1. #36
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,585

    Kucinich: 10 unproven pro-Syria war claims





    In the lead-up to the Iraq War, I researched, wrote and circulated a document to members of Congress which explored unanswered questions and refuted President Bush's claim for a cause for war.


    The document detailed how there was no proof Iraq was connected to 9/11 or tied to al-Qaeda's role in 9/11, that Iraq neither had WMDs nor was it a threat to the U.S., lacking intention and capability to attack. Unfortunately, not enough members of Congress performed due diligence before they approved the war.

    Here are some key questions which President Obama has yet to answer in the call for congressional approval for war against Syria. This article is a call for independent thinking and congressional oversight, which rises above partisan considerations.

    The questions the Obama administration needs to answer before Congress can even consider voting on Syria:

    Claim #1. The administration claims a chemical weapon was used.

    The UN inspectors are still completing their independent evaluation.

    Who provided the physiological samples of sarin gas on which your evaluation is based? Were any other non-weaponized chemical agents discovered or sampled?

    Who from the United States was responsible for the chain of custody?

    Where was the laboratory analysis conducted?

    Were U.S. officials present during the analysis of the samples? Does your sample show military grade or lower grade sarin gas?

    Can you verify that your sample matches the exact composition of the alleged Syrian government composition?

    Claim #2: The administration claims the opposition has not used chemical weapons.

    Which opposition?

    Are you speaking of a specific group, or all groups working in Syria to overthrow President Assad and his government?

    Has your administration independently and categorically dismissed the reports of rebel use of chemical weapons which have come from such disparate sources as Russia, the United Nations, and the Turkish state newspaper?

    Have you investigated the rumors that the Saudis may have supplied the rebels with chemicals that could be weaponized?

    Has the administration considered the ramifications of inadvertently supporting al Qaeda-affiliated Syrian rebels?

    Was any intelligence received in the last year by the U.S. government indicating that sarin gas was brought into Syria by rebel factions, with or without the help of a foreign government or intelligence agents?

    Claim #3: The administration claims chemical weapons were used because the regime's conventional weapons were insufficient.

    Who is responsible for the conjecture that the reason chemical weapons were used against the Damascus suburbs is that Assad's conventional weapons were insufficient to secure "large portions of Damascus"?

    Claim #4: The administration claims to have intelligence relating to the mixing of chemical weapons by regime elements.

    Who saw the chemical weapons being mixed from August 18th on?

    Was any warning afforded to the Syria opposition and if not, why not?

    If, on August 21st a "regime element" was preparing for a chemical weapons attack, has an assessment been made which could definitively determine whether such preparation (using gas masks) was for purpose of defense, and not offense?

    Claim #5: The administration claims intelligence that Assad's brother ordered the attack.

    What is the type of and source of intelligence which alleges that Assad's brother personally ordered the attack?

    Who made the determination that Assad's brother ordered the attack, based on which intelligence, from what source?

    Claim #6: The administration claims poison gas was released in a rocket attack.

    Who was tracking the rocket and the artillery attack which preceded the poison gas release?

    Did these events occur simultaneously or consecutively?

    Could these events, the rocket launches and the release of poison gas, have been conflated?

    Based upon the evidence, is it possible that a rocket attack by the Syrian government was aimed at rebels stationed among civilians and a chemical weapons attack was launched by rebels against the civilian population an hour and a half later?

    Is it possible that chemical weapons were released by the rebels -- unintentionally?

    Explain the 90-minute time interval between the rocket launch and chemical weapon attacks.

    Has forensic evidence been gathered at the scene of the attack which would confirm the use of rockets to deliver the gas?

    If there was a rocket launch would you supply evidence of wounds from the rockets impact and explosion?

    What is the source of the government's analysis?

    If the rockets were being tracked via "geospatial intelligence," what were the geospatial coordinates of the launching sites and termination locations?

    Claim #7: The administration claims 1,429 people died in the attack.

    Secretary Kerry claimed 1,429 deaths, including 426 children. From whom did that number first originate?

    Claim #8: The administration has made repeated references to videos and photos of the attack as a basis for military action against Syria.

    When and where were the videos taken of the aftermath of the poison gas attack?

    Claim #9: The administration claims a key intercept proves the Assad regime's complicity in the chemical weapons attack.

    Will you release the original transcripts in the language in which it was recorded as well as the translations relied upon to determine the nature of the conversation allegedly intercepted?

    What is the source of this transcript? What was the exact time of the intercept? Was it a U.S. intercept or supplied from a non-U.S. source?

    Have you determined the transcripts' authenticity? Have you considered that the transcripts could have been doctored or fake?

    Was the "senior official," whose communications were intercepted, a member of Assad's government?

    How was he "familiar" with the offensive? Through a surprised acknowledgement that such an attack had taken place? Or through actual coordination of said attack? Release the transcripts!

    Was he an intelligence asset of the U.S., or our allies? In what manner had he "confirmed" chemical weapons were used by the regime?

    Who made the assessment that his intercepted communications were a confirmation of the use of chemical weapons by the regime on August 21st?

    What is the source of information that the Syrian chemical weapons personnel were "directed to cease operations"?

    Is this the same source who witnessed regime officials mixing the chemicals?

    Does the transcript indicate whether the operations they were "directed to cease" were related to ceasing conventional or chemical attacks?

    Will you release the transcripts and identify sources of this claim?

    Do you have transcripts, eyewitness accounts or electronic intercepts of communications between Syrian commanders or other regime officials which link the CW attack directly to President Assad?

    Who are the intelligence officials who made the assessment -- are they U.S. intelligence officials or did the initial analysis come from a non-U.S. source?

    Claim #10: The administration claims that sustained shelling occurred after the chemical weapons attack in order to cover up the traces of the attack.

    Please release all intelligence and military assessments as to the reason for the sustained shelling, which is reported to have occurred after the chemical weapons attack.

    Who made the determination that was this intended to cover up a chemical weapon attack? Or was it to counterattack those who released chemicals?

    How does shelling make the residue of sarin gas disappear?

    The American people have a right to a full release and vetting of all facts before their elected representatives are asked to make a decision of great consequence for America, Syria and the world. Congress must be provided answers prior to the vote, in open hearings, not in closed sessions where information can be manipulated in the service of war. We've been there before. It's called Iraq.

    AGB/AGB

  2. #37
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,585

    Lawless President + Lawless Congress ≠ Legal use of force in Syria



    President Obama with members of Congress in the cabinet room of the
    White House on Sep. 3







    On August 7, 1964, the United States House of Representatives voted 416-0, and the U.S. Senate voted 88-2, to support President’s Johnson’s decision to bomb targets inside North Vietnam in response to what the president said were North Vietnamese attacks on the U.S.S. Maddox and U.S.S. Turner Joy in the Gulf of Tonkin.


    Those votes also authorized the “Commander in Chief to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression,” which helped open the floodgates to full-blown war in Vietnam.

    Despite agreement between the president and the Congress, the president’s actions and the congressional vote violated both the United Nations Charter and the United States Constitution.

    This would have been the case even if the North Vietnamese had attacked the two U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin, which they did not.

    Similarly, in October 2002, the House voted 296-133 and the Senate 77-23 to authorize President George W. Bush to resort to military force against Iraq “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” in order to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.”

    This too was an illegal authorization of the use of force, and would have been even if Iraq had possessed WMD, which it did not.

    These votes authorizing force were illegal because (a) the United States was not subjected to an “armed attack” on its territorial borders by Vietnam or Iraq; neither Vietnam nor Iraq had any capability to engage in such an attack, and (b) the UN Security Council did not authorize the United States to resort to force in Vietnam or Iraq.

    On these two counts, then, the Congress voted in violation of the cardinal rule of the UN Charter-Article 2(4)-which prohibits the threat or use of force by states in the conduct of their international relations.

    Significantly, there was a third count of illegality. As I mentioned recently, in 1967 the Lawyers Committee on American Policy toward Vietnam, which included some of the most prominent international law scholars and foreign policy intellectuals of that era, published an important legal memorandum called Vietnam and International Law.

    In it, and while citing the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution-Article VI(2)-the Lawyers Committee wrote: “The United States Constitution considers ratified treaties to be the supreme law of the land and therefore considers any violation of such a treaty to be a violation of the Constitution.”

    Thus, because the UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States, when the U.S. violates the Charter, it also violates the Constitution.

    And, as the Lawyers Committee wrote: “No branch of Government is permitted directly or indirectly to violate the Constitution.”

    The Lawyers Committee then wrote: “Individual nations are bound by their international obligations toward other nations, regardless of their constitutional law. By disregarding international obligations a country acts in violation of international law, even if such a violation had been authorized by domestic law or by a domestic organ. Were this not the case, any country could liberate itself from its obligations toward the international community simply by domestic legislation or domestic decision.”

    The same law-international and constitutional-that applied to the U.S. war in Vietnam and the U.S. invasion of Iraq would apply to any congressional authorization of force in Syria by the United States.

    Like Vietnam and Iraq, Syria has not engaged in an “armed attack” against the United States, and has no military capability to do so.

    As in Vietnam and Iraq, the UN Security Council has not authorized the United States to engage in any use of force in Syria.

    Thus, a congressional authorization of military force in Syria would violate the UN Charter, and thus, as above, the U.S. Constitution.

    This would be the case even if the Obama administration’s claims about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government were accurate, although, like the Gulf of Tonkin incident and Iraqi WMD, there is no detailed or confirmed evidence to date about which entity in Syria used chemical weapons.

