On December 7, Voice of Russia (VoR) headlined: "Iraq 2.0, another false-flag invasion rated XXX," saying:
Reports claimed Assad readied it in bombs. No evidence whatever was cited.
They're ready to go but haven't been loaded on planes, said an unnamed US official. Pentagon spokesman George Little said "any consideration of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would be unacceptable."
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said:
Big Lies launch wars. In The Art of War, Sun Tzu said "All war is based on deception." It's true now like in ancient times. Instant global communications, super-weapons, and scoundrel media complicity make today's threat especially ominous.
Washington's rage for war threatens humanity. Peace doesn't have a chance. Media scoundrels hype false threats. Repeated ad nauseam, people believe them.
No matter how many previous times they were fooled, they buy the Big Lie again. It happens every time. They're being set up again now.
Administration, congressional, and Pentagon officials are preparing the public for more war. Falsified headlines hype nonexistent threats. Humanity hangs in the balance. Where this ends, who knows.
In early December, UN officials said they're recalling all non-essential Syrian staff. Growing conflict dangers were cited. Perhaps advance word of imminent NATO intervention was gotten.
On December 6, CNN cited a Pentagon spokesman Little saying Washington updated its military options for potentially striking Syria. "We are prepared for a full range of contingencies," said Little.
He added that US forces have all the firepower needed in the region for full-scale war if ordered. A previous article said Washington positioned considerable military strength off Syria's coast.
It includes 10,000 combat troops, 70 fighter-bombers, 17 or more warships (including the USS Eisenhower and Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group), heavy armaments, offensive Patriot missiles, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System readiness, and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) capability.
It suggests US-led NATO intervention could happen any time. More than ever it looks imminent.
On December 7, Syria Deeply headlined "EXCLUSIVE: US Trains Rebel Brigades to Secure Chemical Weapons," saying that Washington and NATO allies "hired contractors" to train opposition Syrian mercenaries. Four unnamed diplomats, including a US official, said exercises are ongoing in Turkey and Jordan.
At issue is whether Washington plans a false flag chemical attack as pretext for full-scale US-led NATO intervention. Syria Deeply stopped short of suggesting it.
Obama and Clinton said using them crosses a "red line." Washington would respond.
On December 7, Hillary Clinton urged all parties involved to make a "concerted push" to resolve the Syrian conflict. Perhaps imminent intervention was hinted.
France's Le Figero said French military advisers met with opposition fighters inside Syria. So have US and UK elements. At issue is assessing operational capabilities of different groups and choosing which ones get weapons.
On December 4, NATO foreign ministers met in Brussels. They expressed solidarity with Turkey. They agreed to deter any potential threat Ankara faces. There's none, but they suggested otherwise.
On December 6, Germany's Suddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) headlined:
"Nato-Führung erwägt militärische Intervention in Syrien (NATO leadership is considering military intervention in Syria)."
Multiple sources told SZ that NATO Secretary-General Fogh Rasmussen said the alliance can't "stick its head in the sand." NATO is prepared to intervene in Syria if ordered.
Earlier Rasmussen said NATO had no intention of doing so. He lied. Perhaps it's been planned all along.
SZ said Rasmussen is supported by Washington, Britain and Turkey. The Pentagon will suggest ways to implement a no-fly zone.
Rasmussen asked what would NATO do if Syria uses chemical weapons? What if Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz? Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Poland discount a chemical weapons threat.
Russia told NATO members to take inflammatory threats with a grain of salt. Previous ones proved false. This time isn't different.
SZ said NATO foreign ministers failed to reach common ground. It's unlikely to matter. Washington, Britain, Turkey, Rasmussen, and apparently France favor intervention. No combination of other countries can stop them.
On December 7, Mossad-connected DEBKAfile headlined "Paris: NATO-Arab Syria intervention imminent," saying:
In November, British and French forces "performed landing-and-capture exercises against fortified locations on the coast and mountains of Albania as practice for potential operations against similar terrain in Syria, where the Alawite Mountains loom over the coastal towns of Latakia and Tartus."
A previous article called today perhaps the most perilous time in world history. Daily events should scare everyone.
Possible regional or global war looms. Disastrous consequences could follow. Obama may head humanity into the abyss. Perhaps there's no way to stop him.
It's vital for anti-war activists to challenge what's too potentially catastrophic to tolerate. The risks are far too great to stay sidelined.
Article Source: ActivistPost
The US and NATO are set to invade Syria, something many of us have been warning about for a while now. It has been obvious that they have been looking for a pretext and that pretext has already been injected into the public debate.VoR cited fabricated claims about threatening chemical weapons. Media scoundrels hype them. Sarin nerve gas was mentioned.
Reports claimed Assad readied it in bombs. No evidence whatever was cited.
They're ready to go but haven't been loaded on planes, said an unnamed US official. Pentagon spokesman George Little said "any consideration of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would be unacceptable."
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said:
I think there is no question that we remain very concerned, very concerned that as the opposition advances, in particular on Damascus, that the regime might very well consider the use of chemical weapons. The intelligence that we have causes serious concerns that this is being considered.
The president of the United States has made very clear there will be consequences, there will be consequences if the Assad regime makes a terrible mistake by using these chemical weapons on their own people.On December 7, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Miqdad was unequivocal, saying:
Syria stresses again, for the 10th, the 100th time, that if we had such weapons, they would not be used against our people. We would not commit suicide.The alleged Syrian chemical weapons threat replicates bogus allegations about Saddam's nonexistent WMDs. It's similar to falsified claims about Gaddafi, the Taliban, and numerous other invented US enemies.
Big Lies launch wars. In The Art of War, Sun Tzu said "All war is based on deception." It's true now like in ancient times. Instant global communications, super-weapons, and scoundrel media complicity make today's threat especially ominous.
Washington's rage for war threatens humanity. Peace doesn't have a chance. Media scoundrels hype false threats. Repeated ad nauseam, people believe them.
No matter how many previous times they were fooled, they buy the Big Lie again. It happens every time. They're being set up again now.
Administration, congressional, and Pentagon officials are preparing the public for more war. Falsified headlines hype nonexistent threats. Humanity hangs in the balance. Where this ends, who knows.
In early December, UN officials said they're recalling all non-essential Syrian staff. Growing conflict dangers were cited. Perhaps advance word of imminent NATO intervention was gotten.
On December 6, CNN cited a Pentagon spokesman Little saying Washington updated its military options for potentially striking Syria. "We are prepared for a full range of contingencies," said Little.
He added that US forces have all the firepower needed in the region for full-scale war if ordered. A previous article said Washington positioned considerable military strength off Syria's coast.
It includes 10,000 combat troops, 70 fighter-bombers, 17 or more warships (including the USS Eisenhower and Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group), heavy armaments, offensive Patriot missiles, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System readiness, and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) capability.
It suggests US-led NATO intervention could happen any time. More than ever it looks imminent.
On December 7, Syria Deeply headlined "EXCLUSIVE: US Trains Rebel Brigades to Secure Chemical Weapons," saying that Washington and NATO allies "hired contractors" to train opposition Syrian mercenaries. Four unnamed diplomats, including a US official, said exercises are ongoing in Turkey and Jordan.
At issue is whether Washington plans a false flag chemical attack as pretext for full-scale US-led NATO intervention. Syria Deeply stopped short of suggesting it.
Obama and Clinton said using them crosses a "red line." Washington would respond.
On December 7, Hillary Clinton urged all parties involved to make a "concerted push" to resolve the Syrian conflict. Perhaps imminent intervention was hinted.
France's Le Figero said French military advisers met with opposition fighters inside Syria. So have US and UK elements. At issue is assessing operational capabilities of different groups and choosing which ones get weapons.
On December 4, NATO foreign ministers met in Brussels. They expressed solidarity with Turkey. They agreed to deter any potential threat Ankara faces. There's none, but they suggested otherwise.
On December 6, Germany's Suddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) headlined:
"Nato-Führung erwägt militärische Intervention in Syrien (NATO leadership is considering military intervention in Syria)."
Multiple sources told SZ that NATO Secretary-General Fogh Rasmussen said the alliance can't "stick its head in the sand." NATO is prepared to intervene in Syria if ordered.
Earlier Rasmussen said NATO had no intention of doing so. He lied. Perhaps it's been planned all along.
SZ said Rasmussen is supported by Washington, Britain and Turkey. The Pentagon will suggest ways to implement a no-fly zone.
Rasmussen asked what would NATO do if Syria uses chemical weapons? What if Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz? Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Poland discount a chemical weapons threat.
Russia told NATO members to take inflammatory threats with a grain of salt. Previous ones proved false. This time isn't different.
SZ said NATO foreign ministers failed to reach common ground. It's unlikely to matter. Washington, Britain, Turkey, Rasmussen, and apparently France favor intervention. No combination of other countries can stop them.
On December 7, Mossad-connected DEBKAfile headlined "Paris: NATO-Arab Syria intervention imminent," saying:
Sources close to the French Defense Ministry (said intervention) is due to begin shortly with the participation of the US, France, Britain, Turkey, Jordan and other anti-Assad Arab nations.France deployed the aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle in the Mediterranean. Combat marines are on board. Britain has at least five warships nearby. They've joined Washington's battle group.
In November, British and French forces "performed landing-and-capture exercises against fortified locations on the coast and mountains of Albania as practice for potential operations against similar terrain in Syria, where the Alawite Mountains loom over the coastal towns of Latakia and Tartus."
French sources told Le Point magazine that the NATO mission for Syria, including the UK and the US, would be modeled on the Western intervention in Libya in 2011.
It would combine an aerial blitz with ground action by special forces for destroying Assad’s chemical weapons stocks, his air force and his air defense systems.Apparently winds of war have reached gale force. Expect full-scale intervention any time. It could come before or right after Christmas and New Year's.
A previous article called today perhaps the most perilous time in world history. Daily events should scare everyone.
Possible regional or global war looms. Disastrous consequences could follow. Obama may head humanity into the abyss. Perhaps there's no way to stop him.
It's vital for anti-war activists to challenge what's too potentially catastrophic to tolerate. The risks are far too great to stay sidelined.
Article Source: ActivistPost