Émission de radio L'Autre Monde

Émission de radio L'Autre Monde

mercredi 2 octobre 2013

L'Autre Monde 2 octobre 2013 : Syrie-Iran vs sionistes-USA-banquiers privés


L'Autre Monde 2 octobre 2013 : Syrie-Iran vs sionistes-USA-banquiers privés
Pour écouter, ou pour télécharger, simplement cliquer sur le lien ici:

L'Autre Monde 2 octobre 2013

90 min / Radio de l'UQAM, CHOQ FM

Au programme cette semaine: 

Le cas de la Syrie et de l'Iran qui sont dans la mire des sionistes, des barbares occidentaux, et particulièrement des banquiers privés internationaux, est discuté dans cette émission. Plusieurs autres sujets cruciaux de l’actualité mondiale sont également abordés.

C'est en rendez-vous le mercredi 14h sur les ondes de CHOQ FM, la radio officielle de l'Université du Québec à Montréal !  

***Hyperliens vers les sources des informations discutées sur l'émission d'aujourd'hui:  

FLASHBACK - All Wars Are Bankers' Wars

So, Obama is still pushing for an attack on Syria and Iran, despite no support from the UN, NATO, or the American people. Obama is still pushing for an attack on Syria even though the world knows the claims that Assad gassed his own people are as much bovine excrement as the claim Saddam had nuclear weapons.
So what is going on?
The President's supporters insist the attack must happen to preserve the President's credibility. That seems like a poor excuse for a war until you realize how credibility influences the back-channel economic discussions with other nations.
Remember that under the Federal Reserve system, all currency enters circulation as a loan at interest. The private owners of the FED get a "piece of the action" of all commerce involving the US dollar, because of that accruing interest. This is why the nation is drowning in debt because the private central banking scam by design creates more debt than money with which to pay that debt.
With me so far?
What the Federal Reserve did to the American people, the post WW2 Bretton-Woods agreement did to the entire world. If all global trade and banking goes through the dollar and all dollars are borrowed at interest from the Federal Reserve, then the private owners of the FED get a "piece of the action" of all global commerce involving the US dollar, because of that accruing interest. It's like the Mafia getting a "piece of the action" from every business operating inside their territories.
But nations have started to move away from the dollar as it loses real value to inflation and is seen as less and less reliable. The only way the Mafia ... I mean the Federal Reserve, can continue to collect their "piece of the action" is to send out their enforcers (the US military) to slap down those who dare defy the Mafia ... I mean the Federal Reserve demands for their "piece of the action". In other words, war is being made against nations that refuse to use the dollar, or tangle themselves up with the global banking system (Syria does not owe any money either to the IMF or the World Bank).
The US demonstrated this in Iraq. In 2002 Saddam Hussein obtained UN permission to sell Iraq's oil for Euros. One year later the US invaded, lynched Saddam, and put Iraq's oil back on the world market, but only for US dollars. Then Gaddafi set up a new state central bank in Libya with a value-based currency, the Gold Dinar, and announced that Libya's oil was for sale, but only for the Gold Dinar. So the US invaded, killed Gaddafi, destroyed the state central bank and the Gold Dinar, imposed a private central bank on the Libyan people, and Libya's oil is for sale, but again, only for US dollars.
Even with these clear demonstrations of what happens to nations that refuse the Mafia .. I mean, the Federal Reserve's demands for their "piece of the action", many nations are moving away from the dollar. China now has currency exchange deals with 8 nations that do not go through the US dollar. The BRICS nations just funded their own BRICS controlled central bank to facilitate trade and investment, without using the US dollar. Dropping the dollar was even discussed at the recent G20, although driven off the media screens by the impending attack on Syria.
So here is the real deal. When Obama's supporters talk about maintaining the President's credibility with an attack on Syria, what they really mean is maintaining the credibility of the US threat to invade and destroy any nation that refuses to pay the Mafia's ... I mean the Federal Reserve's "piece of the action."
If the President can't get his war with Syria, then there will be a flood of nations dropping the US dollar and the party will be over for Wall Street and the Mafia ... I mean, the Federal reserve.
And that is why Obama is still pushing for war with Syria, even as the world objects. That is why Obama still pushes for war with Syria even as the lies about Assad gassing his own people continue to crumble. Obama is out to prove that the US can and will invade and conquer upstart nations that refuse to use US dollars borrowed at interest.


"Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave." -- Frederick Douglass


"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservatives, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history." --Ari Shavit Ha'aretz News Service (Israel) April 5, 2003


At the Goldsborough hearing in Congress on April 14 th, 1932, one very reliable witness is reported to have testified that he went to Mr. Williams in February 1920, and asked Mr. Williams when the Federal Reserve Board was going to start to deflate. Mr. Williams with tears in his eye, said they were going to begin on May 18 th, 1920, Mr Williams is alleged to have told the Federal Reserve Board: "you will bust a great many Country banks," and he was answered, "It don't make a damn bit of difference; there are too many of them already." He then told the Board, "you are going to ruin a lot of farmers throughout the Country," to which he was answered, "well, they have made so much money they won't work-let them bust." This action of the Federal Reserve has been referred to as "The Crime of '20." Within a period of approximately a year there after, the amount of Federal Reserve Notes in circulation was reduced by a billion dollars or more. In addition to that, loans were called and credit was drastically contracted, thus creating the depression of 1921. During that depression hundreds of banks in the West were broken and thousands of farmers were forced into bankruptcy. As Mr. Leslie Erickson has stated in his book entitled: The Bankers Racket, "Billions of dollars for the speculator but not a dollar for the farmer, the toiled or the industrialist."


From Sun Tzu
“Generally, in war the best policy is to take a state intact; to ruin it is inferior to this.
Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy’s strategy. Next best is to disrupt his alliances by diplomacy. The next
best is to attack his army”.



This message is available online at http://www.WantToKnow.info/911/9-11_official_story_questions

Did you know that over 3,000 respected government officials, professors, military officers, architects, engineers, and more have gone on the record raising serious questions about the 9/11 official story?
Here are the numbers of caring and courageous individuals who have risked ridicule to publicly raise questions and call for a new investigation of 9/11 based on the abundance of solid evidence that the official story is tragically flawed. Links are provided for verification.
·         Over 1,500 architects and engineers
·         Over 400 professors
·         Over 400 medical professionals
·         Over 300 9/11 survivors and family members
·         Over 250 pilots and aviation professionals
For key quotes from 50 senior military, intelligence, and government officials who raise questions about the 9/11 official story with links for verification, click here. For key quotes from 100 esteemed professors with verification links, click here. A detailed list of all 3,000 individuals who have come forward is available here. For an excellent 9/11 Information Center with a wealth of solid information in the form of videos, media articles, essays, and much more on 9/11, click here.


“Horrific”: Former employee reveals CNN is paid by foreign governments to produce content disguised as news (VIDEO)

Former CNN Journalist Amber Lyon Interview
The Alex Jones Show
Sept. 28, 2012
Former CNN Journalist Amber Lyon: I started getting employees at CNN, longtime employees, approaching me saying, “You should investigate this. This is very suspicious. Something’s going on here.”
And we found out that, which was really, I felt defrauded as a journalist, we found out that at the same time I was being detained and risking my life to expose the Bahrain regime, CNN International is taking money from them in exchange for producing content that it airs on CNN International. Content disguised as news.
I mean one of these programs, the reporter, Richard Quest, was reporting live from Bahrain for a week. And u on a program called iList, and that program made Bahrain seem progressive. And the crown prince was a reformer.
And as an employee at CNN, I was never told that this was going on. Also viewers are not being told that CNN is being paid by state regimes some with horrific human rights records to air content disguised as news, which they’re often not even telling the viewers that this content was paid for by government. And, Alex, on a journalistic level, this is horrific.
Full interview here


Embedding copyright-infringing video is not a crime, court rules

Embedding a copyright-infringing video on another Web site is not illegal, a court ruled yesterday.
Judge Richard Posner ruled at the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that MyVidster, a social video bookmarking site, did not infringe the copyright of Flava Works, a porn production company, when it embedded copyright-infringing versions of Flava Works content from third-party Web sites.

Solid Evidence of Suppression of New Energy Technologies

"The average fuel economy rating of all new cars and trucks sold in June [2013] was 24.7 miles per gallon. "  ~~  
USA Today, 7/8/2013
"Ford's Model T, which went 25 miles on a gallon of gasoline, was more fuel efficient than the current Ford Explorer sport-utility vehicle -- which manages just 16 miles per gallon."  ~~  Detroit News, 6/4/03
"The Prius is the first significant departure from the combustion engine to make any major inroads in the auto industry since Henry Ford invented the Model T in 1908."  ~~  Newsweek, 9/6/04

Dear friends,
What happens when we compare technological advances in various fields over the last 50 to 100 years? In communications, we've gone from the basic telephone of 50 years ago to answering machines, faxes, instant messaging, and wireless cell phones packed with cameras, GPS, and more. Just 50 years ago computers were huge, multi-million dollar monsters capable of only rudimentary mathematical problems. Today, the portable laptop on which I'm typing can perform functions literally millions of times faster and more complex than its ancestors, and connect me instantly to anyone in the world with Internet access.
In engineering and materials science, we have gone from basic woods and metals to sophisticated plastics, fiber optics, nanotechnology, and other high-tech manmade materials and technologies that perform all kinds of functions which would have been considered miraculous 100 years ago. Television, movies, microwave ovens, air conditioning, radar, and gameboys didn't even exist then. In astronomy, biology, medicine, agriculture, genetics, electronics, and most any other field you can think of, we are not only generations, but light years ahead in both knowledge and applications of what was available 100, and sometimes even 50 years ago.
Now consider the areas of energy and transportation, and the oil and automobile industries in particular. Technological progress in these sectors has moved at a snail's pace compared to the fields mentioned above. Most cars and trucks still use the same internal combustion engine on which the Model T depended 100 years ago. And while the Model T boasted gas mileage of 25 MPG in 1908, average fuel economy for 2013 according to the EPA was only 24.7 MPG."
And when it comes to energy, most of the world still depends largely on huge, polluting coal and oil generation plants not much more efficient than those of 100 years ago. How can it be that we've had such dramatic, almost miraculous advances in so many fields, while the energy and transportation sectors have made so little progress? Could it be that greed and the desire for economic and political control by the power elite of the world have kept the profit-rich energy and transportation sectors from developing as rapidly as they might have in a more open climate, where big money and political clout did not suppress technological breakthroughs?
Genius inventors for the past 100 years have made remarkable discoveries of new, more efficient energy sources, only to find their inventions either suppressed or not given the attention and funding needed to break us free of our dependence on archaic coal and oil-based technologies. Consider Nikola Tesla, the genius inventor of AC current, fluorescent light, and laser beams, who has over 700 patents to his name. Tesla proved in 1900 that the Earth itself could be used as a very cheap conductor of electricity. He successfully lighted 200 lamps without wires from a distance of 25 miles.
Why wasn't Tesla's wireless electricity developed and spread around the world? His main financial supporter, banking tycoon J.P. Morgan, withdrew funding with the classic comment, "If anyone can draw on the power, where do we put the meter?" For more on Tesla and his amazing inventions, see PBS's voluminous tribute available here, or the Tesla Society website. A Google search will turn up lots more. Hundreds of other inventions and inventors (including a personal friend of mine) have suffered a similar or worse fate.
Below are short excerpts from a number of major media articles which suggest major suppression of technological advances in the fields of energy and transportation. For an excellent two-page summary of this vital topic, click here. You can also find a wealth of reliable, verifiable information at our New Energy Information Center. By educating ourselves and our friends and colleagues on this crucial topic, we can build a critical mass of informed citizens who demand the release of suppressed inventions and technologies that will pave the way for a brighter, healthier future for us, for our children, and for our beautiful planet. Thanks for caring.
With best wishes,
Fred Burks for PEERS and WantToKnow.info
Former language interpreter for Presidents Bush and Clinton

Toyota Rav4 EV review: electrifying
March 125, 2013, San Francisco Chronicle (SF's leading newspaper)
In the new crop of electric cars, the Rav4 may be the best you've never heard of. It comes from one of the world's largest automakers and sports a drivetrain built by Tesla Motors, rock star of the plug-in world. And yet, outside the circle of electric enthusiasts, few drivers know it exists. You can buy it only in California. Toyota doesn't advertise it on TV. So far, the company has committed to building just 2,600. Critics, including some people who love the Rav4 EV, say Toyota made it only to comply with California regulations that force automakers to sell zero-pollution cars. "Everyone agrees it's a wonderful car," said Felix Kramer, founder of CalCars, a plug-in vehicle advocacy group. "Too bad there's not enough." That suspicion comes from experience. Toyota made an electric version of the Rav4 once before, building 1,484 of the small SUVs between 1997 and 2003. Then the company killed the program, after California changed its zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) rules. The new Rav4 EV ... boasts ferocious acceleration, plenty of power and a low center of gravity thanks to the big battery pack hidden in the floor. It's not a luxury car, but the interior is comfortable and plush, tricked out with a touch-screen and heated seats. Those so inclined can take the Rav4 EV from a standstill to 60 mph in 7 seconds. The car gets a solid 125 miles on a fully charged battery pack, and an easy-to-read number on the dash constantly reminds you how many miles you have left.
Note: Once again a major car manufacturer produces a great electric vehicle only to suppress it. Remember "Who Killed the Electric Car", the movie on GM's EV1 which was killed despite major consumer interest? Then there was Toyota's 100 mpg Eco Spirit which was also killed.

Brazil's alcohol cars hit 2m mark
August 18, 2006, BBC News
Brazil's new generation of cars and trucks adapted to run on alcohol has just hit the two-million mark. "Flex-fuel" vehicles, which run on any combination of ethanol and petrol, now make up 77% of the Brazilian market. Brazil has pioneered the use of ethanol derived from sugar-cane as motor fuel. Ethanol-driven cars have been on sale there for 25 years, but they have been enjoying a revival since flex-fuel models first appeared in March 2003. Just 48,200 flex-fuel cars were sold in Brazil in 2003, but the total had reached 1.2 million by the end of last year and had since topped two million.
Note: With recent sky-high gasoline prices and the fear of depletion of global oil supplies, why aren't such cars being mass produced and promoted in the U.S.? And why are the trains of almost every other developed nation far advanced from trains in the U.S.? For possible answers, click here.

Toyota smashes fuel economy record
October 20, 2002, Times of London
Tucked away on the Toyota stand you will find a cheeky little coupé that looks sporty but whose raison d'être is fuel economy, the lowest exhaust emissions and ease of recycling. The ES3 — the initials stand for Eco Spirit — achieves 104mpg in the official European fuel consumption tests, a record for a four-seat car. Some months ago I drove this prototype and not only is it even more economical than the special "3 litre" (three litres of fuel for every 100km travelled, or 94mpg) versions of the Audi A2 and VW Lupo that sell in Germany, but the Toyota is more lively and responsive and would be very acceptable as an everyday car.
Note: The Toyota Eco Spirit was the talk of the fuel economy car industry in 2002, when this article was published. At over 100 MPG and with the lowest exhaust emissions and a very reasonable sticker price, the Eco Spirit's debut was widely anticipated. What happened to it? This article reveals that Toyota nixed the car. Why in these times of soaring oil prices would they not rush this car into mass production? As this article is no longer available at its original URL, you can read it at this link.

Car achieves almost 10,000 miles per gallon
July 16, 1999, BBC News
A car driven by a 10-year-old and built at a French school has set a new world record for fuel efficiency. The Microjoule team managed the equivalent of 9,845 miles per gallon while driving for 10 miles around Silverstone race track in the UK. More than 100 teams competed in the Shell Eco-Marathon. Their one goal was to see how far they can get these amazing machines to travel on a minuscule amount of fuel. While we might be delirious if we managed 40 miles (64 kilometres) to the gallon (4.5 litres) pottering about town in our super minis, these people are not happy until they have seen the mileometer click through the thousands. The entries come from all over Europe. Some teams use advanced materials like titanium and carbon fibre. Some of the machines built by schoolchildren are made from parts of old sewing and washing machines.
Note: Some of these amazing vehicles made in 1999 were "built by schoolchildren," yet the auto industry still can't make a car that get's 100 mpg? Granted these cars are slow and small, but if they can get almost 10,000 mpg, don't you think similar technology could be used to get at least several hundred mpg in regular cars?

Kids Build Soybean-Fueled Car
February 17, 2006, CBS News
The star at last week's Philadelphia Auto Show wasn't a sports car or an economy car. It was a sports-economy car — one that combines performance and practicality under one hood. But as CBS News correspondent Steve Hartman reports in this week's Assignment America, the car that buyers have been waiting decades [for] comes from an unexpected source and runs on soybean bio-diesel fuel to boot. A car that can go from zero to 60 in four seconds and get more than 50 miles to the gallon would be enough to pique any driver's interest. So who do we have to thank for it. Ford? GM? Toyota? No – just ... five kids from the auto shop program at West Philadelphia High School.

Freezing gas prices
May 25 , 2005, NBC Oklahoma City
There is a man who fills up his tank once every two months. One tank of gas, literally, lasts him two months. He is freezing the price of gas by freezing something else. David Hutchison is a Cryogenics expert. He built this Cryo-Process himself. A few years ago he began an experiment on his hybrid Honda, freezing the engine components. The results were a fuel-efficiency dream. A hybrid Honda typically gets really great gas mileage anyway, around 50 miles to the gallon, but David Hutchison's cryogenically tempered engine has been known to get close to 120 miles a gallon. Racers have picked up on David's trick of cryogenically freezing car parts. It is now widely accepted among NASCAR and Indy-car racers.
Note: Why isn't this amazing news front-page headlines with rapid development for use by us all?

Refiners Maintain a Firm but Legal Grip on Supplies
June 18, 2005, Los Angeles Times
California refiners are simply cashing in on a system that allows a handful of players to keep prices high by carefully controlling supplies. The result is a kind of miracle market in which profits abound, outsiders can't compete and a dwindling cadre of gas station operators has little choice but go along. Refiners "not only control how much supply is in the marketplace, they control who gets it and at what price," said Dennis DeCota, executive director of the California Service Station and Automotive Repair Assn. The recent history of California's fuel industry is a textbook case of how a once-competitive business can become skewed to the advantage of a few, all with the federal government's blessing. Refiners acknowledge their California businesses have become the most profitable in the nation. The rest of the country isn't far behind. Characteristics once unique to California — specialty fuels, a refinery shortage, the growing dominance of a few companies — have begun to plague other gasoline markets.
Note: To understand why all of this isn't being reported in headline news around the country, click here.

Michigan solar car team wins 2,400-mile race
July 25, 2008, CNN News

In the world of higher education, summer is usually the off-season. But for some students, this summer was the culmination of years of hard work in a 2,400-mile solar car race from Plano, Texas to Calgary, Alberta. Fifteen teams of students drove photovoltaic-powered cars across the North American Solar Challenge finish line in Calgary Tuesday, led by the University of Michigan Solar Car Team and its vehicle, Continuum. Michigan's victory, which took about 51 hours and 42 minutes on the road, is its fifth NASC championship. The school also won the last NASC, in 2005. Jeff Ferman, the race manager for Michigan, talked about how rewarding it was to enter Calgary and be greeted by 40,000 people."The streets were lined with people," he said. "There were people on overpasses with tripods taking pictures." The Michigan team led almost the entire race from Texas, trailing only on the first day of driving when it had to stop to fix a minor electrical problem. But that 20-minute stop was the only time it had to pull over to make repairs, which team members said was one reason they did so well.
Note: If you do the math, this amazing solar powered car built by college students averaged 46.5 mph over a 2,400 mile course! Why didn't this make news headlines? Try doing a Google search on "Solar Challenge" (the annual solar car race). You will find that almost no major media cover this amazing event at all. The few who have (including the CNN article) usually fail to mention anything about the speeds attained by these cars. Why is the media not covering these incredible breakthroughs?

Enron Schemes Caught On Tape
February 3, 2005, CBS News
During the West Coast Power crisis homes went dark and streetlights were out in California — causing injuries and accidents. But the danger didn't stop Enron's energy traders from having a good laugh. CBS ... reports on the Enron scheme, as caught on new audio tape. The traders and plant operator laugh and plot in a display that seems to prove the theory that years before the energy crisis, Enron manipulated markets. "They had to do a rolling blackout through the town and there was a red light there he didn't see," one Enron trader says on tape. "That's beautiful," a second voice responds. Enron secretly shut power plants down so they could cause, and then cash in on, the crisis. Enron also pulled power out of states like California, causing emergency conditions to worsen. "Sorry California," an Enron trader says. "I'm bringing all our power out of state today." Plant operators were coached on how to lie to officials. "We want you guys to get a little creative..." one voice says on the tape, "and come up with a reason to go down." The "shut downs" and "pull outs" triggered sky high power prices. "We're just making money hand over fist!" one voice is heard saying on the tape. And when states complained, the guys at Enron seemed to have a response. "Get a f****** clue," one says. "Yeah," another chimes in. "Leave us alone. Let us make a little bit of money."
Note: For an eye-opening two-minute video clip on CBS, click on "Enron Schemers on Tape" at this link. And a New York Times article states "Company officials had long denied that they illegally shut down plants to create artificial shortages. Two months after the recording showed how the Nevada plant was shut down, [Enron CEO Kenneth] Lay called any claims of market manipulation 'conspiracy theories.'"

Researcher sets saltwater on fire
November 14, 2007, CNN News
Last winter, inventor John Kanzius was already attempting one seemingly impossible feat -- building a machine to cure cancer with radio waves -- when his device inadvertently succeeded in another: He made saltwater catch fire. TV footage (Preview) of his bizarre discovery has been burning up the blogosphere ever since, drawing crackpots and Ph.D.s alike into a raging debate. Skeptics say Kanzius's radio generator is sucking up far more energy than it's creating, making it a carnival trick at best. For now, Kanzius is tuning out the hubbub. Diagnosed with leukemia in 2002, he began building his radio-wave blaster the next year, soon after a relapse. If he could seed a person's cancerous cells with nanoscopic metal particles and blast them with radio waves, perhaps he could kill off the cancer while sparing healthy tissue. The saltwater phenomenon happened by accident when an assistant was bombarding a saline-filled test tube with radio waves and bumped the tube, causing a small flash. Curious, Kanzius struck a match. "The water lit like a propane flame," he recalls. "People said, 'It's a crock. Look for hidden electrodes in the water,' " says Penn State University materials scientist Rustum Roy, who visited [Kanzius] in his lab in August after seeing the feat on Google Video. A demo made Roy a believer. "This is discovery science in the best tradition," he says. Meanwhile, researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center have made progress using Kanzius's technology to fight cancer in animals. They published their findings last month in the journal Cancer.
Note: For other compelling articles on this fascinating invention, see articles in the Los Angeles Times, ABC News, and especially Medical News Today. And for amazing news on cancer cures, click here. Why aren't millions of dollars being poured into this with researchers across the nation perfecting it? Why haven't you heard about this in headline news? For possible answers, explore the revealing WantToKnow.info website.


Dix attaques aux armes chimiques dont Washington ne veut pas que vous parliez

Pourquoi le cordonnier est-il toujours le plus mal chaussé ? Question existentielle s’il en est !… Au moins ce n’est pas par cynisme ni par hypocrisie…

– Résistance 71 ~

Wesley Wessamore
Samedi 7 Septembre 2013
Cela manque d’autorité morale. Nous parlons d’un gouvernement ayant un historique d’utilisation d’armes chimiques contre des innocents de manière bien plus prolifique et mortelle que les quelques accusations concernant les forces du régime d’Assad, provenant d’un complexe militaro-industriel occidental à la gâchette facile et bien décidé à torpiller toute enquête supplémentaire avant de frapper. Voici une liste de 10 attaques chimiques perpétrés par le gouvernement américain ou ses proches alliés contre des populations civiles… 1. L’armée américaine a largué 80 millions de litres de produits chimiques sur le Vietnam entre 1962 et 1971
Pendant la guerre du Vietnam, l’armée arméricaine a épandu 80 millions de litres de produits chimiques, incluant l’agent orange (défoliant) très toxique, sur les forêts et les zones rurales vietnamiennes et des pays voisins, détruisant de manière délibérée les cultures vivrières, l’écologie de la jungle, ravageant les vies de centaines de milliers de civils innocents. Le Vietnam estime que le résultat de ces dix années d’attaques chimiques quelques 400 000 personnes furent tuées ou handicapées, 500 000 bébés sont nés avec des déformités et plus de 2 millions de personnes ont souffert de cancers et autres maladies induites par le contact avec les substances chimiques. En 2012, la Croix Rouge Internationale a estimé qu’un million de personnes au Vietnam ont des infirmités ou des problèmes de santé directement liés à leur exposition à l’agent orange.
2. Israël a attaqué les civils palestineins avec du phosphore blanc en 2008-2009
Le phosphore blanc est une horrible arme chimique incendiaire qui brûle la chair humaine jusqu’à l’os. En 2009, de multiples groupes humanitaires incluant Human right Watch, Amnesty International et la Croix Rouge Internationale ont rapporté que le gouvernement israélien attaquait les civils de leur propre pays avec des armes chimiques. Une équipe d’Amnesty International a déclare avoir trouvé des preuves indiscutables de l’utilisation étendue du phosphore blanc dans des zones de population civile très denses. L’armée israélienne a commencé par nier les accusations, puis a reconnu que cela était vrai.
Après cette cohorte d’accusations faites par ces ONG, l’armée israélienne attaqua même le QG de l’ONU à Gaza avec une arme chimique. Comment voyez-vous toutes ces preuves et faits avérés contre le cas de la Syrie ? Pourquoi Obama n’a t’il pas essayé de bombarder Israël ?
3. Washington a attaqué des civils irakiens avec du phospore blanc en 2004
En 2004, des journalistes intégrés avec l’armée américaine en Irak ont commencé à rapporter l’utilisation de phosphore blanc à Fallujah contre les insurgents irakiens. D’abord l’armée a menti en disant qu’elle n’utilisait le phosphore blanc que pour créer des écrans de fumée ou éclairer des cibles. Puis elle a admis utiliser des armes chimiques volatiles et des armes incendiaires. A cette époque, la RAI italienne diffusa un documentaire titré: “Falujah, le massacre caché”, incluant des vidéos atroces et des photos horribles ainsi que des entretiens avec des témoins oculaires de la ville de Fallujah et des soldats américains révélant comment le gouvernement américain arrosa de manière indiscriminée le feu blanc chimique sur la ville irakienne et fit fondre femmes et enfants.
4. La CIA a aidé Saddam Hussein à massacrer des Iraniens et des Kurdes avec des armes chimiques en 1988
Les archives de la CIA prouvent maintenant que Washington savaient que Saddam Hussein utilisait des armes chimiques (incluant le neurotoxique sarin et le gaz moutarde ypérite) dans la guerre Irak-Iran et continua à abreuver l’armée irakienne de renseignements sur les mouvements de troupes iraniens sachant pertinemment que ces informations seraient utilisées pour l’utilisation d’armes chimiques. A un moment en 1988, Washington avertit Hussein d’un mouvement de troupes iraniennes qui aurait pu mettre un terme à la guerre en la défaveur des Irakiens. En Mars, un Saddam Hussein tout pimpant de ses nouvelles alliances avec Washington attaqua un village kurde tuant 5000 personnes et en blessant 10 000 autres, la vaste majorité étant des civils. Des milliers moururent les annés suivantes des complications, de maladies et de difformités de naissance.
5. L’armée américaine a testé des produits chimiques sur les résidents de banlieues pauvres de la ville de St Louis dans les années 1950
Au début des années 50, l’armée mit en place des diffuseurs motorisés au sommet de hauts bâtiments des banlieues à bas revenus de la ville de St Louis, essentiellement les banlieues pauvres noires et ce incluant des zones urbaines où 70% de la population étaient des enfants de moins de 12 ans. Le gouvernement expliqua alors qu’il expérimentait avec des diffuseurs d’écrans de fumée pour tromper les Russes dans leurs attaques, mais en fait cela diffusait de l’air contaminé avec des centaines de kilos de zinc dadmium sulfide. Le gouvernement admet qu’il y avait un second ingrédient dans le mélange chimique en poudre, mais que ce second ingrédient fut radioactif demeure une information classée secret défense. Bien sûr qu’il l’était. Depuis ce test, un nombre alarmant de personnes de cette zone a développé des cancers. En 1955, Doris Spate naquît dans un de ces bâtiments utilisés par l’armée pour emplir l’air avec des produits chimiques de 1953-4. Son père est mort de manière inexplicable cette même année, elle a vu quatre des ses frères et sœurs mourir de cancers et Doris elle-même survit à un cancer du cervix.
6. La police tire des gaz lacrymogènes sur les manifestants du mouvement Occupy Wall Street en 2011
La violence inouïe de la police contre les manifestants du mouvement Occupy en 2011 fut très bien documentée et inclut l’emploi massif de gaz lacrymogène et autres produits chimiques irritants. Le gaz lacrymogène est interdit à l’utilisation contre un ennemi militaire dans une bataille par la convention sur les armes chimiques. Pourquoi la police de Portland (ou d’ailleurs) n’a t’elle pas la même courtoisie et protection que requiert la loi envers des soldats ennemis sur le champ de bataille ?
7. Le FBI a attaqué hommes, femmes et enfants avec des armes chimiques lors du siège de Waco en 1993
Durant le tristement célèbre siège de Waco au Texas d’une communauté pacifiste religieuse adventiste, le FBI a massivement utilisé des gaz lacrymogènes dans les bâtiments sachant pertinemment que des femmes, des enfants et des nourissons s’y trouvaient. Ce gaz était hautement inflammable et le feu s’y mis, embrasant les bâtiments et brûlant vifs 49 femmes et hommes et 27 enfants, incluant des bébés. Rappelez-vous: attaquer des soldats ennemis avec des gaz lacrymogènes est un crime de guerre. Quel genre de crime est-ce que d’attaquer des bébés avec des lacrymos ?
8. L’armée américaine a couvert l’Irak avec de l’uranium appauvri toxique en 2003
En Irak, l’armée américaine a rempli l’environnement avec des milliers de tonnes de munitions à l’uranium appauvri, un déchet de la production nucléaire toxique et radioactif. Ainsi cela a eu pour résultat de voir la moitié des naissances de bébés a Fallujah avec de graves anormalités. Certains de ces défauts n’avaient été vus que dans des photos de livres publiés sur les effets des tests nucléaires dans les îles du Pacifique. Les cancers et la mortalité infantile ont dramatiquement augmenté dans tout l’Irak. D’après Christopher Busby, le secrétaire européen du comité des risques nucléaires, “ces armes ont totalement détruit l’intégrité génétique de la population irakienne.” Après avoir autorisé deux des quatre rapports publiés en 2012 sur la crise de la santé publique en Irak, Busby a décrit Fallujah comme ayant “le plus haut taux de dommages génétiques de toutes les populations sur lesquelles j’ai enquêté et que j’ai étudiées.”
9. L’armée américaine a tué des centaines de milliers de civils japonais avec du napalm entre 1944 et 1945
Le napalm est un gel collant et hautement inflammable qui a été utilisé comme une arme de terreur par les Etats-Unis. En 1980, les Nations-Unies ont déclaré que l’utilisation de napalm sur les populations civiles était un crime de guerre. C’est exactement  ce que l’armée américaine a fait durant la seconde guerre mondiale, larguant sufissamment de napalm dans un bombardement sur Tokyo pour que 100 000 personnes fussent brûlées vives, en blessant plus d’un million et laissant des millions sans abris dans le bombardement le plus meurtrier de la seconde guerre mondiale.
10. Le gouvernement américain a largué deux bombres nucléaires sur deux villes japonaises en 1945
Bien que les bombes nucléaires ne soient pas réellement des armes chimiques, je pense que nous pouvons ici être d’accord sur le fait que cela fait partie de la même catégorie. Ces armes très certainement dispersent une quantité énorme de produits chimiques radioactifs mortels, qui sont d’horribles armes chimiques si ce n’est pire et par leur nature même, ne sont bonnes qu’à une chose: éradiquer une ville remplie de ses habitants civils. Il est quand même bizarre de constater que le seul régime qui ait jamais utilisé une de ces armes de terreur sur d’autres êtres humains soit celui qui s’active le plus avec la prétention de rendre le monde plus sûr des armes de destruction massive en les enlevant des mains de gouvernements jugés dangereux.
Wesley Wessamore  
url de l’article:
~ Traduit de l’anglais par
Résistance 71 ~