    We have already seen in recent weeks that the president and the Congress (or at least congressional leaders) seem content to continue violating the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban against unreasonable searches and seizures with their ongoing warrantless phone, email, and Internet surveillance of Americans.

    An authorization by Congress to use force in Syria would quickly build on that high-profile precedent of unconstitutionality, and identify the United States even further in the eyes of the world as the lawless state it is openly becoming.

    As such, it is not possible for the United States to morally and legally vindicate the ban on the use of chemical weapons in Syria by an unconstitutional vote in Congress and an illegal use of force under the UN Charter.

    In addition, the 1925 protocol banning use of chemical weapons―Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare―does not stipulate that military force should be used to enforce the ban on chemical weapons.

    Rather than a U.S. resort to force, the UN Security Council with U.S. support should, as first steps, insist on an immediate ceasefire in the civil war in Syria and an accelerated implementation of a permanent cessation of hostilities in accordance with the steps outlined in the Geneva Communiqué of June 2012.

    If President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and congressional leaders put as much effort into a lawful remedy to the war in Syria as they have on behalf of an unlawful one, the lawful one might succeed.

    ISH/ISH

  3. #38
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,585

    John Kerry, Warmonger


    US Secretary of State John Kerry








    John Kerry is not exactly inspiring confidence as Secretary of State.


    He’s become the biggest cheerleader for war against Syria in the entire administration.

    At the Senate hearings yesterday, he wouldn’t even rule out putting boots on the ground in Syria, even though President Obama had assured us on Saturday that this wouldn’t happen.

    Asked directly about it, here’s what Kerry had to say: If chemical weapons were at risk of falling into the hands of Al Qaeda types in Syria, he said: “I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a President of the United States to secure our country.”

    He then backtracked and tried to slam the door shut on putting U.S. ground troops there, but if you were listening, you had to conclude that this door is still kind of open.

    And anyway, why is the U.S. planning an action that logically will help Al Qaeda types in Syria, who are opposed to the Assad government?

    Kerry also repeated Obama’s falsehood from Saturday that the President has the authority to attack Syria without authorization from Congress. By saying so, Kerry shows himself to be ignorant or disdainful of the Constitution and of the War Powers Act.

    Once more, a majority of the American public doesn’t want war. And once more, the political class is intent on dragging us into it.

    To be sure, if it is proven that Assad used chemical weapons, that would be a war crime.

    But remember, at the Nuremburg trials, Justice Robert Jackson said the greatest war crime of all was waging an aggressive war.

    And that’s what John Kerry and Barack Obama seem prepared to commit-unless we organize and stop them.

    AHT/ARA

  4. #39
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,585

    US will definitely pay price of attack on Syria: Leader


    Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has warned the US against attacking Syria, saying Washington will certainly pay the price for such a venture.


    “We believe that the Americans are committing a folly and mistake in Syria and will accordingly take the blow and definitely suffer,” Ayatollah Khamenei said in address to members of the Assembly of Experts in Tehran on Thursday.

    The Leader said the main objective of the global arrogance is to dominate the Middle East, with Israel in the saddle, controlling everything.

    “The goal of the recent issues regarding Syria, which started under the pretext of chemical weapons, is also the same, but the Americans are trying through rhetoric and word-manipulation to pretend that they are entering this issue for a humane goal.”

    Ayatollah Khamenei, however, stressed that that US politicians do not care about humanitarian issues at all.

    “Americans are making humanitarian claims at a time when their track record includes [the atrocities at] Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons, silence over Saddam’s use of chemical weapons in Halabja and Iranian cities, as well as the massacre of innocent people of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.”
    Ayatollah Khamenei pointed out that what is going on in the region “is indeed the reaction of the global arrogance, led by the US, to the Islamic Awakening.”

    “The presence of the global arrogance in the region is [based on] aggression, bullying and avarice, and is aimed at crushing any resistance against this presence. The arrogance front, however, has not been and will not be able to eliminate this resistance [front],” the Leader added.
    Elsewhere in his remarks, the Leader referred to the ongoing turmoil in Egypt, noting that if Egypt had stood up against Israel and had not fallen for US promises, the deposed Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak would not have been freed from prison and those elected by the Egyptian people put behind the bars and tried.

    MP/SS/HMV

  5. #40
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,585

    Syria air defense very efficient:
    Russian source



    Syria’s air defense forces are capable of intercepting any enemy aircraft and about half of the Tomahawk missiles that might violate its airspace in the event of a US war, a Russian military source says.


    “The Syrian air defense system is very efficient,” the source, identified as a former air defense system commander, told Interfax and Voice of Russia.

    The source added that Syrian defense system “is deeply layered and presumes the maximum use of fighter aircraft and all point and tactical air defense weapons.”
    The Syrian air defense system employs the Buk anti-aircraft missile systems, which is “used to intercept cruise missiles - Syria has such weapons, and they are very efficient,” according to the source.

