Target Syria NWO's next acquisition The Middle East- WW III - Muslim Civil War

[Mark]

FSA Terrorists behind Aleppo Sarin Gas Attack, not Syrian Army

[Mark]

Russia Has Equipped Syria With Their Most Advanced Anti-Ship Missiles


Russia has sold Syria highly advanced rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles and anti-ship missiles.  In fact, the P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles that Russia has equipped Syria with are the most advanced anti-ship missiles that Russia has.  When the United States strikes Syria, they might be quite surprised at how hard Syria can hit back.  The Syrian military is the most formidable adversary that the U.S. military has tangled with in the Middle East by far.  From Syria, P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles can cover much of the eastern Mediterranean and can even reach air bases in Cyprus.  If the U.S. Navy is not very careful to stay out of range, we could easily see footage of destroyed U.S. naval vessels sinking into the Mediterranean Sea on the evening news.  And once the American people see such footage, it will be impossible to stop a full-blown war between the United States and Syria. (Read More....)
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/russia-has-equipped-syria-with-their-most-advanced-anti-ship-missiles

[Mark]

Report: Head of Syria's forensic medicine committee in Aleppo defects from President Assad's regime, Syrian opposition says - @Reuters

More: Syrian opposition says defected forensic expert reportedly has evidence of Assad administration's involvement in suspected chemical attack in Aleppo in March - @Reuters

Syrian regime defector to give news conference, with evidence of regime use of chemical weapons - @AJELive

http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/syria-153

[Mark]

France's President Hollande says if US Congress votes against action in Syria, France would not intervene alone - @Reuters

  of course not, as they couldnt win a war.

[Mark]

Sen. Levin on Syria: 'There will be support from Arab nations, we learned that this morning;' did not disclose details - @MajorCBS

That means Saudi Arabia!!! The same people that supplied the chemical weapons in the first place, and are paying for Al Quaida to fight in Syria!!

[Psalm 51:17]

I know both political "parties" and controlled opposition, but nonetheless you can't deny McCain has played a HUGE rule since the turn of the 21st Century - first helped get George W. elected in the 2000 GOP primaries(which continued the Bush "dynasty" and further destruction of America), and then helped Obama in 2008. There was one point during the GOP primaries in 2007 where his campaign was in the RED, but somehow got labeled as the "comeback kid" a year later when he "won" the GOP primaries.

Thieves and Robbers indeed!

[Mark]

McCains Buddies Behead 40 Syrians Including Baby

Al-Qaeda militants kill 24 civilians near Ras al-Ain

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant. Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

According to media reports, the attack was carried out because the passengers who were from three different villages in Ras al-Ain, supported anti-terrorist Kurdish groups which were formed recently to defend Kurdish population against anti-Syria terrorists.

Bodies of a mother and her 40-days infant were also seen among the dead, which were recognized by their relatives.

Syrian Kurdish leader Saleh Muslim warned on Friday that the Kurd minority is facing an ethnic cleansing by al-Qaeda terrorists.

While there is no end in sight to the bloody foreign-fueled conflict in Syria, another front has been formed between the Kurdish militia and extremist militants in Northern Syria.

Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups operating in the country, including the al-Nusra Front, are trying to capture Kurdish territories and make them part of a state they want to create in the region.

Following deadly attacks on Kurdish regions in recent months, groups of Kurdish militia were formed to protect their people.

Anti-Syria armed groups continue to target civilians amid US threats against Syrian army and government which have made militants find it easier to widen their attacks.

Following worldwide criticism, US President Barack Obama delayed an imminent military strike against Syria on August 31, sending the matter to the Congress to get more support.

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1512664

[Psalm 51:17]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/senate-likely-pass-more-tailored-act-syria-chairman-140812477.html
Obama wins support from leaders in Congress for Syria military strike
9/3/13

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday urged quick congressional action authorizing the use of military force against Syria and won the support of leaders from both parties in the House of Representatives for limited strikes against President Bashar al-Assad's forces.

Obama told congressional leaders at a White House meeting that the United States has a broad plan to help the rebels defeat Syrian government forces.

After the meeting, the top two Republicans in the House - Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor - and top Democrat Nancy Pelosi said they would back military action against Syria.

