The 5 Most Ludicrous War Claims in Obama’s Syria Speech

By Matthew Rothschild, September 10, 2013     

1. “I possess the authority to order military strikes.”

No you don’t, Mr. President. Only Congress has the authority to declare war, and ordering military strikes would be a clear act of war, thus violating the Constitution. It would also violate the War Powers Act, which says that the President can’t engage in hostilities without a declaration of war or specific Congressional authorization unless there is “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” And Syria has done no such thing.

2. Syria’s use of chemical weapons is “a danger to our security.”

Note that four paragraphs later, he said it wasn’t “a direct or imminent threat to our security.” So what kind of a threat is it? Well, a rather tenuous one. “Other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield.” Really? It is very unlikely that some dictator would do this because he would know that if he did, the U.S. would drop a nuke on his head. That was the warning that Saddam Hussein got from the U.S. in January of 1991, and he didn’t use his chemical weapons even as the U.S. was destroying most of his army. If that threat was enough to stop Saddam, it’s likely good enough to stop other dictators.

Obama also acknowledged that “the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.”

3. “If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.”

Let’s just look at Israel. Obama contradicted himself just a few minutes later when he said, “Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise, and our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakable support of the United States of America.”

4. “It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But Al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed.”

Only? If U.S. missile strikes seriously degrade Assad’s military, they would certainly help the extremists who are allied with Al Qaeda in Syria.

5. “For nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world’s a better place because we have borne them.”

Was the U.S. an anchor of global security and an enforcer of international agreements when it overthrew the Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953, or the Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954?

Is the world a better place because the U.S. helped overthrow Salvador Allende’s democratically elected government in Chile almost exactly 40 years ago?

Is the world a better place because the United States killed 3 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia and because we dropped 20 million gallons of napalm (waging our own version of chemical warfare) on those countries?

Is the world a better place because the United States supported brutal governments in El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980s, which killed tens of thousands of their own people?

Is the world a better place because George Bush waged an illegal war against Iraq and killed between 100,000 and a million civilians?

And what international agreements was the United States enforcing when it tortured people after 9/11?

Fox News: Judge Jeanine Pirro Attacks Barack Obama on Syria

September 7, 2013 - Fox News - Judge Jeanine Pirro - Opening Statement - Attacks Barack Obama on Syria (video)

Jabhat al-Nusra and Free Syrian Army: we want to free Maaloula from faithless christians!

Watch the video shot by Jabhat al-Nusra (linked to Al-Qaeda) militants as they attacked the town of Maaloula in Syria yesterday (Thursday 6th 2013):

-At 0:17, the guy says "bombing of Mar Sarkis Church, Allaho Akbar"
-At 1:36, the guy says: "targeting the Mar Takla monument".

This video another also shot by this by these militants as they entered the twon of Maaloula. They were shooting at houses and churches and at the mountains where the Safir Hotel, to which town residents fled, lies.

And this is a video a militant of Jabhat al-Nusra cutting a Syrian soldier open after killing him and eating his heart and internal organs as a sign of victory (contains graphic material).

Syrian Free Army (SFA) and Al-Qaeda linked Jabat al-Nusra, fighting under the umbrealla of Syrain rebels, are supported and funded by the all mighty US and the all blood-thirsty Bandar Bin Sultan's KSA. They say they want to free Maaloula from the "faithless" crusaders (i.e. Christians!!).

Notes:

1- Maaloula is a Christian town north of Damascus (population: 2000) whose residents are said to be the last speakers of Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ.

2- John McCain wants us to think that these people, i.e. the FSA and jabahat Al-nusra are moderate muslims and their "Allaho Akbar" screams whenever they kill, shoot, or bomb, are similar to the "thanks God" Christian say when rejoying in any occasion!

The SABAN Center at BROOKINGS Plan For Regime In SYRIA Memo

The SABAN Center at BROOKINGS Plan For Regime In SYRIA Memo (March 2012) (By: Daniel Byman, Michael Doran, Kenneth Pollack, and Salman Shaikh) lays out six options for the United States to consider to achieve Asad’s overthrow, should it choose to do so. These are:

1. Removing the regime via diplomacy;

2. Coercing the regime via sanctions and diplomatic isolation;

3. Arming the Syrian opposition to overthrow the regime;

4. Engaging in a Libya-like air campaign to help an opposition army gain victory;

5. Invading Syria with U.S.-led forces and toppling the regime directly; and

6. Participating in a multilateral, NATO-led effort to oust Asad and rebuild Syria.

 The memo considers option 6 as the Goldilocks Solution

 Option Six: International Intervention: The Goldilocks Solution?

One variant on the invasion option that bears separate consideration because it could prove to be an attractive alternative is for NATO to invade Syria with Arab League diplomatic support and ideally some Arab military participation. UN authorization would be desirable, but given Russian opposition would probably not be forthcoming. Invading forces would depose the Asad regime, impose a ceasefire on the warring parties, and provide security for a long term, international effort to rebuild Syria. The closest model here would be the NATO intervention in Bosnia in 1995—although it would differ in at least one critical respect since there would be no Dayton Peace Accords to precede it.

 In a nutshell, NATO would have to agree to mount the invasion and then provide the military means to enforce the peace and protect a UN-led multilateral effort to rebuild the country. A key consideration would have to be that the UN would lead the kind of reconciliation talks between Sunni and Alawi in Syria that never occurred in Iraq. Likewise, NATO forces would have to remain for as long as necessary, even if in diminishing numbers, to ensure the Alawis and Syria’s other minorities that they would not be oppressed by the majority Sunni community (again, as NATO did in Bosnia, but the United States did not do for long enough in Iraq). In essence, NATO would depose the Alawis and other minorities and then work to protect them from a possibly vengeful majority.

