Syria

[BRVoice]

zerohedge ‏@zerohedge 37 s
White House does not rule out Syria intelligence report release today.

Raymond Pritchett‏@Galrahn14m
The widespread confidence in print that the US will bitchslap Syria however we want with no danger of blowback is alarming.

Raymond Pritchett‏@Galrahn5m
What is the ceiling for success of military action? Now, what is the floor if everything goes to ****? Weigh risk vs reward, and risk wins.

Rami al-Lolah‏@RamiAlLolah8h
Few minutes ago #IAF has started their intense aerial activity again over south #Lebanon! #Israel #Syria

Rami al-Lolah‏@RamiAlLolah8h
#BreakingNews #Egypt FM: We will not participate in any military action against #Syria and we oppose that!

Rami al-Lolah‏@RamiAlLolah8h
In spite of President #Obama's assertion, intelligence on weapons use in #Syria is no "slam dunk." via @AP

Rami al-Lolah‏@RamiAlLolah8h
#US Ambassador in #Israel: The strike against #Assad is imminent and will be severe! #Syria

Rami al-Lolah‏@RamiAlLolah8h
Day by day the indications tell that the strike will not not be just a strike! It looks that it will be bigger than anyone may predicted!

The 47th‏@THE_47th8h
Syrians are preparing themselves for the strike, expecting it to happen anytime between tonight and never.
Retweeted by Rami al-Lolah

Rami al-Lolah‏@RamiAlLolah8h
#BreakingNews #France frigate Chevalier Paul is on its way to #Syria! pic.twitter.com/XNaeWWWJjO

Rami al-Lolah‏@RamiAlLolah9h
#UN: The #CW inspection team will leave #Damascus Saturday morning! #Syria

[BRVoice]

Operator@911BUFF 2m
BREAKING NEWS: RUSSIA REPORTEDLY SENT TWO WARSHIPS NOW SAILING FOR THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN TO PROTECT SYRIA. BBC.
https://twitter.com/911BUFF

WHITE HOUSE: PRESIDENT WILL NOT ALLOW RUSSIAN AND CONGRESS OBSTRUCTION TO STOP HIM MAKING DECISIONS IN THE US NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST. BBC https://twitter.com/911BUFF


Rami al-Lolah‏@RamiAlLolah19m
#INFOGRAPHIC Foreign forces and bases in the Middle East and selected #Syria|n military equipment via @AFP pic.twitter.com/OOQZzARzGr

[BRVoice]

French and Russian warships 'head for Syria'

France has sent one of its latest anti-air warfare frigates to the eastern Mediterranean, a French magazine reported on Thursday, while Russian media said that Moscow has despatched two warships to the same area, which is met by Syria’s only coast.

By FRANCE 24 (text)

France has dispatched an anti-air warfare frigate to the eastern Mediterranean Sea amid growing speculation of an imminent missile strike on Syria, French news magazine Le Point reported on Thursday.

According to an unnamed French military source quoted by the magazine, the Chevalier Paul (pictured) is en route to join a growing flotilla of warships including US navy destroyers and British and American submarines, which are armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Contacted by Le Point, the French ministry of defence refused to confirm that the Chevalier Paul was headed to the eastern Mediterranean, saying the frigate was on “routine manoeuvres”.

The vessel is one of France’s most up-to-date destroyers of the Horizon-class, which Le Point says will be “extremely useful” if Syria decides to launch its air attacks against the international flotilla.

Nuclear-powered French aircraft carrier the Charles de Gaulle remains in dock at the southern French naval port Toulon, according to news agencies.


Russia ups the ante

Meanwhile Russia, a close ally of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad and a staunch opponent of military strikes against the Damascus regime, announced that it is sending two ships to strengthen its naval presence in the Mediterranean because of the "well-known situation" there, the Interfax news agency said on Tuesday.

The agency quoted a source in the armed forces' general staff as saying an anti-submarine vessel and a missile cruiser would be sent in the coming days because the situation "required us to make some adjustments" in the naval force.

The United States, which is by far the strongest naval military presence in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, has yet to decide to launch strikes against the Syrian regime, which has been fighting anti-government rebels for two and a half years.

France, the US and the UK have accused the Assad regime of using chemical weapons in an August 21 attack, which US President Barack Obama said had crossed a “red line” that would warrant a firm response.

France has said it is "ready to punish" those behind the chemical attack, but Britain changed its stance on Wednesday, saying the United Nations Security Council should first see the result of a UN weapons inspections team’s findings and that the British parliament would hold two votes before any military action is taken.

(FRANCE 24 with wires)

[American Patriot]

Operator@911BUFF 2m
BREAKING NEWS: RUSSIA REPORTEDLY SENT TWO WARSHIPS NOW SAILING FOR THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN TO PROTECT SYRIA. BBC.
https://twitter.com/911BUFF

WHITE HOUSE: PRESIDENT WILL NOT ALLOW RUSSIAN AND CONGRESS OBSTRUCTION TO STOP HIM MAKING DECISIONS IN THE US NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST. BBC https://twitter.com/911BUFF


Rami al-Lolah‏@RamiAlLolah19m
#INFOGRAPHIC Foreign forces and bases in the Middle East and selected #Syria|n military equipment via @AFP pic.twitter.com/OOQZzARzGr

Russia sending in ships. And the WH/President will not allow CONGRESS to obstruct him? And he is pissing in Russia's cornflakes???????

[American Patriot]

Some serious escalation it appears to me.

Russia sending ships. France, US sending ships.

Wonder who will blink first?

[BRVoice]

RT @cencio4: Two U-2s touch down in Cyprus. U.S. moving spyplanes closer to Syria http://t.co/G40mt7xey8

[American Patriot]

They've probably been overflying for days already.

[vector7]

Flashback:
Russia sends at least 12 warships to Syria

Deployment presumably a warning to Israeli and Western officials regarding military intervention against Assad

By Times of Israel staff May 17, 2013, 10:23 am

Illustrative photo of the Russian warship Varyag (photo credit: CC BY-randychiu, Flickr)

More on this story

• Israel is not seeking to topple Assad, top defense official says
• PM: I will go anywhere, meet anyone to protect Israelis
• US army chief slams Russia for arming, emboldening Assad
• Report shows evidence of torture in Syrian prisons
• Russia sends more advanced missiles to aid Assad in Syria
• Obama, Erdogan project united front on Syria
• Islamist group says Hermon mortars fired to avenge ‘Nakba’
• CIA chief pays surprise visit to Israel
• Syrian rebels post grisly execution video

In a move considered aggressive by US and European officials, Russia has sent at least 12 warships to patrol waters near its naval base in Tartous, Syria.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email
and never miss our top stories Free Sign up!

The deployment appears to be a warning to Israeli and Western officials against military intervention in Syria’s bloody civil war, which has now claimed the lives of over 80,000 people.

Russia’s increased presence in the region — which began raising eyebrows in the US three months ago — represents one of its largest sustained naval deployments since the Cold War, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

“It’s a show of force. It’s muscle flexing,” a top US official told the Journal.

Russian news sources reported earlier Thursday that five warships had entered the Mediterranean Sea to bolster the country’s new regional task force. The vessels were scheduled to dock in Limassol, Cyprus.

In March, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced that the naval task force was needed in order to protect Russian interests in the region.

Also Thursday, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov shrugged off Israeli pleas not to sell sophisticated S-300 air defense systems to Bashar Assad’s regime, saying Moscow would fulfill its contract with Damascus. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly warned Russian President Vladimir Putin, in emergency talks on Tuesday, that the sale could push the region toward war.

[vector7]

Some serious escalation it appears to me.

Russia sending ships. France, US sending ships.

Wonder who will blink first?

Good question, wondering when the fireworks will start.


Russia sending warships to the Mediterranean: report


The "Moskva", a Russian rocket cruiser, moors at Havana's harbour, on August 3, 2013. Russia will "over the next few days" be sending an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the Mediterranean as the West prepares for possible strikes against Syria, the Interfax news agency said on Thursday. (AFP Photo/Adalberto Roque)

10 hours agoPoliticsMilitary

Russia will "over the next few days" be sending an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the Mediterranean as the West prepares for possible strikes against Syria, the Interfax news agency said on Thursday.

"The well-known situation shaping up in the eastern Mediterranean called for certain corrections to the make-up of the naval forces," a source in the Russian General Staff told Interfax.

"A large anti-submarine ship of the Northern Fleet will join them (the existing naval forces) over the next few days.

"Later it will be joined by the Moskva, a rocket cruiser of the Black Sea Fleet which is now wrapping up its tasks in the northern Atlantic and will soon begin a Transatlantic voyage towards the Strait of Gibraltar."

In addition, a rocket cruiser of the Pacific Fleet, the Varyag, will join the Russian naval forces in the Mediterranean this autumn by replacing a large anti-submarine ship.

However, the state-run RIA Novosti news agency cited a high-ranking representative of the naval command who said the changes to the country's forces in the region were not linked to the current tensions over Syria and called them "a planned rotation."


Russia sends warships to Mediterranean as Syria tension rises

Date August 30, 2013 - 5:23AM

• 61 reading now

Timothy Heritage


A sailor looks at the Russian missile cruiser Moskva moored in the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Sevastopol. Photo: Reuters

Moscow: Russia said on Thursday it was sending warships to the Mediterranean, but denied it was beefing up its naval force there as Western powers prepare for military action against Syria.

Interfax news agency quoted a source in the armed forces' general staff as saying Russia, Syria's most powerful ally, was deploying a missile cruiser from the Black Sea Fleet and a large anti-submarine ship from the Northern Fleet in the "coming days".

Any strengthening of the navy's presence could fuel tension, especially as the United States has said it is repositioning naval forces in the Mediterranean following an alleged chemical weapons attack which it blames on Syrian government forces.

"The well-known situation now in the eastern Mediterranean required us to make some adjustments to the naval force," the source said in a reference to the events in Syria.

It was not clear when the vessels would arrive but Interfax said the missile cruiser Moskva was currently in the North Atlantic and would set sail in the next few days.

President Vladimir Putin has said the naval presence is needed to protect national security interests and is not a threat to any nation. Russia cooperates with NATO navies against piracy and its ships call at Western ports.

The navy later said a deployment was imminent in the Mediterranean but suggested it would not increase the size of Russian forces there.

"This is not a new group ... but a planned rotation," the state-run RIA news agency quoted an unnamed naval official as saying.

Secrecy
Confusion has at times surrounded Russian deployments in the Mediterranean because of the secrecy involved.

Both RIA and Interfax later quoted the Defence Ministry as saying that in the rotation, to be conducted from September 1-7, a destroyer and two landing ships would replace a frigate and three landing ships in the Mediterranean.

Separately, the Defence Ministry website said the Moskva, which Interfax had reported was headed to the Mediterranean, was leaving Venezuela but would remain in the Atlantic for now.

Washington accuses Syrian government forces of carrying out last week's chemical weapons attack and has made clear it could soon launch a military strike.

Russia is one of Assad's biggest arms suppliers. It opposes any military intervention in Syria and has shielded Damascus against further sanctions at the UN Security Council.

Defence experts said the deployment of the two warships identified by Interfax could give Assad early warning of cruise missile launches, particularly by submarine, or jam radars or navigation systems, although they might never be used for this.

"What we may be seeing here is an example of gunboat diplomacy rather than a deliberate attempt to interfere directly in any coalition strike militarily," said Lee Willett, editor of IHS Jane's Navy International.

"The simple presence of any ships will have an impact politically, and that is the primary intent."

Russia's chief of staff said in June the navy had stationed 16 warships and three ship-based helicopters in the Mediterranean, its first permanent naval deployment there since Soviet times.

[BRVoice]

US hints it could act alone on Syria

42 minutes ago

The United States Thursday implicitly reserved the right to strike Syria, alone, in its own national interest, without waiting for allies to join an operation or for global approval.

The White House said President Barack Obama prized the United Nations and closely consulted allies, but that in the end, his first duty was to US national security, which he sees threatened by a Syrian chemical weapons attack.

"We certainly are interested in engaging with the global international community on this issue," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.
"But at the same time, the president's chief accountability is to the American people that he was elected to protect.

"The president believes strongly in making the kinds of decisions and taking the kinds of steps that are necessary to protect our core national security interests that we've acknowledged are at stake in this situation."

The comments came as Britain, Washington's closest European ally struggles for a political consensus over Prime Minister David Cameron's plans to join expected US-led military action in Syria.

The political fracas in London has sparked speculation that a timetable for action, which many observers believe could see air strikes in Syria within days, could slip.

But at the State Department, spokeswoman Marie Harf said that "we make our own decisions in our own timeline," though styled international consultations on Syria as "incredibly important."

The Obama administration also hinted that unlike Britain, it did not see the need to wait for a report by UN inspectors in Syria on the chemical attack on a Damascus suburb on August 21.

"It's not within the mandate of those UN inspectors to assess the responsibility for the use of those weapons -- it's just within their mandate to assess whether or not they were used," Earnest said.

"That's no longer an open question."

On Wednesday, the Obama administration said that it did not see any future in a British bid to secure a mandate from the UN Security Council for attacking Syria, due to Russian opposition.

Administration officials have said that Obama sees perils for US national security in the belief that Syria shattered international norms by using chemical weapons, and that US interests and allies could be threatened.

"The Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons against their own people presents a situation where, yes, US national security interests are threatened," said Harf.

US officials are concerned that the Syria's chemical weapons stocks, as well as being used by civilians, could eventually fall into the hands of terror groups or radicals opposed to the United States.

[vector7]

REPORT: America Is 'Livid' With The British And Could Launch Syria Strikes On Its Own

Peter Foster and Raf Sanchez, The Telegraph
7:41PM BST 29 Aug 2013



REUTERS/Andrew Winning
U.S. President Barack Obama walks with Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron and Ireland's Prime Minister Enda Kenny (R) after a G8 summit group photograph at the Lough Erne golf resort in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland June 18, 2013.

Barack Obama could take military action against Syria without waiting for British support, senior Obama administration officials said, as David Cameron faced waiting until next week for a Commons vote sanctioning any air strikes.

The abrupt halt in British momentum towards military action left the diplomatic choreography in chaos and US officials "livid" with the British, according to Western diplomatic sources at the United Nations in New York.

However US officials said on Thursday Mr Obama would not be constrained by waiting for a British parliamentary vote or by trying to forge a consensus at the United Nations where an "intransigent" Russia has made clear it would veto any resolution to use force.

Asked whether the US would "go it alone" without Britain, a White House spokesman quoted William Hague saying that the US was "able to make their own decisions", adding that the administration appreciated UK support for a strong response to the chemical weapons attacks.

"We've also seen an acknowledgement from the Foreign Secretary about the United States' right and ability to make our own foreign policy decisions that are in our national security interest," said Josh Earnest, the White House deputy press secretary.

Mr Obama, who spoke with some senior members of the US congress on the Syria debate, is due to leave for Sweden next Tuesday, followed by the G20 summit in Russia on Thursday and Friday, potentially narrowing the timetable for action.

Analysts said the Mr Obama was highly unlikely to unleash the targeted missile strikes while alongside the Russian President Vladimir Putin, forcing a choice of acting either before next Tuesday or after the G20 summit closes next weekend.

"Why would you launch when Putin is sitting there? You either go before the trip to Russia or after and my guess is before," said Barry Pavel, a former White House defence official, adding the US could launch attacks over the weekend once UN inspectors have left Damascus.

"Britain is important diplomatically, but not required, and not required militarily. The White House could move ahead without the British," Mr Pavel added.

Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General, said on Thursday the UN inspection team in Syria would finish its work on Friday and meet him in New York on Saturday to discuss their findings.

Mr Ban confirmed their timetable after speaking on the telephone to Mr Obama when he urged the US president to allow the inspectors to finish their work and report back. "I told him [Mr Obama] that we will surely share our information and our analysis," he said.

The White House, however, said that the UN inspectors' mandate was not to allocate blame but only to establish whether chemical weapons had been used – a fact that had been agreed to by all sides.

Mr Obama's dilemma over whether to act without direct British support follows Mr Cameron's embarrassing climb-down on Wednesday over whether a Commons vote would be required to sanction UK military involvement.

"The Americans are livid with us," said one Western diplomat, who added British officials were astonished that the Prime Minister could have made such an "enormous miscalculation" amid such high stakes.

A furious-looking Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN, refused to answer questions on Thursday as she left a meeting of the Security Council permanent members, but later said on Twitter that the Syrian regime "must be held accountable, which the Security Council has refused to do for two years", adding "The US is considering an appropriate response."

Mr Obama said on Wednesday there was "no doubt" the Assad regime was behind the chemical weapons attacks that killed at least 350 people, arguing that a "limited" strike would send a clear message to Assad to "stop doing this" and be beneficial to long-term US national security interests.

The administration said it was preparing to publish a declassified intelligence dossier last night. Officials told the Associated Press that the assessment was not a "slam dunk", however Mr Earnest said that both Democrat and Republican senators briefed on the classified intelligence had accepted that Assad was responsible for the attacks.

"I have no interest in any open-ended conflict in Syria, but we do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable," Mr Obama told the US Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).

However high profile voices, including the Republican speaker of the House John Boehner and Donald Rumsfeld, the former Defense Secretary who was the architect of intervention in Iraq, said the administration not yet properly justified an attack on Syria.

"There really hasn't been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation," Mr Rumsfeld told Fox News, adding that Mr Obama's indecision over Syria over the last two years had left a "vacuum" in the Middle East.

Seeking to justify the national security interest, Mr Obama also said that the US could be at direct risk of proliferation of Syrian chemical weapons, a contention that was challenged by those opposing military action.
Although facing calls from some members of Congress for a British-style debate on whether to take military action, Mr Obama is not constrained in the same way as a British prime minister.

Senate aides told The Daily Telegraph that Congress was split three ways on Syria, between anti-war Democrats and isolationist conservatives against action, hawkish neo-conservatives who want to see Assad forcibly removed and an emerging middle ground.

"This emerging third group supports a limited strike targeting the unit or brigade responsible for the chemical weapons strike," the aide said, "and as with all things, the middle ground is usually where the American people are."



21:24 29/08/2013
Canada will not participate in a military operation against Syria



OTTAWA, August 29 (Itar-Tass) - Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper said on Thursday that Canada was not planning to participate in a possible military operation against Syria.


Poland will not join strikes on Syria

28.08.2013 12:51



Poland’s prime minister has ruled out Polish armed forces being involved in any military operations in Syria, saying he does not believe force will have the desired effect.

PM Tusk talks to reporters in parliament, Wednesday: photo - PAP/Jakub Kamiński

“Poland will not participate in any type of military intervention in Syria,” Prime Minister Donald Tusk said on Wednesday morning.

"I spoke with [Foreign Affairs Minister Radoslaw] Sikorski and asked him to tell our partners that Poland will not participation in any type of intervention in Syria,” Tusk said.

Minister Sikorski is in Brussels today for a meeting of the NATO Atlantic Council, which will discuss the issue.
- See more at: http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/1....9zCJq8v3.dpuf


PM says Italy will not join Syrian operation unless UN backs it

Reuters Middle East – 7 hours ago

ROME, Aug 29 (Reuters) - Prime Minister Enrico Letta said on Thursday Italy would not join any military operation against Damascus without authorisation from the United Nations Security Council.

"If the United Nations doesn't back it, Italy will not participate," he told Italy's RAI state radio, but added that Italy fully backed international condemnation of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

[vector7]

I guess this is notifying congress for approval.

Chuck ToddVerified account ‏@chucktodd
POTUS has personally updated Boehner and McConnell today on Syria. Rest of Cong. leadership on conf call at 6pm




REPORTS: Obama Ready To Move Ahead On Syria Strike Without The British

Paul Szoldra
Aug. 29, 2013, 6:01 PM



Despite the British government's stunning rejection of intervention in Syria, President Obama is prepared to move forward with a military strike against the Assad regime, The New York Times reports. From the Times:

Although the officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision, all indications suggest that the strike could occur as soon as United Nations inspectors, who are investigating the Aug. 21 attack that killed hundreds of Syrians, leave the country. They are scheduled to depart Damascus, the capital, on Saturday.

Ahead of the British House of Commons vote, the Obama administration had already signaled they would go without U.K. support in Syria if necessary.

"Britain is important diplomatically, but not required, and not required militarily. The White House could move ahead without the British," Barry Pavel, a former White House defense official, told The Telegraph.

The White House will make the case for limited military action to Congressional leaders on Thursday evening, according to The Times.

Still, if a strike happens, the U.S. won't be completely alone. The French government announced Thursday their preparations for a possible Syrian operation, although it stopped short of announcing total commitment to intervention.

Senior U.S. officials have maintained any action would be limited in scope — designed to send a message to Assad, but avoid continued military involvement. On Aug. 26, Obama ordered the completion of a report to justify a strike.

The Washington Post lays out the three conditions necessary for such strikes to occur:

...completion of an intelligence report assessing Syrian government culpability in last week’s alleged chemical attack; ongoing consultation with allies and Congress; and determination of a justification under international law.

The completed intelligence report will be made public Friday, according to a senior administration official speaking to CBS' Major Garrett.

Tensions between the West and the Assad regime have heated up over the past week, after an alleged chemical weapons attack was perpetrated on Aug. 21. The Syrian government has repeatedly denied being behind the attack, although senior U.S. officials say they have "no doubt" Assad was responsible.

[BRVoice]

John Carney ‏@carney 1h http://twitter.com/carney/status/373208326315970560
A friend at another network has been asked to stay overnight
b/c network thinks Syria gets hit tonight.

John Carney ‏@carney 1h http://twitter.com/carney/status/373208892895150080
One reason to attack tonight:
to prevent any more international opposition from organizing.


Personally, I don't believe it. If an attack happen it will be after the UN inspectors are out of Syria and they will go out on Saturday.

[BRVoice]

Jordan officials: West boosts deployment on Syrian border
Published: 08.30.13, 08:47 / Israel News

Jordanian security officials operating on the Jordan-Syria border said that the Jordanian army and US and Western forces have boosted deployement in the border.

The sources reported that "unusual" steps are being taken in preparation for a strike on Syria and any unforeseen scenarios. The al-Hayat newspaper also reported that planes and tanks have arrived at the border area to oversee events in south and north Syria. (Roi Kais)

[BRVoice]

Bill Neelyþ@billneelyitv8m
#UN inspectors in #Damascus prepared 2 leave for final examination of suburbs, then returned to hotel- not clear what problem is. #Syria

Dan Williams‏@DanWilliams8m
"Within 12 to 24 hours of the UN inspectors leaving Syria, the Americans will attack." - unsourced report in Israel's Yedioth Ahronoth daily.

zerohedge ‏@zerohedge 2 min
FTW: France ready for Syria strike without UK - FT

[vector7]

Agence France-Presse‏@AFP6m
#BREAKING Russia welcomes British parliament rejection of Syria military strike: Kremlin

[American Patriot]

Well, this is NOT the US against Syria.

This is President Obama against Syria. America doesn't want it.

[American Patriot]

30 August 2013 Last updated at 09:06 ET

Syria crisis: Robust response needed, David Cameron says


Cannot play media. You do not have the correct version of the flash player. Download the correct version


Prime Minister David Cameron: "We must listen to Parliament"

Continue reading the main story Syria conflict

• Latest updates Live
• Shadow of Iraq
• Into the unknown
• Legal basis

A "robust response" to the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria is needed despite UK military involvement being ruled out, the prime minister has said.

David Cameron was defeated in the Commons as MPs rejected a motion on the principle that military action could be required to protect Syrian civilians.
Despite the result of the vote, the US said it would continue to seek a coalition for military intervention.


And France said the vote did not change its resolve about the need to act.


Russia - which has close ties with the the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad - welcomed the UK's rejection of a military strike, while Germany has ruled out participation in any action.


'Deeply engaged'

Washington said it remained committed to a possible strike and would seek to build a coalition of those in favour of possible military action.


The US believes President Assad's regime was responsible for the chemical attack on 21 August which reportedly killed 355 people in the Ghouta suburb of Damascus.


UN weapons inspectors are due to wind up their investigation later before delivering their preliminary findings to secretary general Ban Ki-Moon on Saturday.


Mr Cameron said it was a "regret" that he had been unable to build a consensus on the response to the suspected chemical weapons attack.


However he insisted the UK remained "deeply engaged" on the world stage.


Cannot play media. You do not have the correct version of the flash player. Download the correct version



Ian Pannell: The victims "arrived like the walking dead"

The UK government's defeated motion had called for military action if it was backed up by evidence from the weapons inspectors.
Continue reading the main story “Start Quote

Many British former senior officers are relieved that Parliament has - certainly for now - prevented any deeper UK involvement in Syria. ”

Caroline Wyatt Defence correspondent, BBC News

• Mixed feelings after Syria vote

Mr Cameron said it was important to listen to Parliament's decision.
And despite MPs voting against military action, he said: "I think it's important we have a robust response to the use of chemical weapons and there are a series of things we will continue to do."
Mr Cameron added: "We will continue to take a case to the United Nations, we will continue to work in all the organisations we are members of - whether the EU, or Nato, or the G8 or the G20 - to condemn what's happened in Syria.
"It's important we uphold the international taboo on the use of chemical weapons."
'Appalling crime' UN chemical weapons experts are due to give their preliminary findings at the weekend
There had been suggestions from ministers, including Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond, that Britain's rejection of military action would harm its relationship with the US.
Mr Cameron, though, said he would not have to apologise to President Barack Obama.
"I was faced with three things I wanted to do right and do in the right way," he said.
"First of all, to condemn absolutely and respond properly to an appalling war crime that took place in Syria. Secondly, to work with our strongest and most important ally who had made a request for British help. Thirdly, to act as a democrat, to act in a different way to previous prime ministers and properly consult Parliament.
"I wanted to do all those three things. Obviously politics is difficult - that involved going to Parliament, making an argument in a strong and principled way but then listening to Parliament.
"I think the American people and President Obama will understand that."
In other developments:

• The BBC witnessed the aftermath of an incendiary bomb attack on a school playground in northern Syria which left scores of children with napalm-like burns
• The US said it would act in its "best interests" in dealing with the Syria crisis, following UK rejection of military intervention
• French President Francois Hollande said all options were being considered, and has not ruled out a strike within days
• UN weapons inspectors visited a hospital in a government-controlled area of Damascus
• The Foreign Office advised against all but essential travel to Lebanon because of a "heightened risk of anti-Western sentiment" linked to the possibility of military action in Syria. The BBC understands that the families of British diplomats are being evacuated
• Former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans - architect of the so-called 'responsibility to protect' doctrine - accused the UK of "making things up as it goes along". He blamed the government's "mishandling of the politics" for what he said was a "disappointing" vote against intervention

Labour leader Ed Miliband said earlier that by rejecting military intervention, the House of Commons had spoken "for the people of Britain".
"People are deeply concerned about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria, but they want us to learn the lessons of Iraq," he said.
The two-year long civil war continues to inflict huge damage on the country
"They don't want a rush to war. They want things done in the right way, working with the international community."
He said Britain "doesn't need reckless and impulsive leadership, it needs calm and measured leadership".
He said that Mr Cameron must "find other ways" to put pressure on Mr Assad, who has said Syria will defend itself against any aggression.
And the prime minister faced criticism from his own side, with former shadow home secretary David Davis accusing him of making a "shaky argument" for intervention.
"There was feeling of rushing to action," he told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme. "It's more important to get this right than to do it on a 10-day timetable".
Refugees from Syria have been crossing the border into Turkey
Former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown has been the fiercest critic of the decision to not take part in military action, saying the UK was "hugely diminished".
Mr Cameron insisted, though, that Britain has "great strengths as a country".
"But on this specific issue, because of the huge concerns about this appalling Syrian conflict and people worrying about how we might get sucked into it, on that specific issue that trumped, as it were, the sense of outrage about the chemical weapons."
More than 100,000 people are estimated to have died since the conflict erupted in March 2011 and at least 1.7 million refugees have displaced.

[American Patriot]

Obama Striking Assad Risks International Law Conflict

By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan – Aug 30, 2013 12:00 AM ET

As U.S. officials work to convince the world that Bashar al-Assad’s regime used chemical weapons in Syria, the Obama administration is confronting questions about whether it has a legal right to respond with force.

The United Nations Security Council would need to authorize military action or the U.S. would have to be acting in self-defense for a strike to be legal under international law even if it may be justified, according to lawyers including Philip Carter.

“The bottom line is that under hard international law, there is no good legal argument” for a U.S. or allied strike on Syria without UN authorization, Carter, a former Pentagon official, said in an interview.

Having decided they can bypass the UN, where Russia has made clear it would veto a resolution authorizing force against Syria, U.S. administration officials are asserting a moral case. Much as President Bill Clinton’s administration justified the 1999 bombing of Serbia as necessary to defend Kosovo, Obama and his aides are saying Syria violated international standards by gassing its own people.

President Barack Obama, a former constitutional law professor, said in an Aug. 28 PBS interview that Syria’s use of chemical weapons violated “an international norm.” Failing to respond could indirectly threaten the U.S. and its allies in the Mideast, and the U.S. must act “to make sure” that chemical weapons are not “loose in a way that ultimately could affect our security,” he said.
Parallels Seen

Administration officials, who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations, have said that in building their case they see parallels with the U.S.-led military action to aid Kosovo.

The Clinton administration justified the Kosovo campaign on humanitarian grounds without asserting a legal case, because government lawyers concluded it wasn’t legal — even if it was justified.

There’s a humanitarian argument that the international community has “a right and sometimes the duty to intervene in cases of slaughter and genocide,” as it did in Kosovo, according to Carter, a senior fellow and counsel at the Center for a New American Security in Washington. That “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine hasn’t been accepted as international law.

“There’s no case for individual self-defense and a shaky case for collective self-defense” on behalf of the citizens of another country under existing law, Carter said.

David Kaye, who was an attorney in the State Department’s legal office during the Kosovo campaign, said in an interview that his colleagues “refused to give an opinion” finding that the use of force in Kosovo was legal.
No Pass

“They worked with the policy makers to identify a whole bunch of factors that they might use in arguing for the legitimacy of the use of force, but they would not give them a pass and say this is legal or consistent with the UN charter,” said Kaye, who served 10 years as a State Department lawyer under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush.

A U.S.-led military strike to punish and deter the use of weapons of mass destruction by Syria may be morally justified and even widely regarded as legitimate, according to nine lawyers and legal scholars consulted.

Even so, “Syria’s violation of international norms does not lift the obligation on the U.S. to comply with the UN charter,” John B. Bellinger III, a former legal adviser to Secretary of StateCondoleezza Rice and the National Security Council under Bush, said in an interview. “Under international law, two wrongs don’t make a right,”

Bellinger, a partner at Arnold & Porter LLP in Washington, said he has sympathy for the Obama administration’s challenge.
Sitting Idly

“I imagine a President Bush, McCain or Romney could not have sat by idly while this happened,” Bellinger said, citing leading Republicans. “And I can imagine being the legal adviser and advising that there simply is not a legal basis under international law, and if you insist that you are going to do it, we have to make the best factual case and moral argument to justify intervention.”

While Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican who ran against Obama in 2008, has called for action and said he thinks there is precedent and justification for a strike, not all lawmakers agree that the president can act without a vote of authorization by Congress.

In an Aug. 28 letter, 116 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives – including 18 Democrats — called on Obama to seek congressional approval for any military response in Syria, and some have said they oppose action.
Conference Call

Officials including Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel last night conducted a conference call with congressional leaders of both parties “to brief them on the administration’s thinking and seek their input on the U.S. response to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons near Damascus” on Aug. 21, according to a White House statement.

The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973 over President Richard Nixon’s veto, requires congressional approval for a president to engage in hostilities other than defensive or emergency measures. It gives presidents flexibility to act quickly, while requiring consultation with Congress.

If military action exceeds 60 days, “then he needs to come to Congress,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, said yesterday onCBS News. “I personally would like to see him come for congressional approval, but I also think that time is of the essence here.”
Lacking Advisers

Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow focusing on national security legal issues at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said that the Obama administration is operating without a Senate-confirmed top legal adviser at the Departments of State or Defense, or permanent leadership in the Justice Department’s national-security division.

“If you’re trying to decide the legality of a resort to force in Syria, it might help to have permanent leadership at the State Department legal adviser’s office,” Wittes wrote on the Lawfare blog he founded.

Obama’s argument that the U.S. would be defending “an international norm” against the use of chemical weapons is undercut by the lack of any legal mechanism in the Geneva Convention or the Chemical Weapons Convention for one country to punish another that uses such weapons on its own people, according to Christopher Swift, a national-security lawyer.
‘No Consensus’

The president “talked about international norms — not international law — because there is no consensus that international law supports this,” Swift, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University in Washington, said in an interview.

Syria signed the 1925 Geneva Convention that bans the use of asphyxiating gases, although it is one of five countries that hasn’t signed the wider Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997.

The U.K. yesterday issued a position paper asserting that the government could act against Syria without UN approval under a doctrine of “humanitarian intervention,” the same argument it made about Kosovo. Hours later, the House of Commons rejected a motion put forward by Prime Minister David Cameron seeking an endorsement in principle for military strikes.

For Obama, like Clinton before him, asserting a humanitarian right to intervene risks setting a precedent that other countries could invoke to justify military action of their choosing.

Asked about that risk in 1999, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called the U.S.-led campaign in Kosovo, which had the backing of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “unique” and “sui generis.”

Kaye, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine, said, “The lawyer’s role is to tell the policy makers what the law is and what the consequences of particular action might be as a matter of law: Would there be accountability for U.S. forces? Could other countries see the action as illegal?”

“It’s not for the lawyers to say, ‘Is this right? Is it moral? Is it wise?’” Kaye said. “That’s policy, and that’s the president’s call.”

[American Patriot]

I wonder if this is true and accurate, if so, who did it?

Horrific 'napalm-bomb' attack on Syrian school leaves ten children dead and scores burned

HORRIFIC footage has emerged reportedly showing the aftermath of an incendiary bomb attack on a school in Syria.

By: Benjamin Russell
Published: Fri, August 30, 2013

Tweet

17Comments

A 15-year-old who was caught up in the blast

The whole world has failed our nation and it is innocent civilians who are paying the price
Dr Rola

Ten children were killed and many more suffered devastating napalm-like burns covering over 50 per cent of their bodies, it was claimed.
The video shows badly burned survivors caked in a white substance and shaking uncontrollably while being treated in a basic hospital.
Witnesses said a fighter jet had repeatedly flown overhead, as if searching for a target, before dropping the bomb.

The victims were left with a white substance on their skin

The BBC suggested the bomb contained something like napalm or thermite.
The headmaster told reporters: "This was the most horrific thing. We have seen images on TV, we have heard many stories, but we have never seen anything like this before.
"The worst thing in life is watching someone die right in front of you and you can't do anything.

A child is carried into the hospital

"There were dead people, people burning and people running away, but where to? Where would they go? It is not safe anywhere. That is the fate of the Syrian people."
A British medic, Dr Rola, who was in Syria with the charity Hand In Hand, treated the victims at the hospital.
She said: "It is just absolute chaos and carnage here. We have had a massive influx of what looks like serious burns, seems like it must be some sort of, not really sure, maybe napalm, something similar to that.

Survivors were said to have suffered burns to over 50 per cent of their bodies

"But obviously within the chaos of the situation it is very difficult to know exactly what is going on."
She added later: "We feel like some sort of, not even a second class citizen, like we just don't matter. Like all of these children, and all of these people who are being killed and massacred, we don't matter.
"The whole world has failed our nation and it is innocent civilians who are paying the price."

Treatment took place in a hospital funded by handouts

Mohammed Abdullatif, who witnessed the attack, had a message for the United Nations.
"Dear United Nations, you are calling peace, you are calling for peace. What kind of peace are you calling for? Don't you see this, don't you see this? What do you need to see?
"We are just human beings, we want to live. It is our right to live," he said.