Is Assad Being Tricked Into Sacrificing Syria?

Or is the plan to relinquish chemical weapons a geopolitical master stroke?

20130910-205622.jpg
Image: Wikimedia Commons

By Paul Joseph Watson, INFOWARS.COM

Is President Bashar Al-Assad being tricked into creating circumstances that will hand the Obama White House a justification for war, or is the plan for Syria’s chemical weapons to be destroyed a geopolitical master stroke that will avert a regional conflict?

Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid Muallem today formally accepted a Russian proposal – first mooted by John Kerry – for Syria to hand its chemical arsenal over to international control in a bid to avoid a US military attack.

Many see the development as a stunning example of Russia once again outmaneuvering the United States, seizing on an apparent gaffe by Kerry in order to pull the rug out from underneath Washington and derail Obama’s pretext for war.

However, could the precondition of Syria destroying its chemical weapons actually be used to rescue a congressional vote that had looked doomed to fail?

As Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain – both aggressive supporters of military intervention – have indicated, Congress could now be made to vote for air strikes not on the dubious basis of last month’s alleged chemical weapons attack, a justification that has failed to convince the vast majority of representatives, but on the basis of a complex set of terms that would mandate Syria disarm or face US attack.

With lawmakers seemingly confident that Syria would agree to disarm now that they have accepted the Russian proposal, they would be far more likely to green light such a resolution.

The United States could then, as happened with Iraq, accuse Syria of being too slow or failing to disarm, before launching air strikes with congressional approval already secured.

Forcing Syria to relinquish its chemical weapons would also significantly reduce the country’s capability to fend off any potential future aggression on behalf of Israel or other hostile Gulf states.

It would be naive to think that the White House has not at least considered using Syria’s supposed “victory” against US aggression as a precondition which could be used weeks, months, or even years down the line to back Assad into a corner from which he cannot escape.

However, to believe that this had been the plan from the very beginning would mean Kerry’s apparent “gaffe” of giving Assad a week to disarm was in fact a calculated maneuver.

It also fails to explain why Israel has all but rejected the idea, in addition to people like British Foreign Secretary William Hague pouring cold water on the plan by assuming Assad will fail to go ahead with disarmament anyway.

However, history tells us that regimes who attempt to acquiesce to demands for disarmament are by no means protected from future US military aggression.

In December 2003, Colonel Gaddafi agreed to give up his weapons of mass destruction and allow unimpeded inspections. This didn’t stop the Obama administration coming to the aid of Al-Qaeda-linked rebels eight years later to destroy Libya and leave it in the hands of brutal warlords.

Continue reading

OBAMA: A Strike On Syria Would ‘Absolutely’ Be Off If Syria Gives Up Its Chemical Weapons

Said he hadn’t made up his mind about Strikes if the Congress vote NO.

20130910-092000.jpg
Obama in his interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace

By Brett Logiurato, BusinessInsider

President Barack Obama said Monday that he would “absolutely” put plans for strikes on Syria on hold if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave up control of his country’s chemical weapons.

“Absolutely — if, in fact, that happens,” Obama said in an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, which was one of six interviews he gave at the White House on Monday.

Obama’s comments came after a day of unexpected developments in the Syria situation that signaled a potentially dramatic shift in course on Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry first made what appeared to be an offhand remark in London early Monday, suggesting that Syria could potentially avoid a U.S. attack if it handed over “every single bit of his chemical weapons” to the international community in the next week.

Russia immediately jumped on the offer, despite the State Department’s furious walk-backs of Kerry’s remarks as “rhetorical” and “hypothetical.” And Syria said it would “welcome” the offer.

Obama echoed his sentiments in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

“It’s possible if it’s real,” Obama said. “… It’s certainly a positive development.”

Obama told PBS’ Gwen Ifill and Fox News’ Chris Wallace that he had “conversations” with Russian President Vladimir Putin about this issue during their conversation last week at the G20 summit in St. Petersburg. But he emphasized that even if this deal led to a “breakthrough,” it would require strict conditions and follow-up.

In interviews with NBC and Fox News, Obama quoted former President Ronald Reagan, saying he would “trust but verify” Russia’s offer. After the interview on NBC, Savannah Guthrie reported, citing a senior administration official, that Putin initiated the conversations.

“We will pursue this diplomatic track,” Obama told Fox News’ Wallace. “I fervently hope that this can be resolved in a non-military way. But I think it is important for us not to let the, you know, the pedal off the metal when it comes to making sure that they understand that we mean what we say about these international bans on chemical weapons.”

