Syria

[vector7]

Loose Lips on Syria

U.S. leaks tell Assad he can relax. The bombing will be brief and limited.

• August 27, 2013, 7:11 p.m. ET

An American military attack on Syria could begin as early as Thursday and will involve three days of missile strikes, according to "senior U.S. officials" talking to NBC News. The Washington Post has the bombing at "no more than two days," though long-range bombers could "possibly" join the missiles. "Factors weighing into the timing of any action include a desire to get it done before the president leaves for Russia next week," reports CNN, citing a "senior administration official."

The New York Times, quoting a Pentagon official, adds that "the initial target list has fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria's Russian-made attack helicopters are deployed." The Times adds that "like several other military officials contacted for this report, the official agreed to discuss planning options only on condition of anonymity."

Thus do the legal and moral requirements of secret military operations lose out in this Administration to the imperatives of in-the-know spin and political gestures.


Associated Press White House Press Secretary Jay Carney listens to questions about Syria and chemical weapons in Washington on Tuesday.

It's always possible that all of this leaking about when, how and for how long the U.S. will attack Syria is an elaborate head-fake, like Patton's ghost army on the eve of D-Day, poised for the assault on Calais. But based on this Administration's past behavior, such as the leaked bin Laden raid details, chances are most of this really is the war plan.

Which makes us wonder why the Administration even bothers to pursue the likes of Edward Snowden when it is giving away its plan of attack to anyone in Damascus with an Internet connection. The answer, it seems, is that the attack in Syria isn't really about damaging the Bashar Assad regime's capacity to murder its own people, much less about ending the Assad regime for good.

"I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday. Translation: We're not coming for you, Bashar, so don't worry. And by the way, you might want to fly those attack choppers off base, at least until next week.

So what is the purpose of a U.S. attack? Mr. Carney elaborated that it's "about responding to [a] clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons." He added that the U.S. had a national security interest that Assad's use of chemical weapons "not go unanswered." This is another way of saying that the attacks are primarily about making a political statement, and vindicating President Obama's ill-considered promise of "consequences," rather than materially degrading Assad's ability to continue to wage war against his own people.

It should go without saying that the principal purpose of a military strike is to have a military effect. Political statements can always be delivered politically, and U.S. airmen should not be put in harm's way to deliver what amounts to an extremely loud diplomatic demarche. That's especially so with a "do something" strike that is, in fact, deliberately calibrated to do very little.

We wrote Tuesday that there is likely to be no good outcome in Syria until Assad and his regime are gone. Military strikes that advance that goal—either by targeting Assad directly or crippling his army's ability to fight—deserve the support of the American people and our international partners. That's not what this Administration seems to have in mind.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

[American Patriot]

Like I said this morning, "something is up".

Now we know what it was... LOL

So, China, Russia... they are joined at the hips now. We've known this all along, and yet the rest of the world hasn't been listening. The Lefties in this country pooh pooh what we say. People who I KNOW aren't stupid think Russia is our friend. Our own government is ignorant of the consequences, or simply doesn't care.

If China AND Russia are playing this psychological deterrence game it can only mean they are big time bluffing, or they are more than prepared to go toe-to-toe with us.

We've fucked UP our military. We've fucked UP our nuclear deterrence. We've disheartened the people of this country. We've turned half the people against the other half.

This is NOT gonna go well.

[vector7]

Like I said this morning, "something is up".

Now we know what it was... LOL

So, China, Russia... they are joined at the hips now. We've known this all along, and yet the rest of the world hasn't been listening. The Lefties in this country pooh pooh what we say. People who I KNOW aren't stupid think Russia is our friend. Our own government is ignorant of the consequences, or simply doesn't care.

If China AND Russia are playing this psychological deterrence game it can only mean they are big time bluffing, or they are more than prepared to go toe-to-toe with us.

We've fucked UP our military. We've fucked UP our nuclear deterrence. We've disheartened the people of this country. We've turned half the people against the other half.

This is NOT gonna go well.

They are getting very prepared.
Russian Armed Forces to Hold Some 500 Exercises Over Summer 2013
Russia, China Solidify Disturbing Alliance
May not happen now, but soon.

[MinutemanCO]

Wonder if this whole series of events is going to trigger Russian Spetsnaz cells to action within the Continental US? Could get kinda weird in a hurry.

[vector7]

They have their "Useful Idiots" feverishly doing the heavy lifting for them now.

FLASHBACK:

Companion Threads:

• Putin's Spies in America
• Is Barack Obama a real Manchurian candidate?
• COMMUNISTS KNEW IN 1992 that BARACK WOULD BE PRESIDENT

Mar 26, 2012 6:17am
President Obama Asks Medvedev for ‘Space’ on Missile Defense — ‘After My Election I Have More Flexibility’

Email 194 Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print

SEOUL, South Korea — At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”

The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.

The exchange:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

When asked to explain what President Obama meant, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes told ABC News that there is room for the U.S. and Russia to reach an accommodation, but “there is a lot of rhetoric around this issue — there always is — in both countries.

A senior administration official tells ABC News: “this is a political year in which the Russians just had an election, we’re about to have a presidential and congressional elections — this is not the kind of year in which we’re going to resolve incredibly complicated issue like this. So there’s an advantage to pulling back and letting the technical experts work on this as the president has been saying.”

-Jake Tapper

TODAY:

Russians Inspect Missile Defense Base in California

August 22, 2013
By Bill Gertz

Russian officials this week carried out a secret inspection of the U.S. strategic missile defense base in California as part of the New START arms treaty, according to Obama administration officials.

The inspection of five missile defense interceptors is allowed under the 2010 arms accord. The treaty requires cuts of U.S. and Russian deployed strategic warheads to 1,550.

A defense official said the visit was a treaty verification visit hosted by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

A State Department official declined to comment on the inspection but confirmed it was related to New START. “Implementation activities under New START are confidential,” the official said.

However, Thomas Moore, a former Senate Foreign Relations Committee professional staff member, said the inspection of the base was a controversial part of U.S. and Russian arms talks leading up to New START that was ratified by the Senate in December 2010.

The United States had opposed including the five Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) silos in the treaty inspection terms, said Moore, a specialist on arms control issues.

The Russians refused, and because the five silos had been converted from offensive intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos, negotiators settled on a single inspection, Moore said, adding that he believed this week’s Russian review was that inspection.

Russia had demanded including the five silos in New START inspection provisions to monitor the conversion of long-range launch tubes into missile defense shooters.

“Russia gets one exhibition visit in the first three years of New START and one more if it ever wants to look at them again, for a total of two inspections,” Moore said. ”But this first one has to be the only one where they get to confirm the distinguishing features that set these five silos apart from a launcher of an ICBM.”

The treaty prohibits converting any additional ICBM silos at Vandenberg to missile defense silos, and the five current GBI silos, built prior to the treaty, were “grandfathered” into the accord.

“The administration agreed with Russia to provide assurances to Russia that the converted ICBM silos ‘remain incapable’ of launching strategic offensive arms [and] record the distinguishing features that set a GBI-converted intercontinental silo apart from a pure intercontinental silo,” Moore said.

The Russian visit from Aug. 18 to Aug. 23 is the only time the Russians will be allowed to look at the GBI silos to confirm that they have not been converted back into ICBMs.

Moore said the visit does not appear to be part of the Obama administration’s effort to show more transparency toward Moscow as a way to placate Russian opposition to missile defenses, especially in Europe.

“Even if this administration was contemplating some more transparency measures for our missile defenses, these five silos at Vandenberg are a settled matter,” he said. “Moscow gets to confirm what we think makes these silos distinct launchers of GBIs, nothing more, nothing less, and only one time.”

Russia issued a unilateral statement in April 2010 saying that its adherence to the New START treaty would be based on “no qualitative or quantitative buildup in the missile defense system capabilities of the United States.

The Senate conditioned its approval of New START in a resolution that specifically rejected the Russian statement on missile defense. It also said the treaty would not impose limits on missile defense deployments beyond the curb on converting additional ICBM or submarine-launched missiles into missile defense launchers, not including the five at Vandenberg.

The Pentagon currently operates two long-range missile defense interceptor bases at Vandenberg and Fort Greely, Alaska. A third base, for the East Coast, is being studied in response to intelligence assessments that Iran will have a missile capable of hitting the United States by 2015.

The missile defense system, which includes satellite and ground- and sea-based radar and sensors, has been activated several times in recent years in response to North Korean long-range missile tests.

The two western-oriented missile defense bases are focused on countering long-range missiles from North Korea.

The Pentagon in March announced that it will add 14 additional long-range interceptors in Alaska following reports that North Korea has fielded at least six road-mobile ICBMs that can hit the United States.

The 14 new interceptors would be added to the 26 currently deployed in Alaska.

The visit by the Russians is likely to prompt concerns on Capitol Hill from Republicans opposed to the administration’s efforts to share missile defense technology with the Russians.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R., Ala.) revealed in May during congressional testimony from Vice Adm. James D. Syring, director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency, that the administration has sought to declassify sensitive missile defense technology that could be shared with Moscow.

As a result, Brooks drafted legislation that would prohibit the Pentagon from releasing classified missile defense know-how to the Russians, specifically advanced hit-to-kill missile defense interceptor technology.

Brooks said at the time that the admiral’s comments were “confirmation that the administration is actively discussing the declassification of our life-saving missile defense technology [and] further affirms the importance of enacting legislation to prevent our critical weapons technology from falling into unreliable hands.”

[American Patriot]

Wonder if this whole series of events is going to trigger Russian Spetsnaz cells to action within the Continental US? Could get kinda weird in a hurry.

Yeah, what are they gonna do with those Spetsnaz cells?

[BRVoice]

@L0gg0l: Loud gunfire heard near Four Seasons Hotel in Damascus where UN inspectors are staying -- @BowenBBC

Operator ‏@911BUFF 39s
RIGHT NOW! GUN FIRE REPORTED NEAR FOUR SEASONS HOTEL WHERE UN INSPECTORS ARE BASED IN SYRIA. BBC.

[vector7]

Flashback:
Kerry a Frequent Visitor with Syrian Dictator Bashar Al-Assad

12:26 PM, Dec 21, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

John Kerry, who is expected to be nominated as secretary of state later this afternoon, has made frequent visits to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Assad is now under fire for mass murdering his own civilians, as he fights an internal war to keep his position of power. Even Obama has called for Assad to go.

In February 2009, Kerry led a delegation there to engage Syria. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told visiting US members of Congress on Saturday that the United States should ‘move away from a policy based on dictating decisions.’ Assad's guests on Saturday included US Senator John Kerry, who headed the third delegation this week to call on the Syrian president's door as Washington reviews its policies toward countries the previous administration regarded as hostile. Assad told his visitors that future relations should be based on a ‘proper understanding’ by Washington of regional issues and on common interests, SANA news agency reported,” AFP reported at the time.

AFP followed up with this report after the visit stating that Kerry believes "Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region":

“President Barack Obama's administration considers Syria a key player in Washington's efforts to revive the stalled Middle East peace process, US Senator John Kerry said in Damascus on Thursday. ‘Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region,’ Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a speech after meeting President Bashar al-Assad. ‘Both the United States and Syria have a very deep interest... in having a very frank exchange on any differences (and) agreements that we have about the possibilities of peace in this region,’ he said in the statement.”

Related Stories

• Assad’s Cabinet
• Samantha Power and the Art of Tweeting
• Obama's Empty Words
• Kerry: 'No Military Solution to Syria'
• Where’s America?

More by Daniel Halper

• The War We Left Behind
• 'U.S. Delays Deadline for Finalizing Obamacare Health ...
• Obama Taps Bill Clinton to Make Case for Obamacare
• 'Obama’s Halfway Effort in Syria'
• Special Envoy to Visit North Korea

Later, a couple months later, Kerry met again with Assad. "US Senator John Kerry met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for a second time in as many months on Saturday for talks on ‘regional issues,’ the American embassy in Damascus said," reported the AFP.

And in 2011, when Kerry again wanted to go to Syria, his visit was blocked--by the Obama administration. “The Obama administration and France reportedly nixed a visit by U.S. Sen. John Kerry to Syria. Kerry (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has cultivated a relationship with the Syrian regime otherwise treated as a pariah in the West in the hope of drawing it away from Iranian influence. The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that Kerry had planned a visit last month, but the governments of the United States and of French President Nicolas Sarkozy blocked the visit out of concern that it would signal ‘Western weakness’ as pro-Iranian and pro-Western forces jockeyed for influence in Syria's neighbor, Lebanon,” reported the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in March 2011.

Here's a picture of their visit:

And here's a picture of John Kerry and his wife having dinner with the Assads:


Kerry praised Assad later in 2011 as being a "very generous" man. "Well, I personally believe that -- I mean, this is my belief, okay? But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. And when I last went to -- the last several trips to Syria -- I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that would help us to move the process forward," said Kerry at a think tank.

[BRVoice]

911buff: Just in: 2 submarines, one american and one british and 4 us navy destroyers on station now near syria. 5th destroyer en route. Cbs.

[vector7]

US strikes on Syria would not be limited: Senior official


White House press secretary Jay Carney answers questions about Syria and chemical weapons during his daily news briefing at the White House in Washington on Aug. 27, 2013.

Wed Aug 28, 2013 2:45PM

A senior Obama administration official said Wednesday a possible US military action against Syria would not be a limited assault.

The administration is considering more than a single set of military action and "the options are not limited just to one day" of strikes, the senior official told the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

US intelligence agencies are preparing a report laying out evidence against the Syrian government after reports emerged last week that an alleged chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus had killed hundreds of civilians.

The classified version of the report would be submitted to key members of Congress and a declassified version would be released publicly, according to AP.

President Barack Obama had earlier directed the US intelligence community to gather information about the alleged attack. United Nations inspectors, who are in Syria to visit the site of the attack, have yet to release their findings.

The White House, however, says it is already convinced chemical weapons were used in last Wednesday’s incident and that the Syrian government was responsible.

"Allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to, threat to the United States' national security," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday.

Also on Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden became the highest-ranking American official to publicly accuse the Syrian government of using chemical weapons on militant strongholds near Damascus.

"There's no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria, the Syrian regime," Biden said.

The government of President Bashar al-Assad has rejected any role in the chemical attack. Russia, a key ally of Syria, insists that the attack was "clearly provocative in nature," and that it was staged by foreign-backed militant groups to incriminate the Assad government.

The Pentagon has moved more warships into place in the eastern Mediterranean Sea and American war planners have updated strike targets that include government and military installations inside Syria.

[vector7]

Putin has telephone conversation with President of Iran Hassan Rouhani

August 28, 2013, 22:25
Tags: foreign policy, Iran



Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with President of Iran Hassan Rouhani on the Iranian side’s initiative.

The leaders gave particular attention to the situation in and surrounding Syria. Both sides feel that the use of chemical weapons by anyone is fundamentally unacceptable. Given the recent appeals for external military intervention in the Syrian conflict, they also stressed the need to follow the path of conflict settlement using purely political and diplomatic means.

In addition, the Presidents discussed certain bilateral cooperation issues and the schedule for upcoming contacts.

August 28, 2013, 22:25
Tags: foreign policy, Iran

[vector7]

Attack on Syria may cause massive damage to the US


© Collage: Voice of Russia

The United States of America and their leader Barrack Hussein Obama have spent billions of dollars in Syria, at a time when US taxpayers are suffering, attempting to bring about a change of regime. The money has been spent funding Al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorists to destabilize the country, groups that they have parroted time and time again as being the number one enemies of the American people.

Their strategy was failing, like all of their strategies are bound to fail because they lack vision and true understanding of the world and its people. They created a red line, most likely launched a black operation to make that red line a reality and now with extreme desperate irrational urgency, they want to carry out their plan to attack Syria. That is their goal, they set it, and no matter what happens they will obtusely carry it out without regard for the consequences and without forward planning.

I would put forward that the goal of the United States is not to remove President Bashar Al-Assad, just as it is not to protect the Syrian people. As for Al-Assad he offered to step down multiple times in the past and if the true goal was simply removing him, they could have assassinated him years ago. Unless the CIA has grown completely incompetent that is.

As for the Syrian people, it is clear that all of the bloodshed and loss of life in the country has been caused because of, and almost exclusively by, the terrorist elements that the United States has been training, funding, arming and importing.

So if they do not want to remove Assad what do they want? Now this is part of the secret geopolitical agenda they seek for the Middle East. I would put forward that the real goal is to destabilize and destroy the country and the people and throw Syria into anarchy. This will create yet another weak and broken country from which they can steal resources and which they can manipulate as they wish. Look at the record: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and all of the other countries in the Middle East that they have destabilized and destroyed through other means.

Ala Zbigniew Brzeznski and his plans to destabilize Russia into sixty-some-odd autonomous republics, the plans for the Middle East are almost identical, and the people of all of these countries just get in the way. Why else attack countries that pose no threat? Iraq never threatened America, nor did Afghanistan or Libya. Neither has Syria.

These states did possess independent foreign policies and that has been their only crime. Other than of course, in the case of Iraq and Libya, the fact that hours before the attacks on their countries, the leaders changed the trade in oil from the dollar to the euro. Something that would completely destroy the United States if all of the countries of the world followed suit. Hence they need to destabilize the economy of Europe and all of the instruments that have been implemented to carry that out. The US cannot allow the euro to grow as an alternative currency, because the US economy will be destroyed.

The United States has technically long been economically bankrupt. As for moral, well that is also obvious.

It is interesting to note, from a militarily strategic viewpoint, that by intentionally telegraphing that they are planning to attack, and even setting the date, they are guaranteeing that President Al-Assad will be protected and they are contributing to the massive civilian losses that will occur.

There will be no chance of a “surgical strike” because all of the important targets will already be moved or protected. So in order to achieve whatever military objectives there are this will require even more fire power and more missiles, something which of course will be very profitable and beneficial for Raytheon and all of the other US war contractors. Telegraphing will also allow for Syria to set up defenses, if it has not already, to knock all of the US’s million dollar missiles out of the sky. Something it has every right to do.

The plan to strike Syria is not only one of cowardice and an admission of utter and complete failure by the United States on the diplomatic front but it is also illegal without a United Nations resolution and an imminent threat to America itself. It is obviously cowardly because launching missiles while fearfully hiding behind a shield where there is no threat to yourself is not something that an honorable soldier on a battlefield would do. It is the tactic of a coward.

This tactic however is necessary for Obama because when the massive loss of American lives begins, the American people will rise up and no longer support all of the callous unthinking military adventures.

Hence what some view as the illogical funding of Al-Qaeda and terrorists to carry out the dirty work.

What will happen when these terrorist elements begin to realize that they have been merely disposable pawns for the US and that they have been killing their own brothers and mothers and sisters? Of course the US has not thought of that. The backlash when Al-Qaeda and all of the motley groups of terrorists realize they have been killing their brethren for the enemy will be monumental and Americans will finally see what real terrorism is all about, I believe that is a given. But that is okay for Washington too, they have all of the plans in place and this will allow the military industrial complex to expand and invade even more countries. What are a few American lives?

What about Israel? As I have said in the past, in reality the United States does not care about Israel.

The maelstrom that will occur if the US strikes Syria will be monumental and right in the middle of it will be the Jewish state. Washington, thousands of miles away, behind a missile shield, with all of its leaders protected and hiding in bunkers, will be safe. Of course the US has convinced Israel that they are safe, but I beg to differ.

Let this be a warning then to reactionary proponents of an attack on Syria: the results will be monumental and may lead to the self-destruction of America both economically and politically. Why? For one it will further bankrupt an already decimated economy. Two, it will also polarize enemies and cause countries around the world to strike back, meaning the world community may in fact realize that it is time to reign in and end the continual invasions and aggressive wars being waged by the US
This will be particularly true when it is revealed that the chemical attack in Syria was a black operation to give Obama his pretext to carry out another Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning-act-of-aggression. If the world wakes up that is.

This last point will no doubt fall on deaf ears, or in this case “on blind eyes”, but in reality the US is missing a very important opportunity in Syria, and that is a chance to rebuild its reputation and become a respected intelligent and grown up member and leader of the world community by simply promoting a peaceful resolution. The world is truly tired of US bombs and bellicose rhetoric and the actions of an arrogant one-world-power wantonly bashing and bullying its way across the globe.

My thoughts are with the Syrian people and my hope is that someone, somewhere, with the power to stop this madness will listen. How about it President of the United States of America Barrack Hussein Obama? Maybe it is time to use diplomacy and work for peace and to finally put the weapons down?

You have a Nobel Peace Prize after all. Or does that mean nothing?

[BRVoice]

US ambassador to Israel @AmbShapiro tells Israel Radio a US strike on Syria is certain and will be strong and serious.
https://twitter.com/Amirmizroch

Report: Russia to send anti-submarine ship and missile cruiser to Mediterranean, source in armed forces says
http://www.breakingnews.com/



Egyptian government rejects use of foreign military force in Syria, foreign minister says - @NBCNews

Update: UN inspection team expected to depart Damascus on Saturday; unclear when report will be completed - @NBCNews

UK government to publish some intel AND its legal reasoning for attack on #Syria today

UK sends 6 RAF Typhoon jets to Cyprus as 'precautionary measure' to protect British sovereign bases - MoD

Jim Avila‏@JimAvilaABC30m
President behind closed doors on Syria all day today preparing case for military attack. @gma in minutes pic.twitter.com/GKHy8BsRlL

Jim Clancy‏@clancycnn2h
Went to Post Office in #Jerusalem this morning, hundreds lined up for free gas masks -- big delays, police called in, surging crowds #Syria

[BRVoice]

Israel sends stern warning to Assad through Russian intermediaries

Israel issues warning through various intermediaries saying that any attempt to hurt Israel as a retaliation for a U.S. attack would result in a strike on Damascus and the toppling of the Assad regime
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/news...e.php?id=11671

Laura Rozen‏@lrozen11m
thx. -> link UK intel report on Syria RT @jonswaine: @lrozen https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/235094/Jp_115_JD_PM_Syria_Reported_Chemical_Weapon_Use_wi th_annex.pdf …

[BRVoice]

Nawaf M. Al Thani‏@NawafAlThani9m
Reports: High security activity this morning in #Damascus #Syria including the redeployment of tanks in various neighborhoods (1-2)

Retweeted by Nathan J Hunt


Nawaf M. Al Thani‏@NawafAlThani17m
#BREAKING: the #Syria|n regimen asking people living near the Mazeh airport in #Damascus to evacuate immediately.


Nathan J Hunt‏@ISNJH3m
@NeighborhoodFP any other sources?

OccupyURVote‏@NeighborhoodFP7m
#BreakingNews Reuters: #Syrian forces retreat from #Damascus airport’s area @AlArabiya_Eng

[BRVoice]

Analysis: Syria, aided by Iran, could strike back at U.S. in cyberspace
By Joseph Menn
SAN FRANCISCO | Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:13am EDT

(Reuters) - If the United States attacks Syria, it will be the first time it strikes a country that is capable of waging retaliatory cyberspace attacks on American targets.

The risk is heightened by Syria's alliance with Iran, which has built up its cyber capability in the past three years, and already gives the country technical and other support. If Iran stood with Syria in any fray with the United States that would significantly increase the cyber threat, security experts said.

Organized cyber attacks have already been carried out by the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA), a hacking group loyal to the government of President Bashar al-Assad. It has disrupted the websites of U.S. media and Internet companies and is now threatening to step up such hacking if Washington bombs Damascus.

"It's likely that the Syrian Electronic Army does something in response, perhaps with some assistance from Iranian-related groups," said former White House cybersecurity and counter terror advisor Richard Clarke.

Little is known about the hackers behind the Syrian Electronic Army, and there is no evidence that the group is capable of destructive attacks on critical infrastructure.

However, former U.S. National Security Agency director Michael Hayden told Reuters that the SEA "sounds like an Iranian proxy," and it could have much greater ability than it has displayed.

Thus far, the SEA's most disruptive act was in April when it broke into the Twitter account of the Associated Press and sent fictional tweets about explosions at the White House. The false messages sent the stock market into a downward spiral that, for a short time, erased more than $100 billion in value.

In an email to Reuters on Wednesday, the SEA said if the U.S. military moves against Syria "our targets will be different."

"Everything will be possible if the U.S. begins hostile military actions against Syria," the group said in the note.

President Barack Obama vowed on Wednesday that the Syrian government would face "international consequences" for last week's deadly chemical attack in Syria, but he made clear that any military action would be limited.

Asked about the threat of cyber retaliation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokesman Peter Boogaard said the government "is closely following the situation and actively collaborates and shares information with public and private sector partners every day."

A U.S. Department of Defense spokesman said he could not discuss specific threats, while another source at the Pentagon said no unusual activity had been detected by late on Wednesday.


IRAN SHARPENS ITS GAME

Cyber experts have said that Iran increased its cyber capabilities after the United States used the Stuxnet virus to attack Tehran's nuclear program.

U.S. intelligence officials have blamed hackers sponsored by Iran for a series of so-called distributed-denial-of-service attacks against many U.S. banking sites. In DDoS attacks, thousands of computers try to contact a target website at the same time, overwhelming it and rendering it inaccessible.

In three waves of attacks since last September, consumers have reported inability to conduct online transactions at more than a dozen banks, including Wells Fargo & Co, Citigroup Inc, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Bank of America Corp. Banks have spent millions of dollars to fend off the hackers and restore service.

Researchers have said that Iran has also infiltrated Western oil companies, and it could try to destroy data, though that would increase the risk of retaliation by the United States.

Things in cyberspace would get more complicated if Russia, an ally of Iran and Syria, were to step in. Former Obama administration officials have said that Russia, which has supplied arms to Syria, has cyber capabilities nearly as powerful as the United States.

Even if the Russian government did not act directly, the country's private hackers rank with those in China in their ability and willingness to conduct "patriotic" attacks. Cyber experts have said that Russian hackers have struck at government and other sites in Estonia and Georgia.

The Syrian Electronic Army's servers are based in Russia, and that alliance could strengthen if matters in Syria became more dramatic, said Paul Ferguson of the Internet security company IID.

"We already have a bad geopolitical situation," Ferguson said. "This could play into the entire narrative I don't want to see happen."

It is unclear how much cyber damage Syria could or would want to inflict, said Dmitri Alperovitch, chief technology officer of security firm CrowdStrike.

"We haven't seen significant intrusion capabilities from them or destructive capabilities," he said.

Earlier this week, as the Obama administration pushed for more support for strikes on Syria, the New York Times, Twitter and the Huffington Post lost control of some of their websites. The SEA claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Security experts said electronic records showed that NYTimes.com, the only site with an hours-long outage, redirected visitors to a server controlled by the Syrian group.

The SEA had planned to post anti-war messages on the Times site but was overwhelmed by the traffic it received and its server crashed, the SEA said by email. Late on Wednesday, some users still could not access NYTimes.com.

The SEA managed to gain control of the New York Times web address by penetrating MelbourneIT, an Australian Internet service provider that sells and manages domain names.

It could have done much worse with such access, experts said, underscoring the vulnerability of major companies that use outside providers.

"Chief information officers need to realize that critical pieces of their online entities are controlled by vendors and that security policies should apply to them as well," said Amichai Shulman, chief technology officer at security firm Imperva.

(Reporting by Joseph Menn; Editing by Tiffany Wu, Toni Reinhold)

[BRVoice]

Limited reserves call-up underway

Published:

08.29.13, 10:17 / Israel News

A limited reserves call-up is underway in wake of a possible Western strike in Syria. On Wednesday, the cabinet authorized the call-up. (Yoav Zitun)

[American Patriot]

Obama made a comment yesterday.....

“If we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, ‘stop doing this,’ that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term,” Obama said.

So he is certain the US needs to attack Assad's regime.

Most Americans do not see it that way.

There are military assets sitting off the coast, more en route, claims that we have troops "in place" a dozen countries in the West and Middle East jumping through their asses, gas and oil prices spiking, the Russians and Chinese spitting nails and we ARE ADVERTISING a "limited strike" on who and what?????

Limited strikes do one thing... piss off the adversary. Go all the way or stay the fuck home.

We are playing with fire here. Either eliminate the threat to the US (which is where again???? Oh, yeah, the Muslim Brotherhood, who we seem to be helping) or stay the hell out of this fight.

In all my years with the government I have come to learn that there may be things going on behind the scenes we're simply not seeing or aware of but the reality of the situation is that we're tampering in the Middle East over some internal conflicts that really don't involved us. Perhaps the Israelis have asked for help, they are afraid of the chemical weapons - but if that is the case, the President needs to make it CLEAR to the American people why this is something we should involve ourselves and military in.

Personally I just don't see a need to get involved. We waited over two YEARS to do anything. TWO YEARS.... the economy in this country is fouled up and this can only hurt it.

The Russians are ITCHING for a chance to test us.

The Chinese are dying to screw with us.

I really think the decisions being made are being made by incompetent people.

And finally.... the Rebels are being linked to Al Qaeda and terrorists are being trained to help those same rebels.

Now, whose side are we on again?????????

WTF?????

[BRVoice]

Syria crisis: Britain sends six Typhoon fighter jets to Cyprus ahead of military strikes

By Ben Farmer, Peter Dominiczak and Roland Oliphant in Moscow

10:44AM BST 29 Aug 2013


RAF sources said the fighters would be stationed in RAF Akrotiri to act as a “defensive shield” for the base in the event of attack by “rogue aircraft”.

The Typhoon fighters will play a “defensive counter-air” role and are not equipped to launch missile strikes on ground targets themselves. Sources said the deployment was “purely a prudent and precautionary measure”.

But the deployment will increase speculation that military action against Bashar al Assad’s regime is imminent, even before the British parliament has debated intervention.

An RAF spokesman said: “We can confirm that as part of ongoing contingency planning, 6 RAF Typhoon interceptor fast jets are deploying this morning to Akrotiri in Cyprus.

"This is purely a prudent and precautionary measure to ensure the protection of UK interests and the defence of our Sovereign Base Areas at a time of heightened tension in the wider region. This is a movement of defensive assets operating in an air-to-air role only.”

The Typhoons flying from RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire will be fitted with the advanced medium range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM), the advanced short range air to air missile (ASRAAM) and a Mauser cannon.

Separately, the Russian navy said it plans to reinforce its Mediterranean flotilla with elements of its Northern fleet are part of a “routine rotation” and are unconnected to the growing crisis in Syria.

A senior member of the Russian General Staff was quoted saying at least two powerful vessels would be redeployed from the Arctic and the Atlantic to “adjust” Russia’s naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean.

“The well known situation currently developing in the eastern Mediterranean required some adjustments to the make up of the naval flotilla. It the next few days it will be joined by a large anti submarine vessel from the Northern Fleet,” the source was quoted as saying.

“Later it will also be joined by the missile cruiser Moskva, currently on manoeuvres in the north Atlantic and will soon begin a transatlantic crossing towards the straits of Gibraltar.”

But the navy moved quickly to distance itself from the comments, saying in a statement to Russian media that any deployment to the area was part of a routine rotation of vessels and had nothing to do with the Syrian crisis.

The announcements came before what is expected to be a charged day in the British parliament, where Ed Miliband could deal a humiliating blow to the Prime Minister by refusing to back David Cameron’s watered down motion on the “principle” of military action in Syria.

Despite the Prime Minister backing down and agreeing to delay a military attack in Syria, Labour is still refusing to support Mr Cameron’s position.

It raises the prospect of Mr Cameron being embarrassed in the Commons despite agreeing to Labour demands over the need for a second Commons vote before any missile strikes on Syria.

Labour has said it will be “pressing ahead” with its own amendment to the Government motion because it “sets out [a] clearer criteria of what must be done before any military action is taken”.

Mr Cameron last night said he will wait for a report by United Nations weapons inspectors before seeking the approval of MPs for “direct British involvement” in the Syrian intervention.

Downing Street has accused Mr Miliband of "playing politics" with security issues and attempting to "divide the nation and the House of Commons".

MPs were due to debate the issue in Parliament today and vote on the principle of military strikes.

However, Mr Miliband has told Sky News that he will order his MPs to vote for the Labour amendment.

He said that he is not willing to have the mistakes of the Iraq war and its build-up “made again”.

“People will remember the mistakes that were made in Iraq and I’m not willing to have those mistakes made again,” Mr Miliband said.

“And one of the most important lessons from Iraq is about giving the United Nations…the proper chance to do its work and I believe that if we try to make that decision today on military action we wouldn’t have been giving the United Nations the proper time to do that work.”

He added: “The right thing to do is to put forward Labour’s amendment.”

He said he is not “against” military action and that the actions of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad “can’t simply be ignored”.

“But if we are to undertake military action then certain conditions would have to be met and what our amendment does today is it lays out a roadmap to a decision for Britain on the conditions that would have to be met.”

Asked which way he will be telling his MPs to vote in the Commons Mr Miliband said: “I’ll be advising my party to vote for our amendment.”

A Labour source added: “We will be pressing ahead with our amendment. We believe it gives a clearer road map [and] sets out clearer criteria of what must be done before any military action is taken.”

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, said he is "wrestling" with the decision of whether to support military action.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "A terrible war crime has been committed a week ago. We face a judgment, a choice, everybody does by the way, every single MP. I'm struggling with this, I'm wrestling with this."

He added: "These are no easy choices to make and there is no risk-free choice to make."

Mr Clegg said all the evidence, including the JIC findings that are being published today, showed that Syrian opposition forces were not capable of carrying out the chemical attack.

He told LBC 97.3: "All the evidence, and we will publish the findings of the Joint Intelligence Committee, their key findings, later this morning, all the evidence points in the same direction, namely that the opposition could not have done this.

"They didn't have control over the chemical stockpiles, they didn't have the weaponry in the artillery to deliver them in the way that they were delivered.

"It was in a part of Damascus, an eastern suburb of Damascus which has been subject to shelling by regime forces for several days before the attack took place and several days afterwards as well."

Asked if he would support the use of force, Mr Clegg said: "Once we've heard from the weapons inspectors, once we've brought this to the UN security council ... if then the case is made that the only way we can respond, the most effective way we can respond, in a legal, proportionate and targeted fashion to deter the further use of chemical weapons, is an isolated, one-off military initiative then I will vote for that."

There were "legal, moral and other grounds" to support action without a UN resolution, he added.

The Prime Minister was on Wednesday forced to say he will now wait for a report by United Nations weapons inspectors before seeking the approval of MPs for “direct British involvement” in the Syrian intervention.

Downing Street said the decision to wait for the UN was based on the “deep concerns” the country still harbours over the Iraq War.

MPs had been recalled to vote on a motion on Thursday expected to sanction military action. Instead, after a Labour intervention, they will debate a broader motion calling for a “humanitarian response”.

A second vote would be required before any British military involvement. This could now take place next week.

In a statement on Wednesday night Downing Street said that it only wanted to proceed on a “consensual basis” and was now wary about becoming embroiled in another divisive conflict in the Middle East in the wake of Iraq.

Senior sources had previously suggested that Britain would take part in strikes as soon as this weekend which meant an emergency recall of Parliament was necessary on Thursday.

However, following Labour threatening not to support the action and senior military figures expressing concerns over the wisdom of the mission, the Prime Minister on Wednesday night agreed to put British involvement on hold.

The climbdown was an embarrassment for Mr Cameron as he was determined to play a leading role in British military strikes, which had been expected this weekend.

The Times newspaper has reported that a Government source said of Mr Miliband: ““No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a f****** **** and a copper-bottomed s***.”

Labour had on Wednesday demanded the Prime Minister agree to hold a second vote in the Commons after the UN inspectors concluded their work.

However, during a tense telephone call between the two party leaders at 5.15pm Mr Cameron “totally ruled out” giving MPs a second vote – which would have left Downing Street’s plan for a weekend offensive in tatters.

Labour then immediately announced that it would order its MPs to vote against the Government’s motion authorising military strikes. Just minutes before 7pm Downing Street was forced to redraft the planned motion saying that “before any direct British involvement … a further vote in the House of Commons will take place”.

On Wednesday night, a senior Conservative source said: “Labour has been playing politics when they should have been thinking about the national interest. Their position has changed continuously over the last 24 hours — finally ending in demands they had never even hinted at before.”

The Americans were consulted before Mr Cameron’s decision was announced and senior White House officials are said to have made it clear that they “respect the British Parliament”.

MPs will today be asked to support the Government’s motion which states that a “strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons.”

However, crucially the motion then adds: “Before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place.”

Ahead of Thursday’s vote, MPs will be given a dossier of evidence by Downing Street that Whitehall sources have described as “utterly compelling” proof of Assad’s involvement in chemical atrocities against his own people.

It will include details of YouTube videos believed to show atrocities being committed by the Syrian regime. Mr Hague had on Wednesday reiterated that Britain must react urgently to do “what is necessary” to protect civilians and prevent further chemical weapons attacks by Assad’s regime.

[BRVoice]

More: UK government legal advice says action would be legal without UN on basis of alleviating human suffering if 3 conditions met - @GOVUK
58 mins ago from www.gov.uk by editor
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...legal-position


International Committee of the Red Cross reports acute shortages of vital medical supplies, food and water in a number of areas of Syria cut off for months from aid - @Reuters
5 mins ago by editor


German Chancellor Merkel, France's President Hollande agree there must be a reaction to Syrian gas attack; hope for prompt UN report, Merkel aide says - @Reuters
1 hour ago by editor


Conditions for 'exceptional' action against Syria 'clearly met,' UK government statement on legal position says - @BBCBreaking
1 hour ago from www.bbc.co.uk by editor
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...14#TWEET871984


Pope Francis, Jordan king agree dialogue among Syrians with backing of the international community is the 'only option' to bring an end to the Syrian conflict, Vatican says - @Reuters
1 hour ago by editor


South African President Zuma: 'Any attack on Syria without the UN Security Council authorization would constitute a grave violation of international law' - @AFP
1 hour ago by editor


Syrian President Assad: 'Syria will defend itself in the face of any aggression,' state TV reports - @Reuters
1 hour ago by editor