Syria

[Ryan Ruck]

I just had an interesting thought...

UN insoectors were on the ground to verify chemical agents were used, Supposedly sarin was used. Ostensibly this was determined by lab testing. Can we see if the sarin found in Syria is a chemical match for known samples UN inspectors took way back when from when Iraq had acknowledged chemical weapons stores? The odds of chemical munitions being identical or nearly identical have to be pretty low. That would definitely tell us what happened with those non-existent Iraqi WMDs.

[American Patriot]

Map showing Russian, American, British and French naval deployment in the Eastern Mediterranean



https://twitter.com/MahmoudRamsey/st...897536/photo/1

Chance you can copy and paste the picture? Or upload it here? Twitter is blocked where I am.

[American Patriot]

Russia Defense Ministry Warns About ‘Playing With Arms’ After Israel Launch


MOSCOW, September 3 (RIA Novosti) – Hours after Israel admitted to firing “ballistic targets” that resembled missiles in the Mediterranean, a launch that the country did not priorly announce, Russia’s Defense Ministry spoke out against “playing with arms and missiles” in such a “volatile” region.

“Is there any other region more volatile and packed with weapons today?” Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov told journalists. “I don’t completely understand how someone could play with arms and missiles in that region today.”

Antonov called on those who launched the so-called missile-like targets to be more responsible for regional security and “not play with fire.”

“The Mediterranean is a powder keg,” he said. “A match is enough for fire to break out and possibly spread not only to neighboring states but to other world regions as well. I remind you that the Mediterranean is close to the borders of the Russian Federation.”

He recalled that a meteorological rocket launch by Norway in 1995 was mistaken as a possible rocket attack on Russia.

The two “ballistic targets,” detected by the Russian military on Tuesday, had been launched by the Israeli military as part of a joint US-Israeli test of the Middle Eastern nation’s missile-defense system, an official in Tel Aviv said.

Russia put its General Staff’s central command center on high alert after the launches, Antonov said.

The launch was detected at 10:16 a.m. Moscow time (6:16 a.m. GMT) by radar in the southern Russian city of Armavir, a Defense Ministry spokesman said. The objects’ trajectories ran from the central to the eastern Mediterranean, the spokesman said. A diplomatic source in the Syrian capital, Damascus, told RIA that the targets had fallen into the sea.

A not-so-much veiled threat there..... Other regions could be outside the Middle East you see.

[American Patriot]

BREAKING NEWS: NEW RESOLUTION FOR SYRIA SETS A 60 DAY DEADLINE WITH ONE EXTENSION POSSIBLE, FOR OBAMA TO LAUNCH MILITARY STRIKE. @politico

They haven't actually voted yet. A resolution isn't binding. The Foreign Affairs committee (the ones meeting yesterday) already sound like they have a unanimous YES to launch a strike.

They are using the War Powers act, basically giving the President latitude to launch a police action against Syria for up to 90 days. The problem with this is, once you have a plane shot down you have to send in troops to get them out. Once you send in troops you end up fighting on the ground, then you need more equipment to support ground troops. Once you do that, it becomes DIFFICULT as HELL to get out in the allotted time.

[American Patriot]

I just had an interesting thought...

UN insoectors were on the ground to verify chemical agents were used, Supposedly sarin was used. Ostensibly this was determined by lab testing. Can we see if the sarin found in Syria is a chemical match for known samples UN inspectors took way back when from when Iraq had acknowledged chemical weapons stores? The odds of chemical munitions being identical or nearly identical have to be pretty low. That would definitely tell us what happened with those non-existent Iraqi WMDs.

Ryan, Ryan, Ryan... where do you get off thinking like that? There were no Iraqi WMD, don't you know that?


LMAO!

[American Patriot]

McCain: Blocking Syria Strike Would Be ‘Catastrophic’

By Zeke J Miller @zekejmillerSept. 02, 2013

• 
  
  
• Read Later

Jewel Samad / AFP / Getty ImagesU.S. Senator John McCain answers a question following a meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House in Washington on Sept. 2, 2013

After a meeting with President Barack Obama in the West Wing along with Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator John McCain said Monday that the failure of Obama’s request for authorization to strike Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime in response to the use of chemical weapons “would be catastrophic” for the U.S.


Speaking to reporters outside the White House, McCain and Graham said they are not yet a lock to vote for the measure, saying they want to see Obama articulate a broader strategy for what happens when the cruise missiles stop falling to turn the tide of Syria’s civil war in favor of the opposition.


“Now that a resolution is going to be before the Congress of the United States, we want to work to make that resolution something that majorities of the members of both houses could support,” McCain said. “A rejection of that, a vote against the resolution by Congress, I think would be catastrophic, because it would undermine the credibility of the United States of America and of the President of the United States. None of us want that. What we do want is an articulation of a goal that over time to degrade Bashar Assad’s capabilities, increase and upgrade the capabilities of the Free Syrian Army and the Free Syrian government so they can reverse the momentum on the battlefield.”



