GCC hitman meets invincible Putin.... and sparks fly !
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-27/meet-saudi-arabias-bandar-bin-sultan-puppetmaster-behind-syrian-war
Meet Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin Sultan: The Puppet master Behind The Syrian War
Yesterday the Telegraph's Evans-Pritchard dug up a note that we had posted almost a month ago, relating to the "secret" meeting between Saudi Arabia and Russia, in which Saudi's influential intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan met with Putin and regaled him with gifts, including a multi-billion arms deal and a promise that Saudi is "ready to help Moscow play a bigger role in the Middle East at a time when the United States is disengaging from the region", if only Putin would agree to give up his alliance with Syria's al-Assad and let Saudis take over, ostensibly including control of the country's all important natgas transit infrastructure. What was not emphasized by the Telegraph is that Putin laughed at the proposal and brushed aside the Saudi desperation by simply saying "nyet." However, what neither the Telegraph, nor we three weeks ago, picked up on, is what happened after Putin put Syria in its place. We now know, and it's a doozy.
Courtesy of As-Safir (translated here), we learn all the gritty details about what really happened at the meeting, instead of just the Syrian motives and the Russian conclusion, and most importantly what happened just as the meeting ended, unsuccessfully (at least to the Saudi). And by that we mean Saudi Arabia's threats toward Russia and Syria.
First, some less well-known observations on who it was that was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt even as US support was fading fast:
Bandar said that the matter is not limited to the kingdom and that some countries have overstepped the roles drawn for them, such as Qatar and Turkey. He added, “We said so directly to the Qataris and to the Turks. We rejected their unlimited support to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere. The Turks’ role today has become similar to Pakistan’s role in the Afghan war. We do not favor extremist religious regimes, and we wish to establish moderate regimes in the region. It is worthwhile to pay attention to and to follow up on Egypt’s experience. We will continue to support the [Egyptian] army, and we will support Defense Minister Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi because he is keen on having good relations with us and with you.And we suggest to you to be in contact with him, to support him and to give all the conditions for the success of this experiment. We are ready to hold arms deals with you in exchange for supporting these regimes, especially Egypt.”
So while Saudi was openly supporting the Egyptian coup, which is well-known, it was Turkey and most importantly Qatar, the nation that is funding and arming the Syrian rebels, that were the supporters of the now failed regime. One wonders just how much Egypt will strainng Saudi-Qatari relations, in light of their joined interests in Syria.
Second, some better-known observations by Putin on Russia's relationship with Iran:
Regarding Iran, Putin said to Bandar that Iran is a neighbor, that Russia and Iran are bound by relations that go back centuries, and that there are common and tangled interests between them. Putin said, “We support the Iranian quest to obtain nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And we helped them develop their facilities in this direction. Of course, we will resume negotiations with them as part of the 5P+1 group. I will meet with President Hassan Rouhani on the sidelines of the Central Asia summit and we will discuss a lot of bilateral, regional and international issues. We will inform him that Russia is completely opposed to the UN Security Council imposing new sanctions on Iran. We believe that the sanctions imposed against Iran and Iranians are unfair and that we will not repeat the experience again.”
Then, Putin's position vis-a-vis Turkey, whom he implicitly warns that it is "not immune to Syria's bloodbath."
Regarding the Turkish issue, Putin spoke of his friendship with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan; “Turkey is also a neighboring country with which we have common interests. We are keen to develop our relations in various fields. During the Russian-Turkish meeting, we scrutinized the issues on which we agree and disagree. We found out that we have more converging than diverging views. I have already informed the Turks, and I will reiterate my stance before my friend Erdogan, that what is happening in Syria necessitates a different approach on their part. Turkey will not be immune to Syria’s bloodbath. The Turks ought to be more eager to find a political settlement to the Syrian crisis. We are certain that the political settlement in Syria is inevitable, and therefore they ought to reduce the extent of damage. Our disagreement with them on the Syrian issue does not undermine other understandings between us at the level of economic and investment cooperation. We have recently informed them that we are ready to cooperate with them to build two nuclear reactors. This issue will be on the agenda of the Turkish prime minister during his visit to Moscow in September.”
Of course, there is Syria:
Regarding the Syrian issue, the Russian president responded to Bandar, saying, “Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters. During the Geneva I Conference, we agreed with the Americans on a package of understandings, and they agreed that the Syrian regime will be part of any settlement. Later on, they decided to renege on Geneva I. In all meetings of Russian and American experts, we reiterated our position. In his upcoming meeting with his American counterpart John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will stress the importance of making every possible effort to rapidly reach a political settlement to the Syrian crisis so as to prevent further bloodshed.”
Alas, that has failed.
So what are some of the stunning disclosures by the Saudis? First this:
Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values ??and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. ... As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”
It is good of the Saudis to admit they control a terrorist organization that "threatens the security" of the Sochi 2014 Olympic games,and that house of Saud uses "in the face of the Syrian regime." Perhaps the next time there is a bombing in Boston by some Chechen-related terrorists, someone can inquire Saudi Arabia what, if anything, they knew about that.
But the piece de resistance is what happened at the end of the dialogue between the two leaders. It was, in not so many words, a threat by Saudi Arabia aimed squarely at Russia:
As soon as Putin finished his speech, Prince Bandar warned that in light of the course of the talks, things were likely to intensify, especially in the Syrian arena, although he appreciated the Russians’ understanding of Saudi Arabia’s position on Egypt and their readiness to support the Egyptian army despite their fears for Egypt's future.The head of the Saudi intelligence services said that the dispute over the approach to the Syrian issue leads to the conclusion that “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation.”At the end of the meeting, the Russian and Saudi sides agreed to continue talks, provided that the current meeting remained under wraps. This was before one of the two sides leaked it via the Russian press.
Since we know all about this, it means no more talks, an implicit warning that the Chechens operating in proximity to Sochi may just become a loose cannon (with Saudi's blessing of course), and that about a month ago "there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate." Four weeks later, we are on the edge of all out war, which may involve not only the US and Europe, but most certainly Saudi Arabia and Russia which automatically means China as well. Or, as some may call it, the world.
And all of it as preordained by a Saudi prince, and all in the name of perpetuating the hegemony of the petrodollar.
P.S. Russia and Saudi Arabia account for 25% of global oil production.
Syriana: Russia's Latest Official Statements
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/27/2013 - 18:12- MILITARY OPERATION AGAINST SYRIA WOULD ONLY WORSEN CONFLICT - DUMA CHAIRMAN
- MOSCOW ALARMED BY SOME COUNTRIES' DELIBERATE ACTIONS TO UNDERMINE PRECONDITIONS FOR POLITICAL-DIPLOMATIC SETTLEMENT OF CONFLICT IN SYRIA - FOREIGN MINISTRY
- LAVROV DISAGREES WITH U.S. ON BLAMING SYRIAN GOVERNMENT FOR CHEMICAL ATTACK IN TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH KERRY - RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY
- RUSSIA BELIEVES EXPERTS' WORK IN SYRIA SHOULD BE SUPPORTED, FACILITATED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE - FOREIGN MINISTRY
Saudi lapdogs US and Uk contributions of the day.....Obama playing his role , reading his teleprompter lines....
http://rt.com/op-edge/farage-syria-atack-uk-067/
The British government is the most enthusiastic country in the entire international community to get involved in Syria, and the decision on intervention has already been made, believes leader of UK Independence Party Nigel Farage.
The UK Parliament is to be recalled on Thursday to discuss possible responses to an alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria last week. The country’s Prime Minister David Cameron called on Tuesday for “specific” military action against the country, adding that so far no decision has been made on possible responses. He also pointed out that the UK is not considering getting involved in a Middle East war.
However, as Nigel Farage told RT, the government has already made its decision. The reported build-up of warplanes in Cyprus proves that, he added.
RT: UK parliament has been recalled to discuss the response to the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria. But why now, why not wait until the UN investigators – who are on a fact-finding mission in the country - finish their job?
NF: From the very start it’s been the British Government, particularly William Hague and David Cameron, who throughout the entire international community, have been the keenest to get involved in Syria. You know, whether it’s arming the rebels or now, as we see today, the build-up of warplanes in Cyprus, preparations for cruise missile attacks. The British Government has been the keenest of anybody to intervene in Syria. So, that’s why they are not prepared to wait.
I also think that it’s unlikely that they will get a resolution passed through the United Nations Security Council.
RT: What will happen then? Some countries say that they do not need that mandate from the UN Security Council. Will they go ahead with a military action?
NF: Well, I mean that’s a national law, ideally, is something people would want to have before launching a military attack. And I’m sure that if we do go in for military action without UN Security Council approval, it will be a row that goes on for decades. But ultimately international law itself is not going to stop the British and the French and, perhaps, the Americans, if they choose to do something.
RT: We are also hearing that western powers have told the Syrian opposition that they will strike within days. But does that mean that the decision has already been taken?
NF: I think the answer is “Yes.” The British Government have made their minds up, that’s why we’ve got the build-up in Cyprus today. Parliament’s been recalled because I think that throughout the Conservative Party and, indeed, throughout very large sections of media in Britain the questions are being asked “Please, Prime Minister, can you tell us what are the aims and objectives of this mission? How can you guarantee that we won’t become more deeply embroiled?”
So, I’m hoping that in 48-hours’ time, when the British Parliament meets, we get some answers to those questions. But I have to say that ever since Tony Blair’s time, starting off with Bosnia, we seem to go in for foreign wars with alarming regularity, often having no really clear objectives or any idea how we are going to withdraw. Just to prove that point – we’ve now been in Afghanistan for longer that First and the Second World Wars added up together.
RT: As we can see, Britain, as well as some other countries, is ready to go ahead. But where does the rest of Europe stand on this?
NF: Split I think is the honest truth. But overall, I sense that the feeling of moral outrage will win and therefore a majority in Europe will decide that a military action is acceptable.
I would just say this. Number one: can we please actually find out for certain that it was Assad that used those weapons. It’s probable, but please can we find out for certain. Moral outrage on its own is not a good enough reason to get involved in a war, but could have unforeseen consequences.
The real worry is that we have Iran and Russia on one side, we have Britain, France and America on the other side. And without wishing to sound like a doom monger, a military intervention in Syria could lead to something far bigger, far even more worrying than we are seeing at the moment. So, I think we really have to think very carefully.
My view is that what we’ve done in Afghanistan, in Iraq for many decades, whenever Brittan got involved in the Middle East, we tend to make thing worse, not better, and horrible though it is, ghastly, there are some crimes that are being committed and there is nothing the British military can do, in my view, to make things better.
RT: At this point there is no proof or any identification that the Assad government carried out the chemical attack, right?
NF: What I’m saying that I do myself believe that it’s probable that they did but it’s not absolutely certain. This whole situation is very very complicated. And the so-called opposition are very split amongst themselves. And, probably, there are stronger hatreds between some of the opposition groups than there are against the Assad regime. We ought to be slightly cautious and we ought to absolutely make sure that it was Assad that used those weapons.
and.....
http://rt.com/usa/us-syria-strike-chemical-060/
Obama reportedly considering two-day strike on Syria
White House officials say the United States may launch a limited military strike on Syria as early as this Thursday as the intelligence community prepares to release a report justifying action and allies are rallied.
Senior officials in the Obama administration told the Washington Post for an article published on Tuesday that the White House is weighing a limited strike on Syria and said on condition of anonymity that “We’re actively looking at the various legal angles that would inform a decision.”
According to the Post, the likely response from Washington would be a sea-to-land strike from the Mediterranean that would last no longer than two days and would not be directed towards targets where the chemical weapons arsenal is believed to be stored.
But while an attack is all but imminent and will likely be launched from warships already mobilized in the Mediterranean by the week’s end, public support in the US has teetered towards nil as of late. The Obama administration says there is undeniable proof that chemical weapons were used on civilians outside of Damascus on August 21, but a five-day-long Reuters poll taken during that time concluded only nine percent of Americans favor intervention.
Notwithstanding that lack of support, US Secretary of State John Kerry hinted Monday at a response which will jolt Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and ideally worsen the odds that his regime will implement chemical warheads again.
Despite insistence from Assad and allies in Russia that the Syrian government is not guilty of using chemical weapons, Sec. Kerry said during a press conference on Monday that “our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts, informed by conscious and guided by common sense.” Kerry called Assad’s reported attempt to cover-up the alleged use of chemical weapons “cynical” and said, “President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people.”
One day earlier, Sec. Kerry admitted that Pres. Obama was considering his options with regards to a strike and was to meet with lawmakers in Congress as well as with international leaders. According to the Post article, however, the president may forego getting approval from Capitol Hill and will instead rely on striking Syria due to “undeniable,” as the White House puts it, war crimes.
“The administration has said that it will follow international law in shaping its response,” Karen DeYoung and Anne Gearan wrote for the Post, adding, “But much of international law is untested, and administration lawyers are also examining possible legal justifications based on a violation of international prohibitions on chemical weapons use, or on an appeal for assistance from a neighboring nation such as Turkey.” Additionally, the US has already received assurance of support from Britain, France and Turkey.
According to senior administration officials who spoke to CBS News on condition of anonymity, Pres. Obama met with his national security team this past weekend and has ordered that a declassified intelligence report showing the rationale for any attack on Syria be released before it occurs.
While only nine percent of the respondents polled in the Reuters survey between August 19 and 23 said they want the White House to respond to Assad’s reported use of chemical weapons immediately, 25 percent said they would favor intervention if the US concludes with certainty that those warheads were illegally used. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from earlier in the month found that 30.2 percent of Americans would support intervention if Assad is linked to using chemical weapons.
Sec. Kerry said the indiscriminate slaughter of women and children apparently being carried out by the Assad regime constitutes a “moral obscenity.”
http://www.infowars.com/obama-pushes-nations-into-world-war-3/
Obama Pushes Nations Into World War 3
The plunge into taking military action on Syria is not just reminiscent of Iraq, but is representative of Obama’s continued hot war against Russia that has gone from proxy to direct over the last several days.
The situation in Syria has always been a proxy war between the United States and Russia, and that iseven admitted by the mega news networks who don’t ever dare to mention Obama’s secret ordersdemanding support for the Syrian rebels back in 2011 (in order to crush the Putin-backed Assad). But that all changed when Israel directly attacked a Russian missile depot, launching what amounts to a direct attack on the Russian forces.
As you may be aware if you actively read Storyleak or Infowars, Russia ultimately called upon a ‘combat readiness’ drill following this attack. More than 160,000 Russian troops from across the nation met with naval ships, aerial bombers and fighters, and other assorted military wings in order to attain ‘immediate combat readiness’. It is no coincidence that this coincided with the Israeli attacks on Russian missile depots, which the media was even able to confirm publicly through US officials after weeks of silence over the attack.
As you can plainly see, Russia is not playing around. But either is Obama in his crusade to destroy any shred of hope left for the relations of the United States and Russia. It was on the Jay Leno show appearance we clearly saw this reality.
Obama and Leno: Putin Is Hitler, Stalin Combined for ‘Rounding Up Gays’
It was back during his appearance on the Jay Leno show, the part which was entirely ignored in the US while simultaneously becoming a major headline internationally, where Obama and Jay directly compared Putin to Hitler and Stalin. That’s right, Hitler and Stalin. Not only did the talk show host bring this up in what surely amounts to the Obama administration goons setting it up on the teleprompter, but they went and accused Putin of ’rounding up the gays’ like Hitler rounded up the Jewish population.
Meanwhile, citizens who compare Obama to Hitler or Stalin are demonized to the fullest extent of media bias possible. Or better yet, can you imagine if Putin went and called Obama the new Hitler and Stalin combined?
One thing is clear: Obama is on a mission to destroy any relations with Russia and throw this nation into a hot war that will not benefit anyone but a select few. Syria, the new Iraq, is just the beginning. We’ve seen time and time again how we are roped into these conflicts over false pretenses only to initiate endless wars that only profit the banksters and the sociopath control freaks at the top.
And while John Kerry and William Hague believe it is impossible to believe the liver eating allegedly Syrian but actually Al Qaeda / Al Nusra rebels launched the chemical weapon attack as a planned provocation , consider this ....
Evidence: Syria gas attack work of U.S. allies
Jerome CorsiWND
August 27, 2013
With the assistance of former PLO member and native Arabic-speaker Walid Shoebat, WND has assembled evidence from various Middle Eastern sources that cast doubt on Obama administration claims the Assad government is responsible for last week’s attack.
August 27, 2013
With the assistance of former PLO member and native Arabic-speaker Walid Shoebat, WND has assembled evidence from various Middle Eastern sources that cast doubt on Obama administration claims the Assad government is responsible for last week’s attack.
A video posted on YouTube, embedded below, shows Free Syrian Army, or FSA, rebel forces launching a Sarin gas attack on a Syrian village.
Another video posted on YouTube shows what appears to be Syrian rebel forces loading a canister of nerve gas on a rocket to fire presumably at civilians and possibly government forces.
As seen below, a screen capture from the video shows rebel civilian forces placing a suspicious blue canister on top of a rocket-launching device.
A separate YouTube video from Syrian television shows a government-captured arsenal of what appears to be nerve gas weapons seized from a rebel stronghold in Jobar, Syria.
The image below shows canisters in the seized rebel arsenal from Jobar that appear to resemble the canister launched by rebel forces in the first image above.
Which brings us back to the Saudis role ....
Syria gas attack story has whiff of Saudi war propaganda
A man, affected by what activists say is nerve gas, breathes through an oxygen mask in the Damascus suburbs of Jesreen August 21, 2013. (Reuters / Ammar Dar)
The reports of massive chemical attacks in Syria might become the “red line” for the US for active military intervention. But even rudimentary analysis of the story shows it is too early to believe its credibility.
The Middle Eastern newspaper, Al Arabiya, reports that “At least 1,300 people have been killed in a nerve gas attack on Syria’s Ghouta region, leading opposition figure George Sabra said on Wednesday…” The paper went on to claim that the Government of President Bashar al Assad was responsible for the attacks. If confirmed it could be the “red line” that US President Obama previously stated would tip the US into active military intervention in Syria, using No Fly Zones and active military steps to depose Assad.
