President set to speak in 20 minutes.
Pentagon states that Syria has moved it's "most dangerous weapons out of reach".
Maybe the President should shut his MOUTH for awhile and stop telegraphing things?
Printable View
President set to speak in 20 minutes.
Pentagon states that Syria has moved it's "most dangerous weapons out of reach".
Maybe the President should shut his MOUTH for awhile and stop telegraphing things?
Rami al-Lolah@RamiAlLolah7m
#BreakingNews #Kuwait ambassador in #Beirut urges Kuwaitis to leave #Lebanon immediately! #Hezbollah
Rami al-Lolah@RamiAlLolah12m
#BreakingNews #Israel Channel 2: #US will strike #Assad; There is no doubt about that! #Syria
President Obama to briefly comment on Syria during appearance with presidents from Baltic region - @NBCNews
6 mins ago by editor
Charlie Kaye @CharlieKayeCBS 8m
. @ToulaVlahouCBS in Athens: US asks NATO ally Greece for use of military bases in Crete and Kalamata. Not clear if connected to Syria.
RT @markknoller: White House has declined TV networks request for live coverage of Pres. Obama's remarks on Syria at 230pm.
RT @markknoller: I'm referring to remarks Pres Obama is to make shortly at start of his meeting with Baltic Leaders. No live TV coverage. Tape playback.
I don't see them hitting Assad directly. They don't know where he is... probably. LOL
The can of worms being opened here is very, very large. The worms are the size of the Sand Worms of Dune.
We're backing a bunch of terrorists in Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood, against a man who, while he was not a particularly GOOD guy, he was not someone who was truly "bad". Though he too was backing terrorists, backing Iran, backing Saddam... etc.
So really, where is the mission? What's the goal? Why ARE we doing this?
Can anyone come up with a legitimate, logical, somewhat reasonable explanation of what the hell is actually going on here????
Cuz, I sure can't.
Fox just reported that president will speak privately at a photo op... huh?
Wow.
Just fucking WOW.
Does ANYONE here think hitting Syria is a good idea? Maybe I've got this all wrong or something.
I mean, Syria probably has all of Sadam's old WMD. I can see this being a reason for hitting them NOW because they used the weapons etc.
But, Israel is over there I suppose pretending to be a sitting duck.
I'm wondering, perhaps this is all part of a bigger plan - not that I can see the President being the mover and shaker here - but what if this is a way to get some shit started to give Israel a green light to hit Iran?
It goes like this.
1) Assad is alleged to attack innocents with chemical weapons
2) The UN confirms CW used, but not who....
3) The US decides to 'teach them a lesson"....
4) We blow up and break shit over in Syria.....
5) Iran decides to hit Israel....
6) Syria decides to hit Israel....
7) they blow up and break shit in Israel.....
8) Israel jumps up and down, they blow the shit out of Iran's nuke program.
9) Israel jumps up and down, they blow up Damascus, and most of Syria's war machine.
9) Hezbollah gets pissed, jumps up and down, shoots some Israelis
10) Israel kills all of the terrorists.
Unintended Consequences include:
1) Russia gets pissed... shoots us.
2) China gets pissed... shoots us.
3) North Korea get pissed... then pisses on themselves.
4) Terrorists in American blow things up and break shit....
5) Cops get killed, kill terrorists....
6) Civilians get killed, civilians get pissed, kill terrorists, non-terrorists, blacks, whites, politicians, judges, congresspeople, random people and dogs.....
7) World War III starts (or perhaps it's world war 4 by this time, I'm no longer certain).
8) The Russians, getting beat, nuke us.
9) We get nuked, we nuke back....
10) China nukes us, we nuke back....
11) Lots of people die.
In the year 2036 John Titor jumps in his time machine pick up truck and turns on the double singularities, triggering a massive Tippler Cylinder Worm hole, drives "back to the past" to collect a small IBM computer to take to the future to try to stop everything from happening... or something.
Tape being played of the President.
He is justifying this to us and himself.
He has NOT made a "final decision".... blah blah....
My thoughts about all this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPfcim_p38w
The only valid reason I've seen for supporting a strike was from a rather smart guy in the military who posted on ARFCOM that striking Assad would help prolong the conflict of bad guys killing bad guys since Assad has been winning.
From my perspective, I just don't know that the risk outweighs the reward.
Operator@911BUFF15m
ALARMING! TURKISH PM ERDOGAN: 'SYRIA INTERVENTION COULD BE BY FRIDAY NEXT WEEK, LIMITED STRIKES WONT BE ENOUGH'. #911BUFF
Operator@911BUFF23m
BREAKING NEWS: TURKISH PM ERDOGAN: LIMITED STRIKES ON SYRIA WONT SATISFY US, SYRIAN CAMPAIGN SHOULD PUT THE REGIME ON THE BRINK OF COLLAPSE.
Operator@911BUFF27m
BREAKING NEWS: TURKISH PM ERDOGAN: LIMITED STRIKES ON SYRIA WONT SATISFY US. #911BUFF
I'm not sure I came directly to that same conclusion Ryan, or at least didn't state it as precisely as you just did but I can agree with it.
Keeping the bad guys killing bad guys is precisely what we want.
I'm confused about the way the President has gone about this whole thing. I think my biggest fear here is the idiot is going to trigger a nuclear response from one of Assad's allies against us, against our military forces or assets in the Med or even here on US soil.
Obama has put out a face of complete and total incompetence on this. He's telegraphed what he is going to do, arrogantly stated how he won't let Russia or our own congress interfere with what he wants done and really made a mess of the whole thing. Then he sends John Kerry out there to make an emotional plea to get rid of chemical weapons - but not really define what the actual threat to US national security happens to be.
The President himself made a very weak or non-existent case for US national security concerns.
In fact, he couldn't or wouldn't even bring himself to say "International law was broken". he used the phrase "international norms" several times.
Norms and Laws are NOT the same no matter how you look at them.
Now, if we want to send in weapons to both sides to keep them fighting, all the better.
If we're going to go in and kick ass, then go the hell in and kick ass.
Don't wishy-washy this. Do or do not, there is no try.
‘Syrian rebels take responsibility for the chemical attack admitting the weapons were provided by Saudis’ – source
http://www.trunews.com/wp-content/up...h_50439681.jpg
In an interview with Dale Gavlak, a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press and Mint Press News, Syrian rebels tacitly implied that they were responsible for last week’s chemical attack. Some information could not immediately be independently verified.
“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” he writes in the article.
The rebels noted it was a result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them.
“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.
As Gavlak reports, Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels died in a weapons storage tunnel. The father stated the weapons were provided to rebel forces by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K’. “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”
“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.
Gavlak also refers to an article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks stating that Prince Bandar threatened Russian President Vladimir Putin with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if Russia doesn’t agree to change its stance on Syria.
“Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” the article stated.
“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Saudi Prince allegedly told Vladimir Putin.
Mint Press News stated that some of the information couldn’t be independently verified and pledged to continue providing updates on this topic.
Voice of Russia might be more credible than US government – Internet users
Recent publication by the Voice of Russia 'Syrian rebels take responsibility for the chemical attack admitting the weapons were provided by Saudis' received a strong outcry among the Internet users as some of them claiming that the company’s reports are more credible than allegations against Syrian government made by US authorities.
‘It's more credible than the US saying we have real evidence of Assad using them [chemical weapons]. Assad doesn't get weapons from Saudi Arabia. They don't have ties. The US will use any reason it can to go to war. Even if it means creating one’, writesDylanJamesCo on Reddit.
Meanwhile, not everyone shares such this point of view.
KoreyYrvaI writes that ‘The Voice of Russia wants us to believe that the Rebels totally were responsible for the chemical attack, and it was an accident… because Russia has been impartial throughout all of this and I don't think America(or anyone) needs another war, but this is hardly credible’.
But one thing unites the users: they believe the US government wants and needs another war in the Middle East.
‘America is just getting better at proxy wars. They have firm ties with the Saudis, and they would have no problem destabilizing Syria if it meant the US could eventually target Iran and its oil reserve’, writes NineteenEightyTwo.
Randa HABIB @RandaHabib 31m http://twitter.com/RandaHabib/status/373477719272865792
“@NewsBreaker: BREAKING: NATO will not take part in military action against #Syria – Rasmussen
http://on.rt.com/0yh5ju - @RT_com”
Gregor Peter @L0gg0l
U.S INTERVENTION IN SYRIA TO START 2 AM DAMASCUS TIME SUNDAY -- SUNDAY TIMES (via @tobyharnden)
this is totally unconfirmed of course
Russian Foreign Ministry: US threat to use force against Syria is a 'direct violation' of international law -@RT_com
During Syrian Run-Up to war, Obama Meets with Magic on Obamacare
http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver...MagicObama.jpg
by Ben Shapiro 30 Aug 2013, 7:24 AM PDT 81 post a comment
As President Obama stalls for time on making a decision about Syria, he has time to meet with National Basketball Association Hall of Famer and part-Los Angeles Dodgers owner Magic Johnson about Obamacare. On Thursday evening, Johnson posted on Twitter that he had met with the President, and Magic clearly felt the magic:
http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver...346E474DD7.png
http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver...8B023DA725.png
President Obama is slated to head to Los Angeles on September 9 for a fundraiser with the Democratic National Committee and held by Friends co-creator Marta Kauffman. He will also be meeting with labor leaders at the AFL-CIO, along with Thomas Perez, his Labor Secretary.
Former US Defense Secretary Panetta: US can't wait for allies to take military action against Syria - @NBCNews
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/i...vZ-YnzZ0zPNvPM
Syria strikes cannot be 'merely cosmetic' say McCain, Graham
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/ass...-story-top.jpg
By Carlo Munoz - 08/30/13 05:52 PM ET
Potential U.S. military action in Syria must not be a "merely cosmetic" attempt to reinforce the White House's standing in the world, according to Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.).
“The purpose of military action in Syria should not be to help the President save face," the senators said in a joint statement Friday. "It should not be merely cosmetic. Instead, the goal of military action should be to shift the balance of power on the battlefield against Assad and his forces."
Any use of American force in Syria must be taken with the intent of "finally [changing] the momentum of this awful and destructive conflict," they said. "This can be done in a limited way, without boots on the ground, and at minimal risk to our men and women in uniform."
Their comments come as the White House is attempting to garner support from Congress and the international community for military strikes against the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad..
The strikes, according to administration officials, would be in response to the alleged use of chemcial weapons by the Assad regime against rebel forces fighting to overthrow the longtime Syrian leader.
On Friday, U.S. intelligence officials released a declassified report on the details of the chemical attacks earlier this month, in an attempt to bolster support for possible military operations in the country.
Shortly after the release of the report, intelligence officials headed to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers and their staffs on classfied portions of the administration's case for intervention in Syria.
Secretary of State John Kerry said Friday that the intelligence findings on the Syrian attacks are “as clear as they are compelling.”
“I'm not asking you to take my word for it. Read for yourself, everyone, those listening, all of you, read for yourselves the evidence from thousands of sources, evidence that is already publicly available,” Kerry said.
President Obama on Friday vowed that any U.S. action in the country would be limited, and would not lead to an open-ended committement of American forces in the region.
“We're not considering any open-ended commitment,” Obama said "What we will do is consider options that meet the narrow concern around chemical weapons."
Those reassurances, however, continue to fall on deaf ears among congressional lawmakers and U.S. allies.
Over 140 House members, led by Rep. Scott Rigell, (R-Va.) have signed a letter against any U.S. military action in Syria until Congress grants the White House authority to do so. In addition, 53 liberal Democrats — including a long list of Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) members —sent the president a letter urging him to consult with Congress. Some of those Democrats also signed the Rigell letter.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the current fiscal crisis facing the Pentagon has left U.S. commanders unable to afford any kind of military action, in Syria or elsewhere.
"I cannot support military action in Syria unless the President presents to Congress his broader strategy in the region that addresses our national security interests and the budget to support it," the Oklahoma Republican said in a statement Wednesday.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) argued there is no direct correlation between taking action in Syria and U.S. national security interests.
"The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States, and victory by either side will not necessarily bring into power people friendly to the United States,” Paul said.
Earlier this week, Britsh lawmakers voted down a proposal by U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron to support American-led operations in Syria.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), head of the Senate defense panel, said Friday that the White House needed to establish firm international support if it is to proceed with Syrian missile strikes.
Levin, who had been a vocal advocate for military operations in Syria, said a strike should not be conducted until United Nations inspectors have completed their work in Syria, and suggested that a robust international coalition — including Arab nations — should back an attack.
Aside from the U.K., other crucial U.S. allies, such as Germany and other NATO members, have also balked at backing military operations in the country.
So far, only France has publicly expressed support for the anticipated U.S. mission.
US Strike on Syria Inadmissible, Even if ‘Limited’ - Moscow
http://en.rian.ru/images/18305/94/183059415.jpg
Syria
MOSCOW, August 31 (RIA Novosti) - A military strike on Syria not sanctioned by the UN Security Council would be inadmissible no matter how “limited” it is, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Friday.
US President Barack Obama said earlier in the day that a potential military strike on Syria would be a “limited” operation aimed at punishing the Syrian government for a chemical weapons attack it allegedly carried out last week.
“Any unilateral military sanction bypassing the UN Security Council, no matter how “limited” it is, will be a direct violation of the international law, [it will] undermine the possibility to solve the conflict in Syria by political and diplomatic means, [and] bring about a new round of confrontation and casualties,” Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement late on Friday.
He said that even some of US allies suggest that all decisions on Syria should be postponed until a team of UN chemical weapons experts completes its work in the country. The same proposal had earlier been voiced by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
“Threats of striking Syria are being issued instead of implementing the decisions of the G8 summit in Lough Erne [and] subsequent agreements to provide the UN Security Council with a comprehensive evaluation by UN experts, who investigate the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria,” the spokesman said.
Britain backed the US incursion into Iraq in 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein, but the British parliament on Thursday rejected military involvement in Syria.
At the same time, Turkey, a key US ally in the region and Syria’s neighbor, said a "limited" action against Syria will not be enough to satisfy Ankara and a full-fledged military intervention in Syria, similar to the one in Kosovo in 1999, is needed.
"A limited military action will not satisfy us. It [the intervention] should be like in Kosovo," Turkish daily Hurriyet quoted Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan as saying.
The UN secretary general cut short his official visit in Europe on Friday and returned to New York for consultations on Syria with UN members.
He said on Friday that the study of data and samples collected by the UN investigators on the site of the alleged attack might take about two weeks, Reuters reported citing diplomatic sources.
The UN team, deployed in Syria last Sunday, is set to leave the country on Saturday. A high-ranking team member, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Angela Kane, is expected to brief the UN chief on the work of the mission later that day.
Earlier on Friday, the White House released a declassified intelligence assessment of an apparent Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs, which the administration asserts “with high confidence” was carried out by the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The report states that 1,429 people were killed in the alleged assault, including at least 426 children, though it said that assessment “will certainly evolve as we obtain more information.”
The Syrian authorities have repeatedly rejected all accusations. The country’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement read out on State TV on Friday that the US report was "entirely fabricated."
"What the US administration describes as irrefutable evidence... is nothing but tired legends that the terrorists have been circulating for more than a week, with their share of lies and entirely fabricated stories," Agence France-Presse quoted the statement as saying.
I first jumped in this saying take Assad down. I am a reactionary hit first type of guy sometimes, hit first since they thought I wouldn't if I lose I lose I love a good fight...to big a temper, cooling off the older I get though. I get the same way when I read about North Koreans being tortured for entertainment. I just hate it and wish we had a real super hero out there.
I think especially since the British dropped out, call congress in get them on the record and leave it at that. If you go alone and say one of Assads friends jumps in and it gets ugly then we are in a pickle that will cause us to have to use extreme force in order to get out, at that point it might be ww3 and it looks like we started it NOT GOOD.
If I was Obama and I had messed this up at this point as much as he has then you have to either say screw it I am all in or call congress let the vote happen and move on from there. If he backs off and does nothing and this drags on and on then maybe nothing happens but big fires start from little flames. I think this is really sending a message to Iran in my mind maybe not theirs, that says see whats gonna happen. The way Israel is trying to prove all this for us with the intel you know they want the action if everyone says nope we aren't doing it then they are for surely going to think we are alone in this world and we have to handle this situation ourselves before Iran tests a weapon....
I can see Obama getting cold feet now and Iran and few others just do what ever they want because we look so weak. I can also see someone who knows they are perceived as weak acting very aggressive in order to prove he is not. I think Assad is done no matter what we do or what he does. His actions have doomed him he will never rule Syria the way it was ruled before it will never function the same, one day he will meet his maker earlier than he had planned, thats just the way it is going to work out for him. This has to be really about sending a message to Iran and everyone else...because dealing with Iran and everything that comes with that is coming no matter what, they are working on a weapon and Israel can't let that play out.