(MORE: Unwilling to Act Alone, Obama Pulls Back From the Brink of War)


McCain said he encouraged Obama to think beyond simply punitive strikes against Assad, saying, “A weak response is almost as bad as doing nothing.” After the meeting, he declined to discuss the options Obama laid out, but said a larger response is now under consideration. “I don’t think it’s an accident that the aircraft carrier is moving over in the region,” he said.


McCain called it “shameful” that the Administration has not stepped up its military assistance to the opposition, criticizing Obama’s efforts over the past two years as “a policy of neglect,” but the lawmakers signaled that may change. “There seems to be emerging from this Administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition, to get the regional players more involved,” Graham said. “We still have significant concerns, but we believed there is in formulation a strategy to upgrade the capabilities of the Free Syrian Army and degrade the capabilities of Bashar Assad,” McCain added. “Before this meeting we had not had that indication.”


McCain and Graham said Americans and their fellow members of Congress need to understand that the conflict in Syria is not an isolated civil war but a “regional conflict.”
(MORE: Congressional Debate Over Syria Will Be Test of Divided GOP)


“I can’t sell another Iraq or Afghanistan, because I don’t want to,” Graham said, previewing his messaging to his constituents as well as to his colleagues. “I can sell to the people of South Carolina that if we don’t get Syria right, Iran is surely going to take the signals that we don’t care about their nuclear program, and it weighs on the President’s mind strongly about the signals we send. So if we lost a vote in the Congress dealing with the chemical weapons being used in Syria, what effect would that have on Iran in terms of their nuclear program? Most South Carolinians get that point.”


The meeting was the latest effort by the Obama Administration to build support in Congress for intervention in Syria. The lawmakers said the Administration still has its work cut out for it in the days ahead.


“I am already talking to a lot of my colleagues, but before I can persuade them to support this, I have to be persuaded,” McCain said.


Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/02...#ixzz2dvYRzU5H

[American Patriot]

Man the Left is really pushing this bullshit attack. What are they THINKING? This is from NPR:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...es-no-on-syria

What If Congress Votes 'No' On Syria?

by


September 03, 2013 6:46 PM


President Obama attends a White House meeting on Syria Tuesday with congressional leaders.


Carolyn Kaster/AP
With Republican House leaders lining up behind President Obama's planned U.S. military strike on Syria, the chances for congressional authorization seemed higher on Tuesday than they did over the weekend.
Still, despite Speaker John Boehner's and Majority Leader Eric Cantor's full-throated support for Obama, approval of military action is far from certain. An attack on Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime is unpopular, to say the least. A new indicates 48 percent of the American public opposes such strikes; only 29 percent approves.
A "no" vote in Congress could still happen, then, especially in the GOP-led House, whose members all face re-election next year and where those on the ideological right and left tend to be more distant from the political center than senators.
What would happen if Congress, or one half of it, voted against authorizing a punitive U.S. strike against Syria?
A view shared by the Obama administration and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., alike is that it would prove disastrous to U.S. standing and trust. After meeting with Obama Monday, McCain said outside the White House:

"If the Congress were to reject a resolution like this, after the president of the United States has already committed to action, the consequences would be catastrophic in that the credibility of this country with friends and adversaries alike would be shredded. And it would be not only implications for this presidency, but for future presidencies as well."

McCain's point seems self-evident. Congressional rejection of military action against the Assad regime would diminish Obama and the U.S. on the world stage. There'd be less reason for the globe's bad guys to take U.S. warnings seriously.
A loss in Congress for Obama on the Syria authorization could also damage what's left of the president's power to achieve his second-term domestic agenda. Obama still must negotiate with Congress on fiscal matters like raising the debt ceiling and funding the government next year. An immigration overhaul remains a much desired goal, too.
Of course, there's always the possibility that the House could vote against a U.S. military strike and Obama could go forward with it anyway, especially if he gets a strong Senate vote in favor of punitive attacks. Some lawmakers, like , D-N.Y., and have argued that Obama would have the constitutional authority to order strikes without Congress' authorization. Obama has said so himself as well.
Such action, though, could heighten accusations from the Tea Party and other Obama critics that he was acting outside the Constitution and exacerbate tensions between Obama and many on Capitol Hill.
But if Obama abided by a "no" vote, a loss on Syria could very well cause the smell of well-cooked lame duck to emanate from Obama's presidency.
Based on presidential history, Obama will be hard-pressed to get substantive new legislation during his second term, anyway, Stephen J. Wayne, a Georgetown University political scientist, told me in an interview.
Second terms tend to be about consolidating first-term gains, not initiating major new legislation that gains passage, he said.
Wayne actually sees an upside for Obama and the nation if Congress were to vote down authorization. "Presidents can't admit they're wrong. They can't say that," Wayne said.
But "privately, he may have realized that he made a statement that he shouldn't have made last year about the red line and chemical weapons and the only effective way for him to back off that is to have the people through the Congress tell him that," Wayne said.
Obama says Syria crossed that red line on Aug. 21, when Assad's forces allegedly used sarin gas to kill more than 1,400 people, including hundreds of children, in the Damascus suburbs.
But if Congress votes no, Obama "can then say: 'Well, leadership is not about solely imposing your will. It's also about following the will of the people and this is a democratic electoral process and that's what I'm doing now,' " says Wayne.
"It does seem to me the public might be relieved if Congress said no," Wayne continued. "I think [seeking congressional approval] was an astute political move by a guy who placed himself in a no-win position."
So Obama "would be weakened by the [no] vote but the country might be saved by the experience," Wayne said, exaggerating for effect.

[American Patriot]

Senate Syria resolution would limit Obama to 90 days

Secretary of State John Kerry emphatically argued that President Obama is not asking to go to war with Syria, he is asking for limited engagement with no troops on the ground.

Susan Davis, USA TODAY 9:38 p.m. EDT September 3, 2013

(Photo: Jacquelyn Martin, AP)

WASHINGTON--Members of the Senate Foreign Relations committee hammered out a deal on Tuesday evening that would set a 60-day deadline for military action in Syria, with one 30-day extension possible, according to a draft of the resolution.


The proposal, drafted by Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., would also bar the involvement of U.S. ground forces in Syria, according to the draft. Menendez is the chairman of the foreign relations committee and Corker is the top Republican.


"Together we have pursued a course of action that gives the President the authority he needs to deploy force in response to the Assad regime's criminal use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, while assuring that the authorization is narrow and focused, limited in time, and assures that the Armed Forces of the United States will not be deployed for combat operations in Syria," Menendez said in a statement.


Corker noted that the report also requires the Obama administration to produce a report detailing U.S. support for vetted, moderate opposition groups in Syria.


"I look forward to the input from my colleagues on the committee and in Congress who will have an opportunity to weigh in on what we've produced," Corker said. "This is one of the most serious matters that comes before the Congress, so as we proceed to a potentially defining vote next week, the president and his administration must continue to vigorously make their case to the American people."


The resolution could be voted on by the committee as early as Wednesday.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry, center, speaks Tuesday during testimony on Capitol Hill.(Photo: Jack Gruber, USA TODAY)

Meanwhile, in the House, Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Gerald Connolly, D-Va., introduced a draft resolution that would limit the duration of President Obama's authority to 60 days.


It also specifically prohibits any American forces on the ground in Syria and restricts the president from repeating the use of force beyond the initial punitive strikes unless Obama certifies to Congress that the Syrian forces have repeated their use of chemical weapons.


Obama has repeatedly said that any military strike against Assad would be limited in scope and duration, and would not include U.S. troops on the ground. The conflict in Syria has left more than 100,000 dead.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., right, leaves a joint Senate and House intelligence closed-door briefing about Syria on Tuesday.(Photo: Jacquelyn Martin, AP)

Earlier on Tuesday, Obama said he was open to lawmakers rewriting his resolution seeking authorization for the use of force, which was criticized as too broad in scope by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.


"I would not be going to Congress if I wasn't serious about consultations," Obama said. "I'm confident that we're going to be able to come up with something that hits that mark."


Menendez and Corker introduced their resolution soon after the foreign relations committee met on Tuesday to grill Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, on the president's plan for a military strike against Syria.


Obama announced his intention on Saturday to order a strike against the Assad regime, but said that he would first seek congressional authorization.

[American Patriot]

Oh, REALLY????

Maybe we're backing off of a nuclear conflict?

Putin says Russia could support strike on Syria

• 
• Comments
  16
  

• Email

  Share 0

  
  
  

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during an interview. (Alexander Zemlianichenko / Associated Press / September 3, 2013)

Related photos »

• Photos: Conflict in Syria
• Photos: Syria before civil war broke out
• Interactive map: Potential targets in Syria
• Obama steps up campaign for Congress' support for Syria strikes
• Syria's Assad warns of a 'powder keg' sparking a 'regional war'
• France releases new, 'undeniable' evidence against Syria
• See more stories »

By Sergei L. Loiko September 4, 2013, 3:00 a.m.




MOSCOW -- Russian President Vladimir Putin said he has not ruled out backing a U.S.-led military operation in Syria if the Kremlin gets concrete proof than an alleged chemical attack on civilians was committed by Bashar Assad’s government.


“I don’t rule this out,” Putin said during a televised interview with First Channel, a Russian federal television network, and the Associated Press. “But I want to draw your attention to one absolutely principled issue: In accordance with the current international law, a sanction to use arms against a sovereign state can be given only by the U.N. Security Council.”


The Obama administration is engaged in a lobbying effort to persuade Congress to back a U.S. strike on Syria without U.N. approval. Late Tuesday, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agreed on language authorizing U.S. military action against Syria, while ruling out the commitment of U.S. ground forces and limiting the window for an attack to 90 days. A committee vote could come as early as Wednesday.


Putin's interview was recorded Tuesday at his country residence of Novo-Ogaryovo near Moscow, according to the official Kremlin website that posted it Wednesday morning.


The Russian president reiterated that the Kremlin was not impressed with the data presented by Washington on the alleged chemical attack of civilians in a Damascus suburb last month. He said video of murdered children was “horrible” but not proof of the Assad regime’s involvement.


