I am not sure about the rest of you, but I can hear in the distance the faint rhythmic beat we've become all too familiar with. That distressing
drumming that can only lead to one thing - death. The war drums.
Syria. We know it's been on the table for a while now. Bashar al-Assad has some friends and allies we'd like to break, and so we must break him first.
Anyone familiar with the "reshaping of the Middle East" laid out in documents written by the likes of the Project for a New American Century as well
as Securing the Realm, the Israeli foreign policy paper, will not be surprised nor shocked if we end up going to war in Syria. It seems the way of the
rebel is not working out thus far and so bigger plans must be prepared... So...
The US military is deploying more forces to Jordan as part of a plan to dispatch 20,000 more soldiers there in a bid to invade Syria under the
pretext of securing the country’s chemical weapon arsenals. The Pentagon is sending nearly 200 troops from the 1st Armored Division to establish a
“small headquarters” near Jordan’s border with Syria and plan potential military operations, “including a rapid buildup of American forces if
the White House decides intervention is necessary,” The Los Angeles Times reports on Thursday, citing ‘senior US officials.’
A London newspaper quoting the Jordan source said the United States was sending two Patriot missile batteries to the area, The Times of Israel
reported. The source also said the Patriot missile batteries would be transferred from sites in Qatar and Kuwait, and placed in strategic border spots
that could best serve – and protect – the kingdom. Read more:
www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on
Fast forward to this week, and we have a firestorm in the media about the Syrian regime and their supposed use of certain weapons and treatment of
innocent civilians, as well as a visit from a certain Middle Eastern king. We have news reports such as these:
King Abdullah's visit comes just over a month after he and President Barack Obama met in Amman during the president's Middle East trip.
So what is all the hubbub about? Well, stop me if this sounds familiar, but apparently the Syrian government has weapons of mass destruction. Chemical
weapons to be precise. And they are using them on their own people. This has been blasted all over the headlines and throughout mainstream media with
What's the issue with headlines like these? Well, the US government does not exactly have evidence of such claims yet. But as we all know, that has
not stopped them in the past. So what are they basing these claims off of?
The White House said it was continuing to study assessments by US spy agencies that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons and would not
set a timetable for corroborating reports.
President Barack Obama said the deployment of chemical weapons by the Syrian government was a "game changer", while also noting that intelligence
assessments proving that such weapons had been used were still preliminary.
Syrian official Sharif Shehadeh called the US claims "lies'' and likened them to false accusations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction
ahead of the US-led invasion of that country.
In response to a question, Carney said that President Barack Obama would consider a range of options including, but not exclusive to, military force,
should it be determined that Syria has used chemical weapons.
Case not airtight? You wouldn't think that based on reading just the headlines. Luckily, we here at ATS do not just read the headlines, right?
From above articles:
U.S. President Barack Obama again warned the Syrian regime not to use chemical weapons Friday but said that more investigation is needed to
determine whether or not his previously announced "red line" for Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had been crossed.
"Yesterday some of you saw that I asked my people to brief Congress about the fact that we now have some evidence that chemical weapons have been used
on the populations in Syria," Obama said, standing beside Jordan's King Abdullah II.
"Now, these are preliminary assessments. They're based on our intelligence gathering. We have varying degrees of confidence about the actual use, but
there are a range of questions around how, when, where these weapons may have been used."
Varying degrees of confidence, huh? Does that include none at all? The allegations are more than shady.
The newly revealed intelligence assessment was delivered to Congress Thursday in response to a bipartisan letter asking for the administration's
view on whether reports of chemical weapons use inside Syria were true. But The Cable has learned from multiple sources that the samples used to make
that assessment, collected from the suburbs of Aleppo after a March incident, were delivered to the U.S. government more than three weeks ago. They
consisted of blood samples, hair samples, and other items, such as soil from the area surrounding the attacks.
Another reported alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria occurred in the Damascus suburbs in March, and Syrian activists also claim that the regime
used chemical weapons last December in Homs, but two State Department investigations failed to confirm that allegation.
On Thursday, the Syrian Support Group (SSG), a U.S.-based organization with close ties to the Free Syrian Army, reported two more alleged chemical
weapons attacks in the town of Daraya, as first reported by the Daily Beast. The SSG reported that 105 people were injured and scores of animals died
The Syrian Support Group? Close ties to the Free Syrian Army? You mean the rebel group we support and fund who are mostly a mishmash of Islamic
jihadists and extremists? Mercenaries for hire essentially? A group with close ties to the rebellion is making the claims? They wouldn't lie would
they? I mean, they are good guys, right?
Well there are those reports that they themselves used chemical weapons in and around Syria.
(Continued in next post)
edit on 26-4-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-4-2013 by PatriotGames2
because: (no reason given)
A Syrian minister said it was a "dangerous escalation" and the "first act" of a new rebel authority. However, both a chemical weapons monitoring
body and the US said there was no evidence they had been used.
This incident is supposedly where much of the evidence is now coming from. But at the time of this attack the US government refused to even
acknowledge it happened or investigate it. Strange, no? Do you believe that if the Syrian government had used chemical weapons the US would deny it
for some reason? No? Me neither. What about if the US backed rebels had used chemical weapons? They may deny the existence of such an attack then.
Again, from above articles:
On Thursday, US spy agencies said they were investigating reports from Syrian opposition groups that Assad's forces have used sarin gas on at
least two occasions during the two-year-old conflict.
"Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in
Syria," Caitlin Hayden, a US National Security Council spokesperson, said. Hayden said that the US assessment was based in part on "physiological
samples" and pointed to the possible use of sarin, a man-made nerve agent used in two attacks in Japan in the 1990s. It can cause convulsions,
respiratory failure and death.
However, she said the chain of custody of the weapons was "not clear, so we cannot confirm how the exposure occurred and under what
"The chain of custody of the weapons was not clear, so we cannot confirm how the exposure occurred and under what conditions." Interesting, no? Could
it have been the FSA.. maybe?
Statement from Prime Minister David Cameron of the UK, doing his best Tony Blair impression:
In a cautious assessment mirroring that of Obama's administration, Cameron said the use of chemical weapons was a red line that should trigger
greater pressure on President Bashar al-Assad.
"It is limited evidence but there is growing evidence that we have seen too of the use of chemical weapons, probably by the regime," Cameron told the
"It is extremely serious: this is a war crime ... We need to go on gathering this evidence and also to send a very clear warning to the Syrian regime
about these appalling actions," he said.
War crimes! The US and Britain want to talk about war crimes. Pot meet kettle.
So it is LIMITED evidence... but GROWING evidence.. Hm, okay. PROBABLY by the regime, he says...
You cannot make this stuff up.
It is my opinion as well as many others who are much smarter than I that Syria must indeed "fall" before the US and Israel can attack Iran. Of course,
Israel has had much tension with Syria historically highlighted by this recent event:
Two days before the night when Israeli planes attacked a weapons convoy or "Scientific Research Center" in Syria - according to reports in the
foreign press - Iran sent Israel an explicit warning message. Tehran, said the Iranian announcement, will view any attack on Syrian territory as an
attack against Iran itself.
Of course, Syria and Iran are best buddies, and Iran considers an attack on Syria as an attack against Iran itself - which adds to the precarious
situation. That makes it pretty clear why the funding of the FSA has been the way to go thus far. If you could not tell, this thread is about my
belief war with Syria is indeed heading our way and many of the signs are there. I pray the situation is defused, but my hopes are not high for such a
thing to happen.
In closing, some questions and observations, but really they are all the same question/observation...
Why is this happening now?
1.) If I am not mistaken, didn't we (the US government/media) accuse the Syrian government last year of the same thing, using chemical weapons? The
new allegations state that they believe they've found evidence of chemical weapon use within the past 2 years so that would suggest, yes. I cannot
find an article to link to, however. So what has changed? Why now?
2.) Russia has been the biggest deterrent standing in the way of attacking Syria and getting Assad out of there. Have they been placated in some way?
Has there been a deal struck? It seems pretty implausible, but some out there believe this may be happening or have already happened. Some even
speculate the Boston bombing could be involved in such a scenario.
3.) Will we soon see an Iraq 2.0 scenario play out, in which we are once again lied to and evidence is fabricated + we are manipulated into starting a
full blown military operation against Syria?
4.) What would Syria gain by using these weapons anyway?
edit on 26-4-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)
Really? Even with all those headlines I linked to from today? Seems pretty clear to me the intent of this administration. They've had no trouble
starting war thus far.
I appreciate your assessment but I think we are watching these events from two different shades of glasses.
I'd give you a star but I think I need a little more than that. You aren't saying that Mr. Kill List Obama is a panzy, are you? Cannot hold up his end
of the bargain? He does kill kids with flying robots, and all.
edit on 26-4-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)
Cool. Well, I won't argue with you because I agree with what you have said. You now get a star.
Excellent point, although with NK I didn't "hear the war drums beating" personally. I just knew that was a ruse. But based on what I know and Mid East
tensions my views on the Syria situation are drastically different.
Libya and Egypt and the rest of the Arab Spring are still fresh in my mind, plus drone usage may be vastly different than a war using on the ground
troops and smart bombs but killing is killing in my eyes.
