Did the White House plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?

I usually hold this sort of reports in high suspicion. But, knowing this white house; anything is possible. I dont know

This comes via Global Research: (H/T Pamela Geller)

There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.

The extent of US foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the “horror” of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light.

On August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major and irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and representatives of Qatari, Turkish, and US Intelligence [“Mukhabarat Amriki”] took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors. Very senior opposition commanders who had arrived from Istanbul briefed the regional commanders of an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development” which would, in turn, lead to a US-led bombing of Syria.

The opposition forces had to quickly prepare their forces for exploiting the US-led bombing in order to march on Damascus and topple the Bashar al-Assad Government, the senior commanders explained. The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive.

Indeed, unprecedented weapons distribution started in all opposition camps in Hatay Province on August 21-23, 2013. In the Reyhanli area alone, opposition forces received well in excess of 400 tons of weapons, mainly anti-aircraft weaponry from shoulder-fired missiles to ammunition for light-guns and machineguns. The weapons were distributed from store-houses controlled by Qatari and Turkish Intelligence under the tight supervision of US Intelligence.

These weapons were loaded on more than 20 trailer-trucks which crossed into northern Syria and distributed the weapons to several depots. Follow-up weapon shipments, also several hundred tons, took place over the weekend of August 24-25, 2013, and included mainly sophisticated anti-tank guided missiles and rockets. Opposition officials in Hatay said that these weapon shipments were “the biggest” they had received “since the beginning of the turmoil more than two years ago”. The deliveries from Hatay went to all the rebel forces operating in the Idlib-to-Aleppo area, including the al-Qaida affiliated jihadists (who constitute the largest rebel forces in the area).

Several senior officials from both the Syrian opposition and sponsoring Arab states stressed that these weapon deliveries were specifically in anticipation for exploiting the impact of imminent bombing of Syria by the US and the Western allies. The latest strategy formulation and coordination meetings took place on August 26, 2013. The political coordination meeting took place in Istanbul and was attended by US Amb. Robert Ford.

More important were the military and operational coordination meetings at the Antakya garrison. Senior Turkish, Qatari, and US Intelligence officials attended in addition to the Syrian senior (opposition) commanders. The Syrians were informed that bombing would start in a few days.

“The opposition was told in clear terms that action to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime could come as early as in the next few days,” a Syrian participant in the meeting said. Another Syrian participant said that he was convinced US bombing was scheduled to begin on Thursday, August 29, 2013. Several participants — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that the assurances of forthcoming bombing were most explicit even as formally Obama is still undecided.

The descriptions of these meetings raise the question of the extent of foreknowledge of US Intelligence, and therefore, the Obama White House. All the sources consulted — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that officials of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” actively participated in the meetings and briefings in Turkey. Therefore, at the very least, they should have known that the opposition leaders were anticipating “a war-changing development”: that is, a dramatic event which would provoke a US-led military intervention.

The mere fact that weapon storage sites under the tight supervision of US Intelligence were opened up and about a thousand tons of high-quality weapons were distributed to the opposition indicates that US Intelligence anticipated such a provocation and the opportunity for the Syrian opposition to exploit the impact of the ensuing US and allied bombing. Hence, even if the Obama White House did not know in advance of the chemical provocation, they should have concluded, or at the very least suspected, that the chemical attack was most likely the “war-changing development” anticipated by the opposition leaders as provocation of US-led bombing. Under such circumstances, the Obama White House should have refrained from rushing head-on to accuse Assad’s Damascus and threaten retaliation, thus making the Obama White House at the very least complicit after the act.

Meanwhile, additional data from Damascus about the actual chemical attack increases the doubts about Washington’s version of events. Immediately after the attack, three hospitals of Doctors Without Borders (MSF: médecins sans frontières) in the greater Damascus area treated more than 3,600 Syrians affected by the chemical attack, and 355 of them died. MSF performed tests on the vast majority of those treated.

MSF director of operations Bart Janssens summed up the findings: “MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack. However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events — characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers — strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent.” Simply put, even after testing some 3,600 patients, MSF failed to confirm that sarin was the cause of the injuries. According to MSF, the cause could have been nerve agents like sarin, concentrated riot control gas, or even high-concentration pesticides. Moreover, opposition reports that there was distinct stench during the attack suggest that it could have come from the “kitchen sarin” used by jihadist groups (as distinct from the odorless military-type sarin) or improvised agents like pesticides.

Some of the evidence touted by the Obama White House is questionable at best.

A small incident in Beirut raises big questions. A day after the chemical attack, Lebanese fixers working for the “Mukhabarat Amriki” succeeded to convince a Syrian male who claimed to have been injured in the chemical attack to seek medical aid in Beirut in return for a hefty sum that would effectively settle him for life. The man was put into an ambulance and transferred overnight to the Farhat Hospital in Jib Janine, Beirut. The Obama White House immediately leaked friendly media that “the Lebanese Red Cross announced that test results found traces of sarin gas in his blood.” However, this was news to Lebanese intelligence and Red Cross officials.
According to senior intelligence officials, “Red Cross Operations Director George Kettaneh told [them] that the injured Syrian fled the hospital before doctors were able to test for traces of toxic gas in his blood.” Apparently, the patient declared that he had recovered from his nausea and no longer needed medical treatment. The Lebanese security forces are still searching for the Syrian patient and his honorarium.

On August 24, 2013, Syrian Commando forces acted on intelligence about the possible perpetrators of the chemical attack and raided a cluster of rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar. Canisters of toxic material were hit in the fierce fire-fight as several Syrian soldiers suffered from suffocation and “some of the injured are in a critical condition”.

The Commando eventually seized an opposition warehouse containing barrels full of chemicals required for mixing “kitchen sarin”, laboratory equipment, as well as a large number of protective masks. The Syrian Commando also captured several improvised explosive devices, RPG rounds, and mortar shells. The same day, at least four HizbAllah fighters operating in Damascus near Ghouta were hit by chemical agents at the very same time the Syrian Commando unit was hit while searching a group of rebel tunnels in Jobar. Both the Syrian and the HizbAllah forces were acting on intelligence information about the real perpetrators of the chemical attack. Damascus told Moscow the Syrian troops were hit by some form of a nerve agent and sent samples (blood, tissues, and soil) and captured equipment to Russia.

Several Syrian leaders, many of whom are not Bashar al-Assad supporters and are even his sworn enemies, are now convinced that the Syrian opposition is responsible for the August 21, 2013, chemical attack in the Damascus area in order to provoke the US and the allies into bombing Assad’s Syria. Most explicit and eloquent is Saleh Muslim, the head of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) which has been fighting the Syrian Government. Muslim doubts Assad would have used chemical weapons when he was winning the civil war.

“The regime in Syria … has chemical weapons, but they wouldn’t use them around Damascus, five km from the [UN] committee which is investigating chemical weapons. Of course they are not so stupid as to do so,” Muslim told Reuters on August 27, 2013. He believes the attack was “aimed at framing Assad and provoking an international reaction”. Muslim is convinced that “some other sides who want to blame the Syrian regime, who want to show them as guilty and then see action” is responsible for the chemical attack. The US was exploiting the attack to further its own anti-Assad policies and should the UN inspectors find evidence that the rebels were behind the attack, then “everybody would forget it”, Muslim shrugged. “Who is the side who would be punished? Are they are going to punish the Emir of Qatar or the King of Saudi Arabia, or Mr Erdo?an of Turkey?”

And there remain the questions: Given the extent of the involvement of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” in opposition activities, how is that US Intelligence did not know in advance about the opposition’s planned use of chemical weapons in Damascus?

It is a colossal failure.

And if they did know and warned the Obama White House, why then the sanctimonious rush to blame the Assad Administration?

Moreover, how can the Obama Administration continue to support and seek to empower the opposition which had just intentionally killed some 1,300 innocent civilians in order to provoke a US military intervention?

Yossef Bodansky, Senior Editor, GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs

There are a good number of things that I could write here; but, seeing this White House’s track record under Obama, I think all of you know what I want to say. Basically, it is this; I rule nothing out under this President at all.

Oh and also, This is not about race at all. Not talking This is about wanting to prevent the United States of America from going into another war that is simply unneeded. I think that all people and bloggers of all political stripes can appreciate that.

Others: American Power, CANNONFIRE, Liberal Values, No More Mister Nice Blog and The Gateway Pundit

Dana Perino is wrong and so are the atheists

What I am referring to is this little display here.

youtube placeholder image

 

…and of course, the atheists responded in kind. You can head over to gateway pundit to see all of that silliness. 

As much as I know that this is going to do absolutely nothing for my credos as an American Nationalist, I have to tell the truth. The truth is my friends is that what Dana Perino said is absolutely wrong and bit ignorant coming from someone of her ilk.

For Dana Perino to say, “If you don’t like it, leave!” is the Christian American moral equivalent of radical Islamists saying “Convert or Die!” It smacks of religious theocratic intolerance towards those who choose not to be of some sort of a faith.

As I have repeatedly stated on this blog, I happen to be a libertarian-minded Conservative, who just happens to be a Christian as well. However, I am not one of those types who preaches intolerance towards anyone who disagrees with my religious beliefs. I am one who truly believes in individual liberty and part of that means tolerating those who are not of a faith of any kind.  

Now as for the atheists who vented their spleens at Ms. Perino, they too are wrong and they also seem to have an intolerance towards those who happen to think that this lawsuit is idiotic at best.  Therefore, basically, one could say that both sides of this rather moronic conflagration are both wrong, when it comes to tolerance towards those who disagree.

As for the lawsuit, and Beckels ignorance towards the history of the words, “Under God” in the pledge. Here is the history via Wikipedia:

Louis A. Bowman, an attorney from Illinois, was the first to initiate the addition of “under God” to the Pledge. The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution gave him an Award of Merit as the originator of this idea.[14][15] He spent his adult life in the Chicago area and was Chaplain of the Illinois Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. At a meeting on February 12, 1948,[14] Lincoln’s Birthday, he led the Society in swearing the Pledge with two words added, “under God.” He stated that the words came from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Though not all manuscript versions of the Gettysburg Address contain the words “under God”, all the reporters’ transcripts of the speech as delivered do, as perhaps Lincoln may have deviated from his prepared text and inserted the phrase when he said “that the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom.” Bowman repeated his revised version of the Pledge at other meetings.[14]

In 1951, the Knights of Columbus, the world’s largest Catholic fraternal service organization, also began including the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.[16] In New York City, on April 30, 1951, the Board of Directors of the Knights of Columbus adopted a resolution to amend the text of their Pledge of Allegiance at the opening of each of the meetings of the 800 Fourth Degree Assemblies of the Knights of Columbus by addition of the words “under God” after the words “one nation.” Over the next two years, the idea spread throughout Knights of Columbus organizations nationwide. On August 21, 1952, the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus at its annual meeting adopted a resolution urging that the change be made universal and copies of this resolution were sent to the President, the Vice President (as Presiding Officer of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The National Fraternal Congress meeting in Boston on September 24, 1952, adopted a similar resolution upon the recommendation of its president, Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart. Several State Fraternal Congresses acted likewise almost immediately thereafter. This campaign led to several official attempts to prompt Congress to adopt the Knights of Columbus’ policy for the entire nation. These attempts were eventually a success.[17]

In 1952, Susan Anald wrote a letter to President Truman suggesting the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Langmack was a Danish philosopher and educator who came to the United States in 1911. He was one of the originators of the Prayer Breakfast and a religious leader in Washington, D.C. President Truman met with him along with several others to discuss the inclusion of “under God” just before “with liberty and justice”.[citation needed]

At the suggestion of a correspondent, Representative Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan sponsored a resolution to add the words “under God” to the Pledge in 1953.

Rev. Dr. George MacPherson Docherty(left) and President Eisenhower (second from left) on the morning of February 7, 1954, at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church

Prior to February 1954, no endeavor to get the Pledge officially amended succeeded. The final successful push came from George MacPherson Docherty. Some American presidents honored Lincoln’s birthday by attending services at the church Lincoln attended, New York Avenue Presbyterian Church by sitting in Lincoln’s pew on the Sunday nearest February 12. On February 7, 1954, with President Eisenhower sitting in Lincoln’s pew, the church’s pastor, George MacPherson Docherty, delivered a sermon based on the Gettysburg Address titled “A New Birth of Freedom.” He argued that the nation’s might lay not in arms but its spirit and higher purpose. He noted that the Pledge’s sentiments could be those of any nation, that “there was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life.” He cited Lincoln’s words “under God” as defining words that set the United States apart from other nations.

President Eisenhower had been baptized a Presbyterian very recently, just a year before. He responded enthusiastically to Docherty in a conversation following the service. Eisenhower acted on his suggestion the next day and on February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R–Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect. Congress passed the necessary legislation and Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.[18] Eisenhower stated “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty…. In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource, in peace or in war.”[19]

The phrase “under God” was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance June 14, 1954, by a Joint Resolution of Congress amending §4 of the Flag Code enacted in 1942.[18]

On October 6, 1954 the National Executive Committee of the American Legion adopted a resolution, first approved by the Illinois American Legion Convention in August 1954, that formally recognized the Knights of Columbus for having initiated and brought forward the amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance.[17]

That, Mr. Beckel is the facts. Also too, I felt that Bob Beckel’s swipe at the female to his left was classless and uncalled for. Whether or not he was joking with her, it was uncalled for and he should apologize to her for that.

In closing: This Nation would be a better one, if everyone would just learn to tolerate others. I am not referring to people that do stuff like this here; I am referring to those who are different than we are, when it comes to personal beliefs.

Don’t dare call it a hate crime

Because those so wonderful black people would never, ever, attack a white man for absolutely nothing, right? Right??!?! Surprise

Think again. Angry

The Video:

The Story via CBS New York

  NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — It came out of nowhere. A man allegedly went on a rampage in Union Square on Wednesday afternoon and left a complete stranger brain-dead in the process. Police said that the attack may have been a hate crime. Friends of Jeffrey Babbitt, 62, were shocked to hear about the random act of violence that left the gentle, retired train conductor in a coma, CBS 2′s Dave Carlin reported on Friday. “I don’t believe that. I don’t know why that happened. He is very nice,” Igor Sapozhnikov said. Babbitt was minding his own business as he walked through the crowd near the chess boards in Union Square when a man made a hateful announcement and began his rampage, witnesses said. “He said ‘the next white person who walks by I’m going to [expletive],’” one woman said. “His fist went in and the man’s head bobbed and he hit the ground and you could hear his skull hitting the ground.” The man continued his rampage before demanding to see police officers. “He stood there and hit two more people and asked for the police to come,” Michael Benson said. Stunned witnesses counted a total of three people attacked. The suspect, Lashawn Marten, 31, remained at the scene until police arrived.

Here’s the real kicker:

  Because of Marten’s alleged comments about targeting white people the incident could result in hate crime charges in addition to felony assault charges, according to Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. “Obviously our Hate Crimes Task Force is involved in aspects of that case,” Kelly said.

And the really sad part:

  Babbitt was taken to Bellevue Hospital. Family and friends said that he is in a coma and has been declared brain-dead. His 92-year-old mother, Hedda, was by his side. She shared a Sheepshead Bay apartment with her son. He was her primary caregiver.

Every damned time I read this sort of stuff. I reminded of what kind of Country that I really live in. Of course, I too, and my family have been victims of black on white crime. So, it is not a shock to me at all.

Others: Scared Monkeys, neo-neocon, Weasel Zippers, The Gateway Pundit, NewsBusters,iOwnTheWorld.com, Mediaite, The Last Refuge and Gothamist

This is why I do not attack people on my blog anymore

There are some people who feel it their God-mandated duty to attack unelected persons on their blogs for whatever reasons. I, as a rule, am not one of those kind of people.

There is a good reason for it; and it is found here on Opposing Views:

A climate scientist widely known for his “hockey stick” graph showing a steep climb in global temperature over the last century, can go ahead and sue two right-wing blogs for libel, a judge ruled last week.

The blogs compared the scientist, Michael E. Mann (pictured), to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky. Mann teaches at Penn State University where Sandusky was a top assistant football coach under coaching legend Joe Paterno.

The case stems from two separate blog posts that ran in July of 2012. The first appeared on the web site OpenMarket.org and was then quoted approvingly at length in the online version of the conservative magazine National Review.

Both posts referenced a supposed scandal that conservative media labeled “Climategate.” The scandal involved a series of e-mails stolen by hackers off various university computers that were said to reveal prominent climate scientists discussing how to cover up data that contradicted their theory of global warming.

[…]

Mann sued both The Chronicle and National Review, saying that the publications had defamed him and damaged his reputation. The publications filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, which were heard by Washington D.C. Superior Court Judge Natalia Combs Greene last week.

[….]

Greene ruled that Mann’s claims can go forward. She added that Mann’s case was likely to succeed “on the merits.”

“Plaintiff is a member of the scholarly academy and it is obvious that allegations of fraud could lead to the demise of his profession and tarnish his character and standing in the community,” the judge wrote.

Again, this is why I do not attack people who are not elected officials. I have personally been slandered in the liberal and Conservative blogosphere both. If I did have the funds to hire a lawyer and sue those who have slandered me, I would absolutely do so. As a rule on this blog; I write in respectful, (usually) terms my disagreements with the political ideologies of the progressive world.  Nerd

As the President has correctly stated in the past; that words matter and this case, the words of someone who decided to attack this man, because they happened to disagree with his opinion; is going to cost someone a good deal of money. So, in this writers opinion, it pays to be very careful. Believe me, I know all about what happens, when one gets reckless with his words. Worried

 

Update: Others: The Moderate Voice

Blog name change

I have thought about doing it for a very long time now. I was never really happy with the blog’s name. The whole “Thinking Americanist” sounded clunky and a bit lame. So, I have dropped the “thinking” part and shortened it to simply, “The Americanist.”

Now as for the subtitle or what this blog is about; I know some people, especially among the Neoconservative right will assume that this blog is now a White Nationalist blog. Which, of course, is a load of malarkey. I am not, nor have I ever been, a White Nationalist. David Duke and his friends have that street corner covered very well, thank you very much.

However, I am, without one shred of guilt, an American Nationalist. (Also see this too) Which simply means, that I love my Country. Nothing more and nothing less.

I hope that you that do actually read here will continue to do so.

 

Video: How NOT to Twerk!

FAIL!

Via the New York Post:

youtube placeholder image

Hopefully, she was not hurt very badly. 😯

Update: From the video’s description area:

WOW! Didn’t expect all this attention. I’m fine. Just a little embarrassed!! THX!!

Something tells me she won’t be doing that anymore. 😀

Update #2: Looks like this was a Jimmy Kimmel stunt:

youtube placeholder image

 

Deleted Daily Rant video

Just some quick housekeeping. I decided to delete the “Daily Rant” video that I made here a few days ago.

For one, I looked awful in that video and for two; after reviewing the video there were some things that I said in that video that could have been taken the wrong way.

So, I deleted it.

I might make one in the future, but now, I am just not interested in Videos.

 

Obama’s dirty little secret about Syria?

This does make sense:

The dirty little not-so-secret behind President Obama’s much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria is that it’s not about Syria at all. It’s about Iran—and Israel. And it has been from the start.

By “the start,” I mean 2011, when the Obama administration gradually became convinced that it could deal Iran a mortal blow by toppling President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a secular, Baathist strongman who is, despite all, an ally of Iran’s. Since then, taking Iran down a peg has been the driving force behind Obama’s Syria policy.

Not coincidentally, the White House plans to scare members of Congress into supporting the ill-conceived war plan by waving the Iranian flag in their faces. Even liberal Democrats, some of whom are opposing or questioning war with Syria, blanch at the prospect of opposing Obama and the Israel lobby over Iran.

via Obama’s Syria War Is Really About Iran and Israel | The Nation.

It should not surprise anyone that the Neoconservatives, lead by AIPAC have supported and advocating for this sort of a conflict. Which will cause another war in the region. Hopefully, the GOP and the Democrats will have the sense to tell AIPAC to please piss off and find someone else to fight their wars for them.

What gets me is that the establishment left is against this whole thing and yet, Obama is dead set on doing this; what an idiot! I mean, Obama must be bound and determined to ruin his party’s chances of being reelected in 2014 and 2016.