Le conseil de sécurité de l’ONU soutient l’accord américano-russe sur le désarmement chimique de la Syrie

Mondialisation.ca, 29 septembre 2013
Dans la nuit de jeudi, les cinq membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU ont approuvé une résolution négociée entre les Etats-unis et la Russie, posant les bases d’une destruction du programme d’armes chimiques de la Syrie.
L’accord, d’abord proposé par la Russie il y a deux semaines dans une tentative d’empêcher les Etats-unis et leurs alliés de partir en guerre contre la Syrie pour soutenir les milices de l’opposition liées à Al Qaïda, marque clairement une pause dans la menace américaine de guerre contre la Syrie. Il y a encore deux semaines, le gouvernement Obama menaçait de partir en guerre, comme l’avait fait le gouvernement Bush enIrak en 2003, sans l’approbation du conseil de sécurité de l’ONU et au mépris du droit international.
Pour le moment, Washington négocie dans le cadre de l’ONU. Cela impose des obstacles bien précis à une guerre américaine contre la Syrie. La résolution que Washington a acceptée n’autorise pas l’usage de la force contre la Syrie, même s’il devait apparaitre qu’elle ne respecte pas le plan de désarmement.
Si Washington ou ses alliés accusaient la Syrie de ne pas respecter ce plan, ils devraient revenir devant le Conseil de sécurité pour demander une nouvelle autorisation s’appuyant sur le Chapitre 7 et autorisant le recours à la force, laquelle verrait probablement la Russie comme la Chine y opposer leur veto.
Le gouvernement Obama indique son soutien aux négociations et aux procédures pour le désarmement, proposées par Moscou et Damas. Les responsables du ministère des Affaires étrangères américain ont dit que la déclaration de ses armes chimiques par la Syrie est “assez bonne,” après avoir initialement exprimé des inquiétudes sur la possibilité pour le régime d’Assad de chercher à dissimuler ses armes. La Syrie aurait 300 tonnes de gaz moutarde, et plusieurs centaines de tonnes de liquides chimiques précurseurs des agents neurotoxiques, qui sont décrits comme “non-armés” et relativement faciles à détruire.
Le Kremlin a proposé d’envoyer des troupes en Syrie pour surveiller les armes chimiques avant leur destruction. Les responsables de la Maison Blanche ont applaudi ce geste qu’ils ont qualifié de “sérieux et sincère,” et ont loué les négociateurs russes pour être “encore mieux préparés” que leurs homologues américains pour discuter des questions juridiques et techniques soulevées par le programme de désarmement de la Syrie.
Les responsables américains et leurs homologues internationaux ont tous essayé de présenter cette situation comme un triomphe de la paix pour leurs divers objectifs diplomatiques.
L’ambassadrice américaine aux Nations unies, Samantha Power, a déclaré “Il y a tout juste deux semaines, les résultats de cette nuit semblaient complètement inimaginables. Il y a deux semaines, le régime syrien n’avait même pas reconnu l’existence de ses stocks d’armes chimiques. Mais ce soir, nous avons un projet de résolution en commun qui est le résultat de la diplomatie et des négociations intenses de ces deux dernières semaines.”
Après des négociations avec le ministre américain des Affaires étrangères John Kerry, son homologue chinois Wang Yi a dit : “Les inquiétudes principales de toutes les parties, y compris les inquiétudes de la Chine, ont en fait été résolues.”
Si Washington est retourné à la table des négociations, c’est dû non au triomphe de la diplomatie, mais à l’opposition écrasante des classes ouvrières américaine et européenne contre une guerre d’agression des Etats-unis et de l’OTAN contre la Syrie. Surpris par la colère populaire massive contre leurs projets de guerre, et incapables d’orchestrer avec l’aide des médias un changement de l’opinion publique, le gouvernement Obama était également confronté au risque d’une guerre avec les soutiens de la Syrie, la Russie et la Chine. Il a par conséquent accepté la proposition russe de négociations comme le meilleur moyen de faire avancer ses intérêts stratégiques contre la Syrie, la Russie et l’Iran.
La résolution de l’ONU laisse un certain nombre de possibilités au gouvernement Obama et à ses alliés du Golfe persique et de l’OTAN pour faire pression sur le régime du président syrien Bashar el-Assad.
Une disposition inhabituelle et impérieuse de la résolution exige que l’Organisation pour l’interdiction des armes chimiques (OIAC) ait accès à tout site qu’elle soupçonne de pouvoir être utilisé pour les armes chimiques, même si celui-ci n’a pas été déclaré par le régime syrien.
Elle demande que la Syrie accorde à ses représentants “un accès immédiat et sans entraves, à n’importe quel site, ainsi que le droit de les inspecter.” Elle demande également “un accès immédiat et sans entraves aux personnes que l’OIAC considère importantes dans l’objectif de son mandat.”
Elle demande également que le régime d’Assad intègre des sections de l’opposition soutenue par les Etats-unis dans ses rangs. Elle demande “l’établissement d’un gouvernement de transition exercant les pleins pouvoirs exécutifs, qui pourrait inclure des membres du présent gouvernement et de l’opposition ainsi que d’autres groupes, et qui devra être formé sur la base du consentement mutuel”.
Loin de mettre fin à la menace de guerre, ces négociations sur les armes chimiques syriennes lient le conflit syrien à une confrontation régionale beaucoup plus large et plus tendue, mise en évidence par la menace de guerre en Syrie, confrontation entre d’une part les Etats-unis et leurs alliés, et de l’autre, l’Iran et la Russie. Ces pays pressent à présent la Syrie d’apaiser les Etats-unis, tandis qu’ils se préparent à des négociations avec Washington sur toute une série de questions concernant la région, et notamment le programme nucléaire iranien.
Le résultat de ce type de négociations est totalement incertain, Washington est prêt à exiger des concessions importantes non seulement sur le programme nucléaire iranien, mais aussi sur sa politique étrangère au sens large et sur l’appropriation par les occidentaux d’une partie de son industrie pétrolière. On ne sait pas si le régime iranien profondément divisé peut accepter de telles conditions. En premier lieu, Il sera confronté à une profonde hostilité de la classe ouvrière iranienne, pour laquelle cela impliquerait des coupes sociales importantes et le rétablissement de l’influence américaine sur l’Iran d’une manière qu’ils n’avaient plus connue depuis la révolution de 1979 qui avait fait tomber le Shah d’Iran.
Le gouvernement Obama a affirmé, de manière répétée et invariable, que toutes les options sont “sur la table” au cas où les négociations sur le programme nucléaire iranien échouaient, y compris l’usage de la force. En dépit des négociations sur les armes chimiques syriennes, la région reste au bord d’un conflit majeur, du type de celui qui a failli éclater ce mois-ci.
Dans un article pour le journal d’Etat iranien en langue anglaise Press TVZaher Mahruqi a déclaré, “Bashar el-Assad est un homme intelligent qui, à tout le moins, comprend que trahir la Russie et l’Iran, qui ont soutenu ses efforts durant ces deux dernières années, serait une erreur grave. Par conséquent, toute grande décision prise par la Syrie a dû être réfléchie avec ses principaux soutiens et a dû reçevoir une forme de garantie sur le fait qu’abandonner les armes chimiques ne serait pas aussi risqué que cela puisse paraître, et qu’un plan de secours crédible est prévu.”
Mahruqi a suggéré que la stratégie de l’Iran s’appuie sur l’espoir que la Russie interviendrait dans une future guerre des Etats-unis contre la Syrie, puisqu’elle a déjà envoyé des navires de guerre en Méditerrannée pour surveiller ceux de l’OTAN qui se tiennent prêts à lancer des frappes de missiles contre la Syrie.
“La Syrie va se soumettre mais à une vitesse calculée et elle ne donnera à l’Amérique et Israël aucun prétexte légitime pour l’attaquer, et ainsi la Russie n’aura pas d’autre choix que de rester ferme. Si une attaque a lieu, la réaction de la Russie sera probablement bien plus forte que la récente confrontation en Méditerrannée,” écrit-il.
Alex Lantier
Article original, WSWS, paru le 28 September 2013


Syrie / ONU : La résolution 2118 passée au crible de la réalité…

Mondialisation.ca, 01 octobre 2013
Dans un précédent article paru le 16 Septembre 2013 [1], le Général Amin Hoteit constatait, ainsi que la plupart des observateurs de bonne foi ou condamnés à reconnaître une certaine part de vérité, que « suite à la résistance devenue légendaire de la Syrie face à une guerre planétaire et qui dure depuis plus de trente mois par l’intermédiaire d’une horde assassine de terroristes armés jusqu’aux dents , voilà que les équations attendues sur le terrain s’inversent et que les tendances générales observées sur la scène internationale se modifient. Ainsi, nous avons vu la crise passer du stade où l’agression incendiaire allait atteindre ses objectifs selon la logique de la solution militaire imaginée par le camp des États agresseurs dirigé par les USA, au stade où il n’est plus possible que d’envisager une  solution pacifique par le dialogue et la négociation ».
Il ajoutait : « L’agression incendiaire devra désormais se limiter à deux objectifs : servir de pression diplomatique dans la négociation, et purifier le territoire syrien de tous les déviants partis combattre un État laïc où coexistent des citoyens de toutes les religions et croyances… Nouveaux objectifs qui ont abouti à l’accord de Genève du 14 Septembre 2013 entre les ministres des Affaires étrangères de la Russie et des États-Unis… Nous étions arrivés au bord de l’explosion qui aurait détruit la région ; mais étant donné les intérêts et l’’équilibre des forces sur le terrain, il nous paraissait logique de prédire que les USA n’oseraient pas mettre leur menace à exécution, quoique nous n’avions pas exclu la probabilité d’une erreur de calcul de leur part ! ».
L’erreur de calcul étant momentanément écartée par ce que les médias se plaisent à qualifier de « manœuvre diplomatique astucieuse de Vladimir Poutine » [2] sans jamais admettre que la Syrie et les Syriens se battent, depuis deux longues années et demi, d’abord et avant tout pour leur « identité » contre des zombies de destructions massives toujours nourris par les USA et leur dernier allié occidental plus royaliste que le roi… Un allié, dit-on, sonné par « le revirement d’Obama » mais qui ose encore prétendre, par la voix de son ministre des Affaires étrangères, que l’armée syrienne tue son peuple et qu’à la limite la résistance héroïque de ce peuple, face à la plus dégueulasse des guerres qu’ait connu l’Histoire, constitue « une atteinte à la paix et à la sécurité internationales » ! [3].
Comble du comble, l’Ambassadeur permanent de la Syrie auprès de l’ONU, M. Bachar al-Jaafari, aurait commis un crime de lèse-majesté en s’en prenant à la France ! [4]. Il aurait été plus honnête de dire qu’il s’en est pris à ses dirigeants et plus particulièrement à M. Fabius qui « semblait ne pas comprendre la signification de la résolution 2118 » [5] votée à l’unanimité par le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies le vendredi 27 Septembre 2013 [6].
 Puisque, selon les dires de M. Fabius lui-même [3] « Tout ça bien évidemment doit être passé au filtre de la réalité », que devons-nous comprendre et redouter de cette résolution 2118, comme nous l’explique le Général Hoteit ? [NdT]. 


