Re: SYRIA: Nerve Gas Attack

**bb1** Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:54 pm

Obama's Jihadist friends don't seem to be sticking to the script. From -

http://rt.com/news/rebels-syria-christian-village-428/

An Al-Qaeda-linked group attacked a predominantly Christian village sympathetic to the Assad regime in western Syria on Wednesday while rebel and government forces clashed in Damascus.

The attack began at dawn when a Jabhat al-Nusra fighter blew himself up at a government checkpoint near the entrance to the village of Maaloula, according to a Syrian official and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which collects information from anti-regime activists.

Maaloula – a mountain village of 2,000 residents 60km northeast of Damascus - is home to some of the most ancient Orthodox Christian relics and is a major pilgrimage destination. It’s also one of the very few places in the world where people still speak Aramaic, a biblical-era language Jesus is believed to have spoken.

Although that story is in RT, please note one of the sources is 'anti-regime activists'.

**bb1** Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:59 pm

Sky has picked it up too:

http://news.sky.com/story/1137492/syria-al-qaeda-linked-rebels-target-christians

Syria: Al Qaeda-Linked Rebels Target Christians
Jihadist fighters shell a Christian village northeast of Damascus, exposing the sectarian divide in Syria's civil war.

Considerate of the Jihadists to show Kerry up as a bloody liar, and Obama as - I shudder to think what. Has anyone checked his neck to see if he's got 666 written on it?

**bb1** Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:38 pm

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57601379/al-qaeda-linked-rebels-assault-syrian-christian-village/

SYRIA: Nerve Gas Attack - Page 12 Alq10

A Turkish fighter of the jihadist group Al-Nusra Front, bearing the flag of al Qaeda on his jacket (C-back), holds position with fellow comrades on April 4, 2013, in the Syrian village of Aziza, on the southern outskirts of Aleppo. / GETTY IMAGES

But how can this be? Oh wait, I know, Kerry's a bare-faced liar.

**lily** Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:17 pm

I never ever thought I would agree with Putin over anything but it is happening more frequently.

**lily** Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:19 pm

bb1 wrote:Sky has picked it up too:

http://news.sky.com/story/1137492/syria-al-qaeda-linked-rebels-target-christians

Syria: Al Qaeda-Linked Rebels Target Christians
Jihadist fighters shell a Christian village northeast of Damascus, exposing the sectarian divide in Syria's civil war.

Considerate of the Jihadists to show Kerry up as a bloody liar, and Obama as - I shudder to think what. Has anyone checked his neck to see if he's got 666 written on it?

That is horrendous. Have to admit it sounds like something straight out of Revelations.

Kerry is numbered - he is married to Teresa Heinz of the Number 57 family. Perhaps he has his own special flavor....... mad

**bb1** Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:23 pm

lily wrote:I never ever thought I would agree with Putin over anything but it is happening more frequently.

An awful lot of your fellow-Americans seem to feel the same way, Lily. I expect they would like a President who stood up for his country and put his country's interests first.

This is so Alice Through The Looking Glass, China has now joined in saying it's going to endanger the world economy...

Remind me, who is it who is supposed to be the war-mongering communist?

**lily** Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:39 pm

It is so embarrassing when you think about it like that? Am speechless......

**Pedro Silva** Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:51 pm

My friends, this was taken from Sky News:

http://news.sky.com/story/1137524/syria-assad-is-destroying-millions-of-lives

**bb1** Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:20 pm

Obama's allies in action:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2412700/Stripped-bound-shot-head-Horrifying-fate-Assad-s-soldiers-executed-camera-Syrian-rebels.html

How he and Kerry can tell barefaced lies, to start their damned war, I do not know.

**lily** Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:16 pm

OMG that is horrendous. Pair of vipers.

**bb1** Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:25 pm

Well worth reading, as are the comments:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?hp&_r=2&

**lily** Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:38 pm

This is part of one I thought pertinent

In the US, if a citizen hands a murderer a weapon, and the murderer kills, the one who supplies the weapon is an accessory. That is what the US has become: an accessory to war crimes, complicit in murder. A murdering US is not what the majority of US citizens support. The government of the US has become a rogue government.

**bb1** Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:43 pm

I don't pretend to understand it, Lily, but legal types who do all seem to be of the opinion that if Obama goes ahead, he will be committing a war crime, and his war will be little different from Pearl Harbour - worse, in many ways, as Syria is no threat to the US.

And he is completely ignoring the UN.

**lily** Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:55 pm

Agreed, Bonny. No present threat to the US but obviously to others.

Let's face it, if some Arabs have offered to pay the US military bill if they will go ahead, then that will have set an even new low. mad

Oh I think he may feel he is too important to care what the UN says. mad

**bb1** Fri Sep 06, 2013 8:51 am

Arab countries offer to bankroll invasion of Syria amid fears Assad's regime now possesses biological weapons as well
U.S. Secretary of State: Syria's neighbours want to stop conflict spreading
John Kerry says they will foot the bill of U.S- led invasion

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2413442/Arab-countries-offer-bankroll-invasion-Syria-amid-fears-Assads-regime.html#ixzz2e646IGBe
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I really cannot see the proud men and women in the US military letting Obama turn them into mercenaries for the Saudis and Al Quaeda. Disgusting.

**Pedro Silva** Fri Sep 06, 2013 2:46 pm

My friends, this was taken from Sky News:

http://news.sky.com/story/1137962/small-island-britain-cameron-rejects-slight

**bb1** Fri Sep 06, 2013 3:43 pm

Putin does have a point- the British Empire is long gone, and we certainly don't rule the waves. Not least due to the bl**dy government selling off Ark Royal, etc., for scrap.

Meanwhile, the Obama meltdown continues. From:

http://news.sky.com/story/1138124/syria-putin-and-obama-no-closer-to-agreement

At the conclusion of the summit, Mr Obama said he had been "encouraged" by his talks with foreign leaders and that there was a "growing recognition that the world can't stand idly by".

He said the humanitarian situation in Syria and along its borders was "only getting worse" and stressed that the problem was "not in anyone's interest".

"I was elected to end wars - not start them," he added.

And what, pray tell, does he think bombing Syria, against UN law, when Syria is no threat at all to the US is, besides starting a war? Illegally?

Someone should tell him what happened when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour, as he seems to have NO idea about military history - or any other kind, for that matter.

**lily** Fri Sep 06, 2013 3:59 pm

If I were a cynic I might say that he is most focused on his own bank account.

**bb1** Fri Sep 06, 2013 4:10 pm

I've just watched the 'speech' he made in St Petersburg. Words fail me - what on earth is he rambling on about? I've heard more sense from stoners.

**Lamplighter** Fri Sep 06, 2013 4:14 pm

I thought I would like to say something, JMO, of course. Had the regime and the rebels continued chucking rockets, scuds etc at each other there would have been little reaction; but they didn't. I have no intention of giving an opinion on who used the chemical weapons. But, left over from WW1 and the number of allied soldiers gassed then, and the Nazi use of gas to rid the world of Jews, just the thought of chemical weapons really causes extreme problems. Most of the developed countries have used them which is why there is a protocol on their being banned. Churchill was a keen proponent of their use, for instance. LL

**bb1** Fri Sep 06, 2013 4:29 pm

IMO, if any lines were going to be drawn, it should have been when Saddam used nerve gas against the Kurds, but at that time, he was pals with the US and nothing happened.

No-one even knows what was used at this point, let alone who by - that Japanese terrorist group cooked their own sarin years ago. WWI-type chemicals can be cooked from household cleaners.

I really don't know why Obama and co are telling so many lies, LL. It's a matter of record that the Jihadists have used chemical weapons, and that they are Al Quaeda-backed. If this was only about chemical weapons, there should be no need to lie.

As for letting the Saudis foot the bill for this, and training and arming the Jihadists - is Obama crazy? Seriously?

**lily** Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:03 pm

LL, of course that is such an emotive issue and is deplorable and should not be allowed again. However, we do not know who used them and I think the world is owed the full facts first. Why the rush until then?

Honestly, I cannot believe the lies that are being uttered by some politicians in their push to do something bad.

Not only will the American people be dragged into yet another war so few people want but it might mean parts of the world are like parking lots.

As for the Arabs wishing to pay for it all, wouldn't that make the US military and those who help, mercenaries?

I am really pleased that you have entered into this discussion though. hug

**lily** Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:12 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/06/obama-alliance-assad-chemical-weapons

Obama assembles fragile alliance blaming Assad for chemical attacks

11 G20 countries sign statement calling for 'strong response' to chemical weapons, but Putin says most oppose military action

The Guardian, Friday 6 September 2013 16.03 EDT

Barack Obama left a fractious G20 summit in St Petersburg on Friday after assembling a fragile alliance of countries accusing Bashar al-Assad of being responsible for using poison gas against civilians. However, the US president left behind a defiant Russian counterpart threatening unspecified military support for Syria if America attacks.

Vladimir Putin claimed that a majority of the G20 opposed any US-led intervention, and gave no ground by continuing to insist that the chemical weapons attacks were a provocation by Syrian rebels designed to win international backing for an attack on the Assad regime. David Cameron described Putin's position as impossible.

Putin revealed that he and Obama had had a one-to-one meeting lasting around 30 minutes in which they had discussed Syria. Both men had listened to the other's position but they had not agreed, he said.

British sources suggested that Obama, struggling to put together a majority in the US Congress for military strikes, may have to wait for up to a fortnight for a vote in the House of Representatives, where opposition is strong.

Echoing that timing, the French president, François Hollande, the only definite European supporter of a military strike, said he did not expect a congressional vote in the US until the UN weapons inspectors had reported on whether there had been a chemical attack on 21 August. Cameron added that no one doubted there had been an attack, not even Syria; the dispute was over culpability, he said.

In a minor diplomatic advance for Obama, 11 of the G20 nations signed a joint statement at the end of the two-day summit calling for "a strong international response to a grave violation of the world's rules" in response to last month's chemical weapons attack in Ghouta, east of the Syrian capital, Damascus.

The signatories, including the UK, the US and France, said evidence "points clearly to the Syrian government being responsible for the attack which is part of a pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime" and warned it would not be possible to achieve a UN consensus on action.

The signatories also "recognise that the UN security council remains paralysed, as it has been for two and a half years. The world cannot wait for endless failed processes that can only lead to suffering in Syria. We support efforts by the US and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons."

The painfully constructed wording stops short of explicit support for a punitive, but limited, military strike by the US. Yet the statement represents more international sympathy than seemed likely at the summit's outset. Other signatories included Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain and Turkey – a coalition that may sway some US congressmen weighing up whether to defy domestic America opinion and back military strikes. A Downing Street source claimed the statement "backs US efforts and the American president has clearly set out his intended military response".

Russia, China, South Africa, Indonesia, Argentina and Brazil were among those that refused to sign. But it was the absence of German chancellor Angela Merkel's signature that was the most frustrating – a result deemed to be a blow to the Franco-German alliance.

Obama, who will address the American people next Tuesday in a televised address, was equivocal on whether he would persuade Congress. "It's conceivable at the end of the day I don't persuade a majority of the American people that it's the right thing to do," he said. "And then each member of Congress is going to have to decide."

The president said he could ignore a rejection of military action by Congress, but hinted such defiance would be hard to justify. A resolution is likely to be voted upon in the Senate on Wednesday after it was formally introduced on Friday. Obama said during remarks at the end of the summit that he put the issue before Congress "because I could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad's use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States".

"The majority of the room is comfortable with our conclusion that Assad, the Assad government, was responsible for their use," he said, adding that this was disputed by Putin.

A number of countries believed that any military force needed to be decided at the UN security council (UNSC), a view he said he did not share. "Given security council paralysis on this issue, if we are serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use then an international response is required, and that will not come through security council action," Obama said. That view was shared by Cameron, who argued that world morality could not be "contracted out to the UNSC".

Putin offered a different interpretation of the state of world opinion at his closing press conference. He said: "Will we be helping Syria? We will. And we are already helping – we send arms, we co-operate in the economic sphere."

In many of the private sessions, the Russian president has appeared agnostic on whether the poison gas was used by Assad's forces or rebels. But in public he took a harder line: "I presume that everything concerning the so-called use of chemical weapons is a provocation on the part of the fighters, who expect assistance from the outside, I mean assistance from the countries that have supported them from the very start. This is the essence of this provocation."

He went to argue that the use of force against Syria would be illegitimate. "The use of force on a sovereign state is only possible if it is done for self-defence – and as we know Syria is not attacking the US – or under a decision made by the UN security council," Putin said. "As one participant in our discussion said, those who act otherwise put themselves outside of law."

He said it was not true to assert opinion had been 50-50 divided at the summit. He claimed only Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and France supported military operations against Syria, while Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa and Italy opposed the option at the summit. Russia also warned the US and its allies against striking any chemical weapon storage facilities in Syria. The Russian foreign ministry said such targeting could release toxic chemicals and give militants or terrorist access to chemical weapons.

"This is a step toward proliferation of chemical weapons not only across the Syrian territory but beyond its borders," the Russian statement said.

The Kremlin said on Friday that Russia was boosting its naval presence in the Mediterranean, moving warships into the area and stoking fears about a larger international conflict if the United States orders air strikes.

Illustrating the risks associated with a strike, the US state department ordered non-essential American diplomats to leave Lebanon, a step under consideration since last week when Obama said he was contemplating military action against the Syrian government.

**lily** Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:21 pm

Obama leaving door open to Syria strike if Congress balks

Published September 06, 2013FoxNews.comFacebook17 Twitter9 LinkedIn0

As on-the-record opposition mounts on Capitol Hill to a Syria strike and President Obama prepares to make his case directly to the American people, the big question hanging over the stand-off is: If Congress votes "no," will the president go ahead with a military strike anyway?

The president and his aides are sending out conflicting messages. Reflecting the air of uncertainty around the whole Syria operation, both Obama and a top spokeswoman on Friday appeared to walk back the comments of a key adviser who suggested Obama would back down if Congress votes "no."

But the White House, in the end, left the door open a crack for the president to proceed with a strike even without congressional approval.

"There is no change in our position. As the president has said, he has the authority to act, but his intention is to do so with the approval of the Congress," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said.

The Obama administration has been fuzzy on that question all week. Secretary of State John Kerry has said repeatedly he is not so much as "contemplating" the possibility of Congress rejecting the use-of-force measure, because that scenario would be too "dire."

But as the projected "no" votes piled up this week, it has forced the administration to contemplate that scenario more seriously. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid formally introduced the use-of-force resolution on Friday, teeing up a vote for next week. He said he thinks he can round up the 60 votes likely necessary to pass it; but the House is seen as a bigger challenge.

In what initially appeared to be a concession to the authority of Congress, Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken said Friday morning that the president did not intend to act without lawmakers' support.

"The president of course has the authority to act but it's neither his desire nor his intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him," he said on NPR's "Morning Edition."

But Obama, when asked shortly afterward about his adviser's claim on his "intention" not to act without Congress, asserted: "I don't think that's exactly what he said."

Obama also said "it would be a mistake for me to jump the gun and speculate" when asked if he would act without congressional support.

Hayden reiterated the president's remarks when asked for clarification: "As he said in Sweden, he believes they will vote to authorize the use of military force. I'm not going to speculate on the president's decision-making if they don't approve; we think they will," she said.

The text of the resolution itself very clearly leaves the president a rhetorical opening to pursue a strike on his own. The opening of the resolution states "the president has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States."

But for the president to claim that authority, after having made a very-public decision to seek the consent of lawmakers, would be a colossal challenge and rebuke to Congress if his resolution is voted down.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, who has said he thinks the resolution will pass, predicted that Obama -- like British Prime Minister David Cameron -- would not proceed if the resolution fails.

"Here's my prediction. If Congress votes no, he's not gonna do it," Bolton told Fox News on Friday. "He would require a character transplant to stand up against a congressional vote."

The president, before returning to the United States, acknowledged on Friday that winning the backing of Congress is an uphill climb, with popular opinion now running decidedly against a military strike in Syria.

He announced that he plans to address the nation on Tuesday, to explain to the American people his rationale for military action.

"I knew this was going to be a heavy lift," Obama conceded, adding that given the last decade of war, any hint of "further military entanglements in the Middle East" is viewed with suspicion.

"I was elected to end wars, not start them," he said. But he stressed that any U.S. involvement in Syria would be "limited." The president said that if the Rwandan genocide were happening now, "it probably wouldn't poll real well" either.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/06/obama-leaves-door-open-to-syria-strike-even-if-congress-says-no/#ixzz2e9ai5ZCa

**bb1** Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:32 pm

I could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad's use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States

FFS, a few days ago he said it WAS a threat to the US.

I notice he still hasn't produced a scrap of actual evidence that it was Assad that did it, just weasel words about 'everything pointing to'.

If Obama had evidence, he would have presented it long before now rather than get himself in this mess. I'm not surprised Americans, across the board, are so angry - their President appears to have taken leave of his senses.

Sponsored content