Putin Puts Obama in Hot Seat: ‘What Will You Do If Rebels Are Ones Using Chemical Weapons?’
Russian President Vladimir Putin has a strange way of speaking straightforwardly, without all the artificial and “morally superior” airs one expects from Western politicians.
Putin to Obama: What will you do if it turns out that the armed rebels are the ones who used weapons of mass destruction?
Earlier, for example, he wondered why Western leaders were supporting cannibals in Syria:
You will not deny that one does not really need to support the people who not only kill their enemies, but open up their bodies, eat their intestines in front of the public and cameras. Are these the people you want to support? Is it them who you want to supply with weapons? Then this probably has little relation to humanitarian values that have been preached in Europe for hundreds of years.
Putin was referring to the notorious video of a jihadi leader biting into the organs of a Syrian soldier while screaming Islamic slogans.
Now, the straightforward Russian has asked another equally important and straightforward question — the sort of question so full of common sense that most Western politicians never expect to hear a fellow politician asking (and, as usual, one the Western media have failed to report on, though Arabic media is abuzz with it).
In a videotaped interview published today concerning U.S. attempts to go to war in Syria, not only did Putin criticize Secretary of State John Kerry’s dissembling concerning the nature of the Syrian opposition, but he also said:
There is another question: if it turns out that the armed rebels are the ones who used weapons of mass destruction, what will the United States do with the armed rebels? And what will it do with those sponsoring the rebels? Will they stop supplying them with arms? Will they start fighting against them?
Indeed. Considering that invading Syria is almost entirely being rationalized in the context of Assad violating the human rights of others, what will the U.S. — Obama, Kerry, McCain, et. al. — do if it turns out that the al-Qaeda led rebels are, in fact, the ones using such weapons, assignificant evidence already indicates?
Probably what they are doing now: continue misleading Americans and go to war anyway, since — and once again — this has nothing to do with chemical weapons.
Update: RT posted the video and translation of Putin’s questions regarding what the U.S. would do if it turns out the rebels used chemical weapons (here, around the four-minute mark).
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-07/obamas-missing-link-no-direct-connection-between-assad-and-gas-attack
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/07/2013 12:43 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-07/obamas-missing-link-no-direct-connection-between-assad-and-gas-attack
Obama's Missing Link: No Direct Connection Between Assad And Gas Attack
While one can speculate if the sarin gas attack on August 22 was ordered and orchestrated by Saudi/Qatari petrodollar interests, with the assistance of the CIA and the funding of al Qaeda, and executed by the Syrian "rebels" (there is much circumstantial evidence pointing in the false flag direction: here, here, here andhere), the reality is that since the narrative behind Obama's offensive Syrian air strikes has been staged as punishment for Assad, the onus is on the affirmative proof, namely clear and unequivocal evidence that it was Assad who ordered the attack. So far, despite repeated vows and promises that such proof exists, none has been presented, aside from numerous YouTube clips which show an attack did take place (and even that is in question). When it comes to the actual perpetrator, John Kerry and company are reduced to emotional pleadings to the audience to look at pictures of dead children redirecting from the most important question of all: did Assad actually do it. The reason for such Copperfieldian tactics is that there simply is no link - Reuters reports that "No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward." And yet Obama's entire publicly stated motive is to punish Assad... for something there is zero evidence he did.
The excerpt below from Reuters is how far the mainstream media will go of accusing Obama of conducting a false flag without actually "accusing" him.
While U.S. officials say Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons strike even if he did not directly order it, they have not been able to fully describe a chain of command for the August 21 attack in the Ghouta area east of the Syrian capital.It is one of the biggest gaps in U.S. understanding of the incident, even as Congress debates whether to launch limited strikes on Assad's forces in retaliation.After wrongly claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 U.S. invasion, the U.S. intelligence community, along with the Obama administration, are trying to build as solid a case as they can about what it says was a sarin nerve gas attack that killed over 1,400 people.The Syrian government, backed by Russia, blames Sunni rebels for the gas attack. Russia says Washington has not provided convincing proof that Assad's troops carried out the attack and called it a "provocation" by rebel forces hoping to encourage a military response by the United States.Identifying Syrian commanders or leaders as those who gave an order to fire rockets into the Sunni Muslim areas could help Obama convince a war-weary American public and skeptical members of Congress to back limited strikes against Assad.But penetrating the secretive Syrian government is tough, especially as it fights a chaotic civil war for its survival.
But isn't that what the NSA is for: after all Obama had an extended tangent during his G-20 press conference explaining precisely that the role of the NSA is to keep America breast on non-public developments. And the whole "access to everything" should mean not a single Syrian communication was left unintercepted. Or maybe, just maybe, the NSA was meant solely to spy on America's citizens, while ignoring what happens in Damascus, instead forcing the administration to come up with made up stories?
One possible link between the gas attack and Assad's inner circle is the Syrian government body that is responsible for producing chemical weapons, U.S. and allied security sources say.Personnel associated with the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Council (SSRC), which has direct ties to Assad's entourage, were likely involved in preparing munitions in the days before the attack, they say.A declassified French intelligence report describes a unit of the SSRC, known by the code name "Branch 450", which it says is in charge of filling rockets or shells with chemical munitions in general.U.S. and European security sources say this unit was likely involved in mixing chemicals for the August 21 attack and also may have played a more extensive role in preparing for it and carrying it out.Bruce Riedel, a former senior U.S. intelligence expert on the region and sometime advisor to the Obama White House, said that intelligence about the SSRC's alleged role is the most telling proof the United States has at hand."The best evidence linking the regime to the attack at a high level is the involvement of SSRC, the science center that created the (chemical weapons) program and manages it. SSRC works for the President's office and reports to him," Riedel said.U.S. officials say Amr Armanazi, a Syrian official identified as SSRC director in a State Department sanctions order a year ago, was not directly involved.
Ironically, the early definitive proof that was going to be the nail in Assad's coffin so to speak, has all been rejected now:
As more information has been collected and analyzed, early theories about the attack have largely been dismissed, U.S. and allied security sources said.Reports that Assad's brother, Maher, a general who commands an elite Republican Guard unit and a crack Syrian army armored division, gave the order to use chemicals have not been substantiated, U.S. sources said. Some U.S. sources now believe Maher Assad did not order the attack and was not directly involved.
So what if any evidence is there, aside from YouTube clips of course?
Much of the U.S. claim that Assad is responsible was initially based on reports from witnesses, non-governmental groups and hours of YouTube videos.U.S. officials have not presented any evidence to the public of scientific samples or intelligence information proving that sarin gas was used or that the Syrian government used it.The United States has also not named any Syrian commanders it thinks gave the green light to fire gas-laden rockets into Ghouta. But U.S. and allied security sources say they believe that Syrian military units responsible for the areas that were attacked were under heavy pressure from top commanders to wipe out a stubborn rebel presence there so government troops could redeploy to other trouble spots, including the city of Aleppo.An analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, reported that a declassified U.S. government paper summarizing intelligence findings concludes that Syrian government officials were "witting and directed" the gas attack. But the evidence of who ordered it was not watertight, the analysis said.
So, if one eliminates conflicted witness, one is left with ... pretty much that: YouTube clips. Like this one prepared by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, staged from beginning to end, and designed to generate a sense of sympathy toward its cause on false grounds:
Perhaps this is why, with virtually every other avenue exhausted, Obama will be forced next week to do what he does best: speak in a charming, disarming way, and seek the teleprompter's help to sway the people to his side of the story, as unjustified as it may be:
The United Nations won't help, good pal Britain is sitting this one out, so President Barack Obama will take his case for a military attack on Syria directly to the American people next week.Obama wrapped up his trip to the G20 summit in Russia by telling reporters he will address the nation on Tuesday as Congress prepares to vote on a resolution authorizing limited military strikes against Syria over its alleged use of chemical weapons.Facing public opposition reflected by legislators hesitant to support him, Obama said Friday that he understands the skepticism over his call for punishing the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for what U.S. officials call a sarin gas attack on August 21 that killed more than 1,400 people."The American people have gone through a lot when it comes to the military over the last decade or so," Obama said.
Indeed, and the bulk of it has been based on false flag pretenses, just like this one.
Perhaps, for once, the American people will see right through Obama's shiny facade and pompous, if completely hollow rhetoric, and straight to the lies, and finally say no.
Unfortunately, if past is prologue, a lot of innocent Syrian civilians are about to die one way or the other, in yet another unjust war serving higher interests, and even higher money, in which the common person is merely "collateral damage."
About those " moderate " syrian rebels......
Video: Al-Qaeda Attacks Two Syrian Churches to Cries of ‘Allahu Akbar!’
More information on yesterday’s al-Qaeda led attack on the Christian village of Maaloula near Damascus, Syria. Not only did they firebomb the village, and threaten to slaughter all Christians once the U.S. helps “liberate” Syria, but they also fired missiles and mortars at two ancient churches, St. Alias Church and St. Grace Church, while spraying the entrances of the churches with bullets.
McCain’s “moderates” open fire at ancient churches while screaming “thank God!”
Around eight defenders of the village were killed by the al-Qaeda led jihadis, who in the video below can be heard shouting “Allahu Akbar,” Islam’s ancient war cry. Nonetheless, John McCain, who wants the U.S. to aid al-Qaeda in Syria, absurdly insists that shouting “Allahu Akbar” is equivalent to a Christian saying “Thank God,” and that the rebels in Syria are “moderates and I guarantee you they are moderates.”
Maaloula is one of the oldest archaeological sites in the world, with ancient vestiges of Christianity (now being destroyed by U.S. supported al-Qaeda). The population still speaks Aramaic, the same language spoken during Jesus’ time
and.....
Al-Qaeda Vows to Slaughter Christians After U.S. ‘Liberates’ Syria
Al-Qaeda in Syria eagerly awaits America to come to its rescue
While U.S. leaders continue pushing for war against the Syrian government, today “Al-Qaeda-linked rebels,”reports AP, “launched an assault on a regime-held Christian mountain village in the densely populated west of Syria and new clashes erupted near the capital, Damascus, on Wednesday… In the attack on the village of Maaloula, rebels commandeered a mountaintop hotel and nearby caves and shelled the community below, said a nun, speaking by phone from a convent in the village. She spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.”
Arabic news agency Al Hadath gives more information concerning this latest terror attack on Syria’s Christians, specifically how the al-Qaeda linked rebels “terrorized the Christians,threatening to be avenged on them after the triumph of the revolution.”
Thus al-Qaeda terrorists eagerly await U.S. assistance against the Syrian government, so they can subjugate if not slaughter Syria’s Christians, secularists, and non-Muslims — even as the Obama administration tries to justify war on Syria by absurdly evoking the “human rights” of Syrians on the one hand, and lying about al-Qaeda’s presence in Syria on the other.
Update: New information including video of attack can be accessed here
and....
U.S. Hypocrisy for Syrian ‘Human Rights’
Did the Syrian government, or did it not, use chemical weapons — that is the question that will apparently decide whether the U.S. will enter another, messy war, one that may have many long term consequences.
That is the question the media and its talking heads are abuzz with.
So concerned about ‘human rights’ of Syrians?
And yet, that is also the question that — to any objective, independent thinker — is wholly irrelevant.
Why? Because the fact is, from one end of the world to the other, outrageous human rights abuses — many much worse than the use of chemical weapons — are going on.
As Bruce Thornton recently put it in a FrontPage Magazine article:
[A]ll this rhetoric about “crimes against humanity” and the “responsibility to protect” reeks of hypocrisy and moral preening. The President said, “We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale.” Who’s he kidding? We already have, in Hussein’s Iraq. Change “gassed” to “bombed,” “fire-bombed,” “hacked to death,” “machine-gunned,” and “starved” and you can cover the globe with the victims whose deaths on a “terrible scale” we have “accepted.” We have stood by and watched millions of women, children, and innocent civilians murdered in all sorts of ways equally as, or more gruesome and painful than, dying by poison gas.In Rwanda anywhere from 500,000 to 1,000,000 men, women, and children were slaughtered in 1994, many by being hacked to death with machetes, not to mention the women raped, purposely infected with HIV, and sexually mutilated. We did nothing to stop the killing not because we militarily couldn’t, but because it was not in our national interests and security to do so. Hence we sent in a toothless U.N. to salve our consciences and deflect the charge of callous inactivity.So all those calling for intervention in Syria or anywhere else to prevent “crimes against humanity” should be required to explain just how this unfortunately common slaughter is different from all those others we did not intervene to stop. The fact is, given that we cannot expend our citizens’ lives to protect all the millions of global victims of violence, we must make the decision based not on “international norms” but on the national interests and security of the United States, as these are determined by the citizens of the United States through their elected representatives. In the event, frequently pursuing those interests will end up punishing egregious violators like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. But the definitive criterion must be how the action concretely protects our citizens and our interests.Specifically answering that question––not appealing to delusional “international norms,” or assertions of deterring future malefactors on behalf of some imagined “global community”––should be the focus of the upcoming Congressional debate.
Concerning Syria, then, the real question is not whether Assad used chemical weapons or not, but rather why his doing so would warrant U.S. military intervention — when so many worse human rights abuses are happening all around the world, each one of which is as well documented as the chemical accusation against Assad is still open to debate.
In short, if there is a legitimate case for invading Syria, U.S. leaders, beginning with Obama, need to start making it, and drop the hypocritical rhetoric about “human rights” concerns — which has become nothing short of insulting to one’s intelligence.
No comments:
Post a Comment