Video - Ukrainian Military aircraft fire missiles at apartment block in E. Ukraine, 4 dead.

Ukrainian Military aircraft fire missiles at apartment block in E. Ukraine, 4 dead. (RT).

Kiev’s Air Force fired three missiles to destroy a multifamily apartment building in the city of Snezhnoe, eastern Donetsk Region. At least four civilians have been pronounced dead as rescue teams continue to clear out debris of the collapsed building.

Assault aircraft fired four missiles at approximately 6:27am, when most of the citizens of Snezhnoe were fast asleep. One of the missiles hit the local tax administration building, which was empty at that early hour. The other three hit a five-story residential building at the 14 Lenin Street, reports RIA Novosti.

Two sections of the long apartment building collapsed completely. Local residents and emergency response teams are manually clearing debris in search for survivors. Altogether 12 families lost their dwellings.
The local hospital confirmed to the agency that there are multiple injured in the city. Hmmm....Soon Putin will quote Israel as an example and slam Ukraine.Read the full story here.

Syrian envoy accuses Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan to be the real leader of al-Qaeda.

Syrian envoy accuses Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan to be the real leader of al-Qaeda.(InSerbia).

Syrian Ambassador to Jordan Bahjat Suleiman has called Saudi Prince “the real gang leader of terrorists fighting in Syria”.

Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan is the head of al-Qaeda terrorist group and the founder of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant in Syria, Suleiman said, according to an article in Arabic language Ray al-Youm website.

Suleiman said, Osama Bin Laden was the founder of al-Qaeda, Aymen Zahiri is their apparent leader, and Bandar bin Sultan is the real leader of al-Qaeda.

He added that the Saudi Prince dwells in a residence near a militant-held area on Syria-Jordan border and leads the terrorists fighting in Syria from there.

The Syrian ambassador also noted that the Syria-Jordan borders have been kept under the control of the so-called Free Syrian Army that enjoys Saudi Arabia’s support.

Pointing out the Saudi regime’s crack-down on its own citizens Suleiman added, “Saudi Arabia is not in a stance to give lessons of democracy and freedom to the Syrian nation.”

Saudi officials have denied being directly involved in the crisis in Syria, but there are many reports on Saudi regime’s huge financial supports to the Syria militants.

The conflict in Syria started in March 2011, when pro-reform protests turned into a massive insurgency following the intervention of Western and regional states.


The unrest, which took in terrorist groups from across Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, has transpired as one of the bloodiest conflicts in recent history.

Bandar to Putin:

‘‘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,’’ he allegedly said.

An international commander in chief.

An international commander in chief. HT: CJRT. CSP, By Adm. James “Ace” Lyons (Ret.).

President Obama’s remarks at the Group of 20 conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, that he was “elected to stop wars, not start them” certainly implies that he sees himself endowed with an expanded global mandate. 

While it’s far from clear that he understands the oath of office he took to be president of the United States — which is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic — he apparently has no trouble viewing himself as more of an “international president.”
There is no mandate in that oath that charges him with the responsibility to intervene or stop international wars, unless it can be seen to be in our vital national interests.
The Syrian civil war, by any standard, is a humanitarian tragedy, but it does not qualify as a vital national issue. Further, there is nothing in the oath of office that stipulates that Mr. Obama has a unilateral mandate to support the controversial doctrine of “responsibility to protect.”
Supporters of this doctrine are core members of the administration’s national security team — Susan E. Rice, Samantha Power and Denis McDonough — none of whom has any military experience. 

It should be remembered that this is the weakest and least credible national security team in recent history.

With Mr. Obama’s left-wing upbringing, he has been taught that our great nation is the root cause of many of the world’s problems. It is acknowledged that our superb military capability provides the key underpinning for our influence throughout the world. Therefore, in order to change the dynamics of that influence, the capability of our military forces must be changed. If this assessment is correct, then the appalling unilateral disarmament of our military forces makes sense. Granted, there are economic problems that must be addressed, including out-of-control domestic spending.

While our military forces consume less than 20 percent of the federal budget, under sequestration, they have been forced to absorb 50 percent of the draconian budget cuts. It should be remembered that sequestration was an Obama administration initiative.

The impact of conducting two wars over the past decade has taken its toll, and Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for involvement in a third one in Syria would raise the cost. Our military forces have been run hard and put away wet. As a result, our military readiness has been seriously compromised with delayed or canceled required maintenance and overhauls. Equipment, in many cases, is obsolete and needs to be replaced. Drastic cuts to our naval superiority by planning to decommission carrier strike groups, the key element in our ability to project power and a recognized symbol of U.S. power and influence anywhere in the world, make no sense.
The credibility of our military forces has also suffered by making our military, particularly ground forces, adhere to restricted rules of engagement in the failed hope of winning the hearts and minds of tribal Muslim societies. This policy has costs thousands of lives and many more permanent injuries. Further, it has given a distinct advantage to our enemies, who are well familiar with the rules to which our forces must adhere. These forces are our national treasure and cannot be wasted implementing some academic exercise.
Other factors have adversely affected our military forces’ credibility and fighting spirit:

• Forcing our military to embrace Islam’s seventh-century culture, customs and legal system goes against everything our forces have been taught. For example, if an Afghan beats a woman or sodomizes a young boy, our forces are told not to interfere and look the other way. Is this what we are asking our national treasure to sacrifice their lives for? I don’t think so. We as a nation are better than that. Why are we forcing our military forces to compromise their values?
• Militarytraining manuals (and trainers) have been purged of any material that links acts of terrorism with Islam.
• Diversity has become the No. 1 priority for our military forces instead of the proven principle of “professionalism.” Why erode the moral fiber of the finest military forces in the world by making them embrace the homosexual agenda?
• Restrictions have been removed on women serving in combat.

The bottom line is that none of these social-engineering changes have improved combat readiness or our military credibility and unit integrity. Unless changed, our overall effectiveness will be severely diminished. Is that the objective?
While every other nuclear power is modernizing its strategic nuclear forces, Mr. Obama is forcing further drastic cuts on our strategic and theater nuclear forces, thereby jeopardizing our national security.
The current direction of our military forces requires an immediate course correction. A similar situation occurred in 1949, when Harry Truman’s Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson was planning to eliminate the Navy’s carriers and the Marine Corps. There was a “Revolt of the Admirals” to preserve our Navy’s carrier strike forces. Their success paid large dividends during the Korean War.
Political correctness has silenced our military leadership up to now. However, today’s leaders are no less capable than those World War II-hardened veterans — who led the admirals’ revolt. We clearly need another one, but this time joined by generals, to restore our military’s effectiveness as the finest fighting force in the world. Military leaders are required to give their best professional opinion — even if it opposes administration policies. Nothing less is acceptable.

Video - Former Egyptian Presidential Candidate Hamadeen Sabahi: An Attack on Syria Is an Attack on Egypt.

Former Egyptian Presidential Candidate Hamadeen Sabahi: An Attack on Syria Is an Attack on Egypt. 

Following are excerpts from an interview with former Egyptian presidential candidate Hamadeen Sabahi, Leader of the Egyptian Salvation Front, which aired on Al-Nahar TV on August 28, 2013.

Hamadeen Sabahi: A strike on Syria would be a barbaric crime by the U.S. administration. If the U.S. attacks Syria, this will constitute an attack on the entire Arab nation.

Let me bring something to people's attention. If Egypt is going to be attacked, it will come from the north, from Syria. An attack on Syria is an attack on Egypt.

An American attack on Syria will repeat the tragedy of Iraq.

Interviewer: What should Egypt's position be?

Hamadeen Sabahi: The Egyptian government and people must stand firm against the American and Western aggression against the Northern Region of [the union of] Egypt and Syria, which used to form the United Arab Republic.

On the popular level, Egyptians need to be clear. We will not accept American aggression against Syria. An American attack on Syria will not liberate the Syrians from oppression and dictatorship. It will destroy Syria and will turn it into… Such aggression will not be successful, Allah willing.

But if we say, for the sake of argument, that it will succeed – the state that would be established under American auspices and in the service of the Zionist enemy would become a breeding ground for terrorists, who would kill in Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

We cannot allow such a danger to our national security. Today, defending Syria is tantamount to defending Egypt.Source: Memri.

UK MPs vote down military intervention in Syria.

UK MPs vote down military intervention in Syria.(Guardian).

A British Government motion for possible humanitarian intervention in Syria has been defeated in Parliament by 13 votes.

After the motion was lost 285-272, Prime Minister David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and “I will act accordingly”.

David Cameron:

"It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly."

Here is what David Cameron said to Ed Milband. Miliband asked for an assurance that Cameron would not use the royal perogative to launch an attack on Syria (ie, without consulting parliament) and that instead he would only launch an attack following a Commons vote.

I can give that assurance. Let me say, the House has not voted for either motion tonight. I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons.It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly.

Hmmm.... Perhaps they're afraid Putin might turn of the Gas supply this coming Winter?

US Officials: Obama “Willing to Act Without Britain”

“Senior Administration officials” — presumably among the supporters of airstrikes — have said that President Obama is willing to move ahead with limited operations even though allies like Britain may not join the effort.
The officials also said that Obama would consider intervention without an endorsement from the United Nations Security Council.

Russia will have no time to provide aid to Assad.

Love the Canadian jogging pants

Russia will have no time to provide aid to Assad.(RBTH).

Experts say Saudi Arabia and Turkey are drawing the West into a war, and Russian arms will not help.

