Pentagon Preparing for War on Syria
by Stephen Lendman
Washington’s rage for war won’t quit. It sacrifices truth. Big Lies substitute. Syria bears no responsibility for Wednesday’s incident. Convincing evidence blames insurgents.
They used chemical weapons multiple times before. They’ve been caught red-handed. Don’t expect media scoundrels to explain. They feature biased reporting. They ignore hard facts. They do so consistently.
They’re in lockstep with US policy. They do so right or wrong. They support regime change. They back direct military intervention. They ignore international law.
They violate core journalistic ethics. They report lies, not truth. They shame themselves in the process. It doesn’t matter. They do it repeatedly. They blame Assad for insurgents’ crimes.
They’ve done it throughout months of conflict. They’ve stepped up anti-government rhetoric now. Previous articles explained.
On August 25, Reuters
, CBS News, London’s Guardian and other news sources headlined the same story.
They reported an unnamed senior White House official, saying there’s “very little doubt” Assad used chemical weapons against civilians last week.
US intelligence didn’t base its assessment on credible evidence. It did so on “the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, and (biased) witness accounts.”
The official also said Syria’s government hasn’t let UN investigators inspect the site to give evidence a chance to degrade.
Assad’s fully cooperating. Syrian and UN officials agreed in advance on what sites would be investigated.
On Sunday, Syria agreed to let UN investigators inspect the Ghouta site. It did so saying it’s insurgent controlled territory. Protection can’t be assured.
A typical US response followed. A statement said Syrian permission came too late.
The unnamed official lied. The Sunday response was duplicitous. Clear evidence refutes White House claims. Don’t expect media scoundrels to explain.
On August 25, AP headlined
Defense Secretary “Hagel says US still weighing response to Syria.”
He stopped short of discussing specific plans. Asked if it was a matter of when, not if, he said:
“When we have more information, that answer will become clear.” His tone suggested clarity. Obama officials made up their mind earlier. Credible evidence isn’t needed.
“There are risks and consequences for any option that would be used or not used – for action or inaction,” Hagel added.
“You have to come to the central point of what would be the objective if you are to pursue an action or not pursue an action. So all those assessments are being made.”
Hagel was deliberately vague. Forked tongue rhetoric can’t disguise longstanding regime change policy.
On August 24, London’s Guardian
headlined “Syria: Cameron and Obama move west closer to intervention,” saying:
They spoke on Saturday. Time’s running out, they said. They said it many times before. Maybe this time they mean it. Both leaders “agree that alleged chemical attack requires a ‘serious response.’ “
A Number 10 spokesman said:
“The prime minister and President Obama are both gravely concerned by the attack that took place in Damascus on Wednesday and the increasing signs that this was a significant chemical weapons attack carried out by the Syrian regime against its own people.”
“They reiterated that significant use of chemical weapons would merit a serious response from the international community and both have tasked officials to examine all the options.”
UK Foreign Minister William Hague called Wednesday’s incident “a chemical attack by the Assad regime.”
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said “all the information at our disposal converges to indicate that there was a chemical massacre near Damascus and that the (Assad government) is responsible”.
On August 25, Itar Tass
headlined “Pentagon prepared to begin military intervention in Syria,” saying:
It’ll “begin if President Barack Obama takes a decision on it, US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said Sunday.”
“He said the Pentagon had asked the Department of Defense to consider various lines of action that might suit different situations, and the US military (is) ready now to choose any of them.”
A previous article discussed a no longer accessible January 29, 2013 UK Daily Mail
report. It headlined “US ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime,’ ” saying:
“Leaked emails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.”
“A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme ‘approved by Washington’ is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons.”
“Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.”
“It reads: ‘Phil.We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.”
” ‘We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have.’ “
” ‘They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.’ “
” ‘Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?’ “
” ‘Kind regards, David.’ “
“The emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumes and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.”
“Dave Goulding’s Linkedin profile lists him as Business Development Director at Britam Defence Ltd in Security and Investigations.”
“A business networking profile for Phil Doughty lists him as Chief Operationg Officer for Britam, United Arab Emirates, Security and Investigations.”
“The US State Department had not returned a request for comment on the alleged emails to MailOnline today at time of publication.”
On August 24, the Syrian Arab News Agenc
y (SANA) headlined “Information Minister: We have incontrovertible proof that terrorists used chemical weapons.”
Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi categorically denied Syrian chemical weapons use “in any shape or form, not in the Ghouta area in Damascus countryside nor anywhere else.”
In contrast, compelling evidence proves insurgent groups used “such weapons.” Projectiles launched at Ghouta came from “sites controlled by terrorists.”
They’re “fully responsible” for what happened. Syrian forces seized a Jobar area warehouse. It held “large containers of chemical materials manufactured in Saudi Arabia and certain European countries.”
He added that Syria’s fully cooperating with UN inspectors. They’re examining sites agreed on in advance.
“(I)international and regional conditions don’t permit a US military strike on Syria,” said SANA.
“When investigations prove that armed groups were the ones who used chemical weapons, will the US attack the armed terrorist groups which it adopts and arms with its regional allies?”
“Will the international community take a real stance or will it look for an excuse for those groups and justify their use of this kind of weapon?”
On August 25, Mossad-connected DEBKAfile
(DF) headlined “Military action prepared for Syria. Israel, Jordan, Turkey face up to Syrian counter-attack. Russia on war alert.”
Washington-led “Western and Middle East powers” began moving toward “a first strike against Syria.”
Doing so may “signal the start of a serious of US-led attacks aimed at toppling the Assad regime.”
They may “impos(e) a no-fly zone.” They may begin “sealing off sectors in northern and southern Syria against government forces.”
Obama’s heading toward direct intervention. He’s convinced it’ll “have to be conducted outside the United Nations.” Doing so violates core international law. America violates it repeatedly. It does so with impunity.
Western and regional military commanders are meeting Sunday in Amman. They’re “coordinat(ing) action” on Syria.
“Israel’s armed forces are moving ahead in secrecy.” They’re readying “for Syria to counter an attack by loosing missiles against their country as well as Jordan and Turkey.”
An “explosion of terrorism” is expected. Russia placed its Mediterranean and Black Sea fleets on “war alert.” It did so for its southern/central rapid deployment forces.”
Western leaders seek proof that Syria’s responsible for Wednesday’s incident. They may not get what they want.
“(F)orensic evidence will be all but impossible to obtain in view of the special mixture contained in the gas shells. Only tiny quantities of sarin were blended in with a large quantity of riot control agents.”
DF implicated Iran. It didn’t surprise. It cited no credible evidence. It claimed Tehran “developed” the “formula (to) camouflage the use of chemical weapons.”
On August 25, Voice of Russia
(VR) headlined “Syrian rebels manufactured chemical weapons outside Damascus.”
It reported what’s discussed above. It said Syria’s military discovered a warehouse with chemical agents. Syrian Al-Ihbariya channel correspondent Yara Saleh was among other journalists inspecting the site.
She told VR discovery came at the same time it was learned a laboratory was equipping shells with poisonous chemicals.
Insurgents “launched two missiles filled with poisonous gas in the Jobar neighbourhood which caused Syrian soldiers’ nausea and asphyxia,” she said.
“Some time later when the Syrian army managed to take that suburb by storm they found the warehouse and laboratory where shells were stored and stuffed with poisonous agents.”
“Boxes with new gas masks were also found. They carried labels ‘Made in US.’ The fact that the rebels did not use those gas masks proves that they had not been attacked with any poisonous gases.”
“Two glass vessels with labels ‘Made in Saudi Arabia’ were also found there. Weapons and explosives made in Saudi Arabia were found in Syria in the past as well. Experts will determine the contents of those vessels.”
“In addition, they found plastic vessels containing unidentified chemicals, some strange white powder and a lot of various explosives and munitions.”
“The Syrian government is concerned that the rebels might have more stocks of such chemical agents that they could use against civilians.”
On August 25, Fars News
headlined “Al-Nusra Threatens to Launch Chemical Attacks on Syrian Cities,” saying:
“In a two-minute audio message today, Al-Nusra Front Commander Abu Muhammad al-Joulani threatened the Syrian government to launch chemical attacks on the Shiite-dominated cities, adding that the terrorist group plans to use 1,000 rockets for the purpose.”
This type comment shows insurgent forces have access to chemical weapons. So do others like it. Information discussed above and in previous articles indicates who supplies them. Don’t expect media scoundrels to explain.
According to Fars News:
Following Wednesday’s incident, “two phone calls revealed the chemical weapons in Syria were used by the rebels.”
“A phone call between a militant affiliated to the so-called ‘Shuhada al-Bayada Battalion’ in Homs and his boss called Adulbasit from Saudi Arabia uncovered that antigovernment fighters used the chemical weapons in Deir Ballba in Homs countryside.”
“Another phone call revealed that two rebel groups had tried to get two cylinders of Sarin Gas from Barzeh neighborhood in Damascus to be used in Homs.”
Russia and China strongly oppose military intervention against Syria. Syria and Iran warned about inflaming the entire region. They did so after Western officials promised a “serious response.”
They have Tomahawk diplomacy in mind. It’s a long-range, subsonic cruise missile. It’s been used since the 1970s. It’s been significantly upgraded several times.
Surface ships and submarines launch them. Washington has a formidable regional presence. The stars appear to be aligning the wrong way.
War wind velocity’s increasing. Most Americans oppose attacking Syria. They want current wars ended. It doesn’t matter. Obama appears heading for more.
Advancing America’s imperium matters most. Doing so involves replacing independent governments with pro-Western subservient ones.
Tactics include Big Lies. False flag deception is common practice. One country after another is ravaged and destroyed. It’s longstanding US policy.
Wednesday’s incident resembles Lyndon Johnson’s Gulf of Tonkin deception. Over a decade of war followed. It featured mass killing and destruction.
It repeated against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Syria’s turn tops the queue. Proxy war appears heading toward direct US intervention.
Another country’s being ravaged and destroyed. It’s longstanding US policy. It makes more enemies than friends. It doesn’t matter. It’s the American way.
His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.