"Only the United States has the capability and the capacity to stop Assad and to warn others around the world that this type of behavior is not going to be tolerated," Boehner told reporters. "I believe that my colleagues should support this call for action."

The support came as Obama ramped up his lobbying effort for military action in response to what Washington says was a sarin gas attack by the Syrian government that killed more than 1,400 people, hundreds of them children, near Damascus on August 21.

"What we are envisioning is something limited. It is something proportional. It will degrade Assad's capabilities," Obama told reporters. "At the same time we have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition."

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel will present the administration's case for U.S. military action at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, which is set to begin at 2:30 p.m. ET.

Obama said on Saturday he would seek lawmakers' approval for a possible military strike, slowing what had appeared to be plans for a swift action. He has faced stiff resistance from some lawmakers and polls show strong public opposition to U.S. action.

Support from the leaders of both parties could help Obama make his case, but many U.S. lawmakers, including Obama's fellow Democrats, have said they are concerned the president's draft resolution could be too open-ended and allow possible use of ground troops or eventual attacks on other countries.

The resolution authorizes Obama to use military force as necessary to "prevent or deter the use or proliferation" to or from Syria of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons. Some Democrats said the language should be more limiting to ensure it does not authorize the use of ground troops.

Obama told congressional leaders he was willing to address their concerns about the authorization.

"I look forward to listening to the various concerns of the members who are here today. I am confident that those concerns can be addressed," he said.

"I would not be going to Congress if I wasn't serious about consultations and believing that by shaping the authorization to make sure we accomplish the mission, we will be more effective."

Along with Boehner and Pelosi, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell and the chairs of congressional committees that deal with national security and the armed services attended the meeting.

Asked whether he was confident Congress would vote in favor of a strike, Obama said: "I am."

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey, said he was confident the resolution would pass Congress, but in amended form.

"I believe that we will get there," he said, although he added: "I think our resolution that we will ultimately see will be far more tailored than what the administration sent us."

'NEED TO ACT'

"At the end of the day, (it) will strike the balance between the need to act and act in a way that meets our goals and not create an open-ended, boots-on-the-ground long-term proposition," Menendez told CNBC in an interview.

Menendez, speaking on CBS News, said he wanted Kerry and Hagel to offer "the full case for the use of force" and detail "what that campaign will look like in broad terms, especially as it relates to the end result."

The committee will also hold a closed hearing on Wednesday to discuss the intelligence related to Syria, Menendez told CBS.

It could then begin debate on a Senate version of the bill on Wednesday afternoon, with the aim of sending it to the full Senate for debate next week.

The House and the Senate return from their summer recess on September 9. Both chambers would have to approve the authorization, and it remains unclear whether the Obama administration has the votes.

While he is seeking congressional approval, Obama has said he does not actually require authorization for a strike on Syria, which has blamed the chemical attack on rebel forces.

Republican Senator John McCain, who attended a White House meeting on Syria on Monday, said Obama "would seriously consider" providing weapons to opponents fighting Assad.

"We discussed ... increasing the capabilities and that means providing not only weapons, but the kind of weapons they need, which are anti-armor and anti-air. AK-47s don't do very well against tanks," McCain told CNN's "New Day."

Both McCain and Menendez said that although any action would be aimed at degrading Assad's capabilities to deliver chemical weapons, it could also undermine the Syrian government itself and shift momentum in favor of the rebels.

(Reporting by Mark Felsenthal, Susan Heavey, Vicki Allen; Writing by John Whitesides; Editing by Karey Van Hall, David Brunnstrom and Vicki Allen)

[Mark]

By 48% to 29% margin, more Americans oppose than support conducting military airstrikes against Syria - @pewresearch
http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/03/public-opinion-runs-against-syrian-airstrikes/


Nearly 6 in 10 oppose missile strikes in light of US government's determination that Syria used chemical weapons against its own people - @washingtonpost
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/09/03/National-Politics/Polling/release_258.xml


Video: Kerry, Hagel testify LIE at Senate hearing on Syria
http://www.breakingnews.com/

[Psalm 51:17]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/03/20306844-senators-draft-resolution-to-limit-syria-action-to-90-days-no-boots-on-the-ground?lite
9/3/13

Senators draft resolution to limit Syria action to 90 days, no boots on the ground

Leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Tuesday they reached an agreement on a draft resolution to use military force in Syria, setting a 60-day deadline, with one 30-day extension possible for the intervention -- while also barring the involvement of ground forces in the conflict.

"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," Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.

The draft could be voted on by the panel on Wednesday. If approved, it would be sent to the full Senate for a vote once members return from recess on Sept. 9.

Two members of the House, Democrats Gerald Connolly and Chris van Hollen, offered their own version of a resolution -- also limiting the engagement to 60 days and prohibiting U.S. "boots on the ground" in Syria.

Confronting skeptics of an attack on Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that the world is watching and wants to know whether the United States will “rise to this moment and make a difference.”

"The president is not asking you to go to war," Kerry said in response to a question asked by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. "He’s simply saying we need to take an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who’s willing to kill his own people by breaking a nearly 100-year-old prohibition, and will we stand up and be counted to say we won’t do that."

Paul suggested he would require any resolution approving U.S. military involvement in Syria pass the Senate by a filibuster-proof majority.

The secretary said American intelligence services had gone over and over the evidence that the government of Syrian leader Bashar Assad used chemical weapons in an assault on rebel forces Aug. 21.

He said hair and blood samples from the scene had tested positive for signs of sarin gas. He described the case as beyond a reasonable doubt, and said that the United States must act rather than retreat into “armchair isolationism.”

“This is not the time to be spectators to slaughter,” he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Neither our country nor our conscience can afford the cost of silence.”

The secretary stressed that American allies, notably Israel, are watching because they know that they are “one stiff breeze away” from a chemical attack. And he said Iran, North Korea and the terror group Hezbollah are paying attention, too.

“They are all listening for our silence,” he said, adding that the Obama administration is not contemplating the possibility of losing a congressional vote on Syria because that scenario is too "dire."

Kerry appeared with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and with Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as part of a full day’s press by the White House in support of a military strike against Syria.

Kerry said that Assad had used chemicals after repeated warnings from the president, Congress and U.S. allies. Hagel added: “The word of the United States must mean something. It is vital currency in foreign relations, and international and allied commitments.”

The Obama administration gained an important ally when House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, the highest-ranking elected Republican in Washington, said he would support the president’s call for military action.

Other Republicans, including Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, were conspicuously more reserved. McConnell said Congress needs to hear more about what can be accomplished in Syria.

Still, the top senators on the Foreign Relations Committee neared agreement on a resolution authorizing the use of force in Syria, the committee’s top Republican, Sen. Bob Corker, told reporters.

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden huddled with the heads of key congressional committees in the White House Cabinet Room. Boehner, Corker, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and McConnell were among those present at the meeting.

In brief remarks to reporters, Obama stressed that American action would be limited and meant to “degrade” the capability of Assad, who is suspected of using chemical weapons against his own people last month.

“This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan,” Obama said.

Among the day’s other major developments in the Syria crisis:

— U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that the use of force is only legal when a country is acting in self-defense or with the approval of the U.N. Security Council. Russia and China both have veto power in the U.N. Security Council and would presumably block any American attempt to secure U.N. support for a Syria strike. Obama has said he is comfortable going forward without the Security Council.

— Israel test-fired a missile over the Mediterranean Sea, adding to tension in the region. U.S. military officials told NBC News that no American ships took part in the test, and called the test fairly routine.

— The United Nations said that more than 2 million Syrians have poured into neighboring countries, about 5,000 per day. A U.N. commissioner said Syria had become “the great tragedy of this century.”

— A spokesman for the Syrian opposition said that a Syrian forensic medicine expert has evidence of Assad’s involvement in a chemical weapons attack in March -- and has defected to Turkey.

— Pope Francis said from his official Twitter account: “With utmost firmness I condemn the use of chemical weapons.”

At the Senate hearing, Kerry said Syria was not a matter of “President Obama’s red line,” a reference to a phrase the president used last year to describe Syria’s hypothetical use of chemical weapons. Obama’s political opponents have seized on the remark as an example of inaction.

Kerry encouraged senators to view the crisis through a long lens — the civilized world’s rejection of chemical weapons since World War I.

“This debate is about the world’s red line, about humanity’s red line, a line that anyone with a conscience should draw,” he said.

Several anti-war protesters interrupted the Senate hearing, prompting Kerry to say the day's events reminded him of his 1971 testimony about the war in Vietnam.

"Nobody wants this war! Cruise missiles, launching cruise missiles means another war -- the American people do not want this!" said Medea Benjamin, one of the protesters.

“You know, the first time that I testified before this committee, when I was 27 years old, I had feelings very similar to that protester, and I would just say that is exactly why it is so important that we are here having this debate,” Kerry said. “And I think we all can respect those who have a different point of view, and we do.”

The Senate hearing followed a long weekend during which the administration backed off what appeared to be an imminent strike and began making its case to Congress and the public.

The administration argues that Assad must be punished for firing chemical weapons into a suburb of the capital, killing more than 1,400 people, including more than 400 children.

Obama said Tuesday that he is confident that Congress will authorize military action against Syria. He said he would be willing to rewrite his draft resolution to Congress, “so long as we are accomplishing what needs to be accomplished which is to degrade Assad.”

The timing of a vote in Congress could be tricky. The nation marks the 12th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks next week, and the U.N. opens its General Assembly on Sept. 17.

On Monday, Obama met with two key Republican senators, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. McCain, after the meeting, called on Congress to pass a resolution approving force against Syria.

Both Republicans said the goal of military action should be to “degrade” the capabilities of the Assad regime and “upgrade” those of the Syrian opposition, which has fought the Assad government for more than two years into a civil war.

McCain and Graham also criticized Obama for failing to make a clear case for intervention.

Also Monday, Kerry, Hagel and National Security Adviser Susan Rice were among the administration officials who spoke to 127 House Democrats by conference call to argue for a Syria strike.

Sources told NBC News that Pelosi came to the administration’s defense, telling colleagues that preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction was an important piece of U.S. national security policy.

Kerry told the call that Congress faces a “Munich moment,” a reference to the 1938 agreement that ceded part of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany, and that was judged by history to be an appeasement of Adolf Hitler.

Kerry will go before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday.

The president planned to fly overnight Tuesday to Sweden to meet with Scandinavian leaders there. He arrives Thursday in Russia for a meeting of the Group of 20 world economic powers.

Obama, preparing to argue his case before Congress and the American public, said Saturday: “We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual.”

[Christian40]

From my humble Bible study about Damascus here:

Isaiah 7:1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.

2 And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.

3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;

4 And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.

5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,

6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:

7 Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.

verse 8 says 65 years (threescore and five) so i went 1948 (Israel begins) + 65 = 2013 is this a coincidence? i think not, it says Ephraim will be broken, i'm thinking where was Epharim in Israel?

[Christian40]

[Mark]

13:45Russian warships' visit to Cape Verde cancelled, cruiser Moskva heads to Mediterranean - source

Russian cruiser Moskva - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva

[Mark]

McCain playing poker on his iPhone

As the hearing continues, our ace photographer Melina Mara reports she spotted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) “passing the time by playing poker on his iPhone during the hearing.”
 
We eagerly await the photographic proof, but generally trust Melina’s sharp eye.
 
Update 5:55 p.m.: And here’s the proof:

[Mark]

PUTIN: U.S. strike on Syria illegal without U.N....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/us-syria-crisis-russia-idUSBRE98307M20130904

... 'Aggression'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/10285312/Vladimir-Putin-warns-US-over-Syria-aggression.html

... Blames rebels for chemical attack
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_RUSSIA_PUTIN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-04-04-12-52

France pulls back, will debate strike... WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? ITS FRANCE
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130904/DA8JFNTO2.html

'Obama is weak'...
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/03/assad-obama-is-weak/

Syria Adopts 'Yes We Can' Slogan...
http://freebeacon.com/syrian-ambassador-quotes-obamas-yes-we-can-slogan-while-defending-assad/

[Mark]

Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?

Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?  Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria?  Of course.  Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.  Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"?  Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.  On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons.  One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.  Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict.  If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia.  This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.
 
It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time.  The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009...
 

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).
 
"We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.
 
Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.
 
"For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.
 
Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world's leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.
 
As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline.  Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route.  The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian...
 

In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."
 
Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.
 
The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.
 
If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia.  So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people.  In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely...
 

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.
 
The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.
 
Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.
 
But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.
 
If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants...
 

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.
 
Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.
 
Is this really who we want to be "allied" with?
 
And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.
 
If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive.  In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American "boots on the ground"...
 
The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad.  It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force.  It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets.  Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.  Four points are worth making about these purposes.  First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict.  Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).  Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”  Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”).  Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).
 
I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described.  Some questions for Congress to ponder:
 
(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power?  Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.  It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.
 
(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon?  Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.
 
Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?
 
What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out...
 
I'll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he's five years old. We're not talking about war; we're talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, 'Well, what do you think?' He said, 'I think no war.'
 
Unfortunately, his grandmother and most of our other insane "leaders" in Washington D.C. seem absolutely determined to take us to war.
 
In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline?

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/is-the-united-states-going-to-go-to-war-with-syria-over-a-natural-gas-pipeline

[Mark]

Rush Limbaugh Suspects Obama Conspired With Al-Qaeda to Frame Bashar al-Assad

“If true, this is the setup of all time,” says Limbaugh


Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh acknowledges building evidence that the chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged to frame President Bashar al-Assad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE7m9qSZjuU&feature=player_embedded

On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Rush Limbaugh show, the talk show host acknowledged reports from the Associated Press that the admitted intelligence on Syria’s chemical weapons attack was “no slam dunk.”
 
He also announced he believes Obama may have been “complicit” in the attack and possibly helped plan it.
 
Limbaugh expressed doubt over allegations Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Limbaugh asked if the allegations are true, what does Assad have to gain?
 
On Saturday morning, the talk show host received a note from a friend who spent time in the Middle East. In the note, Limbaugh’s friend vouched for Assad, claiming there’s “nothing in it for him,” and “he’s not that kind of guy,” describing the note as “almost a personal reference for Bashar.”
 
Limbaugh initially dismissed the claim and filed the note away stating “everybody wants to do my job” and “everybody wants to influence what I say.”
 
“Anybody can write me anything and say anything, says Limbaugh. I have to be very careful.
 
“I just can’t accept what somebody sends me in an email and run with it. So, I ran the theory by a couple of people whose opinion on these things I respect over the years. They both said ‘Na, na, na, that’s a little crazy.’”
 
However, Limbaugh changed his mind when he discovered another piece making similar accusations by a journalist named Yossef Bodansky.
 
In the article Bodansky argues the “deception playing out in Syria is a deception similar to the one used in Sarajevo in 1995 to provoke air strikes against the Serbs for the benefit of the Bosnian Muslims.”
 
According to Limbaugh, “If this is true, this is the setup of all time.”
 
The article alleges the “US had intel involvement dating a week before the alleged chemical weapons attack in meetings that were anticipating a war changing event.”
 
“We could be looking at a frame job. Pretty big setup,” says Limbaugh.
 
“The rebels nerve gassed themselves in order to engineer a response that takes out Bashar, putting the US on the side of Al-Qaeda,” alleges Mr. Bodansky.
 
Limbaugh’s skepticism of the White House narrative regarding the chemical weapons attack in Syria adds him to a growing list of people who believe the attack to be a staged false flag provocation.
 
The talk radio icon joins a long list of credible experts including Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Jerome Corsi, who see evidence the Obama administration helped staged the chemical weapons attack in Syria with Al-Qaeda to frame the Assad regime.

http://www.infowars.com/rush-limbaugh-suspects-obama-conspired-with-al-qaeda-to-frame-bashar-al-assad/

[Mark]

AP Interview: Putin warns West on Syria action

Putin said it was "ludicrous" that the government of President Bashar Assad _ a staunch ally of Russia _ would use chemical weapons at a time when it was holding sway against the rebels.

"From our viewpoint, it seems absolutely absurd that the armed forces, the regular armed forces, which are on the offensive today and in some areas have encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that in these conditions they would start using forbidden chemical weapons while realizing quite well that it could serve as a pretext for applying sanctions against them, including the use of force," he said.

The Obama administration says 1,429 people died in the Aug. 21 attack in a Damascus suburb. Casualty estimates by other groups are far lower, and Assad's government blames the episode on rebels trying to overthrow him. A U.N. inspection team is awaiting lab results on tissue and soil samples it collected while in Syria before completing a report.

"If there are data that the chemical weapons have been used, and used specifically by the regular army, this evidence should be submitted to the U.N. Security Council," added Putin, a former officer in the Soviet KGB. "And it ought to be convincing. It shouldn't be based on some rumors and information obtained by special services through some kind of eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that.

"He noted that even in the U.S., "there are experts who believe that the evidence presented by the administration doesn't look convincing, and they don't exclude the possibility that the opposition conducted a premeditated provocative action trying to give their sponsors a pretext for military intervention.

"He compared the evidence presented by Washington to false data used by the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"All these arguments turned out to be untenable, but they were used to launch a military action, which many in the U.S. called a mistake. Did we forget about that?" Putin said.

He said he "doesn't exclude" backing the use of force against Syria at the United Nations if there is objective evidence proving that Assad's regime used chemical weapons against its people. But he strongly warned Washington against launching military action without U.N. approval, saying it would represent an aggression.

Putin reinforced his demand that before taking action, Obama needed approval from the U.N. Security Council. Russia can veto resolutions in the council and has protected Syria from punitive actions there before.

Asked what kind of evidence on chemical weapons use would convince Russia, Putin said "it should be a deep and specific probe containing evidence that would be obvious and prove beyond doubt who did it and what means were used.

"Putin said it was "too early" to talk about what Russia would do if the U.S. attacked Syria.

"We have our ideas about what we will do and how we will do it in case the situation develops toward the use of force or otherwise," he said. "We have our plans."

 - See more at: http://www.onenewsnow.com/ap/world/ap-interview-putin-warns-west-on-syria-action#sthash.mwU0ELwW.dpuf

[Mark]

President Obama says failing to respond to Syrian attack would increase the risk of further attacks, encourage other countries to use chemical weapons - live video

President Obama directly implicates Syria's President Assad in chemical weapons use - live video

'My credibility is not on the line, the international community's credibility is on the line,' Obama says when asked about Syria - live video

 

[Mark]

President Obama says failing to respond to Syrian attack would increase the risk of further attacks, encourage other countries to use chemical weapons - live video

President Obama directly implicates Syria's President Assad in chemical weapons use - live video

'My credibility is not on the line, the international community's credibility is on the line,' Obama says when asked about Syria - live video

 

President Obama says international community and Congress' credibility is on the line on response to Syria - @AP; more:
http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/president-obama-visits-sweden-september-2013

[Mark]

McCain opposes Senate resolution on Syria

  woops

Sen. John McCain says he doesn't support the latest Senate resolution to authorize military force against Syria.
 
McCain is an outspoken advocate of intervention against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime and wants more than cruise missile strikes and other limited action.
 
The Arizona Republican threatened earlier this week to vote against a White House draft resolution unless President Barack Obama promised greater support to Syria's rebels. McCain then expressed support after meeting Obama at the White House.
 
He now opposes a resolution crafted by Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee. It puts a 90-day limit on action and says no American troops can be sent into Syria.
 
Asked if he supported it, McCain said, "In its current form, I do not."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MCCAIN_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Mark]

McCain Pulls Support for Syria Plan

Sen. McCain, the president's strongest ally for a strike in Syria, deals administration a setback by opposing a Senate proposal for use of force, as he pushes for a more aggressive plan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/04/mccain-opposes-syria-strike-resolution/

[Psalm 51:17]

This is very interesting...thank you for sharing this. What does everyone else think?

From my humble Bible study about Damascus here:

Isaiah 7:1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.

2 And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.

3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;

4 And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.

5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,

6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:

7 Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.

verse 8 says 65 years (threescore and five) so i went 1948 (Israel begins) + 65 = 2013 is this a coincidence? i think not, it says Ephraim will be broken, i'm thinking where was Epharim in Israel?

[Psalm 51:17]

McCain Pulls Support for Syria Plan

Sen. McCain, the president's strongest ally for a strike in Syria, deals administration a setback by opposing a Senate proposal for use of force, as he pushes for a more aggressive plan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/04/mccain-opposes-syria-strike-resolution/

So both Boehner and Cantor(GOP leaders in the House) support it, but en yet the likes of Peter King and John McCain, who want BROADER action do not? Remember McCain suggested too how Obama didn't need to get authorization from Congress as well.

Pt being that it looks like their little Hegelian Dialectic game is going as planned - as the GOP is getting divided over this issue.

[Psalm 51:17]

Rush Limbaugh Suspects Obama Conspired With Al-Qaeda to Frame Bashar al-Assad

“If true, this is the setup of all time,” says Limbaugh

Yeah, well, good 'ole Rush was in lock-step with George W. over Iraq. And he forgot about all those times Reagan raised taxes(some 11 times).

Sorry Rush, can't have it both ways!

[Psalm 51:17]

McCain playing poker on his iPhone

As the hearing continues, our ace photographer Melina Mara reports she spotted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) “passing the time by playing poker on his iPhone during the hearing.”
 
We eagerly await the photographic proof, but generally trust Melina’s sharp eye.
 
Update 5:55 p.m.: And here’s the proof:

McCain is evil.

[Mark]

Kerry: Arab countries offered to pay for invasion

Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.
 
“With respect to Arab counties offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”
 
Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.
 
“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/#e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3

Is this what the US has become? Bet that country is Saudi Arabia

[Mark]

Representative Matt Salmon: Syria Authorization ‘Will Fail by 20 Votes’

Arizona congressman Matt Salmon’s constituents have called his office 500 times about Syria, he tells National Review Online in an interview, but only two callers have expressed support for intervening there. “This is not hyperbole!” he says emphatically.

And Salmon himself is firmly against authorizing a strike. “I don’t see any national-security imperative for our country at all. Both sides in this equation are bad actors.” He also notes that Obama has been unable to form an international coalition and hasn’t laid out an overall objective for a missile strike. “Other than saving face for the president, I don’t understand what we would be doing,” he says.

Further, Salmon doubts the intervention will be brief. “Nobody believes this is going to be a couple surgical strikes,” he says.

Salmon agrees the dynamics of the vote are likely to mirror the July vote on an amendment from Representative Justin Amash to reign in the NSA’s broad surveillance powers, except the vote against authorizing Syrian intervention is likely to have more support. The authorization “will fail by 20 votes,” he predicts.

Salmon praised President Obama for coming to Congress for authorization, but he fears whether the president will abide by the will of the legislature. It would be a constitutional crisis if Obama overrode the will of Congress on Syria, he says, describing that scenario as the “most significant flouting of separation of powers in this nation, if this happens.”

Salmon is part of the right flank of the GOP conference, someone who is deeply frustrated with Speaker John Boehner’s unwillingness to use the upcoming continuing-resolution fight to draw a line in the sand over Obamacare funding.

He also sees the Syria fight as part of a larger battle for the heart of the GOP’s foreign-policy soul. The lessons of Iraq, but also the “past 30 or 40 years” are that “we should be a lot more cautious.” Of the Iraq War, launched by Republican president George W. Bush, he says “We’ve spent countless lives and dollars, and for what?” Salmon says that his fellow Republicans who weren’t in office during the Bush years were more likely to have learned those lessons from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars than those who were in D.C. to authorize them.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/357594/representative-matt-salmon-syria-authorization-will-fail-20-votes-jonathan-strong

[Psalm 51:17]

Kerry: Arab countries offered to pay for invasion

Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.
 
“With respect to Arab counties offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”
 
Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.
 
“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/#e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3

Is this what the US has become? Bet that country is Saudi Arabia

Yep - countries like the Saudis have pretty much owned America. Throw in China for good measure too as they own most of America's debt.

BTW - did you listen to Bryan's latest audio on church buildings?(No, not the one posted a couple of weeks ago, but yesterday) Honestly, the modern-day churches in America(which have been rooted in church buildings) are the most responsible. No, I'm not pointing my fingers at them and acting like I was never part of this system, but nonetheless look how their attitude of "Republicanism" and "Patriotism" have kept their flocks in the dark. Even KJV-only people like Sam Gipp(who I like for the most part, BTW) have bought into this "America is a great nation" nonsense.

Judgment must begin at the house of the Lord.

Anyhow - wanted to throw this in as I'm not surprised at all what Caesar's current leaders are doing.

Ezekiel 5:17  So will I send upon you famine and evil beasts, and they shall bereave thee; and pestilence and blood shall pass through thee; and I will bring the sword upon thee. I the LORD have spoken it.

[Mark]

Senate panel approves resolution giving President Obama authority to use military force against Syria - @AP, @Reuters

http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/congress-considers-measure-on-military-action-in-syria