Archives: Articles

Questions Plague UN Report on Syria

Post author By admin
Post date September 25, 2013

By Sharmine Narwani and Radwan Mortada
23 September, 2013

Source URL: http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/sandbox/questions-plague-un-report-syria

A senior United Nations official who deals directly with Syrian affairs has told Al-Akhbar that the Syrian government had no involvement in the alleged Ghouta chemical weapons attack: “Of course not, he (President Bashar al-Assad) would be committing suicide.”

When asked who he believed was responsible for the use of chemical munitions in Ghouta, the UN official, who would not permit disclosure of his identity, said: “Saudi intelligence was behind the attacks and unfortunately nobody will dare say that.” The official claims that this information was provided by rebels in Ghouta.

A report by the UN Mission [1] to investigate use of chemical weapons (CW) in Ghouta, Syria was released last Monday, but per its mandate, did not assign blame to either the Syrian government or opposition rebels.

Media commentators and officials from several western countries, however, have strongly suggested that the Syrian government is the likely perpetrator of CW attacks in Ghouta and other locations.

But on Sunday, veteran Mideast journalist for The Independent Robert Fisk [2] also reported that “grave doubts are being expressed by the UN and other international organisations in Damascus that the sarin gas missiles were fired by Assad’s army.”

The UN official’s accusations mirror statements made earlier this year by another senior UN figure Carla del Ponte, who last May told Swiss TV in the aftermath of alleged CW attacks in Khan al-Asal, Sheik Maqsood and Saraqeb that there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels had carried out the attack. Del Ponte also observed that UN inspectors had seen no evidence of the Syrian army using chemical weapons, but added that further investigation was necessary.

The UN Inquiry tasked with investigating chemical weapons use in Syria hastily dismissed del Ponte’s comments by saying it had “not reached conclusive findings” as to the use of CWs by any parties.

So why then are we getting these contradictory leaks by top UN officials?

The recently released UN Report on CW use in Syria may provide some clues. While it specifically does not assign blame for the use of CWs to either side, its disclosures and exclusions very clearly favor a rebel narrative of the Ghouta attacks. And that may be prompting these leaks from insiders who have access to a broader view of events.

Startling environmental evidence
The UN investigations [1] focus on three main areas of evidence: environmental sampling, human sampling and munitions forensics.
The most stunning example of the UN’s misrepresentation of facts inside Ghouta is displayed in its findings on environmental samples tested for traces of Sarin nerve gas.

On page 4 of the Report, the UN clearly states that environmental “samples were taken from impact sites and surrounding areas” and that “according to the reports received from the OPCW-designated laboratories, the presence of Sarin, its degradation and/or production by-products were observed in a majority of the samples.”

The UN team gathered environmental samples from two areas in Ghouta: Moadamiyah in West Ghouta, and Ein Tarma and Zamalka in East Ghouta. The Moadamiyah samples were collected on August 26 when the UN team spent a total of two hours in the area. The Ein Tarma and Zamalka samples were collected on August 28 and 29 over a total time period of five and a half hours.

The UN investigators specify those dates in Appendix 6 of the Report.

But in Appendix 7, an entirely different story emerges about the results of environmental testing in Ghouta. This section of the Report is filled with charts that do not specify the towns where environmental samples were collected – just dates, codes assigned to the samples, description of the samples and then the CW testing results from two separate laboratories.

Instead, a closer look at the charts shows a massive discrepancy in lab results from east and west Ghouta. There is not a single environmental sample in Moadamiyah that tested positive for Sarin.

This is a critical piece of information. These samples were taken from “impact sites and surrounding areas” identified by numerous parties, not just random areas in the town. Furthermore, in Moadamiyah, the environmental samples were taken five days after the reported CW attack, whereas in Ein Tarma and Zamalka – where many samples tested positive for Sarin – UN investigators collected those samples seven and eight days post-attack, when degradation of chemical agents could have been more pronounced.

Yet it is in Moadamiyah where alleged victims of a CW attack tested highest for Sarin exposure, with a positive result of 93% and 100% (the discrepancy in those numbers is due to different labs testing the same samples). In Zamalka, the results were 85% and 91%.

It is scientifically improbable that survivors would test that highly for exposure to Sarin without a single trace of environmental evidence testing positive for the chemical agent.

I spoke with Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, former commander of the British military’s chemical defense regiment and CEO at CW specialists, SecureBio Ltd. “I think that is strange,” he admits, when told about the stark discrepancy between human and environmental test results in Moadamiyah.

“It could be significant. Nobody else has brought that point up,” says Bretton-Gordon, who has read the UN Report closely since he actually trains doctors and first-responders in Ghouta via an NGO.

“I think that it is strange that the environmental and human samples don’t match up. This could be because there have been lots of people trampling through the area and moving things. Unless the patients were brought in from other areas. There doesn’t seem another plausible explanation.”

Bretton-Gordon notes that while Sarin’s “toxicity” lasts only between 30-60 minutes when humans are directly exposed, it can remain toxic for many days on clothes (which is why medical workers wear protective gear) and lasts for months, sometimes years in the environment.

Why did the UN not highlight this very troubling result of its own investigations? The data had to be included in the Report since the two samplings – human and environmental – were core evidentiary components of the investigation. But it is buried in the small print of the Report – an inconvenient contradiction that was dismissed by the UN team. If anything, the UN blatantly claims on page 5 of its findings:
“The environmental, chemical and medical samples we have collected provide clear and compelling evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent Sarin were used in Ein Tarma, Moadamiyah and Zamalka in the Ghouta area of Damascus.”

There are several logical conclusions for the lack of environmental evidence and the abundance of human evidence of Sarin exposure in Moadamiyah:
One is that there was no Sarin CW attack in Moadamiyah. There can’t have been – according to this environmental data. A second explanation is that the samples from Moadamiyah were contaminated somehow, even though the human samplings showed no sign of this. This is an unlikely explanation since the UN went to great pains, explained in depth in several sections of the Report, to ensure the sanctity of the evidence collected.

A third explanation, mentioned by Bretton-Gordon, is that patients might have been “brought in from other areas.” All the patients were pre-selected by Ghouta doctors and opposition groups for presentation to the UN teams. And if this is the only plausible explanation for the discrepancy between environmental and human test results, then it suggests that “patients” were “inserted” into Moadamiyah, possibly to create a narrative of a chemical weapons attack that never took place.
This would almost certainly imply that opposition groups were involved in staging events in Ghouta. These towns are in rebel-controlled areas that have been involved in heavy battle with the Syrian government for much of the conflict. There is no army or government presence in these Ghouta areas whatsoever.

Human Testing
The UN team’s selection of survivors in Moadamiyah and Zamalka raises even more questions. Says the Report:

“A leader of the local opposition forces who was deemed prominent in the area to be visited by the Mission, was identified and requested to take ‘custody’ of the Mission. The point of contact within the opposition was used to ensure the security and movement of the Mission, to facilitate the access to the most critical cases/witnesses to be interviewed and sampled by the Mission and to control patients and crowd in order for the Mission to focus to its main activities.”

In short, opposition groups in these entirely rebel-held areas exercised considerable influence over the UN’s movements and access during the entire seven and a half hours spent gathering evidence. The Report continues:

“A prominent local medical doctor was identified. This medical doctor was used to help in preparing for the arrival of the Mission… Concerning the patients, a sufficient number was requested to be presented to the Mission, in order for the Mission to pick a subpopulation for interviews and sampling. Typically a list of screening questions was also circulated to the opposition contacts. This included the queries to help in identification of the most relevant cases.”

To be clear, doctors and medical staff working in rebel-held areas are understood to be sympathetic to the opposition cause. Shelled almost daily by the Syrian army, you will not find pro-government staff manning hospitals in these hotly contested towns. Bretton-Gordon, who trains some of the medical staff in Ghouta, acknowledges that this bias is “one of the weaknesses” of evidence compilation in this area.

“We’ve been helping doctors on the opposition side, so they tend to tell you things they want you to hear.”

The entire population of patients to be examined by the UN team were essentially selected and delivered to the inspection team by the opposition in Ghouta. This, of course, includes the 44% of “survivors” allegedly from Moadamiyah.

In a report on Thursday, American CW expert Dan Kaszeta [3] raised further questions. While concluding that Sarin was used in Ghouta based on “environmental and medical evidence” produced by the UN team, Kaszeta notes that testing only 36 survivors “cannot conceivably be considered a scientifically or statistically accurate sample of the population of affected victims. It would be considered scientifically unsound to draw widespread conclusions based simply on this sample.”

Kaszeta also points out that the survivors’ “exact presentation of signs and symptoms seems skewed from our conventional understanding of nerve agent exposure.” He gives as example the relative lack of Miosis – “the threshold symptom for nerve agent exposure” – in Ghouta patients, which was found in only 15% of those tested compared to 99% of survivors in the 1995 Tokyo Sarin attack.

Other patient indications that appear out of proportion to Kaszeta were those who experienced convulsions (an advanced symptom) but did not concurrently display milder ones like excess salivation, excess tearing or miosis. “That is very strange to me,” says Kaszeta.

“Generally, loss of consciousness is considered to be a very grave sign in nerve agent poisoning, happening shortly before death. How is it 78% of the patients had lost consciousness?” he asks.

“Is it possible that we are looking at exposure to multiple causes of injury? Were some of the examined victims exposed to other things in addition to Sarin? I am not stating that Sarin was not used. It clearly was. My point is that it is either not behaving as we have understood it in the past or that other factors were at work in addition to Sarin.”

Munitions “Evidence”
Although the highest rate of Sarin-exposure was found in Moadamiyah “survivors,” the UN team found no traces of Sarin on the 140mm rocket identified as the source of the alleged CW attack – or in its immediate environment.

Moving to an adjacent apartment building where the initial debris from rocket impact was found: “the Mission was told that the inhabitants of this location were also injured or killed by a ‘gas.’” There was no evidence of Sarin there either.
The Report also notes: “The sites have been well-travelled by other individuals both before and during the investigation. Fragments and other evidence have clearly been handled/moved prior to the arrival of the investigation team.”

That theme continues in both Ein Tarma and Zamalka where UN inspectors observed:

“As with other sites, the locations have been well traveled by other individuals prior to the arrival of the Mission. During the time spent at these locations, individuals arrived carrying other suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and possibly manipulated.”

While Sarin traces were found on munitions in the latter two locations, the UN Report cannot identify the location from which these munitions were fired. The team studied five “impact sites” in total, only two of which provide “sufficient evidence to determine the likely trajectory of the projectiles.”

These two sites are in Moadamiyah (Site 1), where an 140mm M14 artillery rocket was investigated, and in Ein Tarma (Site 4), where a “mystery” 330mm artillery rocket was identified as the source of the CW attack.

The flight path (trajectory) of these munitions provided in the UN Report may be more or less accurate, but less so is the distance they traveled, for which the UN offers no estimates whatsoever. And in a large “range” area criss-crossed by pro-government and pro-opposition areas, both sets of data are critical in determining the source of the alleged attacks.

Maps currently being disseminated by the media that claim to identify the point of origin of the projectiles, are misleading. I spoke with Eliot Higgins, whose Brown Moses blog has kept a running video inventory and analysis of munitions used in the Syrian conflict and who has worked closely with Human Rights Watch (HRW), which produced one of these maps:

“Munitions have a minimum range as well as a maximum range so it gives you a zone of where they can be fired from. Problem with the mystery rocket (in Ein Tarma) is that data doesn’t exist so it’s harder to be sure. You can show the trajectories and if they intersect, it might suggest a common point of origin. While the M14 has a range of just under 10km, the other munition is harder to figure out, there’s a lot of factors, not least the type of fuel. And it’s impossible to know the type of fuel short of finding an unfired one.”

In short, the only one of the two munitions whose range we know is the one from Moadamiyah, which has an estimated range of between 3.8 and 9.8 kilometers, was not found to have traces of Sarin, and is therefore not part of any alleged CW attack.

On the map produced by HRW – which points specifically to the Syrian army’s Republican Guard 104th Brigade base as the likely point of origin – the distance from Moadamiyah to the base is 9.5km. But since this now appears to be a munition used in conventional battle, it can’t even legitimately be used by HRW in their efforts to identify an intersecting point of origin for CWs. It could have come from the military base, but so what?

The HRW map draws another line based on the trajectory of the Ein Tarma munition (the one with Sarin traces) to this Republican Guard base (9.6km), but we have no evidence at all of the range of this rocket. Its large size, however, suggests a range beyond the 9.8km of the smaller projectile which could take it well past the military base into rebel-held territory.

HRW has very simplistically assembled a map that follows the known trajectories of both munitions and marked X at a convenient point of origin that would place blame for CW attacks on the Syrian government.

It doesn’t at all investigate any evidence that the rockets could have come from more than one point of origin, and skirts over the fact that HRW doesn’t even know the distance travelled by either missile. As Higgins says: “the best you can do with the mystery munition is draw a straight line and see where it goes.”

But western media ran with HRW’s extrapolations, without looking at the evidence. “This isn’t conclusive, given the limited data available to the UN team, but it is highly suggestive,” says the HRW report. Not really. The case for culpability will need much tighter evidence than the facile doodling on this HRW map.

CWs were used, but by whom and how?
The discrepancies in the story of the Ghouta CW attacks are vast. Casualty figures range from a more modest 300+ to the more dramatic 1,400+ figures touted by western governments. The UN investigators were not able to confirm any of these numbers – they only saw 80 survivors and tested only 36 of these. They saw none of the dead – neither in graves nor in morgues.

While media headlines tend to blame CW attacks on the Syrian government – and US Secretary of State John Kerry now flat-out states it – on August 21 there existed little motive that would explain why the army would sabotage its military gains and invite foreign intervention for crossing CW “red lines.”
If anything, the more obvious motive would be for retreating rebels to manufacture a CW false flag operation to elicit the kind of western-backed military response needed to alter the balance of force on the ground in favor of oppositionists. Which as we all know, almost happened with a US strike.

Clearly, further investigation is needed to put together all these contradictory pieces of the Ghouta puzzle. And for that you need an impartial team of investigators who have complete access to randomly sampled witnesses, patients, impact areas, their surroundings and beyond. More importantly, you need time to conduct a thorough investigation.

It should be noted here that during the UN team’s visit to Moadamiyah on August 26, unknown snipers [4] in the rebel-held area fired at the UN Mission, further limiting their time in the area for investigation.

This UN Report raises more questions than it answers. The entire population it interviewed – witnesses, patients, doctors – share a bias toward rebels. Almost all were pre-selected by the opposition and presented to the UN team for a rushed investigation. The munitions forensics provide little evidence as to their point of origin, which is critical to determine culpability. The human and environmental testing are inconclusive in that they don’t provide enough information to help us determine what happened – and even suggest tampering and staging. Why would evidence need to be manufactured if this was a chemical weapons attack on a grand scale?

At the end of the day, the UN Report does not tell us who, how or what happened in Ghouta on August 21. As the team prepares to head into Khan al-Asal for further investigations, one hopes that they will learn from these shortcomings and provide the conclusive findings needed to assign blame for war crimes. These missions are not merely an exercise. While the UN itself may not be allowed to point a finger at either side in this conflict, they must produce water-tight forensic conclusions that help the international community reach a decisive verdict based on evidence.

And all these leaks from UN officials will dissipate the moment there is internal confidence that the job is being done properly.

Links:
[1] http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf
[2] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/gas-missiles-were-not-sold-to-syria-8831792.html
[3] http://strongpointsecurity.co.uk/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/D-Kaszeta-Comments-on-UN-Report.pdf
[4] http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/26/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html
[5] http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/mideast-shuffle/chemical-weapons-charade-syria
[6] http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/cia-records-confirm-us-backed-saddams-chemical-attack-iran
[7] http://english.al-akhbar.com/tags/chemical-weapons
[8] http://english.al-akhbar.com/tags/ghouta
[9] http://english.al-akhbar.com/tags/un
[10] http://english.al-akhbar.com/tags/un-report
[11] http://english.al-akhbar.com/tags/syria
[12] http://english.al-akhbar.com/tags/moadamiyah
[13] http://english.al-akhbar.com/tags/ein-tarma
[14] http://english.al-akhbar.com/tags/zamalka
[15] http://english.al-akhbar.com/tags/hrw

Global Peace March To Damascus Planned

Post author By admin
Post date September 10, 2013

By Marinella Corriegga, Vanessa Beeley, Feroze Mithiborwala & Roohulla Rezvi

10 September, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Say No to US War on Syria!!

“Syria you are not alone, we shall not let you down”

The world yet again waits with bated breath, as the clouds of war threaten to drown the voices of peace. The US is once again threatening a sovereign country, under a false pretext & fabricated lies. After Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya where millions of innocent civilians died, now it is the turn of Syria.

Once again US is going to use its lethal weapons and ‘save’ the people, by bombing them under the dubious pretext of ‘humanitarian intervention’. The American unilateralism poses a threat & a challenge to the overwhelming majority of nations that oppose the war. Yet again the US is complicit in destroying & undermining the international political structures & legal framework, even as it tries to speak in the name of the international community. But even though the US stands in splendid isolation, but yet persists with the war.

Thus once again innocent children & entire populations are going to be subjected to the role of helpless guinea pigs, whilst the latest weaponry is yet again tested. Once again residential areas, hospitals, schools, bridges, water supply systems, electric plants, will be targeted by the Cruise missiles, even as the entire civilian & social infrastructure of an entire nation is degraded & destroyed. Once again apache helicopters are going to display their accuracy on civilians, their graves to be marked as collateral damage.

The impending Imperialist-Zionist war on Syria is a threat to the entire region & will soon envelop the entire world into a fratricidal world war, where hundreds of millions of innocents will lose their lives. The very survival of humanity is at stake & thus this is a clarion call for peace.

Enough is enough!!

The overwhelming majority of the people are opposed to the war & are protesting across every nation across the world. The true international community, the comity of nations has spoken out against the attack, but the US imperialist pays no heed due to sheer arrogance & the brute force that it commands.