    The former commander said that the system “is built in such a way that enemy aircraft, once they get into the country’s airspace and the air defense system’s radar field, they virtually cannot leave it.”

    US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee voted on Wednesday to approve President Barack Obama administration's plan to wage military action against Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons.

    The rhetoric of war against Syria first gained momentum on August 21, when the militants operating inside the Middle Eastern country and the foreign-backed Syrian opposition claimed that over a thousand people had been killed in a government chemical attack on militant strongholds in Damascus.

    Damascus categorically rejected the accusation as part of a scheme to draw in foreign military intervention.

    GMA/KA/HMV

  6. #41
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,585

    Chemical weapons sent from Turkey to Syria: Former Turkish provincial official


    A former member of a city council in the Turkish province of Hatay says the chemical weapons used in last month’s attack in Syria were transported from Turkey, Press TV reports.


    “Four months ago, Turkish security forces found a two-kilogram cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the al-Qaeda and al-Nusra. They are using our borders to take the gas into Syria,” Mohamad Gunes said.

    “The Syrian president has no reason to kill his own people,” he added.

    People in the southern province, which borders Syria, said the weapons were used by the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front militants and not the Syrian government.
    “America and Israel had al-Qaeda use chemical weapons in order to push us into war; none of us wants war here. In the history of Hatay, we all lived peacefully side by side, now there is Mossad, CIA and al-Qaeda all over the place. We are worried that they might use chemical weapons against us,” said Farid Mainy, a Hatay resident and an activist.
    The residents believe the Turkish government is allowing the transfer of weapons because Ankara is trying to create a pretext in order to wage war on its neighbor.

    US President Barack Obama is trying to convince the Congress to approve a military strike against Syria over the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.

    Washington says it has obtained evidence proving the Syrian army was behind the chemical attack near Damascus on August 21, which killed hundreds of Syrians.

    The Syrian government has repeatedly said that the deadly attack was carried out by militants operating inside the country in a bid to draw in a foreign military intervention.

    Obama has delayed military action pending Congressional approval at a vote scheduled for September 9.

    On Monday, Russia dismissed as “absolutely unconvincing” the evidence presented by the US accusing the Syrian government of the gas attack.
    “When you ask for more detailed proof, they say all of this is classified so we cannot show this to you,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated.
    Syria has been gripped by deadly unrest since 2011. According to reports, the Western powers and their regional allies -- especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey -- are supporting the militants operating inside Syria.

    In a statement issued on Tuesday, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said the number of Syrian refugees, who have fled the country’s 29-month-long conflict, reached two million.
    “Syria is hemorrhaging women, children and men who cross borders often with little more than the clothes on their backs,” the UNHCR said.
    The UN refugee agency also said some 4.2 million people have also been displaced inside Syria since the beginning of the conflict in the Arab country.

    MN/MHB/SL

  7. #42
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,585

    US considers training Syria militants:
    Officials



    Amid Washington’s increasing efforts to wage a military strike against Syria, the United States is considering a plan to train the foreign-backed militants.


    American military trainers are set to train the militants in Jordan in order to help increase their capabilities, US officials told the Associated Press on Thursday.

    The unnamed officials did not explain about the details of the training programs.

    The US Central Intelligence Agency has been training the militants fighting the Syrian government forces, but it seems the new programs are broader.

    During a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Syria Wednesday, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he was "mostly supportive of helping the opposition by their development, by their training and equipping, not by becoming their military arm."

    The administration of US President Barack Obama is planning to attack Syria under the pretext that the Syrian government carried out chemical weapons attacks.

    The United States has claimed the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was behind a deadly chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus last month, even though there is no evidence linking the attack to the government forces.

    President Obama has called for a prompt vote from Congress authorizing the use of force in Syria.

    Meanwhile, a senior adviser to President Assad said al-Qaeda-linked terrorists were responsible for the chemical attack.

    Assad’s political and media adviser Bouthaina Shaaban said al-Qaeda was behind the attack just as it was responsible for “killing Syrian people, raping women, [and] kidnapping Christian clerics.”

    “The same people who were on the London Tube and who killed British people, the same people who on 9/11 in New York killed American people, they are the same people in Mali, the same people in Libya, the same people in Iraq, the same people in Syria,” Shaaban added.

    A new poll conducted by Washington Post-ABC News showed that nearly six in 10 in the US are opposed to missile strikes on Syria.

    According to the survey, 70 percent of Americans also oppose Washington and its allies providing militant groups in Syria with weapons.