La résolution 2118, adoptée par le Conseil de sécurité pour le démantèlement et la destruction des armes chimiques en Syrie, restera une étape importante et décisive témoignant de la transition vers un nouvel ordre mondial ; les résolutions des trois décennies précédant ce 27 Septembre 2013 ayant été d’une toute autre nature.
Pour rappel, suite à l’effondrement de l’URSS, les USA avaient fait main basse sur les organisations et institutions internationales, notamment sur le Conseil de sécurité pratiquement rattaché au ministère US des Affaires étrangères et aux ordres de la Maison Blanche, sans que certains n’osent utiliser leur droit de veto et que d’autres ne songent ne serait-ce qu’à hésiter devant leur volonté. Le Liban en a fait l’amère expérience suite à l’adoption de la résolution 1559 le concernant [7]; laquelle, bien que soumise au chapitre VI de la Charte des Nations Unies, était en contradiction avec la Charte elle-même puisqu’elle revenait à violer sa souveraineté et son indépendance, interférait dans ses affaires intérieures, et se mêlait de ses relations avec un pays frère. Sa mise en œuvre a étrangement nécessité la nomination d’un « Envoyé spécial » du Secrétaire général de l’ONU, lequel n’a pas tardé à se transformer en une sorte de « Haut Commissaire US-international au Liban » !
En revanche et malgré la prétendue satisfaction victorieuse des USA, cette dernière résolution 2118 peut être considérée comme le signe annonciateur du retour à l’équilibre au sein du Conseil de sécurité et, par conséquent, du retour à un certain équilibre dans les relations internationales. Nous avons suffisamment dit et répété depuis deux ans que c’est de la matrice syrienne que naîtra un nouvel ordre du monde et c’est ce qui a déjà commencé.
Ceci étant dit, il est important que nous examinions les étapes clés qui ont mené à l’approbation de cette résolution par le Conseil de sécurité :
La référence au Chapitre VII
Cette référence est une volonté du bloc occidental sous direction US et avec incitation des pays du Golfe, pour que le Conseil de sécurité justifie le recours à la force militaire ou autorise n’importe quel État membre à en user contre la Syrie et son gouvernement. C’était le but des manœuvres US qui ont cherché à imposer leurs diktats à la Syrie. Mais les nouvelles équations ont gâché cette chance aussi bien pour les occidentaux que pour les USA. La résolution a été prise en vertu du chapitre VI, ce qui signifie que sa mise en œuvre ne nécessite pas le recours à la force mais reste conditionnée par le consentement de l’État concerné et, par conséquent, affirme sa souveraineté.
Ce fait n’est nullement modifié par ce qui est indiqué au paragraphe 21 quant à l’imposition de mesures en vertu du chapitre VII en cas de non respect de la résolution, car elle ne se limite pas au gouvernement syrien, comme le souhaitaient les USA, mais vise implicitement toute personne concernée par son application y compris les groupes armés sévissant sur le territoire syrien ainsi que les États voisins qui faciliteraient la possession ou le transfert d’armes chimiques en Syrie.
D’autre part, l’éventuel recours au chapitre VII n’est pas automatique, mais passe par la prise d’une nouvelle résolution du Conseil de sécurité et par le droit de veto de chacun de ses membres permanents, après identification du contrevenant et des conditions du recours à la force.
Finalement, le texte de cette résolution 2118 comporte des points positifs dans l’intérêt de la Syrie même si le bloc occidental tente de les négliger, l’impact du paragraphe 21 étant de nature politique, sans plus !
Les destinataires de la résolution
Depuis le début de l’agression contre la Syrie, les USA et tous leurs affidés ont cherché à convaincre de la non légitimité du régime et du gouvernement syriens, affirmant que les seuls représentants du peuple syrien étaient ce groupe de « résidents de palaces à l’étranger » pompeusement nommés Conseil national syrien [CNS] puis Coalition… et sont allés jusqu’à les asseoir sur le siège de la Syrie à la « Ligue hôtelière des États arabes » ; l’État syrien étant, selon eux, responsable de tout le sang versé !
La résolution 2118 est venue contredire ce cliché étant donné qu’elle appelle par la lettre et l’esprit à travailler avec la gouvernance légitime actuelle de la Syrie ; met en échec les tentatives US innocentant les crimes des gangs armés sévissant sur son territoire ; équilibre le discours des organisations et des États agresseurs, lesquels sont désormais comptables de toutes tentatives d’exploitation et de livraison d’armes chimiques aux prétendus rebelles. Le paragraphe 5 de la résolution est plus que clair : « … aucune des parties syriennes ne doit employer, mettre au point, fabriquer, acquérir, stocker, détenir ou transférer des armes chimiques ».
Les clauses qui méritent prudence
Il ne faudra pas oublier que les USA contrôlent toujours le Secrétariat général des Nations Unies et son Secrétaire général en particulier. Il n’est donc pas exclu qu’ils tentent de biaiser certaines clauses de la résolution pour faire dérailler le processus de désarmement à leur avantage. Cela n’a certainement pas échappé à M. Bachar al-Jaafari qui a déclaré que la résolution « couvre la plupart des préoccupations de la Syrie »… la plupart ! En effet, certains points de détails nous paraissent mériter prudence :
  • Le Secrétaire général étant habilité pour désigner les envoyés onusiens chargés de répertorier, inspecter, vérifier la destruction des armes chimiques, avec lesquels la République arabe syrienne devra coopérer ; il faudra veiller à ce que le personnel désigné ne soient pas d’emblée susceptible de s’écarter de l’esprit de la résolution [Paragraphe 7].
  • Les États membres étant engagés à « contrôler » et donc à rendre compte de leurs observations concernant l’application de la résolution, certains plus enclins aux calomnies que d’autres ; il serait plus prudent de constituer un « Comité international de surveillance des calomniateurs » [Paragraphe 10].
  • La résolution « insistant sur le fait que la seule solution à la crise syrienne est un processus politique sans exclusive, dirigé par les Syriens, fondé sur le Communiqué de Genève du 30 juin 2012… », lequel a convenu  des lignes directrices et de principes pour une transition politique par, entre autres, la mise en place d’un organe de gouvernement transitoire qui pourra comprendre des membres de l’actuel gouvernement et de l’opposition « ainsi que d’autres groupes »… [8] ; il faudra être particulièrement prudent sur deux autres points. Le premier est de faire en sorte que le bloc occidental ne puisse pas choisir les membres de cet organe à sa convenance, mais qu’il soit effectivement composé de véritables représentants du peuple syrien. Le deuxième, est de veiller à ce qu’il ne présente pas cet organe comme le remplaçant de l’autorité légitime actuellement au pouvoir en Syrie. Ceci, parce que certains États pourraient persister dans leurs tentatives visant à faire admettre, dans ses rangs, des représentants de l’un quelconque des groupes prétendument révolutionnaires syriens… sous prétexte qu’ils sont « militairement victorieux » dans certaines zones, dites libérées, du territoire syrien.
Ici, il faut souligner l’importance des déclarations du ministre syrien des Affaires étrangères et des expatriés, M. Walid al-Mouallem à propos de la Conférence de Genève 2 : « La Syrie appuie la tenue de la conférence de Genève 2 pour parvenir à un règlement politique de la crise… Nous n’y participerons pas pour livrer le pouvoir à quiconque… C’est au peuple syrien, seul, de décider de son avenir via un processus politique loin de toute ingérence étrangère… Elle peut parvenir à un programme et à un plan d’action politique qui sera soumis à référendum populaire pour que le peuple syrien soit le décideur de son avenir… Tout règlement inadmissible par le peuple syrien, est inapplicable » [9].
En conclusion, en dépit de ces quelques observations qui justifient la prudence, il nous faut dire que la résolution 2118 est le premier fruit de la victoire de la Syrie dans sa défense contre l’agression planétaire sans précédent, une victoire qui tend donc à rétablir l’équilibre au sein Conseil de sécurité et d’un nouvel ordre mondial multipolaire. Grâce à sa résistance, la Syrie demeure souveraine, une et indivisible ; ce que la résolution 2011 confirme absolument !
Dr Amin Hoteit
 Article original : Al-Thawra  القرار 2118 أول قرار في ظل نظام عالمي جديد؟ ولكن..؟
Article traduit de l’arabe par Mouna Alno-Nakhal pour Mondialisation.ca
Notes :
[1] المعالم الأساسية لمشروع الاتفاق الدولي حول سورية و
[2] EXCLUSIF. Comment Hollande avait prévu de frapper la Syrie
[3] Fabius à l’ONU
[4] L’ambassadeur syrien s’en prend à la France 
[5] Conférence de presse de M. Bachar al-Jaafari à l’ONU le 28 septembre 2013 
Extrait vers la 6ème minute :
À la question [pas très audible] concernant le gouvernement français qui reconnait « Al-Jarba » comme le seul représentant légitime du peuple syrien et alors que M. Fabius avait participé le jeudi 26 Septembre à une réunion de la prétendue opposition syrienne, à New York, et en sa présence ; M. Al-Jaafari répond :
« Absolument pas ! Ceci n’est pas conforme à l’accord… J’ai adressé hier une lettre au Secrétaire général pour lui demander de renoncer à cet événement secondaire… C’est en toute franchise que je vous dis qu’il a eu lieu grâce à la délégation française dont la lecture des événements est plutôt surréaliste. La diplomatie française se comporte en« amateur » et non de façon professionnelle. Je conseille au ministre français des Affaires étrangères de lire la résolution avec attention. Ainsi il pourra en conclure qu’à partir de maintenant, ni lui ni son pays ne seront autorisés à en violer les décisions. Elle interdit au gouvernement français d’inciter au terrorisme et à la violence en territoire syrien. Elle interdit à Paris et au ministre français des Affaires étrangères de contribuer à l’escalade de la situation en Syrie à travers le soutien et la fourniture d’armes à ceux qui s’opposent à la tenue de la Conférence de Genève 2… Par conséquent, la diplomatie française a commis beaucoup d’erreurs. Il y a quelques minutes à peine, le ministre des Affaires étrangères lisait sa déclaration et paraissait ne pas avoir compris la signification de cette résolution… Mais il y a deux ou trois jours ils [la délégation française] ont organisé cet événement secondaire dans les locaux mêmes de l’ONU, ce qui constitue une violation flagrante de la Charte et de la volonté des États membres ».
[6] Security Council requires Scheduled Destruction of Syria’s Chemical Weapons, Unanimously Adopting Resolution 2118 (2013)
[7] Résolution 1559 du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies
La résolution 1559 a été adoptée le 2 septembre 2004 par le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, à l’initiative conjointe de la France et des États-Unis, par 9 voix sur 15 et 6 abstentions… « Ont déclaré que la résolution constituait une ingérence dans les affaires intérieures du Liban et se sont abstenus : Russie, Chine, Brésil, Algérie, Pakistan, Philippines ».
[8] Communiqué final (Genève, 30 juin 2012)
[9] Mouallem : La Syrie appuie la tenue de la conférence de Genève 2

Le Docteur Amin Hoteit est libanais, analyste politique, expert en stratégie militaire, et Général de brigade à la retraite.