But this time we are not going to demonstrate & protest in our cities only. We are not going to follow the news of destruction, death & war through the satellite channels any more. We are not ready to sit by & watch a new Iraq and Afghanistan, even as the occupation & destruction of Palestine carries on.

This time, we are going to be there with the people of Syria. This time, for the sake of global peace and justice, we are going to March to Damascus from across the nations of the world, to bring the message of peace & stand in solidarity with the Syrian nation, which is one of the most ancient human civilizations.

Our objective is to resist, to defy & stop the US led war on Syria.

Our objective is to stand witness to the destruction that will be wrecked on this nation & let the world know about the true reality of the genocidal war.

Our objective is to act as a deterrent & protect the civilian & social infrastructure.

Our objective is to stand in solidarity with the Syrian people.

The very fate of humanity is at stake, where the choice is between peace & a global war, a war which will spell certain doom for all of humanity.

Join us from across the world in our collective endeavor for peace!

Join us in the “Global Peace March to Damascus”!

In solidarity

Marinella Corriegga, Vanessa Beeley, Feroze Mithiborwala & Roohulla Rezvi

(For the International Coordination Committee – GPMD)

Contact us via https://www.facebook.com/pages/Global-Peace-March-to-Damascus/597025893693258?fref=ts if you wish to participate.

Thank you

The US Government Stands Revealed to the World as a Collection of War Criminals and Liars

Post author By admin
Post date September 6, 2013

By Paul Craig Roberts

@ Information Clearing House

September 06, 2013 “Information Clearing House – Does the American public have the strength of character to face the fact that the US government stands before the entire world revealed as a collection of war criminals who lie every time that they open their mouth? Will Congress and the American public buy the White House lie that they must support war criminals and liars or “America will lose face”?

The obama regime’s lies are so transparent and blatant that the cautious, diplomatic President Putin of Russia lost his patience and stated the fact that we all already know: John Kerry is a liar. Putin said: “This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them [the Americans], and we assume they are decent people, but he [Kerry] is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36117.htm

When Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent by the criminal bush regime to lie to the UN, Powell and his chief of staff claim that Powell did not know he was lying. It did not occur to the Secretary of State that the White House would send him to the UN to start a war that killed, maimed, and dispossessed millions of Iraqis on the basis of total lies.

The despicable John Kerry knows that he is lying. Here is the American Secretary of State, and obama, the puppet president, knowingly lying to the world. There is not a shred of integrity in the US government. No respect for truth, justice, morality or human life. Here are two people so evil that they want to repeat in Syria what the bush war criminals did in Iraq.

How can the American people and their representatives in Congress tolerate these extraordinary criminals? Why are not obama and John Kerry impeached? The obama regime has every quality of Nazi Germany and Stasi Communist Germany, only that the obama regime is worse. The obama regime spies on the entire world and lies about it. The obama regime is fully engaged in killing people in seven countries, a murderous rampage that not even Hitler attempted.

Whether the criminal obama regime can purchase the collaboration of Congress and the European puppet states in a transparent war crime will soon be decided. The decision will determine the fate of the world.

As for facts, the report released to the UN by the Russian government concludes that the weapons used in chemical attacks in Syria are similar to the weapons in the hands of al-Nusra and are different from the weapons known to be possessed by Syria.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36116.htm

The obama regime has released no evidence to the UN. This is because the criminal regime has no evidence, only made up fairy tales.

If the obama regime had any evidence, the evidence would have been released to British Prime Minister david cameron to enable him to carry the vote of Parliament. In the absence of evidence, cameron had to admit to Parliament that he had no evidence, only a belief that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons. Parliament told Washington’s puppet that the British people were not going to war on the basis of the Prime Minister’s unsubstantiated belief.

Are the American people and the rest of the world just going to stand there, sucking their thumbs, while a new Nazi State rises in Washington?

Congress must vote down the war and make it clear to obama that if he defies

the constitutional power of Congress he will be impeached.

If the US Congress is too corrupt or incompetent to do its duty, the rest of the world must join the UN General Secretary and the President of Russia and declare that unilateral military aggression by the US government is a war crime, and that the war criminal US government will be isolated in the international community. Any of its members caught traveling abroad will be arrested and turned over to the Hague for trial.

How to Stop Obama’s Military Aggression Against Syria

By Paul Craig Roberts

September 06, 2013 “Information Clearing House – Many are asking what can be done to stop the pending US attack on Syria.

Two things can be done.

One is for the US Congress to realize that it does not save America’s face for Congress

to endorse a policy that has been rejected by the rest of the world, including Washington’s closest ally, Great Britain. For Congress to endorse what the UN Secretary General and the President of Russia have made unequivocally clear would be a war crime under international law harms, not rescues, America’s reputation. Doing the wrong thing to save face does not succeed.

In the event that Congress fails to understand the real stakes and votes to support a criminal action, the second thing that can be done to stop the attack is for most other countries in the world–China, India, Japan, Brazil, Australia, Canada, Iran, South Africa, the European and South American countries–to add their clear unequivocal statements to those of the UN General Secretary and President Putin that an American attack on Syria that is not authorized by the UN Security Council is a war crime. Expression by the governments of the world of this truthful statement would make it clear to Washington that it is isolated from the world community. For Obama to proceed in an act of aggression in the face of united opposition would destroy all influence of the US government and make it impossible for any officials of the Obama regime to travel abroad or to conduct business with other governments. What government would conduct business with a war criminal government? It is up to the governments of the world to make it clear to Washington that the US government is not above the law and will be held accountable.

Note the reports from congressional offices of the total lack of any support for Obama’s attack on Syria. The entire world is now watching the obama regime demonstrate its total disregard for the will of the people. The obama regime is showing that American democracy is a hoax. http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/calls-to-congress-244-to-1-against-syria-war/

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.

Customary International Law, Humanitarian Interventions and Syria

Post author By admin
Post date September 6, 2013

By Nikhil Shah

06 September, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

There has been a lot of discussion recently about the U.S. intervention in Syria being justified as a humanitarian intervention with the Kosovo war as a precedent. Many international commentators in the U.S. have stated that as the U.S. is unable to get Security Council authorization for a strike against Syria, international law must ‘evolve’ to allow for a humanitarian intervention to avoid prohibited chemical weapons from being used or from further atrocities from being committed by the Asad regime. All these discussions about humanitarian interventions have conveniently avoided a discussion of whether they have been accepted as part of customary international law. The International Court of Justice Statute defines customary international law in Article 38(1)(b) as “evidence of a general practice accepted as law.” This is generally determined through two factors: the general practice of states and what states have accepted as law. Widespread objections by states to a practice cannot constitute customary international law.

In the case of humanitarian interventions, most nation states have widely rejected humanitarian interventions by other states even where the death toll was higher than the Syrian conflict. Michael Byer, an international legal scholar, in his book War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict has pointed out that in the aftermath of India’s intervention in the civil war between West and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), the international community failed to endorse India’s intervention even though it put an end to the horrific atrocities committed by Pakistan. In his book, Byer states that in the aftermath of India’s intervention, “A Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire and immediate withdrawal of Indian troops from the country was vetoed by the Soviet Union, which at the time was a close ally of India. The UN General Assembly adopted essentially the same resolution in a 104-11 vote with ten abstentions. Most importantly not one country endorsed India’s humanitarian intervention claim, so no opinion juris was expressed in its favor.” [1] Similar, distinguished international law scholar, Luis Henkin, in the book Right v. Might pointed out that military intervention by Vietnam into Cambodia which ended Pol Pot’s atrocities was similarly rejected by the UN General Assembly by a majority vote. [2] Many nation states were very vocal in their objections to both these military interventions carried out on humanitarian grounds. Byer pointed out that during the conflict with Vietnam and Cambodia even Bangladesh, which had benefitted from Indian intervention failed to endorse the Vietnamese intervention. [3] The International Court of Justice in the case, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27), concluded that binding customary law prohibits coercive military intervention in the internal affairs of another state.

During the Kosovo war, two Security Council members, Russia and China publically condemned NATO’s intervention. In addition, Foreign Ministers of 132 countries passed a Declaration within the Group 77 in which they “rejected the so-called right of humanitarian intervention, which has no basis in the UN Charter or in international law.” [4] From these objections it is apparent that these types of humanitarian interventions cannot be considered legal under customary international law.

There are several legal alternatives to circumvent the U.N. charter to stop certain atrocities. The U.N. Charter does not prevent the Security Council from intervening in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of a state when applying enforcement measures under Chapter VII. Of course, any such response would be subject to the veto or failure to obtain majority support in the Council. However, in the event of Security Council veto, authorization for at least voluntary collective action could be sought from the General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace resolution if the crisis is grave enough. [5] Additionally, the UN can create a special international court such as was the case in Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone to prosecute any crimes committed. If a member of the Security Council vetoes the resolution creating the court, then the International Criminal Court (ICC) may also get involved. The ICC statue allows the court to get involved in situations where it determines that the fair and genuine prosecution of war crimes has not taken place at a national level by a country. All of these legal alternatives would be far preferable to the alternatives suggested by the U.S. which find no justifications in international law.

Nikhil Shah is an attorney in Los Angeles, CA

[1] Michael Byers, War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict , (Grove Press, 2007) pg. 94.

