Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Chemical Weapons Used in Syria by the Rebels!

*******
Fake WMD “Intelligence” and Orwellian Double-speak : Washington Is Insane
Global Research, June 17, 2013
In the 21st century the two hundred year-old propaganda that the American people control their government has been completely shattered. Both the Bush and Obama regimes have made it unmistakenly clear that the American people don’t even influence, much less control, the government.
As far as Washington is concerned, the people are nothing but chaff in the wind.
Polls demonstrate that 65% of the US population opposes US intervention in Syria. Despite this clear indication of the people’s will, the Obama regime is ramping up a propaganda case for more arming of Washington’s mercenaries sent to overthrow the secular Syrian government and for a “no-fly zone” over Syria, which, if Libya is the example, means US or NATO aircraft attacking the Syrian army on the ground, thus serving as the air force of Washington’s imported mercenaries, euphemistically called “the Syrian rebels.”
Washington declared some time ago that the “red line” that would bring Syria under Washington’s military attack was the Assad government’s use of chemical weapons of mass destruction against Washington’s mercenaries. Once this announcement was made, everyone with a brain immediately knew that Washington would fabricate false intelligence that Assad had used chemical weapons, just as Washington presented to the United Nations the intentional lie via Secretary of State Colin Powell that Saddam Hussein in Iraq had dangerous weapons of mass destruction.
Remember National Security Advisor Condi Rice’s image of a “mushroom cloud over American cities?” Propagandistic lies were Washington’s orders of the day.
And they still are. Now Washington has fabricated the false intelligence, and president obama has announced it with a straight face, that Syria’s Assad has used sarin gas on several occasions and that between 100 and 150 “of his own people,” a euphemism for the US supplied foreign mercenaries, have been killed by the weapon of mass destruction.
Think about that for a minute. As unfortunate as is any death from war, is 100-150 deaths “mass destruction?” According to low-ball estimates, the US-sponsored foreign mercenary invasion of Syria has cost 93,000 lives, of which 150 deaths amounts to0.0016%. If we round up, Washington’s 150 deaths comes to two-thousands of one percent.
In other words, 99.998% of the deaths did not cross the “red line.” But the 0.002 (rounded up) percent did.
Yes, I know. Washington’s position makes no sense. But when has it ever made any sense?
Let’s stretch our minds just a tiny bit farther. Assad knows about Washington’s “red line.” It has been repeated over and over in order to create in the minds of the distracted American public that there is a real, valid reason for attacking Syria. Why would Assad use the proscribed weapons of mass destruction in order to kill a measly 100-150 mercenaries when his army is mopping up the US mercenaries without the use of gas and when Assad knows that the use of gas brings in the US military against him?
As the Russian government made clear, Washington’s accusation is not believable. No informed person could possibly believe it. No doubt, many Americans wearing patriotism on their sleeves will fall for Washington’s latest lie, but no one else in the world will. Even Washington’s NATO puppets calling for attacking Syria know that the justification for the attack is a lie. For the NATO puppets, Washington’s money overwhelms integrity, for which the rewards are low.
The Russians certainly know that Washington is lying. The Russian Foreign Minister Larov said:
“The [Assad] government, as the opposition is saying openly, is enjoying military success on the ground. The [Assad] regime isn’t driven to the wall. What sense is there for the regime to use chemical arms–especially in such small amounts.”
Larov is a relatively civilized person in the role of Russia’s main diplomat. However, other Russian officials can be more pointed in their dismissal of Washington’s latest blatant lies. Yury Ushakov, an aide to Russian President Putin said: “The Americans tried to present us with information on the use of chemical weapons by the [Assad] regime, but frankly we thought that it was not convincing. We wouldn’t like to invoke references to [the infamous lies o] Secretary of State Powell [at the UN alleging Iraqi WMD], but the facts don’t look convincing in our eyes.” Aleksey Pushkov, the chairman of the Russian Duma’s Foreign Affairs Committee, cut to the chase.
“The data about Assad’s use of chemical weapons is fabricated by the same facility that made up the lies about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Obama is walking George W. Bush’s path.”
Here in America no one will ever hear straight talk like this from the US presstitutes.
Orwellian double-speak is now the language of the United States government. Secretary of State john kerry condemned Assad for harming “peace talks” while the US arms its Syrian mercenaries.
Washington’s double-speak is now obvious to the world. Not only Assad, but also the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and every US puppet state which includes all of NATO and Japan, are fully aware that Washington is again lying through its teeth. The Russians, Chinese, and Iranians are trying to avoid confrontation with Washington, as war with the modern nuclear weapons would destroy all life on planet earth. What is striking is that despite 24/7 brainwashing by the presstitutes, a large majority of the American population opposes obama’s war on Syria.
This is good news. It means more Americans are developing the ability to think independently of the lies Washington feeds to them.
What the neocon nazis, the bush/obama regime, and the presstitute media have made clear is that Washington is going to push its agenda of world hegemony to the point of starting World War III, which, of course, means the end of life on earth.
Russia and China, either one of which can destroy the United States, have learned that the US government is a liar and cannot be trusted. The Libyan “no-fly” policy to which Russia and China agreed turned out to be a NATO air attack on the Libyan army so that the CIA-sponsored mercenaries could prevail.
Russia and China, having learned their lesson, are protesting Washington’s assault on Syria that Washington pretends is a “civil war.” If Syria falls, Russia and China know that Iran is next.
Iran is Russia’s underbelly, and for China Iran is 20% of its energy imports. Both Russian and Chinese governments know that after Iran falls, they are next. There is no other explanation for Washington surrounding Russia with missile bases and surrounding China with naval and air bases.
Both Russia and China are now preparing for the war that they see as inevitable. Washington’s crazed, demented drive for world hegemony is bringing unsuspecting Americans up against two countries with hydrogen bombs whose combined population is five times the US population. In such a conflict everyone dies.
Considering the utterly insane government ruling in Washington, if human life exists in 2020, it will be a miracle. All the worry about future Medicare and Social Security deficits is meaningless. There will be no one here to collect the benefits.
Copyright © 2013 Global Research
*******
Look at the age of the people in the photo. Incredible. This photo put a lot of the problems in the world in perspective. It also put the global connectivity in perspective. Everyone knows what happens to everyone else these days. Whether it’s for major news events like the Boston Marathon bombings or for education technology and education in general, the world is a lot smaller than we all ever thought.
*******
The Forbidden Truth: The U.S. is Channeling Chemical Weapons to Al Qaeda in Syria, Obama is a Liar and a Terrorist
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, June 14, 2013
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-forbidden-truth-the-u-s-is-channelling-chemical-weapons-to-al-qaeda-in-syria-obama-is-a-liar-and-a-terrorist/5339004
Is president Obama setting the stage for a “humanitarian intervention” by casually accusing the Syrian president of killing his own people?
“Following a deliberative review, our intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year,”
White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said in a statement. “Our intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information.”

“Obama has give notice to President Bashar Al Assad of ‘enormous consequences’ for having crossed the ‘red line’” by allegedly using chemical weapons.
Money and Weapons for Al QaedaA WMD saga modeled on Iraq based on fabricated evidence is unfolding. The Western media in chorus relentlessly accuse the Syrian government of premeditated mass-murder, calling upon the “international community” to come to the rescue of the Syrian people.“Syria crosses ‘red line’ on chemical weapons. How will Obama respond?”The Syrian “opposition” is calling upon the US and its allies to implement “a no fly zone”.In turn, the White House has acknowledged that the red line “has been crossed”, while emphasizing that the US and its allies will “increase the scope and scale of assistance” to the rebels.The chemical weapons pretext is being used to justify further military aid to the rebels, which in large part have been decimated by Syrian government forces.
These defeated opposition rebel forces –largely composed of the Al Qaeda affiliated Al Nusrah– are supported by Turkey, Israel, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
US-NATO-Israel have lost the ground war. Their Al Nusrah Front fighters, which constitute the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance, cannot, under any circumstances, be rapidly rebuilt through a renewed flow of US-NATO military aid.
The Obama administration is in an impasse: its foot soldiers have been defeated. A “no fly zone” would, at this stage, be a risky proposition given Syria’s air defense system, which includes the Russian S-300 SAM system.
*******
Al Nusra Front “Freedom fighters”
*******
US-NATO Are Training “Opposition” Rebels in the Use of Chemical WeaponsThe chemical weapons accusations are fabricated. In a bitter irony, the evidence amply confirms that the chemical weapons are being used not by Syrian government forces but by the US supported Al Qaeda rebels.
In a twisted logic whereby realities are turned upside down, the Syrian government is being accused of the atrocities committed by the US sponsored Al Qaeda affiliated rebels.
The Western media is feeding disinformation into the news chain, casually refuting its own news reports. Confirmed by various sources including CNN, the Western military alliance has not only made chemical weapons available to the Al Nusrah Front, it has also sent in military contractors and special forces to train the rebels:
The training [in chemical weapons], which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.
The nationality of the trainers was not disclosed, though the officials cautioned against assuming all are American.
(CNN, December 09, 2012, emphasis added
While the news report does not confirm the identity of the defense contractors, the official statements suggest a close contractual relationship to the Pentagon: The US decision to hire unaccountable defense contractors to train Syrian rebels to handle stockpiles of chemical weapons seems dangerously irresponsible in the extreme, especially considering how inept Washington has so far been at making sure only trustworthy, secular rebels – to the extent they exist – receive their aid and the weapons that allies in the Gulf Arab states have been providing.
It also feeds accusations that the Syrian Foreign Ministry recently made that the US is working to frame the Syrian regime as having used or prepared for chemical warfare.
“What raises concerns about this news circulated by the media is our serious fear that some of the countries backing terrorism and terrorists might provide the armed terrorist groups with chemical weapons and claim that it was the Syrian government that used the weapons,” the letters said.”( John Glaser, Us Defense Contractors Training Syrian Rebels, Antiwar.com, December 10, 2012, emphasis addded)
Lets be under no illusion. This is not a rebel training exercise in non-proliferation of chemical weapons.While president Obama accuses Bashar Al Assad, the US-NATO military alliance is channeling chemical weapons to Al Nusrah, a terrorist organization on the State Department blacklist.In all likelihood, the training of Al Nusrah rebels in the use of chemical weapons was undertaken by private military contractors.
The United Nations Independent Mission confirms that Rebel Forces Are in Possession of Sarin Nerve Gas
While Washington points its finger at president Bashar al Assad, a United Nations independent commission of inquiry confirmed in May 2013 that the rebels rather than the government have chemical weapons in their possession and are using sarin nerve against the civilian population:
U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.'

