Chemical Weapons

[dennis tooth]

Absolutely there isn't. I find that a perfectly fair position to take. As somebody who has opposed almost every instance of military action in recent memory, sometimes to personal and professional detriment, I fully understand the position of not wanting to use that option. However, that's not what the article was about, which is why I protested about it. The same could have been done for various links and articles, but it's too lengthy to go into detail of every one.

 

 

 

Some of the rebels have done much, much more than torture people. Some have cut out the heart of their opponent and started eating it. As I said earlier in the thread, I'm no great fan of the rebel forces. I do think 'the rebels' is a ridiculous term, though. It covers all opposing forces, from terrorist-backed radical murderers and radicalised Islamists, to more moderate groups.

 

I'm not sure how much credible evidence exists to show that the US is actually funding or arming Al-Nusra, though. They're deemed a terrorist organisation by the US, UK and the UN. I mean, I wouldn't be shocked if they were - the CIA have certain methods they use - but I don't see any reason they'd want them to have any power at all.

 

 

You stated there was plenty of evidence.

 

We'd all like to see it please you cowardly liar.

[dennis tooth]

Secretary of State John Kerry departs for a Sept. 6 trip to Europe where he plans to meet with officials to discuss the Syrian crisis and other issues. (State Department photo)

 

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

 

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

 

SUBJECT: Is Syria a Trap?

 

Precedence: IMMEDIATE

 

We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as "plausible denial."

 

 

 

We have been down this road before -- with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandum immediately after Colin Powell's Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent "intelligence" to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled -- or, at the least, very poorly advised.

 

Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public -- and perhaps even you. The fraudulent nature of Powell's speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to "widen the discussion beyond ... the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic." We offer you the same advice today.

 

We have observed John Brennan closely over recent years and, sadly, we find what our former colleagues are now telling us is easy to believe. Sadder still, this goes in spades for those of us who have worked with him personally; we give him zero credence. And that goes, as well, for his titular boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has admitted he gave "clearly erroneous" sworn testimony to Congress denying NSA eavesdropping on Americans.

 

Intelligence Summary or Political Ploy?

 

That Secretary of State John Kerry would invoke Clapper's name this week in Congressional testimony, in an apparent attempt to enhance the credibility of the four-page "Government Assessment" strikes us as odd. The more so, since it was, for some unexplained reason, not Clapper but the White House that released the "assessment."

 

This is not a fine point. We know how these things are done. Although the "Government Assessment" is being sold to the media as an "intelligence summary," it is a political, not an intelligence document. The drafters, massagers, and fixers avoided presenting essential detail. Moreover, they conceded upfront that, though they pinned "high confidence" on the assessment, it still fell "short of confirmation."

 

Deja Fraud: This brings a flashback to the famous Downing Street Minutes of July 23, 2002, on Iraq, The minutes record the Richard Dearlove, then head of British intelligence, reporting to Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior officials that President Bush had decided to remove Saddam Hussein through military action that would be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD." Dearlove had gotten the word from then-CIA Director George Tenet whom he visited at CIA headquarters on July 20.

 

The discussion that followed centered on the ephemeral nature of the evidence, prompting Dearlove to explain: "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." We are concerned that this is precisely what has happened with the "intelligence" on Syria.

 

The Intelligence

 

There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East -- mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters -- providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.

read more OpEdNews - Article: Obama Warned on Syrian Intel

[Ranxerox]

Obama may reconsider going to the UN. Perhaps he's beginning to realize "trust me" isn't going to cut it this time.

 

U.S. undecided on seeking new Syria U.N. vote | Reuters

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Obama may reconsider going to the UN. Perhaps he's beginning to realize "trust me" isn't going to cut it this time.

 

U.S. undecided on seeking new Syria U.N. vote | Reuters

 

He doesn't need anybody to trust him.

[Section_31]

This is a crucial few weeks in determining how the next decade will unfold IMO, and very little of it has got to do with Syria.

 

Since we were kids the USA and the UK alongside it have called the shots. Even at the height of Soviet Power, the USA pretty much had carte blanche to blow fuck out of anyone who got in its way.

 

But as its economy has faltered, the wolves have been at the door. China, and, to a much greater extent, Russia are getting bolder - and let's face it - both of them are gobshites.

 

It's already happened with the UK, we're finished as a world force, the Russians recently described us as a 'small island nobody pays attention to', and they're probably right. We've seen Argentina and, recently, Spain rattling their sabres at us, and much of it is due to our weakening relationship with the states, our financial position, our military position and our 'outside looking in' position with the EU.

 

International relations is sort of like being a gangster, you can try and play things the right way and back off once in a while, but as soon as you do some cunt's at your throat.

 

With this in mind, I believe much of what we're seeing over Syria is the US refusing to be 'bullied' as they see it into not doing what they want. The idea of Obama even looking for the consent of the Senate is a massive step in itself and symbolic of how the country and president's loss of self-assurance, like the credit crunch - something else the world has got to thank dubya for.

 

Imagine how different the world might look today if the Miami Dade count hadn't been fixed?

[piscinin]

This is a crucial few weeks in determining how the next decade will unfold IMO, and very little of it has got to do with Syria.

 

Since we were kids the USA and the UK alongside it have called the shots. Even at the height of Soviet Power, the USA pretty much had carte blanche to blow fuck out of anyone who got in its way.

 

But as its economy has faltered, the wolves have been at the door. China, and, to a much greater extent, Russia are getting bolder - and let's face it - both of them are gobshites.

 

It's already happened with the UK, we're finished as a world force, the Russians recently described us as a 'small island nobody pays attention to', and they're probably right. We've seen Argentina and, recently, Spain rattling their sabres at us, and much of it is due to our weakening relationship with the states, our financial position, our military position and our 'outside looking in' position with the EU.

 

International relations is sort of like being a gangster, you can try and play things the right way and back off once in a while, but as soon as you do some cunt's at your throat.

 

With this in mind, I believe much of what we're seeing over Syria is the US refusing to be 'bullied' as they see it into not doing what they want. The idea of Obama even looking for the consent of the Senate is a massive step in itself and symbolic of how the country and president's loss of self-assurance, like the credit crunch - something else the world has got to thank dubya for.

 

Imagine how different the world might look today if the Miami Dade count hadn't been fixed?

 

Nah, what you see as loss of self-assurance is just not caring enough about Syria to spend the political capital. If those missiles had landed in Israel syria would be ex-syria already and China and Russia would have done bugger all, because there is bugger all they can do.

 

This Obama dude, just ain't all that big on killing people for the sake of it.

[Section_31]

Nah, what you see as loss of self-assurance is just not caring enough about Syria to spend the political capital. If those missiles had landed in Israel syria would be ex-syria already and China and Russia would have done bugger all, because there is bugger all they can do.

 

This Obama dude, just ain't all that big on killing people for the sake of it.

 

He wants to get involved though doesn't he? That's why he's got Kerry doing the rounds and why he decided to shit out and leave the decision in the hands - or at least get the approval of - the senate. I was a kid in the 80s but in all the many, many times the yanks have bombed shit out of countries I can't remember the president ever doing that, Clinton authorised tomahawk strikes in Afghanistan using an executive order because the CIA wouldn't declare Al Quida a terrorist group and he couldn't get the backing for a full invasion, but he still had his finger on the trigger. Everything we're hearing form Obama screams that he wants 'some kind' of action.

[piscinin]

He wants to get involved though doesn't he? That's why he's got Kerry doing the rounds and why he decided to shit out and leave the decision in the hands - or at least get the approval of - the senate. I was a kid in the 80s but in all the many, many times the yanks have bombed shit out of countries I can't remember the president ever doing that, Clinton authorised tomahawk strikes in Afghanistan using an executive order because the CIA wouldn't declare Al Quida a terrorist group and he couldn't get the backing for a full invasion, but he still had his finger on the trigger. Everything we're hearing form Obama screams that he wants 'some kind' of action.

 

I don't think he does want to be involved per se. He's prepared to get involved as befits americas role as the world's policeman. But as he showed with Iraq and Afghanistan he isn't going to mess around when there's no benefit.

 

If he'd just wanted to kill a bunch of people, he'd have signed an executive order weeks ago. Instead he's thrown it out to the wider community and said if you want me to do your dirty work, show me.

[Red Phoenix]

Some quotes from a recent article :

 

 

Doubts linger over Syria gas attack responsibility

By Zeina Karam And Kimberly Dozier - Associated Press.

 

BEIRUT (AP) — The U.S. government insists it has the intelligence to prove it, but the public has yet to see a single piece of concrete evidence produced by U.S. intelligence — no satellite imagery, no transcripts of Syrian military communications — connecting the government of President Bashar Assad to the alleged chemical weapons attack last month that killed hundreds of people.

 

...

 

The Obama administration, searching for support from a divided Congress and skeptical world leaders, says its own assessment is based mainly on satellite and signals intelligence, including intercepted communications and satellite images indicating that in the three days prior to the attack that the regime was preparing to use poisonous gas.

 

But multiple requests to view that satellite imagery have been denied, though the administration produced copious amounts of satellite imagery earlier in the war to show the results of the Syrian regime's military onslaught. When asked Friday whether such imagery would be made available showing the Aug. 21 incident, a spokesman referred The Associated Press to a map produced by the White House last week that shows what officials say are the unconfirmed areas that were attacked.

 

The Obama administration maintains it intercepted communications from a senior Syrian official on the use of chemical weapons, but requests to see that transcript have been denied. So has a request by the AP to see a transcript of communications allegedly ordering Syrian military personnel to prepare for a chemical weapons attack by readying gas masks.

 

...

 

The U.S. administration says its evidence is classified and is only sharing details in closed-door briefings with members of Congress and key allies.

 

Yet the assessment, also based on accounts by Syrian activists and hundreds of YouTube videos of the attack's aftermath, has confounded many experts who cannot fathom what might have motivated Assad to unleash weapons of mass destruction on his own people — especially while U.N. experts were nearby and at a time when his troops had the upper hand on the ground.

 

...

 

The Obama administration says 1,429 people died in 12 locations mostly east of the capital, an estimate close to the one put out by the Western-backed Syrian National Coalition. When asked for victims' names, however, the group provided a list of 395. On that list, some of the victims were identified by a first name only or said to be members of a certain family. There was no explanation for the hundreds of missing names.

 

...

 

In Ghouta, Majed Abu Ali, a spokesman for 17 clinics and field hospitals near Damascus, produced the same list, saying the hospitals were unable to identify all the dead.

 

Casualty estimates by other groups are far lower: The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says it only counts victims identified by name, and that its current total stands at 502. It has questioned the U.S. number and urged the Obama administration to release the information its figure is based on. The AP also has repeatedly asked for clarification on those numbers.

 

The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders says it has not been able to update its initial Aug. 24 estimate of 355 killed because communication with those on the ground around Damascus is difficult. That estimate was based on reports from three hospitals in the area supported by the group.

 

...

 

French and Israeli intelligence assessments support the U.S., as does reportedly Germany's spy agency, on its conclusion the Syrian regime was responsible. However, none have backed those claims with publicly presented evidence either.

 

...

 

In the U.S., the case for military action has evoked comparisons to false data used by the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

 

Multiple U.S. officials have told AP that the intelligence tying Assad himself to the Aug. 21 attack was "not a slam dunk" — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — intelligence that turned out to be wrong. They cite the lack of a direct link between Assad and the chemical assault — a question the administration discounts by arguing Assad's responsibility as Syria's commander in chief. A second issue is that U.S. intelligence has lost track of some chemical weaponry, leaving a slim possibility that rebels acquired some of the deadly substances.

 

Doubts linger over Syria gas attack responsibility - Businessweek

[Red Phoenix]

Some more previous from the US government, almost unbelievable to read :

 

On 21 September 1970, Allende had been declared victor of clean elections, but before he took over the presidency, after a fruitless effort by Chilean conservatives and their US allies to have the victory declared unconstitutional, Edward Korry, the US ambassador in Santiago, reported to Henry Kissinger, the foreign strategist of President Richard Nixon: "Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and the Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty."

 

A few days earlier Richard Helms, director of the CIA, had scribbled notes on a meeting in Washington with Nixon, Kissinger and John Mitchell, the US attorney general, where the president demanded a coup. They read: "One in 10 chance perhaps, but save Chile! /worth spending /not concerned risks involved /no involvement of embassy /$10,000,000 available, more if necessary/ best men we have/ game plan/ make the economy scream /48 hours for plan of action."

 

After Allende's enemies finally claimed their victory against him on 11 September, Chileans protected themselves as best they could while Pinochet and his cohorts, well favoured now by Washington, turned to making themselves fortunes from the privatisation of public services and, quietly, from the trade in cocaine from Bolivia which the US never seemed to want to criticise or attack.

 

So confident was Pinochet in his protectors in "the free world" that on 17 September 1976 he ordered the killing of Orlando Letelier, Allende's former defence minister, with a bomb planted in his car in Sheridan Circle in the diplomatic heart of Washington itself. Such an atrocity, had it been committed by any Arab or Iranian, or indeed a Muslim of any persuasion, would have brought down instant punishment, or even war. But Pinochet was in no danger. After all, he had been Nixon's man all along.

 

Chilean coup: 40 years ago I watched Pinochet crush a democratic dream | World news | The Observer

 

They've been obsessed with controlling other countries for decades. It's not too much of a leap to think that they're also doing it with Syria now.