[2] Louis Henkin, Stanley Hoffmann and Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Right v. Might: International Law and the Use of Force , (Council on Foreign Relations, 1991), page 42.

[3] Supra note 1 at page 95. [

4] O. Corten, ‘Un Renouveau du ‘Droit d’Inter vention humanitaire’ ? Vrais Problèmes, Fausses Solutions’, 41 Rev. trim. dr. h. 2000, p. 698.

[5] G.A. Res. 377(V)A, U.N. GAOR, 5th Sess., Supp. No. 20, at 10, U.N. Doc. A/1775 (1950).

Who Really Used Chemical Weapons?

Post author By admin
Post date September 5, 2013

By Dr. Elias Akleh

05 September, 2013

@Countercurrents.org

The realities of the American humanitarian hypocrisy, political terrorism and warmongering have been clearly demonstrated in Obama’s August 31 st speech about his decision to punish the Syrian government for its alleged and unsubstantiated use of chemical weapons calling it the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21 st century. Obama is ignoring the fact that the US has the worst documented record of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons attacks throughout the whole human history.

The pro-Zionist US officials, the likes of Jewish Vice President Joe Biden, Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, have been launching for some time a political terror campaign threatening to hit Syria, a UN country member, in violation of the international law, accusing it of slaughtering its own citizens and using chemical weapons without any definite evidence. This is an international crime since their threats are disrupting world peace and world economy.

Obama’s claim that “the US presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack (chemical weapons attack of August 21 st ) on its own people” does not stand any ground since it lacks any credible evidence. Speaking to PBS NewsHour Wednesday night (8/28) Obama stressed that the US has definitively “concluded” the Assad regime used chemical weapons. Yet he did not present any evidence to substantiate this conclusion. The trove of evidence, including blood, tissue, and soil samples, the US, Britain and France had supplied to the UN as a prove that the Syrian troops used nerve agent sarin, was unverifiable and criticized by independent European experts, who questioned the nature of the physical evidence due to the secrecy of how it was collected and analyzed ( Washington Post )

It was revealed by the Guardian that “the bulk of evidence proving the Assad regime’s deployment of chemical weapons … has been provided by Israeli military intelligence…” According to the Guardian “Senior Israeli security officials arrived in Washington on Monday (8/26) to share the latest results of intelligence-gathering, and to review the Syrian crisis with national security adviser Susan Rice.”

In its August 27 th edition the Jewish-owned The Times of Israel has confirmed that Israeli intelligence has been behind the reports of Syria’s alleged chemical attack. It also revealed that “Israeli intelligence seen as central to US case against Syria” , and confirmed the Guardian’s report that “a large delegation of senior Israeli security officials is currently in Washington holding talks with top administration officials led by US National Security Adviser Susan Rice.” This senior Israeli military team is reported to consist of Israeli national security adviser Yaakov Amidror, senior Israeli defense minister Major General Amos Gilad, the head of military planning directorate Nimrod Sheffer, and the head of Israeli military intelligence research branch General Itai Brun.

This so-called evidence incriminating Syrian government has been supplied by proven Israeli liars, who had submitted in the past the fabricated evidence of Niger uranium for Iraq’s nuclear weapons and of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that led to Iraq’s invasion and devastation.

There are many evidences and proofs that the American/Israeli/British/French/Turkish/Qatari/Saudi financed, trained and armed anti-Syrian terrorists have used chemical weapons against Syrian troops as well as against civilians in an attempt to frame the Syrian government and to give the UNSC justification to authorize attacks on Syria.

It was reported by the Lebanese al-Akhbar newspaper that the chemical materials used by anti-Syrian terrorist in Khan al-Assal area in Aleppo last march was transferred by two Qatari officers; Major Fahd Saeed al-Hajiri and Captain Faleh Bin Khalid al-Tamimi, across Turkey with the knowledge of Ankara. The two Qatari officials were reported killed by a suicide bombing in Mogadishu, Somalia, while recruiting terrorist fighters to send to Syria.

The BBC World News had reported that “Just like Iraq: US arms butchers who use chemical weapons on civilians, and then tries to frame someone else” . In its video report the UN human rights investigator Carla del Ponte confirmed that Syrian militants had used the deadly nerve agent sarin. In another interview with Swiss radio del Ponte reiterated that “According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas” Sarin is a powerful neurotoxin developed by Nazi scientists in the 1930s. It was sold to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein by Donald Rumsfeld to be used against Iranian troops and Kurdish residents of the village of Halabja in 1988.

Even Israeli newspapers, such as Haaretz, had reported that “Jihadists, not Assad, apparently behind reported chemical attack in Syria” according to intelligence reports. The analysis states that “The rebels in Syria that the US has been arming and otherwise supporting are Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood. Unfortunately, history is repeating. Specifically, the American government gave chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein … which he then used on Iran and on his own Kurdish population. The American government attempted to blame Iran for the chemical weapons attack on Iraq’s Kurds … just as the US is trying to blame the Syrian government for the attacks in Syrian.”

When the Turkish-based anti-Syrian terrorists suffered a lot of casualties last May and were not satisfied with the level of support they were receiving from Turkey and from Western countries, they resorted to false flag terrorist bombing against Turkish citizens like the twin car bombing in Reyhanli and the sarin chemical gas attack on Adana attempting to incite more anti-Syrian sentiment and to provide justification for the US/NATO military intervention against Syria. While investigating the two bombings Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas in the homes of suspected anti-Syrian terrorists from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front, ready to be deployed to Syria.

The US accused Syrian regime of using chemical weapons against Ghouta area, a suburb in Damascus, in August 21 st . Veteranstoday reported that Syrian rebels as well as residents of the area, who were interviewed by the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders, indicated that Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan had provided Chemical weapons to an al-Qaeda-linked armed group, who were responsible for carrying out the chemical attack.

The Syrian government had many times exposed the fact, with evidence, that the anti-Syrian terrorists had used chemical weapons several times against Syrian troops as well as against civilians. Last July the Syrian Ambassador to the UN, Bashar Ja’afari, had reported to the UN and to reporters that a cache of 280 containers filled with toxic chemicals such as ethylene glycol, ethanolaminem diethanolamine and triethanolamine, “enough to destroy a city” was discovered in northwestern Syrian left by the terrorists in their tunnels. Syrian officials had accused the terrorists of using these chemicals against Syrian troops in Khan el- Assal in a March attack outside of the northern city of Aleppo causing the death of 25 and injuring 86 victims.

In August, Syrian state TV broadcast footage of soldiers finding chemical agents in rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar. Containers of these chemical weapons were stamped with “Made in Saudi Arabia” and others were manufactured by German company for Qatar. The Syrian state TV had reported that the troops had also discovered similar chemical lab in the city of Banyas in July 7 th .

The Syrian government was the first to call on the UN to investigate the use of chemical weapons. It requested to include Russian inspectors within the team for fear of western bias similar to what had happened in Iraq. But the US had sabotaged this effort and kept postponing it until chemical evidence is lost. The US and its allies were afraid of the revelation that they are supporting and arming terrorist groups who used chemical weapons. After five months of the attack and on the insistence of the Syrian government the inspectors were sent to investigate.

On the second day of the arrival of the inspecting team the terrorists used chemical weapons again trying to frame it on the Syrian government. The western countries hastened to accuse the Syrian government without waiting for the analysis reports of the investigation team. The Syrian regime is not that stupid to commit such a suicide by using chemical weapons on the next day of the inspectors’ arrival, knowing very well that the anti-Syrian western/Gulf states alliance is waiting for such an excuse to attack Syria. Besides Syrian troops were gaining ground on the terrorist and therefore had no reason to use chemical weapons.

In his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations committee on Tuesday (9/3) the Zionist Jewish American Secretary of State John Kerry ( original family name is Kohn ) demanded the US to strike Syria and not to be “spectators of the slaughter” taking place on the ground. His assertions that the US has definite evidence that Syria had used chemical weapons against its people remind me of Colin Powell’s assertions in the UN of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The slaughter he is talking about is not perpetrated by the Syrian regime, which is fighting terrorism in its own country, rather slaughter is perpetrated by the al-Qaeda linked terrorist groups armed and financed by the American administration itself. The massacres and war crimes of these terrorists had been very well documented by many organizations and third parties. They include mass execution of helpless citizens and captured soldiers , the rape of women and young boys and girls, the destruction of mosques and churches , the ethnic cleansing of sectarian groups , the burning alive of prisoners , the flesh-eating of corpses, the enlisting of children as soldiers, and many other war crimes, the latest, this Monday September 2 nd , was the mass beheading of 24 Kurdish bus passengers in Ras al-Ain including an infant before setting the bus on fire. These massacres were taking place during the last two years. Why didn’t Kerry (Kohn) remember them then? Why Now? What had suddenly awakened his sleeping conscious?

The use of chemical weapons is a heinous crime that deserves punishment as Zionist Vise President Biden has stated. The US has the worst documented record of using chemical and nuclear weapons that are considered the ugliest war crimes against humans and against mother earth. White phosphorous, another chemical weapon, and depleted uranium are more devastating weapons than sarin gas. Sarin gas kills individuals within few minutes or hours, while white phosphorous burns people through the flesh to the bare bones inflicting severe pain, and the DU deforms whole generations of people who would suffer for the rest of their lives.

Since the beginning of WWI the US has used the Puerto Rican island Vieques as a testing field for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons causing devastation to the inhabitants and to the environment. It was also reported that American troops were used as test subjects similar to what happened in nuclear testing in New Mexico in 1945.

The US had extensively used the chemical weapon of Agent Orange in its war in Vietnam devastating people as well as the environment. Generations of Vietnamese are still suffering from the effects of this weapon.

The US is the only country who used nuclear weapons causing a holocaust in Japan, whose ill effects are still suffered by Japanese new generations. Nuclear weapons in the form of depleted uranium were also extensively used in Iraq causing severe deformation and suffering to generations to come. The US had also used chemical weapons against civilians in Iraq in 2004 as can be evidenced here , here , here , here , here , and here . The documentary “ Fallujah: the hidden massacre” specifically examines the American use of white phosphorous chemical weapon against civilian residents of Fallujah in November 2004.

The US has financed trained and armed anti-Syrian terrorists and eventually backed a plan to launch chemical weapons attacks on Syrian civilians in order to frame Syrian in chemical weapons attack to spur international military action against the country. A leaked email exchange between two senior officials at the British-based military contractor Britam Defense; Britam’s Business Development Director David Goulding and company founder Philip Doughty, exposes a Qatari proposed deal, “approved by Washington” , for the company to deliver chemical weapons to anti-Syrian terrorist.

Israel, too, has a long record, since its inception, of using biological, chemical and nuclear weapons against Palestinians and against its Arab neighbors. According to the memoir of Moshe Dayan’s son, Assi, published in Yediot, Israel has ordered the use of chemical and biological weapons, namely typhus against Palestinians in 1948. In 1967 I, myself, witnessed the Israeli fighter planes dropping napalm bombs on Jordanian troops on the outskirt of Jerusalem a couple of miles away from my own home.

Israel used chemical and biological weapons against Palestinians most prominently in March 2001, October 2003, and June 2004 as investigated by these reports . Israel also used poison gas attacks against unarmed Palestinian civilians in Gaza in February 12, 2001. Israel had also used white phosphorous shells during Operation Cast Lead in 2008/2009 against densely populated areas in Gaza as reported by Human Rights Watch . Israel had also used DU in its attack against Lebanon in 2006, and in its latest raids against Syrian military installation last July.

Israel maintains one of the most advanced biological and chemical weapons facility in the world at Ness Ziona . In September 1997 Israeli Mossad agents attempted to assassinate Hamas leader Khaled Meshal by spraying chemical agents in his ears. In January 2011 Mossad agents, again, assassinated in Qatar the Palestinian activist Mahmoud al-Mabhouh by injecting him with chemical weapon before choking him. Israel is highly suspected of using nuclear poison in assassinating Yasser Arafat.

In March 2003 the BBC television presented the documentary “Israel’s Secret Weapon” investigating Israel’s development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

We should also mention here that Turkey had also used chemical weapons against its Kurdish citizens. In 1999 when head of Turkish Armed Forces, Necdet Ozel, was still the General Commander of the Gendarmerie, he was not only responsible for the death, torture and violence in the Kurdish region of Turkey, but he also ordered the use of chemical weapons against Kurdish fighters near the Ballikaya Village in Silopi, according to Turkish Radical newspaper.

When Ozel was appointed the head of Turkish Armed Forces in 2011 five members of parliament from Germany’s Die Linke party held a press conference in August of same year to condemn his appointment. Yet two months after Ozel’s appointment, 37 Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) fighters were killed in Kazan Valley of the Hakkari province during an operation by the Turkish Armed Forces. Presstv reported that accusations of use of chemical weapons during the operation prompted a European delegation to visit the area to investigate.

The Zionist-occupied American administration did not demand to bomb Israel or Turkey (or any other country that we did not mention here) as punishment for their use of chemical weapons. The overall picture, that we have to keep in mind, is that the US main goal is to protect the Zionist project of Greater Israel in the Middle East to become the center of the new world order by destroying every Arab resistance to this project, even if this requires the destruction of every Middle Eastern country in the process.

This Zionized American administration, with its Peace Prize winner President; Barak Hussein Obama, does not have the morality neither the legality to bomb Syria.

Dr. Elias Akleh is an Arab writer from a Palestinian descent, born in the town of Beit-Jala. His family was first evicted from Haifa after the “Nakba” of 1948 war during the first Zionist occupation of part of Palestine, then from Beitj-Jala after the “Nakseh” of 1967 war when Zionist Israeli military expansion occupied the rest of all Palestine. He is living now in exile in the US and publish articles on the web.

US risks making Syria another Iraq

Post author By admin
Post date September 3, 2013

Joseph Camilleri

Published: September 3, 2013 – 9:55AM

The case for intervention in Syria is strangely reminiscent of the Iraq War. The planned US strike looks as if it rests on the same dubious logic. It could well have the same tragic consequences.

The British government has discovered the hard way that many of its people understand the troubling parallel. Not surprisingly, last Thursday the House of Commons firmly resisted government attempts to railroad it into giving the green light for a military strike.

Uncannily, Prime Minister David Cameron was following in the footsteps of Tony Blair. Like Blair he pressed the Obama administration to delay a strike until United Nations inspectors completed their investigation and until an attempt was made to get the necessary support from the UN Security Council.

Cameron’s failure to persuade enough of his parliamentary colleagues of the wisdom of this approach has given the international community breathing space and the US time to think again.

In deciding what to do about Syria the White House and the US Congress would do well to recall the prelude to the US invasion of Iraq in March 2013. The issue then as now was weapons of mass destruction.

A UN inspection team, headed by Hans Blix, was in Iraq investigating the situation but had yet to complete its investigation.

Having sought but failed to get authorisation from the UN Security Council, the Bush administration decided there was no point waiting any longer. The time had come to strike.

To gain international support for its decision the US produced evidence suggesting Saddam Hussein’s regime was developing – and possibly intending to use – weapons of mass destruction. Most experts and governments – and world public opinion – remained unconvinced.

And so it was that the US set out on a military adventure, based at best on shaky legal grounds.

Getting rid of Saddam proved the easy part. No WMD were found. But what was meant to be a limited intervention turned out to be a protracted one that left the US demoralised and Iraq in ruins.

Prolonged sectarian violence, which continues to this day, has generated a destabilising dynamic that now engulfs much of the Middle East.

Ten years later the Obama administration, with the support of a few European governments, is on the verge of embarking on a similarly ill-conceived expedition.

Last time it was Britain that bolstered an otherwise feeble coalition. This time the hope is that France will come to the party. Several Arab countries, including Egypt and Jordan, have already indicated they oppose military intervention.

US Secretary of State John Kerry claims to have conclusive evidence that the Assad government has launched a chemical attack on its people, and argues that such actions must not go unpunished. Obama has spoken of a limited strike not aimed at regime change.

But what is the reality? The indications are that a chemical weapons attack did take place in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. But we know little about the chemicals used – though sarin gas has been mentioned frequently – the means of delivery or their provenance.

The US intelligence report released on Friday speaks of more than 1400 casualties – but this and other details given are asserted rather than demonstrated.

As for the sources of the evidence we are simply referred to general categories, much of it available on the public record, and generally regarded as less than conclusive.

As for motive, US policymakers remain remarkably silent. Why should Assad decide to use chemical weapons at a time when his forces are making considerable gains against the rebels? And why should he do it at the moment that UN inspectors are inside the country and within 10 minutes’ reach of the site of destruction?

And the possibility of one or other of the rebel groups acquiring such weapons has been all too easily dismissed. It is only three months since Carla del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, announced she had “strong concrete suspicions” that rebels had used the nerve gas sarin.

The sarin attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995, which killed 13 people, severely injured 50 and caused temporary vision problems for nearly a thousand others, was the work of a small unaided cult group. One of the well organised and internationally supported rebel groups would, one assumes, be capable of inflicting much greater havoc.

With evidence that is still less than conclusive, Obama appears on the verge of repeating the mistakes of his predecessor – assuming he is able to persuade Congress to vote for the proposed strike.

If he does go ahead, he will, like Bush, be doing so on dubious legal grounds. Even if it is established that the Syrian army did carry out the chemical attack, the US is not under direct military threat – it is not therefore acting in self-defence. And, in the absence of UN Security Council authorisation, which will not be forthcoming, the “responsibility to protect” principle does not allow third parties to take matters into their own hands.

In any case, why not wait, at least for the UN inspection team to complete its report? Why discredit the credibility of its investigation before it has had a chance to submit its report.

The Syrian government claims it has given the UN inspectors clear evidence that it was not responsible for the attack. Why not wait to see what the inspectors make of such claims?

If it goes ahead, a US military strike on Syria will be the ninth Western military intervention in a Muslim country in 15 years. The gains thus far for peace and security have been negligible and the costs for the authors and victims of intervention nothing short of horrendous.

A US military foray into Syria will reopen Pandora’s box. What will the US do if, as seems likely, the planned “limited strike” fails to achieve its objective of intimidating Assad? In all probability, the US and its allies will be tempted to take additional military action, with incalculable consequences for Syria, and for regional and global security.

As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Pope Francis have stated in clear language, only a politically negotiated solution offers any prospect of peace in Syria and the reconstruction of that war-torn country.

An Australian government wishing to exercise the limited leverage afforded by membership of the Security Council would do well to press for this option in the difficult days and weeks ahead

Joseph Camilleri is Emeritus Professor, La Trobe University and founding director of the Centre for Dialogue.

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/us-risks-making-syria-another-iraq-20130902-2t0ya.html

A Saudi conspiracy?

Post author By admin
Post date September 2, 2013

By Prem Shankar Jha,

September 2, 2013, DHNs:

The US and France are about to unleash an attack upon Syria that will open the way for 10,000 to 20,000 jihadis who form a ‘floating army of Islam’ to invade Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt.

None of this seems to bother the Obama administration, because its purpose in destroying Syria, if we are to believe him and his Secretary of State, is to uphold a moral principle no matter what its political cost. This is not realpolitik, simply necessary punishment. But shouldn’t punishment follow conviction, and shouldn’t conviction be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt ? Even as the US readies for war two other far more plausible explanations have emerged for the alleged gas attack. The first is what the Syrian government and many others are asserting — that the rebels launched it to force Nato into the attack on Assad. The second is that it was an accident — a horrible consequence of a Machiavellian plan that went wrong.

The 1,300 word US intelligence assessment that the White House on August 30 added little to what he had said on the August 26. Its main contribution was to flesh out Assad’s possible motive for such a heinous act. “The regime has failed to clear dozens of Damascus neighbourhoods of opposition elements, including neighbourhoods targeted on August 21, despite employing nearly all of its conventional weapons systems. We assess that the regime’s frustration ….may have contributed to its decision. ”

On the surface this is not implausible. Dale Gavlak, an Amman-based correspondent of the Associated Press who speaks fluent Arabic, and is one of the very few western journalists to have visited the site of the atrocity, reported that the rebels told him they had built tunnels in which they hid from bombardments, stored their weapons and moved from one building to another, but would sleep in mosques and peoples’ house at night. So trying to penetrate the tunnels with gas would be a sound military, even though politically suicidal, strategy.

The assessment also describes the attack in greater detail. It “began at 2:30 am local time and within the next four hours there were thousands of social media reports from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area. Among “multiple streams of intelligence” it specifically noted “the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media”.

Anomalies revealed

The report does not explain what it means by ‘detection’, or how many launches but the rebels uploaded at least one video which, they claimed, captured the launch of the chemical rocket. Repeated viewings of this video, however, reveal several anomalies:

This video was shot at around 1.00 am. That meant that there was someone on a balcony looking towards the launch site at this unearthly hour with his phone, or a camera in hand. Could this be mere coincidence ?

The video starts four seconds before the rocket launch. That suggests the man knew when it would happen and had started shooting at the appointed time.

The video reveals that the man also knew the exact spot from which the rocket would rise, for when it rose, it was only slightly to the left of centre of his screen. By reflex, he corrected the camera angle to get it into the centre of the frame.

The time the sound took to follow the flash was between six and seven seconds. That placed the cameraman almost exactly a mile away from the launch site — an optimum safe distance for filming.

Contrary to the White House claim, the rocket launch does not seem to have been a part of a salvo. The video is 34 seconds long and there is absolute silence the rest of the time.

Foreknowledge, if confirmed, will be conclusive proof that it was the rebels who launched this particular rocket. But there is another possible explanation. In the same article (August 29) Dale Gavlak and a young Jordanian colleague Yahya Ababneh, reported “from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the gas attack.”

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta. Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion”.

The conspiracy between the Saudi secret service, headed by Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and the CIA has already been thoroughly exposed by the Wall Street Journal (August 25). Gavlak’s story therefore opens up a third possibility: that the intense Syrian bombardment of the area (which began on August 19) penetrated a tunnel that was being used by Saudi backed jihadis to store chemical weapons supplied by Prince Bandar’s men. This would explain the panic heard in a high Syrian army official’s voice in the allegedly intercepted phone call that is the most concrete evidence that US sources have (unofficially) revealed.

Saudi supply of chemical weapons is not as far-fetched as it sounds, because on December 29 the London Daily Mail had published the hacked emails of a British ‘security contracting’ firm, Britam defence, which revealed that Qatar had offered it an ‘enormous’ sum of money to obtain a chemical warhead from Russian stock, ‘similar to what Syria has’, to supply to the rebels.

These disclosures show that there are at least two other explanations for the gas attack fatalities that are far more plausible than the one the Americans have chosen to believe.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/354924/a-saudi-conspiracy.html

Obama And Global Intifada

Post author By admin
Post date August 31, 2013

By Prof. Mazin Qumsiyeh

31 August, 2013

@ popular- resistance.blogspot.com

It is not difficult to understand the power-game being played in Syria and no decent human being should stand on the sideline in a conflict that will shape the future of our humanity. The global intifada (uprising) is spreading and it is rejecting war and hegemony and now even President Obama is reeling under pressure. It is an earthquake that is shaking the very foundation of post-WWII world order (what used to be referred to mistakenly as “the American century” when it was really the Zionist century). The British, French and American public long exposed to Zionist propaganda have joined the revolution. Politicians started to panic especially after the British parliament voted against war. This was the first major and stunning defeat to the US/Israel hegemony of British politics since WWII.

US President Obama was stuck after the British vote and the clear solid position of Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Russia, China and even overwhelming public opposion in the US despite the attempt to whip frenzy by Israel media stooges like Wolf Blitzer of CNN. Obama was also stunned by what his own intelligence services told him about potential repercussions of a military strike on Syria especially without UN mandate and without US public support. These repercussions included presence of strong defensive and offensive capabilities in Syria. There was intelligence leaks about downed “test” incursion. But repercussions discussed include strengthening rather than weakening Iran (after all, this is what happened after Iraq!). President Obama spent countless hours talking with his Zionist and non-Zionist advisers and key government officials (there are no anti-Zionists in his group). Faced with no good option in trying to maintain Israel/US hegemony, Obama decided not to decide and shift the debate to Congress to buy time. Now it is up to the American people who overwhelmingly reject war on Syria to stand up and pressure the Israeli-occupied US congress to do what is good for US citizens not what they perceive to be good for Zionism.

The Russian president spoke of a number of key points that he called “common sense” while Obama just lied. Russia and the US had agreed to the parameters of a political conference in which all sides were invited. Russia talked the Syrian government into attending this Geneva conference (even though most Syrians opposed a dialogue with Western backed thugs and Western backed mercenaries). Under Israeli pressure, the US administration started to rethink their agreement and their stooges announced they cannot join discussion with their opponents unless their opponents are defeated and surrender! Syrian government forces then gained momentum against the Western and Israeli backed extremist rebels and cornered them in very few pockets. Syria was opening up and international inspectors were coming. Putin rightly points out that under such conditions: who has the benefit of using chemical weapons: the Syrian government or the rebels trying to provide excuses for Western defeat of a government they could not defeat themselves? It is common sense. Syria, Russia and China and all humanity ask logically: if the US has proof that the Syrian government used chemical weapons to attack its own people (including its own soldiers), then give us the proof. They rightly ask why the mandate of UN inspectors was limited to only find out if they were used but not to explore who might have used them. After the lies Israeli and US intelligence concocted to go the war on Iraq, they now seem rather reluctant to manufacture evidence again.

Obama lied about many other things and perhaps the only part of his speech that touched on reality is when he admitted that he is part of a system and that he cannot make a decision by himself. The military-industrial complex is now too entrenched in US politics for any president to challenge it. In fact, no one would be allowed to become president if they were to have even a slight chance of potential to challenge it. So Obama says: I am with the machine that was in place before I came to power and will always be with the machine. By this he showed that his campaign retorhic about “change” was just what American call “bull-shit”. That is why Obama is stuck. When President Obama paid tribute to Martin Luther King Jr just a week ago, he was being hypocritical. King had famously said that the US is the greatest purveyor of violence on earth. The US public can and must push Obama and Congress to change just like they pushed previous politicians to get civil rights, women’s right to vote, ending the war on Vietnam, ending US support for Apartheid South Africa and more.

The fact remains that the most destabilizing country in the Middle East is the one that receives unconditional billions of US taxpayer money. It is the state that caused millions of refugees and that introduced weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons to the Middle East. It is the state that used white phosphorous and depleted uranium on civilian populations. It is the state that started five wars and that lobbied successfully to ge the US to go to wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan that caused millions of lives lost and trillions of US taxpayer money spent. It is the state that fits all the criteria discussed in the International convention against the crimes of apartheid and racial discrimination.

The fact is that this latest Israel-inspired conflict is not about form of government in Syria. The US/Israel backed dictators in a dozen Arab countries are far, far worse than Bashar Assad of Syria. The fact remains that this is a clear attempt by the US through ist secretary of state under influence from the Zionist lobby and with the support of puppet rulers in the Arab world to liquidate the Palestinian cause. The parameters of this are clear: liquidating Palestinian rights like the right of refugees to return to their homes and lands, limited Palestinian autonomy that Palestinian puppets can call a state in parts of the occupied West Bank in confederation with Jordan. This will ensure the “Jewishness” of the apartheid state of Israel. Gaza would be relegated to Egyptian administration or continuing to manage it as one Israeli official said “by putting Gazan’s on a diet”. To get this program through, resistance must be made to look futile. Israel set-up a high-level ministerial committee to fight boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. Israel told the US that the Hizballah-Syria-Iran axis must be destroyed. Potentially developing Arab countries will be broken up into sectarian and other conflicts (divide and conquer) beginning with Iraq. They thought Syria is the next weak link that can be removed in the same way that Libya was disposed of. They underestimated the level of rejection to their demonic schemes of divide and conquer.

What happened actually is the opposite. A strengthening block evolved starting in Iran, Iraq and Palestine and spreading globally. The counter-revolutionary efforts are failing and in some cases getting the opposite effect of unifying and strengthening resistance. The attempts by some to ignite sectarian strife in Lebanon failed miserably. The positions of China, Russia, Venezuela and other governments came to reflect the international consensus of resisting US/Israeli hegemony. No human being and no government can claim neutrality. Neutrality is rather meaningless when there is such an evel attempt to dominate the world for the benefit of just a few people at the expense of millions. The vast majority of people in all countries (Palestine, USA, Britain, France, Russia, China etc) stand on one side of this against the Zionist attempts to drag the world into yet one more destructive conflict. Clearly a win here is a win for Palestine and a win for all people of the world.

Before we talk about democracy in Syria, we must respect the fact that the vast majority of people on earth insist that Western governments respect their own citizens’ will instead of trying to smother them or shape them with propaganda or bypass them to serve the Israel lobby. Before we talk about democracy in Syria, we must end apartheid in Israel, and end the repressive regimes supported by the US especially those in the oil producing Arab countries. Perhaps this is the reason gulf states are pouring billions to fund murderers in the so called “Syrian rebels” (most of them turn out to be mercenaries). It is the same reason that Netanyahu and Obama are both very nervous. When the US/Israel program of liquidating the Palestinian cause and destroying Syria fails (and it will), all bets are off. People stand up to tyranny and stand up for human rights and that is why governments (US, Israeli, Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc) are starting to panic. They do have good reason to worry because people power is coming and each of us must be part of it. We ask you to join the global intifada which will liberate oppressors and oppressed alike and create a better world for all.

Commons Syria vote: a significant moment, but what next?

Post author By admin
Post date August 30, 2013

By Simon Barrow

30^th August, 2013

@http://www.ekklesia.co.uk

Having followed some six hours of the House of Commons debate on Syria yesterday (29 August), while channeling news, commentary and media requests for Ekklesia, it was evident to me that concern, questioning and scepticism were the dominant feelings being expressed.

Yes, there were tub-thumping speeches for military intervention by the likes of Sir Malcolm Rifkind and some of the less thoughtful back benchers on the government side. There were some strong declarations in the opposite direction from the left. But by far the most powerful interventions were by people like James Arbuthnot and Julian Lewis, Conservatives who could hardly be accused of being anti-war liberals, raising a host of questions about the propriety, legality, regional consequences and strategic sense of directly attacking the Assad regime.

David Cameron gave a confident performance, but it was style over substance: his case for moving down the military street – one that had been proceeding at breakneck speed only a few days ago – proved weak, uncertain and contradictory. He appealed to humanitarian motives (without explaining how Tomahawk cruise missiles are going to stop the cycle of atrocities), he talked about limited objectives (without spelling out what they might be), he invoked deterrence (it sounded more like wishful thinking), he spoke of “degrading chemical weapons capability” (without mentioning that a frontal attack on such facilities is out of the question) … and he endlessly reiterated how the sceptics were making “valid points”, how there were “no guarantees” about outcomes, and how “we cannot be 100 per cent certain” about who commissioned what happened around Damascus last week.

Opposition leader Ed Milliband’s message was for a pause, for proof and for perspective. But his speech was lacklustre, and his amendment offered no real alternative (unlike the rejected one by articulate Green MP Caroline Lucas). The Liberal Democrats vacillated to- and fro-, as usual. The SNP, Plaid and – tellingly – the Democratic Unionists made strong calls for restraint.

Mr Lewis set the bar necessarily high. First, was Assad responsible for the recent chemical attack “beyond reasonable doubt”? (It is hardly appropriate to go to war because it is “highly likely” that someone has done something), and he required that a military response should be based on specifiable, limited and realisable positive outcomes (the glaring hole in the government’s case).

The BBC also had a lacklustre day. It passed over some of the most telling interventions in its coverage, with political correspondent Nick Robinson falling in with the mistaken consensus that, despite moans, the government would narrowly win. The BBC website at first headlined Mr Cameron’s speech, ‘UK makes the case for Syria action’. This was entirely wrong. Polls that very morning had shown that the country was not just divided but mostly opposed, and the Prime Minister is not, in fact, the UK.

Meanwhile, Allegra Stratton, political editor of BBC Two’s Newsnight programme, seemed to think that the most powerful speeches had been pro- ones on the Tory side. One wondered which debate she had watched. A heart-rending account of a (non-chemical) attack on a Syrian school was shown immediately after reporting of the Commons debate, with Jeremy Paxman asking whether the House vote might have gone differently if MPs had seen it. In saying this, he and the Corporation’s frontline functionaries completely missed the central point: thoughtful parliamentarians were not unpersuaded of the brutality of the Assad regime. They were unpersuaded that military escalation would stop these appalling atrocities (or those of the jihadist wing of the armed opposition, for that matter), and they were concerned that missile strikes might actually make things worse for ordinary people in Syria and in the MENA region. That is why they voted as they did.

This was not an endorsement of Labour’s feeble amendment. That was lost too. The egg on Mr Miliband’s face is only less noticeable because there is so much more on Mr Cameron’s (and Mr Clegg’s, after a weak showing on Radio 4 Today in the morning, and an unpersuasive summing up). No, this vote was a severe question mark against the received tendency for Britain to act in the slipstream of the US (Mr Kerry’s response has made it clear, as had State Department spokeswomen Marie Harf (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/18914), that there is little concern for “other countries’ foreign policy”), and against the presumption that ‘action’ and ‘military action’ are necessarily synonymous.

That last point is vital. Almost all of those backing military intervention in Syria on the government benches, or among Lib Dem acolytes, addressed their remarks as if the only choice was and is between bombing, or else sitting around idly twiddling our thumbs. Labour MP Chris Bryant called the falsity of that one, but it was thereafter repeated again and again, indicating that the pro-military action camp was not listening and not learning. They were stuck in a mindset overshadowed by guns and bombs.

Mr Cameron knows that it is best not to kick yourself when you are down, and and he also knows how to play a populist card. He quickly responded to the unexpected turn of events with the “Parliament and the people have spoken” line — leaving Defence Secretary Philip Hammond, appallingly, to demean those who had voted against bombing as giving “succour” to the Syrian dictatorship, while Michael Gove stormed around like a spoilt child, calling Tories who had voted the “wrong way” a “disgrace, disgrace, disgrace.”

Mr Hammond also suggested that disillusion over the misrepresentations behind Mr Blair’s Iraq war (rightly termed a political failure, not just an intelligence one, by one Conservative MP) had “poisoned the well” of public opinion. Equating a desire not to go to war recklessly with “poison” is a potent illustration of just how far removed from humane reality some of the advocates of military strikes are in this matter, and why their arguments were robustly scrutinised and ultimately rejected last night.

But does this vote presage a larger change in UK or western policy? It is significant, certainly. But in the immediate aftermath of unexpected political events, exaggerations about change can take hold too rapidly. Over the next few days, the status quo ante will do its best to reassert itself in the shape of more political manoeuvring by the pro-intervention camp. Every development in Syria will be accompanied by an “I told you so” (presupposing that a missile attack would put it all right). If the US goes ahead with an armed response despite the UK vote and lack of endorsement from the UN Security Council, which is probable but not certain, we will be told that the Commons vote “made no difference”. The line will be pursued that “this was really a vote against the Iraq war, not a Syrian one”. And so on.

Despite such smokescreens, there should be no doubting the importance of this Commons vote, however. It shows that it is possible for a parliament to resist the drums of war (for the first time in living memory). It exposes, one way or another, the archaism of the ‘Royal prerogative’. And most important of all, it opens up the opportunity for a different course and a different policy to be developed.

That is the real challenge. Voting against a bad option is one thing. Constructing a better way forward is quite another, and it requires a continuing shift in temperament, perspective and political aptitude to achieve. A ‘steep learning curve’, in the current jargon. For the gaping void between inaction and military adventurism needs urgently to be filled. We now require moves towards, and backing for, a regional conference (more likely a series of them) in search of political and diplomatic solutions – ones coming from the Middle East itself, not ones imposed from outside. Russia and Iran need to be engaged seriously, despite the difficulties and compromises that involves. The International Criminal Court must be activated more fully in relation to war crimes and atrocities committed by the government and by asymetric armed opposition groups. Further action is needed on the MENA refugee crisis, and on supporting Syrian refugees in Britain (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/18949). Demilitarisation and negotiation, rather than sabre-rattling and arms sales, has to be taken seriously as the real realpolitik. The idea that those with the biggest arsenals (or vetos) should automatically be the world’s moral arbiters has to be ditched, in favour of radical reform within our international institutions and processes.

Meanwhile, civic organisations, faith groups and NGOs need to go on pressing the case for nonviolent methods of conflict transformation and intervention, no matter how far removed they may seem from current perceptions of what reality is. There are alternatives. A huge amount of work has gone into them over the past 25 years. But these different ways of responding require a renewed political imagination, a wider civil influence, a different calculation of the odds, and a much larger, more adaptable skill-set to bring to them to fruition. Getting a parliament to vote against militarism as the “in principle” answer to calumny and tragedy is one thing. Stopping that deadly ghost from re-entering the building by introducing new thinking and action into the equation is a much bigger task.

‘War On Chemical Weapons’: Obama Traps Himself Into Syrian Combat

Post author By admin
Post date August 29, 2013

By Pepe Escobar

29 August, 2013

@ Russia Today

Only a few days before the 12th anniversary of 9/11, Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama might be fighting side by side with… al-Qaeda, as he was foolish enough to be trapped by his own rhetoric on Syria.

The dogs of war bark and the caravan… is Tomahawked. Amid out-of-control hysteria, the proverbial “unnamed US officials” spin like demented centrifuges.

Obama’s “kinetic operation” on Syria will fall out of the sky “in the next few days.” It will be “limited,” lasting only “three days,” or “no more than two days.” It will “send a message,” a “short, sharp attack” against less than 50 sites on a list of targets.

But then long-range bombers may “possibly” join the Tomahawk barrage, and all bets are off.

A proverbial, anonymous “senior administration official” even stressed the “desire to get it done before the president leaves for Russia next week.”

That’s it; we bomb a country like dialing a pizza delivery, and then we go to a G20 summit with the world’s emerging powers hosted by no less than Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin. Just because we need to prove that the president of the United States meant what he said: chemical weapons are a red line. And to hell who’s responsible for deploying them.

I’m not making this up. This is the core of White House spokesman Jay Carney’s message, when he said, in faultless Newspeak: “The options that are being considered do not contain within them a regime change focus.”

So the administration of “constitutional lawyer” Barack Obama is mulling how to attack Syria, bypassing the UN Security Council – which will veto, via Russia and China, the new resolution proposed by the UK; bypassing always-docile NATO; and with 91 percent of Americans against it, just to send an (explosive) political message. And all because a US president was foolish enough to get trapped in his own rhetoric.

Remember Iraq?

Call it a 10th anniversary special: it’s Iraq 2003 all over again.

The attack dog presumably in charge of the Obama administration war brigade is Secretary of State John Kerry. Here, Gareth Porter thoroughly debunks Kerry’s game – and lies. No wonder Kerry’s “Powell moment” has gone viral – as in “deceived” Colin Powell in his infamous February 2003 UN presentation telling the world Saddam Hussein had tons of WMDs. Unlike Powell though, Kerry knows exactly what he’s doing.

The White House promises a “revelation” from above this Thursday, “above” being the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Yet the heart of the matter is that the UN chemical inspectors have had no time to identify what sort of chemical weapon is involved in the Ghouta attack (sarin or something else); where it was manufactured; how it was delivered (possibly by DIY rockets); and last but not least, who did it.

It’s imperative to remember that Russia presented an 80-page report last month to the UN Security Council detailing serious evidence about the “rebels” being behind the March 19 attack in Khan al-Assal. That’s why the inspectors are in Syria now. So the Obama administration is lying when it insists that it’s “too late” for the inspectors to investigate the latest attack.

This time though, Russia may not have collected enough evidence; it’s too early. Otherwise Ambassador Vitaly Churkin would be talking to the press, like he did last month.

These investigations take time. And the results cannot be fixed around the policy.

‘Fixing’ the facts

Let’s follow a track that is much more plausible than Washington’s official narrative.

Israeli intelligence has leaked to a Kuwaiti newspaper that Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Benny Gantz handed over to his good pal US Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey “documents and pictures” as evidence of the Syrian government’s culpability. Arguably, this will be the core of the White House “revelation” this Thursday.

The evidence points to rockets launched from a “Syrian army post near Damascus” – which Finnish researcher Petri Krohn, currently conducting a meticulous investigation, conclusively placed as occupied by the “rebels” since June.

Add to it the Defense Ministry in Baghdad, one month ago, dismantling an Al-Qaeda cell in Iraq that was planning to launch attacks in Iraq and “abroad,” as in Syria, using chemical weapons.

According to Iraqi national security advisor Faleh al-Fayyadh, Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) would have free access to these chemicals.

So here we have all the elements of a sophisticated false flag operation. Jabhat al-Nusra jihadis, mostly mercenaries, connected to al-Qaeda in Iraq, but with no connection with Syrian civilians, including women and children, use an area formerly occupied by the Syrian army to launch a chemical attack – perhaps using chlorine – under the cover of a Syrian offensive (admitted by the government). The offensive was codenamed “Operation City Shield.” Damascus had solid intel about scores of “rebels” trained by the CIA and the Saudis in Jordan converging to the area and planning a massive attack on the capital.

Then there is Saudi intel tsar Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush’s threat to President Putin in their notorious four-hour meeting earlier this month: The military solution is the only one left for Syria. Bandar, a master of the dark arts, is in charge of “winning” Syria to the House of Saud by all means available, chemical or otherwise.

Any serious UN chemical weapons inspector would be following this lead as we speak. They might not – because of US political pressure (as in “It’s too late”). They might not because Washington wants the inspections over barely after they started – as in a lightning quick remix, once again, of Iraq 2003; fixing the facts around the policy.

Deconstructing Obama’s game

So we have to come back to the policy – as in “we bomb because we want to.” What exactly is Obama’s game?

Tel Aviv’s Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, as I reported earlier, badly wants Washington to attack Syria’s chemical weapons sites – regardless of possible, horrible, “collateral damage”, not to mention the possibility of al-Qaeda-linked jihadi outfits taking control of some of them.

Israel’s agenda is Syria bleeding in total chaos for the foreseeable future. Which is not the same as the House of Saud’s agenda: regime change. Which is not the same as the Obama administration’s agenda. At face value, it’s regime change, but Plan B calls for “leveling the playing field,” and that melts into the Israeli agenda.

As for President Obama, establishing a hazy “red line” with no context, just to appease clueless but influential neo-cons, not to mention the liberal hawks/humanitarian interventionists that surround him, and without regard for the consequences; this has to be construed as criminal irresponsibility.

Granted, Obama’s IQ in theory would equip him to know that yet another war of choice in the Middle East is the last thing he needs. At the same time, when we look at his record, we know he doesn’t have the balls to confront the awesome War Party Hydra – also featuring the mini-coalition of the willing, ranging from nostalgic opportunists such as Britain and France to cold-blooded actors pursuing their specific agendas, like Israel and the House of Saud.

And all this after Obama announced he would weaponize the “rebels” – in fact that’s been going on for ages, now fully supervised by Bandar Bush. The infinitely fractious rebel gangs have fractioned even further into sub-gangs of looters and assassins, with the more organized jihadis promising that after the Ghouta attack, they will kill any Alawite in sight.

Obama knows these are bit players; the only factor that can deliver another one of his red lines – “Assad must go” – is a US military attack. Crucially, Assad also knows it; that’s why the notion that Assad would sanction a chemical weapons attack is beyond ludicrous.

So if we take the Obama administration at their word – at our own peril – they couldn’t care less about who deployed chemical weapons. Yet at the same time they don’t want regime change. They want a bombing to fulfill a “moral obligation,” and to boost Washington’s horrendously shattered “credibility.” American exceptionalists are even carping on “purity of intent” – as if purity was inherent to cold-blooded, hardcore geopolitical power play.

Both US and Israel assume they have perfect intel – as in knowing exactly where all of Syria’s chemical weapons are stored. Yet if anything could go wrong, it will. We all thought that the “war on terror” could not be topped as a meaningless concept. Wrong: meet the “war on chemical weapons.”

Amid all the hysteria, we’re not even talking about a counterpunch from Damascus itself, Hezbollah, Iran or, crucially, Russia. Moscow and Tehran are playing the chessboard like ninjas – as they clearly see the possibility of Washington being bogged down in a net of its own. All it takes would be a single Onyx SS-N-25, also known as Super-Sunburn SS-22, the fastest hypersonic anti-shipping missile in the world – which is part of Syria’s arsenal – to sink a US warship. Then what? Shock and Awe all over again?

So if we take the White House at its word, this “limited” kinetic whatever will end in a couple of days. Or it could spiral into something more hellish than Iraq 2003. And then, the clincher; only a few days before the 12th anniversary of 9/11, Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama is fighting side by side with… al-Qaeda. Why? Because, together, they can.

Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times/Hong Kong, an analyst for RT and TomDispatch, and a frequent contributor to websites and radio shows ranging from the US to East Asia.