http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/04/201343091045104662.html

Huge explosion rocks Damascus

At least 13 people reported killed in car bomb blast in Marjeh district of Syrian capital, says state media.

Last Modified: 30 Apr 2013 10:37

A blast near Syria's interior ministry has rocked the central Damascus district of Marjeh killing 13 people and injuring over 70 others, state television said, just a day after the country's prime minister survived a car bomb attack.
"Terrorist explosion in Marjeh district of Damascus and preliminary information on casualties," state television reported on Tuesday.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights gave a lower toll, saying nine people were killed in the blast.
The group, which relies on a network of activists based in Syria, did not immediately provide details on those reported casualties, but warned that the number of casualties was expected to rise.
Sharif Shehadeh, a Syrian member of parliament, told Al Jazeera that "terrorism, sponsored by countries, is harming innocent Syrian civilians....Syria is undermined by terrorism sponsored by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United States."

Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have been at the forefront of backing Syrian armed opposition while the United Sates has provides "nonlethal aid" to groups fighting Bashar al Assad's regime.
Regarding whether the recent bomb attacks are a response to the government counter-offensive on rebel strongholds, Shehadeh said: "The Syrian army is doing [an] excellent job in the Damascus suburbs and [the] countryside, as they have directed a big blow to the terrorists in many of the areas they are based in. The Syrian army and state is closing in on them day after day."
Assassination attempt
On Monday a "terrorist" explosion that targeted Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi's envoy in central Damascus damaged cars and caused casualties, state media reported.

The car bomb, which exploded as his convoy passed through the al-Mazzeh upscale neighbourhood, killed one of his bodyguards and five other people, according to the Observatory.
The SOHR said the blast was caused by a car bomb that detonated by the building's back door, adding that there were dead and wounded after the explosion.
Damascus has seen a wave of major bombings in recent weeks, including on April 9, when a massive blast in the centre of the city killed at least 15 people.

News of the blast came as the British charity Oxfam warned the human cost of Syria's conflict had risen beyond all expectations.

In a report, Oxfam said there were already more than 1.3 million Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries. Inside Syria itself, 6.8 million people struggle in urgent need of assistance, it said.
The money to help some of thr refugees and displaced people is running out, Oxfam said.

UN appeals have received only half of the funding they sought – to help far fewer people than they now need to assist, according to Oxfam.

And charity's humanitarian programme is struggling with insufficient funds to help as much as it needs to, despite the generosity of its supporters and the public, the report said.

and.....

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/04/28/syrias-neighbors-fear-us-war-would-mean-spillover-violence/

Syria’s Neighbors Fear US War Would Mean Spillover Violence

British Army Chief Also Warns Against Intervention

by Jason Ditz, April 28, 2013

Print This | Share This

With sudden shift in Obama Administration “belief” on Syria’s putative chemical weapons use has fueled more speculation about the possibility of a US military intervention in Syria, either through air strikes or an invasion.

But even nations openly backing the rebels in the ongoing Syrian Civil War are balking at the ramifications of US involvement on the rebel side, seeing a US deployment as likely to fuel spillover violence and rising regional sectarianism.

There was a time when the reaction may have been different, but as the war has grown and the rebellion has taken on an increasingly Islamist tone, nations like Jordan and Turkey see a lot more to lose from a US war in Syria. This isn’t a stable region to begin with, and lingering anger at the US occupation of Iraq would come rushing back into view across the Middle East should they move into Syria.

Even Britain seems to be balking at the situation, with reports that Army Chief of Staff Gen. Sir David Richards warning David Cameron that a “limited” intervention in Syria would quickly expand into an all-out war. The warning echoes similar testimony from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to Congress recently, cautioning them that they “better be damned sure” before they commit the US to any conflicts in Syria.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/NYT%3A_%22Nowhere_in_Rebel-Controlled_Syria_is_There_a_Secular_Fighting_Force_to_Speak_Of%22/25610/0/38/38/Y/M.html

NYT: "Nowhere in Rebel-Controlled Syria is There a Secular Fighting Force to Speak Of"

April 27, 2013

Print Version

Source: Tony Cartalucci, Land Destroyer

Image: (Edlib News Network Enn, via Associated Press) Al Qaeda terrorists in Idlib, Syria. It is now admitted by the New York Times that the entire armed so-called "opposition" is comprised entirely of Al Qaeda, meaning the torrent of cash and weapons sent to the "opposition" by the West and its regional allies, were intentionally sent directly to listed terrorists guilty of a multitude of unprecedented atrocities.

....

In an astounding admission, the New York Times confirms that the so-called "Syrian opposition" is entirely run by Al Qaeda and literally states:

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.

From the beginning, it was clear to geopolitical analysts that the conflict in Syria was not "pro-democracy" protesters rising up, but rather the fruition of a well-documented conspiracy between the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia to arm and direct sectarian extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda against the Syrian government.

This was documented as early as 2007 - a full 4 years before the 2011 "Arab Spring" would begin - by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article titled, ""The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" which stated specifically (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

For the past two years the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Turkey have sent billions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into Syria along side known-terrorists from Libya, Chechnya, neighboring Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. In the Telegraph's article titled, "US and Europe in 'major airlift of arms to Syrian rebels through Zagreb'," it is reported:

It claimed 3,000 tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via Jordan since November

The story confirmed the origins of ex-Yugoslav weapons seen in growing numbers in rebel hands in online videos, as described last month by The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers, but suggests far bigger quantities than previously suspected.

The shipments were allegedly paid for by Saudi Arabia at the bidding of the United States, with assistance on supplying the weapons organised through Turkey and Jordan, Syria's neighbours. But the report added that as well as from Croatia, weapons came "from several other European countries including Britain", without specifying if they were British-supplied or British-procured arms.

British military advisers however are known to be operating in countries bordering Syria alongside French and Americans, offering training to rebel leaders and former Syrian army officers. The Americans are also believed to be providing training on securing chemical weapons sites inside Syria.

Additionally, The New York Times in its article, "Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid," admits that:

With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.

The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.

And more recently the US State Department had announced hundreds of millions of dollars more in aid, equipment and even armored vehicles to militants operating in Syria, along with demands of its allies to "match" the funding to reach a goal of over a billion dollars. The NYT would report in their article, "Kerry Says U.S. Will Double Aid to Rebels in Syria," that:

With the pledge of fresh aid, the total amount of nonlethal assistance from the United States to the coalition and civic groups inside the country is $250 million. During the meeting here, Mr. Kerry urged other nations to step up their assistance, with the objective of providing $1 billion in international aid.

And as this astronomical torrent of cash, weapons, and equipment was overtly sent by the West into Syria, the US State Department since the very beginning of the violence has known that the most prominent fighting group operating inside Syria was Al Qaeda, more specifically, the al Nusra front. The US State Department's official press statement titled, "Terrorist Designations of the al-Nusrah Front as an Alias for al-Qa'ida in Iraq," stated explicitly that:

Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed.

The State Department admits that from the very beginning, Al Qaeda has been carrying out hundreds of attacks in every major city in Syria. Clearly for those who read the 2007 Hersh piece in the New Yorker, and then witnessed the rise of Al Qaeda in Syria, the explanation is quite simple - the West intentionally and systematically funded and armed Al Qaeda to gain a foothold in Syria, then overthrow the Syrian government in an unprecedented sectarian bloodbath and subsequent humanitarian catastrophe, just as was planned years ago.

However, now, according to Western leaders, the public is expected to believe that despite the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Turkey flooding Syria with billion in cash, and thousands of tons of weapons, all sent exclusively to "secular moderates," somehow, Al Qaeda has still managed to gain preeminence amongst the "opposition."

How can this be? If a 7-nation axis is arraying the summation of its resources in the region behind "secular moderates," who then is arraying even more resources behind Al Qaeda? The answer is simple. There never were any "secular moderates," a fact the New York Times has now fully admitted.

In its article titled, "Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy," the New York Times admits:

Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.

However, in an explanation that defies reason, the article states:

The Islamist character of the opposition reflects the main constituency of the rebellion, which has been led since its start by Syria’s Sunni Muslim majority, mostly in conservative, marginalized areas. The descent into brutal civil war has hardened sectarian differences, and the failure of more mainstream rebel groups to secure regular arms supplies has allowed Islamists to fill the void and win supporters.

To "secure regular arms supplies" from whom? According to the West, they have been supplying "mainstream rebel groups" with billions in cash, and thousands of tons of weaponry - and now according to the BBC, training as well.Where if not intentionally and directly into the hands of al-Nusra, did all of this cash, these weapons, and training go?

The NYT also admits (emphasis added):

Of most concern to the United States is the Nusra Front, whose leader recently confirmed that the group cooperated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and pledged fealty to Al Qaeda’s top leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s longtime deputy.Nusra has claimed responsibility for a number of suicide bombings and is the group of choice for the foreign jihadis pouring into Syria.

Not only is the Syrian government fighting now openly admitted Al Qaeda terrorists, but terrorists that are not even of Syrian origin.

More outrageous still, is that the New York Times fully admits that the very oil fields the European Union has lifted sanctions on and is now buying oil from in Syria (see BBC's "EU eases Syria oil embargo to help opposition"), are completely controlled by Al Qaeda - meaning the European Union is now intentionally exchanging cash with known international terrorists guilty of horrific atrocities, in exchange for oil. The NYT reports:

Elsewhere, they [al-Nusra] have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.

And:

In the oil-rich provinces of Deir al-Zour and Hasaka, Nusra fighters have seized government oil fields, putting some under the control of tribal militias and running others themselves.

The Times continues by admitting (emphasis added):

Nusra’s hand is felt most strongly in Aleppo, where the group has set up camp in a former children’s hospital and has worked with other rebel groups to establish a Shariah Commission in the eye hospital next door to govern the city’s rebel-held neighborhoods. The commission runs a police force and an Islamic court that hands down sentences that have included lashings, though not amputations or executions as some Shariah courts in other countries have done.

Nusra fighters also control the power plant and distribute flour to keep the city’s bakeries running.

This last point, "and distribute flour to keep the city's bakeries running," is of extreme importance, because that "flour" they are "distributing" comes admittedly, directly from the United State of America.

In the Washington Post's article, "U.S. feeds Syrians, but secretly," it is claimed that:

In the heart of rebel-held territory in Syria’s northern province of Aleppo, a small group of intrepid Westerners is undertaking a mission of great stealth. Living anonymously in a small rural community, they travel daily in unmarked cars, braving airstrikes, shelling and the threat of kidnapping to deliver food and other aid to needy Syrians — all of it paid for by the U.S. government.

The Washington Post then claims that most Syrians credit Al Qaeda's al-Nusra with providing the aid:

“America has done nothing for us. Nothing at all,” said Mohammed Fouad Waisi, 50, spitting out the words for emphasis in his small Aleppo grocery store, which adjoins a bakery where he buys bread every day. The bakery is fully supplied with flour paid for by the United States. But Waisi credited Jabhat al-Nusra — a rebel group the United States has designated a terrorist organization because of its ties to al-Qaeda — with providing flour to the region, though he admitted he wasn’t sure where it comes from.

Clearly, the puzzle is now complete. Indeed Mr. Mohammed Fouad Waisi was correct, Jabhat al-Nusra, a listed terrorist organization by the US State Department, is supplying the people with flour, flour it receives by the ton directly and intentionally from the United States in direct contradiction to its own anti-terror laws, international laws, and the US State Department's own frequent denials that it is bolstering terrorists inside of Syria.

Clearly the US and its allies are propping up terrorism, and more alarming is that the "aid" they have been providing the Syrian people, appears to have been used as a political weapon by Al Qaeda, allowing them to take, hold, and permanently subjugate territory inside Syria. It should be noted again, that the New York Times itself admits that the ranks of al-Nusra are filled with foreign, not Syrian, fighters.

Revealed is a conspiracy so insidious, so outrageous, and a web of lies so tangled, that Western governments perhaps count on their populations to disbelieve their tax money is being used to intentionally fund and arm savage terrorism while purposefully fueling a sectarian bloodbath whose death toll is sounded daily by the very people driving it up to astronomical heights. The cards are down - the US has been exposed as openly funding, arming, and supplying Al Qaeda in Syria for two years and in turn, is directly responsible for the death, atrocities, and humanitarian disasters within and along Syria's borders that have resulted.

While the US attempts to sell military intervention on behalf of Al Qaeda in Syria, using the flimsy, yet familiar pretext of "chemical weapons," it appears that before even one American boot officially touches Syrian soil, an already horrific crime against humanity of historic proportions has been committed by the US and its allies against the Syrian people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/28/syrian-nerve-gas-claims-eyewitness

Syria nerve gas claims undermined by eyewitness accounts

Description of attack in which six rebels died adds to uncertainty about claims that sarin has been used in the conflict

Peter Beaumont
The Observer, Saturday 27 April 2013 18.01 EDT

Shelling in Houla in Syria's Homs province. The opposition National Coalition has accused the regime

Shelling in Houla in Syria's Homs province. Rebel forces have accused the regime of using chemical weapons. Photograph: Jalal Al-Halabi/AFP/Getty Images

New questions have emerged over the source of the soil and other samples from Syria which, it is claimed, have tested positive for the nerve agent sarin, amid apparent inconsistencies between eyewitness accounts describing one of the attacks and textbook descriptions of the weapon.

As questions from arms control experts grow over evidence that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on a limited scale on several occasions, one incident in particular has come under scrutiny.

While the French, UK and US governments have tried to avoid saying where the positive sarin samples came from, comments by officials have narrowed down the locations to Aleppo and Homs.

Last week the Obama administration suggested that Syrian government forces may have used the lethal nerve gas in two attacks. Opposition fighters have accused regime forces of firing chemical agents on at least four occasions since December, killing 31 people in the worst of the attacks.

A letter from the British government to the UN demanding an investigation said that it had seen "limited but persuasive evidence" of chemical attacks, citing incidents on 19 and 23 March in Aleppo and Damascus and an attack in Homs in December, suggesting strongly that samples were taken at these locations.

A US defence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to the Los Angeles Times, appeared to confirm that one of the samples studied by the US was collected in December – suggesting that it too originated in Homs.

According the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, "sarin is a nerve agent that is one of the most toxic of the known chemical warfare agents. It is a clear colourless liquid … generally odourless and tasteless".

But eyewitness accounts of that attack, in which six rebels died and which were reported at the time by the Associated Press described "white smoke" pouring from shells that "smell[ed] … like hydrochloric acid".

The suggestion that one of the sarin-positive samples may have originated in Homs has added to the growing confusion surrounding the claims made with different degrees of caution by the Israeli, French, UK and US governments in recent days.

According to the US and UK governments, "miniscule" samples recovered by opposition sources and passed on to western intelligence agencies have shown traces of sarin. No other agents have been mentioned.

While the contradictions between the eyewitness accounts and traces of sarin in the samples may well be attributable to the confusion of battle, it underlines the uncertainties around the claims, which have included questions about whether some of the videotaped symptoms are consistent with sarin exposure.

Reflecting just how little is known about the circumstances in which people may have been exposed to chemical agents in Syria, President Barack Obama has said: "Knowing that potentially chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria doesn't tell us when they were used, how they were used. We have to act prudently. We have to make these assessments deliberately." Obama warned in December that the Assad regime would face "consequences" if it were disclosed that chemical weapons had been used.

http://www.debka.com/article/22932/Obama%E2%80%99s-non-response-to-Assad%E2%80%99s-chemical-weapons-would-encourage-a-nuclear-Iran-

Obama’s non-response to Assad’s chemical weapons would encourage a nuclear Iran

DEBKAfile Special Report April 26, 2013, 7:04 PM (GMT+02:00)

Tags: chemical weapons

Barack Obama

Bashar Assad

US military action

Israel

Hizballah

Facing a tough decision

President Barack Obama faced a tough decision Friday, April 26, on how to handle Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons just a month after he warned it would be “game changer.”

The US intelligence community and the White House have now produced evidence that Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people and so crossed the red line Obama has repeatedly and publicly laid down for a US response. While extremely reluctant to embroil America in the Syrian war, those red lines would be discounted as meaningless by the world, the Middle East and Israel most of al, if he holds back now.

This loss of credibility and face would have three immediate consequences:

1. Assad will not stop using lethal chemicals against his people. After getting away with it scot-free, he will use them against any time he feels his regime has its back to the wall.

2. Tehran and Pyongyang will take US inaction on the Syrian chemical issue as a license to go forward and develop their nuclear and other sophisticated weapons without fear of forceful interference.

3. At some stage in the Syrian conflict, Assad will transfer to Hizballah a quantity of chemical weapons and other advanced war materiel as a reward for the Lebanese Shiite radicals’ stalwart battle in support of his regime. DEBKAfile’s military sources have learned that preparations are already in train for the transfer.

Thursday, Israeli Air Force F-16 warplanes shot down opposite Haifa a drone Hizballah had sent winging toward Israel, but no firm response followed this provocation. Assad and Hizballah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah will certainly be encouraged by this non-response to risk going forward with the transfer in the belief that Israel will not interfere. And, so, chemical weapons will be allowed to reach a confirmed terrorist organization.

The way the White House communicated its message to Congress Thursday is as instructive as its content:

The member of the White House staff chosen to frame the communication was Miguel Rodriguez, White House director of the Office of Legislative Affairs. It was couched in the language of a legal document rather than a policy statement on a high-powered foreign issue of the utmost military and strategic concern:

“Our intelligence community does assess, with varying degrees of confidence, that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically, the chemical agent sarin," Rodriguez wrote.

"Given the stakes involved, and what we have learned from our own recent experiences, intelligence assessments alone are not sufficient – only credible and corroborated facts that provide us with some degree of certainty will guide our decision-making.”

For a pointer to how Obama may address a nuclear-armed Iran, this same document could be applied simply by substituting “The Islamic Republic of Iran” for the “Syrian regime” and “nuclear weapons” for “chemical weapons.”

The document also administered a cold shower from the boss for the two senior members of the Obama administration Thursday and their revelations Thursday.

Secretary of State John Kerry disposed of diplomatic ifs and buts when he said: The Syrian government has launched two chemical weapons attacks.

Somewhat more cautiously, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said: The US intelligence community has determined with "varying degrees of confidence" that Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces have used the nerve agent sarin against civilians and forces fighting to remove Assad from power.”

Any use of chemical weapons, Hagel said, would violate standards of warfare.

The White House is informing Congress about the chemical weapons use now, Hagel said.

This was a reversal of the reservations the defense secretary had voiced that morning about the assessment heard from the Israeli military intelligence officer Brig. Gen. Itai Brun that the Syrian army had used chemical weapons.

DEBKAfile’s Washington sources report speculation in the US capital that the president may settle his dilemma with an indirect military response to the Syrian chemical crisis, by deploying US troops on the Jordanian-Syrian border. It would be hoped that Damascus, and Tehran too, would be deterred by seeing American troops in place and therefore in position for a military response to the use of - or advance toward - weapons of mass destruction.

This deployment was to be finally decided at the White House Friday when President Obama heard visiting Jordan’s King Abdullah voice acute concerns about the Syrian threat to his country.

and......

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/world/middleeast/white-house-in-no-rush-on-syria-action.html?ref=middleeast

Obama Not Rushing to Act on Signs Syria Used Chemical Arms

Pool photo by Chris Kleponis

President Obama met with King Abdullah II of Jordan at the White House on Friday. An administration official said the two discussed coordinating more robust aid for the opposition in Syria.

By MARK LANDLER and MICHAEL R. GORDON

Published: April 26, 2013

FACEBOOK
TWITTER
GOOGLE+
SAVE
E-MAIL
SHARE
PRINT
REPRINTS

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Friday that he would respond “prudently” and “deliberately” to evidence that Syria had used chemical weapons, tamping down any expectations that he would take swift action after an American intelligence assessment that the Syrian government had used the chemical agent sarin on a small scale in the nation’s civil war.

Multimedia

U.S. Suspects Chemical Weapons in Syria

Video Feature

WATCHING SYRIA'S WAR

A Father Mourns His Children

Syrians Report Broad Fighting and Suspicious Airstrike (April 27, 2013)
Israel Sees U.S. Response to Syria as Gauge on Iran (April 27, 2013)
White House Says It Believes Syria Has Used Chemical Arms (April 26, 2013)

Related in Opinion

Op-Ed Contributor: A Song of Lament for Syria (April 27, 2013)

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow@nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

Mr. Obama’s remarks, before a meeting here with King Abdullah II of Jordan, laid bare the quandary he now faces. The day after the White House, in a letter to Congressional leaders, said that the nation’s intelligence agencies had assessed “with varying degrees of confidence” that the Syrian government had used sarin, the president said he was seeking further proof of culpability for chemical weapons attacks. It is a laborious process that analysts say may never produce a definitive judgment. But Mr. Obama is also trying to preserve his credibility afterwarning in the past that the use of chemical weapons would be a “game changer” and prompt a forceful American response.

“Knowing that potentially chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria doesn’t tell us when they were used, how they were used,” Mr. Obama told reporters in the Oval Office. “We have to act prudently. We have to make these assessments deliberately.”

“But I meant what I’d said,” the president added. “To use potential weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations crosses another line with respect to international norms and international law. And that is going to be a game changer.”

At the same time, the White House cited the Iraq war to justify its wariness of taking action against another Arab country on the basis of incomplete or potentially inaccurate assessments of its weapons of mass destruction. The press secretary, Jay Carney, said the White House would “look at the past for guidance when it comes to the need to be very serious about gathering all the facts, establishing chain of custody, linking evidence of the use of chemical weapons to specific incidents and actions taken by the regime.”

As Mr. Obama and his aides walked a fine line on how to confront the evidence about chemical weapons, they engaged in an intensified round of diplomacy with Arab leaders to bolster support for the Syrian opposition and to try to develop a consensus on how to deal with the escalating strife.

In addition to King Abdullah, Mr. Obama met in recent days with leaders from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, as well as the Saudi foreign minister. Next month, he will meet Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, which borders Syria and is among the countries most exposed to the threat of a chemical weapons attack.

“If their policy is premised on not going it alone, even in response to chemical weapons,” said Brian Katulis, a Middle East expert at the Center for American Progress, “you’re going to need a lot of people reading from the same song sheet.”

The more pressing problem, Mr. Katulis said, was that the president’s strong warnings to Syria “are running ahead of their policy.” In his remarks, King Abdullah did not address the American suspicions about chemical weapons or Mr. Obama’s warnings, but expressed confidence that the president, working with Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other countries, could “find a mechanism to find a solution.”

A major focus of the meeting, a senior administration official said, was coordinating more robust aid for the Syrian opposition. The United States pledged last weekend to double its nonlethal assistance, and the official said it was working with regional allies to direct it to reliable opposition groups.

On Friday, Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain echoed Mr. Obama’s cautious assessment of the use of chemical weapons, saying that there was limited but growing evidence that such weapons had been used, probably by government forces.

The British government, like the Obama administration, is concerned about avoiding a repetition of the events that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq when the presence of unconventional weapons, cited as justification for military action, had not been corroborated.

Mr. Cameron said that while definitive information was limited, “there’s growing evidence that we have seen, too, of the use of chemical weapons, probably by the regime.”

“It is extremely serious; this is a war crime, and we should take it very seriously,” he added.

Still, Mr. Cameron said, the British authorities were trying to avoid “rushing into print” news about the use of chemical weapons. And he repeated that Britain had no appetite to intervene militarily.

“I don’t want to see that, and I don’t think that is likely to happen,” he said. “But I think we can step up the pressure on the regime, work with our partners, work with the opposition in order to bring about the right outcome. But we need to go on gathering this evidence and also to send a very clear warning to the Syrian regime about these appalling actions.”

The United States has called on the United Nations to carry out a thorough investigation of the suspected use of chemical weapons by the government. But the government of President Bashar al-Assad has so far not allowed United Nations inspectors into the country, and backed by its supporter Russia, it is insisting on limits to the scope of the investigation.

“As long as Damascus refuses to let the U.N. investigate all allegations, and as long as Russia provides the regime with political cover at the Security Council, it may be impossible for Washington to meet that standard,” Michael Eisenstadt, director of the military and security studies program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy,said in a report.

The risk of not responding now, even with less than definitive proof, Mr. Eisenstadt said, is that it could embolden Mr. Assad to use chemical weapons on a wider scale. American officials said the administration had privately warned the Syrian government not to take that step.

On Thursday, the head of the United Nations agency for disarmament sent another letter to Syria demanding “unconditional and unfettered access” for inspectors investigating the use of chemical weapons, said Martin Nesirky, the spokesman for the secretary general.

The top inspector for the team of some 15 members, the Swedish scientist Ake Sellstrom, is due in New York on Monday to brief Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, on its work.

“Members of that team have been collating and analyzing the evidence and information that is available to date from outside,” Mr. Nesirky said, adding that there was a concern about the evidence degrading.

Curve Ball revisited .....

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2013/04/us-unveils-iraq-wmd-curveball-style.html

US Unveils Iraq WMD "Curveball-Style" Lies Vs. Syria

As NATO terror front collapses in Syria, US attempts to justify intervention by drumming up familiar WMD lies.

Image: From Independent's "Man whose WMD lies led to 100,000 deaths confesses all: Defector tells how US officials 'sexed up' his fictions to make the case for 2003 invasion." In retrospect, the corporate-media has no problem admitting the insidious lies that were told to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq - the lead up to the war was another story. A verbatim repeat of these admitted lies are being directed at Syria amidst the West's failure to overthrow the government with terrorist proxies.

April 25, 2013 (LD) - The last two weeks have seen a series of victories for the Syrian Army across Syria. It appears that 2 full companies of so-called "Free Syrian Army" fighters have been annihilated near Damascus, while government forces have restored order in parts of Homs and along the previously porous Lebanese-Syrian border.

Time has run out for the West, and it appears that they are desperately seeking any excuse to rescue their failing proxy war. When urgent, but otherwise unjustified military intervention is needed, a "humanitarian" pretext is usually invented - as it was in Libya. Failing that, as the West has already clearly done in Syria, an even more tenuous narrative has been resurrected from its well-earned grave. CNN has reported in their article, "Hagel: Evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria," that:

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced Thursday that the United States has evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria.

This comes a couple of days after an Israeli intelligence official said Damascus was using weapons banned under international law against its own people in the country's civil war. Syria has said rebels have used chemical weapons.

U.S. President Barack Obama has said the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against its own people in the country would be a "game changer."

Astonishingly, the West is attempting to repeat tales of "WMD's" in Syria, just as it infamously did in Iraq. In the Washington Post's "U.S. intelligence agencies: Assad used chemical weapons ‘on a small scale’," the nature of this "evidence" is elaborated on (emphasis added):

Hagel said the intelligence agencies’ assessment was reached with “varying degrees of confidence,” meaning that they lacked proof or overwhelming evidence. He said the conclusion was “reached within the last 24 hours” and that the White House delivered a letter outlining the findings to Congress Thursday morning.

A letter from the White House via the Washington Post exposed further just how tenuous the evidence actually is (emphasis added):

Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin. This assessment is based in part on physiological samples. Our standard of evidence must build on these intelligence assessments as we seek to establish credible and corroborated facts. For example, the chain of custody is not clear, so we cannot confirm how the exposure occurred and under what conditions. We do believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime.

Physiological samples indicating sarin - in other words - samples taken from people exposed to sarin, could have been produced in a number of ways. It is confirmed that Libya's chemical weapon stockpiles included sarin and mustard gas. In the Washington Post's 2011 "Libya's poison gas unaffected by turmoil, official says," it was stated:

Experts believe that Libya destroyed about 3,300 bombshells designed to carry mustard and sarin gas chemicals years ago, as part of its deal to end decades of economic and diplomatic isolation with the West.

But some 10 metric tons of mustard sulfate and sarin gas precursor remain stockpiled in barrels at three locations in the Libyan desert south of Tripoli, where Moammar Gaddafi has holed up in a last-ditch fight to keep from being overthrown.

Many experts worry that the barrels are ripe for picking by terrorists linked to al-Qaeda.

Of course, since 2011, it is now confirmed that the so-called "Libyan rebels" were actually Al Qaeda terrorists operating under the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which has been confirmed to have subsequently traveled to Syria to join Al Qaeda's al-Nusra franchise in NATO's proxy war there.

It is just as likely that NATO's proxy forces brought along with them not only small arms and cash from Libya, but also heavier weapons, including possibly chemical weapons - and specifically - sarin and mustard gas.

Image: (via the Guardian) "Chemical containers in the Libyan desert. There are concerns unguarded weapons could fall into the hands of Islamist militants. Photograph: David Sperry/AP" As increasing evidence reveals Libyan fighters and weapons are pouring into Syria, it seems the West is preparing to preempt or leverage the inevitability that Libya's chemical arsenal has also found its way into the besieged nation.

....

Considering that the Syrian government knows the use of chemical weapons would basically hand the moral, strategic, and geopolitical initiative over to the West, and in light of its recent gains made using conventional weapons and tactics, it makes it all the more likely any real sarin to be found and used in Syria was the work of NATO proxies attempting to produce a plausible casus belli. Terrorists operating in Syria have already been caught using other chemical weapons.

And yet still, despite all of this doubt, the Western political establishment has hailed the so-called "findings" as the "game changer" required to green-light US military intervention.

Remember "Curveball"

It is absolutely imperative to recall the propaganda campaign conducted prior to invading Iraq in 2003. Chemical weapons were also used as a pretext for an otherwise unjustified war. The "intelligence" used by Hagel's predecessors was admittedly fabricated on-demand.

In the British Independent's article, "Man whose WMD lies led to 100,000 deaths confesses all: Defector tells how US officials 'sexed up' his fictions to make the case for 2003 invasion," it stated:

A man whose lies helped to make the case for invading Iraq – starting a nine-year war costing more than 100,000 lives and hundreds of billions of pounds – will come clean in his first British television interview tomorrow.

"Curveball", the Iraqi defector who fabricated claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, smiles as he confirms how he made the whole thing up. It was a confidence trick that changed the course of history, with Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi's lies used to justify the Iraq war.

He tries to defend his actions: "My main purpose was to topple the tyrant in Iraq because the longer this dictator remains in power, the more the Iraqi people will suffer from this regime's oppression."

We can already envision the establishment defending in hindsight its next "noble lie" to unseat "the tyrant in Syria."

The Independent continues:

But Mr Janabi, speaking in a two-part series, Modern Spies, starting tomorrow on BBC2, says none of it was true. When it is put to him "we went to war in Iraq on a lie. And that lie was your lie", he simply replies: "Yes."

US officials "sexed up" Mr Janabi's drawings of mobile biological weapons labs to make them more presentable, admits Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, General Powell's former chief of staff. "I brought the White House team in to do the graphics," he says, adding how "intelligence was being worked to fit around the policy".

How "intelligence was being worked to fit around the policy," indeed is the most important aspect of the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, and is without doubt what is being done in Washington, Doha, Riyadh, and Tel Aviv in regards to Syria now.

The "Curveball-style" lies told about Iraq are now being repeated about Syria by an increasingly unhinged West who has tried every trick in the book, and is flipping back to the beginning to start over again. The question is, can the world afford to be led down this path again, knowing exactly where it ends? Nations and people outside the Wall Street-London international order are tasked with foiling this criminal war of aggression - unable this time to plead ignorance to the West's true intentions.

http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-iraq-scenario-483/

Chemical inspection stalled: UN team can’t be trusted ‘politically’ without Russian experts – Syrian information minister

Get short URL

Published time: April 27, 2013 04:23
Edited time: April 27, 2013 05:05

Members of the Al-Ezz bin Abdul Salam brigade clean their weapons during a training session at an undisclosed location near the al-Turkman mountains, in Syria's northern Latakia province, on April 25, 2013. (AFP Photo / Miguel Medina)

Share on Tumblr

‘Iraqi scheme of inspections’

In all their “absurdity and deceitfulness,” al-Zouabi explained, such statements by some Western governments are made in pursuit of basic goals.

“Their aim is, first, to cover those who are really behind use of chemical weapons in Khan al-Assal, and secondly, to repeat Iraq’s scenario, to pave the way for other investigation inspections. To provide, based on their results, maps, photos of rockets and other fabricated materials to the UN, which as we know, opened the way to the occupation of Iraq.”

Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zouabi. (AFP Photo / Louai Beshara)

Russian foreign ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich meanwhile said that the UN Secretary-General's initial positive reaction to Syria's appeal for an investigation“underwent a drastic change under the influence of a number of states.”

“The management of the UN Secretariat demanded that Damascus agree to the establishment of a permanent mechanism for inspection throughout Syrian territory with unlimited access to everywhere,”Lukashevich explained.

“The proposed scheme of inspections is similar to those used at the end of the last century in Iraq, which, unlike Syria, was under UN sanctions.” After months of silence, the UN is now referring to information from France and Britain about other cases of alleged use of chemical weapons last year, which Lukashevich believes demonstrates a highly politicized approach.

“It's difficult to understand why leaders of the UN Secretariat preferred to follow those who are concerned not about exact steps towards the suppression of use of chemical weapons in the Syrian crisis, but about changing the ruling regime of a sovereign state.”

Inspectors on standby

The United Nations again pushed on Thursday for unconditional and unfettered access for its team of investigators, which has been on standby in Cyprus since Syria refused it access nearly three weeks ago.

The head of the UN inspection mission, Swedish scientist Ake Sellstrom. (AFP Photo / Erick Hillbom)

“We do not trust the American and British experts from a political point of view,” al-Zouab explained.“We also do not trust their qualifications. Their aim is to juggle with facts.”

“We won’t mind if Russians would be among the experts, quite the contrary, we only welcome this idea. We are quite sure in their high qualification and ability to clearly see into such matters.”

Experts from Russia and China however were not included in the team to ensure it wasn’t biased, according to the United Nations.

At the time Russian EU envoy Vitaly Churkincriticized “this kind of logic,” saying in that case he“would recommend excluding all NATO countries too.” Syrian officials maintain that they are ready to accept “a neutral and honest technical team to visit the village of Khan al-Assal” in the province of Aleppo.

The Syrian opposition meanwhile is also dead set against the inclusion of Russian and Chinese experts in the investigation team.

“The Russian side has no status allowing it to conduct a fair and impartial criminal investigation,” the Syrian National Council said in a statement, because Russia “is a major supplier of conventional and strategic weapons to the Syrian regime, as well as the main political guarantor of it staying in power.”

“The UN needs to immediately investigate the use of chemical weapons in Syria,” an anonymous member of the council told AFP. “Should it find the regime used such weapons, it must act immediately, at least by imposing a no-fly zone.”

No samples whatsoever

Whether or not illegal chemical agents were used by either side during the Syrian conflict can only be determined by analyzing samples collected at the scenes of alleged attacks, said the Hague-based Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which despite not being a United Nations body, collaborates with the UN on such inspections.

None of the governments and intelligence agencies accusing Damascus of using chemical weapons have presented any of the evidence that would be required for a clear analysis, such as soil, blood, urine or tissue samples, said Michael Luhan, a spokesman for OPCW.

In this image made available by the Syrian News Agency on March 19, 2013, medics and other masked people attend to a man at a hospital in Khan al-Assal in the northern Aleppo province, as Syria's government accused rebel forces of using chemical weapons for the first time. (AFP Photo / SANA)

But even if samples were provided, the OPCW would never get involved in testing something that its own inspectors did not “gather in the field” because of the need to “maintain a chain of custody of samples from the field to the lab to ensure their integrity,” said Luhan.

“This is the only basis on which the OPCW would provide a formal assessment of whether chemical weapons have been used.”

Meanwhile, waiting for a green light to enter Syria, members of the UN team “have been collating and analyzing the evidence and information that is available to date from outside,” Martin Nesirky, a spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, said on Friday.

‘US retains the ability to act unilaterally’

“With varying degrees of confidence” the American intelligence community has determined that “the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons,” US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced on Thursday.

Giving the statement added significance, early afternoon on Friday, White House press secretary Jay Carney announced that the Obama administration has a number of options in regards to handling such reports - including direct use of military force - and that United States retains the ability to ‘act unilaterally’ in choosing one.

Just hours later, President Obama himself said, "horrific as it is…to use potential weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations crosses another line with respect to international norms and international law.” His remarks came after a meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah in the Oval Office, amidmass demonstrations against deployment of US troops on Jordanian border with Syria.

US President Barack Obama meets with King Abdullah II of Jordan in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington,DC on April 26, 2013. (AFP Photo / Nicholas Kamm)

Catharsis Ours

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Syria's chemical weapons - " Fog of War " continues as Rebel campaign wobbles dangerously - thus the sudden chemical weapon hype , hysteria, curveballs , spin , rebel allegations and Syrian Government denials ( if winning the War conventionally , why use chemical weapons at this particular point ? )