[Red Phoenix]

Thanks if anyone can explain how we're supposed to trust the CIA in this after looking at what they've previously done : A Timeline of CIA Atrocities | Global Research

[Red Phoenix]

This is just sickening. Have read up to about 1975 in the link posted in the previous post and I had to have a break. It's insanity. If you read through even half of that then connect the track record of the CIA to what's going on here, you'd have to be mental not to question what's going on. The person quoted here is listed as a Wall Street Journal national security correspondent :

 

ADAM ENTOUS: Right. So, what happened was, is, initially, the Saudis, Qatar, Turkey and, to a certain extent, the CIA in more of an observatory capacity, had set up their operations for arming the rebels out of Turkey. And about a year ago, a little over a year ago, you know, the Saudis were watching as these arms were flowing in, and were concerned that they were going to what the Saudis and what the Americans would consider to be the wrong rebels, and this would include Islamist groups, Muslim Brotherhood-connected groups. And so they decided to pull out of Turkey and move to Jordan.

 

They convinced the king of Jordan, who was a little—a little bit reticent initially to accept this being done in their territory, because they were worried about reprisals, where, for example, there are large refugee camps for Palestinians just north of the Jordan-Syria border, inside Syria, and the fear for the Jordanians was that the Syrians would literally push those refugees into Jordan and further destabilize the kingdom. What we found in our reporting is, is that Bandar spent many hours with the king and with his military chiefs, reassuring them that the Saudis would support the Jordanians through this. And then CIA Director David Petraeus was involved, as well, in helping assure the Jordanians that the U.S. would have Jordan’s back.

 

And last summer they created this operation center. And what would happen—what is happening now is you have actually more CIA officers now there at that base than there are Saudi personnel. They fly weapons in. The Saudis are the ones who are doing the bulk of this. They buy the weapons in—largely in places like Eastern Europe, to a certain extent Libya, and they bring them to this base, which has a landing strip and storehouses for the weapons to be stored. The Saudis and the Jordanians draw on defectors, largely, from the Syrian military, which already have a good degree of military training. And they’re brought to this base, where different intel agencies train them. And the Americans are there. The Brits are there. The French are there. The Saudis, UAE is there. And they train them, and then they send them into the fight. And this—but very, very slowly, this process has been built up over the last couple months.

 

Iran-Contra Redux? Prince Bandar Heads Secret Saudi-CIA Effort to Aid Syrian Rebels, Topple Assad | Democracy Now!

 

 

Apologies for so many posts again, am having a break after reading some of this. Also note that Bandar Bush is heavily involved according that article though, it's becoming increasingly obvious that he's a big part of this problem.

[Ranxerox]

I don't think he does want to be involved per se. He's prepared to get involved as befits americas role as the world's policeman. But as he showed with Iraq and Afghanistan he isn't going to mess around when there's no benefit.

 

.

 

This is the conundrum that he made for himself though isn't it. His argument is essentially that there is a "moral imperative" to become involved (ie chemical weapons crossed a red line). He wants to paint it is a just action (we have no interests in Syria). His most vocal supporter on here parrots the same argument "US has no interest in Syria, it is a moral crusade".

 

 

Surely then it must follow (for Cameron as well) regardless of Congressional support that he must strike for moral reasons. He's already stated he feels he has the constitutional authority so why the Congressional dance, why talk of going back to the UN?

 

The fact is he knows that to strike without Congressional approval will trigger Impeachment hearings in Congress. For Obama its not even about moral crusades or US interests, its about protecting his own ass.

 

If he isn't willing to risk his political career for the moral imperative why is it worth a single life (collateral damage, service men and women).

 

The Emperor has no clothes.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

"Remember when quotes used to have things in it which somebody had actually said" -- Abe Lincoln, 2014.

[Ranxerox]

Just watched BBC press conference with Kerry, I found him unconvincing.

 

Particularly the "we're not going to war" quote, you know because its just limited strikes.

 

Sort of like Al Qaeda's limited strikes against the WTC, we all remember how the US didn't consider that war.

[Ranxerox]

You stated there was plenty of evidence.

 

We'd all like to see it please .....

 

White Chief of Staff admits the evidence that Assad did it is not beyond reasonable doubt.

 

McDonough acknowledged to CNN’s Candy Crowley on "State of the Union" that U.S. officials are not 100 percent certain that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attacks, given the inconsistencies inherent in intelligence.

 

“Now do we have irrefutable, beyond reasonable doubt evidence? This is not a court of law, and intelligence does not work that way,” McDonough said. He added that common sense says Assad "is responsible for this. He should be held accountable."

 

 

of course one could argue that "common sense" says Assad had nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing this.

 

 

WH chief of staff: ‘This is not Iraq or Afghanistan’ – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

[piscinin]

This is the conundrum that he made for himself though isn't it. His argument is essentially that there is a "moral imperative" to become involved (ie chemical weapons crossed a red line). He wants to paint it is a just action (we have no interests in Syria). His most vocal supporter on here parrots the same argument "US has no interest in Syria, it is a moral crusade".

 

Surely then it must follow (for Cameron as well) regardless of Congressional support that he must strike for moral reasons. He's already stated he feels he has the constitutional authority so why the Congressional dance, why talk of going back to the UN?

 

It's easy to get swept away in the flow of the moral crusade news-stream, but these things are never so simple that they can be reduced to a single dimension like that. The 'moral crusade' is just that subset of interests around which USUK thought they could engineer consent. Most people are well aware that there are as many motivations for intervention as there are people sticking their oar in.

 

The dance is the dance of Miliband. He broke the assumption that this could proceed on a quasi-consensual basis and so now we are in a process of discovering post-bliar, post-bush, post-iraq, how does this all work?

 

The fact is he knows that to strike without Congressional approval will trigger Impeachment hearings in Congress. For Obama its not even about moral crusades or US interests, its about protecting his own ass.

 

If he isn't willing to risk his political career for the moral imperative why is it worth a single life (collateral damage, service men and women).

 

The Emperor has no clothes.

 

Impeachment isn't a realistic proposition and TBH he's a politician playing it like every other politician plays it. Exactly as there profession requires them to.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Can we not have a little accuracy or objectivity? It may well not be beyond reasonable doubt, although we certainly shouldn't make judgements yet, but he did not 'admit the evidence that Assad did it is not beyond reasonable doubt'. He spent the first five minutes of the interview saying there's a high confidence - which is intelligence talk for their highest state of certainty - that Assad's regime used chemical weapons. He then finished that sentence about reasonable doubt and court of law by saying that 'he is responsible for this; he should be held to account'. I shit interview by a shithead, but putting words into his mouth just makes you look desperate.

 

Rather than twisting words and implying people said something they clearly didn't, I'd worry more about what he did say that was actually troublesome. His fumbling over International support, which is on its arse; the implication that if the US doesn't act it's a signal for others to do the same; and chatter in other interviews about threats to the national security. Goodness, there's enough meat on the bone without you having to invent a ready-meal.

[piscinin]

Just watched BBC press conference with Kerry, I found him unconvincing.

 

Particularly the "we're not going to war" quote, you know because its just limited strikes.

 

Sort of like Al Qaeda's limited strikes against the WTC, we all remember how the US didn't consider that war.

 

Yeah, he messed up last week by alluding to scenarios in which they would put "boots on the ground".

 

To be fair, he hasn't got a strong hand to play given the heightened skepticism and the increased efforts by people to fact-check his case to death. People are looking for 100% certainty in an environment where 65% is as good as axoimatic.

[Stu Monty]

Yeah, he messed up last week by alluding to scenarios in which they would put "boots on the ground".

 

To be fair, he hasn't got a strong hand to play given the heightened skepticism and the increased efforts by people to fact-check his case to death. People are looking for 100% certainty in an environment where 65% is as good as axoimatic.

 

Which is pretty fucking good.

 

When's their new album out?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Which is pretty fucking good.

 

When's their new album out?

 

You're silly. It's washing powder.

[piscinin]

Which is pretty fucking good.

 

When's their new album out?

 

Absolutely it is, but the danger is that in such scenarios 100% is unattainable, and the people demanding 100% don't understand that. So you end up either with gridlock, or making decisions of the basis of factors about which you can be certain and which are almost always incidental.

[Barney_Rubble]

Apologies for so many posts again, am having a break after reading some of this. Also note that Bandar Bush is heavily involved according that article though, it's becoming increasingly obvious that he's a big part of this problem.

No need to apologise mate - I find your articles interesting to say the least.

 

Can we not have a little accuracy or objectivity? It may well not be beyond reasonable doubt, although we certainly shouldn't make judgements yet, but he did not 'admit the evidence that Assad did it is not beyond reasonable doubt'. He spent the first five minutes of the interview saying there's a high confidence - which is intelligence talk for their highest state of certainty - that Assad's regime used chemical weapons. He then finished that sentence about reasonable doubt and court of law by saying that 'he is responsible for this; he should be held to account'. I shit interview by a shithead, but putting words into his mouth just makes you look desperate.

And you know this how, exactly?

[zigackly]

Of course 100% isn't obtainable, but actually the 65% you mention does not sound very good to me.

[Stu Monty]

Someone should do some "Middle East Geopolitics Top Trumps" cards. They'd be ace.

 

Everyone bar a few would have 100 for "being a cunt" and there's be a select few with very small visibility stats and very high influence stats.