The Syria Thread: Everything you wanted to know or say about it
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’
Al-Nusra terrorists were caught with sarin in Turkey on May 30 of this year. They are the ones who used the gas on Syrians, especially the minority groups. Assad would not have done so since USA satellites are monitoring his forces and he is winning the war quite easily. By the way, this time unlike the past the antiwar effort is being led by the right wing.
Al-Nusra terrorists were caught with sarin in Turkey on May 30 of this year. They are the ones who used the gas on Syrians, especially the minority groups. Assad would not have done so since USA satellites are monitoring his forces and he is winning the war quite easily. By the way, this time unlike the past the antiwar effort is being led by the right wing.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
It's not the light , Gopher--- it's 50 years of Hollywood 'selling Blonde Israel..' all that peroxide
Hollywood Palestine...for contrast. Spot the difference....
It's not the light , Gopher--- it's 50 years of Hollywood 'selling Blonde Israel..' all that peroxide
Hollywood Palestine...for contrast. Spot the difference....
Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’
I'm just wondering if Syria has a "Damascus Bob"......
I'm just wondering if Syria has a "Damascus Bob"......
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
The difference between Britain and Canada is that when awful human right abuses happen in some part of the world Britain is usually there putting an end to it, doing something about it, usually alongside the US because Britain and America share the same values.
Canada, on the other hand, usually sits on its hands and does nothing whilst these awful abuses happen. That's nothing to be proud of.
Hopefully this disgraceful vote in parliament - I hope all those MPs who voted against British military action in Syria will feel ashamed of themselves every time they see images of children suffering and dying in Syria because of the Assad regime - is a one-off and hope that, in future, Britain will continue to intervene around the world wherever terrible human rights abuses are happening.
These MPs voting against action in Syria because of what happened in Iraq are wrong to compare Syria and Iraq. Syria is a country in which awful human rights abuses are happening before our eyes. We see the pictures of this suffering happening right now (although weapons inspectors did find chemical weapons in Iraq but they were gone by the time we went in there). Britain should have been at the forefront in helping the Syrians get rid of the Assad regime.
Instead Britain is now mocked by the Americans, with John Kerry last night making a speech in which he failed to even mention Britain in which he said that the US "and her oldest ally France" will go into Syria together.
Strike: The team of chemical weapons inspectors left their Damascus hotel early today fueling speculation of an imminent attack
How the tables have turned. Ten years ago the French were labelled "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" by the Americans for not going into Iraq.
Now it's the French who are alongside the Americans in Syria and the British refusing to be involved. How long till the British are labelled "tea-drinking surrender monkeys"?
The great divide: Barack Obama may drop David Cameron to join with France's Francois Hollande
David Cameron's premiership is underdoing emergency surgery after his humiliation in Thursday night's Commons vote on Syria
British Paratroopers near Port Stanley on East Falkland following the ceasefire order in 1982: That day, as we can see with painful clarity 31 years later, was the high watermark of British military endeavour since 1945
Argentinian prisoners of war at Port Stanley, Falkland Islands: The Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment put to flight a rabble of Argentine conscripts who were playing way out of their league
Tony Blair once confided to a colleague in the 1990s that the lesson of the Falklands was that 'the British like wars'
The British Army mobilised reservists to commit two brigades to Korea, where they fought with distinction until the 1953 armistice: Navy ratings board HMS Theseus for duty in Korea in 1950
The events around the US and British invasion of Egypt to sieze back the Suez Canal, which led to Prime Minister Anthony Eden's resignation, exposed our absolute vulnerability to the will and whims of the U.S.
The only the sensible and statesmanlike act of Harold Wilson's 1964-70 premiership was his rejection of repeated American pleas to commit our troops in Vietnam
After the success in the Falkland's, Thatcher was determined that we should play a full part on the world stage
Our Armed Forces are now tiny, especially when measured beside those of the Americans. Few ordinary Americans have even noticed our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan
BP has become the principal dish of an American legal cannibal feast after the oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico, pictured, which seems likely to destroy the company
In contrast to the treatment of BP, Exxon, a big U.S. oil company, was let off incredibly lightly after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill off Alaska (pictured)
I believe the House of Commons this week has belatedly awoken to its responsibilities as a legislature, in checking an over-mighty executive (Pictured: the moment MPs dramatically voted against the PM)
Successive prime ministers have abused their authority to commit Britain to foreign wars, as David Cameron sought to do in Syria; It is welcome that the House of Commons this week summarily withdrew that privilege from him
The difference between Britain and Canada is that when awful human right abuses happen in some part of the world Britain is usually there putting an end to it, doing something about it, usually alongside the US because Britain and America share the same values.
Canada, on the other hand, usually sits on its hands and does nothing whilst these awful abuses happen. That's nothing to be proud of.
Hopefully this disgraceful vote in parliament - I hope all those MPs who voted against British military action in Syria will feel ashamed of themselves every time they see images of children suffering and dying in Syria because of the Assad regime - is a one-off and hope that, in future, Britain will continue to intervene around the world wherever terrible human rights abuses are happening.
These MPs voting against action in Syria because of what happened in Iraq are wrong to compare Syria and Iraq. Syria is a country in which awful human rights abuses are happening before our eyes. We see the pictures of this suffering happening right now (although weapons inspectors did find chemical weapons in Iraq but they were gone by the time we went in there). Britain should have been at the forefront in helping the Syrians get rid of the Assad regime.
Instead Britain is now mocked by the Americans, with John Kerry last night making a speech in which he failed to even mention Britain in which he said that the US "and her oldest ally France" will go into Syria together.
U.S missile strikes against Syria could start tomorrow after U.N. weapons inspectors left the war-torn country earlier than expected.
The team of chemical weapons inspectors left their Damascus hotel early today - possibly for neighbouring Lebanon - fueling speculation of an imminent attack.
It came as the White House delivered an astonishing snub to Britain following Thursday's shock Commons defeat, with sources saying David Cameron had 'bungled' securing British support for military action and that Britain 'cannot be counted on'.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry last night paved the way for war by saying the American intelligence community had 'high confidence' that the regime launched a chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus last week.
Britain has been left sidelined in any U.S military action against Syria following the humiliating Commons defeat - placing strain on the 'special relationship' with the U.S.
Strike: The team of chemical weapons inspectors left their Damascus hotel early today fueling speculation of an imminent attack
Mr Kerry pointedly made no mention of Britain during his speech and instead lavished praise on its ‘oldest ally’ France - which looks likely to join the U.S in a missile strike.
He paid tribute to the French for standing ready to join the U.S in confronting the ‘thug and murderer’ President Bashar Assad. He also praised Australia and even Turkey for their support.
In a passionate speech in Washington, he urged the world to act as he warned 'history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator'.
President Barack Obama yesterday said he is weighing ‘limited and narrow’ action as the administration put the chemical weapons death toll at 1,429 people - far more than previous estimates - including more than 400 children.
Downing Street insisted the U.S special relationship was still intact following a telephone call between the Prime Minister and Mr Obama.
How the tables have turned. Ten years ago the French were labelled "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" by the Americans for not going into Iraq.
Now it's the French who are alongside the Americans in Syria and the British refusing to be involved. How long till the British are labelled "tea-drinking surrender monkeys"?
This is an interesting article, though, by the historian Max Hastings, who argues that for all the talk of a "special relationship" the US is really no friend of Britain's and that it's right for Britain to snub the US over Syria - you could see it as revenge for many things including, fairly recently, the disgraceful way the Yanks acted over the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
I'll post the whole article. It's my thread.
A disaster? No, it's high time Britain stopped being Uncle Sam's poodle...And as for those taunts about their 'oldest allies' the French, who cares!
On June14, 1982, I watched the leading elements of Britain’s task force march wearily but triumphantly into Port Stanley, as the Argentine forces in the Falkland Islands surrendered.
That day, as we can see with painful clarity 31 years later, was the high watermark of British military endeavour since 1945.
Margaret Thatcher’s premiership was saved from disaster. A brutal South American dictatorship was extinguished. The Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment put to flight a rabble of Argentine conscripts who were playing way out of their league — Wigan Athletic against Manchester United.
The great divide: Barack Obama may drop David Cameron to join with France's Francois Hollande
David Cameron's premiership is underdoing emergency surgery after his humiliation in Thursday night's Commons vote on Syria
We came home in a haze of euphoria to find the British people likewise. The ghost of the Suez Crisis, a 1956 national humiliation, was laid at last. We had reasserted the nation’s proud martial heritage. The Argies discovered that whatever their prowess at football and Formula One, the British Army was world champion at fighting small colonial wars.
But all that happened three decades ago. And unfortunately for the British people, prime ministers ever since have striven to recreate a ‘Falklands moment’ for their own aggrandisement and political advantage.
Tony Blair confided to a colleague in the Nineties that the lesson of the Falklands was that ‘the British like wars’. This was a big misjudgment, which cost the nation dear in the years that followed.
What our people like are victories which happen quickly and cheaply, and serve our national interest.
British Paratroopers near Port Stanley on East Falkland following the ceasefire order in 1982: That day, as we can see with painful clarity 31 years later, was the high watermark of British military endeavour since 1945
What we have experienced instead is a succession of wars and military interventions which have sometimes done a little good — as in Kosovo and Sierra Leone — but have more often involved the nation in expense, sacrifice and failure.
Thus, by a roundabout route, I arrive back at the medical facility where David Cameron’s premiership is undergoing emergency surgery after his humiliation in Thursday night’s Commons vote on Syria.
Our Prime Minister sought to follow Anthony Eden at Suez and Tony Blair in Iraq by launching a fumbled military adventure — which Parliament has summarily aborted.
Argentinian prisoners of war at Port Stanley, Falkland Islands: The Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment put to flight a rabble of Argentine conscripts who were playing way out of their league
Is this a sad day for Britain, revealing a once-great power and its leader laid low by snivelling Little Englanders?
Or is it instead, as I shall argue, a fine day for democracy and a reality check on this country’s rightful place in the world? Let us start with some history.
Britain emerged from World War II among the victors. But, while the U.S. made a large cash profit, this country was bankrupted by the conflict. In the years that followed, the retreat from Empire required repeated, expensive military commitments in India, Palestine, Cyprus, Kenya and Malaya.
A large army had to be kept in Europe to confront the Soviet threat. Such emergencies as the United Nations deployment to Korea in 1950 stretched our resources to the limit.
Tony Blair once confided to a colleague in the 1990s that the lesson of the Falklands was that 'the British like wars'
But even Labour governments were desperate to uphold Britain’s claims to be a great power.
Gladwyn Jebb, our ambassador at the UN, cabled in the first days after the communist invasion of South Korea that Britain must ‘correct any impression that the American people are fighting a lone battle… It is very desirable therefore to make out the U.S. is only one of a band of brothers who are all participating, so far as their resources allow’.
The British Army mobilised reservists — including some former wartime prisoners of the Germans and Japanese — to commit two brigades to Korea, where they fought with distinction until the 1953 armistice.
But, while Downing Street pursued the so-called ‘special relationship’ with a fervour sometimes approaching desperation, the Americans were always far more cynical about it.
The British Army mobilised reservists to commit two brigades to Korea, where they fought with distinction until the 1953 armistice: Navy ratings board HMS Theseus for duty in Korea in 1950
They welcomed British support in confronting the Soviet menace, but whenever it suited them, they dropped us in it. This happened most conspicuously in November 1956, after the British and French invaded Egypt, to seize back the Suez Canal nationalised by President Nasser.
The Americans decided the adventure was a huge mistake — as indeed it was. They pulled the plug by the simple expedient of threatening to end their support for sterling. British prime minister Anthony Eden was obliged to withdraw, and soon afterwards resigned.
The limits of British power, and our absolute vulnerability to the will and whims of the U.S., were painfully exposed.
The events around the US and British invasion of Egypt to sieze back the Suez Canal, which led to Prime Minister Anthony Eden's resignation, exposed our absolute vulnerability to the will and whims of the U.S.
British self-respect suffered a body blow at Suez. In the years that followed, the Army conducted some substantial operations — for instance against the Indonesians in Borneo — but never did a British government stick out its neck as Eden’s had.
Perhaps the only the sensible and statesmanlike act of Harold Wilson’s 1964-70 premiership was his rejection of repeated U.S. pleas to commit our troops in Vietnam.
We were coming to terms with the fact that Britain was no longer a great imperial power, but instead a medium-sized European nation with a chronically wobbly economy.
Then came Mrs Thatcher’s Falklands saga, which did much to revive our nation’s morale. In the years that followed, not only did we experience an economic and industrial revival, but we shared in the glory of being on the winning side in the Cold War, as the USSR suffered economic and political collapse. Britain, as the Iron Lady frequently declared, could walk tall again.
She was determined that we should play a full part on the world stage. In the last week of her premiership in 1990, when the Iraqis invaded Kuwait, she urged President Bush senior to fight. With great difficulty, a weak British armoured division was mobilised, which joined the U.S. army in recapturing Kuwait in the spring of 1991.
Yet that proved almost the last time a British military operation abroad had a swift and happy ending. During the past 22 years, Thatcher’s successors as prime minister have repeatedly committed troops to attempt good deeds in a wicked world.
These caused shrewd soldiers, if not their political masters, to accept some important truths: defeating the Argentines was much easier than fighting ‘wars among the people’, especially in Muslim societies. Such campaigns had no tidy endings — or victories.
Our Armed Forces are now tiny, especially when measured beside those of the Americans. I remember a former Chief of Staff saying during the 2003 Iraq war: ‘The Americans don’t need our troops or planes to do the fighting — they can achieve anything they like on their own. They value us only to provide political cover.’
The only the sensible and statesmanlike act of Harold Wilson's 1964-70 premiership was his rejection of repeated American pleas to commit our troops in Vietnam
The soldiers and strategic gurus whom I respect believe that Britain pays a disproportionately high price for its efforts to hang in there alongside the U.S. on the battlefield. Few ordinary Americans have even noticed our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan: the big American books about those campaigns devote just a page or two to the British role.
Second, it is hopeless to expect thank-yous for our support. Dear, kind old President Ronald Reagan attempted to shaft Mrs Thatcher during the Falklands War by forcing a ceasefire to save the Argentines from defeat.
After the success in the Falkland's, Thatcher was determined that we should play a full part on the world stage
A senior Foreign Office official said to me ruefully in 2003: ‘We’ve stuck out our necks a long way to back America in Iraq.
‘We currently have maybe 20 serious outstanding issues with Washington on things like technology transfer and aircraft landing rights. On none of them does the U.S. give us a break.’
Consider what is happening to BP, a great, British-based enterprise. It was responsible for a big oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
As a result, it has become the principal dish of an American legal cannibal feast, which seems likely to destroy the company.
Contrast the way that Exxon, a big U.S. oil company, was let off incredibly lightly after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill off Alaska. Essentially, BP is being victimised by American legal vultures without a finger being lifted in Washington to urge mercy. Britain still has important interests and values in common with the U.S., reflected especially in an intelligence-sharing agreement closer than Washington has with any other country.
Our Armed Forces are now tiny, especially when measured beside those of the Americans. Few ordinary Americans have even noticed our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan
On many issues in the world, we find ourselves in the same camp.
But it is nonsense to talk about a ‘special relationship’. America and its rulers think about Britain very little, and when they do so it is only in the context of Europe — as Ukip would do well to recognise.
Given that this is so, why do successive British prime ministers lead us into grief by trying to make us play a leadership role in the world which nobody else takes seriously? We are still a relatively important, though precarious, economy. But claims that we hold a warrant card to play international policeman are grotesque, and have been repeatedly exposed as such.
In recent years, we have tried to help make Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya democratic, law-abiding societies, at vast cost to British taxpayers. We have got nowhere. We have attempted to make the Afghans behave in a more civilised fashion, for instance by treating their women better, and failed.
BP has become the principal dish of an American legal cannibal feast after the oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico, pictured, which seems likely to destroy the company
We have associated ourselves with the U.S. in successive foreign crusades, and gained no reward in prestige, respect or gratitude.
The historian Michael Burleigh wrote in his recent book Small Wars, Far Away Places, castigating the failure of U.S. interventions: ‘Everything the U.S. did damned it as an imperialist power and, however harsh that verdict may seem, since Vietnam it has stuck.’ Burleigh is not a Leftist, merely a realist. Britain’s subordinate role has secured it only a subordinate share of ingratitude and even hatred in most of the societies where it has joined America to meddle.
I believe the House of Commons this week has belatedly awoken to its responsibilities as a legislature in checking an over-mighty executive. Successive prime ministers have abused their authority to commit Britain to foreign wars, as David Cameron sought to do in Syria.
In contrast to the treatment of BP, Exxon, a big U.S. oil company, was let off incredibly lightly after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill off Alaska (pictured)
Parliament has halted his initiative in its tracks, and displayed exemplary good sense in the interests of us all. There is nothing for Britain in Syria, and nothing for the Syrian people in any attempt by our Armed Forces to blunder in there.
I heard a Cameron supporter say yesterday: ‘But how shall we feel if America, backed by Germany and France, takes military action in Syria, and we are not there?’
Pretty good, is my answer to that. As America signalled last night that it is prepared to attack Syrian targets, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s remark about France as ‘America’s oldest ally’ was only a foretaste of plenty of rougher ruderies to come at Britain from across the Atlantic.
I believe the House of Commons this week has belatedly awoken to its responsibilities as a legislature, in checking an over-mighty executive (Pictured: the moment MPs dramatically voted against the PM)
We should accept them without embarrassment or anger as the price of Parliament’s decision.
If an intervention is as unsound as many smart people — including the top brass of the U.S. armed forces — believe it to be, then we are as well out of it as we were out of Vietnam.
This episode does inflict damage upon the Anglo-American relationship, not least because it makes our Prime Minister look foolish after he has urged so much bellicose advice upon President Obama.
But I have argued above that the U.S. does us few favours anyway. Who would suggest that Germany — for instance — suffers as a modern power in the world because the Americans share fewer security secrets with Berlin than with London?
British people are wisely weary of their own leaders’ pretensions to strut on the international stage.
Successive prime ministers have abused their authority to commit Britain to foreign wars, as David Cameron sought to do in Syria; It is welcome that the House of Commons this week summarily withdrew that privilege from him
It is not a matter now of becoming Little Englanders, but instead of adopting a realistic view of our national limitations.
We, and our governments, should focus upon putting our own house in order economically, industrially, socially and politically.
We should abandon ludicrous leadership pretensions which only occupants of Downing Street cherish.
I am neither a pacifist nor an isolationist. I readily acknowledge the need, on rare occasions, to use force in support of our national interests, which is why I deplore this Government’s defence cuts.
But our present and recent prime ministers have been far too eager to play war games in our name.
It is welcome that the House of Commons this week summarily withdrew that privilege from David Cameron.
Last edited:
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
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.”
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.
“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.
more
EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack
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.”
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.
“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.
more
EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
BS and propaganda - there is evidence that the gas was used by the west backed rebels and the real reasons are being withheld as usual. This is just another false flag operation that has nothing to do with altruistic reasons and everything to do with protecting US and British financial interests in the area. I can' believe the number of people falling for this crap again. American intelligence is about as reliable as the daily horrorscope. It is just another WMD BS story to get idiots to support another slaughter of women and children. Beyond insane!!!
BS and propaganda - there is evidence that the gas was used by the west backed rebels and the real reasons are being withheld as usual. This is just another false flag operation that has nothing to do with altruistic reasons and everything to do with protecting US and British financial interests in the area. I can' believe the number of people falling for this crap again. American intelligence is about as reliable as the daily horrorscope. It is just another WMD BS story to get idiots to support another slaughter of women and children. Beyond insane!!!
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIHJ9RMAVGI
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIHJ9RMAVGI
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
Why The World Needs More Canada | Samuel Getachew
We do our share whilst trying not to step on toes. It's an art other countries need to learn to follow.
We are learning (albeit slowly) not to hold their d icks for them while they fire their rifles.
no we choose our battles more wisely
Why The World Needs More Canada | Samuel Getachew
We do our share whilst trying not to step on toes. It's an art other countries need to learn to follow.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
Carly Simon - You're So Vain (with lyrics) - YouTube
LMAO....right. Except when bombs go off in Boston, then the damn Yanks had it coming to them.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
What are you talking about? There is clear evidence that those Iraqi trucks are carrying weapons of mass destruction. You're either with us or you're against us... er... oh, sorry. Wrong war.
But absolutely, how dare those rebels use chemical weapons... er... or was it the regime that used them?
Anyway, either way, someone needs to be punished, Assad is an amusing target, so let's help Al-Qaeda... er, I mean the rebels.
What are you talking about? There is clear evidence that those Iraqi trucks are carrying weapons of mass destruction. You're either with us or you're against us... er... oh, sorry. Wrong war.
But absolutely, how dare those rebels use chemical weapons... er... or was it the regime that used them?
Anyway, either way, someone needs to be punished, Assad is an amusing target, so let's help Al-Qaeda... er, I mean the rebels.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
In 1990, a 15-yo Kuwaiti girl testified to US Congress that Kuwaiti babies were being taken out of their incubators by Iraqi soldiers and left to die. It was later revealed that she was the daughter of an ambassador & that her testimony was part of a PR campaign to sell the war to the public.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y
Faking It: How the Media Manipulates the World into War
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eTWPK2v9lo
In 1990, a 15-yo Kuwaiti girl testified to US Congress that Kuwaiti babies were being taken out of their incubators by Iraqi soldiers and left to die. It was later revealed that she was the daughter of an ambassador & that her testimony was part of a PR campaign to sell the war to the public.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y
Faking It: How the Media Manipulates the World into War
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eTWPK2v9lo
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
Don't you just love Blackleaf's propaganda?
Anti-German propaganda in WWI - YouTube
Don't you just love Blackleaf's propaganda?
Anti-German propaganda in WWI - YouTube
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
Hmm... this situation is a weird one. Where to begin...
For starters, there's this, from NBC: "The U.N. team will decide whether a chemical attack actually did happen last week — but not who did it. The U.S. and many allies are convinced that the Syria army was responsible, but the government blames the rebels."
Which means, the UN is looking for proof, while the Syrian government is *not* denying it... they're just blaming it on rebels.
So, okay... where could rebels get chemical weapons?
Some background: Syria is totally within the Russian sphere of influence. Russia's Aeroflot has a transportation hub in Syria, they have partnerships with the Syrian government for oil-and-gas exploration and for pipeline manufacture and laying, etc.
The US has *zero* meaningful investments there... nothing, nadda, zilch.
That means it makes no sense for the US to take unilateral action independant of the UN. Uncle Sam has no interests to protect there, which is what you normally need to justify taking unilateral action.
If the UN finds proof that chemical weapons were used (which, again, the Syrian government is not denying... they're just trying to blame it on rebels), and if the only way to fix it is with force, then it should be a UN coalition lead by Russia.
The only thing I can figure is, what with it's four-generation friendly-relations with the Assad dynasty, combined with all the investment, Russia wants to keep looking like the good-guy.
That means she's keeping-up appearances, like vetoeing UN action, so the Assads don't turn around and have a fit about how "You're supposed to be our friend!"
Yet, if you listen to the newscaster's language, instead of saying, "should the US strike", instead they're saying, "when the US strikes", which is what they always do when it's a fait accompli...
There's no way Russia could be unaware of that, therefore, my hunch is there's a backroom deal, wherin Russia will have said to the US, "We must maintain appearances before Syria in order to protect *our* interests, which means things like blocking UN resolutions, yet the chemical weapons should go, therefore, to fix it, *you* must act unilaterally, which should be easy for you, given the fine precedent you set unilaterally attacking Iraq without the UN having completed its analysis of Iraqi WMD-capacity."
Nothing about the US taking unilateral action against Syria makes any strategic sense, because there are no American interests to protect, which means, believe it or not, the only motivation in this case really *does* have to be America acting unilaterally for humanitarian reasons... something must be done, but Russia has the UN tied-up.
Can you imagine the brain-snap that could have on those 33,000 Washington lobbiests, if they see the Administration actually do something for truly idiological reasons?
They might see that as a threat to their existence, because, if Washington gets away with doing one thing for reasons of humanitarian principal, with no tangible strategic benefit, what's to stop the Hill from taking it further by ignoring lobbiests in order to pass objectively good laws?
Evil special-interest groups could see this particular type of action against Syria as setting a dangerous precedent.
In any case, I don't see what they're going to hit, because all this chatter will have given the Assads plenty of time to move anything worth hitting.
Hmm... this situation is a weird one. Where to begin...
For starters, there's this, from NBC: "The U.N. team will decide whether a chemical attack actually did happen last week — but not who did it. The U.S. and many allies are convinced that the Syria army was responsible, but the government blames the rebels."
Which means, the UN is looking for proof, while the Syrian government is *not* denying it... they're just blaming it on rebels.
So, okay... where could rebels get chemical weapons?
Some background: Syria is totally within the Russian sphere of influence. Russia's Aeroflot has a transportation hub in Syria, they have partnerships with the Syrian government for oil-and-gas exploration and for pipeline manufacture and laying, etc.
The US has *zero* meaningful investments there... nothing, nadda, zilch.
That means it makes no sense for the US to take unilateral action independant of the UN. Uncle Sam has no interests to protect there, which is what you normally need to justify taking unilateral action.
If the UN finds proof that chemical weapons were used (which, again, the Syrian government is not denying... they're just trying to blame it on rebels), and if the only way to fix it is with force, then it should be a UN coalition lead by Russia.
The only thing I can figure is, what with it's four-generation friendly-relations with the Assad dynasty, combined with all the investment, Russia wants to keep looking like the good-guy.
That means she's keeping-up appearances, like vetoeing UN action, so the Assads don't turn around and have a fit about how "You're supposed to be our friend!"
Yet, if you listen to the newscaster's language, instead of saying, "should the US strike", instead they're saying, "when the US strikes", which is what they always do when it's a fait accompli...
There's no way Russia could be unaware of that, therefore, my hunch is there's a backroom deal, wherin Russia will have said to the US, "We must maintain appearances before Syria in order to protect *our* interests, which means things like blocking UN resolutions, yet the chemical weapons should go, therefore, to fix it, *you* must act unilaterally, which should be easy for you, given the fine precedent you set unilaterally attacking Iraq without the UN having completed its analysis of Iraqi WMD-capacity."
Nothing about the US taking unilateral action against Syria makes any strategic sense, because there are no American interests to protect, which means, believe it or not, the only motivation in this case really *does* have to be America acting unilaterally for humanitarian reasons... something must be done, but Russia has the UN tied-up.
Can you imagine the brain-snap that could have on those 33,000 Washington lobbiests, if they see the Administration actually do something for truly idiological reasons?
They might see that as a threat to their existence, because, if Washington gets away with doing one thing for reasons of humanitarian principal, with no tangible strategic benefit, what's to stop the Hill from taking it further by ignoring lobbiests in order to pass objectively good laws?
Evil special-interest groups could see this particular type of action against Syria as setting a dangerous precedent.
In any case, I don't see what they're going to hit, because all this chatter will have given the Assads plenty of time to move anything worth hitting.
Last edited:
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
Obama is using a few reasons for an attack-
Will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons- BS - as they have been used in the past year.
Next- The chemical weapons could reach terrorist orgs. Yes both sides have access to chemical weapons.
3rd - He has done nothing, even though he and others had self imposed Red Lines which were crossed a number of times- He failed to act.
Assad has been pushing those red lines with the use of chem wpns.
Obama put US prestige on the line - Did nothing - Now he has been cornered by his own policy.
Even the US is not sure this was a planned attack or a screw up by a local commander.
Obama is using a few reasons for an attack-
Will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons- BS - as they have been used in the past year.
Next- The chemical weapons could reach terrorist orgs. Yes both sides have access to chemical weapons.
3rd - He has done nothing, even though he and others had self imposed Red Lines which were crossed a number of times- He failed to act.
Assad has been pushing those red lines with the use of chem wpns.
Obama put US prestige on the line - Did nothing - Now he has been cornered by his own policy.
Even the US is not sure this was a planned attack or a screw up by a local commander.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
I'm willing to bet that he makes a show of force, then places the issue back in the Houses of Congress.
Then the Israeli lobby and the Saudi Lobby get to 'duel to the death'.
WAR! Love it.
I'm willing to bet that he makes a show of force, then places the issue back in the Houses of Congress.
Then the Israeli lobby and the Saudi Lobby get to 'duel to the death'.
WAR! Love it.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
I am so confused about what should be done here? Yes people have died but how is that going to be rectified by more dying when they go blasting in there?
Can't we go help with the injured or something?
This is just going to escalate and more soldiers are going to die along with more innocents.
Why can't we figure out a way to solve stuff without killing everyone and then we walk away and nothing changes...nothing. In a month it will be something else we have to die for and we help no one.
I am so confused about what should be done here? Yes people have died but how is that going to be rectified by more dying when they go blasting in there?
Can't we go help with the injured or something?
This is just going to escalate and more soldiers are going to die along with more innocents.
Why can't we figure out a way to solve stuff without killing everyone and then we walk away and nothing changes...nothing. In a month it will be something else we have to die for and we help no one.