    AGB/AGB

  8. #43
    allin1
    Update your status
    allin1's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-07-11
    Posts: 4,555

    good stuff paulypoker
    Quote Originally Posted by PAULYPOKER View Post
    Kucinich: 10 unproven pro-Syria war claims



    In the lead-up to the Iraq War, I researched, wrote and circulated a document to members of Congress which explored unanswered questions and refuted President Bush's claim for a cause for war.


    The document detailed how there was no proof Iraq was connected to 9/11 or tied to al-Qaeda's role in 9/11, that Iraq neither had WMDs nor was it a threat to the U.S., lacking intention and capability to attack. Unfortunately, not enough members of Congress performed due diligence before they approved the war.

    Here are some key questions which President Obama has yet to answer in the call for congressional approval for war against Syria. This article is a call for independent thinking and congressional oversight, which rises above partisan considerations.

    The questions the Obama administration needs to answer before Congress can even consider voting on Syria:

    Claim #1. The administration claims a chemical weapon was used.

    The UN inspectors are still completing their independent evaluation.

    Who provided the physiological samples of sarin gas on which your evaluation is based? Were any other non-weaponized chemical agents discovered or sampled?

    Who from the United States was responsible for the chain of custody?

    Where was the laboratory analysis conducted?

    Were U.S. officials present during the analysis of the samples? Does your sample show military grade or lower grade sarin gas?

    Can you verify that your sample matches the exact composition of the alleged Syrian government composition?

    Claim #2: The administration claims the opposition has not used chemical weapons.

    Which opposition?

    Are you speaking of a specific group, or all groups working in Syria to overthrow President Assad and his government?

    Has your administration independently and categorically dismissed the reports of rebel use of chemical weapons which have come from such disparate sources as Russia, the United Nations, and the Turkish state newspaper?

    Have you investigated the rumors that the Saudis may have supplied the rebels with chemicals that could be weaponized?

    Has the administration considered the ramifications of inadvertently supporting al Qaeda-affiliated Syrian rebels?

    Was any intelligence received in the last year by the U.S. government indicating that sarin gas was brought into Syria by rebel factions, with or without the help of a foreign government or intelligence agents?

    Claim #3: The administration claims chemical weapons were used because the regime's conventional weapons were insufficient.

    Who is responsible for the conjecture that the reason chemical weapons were used against the Damascus suburbs is that Assad's conventional weapons were insufficient to secure "large portions of Damascus"?

    Claim #4: The administration claims to have intelligence relating to the mixing of chemical weapons by regime elements.

    Who saw the chemical weapons being mixed from August 18th on?

    Was any warning afforded to the Syria opposition and if not, why not?

    If, on August 21st a "regime element" was preparing for a chemical weapons attack, has an assessment been made which could definitively determine whether such preparation (using gas masks) was for purpose of defense, and not offense?

    Claim #5: The administration claims intelligence that Assad's brother ordered the attack.

    What is the type of and source of intelligence which alleges that Assad's brother personally ordered the attack?

    Who made the determination that Assad's brother ordered the attack, based on which intelligence, from what source?

    Claim #6: The administration claims poison gas was released in a rocket attack.

    Who was tracking the rocket and the artillery attack which preceded the poison gas release?

    Did these events occur simultaneously or consecutively?

    Could these events, the rocket launches and the release of poison gas, have been conflated?

    Based upon the evidence, is it possible that a rocket attack by the Syrian government was aimed at rebels stationed among civilians and a chemical weapons attack was launched by rebels against the civilian population an hour and a half later?

    Is it possible that chemical weapons were released by the rebels -- unintentionally?

    Explain the 90-minute time interval between the rocket launch and chemical weapon attacks.

    Has forensic evidence been gathered at the scene of the attack which would confirm the use of rockets to deliver the gas?

    If there was a rocket launch would you supply evidence of wounds from the rockets impact and explosion?

    What is the source of the government's analysis?

    If the rockets were being tracked via "geospatial intelligence," what were the geospatial coordinates of the launching sites and termination locations?

    Claim #7: The administration claims 1,429 people died in the attack.

    Secretary Kerry claimed 1,429 deaths, including 426 children. From whom did that number first originate?

    Claim #8: The administration has made repeated references to videos and photos of the attack as a basis for military action against Syria.

    When and where were the videos taken of the aftermath of the poison gas attack?

    Claim #9: The administration claims a key intercept proves the Assad regime's complicity in the chemical weapons attack.

    Will you release the original transcripts in the language in which it was recorded as well as the translations relied upon to determine the nature of the conversation allegedly intercepted?

    What is the source of this transcript? What was the exact time of the intercept? Was it a U.S. intercept or supplied from a non-U.S. source?

    Have you determined the transcripts' authenticity? Have you considered that the transcripts could have been doctored or fake?

    Was the "senior official," whose communications were intercepted, a member of Assad's government?

    How was he "familiar" with the offensive? Through a surprised acknowledgement that such an attack had taken place? Or through actual coordination of said attack? Release the transcripts!