The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte. [see image right]
“Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,” Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.
“This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,” she added,
speaking in Italian. (“U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator,” Chicago Tribune, May, 5 2013, emphasis added)
Turkish Police Report: US Supported Al Nusrah Terrorists Possess Chemical WeaponsAccording to Turkey’s state media agency Zaman, the Turkish General Directorate of Security (Emniyet Genel Müdürlüğü):
[Police have] ceased 2 kg of sarin gas in the city of Adana in the early hours of yesterday morning. The chemical weapons were in the possession of Al Nusra terrorists believed to have been heading for Syria.
Sarin gas is a colourless, odorless substance which is extremely difficult to detect. The gas is banned under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.
The EGM [Turkish Police] identified 12 members of the AL Nusra terrorist cell and also ceased fire arms and digital equipment. This is the second major official confirmation of the use of chemical weapons by Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria after UN inspector Carla Del Ponte’s recent statement confirming the use of chemical weapons by the Western-backed terrorists in Syria.
The Turkish police are currently conducting further investigations into the operations of Al-Qaeda linked groups in Turkey. (For further details see Gearóid Ó Colmáin, Turkish Police find Chemical Weapons in the Possession of Al Nusra Terrorists heading for Syria, Global Research.ca, May 30, 2013)
Who has Crossed the “Red Line”? Barack Obama and John Kerry are Supporting a Terrorist Organization on the State Department ListWhat is unfolding is a diabolical scenario –which is an integral part of US military planning– namely a situation where opposition terrorists of the al Nusrah Front advised by Western defense contractors are actually in possession of chemical weapons.
The West claims that it is coming to the rescue of the Syrian people, whose lives are allegedly threatened by Bashar Al Assad.
Obama has not only “Crossed the Red Line”, he is supporting Al Qaeda. He is a Liar and a Terrorist.
The forbidden truth, which the Western media has failed to reveal, is that the US-NATO- Israel military alliance is not only supporting the Al Nusrah Front, it is also making chemical weapons available to its proxy “opposition” rebel forces.
The broader issue is: Who is a threat to the Syrian people? Syria’s President Bashar al Assad or America’s President Barack Obama, who has ordered the recruitment and training of terrorist forces which are on the US State Department blacklist.
In a bitter irony, according to the US State Department Bureau of Counter-terrorism, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, not to mention Senator John McCain could be held responsible for “knowingly providing, or attempting or conspiring to provide, material support or resources to, or engaging in transactions with, al-Nusrah Front”:
The Department of State has amended the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 designations of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI) to include the following new aliases: al-Nusrah Front, Jabhat al-Nusrah, Jabhet al-Nusra, The Victory Front, and Al-Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant. The consequences of adding al-Nusrah Front as a new alias for AQI include a prohibition against knowingly providing, or attempting or conspiring to provide, material support or resources to, or engaging in transactions with, al-Nusrah Front, and the freezing of all property and interests in property of the organization that are in the United States, or come within the United States or the control of U.S. persons. (emphasis added)
The State Department advisory acknowledges that from November 2011 to December 2012:
“Al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed. ….The advisory also confirms that “the United States takes this action [of blacklisting the Al Nusrah Front] in the context of our overall support for the Syrian people. … ”
What it fails to mention is that the Obama administration continues to channel money and weapons to Al Nusrah in blatant defiance of US counter-terrorism legislation.
Washington’s “Go-Between”: General Salem Idriss Washington’s “Go Between” is the Head of the FSA Supreme Military Council Brigadier General Salem Idriss [right], who is permanent liaison with the Al Nusrah military commanders.
Secretary of State John Kerry meets representatives of the Syrian opposition. US officials meet with General Idriss. The latter, acting on behalf of the Pentagon, channels money and weapons to the terrorists. This model of supporting Al Nusra is similar to that implemented in Afghanistan in the 1980s whereby the Pakistani military government of General Zia Ul Haq would funnel weapons to jihadist “Freedom Fighters” in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war.
US support to terrorists is always sent through a trusted intermediary. According to an Obama administration official: “While the United States may have leverage with General Idris, it has no ability to control some jihadists — like the Nusra Front, which is also fighting Syrian government forces.” (New York Times, May 23, 2013)
John McCain Enters Syria, Mingles with US Sponsored Terrorists
Meanwhile, Senator John McCain “entered Syria [early June] from the country’s border with Turkey and stayed there for several hours … McCain met with assembled leaders of Free Syrian Army units in both Turkey and Syria.” See image below John McCain together with General Salem Idriss)
The Contradictory Role of the United Nations Security Council
In late May 2013, the UN Security Council added Al Nusrah to the UNSC “Al-Qaida Sanctions List.” Yet at the same time, the Security Council decision casually dismissed the fact, amply documented, that three permanent members of the Council, namely Britain, France and the US continue to provide military aid to the Jabbat Al Nusrah Front, in defiance of international law and the UN Charter.
ANNEX 1
THE TERRORIST DESIGNATION OF AL NUSRAH BY THE US STATE DEPARTMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesperson December 11, 2012
STATEMENT BY VICTORIA NULAND, SPOKESPERSON

http://translations.state.gov/st/english/texttrans/2012/12/20121211139845.html#ixzz2WDKARO9n
Terrorist Designations of the al-Nusrah Front as an Alias for al-Qa’ida in Iraq The Department of State has amended the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 designations of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI) to include the following new aliases: al-Nusrah Front, Jabhat al-Nusrah, Jabhet al-Nusra, The Victory Front, and Al-Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant. The Department of State previously designated AQI as an FTO under the Immigration and Nationality Act and as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under E.O. 13224 on October 15, 2004. The consequences of adding al-Nusrah Front as a new alias for AQI include a prohibition against knowingly providing, or attempting or conspiring to provide, material support or resources to, or engaging in transactions with, al-Nusrah Front, and the freezing of all property and interests in property of the organization that are in the United States, or come within the United States or the control of U.S. persons.
Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed. Through these attacks, al-Nusrah has sought to portray itself as part of the legitimate Syrian opposition while it is, in fact, an attempt by AQI to hijack the struggles of the Syrian people for its own malign purposes. AQI emir Abu Du’a is in control of both AQI and al-Nusrah. Abu Du’a was designated by the State Department under E.O. 13224 on October 3, 2011, and by the United Nations under UN Security Council Resolution 1267 on October 5, 2011. Abu Du’a also issues strategic guidance to al-Nusrah’s emir, Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani, and tasked him to begin operations in Syria.
The United States takes this action in the context of our overall support for the Syrian people. We have provided approximately $50 million in non-lethal assistance to the unarmed civilian opposition and nearly $200 million in humanitarian assistance to those affected by the violence in Syria. The violent, sectarian vision of al-Nusrah is at odds with the aspirations of the Syrian people, including the overwhelming majority of the Syrian opposition, who seek a free, democratic, and inclusive Syria and have made clear their desire for a government that respects and advances national unity, dignity, human rights, and equal protection under the law – regardless of faith, ethnicity, or gender. Extremism and terrorist ideology have no place in a post-Asad Syria, and all responsible Syrians should speak out against al-Qa’ida and other extremist elements. By opting for the use of force against its own people, the Asad regime has created the circumstances that attract the violent extremists of al Qa’ida, who seek to exploit civil strife for their own purposes. The sooner the political transition to a post-Asad Syria begins, the better it will be for the Syrian people and the region.
ANNEX 2UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc11019.doc.htm
Security Council Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee Amends Entry of One Entity on Its Sanctions ListOn 30 May 2013, the Security Council Committee pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011) concerning Al-Qaida and associated individuals and entities approved the amendments specified with underline in the entry below on its Al-Qaida Sanctions List of individuals and entities subject to the assets freeze, travel ban and arms embargo set out in paragraph 1 of Security Council resolution 2083 (2012) adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
B. Entities and other groups and undertakings associated with Al-Qaida
QE.J.115.04. Name:
AL-QAIDA IN IRAQ
Name (original script): القاعده في العراق A.k.a.: a) AQI b) al-Tawhid c) the Monotheism and Jihad Group d) Qaida of the Jihad in the Land of the Two Rivers e) Al-Qaida of Jihad in the Land of the Two Rivers f) The Organization of Jihad’s Base in the Country of the Two Rivers g) The Organization Base of Jihad/Country of the Two Rivers h) The Organization Base of Jihad/Mesopotamia i) Tanzim Qa’idat Al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn j) Tanzeem Qa’idat al Jihad/Bilad al Raafidaini k) Jama’at Al-Tawhid Wa’al-Jihad l) JTJ m) Islamic State of Iraq n) ISI o) al-Zarqawi network p)Jabhat al Nusrah q) Jabhet al-Nusra r) Al-Nusrah Front s) The Victory Front t) Al-Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant ( ﺍﻠﺷﺍﻢ ﻷﻫﻝ ﺍﻟﻨﺻﺮﺓ ﺠﺑﻬﺔ ) u) Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant F.k.a.: na Address: na Listed on: 18 Oct. 2004 (amended on 2 Dec. 2004, 5 Mar. 2009, 13 Dec. 2011, 30 May 2013) Other information: Review pursuant to Security Council resolution 1822 (2008) was concluded on 25 May 2010.
The Committee’s Al-Qaida Sanctions List is updated regularly on the basis of relevant information provided by Member States and international and regional organizations. This is the thirteenth update of the List in 2013. An updated List is accessible on the Committee’s website at the following URL: http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/aq_sanctions_list.shtml.
ANNEX 3 TRANSCRIPT OF STATE DEPARTMENT PRESS BRIEFING CONCERNING AL NUSRAH
Senior Administration Officials on Terrorist Designations of the al-Nusrah Front as an Alias for al-Qaida in Iraq
Special Briefing Senior Administration Officials
Via Teleconference
Washington, DC
December 11, 2012
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/12/201797.htm
MODERATOR: Good morning everyone, and thank you for joining this call this morning. Today, we’re going to have a background call with three senior Administration officials. We have – Senior Administration Official One will be [Senior Administration Official One]. Senior Administration Official Number Two is [Senior Administration Official Two]. And then [Senior Administration Official Three] is our Senior Administration Official Three.
So they’re going to talk about some of the designations and then take a few questions. So we’ll start with our Senior Administration Official Number One, over to you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Okay. The State Department has formally amended al-Qaida in Iraq as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and Executive Order 13224 designations to include the alias al-Nusrah Front. Al-Qaida in Iraq, or AQI, was first designated by the State Department in October of 2004. By way of background, in 2011, the AQI emir, Abu Du’a, tasked Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani to establish al-Nusrah Front in Syria. Abu Du’a provides strategic guidance to al-Jawlani, al-Nusrah’s leader.
Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed hundreds of attacks, nearly 600, in major city centers across Syria in which numerous innocent Syrians have been injured and killed. AQI has dispatched money, people, and materiel from Iraq to Syria over the past year to attack Syrian forces both on its own initiative and at the request of AQI’s facilitation network members in Syria.
Al-Nusrah Front has sought to portray itself as part of a legitimate Syrian opposition, but today’s actions are intended to expose them and make clear that the United States believes that al-Nusrah’s extremist ideology has no role in a post-Assad Syria. Among the consequences of today’s actions is a prohibition against knowingly providing or attempting or conspiring to provide material support or resources to or engaging in transactions with al-Nusrah Front.
It’s important to note that the designation of al-Nusrah Front does not mean we have changed our view regarding Assad as the leader of a state that has been a designated state sponsor of terrorism since 1979. Today, we’ve also sanctioned pro-Assad regime elements, and my colleague from the Treasury Department will speak more specifically to these sanctions and to the designation of two key members of al-Nusrah Front. Over.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Good morning. This is [Senior Administration Official Two] from the Treasury Department. Thank you. Today, we have taken a number of actions alongside and in coordination with our colleagues at the State Department in order to continue and intensify our pressure against the Assad regime, its affiliated militias, and to take action against terrorist leaders who are active in Syria.
Since the beginning of the uprising in Syria, we have been working to powerfully and swiftly intensify sanctions against the Assad regime, to isolate the Syrian Government, hasten Assad’s fall, and to encourage those within the Syrian Government to abandon the regime’s campaign of violence. We have also used targeted sanctions to expose and combat the interventions of Iran as well as terrorist groups like Hezbollah which have been actively supporting Assad’s regime.
The actions we took today fall into basically two buckets: actions against two militias that have been perpetrating violence in coordination with and in affiliation with the Assad government, and then actions in concert with the al-Nusrah action that the State Department has announced to target two main leaders of the Nusrah Front. I’ll take those in turn.
Since the beginning of the unrest in Syria, the Shabiha have operated as a direct action arm of the Government of Syria and its security services, with Shabiha units providing support to units from designated security services, such as the Syrian Air Force intelligence and Syrian military intelligence, that have been among the most active in the violence. Ayman Jaber is currently a Shabiha leader responsible for directing Shabiha operations in Latakia, Syria on behalf of the Syrian regime and is working with the Ministry of Defense and other senior regime officials, including Maher al-Assad, to procure weapons for the Shabiha units under his command.
His brother, who we are also designating today, Mohammad Jaber, arranged for the transportation of pro-Syrian regime thugs from the Shabiha to Turkey in order to attack anti-Syrian regime persons there.
The other pro-regime militia that we are sanctioning today is Jaysh al-Sha’bi, which operates throughout Syria and has been particularly active in Damascus and Aleppo where the militia has supplemented Syrian Government forces operations against the opposition. Jaysh al-Sha’bi was created and continues to be funded and maintained with support from Iran and Hezbollah, and it is modeled after the Iranian Basij militia, which has proven so deadly and effective at using violence and intimidation to suppress political dissent in Iraq.
In addition to our actions against the regime proxies, Treasury is targeting Nusrah Front leaders Maysar Ali Musa Abdallah al-Juburi and Anas Hasan Khattab. Al-Juburi is the religious and military commander for the Nusrah Front in eastern Syria. He moved from Mosul, Iraq to Syria in late 2011 with the objectives of transferring al-Qaida’s ideology and techniques to Syria and forming likeminded terrorist groups.
Khattab was involved with the formation of the Nusrah Front for AQI and has communicated with AQI leadership to coordinate the movement of funds and weapons for the Nusrah Front. Khattab also works closely with al-Qaida-linked facilitators to provide logistical support to the Nusrah Front. All of these actions are a part of our ongoing efforts to target actors within Syria working to frustrate the desires of the Syrian people to end the violence and to realize a representative government. We will continue to target the thugs that have worked with the Assad militias, just as we will the terrorists who try to cloak themselves in the flag of the legitimate opposition.
And with that, I’ll turn it over to [Senior Administration Official Three].
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: Thank you very much. The steps that we are announcing today in Washington really are the result of growing American concern about the escalation of violence in Syria.
First of all, let’s be clear: The Syrian regime started this violence by brutalizing what was a peaceful protest movement. We all know that. We all understand that. And the Syrian regime has used aircraft, it has used artillery, and it appears that it has even used missile to attack the Syrian population and to attack what was a peaceful protest movement. And we have considered the Syrian regime to be a State Sponsor of Terrorism since 1979. We’ve taken additional steps against the regime in terms of sanctions and in terms of isolating the Syrian regime and putting pressure on it internationally and economically.
Today’s actions against the Shabiha, against the Jaysh al-Sha’bi – the People’s Army as they call it – against people like Ayman Jaber and Mohammad Jaber are both a recognition of the violence that the regime is inflicting on the Syrian people, and then it also repeats and emphasizes our message that the Syrian regime needs to stop that, and Assad needs to step aside and a political transition needs to begin.
But when we think about that political transition, extremist groups that are denouncing the government and attacking the government, they themselves, as extremists, have no role in that transition and in a future Syria. The protest movement that started out peacefully that I mentioned – it started out peacefully in February and March of 2011 – has always called for a tolerant Syrian society which is free, which respects the human rights of all Syrians equally. That was in the national vision statement that the Syrian opposition published in Cairo on July 3rd, 2012 – that is to say about five months ago, five and half months ago – and in other statements which Syrian opposition figures have announced. But Nusrah, as [Senior Administration Official One] was just talking about, and as [Senior Administration Official Two] was saying, the Nusrah Front is directly linked to al-Qaida in Iraq, and we know what its ideology is.
And we know that the Nusrah Front has denounced the Syrian Opposition Coalition’s founding, that it rejects the vision statement that was issued in Cairo, that I mentioned, of a tolerant society, and insists that instead of elections there must be an Islamic state imposed upon Syria. And the Nusrah Front, extremists like it, have no place in the future of the Syrian society, in a tolerant society. And so we have made clear that Nusrah also is an extremist organization and it has to be isolated and that more moderate forces, more forces that believe in tolerance as a model for Syrian society, they need to carry the work of the political transition forward.
I think I’ll stop there.
MODERATOR: Thank you. At this time, Operator, we’ll be ready to take questions for our three senior Administration officials.
OPERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to ask a question, please press * followed by 1 on your touchtone phone. Once again, for any questions, please press *1 at this time. One moment, please.
And we’ll go to the line of Ilhan Tanir with Turkish Daily. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Thanks so much. Quick couple questions. One of them is: How is the reaction so far from the Syrian – other Syrian opposition groups? As far as we can see, there is a lot of complaining about this decision on Twitter and social networks that – argument is while the U.S. Government has been talking, Nusrah Front is coming here to fight, and basically they are fighting with the Assad regime, and die.
