Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Israel- The not so missing link in the Syrian war puzzle

I could come back here today and talk to you all in an expanded fashion about the latest developments regarding Syria. Such as yet, another UN resolution put forth by France.
Or how it is that  Russia and Syria are cooperating to get the alleged chemical weapons stores under international control.
And, you may or may not know that yet another person has come forward to report that the NATO mercs used chemical weapons, not the Assad government or the Syrian army.

 But, I don’t want to delve deeply into those aspects today. 

 Instead let us talk about Israel...... It seems to be about the right time to do so again. Israel the alleged ‘silent’ party. The nation that we are told repeatedly, ad nauseum, wants to dance with the devil it knows in Syria, because it fears the ‘Islamists”.  None of those claims are credible. In fact there has been an abundance of sheer nonsense, obfuscation, lies and absurdities spouted regarding Israel’s (non?) involvement in the destabilization of Syria. So, I will give that to you straight up, as I have on untold numerous, previous occasions here at the blog.  Israel has been involved from the get go, most probably since the very planning stages and Israel is pushing & pushing for this war in a manner that can be described as unrelenting.  The push is blatantly in opposition to the usual media spin regarding Israel's 'non involvement'

 A member of the Islamist Syrian opposition group Ahrar al-Sham fires against a position of the Committees for the Protection of the Kurdish People (YPG), a militia set up to protect Kurdish areas in Syria from opposing forces, during clashes in the countryside of the northern Syrian Raqqa province on August 25, 2013. (AFP Photo / Alice Martins)
                                                                    Israel/NATO Islamic IDF

Below is a selection of articles clearly demonstrating the Israeli push to strike Syria

1. Lobbying Group for Israel to Press Congress on Syria

 The push by the group, known as Aipac, which included asking its supporters to call members of Congress, came as Israeli newspapers reported Monday that President Obama urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to get personally involved in lobbying Congress. The reports said that Mr. Netanyahu had called several members himself.

But while those reports could not be confirmed, the intense push by Aipac and other Jewish and pro-Israel groups put Israel in a bind, afte
r a week of trying to stay on the sidelines of the debate.
I highlighted the 'unconfirmed report' wording, because there is NOTHING to show that Obama urged Netanyahu to get personally involved. That is an unsubstantiated claim to obfuscate the fact that it is Israel pushing hard on  the US to hit Syria and move on to Iran. To go to war for Israel!

2.Why Israel Supports the Syria Strike
The Israelis fully support U.S. intervention, despite the grave danger it poses to Israel. They think American action now will commit us to striking Iran later on—and they may be right.

 3. Pro-Israel Lobby Seeks to Turn Tide on Syria Debate in Congress

4. Adelson New Obama Ally as Jewish Groups Back Syria Strike

5. Pro-Israel groups publicly back U.S. action in Syria

Three influential pro-Israel groups urged U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday to authorize President Barack Obama to launch an attack on Syria.

The statements by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) represented the groups' most public show of support for U.S. military action

Supporters of the groups and government sources acknowledged that the groups had made it known that they supported U.S. action. But, the sources said, the groups generally want the debate to focus on U.S. national security rather than how a decision to attack Syria might help Israel - a reflection of their sensitivity to being seen as rooting for the United States to go to war.

6. Obama with Israel and Against the World

7. Israel: The missing link in Syria puzzle: Adrian Salbuchi @ RT

Excerpted below:
 But let’s look at three factors that are missing in the ongoing analysis of the Syrian crisis:
 1) Israel

Ever since the two Gulf wars, America has been fighting Israelis’ wars for them.  In the case of the 2003 invasion and destruction of Iraq, this was so obvious that the very same NeoCons who in 1996-7 planned war against Iraq in their “Project for a New American Century (PNAC)” think-tank - Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Bush, Douglas Feith, David Wormser and others – would later execute that war in 2003 as top officers in the George W. Bush regime.  The prime reason: Saddam Hussein was then the greatest threat to “democratic and favored ally” Israel.

Several of those NeoCons – Douglas Feith, David Wormser, Richard Perle and other Bushites - had already gone so far as to prepare a strategy report for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” which, again, targeted Iraq as Israel’s key foe at the time.

So, the Iraq War was to a great extent a proxy war that only benefitted Israel, becoming a huge headache for America, which lost thousands of its sons. 
As the former prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Bin Mohammed, once famously pointed out: "The Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."

                     Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, uses a diagram of a bomb to describe Iran's nuclear program while delivering his address to the 67th United Nations General Assembly meeting September 27, 2012 at the United Nations in New York. (AFP Photo / Don Emmert)
Red Line Originator ?
2) Israel

The excessive and overpowering role that Zionism plays in American politics, American finance, American universities, American mainstream media including it Hollywood “entertainment industry,” and over American foreign policy, has been all but proven. This vital issue today lies at the heart of an increasingly far-reaching debate among America’s intelligentsia, which is, of course, being hushed up by the mainstream media.

One of its milestones was played out by two of its prestigious academics – Stephen Walt, former Dean of the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and his colleague John Mearsheimer, professor of Political Science at Chicago University – who published their groundbreaking book: “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” in 2007.

In it, they show in a very convincing and well-documented manner the long reach and powerful clout that the “Israel First” lobby exercises over the US media, the banks, the Congress, the State Department and the Pentagon, whereby they are able to systematically tip the scales in favor of Israel, no matter what the cost. No matter if right or wrong.
And the cost to America has been extremely detrimental to its National Interest.  Here lies one of the roots of much of the disrespect, mistrust and even hate that growing sections of global public opinion feel towards the US and its key allies.

3) Israel

                      US President Barack Obama (AFP Photo / Saul Loeb)
Red Line Fool?

     President Barack Obama’s problem right now is that America’s military establishment is very much aware of the stakes involved in any “preventive attack” against Syria and, much more importantly, against Iran.  Intervention against either or both countries will undoubtedly lead to massive war in the Middle East.

Look at a map: Syria and Iran lie squarely inside Russia’s vital geopolitical sphere of interest, which is already under heavy Western encroachment.  Read their lips: Russia is saying, “not one step further!” 

America would do very well to think twice or thrice before doing anything rash…

But here comes the problem: ever since Israel was kicked out of Southern Lebanon in July 2006 by the well-armed and trained (by Iran and Russia) forces of Hezbollah commanded by Nasrallah, Israel has been licking its wounds; dark furor and revenge burns in Zionism’s heart.

Since Bibi Netanyahu came back to power in 2011, Israel has gone into preventive war mode, using Iran’s inexistent nuclear program as a pretext.  For that past four or five years, Israel has been threatening Iran with military attack almost every other day, with Washington, London and Paris nervously obliging...

 The American military, however, are painfully aware that there’s some truth to former Prime Minister Mahathir’s words.  They don’t want to fight yet another Israeli war this time in Iran.  So, they have been acting as a brake which is reflected in Obama’s increasing “caution” regarding Iran, going so far as to dispatching his military top brass to Israel to calm Netanyahu down, trying to make sure Israel does not launch a unilateral “preventive attack” on Iran that will drag the US into a massive conflict in the Middle East, the results of which are far from clear.

Actually a US-UK defeat in the Middle East could very well spell the beginning of the end of America as a global superpower. Russia (and China) are staring very sharply at the Middle East…  They are not blinking...

The ongoing US military strategy says that if the White House must take on Iran, it should first take out Syria.  At least that seems to be America’s promise of sorts to keep Netanyahu’s dogs of war at bay.

But the weeks have turned into months, the months into years and Zionists in Israel, the US, Britain , France and elsewhere are getting awfully impatient.

They want their D-Day now!

If the road to Tehran must go through Damascus, then, America: take out Damascus now!

For three years the US has been engineering “Arab Spring” civil war in Syria but Bashar Assad’s still there. Russia stands behind him. 

 A UN Security Council unanimous vote against Syria is no longer an option. Britain’s Parliament just said no to David Cameron, and French President Hollande’s support of the US lacks clout: sadly for the French it’s been many decades since France was last able to decide the outcome of any war, anywhere...  Now, many in the US Congress are grumbling...

So, Mr. “CEO” of the United States of America Barack Obama: it’s your call now!

 You either strike against Syria now – today, even – to the unanimous applause of Zionists in Israel, Congress, the global banks and markets, the mainstream media and throughout the world, or you stand down and your prestige, “Mr. President,” goes down the drain.

Your bluff will have been called. And a bluffing president is no president at all.

Mr. Putin knows this only too well, which is why he maintains Russia’s powerful fleet roaming the waters of the Mediterranean off the coast of Syria...

Once again, it’s shame on you, America!

Another fine mess the Israeli Trojan Horse has gotten you into...!


  1. Excellent, this clears up quite a lot, a brave and insightful action. The deception is so great and because of the fear of the Jews, no one is willing or able to single out the main culprit here and that is, Israel!

    1. thank you Dino!

      Someone has got to say what has to be said and Israel is and has been knee deep in this, same as Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia but those countries involvement and agenda gets more coverage while Israeli involvement gets swept under the rug
      I just lifted the rug!

      glad you found it insightful

  2. A very good article, Pen, and very good analysis from Adrian Salbucci. Though he leaves something crucial unstated. This is what he said-
    "You either strike against Syria now – today, even – to the unanimous applause of Zionists in Israel, Congress, the global banks and markets, the mainstream media and throughout the world, or you stand down and your prestige, “Mr. President,” goes down the drain."

    To that statement, I'll add (in bold) the unstated but implicit conclusion without which the logic of his statement doesn't follow-
    "You either strike against Syria now – today, even – to the unanimous applause of Zionists in Israel, Congress, the global banks and markets, the mainstream media and throughout the world and face a retaliatory strike from Syria, Russia and Iran and your standing and prestige go down the drain, or you stand down and your prestige, “Mr. President,” goes down the drain, anyway."

    This is the dilemma that Putin has put the US into. Or, rather, the horns of the dilemma that the US has thrown itself onto.

    "Your bluff will have been called. And a bluffing president is no president at all.
    Mr. Putin knows this only too well, which is why he maintains Russia’s powerful fleet roaming the waters of the Mediterranean off the coast of Syria...

    Absolutely. Spot on, Adrian

    1. "very good analysis from Adrian Salbucci. Though he leaves something crucial unstated.

      "and face a retaliatory strike from Syria, Russia and Iran and your standing and prestige go down the drain"

      What do you think they're gonna do? Invade the USA? Or maybe just lob a few "Clubs"?

      It's doubtful Mr. Salbucci is one of those left behind cold war bum bandits, so why would he include such pathetic left over cold war propaganda? J. Edgar Hoover died decades ago, it's time the USA moved beyond that horseshit.

      вот так

    2. BTW, james, if it does turn out that the Israeli-American 4th reich has been stopped cold in Syria, and that Russia had a role in stopping them, that will be a good thing. If that in turn leads to further isolation and disempowerment of Israel-America, that will be an even better thing.

      But however far this goes, it has to be done peacefully. That means no retaliatory strikes. It means a different way of thinking. Judo, as opposed to boxing or banking. ;)

      вот так

    3. BOT TAK,
      Your first message at 10:51 is not comprehensible to me. If you are asking a (non-rhetorical) question of me, I'd be happy to respond if you would have another shot at composing it.

      if it does turn out that the Israeli-American 4th reich has been stopped cold in Syria, and that Russia had a role in stopping them, that will be a good thing.

      Yes, it will be. And, indeed, America has already been "stopped cold" by Russia parking its fleet off the coast of Syria and saying that it will not allow a foreign power to attack Syria. Since then 'no-fly zones' have been forgotten and the imminent attack on Syria has evaporated. Lots of talk and hot air though. But that is to be expected.

      But however far this goes, it has to be done peacefully. That means no retaliatory strikes.

      The term 'retaliatory strikes' necessarily implies a prior attack. So do you mean that Russia and Syria should not retaliate if attacked by the US?

    4. thanks james

      the salbucchi piece tied all the news articles together so nicely

    5. bot tak and james:
      dam the limitations of print!
      no facial expressions or hand gestures to fill in the blanks
      Or am I the only hand talker?
      I know my husband isn't and when I get talking and my hands get going at the same time
      he will laugh and say ok, but no hand gestures necessary lol, lol
      I come by it honestly :shrugs shoulder

    6. james

      From the looks of things, we are missing the meaning of what each other is writing. Perhaps another try can clear things up. :D

      When you were talking about retalitory strikes here:

      "and face a retaliatory strike from Syria, Russia and Iran and your standing and prestige go down the drain"

      It looked to me you were saying that Obama left the USA open to a "retaliatory strike from Syria, Russia and Iran" because he backed off attacking Syria right now.

      As neither Russia, Iran nor Syria are going to retaliate with a military strike because Obama backed off, it looked to me rather an absurd statement. But the sort of absurd statements I see written by American rightwingers all the time on the web. And since you are a rightwinger...well. ;D

      "And, indeed, America has already been "stopped cold" by Russia parking its fleet off the coast of Syria and saying that it will not allow a foreign power to attack Syria. Since then 'no-fly zones' have been forgotten and the imminent attack on Syria has evaporated."

      I agree that "America" has been stopped (for now), but I don't think it was the Russian fleet. You can reference my other posts about that here for the reasoning of that. Further, the ships the Russians have sent are not an offensive or battle force. This maps shows the ship types deployed:


      Most of the Russian vessels are amphibious warfare ships. It is most likely these are being used as transports (materials to Syria, then onloading Russian nationals evacuating from Syria), not as part of an invasion fleet. Of the rest, 1 is an intelligence ship (like Liberty was), there is a frigate, a destroyer, a corvette, some missile boats and the A/S ship Moskva is on the way (not depicted on the map). This is not the sort of fleet one uses for offensive operations, most of the ships have only point defense AA capability. Most would be useless to fend off American/Israeli missile and aircraft attacks against targets in Syria, so their possible role in that aspect is not why they are there.

      This is consistent with the Russian official policy where they say they will not directly intervene, but instead bolster the Syrians in support and supply roles. If the USA/Israel attack Syria, Russia has said they will not retaliate militarily (though obviously, if their ships are targeted, all gloves come off).

      The Russians have officially announced they have no, or next to none, military forces in Syria, so it is debatable whether strikes in Syria by the zionazis, against places where Russians are, would provoke a full blown military response. It would not be the same sort of situation encountered during the 5 Day War, where Georgia attacked Russian peacekeepers stationed at the border, and therefore attack Russia, as well as attacked South Ossetia. The Russians have been very careful not to get themselves into a situation in Syria where their hand is forced by the zionazis. They don't declare "red lines", they don't make the sort of threats their enemies can use to manipulate them into stupid moves. They've kept the initiative.

      I ignored subs, since data for these is not available, and wont be, and because they would not be able affect the air war. My guess their main role would be a surveillance one on the Russian side. And the Israeli-Americans would be using them for their cruise missile batteries mostly.

      I repeat, the zionazis and the Russians have no intention of attacking each other's forces directly, they use proxies for that, just as they did during the cold war.

      вот так

    7. Bot Tak, you wrote It looked to me you were saying that Obama left the USA open to a "retaliatory strike from Syria, Russia and Iran" because he backed off attacking Syria right now.

      I didn't say that and you are wrong to think that. What I wrote (adding to what Salbucci wrote - and readers can easily check it above) was this - "You either strike against Syria now – today, even – to the unanimous applause of Zionists in Israel, Congress, the global banks and markets, the mainstream media and throughout the world and face a retaliatory strike from Syria, Russia and Iran and your standing and prestige go down the drain, or you stand down and your prestige, “Mr. President,” goes down the drain, anyway."

      I've bolded it to highlight the cause and effect -the attack on Syria and the retaliation. Not the 'backing off' you are saying I said and the retaliation in response to that 'backing off'

      It would indeed be an absurd statement if I had made it. But I didn't. The only one making mention of retaliation in return for no attack is yourself. The construction of this argument of yours is a classic "strawman argument"
      You edited what I said and then misrepresented it and then proceeded to knock this false argument down. But none of it applies to anything I wrote. So your argument is irrelevant. Pretty clever, though, I'll grant you :D

      I disagree with your characterisation of the Russian Fleet and whether or not it was responsible for bringing the US' aggression to a halt. I think it is obvious even though no one in the press or the govts of the US or israel want to mention it. But I'll leave that for other readers to decide for themselves.

    8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    9. And what I thought was going to happen, happened :(

      Bot tak/James: Perhaps it is best to just ignore one another's comments?
      From what I read above bot tak has already decided to take that course.
      James will undoubtedly feel the same.
      I very much enjoy the thoughts shared by both of you, but, do not have the time to play mediator. And don't really want to play mediator.
      Hence my discomfort this morning.
      lets keep the peace? The planet has enough war makers to wear us all down.

    10. You may have misunderstood but I don't think so.

      "I already explained we misunderstood things each other wrote..."

      After which....

      You built a strawman allowing you to devalue the point being made by saying it appeared to you an "absurb statement" the kind you see "written by rightwingers all the time".

      On being 'pulled up' on this, you are now attempting to misrepresent the discussion as some kind of schoolyard "dustup" (which it is not!) by devolving into a childish and totally unwarranted ad hominem attack.

      And you are going to take your ball and go home!

      While it is perfectly reasonable to disagree, you appear to be going to great lengths to cover up the central argument that the US/Isreal Is not attacking Syria because the Russians have callled their bluff. That they have a fleet parked off the coast of Syria and have repeatedly said they will not allow an attack by a foreign power.

    11. McJ September 13, 2013 at 3:40 PM

      You're are essentially saying the thing as james. The same slander, the same kind personal attacks. No valid argument, no explanation or elaboration of reasoning, just ad hominim and simple minded accusations. The lowest form of zionist/rightwing influenced internet discussion. The Fox news style of debate. Are you a sockpuppet of james? Or fellow S.W.A.R.M.'ish* sort? That's what zionazis do, in spades. The zionist rubbish (mostly Jewish hasbarats, with a few token fascist Catholics sprinkled in between) that infested the old Guardian talkboard used the exact same tactics. when somebody disagreed with one of their "tribe", they would use sockpuppets and call in fellow trash talkers to attack the person.

      *S.W.A.R.M. is a term invented by Israel Shamir to describe the zionazi use of mass attacks on critics of their rubbish. It doesn't need only be applied to the zionist Jewish breed of the creature, most of the right pretty much operates along the same lines, though they're not nearly as organised.


      I'm surprised you let that smear through after your "September 13, 2013 at 3:50 AM" comment. That's a bit hypocritical...unfortunately it makes me wonder if my response will be allowed, now.

      вот так

    12. I find myself in a position that is an uncomfortable one. So, after drinking two cups of coffee and consulting with my husband, my sounding board and getting his input....(Aaargh, honey, help me!!)

      I've gone back and read through all the comments. More then once.
      The problem ongoing here looks like this to me: misunderstanding all along
      All of it originating with something written by Adrian Salbucchi from the RT oped
      And then a disagreement about the presence of Russian ships, their significance or non-significance?

      With all parties feeling slighted by the others.
      And me in the middle.

      Here are my options:
      1.Delete all the comments?
      2. Let the comments stay in hopes this can all be resolved without insults, without ad hominem?
      3. Or if this can be settled by simply clarifying what each person is saying we could have a wonderful example of how to resolve misunderstandings peacefully.

      But first let me reiterate the rules. NO personal attacks. No trolling. Stay on topic.
      I have always wanted this blog to be a safe place for people to participate, share their thoughts and have an intelligent discourse.

      Therefore: Consider this a reset.

      If james and bot tak want to clarify their opinions on the presence of Russian ships in the Med, please do. But do it without addressing one another specifically
      just lay it out plainly.

      Benefits of a peaceful resolution?

      All participants at the blog, silent and otherwise, will benefit, IMO, from the demonstration that problems can be resolved through understanding, consideration and respect of one another.

    13. btw:

      Anonymous September 12, 2013 at 6:30 PM

      non-acceptable personal attack

    14. From here on in, I am having a zero tolerance policy.

      Time I have to spend moderating and refereeing is time I am robbed of to find info and posting it to readers. Refereeing throws the blog off track.

      If I am being deprived of the time I need to "hunt" for info and present an alternative narrative to the main stream the blog will fail to be the resource it has become all these years later.

      So, consider my foot down!

  3. Penny, again, nice work. You laid out the Israeli/zionazi role well. The Salbuchi article was a large surprise to see in RT, who by and large try to ignore the toxic zionist influence against Syria, and everything else.

    вот так

    1. thanks bot tak

      Perhaps RT gives free reign to Salbuchi, while still allowing RT some deniability?

    2. Yeah, they occasionally do that. It's good "public relations". The ironic thing is, RT was revamped to give an outlet for more varied coverage of news topics, as well as more controversial ones. Yet now, they are often less alternative than the Russian state news VoR, who up till just a couple of years ago were quite nondescript.

      вот так

  4. Have a look at this I spotted at Yahoo just now:

    Obama’s message to Congress on Syria: Give it time and don’t undermine the process


    "President Barack Obama traveled to Capitol Hill on Tuesday where he urged senators to provide time for diplomatic discussions regarding Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles by delaying a vote on a resolution authorizing military force, lawmakers said after the meeting.

    According to senators who met with Obama — he spoke first to Senate Democrats and then Senate Republicans during private luncheons — the president believes it is necessary to keep the possibility of a U.S. military strike on the table in order to convince the Syrian government to give up its chemical weapons. But he said more time is needed for talks between U.S. officials and the Russian government about an alternative diplomatic solution..."

    Ignoring the Jewish run western media spin in the article, it's quite clear the gist is Obama has done a 180. He went from "we will attack unilaterally almost immediately" to "lets manipulate a vote of confidence from Congress to cover our arse, but we'll probably attack anyway, no matter the vote" to "hmmm, maybe this Russian proposal isn't all that bad" (this am) to now "let's put the war on hold and talk", all in the space of about a week. This wasn't all due to the negative public views of this zionazi war. And it's not like Obama's handlers are rediscovering their long lost humanity. It's real geopolitics. It wasn't the Russian proposal and Syria acceptance CW offer, either, by itself.

    If the zionazis were bluffing about attacking Syria, the CW proposal was a way to allow them to back down and save face. I don't think it was a bluff, though. If the zionazis were not bluffing, the CW proposal was a way to allow an "entrapped army a door to retreat through". It's an old strategy that one allows the opposing army an avenue of retreat if they are still a potent, effective army. If one doesn't, it means they will fight much harder against one, causing more casualties and even risking failure to defeat them. The famous battle of The Alamo might be an example of how not allowing a defeated army an escape route can be costly (though, there is so much hubris and hokum about that battle it may not in really be a valid example). By allowing the defeated army an escape route, there is a good chance they'll take it, rather than fight to extinction. Removing some of their motivation to stick it out to the end. Once in retreat, it is easier to finish the job on them, as they usually get more disorganised and moral lowers.

    By offering the Americans, and some of the ziofascists, a way out of the increasingly bad situation they got themselves into, this prevented locking them into a corner where their only real choice would have been to attack.

    But as I mentioned in my post earlier today, it is most likely the behind the scenes resourcefulness of Syria and her allies (I suspect Russia, especially). How they countered the zionazi propaganda (while at the same time aided alternative media, which in a large part caused the established Jewish run western msm to lose influence). The diplomatic and economic aspect is still pretty much not known publicly, but it must be substantial. But I think it is how the zionazis are being countered through good intelligence work that has been the largest threat to them. As I wrote in my earlier comment, the zionazis have been essentially defeated in that sphere.

    The CW diplomacy could not of worked if Syria and her allies didn't have something very good backing it up. Iraq tried essentially the same thing, but the zionazis took no notice. This time, they backed off. In my earlier comment I mentioned the exposing of yet another zionazi falseflag:

    1st part.

    вот так

  5. 2nd

    Syrian rebels plan chemical attack on Israel from Assad-controlled territories - media


    "A chemical attack may be launched on Israel by Syrian rebels from government-controlled areas as a "major provocation", a number of sources have told Russian media.

    The news comes as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov proposed that Syria puts its chemical weapons arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction in order to prevent a possible military strike against the war-torn republic."

    Remember the Britam email hack? That was an intelligence shot across the zionazi bows. This new info of a zionazi false flag targeting Israel was released at the same time a face saving proposal was offered. That was not a coincidence. That was a shot knocking off the opposing ship captain's hat. No doubt the zionazis have more than one false flag in the works at any given time. Expose one, they switch to one of the others. I believe there is absolutely no doubt that if the zionazis thought they had a credible chance of bringing off one of these false flags, now, they would not be backing off so much in earnest now. They would be pressing ahead, no Obama 180 like today, ramping up the propaganda, etc., like they did against Iraq, and then boom, the false flag, intense media blitz and attack begins. I suspect they are not doing this now because their planned false flag[s] were compromised (at least enough potentially that they don't want to risk getting caught). The zionazis need a false flag to "justify" such an attack, they don't have the backing enough to go it without.

    The zionazi intelligence network has been completely compromised by Syria's allies, so unless they want Syria knowing their moves the same time they do, they will have to rebuild much of that infrastructure. Going into a war in such a state is foolhardy (ask the Japanese...). By the time the zionazis rebuild, hopefully Syria will have eradicated the terrorists to the point where they can use mostly police work to handle the problem, like Russia does now. In fact, the way Russia defeated its zionazi run terrorist opponents can be seen in how Syria is now doing the same. I imagine the help Russia gives them, in the form of intelligence, support, strategy and tactics, training and many other ways has helped the SAA become more effective at removing the zionazi insurgency.

    вот так

  6. About the Syrian CWs, they are Syria's least useful force. In fact, they are virtually unusable, and essentially a drain. To be useful, they require an Israeli nuke attack. If Israel attacked Syria with nukes, out of the blue, it would end Israel. They could only get away with using nukes defensively. For that, Syria would have to attack Israel, and be in a position to wipe them out. The Syrians have no plans to do this. This makes the Syrian CW arsenal surplus to needs. And great sacrificial lamb.

    The arguments that getting rid of their CW/nuke programs is what made Iraq and Libya vulnerable to zionazi attack are false reasoning. Neither would have been able to build up the viable nuke response systems hefty enough to deter an American attack for a very long time. North Korea's nuke program is not what is preventing the NWO attacking them again.

    CW simply isn't very effective when the opponent is far away, and is a sure way to turn everybody against one. If CW worked, the nazis, and the other WW2 combatants, would have used them. They abstained, though they had them. The reasons have been gone over before.

    What caused the defeat of Iraq and Libya was being greatly outnumbered and being stuck with obsolete equipment. It was like Italy vs Ethiopia in the 30's. They simply had no real chance given their state and that of their opponent.

    вот так

  7. Putting Syrian chemical weapons under intl control makes sense only if US drops plans to use force - Putin


    "The idea to put the Syrian chemical weapons under international control can be implemented only if the U.S. drops its plans to use force against Damascus, said Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    "Certainly, all this makes sense and can work only if we hear that the U.S. side and everyone who supports the U.S. in this sense drops the idea of using force," Putin said on Tuesday.

    "It is hard to make any country, be it Syria or any other country in the world, disarm unilaterally if some forcible action is being prepared against it," he said.

    "We will work together with the Syrians and with our American partners," he said.

    "I'd like to reiterate that I hope this will be a good step toward a peaceful resolution of the crisis," Putin said..."

    Meanwhile, exposing the war criminal's role continues:


    A representative of the National Coalition of Syria's Opposition and Revolutionary Forces Khalid Saleh says that the US has started to supply weapons to the Syrian opposition.

    Mr. Saleh was speaking on Wednesday at a press conference in Washington, where, as he said, he came from Turkey. He is one of the delegates of the Syrian opposition who came to the US to meet with the President's administration and the Congress's members to persuade them to adopt a resolution that would sanction the US interference in the Syrian conflict with force.

    Earlier, the US claimed that it supplied the Syrian opposition with means of communications and other items, but not with weapons. Now, Khalid Saleh says that recently, the US started to supply several kinds of weapons to the Supreme Military Council of the Syrian Free Army, which is headed by Salim Idris.

    Khalid Saleh also claims that this Supreme Military Council of the Syrian opposition has managed to persuade the US that the arms that it is supplying to Syria “will not get into wrong hands”.

    Those "wrong hands" no doubt being the elements of the insurgency considered to be of debatable to the zionazi cause and who might surrender themselves, and their American weapons, to the SAA.

    вот так

  8. Further grinding the heel in:

    Russia wins over Israel in qualifying tournament for 2014 World Football Championship



    вот так

  9. the House is not the Senate.


  10. interesting read...


    first notice a few things in the picture. these are not islamic (Takfiri) militants, but well trained special ops troops. also notice the weapon, M16.

    “Damascus and Tehran believe that Russia’s proposal must put an end to hostilities against the Syrian people and to measures [which are taken] to support of terrorist and Takfiri groups in the country,”

    putting a stipulation in any agreement to stop arming the terrorist means you have to get saud, qatar, and cia/mi6 to agree. I don't think that will happen so this may me dead in the water shortly and we'll be right back to air strikes. may be the plan. worked in Iraq. the invasion of Iraq was over arguments of weapons inspection and not over the [supposed] weapons themselves.

  11. sorry odummer, your back in check...

    "Russia says the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has confirmed that the videos and photos purporting to show the victims of a chemical attack near the Syrian capital, Damascus, were fabricated."


  12. not to be Pedantic....

    but when exactly did Khazar "Ashkenazim" proselytes to Talmudic Judaism TURN INTO all 12 tribes of the Children of Israel...?

    are modern day so-called "Jews" a manifestation of the LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES ?

    are the money changers the Economic terrorists that manifest as a consequence for the 1st world Nations {Israel} violating the 1st commandment..?

    has "Israel" become a Proverb... a BYWORD...?

    just sayin'....


    no Dallas cowboys at the Alamo...No "Jews" in the OT


    Israel is a people not a "JEWISH" so-called state

    happy celestial events


  13. KamNam and the other Vineyard fans will be happy to know that the Vineyard Saker has joined the blogroll>>>>>
    Indeed, there is some good reading over there


  14. A Christian inhabitant reported that he “saw the militants grabbing five villagers and threatening them: ‘Either you convert to Islam, or you will be beheaded.’” A Christian woman speaking to AP confirmed reports that the Islamists threatened Christian inhabitants with death if they did not convert.
    Maria Finoshina ‏@MFinoshina_RT 34m
    BREAKING #Maaloula freed - #Syria military. On the way to check out. Mostly Christian village was held by militants for a week

    Another resident told reporters that one of Maaloula’s churches, called Demyanos, had been torched and that armed rebels stormed and pillaged two other churches. Most of the rebels are not Syrians, he said, explaining that he identified various foreign dialects, mainly Tunisian, Libyan, Moroccan and Chechen. http://southweb.org/blog/western-backed-rebels-bring-death-and-destruction-to-historic-syrian-town-of-maaloula/

  15. how the middle east got into a muddle