    Was he an intelligence asset of the U.S., or our allies? In what manner had he "confirmed" chemical weapons were used by the regime?

    Who made the assessment that his intercepted communications were a confirmation of the use of chemical weapons by the regime on August 21st?

    What is the source of information that the Syrian chemical weapons personnel were "directed to cease operations"?

    Is this the same source who witnessed regime officials mixing the chemicals?

    Does the transcript indicate whether the operations they were "directed to cease" were related to ceasing conventional or chemical attacks?

    Will you release the transcripts and identify sources of this claim?

    Do you have transcripts, eyewitness accounts or electronic intercepts of communications between Syrian commanders or other regime officials which link the CW attack directly to President Assad?

    Who are the intelligence officials who made the assessment -- are they U.S. intelligence officials or did the initial analysis come from a non-U.S. source?

    Claim #10: The administration claims that sustained shelling occurred after the chemical weapons attack in order to cover up the traces of the attack.

    Please release all intelligence and military assessments as to the reason for the sustained shelling, which is reported to have occurred after the chemical weapons attack.

    Who made the determination that was this intended to cover up a chemical weapon attack? Or was it to counterattack those who released chemicals?

    How does shelling make the residue of sarin gas disappear?

    The American people have a right to a full release and vetting of all facts before their elected representatives are asked to make a decision of great consequence for America, Syria and the world. Congress must be provided answers prior to the vote, in open hearings, not in closed sessions where information can be manipulated in the service of war. We've been there before. It's called Iraq.

    AGB/AGB

  9. #44
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,585

    'Isolated' Obama defies world leaders to abandon Syria war




    US President Barack Obama rejects calls by global leaders to abandon his plan to launch a military strike on Syria during the Group of 20 summit in Saint Petersburg, Russia.


    Obama who is scheduled to leave Saint Petersburg for Washington on Friday night is holding a final day of meetings with deeply-divided world leaders in the historic Russian city in a bid to win their support for the controversial move.

    "There has been a long discussion with a clear split in the group," Reuters quoted a G20 source as saying after a working dinner in a Tsarist-era palace at the end of the first day of the summit.

    Japanese authorities also said the conversations over Syria crisis included "exchange of frank opinions" that is usually a diplomatic code for tense diplomatic discussions and a euphemism for strong disagreement on an issue.

    The Reuters news agency described Obama as “isolated” regarding his case on Syria despite the presence of its allies including France, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

    The US president seemed to be at odds mostly with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping whose countries have openly expressed their strong opposition to any military action against the Arab nation.

    "Although there will continue to be some significant disagreements and sources of tension, I am confident that they can be managed," Obama said referring to the Syrian crisis before a meeting with Mr. Xi on Friday.

    The US president’s insistence on its stance regarding Syria also comes as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon voiced his opposition to an "ill-considered" attack on Syria, which he insisted could worsen the situation in the country.

    The UN secretary general warned against "further militarization of the conflict" during a humanitarian meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit on Friday.

    He added that possible military strikes on the country "could lead to serious and tragic consequences."

    DT/DT

  10. #45

  11. #46
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,585

    Obama repeats war rhetoric against Syria before leaving Russia




    US President Barack Obama repeats his war rhetoric against Syria during a news conference held at the end of a two-day Group of 20 economic summit in Russia.


    Obama once again accused the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of “using chemical weapons”, saying this is not just a Syrian tragedy but “a threat to global security.”

    He claimed that it is necessary to act against Syria to uphold prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons.

    The US president, however, acknowledged a fierce opposition to his plan to attack Syria from the international community, the American public, and Congress.

    "It's conceivable at the end of the day I don't persuade a majority of the American people that it's the right thing to do," he said adding "And then each member of Congress is going to have to decide."

    He also admitted that world leaders were divided on using military force in Syria without the support of UN Security Council.

    Obama made the remarks in the historic Russian city of Saint Petersburg after a final day of meetings with world leaders which were aimed at winning their support for the controversial move.

    The US and its allies have accused the Syrian government of carrying out a deadly chemical attack against its own people. The White House says it is planning to “punish” President Assad by launching military strikes against the country.

    Washington blames Damascus for the bloodshed in Syria, while it’s been funding training and arming the militants fighting against the Syrian government.

    Syria has rejected the US allegations, insisting the foreign-backed Takfiri militants were behind the last month gas attack outside Damascus.

    DT/DT

  12. #47
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,585

    US will lose Russia, China over Syria attack: Prof. Marandi


    A political commentator says a US attack on Syria will further isolate Washington in the international community with powers like Russia and China holding it to account, Press TV reports.


    “The United States is going to lose friends; key countries like Russia and China will be unforgiving and definitely people in Iraq and other regional countries will harden their stance against the Saudi dictatorship and other American client regimes in the region,” Mohammad Marandi, a professor at University of Tehran, told Press TV on Thursday.