The U.S. and its allies are likely to start bombing targets in Syria in the near future. Russian experts believe the real goal is not to destroy the country’s chemical potential but to reduce the combat capability of the government army and secure the victory for the armed opposition.
They also point out that Moscow will have little time to help Damascus with weapons and should focus on diplomatic support, instead.
"This military action will resemble the El Dorado Canyon operation against Muammar Gaddafi in 1986 — not a very long one, not a very costly one," Sergei Demidenko, an expert at the Institute of Strategic Studies and Analysis in Moscow, says in prediction. He is confident that the West will not drag out the air campaign, and it will not start an expensive ground invasion in Syria, either.
According to Demidenko, the United States does not want to intervene in the Syrian conflict — this is not their war. The U.S. is being drawn into the conflict by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. For these countries, the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s regime has become a matter of principle, though they are unable to achieve it on their own.
The question arises: What will happen to targets in Syria that produce and store chemical weapons, if the claimed purpose of the military operation in Syria is the prevention of any further use of these weapons?
"What is at issue here is not the bombing of locations for the storage or production of chemical weapons. If an airstrike is applied on some storage of chemical weapons, you can obtain a result that would be a lot worse than what it was during the recent attack near Damascus," says Andrei Baklitsky, an expert at the PIR Center. He contends that airstrikes would be applied on sites belonging to the armed forces — command posts and communication lines.
Sergei Markov, a political analyst, also believes that Western armies will fight in Syria, in part as mercenaries of Arab monarchies.
"We have a generally accepted view that the U.S. is acting in Syria through the hands of the U.K. and France; but it seems to me that everything is exactly the opposite. It is rather Paris and London who are the leaders, and Washington is following them — and with some resistance,” the analyst says.
“The situation is similar to Libya's. However, in Libya, France at least had a mercantile interest (to gain control over the oil fields), whereas, in the Syrian situation, I think it is the banal bribing of the British and French governments by the Saudis and Qataris. And the money is being given at the government level in the form of contracts, as well as at the personal level,” says Markov.
In this case, the West in Syria, in the pursuit of tactical advantages, is committing huge strategic mistakes, according to Markov. "Unfortunately, we are forced to live in a world where chaos grows strong, and so does the use of military force," the analyst says. "Our partners in Washington, London and Paris are committing gross blunders and acting against their own interests."
 "What did the U.S. win from the war in Iraq? Nothing. What did they win from the overthrow of Mubarak? Loss, nothing else. How did they benefit from the overthrow of Gaddafi? Is it the fact that they tore their ambassador to pieces?" says Markov.
In these circumstances, the question arises: What can Moscow do in the days and weeks remaining before the intervention? Experts believe that the only option available on the diplomatic and public relations front is to continue the previous policy of appealing not so much to governments as to Western public opinion.
"Russia needs to focus on the mission of the U.N. inspectors. It is the results of their work that will either give grounds for a military strike against Syria or an opportunity to raise a voice in protest," says Markov.
"Secondly, we must conduct an intensive campaign among the world public opinion, because a bloated majority of people of the West are misinformed: They are being told over and over again that Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons. We should write and say that this was an obvious provocation, and that it was the opposition who committed the chemical attack," the expert says.
Some Russian politicians believe that Moscow should limit itself to diplomatic efforts. Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, for example, has called for urgent and massive arms supplies to Syria.
Indeed, an extra supply of anti-ship missiles and air defense systems could theoretically delay or even thwart the attack on Syria. Russia could strengthen Yakhont anti-ship missile systems already delivered to Syria, which have a destruction range of about 250 miles and can hinder actions of the navy of the allies.
As for additional air defense systems, experts believe that the Syrians simply do not have time to deploy them before the attack, whereas the use of Russian military personnel to this end would mean entering the conflict on the side of Damascus. Moreover, any urgent supplies of arms would lead to a further deterioration of relations with the West.
However, as long as the bombing has not begun, there is hope that common sense will prevail. U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron have yet to obtain consent from their legislatures. At the forthcoming summit in St. Petersburg, Vladimir Putin is likely to make a final attempt to explain to the "friends of Syria" how dangerous their plans are.

Former Russian Gen Staff Officer: "NATO air forces unable to do Syria real harm, little harm was caused to the the country’s air defense systems."

Russian Nezavisimaya Gazeta: "Russian military experts are in Syria,They prepare the four divisions of S-300 for combat."

Former Russian Gen Staff Officer: "NATO air forces unable to do Syria real harm, little harm was caused to the the country’s air defense systems."(RT).

During the Syrian civil war there has been little harm caused to the the country’s air defense systems, which continue to function quite effectively, said Sivkov, who is first vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems and a former officer of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.

Syria is not Libya.

Even in Libya, where much weaker air defenses largely remained inactive, NATO air forces had to waste additional resources to be sure not to come under fire from ground forces, and this prevented the invaders from gaining total control of the Libyan skies, Sivkov said.
The Syrian situation is different altogether, he added.
“The current NATO forces, mostly American, present in the region cannot do serious harm to the Syrian state and army,” Sivkov said.
Media reports say that the US Navy has two air carriers with about 120 jets that could be directly involved in the assault on Syria. Altogether, NATO has about 280 cruise missiles on warships and submarines near Syria.
According to Sivkov’s calculations, even without active countermeasures on the behalf of the Syrian armed forces, this would be enough for the US-led forces to destroy only about 30 or 35 targets inside the country. In case these targets were shielded by short-range anti-aircraft systems such as the Pantsir-S1, the likelihood of targets being destroyed would be three or four times less.
“That means that at the moment NATO cannot do decisive damage, changing the balance of power in Syria,” Sivkov said.

“According to my estimates, if NATO wants to destroy Syria’s military infrastructure and make sure that the Islamists get the upper hand in the conflict, the alliance needs to concentrate in the region about three times more air forces and about four times more cruise missiles. That would be enough to suppress Syria’s air defenses and destroy its military potential,” Sivkov said, adding that bringing additional forces to the region would take Western forces about a month.

‘Syrian air defense crews’ skills are decisive’

Air Power Australia reported that Syria has about 900 anti-aircraft batteries, over 4,000 MANPADs and around 4,000 air defense guns. 
Though most Syrian air defense systems are outdated, a large number of Soviet-made missile batteries have been upgraded over the last decade and now have advanced capabilities.
Moreover, Damascus has recently bought dozens of Russian medium- and short-range air defense systems, such as the Buk-M2E (NATO designation SA-17 Grizzly) and the Pantsir-S1 (NATO designation SA-22 Greyhound).
According to various reports, Syria also possesses an unknown number of Russian S-300 long-range air defense missile systems.
“Some say S-300s were supplied to Syria from Belarus years ago, while others insist the delivery happened some time ago from Russia within the framework of technical-military cooperation,” Sivkov told RT. “If Syrian personnel have properly learned how to operate the Russian systems supplied to the country, than Syrian air defenses can give battle to an assault by the US Air Force.”

‘Assad real target of NATO airstrikes’

It is not that the Americans do not care about possible losses among the civilian population in Syria in case of an invasion, but a new war would mean deaths of American soldiers and spiraling costs that would lead to social programs inside the US being slashed, Sivkov said.
Most Americans, over 60 percent, are against a military operation in Syria, he said, adding that’s why such US hawks as Zbigniew Brzezinski and John McCain have spoken out against a ground operation in Syria.
NATO’s strike on Syria would be disguised as a “warning” while the real targets of the assault would most probably be President Bashar Assad and other senior figures in his regime, Sivkov said. He added that if the Americans did put troops in on the ground in the country, it would lead to a situation like that in Afghanistan.
While the Americans could invade Syria with the help of Turkey and Israel, and the Syrian army would be defeated in a month or two, this would lead to a guerilla war that would have drastic repercussions for the US and its allies, Sivkov said. Islamist groups currently fighting against Assad would then turn on the US, he added.

