Stop the Lies about Syria
Posted by Fredsvenn den september 17, 2013
They planned an attack allready in 2011, but they needed something «like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi» to get it done – until then it was to train up FSA and do guerillia attacks.
They «got», or «staged» their Benghazi (The gas attack), and started to mobilise, but Russia and China, the UN and the Pope, didn’t go for it – and then, the English parlament and the US Congress didn’t go for it either.
Obama lost his chance, and even if he will try another time, we managed to stop it this time. We are 1-0, and we need to celebrate, but we also know the terrible forces we are fighting – an enormous power apparatus and the global elite. We have no time to rest, but need to go on. Good brothers and sisters – go ahead!
On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered «global intelligence» company Stratfor.
The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency.
The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.
They wanted to grill me on the strategic picture on Syria, so after that I got to grill them on the military picture. There is still a very low level of understanding of what is actually at stake in Syria, what’s the strategic interest there, the Turkish role, the Iranian role, etc.
After a couple hours of talking, they said without saying that SOF teams (presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground focused on recce missions and training opposition forces.
One Air Force intel guy (US) said very carefully that THERE ISN’T MUCH OF A FREE SYRIAN ARMY TO TRAIN RIGHT NOW ANYWAY, BUT ALL THE OPERATIONS BEING DONE NOW ARE BEING DONE OUT OF ‘PRUDENCE.’
The way it was put to me was, ‘look at this way – the level of information known on Syrian OrBat this month is the best it’s been since 2001.’
They have been told to prepare contingencies and be ready to act within 2-3 months, but they still stress that this is all being done as contingency planning, not as a move toward escalation.
I kept pressing on the question of what these SOF teams would be working toward, and whether this would lead to an eventual air camapign to give a Syrian rebel group cover.
They pretty quickly distanced themselves from that idea, saying that the idea ‘hypothetically’ is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within. There wouldn’t be a need for air cover, and they wouldn’t expect these Syrian rebels to be marching in columns anyway.
They emphasized how the air campaign in Syria makes Libya look like a piece of cake. Syrian air defenses are a lot more robust and are much denser, esp around Damascus and on the borders with Israel, Turkey.
They are most worried about mobile air defenses, particularly the SA-17s that they’ve been getting recently. It’s still a doable mission, it’s just not an easy one.
The main base they would use is Cyprus, hands down. Brits and French would fly out of there. They kept stressing how much is stored at Cyprus and how much recce comes out of there.
The group was split on whether Turkey would be involved, but said Turkey would be pretty critical to the mission to base stuff out of there. Even if Turkey had a poltiical problem with Cyprus, they said there is no way the Brits and the FRench wouldn’t use Cyprus as their main air force base. Air Force Intel guy seems pretty convinced that the Turks won’t participate (he seemed pretty pissed at them.)
There still seems to be a lot of confusion over what a military intervention involving an air campaign would be designed to achieve. It isn’t clear cut for them geographically like in Libya, and you can’t just create an NFZ over Homs, Hama region. This would entail a countrywide SEAD campaign lasting the duration of the war.
THEY DONT BELIEVE AIR INTERVENTION WOULD HAPPEN UNLESS THERE WAS ENOUGH MEDIE ATTENTION ON A MASSACRE, LIKE THE GHADAFI MOVE AGAINST BENGHAZI.
They think the US would have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn’t reach that very public stage. They are also questioning the skills of the Syrian forces that are operating the country’s air defenses currently and how signfiicant the Iranian presence is there.
Air Force Intel guy is most obsessed with the challenge of taking out Syria’s ballistic missile capabilities and chem weapons. With Israel rgiht there and the regime facing an existential crisis, he sees that as a major complication to any military intervention.
Gassangrepet i Syria
Hva vi vet ang gassangrepet i Syria er at det ble foretatt, men ikke av hvem eller om det var med vilje. Mens den ene siden fremlegger bevis for det ene fremlegger den andre siden frem bevis for det andre. Om vi noen sinne får vite hvem som sto bak er usikkert. Men det å forhåndsdømme noen må vi forholde oss for gode til. Det er ingen tvil om at Assad og den syriske regjeringen står bak groteske handlinger, men dette kan man også si om motparten. Uansett vil ikke dette si noe om hvem som sto bak gassangrepet. Vi kan kun konkludere med at det var tragisk og brudd på internasjonale lover.
Det gjelder om å være kritisk, ikke kun til den ene siden, men også den andre. Vi kan ikke blindt ha tillitt til hverken Vesten massemedier eller til motpartens organer. Vi kan prøve å lete oss frem til sannheten, men det er ikke sikkert at den sterkeste har rett. Det jeg forsøker på er å la ulike syn og perspektiver få komme frem i offentlighetens lys. Jeg er ingen konspiratoriker, men en søkende som vil finne ut hvem, hva og hvorfor. Hvis vi legger dette til bunns er jeg sikker på at vi ammen kan skape en bedre verden 🙂
Rapporten til FNs eksperter om bruk av kjemiske våpen i Syria har bekreftet at den nervelammende gass sarin ble brukt i forstaden til Damaskus Guta 21.august. Dokumentet gir ikke svar på spørsmålet om hvem som brukte kjemiske våpen konkret. Men USA, Storbritannia og Frankrike har allerede erklært at opplysningene i rapporten viser helt entydig at det var den syriske hæren som brukte sarin.
FNs generalsekretær Ban Ki-moon er ikke enig med meningen av en rekke vestlige land om at FNs rapport vitner antakelig om at det var det syriske regimet som brukte kjemiske våpen i en forstad av Damaskus.
«Hvis dere leser rapporten, vil dere forstå at den ikke inneholder konklusjoner om hvorfra rakettene (med kjemiske våpen) ble skutt ut,» sa han på en pressekonferanse tirsdag.
Tidligere erklærte regjeringene i en rekke vestlige land at FNs rapport om det kjemiske angrepet i Syria som ble offentliggjort dagen før, tillater å anmode at rakettene ble skutt ut fra en syrisk militærbase.
FN-inspektørenes rapport om et kjemisk angrep ved Damaskus som ble framlagt mandag, gir ikke svar på spørsmålene og stedet der man produserte ammunisjon med en nerveparalytisk gass, og måten som man laget den på, erklærer den russiske utenriksministeren Sergei Lavrov etter resultatet av forhandlinger med sin franske kollega Laurent Fabius.
Lavrov merker også at FNs inspektører «må også obligatorisk undersøke en melding om bruk av kjemiske våpen etter 21. august. Inspektørene må gjøre alt dette, og etterpå vil de forberede en sluttrapport om sin misjon», synes Moskva.
De syriske myndighetene ga vennlige land bevis på at det var opposisjonens krigere som brukte kjemiske våpen i landet, meddeler libanesiske medier tirsdag under henvisning til den syriske utenriksministeren Faisal Mekdad.
Faisal sa også at overleveringen av syriske kjemiske våpen under internasjonal kontroll og deres ødelegging vil påvirke styrkebalansen i regionen, ifølge medier.
Regardless of the U.N. investigation, the U.S. and Russia remain at loggerheads over Syrian President Bashar Assad’s role in the chemical weapons attack
The UN released its official report on chemical weapons use last month in Syria, determining that sarin gas was used against the civilian population, but stopping short of directly blaming the Syrian government for the incident.
Ban has in the past days accused Assad of being responsible for war crimes though not directly placing responsibility on the Syrian government for the Aug. 21 attack.
The UN on Monday revealed details of the attack, which the United States, Britain and France said showed that President Bashar al-Assad’s forces had carried it out. Russia said that further investigation was needed.
U.S. Lauds U.N. Probe on Syria Poison Gas Attack, Russia Denies Culprit Identified
China on Tuesday refused to say whether a United Nations report into a sarin gas attack in Syria showed that government forces had used the banned weapons.
The Syrian rebels are not currently believed to possess rockets capable of mounting chemical agents onto before firing, adding to the circumstantial evidence that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government is to blame. “This result leaves us with the deepest concern,” the report concludes.
The report’s lead author, Dr. Ake Sellstrom also responded to a question from the Russian ambassador to say that the rockets used bore none of the characteristics of improvised weapons. Both facts point further towards Assad’s culpability, the diplomats said.
While the U.N. has not directly pointed to Assad in this finding, another of its bodies is working on determining precisely who launched the attack.
The Independent International Commission for Inquiry in Syria has for months been collecting evidence and testimony of those who have fled Syria, documenting the war crimes taking place inside the country.
On Tuesday, appearing before the U.N. Human Rights Council, commission chair Paulo Pinheiro told member-states that his group was investigating the use of chemical weapons as well.
“The Commission, while awaiting the report of the United Nations Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons, is continuing its investigations regarding the perpetrator of the attacks and will report to this Council according to our mandate,” Pinheiro said.
Third party analysis of the evidence reported by the UN showed that the rockets that delivered the sarin were launched from Syrian army controlled territory. The inspectors listed the precise compass directions of flight for two rocket strikes and these implicated the government’s elite centre in Damascus, Mount Qasioun.
Some unnamed U.S. intelligence officials speaking to Associated Press at the end of August raised the possibility that rebels staged the attack «in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war.» Russian president Vladimir Putin said that the use of chemical weapons was a rebel provocation performed to trigger a foreign-led strike.
A number of US commentators have similarly made claims that the attacks might have been a «false flag» operation designed to give western powers an excuse to intervene. These include former Congressman Ron Paul, his son Senator Rand Paul, and Pat Buchanan.
France, the United States and other Western and Arab countries have blamed the Assad regime for the August 21 attack — accusations Damascus has categorically rejected.