That in turn could erupt into a conflagration across the Middle East and a Super Power confrontation with Russia and China and Iran on one side, and the USA, UK, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar on the opposite side. Not a happy prospect for world peace at all.
Therefore the story is worth analyzing carefully. When we do, several things jump out as suspicious. First the newspaper breaking the story was Al Arabiya, initially saying that at least 500 people have been killed, according to activists. From there it got picked up by major international media. Making the story more fishy by the minute were reports from different media of the alleged number of dead that changed by the minute – 635 then to 800 by USA Today and 1,300 by Rupert Murdoch’s SkyNews.
A handout image released by the Syrian opposition’s Shaam News Network shows bodies of children and adults laying on the ground as Syrian rebels claim they were killed in a toxic gas attack by pro-government forces in eastern Ghouta, on the outskirts of Damascus on August 21, 2013. (AFP Photo)
Al Arabiya, the origin of the story, is not a neutral in the Syrian conflict. It was set up in 2002 by the Saudi Royal Family in Dubai. It is majority-owned by the Saudi broadcaster, Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC). Saudi Arabia is a major financial backer of the attempt to topple Syria’s government. That is a matter of record. So on first glance Saudi-owned media reporting such an inflammatory anti-Assad allegation might be taken with a dose of salt.
When we examine the printed content of their story, it gets more suspicious still. First they cite“activists at the Syrian Revolutionary Command Council said regime fighter planes were flying over the area after the bombardment, accusing the forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad of using chemical agents.” This is doubtful on many levels. First we can imagine that anti-government (unnamed) “activists” fighting Assad’s forces would not be exactly neutral.
The story gets even murkier. Further in the text of the article we read that the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said dozens of people were killed, including children, in fierce bombardment.” Now the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) has been the source of every news report negative against the Syrian Assad government since the war began in 2011. More curious about the humanitarian-sounding SOHR is the fact, as uncovered by investigative journalists, that it consists of a sole Syrian refugee who has lived in London for the past 13 years named Rami Abdul Rahman, a Syrian Sunni muslim who owns a clothing shop and is running a Twitter page from his home. Partly owing to a very friendly profile story on the BBC, he gained mainstream media credibility. He is anything but unbiased.
The other aspect of the suspicious reports is the “convenient” fact they coincide with the arrival two days earlier of an official UN weapons inspection team, allowed by the government, to investigate allegations of chemical weapons use in the Syrian war. It begs the most obvious question: What conceivably would Bashar al Assad stand to gain from using banned chemical weapons just at the time he has agreed to let a UN chemical weapons team into Syria?
An image grab taken from a video uploaded on YouTube by the Local Committee of Arbeen on August 21, 2013 allegedly shows Syrians covering a mass grave containing bodies of victims that Syrian rebels claim were killed in a toxic gas attack by pro-government forces in eastern Ghouta and Zamalka, on the outskirts of Damascus. (AFP Photo)
They initially were called to investigate evidence of any chemical weapons used in a March 19 attack in Khan al-Assad and in two other locations. In May, Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said that testimony gathered from casualties and medical staff in Syria indicated that the nerve agent sarin was used by rebel fighters. They found no evidence of use by Government forces. That proved highly embarrassing to the faction of war hawks in the Pentagon and State Department, agitating for Obama to escalate direct military intervention including a no-fly zone, de facto an act of war against Assad’s regime. In 2012 Obama declared that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian President would cross a “red line” and change US calculations on whether or not it should intervene in the conflict.
Finally, the region reported to be the site of the poison gas attack by Assad forces, Eastern Ghouta, was re-secured from the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra jihadist terrorists, by Government troops in May as part of a major series of rollback victories against the insurgent forces and is not currently a scene of any major resistance to Assad forces.
Pending confirmation by genuinely independent judges of the latest allegations of Al Arabiya, we are well-advised to leave the reports in the category of war propaganda, in league with others such as the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. That incident, we might recall, was faked by the Pentagon to railroad Congress into giving President Lyndon B. Johnson authority to “assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by communist aggression.” The resolution became Johnson’s legal justification for deploying US forces and the onset of open war against North Vietnam.
To further understand Syria and the current power struggle between the Saudis and Russia , two photos ....
Just me or does the projection of weakness come through loud and clear.....
First , note the relationship between the President and King Abdullah.....
Second , note the body language between Putin and Obama - sullen son scolded by disappointed father ?
Second , note the relationship between Putin and Obama - Putin looks like a disappointed father to a sullen son
No comments:
Post a Comment