Syria's Assad says Western strike could trigger regional war

[lannarebirth]

Web Of Lies:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/09/numerous-intelligence-officials-question-us-claims-on-syria/

Some interesting links in there.

[lannarebirth]

I think it was wrong of Obama to set a "red line", now he's in a corner. If the US doesn't strike Syria, isn't it very likely Israel will strike Iran's nuke sites in the near future since they know "red lines" doesn't mean anything for the US?

No, not likely. Israel doesn't want to start a war.

I think what you mean is, Israel doesn't want to start a war whereby Israeli lives and treasury are at risk. They are very much in favor of starting wars that kill the peoples of neighboring countries if they can get their American lackeys to fight and die and spend on their behalf.

AIPAC to deploy hundreds of lobbyists to push for Syria action

Pro-Israel lobby says 250 activists will meet with their senators and representatives in Washington in a bid to win support Congressional support for military action in Syria.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.545661

[hawker9000]

I think it was wrong of Obama to set a "red line", now he's in a corner. If the US doesn't strike Syria, isn't it very likely Israel will strike Iran's nuke sites in the near future since they know "red lines" doesn't mean anything for the US?

No, not likely. Israel doesn't want to start a war.

I think what you mean is, Israel doesn't want to start a war whereby Israeli lives and treasury are at risk. They are very much in favor of starting wars that kill the peoples of neighboring countries if they can get their American lackeys to fight and die and spend on their behalf.

AIPAC to deploy hundreds of lobbyists to push for Syria action Pro-Israel lobby says 250 activists will meet with their senators and representatives in Washington in a bid to win support Congressional support for military action in Syria.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.545661

Sigh. Here we go again, the global Jewish conspiracy thing. If Iran managed to plant a nuke on Tel Aviv tomorrow, we'd be hearing that it was a Jewish master-stroke to elicit sympathy from the US.

[lannarebirth]

I think it was wrong of Obama to set a "red line", now he's in a corner. If the US doesn't strike Syria, isn't it very likely Israel will strike Iran's nuke sites in the near future since they know "red lines" doesn't mean anything for the US?

No, not likely. Israel doesn't want to start a war.

I think what you mean is, Israel doesn't want to start a war whereby Israeli lives and treasury are at risk. They are very much in favor of starting wars that kill the peoples of neighboring countries if they can get their American lackeys to fight and die and spend on their behalf.

AIPAC to deploy hundreds of lobbyists to push for Syria action Pro-Israel lobby says 250 activists will meet with their senators and representatives in Washington in a bid to win support Congressional support for military action in Syria.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.545661

Sigh. Here we go again, the global Jewish conspiracy thing. If Iran managed to plant a nuke on Tel Aviv tomorrow, we'd be hearing that it was a Jewish master-stroke to elicit sympathy from the US.

I'm no defender of the Iranian regime, but if Israel has a problem with it, they should make their case before whatever global body every other government has to and pursue their options. If they don't want to go along with international law, which many other countries do not, they are STILL able to pursue their options against what they perceive as a threat to their country. Unless that adversary stops them of course. Whatever, and good luck with all that, but leave the US out of it.

Oh, and BTW, this isn't conspiracy, this is government policy.

[Jingthing]

Sigh. Here we go again, the global Jewish conspiracy thing. If Iran managed to plant a nuke on Tel Aviv tomorrow, we'd be hearing that it was a Jewish master-stroke to elicit sympathy from the US.

Sigh indeed.

It is also a fact, according to European public opinion, that Israel poses the greatest danger to world peace, presumably because it stirs up Muslim enmity. Yet shockingly, most Americans said much the same thing about Jews in a series of surveys taken by the Opinion Research Corporation during WWII, before the State of Israel was founded: Jews posed a greater threat to the United States than Germany or Japan, with whom America was at war. The wish to transfer guilt from persecutors to victims is the same both then and now: If the Jew were less of a cause of trouble, wars might be avoided.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/143487/academic-anti-semitism

The point is Iran and all Israel's neighbors want Israel NOT TO EXIST. Israel wants Iran not to have nukes. There is a MASSIVE difference.

[lannarebirth]

Sigh. Here we go again, the global Jewish conspiracy thing. If Iran managed to plant a nuke on Tel Aviv tomorrow, we'd be hearing that it was a Jewish master-stroke to elicit sympathy from the US.

Sigh indeed.

It is also a fact, according to European public opinion, that Israel poses the greatest danger to world peace, presumably because it stirs up Muslim enmity. Yet shockingly, most Americans said much the same thing about Jews in a series of surveys taken by the Opinion Research Corporation during WWII, before the State of Israel was founded: Jews posed a greater threat to the United States than Germany or Japan, with whom America was at war. The wish to transfer guilt from persecutors to victims is the same both then and now: If the Jew were less of a cause of trouble, wars might be avoided.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/143487/academic-anti-semitism

The point is Iran and all Israel's neighbors want Israel NOT TO EXIST. Israel wants Iran not to have nukes. There is a MASSIVE difference.

Why are you sighing? Because it's so obvious? And stop giving me all that anti-semitism bullshit! I've nothing at all against Jews, or Israel either.

I don't disagree with you that Iranian rhetoric indicates Iran doesn't want Israel to exist. So why hasn't Israel done something about it, if they believe that's true? They certainly have the means. I, for one wouldn't criticize Israel for acting if it thought its existence was at stake. But I am against the wider plan to destabilize the region and I am against the US's role in it. You make yourself look absolutely ridiculous with this constant anti-semitic slur your cast at anyone that is against the current Israeli/US plans for the region.

[hawker9000]

Sigh. Here we go again, the global Jewish conspiracy thing. If Iran managed to plant a nuke on Tel Aviv tomorrow, we'd be hearing that it was a Jewish master-stroke to elicit sympathy from the US.

Sigh indeed.

It is also a fact, according to European public opinion, that Israel poses the greatest danger to world peace, presumably because it stirs up Muslim enmity. Yet shockingly, most Americans said much the same thing about Jews in a series of surveys taken by the Opinion Research Corporation during WWII, before the State of Israel was founded: Jews posed a greater threat to the United States than Germany or Japan, with whom America was at war. The wish to transfer guilt from persecutors to victims is the same both then and now: If the Jew were less of a cause of trouble, wars might be avoided.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/143487/academic-anti-semitism

The point is Iran and all Israel's neighbors want Israel NOT TO EXIST. Israel wants Iran not to have nukes. There is a MASSIVE difference.

Why are you sighing? Because it's so obvious? And stop giving me all that anti-semitism bullshit! I've nothing at all against Jews, or Israel either.

I don't disagree with you that Iranian rhetoric indicates Iran doesn't want Israel to exist. So why hasn't Israel done something about it, if they believe that's true? They certainly have the means. I, for one wouldn't criticize Israel for acting if it thought its existence was at stake. But I am against the wider plan to destabilize the region and I am against the US's role in it. You make yourself look absolutely ridiculous with this constant anti-semitic slur your cast at anyone that is against the current Israeli/US plans for the region.

Oh? And what "means" would that be exactly?

We're sighing (I should speak for myself) because the anti-Jewish brigade misses no opportunity to harangue us with the same old tired, worn, bankrupt ranting about Israel, the only real democracy in the region, being the "cause of it all", which they simply aren't. Of course they represent their national interest to us in hopes of this & that. Who doesn't? That's the way DC works. We may not like it (but quietly do when it's our OWN interests that are being lobbied...), but it's been that way for a long time, and this administration certainly hasn't made any effort to change it. But Obama has certainly been no great friend to Israel, and well they know it. What he's trying to do in Syria, he's NOT doing for Israel, that's for darned sure.

[lannarebirth]

Sigh indeed.

It is also a fact, according to European public opinion, that Israel poses the greatest danger to world peace, presumably because it stirs up Muslim enmity. Yet shockingly, most Americans said much the same thing about Jews in a series of surveys taken by the Opinion Research Corporation during WWII, before the State of Israel was founded: Jews posed a greater threat to the United States than Germany or Japan, with whom America was at war. The wish to transfer guilt from persecutors to victims is the same both then and now: If the Jew were less of a cause of trouble, wars might be avoided.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/143487/academic-anti-semitism

The point is Iran and all Israel's neighbors want Israel NOT TO EXIST. Israel wants Iran not to have nukes. There is a MASSIVE difference.

Why are you sighing? Because it's so obvious? And stop giving me all that anti-semitism bullshit! I've nothing at all against Jews, or Israel either.

I don't disagree with you that Iranian rhetoric indicates Iran doesn't want Israel to exist. So why hasn't Israel done something about it, if they believe that's true? They certainly have the means. I, for one wouldn't criticize Israel for acting if it thought its existence was at stake. But I am against the wider plan to destabilize the region and I am against the US's role in it. You make yourself look absolutely ridiculous with this constant anti-semitic slur your cast at anyone that is against the current Israeli/US plans for the region.

Oh? And what "means" would that be exactly?

We're sighing (I should speak for myself) because the anti-Jewish brigade misses no opportunity to harangue us with the same old tired, worn, bankrupt ranting about Israel, the only real democracy in the region, being the "cause of it all", which they simply aren't. Of course they represent their national interest to us in hopes of this & that. Who doesn't? That's the way DC works. We may not like it (but quietly do when it's our OWN interests that are being lobbied...), but it's been that way for a long time, and this administration certainly hasn't made any effort to change it. But Obama has certainly been no great friend to Israel, and well they know it. What he's trying to do in Syria, he's NOT doing for Israel, that's for darned sure.

Anti-Jewish brigade? Who has said anything here that is anti-Jewish?

America is a not a friend of the Sunnis the Shias OR the Israelis. They prosecute their own imperial interests and when those coincide with other state's interests and we can make them client states that our military arms manufacturers can sell to and our banks can hang paper for there is a congruence of interests. My interests here are as a citizen of the US and for what I personally feel are in the nation's long term interests. I don't like the direction MY country is heading in and I speak out about it when I like. I have no more regard for Syrians than I do for Israelis, Sudanese, Bulgarians or Peruvians. Or Islamics, Jews, Christians and Buddhists for that matter.

[boomerangutang]

Israel is watching out for its interests. It has a friend in the US, good, because it doesn't have many friends near it's borders. Israelis fought hard and often to maintain their little bit of real estate. If they had wanted to expand their borders further, they could have - after each war they won, but they didn't. They could own Sinai and Syria, but they held back, knowing that occupying those places would incite non-stop protests, like happens in Gaza (which Israel doesn't occupy).

Similar to Gaza, Syria has little going for it in terms of natural resources and economy. The civil war there, is as much a reflection of that, as anything else. Inmates in a prison will fight over seemingly little things like who owns a washcloth or a crust of bread, because that's what they've got to deal with. Syria and most of the Middle East is mostly sand and devoid of trees, fresh water, etc. That's what they've got (plus millions of unemployed and discontented people) ....so that's what they're fighting over.

[Scott]

Further discussion of Israel and/or Iran that is not about the situation in Syria will be deleted. The topic continues to be about Syria and the potential strike by Western countries for the use of Chemical Weapons.

Stay on-topic, please.

[AlexRRR]

Assad is correct, a very real situation exists to change the balance of power that will drag in the Iranian and Iraqi shites, already the Lebanese shites are fighting along side Assad's Gov troops.

Its very clear to me....America BUD OUT

Not out war not our issue, the region has always been controlled by the survival of the fittest.

Time for the people of the world to stand with one voice and tell the USA to stop meddling in world politics, if they want to fix something go look in there own back yard.

[Jingthing]

Assad is correct, a very real situation exists to change the balance of power that will drag in the Iranian and Iraqi shites, already the Lebanese shites are fighting along side Assad's Gov troops.

Its very clear to me....America BUD OUT

Not out war not our issue, the region has always been controlled by the survival of the fittest.

Time for the people of the world to stand with one voice and tell the USA to stop meddling in world politics, if they want to fix something go look in there own back yard.

People complain when America meddles. Then they also complain when America doesn't meddle. In cases like this (the chemical weapons thing), much of the world EXPECTS America to meddle.

[lomatopo]

To stop Iran, Obama must enforce red lines with Assad

By Stephen J. Hadley, Monday, September 9, 6:35 AM

Stephen J. Hadley was national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration.

Every American committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon should urge Congress to grant President Obama authority to use military force against the Assad regime in Syria.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/stephen-hadley-to-stop-iran-stop-assad/2013/09/08/e8d2b8a6-18ab-11e3-82ef-a059e54c49d0_story.html

[lomatopo]

Obama has almost created a red-line for his own Presidency. He's is pulling out all the stops to win this vote - now planned for Wednesday (the 12th anniversary of 9/11), including a full-court press in the media on Monday, and a national address on Tuesday.

He is probably going to have to give up on a lot of his second term "legacy" just to be able launch a few hundred Tomahawk missiles.

He'll have to cave on Health Care, Farm Bill/Food Stamps, Debt Limit, the NSA, appointments. I hope it's worth it?

[lannarebirth]

To stop Iran, Obama must enforce red lines with Assad

By Stephen J. Hadley, Monday, September 9, 6:35 AM

Stephen J. Hadley was national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration.

Every American committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon should urge Congress to grant President Obama authority to use military force against the Assad regime in Syria.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/stephen-hadley-to-stop-iran-stop-assad/2013/09/08/e8d2b8a6-18ab-11e3-82ef-a059e54c49d0_story.html

Sen. Bob Corker: "What is it you're seeking?"

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff: "I can't answer that, what we're seeking".

Senate hearing on the use of force in Syria, September 3.

[lannarebirth]

Obama has almost created a red-line for his own Presidency. He's is pulling out all the stops to win this vote - now planned for Wednesday (the 12th anniversary of 9/11), including a full-court press in the media on Monday, and a national address on Tuesday.

He is probably going to have to give up on a lot of his second term "legacy" just to be able launch a few hundred Tomahawk missiles.

He'll have to cave on Health Care, Farm Bill/Food Stamps, Debt Limit, the NSA, appointments. I hope it's worth it?

It's probably worth it to somebody, but not to the US.

[Somchai Mao]

In a nutshell somebody set off a chemical/biological weapon in a Damascus suburb but nobody knows who did it. As a result the Americans want to poke the already volatile Middle East with a shitty stick.

No arab state functions under a democracy. Bear that in mind when supporting those freedom fighting bastions of democracy (al-Qaeda).

[lomatopo]

Obama's gonna need a Hail-Mary.

Analysis: Obama growing isolated on Syria as support wanes

White House efforts to convince the U.S. Congress to back military action against Syria are not only failing, they seem to be stiffening the opposition.

That was the assessment on Sunday, not of an opponent but of an early and ardent Republican supporter of Obama's plan for attacking Syria, the influential Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, Mike Rogers.

Rogers told CBS's "Face the Nation" the White House had made a "confusing mess" of the Syria issue. Now, he said, "I'm skeptical myself."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/09/us-usa-syria-crisis-obama-analysis-idUSBRE98800U20130909

[lomatopo]

It's probably worth it to somebody, but not to the US.

Well Raytheon should be happy.

[lomatopo]

After Bold Step on Syria, French Leader Finds Himself Dismissed as Lackey

PARIS — As portrayed in a satirical television show here this week, President François Hollande is left behind to hold President Obama’s coat while the American leader and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia hold private talks. Mr. Hollande gullibly concludes he is playing a key role. Later in the show, “Les Guignols de L’Info,” a rough French equivalent of Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show,” Mr. Hollande is seen interrupting a visit to a school to ask Mr. Obama’s permission to use the bathroom.

If Mr. Hollande ever thought that his decision to stand steadfast alongside the United States in backing a retaliatory strike against Syria would give him new stature on the global stage or help him at home, the last week has been a sharp shock.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/world/europe/after-bold-step-on-syria-french-leader-finds-himself-dismissed-as-lackey.html?pagewanted=all

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted. Please stay on the topic, which is about Syria, Assad and a Western Strike.

The topic is not about US politics.

[Chicog]

Interesting how Iran has characterised last weeks Israeli/US missile test. Apparently this was Israel launching cruise missiles against Syria, which America managed to destroy.

Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:40

Israeli Cruise Missiles Fired At Syria Destroyed by US Navy

TEHRAN (FNA)- An urgent action report prepared by the Russian Defense Ministry for President Putin said that the two Israeli ballistic cruise missiles which were fired by an Israeli Dolphin-class submarine in the Eastern Mediterranean, near the Syrian waters, on September 3 were destroyed by the US Navy, adding that Tel Aviv was about to start the war on Syria on that day.

A new urgent action report prepared by the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) for President Putin stated that specialized forces operating the highly advanced Vityaz air defense system in the Southern Military District detected the launching of two Popeye Turbo SLCM ballistic cruise missiles from an Israeli Dolphin-class submarine patrolling in the Eastern Mediterranean whereupon they were “nearly immediately” destroyed by a US Navy Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyer operating in the same region.

The Vityaz air defense system guarantees the detection of enemy ballistic and long-range cruise missiles at blastoff and is currently being deployed along the entire Russian border; while the Popeye ballistic cruise missile is the type used by Israel during its Dolphin submarine 5 July attack on an arms depot in the Syrian port city of Latakia that targeted a contingent of 50 Russian-made Yakhont P-800 anti-ship missiles; and the Arleigh Burke class of guided missile destroyers are the US Navy's first class of destroyer built around the Aegis Combat System and the SPY-1D multi-function phased array radar making them some of the most feared warships in the world.

According to this MoD report, these ballistic cruise missile launches took place at 10:16 am Moscow time (0616 GMT) with the Israelis first denying any knowledge, but subsequently stating that they were conducting missile tests in the Mediterranean, Whatdoesitmean said.

As to the exact method the US Navy utilized in destroying these two ballistic cruise missiles this MoD report does not speculate upon, but a review of an Australian Air Force technical report [Technical Report APA-TR-2007-0402] clearly shows it can be done, but only at great expense and using First-World technical skills and 21st Century technology.

With Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad warning that any military strike against his country would spark an uncontrollable regional war and spread “chaos and extremism,” this MoD report says, the Israeli motivation for launching these ballistic cruise missiles earlier today (September 3) remains “highly suspect,” a situation made even more dangerous as all International treaties require advanced notification prior to conducting any tests of this type.

The MoD report further states that the launching of these ballistic cruise missiles could have been a test of Russian military capability to detect these types of launches and Kremlin resolve to notify the entire world immediately upon their detection.

In the former the Russian military proved its ability to immediately detect these types of launches, and in the latter the Kremlin, indeed, showed it would not hide from the world any knowledge the West was attacking Syria.

Though not explicitly stated in this MoD report, but speculated upon, Russian defense intelligence experts contributing to it note that Israel may have been attempting to start this war by an unprovoked attack upon Syria that would be blamed on the Americans and whose effect would be the starting of at least a wide-ranging regional war, or at its worst, World War III.

As to why Israel would want to start a major war lies in its “demographic time bomb” of a population that is pitting Israel's main factions (Zionist-Haredi-Arab) against each other with mounting fears of civil war growing by the day.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920616001062

And I thought RT was bad!

[StasD]

Still do not understand what kind of terrorists are better: Sunnite or Shiah? That is why I am not president

[Chicog]

Still do not understand what kind of terrorists are better: Sunnite or Shiah? That is why I am not president

They are not terrorists, they are sects of Islam.

However, the extremists from the former are more likely to be suicide bombers than the extremists from the latter.

The latter are driven primarily from Iran (which used to be Sunni but was invaded and people forced to convert or die), although many of the holy Shi'a sites are in Iraq.

The Shi'a think they are the proper Muslims, and are generally more obnoxious and uppity than the Sunni.

It's sort of like Catholics and Protestants, they've all got their <deleted>, but only one's got a Pope.

[midas]

If people don’t believe all of the mainstream reports (roundup here) that the U.S. is supporting false flag attacks carried out by Al Qaeda against Syria they should consider the BBC reports that the British and American leaders seriously considered false flag attacks in Syria in 1957:

in 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria’s pro-western neighbours, and then to “eliminate” the most influential triumvirate in Damascus….

The report said that once the necessary degree of fear had been created, frontier incidents and border clashes would be staged to provide a pretext for Iraqi and Jordanian military intervention. Syria had to be “made to appear as the sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighbouring governments,” the report says. “CIA and SIS should use their capabilities in both the psychological and action fields to augment tension.” That meant operations in Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon, taking the form of “sabotage, national conspiracies and various strong-arm activities” to be blamed on Damascus. The plan called for funding of a “Free Syria Committee”, and the arming of “political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities” within Syria. The CIA and MI6 would instigate internal uprisings, for instance by the Druze in the south, help to free political prisoners held in the Mezze prison, and stir up the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/07/false-flags-in-syria.html

[Jingthing]

If people don’t believe all of the mainstream reports (roundup here) that the U.S. is supporting false flag attacks carried out by Al Qaeda against Syria they should consider the BBC reports that the British and American leaders seriously considered false flag attacks in Syria in 1957:

...

Irrelevant today. If that was what Obama did recently, he would have already attacked in Syria.

[Ulysses G.]

1957?

[jaideeguy]

I want to know where their targets will be?? It's been more than a month and surely they have had plenty of time to hide their WMD, so any strikes the US has up their sleves would be just murdering more innocent civilians while whoever did the damage can just sit and wait until the 'show is over' then roll out the gas again..............

Please Mr Obama, don't do it!! It will gain nothing and loose what little respect the US still has in the middle east and the world!!

[nong38]

Its the politicians who are beating the drums here not the public, the public dont want to get involved and thats most of the western countries even in the USA. It might be a moral statement to strike but it wont change the situation and the situation is the the Assad Government is a horrible regeme attacking its own people on the other hand if you evict him you have the opposition rebels are they any better? I see pictures of horror from both sides. The loca Arabs dont seem to have a solution or want to get involved so why should the west? All we would do is aleinate one side or the other and either side id muslim and that would be another excuse to create havoc in our homelands.

[Exsexyman]

I think it was wrong of Obama to set a "red line", now he's in a corner. If the US doesn't strike Syria, isn't it very likely Israel will strike Iran's nuke sites in the near future since they know "red lines" doesn't mean anything for the US?

No, not likely. Israel doesn't want to start a war.

Then they have a funny way of showing it! It is clearly apparent that Israel are a driving force in the plan to launch an attack on Syria, as this link shows.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.545661

Pierre Piccinin is the professor of history and political sciences at the European school of Brussels, and was abducted by the Islamist rebels in Syria in April, along with the Italian journalist Domenico Quirico. They were freed yesterday. Professor Piccinin, who speaks Arabic, is clearly in no doubt that Assad is not responsible for the alleged gas attack.

http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/generalnews/2013/09/09/Piccinin-abducted-Quirico-Syria-Assad-didn-use-gas_9269609.html