 Four conditions would have to be met for this model to be workable:

 1. Turkey would have to be willing to provide the logistical base and much of the ground troops for the operation. Turkey is best placed of any country to intervene in Syria: it has a large, reasonably capable military; it has vital interests in Syria; and its interest is in seeing peace and democratic transition. However, this condition may pose difficulties because the Alawis do not trust the Sunni Turks, and Ankara might like to see a Muslim Brotherhood-led government take power in Syria. Turkey would also be reluctant to spearhead an invasion because it would not want to significantly change Syria’s Kurds’ status, fearing unrest in Turkey itself. Of equal or greater importance, the long-term occupation and reconstruction of Syria would likely be well beyond Turkish resources alone. Thus, while Turkey would need to be a key player—perhaps the key player, as Australia was in the similar intervention in East Timor—it cannot be the only player; it will need financial help and multilateral assistance and cover.

 2. The Europeans and the Gulf Arabs have to be willing to pick up much of the tab. As noted above, rebuilding Syria after the events of 2011 and an invasion and occupation will be a major undertaking. Even if the reconstruction of Syria benefits from all the lessons learned in Iraq and suffers from none of its mistakes, it will still be enormously costly and well beyond Turkey’s means. Consequently, even though Turkey would be needed to put up much of the raw military muscle, it would be a mistake to ask them to shoulder the costs of that burden.

 3. The United States will have to be willing to provide critical logistical, command and control, and some combat components. As always, there are certain things, particularly leadership, strategic direction, mobility assets, and certain precision strike capabilities that only the U.S. armed forces know how to provide and that if Washington is not willing to offer, the operation would likely falter. Along similar lines, if the United States does not furnish some ground forces, no one else will either, and American troops may be critical to reassure the Syrians that the Turks will not run amuck—something they will fear regardless of whether it is a reasonable concern. In addition, as noted, because of the United States’ experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are a lot of Americans with useful skills who can contribute to pacification and reconstruction in Syria.

 4. The operation must be conducted under a multilateral—if not international framework. NATO participation (as in Libya, Bosnia, and Kosovo) is essential because it creates the appropriate framework both for Turkish intervention and for Western assistance alongside Turkey. Arab League participation would be extremely helpful both as a source of additional (Arabic-speaking) ground troops and to legitimize the invasion in the eyes of both the Syrian people and the wider region. Ideally, the UN Security Council would authorize the mission, or at least provide a special representative of the secretary-general to internationalize the reconstruction effort, bringing in scores of other countries and non-governmental organizations that have resources and skills that will be sorely needed for that effort. If the United States is willing and able to secure these various conditions, the international intervention approach has numerous benefits.

Of greatest importance, it would cost the United States much, much less than mounting an invasion itself, but would have far, far greater certainty of achieving American goals than any of the other options. However, securing any of these four conditions could prove impossible. The Russians have shown every sign that they would fight tooth and nail to prevent any UN mandate for such an operation. It is also not clear that the Turks are ready to make so large a commitment (although the worse things get in Syria, the more likely they probably would be since their own list of options looks even less appealing than our own). Western Europe and the United States are mired in severe economic difficulties, and the only time that the Arab states were willing to pick up the tab for a major Western military operation in the Middle East was the 1991 Gulf War. Thus, as attractive as this option might be, it will ultimately prove very hard to implement.

 

The memo lays down the following conclusion

Conclusion

No option for U.S. policy for Syria is simple or costfree. All are flawed, some quite deeply. A number of the easiest options to implement, such as diplomacy and coercing regime change, also are the most likely to fail or succeed incompletely. Others, like having opposition forces act alone or with U.S. support, might put more pressure on Asad but are potentially costly and by no means guaranteed of success. For now, some options—particularly an American invasion—are not in the cards politically in the United States and are not being called for by Syrians, regardless of their (debatable) desirability. Recognizing a range of options is vital, however, because in practice many of the options slip easily into one another and, indeed, policymakers are likely to mix components of each. The diplomatic approach, for example, could bolster all of the other options: the United States will want to build coalitions, try to flip the Russians, and otherwise use its diplomatic power if is trying to coerce or use force to get Asad out. Similarly, all the military options would be enhanced if the United States also continued economic pressure on the Asad regime. Such mixes may mitigate some of the problems described with each option above, yet trying to mix and match aspects of different options will often bring on new sets of costs and disadvantages.

Some of the options can be considered steps on an escalation ladder—some should be tried because they are less costly than more aggressive measures, and others should be pursued because they will be a component of a broader effort.

Several steps are vital for almost any conceivable effort to oust Asad. The United States will want to build within the “Friends of Syria” a smaller contact group, regardless of which approach is taken. Indeed, should Asad not fall, this group would also be vital for containing the spillover from a Syrian civil war. In addition, the United States will want to expand ties to the Syrian opposition and try to push them to be more cohesive. A stronger opposition will not only bolster the policy options, it will be critical to the shared goal of all the options. It is the opposition that will play a greater role even if there is only limited regime change, and of course would be the government of Syria should Asad and his henchman fall completely. Finally, U.S. regional allies, particularly Turkey, are vital. They will play a major role in determining how tight sanctions are and the degree of isolation felt by the regime. Because of their proximity to Syria, they are also essential to various military options, even if they themselves do not take the lead.

 Policymakers should recognize, however, that diplomacy and coercion alone may not topple Asad. The options in this paper offer alternatives for escalation and, at the same time, reasons that escalation would be costly and risky. In the end, policymakers may decide that the price for removing Asad is too high and the consequences for Syria’s long-term stability too uncertain. If so, they must focus on the problem of a weakened but defiant Asad who is also more dependent on Iran. This would require thinking through how to structure sanctions on Syria and regional diplomacy to limit the humanitarian impact on the Syrian people while still maintaining pressure on the Syrian regime.

Whether Asad stays or falls, the civil war in Syria may spill over into neighboring states, which requires efforts to shore them up and try to reduce the scale and scope of the civil conflict. So even as the United States pursues regime change, it must also work to bolster neighboring states to care for refugees, prevent terrorism, and refrain from self-defeating interventions.

 As a final thought, it is always important to keep in mind that failing to act—even failing to decide—is an action and a decision. Not choosing to intervene is the same as choosing not to intervene, and it would be far better that whatever course the United States follows, that it be the product of a conscious decision so that we can pursue it properly, rather than the outcome of a paralyzing indecision that prevents Washington from doing anything to protect this country’s many interests affected by the bloodshed of Syria.

 

Read the full memo

PS: In 2002, the Brookings Institution founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, named after Haim Saban, an Israeli-American media proprietor, who donated $13 million toward its establishment. Saban has stated of himself, “I’m a one issue guy, and my issue is Israel”, and was described by the New York Times as a “tireless cheerleader for Israel.” The Centre is directed by AIPAC’s former deputy director of research, Martin Indyk.

The Last Speakers of Aramaic

September 5, 2013 by Robert Moynihan, PhD.

The Last Remaining Speakers of Aramaic — the Language Spoken by Jesus — Live in a Town in Syria under Attack from Rebel Units Being Supported by the United States

“Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.”—William Shakespeare (from the play Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 1, line 273)

“(United States) Senators on Wednesday tried to write a tight resolution authorizing President Obama to strike Syria under very specific circumstances, but analysts and lawmakers said the language still has plenty of holes the White House could use to expand military action well beyond what Congress appears to intend… The resolution puts a 60-day limit on Mr. Obama’s ability to conduct strikes, while allowing him one 30-day extension of that authority… ‘Wiggle room? Plenty of that,’ said Louis Fisher, scholar in residence at the Constitution Project and former long-time expert for the Congressional Research Service on separation of powers issues… Mr. Fisher pointed to the 1964 resolution that authorized a limited response to the Gulf of Tonkin, but that ended up being the start of an escalation of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war.” —Washington Times, September 4, 2013, reporting on developing legislation in the US Senate to permit President Obama to launch an attack on Syria

“On Wednesday morning, rebels from the al-Qaida-linked Jabhat al-Nusra group launched the assault on predominantly Christian Maaloula, some 60 kilometers (40 miles) northeast of Damascus, according to a Syrian government official and the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an anti-regime group…” —Associated Press dispatch, September 4, 2013
“Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily. ‘With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,’ Kerry said. ‘They have. That offer is on the table.’” —Washington Post, September 4, 2013
“In an exchange with a senator, Kerry was asked whether it was “basically true” that the Syrian opposition had “become more infiltrated by al Qaeda over time.” Kerry said: “No, that is actually basically not true. It’s basically incorrect.” —Reuters dispatch, September 4, 2013 (yesterday), reporting on testimony in the US Congress of US Secretary of State John Kerry; Link

“They lie beautifully, of course. I saw debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr Kerry: ‘Is al Qaeda there?’ He says: ‘No’… He is lying and knows he is lying. It’s sad.” —Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, commenting on testimony in the US Congress of US Secretary of State John Kerry, in the same Reuters dispatch

“The tragic consequences of the conflict are known. It has produced more than 110,000 deaths, numberless wounded, more than 4 million internal refugees and more than 2 million refugees in neighboring countries. In front of this tragic situation, the absolute priority is clear: to make the violence cease.” —Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, the Vatican’s “foreign minister,” to nearly 200 assembled diplomats in the Vatican this morning

“The Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi denied that the Pope has called the Syrian dictator Assad. The news was published in the Argentine newspaper Clarin signed by Sergio Rubin, friend and biographer of Pope Francis.” —Agenzia Italia (AGI) dispatch, September 5, 2013

“Maaloula is a mountain village with about 2,000 residents, who are among a tiny group in the region that still speaks a version of Aramaic, the ancient language of biblical times also believed to have been spoken by Jesus.” —The same Associated Press dispatch from yesterday

“It is regrettable that, from the very beginning of the conflict in Syria, one-sided interests have prevailed and in fact hindered the search for a solution that would have avoided the senseless massacre now unfolding.”—Pope Francis, September 5, 2013, in a letter sent to Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, who is hosting a high-level summit of world leaders called the “Group of 20″ or “G20″ in St. Petersburg, Russia

The Pope Writes a Letter to Putin

Pope Francis continues to make almost desperate efforts to head off a looming escalation of the 2-year Syrian civil war.

He has called for a day of prayer and fasting on Saturday, September 7; he has spoken passionately about the suffering caused by war and the benefits of a negotiated peace; he has summoned the almost 200 ambassadors accredited to the Vatican to a briefing on the Holy See’s position (the meeting took place this morning); and he is even rumored to have telephoned directly to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, to appeal to him to work for a ceasefire (the Vatican has denied the report).

Moreover, Pope Francis today sent a passionate letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin, in his role as host of the “Group of 20″ nations meeting this weekend in St. Petersburg (US President Barack Obama is also attending, and met Putin there this morning in a moment that seems from the photograph to have been marked by some tension).

The civil war in Syria has been going on for more than 2 years. The war has pitted forces loyal to the Ba’athist (secularist) regime of President Bashar al-Assad, supported by Iran and Russia, against rebel, radical Muslim forces supported, for varying reasons, by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, and the United States, who seek to unseat Assad.

The Syrians since 1971 — so, for 42 years — have allowed the Russians to use the port of Tartus as a “Material-Technical Support Point” (Russian: Пункт материально-технического обеспечения, ПМТО) and not a “base”; Tartus is the last Russian military facility outside the former Soviet Union, and Russia’s only Mediterranean repair and replenishment spot, sparing Russia’s warships the trip back to their Black Sea bases through the Turkish Straits.

Recently, the Assad government forces seemed to be winning the war, rolling back a number of rebel positions.

But that momentum would likely change dramatically if the US and France were to intervene directly.

And that possibility now looms following a deadly chemical attack, which occurred on August 21, allegedly perpetrated by the Assad government (there has been considerable dispute about what the substance actually was, who actually used it, and how many were killed by it).
The United States and France have argued that the use of the gas by the regime requires a direct response, which is generally interpreted as meaning a cruise missile attack on Syrian government targets from ships offshore, but not the use of US or French troops (generally referred to as “no boots on the ground”).

The region is now filled with warships, and more are steaming toward the area. The map below shows only some of the vessels, particularly the American and Russian ones, leaving out the British, Turkish, Greek, Israeli and other vessels. (Click on map for larger view)

 

The confusing nature of the situation is shown by the fact that Britain, a staunch ally of the United States, last week decided against participation in such an attack, in a close vote, in part because many parliamentarians were not persuaded by the evidence presented that the gas attack had actually been launched by the Assad regime.

 

Other religious leaders have also issued appeals for restraint, and warned against a widening of the conflict.

The Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, asked about the Syrian situation on September 4 (yesterday) in Tallin, capital of Estonia, where he was visiting, said: “In Syria, the situation is tragic for all the inhabitants, and not only the Christians, beginning with the women and children. We pray that the terrible situation of war cease and that peace arrive in the hearts of men and throughout Syria.” He added: “We wish for a rapid resolution to escape from this impasse and to come to an Arab springtime, a true Arab springtime, and not just a formula.” He concluded: “We suffer for the two metropolitans (Orthodox and Syrian-Coptic) who were taken hostage on April 22 and about whom nothing today is known, not even whether they are still alive or dead. We pray and we appeal to all the political powers, civil and religious, to save these two men.”
See more here.

Patriarch of Baghdad: “Stop the fighting to prevent another Iraq”

The Chaldean Catholic Patriarch of Baghdad, capital of Iraq, Luis Sako, has lifted his voice as well. “What justice will be done to the Syrians by air-raids? No one knows what black hole the country will be entering better than we Iraqis, who entered into that tunnel before they did, and, unfortunately, we have not been able to come out of it.”

He continued: “Why did those who say they are acting for the good of the Syrian people not intervene earlier, with pressure and diplomatic means? I am hearing the same discourses and the same proclamations that were made 10 years ago before the intervention in Iraq. Ten years have passed since then, and believe me, we have seen very little democracy and freedom.”
Ten years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iraq remains unstable, still subject to sectarian violence.
“Syria is already a fair way down this same road,” he said. “But an armed intervention from outside would do nothing but worsen the situation and would have unpredictable consequences for the country and the entire region.”

Sako has asked all of the Iraqi bishops to participate on Saturday in the day of prayer and fasting for peace called for by Pope Francis.

“If one wishes to stop the massacre of Syrian civilians,” Sako said, “the first step is to suspend the sending of arms and munitions to the warring parties and to put pressure on the regional powers who are aiding the confrontation to commit themselves to find a solution. This is a game that is being played on the heads of the Syrians, a game that hides inadmissible interests and ambitions, and which should be stopped by political means, not with more bombs.”

When Sako speaks of “inadmissible interests and ambitions,” he is referring to a whole series of interests and aims which are “in play” in this struggle.

This is not the place to go into detail on all of the interests in play, but it seems fitting to mention four.

First, there is the desire of many, from Israel to the US to even some in the Arab world, to eventually weaken Iran, which is Syria’s ally, and may or may not be building an atomic bomb (opinions vary and evidence publicly available seems inconclusive). So everything that happens in Syria is only to be fully understood in the context of a longer-term plan to encircle and perhaps attack Iran.
Second, there is the well-known “battle of the pipelines” (sometimes referred to as “Pipelinistan”). In this particular case, there is a huge gas field in Qatar, and also in bordering Iran, which could provide gas for Europe if shipped by pipeline through Syria and then under the Aegean Sea to Greece and beyond. But this pipeline — which is under construction in Qatar, but not yet built in Syria — threatens to diminish the influence of Russia, which provides much of the natural gas that heats Europe, from its own vast Siberian fields. So it is in part at the request of Russia that Assad has been blocking approval of this new gas pipeline. This has led many in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and in Europe and the US, to conclude that Assad must be replaced, by supporting rebels who will, when they overthrow Assad, approve the Qatari pipeline. Nevertheless, war is not the only option here, and perhaps not the best one: the way of diplomacy could perhaps find a solution, “cutting a deal” even with the Russians, so that all parties make some profit, and none loses everything.

Third, there has been a massive gas and oil field just recently discovered off of the Israeli, Lebanese, Syrian, and Cypriot coast, known as the “Leviathan” field. It has not yet been developed, but it promises to relieve the energy needs of all of those neighboring countries, and much of Europe as well. So there is a tremendous struggle on now, behind the scenes, to position regimes in the region to develop these massive resources and use the proceeds from them in ways suitable to the major powers.

Fourth, the general economic situation of the world, from the US, to Europe, to China, is marked by high levels of debt, slow or no growth, and high levels of unemployment, especially among youth. Attempts have been made since March of 2009 to spark growth by ultra-low interest rates, but it is not clear whether these attempts have benefited the economy at all, and interest rates in recent months have been spiking higher against the professed wishes of the US Federal Reserve. In this context, the economic impact of war, with the expense on weapons, fuel, and soldiers’ salaries, provides an economic boost which some economists think may be positive. In short, there is a desire in the West, among some, for a wider, more expensive war, to reverse the evident contraction looming over the global economy.

These remarks are, of course, incomplete.

But the one thing that can be said for certain is that cruise missiles know no distinction between walls of cement that house soldiers and walls that house civilians. Attacks on Syria will inevitably lead to civilian casualties. And there is no good reason why even one more child, one more mother, would have to die unjustly.

Patriarch Sako is right. The first step is to cut off all new shipments of arms into Syria. The second step is to ask all involved in the current fighting to stop fighting. To cease firing.

Then, under the auspices of an honest man, a just man, someone like Pope Francis, together with Muslims, secularists, Americans, and Russians, a conference could be called to draw up some sort of agreement to settle the open questions in this complex situation peacefully, not by war.
If this does not happen, the war could begin with a few cruise missiles, and the death of “a few” women and children, and then Russia could support Syria, and Syria could conceivably sink an American ship, using Russian technology, and we could be in a much wider war.

And people like the villagers in Maaloula, caught in the crossfire, are the ones who will suffer.
Villagers who for more than 2,000 years have kept not only the Christian faith, but the very language that Jesus spoke alive, the Aramaic language.

Do we really wish to risk killing and maiming these villagers, our brothers in Christ? Is that the legacy we wish to leave for all time to come, that in the early years of the 21st century, the so-called “Christian” nations of the West could find no other solution to helping to halt a civil war in Syria that could protect those Christians, those members of the body of Christ, those speakers of the language that Christ spoke?

American policies in the Middle East have led to the decimation of the Christian population of that region. The voices of those suffering Christians are seldom heard in the American media, and this is tragic.

There is a better way, and Pope Francis is the leading voice in the world today proposing that way. The world should listen to him.

Otherwise, what we seem likely to view in the Middle East will be what Mary warned of: “nations will be annihilated.”

More than ever, we need to heed this warning, and act in keeping with Our Lady’s urgent requests in order to bring about a “time of peace.”

 

The Coming Genocide of Syria’s Christians

By Rod Dreher • September 4, 2013, 9:03 PM

Why is Rand Paul the only US Senator who has the guts to tell the truth about what’s happening to Syria’s ancient Christian community, the oldest in the world?Is he the only Christian in the Senate? Is he the only member of Congress who is thinking about them? From the AP story he tweets:

The dawn assault on the predominantly Christian village of Maaloula was carried out by rebels from the al-Qaida-linked Jabhat al-Nusra group, according to a Syrian government official and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an anti-regime group.
At the start of the attack, an al-Nusra fighter blew himself up at a regime checkpoint at the entrance to the village, said the Observatory, which collects information from a network of anti-regime activists.
The suicide attack was followed by fighting between the rebels and regime forces, the Observatory and a nun in the village said. Eventually, the rebels seized the checkpoint, disabled two tanks and an armored personnel carrier and killed eight regime soldiers in fighting, the British-based group said.
The nun said the rebels took over the Safir hotel atop a mountain overlooking the village and fired shells at it from there. “It’s a war. It has been going from 6 a.m. in the morning,” she said.
Some 80 people from the village took refuge in the convent, which houses 13 nuns and 27 orphans, she said.

Nuns and orphans. If the president and a majority of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — Sen. Paul voted “no” — have their way, American cruise missiles will be aiding and abetting the forces attacking nuns and orphans in Syria. No getting around that, no matter what John McCain says.

True, we will in theory be harming the forces that gassed innocents near Damascus. I do not favor the US helping Assad or hurting him. I favor us staying out. We don’t know who the worst people in this civil war are. It is incredible that more American Christians don’t know, or don’t care, about the fate of their fellow Christians in Syria, and how our country — and our tax dollars — may soon be used to exterminate them. If you didn’t read the religion scholar Philip Jenkins’s essay on TAC today, you must. Excerpt:

To describe the Ba’athist state’s tolerance is not, of course, to justify its brutality, or its involvement in state-sanctioned crime and international terrorism. But for all that, it has sustained a genuine refuge for religious minorities, of a kind that has been snuffed out elsewhere in the region. Although many Syrian Christians favor democratic reforms, they know all too well that a successful revolution would almost certainly put in place a rigidly Islamist or Salafist regime that would abruptly end the era of tolerant diversity. Already, Christians have suffered terrible persecution in rebel-controlled areas, with countless reports of murder, rape, and extortion.
Under its new Sunni rulers, minorities would likely face a fate like that in neighboring Iraq, where the Christian share of population fell from 8 percent in the 1980s to perhaps 1 percent today. In Iraq, though, persecuted believers had a place to which they could escape, namely Syria. Where would Syrian refugees go?
A month ago, that question was moot, as the Assad government was gaining the upper hand over the rebels. At worst, it seemed, the regime could hold on to a rump state in Syria’s west, a refuge for Alawites, Christians, and others. And then came the alleged gas attack, and the overheated U.S. response.
So here is the nightmare. If the U.S., France, and some miscellaneous allies strike at the regime, they could conceivably so weaken it that it would collapse. Out of the ruins would emerge a radically anti-Western regime, which would kill or expel several million Christians and Alawites. This would be a political, religious, and humanitarian catastrophe unparalleled since the Armenian genocide almost exactly a century ago.

Nightmare indeed. If you are a Christian, why don’t you care? And if you do care, have you spoken to your pastor, your friends, and most importantly, your Congressman and Senators, about it? Rand Paul gets it. Do you?

Maaloula, The Syrian Town Where The Last Remaining Speakers Of Aramaic (The Language of Jesus) Live, Under Attack From Al-Qaeda Linked Rebel Units Supported By The United States

The sound of artillery reverberated Thursday (Sep 5th 2013) through Maaloula, a predominantly Christian village north of Damascus, as government troops and al-Qaeda-linked rebels battled for control of the mountainside sanctuary. The hit-and-run attacks on the ancient village of Maaloula, one of the few places in the world where residents still speak Aramaic, highlighted fears among Syria’s religious minorities about the growing role of extremists among those fighting in the (so-called) civil war (which in reality is a World War) to topple President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Maaloula is a mountain village of around 2,000 residents who are of the very few remaining people in the world that still speak the Aramaic language, the ancient language of biblical times also believed to have been spoken by Jesus. The town includes many holy sites such as the "Dawn" (Groove) rock which is said to have facilitated the escape of Saint Mar Takla who managed to flee her father's guards who wanted to kill her after adopting the Christian faith. It is also famous for two of the oldest surviving monasteries in Syria – Mar Sarkis and Mar Takla.

Fighting in Maaloula began early Wednesday (Sep 4th 2013) when militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Jabhat al-Nusra stormed in after a suicide bomber struck an army checkpoint guarding the entrance of the town. The group – listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department – is one of the most effective fighting forces among anti-government armed militias. The suicide attack triggered battles that terrorized residents in the village. Jabhat al-Nusra militants committed appalling massacres, burned the Church of Mar Elias Zealot, one of the oldest churches in the world, sabotaged other churches in the town and destroyed included icons while inviting locals to abandon their Christian faith as to adopt Islam instead. Locals tried to stand up to this armed invasion but most of them were killed. Al-Qaeda militants detonated a car bomb at the entrance of the town while firing rockets at Mar Elias Zealot and Mar Girgis churches which they, later, managed to occupy and use them as platforms to launch their gunfire attacks on the town.

The fighting came as President Barack Obama’s administration pressed the U.S. Congress for its authorization of a military strike against the Assad regime, while the president arrived at a G-20 summit in Russia expected to be overshadowed by Syria.

Online video showed rebels in the streets, some firing truck-mounted heavy machine guns in all directions. The video appeared authentic and matched Associated Press reporting on the fighting. Residents said Wednesday the rebels took over the mountaintop Safir hotel and were firing in the direction of the community below (The footage clearly shows the terrorists are shooting randomly at the homes of the people, and not at government forces! They come, they terrorize, they murder in the name of their sick twisted form of religion, which they themselves, don’t even follow. They are heavily armed by the United States and gulf Arabs! Thank you John McCain and Secretary of State John Kerry).

Al-Mayadeen TV, a Lebanese station who has an embed with the Syrian army, broadcast live images from the area Thursday evening that showed smoke rising from behind the hotel, suggesting the military was shelling it. The nun said about 100 people from the village took refuge in the St. Takla convent that she helps run. The 27 orphans who live there had been taken to nearby caves overnight “so they were not scared,” she said.

Until recently, the town had managed to remain mostly unaffected by the civil war. Its worst suffering was the lack of pilgrims and tourists who are normally vital to the economy when the village was ringed by government checkpoints.

In 2008, Assad and his wife, Asma, visited the St. Takla convent, eating with Christian orphans there. In the same year, Assad took former U.S. President Jimmy Carter for a stroll in the area.

The attack highlights fears among Syrian Christians that the alternative to Assad’s regime, made up mostly of Alawites – followers of an offshoot of Shiite Islam – would not tolerate minority religions.

The nun who spoke to AP said there were reports that the militants threatened villagers with death if they did not convert. The report could not be independently confirmed. “It’s a war,” she said.

Such fears have allowed Assad to retain the support of large sections among Syria’s minorities, which includes Christians, Alawites, Druze and ethnic Kurds, throughout the 2 1/2 year (so-called) civil war (which in reality is a World War).

(c) National Post 2013

PS: People of Maaloula drew up a letter to the US congress explaining how the Al-Qaeda linked and US supported militants attacked the town, terrorized and killed its people, and destroyed its historic Christian monuments. In this letter, and in reference to Jabhat al-Nusra's bloody attack on the town, the people of Maaloula condemn how the so-called "international conscious" is selective when it comes to categorizing who is a terrorist and who is not!

Red font = my comments and/or info collected from other sources.

 

Maaloula - Syria



Maaloula - Syria



Maaloula - Syria



Maaloula - Syria


Maaloula - Syria


Maaloula - Syria

 

Arab Spring Or "Post-Modern Coup D’états"

 Revolution vs. Counterrevolution: Whatever Happened to the Arab Spring?

by ISMAEL HOSSEIN-ZADEH,Counterpunch WEEKEND EDITION APRIL 13-15, 2012

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/13/whatever-happened-to-the-arab-spring/

Within the first few months of 2011, the U.S. and its allies lost three loyal “friends”: Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Zine el-Abbidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Saad Hariri in Lebanon. While Mubarak and Ali were driven out of power by widespread popular uprisings, Hariri was ousted by the parliament.

Inspired by these liberating developments, pro-democracy rebellions against autocratic rulers (and their Western backers) soon spread to other countries such as Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

As these revolutionary developments tended to politically benefit the “axis of resistance” (consisting of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas) in the Middle East, the US-Israeli “axis of aggression” and their client states in the region mounted an all-out counterrevolutionary offensive.

Caught off-guard by the initial wave of the Arab Spring in Egypt and Tunisia, the US and its allies struck back with a vengeance. They employed a number of simultaneous tactics to sabotage the Arab Spring. These included (1) instigating fake instances of the Arab Spring in countries that were/are headed by insubordinate regimes such as those ruling Iran, Syria and Libya; (2) co-opting revolutionary movements in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen; (3) crushing pro-democracy movements against “friendly” regimes ruling countries such as Bahrain, Jordan and Saudi Arabia “before they get out of hand,” as they did in Egypt and Tunisia;  and (4) using the age-old divide and ruletrick by playing the sectarian trump card of Sunnis vs. Shias, or Iranians vs. Arabs.

 1. Instigating Fake Arab Springs, or post-modern coup d’états 

Soon after being caught by surprise by the glorious uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, the counterrevolutionary forces headed by the United States embarked on damage control. A major strategy in pursuit of this objective has been to foment civil war and regime change in “unfriendly” places, and then portray them as part of the Arab Spring.

The scheme works like this: arm and train opposition groups within the “unfriendly” country, instigate violent rebellion with the help of covert mercenary forces under the guise of fighting for democracy; and when government forces attempt to quell the thus-nurtured armed insurrection, accuse them of human rights violations, and begin to embark openly and self-righteously on the path of regime change in the name of “responsibility to protect” the human rights.

As the “weakest link” in the chain of governments thus slated to be changed, Gadhafi’s regime became the first target. It is now altogether common knowledge that contrary to the spontaneous, unarmed and peaceful protest demonstrations in Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain, the rebellion in Libya was nurtured, armed and orchestrated largely from abroad. Indeed, evidence shows that plans of regime change in Libya were drawn long before the overt onset of the actual civil war [1].

It is likewise common knowledge that, like the rebellion in Libya, the insurgency in Syria has been neither spontaneous nor peaceful. From the outset it has been armed, trained and organized by the US and its allies. Similar to the attack on Libya, the Arab League and Turkey have been at the forefront of the onslaught on Syria. Also like the Libyan case, there is evidence that preparations for war on Syria had been actively planned long before the actual start of the armed rebellion, which is branded as a case of the Arab Spring [2].

Dr. Christof Lehmann, a keen observer of geopolitical developments in the Middle East, has coined the term “post-modern coup d’états” to describe the recent NATO-Zionist agenda of regime change in the region. The term refers to an elaborate combination of covert operations, overt military interventions, and “soft-power” tactics a la Gene Sharp:

“A network of think tanks, endowments, funds and foundations, which are behind the overt destabilization of targeted sovereign nations. Their narratives in public policy and for public consumption are deceptive and persuasive. Often they specifically target and co-opt progressive thinkers, media and activists. The product is almost invariably a post-modern coup d’état. Depending on the chosen hybridization and the resilience of government, social structures and populations perceived need for reform, the product can be more or less overtly violent. The tactics can be so subtle, involving human rights organizations and the United Nations that they are difficult to comprehend. However subtle they are, the message to the targeted government is invariably ‘go or be gone’” [3].

It is no secret that the ultimate goal of the policy of regime change in the Middle East is to replace the Iranian government with a “client regime” similar to most other regime in the region. Whether the policy will succeed in overthrowing the Syrian government and embarking on a military strike against Iran remains to be seen. One thing is clear, however: the ominous consequences of a military adventure against Iran would be incalculable. It is bound to create a regional (and even very likely global) war.

 2. Co-opting the Arab Spring (in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen) 

When the Arab Spring broke out in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen, the US and its allies initially tried to keep their proxy rulers Hosni Mubarak, Ben Ali and Abdullah Saleh in power as long as possible. Once the massive and persistent uprisings made the continued rule of these loyal autocrats untenable, however, the US and its allies changed tactics: reluctantly letting go of Mubarak, Ali and Saleh while trying to preserve the socioeconomic structures and the military regimes they had fostered during the long periods of their dictatorial rule.

Thus, while losing three client dictators, the US and its allies have succeeded (so far) in preserving the three respective client states. With the exception of a number of formalistic elections that are designed to co-opt opposition groups (like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) and give legitimacy to military rulers, not much else has changed in these countries. In Egypt, for example, the NATO/Israel-backed military junta of the Mubarak era, which now rules Egypt in collaboration with Muslim Brotherhood, has become increasingly as repressive toward the reform movement that gave birth to the Arab Spring as it was under Mubarak.

Economic, military and geopolitical policies of the new regimes in these countries are crafted as much in consultation with the United States and its allies as they were under the three autocratic rulers that were forced to leave the political scene. The new regimes are also collaborating with the US and its allies in bringing about “regime change” in Syria and Iran, just as they helped overthrow the regime of Gadhafi in Libya.

 3. Nipping Nascent Arab Springs in the Bud

A third tactic to contain the Arab Spring has been the withering repression of peaceful pro-democracy movements in countries headed by U.S. proxy regimes in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other kingdoms in the Persian Gulf area before those movements grow “out of hand,” as they did in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. Thus, in collaboration with its Western patrons, Saudi Arabia has over the past year cracked down viciously against peaceful protesters not only within its own borders but also in the neighboring country of Bahrain. Leading the invasion militaries of the Persian Gulf kingdoms into Bahrain last spring, the armed forces of Saudi Arabia continue with the support of Western powers to brutalize peaceful pro-democracy protesters there.

While the Saudi, Qatari and other Persian Gulf regimes have been playing the vanguard role in the US-Israeli axis of aggression against “unfriendly” regimes, NATO forces headed by the Pentagon have been busy behind the scene to train their “security” forces, to broker weapons sale to their repressive regimes, and to build ever more military basses in their territories.

“As state security forces across the region cracked down on democratic dissent, the Pentagon also repeatedly dispatched American troops on training missions to allied militaries there. During more than 40 such operations with names like Eager Lion and Friendship Two that sometimes lasted for weeks or months at a time, they taught Middle Eastern security forces the finer points of counterinsurgency, small unit tactics, intelligence gathering, and information operations—skills crucial to defeating popular uprisings. . . . These recurrent joint-training exercises, seldom reported in the media and rarely mentioned outside the military, constitute the core of an elaborate, longstanding system that binds the Pentagon to the militaries of repressive regimes across the Middle East” [4].

These truly imperialistic policies and practices show, once again, that the claims of the United States and its allies that their self-righteous adventures of “regime change” in the Greater Middle East are designed to defend human rights and foster democracy are simply laughable.

 4. Employment of the Divide and Conquer Tactic: Sunni vs. Shia

One of the tactics to crush the peaceful pro-democracy movements in the Arab-Muslim countries ruled by the US client regimes is to portray these movements as “sectarian” Shia insurgences. This age-old divide-and-rule tactic is most vigorously pursued in Bahrain, where the destruction of the Shia mosques is rightly viewed as part of the regime’s cynical policy of “humiliating the Shia” in order “to make them take revenge on Sunnis,” thereby hoping to prove that the uprising is a sectarian one [5].

Quoting Nabeel Rajab, who describes himself as secular with both Sunni and Shia family relatives, reporter Finian Cunningham writes: “The government is attempting to incite divisive sectarian tensions, to intimidate Sunni people into not supporting the pro-democracy movement because it is being presented as a Shia movement.”

Cunningham further writes: “The targeting of the Shia is a tactic by the regime to distort the pro-democracy movement from a nationalist one into a sectarian one. It is also a way of undermining international support for the pro-democracy movement by trying to present it as an internal problem of the state dealing with ‘troublesome Shia’. In this way, the Bahraini uprising is being made to appear as something different from the uprisings for democracy that have swept the region” [5].

In brief, the magnificent Arab Spring that started in Egypt and Tunisia in the early 2011 has been brutally derailed, distorted and contained by an all-out counter-offensive orchestrated by Western powers and their allies in the Greater Middle East, especially Israel, Turkey and the Arab League. How long this containment of democratic and national liberation aspirations of the Arab/Muslim masses will continue, no one can tell. One thing is clear, however: the success of the Arab (or any other) Spring in the less-developed, semi-colonial world is integrally intertwined with the success of the so-called 99% in the more-developed, imperialist world in achieving the goal of defeating the austerity policies of the 1%, reallocating significant portions of the colossal military spending to social spending, and enjoying a standard of living worthy of human dignity.

In subtle and roundabout ways, imperialist wars of choice and military adventures abroad are reflections, or proxies, of domestic fights over allocation of national resources: only by inventing new (and never ending) enemies and engaging in permanent wars abroad can the powerful beneficiaries of war and militarism fend off the “peace dividends” and enjoy the substantial “war dividends” at home.

In the fight for peace and economic justice, perhaps the global 99% can take a cue from the global 1%: just as the ruling 1% coordinate their policies of military aggression and economic austerity on an international level, so can (and should) the worldwide 99% coordinate their response to those brutal policies internationally. Only through a coordinated cross-border struggle for peace and economic justice can the workers and other popular masses bring the worldwide production of goods and provision of services to a standstill, and restructure the status quo for a better world—a world in which the products of human labor and the bounties of Nature could benefit all.

© Ismael Hossein-zadeh is Professor Emeritus of Economics, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. He is the author of The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave – Macmillan 2007) and the Soviet Non-capitalist Development: The Case of Nasser’s Egypt (Praeger Publishers 1989). He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, forthcoming from AK Press.

References:

[1] Michel Chossudovsky, “When War Games Go Live.”

[2] See, for example, Dr. Christof Lehmann, “The Manufacturing of the War on Syria.”

[3] Dr. Christof Lehmann, “The National Counsel of Syria and U.S. Unconventional Warfare.”

[4] Nick Turse, “Did the Pentagon Help Strangle the Arab Spring?”

[5] Finian Cunningham, “Bahraini Rulers Play sectarian card in Bid to Trump Pro-democracy Movement.”

Syrian Opposition Leaders Request The Help Of Israel

According to the Israeli news agency Israel Nation News, Knesset Remember Ayoub Kara passed a letter from leaders of the so-called Syrian opposition to the Israeli Prime Minister Netenyahu. 

In this letter, Syrian opposition leaders transmit a friendly message to Israeli officials clarifying that Syria, under their reign, would not be enemy to Israel, and request that Israel exerts pressure on the UN Security Council so as "to oust Assad who continues to slaughter them".

In this vein, Kara enlightened us with the fact that the Syrian regime would be forever changed, and that Syria would no more be part of the "axis of evil".

A personal word to the TRUE Syrian people of the opposition (NOT to those who claim to be as such), and to the rest of the Syrian people as well:

No one on Earth can dare to claim that what you demand is wrongful...no one. 


However, your demands have been hijacked by a bunch of armed mercenaries whose chief interest is to establish a pro-Israeli regime and NOT to bring about a DEMOCRATIC and FREE Syria.

The choice you have to make is very, very, hard: a police regime with a lot of pinko promises and a group of mercenaries with the best interest Zionism at heart.

Note that Islam and Democracy do not clash...on the contrary, they complement each other.

So those want true freedom do not have to embark on the Friends-with-Israel (more like Servants-to-Israel) journey. It is true that those who have control of the game today make it seem as such...but it is not the case.

True Islam is about freedom, democracy, and also sovereignty.

Furthermore, true Islam, like true Christianity (*), understands that the true enemy are the Pharisees, the Jews of today, who will not rest a day until they bring the whole world to its knees.

In the midst of these hard times, and in all times, May God be with you.

(*) Please review Mathew 23, also entitled "warning against hypocrisy", where Jesus addresses the Pharisee and says:

“[…] Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness […]”.

No can put the truth about the Pharisees (today's Jews) better than how Jesus did it!

Churkin: I Did Not Make Those Threats To Bin Jassem

The Chinese News Agency Xhinua Net reported yesterday that Mr. Churkin denounced the fact that he threatened Bin Jassem during the UN Security Council meeting held on February 4th 2012. 

According to an article by the same news agency, Mr. Churkin considered that the disseminations of such "dirty", "provocative", and false reports aim chiefly at damaging the Russian relations with Arab countries.

On the personal front, and since I posted the news about the conversation between Churkin and Bin Jassem, I hereby sincerely and genuinely apologize...not for posting the news, but for failing to credit it to "anonymous sources".

As clearly shown in my blog, I am accustomed to crediting the source of the news or report. This one time, however, I was not able to do so because I could not locate the original source (or the video of this now infamous conversation).

In my case, I posted the news simply because I was exited. Despite Churkin's denial to the alleged threats made to Bin Jassem, I still hope to God that the incident be a true one.

However, since I vowed never to be part of the industry of "creating" news, I am compelled to publish this corrective post.

Honestly, I still don't know which is the fact, and which is not. In my mind (and my heart), I have imagined the conversation between Churkin and Bin Jassem a zillion times, and I was so eager to find a recording of that conversation. 

Unfortunately, I did not find any evidence of the latter...but I still smile, from the bottom of my heart, every-time I replay the Churkin-Bin Jassem dialogue in my head.

Last but not least, Mr. Churkin should not consider his "alleged" threats to Bin Jassem as a possible offense to Arab countries. On the contrary, many of us thought of that incident as a retribution to genuine Arabs who do not, not in their silliest whims, think of Bin Jassem as a representative of the Arab mind, values, and spirit.

Whether true news or not...thank you Mr. Churkin for this opportunity to smile, even laugh, from the bottom of my heart!