Rencontre Etats-Unis, Iran pour des pourparlers sur le nucléaire

Mondialisation.ca, 28 septembre 2013
Le ministre américain des Affaires étrangères John Kerry et son homologue iranien Javad Zarif se sont rencontrés jeudi, organisant ainsi les pourparlers au plus haut niveau entre les deux pays depuis la révolution iranienne de 1979.
Ce face-à-face a eu lieu dans le cadre d’une rencontre des ministres des Affaires étrangères du groupe dit P5+1 (qui rassemble les cinq membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies, Etats-unis, Russie, Chine, Grande-Bretagne et France, plus l’Allemagne), formé en 2006 pour mener des négociations diplomatiques avec l’Iran sur son programme nucléaire. Cette réunion était organisée par la représentante de l’Union européenne pour les questions de politique internationale, Catherine Ashton, en parallèle de la session de l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies dans la ville de New York.
En se rendant à la réunion, les représentants des Etats-unis comme de l’Iran ont exprimé leur optimisme sur le fait que des progrès pourraient être réalisés en vue d’un accord sur le programme nucléaire iranien.
“Je suis sûr que nous allons avoir une bonne réunion,” a dit Kerry jeudi matin. Quant à Zarif, il a qualifié cette réunion d’”opportunité historique pour résoudre la question nucléaire,” sur son compte Twitter, à condition que les puissances occidentales acceptent la “nouvelle approche iranienne”.
“Si nous ne nous attendons pas à la résolution de quelque question que ce soit au cours de la réunion du P5+1 d’aujourd’hui, nous avons l’espoir de pouvoir continuer à tracer une voie pour avancer,” a déclaré un porte-parole du guvernement américain.
Avant la réunion il y avait des expressions des tensions générées par des décennies de sanctions économiques américaines contre l’Iran et de provocations continuelles, dont les assassinats de scientifiques iraniens, menés au prétexte d’empêcher le pays de construire une arme atomique.
L’Iran a régulièrement nié développer un programme nucléaire pour autre chose que des objectifs pacifiques et insiste sur l’idée que ses activités respectent totalement le traité de non-prolifération. Les évaluations des services de renseignement américains ont établi que le pays n’a aucun programme d’arme nucléaire.
Le président iranien récemment élu, Hassan Rouhani, s’exprimant lors d’une réunion sur le désarmement nucléaire au titre de sa fonction à la tête du Mouvement des non-alignés, a attiré l’attention sur l’hypocrisie des Etats-unis et de l’occident qui accusent l’Iran pour un programme d’armes nucléaires non-existant tout en défendant Israël, qui a amassé des centaines de têtes nucléaires et, contrairement à l’Iran, a refusé de signer le Traité de non-prolifération (TNP) ou d’autoriser toute inspection de ses installations.
“Près de quatre décennies d’efforts internationaux pour établir une zone sans armes nucléaires au Moyen-Orient ont lamentablement échoué,” a déclaré Rouhani, ajoutant qu’Israël devrait immédiatement adhérer au TNP et démanteler son arsenal nucléaire. Plus tôt, Rouhani a déclaré qu’il croyait qu’un accord pourrait être obtenu sur le programme nucléaire iranien en seulement trois mois.”
Jeudi également, l’Iran a fait afficher une “note explicative” de 20 pages sur le site Web de l’agence de surveillance du nucléaire de l’ONU, dénonçant les accusations selon lesquelles l’Iran développerait des armes nucléaires comme étant “des accusations sans fondement,” qu’il décrit comme “indignes de professionnels, inéquitables, illégales, et politisées.”
Cette note était apparemment une réponse à un rapport trimestriel de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique (AIEA) qui faisait état d’inquiétudes sur les applications militaires du programme nucléaire iranien. La note affirmait que ces déclarations s’appuyaient sur “des informations contrefaites, inventées et fausses fournies par les serivces de renseignements occidentaux et des sources connues pour être hostiles à l’Iran.”
Les représentants de l’Iran doivent rencontrer l’AIEA à Vienne vendredi: ce sera la première rencontre du genre depuis que Rouhani a été nommé président.
A Washington, pendant ce temps, des doutes ont été soulevés sur la capacité du président Barack Obama à obtenir un quelconque accord assouplissant les sanctions économiques imposées à l’Iran en échange de concessions sur le programme nucléaire, qui puisse présenter un intérêt pour les Etats-unis. Les sanctions les plus importantes ont été appliquées par des textes votés par le Congrès, où le lobby israélien et son hostilité implacable à tout accord avec l’Iran exerce une influence majeure.
Un groupe de 10 sénateurs républicains a rendu publique une lettre ouverte appelant Obama à “accroitre la pression sur l’Iran” et à “ne pas prendre de demi-mesures diplomatiques.” Cette lettre insiste sur l’idée que tant que le président américain ne sera pas en mesure d’obtenir un accord du Congrès pour une frappe militaire en Syrie, “nous sommes unis dans notre détermination à empêcher une arme nucélaire iranienne.”
La lettre suggère qu’aucun accord ne serait acceptable tant qu’il ne priverait pas l’Iran de ses “capacités d’enrichissement et de retraitement” de l’uranium et, en fin de compte, ne déboucherait pas sur un changement de régime.
L’orientation du gouvernement Obama vers des négociations avec l’Iran intervient un mois à peine après qu’il s’était préparé à lancer une attaque militaire contre la Syrie et avait été contraint de faire marche arrière face à une opposition populaire écrasante.
Cette opposition s’était exprimée en premier lieu dans le vote par la Chambre des communes britannique à la fin du mois d’août qui avait rejeté une motion en faveur de la guerre, puis dans l’hostilité largement répandue et fortement exprimée par la population aux Etats-unis contre une guerre de plus au Moyen-Orient. Obama risquait de voir le Congrès américain rejeter sa demande d’autorisation de l’usage de la force militaire.
C’est dans ce contexte que le gouvernement américain s’est emparé de la proposition russe pour le désarmement chimique de la Syrie.
Les négociations avec l’Iran ont à présent éclipsé les manoeuvres diplomatiques entourant la Syrie. Il se pourrait bien que ces deux actions fassent partie d’une même tentative du gouvernement américain de gagner du temps, en utilisant l’argument que la “voie diplomatique” a été essayée et a échoué afin de revenir à une agression militaire.
Il y a cependant une logique bien définie aux efforts américains pour réussir un rapprochement avec l’Iran, qui, avant la révolution de 1979, était un Etat-client clé des Etats-unis et un pillier de la réaction dans la région.
Il est clair que le gouvernement Iranien tient beaucoup à obtenir un allègement des sanctions, craignant qu’une hausse de l’inflation et du chômage, en particulier parmi les jeunes travailleurs, ne déclenche des luttes sociales qui menaceraient le régime islamiste ainsi que sa base sociale principale parmi les capitalistes et les commerçants d’Iran.
Les considérations tactiques des Etats-unis ont été décrites dans un article d’Anthony Cordesman intitulé “Négocier avec l’Iran : l’argument stratégique pour le pragmatisme et le vrai progès”. [http://csis.org/publication/negotiating-iran-strategic-case-pragmatism-and-real-progress]. Cordesman est l’analyste en charge du Moyen-Orient et de la sécurité nationale du Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS – un laboratoire d’idées réputé).
Tout en recommandant au gouvernement américain d’être “extraordinairement prudent quand il traite avec l’Iran” et en prévenant que les négociations pourraient servir de “tactique pour gagner du temps” afin de faciliter la mise au point présumée des armes nucléaires par l’Iran,Cordesman donne également une estimation lugubre des conséquences non-voules qui pourraient résulter d’une action militaire contre ce pays.
“L’Iran pourrait très bien subir une série de frappes préventives, déclenchées par Israël ou décidées par les Etats-unis, cela détruirait bien plus que ses installations nucléaires,” écrit-il.” Cela pourrait, ou peut-être pas, en fait mettre un terme aux efforts nucléaires iraniens.”
Il prévient que, comme on l’a vu en Syrie, “Personne ne peut prédire quel soutien les Etats-unis vont réellement obtenir de leurs alliés,” sans parler de la population américaine. L’Iran pourrait riposter contre les intérêts américains en Afghanistan, en Irak, Syrie et au Liban et menacer le flux des exportations de pétrole venant du Golfe persique, écrit Cordesman.
D’un autre côté, il affirme que les Etats-unis et l’Iran pourraient trouver “des intérêts stratégiques communs” sur un grand nombre de questions, allant de la stabilité en Afghanistan au contre-terrorisme et au développement de l’industrie pétrolière.
La presse iranienne est bien plus franche que la presse américaine dans l’évaluation des véritables “intérêts stratégiques” qui sous-tendent les négociations américano-iraniennes. Un quotidien de Téhéran, Arman, écrit : “la Chine et la Russie ne seront pas contentes de toute possibilité d’améliorer les relations entre l’Iran et l’occident… Il est probable que les pays arabes dans la région n’approuveront pas la diminution des problèmes entre l’Iran et les Etats-unis non plus… Nous devrions prêter attention à cette question importante, étant donné que de nombreux pays ne nous soutiendront pas et nous devrions donc être guidés par nos intérêts nationaux.”
Un autre quotidien, Hamshari, fait le lien entre l’orientation vers des négociations avec l’Iran et le rôle apparemment majeur joué par la Russie pour parvenir à un accord sur la Syrie et pour éviter une guerre américaine contre ce pays. “Peut-être qu’à ce stade, en mettant la Russie hors-jeu, les Etats-unis souhaitent montrer qu’ils peuvent entrer en interaction directe et en négociation avec l’Iran,” déclare le journal. “Cela leur permettrait de montrer que la place de la Russie au Moyen-Orient n’est pas aussi solide et puissante qu’on le pense …”
L’article continue en affirmant que l’Iran “n’a non seulement aucun besoin de médiateur régional ou d’Orient [c'est-à-dire, Russe ou Chinois] ; mais qu’il est lui-même en mesure d’être un médiateur régional dans les conflits actuels.”
Ce que ces analyses montrent clairement, c’est que l’entrée de Washington dans des négociations sur la Syrie et l’Iran ne représente pas un tournant vers la paix ou une renonciation aux objectifs stratégiques prédateurs de l’impérialisme américain. C’est plutôt un tournant tactique visant à développer l’hégémonie américaine sutr les régions stratégiques du Golfe persique et d’Asie centrale et à préparer une confrontation bien plus dangereuse avec la Russie et la Chine.
Il reste à voir si cette “voie de la diplomatique” produira les résultats escomptés par l’élite dirigeante américaine, ou bien si cette dernière s’en servira pour préparer un nouveau prétexte pour une guerre contre la Syrie et l’Iran.
Bill Van Auken
Article original, WSWS, paru le 27 September 2013


Un reportage publié par l’agence Mint Press News (MPN) basée à Minneapolis

« Beaucoup, beaucoup » d’agents secrets israéliens en Syrie
Le quotidien français Le Figaro vient de révéler qu’« un premier groupe de 300 hommes, sans doute épaulés par des commandos israéliens et jordaniens, ainsi que par des hommes de la CIA, aurait franchi la frontière le 17 août. Un second les aurait rejoints le 19 » (1). Ils progresseraient vers Damas.
On sait qu’en mars 2013, les Israéliens avaient remis au général Martin Dempsey, chef d’état-major de l’armée étasunienne, un plan « en deux étapes » prévoyant d’apporter un soutien grandissant à l’ALS (Armée syrienne libre) en créant une zone d’exclusion aérienne, puis de soutenir le « camp laïc » face à la « menace islamiste ».
Des rebelles en uniformes israéliens !
L’implication directe d’Israël dans la guerre civile a été signalée à plusieurs reprises ces derniers mois, y compris par le général Salim Idriss, chef d’Etat-major de l’ALS, qui a déclaré, en avril 2013, dans une interview à CNN, qu’il avait « beaucoup, beaucoup » d’officiers des services de renseignement israéliens opérant en Syrie (2).
En juillet dernier, Laeth Horan, porte-parole de la « Brigade des martyrs de Yarmouk » – affiliée à l’ALS - a remercié Israël pour les soins apportés aux rebelles syriens blessés à la frontière du Golan, et envisagé – « pour l’après-guerre » - dix ans de coopération entre son organisation et l’Etat juif (3).
Début août, l’agence de presse iranienne Ahlul Bayt a affirmé que des membres de l’ALS habillés d’uniformes israéliens combattaient les troupes gouvernementales. Elle citait un officier syrien qui - sous couvert d’anonymat - lui a déclaré avoir vu des inscriptions en hébreu à l’intérieur des uniformes de rebelles tués appartenant aux Brigades d’Al-Ghouta (4). L’information, invraisemblable, n’a été reprise nulle part. Mais, on peut se demander depuis l’article du Figaro de mercredi dernier, si les cadavres en question n’avaient pas été habillés par les services syriens pour prouver à l’opinion publique syrienne et arabe –faute de mieux - la participation de conseillers militaires israéliens aux combats.
Gaz toxique : opération planifiée à l’avance ?
La région d’Al-Ghouta, dans la grande banlieue de Damas, est celle où Bachar al-Assad est accusé d’avoir utilisé, ces derniers jours, des gaz de combat. On ne voit pas quel intérêt il aurait eu à le faire, au moment où une commission d’enquête de l’ONU se trouve justement en Syrie pour cela. A l’inverse, on est en droit de penser qu’il s’agit d’une manipulation de grande ampleur organisée pour justifier la création d’une zone d’exclusion aérienne. Le général Dempsey aurait inauguré récemment à Amman un Centre de commandement US à cet effet.
Pour Alexandre Loukachevitch, porte-parole du ministère russe des Affaires étrangères, les informations sur l’utilisation d’armes chimiques constituent une « provocation planifiée à l’avance ». Les rebelles, dit-il, ont déployé « un missile contenant une substance chimique toxique »pour  « torpiller les chances de convocation d’une deuxième conférence de Genève ». Il demande, ce qui va de soi, l’ouverture « d’une enquête compétente et objective ».
 Gilles Munier


One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, “If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line” — against catastrophic use of chemical weapons — “we’re in trouble.” 

L'AIPAC, le plus puissant lobby israélien aux États-Unis (qui, comme l'ADL, n'est pas inscrit, alors que la loi l'exige, au registre des lobbys étrangers), ose s'afficher comme un fauteur de guerres occidentales en Syrie et en Iran: 

L’AIPAC presse le Congrès d’accorder au Président le pouvoir qu’il a sollicité
mercredi 4 septembre 2013 - 11h:35 Jonathan Allen – Politico.com
« L’AIPAC presse le Congrès d’accorder au Président le pouvoir qu’il a demandé pour la protection de la sécurité nationale de l’Amérique et dissuader le régime syrien contre d’autres utilisations d’armes non conventionnelles. Le monde civilisé ne peut tolérer l’usage de ces armes barbares, particulièrement contre une population innocente incluant des centaines d’enfants », écrit le groupe dans un communiqué publié mardi après-midi. « En deux mots, il ne doit être donné aucun laissez-passer à la barbarie ».(...)
« Les alliés de l’Amérique, comme ses adversaires, examinent de près en ce moment quel résultat aura ce vote capital. Cette décision cruciale intervient à un moment où l’Iran court après la capacité nucléaire  » écrit l’AIPAC. « Le rejet de cette résolution affaiblirait la crédibilité de notre pays à empêcher l’utilisation et la prolifération des armes non conventionnelles et ainsi, de mettre grandement en danger la sécurité et les intérêts de notre pays et ceux de nos alliés régionaux  ».

AIPAC comes out for strike on Syria– and mentions Iran more often than Syria

How AIPAC works your Congressperson– using donors, rabbis, and Jewish members
The reason Israel (and its lobby) are going all out to push the United States to attack Syria is as a precedent for a much larger attack on Iran.

JTA - Jewish groups back Obama on Syria, but downplay Israel angle

The former head of Israel’s Military Intelligence and current director of the Institute for National...

Dubious Intelligence and Iran Blackmail: How Israel is driving the US to war in Syria

Who are the Syrian "rebels"?


Well for one thing, most of them aren't Syrian.

They're foreign thugs-for-hire and the paymasters
are Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.

Israeli intelligence 'intercepted Syrian regime talk about chemical attack' Information passed to US by Israeli Defence Forces' 8200 unit, former official tells magazine

Obama’s ‘source’ on Syrian gas attack–Israel’s Unit 8200


Israel Ynetnews: Obama blinked first Analysis: Decision to delay strike against Syria sends dangerous message to cruel regimes, terrorists everywhere


How do chemical weapons get to the Middle East?


Well, when the US wanted Iraq to murder
Iranians in the 1980s, we sent them all the
chemical and biological weapons they could handle.

That's one way they get to the Middle East.

WhySyria? Why now? Some answers

It's pretty clear that Obama, Kerry and
McCain are pathological liars.

Nothing new there.

But why are they bent on attacking Syria

There is an answer and it involves
a proposed new pipeline and Israel's plan for
a Greater Israel.

The FIRST Gulf War was based on a lie too
Orchestrated by US PR firm

Like father like son like Obama
The history of the First Gulf War

1. Reagan and Bush sent Saddam Hussein billions of dollars and literally tons of chemical and biological weapons to kill Iranians. (They did a good job. Iran lost over one million people in the Iran-Iraq War.)

2. Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq using slant drilling rigs they got from their friends in Texas.

3. Iraq told them to cut it out. Kuwait continued. Iraq told the US they planned to invade. US Ambassador told Hussein: "It's none of our business how you resolve this."

4. Iraq invades Kuwait.

5. Bush whips Americans into a frenzy with the lies above.

6. US attacks Iraqi forces, drives them from Kuwait, kills 135,000 of them including thousands as they were in retreat on their own territory - and establishes bases and supply depots all over the region

7. Mass murdering psychopath Bill Clinton spends eight years destroying basic infrastructure in Iraq leading to the death of at least 500,000 children

8. Son of Bush and his cabinet of lying criminals makes the case to invade Iraq.

9. They do so and deliberately botch the post-invasion occupation to degrade the country even further killing many hundreds of thousands more.

