http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/index.php/2013/08/6046/obama-syria-chemical-attack-would-cross-u-s-core-national-interests/
( Hmm , this sounds like Obama is being " edged " toward doing something... So , what does Putin say about all of this ? )
President Obama said Friday the United States was consulting with allies and considering how to respond if an investigation determines that Syria used chemical weapons in an alleged attack on rebel-held villages in the eastern Damascus suburbs of Ghouta this week.
and....
http://rt.com/news/us-missile-attack-syria-929/
Of course , we have heard talk and threats before ...... So , who knows ?
http://rt.com/usa/obama-chemical-weapons-syria-915/
( Obama not buying the chemical weapon attack scheme the rebels trying to sell the world on ? Or is he - who knows )
Inevitably, Obama called the attack “a big event of great concern”, but bristled when faced with McCain’s accusations.
“What I think the American people… expect me to do as president is to think through what we do from the perspective of, what is in our long-term national interests?”
“Folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff… that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations.”
Yet for all their cool-headed sense, Obama’s words unmistakably clashed with his own pronouncements exactly a year ago, when he claimed that any utilization (or even movement) of chemical weapons by the government forces was a “red line” that would engender “enormous consequences”.
But more than going back on his words, Obama seemed to question the entire rationale for a US intervention.
While the conflict in Syria was never as simple as a battle of democracy against dictatorship, even since Obama’s “red line” quote the “mire” has grown increasingly murky. Increasingly, the Syrian conflict has become divided along religious lines, while outside forces with their own agendas have picked their own sides. Documented atrocities by radical Islamists among the rebels, and fears for the stability of a future Syrian state, have also diluted outsider sympathies.
And while Obama insisted that the United States remains “the one indispensable nation” in international diplomacy, he suggested that perhaps this is not the one conflict where the world should look to Washington for an answer.
"The notion that the US can somehow solve what is a sectarian complex problem inside of Syria sometimes is overstated," said the president.
The White House later released a statement confirming Obama’s words, and emphasizing that the US has no plans to put “boots on the ground”.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/23/white-house-spokesman-a-major-gas-attack-in-syria-would-threaten-u-s-national-security/
*****
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/08/23/320085/us-considering-strikes-on-syria/
The military options being revised at the Pentagon range from possible strikes on Syrian military "delivery capabilities and systems" to command-and-control facilities and artillery batteries, officials said.
Officers at the Pentagon said they were updating target lists for potential airstrikes on a number of government and military installations in Syria, should President Barack Obama give the green-light to a military assault, officials said Thursday, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The military options being revised at the Pentagon range from possible strikes on Syrian military "delivery capabilities and systems" to command-and-control facilities and artillery batteries, officials said.
US officials, however, said the purpose of the military options would not be "regime change" but to "punish" President Bashar al-Assad if there was conclusive evidence that his government was behind the alleged chemical attacks.
Syria's foreign-backed opposition claimed on Wednesday that around 1,300 people were killed in a government chemical attack on militant strongholds in the Damascus suburbs of Ain Tarma, Zamalka and Jobar.
Washington has said that it does not have all the facts to determine the veracity of that claim.
US State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said on Thursday that President Obama had directed the US intelligence community to gather information about the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria.
"At this time, right now, we are unable to conclusively determine CW (chemical weapons) use," Psaki said. "We are doing everything possible in our power to nail down the facts."
Other administration officials used a stronger language when talking to the media about the incident.
"There are strong indications there was a chemical weapons attack-clearly by the government," an unnamed senior administration official was quoted as saying by the Wall Street Journal. "But we do need to do our due diligence and get all the facts and determine what steps need to be taken."
The Syrian government and the army categorically denied any role in the alleged chemical attack.
In March, dozens of people were killed in a chemical attack in the northern province of Aleppo. A Russian-led inquiry said militants were behind the deadly attack.
http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-prepared-advance-901/
( Hmm , this sounds like Obama is being " edged " toward doing something... So , what does Putin say about all of this ? )
Obama: Syria chemical attack would cross U.S. ‘core national interests’
President Obama said Friday the United States was consulting with allies and considering how to respond if an investigation determines that Syria used chemical weapons in an alleged attack on rebel-held villages in the eastern Damascus suburbs of Ghouta this week.
“Although the situation in Syria is very difficult…there is no doubt that when you start seeing chemical weapons used on a large scale… then that starts getting to some core national interests that the United States has, both in terms of us making sure that weapons of mass destruction are not proliferating, as well as needing to protect our allies, our bases in the region,” Obama told CNN’s Chris Cuomo in an interview aired Friday.
“We are right now gathering information about this particular event,” Obama continued, “but I can say that, unlike some of the evidence that we were trying to get earlier that led to a U.N. investigator going into Syria, what we’ve seen indicates that this is clearly a big event of grave concern.”
While the U.S., Europeans and Russia have called on the Syrian government to allow UN inspectors access to the site, “we don’t expect cooperation, given their past history,” Obama said.
But Obama also expressed caution about another military entanglement, and justified the more limited U.S. response to past events in the Syrian conflict that has killed over 100,000 people.
“That does not mean that we have to get involved with everything immediately,” he told CNN. “We have to think through strategically what’s going to be in our long-term national interests, even as we work cooperatively internationally to do everything we can to put pressure on those who would kill innocent civilians.”
His comments came a day after US military, intelligence and diplomatic officials met for over three hours at the White House Thursday “to deliberate over options, which officials say could range from a cruise missile strike to a more sustained air campaign against Syria,” the New York Times reported. But the meeting concluded with no decision, the paper said, amid continued divisions in Obama’s national security team about the consequences of deepening U.S. intervention in Syria.
The U.S. military “can destroy the Syrian Air Force,” top US military officer Gen. Martin Dempsey wrote in a letter to House Foreign Affairs committee ranking Democrat Eliot Engel (D-NY) Monday (Aug 19), two days before the alleged attack in Ghouta. “The loss of Assad’s Air Force would negate his ability to attack opposition forces from the air, but it would also escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict,” while not being “militarily decisive.”
Russia’s Foreign Ministry called Friday on both the Syrian government and the rebels to grant access to Ghouta to a UN chemical weapons inspection team currently in Damascus. Moscow has suggested that the August 21st attack in eastern Ghouta may have been staged by the opposition as a “pre-planned provocation.”
But British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Friday that the chances that the rebels conspired to stage the attack are “vanishingly small,” and questioned why the Syrian regime had so far refused permission to the UN team to visit the area.
“It seems the Assad regime has something to hide,” Hague told the BBC Friday. “Why else have they not allowed the UN team to go there?”
The attack is “not something that a humane or civilized world can ignore,” Hague said.
The Syrian opposition, meantime, said Friday that they would guarantee the UN inspectors’ safe passage. “We will ensure the safety of the U.N. team,” Khaled Saleh, spokesman for the opposition Syrian National Coalition, told a news conference in Istanbul Friday, Reuters reported. “It is critical that those inspectors get there within 48 hours.”
US and allied “intelligence agencies have made a preliminary assessment that Syrian government forces used chemical weapons to attack an area near Damascus this week and that the act likely had high-level approval from President Bashar al-Assad’s government, according to U.S. and European security sources,” Reuters’ Mark Hosenballreported Friday, adding that they cautioned the assessment was preliminary and they are “still seeking conclusive proof.”
U.S. intelligence “detected activity at known Syrian chemical weapons sites before Wednesday’s possible chemical weapons attack,” CBS’s David Martin reported Friday.
“Similar activity has been detected before, and the assumption then was that the Syrians were moving things around for security reasons,” Martin wrote. “Now, according to the officials, the most recent activity, which was detected last week, is seen as possible preparation for Wednesday’s attack.”
Meantime, there was a flurry of international consultations underway to deliberate on a possible response, even one that may lack a UN Security Council mandate. US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke by phone Thursday and Friday with the Syrian opposition council’s President Jarba, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, UK Foreign Secretary Hague, French Foreign Minister Fabius, Jordanian Foreign Minister Judeh, Qatari Foreign Minister al-Atiyah, Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu, EU High Representative Ashton, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, Arab League Secretary-General Al Eraby, German Foreign Minister Westerwelle, Emirati Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed, Italian Foreign Minister Bonino, and Egyptian Interim Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy, the State Department said.
“During all of these calls, the Secretary reiterated the United States’ commitment to continue working urgently to gather the facts on the ground and also expressed our concern and outrage over the disturbing reports, photos, and videos we have seen, which shock the conscience and that anyone would see as beyond the pale,” a senior State Department official said by email Friday.
and....
http://rt.com/news/us-missile-attack-syria-929/
US readies possible missile strike against Syria - report
Despite President Obama cautioning against intervention in Syria, the Pentagon is making “initial preparations” for a cruise missile attack on Syrian government forces, according to a new report.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey is expected to present options for such a strike at a White House meeting on Saturday, CBS News reported on Friday.
US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel suggested Friday naval forces are moving in position closer to Syria in case Obama chooses action.
"The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the president with options for contingencies, and that requires positioning our forces, positioning our assets, to be able to carry out different options — whatever options the president might choose," Hagel said, adding a decision must be made quickly given “there may be another (chemical) attack.”
Meanwhile, a defense official, cited by Reuters, said on Friday the US Navy was expanding its Mediterranean presence with a fourth cruise-missile ship, the USS Mahan. Though the source stressed to Reuters the Navy did not have orders to prepare for military operations against Syria.
The ship was due to head back to the United States, but the commander of the US Sixth Fleet decided to maintain the ship in the region.
All four ships are capable of launching long-range, subsonic cruise missiles to reach land targets.
President Barack Obama is under renewed pressure to take action following the emergence of footage of what appears to be the aftermath of a toxic agent attack in a Damascus suburb on Wednesday. The forces of President Bashar Assad were assaulting a rebel stronghold in the district at the time, but deny responsibility. Moscow, which has maintained close ties with the regime, called the incident a rebel “provocation” possibly designed to derail upcoming Geneva peace talks.
Though the Pentagon will present plans for potential action on Saturday, as CBS reported, President Obama has final say on any further developments.
Questioned on the continuing upheaval in Syria and Egypt during a CNN interview Friday, Obama saidthe United States should be wary of “being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region.”
Obama went on to express reservations for becoming involved in the 30-month Syrian conflict due to a lack of international consensus.
"If the US goes in and attacks another country without a UN mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it, [and] do we have the coalition to make it work?” said Obama.
Despite his cautious tone, Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice said via Twitter, “What is Bashar al Assad hiding? The world is demanding an independent investigation of Wednesday’s apparent CW attack. Immediately.”
Adding to the rhetoric in Washington, Sen. John McCain said that if the administration was to “let this go on,” it was “writing a blank check to other brutal dictators around the world if they want to use chemical weapons."
The top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee also spoke out in support of a strike in Syria, writing to Obama of the need to respond to the latest alleged outrage.
"If we, in concert with our allies, do not respond to Assad's murderous uses of weapons of mass destruction, malevolent countries and bad actors around the world will see a green light where one was never intended," Rep. Eliot Engel wrote on Friday.
Engel has been a proponent of a more aggressive approach to Assad’s government.
"And, we can do this with no boots on the ground, from stand-off distances," he added in the letter. "I know that your Administration is wrestling with these very complex issues, but I believe that we, as Americans, have a moral obligation to step in without delay and stop the slaughter."
Obama insisted to CNN that while the United States remains “the one indispensable nation” in international diplomacy, he suggested that perhaps this was one conflict where the world should not look to Washington for a definitive answer.
"The notion that the US can somehow solve what is a sectarian complex problem inside of Syria sometimes is overstated," said the president.
The White House later released a statement confirming Obama’s words, and emphasizing that the US has no plans to put “boots on the ground.”
Of course , we have heard talk and threats before ...... So , who knows ?
CBS: Syrian Weapons WH Promised Still Haven’t Arrived
BY:
CBS reporter Margaret Brennan reports on the latest in Syria and notes the White House promise of increased aid and weaponry to the Syrian rebels has still not arrived.
http://rt.com/usa/obama-chemical-weapons-syria-915/
( Obama not buying the chemical weapon attack scheme the rebels trying to sell the world on ? Or is he - who knows )
Still not the ‘red line’: Obama edges away from ‘difficult, costly’ Syrian ‘mire’
Barack Obama has cautioned against US entry into the Syrian conflict, even though American intelligence believes the regime was likely behind a deadly chemical attack earlier this week. Previously, the president said chemical warfare was a ‘red line’.
Questioned on the continuing upheaval in Syria and Egypt during Friday’s CNN interview, Obama said the United States should be wary “being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region.”
Throughout his answers, the president sounded like a man reciting a litany of reasons for not joining the 30-month internecine conflict that has already claimed more than 100,000 lives according to UN estimates.
"If the US goes in and attacks another country without a UN mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it, [and] do we have the coalition to make it work?” said Obama.
The US leader is under renewed pressure to take action following the emergence of footage of what appears to be the aftermath of a toxic agent attack in a Damascus suburb on Wednesday. The forces of President Bashar Assad were assaulting a rebel stronghold in the district at the time, but deny responsibility. Moscow, which has maintained close ties with the regime, called the incident a rebel“provocation” possibly designed to derail upcoming Geneva peace talks.
Republican Senator McCain immediately pinned the blame for the incident – which opposition reports may have killed as many as 1,300 people – on government forces. He also said that if the administration was to “let this go on”, it was “writing a blank check to other brutal dictators around the world if they want to use chemical weapons." McCain also outlined a concrete plan for a military incursion.
"If the US goes in and attacks another country without a UN mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it, [and] do we have the coalition to make it work?” said Obama.
The US leader is under renewed pressure to take action following the emergence of footage of what appears to be the aftermath of a toxic agent attack in a Damascus suburb on Wednesday. The forces of President Bashar Assad were assaulting a rebel stronghold in the district at the time, but deny responsibility. Moscow, which has maintained close ties with the regime, called the incident a rebel“provocation” possibly designed to derail upcoming Geneva peace talks.
Republican Senator McCain immediately pinned the blame for the incident – which opposition reports may have killed as many as 1,300 people – on government forces. He also said that if the administration was to “let this go on”, it was “writing a blank check to other brutal dictators around the world if they want to use chemical weapons." McCain also outlined a concrete plan for a military incursion.
Inevitably, Obama called the attack “a big event of great concern”, but bristled when faced with McCain’s accusations.
“What I think the American people… expect me to do as president is to think through what we do from the perspective of, what is in our long-term national interests?”
“Folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff… that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations.”
Yet for all their cool-headed sense, Obama’s words unmistakably clashed with his own pronouncements exactly a year ago, when he claimed that any utilization (or even movement) of chemical weapons by the government forces was a “red line” that would engender “enormous consequences”.
But more than going back on his words, Obama seemed to question the entire rationale for a US intervention.
While the conflict in Syria was never as simple as a battle of democracy against dictatorship, even since Obama’s “red line” quote the “mire” has grown increasingly murky. Increasingly, the Syrian conflict has become divided along religious lines, while outside forces with their own agendas have picked their own sides. Documented atrocities by radical Islamists among the rebels, and fears for the stability of a future Syrian state, have also diluted outsider sympathies.
And while Obama insisted that the United States remains “the one indispensable nation” in international diplomacy, he suggested that perhaps this is not the one conflict where the world should look to Washington for an answer.
"The notion that the US can somehow solve what is a sectarian complex problem inside of Syria sometimes is overstated," said the president.
The White House later released a statement confirming Obama’s words, and emphasizing that the US has no plans to put “boots on the ground”.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/23/white-house-spokesman-a-major-gas-attack-in-syria-would-threaten-u-s-national-security/
*****
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/08/23/320085/us-considering-strikes-on-syria/
Pentagon considering strikes on Syria: Officials
An F-16 Fighting Falcon from the 421st Fighter Squadron
Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:35PM GMT
50
In response to recent allegations of chemical attacks in Syria, the Pentagon has begun refining its military options for possible strikes in the Middle Eastern country, US officials said.
Officers at the Pentagon said they were updating target lists for potential airstrikes on a number of government and military installations in Syria, should President Barack Obama give the green-light to a military assault, officials said Thursday, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The military options being revised at the Pentagon range from possible strikes on Syrian military "delivery capabilities and systems" to command-and-control facilities and artillery batteries, officials said.
US officials, however, said the purpose of the military options would not be "regime change" but to "punish" President Bashar al-Assad if there was conclusive evidence that his government was behind the alleged chemical attacks.
Syria's foreign-backed opposition claimed on Wednesday that around 1,300 people were killed in a government chemical attack on militant strongholds in the Damascus suburbs of Ain Tarma, Zamalka and Jobar.
Washington has said that it does not have all the facts to determine the veracity of that claim.
US State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said on Thursday that President Obama had directed the US intelligence community to gather information about the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria.
"At this time, right now, we are unable to conclusively determine CW (chemical weapons) use," Psaki said. "We are doing everything possible in our power to nail down the facts."
Other administration officials used a stronger language when talking to the media about the incident.
"There are strong indications there was a chemical weapons attack-clearly by the government," an unnamed senior administration official was quoted as saying by the Wall Street Journal. "But we do need to do our due diligence and get all the facts and determine what steps need to be taken."
The Syrian government and the army categorically denied any role in the alleged chemical attack.
In March, dozens of people were killed in a chemical attack in the northern province of Aleppo. A Russian-led inquiry said militants were behind the deadly attack.
http://www.infowars.com/us-trained-rebels-moved-
towards-damascus-days-before-chemical-attack/
( False Flag Attacks are crimes against humanity
also - memo to the Un )
US-Trained Rebels Moved Towards Damascus Days Before ‘Chemical Attack’
Lawmakers who opposed arming FSA militants “reconsider intervention”
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 23, 2013
Infowars.com
August 23, 2013
300 handpicked rebel militants trained by the US, Israel and Jordan entered Syria and began advancing towards Damascus in the days before an alleged chemical weapons attack, the French newspaper Le Figaro is reporting.
Image: YouTube
“The rebels were trained for several months in a training camp on the Jordanian-Syrian border by CIA operatives, as well as Jordanian and Israeli commandos,” reports the Jerusalem Post.
Four days before the announcement that a chemical weapons attack had taken place near Damascus, a group of FSA fighters crossed into the Deraa region, followed by a second contingent on August 19th.
The CIA began conducting covert training of the rebels – despite their links to Al-Qaeda - late last year, advising them on how to use anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.
In the absence of any independent evidence that Assad’s forces were behind this week’s alleged chemical weapons attack, several countries have seized upon the story to threaten military action, with numerous lawmakers in Congress who had initially opposed arming the rebels now “beginning to reconsider intervention,” according to Foreign Policy.
Whether the alleged chemical weapons attack was an attempt by the Assad regime to target the militants, or as Russia asserts it was a conveniently timed “planned provocation” carried out by the rebels themselves to coincide with the movement of CIA-trained FSA militants, remains to be seen.
Numerous impartial analysts have commented on how it makes little sense for Assad’s forces to have carried out such an attack days after UN chemical weapons inspectors entered the country.
In addition, other experts have cast doubt on the assertion that chemical weapons were used at all.
John Hart, the head of the Chemical and Biological Security Project at Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, remarked that “he had not seen the telltale evidence in the eyes of the victims that would be compelling evidence of chemical weapons use.”
Paula Vanninen of the Finnish Institute for Verification of the Chemical Weapons Convention questions the behavior of those seen handling the victims in the video footage. “At the moment, I am not totally convinced because the people that are helping them are without any protective clothing and without any respirators….In a real case, they would also be contaminated and would also be having symptoms,” he stated.
Although some experts are claiming that the nerve agent used was most likely sarin, compare photos of the protective gear worn by Japanese chemical weapons specialists who cleaned a metro station in Tokyo eight hours after a small bottle of sarin was thrown in 1995, to the complete lack of protective gear worn by those seen handling victims in the video footage released earlier this week.
Stephen Johnson, an expert in weapons and chemical explosives at Cranfield Forensic Institute, told Euro News that the video footage also looked suspect.
“There are, within some of the videos, examples which seem a little hyper-real, and almost as if they’ve been set up. Which is not to say that they are fake but it does cause some concern. Some of the people with foaming, the foam seems to be too white, too pure, and not consistent with the sort of internal injury you might expect to see, which you’d expect to be bloodier or yellower,” Johnson said.
His comments were echoed by chemical and biological weapons researcher Jean Pascal Zanders, who said that the footage appears to show victims of asphyxiation, which is not consistent with the use of mustard gas or the nerve agents VX or sarin. “I’m deliberately not using the term chemical weapons here,” he said, adding that the use of “industrial toxicants” was a more likely explanation.
http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-prepared-advance-901/
Materials implicating the forces of Syrian president Bashar Assad in chemical weapons use near Damascus were prepared prior to the alleged incident on August 21, the Russian foreign ministry said.
Moscow continues to monitor closely the event surrounding the “alleged” chemical attack near Damascus, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Aleksandr Lukashevich, said in a statement.
“We’re getting more new evidence that this criminal act was of a provocative nature,” he stressed. “In particular, there are reports circulating on the Internet, in particular that the materials of the incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack. Thus, it was a pre-planned action.”
“We’re getting more new evidence that this criminal act was of a provocative nature,” he stressed. “In particular, there are reports circulating on the Internet, in particular that the materials of the incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack. Thus, it was a pre-planned action.”
http://rt.com/news/syria-attack-un-chief-876/
( Crimes against humanity can be committed by both sides ! Memo to UN Chief Moon ... )
The use of chemical weapons in Syria would constitute a “crime against humanity,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said, adding that there will be “serious consequences” if the reports transpire to be true.
"Any use of chemical weapons anywhere, by anybody, under any circumstances, would violate international law," Ban said at a scheduled event in the South Korean capital of Seoul on Friday. "Such a crime against humanity should result in serious consequences for the perpetrator," he added.
Ban urged both the government and opposition to cooperate with the UN investigation into the alleged chemical weapons attack near Damascus. "I can think of no good reason why any party – either government or opposition forces – would decline this opportunity to get to the truth of the matter."
"This is a grave challenge to the entire international community - and to our common humanity, especially considering it occurred when the United Nations expert mission is in the country," the UN chief said.
Earlier on Thursday, Ban called on the Syrian government to allow a UN team, led by Swedish scientist Ake Sellstrom, to visit the site in the Damascus suburbs.
"A formal request is being sent by the United Nations to the government of Syria in this regard. He expects to receive a positive response without delay," Ban’s office said in a statement.
The Secretary-General said that he would send top UN disarmament official Angela Kane to personally carry out the talks with the Syrian government.
Also on Thursday, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said that the Syrian government is ready for “maximum”cooperation with UN experts working to clarify the alleged use of chemical weapons.
The statements come after Wednesday reports by opposition activists of an alleged chemical weapons attack near the capital, which killed anywhere between dozens and 1,300 people.
While rebel groups blamed the incident on President Bashar Assad's forces, the government suspects it was carried out by the opposition to draw international attention to their cause.
The attack coincided with a visit from UN observers who arrived to investigate previous cases of chemical attacks in the war-torn country.
The UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees Navi Pillay has confirmed information that Wednesday’s military operation outside Damascus has resulted in many killed and thousands of wounded, who are currently in dire need of humanitarian assistance and medical aid.
"I understand shelling and fighting have continued today," she said. "I call on all parties to halt the fighting immediately and allow access to humanitarian aid and essential medical supplies, in order to prevent more needless deaths."
http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-chemical-attack-opposition-control-869/
Syria has no control over the site where the alleged chemical attack took place, argues Oxford University historian Mark Almond to RT, adding that the opposition controls the area and Damascus can’t guarantee security or even entry for UN experts.
RT: There has not been any form evidence of this attack or who is behind it. So why are we seeing such a harsh condemnation of the Assad government?
Mark Almond: In part it is because key Western governments, America, Britain and France, want to say “Gotcha”. They have been demanding the fall of Assad for more than two-and-a-half years now and it has become increasingly frustrating that his regime has shown much more resilience that they had expected, despite the resources that they and the Gulf Kingdoms have thrown into the war on the other side.
It is also like a distraction from the embarrassment of Egypt, where we see the European and the US governments basically using weasel words to avoid any kind of condemnation of a massacre in the streets of Cairo. So there are both the specifics of Syria and the context of what is going on elsewhere in the Arab world, especially in Egypt.
RT: Is it likely that Assad will launch such an attack at the time UN investigators are visiting Syria and of course the consequences of the chemical attack anyway?
MA: You have to ask with any crime scene, to whose benefit is the crime? And the Syrian government would have to be not only very brutal, but very stupid to have done this in a period when UN chemical weapons inspectors are just down the road in Damascus.
Secondly, if they had done this, if they have launched a very large scale chemical attack, surely they would have sent in special troops under the cover of the chaos caused by such an attack to occupy the area in order to precisely prevent the kind of films and pictures emerging that have been sent around the world by the opposition. This, after all, is the area controlled by the opposition. So a further problem arises with the demands Syrian government permit experts to visit the scene. Syrian government does not control the scene of the crime, if this crime is being committed. It is up to the rebels. Yet we see no attempt to press the rebels to cooperate. So in fact, it seems to be primarily to embarrass the Syrian government, to say, “Why don’t you let the experts go to the scene?” where the fact is they don’t control the scene and therefore could not guarantee their security or even possibly enable them to enter the area where these attacks are supposed to have taken place.”
Mark Almond: In part it is because key Western governments, America, Britain and France, want to say “Gotcha”. They have been demanding the fall of Assad for more than two-and-a-half years now and it has become increasingly frustrating that his regime has shown much more resilience that they had expected, despite the resources that they and the Gulf Kingdoms have thrown into the war on the other side.
It is also like a distraction from the embarrassment of Egypt, where we see the European and the US governments basically using weasel words to avoid any kind of condemnation of a massacre in the streets of Cairo. So there are both the specifics of Syria and the context of what is going on elsewhere in the Arab world, especially in Egypt.
RT: Is it likely that Assad will launch such an attack at the time UN investigators are visiting Syria and of course the consequences of the chemical attack anyway?
MA: You have to ask with any crime scene, to whose benefit is the crime? And the Syrian government would have to be not only very brutal, but very stupid to have done this in a period when UN chemical weapons inspectors are just down the road in Damascus.
Secondly, if they had done this, if they have launched a very large scale chemical attack, surely they would have sent in special troops under the cover of the chaos caused by such an attack to occupy the area in order to precisely prevent the kind of films and pictures emerging that have been sent around the world by the opposition. This, after all, is the area controlled by the opposition. So a further problem arises with the demands Syrian government permit experts to visit the scene. Syrian government does not control the scene of the crime, if this crime is being committed. It is up to the rebels. Yet we see no attempt to press the rebels to cooperate. So in fact, it seems to be primarily to embarrass the Syrian government, to say, “Why don’t you let the experts go to the scene?” where the fact is they don’t control the scene and therefore could not guarantee their security or even possibly enable them to enter the area where these attacks are supposed to have taken place.”
RT: What would the rebels gain for this?
MA: We do have some very radical groups who would no doubt say, as they have when they have been challenged about using suicide bombers, killing innocent people, that God will recognize his own when the dead die, that he will save for heaven the justified victims and just send to hell the wicked supporters of Assad. So it is not impossible that somebody has staged this.
MA: We do have some very radical groups who would no doubt say, as they have when they have been challenged about using suicide bombers, killing innocent people, that God will recognize his own when the dead die, that he will save for heaven the justified victims and just send to hell the wicked supporters of Assad. So it is not impossible that somebody has staged this.
One thing we have to remember is that amongst chemical weapons experts there are considerable suspicions about what exactly the weapon or the substance has been. If it is sarin gas, which was supposed to be one of the most deadly nerve gases - why do we see such various symptoms, why do we see so many people who do not seem to be affected by the weapon, why do we see people operating in the area without wearing protective clothing? This is a nerve gas, it is not just something that kills you if you breathe it in. It enters through your pores through the skin. So it is that basic question that the most advertised source of the deaths that we have seen in pictures does not seem likely to be the weapon.
Secondly, if it is a poor low-grade version of sarin, then probably it is not made by the Syrian government’s laboratories, functioning in peace and security until very recently, but possibly by people using the elements that you find in various insecticides used on animals which contain some of the precursors for sarin. That is how Nazi scientists invented sarin in the first place. They were making an insect pesticide and then discovered they have found something very deadly, which could be used on people.
So we don’t know exactly what the weapon is and unfortunately, because of where it has been used, we can’t really ascertain who might have used it because there is no independent observation of the scene of the incident.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-23/us-refines-military-options-ahead-syrian-strikes
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/23/2013 08:00 -0400
A picture may be worth 1,000 words, but while the pictures indeed suggest something happened in Ghouta, there is no real proof that it was a chemical weapon attack, or that the toll is anyone near that massive.
US Refines "Military Options" Ahead Of Syrian Strikes
- Barack Obama
- European Union
- Iran
- Iraq
- Israel
- national security
- Natural Gas
- Saudi Arabia
- SPY
- Turkey
- White House
Now that the US has made up its mind once more and "knows" that Wednesday's chemical attack in Syria was conducted by the government and targeting the "rebels", even as the "developed" west calls for a UN investigation to determine just that, and as the US (including the CIA), Israel and Jordan have already sent an advance military force into Syria to conduct more false flag provocations and blame it on the regime, the only next step is to soften and prepare popular opinion for what comes next. And what comes next is on the front page of the WSJ this morning: "The U.S. began refining its military options for possible strikes in Syria, officials said... Officers at the Pentagon on Thursday were updating target lists for possible airstrikes on a range of Syrian government and military installations." Then again we have seen all this before. Surely, one of these times the administration will actually go ahead and push the button instead of just talking about it.
From the WSJ:
Officers at the Pentagon on Thursday were updating target lists for possible airstrikes on a range of Syrian government and military installations, officials said, as part of contingency planning should President Barack Obama decide to act after what experts said may be the worst chemical-weapons massacre in more than two decades.As the Pentagon worked on its options, Secretary of State John Kerry talked by telephone with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and the foreign-policy chiefs of Turkey, Jordan and the European Union, as well as with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, officials said.
The US' strawman for an attack is simple: assume a false flag operation was conducted in Syria, then demand full compliance with the West's demands that it be given full investigation privileges to confirm it wasn't a false flag operation, and scream bloody murder if those privileges are not granted. A story as old as the last Iraq war in fact. But that doesn't mean it will stop any time soon.
The Syrian government denied allegations it gassed its own people, backed by new statements from regime allies Iran and Russia accusing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's international foes of conspiring against him. U.S. officials said they have seen "strong indications" that chemical weapons were used but that more work was needed to evaluate and collect evidence.The regime gave no indication, however, that it would agree to Mr. Ban's plea to let U.N. inspectors investigate the chemical-weapons allegations, as Syrian forces pressed on with an offensive in the towns around the capital where the attacks were alleged to have occurred.U.S. officials who described the military options being revised at the Pentagon stressed that their purpose wouldn't be to topple the regime, but to punish Mr. Assad if there is conclusive evidence that the government was behind poison-gas attacks on Wednesday.
And there you have it: over the next week, we fully expect to wake up to news that a US and Israeli-led fly-by has crippled several key Syrian military installations in "punishment" for a chemical attack that with virtual certainty was conducted not by the regime which knows it every action is observed by spy satellites, but by the Qatari mercenaries whose only job is precisely to topple the Assad regime so the much-delayed LNG pipeline can finally pass underneath Syria. Because if it wasn't for that, why on earth would Saudi Arabia grovel before Putin demanding just that?
Making its options known could constitute a U.S. warning to Mr. Assad and his backers. It was unclear if Mr. Obama would be prepared to use the options; he has resisted getting entangled militarily in the conflict since the start."Once we ascertain the facts, the president will make an informed decision about how to respond," said White House National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan. Mr. Obama has said that the use of chemical weapons by Mr. Assad would cross a key U.S. "red line" and possibly trigger a U.S. response.U.S. military options include potential strikes on "regime targets," including Syrian government functions crucial to its war effort. In addition, options include strikes on Syrian military "delivery capabilities and systems" that are either used directly in attacks with poison gas or to facilitate them, from command-and-control facilities to front-line artillery batteries, officials said....The far narrower options under review include airstrikes using so-called standoff weapons such as cruise missiles, and wouldn't require the U.S. to send fighters into Syrian airspace, officials said. Israel has carried out a series of airstrikes in Syria this year using similar types of standoff weaponry to avoid sending manned aircraft into Syrian territory.Officials said these options are being fine-tuned by military officials so Mr. Obama can act in short order if a determination is made that Mr. Assad's forces carried out chemical attacks and if Mr. Obama chooses to respond with force.
Expect such "determination" to be made promptly leading to just such a "short order" action. At which point the only question is how proportionate will Russia (and China's) response be. Or, in other words, is Obama willing to risk world war just so Europe can get cheap Qatari natural gas.
Doubts Surround Yesterday’s Allegations of Syria Chemical Weapons Strike
Lots of Photos, Little Proof for What Happened in Ghouta
by Jason Ditz, August 22, 2013
Video and photographs are flooding the world of yesterday’s incident in Ghouta.Dozens of bodies are shown in what rebels claim was a chemical weapons attack from the Syrian government. They claim death tolls of 1,300 to 1,600.
A picture may be worth 1,000 words, but while the pictures indeed suggest something happened in Ghouta, there is no real proof that it was a chemical weapon attack, or that the toll is anyone near that massive.
Russian officials yesterday and Syrian officials today say that the strike was actually caused by foreign fighters with a makeshift weapon, and that they are unsure what was released.
Fighting has continued in the area, and Syrian troops have bombed Ghouta again today in the course of the fighting. State Department officials say they are “unable to determine” what happened in Ghouta, and that seems to be the general consensus.
No comments:
Post a Comment