Can you give us what kind of reaction and see if the Nusrah Front is fighting with the Assad regime? I just don’t understand what kind of message is that you mentioned. The message is to Assad regime to leave, but you are labeling his organization as a terrorist organization while they are fighting with the Assad regime. Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: I guess I’ll take my first stab at that. I don’t know if my colleagues want to join in later. I will let the Syrian opposition representatives speak for themselves. I don’t need to speak on their behalf. It’s not proper. What I would say is that the United States and other Friends of the Syrian People have long acknowledged the Syrian people’s right to self-defense and to defend themselves against the brutality of the Syrian regime. There is no question about that, and we have been saying that for many, many months.
However, acknowledging the right of self-defense is not itself a justification for extremism. And I want to underline here that many people in Syria are afraid of extremism. Many people in Syria are not fighting for an extremist cause. Rather, they are fighting to have their dignity respected, they are fighting to have their human rights respected, and they do not want – and the United States and the Friends of Syria do not want one terrorist regime to be replaced by a new extremist model. Rather, it is important that Syrians who believe in tolerance, Syrians who believe in the respect for the human rights of all Syrian citizens be the ones who move the political transition forward.
And so there is no contradiction. Instead, what is important is to understand that extremists fighting the Assad regime are still extremists, and they have no place in the political transition that will come. Bashar al-Assad will depart. If he departs today, it’s better than if he departs tomorrow. There is too much bloodshed. But extremists should not dictate that political transition.
OPERATOR: You do have a question from the line of Michael Gordon with The New York Times. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes, this is primarily for [Senior Administration Official Three], but the others can chime in. Could you please explain what practical, tangible effect this edict on the Nusrah Front might have? It stated that it would prohibit American or American entities from providing support. Are there any such Americans who are providing support? And if not, how will this affect those who have been providing support who are probably sympathetic with this group?
And lastly, tomorrow there’ll be a meeting in Morocco of various opposition groups and Friends of Syria. Do any members of this political opposition gathering in Morocco have influence or control over armed opposition elements in Syria today?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: Michael, I’m going to let my colleagues answer the question about the practical and tangible effects because they’re more involved in the immediate implementation of the measures. But on the – with respect to your last question about members of the Syrian opposition who will come to Morocco for the Friends of the Syrian People meeting, what I would say on that is that there are not members of armed groups represented at this meeting that I am aware of.
However, there are people here who definitely coordinate with armed groups, with the Free Syrian Army, and who have regular contact with elements of the Free Syrian Army. That is not to say they are giving instructions to it; they do not. It is not to say that they are telling it what to do or what to say in the international field; they are not. In a sense, the Free Syrian Army is a separate organization from, for example, the Syrian National Council or the Syrian Opposition Coalition. They are separate organizations. But there certainly are communications between the two, and there are members of the Syrian political opposition here in Morocco who contact and talk to people from the Free Syrian Army.
I’m – I’ll turn it over to my colleagues to talk about the practical and tangible effects and your other question.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Okay, so I think I need to go next. This is [Senior Administration Official One]. Michael, as we said at the top, the technical impact of the – adding al-Nusrah Front as a new alias for AQI, includes this prohibition on knowingly provided material support and the freezing of all property and interest in property in the United States or that come within the United States under the control of U.S. persons. So there are some practical sanctioning effects of the designation, and it can be a powerful tool over the long run, for law enforcement purposes.
But I think one of the primary effects of this designation is to really expose the presence of al-Nusrah Front, an organization that has been established by the leadership of AQI in Syria, and its activities there.
SENIOAR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: If I could just add – this is [Senior Administration Official Two] – exposing the operations and the identities of al-Nusrah’s leaders is a key objective here. So I just wanted to underscore that. Having these individuals on a blacklist has a practical impact beyond just the direct implications of U.S. law. It means for individuals who have demonstrated that they desire to travel back and forth across borders, actions like these in the past have frustrated that ability, have exposed them to being interdicted and detained.
It also means that as al-Nusrah tries to wrap itself in the legitimacy of the opposition that does reflect the Syrian’s people desires, we have called them out, and for those who are seeking to support the legitimate opposition of the Syrian people, we have drawn a bright line. So I think there are very real sort of second-order effects to today’s actions as well.
OPERATOR: You do have a question from the line of Margaret Brennan with CBS News. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi. This is a question for [Senior Administration Official Three]. Al-Nusrah Front is viewed as an effective, very lethal fighting force inside of Syria. When it comes to what’s actually happening on the ground right now, what does today’s action do in terms of in any way lessening what they control or what they influence inside of Syria?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: Al-Nusrah Front is one of many groups that are fighting the Syrian regime now. It is not the only one. And in fact, it is a minority. Its influence has grown over recent months, but it still represents a minority element within the broader armed opposition to the Assad regime. So I don’t want to leave any kind of impressions that we are in any way acting against the broader Free Syrian Army, which is a much bigger organization.
And I’d be very clear we talk – I myself talk to the Free Syrian Army, and we have talked to them about things like the code of conduct and how to treat prisoners, et cetera. We have gotten assurances, and we have seen in many instances good behavior and even sanctioning against those elements of the Free Syrian Army that have acted improperly or against that code of conduct. Nusrah, by contrast, has actually been involved in summary executions of prisoners, for example. Whether the American steps today will immediately curtail Nusrah’s capabilities, I don’t think they will, but I think other nations that are involved in helping the armed opposition will now take more seriously our concerns about the Nusrah Front and its expanding influence, and it is important for countries to understand what al-Nusrah is and what it represents.
And it is important for the Syrians in the political opposition and in the armed opposition to understand what Nusrah is and what it represents. The time of a political transition is approaching. It’s approaching quickly as events on the ground move. And it is important to understand that Nusrah is an extremist group that cannot possibly be a part of the political transition to a tolerant and free Syria.
OPERATOR: Next we will go to the line of Mina al-Oraibi. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi. This is a question also for [Senior Administration Official Three]. If I can ask, do you expect a position to be taken against Jebhat al-Nusrah Front in Marrakesh tomorrow from other countries? And I also wanted to know, you said you have been in touch with the FSA, so have you informed them in advance of this designation? And have they voiced concerns to you about Jebhat al-Nusrah Front and what they’re doing on the ground and whether that actually makes certain civilians in Syria wary of the opposition?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: The meeting in Marrakesh hasn’t started yet. The ministers have not arrived. And so I don’t want to prejudge what the outcome will be. But what I would say is that the previous Friends of the Syrian People meetings in Tunis, in Istanbul, and in Paris, in each of those occasions, the partner states of the Friends of the Syrian People have emphasized their support for a tolerant Syrian society. They have emphasized their hope that the next Syrian government, after the Bashar al-Assad regime ends, will be one that respects human rights and that treats all Syrian citizens equally, without discrimination, and without prejudice because of their ethnic or religious views. And I do not think that this Friends of Syria conference will deviate from that strong support, that vision of the next Syrian government, after the political transition begins.
With respect to the Free Syrian Army, they know our concern about the Nusrah Front. I have talked to them myself about it and we have talked to others in the Syrian opposition over the past month. And they know what our position is and I’ll leave it at that.
OPERATOR: And you do have a question from the line of Joyce Karam with Al Hayat. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes, hi. My question is also to [Senior Administration Official Three]. Would this make it more likely that the U.S. would arm non-extremist elements in the Syria opposition? And if the regime targets al-Nusrah Front now, would the U.S. be okay with that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: I’m sorry. I didn’t understand the second question. Can you say it again?
QUESTION: Yeah. If the Assad regime goes ahead and targets al-Nusrah Front, would you be okay with that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: I see. Okay. With respect to your first question, we have always said with respect to our policy on providing arms that, number one, we do not provide arms to the Syrian opposition now. We have also said that the President has never ruled out in the future providing arms, but we do not do it now. But number three, for us, providing arms has to be done in a way that helps promote a political solution. And until we understand how these arms promote a political solution, we do not see how provision of arms is a good idea.
With respect to the Assad regime targeting al-Nusrah, I would simply say that we have condemned the Assad regime as a state sponsor of terrorism. We have condemned the Assad regime’s incredibly brutal and excessive, egregious acts of violence against the Syrian population. The news from yesterday is just shocking. I’m not going to comment on when it targets al-Nusrah, except to say that we condemn extremism on both sides. We condemn extremism that is the Syrian regime, and we condemn extremism in the Syrian armed opposition. Neither one of them presents a good – neither one of them presents a realistic way forward for a Syrian political transition that wants to give the Syrian people a system that will be free and respect the human rights of all Syrians.
MODERATOR: Operator, we’ve only got time for one more question.
OPERATOR: Okay. And that question will come from Hannah Allam with McClatchy Newspaper. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes. Thanks for the call. I was wondering, how do you disentangle the sort of Free Syrian Army rebel units from Jebhat al-Nusrah fighters when there appears to be such close coordination on the battlefield that’s opened the door to a scenario where somebody like the Syrian Support Group could come under scrutiny for providing materiel support to Jebhat al-Nusrah via these other more accepted rebel groups? And also has the U.S. talked to the Qataris and the Saudis about cutting off Nusrah – not just state funding but the individuals that are believed to be funding them from those countries? Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: I’m going to answer the second question first about our diplomatic work. And then with respect to the first question, I’ll make a comment or two on that, and then – and/or [Senior Administration Official Two] may wish to add something in terms of distinguishing.
With respect to our diplomatic contacts, we absolutely have made our views known about Nusrah to our international partners that are working with us to find a solution, a peaceful and political solution to the Syrian crisis. We absolutely have informed them, and they too know about our views.
I think it is also important here to note one positive sign of how the Free Syrian Army itself has understood the threat that Nusrah represents to the political transition in Syria, which is that during the meetings in Antalya in Turkey last week where they were working to set up a unified command for the Free Syrian Army, notably excluded from that meeting was the Nusrah Front, and we think that was a wise decision. With respect to distinguishing, as I mentioned in Antalya, the groups themselves know who Nusrah is, and I think they are better understanding the threat that it represents.
And so we will certainly continue our discussions with them, which in many cases will be an effort to convince more and more elements of the Free Syrian Army to stay away from al-Nusrah. But as I mentioned, the meeting in Antalya was a step forward. I don’t know if [Senior Administration Official One] or [Senior Administration Official Two] want to comment on that business about distinguishing between elements of the Free Syrian Army and other elements of – or I mean, Nusrah.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I think the only thing I would add to that is that we’ve taken an important step today to help these groups make the – underscore the importance of the distinction, and the most important thing that we can do in our own assistance is to continue to, as we always do, to strive to ensure that our assistance doesn’t fall into the wrong hands.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Nothing to add from here.
MODERATOR: Thank you all for joining the call today, and thank you to our officials, and have a good day.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you.
Copyright © 2013 Global Research
*******

G8 calls for peace talks to provide cover for US war preparations against Syria

By Chris Marsden
19 June 2013
The five-point plan for Syria drawn up for the G8 summit by British Prime Minister David Cameron ended up resembling a clock without a spring.
The 39th summit of the G8 gathered together US President Barack Obama, Russian President Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, French President Francois Hollande, Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, European Union President Herman van Rompuy and EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.
Cameron spent the entire two days seeking to put maximum pressure on Putin to sign up to the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as the precondition for a negotiated settlement of the country’s bloody civil war. This would be rejected by the Syrian regime and lead it to boycott a proposed summit in Geneva, which could then be used as the pretext for a full-scale military intervention.
The resolution, it was hoped, would also include denunciations of the use of chemical weapons, including the unproven assertion that Syrian forces had done so. The Obama administration has employed the “big lie” technique, citing Syria’s alleged use of such weapons to claim that Assad has crossed a “red line,” justifying Washington’s decision to begin openly supplying arms to the Syrian opposition.
Russia rejects the assertion that chemical weapons have been used and has demanded to see the evidence on which the US bases its charges. Another proposed point was a commitment to oppose the operations of Al Qaeda-linked elements in Syria, included so as to address concerns that the opposition is dominated by Islamist jihadist forces.
The plan in addition proposed “day one planning” for a transition to a new government with executive authority.
Putin’s refusal to accede to these demands frustrated the scheme that had been worked out by Cameron and Obama, but it will do nothing to halt the preparations for war now underway.
The G8 communiqué calls for peace talks to be held as soon as possible, but does not mention the fate of Assad. Bizarrely, it calls on both the Syrian authorities and the opposition to commit to destroying all organisations affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Prior to the summit, Cameron met with Putin at Number 10 Downing Street, where the Russian premier denounced the US decision to arm the Syrian opposition. A meeting with Obama was no less frosty.
The White House announced Friday evening it would supply arms to the Supreme Military Council of the Syrian opposition, having determined “with a high degree of certainty” that Assad’s fighters had used the nerve agent sarin. Before departing for the summit at Lough Erne, Northern Ireland, Obama gave television interviews to conceal the reality that the US will be arming Islamists affiliated to Al Qaeda and others perpetrating a brutal sectarian war in Syria.
Obama rejected comparisons with Iraq without explaining why, insisting instead that “the fact of the matter is that we’ve got serious interests there [in Syria]… we can’t have the situation of ongoing chaos in a major country that borders a country like Jordan, which in turn borders Israel. And we have a legitimate need to be engaged and to be involved.”
“We're not taking sides in a religious war between Shia and Sunni,” he claimed.
In fact, the US is responsible for deliberately stoking up a sectarian civil war, and is now using the death and chaos it has caused as a pretext for intervening militarily.
Making an explicit criticism of Moscow, Obama added, “Assad, at this point—in part because of his support from Iran and from Russia—believes that he does not have to engage in a political transition, believes that he can continue to simply violently suppress over half of the population.”
The US president could not explain how Assad is to engage in a political transition when he is to be excluded from it.
Obama and Putin met for an hour Monday, their first face-to-face talks in a year, and held a press conference afterwards. “Of course, our opinions don’t coincide,” said Putin, while Obama noted that he and Putin had “differing perspectives” on Syria.
That evening, Cameron organised a private dinner attended by heads of government only, supposedly to allow everyone to speak freely. However, the atmosphere was doubtless clouded by revelations from the US National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden that Britain systematically spies on all those attending such conferences.
Cameron had threatened that unless Putin signed up to his five-point plan, the other seven members of the G8 would issue their own statement. But Russian officials made clear there would be no substantive agreement.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said earlier that Russia had refused to accept any mention of Assad’s fate in the communiqué. “This would be not just unacceptable for the Russian side, but we are convinced that it would be utterly wrong, harmful and would completely upset the political balance,” he said.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking in Kuwait, said, “We are categorically against… assertions that the conference should be some kind of public act of capitulation by the [Syrian] government delegation followed by a handing over of power to the opposition.”
In an indication of how explosive the tensions became, Hollande stated publicly, “How can we allow that Russia continues to deliver arms to the Assad regime when the opposition receives very few—and is being massacred?”
After one final unscheduled session addressing Syria on Tuesday, on the pretext of discussing counter-terrorism, the watered-down final communiqué was released. Russia and the US have thus formally agreed to “peace” negotiations in Geneva next month, though most commentators said they now expect there will be no meeting until at least August.
The Guardian cited British sources as saying Putin privately had said he had no personal allegiance to Assad and would accept a transitional government without him, as long as there was no power vacuum and the new government included trusted representatives of the present regime and its military. Whatever Putin said or did not say, this is a tacit call for a coup to depose Assad while preserving the Ba’athist regime.
Regardless of what occurs next on the diplomatic front, things will proceed apace in the military arena. Washington will engage in a discussion about what type of arms and other measures are required to “shift the balance” in favour of Assad’s opponents.
Obama will portray arms shipments in the most anodyne terms—small arms that are “no match” for the Syrian army’s advanced weaponry, even as France colludes with Saudi Arabia to supply the so-called “rebels” with anti-aircraft surface-to-air Mistral-class MANPADS, as well as anti-tank weapons.
Obama will in addition continue to publicly query the effectiveness of a no-fly zone, even as one is being actively prepared.
The US is already studying setting up a no-fly zone in Syria, close to the southern border with Jordan, according to two senior Western diplomats in Turkey and a third regional diplomat. On Saturday, the US confirmed that Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel had approved a Jordanian request that F-16 fighters and Patriot missiles remain in the country after a joint military exercise this week. Batteries of Patriot missiles have already been stationed on the Turkish border.
For their part, the Cameron and Hollande governments will begin their own discussions on whether the UK and France will join the US in openly supplying weaponry to the opposition.
War against Syria is opposed by the vast majority of working people in the US and Europe. Fully 70 percent of Americans oppose arming the opposition, according to Pew Research, while in the UK only 17 percent support the US initiative. But war will continue to be planned behind closed doors so that the major powers can divide the oil riches of the Middle East between them.
*******

Foreign Death Squad Network in Syria Larger Than Stated by West
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Although evidence supporting the claims that the overwhelming majority of the Syrian “rebels” are made up of foreign fighters is not surprising to anyone who has investigated the unfolding crisis in Syria at any length, it might indeed come as a shock to those whose only source of information are mainstream Western media organizations like CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and other similar
corporate outlets.
Yet the extent to which foreign mercenaries and religious fanatics make up the majority of the “rebel” (more aptly named “death squad”) ranks might surprise even those who would otherwise be considered well-informed regarding the Syrian situation.
Western governments and media outlets have attempted to downplay both the role and the number of foreign fighters in Syria. This is, of course, understandable, considering the agenda of the NATO forces in regards to the country.
However, it should be noted that although mainstream corporate media outlets are now forced to admit that there is, at least, a contingent of foreign fighters making up the ranks of the death squads they choose to call “rebels,” these same media outlets attempted to silence, ignore, and even deny this fact for a significant amount of time. Now, unfortunately, the atrocities of the death squads have become so great that they can scarcely be kept secret any longer.
Nevertheless, while such outlets have been forced to admit the presence of foreign fighters, these same outlets attempt to keep the reported numbers artificially low. For instance, consider the article by Mike Brunker, Investigations Editor of NBC News, entitled “Study uses ‘martyr’ posts to analyze ‘foreign fighters’ aiding Syrian rebels.”
Brunker’s article deals with a “study” released by the security firm Flashpoint Partners and the Neo-Con think tank Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) entitled, “Convoy of Martyrs in the Levant: A Joint Study Charting the Evolving Role of Sunni Foreign Fighters in the Armed Uprising Against the Assad Regime in Syria.
This report, “broke down 280 ‘martyr’ postings on jihadist websites, Facebook and Twittter marking the deaths of the foreign recruits” in order to estimate the amount of foreign fighters operating inside Syria.
Brunker writes, “The report notes that social media have ‘provided a critical online bedrock for foreign fighters in Syria . . . Each day on Facebook, new names of deceased foreign fighters are posted by rebel supporters who hope that their willingness to sacrifice will inspire others to follow in their footsteps.”
The Flashpoint/WINEP study incredibly attempts to claim that the majority of “rebels” are, in fact, Syrian and that the foreign contingent of the death squads make up, at most, 10% of the ranks of the “rebellion.”
Going beyond the realm of absurdity, the study even goes so far as to suggest that foreign fighters engaging in atrocities all over Syria are mostly those fighting in the service of Assad. While Assad has cooperated, to his own intellectual credit, with Hezbollah and PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), the suggestion that Assad is taking advantage of the use of mercenaries as a substitute army is ludicrous.
Brunker’s article states the following regarding the findings of the Flashpoint/WINEP study:
The numbers from the admittedly small sample of foreign fighters show that even within the radical elements, there is a broad range of participants.
“A wide variety of international terrorist organizations have become deeply involved in Syria,” Kohlmann said. “In fact, based on our data, Sunni foreign fighters in Syria include former Hamas militants from Gaza, relatives of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (the late leader of al Qaeda in Iraq) and leaders of Fatah al-Islam (a Lebanon-based radical Sunni group).
"What should be particularly worrying for Western governments is the fact that at least a third of the fighters in our sample were affiliated with the most extreme rebel faction, al Qaeda's Jabhat al-Nusra -- and that at least seven of the 280 dead fighters we analyzed were from Western countries, including France, Denmark, Australia, the U.K., and the United States."
The Flashpoint/WINEP study thus puts the number of foreign fighters dead inside Syria as follows (totaling 280):
Libya 59
Kuwait 3
Algeria 1
Tunisia 44
United Arab Emirates 3
Ireland 1
Saudi Arabia 44
Australia 2
Kabardino-Balkaria 1
Jordan 32
Morocco 2
Uzbekistan 1
Egypt 27
Bahrain 2
France 1
Palestine 8
Azerbaijan 1
United Kingdom 1
Russia 7
Bulgaria 1
United States 1
Chechnya 5
Denmark 1
Other 12
Dagestan 4
Turkey 1
Iraq 3
Kosovo 1
However, it should be noted that, while few involved in the Syrian conflict will be able to provide a perfect picture of just how many foreign fighters there are, their identity, or whether or not these fanatics are still alive, a study which attempts to do so by using Facebook posts as the source of its data must not be taken as an authoritative account.
Much more authoritative reports would, obviously, come from individuals and organizations that are on the ground in Syria. In addition, it would stand to reason that organizations who are dedicated to the weakening and/or destruction of a nation should not be considered an unbiased or reliable source of information, particularly when that organization’s information would go some distance in shaping the opinion of the American and Western public with regard to the target nation.
Thus, it is important to understand that WINEP is nothing more than a Neo-Con/Israeli/Zionist think-tank which has long held Syria as one of its main targets. Indeed, WINEP is attached at the hip to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and is largely considered to be merely another wing of the Israeli lobbying organization.
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a spin-off the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is an influential beltway think tank whose members have advocated a host of hawkish, “pro-Israel” policies over the years. It is considered a core member of the “Israel lobby,” a constellation of policy shops and advocacy groups devoted to pushing an Israel-centric U.S. agenda in the Middle East. Many of WINEP’s current and former scholars have been closely associated with neoconservatism, and the organization has generally been supportive of the “war on terror” policies pushed by representatives of groups like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Iran and Syria have long been at the center of WINEP’s work, with the group’s scholars promoting a host of aggressive U.S. policies towards these countries, which often dovetail with the goals of other hawkish “pro-Israel” campaigns.

Although one could successfully argue that think tanks such as WINEP are “close to the ground” in Syria by virtue of their connections (direct and indirect) to those individuals and organizations who have organized, trained, and set loose upon secular Syria, it is also true that Middle Eastern news organizations such as Almanar of Lebanon are not only literally “close to the ground,” but that they are largely free of a blinding anti-Syria pro-death squad psychosis.
That being said, Almanar, banned in the United States (because free speech is respected in the U.S.A.), is not to be construed as an unbiased observer either. The network is owned by Hezbollah and is an avowed supporter of the Assad regime.
Nevertheless, Almanar has reported that 6,113 foreign fighters have been killed in Syria so far. The numbers and ethnic breakdown according to Almanar are as follows:
729 Saudi Arabians
640 Kurds from the Mujaahedeen Khalq (recently declassified as a terrorist organization by the U.S.)
489 Egyptians
439 Libyans
439 Chechens
301 Afghans
263 Libyans
261 Pakistanis
208 Iraqis
188 Russians
167 Turks
129 Jordanians
117 Somalis
129 Jordanians
109 Kuwaitis
90 French
67 Germans
66 British
50 Tunisians
55 Indonesians
53 Algerians
52 Yemenis
19 Qataris
45 Belgians
40 Uzbekis
35 Americans
31 Kosovars
21 Azerbaijanis
31 Maltese (Of Lebanese descent)
7 Mauritanians
6 Sierra Leone
6 Surinam
It should be noted that individuals at the Syrian Perspective website, have stated qualms with the breakdown provided by Almanar. Syrian Perspective suggests that Libyans have made up the majority of foreign fighters.
While the evidence does point toward Libyan fighters making up a larger contingent of foreigners as a whole in the death squad network, it should also be noted that the number produced by Almanar and Flashpoint/WINEP only represented the death squad members that have been found or reported dead, not necessarily the number of members currently in action.
Also note that many other nationalities have been included by a variety of other sources, almost all with different numbers. For instance, other sources have also reported the following nationalities:
As I mentioned earlier, it is extraordinarily difficult to obtain accurate numbers regarding simply the number and nationality of dead foreign fighters. Even then, the number of dead foreign fighters does not provide us with an accurate number of living foreign fighters. Thus, we are unable to compile a list of the total number of foreign fighters as a whole.
Bill Van Auken of the World Socialist Website, however, recently wrote an article in which he stated that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that 2,219 foreign fighters have been killed so far, thus suggesting that the number of foreign fighters still active inside the country “must be in the tens of thousands.”
Interestingly enough, this is the same figure which Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah cited when he stated "Tens of thousands of (rebel foreign) fighters did not bother the so-called Friends of Syria countries whose representatives met in Amman a couple of days ago. . . . . . But the interference of a small group from Lebanese Hezbollah was considered a foreign intervention.”
Yet one of the most obvious examples of foreign involvement in the Syrian death squad movement is the fact that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) has made up a large portion of the allegedly “Syrian” death squad fighters. Indeed, the LIFG, a contingent of terrorists, mercenaries, madmen, and religious fanatics that led the destabilization effort against Colonel Ghaddaffi in Libya and the subsequent genocide of black Africans after the murder of the aging leader, have thus been exported to Syria to wreak the same level of havoc and brutality upon the Syrian people as they did to their own country.
The LIFG, however, has not simply shipped a few fighters here and there for tactical support. The organization has actually commanded entire brigades of death squads, themselves made up of a diverse number of nationalities as evidenced by the above body counts.
In fact, it was known as far back as November 2011 that around 600 LIFG terrorists had traveled to Syria in order to engage in combat against the secular government and the civilian population. This provision of actual military support and “boots on the ground” on the part of the new Libyan regime (itself made up of nothing but Western-backed death squads) was only thinly veiled if at all.
Remember, Abdul Hakim Belhaj, the LIFG death squad leader in his own country actually traveled to the Turkey-Syria border and promised weapons, funding, and manpower to “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) killers only days before the promised material arrived.
Although claims that Syrian death squads were made up mainly of foreigners were denied then and continue to be denied now by Western governments and their media mouthpieces, these same media outlets have been forced to admit that, at the very least, these death squads contained foreigners. As Ivan Watson and Raja Razek of CNN reported,
Meanwhile, residents of the village where the Syrian Falcons were headquartered said there were fighters of several North African nationalities also serving with the brigade's ranks.
A volunteer Libyan fighter has also told CNN he intends to travel from Turkey to Syria within days to add a "platoon" of Libyan fighters to armed movement. 
On Wednesday, CNN’s crew met a Libyan fighter who had crossed into Syria from Turkey with four other Libyans. The fighter wore full camouflage and was carrying a Kalashnikov rifle. He said more Libyan fighters were on the way.
The foreign fighters, some of them are clearly drawn because they see this as … a jihad. So this is a magnet for jihadists who see this as a fight for Sunni Muslims.