And trust me, I don't put all my stock in headlines. But they are a good indicator of what agenda is being pushed. Sometimes it's just fear and hype,
I personally do not believe Syria has WMDs or at least if they do they are not using them currently. As I asked in the OP (or one of them), what would
they gain from using them? Giving another country a pretext to bomb the hell out of them? I don't think so.
Plus, as I also stated, I believe Syria must fall before Iran can be confronted for obvious (well, to some) strategic reasons.
26-4-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)
I was gonna create a thread but I decided to check Firehose first since Syria been a some what hot topic the past 2 days and this article will fit
right in. Straight from Navy Times, talks about an intervention in Syria simliar to the intervention of Libya in 2011, arming "rebels" (pssst,
terrorists), enforcing no-fly zones, sending (more) money, and most likely much more, like bombing campaigns.
U.S. Lawmakers: Time for 'Next Step' in Syria - But No Ground Forces
House members were briefed Friday morning by Secretary of State John Kerry, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman
Adm. James Winnefeld about an intelligence assessment that Bashar al-Assad’s forces used chemical weapons. Lawmakers left the meeting mostly united
that the U.S. should step in, but they agreed inserting American ground forces would be a mistake.
Ruppersberger said, in the wake of the administration's revelation that the intelligence community believes Assad’s regime likely used chemical
weapons twice recently, U.S. officials are considering options such as directly arming rebel fighters and setting up a no-fly zone to keep regime war
planes and strike helicopters grounded.
Sherman added to that list “supporting refugees” and “cash for opposition groups.”
“I’m not going into anything classified when I say the secretary laid out what some of those options would be,” Sherman said. He added “I
cannot say, ‘It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt — yet — that these weapons were used ... by forces loyal to Assad’.”
Opposition groups eh? Well in any case it's good to know there not 100% yet that Assad did this. Always waiting to invade based on some kind of
Lawmakers were uncharacteristically united about what a no-fly zone would look a lot like the 2011 U.S.-led — and later turned over to NATO —
mission in Libya. “Like we did in Libya, we got the Arab League involved, we got NATO involved,” Ruppersberger said. “I don’t think we, the
United States, want to go into another war.”
But Pelosi said “it is pretty clear” that “this is not Libya.” That’s because “the Syrians have anti-aircraft systems” and other modern
weaponry “that would make going in there much more challenging.
Sherman also raised concerns about Syria air-defense systems. The administration would be wise to realize a no-fly zone would not be a
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said U.S. officials should work with its allies on the no-fly zone, and several other issues.
“NATO, led by Turkey, could effectively set up the no-fly zones, the no-chemical weapons zones, the no-troops zones,” Issa said. “This is not a
call to war, but reducing Bashar Assad’s ability to kill his own people.”
Libya 2.0, kinda.
Several lawmakers told reporters the Obama administration must consider what would happen if it forms a coalition that eventually drives Assad
“What happens after Assad leaves? That’s another thing we have to look at,” Ruppersberger said. “You [would] have issues with Israel, you have
Turkey, you have Jordan.”
All are close U.S. allies in a region where Washington often has few dependable friends.
Libya is working out so well ....
Issa was most upbeat about the post-Assad era, suggesting local officials could quickly fill the governance vacuum.
“Once you create safe havens where the U.N. agencies can go in to provide relief ... what you’ve really done is created the ability for local
governance — for mayors, governors, and so on — to take responsibility in those areas,” Issa said.
Is he forgetting about
the terrorists amongst the rebels? How about the Muslim Brotherhood? Oh wait, yeah, I forgot Washington took them off the terrorist list and sends
them billions along with tanks and jets. They clearly have no ties to terrorists. No sir, none
Can we please do a do over in Washington?
There were few calls for Obama to seek congressional authorization for a Syria mission. He was widely criticized during the Libya operation for
opting against doing so.
You damn right.
Ruppersberger urged Obama administration officials to press Moscow, Assad’s last lone powerful ally, to help force him out. “I think
Russia’s involvement would be a game changer.”
Too true. The people of Syria are the ones stuck between a rock and a hard place and suffer the most. No matter what the outcome they will continue to
suffer because if they do oust Assad what takes his place may just be far worse. I really have no idea how to save them from another dictatorship.
Thanks for the contribution. The articles and your thoughts are a great addition and very relevant. I especially agree with your astute observations
that it is the people of Syria - a very peaceful and secular populous with a long and storied history - who are suffering the most. Forget a war or
military campaign, the insurrection and instability that has been caused by the infighting between the Syrian government and the rebels (ie.
terrorists) that we finance has been enough of a mess in my mind it should warrant a feeling of being strongly appalled.
As neo mentioned above, he sees Obama as stepping or backing out. I don't see it that way though I admit I could be entirely wrong. I feel like the
political climate nowadays has shifted, in which people are expecting the worse or an aggressive stance based on our recent (last two decades or so)
military adventurism, and when they don't get that they're satisfied or think it to be tame.
What I see - with the media campaign coupled with the obvious signs in Washington that they're "looking for the evidence", plus taken with the overall
big picture (Iran) and what seems to be a troop build up on the Jordanian border - is a government that is itching to just get in there and do the
We shall see though. It could end up like other recent headline events.. But Syria has been in the crosshairs so to speak for a long time now and has
stayed relevant as far as US political involvement to a certain degree with the funding of the opposition and such. I don't think it will be left
alone. And Obama is just as big a warmonger as every other president we've had the last 35 years.
edit on 27-4-2013 by PatriotGames2 because:
(no reason given)
It would appear the four horsemen of the apocalypse have sadldled up and are taking their sandwiches with them for the long haul!
War drums beat when the rich want to get richer.........afterall they do own the armaments companies and the banks and 'interest rates' have been a
bit slow just lately! 'So hey ho!!! Let's just slaughter a few million peasants and sell our death dealing products to scythe the fields of
humanity a litte. Afterall, they are NOT 'all my sons', they're just riff raff!'
Yes! We can hear the drums and its time someone put their foot through the drums and broke the drum sticks!
If the US or West wanted to get into Syria they would have done so a long time ago. The one thing that should be clear is nobody wants anything to do
with going into Syria. It is doubtful the US could even be pushed into air support. The only thing at this point that will really get the West
involved is if the radicals look to be stealing support from the FSA. Although at this point nothing may be enough to get the West involved. War
drums? Nope those are pretty silent.
Unfortunately it isn't just Obama. It is well documented the direct ties between Muslim Brotherhood leaders and US intelligence services, particularly
the CIA, and their collaboration dating all the way back to the 1940s. Anyone who thinks such things have ended is naive in my eyes.
Said Ramadan, high-level Muslim Brotherhood official, was a CIA asset and hardly the only one.
"“Ramadan’s family denies that he was, but declassified documents in the Swiss National Archives, uncovered by Sylvain Besson of Geneva’s Le
Temps newspaper, reveal that in the 1960s the Swiss authorities considered him to be, “among other things, an intelligence agent of the British and
the Americans.” In July 2005, the Wall Street Journal, after extensive archival research in Switzerland and Germany, reported: “Historical
evidence suggests Mr. Ramadan worked with the CIA.” Documents from West German intelligence archives, uncovered by the Journal, reveal that Ramadan
traveled on an official Jordanian diplomatic passport secured for him by the CIA, that “his expenditures are financed by the American side,” and
that Ramadan worked closely with the CIA’s American Committee for Liberation from Bolshevism, Amcomlib, which ran Radio Free Europe and Radio
Liberty (both CIA front groups) in the 1950s and 1960s. According to the Journal, in May 1961, a CIA officer with Amcomlib met with Ramadan to plan a
“joint propaganda effort against the Soviet Union.”"
The unfortunate truth is that the US love affair with Muslim Brotherhood is not a recent affair, unless you're someone intent on blaming all the
worlds woes on Barack Obama - another CIA asset with long established ties.
edit on 27-4-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason
"If the US or West wanted to get into Syria they would have done so a long time ago. The one thing that should be clear is nobody wants anything to do
with going into Syria."
Erm, what? I have to strongly disagree.
Fact is we have gotten into Syria. Anyone who knows our military history or the history of covert operations practices by our intelligence agencies,
as I am, is well aware that direct military involvement or invasion is not the first option and sometimes not even the best option. We saw this during
the Arab Spring and as I stated throughout history in countries such as Iran in the 50s, Chile in the 70s, as well as in Southeast Asia and the Middle
East in the 80s.. It's a long list.
And as we all know, or should by now, we have been funding and helping the rebels in Syria for at least 2 years now. And it's hardly over.
"American personnel and allied European governments are secretly training Syrian “rebel” forces at bases in Jordan to wage war against the Bashir
al-Assad regime, according to a leading German newspaper and other media reports, which quoted participants and organizers involved in the
controversial and almost certainly unlawful operation. The so-called “revolutionaries” — a brutal coalition composed largely of foreign
jihadists, self-styled al-Qaeda terrorists, and anti-Assad forces heavily backed by the Obama administration, Western powers, and assorted Sunni Arab
dictators — are also known to be receiving vast supplies of weapons, financing, and political support from abroad."
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.
All content copyright 2016, The Above Network, LLC.