Breaking News

Voices of Reason to be Carefully Heeded!

 “Given the case that has been presented to me, I believe that a military strike against Syria at this time is the wrong course of action. In good conscience, I cannot support the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s resolution and will be working with my colleagues and the administration to develop other options. I believe that we must exhaust all diplomatic options and have a comprehensive plan for international involvement before we act” said Senator Joe Manchin in a Statement on Syria.

Meantime, the Rep. Senator Alan Grayson, D-Fla. says the Obama administration has manipulated intelligence to push its case for U.S. involvement in Syria.

Grayson stated that  members of Congress are being given intelligence briefings without any evidence to support administration claims, asserting that the details in the administration's public, non-classified report are being contested.

Senator Grayson points to an article published by The Daily Caller that alleges the communications actually showed Syrian officers were surprised by the alleged chemical weapon attack. The communications, according to unnamed sources paraphrased in article, were intercepted by Israeli intelligence and "doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion."

"What they say in The Daily Caller is that [intercepted communications] would lead one to the opposite conclusion," Grayson said. "I don't know if it's right or wrong, [but] there's a very simple way to find out, that's for the administration to show me and other members of Congress" translated transcripts of the intercepts, he said.

Members of Congress are "not being given any of the underlying elements of the intelligence reports," according to Grayson, pointing out that other examples of intelligence he believes has been manipulated to favor war.

"Well yes," Grayson said, "but I'm very constrained about talking about it. ... This has become a fundamental problem with our system: The information we do get is limited, but beyond that we are very constrained in discussing it."

The four-page White House report on the alleged attack is no more than "a briefing paper with arguments in favor of attacking Syria" that "doesn't present both sides of the issue," Grayson said.

"We can't go to war to spare anyone embarrassment," Grayson told U.S. News. "That would be utterly immoral, we're talking about shedding American blood. ... The president has already made that argument and it's falling on deaf ears."

On his part, the Democratic California Rep. congressman, John Garamendi, who opposes U.S. military intervention in Syria expressed “deep concern” following Secretary of State John Kerry’s conference call with House Democrats on the subject:  ‘Well, it’s the credibility of the United States.’ Really? How is our credibility enhanced or harmed?”

Democratic Minnesota Rep. Rick Nolan angered Kerry on the conference call by comparing possible intervention in Syria to the United States’ failed participation in the Vietnam War.

“After a three-hour classified briefing and taking time to read all the classified documents, what I have heard and read has only served to convince me more than ever of the folly and danger of getting America involved in the Syrian war. I will vote and work against President Obama’s request for open-ended authority to launch military strikes against the Syrian army,” Nolan said following the call, expressing fear over the would be  “collateral damage.”

 “I am deeply concerned that the proposed White House resolution for Syria is over-broad and would allow troops on the ground. Can’t support,” California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell tweeted.

Meanwhile, the New York Congressman Chris Gibson, who served 24 years in the Army, and that includes four combat tours in Iraq, said that If we bomb that country, are we going to make it better, or are we going to make it worse? It's my judgment that we really run the risk of escalating the conflict, Americanizing that civil war, all of this not in our interest and certainly not in the interest of an ultimate peaceful resolution to that civil war. I support remaining on the diplomatic track.

Actually, all of the above-mentioned asserts the balanced wise stances of Russia, under the wise historic and strong leadership of H.E. President Vladimir Putin who underscores that the alleged chemical weapons use in Syria is a provocation carried out by the "rebels" to attract a foreign-led strike. 

Dr. Mohammad Abdo Al-Ibrahim

US aims to end anti-zionist entity resistance front

It has been crystal clear that the US and its allies have been working to strike the axis of the resistance in the region through planning a military action against Syria, because all the previous attempts were foiled and exposed.

In fact, the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been making feverish attempts to end this axis and enable Israel to invade the Arab region politically and economically.

In the summer of 2006, the pro-Zionist axis, especially the US and Saudi Arabia encouraged Israel to launch a savage aggression against South Lebanon with the aim of putting an end to the Lebanese national resistance and weakening the linchpin of the resistance, Syria. But thanks to the unwavering steadfastness of the Lebanese National Resistance men and Syria’s generous and unlimited support for this resistance, the Israeli aggression was repelled, the US sinister attempt was foiled and the then US foreign Secretary Condoleezza Rice’s malicious project of the New Middle East was thwarted.

However, the pro-Zionist states did not stop their wicked attempts to strike the axis of the resistance. When the crisis in Syria started, the US and its Arab and regional allies found it a good opportunity to strike the key player in the resistance axis through funding, training and exporting armed terrorists to Syria to weaken the Syrian army which emerged victorious in its battle against takfiri terrorism. After two years and a half, the US and its Arab and regional tools fabricated the groundless accusation of chemical weapons’ use in Eastern Ghuta. What’s astonishing is that Obama and his aides did not wait for the results of the investigation conducted by the UN committee and started to prepare for launching a military strike against Syria without the agreement of the UN Security Council.

 Obama’s hectic campaign to launch a unilateral military action shows that the US was plotting to break the anti-Israeli resistance front in the Middle East. A recent Washington Institute Strategic Report on the Middle East (March 2013) stated US dual objectives were to secure oil and gas supplies and to protect Israeli security. These objectives can be achieved by destroying the main resistance front, Syria, clearing the way for Israel's desired invasion of the region.

So, when we look at the proposed war against Syria, the US interest is very simple: maintain hegemony and ensure Israel’s superiority and political and economic domination of the Arab and Islamic states.

But Obama and his allies should realize that the resistance axis will remain a very powerful block in confrontation of the US-Israeli hegemony plans in the region.

Obama and his allies should realize that their war on Syria would not be a picnic because Syrian people and army have the right to defend themselves against any aggression. The US threats of launching an aggression on Syria will not affect the Syrians' determination, steadfastness and resistance.

K.Q.

US Policy Lashed Out

The U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on this August 26 removed the sword of the alleged Syrian chemical weapons from its sheath and let the snow ball of this subterfuge for a military aggression on Syria roll unchecked, raising the stakes from asking whether “it will happen” to “when” it will happen, promising that President Barak Obama “will be making an informed decision about how” to take on Syria and warning not to make a “mistake” because Obama “believes there must be accountability,” making clear that a U.S. – led military action is in the making and imminent.

According to global research, the U.S. – led threats of an imminent military action was the only option left for the western backers of the rebels in Syria ; their declared goal is to stem the accelerating successes of the Syrian Arab Army  and to return the balance of power to the status quo ante.

When the 18th Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey, before the reportedly chemical attack , admitted that the Syrian army was “gaining momentum,” he did not “think it’ll be sustainable,” not because he was drawing on the facts on the ground, but most likely because he was privy to what was in store with his co- decision makers in Washington.

Maintaining a “balance of power” on the ground is a U.S. precondition to engage in and allow negotiations to solve the Syrian conflict peacefully. The U.S. cannot co – host with Russia the repeatedly postponed Geneva – 2 peace conference on Syria unless the military status quo on the ground is deprived of the gains won by the SAA.

Obama, the former professor of constitutional law, who as recently as August 22 warned in a CNN interview that “we have to take into account considerations” like a “U.N. mandate” supported by “international law” and “clear evidence,” seems ready now to strike without any respect to the three factors, which they only can give legitimacy to any U.S. – led strike against Syria.

According to the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday, Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) has collected nearly three dozen signatures of House members to a letter he intended to send to the White House to remind the president that military action without a congressional vote “would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”

Several recent polls showed that the majority of Americans oppose U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict, let alone militarily. In this week’s Reuters/Ipsos survey, only 25 percent of Americans said they would support U.S. intervention if Syrian Government used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it. About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria  war, while just 9 percent thought Obama should act.

A Pew Research Center poll taken June 12-16 found 70 percent of Americans opposed Obama’s decision to provide arms to Syrian terrorists in response to smaller-scale chemical weapons attacks there; 68 percent said the U.S. military is “too over-committed” to get involved in the Syrian conflict.

Dr. Mohammad Abdo Al-Ibrahim

Chemical Hallucination

The US administration is deliberating with the Congress the possibility of  waging a military action against Syria. It also mulls a limited short-term aggression, accusing the Syrian Arab army of allegedly using chemical weapons in  East Gouta in Damascus countryside.

Syria, who strenuously denies these accusations ,asserts by indelible evidence, that the armed terrorist groups are those who used chemical weapons. Therefore, Syria  clarifies to the public opinion the following points :

According to Syria, the aggression is an aggression whether it is one raid or more than one ,either intermittent or consecutive. So Syria has  legal and legislative rights to  defend  itself  against this aggression and deter

the perpetrators against it  by using its shield force .Not to go into details, many surprises will flabbergast the raiders.

Secondly, Syria  considers  the aggression against it as a bid by the West ,Gulf States, Turkey and to enable the terrorist groups to achieve  progress after having sustained enormous defeats owing to  the steadfastness of the Syrian Arab Army.

 These Wahhabi and Takfiri terrorists groups sent by al-Saud had been eliminated by the Syrian valiant army. The armed terrorists groups  want to destroy Syria and divide it aiming at weakening the state  to become a  docile doll by Western hands.

The heinous crimes perpetrated by the armed terrorists groups were manifested beyond doubt by destroying the infrastructure, mutilating bodies with machetes ,the thing that reflects the spitefulness of these terrorists groups and their supporters.

Peace-loving nations, who are  working for spreading peace in Syria and the region in general,  considered the U.S. aggression against Syria  a deliberate attempt to legalize the use of chemical weapons by the terrorist groups which are supplied by Saudi Arabia with large quantities of deadly sarin gas and  the  means of usage.

Certainly, the Syrian competent authorities  have  dozens of evidence to confirm that  al- Saud supplied the terrorists in Syria with the chemical weapons to be used against the Syrian Arab Army and people. This is what really happened and the Americans know and recognize the matter very  well.

Is the congress willing to follow his British counterpart who strongly rejects the aggression against Syria?

H. Shamout

Obama’s careless adventure deals serious blow to world order

The US has always been claiming that it is very keen on democracy, human rights and the principles of the international law, but in fact it is the most country in the world which takes unilateral actions that blatantly violate the UN charter and the basic principles of the international law.  Knowing before hand, that the UN Security Council will foil his devastating adventure to launch a military action against Syria, thanks to the existence of the wise and balanced policy of Russia and China which have been working for advocating a peaceful solution for the crisis in Syria, US President Barack Obama and his ilk are pressing ahead to recruit allies to support his reckless and irresponsible military move against Syria.

Obama and his aides should know that any military intervention in Syria will deal a serious blow to the entire system of world order. Military strikes on Syria without UN Security Council’s approval would damage the existing world order which is based on the Council. The military aggression on Syria  will be considered as an aggression on the UN member states and a direct intervention and violation of the sovereignty of states.

Such actions bypassing the UN Security Council will inflict huge damage to the system based on the central role of the UN, because they cancel the UN and its bodies to achieve US interests and the interests of its main ally in the region, Israel.

The US has no right to speak on behalf of the international community of the need for a military intervention in Syria.  It also has no right to speak on behalf of NATO which refuses to participate in combat operations and destroying Damascus.

The strategic mistakes of the American politicians in waging wars will shed the blood of innocent people and will cause huge losses at all levels.

The military aggression on Syria will be the worst mistake by the US and the West and will blow up the situation in the whole region as it may spread chaos in the Middle East and lead to destabilize the situation in the region.

Former US President Jimmy Carter warned Obama of the adverse consequences of such illegitimate war which will increase tension in the whole region and badly affect the UN and its institutions. Such an act will not bring a solution, but rather it would complicate the situation in the whole region. The US and its allies are taking steps to escalate the Syrian issue and increase tensions in an already volatile area.

These threats show Washington's disappointment over its failure to accomplish its goals and show that a political solution and the international conference on Syria in Geneva do not suit US, because it does not meet the sinister American Israeli agenda in the region. The US is seeking through these threats and any ensuing strikes to make an adjustment in the balance in power to give a better bargaining position for the armed terrorist groups. Events indicate that the arrogant and hostile countries have started their plots to ignite sedition and chaos in the region after they saw that the developments are not going to serve their interests anymore.

The West is seeking to target Syria as it is considered the main resistance front in the region. Any unilateral use of force behind the UN's back will thwart international efforts to reach a diplomatic political solution for the Syrian crisis, and will escalate the situation in the Middle East in a destructive manner, and the example of Libya is crystal clear where unilateral intervention caused grave repercussions.

This impudent action against Syria is part of a global geopolitical sabotage. Those who are encouraging war against Syria have to be held accountable for the loss of innocent lives and other catastrophic consequences of such irresponsible war.

K.Q.