Yahoo: Assad predicts disaster if West meddles in Syria

[visionary]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/syria-crisis-update-debbie-wasserman-schultz-96185.html

DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz: U.S. has 'dozens' of allies

 

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the U.S. would be bolstered with support from “dozens” of international allies if the United States makes military strikes against Syria.

 

“I mean we have, from the briefings that I’ve received, there are dozens of countries who are going to stand with the United States, who will engage with us on military action and also that back us up,” Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “Piers Morgan Live.”

 

Following President Obama’s announcement Saturday that he is seeking Congressional authorization, Wasserman Schultz emphasized that U.S. intervention would be met with international support.

 

“In both military and diplomatic and political support, there are dozens of nations who had committed to back us up,” she said.

 

However, Wasserman Schultz said she was not at “liberty to say” specifically what countries have expressed supporting in missile strikes, because some of the information she received was classified.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10283758/First-Syria-rebels-armed-and-trained-by-CIA-on-way-to-battlefield.html

First Syria rebels armed and trained by CIA 'on way to battlefield'

 

During a meeting at the White House, the president assured Senator John McCain that after months of delay the US was meeting its commitment to back moderate elements of the opposition.

 

Mr Obama said that a 50-man cell, believed to have been trained by US special forces in Jordan, was making its way across the border into Syria, according to the New York Times.

 

The deployment of the rebel unit seems to be the first tangible measure of support since Mr Obama announced in June that the US would begin providing the opposition with small arms.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/right-radio-hosts-tune-out-obama-96205.html

Right radio hosts: Tune out Obama

 

Republicans on the Hill may be divided on whether to approve military action in Syria, but many influential conservative radio hosts around the country said Tuesday they’ll use the airwaves this week to make one point clear to Congress — stay out of the conflict.

 

Now that President Barack Obama has turned to Congress to authorize a use of force in Syria, conservative talkers plan to strongly advocate for lawmakers to resoundingly vote no on the Syria question.

 

“Rarely have I ever witnessed such consensus from my audience that we should stay the heck out of Syria,” nationally-syndicated conservative talker Mike Gallagher told POLITICO. “Even liberal callers who usually challenge and criticize me say we should not intervene. I am delighted that the president has done this about-face and will now turn to congress for approval. Now it’s up to the Congress to do the right thing and deliver a big, fat ‘no.’”

 

Dana Loesch, who hosts the daily conservative radio program “The Dana Show,” said she is personally opposed to intervention in Syria. As Congress debates the situation, she said, members should seriously consider the greater threat posed from military action in Syria “and the further provocation of countries already on ‘frenemy’ status with the US.”

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/the-us-should-use-cyber-weapons-against-assad/279266/

How to Use Cyber Weapons Against Assad

 

If the Obama administration does conduct military strikes against Syria, as seems likely, it should use military cyber weapons at the earliest possible moment to show the upside of military cyber power. Though this is risky, as it puts the focus on the U.S. militarization of cyberspace, it is likely worth doing to show that cyber operations are not evil witchcraft but can be humanitarian.

 

This is not the first time the United States has been here. In 1999, the White House was reported to have initially approved a plan for covert "computer attacks on foreign bank accounts held by [slobodan] Milosevic and other Serbian leaders, such as draining assets or altering banking records."  A few years later, during the time of the second invasion of Iraq, a similar plan was rolled out to "cripple" the financial system of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, leaving him "no money for war supplies. No money to pay troops."

 

Neither plan seems to have been executed. The Treasury Department and senior political officials apparently blocked these attacks, for fear of cascading failures and setting a precedent of targeting banks.

 

More recently, according to the New York Times, the Obama administration and military commanders considered “a cyberoffensive to disrupt and even disable the Gaddafi government’s air-defense system.” A cyber strike on Libya was apparently ruled out both because there was not enough time and also because officials felt that cyber capabilities are like a "Ferrari" which should be saved for the "big race." The Israeli Air Force apparently did not think so, as it was widely reported they used a backdoor "kill switch" to disable Syrian air defenses en route to destroying an illicit nuclear reactor.

 

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/nowsyrialatestnews/ban-says-syria-strike-could-worsen-conflict

Ban says Syria strike could worsen conflict

UN leader Ban Ki-moon suggested Tuesday that a military strike on Syria over the use of chemical weapons could worsen the country's conflict.

 

But Ban also insisted that the bitterly divided major powers on the UN Security Council have a "collective responsibility to humankind" to unite and halt the use of chemical weapons.

 

Without opposing any military strike that the United States and some of its allies are considering, Ban urged caution.

 

"We must consider the impact of any punitive measure on efforts to prevent further bloodshed and facilitate the political resolution of the conflict," Ban told a press briefing at the UN headquarters.

 

"Everything should be handled within the framework of the United Nations Charter," he added. "The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and, or when the Security Council approves such action."

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/six-in-10-oppose-u-s-only-strike-on-syria-a-closer-division-if-allies-are-involved/

Six in 10 Oppose U.S.-Only Strike on Syria; A Closer Division if Allies are Involved

 

Nearly six in 10 Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll oppose unilateral U.S. missile strikes against Syria, and even more oppose arming the Syrian rebels – a complication for Barack Obama and proponents of military action in Congress alike.

 

Even given the United States’ assertion that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in the civil war there, 59 percent in the national survey, conducted Wednesday through Sunday, oppose U.S. missile strikes, far more than the 36 percent who support them.

 

Showing greater acceptance of allied action, attitudes move close to an even division on air strikes if other countries such as Great Britain and France participated – 46 percent in favor, 51 percent opposed. The U.K. House of Commons voted down military action last week, while France has signaled its willingness to participate.

 

At the same time this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds that 70 percent oppose the United States and its allies supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels, underscoring the extent of public skepticism about U.S. involvement there.

 

A striking result is the lack of partisanship on the issue. Similar numbers of Democrats and Republicans alike oppose both unilateral U.S. air strikes and supplying arms to the opposition. And both groups divide closely on allied air strikes.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/03/hagel-america-can-t-let-hezbollah-get-chemical-weapons.html

Hagel: America Can’t Let Hezbollah Get Chemical Weapons

 

The United States should strike Syria to prevent Hezbollah and other terrorist groups from getting their hands on chemical weapons, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will testify today.

 

“As President Obama said, the use of chemical weapons in Syria is not only an assault on humanity – it is a serious threat to America’s national security interests and those of our closest allies. The Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons poses grave risks to our friends and partners along Syria’s borders – including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Iraq,” Hagel will tell the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this afternoon, according to a copy of his prepared remarks obtained in advance by The Daily Beast. “If Assad is prepared to use chemical weapons against his own people, we have to be concerned that terrorist groups like Hezbollah, which has forces inside Syria supporting the Assad regime, could acquire them."

 

Hagel will argue that the risk of chemical weapons falling into the hands of terrorists is one more reason that America must use military force to respond to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the regime of Bashar al Assad.

“This risk of chemical weapons proliferation poses a direct threat to our friends and partners, and to U.S. personnel in the region,” Hagel will say. “We cannot afford for Hezbollah or any other terrorist group determined to strike the United States to have incentives to acquire or use chemical weapons.”

 

North Korea also has a large stockpile of chemical weapons and must not be given any incentive to use them as well, Hagel will say.

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/SoccerMouaz

Senator Menendez "are we so tired of war that we are willing to silence our conscious"
2:43 PM

Senate Menendez "we need to consider the consequences of not acting" Syria
2:47 PM

 

https://twitter.com/acarvin

Menendez: we'll either send a message to non-state actors that we won't tolerate the use of CW, or that we'll stand by in silence.
2:47 PM

Menendez: Clearly, at the end of the day, our national security is at stake.
2:48 PM

Menendez: This is not a declaration of war, but a declaration of our values to the world. #syria
2:48 PM

[visionary]

Kerry is speaking now at the Senate briefing/discussion

 

Here's what Corker had to say a few minutes ago though:

 

https://twitter.com/acarvin

Corker: I am so dismayed at the lack of support to the moderate opposition.
2:52 PM

Corker: It's sort of humiliating to be in a refugee camp when we've promised them more assistance.
2:52 PM

Corker: I fully believe CW has been used on civilians to a large degree.
2:53 PM

Corker: It's important first to make a case as to why what happens in Syria is part of our national interest.
2:53 PM

Corker: I'd like to know how US strategy will help Syria and the region in its aftermath.
2:54 PM

 

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew

GOP Congresswoman Renee Ellmers just sent out a statement saying she won't be supporting military action in Syria.
3:02 PM

 

https://twitter.com/acarvin

Kerry: we are especially sensitive to never again asking any Member of Congress to take a vote on faulty intelligence
3:00 PM

Kerry: We can tell you beyond any reasonable doubt that our evidence proves the Assad regime prepared this attack
3:00 PM

 
Kerry: When we say Never Again, we don't mean sometimes. We mean never.
3:12 PM

Kerry: He (Obama) is asking for authorization to degrade and deter Assad's ability to use CW.
3:14 PM

 

https://twitter.com/acarvin

Kerry: If Assad is foolish enough to retaliate, the US is strong enough to make him regret that, but w/o going to war.
3:14 PM

Kerry: We share a common humanity and common decency. This isn't the time for armchair isolationism.
3:15 PM

Kerry: We have spoken up against unspeakable horror in the past - now we must stand up and act.
3:15 PM

Kerry: When I first testified here at 27 years old, I had feelings similar to that protester. That's why it's important to debate this. (in reference to Code Pink protester(s) interrupting the discussion.
3:16 PM

 

 

https://twitter.com/Max_Fisher

Here's a photo of John Kerry trying to kill Bashar al-Assad with his mind http://bit.ly/1a4huj9  via @AnupKaphle
3:52 PM

[visionary]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/senate-syria-tally-close-96223.html

Senate all over the map on Syria

 

Eleven years ago, the Senate Democratic and Republican leaders — Tom Daschle and Trent Lott — teamed up to draft a measure authorizing force in Iraq, giving a bipartisan boost to a controversial war in the Middle East.

 

Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell are in a different place when it comes to Syria today.

 

While Reid has emerged as President Barack Obama’s chief Democratic ally on military action in the country, McConnell is voicing skepticism over the administration’s plans, including at a private White House meeting on Tuesday, making him the lone party leader in the House or Senate to withhold his support from the mission so far.

 

McConnell’s reluctance to take a position is significant given that his backing for intervention could very well ensure Senate passage of any use-of-force resolution for Syria. Without his support, Obama could face a wall of GOP opposition, ensuring that the vote will be incredibly close — and that Democrats will have to stay largely united in order to give the president a razor-thin victory on a huge national security issue.

 

So far, McConnell is non-committal.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/syria-house-gop-96225.html#.UiZknDBbkGw.twitter

On Syria, House GOP won’t follow their leaders

 

The whip count on Syria has become like the war itself: No one in Washington wants to own it alone.

While most top congressional leaders have vowed to back President Barack Obama in seeking authority to launch missile strikes, there’s little evidence that they can — or even want to — help him round up the rank-and file-Republicans he’ll need to win a vote in the House.

 

Speaker John Boehner’s spokesman said that he “expects the White House to provide answers to members’ questions and take the lead on any whipping effort.” Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), whose aides and allies run the whip process, isn’t yet in favor of Obama’s request for military authority in Syria.

 

Several lawmakers and aides who have been canvassing support say that nearly 80 percent of the House Republican Conference is, to some degree, opposed to launching strikes in Syria. Informal counts by Obama allies show that support in Congress for Obama’s plans is in the low dozens.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/senators-syria-compromise-96234.html

Senators craft Syria compromise

 

A new use-of-force resolution for Syria sets a 60-day deadline, with one 30-day extension possible, for President Barack Obama to launch military strikes against the regime of Syria President Bashar Assad — and it will also bar the involvement of U.S. ground forces in Syria.

 

The revised resolution was crafted by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, following several days of negotiations. The panel could vote on the proposal by Wednesday.

 

Aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) were also involved in the discussions over the revised resolution.

 

Menendez and Corker both support Obama’s call for “limited, proportional” attacks on the Assad regime over its alleged use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians.

 

Over the last two days, Corker had been insisting on a 30-day deadline for Obama to order any military action against Syria, but Democrats objected to that requirement.

 

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/09/us-military-force-diplomacy-syria.html

US Military Force Could Promote Diplomacy in Syria

 

President Barack Obama’s recent decision to seek congressional authorization before taking military action against the Bashar al-Assad regime lies at the intersection of “the need to do something” about Syria and Obama's personal reluctance to use force, especially at a time when the American people have no appetite for another war.

Washington’s strategy against the Assad regime must include a military campaign that degrades Assad’s killing machine significantly and, simultaneously, provides military and logistical assistance to vetted, moderate elements of the Free Syrian Army. Only through a weakened Assad regime and an invigorated Free Syrian Army would the balance of power between the conflicting parties — a prerequisite for meaningful talks — be had. Short of that, Assad, backed as he is by Iran and Hezbollah, would persist in trying to crush the uprising by force.

 

 

https://twitter.com/Doranimated

Syrian opposition sources say this big Syrian fish defected from Assad & is now in Turkey | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Habib_Mahmud
5:52 PM

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=730824543611351&l=e8f59e77e9

Local Cordination Committees in Syria

By the end of Tuesday the cordination committees were able to document 66 martyrs including 5 women,6 children, 3 under torture: 28 Martyrs were reported in Damscus and its suburbs; 10 in Idlib, including 5 martyrs were reported in Damascus Suburbs; 9 in Aleppo; 6 in Homs; 5 in Daraa; 2 in Hama; 2 in Deir Ezzor; 2 in Raqqa; Martyr from Latakia was martyred under torture and martyr from Banyas was martyred in Damascus under torture

[Larry]

Don't know much about Syria, myself.  (I confess that I haven't been reading your class notes, Professor.) 

 

But the American politics is interesting. 

 

The "case" against Syria and against Iraq seem rather parallel, to me.  Both of them are state sponsors of terrorism, but neither has done much directly against the US.  And both of them seem to have WMDs (in the form of poison gas), which they've only used against their own citizens. 

 

To this day, we're still being told that, in the case of Iraq, those are good enough reasons to justify invading and conquering another country.  (And that anybody who disagrees is anti-American.)  Obama isn't asking for anything near that.  (And I doubt he gets it.) 

[twa]

far from parallel,Iraq has used chem weapons on Iran as well as invading/attacking others.

they are both scum that need killing though ....at least the idiots quit calling him a reformer

[visionary]

Don't know much about Syria, myself.  (I confess that I haven't been reading your class notes, Professor.) 

 

But the American politics is interesting. 

 

The "case" against Syria and against Iraq seem rather parallel, to me.  Both of them are state sponsors of terrorism, but neither has done much directly against the US.  And both of them seem to have WMDs (in the form of poison gas), which they've only used against their own citizens. 

 

To this day, we're still being told that, in the case of Iraq, those are good enough reasons to justify invading and conquering another country.  (And that anybody who disagrees is anti-American.)  Obama isn't asking for anything near that.  (And I doubt he gets it.) 

Iraq hadn't just used cw when we attacked and they weren't in the middle of an uprising where the people were asking for help.

Also they didn't have any left at that point, despite what they wanted people to think.

There's no question that Syria has chemical weapons.  And France, Germany, US, Britain, NATO, Arab League all say they've used them.

There also wasn't the regional situation (refugees, jihadis, etc) back then that there is now.

And we didn't have Arab states like Turkey, Qatar, Saudi urging action.

And obviously there's an enormous amount of difference between what Obama is proposing and invading a country and occupying it.

[GoSkins561]

And we still have to enforce international law, and the military is a part of that.  Actually, I'd say enforcing international law is probably the most important function of the military today.

 

We are not the world police, and we do not have to follow international law, when our soldiers sign their name and take their oath of office, they sign up to protect and uphold The Constitution *to the best of their ability.   We shouldn't be so quick to send another Americans son or daughter off to war, especially if the reason is to enforce "international law", that is not what they signed up for.

[GoSkins561]

And obviously there's an enormous amount of difference between what Obama is proposing and invading a country and occupying it.

 

I don't think there is a difference, either situation puts American lives in danger.

[twa]

well so much for the French stepping up

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/french-leader-await-us-congress-vote-syria-20143162

[visionary]

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/03/is_this_the_weakest_argument_against_a_syria_attack

Is This the Weakest Argument Against a Syria Attack?

 

There are a lot of good reasons to oppose a United States military strike in Syria. It may do little to change the behavior of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It may invite retaliation on U.S. allies in the region such as Turkey and Israel. It may further entangle the U.S. in a conflict that has little to do with America.

 

But one rationale is making military experts do a double-take: Sequestration.

 

As the White House seeks Congressional authorization for a strike, it's facing stiff opposition from a set of lawmakers that typically supports U.S. military intervention in the Middle East. These hawkish lawmakers don't oppose President Obama's geopolitical priorities or chemical weapons evidence. They think the Pentagon doesn't have enough money in its half-trillion dollar budget to carry out a Syria strike given the $500 billion in across-the-board spending cuts facing the military in the next decade.

But analysts who've crunched the numbers on a stand-off strike -- the type of limited operation the administration says it plans to carry out -- say the Pentagon's base budget -- more than $500 billion -- is plenty capable of covering the strike without significant sacrifice to military readiness elsewhere. A major reason for that: The money for a Syria strike has already been spent.

 

For instance, the Tomahawk cruise missiles have already been paid for and of the five Navy destroyers on station, four were already scheduled to be on deployment. "The increased marginal cost is really just the cost of fuel to keep one extra destroyer on deployment," said Chris Harmer, an analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, who favors intervention in Syria. "From the Navy perspective, this will be as inexpensive an operation in the near term as is possible."

 

 

 

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/3/decision-on-syriapresentsglimpseofdemocracyinaction.html

Decision on Syria presents glimpse of democracy in action

 

On a muggy Labor Day afternoon, the West Hartford, Conn., town hall building overflowed with residents of the state's 1st Congressional District.

 

In the wake of President Barack Obama’s declaration Saturday that he would seek authorization from Congress before initiating military strike against Syria in response to President Bashar al-Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons against his own people, Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., called a "community forum" on the matter.

 

Other lawmakers across the country, presented with the chance to chime in before a strike, have conducted or scheduled similar meetings this week before Congress returns from a month-long recess Monday.

 

Hundreds of people clamored for open spots at Larson’s West Hartford gathering, spilling out into the adjoining hallway. Once the room reached capacity, a police officer blocked eager constituents from entering the meeting that was announced with just two days’ notice.

Mohammed Nihlawi, a chemist from Glastonbury, Conn., addressed the meeting with his young daughter draped over his shoulder. Originally from Damascus, nearby the site of the Aug. 21 chemical attack U.S. officials said killed 1,429 civilians, Nihlawi has been especially anguished in recent days and felt obliged to attend.

 

Citing evidence that chemical weapons had been used prior to the Aug. 21 incident, he said, "If no action is taken, (Assad) will continue on this path. Desperate people do desperate things."

 

After the meeting, Nihlawi expanded on his remarks.

 

"I think if you plan properly," he said, cognizant of widespread doubts about the efficacy of any U.S. strike, "Assad can be stopped. But whether it happens or not, I appreciate what Congressman Larson has done here today. This is how democracy works."

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/hillary-clinton-syria-96222.html?hp=f3

Hillary Clinton backs Obama on Syria

 

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton backs President Barack Obama’s move to urge Congress to back a targeted effort in Syria, in the first comments from her camp since the president unveiled his plan, POLITICO has learned.

 

“Secretary Clinton supports the president’s effort to enlist the Congress in pursuing a strong and targeted response to the Assad regime’s horrific use of chemical weapons,” a Clinton aide told POLITICO.

It was reported earlier this year by The New York Times that the White House had nixed a proposal by Clinton and former CIA head David Petraeus to arm some Syrian rebels. It was a proposal that the White House worried would lead to arming the wrong people, while ensnaring the U.S. into another Mideast conflict.

 

Clinton had talked before leaving Foggy Bottom about her “lasting regret” on the violence in Syria and the lack of clear options for the global community to help stop the crisis.

 

POLITICO reported earlier this year that Bill Clinton, in a conversation with Sen. John McCain at a private event in Manhattan, said he supported the senator’s position on Syria.

[GoSkins561]

well so much for the French stepping up

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/french-leader-await-us-congress-vote-syria-20143162

 

Are you surprised? 

[twa]

from the above link

"If no action is taken, (Assad) will continue on this path. Desperate people do desperate things."

Won't a US attack make him more desperate?.....or are we counting on not really harming or threatening his rule with the proposed strike?

ya'll better be prepared for Murphy's law

[visionary]

I don't think there is a difference, either situation puts American lives in danger.

Is there a difference between a light bulb and the sun?  Both can burn you.

[GoSkins561]

Is there a difference between a light bulb and the sun?  Both can burn you.

 

Do you have kids?

[twa]

Are you surprised?

surprised it took them that long

[visionary]

from the above link

"If no action is taken, (Assad) will continue on this path. Desperate people do desperate things."

Won't a US attack make him more desperate?.....or are we counting on not really harming or threatening his rule with the proposed strike?

ya'll better be prepared for Murphy's law

That's why some people are worried that we won't do enough and just make him fight harder.

But to be honest I don't think that hold ups on inspection.

He's already doing about as much as he can without losing support from his backers and is pretty stretched to his limits.

The strikes should theoretically lesson his ability to do as much damage.

And since Assad is going to keep getting more desperate anyway as he loses more and more control, it's somewhat irrelevant.

Do you have kids?

Nope, do you?

[GoSkins561]

t.

Nope, do you?

 

Sure do, I think we need to view all of our Men and Women who serve our great country, as one of our own kids before making such quick decisions to put their lives in danger.   I truly respect how so many of our kids sign up for a job with such uncertainties,  with that said, we need to analyze what they signed up for before putting their lives in risk.  Syria is NOT a threat to our national security, the DOD stands for Department of Defense, not the Department of Offense.

[visionary]

Sure do, I think we need to view all of our Men and Women who serve our great country, as one of our own kids before making such quick decisions to put their lives in danger.   I truly respect how so many of our kids sign up for a job with such uncertainties,  with that said, we need to analyze what they signed up for before putting their lives in risk.  Syria is NOT a threat to our national security, the DOD stands for Department of Defense, not the Department of Offense.

I understand that, I certainly don't want any Americans to die. 

But I don't feel differently about Americans than I do others around the world.

Obviously if it's someone I know personally or feel a connection to, I care more...as anyone does, but other than that I don't like to see humans suffer no matter what country they're from.

One of the (many) reasons I wouldn't make a good president/politician.

 

By the way, wasn't it originally called the Office of War or something like that?

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

The thing is, there has to be plans in place for retaliation from Syria or her allies. Kerry scoffed at a question today about what we'd do in the event of a retaliation. Like nobody would dare attack us or the Isrealies. Yet, this is the big question for me. I think what-ifs need to be answered. The ingredients are in place for a real ****storm if anyone reacts in a way Obama and Kerry don't expect. There is still plenty of debate to be had, let's have it between world leaders, let's not do it in haste.

The division this could cause between the US and Syria's allies (Russia and China) could reach frightening levels. What if they decide to intercept our missiles, or knock some drones out of the sky? How about a manned aircraft? What if they sink a ship? It's WWIII.

And whoever's fault it is, Syria's, Russia's, America's, there will now be BOOTS ON THE GROUND. We must cover all of the slight possibilities before we rush in like hungry, drooling dogs.

[visionary]

http://m.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2013/Sep-03/229851-hezbollah-says-assad-made-big-mistake-with-chemical-attack-report.ashx

Hezbollah says Assad made 'big mistake' with chemical attack: report

 

German’s foreign intelligence agency intercepted a phone call between a Hezbollah official and the Iranian Embassy with the former confirming the regime’s use of poisonous gas, saying President Bashar Assad made “a big mistake,” Der Spiegel magazine reported Tuesday.

 

During a secret briefing to select lawmakers Monday, the head of Germany’s intelligence agency, Gerhard Schindler told politicians that the service listened in on a conversation between a high-ranking Hezbollah official and the Iranian Embassy.

 

“The Hezbollah functionary seems to have admitted that poison gas was used," Schindler was quoted as saying

 

According to Schindler, the Hezbollah official said that "Assad lost his nerves and made a big mistake by ordering the chemical weapons attack.”

 

Last week, a security source told The Daily Star that at least four Hezbollah fighters were receiving treatment in Beirut after coming into contact with chemical agents in Syria.

 

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said between four and five members came into contact with the chemical agents while searching a group of rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar over the weekend.

 

 

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-09-04/russia-vladimir-putin-warns-west-about-syria-military-action/

Putin warns West over Syria

 

President Vladimir Putin said Russia had provided some components of the S-300 air defence missile system to Syria but had frozen further shipments.

 

He suggested that Russia may sell the missile systems elsewhere if western nations attack Syria without UN Security Council backing.

 

In an interview with The Associated Press and Russia's state Channel 1 television, he said: "We have a contract for the delivery of the S-300s. We have supplied some of the components, but the delivery hasn't been completed. We have suspended it for now.

 

"But if we see that steps are taken that violate the existing international norms, we shall think how we should act in the future, in particular regarding supplies of such sensitive weapons to certain regions of the world."

 

 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/09/03/muse_of_the_revolution_syria_libya_literature

Muse of the Revolution

 

A Syrian-American writer finds her voice, with help from Libya's most famous novelist.

 

I had two New Year's resolutions in 2011: to read Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina and Marcel Proust's In Search of Lost Time. Anna was completed by Jan. 25 -- just when our lives turned into a 24-hour TV marathon tuned to Cairo's Tahrir Square as the world watched a dictator fall in 18 short days. We Syrians knew our country was not Egypt or Tunisia, but when even Libya ignited on Feb. 15, we collectively held our breath with hope. The weeks passed, the uprisings around the Arab world grew larger and more determined, and the seven volumes of Proust slowly collected dust on my nightstand.

 

Another writer entered my life instead.

 

I had never heard of Hisham Matar before February 2011. But after reading one of his early op-eds about the Libyan revolution, I immediately downloaded In the Country of Men, his Man Booker Prize-shortlisted novel about a 9-year-old boy in Tripoli whose father is abducted by Muammar al-Qaddafi's secret police. I finished it in two days. Matar portrayed a Libya that at once cradles the novel's young protagonist, Suleiman, and disillusions him. It was an intimate introduction to a country I knew virtually nothing about, except that its eccentric dictator with his crazy outfits was definitely worse than our own strongman, Bashar al-Assad. I was taken by the fact that such a courageous book, originally published in Britain and now widely translated, had been released back in 2006, when Qaddafi's oppressive regime and police network were still strong.

It was a bold appeal and one that most Syrians -- scarred by the U.S. occupation of neighboring Iraq and afraid of inviting imperialism into our country -- still struggle with after two years of regime brutality. Instead, we merely watch as the Syrian army and air force, assisted by Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia, continue to bomb our country daily and the bodies continue to pile up -- 100,000 and counting. Today, Matar's pleas for intervention no longer inspire the uncertainty I felt when I originally read his words. He was right to stand up for Libya, and the Syrians who have held back from such blunt demands, whether out of pride or fear or both, have been proved devastatingly wrong.

 

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/26721f00-147c-11e3-84b4-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz2duOuTwi4

Syria is following the same script as Afghanistan

By David Miliband

 
The repeated use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people has brought the civil war to a new diplomatic and political boil. Yet none of the military options being canvassed – or, in the UK, rejected – promises a decisive shift in the course of the conflict. We are not yet anywhere near the nadir of the humanitarian crisis already consuming five countries at the heart of the Middle East.

 

The International Rescue Committee has just completed a six-week audit of the situation in Syria and its neighbours. The litany of suffering is grim, the dynamics are all going in the wrong direction and the prospects are bleak. For geopolitical reasons, as well as basic humanity, we need a fundamental step change in the scale of effort.

In neighbouring countries, there is desperate human need and growing political pressure. The host governments at the local and national levels, especially in Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq, cannot be expected to manage population flows on this scale alone. Their demands for help should be heard.

 

It is clear that, while international engagement is decreasingly popular in the advanced democracies, a multipolar world makes it increasingly necessary. Humanitarian intervention is about human need, not political sides – but it has political consequences. There is capacity to save more lives, but this needs resources and political will. The drums of war are reason to redouble humanitarian efforts, not forget them.

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324202304579053274268277260.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

Middle East Strains Under the Weight of Syria's Two Million Refugees

 

With the Syrian refugee numbers passing the two million mark Tuesday, governments and aid officials are coming to the same reckoning as Mohammad Hariri, an air-conditioner repairman who came here for one night and stayed for a year.

 

"My opinion is now, on the ground and politically, it's going to take a long, long time," he says.

In early August 2012, Mr. Hariri brought his three children across the border to escape some particularly intense shelling. Today, the camp remains his home—along with some 130,000 other Syrians.

It is a scene playing out across the Middle East. In Lebanon and Iraq, Turkey and Egypt, Syria's refugee exodus has stretched resources, sparked political and sectarian tensions, and changed economies and demographics.

 

"We were prepared for 200, 300 people coming per night, but then all of a sudden you started having 2,000, 3,000 people every day," says Mr. Harper of the U.N. "It's been 12 months of continuous humanity crossing into Jordan."

 

 

http://blogs.channel4.com/lindsey-hilsum-on-international-affairs/syria-refugee-crisis-desperate-stories/2810

Syria’s refugees: ‘Our generation got used to blood’

Each one, of course, is an individual story, usually a desperate one. Today I went to Arsal, a stony, bleak, mountainous area on the Lebanon/Syria border, where people fled after the Syrian government retook the cities of Homs and Qusayr.

 

Mariam, a svelte, middle-aged woman in a pink headscarf, used to have five children and a husband. One of her sons was killed, two others have been injured, and she has no idea where her husband is. At the moment, she and the remaining kids are living in a thin tent in a small camp. “What will we do when the snow comes?” she asks.

 

“We have no blankets, no mattresses.” An old man butted in to our conversation when I asked about the prospect of American bombing. “We don’t want promises any more,” he said. “We hope it happens today and we want to go back. “Even if Bashar doesn’t want it, we will return to our country.”

 

A crowd gathered round me, full of questions: Will they bomb? Why is the UK hesitating to attack Syria when they didn’t hesitate on Libya? Where will we stay In the winter?

 

 

https://twitter.com/JadBantha

Caucasus fighters defect from ISIS terrorists because of ISIS random assassination of civilians and radical ideology
2:41 AM

 

https://twitter.com/markito0171

Defection of ~30 regime-forces

3:11 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xneKLo2yT7w&feature=youtu.be

[GoSkins561]

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/03/is_this_the_weakest_argument_against_a_syria_attack

 

The fact this is going to cost the USA Billions in tax payer money, and the tax payers do not want more war, should be one of the best reasons to avoid entering the conflict in Syria.

[Hersh]

The thing is, there has to be plans in place for retaliation from Syria or her allies. Kerry scoffed at a question today about what we'd do in the event of a retaliation. Like nobody would dare attack us or the Isrealies. Yet, this is the big question for me. I think what-ifs need to be answered. The ingredients are in place for a real ****storm if anyone reacts in a way Obama and Kerry don't expect. There is still plenty of debate to be had, let's have it between world leaders, let's not do it in haste.

The division this could cause between the US and Syria's allies (Russia and China) could reach frightening levels. What if they decide to intercept our missiles, or knock some drones out of the sky? How about a manned aircraft? What if they sink a ship? It's WWIII.

And whoever's fault it is, Syria's, Russia's, America's, there will now be BOOTS ON THE GROUND. We must cover all of the slight possibilities before we rush in like hungry, drooling dogs.

 

Two and a half years later is rushing in like a hungry dog? Why would Russia or China want WWIII over Syria? Just because something has the slightest of slightest possibilities doesn't mean you don't act on something. That would cause complete paralysis.

[GoSkins561]

Two and a half years later is rushing in like a hungry dog? Why would Russia or China want WWIII over Syria? Just because something has the slightest of slightest possibilities doesn't mean you don't act on something. That would cause complete paralysis.

 

Or wasting Billions on another war we can't afford will cause complete paralysis, are the Syrian people ready to front the bill?

[GoSkins561]

McCain needs to pound sand and go away.   I mean seriously, if I were to pull out my phone and start playing games during an important meeting, I would get my ass handed to me.    In a meeting as important as this, ESPECIALLY since he is one of the few that is leading the charge, he should probably be paying attention.  If they were taking a break, that's one thing, if they were in session, he should be removed from the Senate chamber and excluded from the vote.

 

 

McCain plays poker on iPhone during Syria hearing

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/04/mccain-syria-poker-hearing/2761445/

@SenJohnMcCain Scandal! Caught playing iPhone game at 3+ hour Senate hearing - worst of all I lost!

 

[visionary]

The fact this is going to cost the USA Billions in tax payer money, and the tax payers do not want more war, should be one of the best reasons to avoid entering the conflict in Syria.

Might not cost us very much at all actually.  But I'm pretty sure you've already made up your mind long ago.   

McCain needs to pound sand and go away.   I mean seriously, if I were to pull out my phone and start playing games during an important meeting, I would get my ass handed to me.    In a meeting as important as this, ESPECIALLY since he is one of the few that is leading the charge, he should probably be paying attention.  If they were taking a break, that's one thing, if they were in session, he should be removed from the Senate chamber and excluded from the vote.

McCain knows more about Syria and what's going on there than you likely ever will.

It doesn't keep you or others who knows vastly less than him from saying stuff about it though.

Also he had already been in a private briefing with Graham and the administration, so he knows what's up.

And he was likely listening to what was being said anyway.