The admission of the presence of al-Qaeda among the death squads has been yet another aspect of the so-called “civil war” that the Western mainstream media has attempted to avoid until avoidance was no longer possible. Unfortunately for the propagandists, the fact that the death squads are indeed al-Qaeda either officially or in ideological sympathy is no longer hidden nor debatable.
Consider the fact that the Council on Foreign Relations itself has not only admitted the presence of al-Qaeda amongst the death squads but also their necessity to the tactical success. The CFR report, entitled, “Al-Qaeda’s Specter In Syria,” states,
The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Assad regime's superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.

Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer expounds the subject even further by writing,
Also, to be clear, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) is in fact an affiliate of Al Qaeda with its commanders having occupied the highest echelons of Al Qaeda's command structure and having participated in every combat engagement Al Qaeda has conducted since its inception via US-Saudi cash and arms in the mountains of Afghanistan in the 1980's. This was documented meticulously in the US Army's West Point Combating Terrorism Center report, "Al-Qa'ida's Foreign Fighters in Iraq."
LIFG is also listed by both the US State Department and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf) as a foreign terrorist organization and a proscribed terrorist organization respectively.
Foreign Policy's admission of al-Harati's role in organizing and leading the FSA in Syria, and the inclusion of Libyan terrorists in his brigade are by no means the only role LIFG is playing in the Syrian violence. LIFG commander Abdul Hakim Belhaj had visited the Turkish-Syrian border in late 2011 pledging Libyan arms, cash, and fighters to the FSA - with the nation of Libya itself having already become a NATO-created terrorist safe-haven.
It is clear that LIFG, and by implication Al Qaeda, is playing a significant role in the violence in Syria, not only undermining the narrative of the unrest being an "indigenous" "pro-democracy uprising," but also implicating foreign nations who are funding and arming militants as state sponsors of terrorism.
Included amongst these state sponsors of international terrorism are Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the Hariri faction in northern Lebanon, as well as the NATO-installed government of Libya. This also includes both the United States, who is admittedly providing cash and equipment for the FSA as well as coordinating efforts to arm militants, and now the UK once again with their latest announcement.
A similar scenario unfolded in Libya, where LIFG terrorists were likewise carrying out a campaign of nationwide genocide with NATO providing air support. Similarly, by funding, arming, and coordinating acts of violence with LIFG fighters, NATO, and in particular, France, England, and the United States, were guilty of violating both their own respective anti-terrorism legislation, as well as international provisions against terrorism.

In continuing to address the foreign nature of the death squads, it is also worthwhile to consider the claims made by Abou Zayd Attounssi, a former fighter with the death squads who became disillusioned with the movement.
As reported by Salma Bouzid of Tusnisia Live, the Tunisian television show, Attasiaa Massaa, featured a clip of a young Tunisian man named Abou Zayd Attounssi who claims that he recently returned to Tunisia after fighting for eight months alongside the inappropriately named “Syrian rebels.”
Further supporting the fundamentalist nature of the majority of the members of the NATO death squads (aka rebels) operating in Syria, Attounssi stated that his initial reason for traveling to Syria to engage in murder, plunder, and torture against innocent people was because “he felt his religion required him to engage in jihad against ‘the enemy.’”
Although it was apparently not the killing that turned Attounssi off from the death squad movement, he nevertheless became disillusioned with it because, “most of the fighters within the Free Syrian army are fighting for the spoils of war and the foreign aid they supposedly get.”
Also featured on the show was the father of Hamza Rjeb, another former death squad member who is now disabled. Rjeb’s father claimed that “the Tunisian government should take full responsibility for his son’s situation and for allowing groups in the country to ‘brainwash’ his son.”
In an interview with Tunisia Live, Ahmed Youssef, a journalist described by Bouzid as “pro-Assad,” stated, “For every Tunisian fighter brought to Syria, Qatar pays 3,000 dollars to the Syrian rebels.” He also claimed that, “most of the Tunisians come from disadvantaged regions in Tunisia with low unemployment,” and stated that the Tunisians fighting in Syria are “considered mercenaries.” Youssef estimated that the number of Tunisian fighters wreaking havoc in Syria is more than 3,500.
Although the exact number of foreign fighters making up the ranks of the death squads is unknown and will likely never be made public, the fact that the majority of the militants are drawn from outside of Syria’s borders. Even while the mainstream Western media will continue to do its best to obfuscate and pretend that the “rebellion” is organic in nature, only tainted with a few bad apples, the reality on the ground is quite the opposite.
However, as the Syrian government begins to gain the upper hand on the death squads operating inside Syria’s borders and mop up the hordes of mercenaries, religious fanatics, and mental midgets, the danger to Syria only becomes greater. This is because the death squads have functioned as the last hope of the Anglo-Americans wishing to overthrow Assad and install a regime that is both more amenable to the Western Empire and less capable of resistance to it. These fighters are thus the last push against Assad before direct military intervention takes place.
Although the death squads are being crushed by the Syrian government and such achievements should be seen as a victory, it is an unfortunate reality that, for the Syrian people, this battle is only the beginning.
As for the West, the assault on Syria will likely prove successful should it be launched. However, a military attack on Syria only reveals the next step in a plan that has lain under cover for many years. Such a plan is likely to ensure the mutual destruction of the entire world.
It would be wise for Americans and all other Western nations to get off of the Path to Persia. Total world war is the only thing left at the end of the road.
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books,
Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over 200 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville's podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com

*******
U.S. and Syria: Strategic choices
Assad regime: Iran and Hezbollah on the one hand and the Salafist Jihadist militias fighting the prior on the other hand
By Dr. Walid Phares
Two years and three months after the start of the Syrian revolution and its subsequent transformation into a full-fledged civil war, the United States stands at a historic crossroads; intervening with the goal of crumbling the Assad regime and assisting in erecting an alternative power in Damascus or backing the opposition to a point where the regime has no other choice than to negotiate at Geneva.
The latter scenario would predicate Assad’s gradual exit that would surrender the country to a combination of political forces but satisfy all regional and international players on the Syrian scene.
This week, the Obama administration stated it would begin the process of arming the trusted opposition and may consider many more measures, including possibly, but not yet, a limited no-fly zone over the beleaguered country. But even at this point, the U.S. end game in Syria remains unclear as long as the administration has yet to explain its regional strategic plans regarding Iran and Hezbollah on the one hand and the Salafist Jihadist militias fighting the prior on the other hand. For sending weapons to the opposition, though legitimate and in order to fend off Assad’s Iranian backed forces, raises significant broader questions. Who in the opposition will receive the arms and be responsible for their use? What will be the next steps after the opposition is armed and supplied? Will it be a long haul war between two equal forces with thousands more civilian casualties, or will the equipping of the Free Syria Army (FSA) create a new balance of power that will lead both sides to realize that a military solution is not going to happen and Geneva is the only remaining choice?Analyzing the regime
Looking at the behavior of the Assad regime, particularly since it took back the city of Qusayr in the center of the country, not only has it broken the opposition’s momentum, but it has moved on the offensive in several areas of the country. In our estimate, the unwillingness of the regime to accept a balance of power with the opposition as a basis for political negotiations, and the unwillingness of Russia to pressure its allies in Damascus and Tehran to accept real power sharing, is what prompted Washington and its allies to beef up the capacities of the anti-Assad coalition and explore the more lethal options of no fly-zones over the country. In short, there is so far no path for a real political solution in Syria, excluding one or the other of the fighting parties. Faced with this reality, the United States must contemplate new strategies regarding Syria’s war that could reshape its entire Middle East policy.
Why take a new path?
In the first months of 2011, when the “Arab Spring” exploded, Washington followed the strategy of shepherding the “rebels” as they made progress against the regimes in North Africa and Yemen. In Tunisia and Egypt, the protesters obtained moral and political support from the Obama administration which enabled them to crumble the pro-American regimes, allowing the most organized among them –the Muslim Brotherhood – to form new governments. In Libya, Qaddafi had no regional allies and was far from Russian logistical supplies. The Obama administration extracted Chapter 7 based U.N. resolution 1973 and launched NATO strikes against the regime until its demise. It worked.
Regarding Syria, the Obama administration decided to let the revolt brew as occurred in Egypt during 2011, hoping that the mass demonstrations would collapse Assad or would at least psychologically convince the Army to move against its own commander-in-chief. It was an erroneous assessment, and a precious year was lost. During the early stages of the revolution in Syria, the movement was led mostly by liberal and secular forces organizing demonstrations, marches and protests in Damascus and several Syrian cities. That year, U.S. forces were still deployed in Iraq and along the borders with Syria. Quick action coordinated with Turkey, Jordan and other partners, in the interest of an erupting civil society would have most likely forced Assad to quit power and seek refuge inside the Alawi region or in Iran. President Obama should have finished the Syria quagmire before Iraq’s pullout. The U.S. was already deployed along Syrian borders with equipment, air force and more importantly, a heavy deterrent against Iran. Assad was practically surrounded; Iran was kept at bay and Turkey was yet untouched by its own protests. Even more significantly, al-Qaeda, via Jabhat al-Nusra, was not yet deeply deployed across the Syrian opposition. The first year of the Syrian crisis, from April 2011 to April 2012, embodied a major U.S. failure in Syria. Washington allowed the landscape to change so dramatically that by early 2013, Syria’s geopolitical realities have changed profoundly.
During the last part of 2012, the tense presidential election campaign in the U.S. prevented a risky decision by the incumbent President to launch any lethal action in Syria for fear of losing constituents both on the left and in the center. That year transformed the terrain irreversibly. Civil demonstrations practically receded, and the street fighting was taken over by ferocious players. On one hand, the regime entered the fray of suppression full force, not only with air force and heavy tanks and artillery, but aided by Hezbollah militias operating out of Lebanon and backed by the Iranian Pasdaran (a subset of the Iranian armed forces) and supplies coming through open Iranian-Iraqi-Syrian borders, open due to the U.S. pullout. The military capacity of the regime multiplied, and its brutality deepened. On the other hand, the Free Syria Army made of offshoots from the regular army had formed, but in parallel, Jihadist militias, including the al-Qaeda linked al-Nusra Front had emerged and spread throughout the various zones of rebellions. The secular and Islamist components of the opposition are hard to distinguish. In addition to the evolution of both sides, chemical weapons were used, even if in a limited manner, by the regime and some have been falling into the hands of the Jihadists.



Facing a great decision

Now in mid-2013, the Obama Administration must make a much greater decision, graver and riskier than those before, but unavoidable. It needs to act, but be able to act at a level equal to the challenges emerging from the many mutations of the conflict. After a crucial battle in Qusayr in central Syria during the month of May, and thanks to the participation of Hezbollah, well-trained special forces and Iranian military advisors, Assad troops overran the rebels’ positions in the strategic city and the regime moved onto the offensive on several fronts against the opposition. Washington had been hoping, before the Qusayr battle changed the status quo on the ground, that Russia would convince the regime to make dramatic concessions in Geneva. But Assad’s forces leaped forward to crush their opponents in a way that would allow them to use Geneva’s negotiations to their advantage. This, in turn and at last, prompted the Obama administration to approach from a different path, to openly arm the insurgents and possibly set up a no-fly zone over Syrian skies.
The move is in the right direction, but late and slow. Nevertheless, it needs to be developed strategically and comprehensively. Washington’s engagement plans must incorporate vital sub-strategies to address the ramifications of a Syria intervention, regardless of the latter’s scope and size. Here are the main strategic challenges to address:
Who is and will be the strategic partner inside Syria militarily and politically from start to end? Who will end up seizing ministries in Damascus and impose security and stability once the change occurs? It needs to be clarified before, not as or after the campaign begins.
What will the Arab participation be in the projected U.S. effort? How far will the Gulf countries, Jordan and also Turkey, go in supporting the campaign, especially if Iran counters these efforts?
What is the strategic plan of engagement if Hezbollah and Iran respond to U.S. involvement? Is there a Washington global response to an Iranian counter in Syria or in the region?
Last, and not least, what will Syria look like after the Assad regime is gone? A democracy, an Islamist regime or a military government?
It is crucial to understand and evaluate the strategic choices of the United States before the engagement begins so that all actors are aware of the process and of its consequences.
Dr. Walid Phares, Walidphares.com, is the author of the “The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East,” and “The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy,” He is a Professor of Global Strategies and the Co-Secretary General of the Transatlantic Legislative Group on Counter Terrorism. Dr. Phares can be reached at:Phares@walidphares.com
*******



Obama’s Syrian Mistake

Obama And al Qaeda Team Up In Syria!
By J.D. Longstreet
If I was a cynical person, which, of course, I’m not, I’d probably say something like: “Boy, America’s Syrian Adventure will sure divert the Media’s attention away from some of Obama’s problems here at home, right?” But, see, I’m not at all cynical, so I didn’t say that, now did I?
Having said all the above, I must, in all honesty, admit that I DO have a, uh, sneering disbelief in the selflessness of, uh, certain politicians on the national and international scene—and—some who stand astride both. But I shall put forth my usual monumental effort toward refraining from expressing contempt or ridicule for those poor dolts as we investigate and comment on their most recent—totally idiotic machinations—as they pertain to another Middle Eastern hellhole/dung heap referred to simply as—SYRIA.
I very nearly titled this piece: “Obama Takes sides in Islamic struggle dating from the Seventh Century” But then again, most Americans, ignorant of history as we are, would have absolutely no idea what the heck I was talking about. But make no mistake—that is the way most of Islam will see Obama’s decision to drag America into the Syrian civil war.
I must begin by asking a simple question: What—exactly—IS America’s (the country’s) interest in Syria? Anyone?
The silence is ear-splitting.
If there is none, then why are we about to spend more of America’s treasure and most likely—blood—in another fight in which there are no good guys?
Look. I don’t mind a good fight when there is a reason, such as a bona fide American interest. But, for the life of me, I don’t see America’s interest in the brew-hah-hah that is Syria today.
Actually, watching America’s enemies eviscerate each other to learn which side can either maintain (or establish) the most vicious dictatorship over their fellow Islamic citizens is far more satisfying than joining the brawl—at our own expense, I might add, with zero chance of an outcome that will be advantageous to any degree for America.
On the other hand: could this be nothing more that a micturating contest between Obama and Putin? If so, my money is on Putin! Somehow, I don’t see our “Hamlet in the Rose Garden” participating in such manly pastimes.
The all-out riot that is Syria today is a proxy war for certain. Problem is, who the heck is America’s proxy? There is one, and believe me, Americans are not going to like it when it is revealed!
There’s Russia, Iran, Assad’s Syria, and now America acting through regular and irregular troops on the ground.
Now that Obama has agreed to supply the rebels with arms (Like we weren’t already doing that! See: “Benghazi”) the US will be arming al-Qaeda forces with arms that, no doubt, at some future date will be turned against Americans. If you can see the sense in this maneuver you are way better at ciphering than this humble scribe.
I sometimes think America’s famously short memory is exceed in its “shortness” only by the collective memories of its leaders.
Does anyone remember the debacle of Afghanistan in which the US supplied weapons to a group known as the Taliban only to have those weapons turned against America’s troops a few years later? Normally one learns from such mistakes. Not, however, the good ole US of A.
The only friend America has in the region, Israel, shares a border with Syria. That is a problem. Israel has, unarguably, one of the best militaries in the world. They also have one of the best intelligence services on the planet. Being where they are—geographically—and knowing what they know, even Israel is tip-toeing around the Syrian mess.
I can’t help but believe that Obama is being pressured by the soon-to-be new UN Ambassador, Samantha Power, to act under the UN’s “R2P” or “Responsibility to Protect” policy.

“The RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT (“RtoP” or “R2P”) is a new international security and human rights norm to address the international community’s failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”
If the US subscribes to R2P, it seems to me, it virtually guarantees America will be continuously at war for as far into the future as the eye can see.
R2P is just another of those leftist warm and fuzzy policies that feels good, and looks good on paper, but in reality only adds more paving stones on that infamous road to hell.
A few RINO Senators are demanding a NO-FLY ZONE be established by America over certain parts of Syria. Have they forgotten the Russians have supplied Assad with their very efficient S-300 surface to air missiles? Are those same senators willing to accept the consequences when an S-300 knocks one of the American aircraft out of the air killing a pilot, or worse—having the pilot survive, be captured on the ground and beaten or tortured to death with his body dragged though the streets of Damascus by a mob shouting “God is Great!”?
Again I ask—for what?
Too late. We’re in it now. No. I mean we ARE REALLY IN IT THIS TIME!
The UK’s Independent recently said this: “Washington’s decision to arm Syria’s Sunni Muslim rebels has plunged America into the great Sunni-Shia conflict of the Islamic Middle East, entering a struggle that now dwarfs the Arab revolutions which overthrew dictatorships across the region.
For the first time, all of America’s ‘friends’ in the region are Sunni Muslims and all of its enemies are Shiites. Breaking all President Barack Obama’s rules of disengagement, the US is now fully engaged on the side of armed groups which include the most extreme Sunni Islamist movements in the Middle East.” (Emphasis mine)
The same article in The Independent makes this hair curling statement: “The very Sunni-Wahabi Islamists who killed thousands of Americans on 11th September, 2011 – who are America’s greatest enemies as well as Russia’s – are going to be proxy allies of the Obama administration.” (Emphasis mine)
I’m just happy our President is deeply concerned over our involvement in Syria and spending every waking moment as Commander-in-Chief pondering how to prosecute America’s part of the war and not gallivanting off on some jet-setting playboy vacation to the Dark Continent.
Uh, wait ...
© J. D. Longstreet
Longstreet is a conservative Southern American (A native sandlapper and an adopted Tar Heel) with a deep passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in “America First”.
He is a thirty-year veteran of the broadcasting business, as an “in the field” and “on-air” news reporter (contributing to radio, TV, and newspapers) and a conservative broadcast commentator.



Longstreet is a veteran of the US Army and US Army Reserve. He is a member of the American Legion and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A lifelong Christian, Longstreet subscribes to “old Lutheranism” to express and exercise his faith.
*******
Also See:
Will Syria Be Next?
(Part 1)
14 February 2012
and
(Part 2)
30 May 2012
and
(Part 3)
14 December 2012
and



Unrest in Syria!
31 March 2011
*******