“This footage doesn’t provide answers to the questions I myself put now,” he said. “There is an opinion that [the video] was compiled by the same rebels who, as we know and the U.S. administration recognizes, are connected with Al Qaeda and have always been notorious for their special cruelty.”


Putin maintained that it is unreasonable to think that the Assad regime would resort to chemical weapons as his army held the upper hand on the rebels in the more than two-year civil war, as some accounts have portrayed.


“We think that for the regular armed forces, which are on the attack today and in some places they have surrounded the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, in fact it is totally absurd to use prohibited chemical weapons knowing full well that it could be a pretext to take sanctions against them, including the use of force,” Putin said.


Putin called the use of weapons of mass destruction a crime and said that Russia “will take a principled position” once it gets “objective, precise data as to who committed these crimes.”


“If it is established that means of mass destruction are used by [Syrian] rebels, what will the United States do with the rebels?” Putin said. “What will the sponsors do with the rebels? Will they stop arms supplies? Will they launch combat activities against them?”


Putin said he will be convinced only by “a deep, detailed study of the issue and the real presence of evidence that could clearly prove who used what [weapons]."


“After that we will be ready to act in a most resolute and serious way,” he said. He did not say what actions he is considering.


In the meantime, Russia will continue to supply the Assad regime with arms, Putin said.


“We are doing it, and we proceed from the notion that we are cooperating with the legitimate government and are not violating any norms of international law and any of our commitments,” Putin said. “And we regret very much that the [U.S.] supplies to the rebels have been going on in full volume and from the first steps of this armed conflict.”


Putin threatened that Russia may soon go ahead and fulfill a contract to supply Assad with advanced S-300 antiaircraft systems, which, he said, are in some ways better than Patriot missiles.


“We have supplied some components for S-300s, but the supplies have not been completed as we suspended them,” Putin said. “But if we see that some steps are taken connected with violation of current international norms, we will think what we should do in the future including supplies of such powerful weapons to various regions of the world."


The Russian president also admitted that he was disappointed by Obama’s cancellation of his planned visit to Moscow this month.

“I would like the U.S. president to visit Moscow so we could have a chance to talk, to discuss the accumulated questions,” Putin said. “But I don’t see any special catastrophe in [the cancellation]. ... We understand that on some issues the Russian position causes the U.S. administration some irritation. I think in reality it would be good not to get irritated but gain some patience together and work on a search for resolutions.”


Putin said he still hopes for a meeting with Obama on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg. Putin said he recalled previous meetings with Obama as “very constructive,” and praised the U.S. president as “a very interesting interlocutor and a business-like person.”


“It is easy to talk with him, because it is clear what the man wants. His position is clear, and he hears out the position of ... his opponent and reacts to it,” Putin said.
He rejected allegations that he has personal problems with Obama and that his body language during previous summits indicated that he was sometimes bored.


“I sometimes read with amazement about the body language and that we are bored,” Putin said. “Who can say except ourselves what is there in our head or soul? There are some gestures that course could be interpreted unambiguously, but no one has ever seen such gestures either on my part toward Obama or on Obama’s part toward myself, and I hope that will never happen. All the rest are conjectures.”


Putin disagreed that a reset in U.S.-Russian relations has been replaced by a period of coldness.


“It is uneasy, tense joint work,” he said. “No, it is not covered by roses and flowers. It is complicated work and sometimes very hard, but there is nothing special about it. ... But I repeat once again that global mutual interests, I think, after all, are a good foundation for a search for joint solutions.”


He said the U.S. and Russia have common ground on a number of summit agenda items, including disarmament, global economic issues, North Korea, Iran and the fight against terrorism.

[American Patriot]

What’s at stake for Russia in Syria

Text Size
Published: Tuesday, 3 Sep 2013 | 9:58 AM ET
By: Yousef Gamal El-Din | Anchor, CNBC (EME

Google Maps
Tartus Port is the second largest port city in Syria.



The gridlock at the UN Security Council between the U.S.and Russia is dragging on, due to a gamut of competing interests in Syria.


(Read more: Syria strike would send 'global message': Menendez)

The Russia-Syria axis is rooted in a strong political and economic relationship that has been cultivated since the late 1950s. The bond has a deep cultural element: many Syrians go to Russia to study, while Russians go to Syria as holidaymakers, advisors or investors. Over the years, Russia has also played an essential role in restructuring the Syrian economy, and wrote off roughly 70 percent of Syria's $13.4 billion debt in 2005.


While reliable numbers are hard to come by, The Moscow Times estimated Russian investments in Syria at $19.4 billion in 2009, covering infrastructure, energy and tourism. But with outstanding projects ranging from a nuclear power plant to oil and gas exploration, the number today may be considerably higher.


(Read more: UK parliament votes against military action in Syria)
"The $20 billion figure is notional and should be treated with some caution," Richard Connolly, lecturer in political economy at the University of Birmingham, told CNBC.




Play Video





Can Russia remain relevant?



William Browder, CEO, Hermitage Capital Management, looks at Russia's relationship with Syria and the benefits of instability in the Middle East. National pride and relevance are the reasons behind the country's stance in Syria, he says. With Jason Trennert.



Either way, Russia's trade with Syria is fairly insubstantial. According to Daniel Treisman, professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles, Russian exports to Syria amounted to$1.93 billion in 2011, or only 0.4 percent of Russia's total exports. That's less than its trade with Tunisia and Estonia.


Still, what stands out is that Russia-Syria trade is concentrated in the defense and energy industries. "The vast majority of Russian exports to Syria are armaments, which makes Syria relatively more important as an export destination for the Russian defense industry," Connolly said.
(Read more: U.S. Facing Test on Data to Back Action on Syria)


Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Instituteindicated that between 2005 and 2010, Syria accounted for just over 1 percent of Russia's arms exports. Between 2011-12, analysts told CNBC, that number increased to four percent.


Russia's interest in Syria is of course geo-strategic as well as economic. It predominately hinges on the Mediterranean port of Tartus,which is often used to save the Russian navy the long voyage across the Black Sea. In September 2008, work started on converting the facility to a full naval base.


"Of course Russia would like to preserve its naval base in Tartus, but it will have to adjust to the outcome of the civil war, whatever that is," Treisman said.


Play Video


Markets react on Syrian concerns



With stocks coming off today's lows, Mary Ann Bartels, Merrill Lynch Wealth Management; and Kenny Polcari, O'Neil Securities discuss tapering and how high oil prices will affect the market.



Connelly said that although Tartus may not be significant militarily, it represents a last vestige of Russian influence in the region.
(Read more: UN weapons inspectors pull out of Syria early)


"It is... of symbolic importance. It marks Syria as one of the few countries in the region with which Russia continues to enjoy warm relations," he said.


The U.S. meanwhile has effectively withdrawn from Syria,leaving the bilateral relationship in shambles. In a research note late on Monday, the International Crisis Group suggested diplomatic efforts might prove more successful. It advised developing a "realistic compromise political offer" and reaching out to both Russia and Iran, "rather than investing in a prolonged conflicted that has a seemingly bottomless capacity to escalate."


For now, a Russian retreat from its anti-interventionist stance on Syria appears as unlikely as one by its U.S. counterpart, further clouding prospects for any political resolution.


(Watch: UN visits possible site of chemical attack in Syria)


"My view is that Russia can, and will, support Assad for as long as Assad can stake a claim to being the ruler of Syria, and as long as the diplomatic price remains relatively low," Connolley said.

[American Patriot]

09.04.13
by wkchild

Russia Sends Missile Cruiser “Moskva”, Destroyer And Frigate To Syria

Editor’s Note: See last post for why Russia has a dog in this fight… This sh*t is getting VERY real…
Source: zerohedge on 09/04/2013 – 07:34


It was just yesterday, when we reported on the build up of Russian naval forces in the Mediterranean, in this case two new marine-carrying amphibious assault ships, that we made a simple forecast: “Our prediction: the next ship to be dispatched in direction Syria will be the missile cruiser Moskva, the “flag ship of the Black Sea fleet” and more of its affiliated warships… That, and a whole lot of submarines.” We were right.

• RUSSIA SENDS MISSILE CRUISER MOSKVA TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN: IFX
• RUSSIA SENDS DESTROYER, FRIGATE TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN: IFX
• RUSSIA HAS WARSHIPS, SPY VESSELS MONITORING MEDITERRANEAN: IFX
• RUSSIA PREPARED TO ADJUST SIZE OF MEDITERRANEAN BUILDUP: IFX

The deployment is, more than anything, symbolic. It means Russia will no longer take US military build up in the region on the sidelines. Because while the Mediterranean build up is inevitable (and can be tracked here), the next step will be the arrival of Russian air and land-based support in Syria. Oh, and China. Let’s not forget China.

More from Reuters:


Russia is sending a missile cruiser to the east Mediterranean to take over the navy’s operations in the region, state agency Interfax quoted a military source as saying on Wednesday, as the United States prepares for a possible military strike in Syria.


President Barack Obama has won backing from key figures in the U.S. Congress in his call for limited U.S. strikes on Syria to punish President Bashar al-Assad for his suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.


The ship, Moskva, will take over operations from a naval unit in the region that Moscow says is needed to protect national interests. It will be joined by a destroyer from Russia’s Baltic Fleet and a frigate from the Black Sea Fleet.


“The Cruiser Moskva is heading to the Gibraltar Straits. In approximately 10 days it will enter the east Mediterranean, where it will take over as the flagship of the naval task force,” the source said.


…
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said Russia has no intention of getting dragged into any military conflict over Syria.


Earlier this week, Interfax reported that Russia was also sending a reconnaissance ship to the region but that it would operate separately from the naval unit.
Elsewhere, rumor has it all of Congress has been nominated for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize.

[American Patriot]

Here's the original of the above:

Russia Sends Missile Cruiser "Moskva", Destroyer And Frigate To Syria


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/04/2013 07:34 -0400

• Barack Obama
• China
• Reuters
• SPY

It was just yesterday, when we reported on the build up of Russian naval forces in the Meditteranean, in this case two new marine-carrying amphibious assault ships, that we made a simple forecast: "Our prediction: the next ship to be dispatched in direction Syria will be the missile cruiser Moskva, the "flag ship of the Black Sea fleet" and more of its affiliated warships... That, and a whole lot of submarines." We were right.

• RUSSIA SENDS MISSILE CRUISER MOSKVA TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN: IFX
• RUSSIA SENDS DESTROYER, FRIGATE TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN: IFX
• RUSSIA HAS WARSHIPS, SPY VESSELS MONITORING MEDITERRANEAN: IFX
• RUSSIA PREPARED TO ADJUST SIZE OF MEDITERRANEAN BUILDUP: IFX

The deployment is, more than anything, symbolic. It means Russia will no longer take US military build up in the region on the sidelines. Because while the Mediterranean build up is inevitable (and can be tracked here), the next step will be the arrival of Russian air and land-based support in Syria. Oh, and China. Let's not forget China.




More from Reuters:

Russia is sending a missile cruiser to the east Mediterranean to take over the navy's operations in the region, state agency Interfax quoted a military source as saying on Wednesday, as the United States prepares for a possible military strike in Syria.

President Barack Obama has won backing from key figures in the U.S. Congress in his call for limited U.S. strikes on Syria to punish President Bashar al-Assad for his suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.

The ship, Moskva, will take over operations from a naval unit in the region that Moscow says is needed to protect national interests. It will be joined by a destroyer from Russia's Baltic Fleet and a frigate from the Black Sea Fleet.

"The Cruiser Moskva is heading to the Gibraltar Straits. In approximately 10 days it will enter the east Mediterranean, where it will take over as the flagship of the naval task force," the source said.

...

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said Russia has no intention of getting dragged into any military conflict over Syria.

Earlier this week, Interfax reported that Russia was also sending a reconnaissance ship to the region but that it would operate separately from the naval unit.

Elsewhere, rumor has it all of Congress has been nominated for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize.

[American Patriot]

Article cited by Limbaugh on Syrian chemical attack being a U.S. false flag

Posted on September 4, 2013 by Dr. Eowyn | 1 Comment
Yesterday, conservative talk show titan Rush Limbaugh told his millions of listeners that he changed his mind about the Syrian chemical attack because of an article by Yossef Bodansky, former director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, which claims that the Obama administration has (a) foreknowledge of the August 21 chemical weapons attack on Damascus; and (b) plans to exploit the attack for a U.S.-led military “intervention” to topple the Assad regime. (see Trail Dust’s post on this, here).
Bodansky makes two points that are especially compelling:

1. A week before the Aug. 21 chemical attack, at meetings in Turkey (the Turkish government is hostile to Syria’s Assad regime), Syrian jihadist rebels were told to prepare — and were supplied with a new influx of Western-supplied weapons — for a major game-changing event in the two-year-long Syrian civil war. That major “war-changing development” would be a dramatic event that would provoke a U.S.-led military intervention, beginning with the U.S. bombing of Syria, which the rebels were told will enable them to topple the Assad regime. U.S. intelligence agents were present in those meetings.
   
2. There are Syrian leaders, unaffiliated with the jihadist rebels but also enemies of the Assad regime, who believe the Assad regime did not perpetrate the Aug. 21 chemical attack although they have every reason to suspect the regime.

Here’s Bodansky’s article in its entirety.

Mounting evidence raises questions about Syrian chemical weapon attack

Yossef Bodansky, Senior Editor, GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs
August 28th, 2013 | Posted by WorldTribune.com
There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the Aug. 21 chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a premeditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.
The extent of U.S. foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the “horror” of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light.
On Aug. 13-14, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major and irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and representatives of Qatari, Turkish, and U.S. Intelligence [“Mukhabarat Amriki”] took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors. Very senior opposition commanders who had arrived from Istanbul briefed the regional commanders of an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development” which would, in turn, lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.
The opposition forces had to quickly prepare their forces for exploiting the U.S.-led bombing in order to march on Damascus and topple the Bashar al-Assad government, the senior commanders explained. The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive.
Indeed, unprecedented weapons distribution started in all opposition camps in Hatay Province on Aug. 21-23. In the Reyhanli area alone, opposition forces received well in excess of 400 tons of weapons, mainly anti-aircraft weaponry from shoulder-fired missiles to ammunition for light-guns and machine guns. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by Qatari and Turkish Intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S. Intelligence.
These weapons were loaded on more than 20 trailer-trucks which crossed into northern Syria and distributed the weapons to several depots. Followup weapon shipments, also several hundred tons, took place over the weekend of Aug. 24-25, and included mainly sophisticated anti-tank guided missiles and rockets. Opposition officials in Hatay said that these weapon shipments were “the biggest” they had received “since the beginning of the turmoil more than two years ago”. The deliveries from Hatay went to all the rebel forces operating in the Idlibto-Aleppo area, including the Al Qaida affiliated jihadists (who constitute the largest rebel forces in the area).
Several senior officials from both the Syrian opposition and sponsoring Arab states stressed that these weapon deliveries were specifically in anticipation for exploiting the impact of imminent bombing of Syria by the U.S. and the Western allies. The latest strategy formulation and coordination meetings took place on Aug. 26. The political coordination meeting took place in Istanbul and was attended by U.S. Amb. Robert Ford.
More important were the military and operational coordination meetings at the Antakya garrison. Senior Turkish, Qatari, and U.S. Intelligence officials attended in addition to the Syrian senior (opposition) commanders. The Syrians were informed that bombing would start in a few days. “The opposition was told in clear terms that action to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime could come as early as in the next few days,” a Syrian participant in the meeting said. Another Syrian participant said that he was convinced U.S. bombing was scheduled to begin on Thursday, Aug. 29. Several participants — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that the assurances of forthcoming bombing were most explicit even as formally Obama is still undecided.
The descriptions of these meetings raise the question of the extent of foreknowledge of U.S. intelligence, and therefore, the Obama White House. All the sources consulted — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that officials of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” actively participated in the meetings and briefings in Turkey. Therefore, at the very least, they should have known that the opposition leaders were anticipating “a war-changing development”: that is, a dramatic event which would provoke a U.S.-led military intervention.
The mere fact that weapon storage sites under the tight supervision of U.S. intelligence were opened up and about a thousand tons of high-quality weapons were distributed to the opposition indicates that U.S. intelligence anticipated such a provocation and the opportunity for the Syrian opposition to exploit the impact of the ensuing U.S. and allied bombing. Hence, even if the Obama White House did not know in advance of the chemical provocation, they should have concluded, or at the very least suspected, that the chemical attack was most likely the “war-changing development” anticipated by the opposition leaders as provocation of U.S.-led bombing. Under such circumstances, the Obama White House should have refrained from rushing head-on to accuse Assad’s Damascus and threaten retaliation, thus making the Obama White House at the very least complicit after the act.
Meanwhile, additional data from Damascus about the actual chemical attack increases the doubts about Washington’s version of events. Immediately after the attack, three hospitals of Doctors Without Borders (MSF: médecins sans frontières) in the greater Damascus area treated more than 3,600 Syrians affected by the chemical attack, and 355 of them died. MSF performed tests on the vast majority of those treated.
MSF director of operations Bart Janssens summed up the findings: “MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack. However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events — characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers — strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent.” Simply put, even after testing some 3,600 patients, MSF failed to confirm that sarin was the cause of the injuries. According to MSF, the cause could have been nerve agents like sarin, concentrated riot control gas, or even high-concentration pesticides. Moreover, opposition reports that there was distinct stench during the attack suggest that it could have come from the “kitchen sarin” used by jihadist groups (as distinct from the odorless military-type sarin) or improvised agents like pesticides.
Some of the evidence touted by the Obama White House is questionable at best.
A small incident in Beirut raises big questions. A day after the chemical attack, Lebanese fixers working for the “Mukhabarat Amriki” succeeded to convince a Syrian male who claimed to have been injured in the chemical attack to seek medical aid in Beirut in return for a hefty sum that would effectively settle him for life. The man was put into an ambulance and transferred overnight to the Farhat Hospital in Jib Janine, Beirut. The Obama White House immediately leaked friendly media that “the Lebanese Red Cross announced that test results found traces of sarin gas in his blood.” However, this was news to Lebanese intelligence and Red Cross officials. According to senior intelligence officials, “Red Cross Operations Director George Kettaneh told [them] that the injured Syrian fled the hospital before doctors were able to test for traces of toxic gas in his blood.” Apparently, the patient declared that he had recovered from his nausea and no longer needed medical treatment. The Lebanese security forces are still searching for the Syrian patient and his honorarium.
On Aug. 24, Syrian Commando forces acted on intelligence about the possible perpetrators of the chemical attack and raided a cluster of rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar. Canisters of toxic material were hit in the fierce fire-fight as several Syrian soldiers suffered from suffocation and “some of the injured are in a critical condition”.
The Commando eventually seized an opposition warehouse containing barrels full of chemicals required for mixing “kitchen sarin”, laboratory equipment, as well as a large number of protective masks. The Syrian Commando also captured several improvised explosive devices, RPG rounds, and mortar shells. The same day, at least four HizbAllah fighters operating in Damascus near Ghouta were hit by chemical agents at the very same time the Syrian Commando unit was hit while searching a group of rebel tunnels in Jobar.
Both the Syrian and the HizbAllah forces were acting on intelligence information about the real perpetrators of the chemical attack. Damascus told Moscow the Syrian troops were hit by some form of a nerve agent and sent samples (blood, tissues, and soil) and captured equipment to Russia.
Several Syrian leaders, many of whom are not Bashar al-Assad supporters and are even his sworn enemies, are now convinced that the Syrian opposition is responsible for the Aug. 21, chemical attack in the Damascus area in order to provoke the U.S. and the allies into bombing Assad’s Syria. Most explicit and eloquent is Saleh Muslim, the head of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) which has been fighting the Syrian Government.
Saleh Muslim doubts Assad would have used chemical weapons when he was winning the civil war.
“The regime in Syria … has chemical weapons, but they wouldn’t use them around Damascus, five km from the [UN] committee which is investigating chemical weapons. Of course they are not so stupid as to do so,” Muslim told Reuters on Aug. 27. He believes the attack was “aimed at framing Assad and provoking an international reaction”. Muslim is convinced that “some other sides who want to blame the Syrian regime, who want to show them as guilty and then see action” is responsible for the chemical attack. The U.S. was exploiting the attack to further its own anti-Assad policies and should the UN inspectors find evidence that the rebels were behind the attack, then “everybody would forget it”, Muslim shrugged. “Who is the side who would be punished? Are they are going to punish the Emir of Qatar or the King of Saudi Arabia, or Mr Erdogan of Turkey?”
And there remain the questions: Given the extent of the involvement of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” in opposition activities, how is it that U.S. intelligence did not know in advance about the opposition’s planned use of chemical weapons in Damascus?
And if they did know and warned the Obama White House, why then the sanctimonious rush to blame the Assad Administration? Moreover, how can the Obama Administration continue to support and seek to empower the opposition which had just intentionally killed some 1,300 innocent civilians in order to provoke a U.S. military intervention?

Today, the U.S. Senate will vote on whether to authorize Obama’s bombing of Syria. Call your Senators and tell them to vote No!!!!!!!!!

[American Patriot]

Putin: Any US Strike On Syria Would Be Illegal Without UN Support

Posted on September 4, 2013

0

reuters logo

Putin ‘does not rule out’ approving Syria strike with evidence Assad used poison gas | Reuters.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia did not rule out approving a military operation in Syria if clear evidence showed Damascus had carried out chemical weapons attacks, but said any attack would be illegal without U.N. support.

In an interview with AP and Russia’s First Channel, released the day before a G20 leaders’ meeting in St Petersburg, Putin said he expected to hold talks with the U.S. President Barack Obama on the summit sidelines, saying there was much to discuss.

Ties between the United States and Russia have fallen to one of their lowest points since the end of the Cold War over numerous issues including violence in Syria, where Russia has been President Bashar al-Assad’s most powerful protector.

Putin’s comments appeared intended to show readiness to remain constructive in U.S.-Russia ties, despite Obama’s decision to pull out of a bilateral summit between the leaders.

Obama comes to St Petersburg having secured support from key figures in the U.S. Congress for his call for limited U.S. strikes on Syria.

When asked whether Russia would agree to military action if Damascus were proven to have carried out a chemical weapons attack, Putin answered: “I do not rule it out.”

However, he also made clear that Russia is not yet prepared to accept U.S. and European assertions that Assad’s forces were behind an August 21 chemical weapons attack that Washington says killed more than 1,400 people.

“We have no data that those chemical substances – it is not yet clear whether it was chemical weapons or simply some harmful chemical substances – were used precisely by the official government army.”

Putin said no strikes on Syria could be legal without approval by the United Nations Security Council, where Moscow has a veto that it has repeatedly used to protect Assad.

“According to current international law, only the United Nations Security Council can sanction the use of force against a sovereign state. Any other approaches, means, to justify the use of force against an independent and sovereign state, are inadmissible,” he said, adding it would amount to aggression.

The United States and France, its main ally on Syria, say they are prepared to launch strikes without a U.N. Security Council resolution because they believe Moscow would veto any authorization for force.

A senior Western official said that – while Moscow was unlikely to say so in public – there were signs Russian officials believe Assad was indeed responsible for the chemical weapons attack and it had strained Russian support for him.

[American Patriot]

This is the tracking link:


The deployment is, more than anything, symbolic. It means Russia will no longer take US military build up in the region on the sidelines. Because while the Mediterranean build up is inevitable (and can be tracked here), the next step will be the arrival of Russian air and land-based support in Syria. Oh, and China. Let's not forget China.

But it doesn't show military vessels.

[American Patriot]

lol

‘Tweet of the day!’ It’s Hemmer Time: Fox News’ Bill Hemmer mocks Sen. McCain

Posted at 9:28 am on September 4, 2013 by Twitchy Staff | View Comments
Tweet 1

I'm playing poker on my iPhone.
—
Bill Hemmer (@BillHemmer) September 04, 2013

[American Patriot]

Rumor has it McCain is OUT of the vote.... something about the resolution not having enough "teeth" or some shit.

[Ryan Ruck]

Rick,
Here's that pic:

[American Patriot]

thanks!

[American Patriot]

Putin says U.S. Congress has no right to approve Syria strike





MOSCOW | Wed Sep 4, 2013 9:29am EDT




(Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday the U.S. Congress had no right to approve the use of force against Syria without a decision from the U.N. Security Council, and that doing so would be an "act of aggression".


Putin also accused U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry of lying to Congress about the militant group al Qaeda's role in the Syrian conflict when seeking the approval of U.S. legislators for military action against Syria's government.