“As an example of America’s past allies killing their former friends, you can recall Benghazi, where the US ambassador was pulled out of the embassy building and slaughtered,” Sivkov said. “At present, Syria is Iran’s outpost. Syria has already become a battlefield for the international forces fighting on both sides. There are Kurdish militia, Hezbollah and Iran’s volunteers fighting for the country’s president, apart from the Syrian army.”

But there are practically no Syrians any more among the opposition forces, Sivkov said, as they are principally made up of foreign militants and terrorists who openly ally themselves with such organizations as Al-Qaeda.

‘Total war’ in the Middle East

If there is an attack on Syria and the US enters this war on the same side as Al-Qaeda against Assad, this would inflame the whole Middle East, while volunteers from Iran and Iraq, Europe and probably Orthodox Christians from Russia would join the war in considerable numbers, Sivkov said.
The Arab states would step in, too, and most likely Shia Muslims would fight for Assad against the Saudi Arabia-led Sunnis, mostly from Libya and Egypt, Sivkov said. “Many other states would join the conflict, and among them Israel, which is certain to take the side of the [anti-Assad] coalition. If Israel enters the war against Syria, i. e. allied with Sunni Islamist militants and initiates strikes on Syria – Iran is likely to respond with long-range missiles it has. Many forces in the Arab world would recoil from insurgents in that case, there will be forces that opt to attack Israel, that’s how the war would engulf the entire region,” Sivkov said.
If there are NATO missile strikes on chemical munitions depots, poisonous substances there would be sprayed onto the ground as a result of explosions, Sivkov said. This would have drastic consequences, such as contaminating land, and it would be a major blow to all forms of life on territory extending far from the strikes, he said.

“If there are airstrikes on chemical weapons depots – this would be a severe blow to the Syrian people,” Sivkov said.

Related: Flashback May 2013.

Russian Nezavisimaya Gazeta: "Russian military experts are in Syria,They prepare the four divisions of S-300 for combat."

Updated Syrian Air Force and Air Defense Capabilities 

PM Harper: "No plan for Canada to join military mission in Syria."

PM Harper: "No plan for Canada to join military mission in Syria."HT: SunNewsNetwork.

OTTAWA - Canada won't be participating in any military intervention in Syria but supports the countries who are now considering launching an attack against the troubled country, the prime minister said Thursday.

"At present the Canadian government has no plans for a Canadian military mission [to Syria]," Stephen Harper said. "Notwithstanding [Canada's] reluctance [to getting involved], the risks of not acting in the face of what appears to be [an escalating situation] appears extremely dangerous."

Harper's comments come a day after Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird told reporters Canada's role would likely be limited to a supporting one, and that the government would also lend political support to any military strikes.

A meeting of the United Nations Security Council earlier this week ended without consensus. Of the five member countries, Russia and China have maintained their support for Syria's Bashar Al Assad, despite pressure from the U.S., France and the U.K. to potentially launch some kind of strike.

Baird said Wednesday that while an attack using drones and cruise missiles was being considered, Canada has neither. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said Wednesday that MPs should be recalled to the House of Commons to debate the specifics of what Canada's role would be.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has also stated he believes MPs should return to the House to, among other things, discuss Syria. Harper's statement that Canada will not become militarily involved in Syria precludes previous calls from opposition parties that Parliament would have to be reconvened so that Canadian engagement could be debated.

US officials say 'no smoking gun' implicating al-Assad in chemical attack ahead of Congress briefing.

US officials say 'no smoking gun' implicating al-Assad in chemical attack ahead of Congress briefing.(HD).

The U.S. and its allies have "no smoking gun" proving Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad personally ordered his forces to use chemical weapons to attack a rebel-held Damascus neighborhood, U.S. national security officials said on Aug. 29.

In secret intelligence assessments and a still-unreleased report summarizing U.S. intelligence on the alleged gas attack on August 21, U.S. agencies express high confidence that Syrian government forces carried out the attack, and that al-Assad's government therefore bears responsibility, the officials said. "This was not a rogue operation," one U.S. official said.

However the evidence does not prove that al-Assad himself ordered that chemical munitions be used, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Evidence that forces loyal to al-Assad were responsible goes beyond the circumstantial to include electronic intercepts and some tentative scientific samples from the neighborhood which was attacked, officials said.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Admiral James A. Winnefeld Jr, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are among senior U.S. officials who will brief senior members of Congress on Aug. 29 about the situation in Syria and related intelligence assessments, congressional aides said.

President Barack Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper will also participate in the briefing. With many members of Congress out of Washington during the summer recess, the briefing will be held in a telephone conference call at 18 p.m. Eastern American time, according to the aides.

They said the briefing had originally been meant to be classified, but too many members of Congress were unable to get to secure (NSA) telephone lines for it to include top secret material.

While Obama has not yet announced a decision on military action, he has left little doubt the choice was not whether but when to punish Assad's government for the attack, in which hundreds of people died.

Some Republican lawmakers and even some of Obama's fellow Democrats have complained that they have not been properly informed.

U.S. security sources and sources close to allied governments say evidence suggests that the initial decision to use chemical weapons may have been made by a field commander rather than in an order from the highest level of the Syrian government.
In a paper published on Aug. 29, the British government's Joint Intelligence Committee said: "Permission to authorize CW (chemical weapons) has probably been delegated by President Assad to senior regime commanders, such as, but any deliberate change in the scale and nature of use would require his authorization."More here from RussiaToday.

