ThereAreNoSunglasses

American Resistance To Empire

Will Obama Honor the Deep Principles Behind the United Nations, Or Will He Destroy It?

[Syria could either be a concrete wall where the American ship of state crashs in total ruin, or else it could be a pivotal point for a smart president, who knew when it was time to pivot in place and to turn away from the disastrous policies established by his predecessor.  Until now, Obama has perpetuated the deadly policies of the zionist neocons.  Look at where it has gotten us.  If Obama actually has the balls to follow through on his promises to devastate Syria (in effect, becoming even more Bush-like than Bush himself, who refused to bomb Syria for Israel’s sake in 2006), he will have publicly divorced himself from the will of the American people whom he has sworn to defend.  As a lawyer himself, Obama can clearly see the precious legal institutions and hallowed American Constitutional laws that he will have abrogated, if he takes the next step before the whole world and “pushes the button” on Syria. 

None of this was supposed to have gone down like this in the great master plan….If it wasn’t for that damned human free will.  These questions and legal boundaries were all supposed to have been crossed on Bush’s watch, but he refused to be that guy who pushes the big, shiny, red button and murders off a large portion of the human race.  If the argument given in the report below holds true in the coming days, then the forces backing humanitarian interventionism will have established dominance over the anti-wmd crowd, preserving UN authority to intervene for humanitarian reasons, while moving debate on control of the spread of wmd from the Security Council to the courts, where it belongs.  The way to do all of this would simply be to turn this anti-Syrian, anti-wmd debate now ongoing at the UN into a reporting mechanism for wmd violations, where any future wmd violations would then automatically trigger a UN investigation and response (if any is required).  Obama could then deflate the current hysteria over the Damascus attacks by taking the announced military response to those attacks off the table.

The White House and the Pentagon long ago abandoned the legal justifications for the terror war and reasons to continue and to expand the fighting, based upon the Congressional resolutions which authorized the war in Afghanistan.  By looking for other excuses to increase the US Government’s reach, based on those original resolutions, such as wmd enforcement, the “war on terror” ceased to be, becoming from then on, the war against wmd, even though the lawyers and legal spinners argued that it was a key strategy in avoiding mass-terror.  It is now vital that some responsible leaders move our government to separate the two streams of enforcement, the containment of wmd taken-out of the struggle for basic human rights.  There is no connection, except in the mind of Dick Cheney.  Cheney’s speciality has always been to muddy-up the waters of whatever the current controversy, until no one can see to the bottom of things, especially since his days at the helm of Halliburton, where his company created a reason for Saddam Hussein to invaid Kuwait).

Enforcement of all anti-wmd laws would thereafter be accomplished by an international regime for controlling ALL weapons of mass-murder, the first real step towards their total elimination, and in the process, strengthening both the authority of the United Nations, as well as the US Constitution.  A global ban on all wmd would form the basis for a comprehensive global peace treaty, the foundation for all Hope for humankind, the great Promise that has been given by all of the great Prophets, who have been sent by God.  We find the way to True World Peace and future humanity will think of us for the right reasons.

It is time for you to do great things, Mr. Obama, if you are up to the task.]

therearenosunglasses@hotmail.com

Syria Is a Legal Triumph

slate

If a deal holds up, it will be a tremendous victory for international law, despite Obama’s bungling.

U.S. President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama addresses the nation about the situation in Syria from the East Room at the White House Tuesday night.
Photo by Evan Vucci/Pool/Reuters

President Obama has bungled Syria. He said he’d enforce the accidental red line he drew on chemical weapons, then tacked to asking Congress for approval for military strikes, then swerved again to nudge the Russians to broker an unlikely deal with Assad. The zigzagging made his big speech Tuesday night confusing and unconvincing.

And yet, all of this looks pretty good at the moment if you’re tracking not Obama’s credibility or political skillsbut the rule of law. Of course it could all fall apart, but right now international and constitutional law are looking stronger than they did before the president got himself into his red-line mess.

There are two competing norms of international law at stake in the world’s response to the Syrian gassing: The ban on chemical weapons and the post-World War II system for maintaining relative peace around the globe—the 1945 U.N. Charter. The two norms are directly clashing at the moment. Syria never signed onto the Chemical Weapons Convention, in force since 1993. And the U.N. Charter requires the Security Council to approve the use of force Obama has planned—approval that Russia and China, which have veto power, won’t give. And so the big clash on the left is over which to value more: preventing the use of chemical weapons or maintaining the U.N. system that limits the legal use of force more broadly.

The pro-intervention argument, made forcefully by Obama’s U.N. ambassador, Samantha Power, values enforcing the chemical weapons ban over respecting the procedures by which the U.N. operates. If the Russians are holding the Security Council “hostage,” as Power says, then the U.S. gets to opt out. The contrary, not-so-fast argument, captured by Yale law professors Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro, is that all of our breaches of U.N. rules “add up — and each one makes it harder to hold others to the rules. If we follow Kosovo and Iraq with Syria, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to stop others from a similar use of force down the line.” Hathaway and Shapiro are reminding the country that opting out of the U.N. rules isn’t free, no matter how worthy the humanitarian rationale. They want Obama to think about whether punishing Assad’s use of chemical weapons “is worth endangering the fragile international order that is World War II’s most significant legacy.”

The president seemed inclined to brush by this question. But the country, plus our reluctant allies—thank you, Britain—wouldn’t let him. The continuing lack of support at home and abroad for striking Syria forced Obama to say he would go to Congress. And that’s a victory for another kind of rule of law: The Constitution’s war-making powers. Presidents have taken more and more of this authority, either because they’ve usurped it or because Congress has handed it over. Obama did his own grabbing when he intervened in Libya without going to Congress first. The War Powers Act—the congressional answer to Vietnam—should have stopped him. It didn’t.

But Obama declined to take presidential power that one more step. Without NATO, or decent poll numbers to back him up, Obama decided he had to have Congress behind him. This isn’t the most high-minded way to get there, but I’ll take it. Score one for limiting executive power as the Constitution calls for.

Skeptics, among them Slate columnist Eric Posner, point out that Obama keeps saying he retains the power to strike Syria even if Congress votes against him. And so he’s aggrandizing rather than humbling his office. Another problem is that the legal rationale the administration is floating—that the president can bomb another nation, on his own, based on his own decision that an “important national interest” is at risk—is crazy broad. It sounds like anything goes, who needs Congress, unless American troops are going in on the ground.

But as long as Obama doesn’t actually strike Syria if Congress won’t authorize it—and isn’t that becoming unimaginable?—these excesses are like the bad night of drinking that doesn’t end in actual injury.

I do see an obvious pitfall here: Future presidents could run away from Congress based on the Obama experience. Don’t take anything to Congress because it’s a huge mess! But hang on. What if this all ends better than it began—what if the Russians get more from Assad than bombs would have? Yes I know that securing Syria’s chemical weapons will be enormously difficult, practically speaking. But think about it: Syria just admitted for the first time that it has chemical weapons and announced that it wants to sign on to the treaty that bans them. Russia is pressuring Assad to do something good rather than standing by and letting him do evil. If any kind of deal can be cobbled together, it will be a net gain. Obama will be right that it would never have happened without the credible threat of the use of force. And at the same time, as long as the threat doesn’t materialize, it won’t erode the international system of law or the Constitution’s division of powers either. Given how very badly this could have gone for both—and could still go—that sounds like victory to me.

A Plea for Caution On Syria From Vladimir Putin

[I am surprised that the voice of the Establishment would allow Mr. Putin this opportunity to address the American people, especially at this pivotal point in contemporary history.  Whatever you have to say about the man, he does communicate well, confirming for many of us that he has a good head upon his shoulders, which is much more than I can say about Barack Obama and John Kerry after all of the lies that they have told since the beginning of the American aggression against Syria.  This interesting paradox and role-reversal has the American president lying his ass off to the American people and to the world, arguing for a blatent war of aggression, while the Russian president (a former KGB colonel) is arguing truth against the lies and upholding the long-established right of the human race to form a collective defense against the criminal aggressors which, in this case, would clearly be the United States and its supporters.  If this is the defense that Russia is now holding-out before the UN Security Council, then it is conceiveable that Russia could end-up at the head of its own coalition defending the Rights of Man against American aggression, perhaps leading to an eviction of the UN from US soil.  What an interesting development that would be.]

522442544.jpg w=620

A Plea for Caution From Russia

What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria

 

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

Helping Syria “Remove Grounds for American Aggression” Is Creating Grounds for US Aggression

[France can’t let the Americans steal all of the thunder, especially in their old stomping grounds.  This is another Imperial deception, intended to gain UN authority under Chapter 7 at the Security Council.  Russia stands ready to repeat the same mistake it made in Libya, by going along with this Imperial initiative.  Putin tried to take Kerry’s “one week” threat and turn it on its head, by convincing Assad accept this poison chalice.  If he drinks it, by agreeing to the Lavrov deal, then he will be repeating his previous grave error, which he made in trusting his fate to the UN inspectors, who were allegedly allowed in to prove rebel chem weapon use.  By agreeing to allow the investigators to enter Syria for their witch hunt in the first place, he opened the door for Bandar’s pre-planned chemical aggression.   It doesn’t matter whether the Saudis supplied the chemicals or they bribed the Syrian officers behind it, Bandar is still responsible for the absurdly-timed attack. 
If there were any justice in this world, then Saudi Arabia would be held liable for 1,400 gassed Syrians, and they would now be under the Tomahawk gun.  This probably fatal lapse in judgement on Assad’s part, allowed the pre-announced Qatar-financed false flag chem attack to go forward, despite previous media reports’ warnings.  If Syria’s chemical arsenal is as large as it is reported to be by the Western media, then it will probably take more than the allowed week to transfer control to some unnamed international authority.  Even if Assad is given more time to meet the Imperial demands and he successfully complies with them, there will still be some other excuse invented to seemingly justify the planned destruction of Syria by America’s Islamist armies and the USAF/Navy air support which will make it all possible.  Once again, the Pentagon will serve as an “Islamist air force,” for its terrorist hordes.
Russian leaders are either complicit in America’s games, or they are a lot dumber than the rest of us had hoped they would prove to be, if they cannot establish some insurmountable obstacles in any UN legislation, which will make another Libyan-type of double-cross impossible.  The Russian move to help Syria to “remove the grounds for American aggression” is a serious error in tactics and strategy.  By admitting that the Pentagon has some sort of legal or moral authority right now, to do whatever it wants inside of Syria, a Catch-22 situation will have been brought about.  By admitting that an Imperial authority now exists, either Syria or its Russian sponsor would actually be empowering the storm troopers WITH that authority.  However this grand deception eventually plays-out, Bashar al-Asad is certain to lose his head in the end.]
BBC

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius: “We have decided to take the initiative”

France will put a resolution to the UN Security Council to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international control so they can be destroyed, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius says.

He said it would threaten “extremely serious” consequences if Syria breached its conditions.

Russia also has a plan to put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control, it says.

Syria has said it accepts the Russian proposal, though details are sketchy.

“We held a very fruitful round of talks with [Russian] Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday [Monday], and he proposed an initiative relating to chemical weapons. And in the evening, we agreed to the Russian initiative,” Russian news agency Interfax quotes Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallim, who is in Moscow, as saying.

This would “remove the grounds for American aggression”, he added.

Source: UN

Earlier, Mr Fabius, who was speaking at a news conference in Paris, said the resolution, based around five points, would demand that Syria “bring fully to light” its chemical weapons programme.

The measure would also set up international inspections and controls of the dismantling process.

The resolution would be tabled under Chapter 7 of the UN charter covering possible military and non-military action to restore peace, Mr Fabius added.

The plan had been discussed before, he said, but had probably been advanced by the pressure applied in recent weeks.

The Russians have blocked all previous French-led efforts at the Security Council, says the BBC’s Christian Fraser in Paris.

FSA fighters
On the ground, the Syrian conflict is still raging

Both France and the United States are wary of an Iraq-style game of cat and mouse – but they are prepared to give the Moscow-backed plan a chance, our correspondent adds.

What the French are keen to avoid, Mr Fabius said, is a plan that is only there as a delaying tactic, which is why all options, including the threat of a strike, will remain on the table, our correspondent says.

Moscow plan

Syria’s chemical weapons

  • CIA believes Syria’s chemical weapons can be “delivered by aircraft, ballistic missile, and artillery rockets”
  • Syria believed to possess mustard gas and sarin, and also tried to develop more toxic nerve agents such as VX gas
  • Syria has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) or ratified the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC)

Sources: CSIS, RUSI

In Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, at a press conference with the Libyan foreign minister, has been speaking about Moscow’s plan to put Syrian’s chemical weapons stockpiles under international control.

There have been few details so far, but Mr Lavrov said Moscow was “preparing a concrete proposal which will be presented to all interested sides, including the US… a workable, specific, concrete plan”.

He said he had spoken to US Secretary of State John Kerry on the telephone about this on Monday.

Mr Lavrov said the Russian initiative was “not a purely Russian initiative… It grew out of contacts we’ve had with the Americans”.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama discussed the idea on the sidelines of a G20 summit last week, Mr Putin’s spokesman said on Tuesday.

Mr Lavrov noted Mr Obama’s suggestion in a US TV interview that this may be a “breakthrough”.

Overnight, Mr Obama said the Russian proposal could be a breakthrough, but that he remained sceptical.

On Monday, Mr Kerry warned that not responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces would be riskier than taking action.

The US claims that Mr Assad’s forces carried out a chemical attack in Damascus on 21 August, killing 1,429 people.

Mr Assad’s government blames the attack on rebels fighting to overthrow him, in a conflict that the UN says has claimed some 100,000 lives.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius: “We have decided to take the initiative”

France will put a resolution to the UN Security Council to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international control so they can be destroyed, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius says.

He said it would threaten “extremely serious” consequences if Syria breached its conditions.

Russia also has a plan to put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control, it says.

Syria has said it accepts the Russian proposal, though details are sketchy.

“We held a very fruitful round of talks with [Russian] Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday [Monday], and he proposed an initiative relating to chemical weapons. And in the evening, we agreed to the Russian initiative,” Russian news agency Interfax quotes Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallim, who is in Moscow, as saying.

This would “remove the grounds for American aggression”, he added.

Chapter 7 of UN Charter

  • Action in response to threats to peace, breaches of peace and acts of aggression
  • Article 41 enables Security Council to decide measures not involving armed force
  • Can suspend economic and diplomatic relations as well as rail, sea and other communications
  • If Article 41 measures are inadequate, Article 42 enables Security Council to take action by air, sea or land forces for international peace and security

Source: UN

Earlier, Mr Fabius, who was speaking at a news conference in Paris, said the resolution, based around five points, would demand that Syria “bring fully to light” its chemical weapons programme.

The measure would also set up international inspections and controls of the dismantling process.

The resolution would be tabled under Chapter 7 of the UN charter covering possible military and non-military action to restore peace, Mr Fabius added.

The plan had been discussed before, he said, but had probably been advanced by the pressure applied in recent weeks.

The Russians have blocked all previous French-led efforts at the Security Council, says the BBC’s Christian Fraser in Paris.

FSA fighters On the ground, the Syrian conflict is still raging

Both France and the United States are wary of an Iraq-style game of cat and mouse – but they are prepared to give the Moscow-backed plan a chance, our correspondent adds.

What the French are keen to avoid, Mr Fabius said, is a plan that is only there as a delaying tactic, which is why all options, including the threat of a strike, will remain on the table, our correspondent says.

Moscow plan

Syria’s chemical weapons

  • CIA believes Syria’s chemical weapons can be “delivered by aircraft, ballistic missile, and artillery rockets”
  • Syria believed to possess mustard gas and sarin, and also tried to develop more toxic nerve agents such as VX gas
  • Syria has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) or ratified the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC)

Sources: CSIS, RUSI

In Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, at a press conference with the Libyan foreign minister, has been speaking about Moscow’s plan to put Syrian’s chemical weapons stockpiles under international control.

There have been few details so far, but Mr Lavrov said Moscow was “preparing a concrete proposal which will be presented to all interested sides, including the US… a workable, specific, concrete plan”.

He said he had spoken to US Secretary of State John Kerry on the telephone about this on Monday.

Mr Lavrov said the Russian initiative was “not a purely Russian initiative… It grew out of contacts we’ve had with the Americans”.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama discussed the idea on the sidelines of a G20 summit last week, Mr Putin’s spokesman said on Tuesday.

Mr Lavrov noted Mr Obama’s suggestion in a US TV interview that this may be a “breakthrough”.

Overnight, Mr Obama said the Russian proposal could be a breakthrough, but that he remained sceptical.

On Monday, Mr Kerry warned that not responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces would be riskier than taking action.

The US claims that Mr Assad’s forces carried out a chemical attack in Damascus on 21 August, killing 1,429 people.

Mr Assad’s government blames the attack on rebels fighting to overthrow him, in a conflict that the UN says has claimed some 100,000 lives.

Russia proposes Syria’s chemical disarmament in exchange for peace

Russia proposes Syria’s chemical disarmament in exchange for peace

in serbia

After talks with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem in Moscow, Lavrov called on Syria to “place the chemical weapons under international control and then have them destroyed”.sergei-lavrov-2010-7-22-4-3-45“We have passed our offer to Al-Muallem [Syrian Foreign Minister] and hope to receive [a] fast and positive answer,” Sergey Lavrov said.

“We are calling on the Syrian government to reach agreements on the putting their chemical weapons storage facilities under international control, subsequent destruction of these weapons, and on the full-fledged joining to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW),” he said.

If establishment of control over chemical weapons in Syria can help avoid a strike, Russia will immediately join it, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at press-conference.

Moscow will try to broker a deal in which Syria submits its chemical arsenal to international control and the West drops plans to attack Syria, Lavrov added.

Announcing this in Moscow on Monday, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also said Moscow is already stoking up diplomacy to this end.

Map of No War With Syria Protests

Map of #NoWarWithSyria Protests

interoccupy1

By

Below is a map we created of all listed events on the #NoWarWithSyria FB page, ANSWER, IACenter.org, CODE PINK, The World Can’t Wait, and UNAC. This is being continually updated, so check back frequently!

There are 382 rallies and direct actions for peace in Syria happening from August 29th – September 21st from Hollywood, California all the way to Tokyo, Japan.

MoveOn is organizing national vigils on Monday, September 9th. We do not have access to the locations but you can search for one near you HERE.

Please keep your eye out for the green and purple pins on the map! Greens are set dates in September. Purples are rallies that will happen if/when the US strikes Syria.

Please read the descriptions carefully. In particular check out the many actions happening in D.C. over the next two weeks.

If you see other lists that are missing, or to add an event, please email shenny@interoccupy.net. International actions are welcome!!

PLEASE NOTE: Any pro-Assad demonstrations will not be posted and are not endorsed by InterOccupy.

Thank you!

 
 
 
no war with syria map 

Updated as of 9/8 @ 3:52pm ET (click for active link)

Map Key:
Small Blue = Events before 8/31
Small Red = Events on 8/31
Small Green = Events between 9/1 and 9/8
Large Green = Events after 9/8
Large Purple = Events planned for day of or after attack
 
 

Assad commanders wanted to use poison gas for months—Bild Reports On German Spy Ship Traffic

Oker German spy ship The “Oker” crosses off the coast of Syria, acquaintance listening to the radio and telephone traffic
Photo: Imago

 

Assad commanders wanted to use poison gas for months

German spy ship overheard radio traffic of Syrian troops

  • Bild am Sonntag
  • MARTIN S. Lambeck, KAYHAN Özgenc and BURKHARD UHLEN Broich

Nearly 1,500 people died in the poison gas attack of the Assad regime on 21 August in Damascus. Bild am Sonntag now learned from German security circles: The troops of the dictator wanted to frequent use poison gas.

For about four months, Syrian divisional and brigade commanders have repeatedly called for the use of chemical weapons at the presidential palace in Damascus. The show radio conversations that were intercepted by the fleet service boat “Oker”. The Navy spy ship crossing in front of Syria’s coast.

According to the findings of the monitoring specialists requested by the commanders were poison gas attacks and always rejected the use of 21 August probably not personally approved by Assad.

Regardless of a military strike by the U.S. against Syria , the Federal Intelligence Service (BND) assumes that dictator Assad can keep for a long time in power. According to information from Bild am Sonntag BND President Gerhard Schindler reported on Monday the defense committee of the Bundestag in secret session, the bloody civil war would drag on for a long time. Schindler literally: “It can take years.”

In secret session Schindler compared the fighting between rebels and Assad troops in Greater Damascus with the “Battle of Stalingrad”. Participants in the meeting wanted to know from the intelligence chief, if the civil war is in a final battle.

Schindler then explained his unusual comparison: one for the rule of the Alawite minority in Syria, on the Assad Damascus have a similar level of symbolic meaning as Stalingrad for the Soviet Union under Stalin.

 Bashar al-Assad
Bashar al-Assad
Photo: AP

Of a dramatic shift of power within the rebel members of the Committee reported to the Inspector General of the Bundeswehr, Volker Wieker. After that, the Western-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) has lost its former military leadership.

The merger of deserters from the Assad troops was – as the highest-ranking German soldier – in fact no longer exists. Instead, become the influence of the Islamist terrorist group al-Qaeda in the rebel movement more and more – with dramatic consequences. According Wieker there are few defectors from the ranks of the Assad troops. Because deserters were shot by the rebels as a rule immediately.

Yesterday, the 28 EU governments have asked the United States to delay a military strike pending the submission of a UN report on the use of chemical weapons.

 burning tank
A burning tanks of the Syrian government army in Damascus
Photo: AP / PA
%d bloggers like this: