Peace president plots war on Syria


US President Barack Obama speaks on the phone with King Abdullah II of Jordan in the Oval Office of the White House on August 8, 2014 in Washington, DC after US jets struck ISIL positions in northern Iraq.

The Obama administration is reportedly preparing to begin air strikes on Syrian territory without the consent of the Syrian government. The pretext is the rapidly expanding US war on ISIL, but in fact this is the long-desired US attack on Syria that was temporarily thwarted, reportedly by popular opposition last year (but more likely by US knowledge that its claims the Assad government was behind the chemical attacks at Ghouta had no basis in reality and would not stand up to even superficial scrutiny).

Though it makes for a compelling story, the idea that popular opposition to Obama’s plans to attack Syria last year stopped the bombs seems more wishful thinking than reality.

Consider how easy it has been these past two weeks to obliterate any opposition among the American people to the same US attack plan regurgitated almost exactly one year later.

A series of salacious stories about ISIL slaughtering a Yazidi minority that no one had even heard of mobilized US public opinion in favor of initial US strikes and even ground troops in Iraq.

Never mind that the US and its allies had armed and trained the individuals who now call themselves ISIL (now simply “IS”) for a number of years.

Another “babies thrown from incubators” story and even self-identified non-interventionists were screaming for bombing runs.

Then came the video released purporting to be the beheading of US freelance journalist (and former USAID contractor) James Foley. Though the video did not show an actual beheading, skeptics were nevertheless silenced by admonitions to not add to the family’s grief by questioning the official US government line. The videos were feverishly removed from social media outlets before many had the chance to see that they did not show a beheading at all.

Continue reading

The Rigged Poker Hand That Obama Lost


By Eric Blair, Activist Post

Obama has the dealer in his pocket for the heads-up poker match with Assad. The dealer slips Obama an Ace from the bottom of the deck. While some witnessed the sleight of hand, others said it was an authentic deal.

Obama’s sitting on Big Slick, holding a King of course and his secret Ace, while Assad is dealt a lousy 2-7 off suit, widely considered the worst starting hand in hold ’em.

With the hole cards dealt both players hold them close to the vest. Obama makes the first bet “All in!” he says, seemingly throwing caution to the wind but really knowing all along that the game is rigged.

The commentators clamor in excitement for the possibility of the ultimate televised showdown for the entire purse. Assad, not expecting such an aggressive posture before all the cards are dealt, shuffles in his seat as his brow glimmers with sweat.

“All in” was no laughing matter. Assad’s stack had been steadily dwindled down by opponents sponsored by Obama to where he barely managed to make it this far in the tournament.

A quick glance at Obama’s stack reveals at least 1000 Tomahawk cruise missiles with the estimated damage value of 10 years Syria’s GDP (sorry, not calculated in liters of blood). With apparently nothing to lose, Assad quickly calls.

The commentators are beside themselves with joy as the crowd swells to unprecedented levels to participate in this prime-time showdown.

The first community card is a King and the world was sure Obama would take the purse, but some began to suspect the dealer was corrupt and demanded a fresh hand.

Facing heavy odds, Assad was relieved when the new dealer Cameron promptly delivered a 2 and a 7 to complete the flop, giving Assad two pair. This so enraged Obama that Cameron was removed as dealer.

The crowd began to rally for the underdog Assad. A come from behind victory now seemed possible, but the new dealer was another Obama appointee.

Kerry, who was not a polished card handler, knew the Aces were on the bottom of the deck and all he had to do was slip one out as quickly as possible. Yet he fumbled it so miserably that much of the audience saw him as a cheat.

Now, with the audience so heavily invested in the match, they demanded an independent gaming commissioner to come in and deal out the final card.

Theme music starts as the Russian Bear enters the room wearing mirrored sunglasses indoors, shirtless except for a dealer’s vest. Some people chanted “You’re the man. You’re the man.” Although eccentric, he was very clearly that: a man among spoiled boys.

Putin smirked just before he played the final card and told Obama that his luck had run out. He had overplayed his hand. That his Ace-in-the-hole was actually a Joker. And that no matter what card was played next, he was destined to lose.

But before Assad could relax at the good news, Putin warned him that the next card wouldn’t help him either. The whole game was a misdeal, and Assad and Obama must return to the lower proxy tables before they can return to the prime time.

Why Qatar wants to invade Syria

image:During the 1970s the Emir of Qatar: Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani was engaged in more mundane interventions, such as letting his hair down alongside other Gulf royals in select Club Med destinations, as this photo attests (he’s the guy on the left).


Make no mistake; the Emir of Qatar is on a roll.

What an entrance at the UN General Assembly in New York; Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani called for an Arab coalition of the willing-style invasion of Syria, no less. [1]

In the words of the Emir, “It is better for the Arab countries themselves to interfere out of their national, humanitarian, political and military duties, and to do what is necessary to stop the bloodshed in Syria.” He stressed Arab countries had a “military duty” to invade.

What he means by “Arab countries” is the petromonarchies of the Gulf Counter-Revolution Club (GCC), previously known as Gulf Cooperation Council – with implicit help from Turkey, with which the GCC has a wide-ranging strategic agreement. Every shisha house in the Middle East knows that Doha, Riyadh and Ankara have been weaponizing/financing/providing logistical help to the various strands of the armed Syrian opposition engaged in regime change.

Continue reading

Why Syria Will Not Fall


By Ghaleb Kandil, Vijayvaani

The recent developments in Syria revealed a series of important signs which will have decisive repercussions over the course of the global war led by the United States to destroy this country. Unlike the information and impressions of American strategists and their European and Arab accomplices – as conveyed by hundreds of media outlets engaged in the battle – the death squads, mercenaries and Takfiri groups introduced from all parts of the world suffered a crushing defeat at the level of the battles. Nonetheless, the Turkish officials and their Qatari and Saudi allies had promised – as they have already done last year and during the same period – that the month of Ramadan will witness the fall of the resisting regime in Syria. These illusions have once again collapsed on the battlefield where the armed gangs suffered the fall of thousands of dead, wounded and detainees.

Indeed, the comprehensive attack launched by the extremists against Damascus ended – even with the recognition of Western media outlets – with massive losses. Hence, the force which included local mercenaries and jihadists from around the world was completely annihilated by the Syrian army that is pursuing the remnants on the outskirts of the capital. As a result, tons of weapons were confiscated and the heavy infrastructure of the armed groups was dismantled and destroyed, which will require months to reconstruct if the armed groups are ever able to do so.

The outcome of the Aleppo battle on the other hand is known in advance, as the extremists are falling by the thousands in the face of the methodic progress of the army which was able to fully sever the supply lines of the mercenaries who came from the training camps led by the CIA in Turkey.
Consequently, the armed gangs can no longer deliver reinforcements without having to pay a hefty price. As to their 4×4 convoys which are equipped with heavy artillery and were offered by their regional sponsors, they are moving under the fire of the army’s helicopters and aircrafts and are falling in the ambushes set up by the elite forces that have infiltrated enemy lines.
Continue reading

Russia And China Respond to Obama’s “Red Line”


While I interpreted Obama’s “red line” for attacking Syria -its use of its strategic weapons – as a free pass to the Syrian government to use all disposable means to fight the foreign supported insurgency, Russia and China seem to have a different, or additional, interpretation.

They both seem to allege that this “red line” on the use of chemical weapons is just a trick to justify an open military attack.

The Russian did so in a more diplomatic tone:

Lavrov said at the meeting with [China’s State Councillor Dai Bingguo] that Russia and China base their diplomatic cooperation on “the need to strictly adhere to the norms of international law and the principles contained in the U.N. Charter and not to allow their violation”.

Russia has also expressed concern about Syria’s chemical arsenal, saying it had told Damascus that even the threat to use it was unacceptable.
But Lavrov said on Monday that the Security Council alone could authorize the use of external force against Syria, warning against imposing “democracy by bombs”.

The Chinese response came through an editorial of its official news agency Xinhua: The tone is quite direct:

Once again, Western powers are digging deep for excuses to intervene militarily in another conflict-torn Middle East country, as U.S. President Barack Obama warned Monday that the use of chemical weapons by Syria’s government would change his “calculus.”

With the hypocritical talks of eliminating weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and protecting civilians in Libya still ringing in the ears, such “red line” threats seem to have almost become a signal for the United States and some of its Western allies to sharpen their weapons before exercising interventionism.

The Xinhua writer goes on with a general description and critique of “western” foreign policy behavior:

Apart from being ineffective to bring real peace, military interventions by the United States and its Western partners are always interests-driven and highly selective.

It is not difficult to find that, under the disguise of humanitarianism, the United States has always tried to smash governments it considers as threats to its so-called national interests and relentlessly replace them with those that are Washington-friendly.

That easily explains why both Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, who once worked closely with the United States, were later depicted as brutal dictators with the people’s blood dipping through their fingers.

Right now, as conflicts between government troops and rebel forces still rage in Syria, nations around the world should continue to build on the progress that has been achieved by outgoing international envoy Kofi Annan and his team.

Any attempt to scrap the chances for a political settlement and to turn Syria into the next testing ground for Western weapons must be guarded against and ruled out.

It is not often that one hear such truths in official media of big world policy players.

It is obvious now that Russia and China have joined in a general fight to stop the international lawlessness that the “west” got used to after the breakdown of the Soviet Union. Let’s hope that they this aim and restore the principles of Westphalia and the UN Charter.

Source: B from Moon of Alabama