The name of the commander or commanders was redacted from the public version of the paper.

According to a former U.S. official who is an expert in the region, one possibility is that the Syrian ground commander in charge of clearing out the area which was attacked, under heavy pressure from superiors, may have made the initial decision to use chemical weapons before sending in ground troops. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.

U.S. intelligence did intercept communications discussing the attack between officials in central command and in the field. But these do not clearly implicate al-Assad or his entourage in ordering the use of chemicals, sources familiar with the material said.

While U.S. experts say the most likely chemical agent used in the attack was the nerve gas sarin, scientific evidence proving this still remains incomplete, one of the sources added.

Deconstructing Obama’s game.

Deconstructing Obama’s game.HT: RussiaToday.

So we have to come back to the policy – as in “we bomb because we want to.” What exactly is Obama’s game? 

Tel Aviv's Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, as I reported earlier, badly wants Washington to attack Syria’s chemical weapons sites – regardless of possible, horrible, “collateral damage”, not to mention the possibility of al-Qaeda-linked jihadi outfits taking control of some of them.

Israel’s agenda is Syria bleeding in total chaos for the foreseeable future. Which is not the same as the House of Saud’s agenda: regime change. Which is not the same as the Obama administration’s agenda.

At face value, it’s regime change, but Plan B calls for “leveling the playing field,” and that melts into the Israeli agenda.
As for President Obama, establishing a hazy “red line” with no context, just to appease clueless but influential neo-cons, not to mention the liberal hawks/humanitarian interventionists that surround him, and without regard for the consequences; this has to be construed as criminal irresponsibility.

Granted, Obama’s IQ in theory would equip him to know that yet another war of choice in the Middle East is the last thing he needs. 

At the same time, when we look at his record, we know he doesn’t have the balls to confront the awesome War Party Hydra – also featuring the mini-coalition of the willing, ranging from nostalgic opportunists such as Britain and France to cold-blooded actors pursuing their specific agendas, like Israel and the House of Saud.
And all this after Obama announced he would weaponize the “rebels” – in fact that’s been going on for ages, now fully supervised by Bandar Bush. The infinitely fractious rebel gangs have fractioned even further into sub-gangs of looters and assassins, with the more organized jihadis promising that after the Ghouta attack, they will kill any Alawite in sight.

Obama knows these are bit players; the only factor that can deliver another one of his red lines – “Assad must go” – is a US military attack. Crucially, Assad also knows it; that’s why the notion that Assad would sanction a chemical weapons attack is beyond ludicrous.
So if we take the Obama administration at their word – at our own peril – they couldn’t care less about who deployed chemical weapons. Yet at the same time they don’t want regime change.
They want a bombing to fulfill a “moral obligation,” and to boost Washington’s horrendously shattered “credibility.” American exceptionalists are even carping on “purity of intent” – as if purity was inherent to cold-blooded, hardcore geopolitical power play.
Both US and Israel assume they have perfect intel – as in knowing exactly where all of Syria’s chemical weapons are stored. Yet if anything could go wrong, it will. We all thought that the “war on terror” could not be topped as a meaningless concept. Wrong: meet the “war on chemical weapons.”
Amid all the hysteria, we’re not even talking about a counterpunch from Damascus itself, Hezbollah, Iran or, crucially, Russia. Moscow and Tehran are playing the chessboard like ninjas – as they clearly see the possibility of Washington being bogged down in a net of its own. All it takes would be a single Onyx SS-N-25, also known as Super-Sunburn SS-22, the fastest hypersonic anti-shipping missile in the world – which is part of Syria’s arsenal – to sink a US warship. Then what? Shock and Awe all over again?
So if we take the White House at its word, this “limited” kinetic whatever will end in a couple of days. Or it could spiral into something more hellish than Iraq 2003. And then, the clincher; only a few days before the 12th anniversary of 9/11, Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama is fighting side by side with… al-Qaeda. Why? Because, together, they can.

UN's Ban Ki-moon says chemical inspection team to leave Syria on Saturday.

UN's Ban Ki-moon says chemical inspection team to leave Syria on Saturday.HT: Yahoo.

VIENNA - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday that U.N. experts seeking to collect evidence from an apparent chemical attack in Syria that killed hundreds of people will report to him as soon as they leave the country Saturday.

The team is expected to complete its inspection on Friday and their conclusions will be shared with members of the Security Council, Ban said. He didn't specify when that might be but said the experts "should be allowed to conclude their investigation activities."

His comments were in line with his previous calls for restraint in the face of increasing signs of retaliatory military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad by the United States and its allies. Speaking to reporters, Ban said he repeated that message Wednesday in a conversation with President Barack Obama.

"I expressed my sincere wish that this investigation team should be allowed to continue their work," he said after receiving an award in Vienna's City Hall and meeting Austrian government leaders.

"Diplomacy should be given a chance and peace given a chance," he said. "It is important that all differences of opinion should be solved through peaceful means and through dialogue."

The findings of the experts will also be shared with all U.N. member countries, said Ban.

Public disorder results in premature closure of Jerusalem gas mask dispensary.

Public disorder results in premature closure of Jerusalem gas mask dispensary.(JPost).

A chaotic scene, characterized by unruly and rude citizens cutting in line to receive government-subsidized gas masks in anticipation of a potential Syrian chemical weapons strike, resulted in the premature closure of a dispensary at a Jerusalem mall Wednesday afternoon.

Although the dispensary, located at the Kanyon Hadar mall in Talpiot, was supposed to distribute the masks between the hours of 11 a.m. to 7 p.m., it shut down shortly after 1 a.m. due to the disorderly and impatient crowd.
“It was a balegon (mess),” said the owner of an adjacent women’s clothing store, who requested her name not be published. “People were given numbers, but no one respected this and just jumped to the head of the line.”
Despite the mayhem that ensued, many of the Israelis who left empty-handed said they were not overly panicked by the increasingly volatile situation with Syria.
Retired Rabbi Ruben Landman and his wife Gila, who made aliya from Silver Springs, Maryland in March, said the present state of affairs is being presented as far more dire in America’s media than Israel’s.
“The only reason I came [to the mall] was one of my former congregants from Maryland said he saw the story [of a possible chemical attack against Israel] on page one of all the papers there,” said Ruben. “So he said I should hurry and go get a gas mask.”
“They seem more worried about what’s going on here in the US than they are in Israel,” Ruben added.
Indeed, Gila said when she and other students in her ulpan studied Israel’s Hebrew newspapers Wednesday, mention of a chemical attack was relegated to the back pages.
“What I found really interesting is that the front page of the newspapers in Israel were all about first-graders starting school – then maybe on page 8, there was news about Syria and the repercussions for Israel, including the use of chemical weapons,” she said.
“So, despite what happened [at the mall] today, the impression I’m getting is that people aren’t that worried.”
Ruben said he attributed the preceding commotion to general Israeli impatience and intolerance for waiting in lines.
“My experience being here in Israel is that everywhere you go that involves waiting on lines there’s always unnecessary pushing and no order – especially when things are free,” he said. “I don’t think what happened here today was about panic at all.”
Oren Ilouz, a former IDF soldier who moved to Israel five years ago from France, said that while he was not panicked about the alarming situation, he did sense a palpable sense of “urgency” among Israelis to be prepared for the worse.
“People are feeling the urgency to get the masks because of the situation with Syria, whereas most people didn’t care that much [about the masks] beforehand,” said Ilouz. “They’re not panicked, but people definitely think something is going to happen in Israel and they want to be ready.”
Erica Sender, a 23-year-old who made aliya from Atlanta less than two months ago, and is presently living in an absorption center with immigrants from 26 countries, described the experience as “emotional” and “surreal.”
“It’s kind of emotional because I now live in the turmoil and it’s so strange to go to the mall not to shop but to get a gas mask,” she said. “I’ve never done anything like this. It’s surreal.”
Filipe Sichel, who moved to Israel from Rio de Janeiro in July, and resides at the same absorption center as Sender, also appeared calm, despite not being able to acquire a mask.
“I think this is very unusual, that’s for sure,” he said. “But I’m not terribly worried. My hope is that we won’t have to use them.”
Meanwhile, Alisa Meir Epstein, who was perusing books at a nearby shop, expressed frustration at the prospect of another conflict.
“I’m not particularly concerned,” she said. “I’ve lived here since 1969, through at least a dozen wars, and I’m just pissed off that we have to deal with this again. Been there, done that.”Read the full story here.

Britain says no Syria action before UN inspection results.

Britain says no Syria action before UN inspection results.(HD).        

Britain will not take military action against the Syrian regime before United Nations inspectors report back on evidence of chemical weapons attacks, according to a motion published by the government Wednesday that is set to be put to a parliamentary vote.

Lawmakers are due to vote on Britain's response to the attacks on Thursday but any military action will require a further vote of parliament's House of Commons after the UN experts report back, according to the motion.

The UN Security Council, of which Britain is a permanent member, should be immediately briefed as soon as the inspections are complete and then "every effort" should be made to secure a resolution from the Security Council backing military action, the motion said.

"The United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken," it stated.

"Before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday told his British counterpart William Hague of the need to wait for the results of a UN probe of an alleged chemical attack near Damascus before taking any action against Syria.

"The Russian side stressed the need to wait for the results of the work of the UN inspection mission who is currently in Syria (and) investigating the claims of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict," the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement.

The phone call took place at the request of the British side, the statement said.

Fars News: “Putin Orders Massive Strike Against Saudi Arabia If West Attacks Syria” .

Fars News: “Putin Orders Massive Strike Against Saudi Arabia If West Attacks Syria”.
HT: EAWorldnews.

Fars News ratchets up the propaganda with a claimed exclusive of Russian plans, “Putin Orders Massive Strike Against Saudi Arabia If West Attacks Syria”:

A grim “urgent action memorandum” issued yesterday from the office of President [Vladimir] Putin to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation has ordered a “massive military strike” against Saudi Arabia in the event that the West attacks Syria, media reports said.According to Kremlin sources familiar with this extraordinary “war order”, Putin became “enraged” after his early August meeting with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan who warned that if Russia did not accept the defeat of Syria, Saudi Arabia would unleash Chechen terrorists under their control to cause mass death and chaos during the Winter Olympics scheduled to be held 7-23 February 2014 in Sochi, Russia.

But before you snicker too much at the Iranians, you may want to look at their accomplice: London’s Daily Telegraph.

In its Finance section on Tuesday, the Telegraph also put out the claim of Saudi Arabia unleashing the Chechens:
[Bandar] hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “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,” he allegedly said.
And where did Telegraph get this “information”?
Step up, Lebanon’s As-Safir, a staunchly pro-Hezbollah, pro-Syrian regime outlet.
Last Thursday, the newspaper put out a lengthy report — later published in English — of the meeting between Bandar and Putin in Moscow earlier this month, citing a “diplomatic report…[which] one of the two sides leaked…via the Russian press”.
There is no other support for the claims.Hmmm.....Sorry EA where there's smoke there's fire:

Video - Jihadists Reveal Plans to Attack Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia.

Following are excerpts from an appeal by Emir Saladin, a Jihadist volunteering in Syria, to the Muslims in the "Caucasus Emirate." The video was posted on the Internet on July 31, 2013. 

Emir Saladin: If you cannot wage Jihad in the mountains, wage it in the plains, but if, for some reason, you cannot do that either, then go to Moscow, to that hornet's nest of heresy, and wage Jihad there. 

You can choose any city in Russia you see fit, not only Moscow. Ultimately, you should prepare for the [winter] Olympics in Sochi. There are concrete instructions from our Emir Dokka Abu Uthman to do so.Source: Memri. 

Hmmmm.....As i warned a long time ago, cancellation of the Visa requirements between TURKEY and Russia is a terrorist Dream come true!

Video - Nigel Farage: "UK govt keenest of all on Syria intervention, decision already made"

Thanks for the warning - Syria evacuates most army buildings in Damascus: Residents.

Syria evacuates most army buildings in Damascus: Residents.(HD).

President Bashar al-Assad's forces appear to have evacuated most personnel from army and security command headquarters in central Damascus in preparation for a Western military strike, residents and opposition sources said on Wednesday.

U.S.-led air or missile strikes on Syria look all but certain after the United States and European and Middle Eastern allies blamed a suspected poison gas attack that killed hundreds in the city on Aug 21 on President Bashar al-Assad's forces.

Army units stationed near the capital have confiscated several trailer trucks, apparently to transport heavy weaponry to alternative locations, though no significant movement of military hardware has been reported, possibly due to heavy fighting near major highways, one of the sources added.

Among the buildings that have been partially evacuated are the General Staff Command Building on Umayyad Square, the nearby airforce command and the security compounds in the Western Kfar Souseh districts, residents of the area and a Free Syrian Army rebel source said.

Syrian military authorities do not discuss troop movements publicly, and no government spokesman was available for comment.

The General Staff building, one of the top military headquarters in the country, has been operating with reduced staffing since it was attacked by rebel bombs in September 2012.

But almost no one reported for work at that or the other buildings on Wednesday.They said trucks have been seen in the last 48 hours at the cordoned off entrance of several buildings, apparently transporting documents and light weapons.

"You can drop a needle in Kfar Souseh and hear it," said a resident who lives near the Palestine branch of Military Intelligence in Kfar Souseh.

Brigadier General Mustafa al-Sheikh, a senior military defector, said from an undisclosed location in Syria that based on Free Syrian Army intelligence gatherings, the general staff command had been moved to an alternative compound in the foothills of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains north of Damascus.

"Various commands are being moved to schools and underground bunkers. But I am not sure it is going to do much good for the regime," Sheikh said.

Another resident who lives at the foothills of Qasioun, the mountain in the middle of the city in which elite praetorian guard units are based, said the boom of artillery, usually heard daily form the 105th battalion of the Republican Guards, had fallen silent on Wednesday.
 
"They have been lots of army trucks descending from Qasioun. It seems they have evacuated the 105 battalion headquarters," the resident said.

Activists in east Damascus said barracks and housing compounds for the Republican Guards and Fourth Division near the suburbs of Somariya and Mouadamiya had been evacuated and troops and their families had gone into the city.

Abu Ayham, a commander in the Ansar al-Islam rebel brigade in Damascus said the army's general staff and Airforce Intelligence had been evacuated, as well as several mixed-use barracks/housing buildings for the Republican Guards and Fourth Division on the eastern outskirts of the city.

"To all intents and purposes, the army's command and control compounds have been evacuated. Before the threat (of Western strike) they have been taking precautions by working more from lower floors. In the last 48 hours they have been vacated," he said.

Libya — Oil Crisis Deepens as Armed Group, Strikers Halt Production.

Libya — Oil Crisis Deepens as Armed Group, Strikers Halt Production.HT: EA Worldnews.
The largest oilfields in western Libya have been closed after an armed group shut down the pipeline linking them to ports.

The cut-off, combined with halts to production because of striking workers and dissatisfied guards, means that total Libyan oil output is just under 200,000 barrels per day — a fraction of the level of about 1.6 million bpd before the uprising against the Qaddafi regime in 2011.

The oilfields in the west, El Feel and El Sharara, have a combined capacity of about 500,000 bpd.
In the east, striking workers, seeking autonomy for the eastern region, had already cut Libyan oil output by more than 50%.

Deputy Oil Minister Abdelbari Al-Arusi said the protest had cost the country $2 billion in lost revenues: “If the strikes continue, we will reach very terrifying figures in losses.”
Al-Arusi said the oil ports of Es Sider, Ras Lanuf, Zueitina, and Marsa al Hariga, remain closed.
Only Marsa al Brega, which loaded its first tanks in more than two weeks over the weekend, is open.Hmmm....Aren't you glad Obama got rid of that evil dictator Ghadaffi?

Bombing Syria Will Only STRENGTHEN the Islamic Hardliners.

Bombing Syria Will Only STRENGTHEN the Islamic Hardliners.HT: Washington’s Blog

The Wall Street Journal notes:

A U.S. attack on Syria would likely dash expectations of progress in nuclear negotiations with Iran and undermine new Iranian President Hasan Rouhani’s call for improving relations with the West, diplomats said.
An attack on Damascus would likely give Iranian hard-liners, who oppose a nuclear compromise, the upper hand over moderate President Hasan Rouhani, who has made foreign policy and nuclear talks a priority.
***
“A direct U.S.-Iran conflict in Syria will only widen the chasm of mistrust needed to be bridged in order to reach a nuclear accommodation,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Salon agrees:

Obama would be bombing Iran’s main ally, strengthening the hand of hardliners in Tehran and undermining Rouhani’s room for maneuver.
***
Officials cautious of intervening say targeted strikes to punish Mr. Assad for using chemical weapons risk triggering a bloody escalation. If the regime digs in and uses chemical weapons again, or launches retaliatory attacks against the U.S. and its allies in the region, Mr. Obama will come under fierce pressure to respond more forcefully, increasing the chances of full-scale war, the officials say.

And, of course, Russia—which has declared that it won’t support an American action against Syria—could up the ante, too, by backing Assad more powerfully in response.

As we’ve previously noted, attacking Iran would only speed up its development of nuclear weapons, empower its hardliners, and undermine the chance for democratic reform. The same is true for Syria and any chemical weapons which the nation possesses.
Indeed, the key architect of America’s war plan against Syria says:

If we start picking off chemical weapons targets in Syria, the logical response is if any weapons are left in the warehouses, he’s going to start dispersing them among his forces ….

If they’re dispersed away from central government warehouses to scattered military forces, they aremore likely to be used......And end up in Islamic terrorists their hands!
Finally, bombing the Syrian government will strengthen the Al Qaeda, Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood dominated rebels.

Kucinich: Syria strike would turn US into 'al Qaeda's air force'.

Kucinich: Syria strike would turn US into 'al Qaeda's air force'.(TheHill).

Airstrikes on Syria would turn the U.S. military into “al Qaeda's air force,” former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told The Hill.

The outspoken anti-war activist said any such action would plunge the United States into another war in the Middle East and embolden Islamist militants fighting Bashar Assad's regime.

“So what, we're about to become Al Qaeda's air force now?” Kucinich said. “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we're just going to have a 'targeted strike' — that's an act of war. It's not anything to be trifled with.”

The comments echo warnings from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who voted against legislation to arm the Syrian rebels earlier this year by saying such a move would boost al Qaeda.
Kucinich also said President Obama would be violating the Constitution if he doesn't get congressional approval before taking any military action in Syria. 
Kucinich retired last year after 16 years in the House when his Cleveland district was redrawn and he lost his primary. He led the fight against President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq and joined nine other lawmakers in suing Obama over his intervention in Libya two years ago.
Kucinich raised doubts about rebel forces' allegations that Assad's forces used poison gas to kill more than 1,300 people last week. He said the administration is “rushing” to what could becoming “World War Three” based on questionable evidence.
“This is being used as a pretext,” he said. “The verdict is in before the facts have been gathered. What does that tell you?”
Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the United States would soon be sharing “undeniable” evidence of Assad's involvement. White House spokesman Jay Carney reiterated Tuesday that it was not seeking “regime change” with its upcoming response, but is merely weighing a limited reaction to the violation of “an international standard.”
Some lawmakers don't buy it.
“Before engaging in a military strike against Assad’s forces, the United States must understand that this action will likely draw us into a much wider and much longer-term conflict that could mean an even greater loss of life within Syria,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in a statement Tuesday.

“I urge the Administration to continue to exercise restraint, because absent an imminent threat to America’s national security, the U.S. should not take military action without Congressional authorization.”

Twenty-one Republican lawmakers, joined by one Democrat, so far have signed onto a House letter to Obama demanding that Congress sign off on any military response.
“Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution,” says the letter, spearheaded by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.).
Others have made their voices heard separately.
“While the use of chemical weapons is deeply troubling and unacceptable,” Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), “I believe there is no military solution to the complex Syrian crisis.”
And Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) warned that “any response should include collaboration with other nations and consultation with the United Nations to figure out what weapons have been used.
“Congress must be engaged and we must be sensitive to the needs of the American people and the Syrian people.”

Iranian FM: 'Iran not to Tolerate Deployment of Foreign Forces in Region.'

Iranian FM: 'Iran not to Tolerate Deployment of Foreign Forces in Region.'(Fars).

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif condemned the US and its allies' warmongering policies and acts against Syria, and said Tehran will not tolerate deployment of foreign forces in the region for a strike on Syria.

"Iran may not tolerate if a group of countries deploy their forces in the region under a given excuse (of the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government) or other excuses despite their own record (of using such weapons), raze the region and kill the people, spread extremism in the region and push it towards the spread of violence and conflicts," Zarif said in a televised interview with Iran's state-run TV on Tuesday night.

"Certainly the effects and consequences of such acts will go beyond the Syrian and Egyptian borders and will engage many of these countries and those outside the region," he cautioned.

Zarif reminded that the US was responded with the 9/11 attacks after Washington spread extremism in Afghanistan and the same story can be repeated after spreading extremism in Syria and other countries of the region.

On Saturday, US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel claimed that the White House is studying different military options against Syria.

Hagel suggested the Pentagon is moving forces into place ahead of possible military action against Syria, even as President Barack Obama voiced caution.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Mualem said on Tuesday that Syria will press on with its military efforts despite any potential foreign strikes on its territory, adding that any strike would serve the interests of al Qaeda-linked rebel groups.

"The war effort led by the United States and their allies will serve the interests of Israel and secondly the Al-Nusra Front," Mualem told a press conference in Damascus.

"The (government's) military effort will not stop around Damascus. If the purpose is to limit the victories of our armed forces, they will not be successful," Mualem said.

Any foreign strike on Syria to try to create a balance of power in the war between President Bashar al-Assad's forces and the rebels is "delusional", the foreign minister said.

"If the purpose of a possible (foreign) military strike is to achieve a balance of power ... it's delusional and not at all possible," Mualem added.

"If they wanted to attack Syria using claims - utterly incorrect claims - about the use of chemical weapons, I defy them to provide what evidence they have," he said.

Russia warned on Tuesday that a military intervention in Syria could have "catastrophic consequences" for the region, and called on the international community to show "prudence" over the crisis.

"Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," a foreign ministry spokesman said.

"We are calling on our American partners and all members of the world community to demonstrate prudence (and) strict observance of international law, especially the fundamental principles of the UN Charter," ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement.