Welcome

By Shamus Cooke August 30, 2013 -   The rats are jumping ship. Obama's strongest allies can't stomach the stench of lies that are the foundation of the war effort against Syria. Even England, whose entire foreign policy is reduced to asking "how high?" when the U.S. says "jump,” opted to stay grounded for Obama's war drive. The Arab League, too , having long been considered a puppet show by U.S. foreign policy, has cut its strings. The UN Security Council — after having learned not to trust Obama in Libya — also refuses to give permission for an attack. Which leaves France — the former colonial master of Syria — to fill England's shoes as the token "important" European nation to give the attack a thin coat of "international" support. But England's insolence will surely make an impression on the French

By Chidanand Rajghatta August 30, 2013 - " TOI " - WASHINGTON – On a day marking the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I-Have-A-Dream" civil rights speech, the United States is poised to unleash another nightmare some 10,000km away in the Middle-East. Washington's war machine is geared up for limited strikes against Syria because Damascus ostensibly crossed a red line by using chemical weapons against its own population, never mind that many regimes worldwide inflict atrocities against their own people by other means. Why a President who came to office on the strength of his anti-war credentials - especially on the phony war foisted on Iraq - is running with the war hounds, is something of a mystery. But the rest of the Washington establishment is champing at the bit to unleash missiles on the Syrian regime, promising a short punitive strike, in keeping wi

Act now - We Can Make A Difference   Stop the War Coalition national officer Kevin Ovenden looks at the arguments about whether protest makes a difference - and what we need to do now. By Kevin Ovenden August 30, 2013 - " Stop The War " -   It may seem wearily familiar - a rush to war, disputed intelligence dossiers and a determined effort to proceed without even UN Security Council authorisation. There are echoes of Iraq ten years ago, and it casts a long shadow upon the mounting political crisis over moves to bomb Syria. But we should not be weary or resigned. The combination of domestic weakness and declining authority in the Middle East (both consequences of the Iraq disaster) means that we are at a moment when what we as a movement do can have a major impact. The compelling arguments against war on Syria are well made on the Stop the War site and

By John Robles August 30, 2013 - " VOR " -   The United States of America and their leader Barrack Hussein Obama have spent billions of dollars in Syria, at a time when US taxpayers are suffering, attempting to bring about a change of regime. The money has been spent funding al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorists to destabilize the country, groups that they have parroted time and time again as being the number one enemies of the American people. Their strategy was failing, like all of their strategies are bound to fail because they lack vision and true understanding of the world and its people. They created a red line, most likely launched a black operation to make that red line a reality and now with extreme desperate irrational urgency, they want to carry out their plan to attack Syria. That is their goal, they set it, and no matter what happens

Exclusive: Though the international press reported earlier this year that it was the Syrian opposition blocking peace talks, that reality has disappeared in recent U.S. articles which blame lack of negotiations on President Bashar al-Assad, all the better to build a propaganda framework for a wider war, writes Robert Parry. By Robert Parry August 30, 2013 " Information Clearing House - " Consortium News " - Painful experiences of recent years should have taught the American people the danger that comes when the government and the mainstream press adopt a pleasing but false narrative, altering the facts to support a “good guy v. bad guy” scenario, such as is now being done regarding the history of Syrian peace talks. The preferred narrative now is that American military force against Syria is needed not only to punish President Bashar al-Assad for allegedly using

Why a victory for Assad is a victory for Iran By Robert Fisk August 29, 2013 " Information Clearing House - " The Independent " -  Before the stupidest Western war in the history of the modern world begins – I am, of course, referring to the attack on Syria that we all now have to swallow – it might be as well to say that the Cruise missiles which we confidently expect to sweep onto one of mankind’s oldest cities have absolutely nothing to do with Syria. They are intended to harm Iran. They are intended to strike at the Islamic Republic now that it has a new and vibrant president – as opposed to the crackpot Mahmoud Ahmedinejad – and when it just might be a little more stable. Iran is Israel’s enemy. Iran is therefore, naturally, America’s enemy. So there is nothing pleasant about the regime in Damascus. Nor do these comments let the regime off the hook when it comes

By Finian Cunningham August 29, 2013 " Information Clearing House -   The US, British and French governments have engaged in a decade of constant lies and war crimes around the world. The intermittent imperialist adventures of these capitalist powers over the past century have now subsumed into a seamless, never-ending state of permanent war on the world, as American fascist ideologues have long salivated for.  Syria is but their latest slaughter house, having unleashed a covert terror campaign on that country for the past two and half years using an array of mercenary death squads to topple the sovereign government of President Bashar al-Assad. We now await phase two of the bloody Syrian operation - outright aerial bombardment and missile strikes, where the US, Britain and France act as the air force for the death squads on the ground. It’s an outrageous re-run of NATO’s

By David Swanson August 26, 2013 " Information Clearing House -   "U.S. prepares for possible retaliatory strike against Syria," announces a Los Angeles Times headline, even though Syria has not attacked the United States or any of its occupied territories or imperial forces and has no intention to do so. Quoth the article: "the president made no decisions, but the high-level talks came as the Pentagon acknowledged it was moving U.S. forces into position in the region." Forgive me, but who the SNAFU made that decision?  Does the commander in chief have any say in this?  Does he get to make speeches explaining how wrong it would be to attack Syria, meet with top military officials who leave the meeting to prepare for attacks on Syria, and go down in history as having been uninvolved in, if not opposed to, his own policies? Threatening to attack Syria, and moving ships into position to do it, are significant, and illegal, and immoral actions.  The pr

By Paul Craig Roberts August 26, 2013 " Information Clearing House - Washington and its British and French puppet governments are poised to yet again reveal their criminality. The image of the West as War Criminal is not a propaganda image created by the West’s enemies, but the portrait that the West has painted of itself. The UK Independent reports that over this past week-end Obama, Cameron, and Hollande agreed to launch cruise missile attacks against the Syrian government within two weeks despite the lack of any authorization from the UN and despite the absence of any evidence in behalf of Washington’s claim that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the Washington-backed “rebels”, largely US supported external forces, seeking to overthrow the Syrian government. Indeed, one reason for the rush to war is to prevent the UN inspection that Washington knows would disprove its claim and possibly implicate Washington in the false flag attack by the “rebels,”