    If the US launches a strike against Syria, it “will be seen as a pariah state and a rogue regime that carries out attacks on different countries one after another,” Marandi stated.
    Elaborating on Iran's potential response to a US offensive against Syria, the analyst said it is as of now "unclear" how the Islamic Republic would react, but what is certain is that "the Iranians will increase their support for the Syrian people."

    “The Iranians never show their hands, as they say, but I think that the Americans definitely will recognize and understand that the Iranians will make life for them a lot more difficult and those who support aggression against Syria in this region will definitely not benefit from the strikes and from aggression.” said Marandi.
    Washington’s war rhetoric against Syria intensified after Syria militants claimed the army had carried out a deadly chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21, which killed hundreds of Syrians.

    Damascus has repeatedly said the deadly attack was a false-flag operation carried out by the Takfiri groups in a bid to draw in foreign military intervention.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin has described as “utter nonsense” the allegations that the Syrian government was behind the attack.

    On September 4, Putin said, “If there is evidence that chemical weapons were used by the regular army... then this evidence must be presented to the UN Security Council. And it must be convincing.”

    China has also warned against a military intervention in Syria, saying such a move would only worsen the situation in the Middle East.

    MKA/HSN/HMV

  13. #48
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,585

    Syria war a carefully orchestrated Israeli plot: Expert


    A political analyst says Israel is orchestrating a potential US strike against Syria despite strong opposition from the US military and the American public.


    In an exclusive interview with Press TV on Wednesday, Gordon Duff, a senior editor of Veterans Today, said the US Senate is set to adopt a resolution authorizing military action against Syria, noting that Israel has bought the Senators’ votes. “It is a done deal,” he added.

    Duff stated that the strong opposition to potential strike on Syria indicates that the war plan “is purely being manufactured within the White House by political advisors around the president that are separating him from his military advisors.”

    The analyst recalled how the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, declined to speak in meetings before the Senate when he was asked by Secretary of State John Kerry to speak in favor of attacking the Arab country.

    He went on to say that a recent Israeli missile, which was “test-fired” in the Mediterranean, had actually been meant to target the populated downtown area in Damascus.

    “That was blocked. The Russians have been very public about that. It has been very embarrassing. There is no way of calling it anything but a plot,” he said.

    The analyst added that the potential war on Syria will not only bring no profit to Washington or the US military industrial complex but could also result in tensions with Russia “at a time when they are very powerful.”

    He condemned attempts by “the new axis of evil, namely Tel Aviv ... the Ottoman Empire and the Saudis” to instigate a war that is certain to spread from Syria to Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq, with a final aim of targeting Iran.

    Duff explained that the US humiliation in the possible war against Syria could benefit US rivals, China and Russia. “This is a very powerful geopolitical move and a horrific disaster for the Obama presidency and for the United States,” he commented.

    “The president was put into this position being stupid enough to listen to advisors; he was manipulated into this; it is an attempt to destroy his presidency, his credibility, his historical standing. It will work. It is a war against the US presidency, carefully orchestrated by Israel.”
    The US stepped up its war rhetoric against Syria after the militants operating in the country claimed the Syrian forces had carried out a chemical attack on the suburbs of Damascus on August 21, which they claimed killed over a thousand people.

    Damascus denied the accusation, and has repeatedly said the deadly attack was a false-flag operation carried out by the Takfiri groups in a bid to draw in foreign military intervention.

    MRS/HJL/SS

  14. #49
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,585

    AIPAC to push Congress to authorize US strikes against Syria

    File photo shows US President Barack Obama during an
    American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) event.


    A new report says the pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is planning to launch a major campaign to push US lawmakers into backing White House plans for a strike against Syria.


    Some 250 AIPAC leaders and activists will storm the halls on Capitol Hill during the next week to persuade the US lawmakers to vote for a draft resolution authorizing strikes on Syria, the report quoted an AIPAC source who asked not to be named.

    The group plans to lobby every member of Congress on the premise that Washington’s failure to act against the government of President Basher al-Assad in Syria would risk emboldening Washington’s opponents in other countries, including Iran.
    “The stepped-up involvement [of the AIPAC] comes at a welcome time for the White House, which is struggling to muster the votes in both chambers for a resolution that would give President Barack Obama the authority to engage in 'limited' military action in Syria for 60 days, with one 30-day extension possible,” the report added.
    While AIPAC and the White House seem to have an easier job in the House, the lower chamber of the US Congress, and among Democrats, they yet have to align opposing Republican figures, who have denied support for Obama’s warlike policy on Syria.

    Among them are two top Senate GOP leaders, namely Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Minority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, who have already been urged by top pro-Israeli donors and AIPAC allies to back the war resolution.

    The two have yet to offer their support ahead of a scheduled debate on the resolution on the Senate floor next week.

    US war threats against Syria have intensified since late August, when the militants operating inside Syria and the country’s foreign-sponsored opposition claimed that over a thousand people had been killed in a government chemical attack on the outskirts of the capital, Damascus.

    The Syrian government categorically rejected the accusation and said the militants had carried out the false-flag operation to prompt a foreign military intervention in the country.

    Nevertheless, a number of Western countries, including the United States, France, and Britain, quickly started campaigning for war.

    On Wednesday, the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations approved a draft resolution backing the use of force against Syria. The document requires the approval of both chambers of Congress before it can be interpreted as any form of congressional authorization for the US administration to strike Syria.

    MRS/HJL/SS

  15. #50
    allin1
    Update your status
    allin1's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-07-11
    Posts: 4,555

    pauly why don't you provide some links for these articles?

  16. #51
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,585

  17. #52
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,585



    Published on Sep 6, 2013
    Should the U.S. intervene militarily in Syria? New video further muddies the waters.
    HOW YOU CAN HELP: I'm asking everyone who watches this video to go to my webpage: www.billstill.com and sign up for a dollar-a-month by clicking on the "Subscribe and Support" tab. That's all I ask.




    Uploader Comments (Bill Still)


    • iLLWiLL TheMiCK 2 hours ago
      those videos of the launch, thats showing how they did it and thats not the actual video correct? And good post.

      ·
    • Bill Still 2 hours ago
      Don't know. There are so many questions.

      · in reply to iLLWiLL TheMiCK
    • PollenJesus 2 hours ago
      @ 6:35 Kerry says "rockets". I saw an artillery piece in the video launching canisters. Let's ask Kerry for evidence of the rockets. It seems every day that the US case for a strike gets weaker and weaker. Now the debate has come down to that the US has to strike to save face or else they look weak. This is not a justification for going to war in my books. Anyway.. the US loses legitimacy if they strike or do not strike.

      ·
    • Bill Still 2 hours ago
      Kerry is ... well ... not telling the truth.

      · 4 in reply to PollenJesus


    Top Comments




    All Comments (31)

    Sign in now to post a comment!

    • joecooldps 48 minutes ago
      Economists have been saying for years they will go to war because QE won't stimulate the economy. I think we'll do the war. It appears the house will vote it down so it will either happen before the house vote or there will be more chem weapons to try to build up support.

      ·
    • 0407Anonymous 59 minutes ago
      Thank you once again Mr Still

      ·
    • whykhr 1 hour ago
      It would have been a whole lot simpler to have armed & financed the secular, rational opposition right from the get-go. Assad would be gone by now, and Al Qaeda would be insignificant. But Americans are war weary after fighting two OIL WARS - for the sole purpose of making Big Oil richer. Greenspan admitted the Iraq War was entirely fought over Oil. As was Libya. And Afghanistan is being fought to secure the trans-Afghan pipeline to ship Big Oil's vast NG reserves in Turkmenistan to India.

      ·
    • ChrispyT YO 1 hour ago
      You've still got it Bill!
      keep up the good work
      

      ·
    • Christopher Marlowe 1 hour ago
      Ooops! Sorry. My bad. I thought you said "does not back down". Please forgive my snarky comment.

      · in reply to PollenJesus (Show the comment)
    • Neurotic Nation 1 hour ago
      Not definitive, that's absurd. These are mercenaries. Those guys in uniform are Syrian deserters- brigands that side with the jihadists. And this is the evidence that the West is holding up as proof the Assad regime did this. Nuts!! No damned wonder Putin called Kerry a liar. He is. The AP article was damning but had no photographic evidence. This video nails it to the wall. It was the Al Nusra/Al Qaeda fanatics that did this. The US supports the scum, it figures.

      ·
    • Christopher Marlowe 1 hour ago
      Yes, it would be better to start WW III and kill all the people in the world rather than to admit Obama was wrong and follow the law.

      · in reply to PollenJesus (Show the comment)
    • Christopher Marlowe 1 hour ago
      The US is lying, lying, lying. Using top secret evidence to start a war is cause for suspicion, especially after the Iraq-WMD lie. And the Gulf of Tonkin lie.
      It would also be illegal for the US to make war on Syria because Syria has not attacked the US, nor is threatening attack. We are signatories to the UN Charter, which was ratified by 2/3 of the senate. The UN Charter is therefore US law, and it forbids use of force or even threats of force.

      ·
    • sozfan1 1 hour ago
      curious to know more about syria's monetary system.

      ·
    • 14nationalist88 1 hour ago
      I predict that the U.S will stand down and the Zionists will use Erdogans, Turkish Armed Forces, to invade Syria!

      ·
    Last edited by SBR Jonelyn; 10-09-15 at 02:04 PM. Reason: image does not exist

  18. #53

First 12
Top