G20 Ends Abruptly as Obama Calls Putin a Jackass

When I first read this article, I thought it would end with the author clarifying that its content is just a produce of his imagination and that it just his synical interpretation of what happened in the G20 meeting. But no, he didn't do that. However, since the article is published in a renowned magazine such as the New Yorker, and since the content is really, really, very synical, I came to the conclusion that it is the author's caricaturial view on international politics! In all cases, I loved the article.

ST. PETERSBURG (The Borowitz Report) 

Hopes for a positive G20 summit crumbled today as President Obama blurted to Russia’s Vladimir Putin at a joint press appearance, “Everyone here thinks you’re a jackass.”

The press corps appeared stunned by the uncharacteristic outburst from Mr. Obama, who then unleashed a ten-minute tirade at the stone-faced Russian President.

“Look, I’m not just talking about Snowden and Syria,” Mr. Obama said. “What about Pussy Riot? What about your anti-gay laws? Total jackass moves, my friend.”

As Mr. Putin narrowed his eyes in frosty silence, Mr. Obama seemed to warm to his topic.
“If you think I’m the only one who feels this way, you’re kidding yourself,” Mr. Obama said, jabbing his finger in the direction of the Russian President’s face. “Ask Angela Merkel. Ask David Cameron. Ask the Turkish guy. Every last one of them thinks you’re a dick.”

Shortly after Mr. Obama’s volcanic performance, Mr. Putin released a terse official statement, reading, “I should be afraid of this skinny man? I wrestle bears.”

After one day of meetings, the G20 nations voted unanimously on a resolution that said maybe everyone should just go home.

Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP

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?

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) Warn Obama on Syrian Intel

Obama Warned on Syrian Intel

September 6, 2013

 

Exclusive: Despite the Obama administration’s supposedly “high confidence” regarding Syrian government guilt over the Aug. 21 chemical attack near Damascus, a dozen former U.S. military and intelligence officials are telling President Obama that they are picking up information that undercuts the Official Story.

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Is Syria a Trap?
Precedence: IMMEDIATE

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

We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandum immediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised.
The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond … the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the same advice today.

Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps even you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured.

We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no reliable physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in chemical weapons.
In addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major, irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and Qatari, Turkish and U.S. intelligence officials took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, now used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors.

Senior opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the regional commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development,” which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.

At operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior commanders of the Syrian opposition, the Syrians were told that the bombing would start in a few days. Opposition leaders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government

The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive. And they were. A weapons distribution operation unprecedented in scope began in all opposition camps on August 21-23. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by Qatari and Turkish intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S. intelligence officers.

Cui bono?
That the various groups trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have ample incentive to get the U.S. more deeply involved in support of that effort is clear. Until now, it has not been quite as clear that the Netanyahu government in Israel has equally powerful incentive to get Washington more deeply engaged in yet another war in the area. But with outspoken urging coming from Israel and those Americans who lobby for Israeli interests, this priority Israeli objective is becoming crystal clear.

Reporter Judi Rudoren, writing from Jerusalem in an important article in Friday’s New York Times addresses Israeli motivation in an uncommonly candid way. Her article, titled “Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria,” notes that the Israelis have argued, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria’s two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome. Rudoren continues:
“For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.

“‘This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,’ said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. ‘Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.’”

We think this is the way Israel’s current leaders look at the situation in Syria, and that deeper U.S. involvement – albeit, initially, by “limited” military strikes – is likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict in Syria. The longer Sunni and Shia are at each other’s throats in Syria and in the wider region, the safer Israel calculates that it is.

That Syria’s main ally is Iran, with whom it has a mutual defense treaty, also plays a role in Israeli calculations. Iran’s leaders are not likely to be able to have much military impact in Syria, and Israel can highlight that as an embarrassment for Tehran.

Iran’s Role
Iran can readily be blamed by association and charged with all manner of provocation, real and imagined. Some have seen Israel’s hand in the provenance of the most damaging charges against Assad regarding chemical weapons and our experience suggests to us that such is supremely possible.
Possible also is a false-flag attack by an interested party resulting in the sinking or damaging, say, of one of the five U.S. destroyers now on patrol just west of Syria. Our mainstream media could be counted on to milk that for all it’s worth, and you would find yourself under still more pressure to widen U.S. military involvement in Syria – and perhaps beyond, against Iran.

Iran has joined those who blame the Syrian rebels for the August 21 chemical incident, and has been quick to warn the U.S. not to get more deeply involved. According to the Iranian English-channel Press TV, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javid Zarif has claimed: “The Syria crisis is a trap set by Zionist pressure groups for [the United States].”

Actually, he may be not far off the mark. But we think your advisers may be chary of entertaining this notion. Thus, we see as our continuing responsibility to try to get word to you so as to ensure that you and other decision makers are given the full picture.

Inevitable Retaliation
We hope your advisers have warned you that retaliation for attacks on Syrian are not a matter of IF, but rather WHERE and WHEN. Retaliation is inevitable. For example, terrorist strikes on U.S. embassies and other installations are likely to make what happened to the U.S. “Mission” in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, look like a minor dust-up by comparison. One of us addressed this key consideration directly a week ago in an article titled “Possible Consequences of a U.S. Military Attack on Syria – Remembering the U.S. Marine Barracks Destruction in Beirut, 1983.”

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan
Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)
Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)

The Grand Narrative for War: Manufacturing Consent on Syria

by ANTHONY DiMAGGIO, the Counterpunch, Weekend Edition September 6-8, 2013

 

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky gained much notoriety from their seminal book, Manufacturing Consent, more than two decades ago. The central thesis of that book – that political and media elites construct propaganda narratives in order to build support for U.S. foreign policy – remains as relevant today as ever. Obama’s proposed intervention in Syria is a case in point. Public support for military action remains quite low – ranging from between one-quarter to one-third of Americans according to recent polls. That’s likely to change in coming weeks to months as the administration ramps up its pro-intervention rhetoric, and as political elites, reporters, and media pundits uncritically repeat and embrace his messages. The 2011 intervention in Libya provides a template for the administration’s plan:

1. defend an intervention via humanitarian rhetoric that lambastes a dictator for serious human rights abuses;
2. deliver a number of public speeches in an effort to build support for war;
3. and once troops begin to enter harm’s way, sit back and enjoy increased support as Americans “rally around the flag” in support of the conflict.

This formula was enough to gain support for intervention from between 50 to 60 percent of Americans in the case of Libya, and is likely to do the same in Syria once Congress goes along.
The process has already begun. A senate committee already voted 10-7 to grant authorization for force, and a floor resolution is likely to follow in this Democratic controlled chamber. The Obama administration has largely controlled the narrative on Syria over the last year and a half, stressing that the United States is seriously concerned with Assad’s abuses and use of chemical weapons against rebels and civilians. A September survey from the Pew Research Center finds that by a factor of more than two-to-one, Americans conclude that, from what they have “read and heard,” that “there is clear evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians.”
The beleaguered peoples of Syria, Obama contends, need a helping hand from the United States, which is said to be unconditionally concerned with protecting the safety and security of those targeted by Weapons of Mass Destruction. The claim that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against its people has been largely accepted in political and media discourse, despite the fact that the administration has yet to present any concrete evidence. The failure to present evidence presents a particular problem considering claims appearing in news reports that rebel groups may be guilty of using chemical weapons. The Syrian government may very well have used these weapons, and this would probably surprise few people, but the key point here is that the administration has done nothing to present that case before announcing its campaign for war.

In analyzing major news stories via the Lexis Nexis academic database, my findings suggests that during early 2012 and in the first half of 2013 (both periods when reporting of the Syrian civil war was growing), the percent of stories referencing the Obama administration significantly outnumbered references to Congressional Republican opponents in the news by between ten to twenty percentage points. In other words, the administration had a clear advantage in controlling the narrative on Syria – as presidents typically do when it comes to foreign policy. Reports claiming that both the Syrian government and rebel groups have engaged in human rights abuses and used chemical weapons represent a challenge to Obama’s Syria narrative.

According to Lexis Nexis, reports referencing these two points barely appeared in U.S. news stories from 2012 to 2013. Instead, the grand narrative on Syria emphasized Obama’s rhetoric on the need to confront Assad, while also stressing the efforts of rebels to take down the government. Predictably, those paying close attention to news on Syria have fallen in line behind the president. My analysis of Pew Research Center polling data from 2012 finds that those paying “a lot” or “some attention” to Syria in the news were significantly more likely to support U.S. military intervention and more likely to embrace supplying weapons to rebels than those paying attention to Syria news “not at all.” The effects of pro-administration media content, however, were blunted by the fact that relatively few Americans were paying attention to Syria from 2012 through early 2013 (typically less than 50 percent in polls when this question was surveyed). Pro-administration coverage is likely to produce growing support for intervention by late 2013 however, considering that a strong majority of Americans (over 60 percent from recent survey findings) are now paying attention as the U.S. prepares for war. Mass support will be necessary to tip the scales in favor of intervention.

Clearly, Obama read the writing on the wall and saw from the latest polling figures that opposition to war has persisted by a factor of two-to-one; hence his effort to achieve support from Congress. This president would like to spread responsibility for the intervention between himself and the legislature, in an obvious effort to prevent a public mutiny focused on executive and to avoid the tarnishing of his presidential “legacy.” This effort has little to do with a commitment to the rule of law, as Obama argues (Congress according to the Constitution has the power to declare war, not the president). Obama showed contempt for Congress and little interest in securing a congressional resolution in the 2011 Libya intervention. Receiving support from Republican hawks and Democratic allies on Syria, however, will add an element of perceived “legitimacy” to the war effort, likely bumping up public support. This much seems clear from late August NBC polling demonstrating that 79 percent of Americans feel that “Obama should be required to receive approval from Congress before taking military action in Syria.”

1. Obama’s delivery of a number of speeches shortly before the conflict begins (as happened in Libya), will likely be accompanied by growing support among those paying attention to presidential rhetoric and reporting on Syria.
2. Pundits in the media will fawn over the president for his efforts to promote “transparency” in the intervention by presenting “clear cut” and “definitive” evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons – of course, without bothering to pressure for a return of inspectors to verify these claims.
3. Finally, as the U.S. military enters into the hostilities, many will grant short-term support to the president, seeking to demonstrate their “support for the troops” during a difficult time.

This “rally effect” has accompanied every war in recent history, and it will be no different in Syria. The combination of these three developments will likely result in at least a bare majority of Americans (perhaps more) supporting limited intervention, so long as ground troops are not introduced.

The notion of “manufacturing consent” seems appropriate here, considering that challenges to war are being marginalized in political discourse. Some of those points are worth reflecting on:

* Why should Americans accept Obama’s artificial “red line” in the sand that dictates intervention based upon evidence of the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons? Estimates suggest that approximately 100,000 Syrians have already been killed in the civil war. Do we even know how many have died as a result of chemical weapons use as compared to conventional weapons? What makes a death via chemical weapons more morally outrageous than a death via conventional weapons? Do the families of the dead care about this distinction? A murder is a murder regardless of the type of bomb used. The “red line” narrative appears to be little more than a propaganda line used to drum up public support for war at the expense of critical thought.

* Should we really believe that air strikes are going to disarm the Syrian regime, or at least render its alleged chemical stockpile harmless? This seems fanciful, despite the fact that so many pundits are accepting this position. Those familiar with the disarmament process know that it requires the introduction of international inspectors, which first need to identify facilities where chemical weapons reside, in order to disarm them. Without such efforts, there is reason to question the assumption that a bombing campaign will prevent future use of chemical weapons. The bombing campaign seems intended to degrade Assad’s military capabilities – rather than his chemical weapons stockpiles – so as to provide the Syrian rebels with an opportunity to take the offensive against the government. Obama hasn’t been honest with the public about this motive for action.

* Why is military intervention superior to intensifying sanctions? Increased sanctions send the message that repression is unacceptable, as the guilty country becomes even further isolated from the rest of the world. This solution has the added advantage of removing U.S. responsibility for the bombing of civilians in large numbers. Furthermore, the sanctions alternative will at least ensure that the U.S. does not further exacerbate instability in Syria, considering the concern that violence could spill into neighboring countries. Hezbollah has announced that it will launch attacks against Israel following a U.S. intervention in Syria. Hezbollah’s attacks would most certainly be accompanied by Israeli incursion into Lebanon, contributing to further regional instability, death, and destruction.

* Why Syria, and why now? There are so many examples of repressive allied regimes that receive a free pass on human rights abuses. Reports suggest that more than 600 civilians were killed in the recent military crackdown by the U.S.-allied Egyptian dictatorship, with scarcely a word from the president, compared to the 1,500 hundred who died in the Syrian government’s alleged chemical weapons attack last month. Plenty of examples of human rights abuses by U.S. favored dictators (or by countries with little strategic value) have produced little to no response from U.S. presidents. To name a few: the Saudi and Bahraini government crackdown on protesters in Bahrain during the Arab Spring; government genocide against civilians in Darfur during the 2000s; the Turkish government’s suppression of tens of thousands of Kurds from the 1990s onward; the murder of hundreds of thousands via genocide in Rwanda during the 1990s; the Indonesian government’s occupation and genocide in East Timor from the 1970s through 1990s; Saddam Hussein’s gassing of the Kurds during the mid to late 1980s, when he remained a valued U.S. ally. We could add more countries to the list, but the main point is that allied human rights abusers (or those responsible for abuses in countries with little strategic value) receive a pass, while designated enemies of state (Libya and Syria being the most recent examples) are targeted due to geopolitical U.S. interests – the most salient being Middle Eastern oil.

* What about those chemical weapons? Why should the Obama administration expect the public to accept that Assad used chemical weapons when literally no evidence has been presented? To simply accept presidential rhetoric without evidence would be a serious mistake in light of the way that intelligence was knowingly and criminally manipulated by Bush in selling the war with Iraq. If it turns out that both sides are guilty of using chemical weapons, what is the humanitarian or moral basis for intervening in favor of rebels – who themselves have amassed quite a horrendous human rights record – against the government?

* What of humanitarian concerns? Do we really think that bombing military emplacements located in civilian areas can be defended as humanitarian? Such attacks are likely to escalate the human rights abuses in Syria, rather than curtail them. It is a historical fact that the vast majority of deaths during war are civilians. Perhaps we should stop defending wars by using mythical humanitarian rhetoric when we know that they produce destruction and death, instead of humanitarian relief.

To date, I have seen little effort to address these criticisms. Such concerns have been brought up from time to time in the news, but if past trends continue, media coverage will privilege presidential narratives over anti-war views. At day’s end, Syria appears to have all the makings of a classic effort to “manufacture consent” in favor of war.

Anthony DiMaggio holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois, Chicago. He has taught American Government and Global Politics at a number of colleges and universities, and is the author of numerous books, including Mass Media, Mass Propaganda (2008); When Media Goes to War (2010); Crashing the Tea Party (2011); and The Rise of the Tea Party (2011). He is currently completing a book on presidential rhetoric: From Fear to Democracy: Presidential Rhetoric from the War on Terror to the Arab Spring, and can be reached at: anthonydimaggio612@gmail.com

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 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.”