In Syria, It Is Now A Rebel-Eat-Rebel World

Just when you thought the situation in Syria was stabilizing (despite dueling op-eds), last week saw a new battle begin – dubbed “Expunging Filth”. In spite of the catchy name, as the WSJ reports, an al-Qaeda spinoff (a jihadist group known as ISIS) is seizing territory across Syria from the US-backed Free Syrian Army and the Government.

“It’s a three-front war,” a U.S. official said of the FSA rebels’ fight: They face the Assad regime, forces from its Lebanese ally Hezbollah, and now the multinational jihadist ranks of ISIS.

As WSJ notes, the spread of ISIS illustrates the failure of Western-backed Syrian
moderates to establish authority in opposition-held parts of Syria
, some
of which have been under rebel control for over a year. “It’s still the case that a majority of Syrians are not up for Talibanization,” but given the spread of ISIS, their choices may become increasingly limited.

 

 

Via WSJ,

 
 

Leaders of the FSA say that ISIS, an Iraqi al Qaeda outfit whose formal name is the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, has dragged them into a battle they are ill-equipped to fight.

 

Some U.S. officials said they see it as a battle for the FSA’s survival. In recent months, ISIS has become a magnet for foreign jihadists who view the war in Syria not primarily as a means to overthrow the Assad regime but rather as a historic battleground for a larger Sunni holy war.

 

 

Estimates on the size of ISIS range from 7,000 to 10,000 fighters. Fighters from ISIS—though it shares the goal of toppling Mr. Assad’s Shiite-linked Alawite regime—have frustrated Sunni communities that until recently embraced the military prowess and social services of Islamist rebels, local residents said.

 

The FSA’s fight with extremists is spurring new rebel calls for Western help, after the U.S. put on hold what had looked like imminent strikes on the Assad regime. Instead, diplomacy has taken over, after a U.S.-Russian deal to disarm Syria’s chemical weapons.

 

 

“It’s still the case that a majority of Syrians are not up for Talibanization. Given a moderate alternative, they will choose that.”

 

The other alternative: A lawless north becomes a launchpad for jihadists, akin to areas of Pakistan and the Arabian peninsula.

 

 

In recent weeks, ISIS fighters have adopted a strategy of dropping back—taking rear positions—as rebels with the FSA alliance leave for front lines to fight government forces, allowing ISIS to build a presence in towns and villages left without security or services.

 

 

As the U.S. threat receded, emboldened ISIS militants ramped up efforts to win local support, said Hamid Ibrahim, a spokesman for FSA leader Gen. Salim Idriss.

 

“They are telling them: ‘We told you that you can’t depend on America for freedom. Don’t be fooled—you only have us,’ “ Mr. Ibrahim said.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Syria is NOT Over

War drums are still beating…

Video | Posted on by | Leave a comment

Syrian Rebels Furious At U.S.-Russian Deal

With major deadlines now pushed off until next year and Assad appearing to come out smelling of (slightly tarnished) roses with his ‘compromise’ agreement with Russia (and the US) to join the chemical weapons treaty, not only is Israel now a major focus but the Syrian rebels – as one might expect – are not happy. As Reuters reports, the head of the opposition Syrian Supreme Military Council said on Saturday a U.S.-Russian agreement to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons was a blow to the two-and-a-half-year uprising to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power.

Crucially, General Salim Idris notes that this allows Assad “to escape being held accountable,” and, while unverified for now, Idris added, “we have told our friends that the regime has begun moving a part of its chemical weapons arsenal to Lebanon and Iraq. We told them do not be fooled.” But another military council official, Qassim Saadeddine, was a little more aggressive: “Let the Kerry-Lavrov plan go to hell. We reject it and we will not protect the inspectors or let them enter Syria.”

Via Reuters,

The head of the opposition Syrian Supreme Military Council said on Saturday a U.S.-Russian agreement to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons was a blow to the two-and-a-half-year uprising to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power.

General Selim Idris said the deal would allow Assad to escape being held accountablefor killing hundreds of civilians in a poison gas attack on Damascus on Aug. 21. Assad has denied responsibility for the attack.

“We have told our friends that the regime has begun moving a part of its chemical weapons arsenal to Lebanon and Iraq. We told them do not be fooled,” Idris told reporters in Istanbul.

“All of this initiative does not interest us. Russia is a partner with the regime in killing the Syrian people. A crime against humanity has been committed and there is not any mention of accountability.”

But another military council official, Qassim Saadeddine, said: “Let the Kerry-Lavrov plan go to hell. We reject it and we will not protect the inspectors or let them enter Syria.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Syria Deal Reached: US ‘to drop military threat’

Al Jazeera
September 14, 2013

Syria has been given one week to declare its stock of chemical weapons, and the country must immediately allow in international inspectors, US Secretary of State John Kerry after talks in Geneva with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov.

Speaking at a press conference in Geneva on Saturday, after the third day of intense negotiations, Kerry said that arms inspectors should be on the ground in Syria by November with the goal of eliminating the country’s chemical weapons by mid-2014.

“Providing this framework is fully implemented it can end the threat these weapons pose not only to the Syrian people but also to their neighbours,” Kerry told reporters at a joint press conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after they wrapped up three days of talks in Geneva.

Lavrov said their decision was based upon “consensus and compromise”, pointing out that the deal contained nothing about the potential use of force if Syria fails to comply.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Deal Or No Deal: John Kerry’s Historic Diplomatic “Mistake” Proves That Obama Does Not Want Peace

By Michael Snyder, on September 9th, 2013

When it comes to diplomacy, Russia is playing chess, Syria is playing checkers and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is playing tiddlywinks.  On Monday, Kerry said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could avoid having his country bombed into oblivion by turning over “every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week.”  Of course Kerry just assumed that Assad would never do such a thing, but the Russians immediately pounced on his statement.  Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov quickly announced that Russia would encourage Syria to turn over their chemical weapons to international control in exchange for a guarantee that the U.S. will not attack, and subsequently Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem stated that his government was prepared for “full cooperation with Russia to remove any pretext for aggression.”  Later on Monday, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon indicated that he is thinking about asking the UN Security Council to support such a deal.

Do you know what they call such a move in chess?

Checkmate.

We were originally told that the primary goal of a U.S. military strike on Syria would be to prevent them from using chemical weapons in the future, and then John Kerry said that Assad could avoid a conflict by giving up all of his chemical weapons.

Well, the Russians and the Syrians have called the bluff.

So does this mean that we will have peace?

Unfortunately, the Obama administration does not seem to want that.  The State Department has already come out and announced that what John Kerry said was a mistake.  They insist that it was a “rhetorical argument” instead of an actual peace proposal.

But why wouldn’t the Obama administration grab such a deal?  The American public does not want this war and neither does Congress at this point, so this could be a way out for Obama.

Wouldn’t getting Assad to give up all of his chemical weapons be a major coup?

And it certainly sounds like Syria wants peace

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem told reporters in Moscow that his nation “welcomes” a proposal by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during talks on Monday: put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control to avert a U.S. military response over an alleged poison gas attack last month.

“I declare that the Syrian Arab Republic welcomes Russia’s initiative, on the basis that the Syrian leadership cares about the lives of our citizens and the security in our country,” Moallem said. “We are also confident in the wisdom of the Russian government, which is trying to prevent an American aggression against our people.”

We already know that a military strike would not get rid of Assad’s chemical weapons.

So wouldn’t a diplomatic solution that got rid of those weapons be far more preferable?

You would think that would be the case, but the sad truth of the matter is that this was never about Syria’s chemical weapons.  This conflict is about money, religion, a natural gas pipeline, and looking out for the interests of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.  The Obama administration is not going to be able to achieve what they really want in Syria without military conflict.

And Obama seems to have developed a real appetite for military action.  In fact, Business Insider has pointed out that the attack on Syria will be the eighth military conflict during Obama’s presidency…

In 2011, America was more or less kicked out of Iraq. By then, Obama had surged troops in Afghanistan and increased cross-border strikes in Pakistan.

He took what was a one-off cruise missile strikein Somalia in early 2008, and expanded it into aconcerted military operation against Boko Haram. That’s four.

He also cut a deal with Yemeni President Abd-Rabbu Mansour al-Hadi to conduct counter-terrorism operations and a bombing campaign in Yemen. That’s five.

He initiated a bombing and air campaign in Libya that ended in a boots-on-the-ground situation that was likely much bigger than anyone without a clearance knows. That’s six.

He then aided in French direct operations in Mali byproviding surveillance drones and transport. That’s seven.

Now he’s pitching the idea of a cruise missile attack and possibly even a aerial bombing campaign in Syria, one that could conceivably lead to further escalation.

That’s eight.

But of course the Obama administration is promising that the assault on Syria will be very “limited”.  On Monday, John Kerry even went so far as to claim that the attack would be “unbelievably small“.

So precisely how does the launching of hundreds of cruise missiles constitute an “unbelievably small” strike?

I think that John Kerry will end up deeply, deeply regretting that statement.  He is an incompetent bumbler that is making the United States look like a total fool.  Instead of being our top diplomat, he should be mopping the floors in a Dairy Queen somewhere.

When the U.S. attacks Syria, there is a very good chance that we could be starting World War III.

You see, it won’t just be a matter of Syria retaliating against the United States.  Assad put it this way during an interview with Charlie Rose

“You should expect everything. Not necessarily from the government”

So what does Assad mean by that?  Debka gives us a clue…

The Syrian and Hizballah armies Sunday, Sept. 8, finished supplying rockets to dozens of Palestinian groups, some invented ad hoc, and deploying them on the Syrian and Lebanese borders facing Israel,debkafile’s military sources disclose. An array of Katyushas, Grads and Fajr-5s, with ranges of up to 70 kilometers, is now in place. This development prompted the first deployment in the Jerusalem region Sunday night of an Israeli anti-missile Iron Dome battery.

The information reaching Israeli intelligence is that the newly-armed Palestinian groups fully intend targeting the Israeli capital, following the example of Hamas, which aimed missiles from the Gaza Strip at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in November 2012.
In his interview to PBS’s Charlie Rose Show airing Monday, Bashar Assad spoke of “people aligned to Syria” carrying out “some kind of retaliation” for an American attack.

It now turns out that he intends using pro-Syrian and amorphous Palestinian groups as his instruments of retaliation, while at the same time disavowing responsibility for their actions.

In the south, likeminded Hamas and Jihad Islami groups in the Gaza Strip may try and join the rocket offensive against Israel. It will be hard for them to stand aside and watch, although Egypt’s counterterrorism offensive in Sinai is cutting into their resources.

In addition to what the Palestinians have, the Syrians have approximately100,000 rockets that they can fire at Israel and Hezbollah has approximately 70,000 rockets that they can fire at Israel.

If thousands of rockets start falling in Israeli cities, and if especially if any of those rockets have unconventional warheads, Israel will respond with absolutely overwhelming force and the number one target will be the city of Damascus.

Then we will have World War III, and the rest of the world will blame the United States and Israel.

Anyone that claims that this upcoming conflict will be good for the U.S. or for Israel is not being very smart.

There is so little that could be gained from a war with Syria and so much that could be lost.

And at this point, the American people are overwhelmingly against attacking Syria.

A brand new CNN poll has found that the American people are opposed to a military strike by a 71 percent to 27 percent margin if Congress does not approve it.

And if the vote was taken right this moment, it would almost certainly fail in the U.S. House of Representatives.  If you doubt this, just check out the chart in this BBC article.

And a different survey has found that the American people are against military action in Syria by a 63 percent to 28 percent margin…

Opposition to U.S. airstrikes against Syria is surging, a USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll finds, despite a White House campaign to convince Americans it is the right course ahead.

By more than 2-1, 63%-28%, those surveyed Wednesday through Sunday say they are against U.S. military action against the Syrian regime for its reported use of chemical weapons against civilians. In the past week, support has declined by a percentage point and opposition has swelled by 15 points, compared with a previous Pew Research poll.

Hopefully Obama is listening.

If the American people were told the actual truth, those numbers would probably be even more lopsided.  At least that is what U.S. Representative Justin Amash thinks

If Americans could read classified docs, they’d be even more against  action. Obama admn’s public statements are misleading at best.

So will the American people get to see the “evidence” that the Obama administration has been touting?

Of course not.

In fact, a request by the Associated Press to see the evidence has been denied

The Associated Press ran a skeptical piece Sunday about the Obama administration’s public case for military intervention in Syria in response to a reported Aug. 21 chemical attack.

The AP’s Zeina Karam and Kimberly Dozier wrote that “the U.S. government insists it has the intelligence to prove it, but the public has yet to see a single piece of concrete evidence produced by U.S. intelligence — no satellite imagery, no transcripts of Syrian military communications — connecting the government of President Bashar Assad to the alleged chemical weapons attack last month that killed hundreds of people.”

The Obama administration has released videos to make its case, but the AP noted that its requests for additional evidence the government claims to possess have been denied

Instead, we are being told to “trust” Barack Obama and John Kerry as they lead us toward World War III.

And Obama seems absolutely obsessed with making this conflict happen.  According to Politico, an unprecedented media blitz is planned to drum up support for this war…

Obama will tape interviews Monday afternoon with anchors from ABC, CBS and NBC, as well as with PBS, CNN and Fox News, the White House said.

The interviews will be conducted by ABC’s Diane Sawyer, CBS’s Scott Pelley, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Fox’s Chris Wallace, NBC’s Brian Williams and PBS’s Gwen Ifill.

The interviews will air that night, ahead of Obama’s Tuesday speech on Syria.

So what do you think?

Should we attack Syria and potentially start World War III?

Please feel free to share what you think by posting a comment below…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Who Is Going To Buy The US Debt If This War Causes China, Russia And The Rest Of The World To Turn On Us?

Yesterday we implied a difficult question when we illustrated the huge size of US Treasury bond holdings that China and Russia have between them – accounting for 25% of all foreign held debt – implicitly funding US standards of living (along with the Federal Reserve). The difficult question is “Can the U.S. really afford to greatly anger the rest of the world when they are the ones that are paying our bills?” What is going to happen if China, Russia and many other large nations stop buying our debt and start rapidly dumping U.S. debt that they already own? If the United States is not very careful, it is going to pay a tremendous economic price for taking military action in Syria.

 

Via Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse blog,

At this point, survey after survey has shown that the American people are overwhelmingly against an attack on Syria, people around the globe are overwhelmingly against an attack on Syria, and it looks like the U.S. Congress is even going to reject it.  But Barack Obama is not backing down.  In fact, ABC News is reporting that plans are now being made for a “significantly larger” strike on Syria than most experts had expected.

If Obama insists on going forward with this, it will be the greatest foreign policy disaster in modern American history.

Right now, both Russia and China are strongly warning Obama not to attack Syria.  And Russia is not just warning Obama with words.  According to Bloomberg, Russia has sent quite a collection of warships into the region…

 
 

Russia is sending three more ships to the eastern Mediterranean to bolster its fleet there as a U.S. Senate panel will consider President Barack Obama’s request for authority to conduct a military strike on Syria.

Russia is sending two destroyers, including the Nastoichivy, the flagship of the Baltic Fleet, and the Moskva missile cruiser to the region, Interfax reported today, citing an unidentified Navy official. That follows last week’s dispatch of a reconnaissance ship to the eastern Mediterranean, four days after the deployment of an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the area, which were reported by Interfax. Syria hosts Russia’s only military facility outside the former Soviet Union, at the port of Tartus.

China is also letting it be known that they absolutely do not want Obama to hit Syria.  On Friday, China issued a warning about what military conflict in the Middle East could do to “the global economy”…

 
 

“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.”

And according to Debka, China has also deployed “a number of warships” to the region…

 
 

Western naval sources reported Friday that a Chinese landing craft, the Jinggangshan, with a 1,000-strong marine battalion had reached the Red Sea en route for the Mediterranean off Syria.  According to DEBKAfile, Beijing has already deployed a number of warships opposite Syria in secret. If the latest report is confirmed, this will be the largest Chinese deployment in the Middle East in its naval history.

If the U.S. attacks Syria, Russia and China probably will not take immediate military action against us.

But they could choose to hit us where it really hurts.

According to the U.S. Treasury, foreigners now hold approximately 5.6 trillion dollars of our debt.  Over the past couple of decades, the proportion of our debt owned by foreigners has grown tremendously, and today we very heavily depend on nations such as China to buy our debt.

At this point, China owns approximately 1.275 trillion dollars of our debt, and Russia owns approximately 138 billion dollars of our debt.

So what would happen if China, Russia and other foreign buyers of our debt all of a sudden quit purchasing our debt and instead started dumping the debt that they already own back on to the market?

In a word, it would be disastrous.

As I have written about previously, the U.S. government will borrow about 4 trillion dollars this year.

Close to a trillion of that is new borrowing, and about three trillion of that is rolling over existing debt.

If China and other big foreign lenders quit buying our debt and started dumping what they already hold, that would send yields on U.S. Treasuries absolutely soaring.

And we have already seen bond yields rise dramatically in recent weeks.  In fact, on Thursday the yield on 10 year U.S. Treasuries briefly broke the 3 percent barrier.

So what is going to happen if the yield on 10 year U.S. Treasuries continues to go up?  The following are a few consequences of rising bond yields that I have discussed in previous articles

-It will cost the federal government more to borrow money.

-It will cost state and local governments more to borrow money.

-As bond yields go up, bond values go down.  In the end, rising bond yields could end up costing bond investors trillions of dollars.

-Rising bond yields will cause mortgage rates to skyrocket.  In fact, we are already starting to see this happen.  This week the average rate on a 30 year mortgage hit 4.57 percent.

-Higher interest rates will mean a slowdown in economic activity at a time when we definitely cannot afford it.

-As economic activity slows down, that will be very bad for stocks.  When the next great stock market crash happens (and it is coming), equity investors could end up losing trillions of dollars of wealth.

-Of course the biggest threat of all is the 441 trillion dollar interest rate derivatives time bomb that is sitting out there.  Rapidly rising interest rates could potentially bring down several of our “too big to fail” banks in rapid succession and throw us into the greatest financial crisis the nation has ever seen.

Are you starting to get the picture?

And the 3 percent mark is just the beginning.  Brent Schutte, a market strategist for BMO Private Bank, told CNBC that he expects the yield on 10 year U.S. Treasuries to eventually go up to 6 or 7 percent…

 
 

“4 percent (on 10-year Treasurys) somewhere around the end of the year to early next year would be a good intermediate-term level. And if you look over the longer term, I don’t think that 6 or 7 percent is out of the question.”

If that happens, we will experience a full blown financial meltdown.

Of course it would greatly help if Obama would back down and not attack Syria.  As Vladimir Putin noted at the G20 summit, large nations such as India, Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia are all strongly against the U.S. taking military action…

 
 

In reply to the question what other country in the world may theoretically be subjected to aggression similar to that Syria is facing, Putin said, “I do not want to think that any other country will be subjected to any external aggression.”

 

A military action against Syria will have a highly deplorable impact on international security at large, Putin emphasized.

 

He said he was surprised to see that ever more participants in the summit, including the leader of India, Brazil, the South African Republic, and Indonesia were speaking vehemently against a possible military operation in Syria.

 

Putin cited the words of the South African President, Jacob Zuma, who said many countries were feeling unprotected against such actions undertaken by stronger countries.

 

“Given the conditions as they, how would you convince the North Koreans, for example, to give up their nuclear program,” he said. “Just tell them to put everything into storage today and they’ll be pulled to bits tomorrow.”

 

He underlined the presence of only one method for maintaining stability – “an unconditional observance of international law norms.”

Can we really afford to have most of the international community turn on us and quit buying our debt?

Of course not.

Sadly, as I noted the other day, Obama appears to be locked into doing the bidding of Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

In fact, as the Washington Post reported the other day, Secretary of State John Kerry has even admitted that they are even willing to pay all of the costs of a U.S. military campaign that would overthrow Assad…

 
 

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 countries 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.”

Why aren’t we hearing more about this in the news?

Fortunately, despite the relentless propaganda coming from the mainstream media, a lot of members of Congress are choosing to take a stand against this war.  For example, U.S. Representative Tom Marino recently shared the following about why he is voting against military action in Syria

 
 

Secretary Hagel could not tell lawmakers who the U.S. could trust among the Syrian opposition, stating “that’s not my business to trust.”  Like many Americans, I believe it is our duty as decision makers to be informed and confident when making choices – especially in those choices that could result in sending U.S. troops or money abroad.  It is no wonder Secretary Hagel isn’t in the business to trust when more players are added daily to the growing list of ‘Syrian opposition’—many of them jihadist, terrorists, known Al Qaeda affiliates, members of the Muslim Brotherhood and enemies of the U.S. and our allies.  To simplify, the Secretary of Defense was unable to tell us, after nearly three years of the Syrian Civil War, who the good guys are or if there are any at all.

And Marino is very right.  There are no “good guys” in Syria.  The “rebels” are murderous jihadist psychotics that would be even worse than Assad if they took power.

For much more on what the mainstream media is not telling you about the war in Syria, check out a stunning video report from investigative reporter Ben Swann that you can find right here.

Syrian Rebels

The picture above comes from the official Facebook page of one of the “rebel groups” in Syria.

I am sure that you do not need me to point out that the White House is burning in the background of the picture.

These are the people that Obama wants to help?

According to NBC News, the rebels are also displaying images of the black flag of al-Qaeda on Facebook too…

 
 

The image is one of eight photos posted on the official Facebook page of the “Al-Aqsa Islamic Brigades,”  a small armed Sunni rebel faction fighting with the Free Syrian Army, the main umbrella military organization of the opposition forces. Two other photos posted on the group’s page feature the widely recognized black flag of the al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist group, which operates freely in Syria.

Let’s assume for a moment that Obama is successful in Syria and that Assad is overthrown.

That would hand Syria over to al-Qaeda.

Once in power, the “rebels” would slaughter or force the conversion of millions of Christians, Jews and non-Sunni Muslims that have been living peacefully in Syria for centuries.

To those that would support this war, I would ask you this question…

Is that what you want?

Do you want the blood of millions of Christians, Jews and non-Sunni Muslims on your hands?

If you are a Christian that is supporting Obama on this, I would ask you to consider an excerpt from a letterfrom Christian nuns in Azeir, Syria that I have posted below…

 
 

We look at the people around us, our day workers who are all here as if suspended, stunned: “They’ve decided to attack us.” Today we went to Tartous…we felt the anger, the helplessness, the inability to formulate a sense to all this: the people trying their best to work and to live normally. You see the farmers watering their land, parents buying notebooks for the schools that are about to begin, unknowing children asking for a toy or an ice cream…you see the poor, so many of them, trying to scrape together a few coins. The streets are full of the “inner” refugees of Syria, who have come from all over to the only area left that is still relatively liveable…. You see the beauty of these hills, the smile on people’s faces, the good-natured gaze of a boy who is about to join the army and gives us the two or three peanuts he has in his pocket as a token of “togetherness”…. And then you remember that they have decided to bomb us tomorrow. … Just like that. Because “it’s time to do something,” as it is worded in the statements of the important men, who will be sipping their tea tomorrow as they watch TV to see how effective their humanitarian intervention will be….

You can read the rest of that letter right here.

Also consider the following shocking video of Senator John McCain being confronted by a very emotional woman that says that her 18-year-old cousin in Syria was just killed by rebels loyal to al-Qaeda…

 

 

Any American that supports this war is aiding al-Qaeda.

Any American that supports this war is choosing to ally themselves with radical jihadist Christian killers that want to conquer the entire Middle East in the name of Sunni Islam.

If Congress votes to approve this war, then we should do what one site has suggested and send those that vote yes to Syria.

They don’t even have to fight.  We’ll just drop them off in the middle of the “rebel forces” and entrust them into the gentle hands of the al-Nusra Front.

But of course they would never go.  The ones that will be endangered will be the precious sons and daughters of other Americans.

This is not a war that has a good outcome for America.  Conservative voices and liberal voices all over the country are joining together to speak out against this war.

Hopefully Barack Obama will listen and cooler heads will prevail.  If not, things could spin wildly out of control very rapidly.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Senate Panel Authorizes Limited Military Strike In Syria

And like that, the first step to all out war has been taken:

  • SENATE PANEL AUTHORIZES LIMITED U.S. MILITARY STRIKE IN SYRIA

Vote breakdown: 10 Yes; 7 No; 1 Present. The measure includes new language saying U.S. policy is to “change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria” in way that brings about negotiated settlement of conflict, leading to a democratic govt in Syria. In other words: a pro-Qatari/Saudi coalition government that will permit the passage of natgas pipelines under Syria, through Turkey and into Europe, breaking Gazpromia’s marginal energy monopoly over the broke continent.

Next up:

  • FULL U.S. SENATE TO CONSIDER SYRIA RESOLUTION NEXT WEEK

After that the House, and it’s cruise missiles away.

And now, and as always, the ball is in Putin’s court.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment