering Iran's
influence."
Hersh quoted former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk saying:
"Syria is a strategic linchpin for dealing with Iran and the Palestinian
issue. Don't forget, everything in the Middle East is connected, as
Obama once said."
An unnamed former US diplomat involved in Middle East peace talks
called Syria "low-hanging fruit waiting for someone to harvest."
A treaty between Israel and Syria "would be the start of a wide-
reaching peace-implementation process that (would) unfold over
time."
Syrians were ready to deal since Oslo. Obama needed to do "due
diligence."
Start talking to Assad. Deal in "specifics." Vagueness won't work.
Israelis and Americans believed concluding a Golan deal could help
isolate Iran. It could moderate Syria's support for Hezbollah and
Hamas.
An alternative view was that Assad wants Iran involved in regional
talks. In February 2009, John Kerry chaired the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.
He met with Assad in Damascus. It was his third visit since 2000. "He
wants to engage with the West," said Kerry.
"Our latest conversation gave me a much greater sense that Assad is
willing to do the things that he needs to do in order to change his
relationship with the United States."
"He told me he's willing to engage positively with Iraq, and have
direct discussions with Israel over the Golan Heights - with Americans
at the table. I will encourage the Administration to take him up on it."
Assad said if America seeks peace, it has "to deal with Syria and (its)
rights." They include Golan. It's Syrian territory. It's "not negotiable,
and the Israelis know we are not going to negotiate the line of 1967."
At the same time, he suggested compromises were possible. "We only
demarcate the line," he said. "We negotiate the relations, the water
and everything else."
If Israel wants peace, it has to "deal with the core issue and not waste
time talking about who is going to send arms to Hezbollah or
Hamas."
"Hezbollah is in Lebanon and Hamas is in Palestine. If they want to
solve the problem of Hezbollah, they have to deal with Lebanon."
"For Hamas, they have to deal with Gaza. For Iran, it is not part of
the peace process anyway. This peace is about peace between Syria
and Israel."
According to Hersh, Obama expressed willingness to talk to Assad
with no preconditions. Rhetorically he endorsed Syrian peace with
Israel.
At AIPAC's 2008 annual conference, he said:
"We must never force Israel to the negotiating table, but neither
should we ever block negotiations when Israel's leaders decide that
they may serve Israeli interests."
"As President, I will do whatever I can to help Israel succeed in these
negotiations."
Hersh said Obama faced tough diplomatic choices. Assad was ready
to deal. Bush officials spurned him. Obama has to "prove" he's
different.
He's just as duplicitous. He said one thing. He planned another. He
wants sovereign Syrian independence destroyed. America targets all
independent states.
It wants all nations governed by Washington rules. Why Gaddafi was
ousted is instructive. He was fiercely independent.
He supported pan-Africanism. He wanted a United States of Africa. He
wanted it free from imperial domination.
He wanted Libyans sharing in the nation's oil wealth. America finds
the notion abhorrent.
Under Gaddafi's 1999 Decision No. 111, Libyans got free healthcare,
education, electricity, water, training, rehabilitation, housing
assistance, disability and old-age benefits, as well as interest-free
state loans.
They got generous subsidies to study abroad. They got help to buy a
new car. They got practically free gasoline. Newlyweds were
generously subsidized to begin married life.
Gaddafi's Green Book called a house "a basic need of both the
individual and family. "(T)herefore it should not be owned by others."
It believed women should be treated like men. "(A)ll individuals have
a natural right to self-expression by any means," it said.
"In a socialist society, no person may own a private means of
transportation for the purpose of renting to others, because this
represents controlling the needs of others."
"The democratic system is a cohesive structure whose foundation
stones are firmly laid above the other (through People's Conferences
and Committees). There is absolutely no conception of democratic
society other than this."
"No representation of the people - representation is a falsehood. The
existence of parliaments underlies the absence of the people, for
democracy can only exist with the presence of the people and not in
the presence of representatives of the people."
Green Book ideology rejects Western-style democracy. It's against
predatory capitalism. Gaddafi gave Washington lots of reasons to
want him ousted.
Until Washington and NATO blocked its approval, the UN Human
Rights Council Libyan praised Gaddafi. It did so in its January 2011
"Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Libya
Arab Jamahiriya."
It said his government protected "not only political rights, but also
economic, educational, social and cultural rights." It lauded his
treatment of religious minorities. It praised his security forces "human
rights training."
His vision targeted him for removal. He opted out of AFRICOM. His
Great Man-Made River (GMMR) project was extraordinary. Gaddafi
called it the "eighth wonder of the world."
An ocean-sized aquifer lies beneath Libyan sands. Gaddafi wanted it
developed. He wanted to make the desert bloom. He wanted Libyans
to have free water for irrigation, consumption and other uses.
Washington and other Western states want it privatized. They want it
exploited for maximum profits.
Banking under Gaddafi was key. Libya's central bank was state
owned. It created its own money.
The Libyan dinar was interest free. It was used for productive
economic growth. Predatory banking profits were verboten.
International lending agency loan sharks of last resort were shut out.
Gaddafi funded Africa's only communications satellite. Hundreds of
millions of telecommunication dollars were saved.
He provided two-thirds of the $42 billion needed to launch a public
African Central Bank, an African Monetary Fund based, and an African
Investment Bank.
He advocated a new gold standard. He wanted gold dinars replacing
dollars. His ideas ran contrary to petrodollar dominance. They
challenged the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
Gaddafi was a revolutionary leader. He wanted Libyan society based
on equity, justice and fair distribution of wealth.
Most Libyans supported him. They did so for good reason. He gave
Washington lots of reasons to want him ousted. So did Assad.
Post-WW I, Syria became a French colony. It remained so until April
1946. Eight military coups followed.
In 1970, Hafez al-Assad gained power. He headed Syria's Ba'ath
party. In July 2000, his son, Bashar, succeeded him as Syria's
president. He's a London-trained ophthalmologist turned politician.
The nation's agricultural sector generates around 25% of Syria's
national income. Wheat and cotton are principle crops. Oil is
produced and exported. In 2010, GDP growth was 3.2%. Per capita
income was $4,800.
Moscow and Syria have longstanding economic and strategic ties.
Russian expertise and technology helped build Syrian infrastructure.
It's responsible for dozens of industrial facilities. It includes about
one-third of its electrical power capacity, another third of its oil-
related operations, and help building the Euphrates dam.
Maritime interests are important. Linking Latakia, Syria with
Novorossiysk, Russia on the Black Sea facilitates cargo shipments.
Gazprom has oil and gas development operations.
Both countries have nuclear energy ties. They cooperate on other
commercial, scientific, military, and environmental issues.
Syria is secular. Its population numbers around 22.5 million. About
90% are Muslims. Most others are Christians. Significant investment
goes for education. It's prioritized. It's largely free. Most schools are
state-run. Private college charge modest fees.
Free healthcare and subsidized housing are provided. In 2006, IMF
structural adjustment mandates compromised them. Conflict
conditions since March 2011 affects all government services.
Syria's central bank is state owned. So are most other banks. In
1966, they were consolidated into the public Commercial Bank of
Syria.
Specialized public banks promote economic development. They
include the Agricultural Cooperative Bank, Industrial Bank, Popular
Credit Bank and Real Estate Bank. They're state owned.
They're anathema to Wall Street-style debt finance. They create their
own money. Western bankers have no control.
Syria's Council on Money and Credit manages monetary policy. It
supervises banking. It's responsible for economic activity. It's subject
to ministerial committee review.
Bank lending is mainly for commercial, industrial, construction, and
trade transactions. Essential commodities are supplied at low,
subsidized prices.
Washington, Israel, Britain, France, and other Western nations target
Syria's independence. Doing so is key to isolating Iran. Both countries
are strong allies. Toppling one weakens the other.
Syria's military is formidable. A well-armed defense force numbers
around 400,000. It has state-of-the-art weapons. Defeating it won't
be easy.
At the same time, it's no match against Pentagon power. How much
will be used remains to be seen. Obama wants Assad ousted.
He won't likely quit until longstanding plans are accomplished. Expect
lots more bloodshed and destruction. Rogue states operate that way.
America's by far the worst.
Obama's already guilty of multiple crimes of war and against
humanity. He intends more added to his rap sheet.
It bears repeating. He risks embroiling the entire region in conflict. He
risks WW III.
Israel says Med missile launch joint test with US
"The test was launched from the Mediterranean and directed from an army base in the centre of Israel," it said.
The statement mentioned only one missile.
Moscow's defence ministry, as cited by Russian news agencies, said its early warning system had detected the launch of two ballistic missiles from the central part of the Mediterranean fired towards the Sea's eastern coastline on Tuesday morning.
Source; http://news.yahoo.com/russia-detects-two-missile-launches-mediterranean-093544642.html
Russia sending spy ship to Mediterranean: Interfax
(Reuters) - Russia is sending a reconnaissance ship to the eastern Mediterranean, Interfax news agency reported on Monday, as the United States prepares for a possible military strike in Syria.
U.S. President Barack Obama has said he will seek congressional authorization for punitive action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after what Washington said was a sarin gas attack that killed over 1,400 people. Russia is a staunch backer of Assad in his war with rebels trying to topple him.
The reconnaissance ship left Russia's naval base in the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Sevastopol late on Sunday on a mission "to gather current information in the area of the escalating conflict", the Interfax report quoted an unidentified military source as saying.
The Defense Ministry declined immediate comment but Interfax said the vessel, the SSV-201 Priazovye, would operate separately from a Russian navy unit already stationed in the Mediterranean.
Last week, the ministry said new warships were being sent to the Mediterranean but described this as a routine rotation of ships under a permanent deployment which Moscow says is needed to protect national security interests.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also said at the time that Moscow did not intend to be dragged into any military conflict over Syria.
Russia reiterated on Monday that the United States had not proved its allegations and that the chemical attack may have been staged by Syrian rebels to provoke outside intervention in the more than two-year-old civil war.
Lavrov said Russia remained unconvinced following a meeting between Michael McFaul, the U.S. ambassador to Moscow, and a senior Russian diplomat.
The material the United States has shown Russia "contained nothing concrete: no geographical coordinates, no names, no proof that samples were taken in a professional manner", Lavrov told students and staff at Russia's main diplomatic academy.
"What our American colleagues and the British and French showed us earlier and recently absolutely does not convince us," Lavrov said, according to state-run news agency RIA.
Echoing comments by Putin at the weekend, Lavrov said: "There are no facts there ... and when we ask for more detailed proof. They say, 'You know, it's all secret, so we cannot show it'. That means there are no such facts."
Russia is one of Assad's biggest arms suppliers and has a naval maintenance facility in the Syrian port of Tartous. Moscow opposes any military intervention in Syria and has shielded Damascus from pressure at the U.N. Security Council.
Lavrov defended decisions by Russia and China to block three Western-backed U.N. Security Council resolutions to press Assad to end the bloodshed, saying Moscow and Beijing "act on principle on all issues, including the Syrian crisis".
Russia and China "oppose attempts to return to the language of ultimatums," he said.
(Editing by Timothy Heritage and Mark Heinrich)
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/02/us-syria-conflict-russia-ships-idUSBRE98104O20130902
Monday, 2 September 2013
Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'
Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.
Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.
Their claims have been supported by a survey showing a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in under-14s. Infant mortality in the city is more than four times higher than in neighbouring Jordan and eight times higher than in Kuwait.
Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that "to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened".
US Marines first besieged and bombarded Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad, in April 2004 after four employees of the American security company Blackwater were killed and their bodies burned. After an eight-month stand-off, the Marines stormed the city in November using artillery and aerial bombing against rebel positions. US forces later admitted that they had employed white phosphorus as well as other munitions.
In the assault US commanders largely treated Fallujah as a free-fire zone to try to reduce casualties among their own troops. British officers were appalled by the lack of concern for civilian casualties. "During preparatory operations in the November 2004 Fallujah clearance operation, on one night over 40 155mm artillery rounds were fired into a small sector of the city," recalled Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, a British commander serving with the American forces in Baghdad.
He added that the US commander who ordered this devastating use of firepower did not consider it significant enough to mention it in his daily report to the US general in command. Dr Busby says that while he cannot identify the type of armaments used by the Marines, the extent of genetic damage suffered by inhabitants suggests the use of uranium in some form. He said: "My guess is that they used a new weapon against buildings to break through walls and kill those inside."
The survey was carried out by a team of 11 researchers in January and February this year who visited 711 houses in Fallujah. A questionnaire was filled in by householders giving details of cancers, birth outcomes and infant mortality. Hitherto the Iraqi government has been loath to respond to complaints from civilians about damage to their health during military operations.
Researchers were initially regarded with some suspicion by locals, particularly after a Baghdad television station broadcast a report saying a survey was being carried out by terrorists and anybody conducting it or answering questions would be arrested. Those organising the survey subsequently arranged to be accompanied by a person of standing in the community to allay suspicions.
The study, entitled "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009", is by Dr Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi, and concludes that anecdotal evidence of a sharp rise in cancer and congenital birth defects is correct. Infant mortality was found to be 80 per 1,000 births compared to 19 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 9.7 in Kuwait. The report says that the types of cancer are "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout".
Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia, but in Fallujah Dr Busby says what is striking is not only the greater prevalence of cancer but the speed with which it was affecting people.
Of particular significance was the finding that the sex ratio between newborn boys and girls had changed. In a normal population this is 1,050 boys born to 1,000 girls, but for those born from 2005 there was an 18 per cent drop in male births, so the ratio was 850 males to 1,000 females. The sex-ratio is an indicator of genetic damage that affects boys more than girls. A similar change in the sex-ratio was discovered after Hiroshima.
The US cut back on its use of firepower in Iraq from 2007 because of the anger it provoked among civilians. But at the same time there has been a decline in healthcare and sanitary conditions in Iraq since 2003. The impact of war on civilians was more severe in Fallujah than anywhere else in Iraq because the city continued to be blockaded and cut off from the rest of the country long after 2004. War damage was only slowly repaired and people from the city were frightened to go to hospitals in Baghdad because of military checkpoints on the road into the capital.
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html
Sunday, 1 September 2013
Saudi Prince Bandar Meets MI6 Chief on Syria
Source: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920603001247