10. Hand picked animatron Bushbama continues the occupation, foments violence through out the region, and now threatens to attack Syria.

Deja Vu all over again.
- See more at: http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/the-iraq-war/the-first-gulf-war-was-based-on-a-lie-too.html#sthash.cYrz0BNQ.dpuf

VIDEO - Pat Buchanan: Chemical attacks in Syria "reeks of a false flag operation"

Ron Paul: Syria Chemical Attack Looks Like a "False Flag." Pat Buchanan & Vladamir Putin Agree (Preview)
Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after ‘civil unrest’ began

Britain’s ‘isolationism’ is not good for Israel

White House to Congress: ‘Help protect Israel with attack on Syria’

Senior GOP Senators: We Won’t Support Military Strikes Without ‘Overall Strategy’ To Remove Assad

Israelis question U.S. commitment in Syria

Ron Paul Calls the Chemical Attack in Syria a 'False Flag'


BBC editor tells staff to be soft on Israel

Cached Copy of Scrubbed Article Confirming US and UK Backed Chemical Weapons in Syria

'Syrian rebels take responsibility for the chemical attack admitting the weapons were provided by Saudis' - Dale Gavlak

Syrian Rebels Were Caught Sneaking Sarin Gas Across the Border in May

During a short interview with Germany’s DW News last Monday, former US National Security Adviser and Trilateral Commission co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski commented on the growing inefficiency of war due to the increased political knowledge of the public. (ÇA A TU L'AIR DES PROPOS D'UN GARS QUI VEUT LA GUERRE? BRZEZINSKI SE FOUT D'ISRAEL ET C'EST LE MENTOR D'OBAMA! VOUS COMPRENEZ MAINTENANT POURQUOI LA JUIVERIE DÉTESTE OBAMA À CE POINT!)


Lying us into war again

Iraq, Afghanistan...

Now Syria. 

A video reminder of how the US government
lies the country into war over and over




How do chemical weapons get to the Middle East?

Well, when the US wanted Iraq to murder
Iranians in the 1980s, we sent them all the
chemical and biological weapons they could handle.

That's one way they get to the Middle East.




Pro-Israel U.S. lobbying group sets major push for Syria action
September 7, 2013, Chicago Tribune/Reuters
The influential pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC] will deploy hundreds of activists next week to win support in Congress for military action in Syria, amid an intense White House effort to convince wavering U.S. lawmakers to vote for limited strikes. Congressional aides said they expected the meetings and calls on Tuesday, as President Barack Obama and officials from his administration make their case for missile strikes over the apparent use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government. The vote on action in Syria is a significant political test for Obama and a major push by AIPAC, considered one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, could provide a boost. The U.S. Senate is due to vote on a resolution to authorize the use of military force as early as Wednesday. Leaders of the House of Representatives have not yet said when they would vote, beyond saying consideration of an authorization is "possible" sometime this week. Obama has asked Congress to approve strikes against Assad's government in response to a chemical weapons attack on August 21 that killed more than 1,400 Syrians. Pro-Israel groups had largely kept a low profile on Syria as the Obama administration sought to build its case for limited strikes after last month's attack on rebel-held areas outside Damascus. But they had generally wanted the debate to focus on U.S. national security rather than how a decision to attack Syria might help Israel, a reflection of their sensitivity to being seen as rooting for the United States to go to war.
Note: For more on government corruption, see the deeply revealing reports from reliable major media sources available here.

NSA shares raw intelligence including Americans' data with Israel
September 11, 2013, The Guardian (One of the UK's leading newspapers)
The National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens, a top-secret document provided to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals. Details of the intelligence-sharing agreement are laid out in a memorandum of understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart that shows the US government handed over intercepted communications likely to contain phone calls and emails of American citizens. The agreement places no legally binding limits on the use of the data by the Israelis. The disclosure that the NSA agreed to provide raw intelligence data to a foreign country contrasts with assurances from the Obama administration that there are rigorous safeguards to protect the privacy of US citizens caught in the dragnet. The five-page memorandum, termed an agreement between the US and Israeli intelligence agencies "pertaining to the protection of US persons", repeatedly stresses the constitutional rights of Americans to privacy and the need for Israeli intelligence staff to respect these rights. But this is undermined by the disclosure that Israel is allowed to receive "raw Sigint" – signal intelligence. The memorandum says: "Raw Sigint includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and [unredacted] transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence metadata and content." According to the agreement, the intelligence being shared would not be filtered in advance by NSA analysts to remove US communications.

Breaking: Leaked Footage of Islam Battalion Launching Infamous Ghouta Chemical Attack on Aug 21


Syrian rebels have sarin gas: official Part of channel(s): Syria (current event)

Syria rebels possess ground-to-ground missiles and sarin, and a UN report on chemical weapons use shows they carried out attacks near Damascus, a high-ranking Syrian security source said on Tuesday.
“I categorically deny that we have used sarin gas, for the reason that we had no interest in doing so. We were winning in the battlefield,” the official said a day after a UN report on an August 21 attack was published. “It is generally the losers who adopt such a suicidal attitude. On the contrary, the army was winning,” he told AFP.
The UN investigation team said in its report that it had “clear and convincing” evidence that sarin gas was used in an August 21 attack on rebel areas near Damascus, and that chemical weapons have been used on a “relatively large-scale” in the 30-month-old Syrian conflict. The UN report does not say who used the weapons, though the opposition and its allies have blamed Assad's troops.


In public shift, Israel calls for Assad's fall

Israel wants to see Syrian President Bashar al-Assad toppled, its ambassador to the United States said on Tuesday, in a shift from its non-committal public stance on its neighbor's civil war.
But we want you Americans to do it for us!" -- Nodding Yahoo

A war the Pentagon doesn’t want
September 5, 2013, Washington Post
Written by Robert H. Scales, a retired Army general and former commandant of the U.S. Army War College. The tapes tell the tale. Go back and look at images of our nation’s most senior soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and his body language during [the] Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Syria. It’s pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war. Dempsey’s unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving military leaders. They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security. They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.” These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message. Our people lament our loneliness. Our senior soldiers take pride in their past commitments to fight alongside allies and within coalitions that shared our strategic goals. This war, however, will be ours alone.


Former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission – and now Kyocera copier salesman – Peter Morici argues that failure to attack Syria will destroy the American economy:
Sure, let's murder a whole bunch of people to balance the books; that'll secure the US reputation as a human rights champion!
It is a MYTH that wars are good for the economy. Yes, there is a surge of cash flowing around paying for the war, but it it all BORROWED cash, borrowed at interest from the private central bankers, and the illusion of wartime prosperity is paid for with decades of peacetime hardship making the payments plus interest on that loaned cash!

Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and a widely published columnist.
President Obama’s vacillation on Syria—first delaying military action and then booting the decision to Congress—poses grave threats to U.S. prosperity.
If any of you had any doubts that these wars are fought for the bankers, this should help dispel those doubts. This author, Peter G. Morici II, of Alexandria, Virginia, is ready, indeed eager, to trade blood for gold on the theory that wars are good for the economy.
But of course, this is a fallacy. To the uninitiated, wars seem to be a time of plenty of cash flowing into the war effort, but the problem is that it is all borrowed cash, borrowed at interest from the private central bankers, and the illusion of intense economic activity is followed by decades of hardship paying back that cash plus accrued interest. Worse, that cash is spent on things that explode, not on building products that can be resold at a profit to help cover the cost of repayment-plus-interest, so the hit on the economy is a double-whammy. They might as well put all that cash in a pile and burn it, for all the good it actually does in terms of true prosperity and productivity.
Wars are good for the bankers and for defense contractors, but for the people of the nation it simply means more debt they and their children and grandchildren struggle to pay.

Moronic Drivel from Clueless Warmonger

Former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission – and now Kyocera copier salesman – Peter Morici argues that failure to attack Syria will destroy the American economy:
President Obama’s vacillation on Syria—first delaying military action and then booting the decision to Congress—poses grave threats to U.S. prosperity.
Imminent military action, especially in the Middle East, instigates fears of shortages and panic in oil markets. Two years ago, oil prices jumped to more than $110 in anticipation of the U.S. action in Libya but then subsided when the worst did not happen to oil supplies.

Breathtaking U.S. Hypocrisy on Chemical Weapons

The U.S. has Repeatedly Violated the “Red Line” on Chemical Weapons

The U.S. encouraged Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against Iran … which was the largest use of chemical weapons in history.  While the number of people killed in the August 21st chemical weapons attack has been estimated at between 350 and 1,429, 20,000 Iranians and 5,000 Kurds were killed by Saddam’s chemical weapons attacks with full U.S. support and backing.
The U.S. sprayed nearly 20,000,000 gallons of material containing chemical herbicides and defoliants mixed with jet fuel in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use.   The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange.
The United States has used chemical weapons in the last 10 years.
The U.S. agreed pursuant to the international Chemical Weapons Convention to destroy its chemical weapons stockpiles by April 2007.  It received several extensions. The final extension expired in April 2012.  The U.S. failed to comply with the deadline.  (Syria was never a signatory to the treaty.)
Given the above, does the U.S. have the moral or legal standing to accuse Syria of violating a “red line” on chemical weapons?
Notes: U.S. military action in Libya and Syria have also caused chemical weapons to fall into the hands of Al Qaeda … and Al Qaeda has in fact used those weapons.
Britain has also used chemical weapons within the past 10 years, and has been caught allowing its companies to sell nerve gas chemical weapons to Syria for years.

This is the official form to enlist in the United States military. Print out a bunch and have them with you, and every time you meet someone who says war with Syria is necessary hand them the form. Send one to every member of Congress pushing for war, and everyone in the corporate media pushing for war. The message is simple; if they think war with Syria is necessary let them lead the way or send their own children first.

At the moment the House is tied. But despite Boehner and Pelosi's promise of a "vote of conscience" in which the members of Congress will be left to decide the issue for themselves, the administration, Wall Street, AIPAC, The Fed, the military-industrial complex are pulling out all the stops to sell this war to Congress in order to bypass the will of the people. Diane Fienstien has asked CIA to create a DVD to "prove" Assad used chemical weapons, to be distributed to Congress as part of the sales campaign, even though CIA's reputation does not include being an authority on anything other than lies, deceptions, and cocaine. The war hawks are in a full court press to get this war going. We have to fight just as hard to stop them, or we will wind up in a nuclear war (on the losing side).

The Iranian commander said when the Zionist regime saw that the United States and its Western allies are backing down from striking Syria; it “hastily” fired two missiles.
Given that real missile tests are always announced ahead of time to give civilian traffic time to clear the area, it is obvious that Israel tried to spook Assad into an overt military action against the US warships, which would have started the war. Israel has demonstrated their willingness to use false-flag attacks to get the war going (as they have in the past) and there is no reason to think they won;t try again with some other dirty trick, and soon!

Do not be fooled into yet another war based on lies

Activist Post
With citizen calls to Congress reportedly 499-to-1 against a strike in Syria, Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich) warned fellow lawmakers that they will likely be kicked out of office if they go against intense public opposition.
"If you're voting yes on military action in #Syria, might as well start cleaning out your office," Amash tweeted Thursday. "Unprecedented level of public opposition."...

China has reportedly sent warships to the coast of Syria to “observe” the actions of US and Russian ships as tensions build in preparation for a potential military strike on Syria which could come as soon as next week.
Image: Jinggangshan Warship
According to the Russian news outlet Telegrafist.org, the People’s Liberation Army dispatched the Jinggangshan amphibious dock landing ship and the vessel was seen passing through the Red Sea towards the Suez Canal, the waterway in Egypt that leads to the Mediterranean Sea and waters off the coast of Israel, Lebanon and Syria.
According to the report, the ship has not been sent to engage in any aggressive actions but is merely there to “observe” the actions of Russian and US warships. However, the Jinggangshan is equipped for combat, has conventional armaments and secondary cannons, and was utilized as part of a “show of force” in maneuvers aimed at defending the South China Sea earlier this year.
The report states that additional PLA warships have also been sent to the region but that their identity is unknown.
Yesterday it was reported that Russia was sending three more ships – two destroyers and a missile cruiser – to the eastern Mediterranean to bolster its forces which already include three other warships dispatched over the last two weeks.
Earlier this week, Russia criticized the United States for sending warships close to Syria, with Russian Defense Ministry official Oleg Dogayev remarking, “The dispatch of ships armed with cruise missiles toward Syria’s shores has a negative effect on the situation in the region.”
Five U.S. destroyers and an amphibious ship are currently positioned in the eastern Mediterranean awaiting strike orders. The USS Nimitz and three other warships are also stationed in the nearby Red Sea.
In a related story, China today toughened its rhetoric on Syria, warning President Barack Obama that, “Military action would have a negative impact on the global economy, especially on the oil price – it will cause a hike in the oil price.”
The Global Times, a newspaper described by Foreign Policy Magazine as “hyper nationalistic” and an “angry Chinese government mouthpiece, also published an editorial yesterday which slammed Obama for failing to prove that last month’s chemical weapons attack was the work of the Syrian government, charging that Washington’s “geopolitical interests” in the region were behind the military build-up.
The editorial, which also complains of the total lack of media coverage in America concerning reports that Syrian rebels admitted responsibility for last month’s chemical weapons attack, accuses the White House of “ignoring logic as it beats war drums.”

The powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC is planning to launch a major lobbying campaign to push wayward lawmakers to back the resolution authorizing U.S. strikes against Syria, sources said Thursday.
Officials say that some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists will storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution or risk emboldening Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon. They are expected to lobby virtually every member of Congress, arguing that “barbarism” by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated, and that failing to act would “send a message” to Tehran that the U.S. won’t stand up to hostile countries’ efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, according to a source with the group.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said that a DVD created at her request by the CIA containing evidence of chemical weapons strikes in Syria will be sent to every Senator and possibly members of the House.
Would that be the same CIA that cooked up the "simulation" of TWA 800 zooming upwards without a nose, and after the point in time the NTSB's own report said the wings had structurally failed, a "simulation" that was so bogus that Boeing publicly distanced itself from it? That CIA?
Thought so.
A DVD is not proof. Anyone can make a DVD. I can make a DVD that will convincingly show those Syrian people were gassed by aliens from outer space. I'm pretty good at such things (even better than the CIA) and it';s an even-money bet those of you reading this have already seen samples of my work on your TV sets and movie theater screens over the last 30 yeas.
The entire argument for war comes down to a theory that Assad was stupid enough to invite UN chemical weapons inspectors into Syria, then on the very day they arrive, launch a chemical weapon attack, not against the leadership of the hired mercenaries trying to oust him, but against women, children, and his own soldiers.
The fastest way to test whether that claim is false is to look for what should be there and isn't, and what is missing here is MOTIVE! John Kerry, John McCain, Barack Obama, Feinstien, the CIA, etc. et. al. can scream accusations and make videos all they want, but they cannot answer the question of just WHY Assad would carry out a chemical weapon attack on women and children. Such an attack serves no military purpose at all. There is nothing to be gained by that attack, which hit his own soldiers. Assad gains nothing politically from such an attack, indeed risks alienating the 70% of the Syrian people who support him (according to NATO's figures). In short, what should be there in the official story but is clearly not is Assad's motive for carrying out a chemical weapon attack on women and children right in front of the UN chemical weapons inspectors. And that absence of motive, along with the prima fascia absurdity of the official story, is why we know it it a lie, just like the lies about Saddam's nuclear weapons, stolen Kuwaiti incubators, torpedoes in the Gulf of Tonkin, Spanish mines in Havana Harbor, etc. etc. etc. etc.

The American People Have Spoken: Calls to Congress 499 to 1 against Syria war*

Global Research, September 05, 2013

By Garth Kant and Chelsea Schilling
Americans are slamming at least 24 members of Congress with thousands of phone calls and emails, urging lawmakers not to approve a military strike on Syria by a margin of as much as 499 to 1.
A national debate is raging on Twitter. Tweets and statements from members of Congress both Democrat and Republican show tremendously strong opposition to President Obama’s call for an air strike on Syria:
Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., tweeted, “Calls and emails from my constituents is 100 to 1 AGAINST getting involved in Syria. The American people are speaking.”
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said 99 percent of the calls his office oppose an attack.
Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., said, “Constituents who have contacted my office by phone or mail oppose action in Syria 523-4 so far.”
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., tweeted, “My phones are blowing up, and an overwhelming amount of constituents oppose U.S. military intervention in Syria.”
Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., tweeted, “Syria constituent calls 489-2 against.”
Rep. Shelley Capito, R-W.V., said of “about 1,000 calls to my office, maybe 5 are for.”
Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., said calls and emails to his offices are 600 to 9 against striking Syria.
Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., tweeted, “I received 225 emails via www.griffin.house.gov website over the weekend regarding Syria, and out of the 225 only 3 support U.S. military action against Syria.”
Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, said he is getting swamped with phone calls and on-the-street comments from constituents telling him to oppose a strike on Syria.
Rep. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said, “I’m told the phone calls are 9 out of 10 against a strike in Syria, from my constituents in Kentucky.”
Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas: “I have received hundreds of calls and letters from constituents expressing strong opposition.”
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., tweeted, “My office has been inundated with constituent phone calls and emails about Syria. Virtually unanimous opposition to military intervention.”
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, tweeted, “So far about 500 emails regarding Syria. 499 say NO and 1 say YES go to war” and “Hundreds of calls to our Provo and Washington, D.C., office. So far not a single call in favor of bombing Syria.”
Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., tweeted, “The phones in my office are ringing off the hook and mail is flowing in. Almost all of the people are opposed to intervention in Syria.”
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, tells WND his office is hearing the same overwhelming opposition to intervention.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., said, “I don’t know a member of Congress whose e-mails and phone calls are in favor of [bombing Syria.]”
Rep. Steve Southerland, R-Fla., said 96 percent of his emails and phone calls are from constituents who want to express their opposition to military action. He said, “Overwhelmingly, we are hearing pushback from our citizens against military intervention in Syria.”
Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C.,  said he’s heard no support from his constituents for striking Syria: “I have not had a single person, not a single person, in over 92 Facebook posts just a little while ago in a question we posed, having a single constituent or a South Carolinian saying let’s go to war in Syria.”
Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said “a very high percentage” of the constituents contacting his office have been against U.S. involvement in Syria. He estimated that 90 percent of more than 1,000 calls and emails from Americans have been urging him not to support intervention.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said, “I can tell you that in my office, the phones are bopping off the hook there. And almost unanimously people are opposed to what the president is talking about.”
Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., told the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing he and his constituents say “not just no, but heck no!” to Syria intervention.
Rep. Alan Lowenthal, D-Calif., has received more than 653 e-mails, phone calls and social-media. Only 11 of the comments favored strikes.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., admitted her constituents’ calls were “overwhelmingly negative” over a possible Syria intervention, but she added, “They don’t know what I know.”
Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., tweeted, “I’ve been hearing a lot from members of our armed forces. The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against Syria.”


Meanwhile, U.S. men and women in the military are taking to social media to anonymously demand that the Obama administration refrain from sending them to fight Syria.
Uniformed military members posted photos of themselves on Facebook with paper messages covering their faces, declaring:
“I didn’t join the Marine Corps to fight for al-Qaida in a Syrian civil war.”
  • “I didn’t sign up to kill the poor for the rich. No war in Syria!”
  • “Obama, I will not deploy to fight for your al-Qaida rebels in Syria. WAKE UP, PEOPLE!”
  • “I didn’t join the Navy to fight for al-Qaida in a Syrian civil war.”
WND’s own unscientific poll now shows Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to military action in Syria by a 78 to 1 ratio.

“Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who is aggressively lobbying against a military strike on Syria, says the Obama administration has manipulated intelligence to push its case for U.S. involvement in the country’s two-year civil war…He says members of Congress are being given intelligence briefings without any evidence to support administration claims that Syrian leader Bashar Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons. Grayson said he cannot discuss the classified briefings…” (US News,9/6/13)

New video showing Syrian rebel brutality emerges

A video smuggled over the Syrian border by a former rebel features a mass execution of government soldiers by the Jund al-Sham group fighting Assad. The latest example of rebel brutality comes as Washington prepares to intervene into the conflict.
The video, obtained by New York Times and which has gone viral online, is a mobile phone recording of an execution that took place in April.

Seven government soldiers are shown shirtless on their knees in somewhat fetal positions with their faces to the ground. Some have their hands tied behind their backs.

Rebels stand behind the condemned men, pointing their firearms down at them and listening to their leader chant the verdict.

For 50 years, they are companions to corruption,” the commander of the group says. “We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge.”

Having pronounced that, the man shoots the soldier closest to him. Other gunmen immediately follow suit to execute the rest of the captured soldiers. The dead bodies are then dumped into a well.

The man who smuggled the video across the border is former assistant to the chief of the group, who says he defected from it because he could no longer stand atrocities performed by his brothers in arms, according to New York Times.  

The runaway, concealing his identity for security reasons, explains the seven soldiers were executed after videos of them raping civilians and looting were found on their cell phones.

The group he belonged to is little-known and not large, consisting of 300 fighters. It’s called Jund al-Sham, sharing the name with three international terrorist groups.

The rebel commander is Abdul Samad Issa, 37, also known as ‘the Uncle’ because two of his deputies are his nephews. According to his defected assistant the man believes his father was killed during a 27-day government crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in 1982, led by the father of Syria’s current president. Thus, fighting government forces now is partly a matter of personal revenge for Issa.

The video is one in a series of episodes raising questions over methods used by the rebel forces, some of which actually claim links to terrorists.  

One of the groups, associating itself with Al-Qaeda attacked a Christian village on Wednesday.

In June, a teenage boy was allegedly executed by an Al-Qaeda-affiliated opposition group for supposedly blaspheming.

In May, the world was shocked to see a video of a Syrian rebel apparently eating the heart of a slain government soldier.

The New York Times, the most influential newspaper in the United States, has published a photo on its front page on Thursday that may be able to prevent the attack on Syria. The photo shows how seven soldiers of the Syrian Army, who were caught by the terrorists, are kneeling on the ground and have their hands tied to the back while they are waiting for their execution.


(Syria News) – Something remarkable has happened. The New York Times, the most influential newspaper in the United States, has published a photo on its front page on Thursday that may be able to prevent the attack on Syria.
The photo shows how seven soldiers of the Syrian Army, who were caught by the terrorists, are kneeling on the ground and have their hands tied to the back while they are waiting for their execution.
All soldiers have terrible wounds on their backs and arms. Behind them on the photo are exactly the guys, which the United States supports and supplies with weapons.
After the leader Abdul Samad Issa read out a poem, all prisoners are killed by headshots. The dead bodies were then thrown into a hole.
The New York Times (NYT) shows the video of this massacre online on its website.
NewYorkTimes130905 Will this Photo prevent the Attack on Syria?
Syrian soldiers are executed by US-backed terrorists in Syria.
Why do I say it could prevent the war?
Because of the situation that a similar photo of an execution from the time of the Vietnam War has caused a change of mind of the majority of the American people and this has then heralded the end of the war.
At that time, the Americans understood it that they support a band of murderers, the South Vietnamese regime. Just as it could be the situation now.

Abdul Samad Issa is standing on the right with his gun, and he fires the first headshot.
Abdul Samad Issa is standing on the right with his gun, and he fires the first headshot.

When the New York Times (NYT) publishes the heinous crime of “allies” of the United States in the fight against Syria’s President al-Assad on its front page and thus, makes it “officially”, then nobody is anymore able to ignore it.
Then it is undisputed and raises the question in the United States of “who do we actually support here (in Syria)? Mass murderers?”
In addition, many of the gooders are asking the question: “Why do we want to attack the Syrian government with a military strike, when they are yet fighting against these murderous gangs?”

he dead bodies of the seven soldiers were thrown into this hole.
he dead bodies of the seven soldiers were thrown into this hole.
The dead bodies of the seven soldiers were thrown into this hole.
The Americans realize now that they are on the wrong side of this conflict. This could increase the resistance against the war on Syria further in future.
One is able to show the newspaper to every supporter of the war against Syria and to then shame him that this topic has landed in the mainstream.
It could also trigger the idea that, when the so-called “Syrian rebels” are able to carry out such gruesome criminal acts, then they could also be ruthless enough to fire poison gas on the civilian population, so that Obama’s red line is crossed, they are able to blame Syria’s President Assad for the incident and start the US-led war against Syria.
Here is one of the most famous images in the world, which became an icon of the anti-war movement. It shows how the police chief of South Vietnam, Nguyễn Ngọc Loan, has gunned down (headshot) a suspected Vietcong (“Charlie”) on the streets of Saigon with his Smith & Wesson (Model 38) on February 1, 1968.

Vietnam: Nguyễn Ngọc Loan, has gunned down (headshot) a suspected Vietcong (“Charlie”).
Vietnam: Nguyễn Ngọc Loan, has gunned down (headshot) a suspected Vietcong (“Charlie”). 
At that time the outrage over the actions by the “ally” in America was so great, that the mood has turned against the war. We are only able to hope that this now also happens in terms of Syria.
Anyway, the US Senators and Congressmen had to listen to a lot of protests by the American population in the Town Hall meetings of the past few days.
This is what the media in the United States report and they show, for example, how the greatest warmonger US Secretary of State John Kerry was massively insulted by his constituents yesterday.

"They entered the main square and smashed a statue of the Virgin Mary," said one resident of the area, speaking by phone and too frightened to give his name. "They shelled us from the nearby mountain. Two shells hit the St Thecla convent."
The inhabitants are mostly Melkite Greek Catholic and Orthodox Christians, but have historically lived peacefully alongside a Sunni Muslim minority. It is one of only three places in the world where Western Aramaic, a dialect of the language spoken by Christ, is still used.

10 Chemical Weapons Attacks The U.S. Government Doesn’t Want You To Know About

Submitted by Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
A couple of weeks ago I highlighted the fact that declassified documents analyzed by Foreign Policy proved that the U.S. government knew about Saddam Hussein’s egregious use of chemical weapons and in fact we helped him be more effective in their deployment. Well unfortunately that’s just the tip of the American chemical weapons iceberg.
From white phosphorus and depleted uranium (DU) usage in Iraq, to secret radioactive tests in poor black neighborhoods within the U.S. itself (something I previously covered here), the list is pretty horrific. While you might be able to say that this is the reality of war, then what the heck are we doing entering a civil war in a country where chemical weapons are being used that poses no threat to us? Absolutely insane and criminal.
I summarized the Top 10 list here, but I highly suggest also checking out the entire post with pictures from PolicyMic. Summary below:
Washington doesn’t merely lack the legal authority for a military intervention in Syria. It lacks the moral authority. We’re talking about a government with a history of using chemical weapons against innocent people far more prolific and deadly than the mere accusations Assad faces from a trigger-happy Western military-industrial complex, bent on stifling further investigation before striking.
1. The U.S. Military Dumped 20 Million Gallons of Chemicals on Vietnam from 1962 – 1971
Vietnam estimates that as a result of the decade-long chemical attack, 400,000 people were killed or maimed, 500,000 babies have been born with birth defects, and 2 million have suffered from cancer or other illnesses.
2. Israel Attacked Palestinian Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2008 – 2009
White phosphorus is a horrific incendiary chemical weapon that melts human flesh right down to the bone.
In 2009, multiple human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and International Red Cross reported that the Israeli government was attacking civilians in their own country with chemical weapons.
The Israeli military denied the allegations at first, but eventually admitted they were true.
3. Washington Attacked Iraqi Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2004
In 2004, journalists embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq began reporting the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah against Iraqi insurgents. First the military lied and said that it was only using white phosphorus to create smokescreens or illuminate targets. Then it admitted to using the volatile chemical as an incendiary weapon.
4. The CIA Helped Saddam Hussein Massacre Iranians and Kurds with Chemical Weapons in 1988
CIA records now prove that Washington knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons (including sarin, nerve gas, and mustard gas) in the Iran-Iraq War, yet continued to pour intelligence into the hands of the Iraqi military, informing Hussein of Iranian troop movements while knowing that he would be using the information to launch chemical attacks.
5. The Army Tested Chemicals on Residents of Poor, Black St. Louis Neighborhoods in The 1950s
In the early 1950s, the Army set up motorized blowers on top of residential high-rises in low-income, mostly black St. Louis neighborhoods, including areas where as much as 70% of the residents were children under 12. The government told residents that it was experimenting with a smokescreen to protect the city from Russian attacks, but it was actually pumping the air full of hundreds of pounds of finely powdered zinc cadmium sulfide.
6. Police Fired Tear Gas at Occupy Protesters in 2011
The savage violence of the police against Occupy protesters in 2011 was well documented, andincluded the use of tear gas and other chemical irritants. Tear gas is prohibited for use against enemy soldiers in battle by the Chemical Weapons Convention.
7. The FBI Attacked Men, Women, and Children With Tear Gas in Waco in 1993 
At the infamous Waco siege of a peaceful community of Seventh Day Adventists, the FBI pumped tear gas into buildings knowing that women, children, and babies were inside. The tear gas was highly flammable and ignited, engulfing the buildings in flames and killing 49 men and women, and 27 children, including babies and toddlers.
8. The U.S. Military Littered Iraq with Toxic Depleted Uranium in 2003
In Iraq, the U.S. military has littered the environment with thousands of tons of munitions made from depleted uranium, a toxic and radioactive nuclear waste product. As a result, more than half of babies born in Fallujah from 2007 – 2010 were born with birth defects. Some of these defects have never been seen before outside of textbooks with photos of babies born near nuclear tests in the Pacific.
9. The U.S. Military Killed Hundreds of Thousands of Japanese Civilians with Napalm from 1944 – 1945
Napalm is a sticky and highly flammable gel which has been used as a weapon of terror by the U.S. military. In 1980, the UN declared the use of napalm on swaths of civilian population a war crime. That’s exactly what the U.S. military did in World War II, dropping enough napalm in one bombing raid on Tokyo to burn 100,000 people to death, injure a million more, and leave a million without homes in the single deadliest air raid of World War II.
10. The U.S. Government Dropped Nuclear Bombs on Two Japanese Cities in 1945
It seems odd that the only regime to ever use one of these weapons of terror on other human beings has busied itself with the pretense of keeping the world safe from dangerous weapons in the hands of dangerous governments.
We have no moral authority. Period.

Obama orders Pentagon to expand Syria target list... 'SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN EXPECTED'...

September 6th, 2013
WASHINGTON — President Obama has directed the Pentagon to develop an expanded list of potential targets in Syria in response to intelligence suggesting that the government of President Bashar al-Assad has been moving troops and equipment used to employ chemical weapons while Congress debates whether to authorize military action.
Mr. Obama, officials said, is now determined to put more emphasis on the “degrade” part of what the administration has said is the goal of a military strike against Syria — to “deter and degrade” Mr. Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons. That means expanding beyond the 50 or so major sites that were part of the original target list developed with French forces before Mr. Obama delayed action on Saturday to seek Congressional approval of his plan.
For the first time, the administration is talking about using American and French aircraft to conduct strikes on specific targets, in addition to ship-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles. There is a renewed push to get other NATO forces involved.


ABC News: US is planning an aerial strike in addition to a salvo of Tomahawk missiles from Navy destroyers;New York Times: Obama ordered expansion of list of targets following reports Assad moved troops, equipment.
Despite statements from both US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that a US-led strike on Syria would be a “limited and tailored” military attack, ABC News reported on Thursday that the strike planned by Obama’s national security team is “significantly larger” than most have anticipated.
According to ABC News, in additional to a salvo of 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from four Navy destroyers stationed in the eastern Mediterranean, the US is also planning an aerial campaign that is expected to last two days.

WH: ‘Not Intended to Resolve Underlying Political Crisis Within Syria’
In a briefing with the press, deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes said that any military strike on Syria would be a response to chemical weapons–and would “not [intend] to resolve the underlying political crisis within Syria.” Instead, “the underlying political crisis within Syria” would be dealt with diplomatically, he said.

U.S. orders diplomats to leave Lebanon

WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department is ordering nonessential U.S. diplomats to leave Lebanon due to security concerns as the Obama administration and Congress debate military strikes on neighboring Syria.
In a new travel warning for Lebanon issued early Friday, the department said it had instructed nonessential staffers to leave Beirut and urged private American citizens to depart Lebanon.

BREAKING - PUTIN: "Russia will Help Syria In Case of Military Assault"... U.S. Stocks Fall Sharply!

Comes on heels of report Obama will order massive allied bombing campaign.
Stay tuned for updates.
Sh*t is hitting the fan.
Russia “will help Syria” in the event of a military strike, Putin stressed as he responded to a reporter’s question at the summit. 
“Will we help Syria? We will. And we are already helping, we send arms, we cooperate in the economics sphere, we hope to expand our cooperation in the humanitarian sphere, which includes sending humanitarian aid to support those people – the civilians – who have found themselves in a very dire situation in this country,” Putin said.
U.S. Stocks Fall After Putin Says Russia Will Assist Syria
U.S. stocks fell after Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country will assist Syria if strikes are launched, erasing earlier gains amid a slower-than-forecast rise in employment.
Stocks fall sharply on reported Putin comments

BREAKING: China Sends Warships & 1000 Marines to Syria, Accuses the U.S. of lying About Syria And Ignoring International Laws. Russia Sends another Amphibous Assault Ship. Turkey Sends More Troops to Syria Border


Dangerous Crossroads. A War on Syria, Prelude to a World War III Scenario? Le site globalresearch et mondialisation.ca ont éprouvé des difficultés au cours des derniers jours, alors que les menaces de guerre s'intensifient. Coïncidence?

Syria says US evidence of chemical attack fabricated

FLASHBACK: 911, Saddam, terror, hate, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, WMDs (Preview)
Majority of French oppose Syria intervention

Saudi Prince Bandar delivered Israeli chemicals to Syrian terrorists - official

The Neocon March on Damascus

PNAC members all too similar to the 66 "experts" pressuring Obama into Syria

Thierry Meyssan sur l’implication d’Israël dans l’opération contre la Syrie

Zbigniew Brzezinski : les États-Unis produisent une "propagande de masse" sur les armes chimiques en Syrie 14 juin 2013

Netanyahu: ‘Low probability’ Israel will be drawn into Syria fighting

Israel & the US want Russia outside Middle East


Did the West Gas Thousands to Rescue Failed Syrian War?

For at least 6 years, the West, Israel and Saudi Arabia have been working to use terrorists from Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in the attempt to overthrow the governments of Iran and Syria.
This caused war to break out in Syria.
The Syrian government has pushed the rebels back.
There is nothing left for the West, Israel and Saudi Arabia, except direct military intervention.
What we are now witnessing is an attempt by the West’s corporate-financier establishment to push for direct intervention faster than the facts can come out over what exactly happened near Damascus.
Read more:


BBC and Democracy Now! Syrian Chemical Weapons Coverage: An exercise in Imperial deception

Today’s offerings include, Hague believes Assad behind attack (23/8/13), without offering a shred of proof that the Assad government is behind the alleged attack or even that it took place, takes foreign secretary Hague’s ‘belief’ as a given. The lead paragraph tells it all:
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague says he believes President Assad was behind a chemical attack in Syria.
What Hague’s belief is based upon is not revealed, instead we get more of the same:
“I know that some people in the world would like to say that this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria,” said Mr Hague.
Now why does Hague feel compelled to bring in the issue of a conspiracy? Perhaps because it is a conspiracy? A conspiracy dreamed up to justify the overthrow of the sovereign government of Syria. Hague then makes the most astonishing statement:
This confirms what I said last Thursday. Far too late, the government has realized that nobody is buying this nonsense that Assad invited the UN Chemical Weapons inspectors into Syria, then launched a chemical weapons attack against women and children (rather than the leadership of the hired mercenary army trying to oust him) on the day the inspectors arrived, just miles from where the inspectors are staying. So now the Propaganda push is that anyone not blindly believing the official version is a "conspiracy theorist", with overtones of such people being unpatriotic and supporting the terrorists.
So the propagandists are already on the defensive. That means the truth is winning out!

Not that this will end the push for war in Syria. If anything, this will cause the US Government to floor the gas pedal on the war machine before opposition to yet another war for the bankers can organize, and I suspect that Syria will be blitzkrieged over the Labor Day weekend while Americans are distracted with beer and barbecues!


Syria To Allow Inspection Of Alleged Chemical Weapons Attack; US Rebuffs, Says "Too Late'

Update: and there you have it - the US "demand" was nothing but a farce, and the second Syria complied the US says it was never interested in the first place.



This photo is being shown as being victims of last week's Syrian chemical attacks.
But this same photo appeared in other articles claiming to be suffering Palestinians and Egyptians as well!


US Set to Launch ‘Iraq, The Sequel’ in Syria

Somehow we are supposed to believe that within 72 hours after the arrival of a UN chemical weapons inspection team to assess — with the Syrian government’s cooperation — the sites of previous claimed chemical weapons attacks, that same Syrian government would launch a chemical weapon attack on civilians just miles from where the UN inspectors are staying. The UN inspectors were there on invitation from the Syrian government and that same government would launch chemicals right into their neighborhood.
Unless Assad is indeed suicidally insane, which he has given no indication of being heretofore, it quite simply makes no sense.


McCain, Graham call for military action on Syria after chemical-weapons evidence

Okay boys, if you really feel that way; here are your rifles, here are your parachutes, and here are some bright dal-glo jumpsuits left over form Abu Ghraib (we ran out of the desert camo). Watch your heads climbing into that transport plane, and we'll call Assad and tell him you are on your way to kick his butt all by yourselves. Because we remember that whopper you all told us about Saddam's nuclear weapon, and the current lie about Syria amounts to claiming that Assad was stupid enough to invite UN Chemical weapons inspectors into Syria, then launch a chemical weapons attack against women and children (rather than the leaders of that hired mercenary army) on the very day the UN inspectors arrive, just miles from where the inspectors are staying. Even for US Government propaganda, you have to admit that is pretty lame! So you will forgive us if we sit this next one out and keep our children safe a home.


Syrian rebels manufactured chemical weapons outside Damascus

The Syrian military have discovered a warehouse with chemical agents in a suburb of Damascus. Correspondent of the Al-Ihbariya Syrian information channel Yara Saleh who was among the journalists who inspected the site of the scary find has given an exclusive interview to The Voice of Russia. She says that the discovered warehouse was at the same time a laboratory where shells were stuffed with poisonous chemicals.


Materials implicating Syrian govt in chemical attack prepared before incident

Materials implicating the forces of Syrian president Bashar Assad in chemical weapons use near Damascus were prepared prior to the alleged incident on August 21, the Russian foreign ministry said.
Moscow continues to monitor closely the event surrounding the “alleged” chemical attack near Damascus, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Aleksandr Lukashevich, said in a statement.
“We’re getting more new evidence that this criminal act was of a provocative nature,” he stressed. “In particular, there are reports circulating on the Internet, in particular that the materials of the incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack. Thus, it was a pre-planned action.”


Syria Information Minister: We have incontrovertible proof that terrorists used chemical weapons

Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi reiterated that Syria never used any chemical weapons in any shape or form, not in the Ghouta area in Damascus countryside nor anywhere else, and that it would never use it even if it possessed it, adding that there's evidence that such weapons were used by terrorist groups including satellite imagery and witness testimonies.


Stephen Lendman: False Flag Chemical Weapons Attack on Syria

False flags are an American tradition. They’re an Israeli tradition. They’re used strategically.
They’re pretexts for militarism, wars, mass killing and destruction, occupations, domestic repression, and other extremist national security state measures.
Last Wednesday’s Ghouta incident raises disturbing questions. It was a clear anti-Syrian provocation.
Was America complicit? Was Israel? Were key NATO allies and/or rogue regional partners?
Was the Ghouta chemical attack pretext for direct US and/or NATO/Israeli intervention?
Read more:


Syrian rebels use toxic chemicals against govt troops near Damascus - state media

Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons against regime forces in the Damascus suburb of Jobar, where soldiers discovered stockpiles of toxic poisoning antidotes, state media reports.


Evidence Indicates that Syrian Government Did Not Launch a Chemical Weapon Attack Against Its People

CBS News reports that the U.S. is finalizing plans for war against Syria – and positioning ships to launch cruise missiles against the Syrian government – based on the claim that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people.The last time the U.S. blamed the Syrian government for a chemical weapons attack, that claim was was debunked.


Syria to allow UN to inspect 'chemical weapons' site

Earlier, a senior US government official accused the Syrian authorities of intentionally delaying the UN probe "in order to facilitate the degradation of evidence of their use of chemical weapons".
"Any belated decision by the regime to grant access to the UN team would be considered too late to be credible, including because the evidence available has been significantly corrupted as a result of the regime's persistent shelling and other intentional actions over the last five days," the official told reporters in Washington.
Actually, it was the UN itself delaying the inspectors for "Safety reasons", and now that the inspectors are headed to the scene of the crime, the US is declaring ahead of time that it doesn't matter what the inspectors find, Obama and Cameron had a phone call and just sorta kinda know that Assad was dumb enough to invite UN Chemical weapons inspectors into Syria, and then launch a chemical weapons attack against women and children (instead of attacking the hired mercenary army trying to oust him) on the day they arrive just a few miles from where the inspectors are staying.
Let us be clear. There is no provision under international law that allows one nation to invade another based on claims of what is happening inside that nation's borders. The United States, the only nation in history to use nuclear weapons against civilians of another country, and which itself gassed a church full of women and children in Waco, Texas with CS gas, which is banned for use against enemy troops in time of war, lacks moral standing to point fingers at anyone else.
Syria is just the latest stepping stone in the pattern of global conquest proposed by the Project for the New American Century, a neo-con think tank that promotes global war to force the world to go on using the failed US dollar as the global trade and reserve currency.


Breaking: U.S. Cruise Missiles Preparing To Strike Syria

The U.S. military is now moving cruise missiles into position for a possible strike against Syrian government forces, reports CBS News Saturday.
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel says that this will give the President the position to move quickly if he decides to use a cruise missile strike against Syrian government forces. Sec. Hagel goes on to say that this is not an attempt to topple the Syrian government but to send a message to President Bashar al Assad that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.
Memo to Secretary of Defense Hagel: that statement about " this is not an attempt to topple the Syrian government...." is pure, utter Orwellian codswallop, and you know it. And so does the rest of the world, sir, including your fellow and sister Americans, who do not want this country plunging into yet another pre-emptive war based on a pack of lies.
The point of the entire exercise is to topple the Al-Assad government (just as it has been for well over two years by funding, training, and arming those hired mercs, which resulted in an epic fail). Regime change in Syria, the US and Israeli government believe, will create a favorable climate for regime change in Iran, again using military force.
As we all know, Russia is pre-positioning is military assets in the Mediterranean. Any military incursion into Syria could well mean war with Russia.
And as you and the entire world know, the US government doesn't have the troop strength, the money, or the manufacturing to insure a positive outcome against the Russian military in a conventional war: and that is what makes this scenario so very dangerous.
At the end of the day, Secretary Hagel, I would strongly caution you, and those in the bowels of power in both DC and Tel Aviv to be very, very careful about what you wish for here: the outcomes to such a conflict could be both horrific...and irreversible.

Aucun commentaire: