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

[Mark]

Rep. Alan Grayson: Syria Intelligence Manipulated

Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who is aggressively lobbying against a military strike on Syria, says the Obama administration has manipulated intelligence to push its case for U.S. involvement in the country's two-year civil war.

Grayson made the accusation in an interview published Wednesday by The Atlantic and offered more detail in a Thursday discussion with U.S. News. He says members of Congress are being given intelligence briefings without any evidence to support administration claims that Syrian leader Bashar Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons.

Grayson said he cannot discuss the classified briefings, but noted details in the administration's public, non-classified report are being contested.

[PHOTOS: Alleged Gas Attack Kills Hundreds Near Damascus]

The White House released its four-page public report Aug. 30, arguing that Assad's government killed 1,429 people on Aug. 21 with a planned chemical weapon attack. Evidence cited in that report included "intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used."

Grayson, however, says "the claim has been made that that information was completely mischaracterized."

He points to an article published by The Daily Caller that alleges the communications actually showed Syrian officers were surprised by the alleged chemical weapon attack. The communications, according to unnamed sources paraphrased in article, were intercepted by Israeli intelligence and "doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion."

[READ: U.S. Releases Syria Chemical Weapons Report]

"What they say in The Daily Caller is that [intercepted communications] would lead one to the opposite conclusion," Grayson said. "I don't know if it's right or wrong, [but] there's a very simple way to find out, that's for the administration to show me and other members of Congress" translated transcripts of the intercepts, he said.

Members of Congress are "not being given any of the underlying elements of the intelligence reports," according to Grayson. He's not sure if the information will come before the votes on a proposed strike next week.

Senators view photographs of victims of chemical weapons attacks in Syria at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday, Sept. 3, 2013, in Washington, D.C.

rest: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/09/05/alan-grayson-syria-intelligence-manipulated

[Mark]

Syria crisis: Barack Obama faces growing opposition to airstrikes as he arrives for G20
President Barack Obama is facing growing international opposition to military intervention in Syria as China, the European Union and the Pope all warned against attacks on the Assad regime.



Mr Obama arrived St Petersburg for a tense G20 summit amid signs that Russia's opposition to US airstrikes was gaining significant international support.

Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, welcomed Mr Obama to his home town in an encounter that laid bare the increasingly difficult relationship between the two men.

After exchanging a stiff handshake and stern looks, Mr Obama and Mr Putin offered fixed smiles for the cameras before entering the Konstantinovsky Palace.

rest+ video:

Mr Obama arrived St Petersburg for a tense G20 summit amid signs that Russia's opposition to US airstrikes was gaining significant international support.

Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, welcomed Mr Obama to his home town in an encounter that laid bare the increasingly difficult relationship between the two men.

After exchanging a stiff handshake and stern looks, Mr Obama and Mr Putin offered fixed smiles for the cameras before entering the Konstantinovsky Palace.

[Psalm 51:17]

In a statement Thursday, Grimm says the window for action has now passed and that the feedback from his constituents has made him re-think his previous position.

“Thus, after much thought, deliberation and prayer, I am no longer convinced that a U.S. strike on Syria will yield a benefit to the United States that will not be greatly outweighed by the extreme cost of war,” Grimm said.

Grimm added: “Now that the Assad regime has seen our playbook and has been given enough time to prepare and safeguard potential targets, I do not feel that we have enough to gain as a nation by moving forward with this attack on our own.”

Look at the reasons he's giving why - it's NOT b/c Obama, Kerry, and McCain lied - pretty much similar reasons Rick Santorum and Donald Rumsfeld gave(both of whom are heavy war hawks themselves). Seriously, the fact that he considered it recently says a lot.

Yeah, beware of all of the Hegelian Dialectic, war of words that are going on here.

[Psalm 51:17]

Syria crisis: Barack Obama faces growing opposition to airstrikes as he arrives for G20
President Barack Obama is facing growing international opposition to military intervention in Syria as China, the European Union and the Pope all warned against attacks on the Assad regime.

Didn't Pope John Paul II "warn" against the Iraq war? Seriously - all of the Popes may be anti-war outwardly, but behind the scenes they are just as pro-war as all of the Illuminati minions.

[Mark]

Didn't Pope John Paul II "warn" against the Iraq war? Seriously - all of the Popes may be anti-war outwardly, but behind the scenes they are just as pro-war as all of the Illuminati minions.

I think popes as a rule, are against any kind of violence, but as a Pope are for killing everyone that opposes them.

[Psalm 51:17]

Also to throw this out there too - was surfing a GOP establishment message forum(where I get news articles occasionally). First off, this message board promotes Catholicism(where they have their Daily Catholic Mass "devotionals", as well as Joel Osteen "devotionals"). It's also runned by Jim Robinson, who's a Council for National Policy member(and promotes this RCC nonsense), so this isn't just some ordinary message forum lounge.

Anyhow - saw how they were staunchly warning against invading Syria(even telling everyone to call their Congressmen). HOWEVER - this is the same message forum 10 years ago that went all out blindly supporting George W. Bush's (eventual)$1 trillion Iraq war, even going as far as calling people who spoke out against the war "traitors", "anti-American", "Osama-sympathizers", etc, etc(despite their "hero" Pope John Paul II being against it).

Again - I'm guilty of this too, but let's try not to get caught up thinking Obama/Kerry/McCain are doing this alone. Yes, they are liars and murderers, and will have their rewards. But again, they are being controlled by their puppet masters.

With that being said - just from some observations - there's nothing new under the sun. The Illuminati/Vatican are controlling BOTH sides of the "oppositions". Why there seems to be "opposition" from even Obama's team in Congress, I don't know, but again they script the whole thing.

A lot like the immigration bill now under Obama compared to when Bush tried to pass it in 2007 - George W. was in a similar situation then with it as Obama is now with the Syria agenda. And while Obama seems to have the cards stacked against him with the immigration bill, it looks like it will pass in October(as hardly any of the August Town Hall meetings said anything about it, despite all of their concerns with Obamacare).

Eph 6:12  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

[Kilika]

I think popes as a rule, are against any kind of violence, but as a Pope are for killing everyone that opposes them.

Yeah, they have their history of forwarding their agenda, just like Islam, by the point of a sword. Popes have a long history of violent rule. But then they live by the law, so it's "eye for an eye" to them. It's just been a modern times change in "marketing" of the RCC, so they've found that all those crusades and such weren't so good for pr.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-continues-to-push-for-syria-support-as-americans-ordered-out-of-lebanon/
Obama to address the American people on Syria

As G-20 summit ends, US president continues quest for foreign and domestic support for strike against Assad; meanwhile, Russia boosts naval presence in Med.
9/6/13

T. PETERSBURG, Russia — As the G-20 summit came to a close Friday in Russia, US President Barack Obama announced he would address the American people Tuesday on the Syrian issue.

Obama said he understands the American public’s deep skepticism about launching military action against Syria. But he said he is confident he can persuade Americans that the use of chemical weapons in Syria requires a military response. 

The US leader said he needs to convince the nation that his plans would be “limited and proportional” and designed to uphold international norms, reiterating that the chemical attack in Syria last month was carried out by Syrian President Bashar Assad’s military.

Seeking congressional authority to act, Obama admitted the US experience with Iraq and a decade of war has made the public wary, especially within his own Democratic Party.

“I trust my constituents want me to offer my best judgment. That’s why they elected me. That’s why they re-elected me,” he said at a news conference at the conclusion of the G-20 summit.

However, he refused to say what he would do if Congress did not approve the strike plan.

Amid tepid support for a strike, lawmakers have called on Obama to build support with the public by making such an address.

Obama was using his last day at the G-20 summit, where Syria dominated much of the discussion, to renew his quest for foreign support for a US military strike in Syria. But three days after he left Washington, it was unclear whether the global coalition the president has been seeking is any closer to becoming a reality.

China’s a firm no. The European Union is skeptical about whether any military action can be effective. Even Pope Francis weighed in, urging leaders gathered here to abandon what he called a “futile mission.”

Still, Obama was undeterred. As the president pressed his case on the world stage, he was dispatching his UN ambassador, Samantha Power, to a Washington think tank to argue that the global community cannot afford the precedent of letting chemical weapons use go unpunished.

Yet even as Obama sought the global buy-in that could legitimize a potential strike, his aides were careful to temper expectations that the world community could speak with one voice. Obama’s deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, said the president wasn’t asking his peers to pledge their own militaries to a US-led strike, but simply to say they agree a military response is warranted.

“We don’t expect every country here to agree with that position,” Rhodes said Friday at the Group of 20 economic summit, where Obama was huddling with foreign leaders, emphasizing the US’ ”very high confidence” of Assad’s role in the attack on August 21 on a Damascus suburb, which the US says killed 1,429 people.

Standing on Russian soil, Rhodes suggested the US had given up hope that Russia — a stalwart Syria ally — could be coerced into changing its position. “We don’t expect to have Russian cooperation,” he said.

A key status update was to come Friday when Obama, his diplomatic dexterity pushed to the max, will be quizzed by reporters in the waning hours of the summit. He is due to speak at around 14.00 GMT (17.00pm Israel time)

Meanwhile, the State Department ordered nonessential US diplomats and private citizens to leave Lebanon due to security concerns related to the Syria crisis.

In Europe, EU defense ministers said on Friday that all evidence points to the Bashar Assad regime using chemical weapons in the August 21 attack.

The ministers met Friday in Lithuanian which holds the rotating presidency. Lithuanian Defense Minister Juozas Olekas said that although the ministers condemned the use of chemical weapons, there were “a variety of opinions” on what should be done. EU foreign ministers are set to discuss the Syrian crisis in the Lithuanian capital later in the day.

On Thursday, the G-20 leaders served up Syria as dinner conversation at the suggestion of the summit’s host, President Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader has steadfastly backed Assad and disputes claims that Assad’s regime was behind the chemical attacks.

Syria dominated the nearly three-hour meal, with leaders condemning the use of chemical weapons but reaching no consensus about the proper response, said a French official in St. Petersburg. Many leaders at the dinner remained in doubt about whether Assad’s regime was behind the attack, said the official, who was not authorized to be publicly named according to presidential policy.

So too was the Syrian crisis a prevailing theme in Obama’s individual meetings with world leaders on the sidelines of the summit in this Russian port city.

The White House said Obama conferred on Syria Thursday evening with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a strong supporter of airstrikes against the nation on its southern border. Syria also came up on Friday as Obama met with Chinese President Xi Jinping, whose government has warned vigorously against the use of force.

Before his scheduled return to Washington late Friday, Obama was to meet with French President Francois Hollande, his strongest ally on Syria and a vocal advocate for a military intervention. He also planned to meet with Russian lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists, calling attention to another area of disagreement with Moscow.

A fleeting interaction between Obama and Putin became the high-drama moment of the summit, underscoring the labored state of relations between the two leaders. The eyes of the world watching, the Russian and the American were all smiles Thursday as they made small talk in front of news cameras for a few seconds as Obama arrived at the summit.

But the welcoming handshake may have been where the pleasantries ended. In other venues, the two nations were repeatedly bumping heads.

Russia’s foreign ministry, in a statement Friday, said a US-led strike would mark “a new dangerous turn” in the crisis, risking the release of chemical weapons or their possession by terrorists. And the head of the foreign affairs panel in Russia’s lower house of parliament, Alexei Pushkov, blasted Obama on Twitter as having “completely transformed into a president of war.”

Meanwhile, the Kremlin said Russia was boosting its naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea, moving in warships into the area and stoking fears about a larger international conflict if the United States orders airstrikes.

Even at home, there was far from a consensus that an American strike on Syria was the best course of action. Awaiting Obama upon his return was an equally fractious debate in Congress over whether to authorize the limited military action he was proposing.

Pulling out all the stops, Obama was working the phones and appealing for support from leery lawmakers, Democratic and Republican alike. And he called off a planned trip to California next week, opting to stay in Washington to keep up the pressure on Congress to say yes.

As top national security officials continued to brief Congress on the accusation against Assad and the proposed response, a measure authorizing Obama to act was advancing tenuously through the Senate, winning approval from a foreign relations panel Wednesday and heading to the Senate floor. The measure’s prospects were dicier in the Republican-controlled House.

In an unusual turn of events, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner both said that a delegation of Russian lawmakers had sought to meet with them to discuss Syria. Both leaders, who are supporting Obama’s call for a strike, turned down that invitation, aides said.

“I don’t know that the Russians have anything to add to the debate in the United States, given that we know where Russia stands,” said Rhodes, the Obama aide.

The Syrian Parliament urged Congress on Friday to vote against military action in Syria.

“We urge you not to take reckless measures as you have the power to steer the United States from the path of war to that of diplomacy,” said parliament chief Jihad al-Lahham quoted by the state-run SANA news agency.

The fierce domestic debate in the US over a Syria strike offered a prelude to grueling days ahead as Obama and Congress brace for major clashes over the nation’s finances, immigration and other pressing issues. When lawmakers return next week from their annual summer recess, Syria will compete with critical, looming deadlines to raise the nation’s borrowing limit and approve spending to avoid a government shutdown.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-expands-list-of-potential-targets-in-syria/
US expands list of potential targets in Syria

American-led strike could last two days, include the use of US, French aircraft, and target military units that handle chemical weapons
9/6/13

President Barack Obama has instructed the Pentagon to expand the list of potential targets in Syria in case of a US-led strike, in response to a reported chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the Assad regime on August 21.

According to a report in the New York Times on Friday, the Obama order came in response to intelligence indications that the Syrian government has moved troops and equipment used to employ chemical weapons. 

Officials cited in the report said that Obama is now focused on degrading the capabilities of the Assad government, expanding beyond the list of 50 or so initial sites to be targeted in a strike. The original list was reportedly developed with France.

The Obama administration is also reportedly considering using US and French aircraft to conduct the strikes in addition to ship-launched missiles, and is renewing efforts to get NATO involved.

This account was corroborated by a report on CNN quoting a US official who said: “You can employ stand-off weapons from an aircraft, just as easily as from a ship or submarine. Aerial assets can be used from a distance.”

The official added that this new development would “not fundamentally change the parameters of the mission.”

The potential air campaign could last two days and would include long-range B-2 and B-52 stealth bombers which would fire guided missiles beyond the range of Syrian air defense systems, ABC News reported.

“The strikes would be aimed not at the chemical stockpiles themselves — risking a potential catastrophe — but rather the military units that have stored and prepared the chemical weapons and carried the attacks against Syrian rebels, as well as the headquarters overseeing the effort, and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks,” the Times’ report read, citing military officials.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey has indicated that targets would include “equipment that Syria uses to protect the chemicals — air defenses, long-range missiles and rockets, which can also deliver the weapons,” according to the report.

Obama is seeking congressional approval for a US-led strike, having gained authorization from a Senate panel Wednesday to order an attack, the limits of which include a time frame of 90 days and the exclusion of American boots on the ground.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/IAEA-is-looking-into-Russian-warning-on-Syria-nuclear-site-325403
IAEA is looking into Russian warning on Syria nuclear site
9/6/13

Moscow calls on UN nuclear watchdog to assess risk of hit to Syrian research reactor that contains radioactive uranium.

VIENNA - The UN nuclear watchdog has received a request from Russia to assess the impact if a missile were to hit a small Syrian reactor and is considering the issue, the Vienna-based agency said on Friday.

Russia said this week a military strike on Syria could have catastrophic effects if the research reactor near Damascus that contains radioactive uranium was struck, "by design or by chance".

It called on the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to urgently assess the risk as the United States considers military action to punish Syria's government for an alleged gas attack.

"I can confirm that the IAEA has received a formal request from the Russian Federation. The agency is considering the questions raised," IAEA spokeswoman Gill Tudor said in an e-mail, giving no further detail.

Russia said nearby areas could be contaminated by highly enriched uranium and that it would be impossible to account for the nuclear material after such a strike, suggesting it could fall into the hands of people who might use it as a weapon.

Nuclear experts say the so-called Miniature Neutron Source Reactor (MNSR), a type of research reactor that is usually fueled by highly enriched uranium, is small and that any radioactive fallout may pose a local hazard.

The amount that such a reactor usually holds, about 1 kg of highly enriched uranium, is less than the 25 kg that would be sufficient to build a bomb, they say.

One Western diplomat in the Austrian capital played down the issue. "It is very unlikely that something like this happens, and the quantity which is in this research reactor is very small," the envoy said. "I have the feeling that the agency does not perceive this as a very grave concern."

Moscow has been the most powerful ally of Syrian President Bashar Assad, shielding him from tougher UN resolutions and warning that any Western military attack on Syria would raise tension and undermine efforts to end the country's civil war.

In 2007, Israel allegedly bombed a desert site in Syria that US intelligence reports said was a nascent, North Korean-designed reactor geared to producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. Syria said the site, at Deir al-Zor, was a conventional military facility.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23982181
G20 'divided' on Syria as Power criticises Russia
9/6/13

[Psalm 51:17]

Again, look at more subtle rhetoric be these politicians who are speaking out against invading Syria(this Ron "truth movement hero" Paul's son)...

http://www.christianpost.com/news/rand-paul-on-syria-america-should-only-go-to-war-to-winus-should-not-fight-a-war-to-save-face-103875/
Rand Paul on Syria: 'America Should Only Go to War to Win…US Should Not Fight a War to Save Face'
9/5/13

As President Barack Obama seeks to shore up support for the hotly debated plan to launch a military strike against Syria, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) charged on Wednesday that military action is the wrong approach to the Syria dilemma and he won't support it.

In an op-ed published in TIME on Wednesday, Paul invoked the wisdom of former United States Secretary of State and retired four-star general in the U.S. Army, Colin Powell, that war should be a last resort and that "America should only go to war to win".

**Uhm...Powell helped the Bush/Cheney admin 10 years ago to promote propaganda to gain support for the Iraq war.

"War should occur only when America is attacked, when it is threatened or when American interests are attacked or threatened. I don't think the situation in Syria passes that test. Even the State Department argues that 'there's no military solution here that's good for the Syrian people, and that the best path forward is a political solution'," wrote Paul.

**So are you saying the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan were justified?

"The U.S. should not fight a war to save face. I will not vote to send young men and women to sacrifice life and limb for stalemate. I will not vote to send our nation's best and brightest to fight for anything less than victory. If American interests are at stake, then our goal should not be stalemate," he said.

"Bashar Assad is clearly not an American ally. But does his ouster encourage stability in the Middle East, or would his ouster actually encourage instability? Are the Islamic rebels our allies? Will they defend American interests? Will they acknowledge Israel's right to exist? Will they impose Shari'a? Will they tolerate Christians, or will they pillage and destroy ancient Christian churches and people?" asked Paul.

"The President and his Administration have not provided good answers to any of these questions. Those who seek military action have an obligation to publicly address these concerns before dragging our soldiers into another Middle Eastern war. Shooting first and aiming later has not worked for us in the past, and it should not be our game plan now," he noted.

At the Group of 20 (G20) Summit in Russia on Thursday where both developed and developing countries met to discuss reviving Global economic growth, world leaders were reportedly pressuring President Obama not to launch a military strike against Syria, according to Reuters.

That report noted that China, the European Union, the BRICS emerging economies and Pope Francis (through a letter) pointed out the dangers of military action without approval from the U.N. Security Council.

"Military action would have a negative impact on the global economy, especially on the oil price - it will cause a hike in the oil price," said Chinese Vice Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao.

An NBC News report pointed out on Thursday, however, that Russia is a key ally of Syrian President Bashar Assad and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, said there was "no viable path forward" for support in the U.N. Security Council, where both Russia and China have veto power.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has characterized U.S. plans for a military strike against Syria an act of "aggression" and charged on Wednesday that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry had lied to Congress about the role of al Qaeda in the Syria conflict.

"I saw debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr Kerry: 'Is al Qaeda there?' He says: 'No, I am telling you responsibly that it is not'," said Putin at a meeting of his human rights council in the Kremlin, according to Reuters.

"Al Qaeda units are the main military echelon, and they know this," he added, referring to the United States. "It was unpleasant and surprising for me – we talk to them, we proceed from the assumption that they are decent people. But he is lying and knows he is lying. It's sad."

[Psalm 51:17]

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-sends-warship-special-cargo-syria-102835383.html
9/6/13
Russia sends warship with 'special cargo' to Syria

A Russian warship carrying "special cargo" will be dispatched toward Syria, a navy source said on Friday, as the Kremlin beefs up its presence in the region ahead of possible US strikes against the Damascus regime.

The large landing ship Nikolai Filchenkov will on Friday leave the Ukrainian port city of Sevastopol for the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk, from where it will head to Syria's coast, the Interfax news agency quoted a source from the Saint Petersburg-based central naval command as saying.

"The ship will make call in Novorossiisk, where it will take on board special cargo and set off for the designated area of its combat duty in the eastern Mediterranean," the source said.

The source did not specify the nature of the cargo.

Russia has kept a constant presence in the eastern Mediterranean during the Syrian crisis.

In recent days Russia has made steps to beef up its naval grouping in the region.

The Russian destroyer Smetlivy will soon join the group in the region as well as the destroyer Nastoichivy, Interfax has said.

The anti-submarine ship Admiral Panteleyev has already entered its zone of operation as the flagship of the current rotation of the Mediterranean grouping, a military source has told the news agency.

Already in place in the eastern Mediterranean are the frigate Neustrashimy, as well as the landing ships Alexander Shabalin, the Admiral Nevelsky and the Peresvet.

They are expected to be joined by the large landing ships Novocherkassk and Minsk and the missile cruiser Moskva. The reconnaissance ship Priazovye is also on its way to join the group.

The US already has a strong naval presence in the region and any US military action against Syria is widely expected to be launched from the sea.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://news.yahoo.com/us-evacuates-non-essential-staff-beirut-mission-154654093.html
9/6/13
US evacuates non-essential staff from Beirut mission

The United States evacuated non-essential staff from its Beirut embassy Friday and urged Americans not to travel to Lebanon, Pakistan or southern Turkey, as Washington considers strikes against neighboring Syria.

"The Department of State has ordered a drawdown of non-emergency US government personnel and family members in Beirut, Lebanon and approved the drawdown of non-emergency personnel and family members who wish to leave Adana, Turkey," deputy State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said.

The evacuations came as the United States has been trying to build support for US military strikes on the Syrian regime in retaliation for its alleged use of chemical weapons in an August 21 attack on Damascus suburbs.

The decision had been made due to "current tensions in the region, as well as potential threats to US government facilities and personnel," Harf said, refusing to go into how many people were involved in the evacuation.

But she stressed the State Department was acting out of "an abundance of caution" and told journalists the embassy remained open for consulate services.

US President Barack Obama and his administration are pressuring US lawmakers to approve limited military strikes on Syria, while at the same time seeking to build an international coalition in support of action.

It remains unclear when or if any strikes would come, but the threat has sent tensions soaring in an already volatile region.

At a press conference in St Petersburg Friday after a summit of G20 leaders, Obama refused to answer whether he would go ahead with strikes if Congress votes against military action, saying he "would not engage in parlor games."

But he insisted he was elected to make the right decisions for America's national security.

Making a parallel with World War II, Obama said: "When London was getting bombed, it was profoundly unpopular both in Congress and around the country to help the British. It doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do."

Lebanese authorities said they were already boosting security measures at foreign diplomatic missions ahead of any international military action.

Lebanon's security council met "in light of the tensions resulting from preparations for potential military action and the regional and international responses that could follow," the presidency said in a statement.

Harf warned any US citizens who chose to remain in Lebanon or southern Turkey that they "should limit non-essential travel within the country, be aware of their surroundings whether in their residences or moving about, make their own contingency emergency plans."

Separately, the State Department said the consulate general in Adana, a major commercial and agricultural hub, "has been authorized to draw down its non-emergency staff and family members because of threats against US government facilities and personnel."

But Harf said she was not aware of "any specific threats" against the mission in Turkey.

The State Department also sent out a renewed warning to all US citizens to defer any non-essential travel to Pakistan, and a reminder that consular services are still unavailable in Lahore after non-essential staff were pulled out last month.

The conflict in Syria has threatened to spill over into Lebanon and Turkey, both of which are hosting some of the two million refugees who have fled the civil war that erupted in March 2011.

The US warnings would be reviewed, Harf said, adding "we'll continue evaluating on a post-by-post basis to see if we have to take any additional steps."

The Beirut evacuation comes a month after a number of US embassies in the Middle East and Africa were closed for about a week due to an Al-Qaeda security alert.

Memories are also still fresh of the deadly attack by Al-Qaeda linked militants on a US mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 last year when the ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three other US staff were killed.

And the moves for strikes on Syria have raised the prospect of more anti-US regional repercussions, including by Lebanon's Shiite Hezbollah movement, which is allied with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

[Psalm 51:17]

  Isn't 2016 a LONG way off? Whatever happened to "take no thought for tomorrow..."?

http://news.yahoo.com/republican-2016-presidential-hopefuls-on-syria--172218768.html
GOP 2016 hopefuls don’t want their fingerprints near Obama’s Syria plan
9/6/13

Of the possible candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, not one potential 2016 hopeful has voiced support for President Barack Obama’s call for a U.S. military strike on Syria.

The hesitancy to authorize an attack against the Syrian government, which the Obama administration alleges was behind a chemical gas attack that killed more than 1,000 civilians in August, suggests that those eyeing possible bids for the White House see the Syria issue as a gamble not worth their bet.

The possible candidates — Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas; former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania; Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan; and Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Scott Walker of Wisconsin — have either said they oppose it or remained silent about their opinion.

**Rubio and Ryan have been pushing the immigration bill pretty hard, and Walker supports it too, FYI.

It is often the case in politics that the safest place to be is on the losing side of a winning vote, especially if the bill is controversial. Regarding Syria, the political blowback could be great for those who supported a strike if it leads to a crisis. The opponents will be able to say they were correct. If the strike goes as planned, however, and the memory soon fades with time — remember when the U.S.  launched more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles on Libya? — the political consequences of voting no are not nearly as severe.

The first possible Republican presidential hopefuls who had an opportunity to cast an official vote on the resolution, Rubio and Paul, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, rejected it  when the committee took up the measure earlier this week.

Rubio, who has been vocal about the need for the U.S. to offer aid to the Syrian rebels but has come short of supporting the type of strike Obama has suggested, said in a statement after the committee vote that he remains “unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will work.”

Paul also voted against the Syria resolution, but he has been more vocal about his opposition. Unlike Rubio, who has advocated for an aggressive foreign policy and developed close relationships in the Senate with hawks like Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Paul is perhaps one of the most prominent advocates for nonintervention in the Senate.

“War should occur only when America is attacked, when it is threatened or when American interests are attacked or threatened,” Paul wrote in an op-ed for Time magazine this week. “I don’t think the situation in Syria passes that test.”

Other lawmakers testing the presidential waters, such as Cruz and Santorum, have already voiced their opposition, and Cruz is likely to vote against the resolution when the Senate takes it up next week.

Of those two, Santorum’s decision to throw his lot in with the opposition is the most surprising. Ever since violence broke out in Syria two years ago, the former presidential candidate has called for U.S. military action, and he has a long history of encouraging aggressive use of force abroad. But on Thursday, Santorum announced he had reversed his position, saying the situation on the ground in Syria has changed.

“When these atrocities in Syria came to light last year, I advocated for military intervention to take out the Assad regime, a strong supporter of Iran. Had President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acted then in support of pro-democracy forces, we could have removed Assad and helped usher in stability for that country. But we have a very different situation today,” Santorum wrote in a letter to supporters. “A military strike would no longer be in our national security interest.”

In the House, Ryan issued a statement on Tuesday that did not signify how he planned to vote on the resolution.

"The president has some work to do to recover from his grave missteps in Syria. He needs to clearly demonstrate that the use of military force would strengthen America's security,” Ryan said. “I want to hear his case to Congress and to the American people."

A look at Ryan’s past comments about the situation in Syria, however, could offer clues on how he will vote. As the Republican vice presidential candidate in 2012, Ryan said he agreed with the Obama administration that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government would represent “the red line” that would justify some kind of U.S. response.

"We agree with the same red line actually they do on chemical weapons,” Ryan said during a debate with Vice President Joe Biden in October 2012.

It is unclear whether Ryan’s thinking has changed on Syria since that debate. When reached by Yahoo News on Friday, a spokesman for Ryan reiterated the congressman’s remarks from earlier in the week.

With the exception of Santorum, all of the D.C. lawmakers listed above will be asked to go on the record in the House or the Senate when it comes time to vote. But members of Congress are not the only politicians considering presidential runs. Several Republican governors are also looking into the possibility, and among them—Walker, Christie and Jindal—none has publicly announced support for the president’s plan. Instead, all have declined to offer an opinion.

“I’m going to leave that to the people who represent us in Congress,” Christie said this week when asked about his opinion on the strike, according to a report in the Bergen Record. “I empathize with those folks who have relatives back in Syria, but I’m going to let the policy-making be done by the people who are getting the bulk of the briefing on this, which is our federal representatives.”

In Louisiana, Jindal said he was waiting to hear more information before making a decision.

"There are a lot of unanswered questions,” Jindal said, according to NOLA.com. “The president has already said regime change is not the objective. So I'd like to see what the objective is. I think Congress needs to hear that."

Walker was equally vague when he spoke to WKOW, a Madison television station, last week.

"The president, working with other leaders on a global basis, can try and put some pressure on to get things under control in the Middle East and provide stability there, because that will help our economy and if they don't it has an impact," Walker said. "We can do all the good possible. We can get the state back on the right track, but if there's instability around the world it will inevitably have an impact."

There are reasons why a governor would be hesitant to speak out about Syria: Foreign policy issues are not something they deal with regularly as state executives, and they do not have access to the same intelligence briefings provided to lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

**Uhm...even a 5 minute research on the internet will prove the Syrian rebels were behind this attack.

But that doesn’t mean they will ultimately be able to avoid it should they choose to seek the White House.

The federal government’s response to Syria in the coming weeks or months might be remembered as a defining foreign policy moment in Obama’s tenure, and those seeking to replace him will be required to describe in detail what they would have done in the same difficult situation.

For now, most in the Republican Party are betting against his judgment.

[Psalm 51:17]

1) For those that are "opposition" invading Syria - look at their voting records on Capitol Hill(or in their respective state governments). For example - Rubio and Ryan are pushing the immigration bill, and Chris Christie? Nuff said. Pretty much, their own credibilities are out the window.

2) Look at the RHETORIC they are using - has ANY of them exposed Obama, Kerry, McCain as the LIARS and propaganders they are? Nope. But instead say stuff like, "But Syria hasn't attacked our soil, so they're not a national security threat", etc, etc. And why are some like Rumsfeld and Jindal talking about "regime change"?

Prove all things...

[Mark]

Russia sends four more warships to eastern Mediterranean near Syria
The Russian navy has sent four more ships to the eastern Mediterranean, near the Syrian coast, as the United States considers launching a military offensive against the Arab country.   
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/06/322456/four-more-russian-warships-head-to-syria/


Putin warns Russia could come to Syria's aid over US strike
...Putin escalated concerns about the fallout from any strike when he indicated in an interview published Wednesday that his country could send Syria and its neighbors in the region the components of a missile shield if the U.S. attacks. U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified this week that the Russians might even replace any military assets the U.S. destroys in a strike. 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/05/obama-to-engage-putin-on-syria-strike-at-g-20-summit/


US Congress Finds ‘Overwhelming’ Public Opposition to Force in Syria
After three days of non-stop phone calls from hundreds of Colorado constituents opposed to a US military strike on Syria, Rep. Doug Lamborn announced Friday he was “leaning against” a resolution giving US President Barack Obama the authority to take limited action.   
http://en.rian.ru/world/20130907/183229540/US-Congress-Finds-Overwhelming-Public-Opposition-to-Force-in-Syria.html


POPE TAKES ON OBAMA...
http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/05/pope-tweets-against-syria-strike-writes-putin-plans-saturday-vigil/

Warns military strike would be 'futile'...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10290110/Syria-Pope-warns-Barack-Obama-that-military-strike-would-be-futile.html

Calls all Catholics to pray and fast...
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/09/03/pope-calls-all-catholics-to-pray-and-fast-for-syria-on-saturday/

CBSNEWS laments 'religious street protest'...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2013/09/06/cbs-laments-popes-religious-street-protest-anti-obama-pro-putin

EU POINTS FINGER AT ASSAD
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323623304579060692417802108.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for US...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/07/us-syria-crisis-attack-idUSBRE98603A20130907

'DOESN'T HAVE THE VOTES'...
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/357794/house-might-not-vote-obamas-syria-resolution-john-fund

NOONAN: Why America Is Saying NO...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577304579057420154706690.html

Reid predicts win on use-of-force resolution...
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/harry-reid-files-syria-resolution-96377.html?hp=f1

[Mark]

Putin puts Obama in hot seat: ‘What will you do if rebels are ones using chemical weapons?’

[Via RaymondIbrahim.com]

[...] In a videotaped interview published today concerning U.S. attempts to go to war in Syria, not only did Putin criticize Secretary of State John Kerry’s dissembling concerning the nature of the Syrian opposition, but he also said:

    There is another question: if it turns out that the armed rebels are the ones who used weapons of mass destruction, what will the United States do with the armed rebels? And what will it do with those sponsoring the rebels? Will they stop supplying them with arms? Will they start fighting against them?

Indeed. Considering that invading Syria is almost entirely being rationalized in the context of Assad violating the human rights of others, what will the U.S. — Obama, Kerry, McCain, et. al. — do if it turns out that the al-Qaeda led rebels are, in fact, the ones using such weapons, as significant evidence already indicates?...

Click for entire article : http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/putin-puts-obama-in-hot-seat-what-will-you-do-if-rebels-are-ones-using-chemical-weapons/

[Psalm 51:17]

US Congress Finds ‘Overwhelming’ Public Opposition to Force in Syria
After three days of non-stop phone calls from hundreds of Colorado constituents opposed to a US military strike on Syria, Rep. Doug Lamborn announced Friday he was “leaning against” a resolution giving US President Barack Obama the authority to take limited action.   
http://en.rian.ru/world/20130907/183229540/US-Congress-Finds-Overwhelming-Public-Opposition-to-Force-in-Syria.html

The same US Congress that found 'overwhelming' public support to force in Iraq?

POPE TAKES ON OBAMA...
http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/05/pope-tweets-against-syria-strike-writes-putin-plans-saturday-vigil/

The same Pope and his Jesuits that put Obama in power?

Seriously, let's have some discernment in all of this - like said, it's not like Obama is coming up with this and pushing this all by himself.

NOONAN: Why America Is Saying NO...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577304579057420154706690.html

The same Peggy Noonan that pushed the Iraq war years ago?

[Psalm 51:17]

Putin puts Obama in hot seat: ‘What will you do if rebels are ones using chemical weapons?’

The "Cold War" Part Deux.

[Psalm 51:17]

OK, I read part of the Peggy Noonan article posted 2 posts above...

NOWHERE does she say how Obama/Kerry/McCain have used propaganda to promote this war, NOWHERE. Here's a snippet of what she says...

It is hard, if you've got a head and a heart, to come down against a strong U.S. response to Syria's use of chemical weapons against its civilian population. This is especially so if you believe that humanity stands at a door that leads only to darkness. Those who say, "But Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons—the taboo was broken long ago," are missing the point. When Saddam used gas against the Kurds it was not immediately known to all the world. It was not common knowledge. The world rued it in retrospect. Syria is different: It is the first obvious, undeniable, real-time, YouTubed use of chemical weapons. The whole world knew of it the morning after it happened, through horrified, first-person accounts, from videos of hospital workers and victims' families.

The world this time cannot "not know," or claim not to know. And though Bashar Assad has made his pro forma denials, it does not seem believable that this was not a government operation. The rebels may or may not be wicked enough to use such weapons, but it is hard to believe they are capable.

So is she saying the rebels were LIKELY behind it? And she is also saying what other "opponents" have been saying - Obama should have invaded Syria IMMEDIATELY AFTER the attacks(but the window has closed).

After 10 days of debate in Europe and America, the wisest words on a path forward have come from the Pope. Francis wrote this week to Vladimir Putin, as the host of the G-20. He damned "the senseless massacre" unfolding in Syria and pleaded with the leaders gathered in St. Petersburg not to "remain indifferent"—remain—to the "dramatic situation." He asked the governments of the world "to do everything possible to assure humanitarian assistance" within and without Syria's borders.

Pope Frankie is using the SAME rhetoric "opponents" are using, pretty much("acknowledging" the attacks came from the Syrian government, and no Assad).

The administration has no discernible strategy. A small, limited strike will look merely symbolic, a face-saving measure. A strong, broad strike opens the possibility that the civil war will end in victory for those as bad as or worse than Assad. And time has already passed. Assad has had a chance to plan his response, and do us the kind of damage to which we would have to respond.

Again, look at her rhetoric - she pretty much says, "we should have invaded Syria, but the window has closed".

A point on how quickly public opinion has jelled. There is something going on here, a new distance between Washington and America that the Syria debate has forced into focus. The Syria debate isn't, really, a struggle between libertarians and neoconservatives, or left and right, or Democrats and Republicans. That's not its shape. It looks more like a fight between the country and Washington, between the broad American public and Washington's central governing assumptions.

Just to throw this out there too - around the same time the chemical attacks happened in Syria on 8/21, was also the same time the MSM's top story was "Fans outraged over Ben Affleck being casted as Batman!".

So where was the outrage over the chemical attacks THEN?

[Psalm 51:17]

Disclaimer: Infowars article - but nonetheless, this come from the horse's mouth of LINDSEY GRAHAM(who like John McCain, has played the role of traitor in the "conservative" party).

http://www.infowars.com/sen-graham-warns-of-nuke-strike-after-missing-nuke-report
Sen Graham Warns of Nuke Strike After Missing Warheads Report
9/5/13

Senator warns South Carolina is nuclear bomb target following Infowars report on black ops nuke transfer

Alex Jones & Anthony Gucciardi
 Infowars.com
 September 5, 2013

Senator Lindsay Graham has warned South Carolinians about the threat of a ‘terrorist nuclear attack’ on the same day our exclusive high level military intel revealed to us that nuclear warheads were being shipped to South Carolina from a major Texas airforce base under an ‘off the record’ black ops transfer.

Found in the CBS report entitled ‘Graham: Nukes In Hands Of Terrorists Could Result In Bomb Coming To Charleston Harbor’, the report details Graham’s warning that a lack of military action in Syria could result in a nuclear ‘bombing’ in Charleston, South Carolina — the very destination of the black ops nuclear transfer. The CBS report reads:

“He [Graham] says if there is no U.S. response [to Syria], Iran will not believe America’s resolve to block Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Graham also says those nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists could result in a bomb coming to Charleston Harbor.”

Graham is quite literally saying that if we do not launch a war with Syria, South Carolina may be nuked. And this ultimately reeks of yet another false flag being orchestrated by the United States government in order to send us into war, or at the very least a threat. Except this time, we’re talking about nuclear weapons. Amazingly, we were the first to get intel on this from our credible and extremely high level military source, who told us the following:

“Dyess is beginning to move out nuclear war heads today. I got a tap from DERMO earlier. He said it was the first time they have been even acknowledged since being put there in the 80′s. No signature was required for transfer… There was no directive. He said that Dyess Commander was on site to give authority to release. No one knew where they were going really, but the truck driver said to take them to South Carolina and another pick up will take them from there.”

This was sent to us before the Graham report came out warning about the nuclear attack on South Carolina, and coincides exactly with what Graham is saying. I am deeply concerned by these findings, and ask everyone to spread the word on this information immediately. Whether or not Graham is receiving intel from higher ups and believes in a legitimate terror attack on the horizon is unknown, but the reality here is that we have intelligence that has linked the unsigned transfer of nuclear warheads to this exact location.

Now, we need answers.

The entire event is eerily similar to the unsigned nuke transfer that is now known as the ’2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident’, in which nuclear warheads went ‘missing’ from Minot Air Force Base and Barksdale Air Force Base back in August of 2007. The Minot event, however, was major national news and was even covered by the mainstream media extensively. Disturbingly, however, numerous individuals from the base began dying like flies and committing suicide after the event — and that’s even when it was in the mainstream.

Hopefully, this entire thing will amount to nothing and pass by without any form of ‘terror’ attack. Hopefully the attendee during the speech who told the US News publication that Graham’s speech was ‘absolute fear mongering’ is right. Unfortunately, the military source revealing this information is extremely accurate and is absolutely certain that a black ops nuclear transfer did indeed take place. And what’s more concerning is the fact that we have not heard from the source in quite some time.

We are risking our lives bringing you this report on the high level intel and connecting the dots here to what Lindsay is saying. You won’t hear about this in the mega media unless we force them to cover it, and it’s up to us to get this out there. For the first time, we may be able to utilize this high level intelligence to get answers and stop a potential attack.

[Psalm 51:17]

^^ From CBS News source Infowars got it off from...

http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2013/09/03/graham-nukes-in-hands-of-terrorists-could-result-in-bomb-coming-to-charleston-harbor/
9/3/13
Graham: Nukes In Hands Of Terrorists Could Result In Bomb Coming To Charleston Harbor

GOOSE CREEK, S.C. (CBS Charlotte/AP) — South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham says he’s convinced that Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons on his own people.

Graham told reporters in Goose Creek on Tuesday that taking action against Syria in response to the situation is not a question of yes or no, but rather a question of bad or worse choices.

He says if there is no U.S. response, Iran will not believe America’s resolve to block Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Graham also says those nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists could result in a bomb coming to Charleston Harbor.

He says he’s working to convince South Carolinians weary of war that the situations in Syria and Iran are linked. Graham says Syria could destabilize the entire Middle East.

Secretary of State John Kerry said last week that more than 1,400 people, including hundreds of children, were killed during the Aug. 21 chemical attack carried out by Bashar Assad’s regime.

[Psalm 51:17]

Rom 9:17  For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Rom 9:18  Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19  Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21  Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22  What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23  And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

[Mark]

Vatican: 100,000 attend Syria peace vigil

Tens of thousands of people filled St. Peter's Square for a four-hour Syria peace vigil late Saturday, answering Pope Francis' call for a grassroots cry for peace that was echoed by Christians and non-Christians alike in Syria and in vigils around the world.

The Vatican estimated about 100,000 took part, making it one of the largest rallies in the West against proposed U.S.-led military action against the Syrian regime following the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack near Damascus.

Francis spent most of the vigil in silent prayer, but during his speech he issued a heartfelt plea for peace, denouncing those who are "captivated by the idols of dominion and power" and destroy God's creation through war.

"This evening, I ask the Lord that we Christians, and our brothers and sisters of other religions and every man and woman of good will, cry out forcefully: Violence and war are never the way to peace!" he said.

"May the noise of weapons cease!" he said. "War always marks the failure of peace, it is always a defeat for humanity."

In Damascus, a few dozen Syrian Christians attended a service in the al-Zaytoun Church, joining Francis' invitation for a global participation in the day of fasting and prayer and to oppose outside military intervention in the conflict.

Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregorios III Laham of Antioch and All East presided, saying most countries supported a political solution to the crisis in Syria and few wanted military action. "This is the start of the victory," he told the Damascus faithful. "No to war. Yes for peace."

Francis announced the day of fasting and prayer Sept. 1, alarmed at the acceleration of U.S. threats to strike Syria after the chemical weapons attack.

Since then, the Vatican has ramped up its peace message, summoning ambassadors for a briefing by the Holy See foreign minister. Francis appealed directly to world powers at the Group of 20 meeting in Russia, urging them this week to abandon the "futile pursuit" of a military solution in Syria and work instead for a negotiated settlement.

Bishops around the world joined Francis in the daylong fast and organized similar vigils in their home dioceses. In Francis' native Argentina, human rights and religious groups held a vigil in Buenos Aires' Plaza de Mayo and in cities across the country. Vatican Radio reported similar initiatives were taking place throughout Italy, in Cuba and elsewhere. Even the grand mufti of Damascus, who thanked the pope for his initiative in a letter earlier this week, invited Muslims to join the fast in solidarity.

Vatican officials have stressed that Saturday's event was thoroughly religious, not political. But the gathering nevertheless took on the air of an anti-war rally, with protesters holding up Syrian flags and banners in the square reading "Don't attack Syria" and "Obama you don't have a dream, you have a nightmare." A few rainbow "Peace" flags fluttered in the breeze.

But by the time the vigil got under way, the posters and flags had mainly disappeared as a more religious tone took over, with leaders from a variety of Christian and non-Christian denominations joining cardinals, politicians and ordinary folk for the evening of prayer, hymns and meditation.

"This is already a success, the fact that all of us are here, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, atheists," a Hindu believer named Anata said. Pilgrims "made an effort to fast, not to do many things, and come here from all over Italy and Europe. This is already a success."

The pope entered the square from the basilica steps, foregoing his usual high-spirited drive through in his open car - an indication of the sobriety of the evening, which capped a day of fasting for the pontiff.

The peace vigil marked something of a novelty for the Vatican: Nothing of its kind has ever taken place in St. Peter's Square, though popes past have participated in daylong peace prayers in places like Assisi, known for its peace-loving native son and the pope's namesake, St. Francis.

That's not to say popes haven't taken vigorous anti-war positions in the past: Pope Paul VI famously uttered the words "War never again, never again war" at the United Nations in 1965 as the Vietnam War raged, a refrain that has been repeated by every pope since. Pope John Paul II sent an envoy to President George W. Bush on the eve of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq urging him to stand down - to no avail.

Francis has condemned the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but has been careful not to lay blame on any one side, exhorting world leaders instead to focus on the plight of Syrian civilians and the need in general to end the violence.

Other church officials, both at the Vatican and in dioceses, have been more pointed in their criticism of any internationalization of the conflict, saying U.S.-French military strikes will only exacerbate the situation for civilians, particularly Christian minorities.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_VATICAN_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-07-14-35-48

[Psalm 51:17]

Did Pope Frankie pray "thy will be done, our Lord"? Nope.

"This evening, I ask the Lord that we Christians, and our brothers and sisters of other religions and every man and woman of good will, cry out forcefully: Violence and war are never the way to peace!" he said.

"May the noise of weapons cease!" he said. "War always marks the failure of peace, it is always a defeat for humanity."

Does Pope Frankie even know what peace means?

John_14:27  Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

But by the time the vigil got under way, the posters and flags had mainly disappeared as a more religious tone took over, with leaders from a variety of Christian and non-Christian denominations joining cardinals, politicians and ordinary folk for the evening of prayer, hymns and meditation.

"This is already a success, the fact that all of us are here, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, atheists," a Hindu believer named Anata said. Pilgrims "made an effort to fast, not to do many things, and come here from all over Italy and Europe. This is already a success."

Again, looks like Pope Frankie doesn't even know what peace really is...

Matthew 10:34  Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35  For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Mat 10:36  And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

[Psalm 51:17]

Didn't think there would be anti-war protests with Obama in office now(and not George W). But apparently, they are sticking with the same script by including anti-war protests...

http://news.yahoo.com/looming-syria-vote-prompts-protests-220155225--politics.html
9/7/13
Looming Syria vote prompts protests

WASHINGTON (AP) — Anti-war protesters gathered outside the White House on Saturday to voice their opposition to a U.S. military strike in Syria, calling their picket line one that Congress shouldn't cross as it prepares to vote on the issue.

At least 150 protesters picketed the sidewalk in front of the White House and marched to Capitol Hill, chanting slogans like "They say more war; we say no war" and carrying signs that said a war on Syria would be "Built on a Lie."

"There is a grass-roots uprising against the Democrats and the Republicans," said Medea Benjamin, a founder of the anti-war group Code Pink. "We do not want another war," she said, underscoring the broad public sentiment against U.S. military strikes on Syria.

**Did you catch that? Code PINK? A "grassroots" movement uses THIS word in their group name? Talk about controlled-opposition groups telegraphing their punches!

Many lawmakers in both parties oppose Obama's request for Congress to authorize using military force against Syria for a deadly Aug. 21 chemical gas attack the Obama administration blames on President Bashar Assad. Citing intelligence reports, the administration reported 1,429 people died, including 426 children.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee cleared the authorization measure earlier this week and the first votes by the full Senate could come Wednesday.

Concerns over military action spawned other protests across the country, including one in New York City's Times Square and a prayer vigil in Boston that echoed Saturday's massive gathering at the Vatican.

In New York, anti-Wall Street activists joined the protest along with some Syrian expatriates who said they supported the Assad regime. Some protesters carried signs saying, "No more wars for corporate profit," and "Cut the Pentagon, not food stamps."

In Indianapolis, about 150 protesters clustered around the Indiana Statehouse in a church-organized protest opposing military intervention. Other protests were reported in Louisiana and Michigan.

**Not sure if these were IFB/SBC Baptist churches, but nonetheless these same Baptist church buildings 10 years ago that blindly supported Bush and Cheney's $1t Iraq war!

Benjamin, who earlier this year interrupted Obama several times as he delivered a speech on national security, said a cross-section of Americans, many of whom disagree on a variety of issues, are united against military intervention.

"We have suddenly found ourselves united as Americans, overwhelmingly saying we will not let you drag us into another war," Benjamin shouted into a megaphone in front of the White House.

**"United"...watch out for this buzzword growing more and frequent in the near future!

Benjamin said the public will get the chance to see if we have "democracy in action."

**"Democracy"...let ANOTHER deception to make everyone think this word means *freedom*!

"The whole world is watching," Benjamin said.

[Psalm 51:17]

Again, look at Cruz's rhetoric - it's pretty much the SAME as the others who are "opposing" invading Syria. NOT ONCE does he expose Obama's and Kerry's LIES. Instead, he says stuff like, "But they're not a national security threat", and "they have no viable plan for success", "a strike could give chemical weapons to AL-QAEDA terrorists", etc.

http://news.yahoo.com/sen-ted-cruz-dont-think-president-obama-authority-141423006--abc-news-topstories.html
Sen. Ted Cruz: I Don't Think President Obama 'Has the Authority' to Order Syria Strike Without Congressional Approval
9/8/13

Contradicting President Obama's assertion, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said this morning on "This Week" that the president does not have the authority to order a military strike on Syria without Congressional approval.

"I don't think he has the authority," Cruz told ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

"It would be contrary to the Constitution," he added later, when Stephanopoulos asked him if acting without Congressional approval would be an impeachable offense, as some republicans have suggested. 

President Obama said last month that while he was in favor of a military strike on Syria and believed he could order one without Congressional authorization, he would seek the approval of Congress before he ordered military strikes against the Middle Eastern nation for its alleged use of chemical weapons last month that the United States says killed close to 1,500 people, including more than 400 children.

The president will address the American people Tuesday night in a nationally televised addressed. The day before, he'll sit down for interviews with the country's five major networks and PBS.

An unofficial tally by ABC News suggest that a resolution to strike Syria would fail in the House of Representatives and a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that nearly 6 in 10 Americans opposed a unilateral U.S strike on Syria.

Cruz has been a critic of the President's push for military action against Syria, saying on "This Week" Sunday that "I think a military attack is a mistake."

"One because I think the administration is proceeding with the wrong objective, and two, because they have no viable plan for success," Cruz said. "They are beginning from the wrong objective because this attack is not based on defending U.S. national security… I don't think that's the job of our military to be defending amorphous international norms."

Earlier on "This Week," White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said he was "outraged" by Cruz's recent comments that the U.S. military would be serving as "Al Qaeda's air force" by undertaking air strikes.

Cruz told the website The Blaze last week that "We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That's why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al Qaeda's air force."

"I am outraged for somebody to suggest that our people would be serving as allies to Al Qaeda," McDonough said on "This Week" when asked about Cruz's comment.

Cruz defended the remark on "This Week," saying U.S. strikes could potentially aid rebel forces with links to Al Qaeda.

"Just because Assad is a murderous tyrant doesn't mean his opponents are any better… Either the strike is really significant, it weakens Assad and the result is the rebels are able to succeed, and if that happened there is Al Qaeda taking over, or Al Nusra taking over, and extremist terrorists getting access to those chemical weapons, that hurts U.S. national security," Cruz said.

[Psalm 51:17]

British jets in Cyprus scrambled to chase after Syrian planes that crossed into international airspace

RAF fighters sent to intercept Syrian planes in Cypriot airspace
The unidentified planes left after the launch
Two Turkish F-16s also flew to support the British Typhoons

By Sam Webb

PUBLISHED: 06:26 EST, 8 September 2013


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415394/British-jets-Cyprus-scrambled-chase-Syrian-planes-crossed-international-airspace.html#ixzz2eLJcN9Wk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Psalm 51:17]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/08/20388459-us-would-notify-israel-hours-before-syria-attack-israeli-official?lite
9/8/13
U.S. would notify Israel 'hours' before Syria attack: Israeli official

HERZLIYA, Israel — The United States would notify Israel hours in advance of an attack on Syria, an Israeli official said on Sunday.

While formally on the sidelines of the Syrian crisis, Israel fears coming under reprisals from its northern foe should the United States launch strikes to punish Damascus for alleged use of chemical weaponry.

Asked how much advance notice Israel would get from its U.S. ally about such attacks, an Israeli official briefed on contacts with Washington told Reuters: "Hours."

But a senior strategist for the Defense Ministry said separately Israel was, like the rest of the world, in the dark at present.

"Will the United States attack? Will it not attack? What will the consequences be? All of these things are unknowns," Amos Gilad said in a speech at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism near Tel Aviv.

President Barack Obama has run into formidable U.S. domestic opposition to military action. Wary of appearing to meddle in American affairs, most Israeli officials have not publicly commented on the debate.

Israel plans to deploy anti-missile systems and troop reinforcements on its Syrian and Lebanese fronts if Obama green-lights strikes against Syria.

Missile Interceptors

Reuters television filmed what looked like an Iron Dome missile interceptor battery being positioned on the outskirts of Jerusalem on Sunday. "We don't comment on our aerial defenses," a military spokeswoman said.

An Israeli military magazine, Bamahane, said a month ago there were six such batteries deployed around the country and occasionally rotated geographically.

Obama has asked Congress to approve strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government in response to a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 that killed more than 1,400 Syrians.

Next week in Washington, hundreds of activists of the influential pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee will lobby Congress for military action in Syria.

Some Israeli officials have privately voiced concern that U.S. failure to attack Syria would embolden Iran, an ally of Damascus, in its defiance of international calls to curb a nuclear program which the West fears is aimed at developing nuclear arms — a charge Tehran denies.

Gilad disagreed with those assessments, however, saying in his speech: "Whether or not this is popular, I don't recommend drawing conclusions about Iran from Syria."

Gilad noted Obama's declarations that he would not allow Iran to get the bomb, backed by U.S.-led diplomatic and economic pressure as well as military mobilization in the Gulf.

"I recommend attributing a high level of credibility to his statements (on Iran)," Gilad said.