Arcadia Discussion Zone

The ongoing threat has been that Syria will resort to using Chemical weapons or release them to dangerous organisations such as Hezbollah or even Al Qaeda that it present in Syria these parasitic organisations have positioned themselves to take advantage of the situation.


Syria threatens to use chemical arms

...and who's busy pushing them to the brink of protecting their own country ?

here we go again ...

Mr. Assad is in his bath-room.
He's sitting in a bath-tub full of blood.
The UN are lurking in, looking at the blood.
The UN are closing the door from the outside saying: "Let's wait until he'll finish bathing."

Okkkkkkkay Eginolf that paints a really gruesome picture. It's good you're saying the U.N. which included the veto powers of Russia and China and you didn't "point the bone" as we say to the "western powers" as people are so apt to inaccurately portray the situation.

But it is a horrible situation in which there seems to be no way out. Even with external interference which came from the middle east it would till be roundly criticised.
Both Jordanian leadership and the arab league have warned Syria not to use pro-chemical speech that they still see fit to do so, is indeed worrying.

Maybe I should stick to worrying about the temperature of my coffee. I don't know why I stress myself over this stuff

Syria Threatens Chemical Attack on Foreign Force
By Neil MacFarquhar and Eric Schmitt, The New York Times
24 July 12


yrian officials warned Monday that they would deploy chemical weapons against any foreign intervention, a threat that appeared intended to ward off an attack by Western nations while also offering what officials in Washington called the most "direct confirmation" ever that Syria possesses a stockpile of unconventional armaments.

The warning came out of Damascus, veiled behind an assurance that the Syrian leadership would never use such weapons against its own citizens, describing chemical and biological arms as outside the bounds of the kind of guerrilla warfare being fought internally.

"Any stock of W.M.D. or unconventional weapons that the Syrian Army possesses will never, never be used against the Syrian people or civilians during this crisis, under any circumstances," a Foreign Ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, said at a news conference shown live on Syrian state television, using the initials for weapons of mass destruction. "These weapons are made to be used strictly and only in the event of external aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic."

Mr. Makdissi said that any such weapons were carefully monitored by the Syrian Army, and that ultimately their use would be decided by generals.

Though it has for many years been an open secret that Syria possessed a large cache of such weapons, the government has traditionally tried to retain some strategic ambiguity to keep its enemies guessing. Then on Monday, after Mr. Makdissi appeared to confirm that reality, the government quickly retreated to its familiar position, saying its remarks were misinterpreted.

Asked whether Syria was finally acknowledging that it had chemical weapons, Mr. Makdissi repeated roughly the same response, but began it by saying that any stock of unconventional weapons or chemical weapons "if they exist" would not be used domestically, but would be used against foreign intervention.

But the attempt at verbal sleight of hand did little to conceal what appeared to be Syria's intent, experts and Western diplomats said.

"Look, any talk about any use of any kind of a weapon like that in this situation is horrific and chilling," said Victoria Nuland, a State Department spokeswoman. "The Syrian regime has a responsibility to the world, has a responsibility first and foremost to its own citizens to protect and safeguard those weapons. And that kind of loose talk just speaks to the kind of regime that we're talking about."

For outside experts, any remarks about chemical weapons meant that Syria calculated the value of reminding anyone weighing any direct military intervention just what it could hit them with.

"The thing about W.M.D. is that they are useless unless the other side knows you have them," said Joseph Holliday, an Iraq war veteran who tracks the opposition Free Syrian Army for the Institute for the Study of War in Washington. "So despite the fact that the regime has not been open about its weapons program, it has to make it clear to neighbors that it has the capability, so it has to be relatively public."

Analysts dismissed the idea that any part of what Mr. Makdissi said, including the second statement, was anything less than calculated. The statements, coupled with recent information that Syria has been moving its chemical weapons around the country, were part of the calculation, said Randa Slim, an adjunct research fellow and Syria expert at the New America Foundation, a public policy institute based in Washington.

Syria is simultaneously trying to break its international isolation and to make the United States, Turkey and Israel, among others, rethink any offensive action they might be contemplating against it, she said. "The chemical weapons remain one of the Syrian regime's strongest few trump cards, and they are threatening to use it in order to improve their rapidly weakening negotiating position."

In ruling out their domestic use, Mr. Makdissi said Syria was facing "gang warfare" in its main cities where the weapons could not be used. Fierce street fighting continued in Syria's largest city, Aleppo, for a fifth day on Monday, while government troops maintained a mopping-up operation in and around Damascus.

Over the past four decades, Syria has amassed huge supplies of mustard gas, sarin nerve agent and cyanide, according to unclassified reports by the Central Intelligence Agency.

In a report to Congress covering last year, the C.I.A., referring to chemical weapons, said, "Syria has had a C.W. program for many years and has a stockpile of C.W. agents, which can be delivered by aerial bombs, ballistic missiles, and artillery rockets. We assess that Syria remains dependent on foreign sources for key elements of its C.W. program, including precursor chemicals."

In a similar report for 2006, the C.I.A. said Syria's arsenal included "the nerve agent sarin, which can be delivered by aircraft or ballistic missile." The report also said that Syria "is developing the more toxic and persistent nerve agent VX."

Syria has long left deliberately ambiguous what exactly it possesses in terms of chemical weapons, with government leaders only rarely discussing them. A United Nations diplomat said that in a meeting this month with Kofi Annan, the special envoy for Syria and former United Nations secretary general, President Bashar al-Assad had also said that any chemical weapons were stored in a safe place.

Mr. Assad also told Mr. Annan that they would not be used except in the case of foreign invasion, the diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic delicacy of the topic. The Syrian leader had said that the weapons had not been mixed yet, so that anyone who captured them would have to know how to combine them. The weapons are considered "binary," meaning that they do not become lethal until they are mixed.

Israel employs a similar ambiguity about its nuclear arsenal - usually stating it will not be the first to deploy nuclear weapons in the Middle East - which is believed to have inspired the Syrian stance. Syria and Israel are also among only eight countries in the world who have not agreed to the convention to eliminate chemical weapons that went into effect in 1997. (Israel has signed it but not ratified it.)

Leonard S. Spector, deputy director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute in California, said the Syrian spokesman's comments were paradoxically both menacing and reassuring.

"It's a mixed message," Mr. Spector said in a telephone interview. "One side of the message is fist-shaking, a warning of retaliation if there's an invasion. The other side seems to be an attempt to be responsible."

...and all this is just hysterical war-mongering propaganda ?

we hear that the Syrian government’s Foreign Minister Jihad Makdissi insists that if Syria had any unconventional weapons, they would be under strict security and only used against foreign aggression.He went on to say that his comments in no way implied Syria even has such weapons.

Yet again and despite this, the Western media has begun the all too familiar WMD-propagand campaign, the same sort of stuff we heard about in the lead-up to the Iraq war, where bold-faced lies and fabrications were based solely on dubious intelligence sources ... and make no mistake, they actually were bold-faced lies and fabrications just in case we forget or our memories don't go back that far....these fabrications were picked specifically to sell fear and loathing for the regime to us...the public.

don't forget that leading up to the war and the West’s invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, there was the West’s primary intelligence source, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, ....he admitted that ” I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime.”...and the media sold it to the world as the truth.

In the words of the media at the time “Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war.”


Now in Syria, we have another “defector,” the discredited, defected Syrian ambassador to Iraq, Nawaf Fares, clearly fabricating fantastical tales to both undermine the Syrian government, and give the West the impetus it needs for wider military intervention.

Are we going to be fooled again or are we going to read and listen to actual reporters from the ground, actual commentators who might actually have an inkling about the "bigger picture". I am not saying for one moment that Assad is in the right...far from it but we need to distinguish what is going down in Syria and realise that the rebel army are in fact a fully paid up invading force backed by the Petro-dollars of the US backed Saudis to gain control of Syria which gives them the corridor to Iran that they have long strived for.

imho obviously.

Of course not.
Reminds me of Israel who's got no atomic bombs at all.
Or of the treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939 which wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

should read... "and if all this is just hysterical war-mongering propaganda"

obviously makes a big difference to the point i am trying to get across.....

Cables reveal covert US support for Syria's opposition
April 18, 2011

Syria Threatens No One
By Stephen Lendman
7-25-12


Media scoundrels specialize in distorting comments and meaning.

They're hyperbolic over Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi saying Syria would only use chemical weapons against external aggression.

His message was clear. Distortion, misinterpretation, and willful lying about it followed. Inflammatory headlines blared. More on what Makdissi meant below.

At the State Department's daily press briefing, Victoria Nuland commented on Syria's chemical weapons, saying:

Talk about using chemical weapons "is horrific and chilling." Syria "has a responsibility to the world (and) its own citizens to protect and safeguard those weapons."

Any "kind of loose talk just speaks to the kind of regime that we're talking about."

"I think we've been absolutely clear where we stand on this issue, which is that any possible use of these kinds of weapons would be completely unacceptable."

"We’ve been making our position clear for many, many days now, and we’ve also been working with all of our allies and partners to monitor the situation, to compare information, and to send the same messages."

Syria "knows where we stand." Asked about securing them, Nuland said "warnings that we have given with regard" to these weapons have "been absolutely clear."

Asked about warning regime opponents, she added nothing further. Asked also to comment on Washington's position on a potential Israeli attack, she said "obviously I'm not going to walk into hypothetical scenarios."

"Like all countries in the neighborhood, it makes sense for there to be prudent planning for self-defense."

Reports suggest Washington and Israel discussed destroying Syria's stockpiles. Both countries know where they're held. Allegedly they're in dozens of locations. Bombing them would unleash a firestorm of toxins. Everyone nearby would be harmed.

The threat of a chemical weapon false flag attack blamed on Syria is real. On June 10, Russia Today headlined "Syrian rebels aim to use chemical weapons, blame Damascus - report," saying:

Opposition fighters have chemical weapons. Libyan sources supplied them. Allegedly they're planned for use "against civilians." The scheme involves blaming Assad.

DamPress "claims the opposition group in possession of the weapons is being trained in its use inside Turkey. No further details on the alleged conspiracy is given."

"The Libyan stockpile of chemical weapons was a matter of great concern during last year’s civil war in the country. There were fears that they may end up in the hands of the terrorists and used elsewhere in the world."

Independent analysts also fear a possible US-led NATO/Free Syrian Army (FSA) false flag chemical attack on Syrian civilians blamed on Assad.

Doing so would provide Washington an easy way to circumvent Security Council authority to intervene militarily and enlist popular support for it.

If harmful enough, it could be Syria's 9/11. American strategists may find that scheme too tempting to pass up. Regime change is longstanding US policy.

NATO and regional allies head closer to war. A casus belli remains to initiate it. The horror of chemical attack mass casualties looks perfect. Whether it's planned or not remains to be seen. The possibility is real.



Media War of Words

On July 23, The New York Times headlined "Syria Threatens Chemical Attack on Foreign Force," saying:

"Syrian officials warned Monday that they would deploy chemical weapons against any foreign intervention...."

"The warning came out of Damascus, veiled behind an assurance that the Syrian leadership would never use such weapons against its own citizens, describing chemical and biological arms as outside the bounds of the kind of guerrilla warfare being fought internally."

The Times cited CIA reports saying:

"Syria has had a C.W. program for many years and has a stockpile of C.W. agents, which can be delivered by aerial bombs, ballistic missiles, and artillery rockets."

"We assess that Syria remains dependent on foreign sources for key elements of its C.W. program, including precursor chemicals."

Syria's arsenal includes "the nerve agent sarin, which can be delivered by aircraft or ballistic missile."

On July 24, Reuters headlined "After bloody week, West warns Syria on chemical arms," saying:

"Western states expressed alarm" after Syria acknowledged its capability for the first time. Makdissi said chemical weapons won't be used against insurgents "regardless of (internal) developments."

"These weapons are stored and secured by Syrian military forces and under (their) direct supervision and will never be used unless Syria faces external aggression."

The Mossad-connected DEBKAfile (DF) published various reports hyping an alleged Syrian chemical weapons threat.

It's latest July 23 one headlined "Syrian chemical threat targets Israel. Obama warns Assad against 'tragic mistake,' " saying:

Makdissi's statement indicated "a direct threat (against) Israel." On Sunday, Netanyahu said preventing Syria's chemical weapons from "falling into the wrong hands" was key to Israel's security.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak ordered the IDF to prepare possibly attacking their storage areas because "Israel cannot accept the transfer of advanced weapons from Syria to Lebanon."

Nothing, of course, suggests Assad plans this. Hyping the threat advances the ball for war.

Guilty parties include US officials, Israeli ones, Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague, France's Minister of Foreign Affairs Laurent Fabius, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, UN/Arab League Syria envoy Kofi Annan, and Human Rights Council High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay, among others.

DF is part of the regime change campaign. It cited an unnamed Israeli official saying Assad "holds all the cards on when and against whom to use its chemical weapons."

Assad gave "himself carte blanche for resorting to chemical warfare at a time of his choosing by (saying) his government is subject to external Arab and Western aggression."

Indeed he's very much threatened. Alleging he's hyping what doesn't exist ignores reality.

DF cited an unnamed US military source saying Assad is "preparing to expand the Syria war into Lebanon whence his troops can threaten northern and Mediterranean areas of Israel."

In a Monday speech to veterans, Obama said Syria "will be held accountable by the international community and the United States should they make the tragic mistake of using those weapons."

Hyping fake threats conceals real ones Syria faces. Distorting comments by its officials advances the ball for war. Washington planned it years ago. Electoral politics influence its timetable. Whether it comes before of post-election doesn't matter. Regime change policy remains unchanged.



Syria Responds to Western Distortions and Deceit

On July 23, SANA state media headlined "Information Minister: Foreign Media and Diplomatic (Sides) Misconstrued Foreign Ministry Statement and Put it Out of Context," saying:

Makdissi's meaning was clear. Since early 2011, Syria's been a battleground. Western-generated violence continues daily. International law legitimizes self-defense.

Syria's in a war for survival. Its people know the stakes. They deplore becoming another Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya. They expect their government to do what it takes to prevent it. Makdissi and other officials vow to do so. It's their right and duty.

Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi told Sham FM Radio about "an international campaign led by US-Israeli diplomacy under the guise of warning against alleged chemical weapons that Syria supposedly possesses, and that this campaign is part of ongoing pressure to pass an international resolution under the pretext of preserving world peace."

For over two decades, he added, Syria called for abolishing all regional WMDs. Israel's open secret is well known. Its formidable nuclear, chemical, and biological arsenal poses the most significant threat.

It has hundreds of warheads and sophisticated long-range delivery systems. It never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

It signed the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), but didn't ratify it. It never signed the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). Its policy is CBW ambiguity, but worse than that.

Analysts most familiar with Israeli strategy acknowledge that it won't hesitate using nuclear or other weapons to advance its regional imperium.

Against Lebanon in 2006, Gaza during Cast Lead, and other attacks, it used direct energy weapons, chemical and/or biological agents. Injuries and symptoms followed never before seen.

The Palestinian health ministry said Israel used a new type explosive in Gaza. It contained toxins and radioactive materials. They burned and tore victims’ bodies from the inside. They also left long term deformations.

Since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel's been using depleted uranium weapons. Washington initially supplied them. America's military and Israel use them freely.

They're used in bombs, shells, missiles, and bullets. They spread deadly radiation like nuclear bombs. Vast areas get contaminated. Water, air, soil, and food become unsafe. Cancer and other disease rates soar. Locations far from target sites are affected.

No evidence suggests Syria used WMDs of any kind or plans to except in self-defense against external aggression. Washington and Israel use them freely in all wars they wage and other belligerence.

Fingers pointing the right way would blame them. Media scoundrels say nothing. Cheerleading war instead of forthrightly denouncing it threatens to embroil the entire region.

Perhaps Washington, key NATO partners, and regional allies won't be satisfied until it's incinerated. Unless years of belligerent madness stops, end game consequences may demolish it from one end to the other.

That's the good thing about Imploding - not exploding. If we say Syria is only a threat to itself then we can watch while it decimates itself without getting our hands dirty.

Brilliant idea, I should have thought it sooner and then this thread wouldn't exist. But that would be a Schrödinger's cat scenario.

The countries watching desperately "need" a massacre then they might start to take some action. 19-thousand lost lives so far ... and Mr. Assad is still in this bath room.

That's how the Arab world takes care of it's own business, doing a good job aren't they.

La realite depasse la fiction:

In War, the Truth Dies First: The Tremseh "Massacre" and Syria's Fate
Thursday, 02 August 2012 17:00
By Hans Springstein, Der Freitag | News Analysis

The drums of war – sorry, “humanitarian intervention” – have been beating for Syria for months now. In June I translated a piece by Uwe-Jürgen Ness on the disastrous consequences of military intervention in Libya and the similarities to the Syrian conflict.Some in the media now acknowledge that NATO and their proxy, the Al-Qaeda affiliate Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), were responsible for many of the atrocities they blamed on the Qaddafi regime. But even progressive English-language sources like Democracy Now! and Qatar-based Al-Jazeera have failed to cover reports like this one in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (English at Moon of Alabama), in which eyewitnesses contradict the account of the Houla massacre given by the Free Syrian Army (and parroted by the mainstream media).

Frankly, the German-language press has been better about this. This July 14 piece by Hans Springstein in the German weekly Der Freitag analyzes the most recent “massacre” in Hama and cites sources that indicate responsibility of the rebels as well as a falsification of the number of civilian deaths in media reports. The piece also discusses points virtually untouched by the Anglophone media: that rebels prevented civilians from leaving Homs in 2011; that these “massacres” tend to occur right before important multilateral deadlines; that it is only the rebels requesting outside intervention whose interests are served by civilian deaths, as it is in the Assad regime’s interest to minimize them.
I have translated the text in its entirety (adding English sources where possible) below.
- Kumars Salehi

“Massacre to Order”
By Hans Springstein, Der Freitag - July 14, 2012

Syria The next alleged massacre by Syrian government troops is being reported. An intervention will be seen as the only answer.

A new alleged massacre is being reported from the province of Hama. Three days ago I wrote: “The next suitable massacre is certain to come (unfortunately).” It will be the worst so far. And once again, Syrian government troops will be blamed for it. “All stops will be pulled out to justify intervention, action on ‘humanitarian’ grounds,” I assessed on July 10.

This assessment is not at all difficult when looking at the development of the Syrian conflict. I have expressed my views on this topic numerous times. The armed “rebels” and the “Syrian National Council” (SNC) have again and again requested action from the “international community”. They require the help of Western bombs; otherwise, they cannot achieve their “holy objective” to topple President Bashar al-Assad alone. Their wish has so far not been fulfilled. In order that this does still come to pass, therefore, they will spare no effort and no victims. To this end, their Western backers have turned “over 200 victims” in the report into “up to 300 victims” in the headline. Whoever is troubled by a couple victims more or less is no longer of any consequence.

I continue to stand by my skepticism and my doubt with the respect to such reports. One reason for this is given by William Blum, former employee of the US State Department and author of the book “Killing Hope” about US interventions since 1945, in a piece from April 6, 2012: “Putting Syria into some perspective”. In that piece, he quotes Wikileaks-published emails from the private news service Stratfor that show, for example, that the “opposition” reports from SNC, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), and the much-quoted Observatory in London about the alleged massacre by government troops in Homs in late 2011 were false. Stratfor’s follow-up investigations produced no supporting evidence. Nevertheless, reports of the alleged massacre dominated international headlines.

In contrast, private intelligence officers also claim that such reports will provoke anintervention like that in Libya. Blum indicates that on account of this, Stratfor also considers massacres by government troops unlikely, since Syrian forces in combat against the “rebels” have been specifically prepared to avoid the high civilian body counts that could lead to an intervention on “humanitarian grounds”. This can also be found in a Huffington Post entry from December 19, 2011.

It is no accident that such reports of atrocities always accompany deadlines pertaining to the Syrian conflict. Hence the UN Security Council convened on the topic of Syria the day of the alleged massacre. The West is calling for harsher sanctions, which Russia rejects.

Appropriately, the current massacre reports also contain the request of SNC member Basma Kadhmani: “Nations with the serious intention of protecting the Syrian people must come together and act – if need be, also outside the framework of the Security Council.” And the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, of all groups, assigns partial blame for the presumed massacre to UN envoy Kofi Annan. Supposedly, not only Assad is guilty of the crime, but also Annan, as well as Iran, Russia and “all those states who claim they are protecting peace and stability yet stay silent and skulk away from taking any responsibility,” [English from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/world ... fired.html - KS] the Islamist movement declared, according tosuddeutsche.de. Meanwhile, they compare the situation to Rwanda; Srebrenica will no longer suffice. Recall that the CIA also works with the Muslim Brotherhood in supervising the arms supply to Syrian “rebels”, as the New York Times reported.

As expected, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed, according to Reuters, “there was ‘indisputable evidence that the regime deliberately murdered innocent civilians.’ The UN Security Council must now assure the regime in Damascus that it should fear the consequences.” Yet, meanwhile, even the BBC has become cautious about such reports:It is unclear what led to the violence in Tremseh. Moreover, the BBC points to activists’ differing representations of what occurred. BBC correspondent Jim Muir writes that so far, videos show only dead young men. This fits the Syrian reports claiming that “rebels” were killed in combat with the army.

It is indisputable that there have been civilian casualties resulting from combat between government forces and the “rebels”. On whose account is indicates by such reports as this one from Homs in June: “There is truce between the Syrian army and rebels: after long and difficult negotiations, a cease-fire agreement was reached to allow the release of civilians trapped in Homs. However, say Fides sources in Homs, the evacuation had not started yet because the rebels have not yet given ‘green light’, while locals refer [to] the use of mortar fire on the city this morning.” [English fromhttp://www.fides.org/aree/news/news ... 7&;lan=eng - KS] Dead civilians only benefit the “rebels”, bringing them closer to the desired Western aerial support. The Syrian regime and Assad get nothing from them except condemnation from the “international community”.

According to the Catholic news agency FIDES, the “Mussalaha” initiative in the region has nevertheless succeeded in evacuating civilians from Homs. But: “The initiative ‘Mussalaha’, which is gaining ground, despite the civil war, in different areas of Syria, is accused by some of being ‘an expression of the regime’ or a ‘propaganda tool’” [English fromhttp://www.fides.org/aree/news/news ... 5&;lan=eng - KS], the agency reports. This is only one example of how the “rebels” create victims, in order to utilize them in the propaganda war. I have pointed to other examples in the past. Whoever takes a stand against them is villainized at the very least, as Kofi Annan is now experiencing, or faces much worse.

I fear the massacre-cacophony will not end. Thus, a peaceful solution will be made impossible. How this covert war will set back Syria’s development, and what of the country will be destroyed, that is revealed by (among others) the UN International Human Development Indicator for Syria.

Addendum at 13:50: More information about the supposed massacre can be found at hintergrund.de. And since information from one side will be relayed in detail in this country, but hardly anything from the Syrian government, here is an indexed version of the current report on the event from the Syrian news agency SANA. [page now unavailable – KS]

Addendum at 20:28: RIA Novosti provides the following report [not reported in the English version of the site – KS]: “After the massacre in the Syrian village of Tremseh, the opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA) admitted that the majority of casualties were not civilians, but armed anti-government militants. Seven civilians, not 100 as previously reported, were killed in Tremseh.

According to preliminary reports the number of civilian casualties amounts to at most seven, an FSA spokesperson told the agency AFP [Agence France-Presse – KS]. The others are comprised of FSA members. These reports were also confirmed by the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (OSDH).”

The aforementioned AFP can be found among other places in a report from the French newspaper Le Point. I have not found them in German sources.
Addendum from July 16, 2012: “Attack on Tremseh Attributed to Rebels” This has been confirmed by UN observers, according to an ARD [Consortium of Public-law Broadcasting Institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany - KS] report.

good article...it is crucial to spread the word and break the disinformation put out there by the main-stream media...to reverse the tide of military escalation we need a critical and unbiased understanding of what is actually happening in Syria.

The Times: The so called " Syria rebels" financed by shady figures with hidden agendas



A DISTANT sponsor finances the war among the olive groves and walnut trees high on the Jebel Akrad mountains. Sometimes he supplies the so called " rebel fighters" there with weapons and ammunition. More often he gives them money, hundreds of thousands of Syrian pounds, that are carried along hidden trails by a courier coming from Turkey.

There are strong moral arguments for arming the So called Syrian" rebels", but who exactly is financing the revolution and what is their agenda?

With the sponsor's support, the armed groups can raid, harry and ambush the logistic routes and outposts of the Syrian army in the valley beneath them. Without it, the armed group units in the area, would be little more than desperate renegades struggling to survive.

There is one major problem in the relationship. The so called " rebels " do not know who their sponsor is.

"We know what we are fighting against, but we don't know exactly who we are fighting for," admitted the armed group commander. At the moment there are no conditions to the money and weapons we receive, but I'm worried that one day there might be."

Stoking False Threats
By Stephen Lendman
8-8-12


Fearmongering, propaganda, deception, and hidden truths are weapons of war. They're used to convince people they're justified, righteous and vital.

When enemies don't exist they're created. No one threatened America since WW II. No one threatens Israel now. Both countries spurn peace. They manufacture threats to wage wars.

AIPAC is a dagger at humanity's heart. It represents lawless Israeli interests. It wields enormous influence in Washington and across America. It pressures Congress to get its way. It menaces global security. It lies to generate fear and regional wars.

It claims Syria threatens Israel. It says its government "continues to brutally crush the growing protest movement within the country while maintaining its support for terrorist groups."

It cites its chemical weapons. It warns about an alleged "illicit nuclear program."

It calls Iran "the world's leading sponsor of terror and is racing toward a nuclear weapons capability."

"Through its proxy armies of Hizballah in Southern Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Iranian regime is supporting terrorists carrying out daily attacks on American troops and Israeli civilians."

Accusations like these and others come straight from its propaganda 101 handbook. Waging war depends first on selling it. Enlisting public support is key. Mind manipulation engineers consent.

Enemies are invented. Truth is suppressed. Fear is stoked. National security issues are raised. Patriotism and democratic values are stressed.

Dovish voices are silenced. Hawks are featured prominently. All wars are based on lies. Truth promotes peace.

Campaigns now call for attacking Syria and Iran. Conquest alone matters. Catastrophic consequences aren't considered. Most people haven't a clue what's at stake.

Media scoundrels build momentum for war. An August 2 Washington Post editorial headlined "The lessons of failure in Syria," saying:

Assad "was never serious about peace...." He remains "determined to crush the opposition...." Russian President Vladimir Putin backs him. Diplomacy failed.

Assad "matched his father's record of despotism: He is willing to slaughter an unlimited number of his own people in order to cling to power."

(It's) time for the Obama administration to consider measures that stand a real chance of accelerating his downfall...."

Without saying so, the Post endorses war. Daily propaganda sells it. Disinformation is featured. Truth is turned on its head. Readers are betrayed.

Instead of denouncing imperial wars, media scoundrels endorse them. The New York Times marches in lockstep. Its August 6 editorial headlined "If Assad Falls in Syria," saying:

His "security forces are continuing to kill Syrians in huge numbers....(America) and its partners (must) step up the pressure (and) prepare for a (new) Syria."

The Times stops short of endorsing war. It creeps incrementally toward doing so. So does failure to urge peace. Legal and moral issues aren't raised. Imperial priorities matter most. Blaming victims supports them.

Fingers point often at Iran. False threats are raised. Haaretz is more hawkish than dovish. On August 7, its dark side was featured. One article headlined "New intelligence reveals Iranian military program advancing faster than previously thought."

Alleged "new intelligence" is claimed. Unnamed Israeli and Western officials say so. The usual suspect countries are involved.

According to an unnamed source, current thinking "began to take shape in February when Iran refused to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit the base at Parchin, where it is believed Iran is carrying out part of the research and development of its military nuclear program."

Fact check

Annually, US intelligence finds no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Western and Israeli leaders know there's none. It doesn't deter their false accusations.

No country matches Iran's willingness to cooperate with IAEA inspectors. It's nuclear sites are the world's most intensively inspected ones. Panchin is a military site. It has nothing to do with nuclear activities.

Israel, America, and other Western nations don't permit spying on their military facilities. Satellites maintain constant surveillance on strategic Iranian sites.

Imagery showed Panchin construction activity. Heavy machinery and "earth displacement" activities were claimed. Iran was falsely accused of removing contaminated soil and destroying evidence.

Charges made were baseless. New facilities replace old ones or expand and/or renovate existing ones. Wherever nuclear activities exist, remediating contaminated soil entirely is impossible. Easily detected residues remain.

Charges nonetheless persist. Old ones get regurgitated. Iran has something to hide, critics claim. Evidence never backs up charges because there is none.

Haaretz cited a July London Daily Telegraph report. It said Iran "established a new team of 60 nuclear scientists to develop (its) military nuclear program."

So called information came from "the Iranian opposition group Mujahideen al-Khalq (MeK)." It's been previously linked to Mossad. Israeli operatives train its cadre to carry out anti-Iranian assassinations and other subversive and disruptive activities.

Its "information" is propaganda, not fact. New charges repeat old ones. All lack credibility.

Another August 7 Haaretz article headlined, "Before attacking Iran, Israel should stop shooting itself in the foot."

Instead of denouncing what's lawless and unjustified, Haaretz said Israel should enlist international support before striking.

Whether Israel an/or America attack, world public opinion will blame Israel, it said.

"So you would reckon that while the military commanders are formulating plans and replenishing stockpiles, Israel’s political leaders would be busy gathering international support and accumulating reserves of goodwill in advance of an upcoming campaign."

"And you would conclude that the enormity of the dangers and the challenges that lay ahead" requires Israel to prepare for what's called "the most formidable challenge" in its history.

"Well, you might think all of the above, but you would be wrong."

Israeli policy-makers don't care what other leaders or world public opinion think. They act the same way about militarized occupation, settlements, Gaza's siege, and other lawless practices.

Israeli officials falsely claim Iran is the "greate(st) threat to Western civilization."

Israel is hostile to countries sharing other views. Doing so makes more enemies than friends. Haaretz stopped short of calling its charges baseless.

Another Haaretz article headlined "The secret behind an Iran war order," saying:

Israeli strategy goes as follows, it said. It thinks it can delay, not destroy, Iran's nuclear facilities. Only America has that capability. Doing so means total war. Obama won't risk it pre-election.

Romney is more hawkish. Netanyahu favors him. Polls suggest a close race. Attacking Iran pre-election forces Obama's hand. Tehran's response assures extensive Israeli casualties and damage. America will have to respond.

"Netanyahu is gambling" that Obama has to or risk electoral defeat. Haaretz doesn't oppose war. It's concerned about having enough support for victory. Issues of law and righteousness don't matter. Winning is the only bottom line that counts.

Israel's longstanding strategy calls for eliminating regional rivals. Two essential premises are followed:

(1) To survive, Israel must dominate the region and become a world power.

(2) Success depends on balkanizing regional nations along ethnic and sectarian lines. It's modeled after the Ottoman Empire's Millet system. Local authorities governed confessional communities with separate ethnic identities.

Strategy calls for waging winnable wars by exploiting sectarian and ethnic differences. In the 1980s, dividing Iraq into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish areas was envisioned.

Syrian strategy called for dividing it into a Shiite Alawite coastal state, an Aleppo area Sunni one, another in Damascus, and for Druze to set up their own.

Dividing Iran into multiple provinces was planned. The same held for the entire region. Decades ago, divide and dominate became Israel's strategy to survive. It may self-destruct by trying.


lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

I guess they also don't care much as they want to survive.

Forgot how it all started, Sheila? It did not start with shootings and bombings or secret financers. The people of Syria simply demonstrated against Assad and were shot by snipers. After that it got out of control. It's the war now. No more rules.

And Mr. Assad is still sitting in his bath-tub full of blood.

Yes, but not for much longer, surely, given the way the country is imploding aorund him; his depleted band of loyalists simply have to fight on too many fronts, although the support he gets from the three very unlovely entities of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas is helping to sustain him. I see Iran has now been forced to admit that some of the "pilgrims" taken hostage recently are supposedly retired members of its Revolutionary Guard.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tages.html

I think it's nonsense to suggest that the rebellion in Syria isn't a genuinely populist uprising against Assad's loathsome and murderous Ba'athist regime, sparked initially by the use of lethal force against peaceful demonstrations. Assad is as much a despot as his late father was and his demise can't come soon enough, in my opinion. What worries me is what comes afterwards, and particularly the fate of non-Sunni religious minorities, and secularists, liberals, and women especially, because there are some very bad elements opposing Assad, given the jihadists and other terrorists who have entered the country to join in the fray, including Al Qaeda affiliates. There is the real potential for sectarian bloodletting after the regime falls, which is even more horrendous to contemplate than what's happening there now, and one just hopes that the Free Syrian Army who form the bulk of the opposition will be able to get a grip on the situation, and prevent the country from slipping into complete anarchy. One can only hope, impotently, from the sidelines, because this has gone way past the point of no return now, and there's no hope of any sort of negotiation with the regime. So one can only hope, or pray, that now it's gone this far, the FSA will prevail, not just against the regime, but against the extremist minority in their midst. But I don't know how optimistic one can really be, and the civilians caught up in this are in the most perilous situation of all, whether those getting bombed in their homes by Assad's forces, or in the growing humanitarian crisis in the refugee areas on the Turkish border. It's a truly terrible situation in a country that is one of the cradles of civilisation. But to suggest, as the quoted article above inferred, that the crimes against humanity carried out by the regime and its proxies are somehow "propaganda 101" is either a case of being willfully blind to what is actually happening, or it's barefaced apologism for the actions of the Assad regime. The regime created this situation, and now they've unleashed a firestorm over the whole country that could yet inflame the region. An absolutely awful situation for those caught up in it, I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like to be living through it.

The regime and their friends still could retire to a territory where they stay and live on. A seperated Syria, just like Corea et.al.

Then I ask you Richard if it was you making the decision to hold these "peaceful demonstrations" and it was your family would you have encouraged them to take place?
Do you believe the model that was used in the Serbian, Tunsia, Libya & Egyptian countries could be transposed into Syria against the Assad regime?

I'm not sure that I fully understand your question, rain, but I'm sure if it was my family I'd be telling them to keep their heads down and to stay well away from it, but that doesn't alter the genuinely populist opposition to the Syrian regime, or the despicable way in which the regime sought to suppress dissent against it, however much its apologists seek to spin it otherwise. I don't know how much the uprisings in other countries serve as a model for what's happening in Syria, but probably not that much, due to the very delicate and precarious ethnic, religious and tribal make-up of the country, which is what makes it such a dangerous situation, not just now, but if and when the regime falls.