Continue reading

Locals say al-Qaeda used chemicals in Syria :official

image


Syrian President Bashar al-Assad political and media adviser Bouthaina Shaaban

A senior adviser to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad says locals have witnessed al-Qaeda-linked terrorists used chemical materials on people in Latakia and called on the West to wait for investigation results on recent alleged chemical attack in the country.

Assad’s political and media adviser Bouthaina Shaaban rejected the Western allegations accusing the Syrian government forces of being responsible for the August 21 attack on the outskirts of Damascus.

The Syrian official said al-Qaeda was behind the attack just as it was responsible for “killing Syrian people, raping women, [and] kidnapping Christian clerics.”

“On 21st of August, I tell you what the Syrian people say, they (al-Qaeda-linked terrorists) kidnap children and men from the villages of Latakia and they brought them here (in Damascus), put them in one place and used chemical weapons against them… that’s the story that the villagers in these villages know, but why don’t you leave it to the UN commission?” she said.

“The same people who were on the London Tube and who killed British people, the same people who on 9/11 in New York killed American people, they are the same people in Mali, the same people in Libya, the same people in Iraq, the same people in Syria,” Shaaban stated.

She called on the United States and its allies, who have been blatantly issuing threats of war against Syria, to wait for the results of a report by the team of United Nations chemical weapons experts, expected to be completed later this month.

“They are using the same lies, the same fabrications, the same claims, in order to target our country and our people,” Shaaban said, comparing the chemical weapons accusations against Syria to those used to justify the Iraq war, which ultimately proved false.

She further demanded that Washington provide the world with evidence backing its accusation against the Syrian government.

The rhetoric of war against Syria first gained momentum on August 21, when the militants operating inside the country and the foreign-backed Syrian opposition claimed that over a thousand people had been killed in a government chemical attack on militant strongholds in the Damascus suburbs of Ain Tarma, Zamalka and Jobar.

The Syrian government categorically rejected the accusation.

Nevertheless, a number of Western countries, including the United States, France, and Britain, quickly started campaigning for war.

On Wednesday, the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations approved a draft resolution backing the use of force against Syria. The draft resolution requires the approval of both chambers of Congress before it can be interpreted as any form of congressional authorization for the US administration to launch an attack on Syria.

Source: Alalam

Bombshell: Syria’s ‘chemical weapons’ turn out to be sodium fluoride used in the U.S. water supply

…and sold at Wal-Mart

20130904-135002.jpg

Source: Mike Adams, Natural News for Infowars.com

Natural News can now reveal that the Syria chemical weapons narrative being pushed by the White House is an outlandish hoax.

To understand why, you have to start with the story published in The Independent entitled Revealed: Government let British company export nerve gas chemicals to Syria.

Sounds scary, right? As The Independent reports:

The Government was accused of “breathtaking laxity” in its arms controls last night after it emerged that officials authorised the export to Syria of two chemicals capable of being used to make a nerve agent such as sarin a year ago.

What, exactly, are those two dangerous chemicals that need to be controlled via “arms control” regulations? You won’t believe me when I tell you. They are:


• sodium fluoride
• potassium fluoride

You can see this yourself in the screen capture of The Independent breaking news story. Note the headline and the subhead. The headline describes “nerve gas chemicals” and the subhead explains them as “sodium fluoride” and “potassium fluoride.”

20130904-135452.jpg

click here to watch my video explaining all this at TV.naturalnews.com.

U.S. water fluoridation chemical is Syria’s “chemical weapon”

If these chemical names sound familiar, that’s because sodium fluoride is the same toxic chemical that’s routinely dumped into municipal water supplies all across the USA under the guise of “water fluoridation.”

In fact, the forced feeding of sodium fluoride to the U.S. population is called a “public health” victory by the CDC, FDA and dentists everywhere. Yet this same chemical, when sold to Syria, is openly and repeatedly referred to as a “chemical weapon.” This is true across the BBC, the Guardian, Daily Record and Sunday Mail, France24.com and literally thousands of other news websites.

According to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, any government “regime” that uses chemical weapons against its own people should be bombed / invaded / overthrown by a coalition of other United Nations members. By his own definition, then, the United States of America should now be invaded by the UN because the government uses a deadly chemical weapon — sodium fluoride — on its own people.

By implication, then, John Kerry is now calling for the UN to bomb the USA. As the international media now confirms, sodium fluoride is a chemical weapon, and this chemical weapon is used against the American people every single day in the water supply, a favorite attack vector for terrorists.

“Evidence” of chemical weapons nothing more than hair samples of people who drank sodium fluoride

As you might have guessed, Secretary of State John Kerry is running around “pulling a George Bush” by claiming Syria has used weapons of mass destruction on its own population. Here’s a sample of his claims:

“In the last 24 hours, we have learned through samples that were provided to the United States that have now been tested from first responders in east Damascus and hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin.” Kerry said this on NBC’s Meet The Press.

But what, exactly, is he saying? That hair samples have tested positive for “signatures” of sarin, not sarin itself. What is a “signature” of sarin? The fluorine element, which is of course the basis for sodium fluoride.

Continue reading

Ron Paul says chemical attack in Syria was a ‘false flag’

image

Former US congressman Ron Paul has said that a reported chemical weapons attack in Syria was a “false flag” likely carried out by the US-backed militant groups.

Washington has accused the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of launching a chemical attack against militant strongholds on August 21, and is preparing for what it calls a retaliatory military response.
“We are not really positive who set off the gas,” Paul, a long-time Republican representative from Texas, said during a Fox News interview filmed Wednesday.
“The group that is most likely to benefit from that is al-Qaeda. They ignite some gas, some people die and blame it on Assad,” he noted.
Paul said that the case for a military intervention in Syria resembles the scenario used prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq when the US accused the Saddam Hussein regime of having an active “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) program. The intelligence was later discredited.
“Just look at how many lies were told us about Saddam Hussein prior to that buildup. More propaganda. It happens all the time,” he stated. “I think it’s a false flag. I think really, indeed,” Paul said, referring to the reported use of chemical weapons in Syria.
The US released an intelligence report on Friday claiming the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack. The Syrian government has strongly rejected the allegation.
On Saturday, President Barack Obama, who had previously described the use of chemical weapons as a “red line”, announced that he had decided Washington should attack Syria. The president, however, said he would seek congressional approval for an attack.

Source: PressTV

Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack

image

Militants tell AP reporter they mishandled Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, causing accident.

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak. (back up version here).

Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak.

His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha.

According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels.

“More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government,” writes Gavlak.

If accurate, this story could completely derail the United States’ rush to attack Syria which has been founded on the “undeniable” justification that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News.

The website on which the story originally appeared – Mint Press (which is currently down as a result of huge traffic it is attracting to the article) is a legitimate media organization based in Minnesota. The Minnesota Post did a profile on them last year.

Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in providing rebels, whom they have vehemently backed at every turn, with chemical weapons, is no surprise given the revelations earlier this week that the Saudis threatened Russia with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi unless they abandoned support for the Syrian President.

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Prince Bandar allegedly told Vladimir Putin, the Telegraph reports.

The Obama administration is set to present its intelligence findings today in an effort prove that Assad’s forces were behind last week’s attack, despite American officials admitting to the New York Times that there is no “smoking gun” that directly links President Assad to the attack.

US intelligence officials also told the Associated Press that the intelligence proving Assad’s culpability is “no slam dunk.”

As we reported earlier this week, intercepted intelligence revealed that the Syrian Defense Ministry was making “panicked” phone calls to Syria’s chemical weapons department demanding answers in the hours after the attack, suggesting that it was not ordered by Assad’s forces.

Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack

image

Militants tell AP reporter they mishandled Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, causing accident.

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak. (back up version here).

Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak.

His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha.

According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels.

“More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government,” writes Gavlak.

If accurate, this story could completely derail the United States’ rush to attack Syria which has been founded on the “undeniable” justification that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News.

The website on which the story originally appeared – Mint Press (which is currently down as a result of huge traffic it is attracting to the article) is a legitimate media organization based in Minnesota. The Minnesota Post did a profile on them last year.

Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in providing rebels, whom they have vehemently backed at every turn, with chemical weapons, is no surprise given the revelations earlier this week that the Saudis threatened Russia with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi unless they abandoned support for the Syrian President.

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Prince Bandar allegedly told Vladimir Putin, the Telegraph reports.

The Obama administration is set to present its intelligence findings today in an effort prove that Assad’s forces were behind last week’s attack, despite American officials admitting to the New York Times that there is no “smoking gun” that directly links President Assad to the attack.

US intelligence officials also told the Associated Press that the intelligence proving Assad’s culpability is “no slam dunk.”

As we reported earlier this week, intercepted intelligence revealed that the Syrian Defense Ministry was making “panicked” phone calls to Syria’s chemical weapons department demanding answers in the hours after the attack, suggesting that it was not ordered by Assad’s forces.
Continue reading