Intervention in Syria: Obama Waits, Britain and France Discuss

Air Force F-16 Fighter
Air Force F-16 Fighter
Advertisment

War against Syria: Obama has not made a decision.

The opposition against a military intervention, better say a war against Syria, is this time larger in the parliament of the UK than in the last incidents of such a kind and it seems they miss the “credible evidence” by persons such as Tony Blair to go to war against Syria. The last chemical attack under false-flag in suburbs of the Syrian capital Damascus (e.g. Jobar) is probably not completely convincing for some members of the UK parliament.

Although one should not trust them an inch, it is at least a somehow small but good sign that the military actions against Damascus over the alleged use of chemical weapons could be delayed due to the strong opposition in the UK parliament this time. Maybe some learned their lessons?

However, the logical approach about a military intervention says three things. First, the war against Syria will not resolve the Syrian conflict. Second, the war / intervention in Syria will not decrease the suffering of the Syrian people, but even increase the violence in the country and such a military attack on Syria will also inflict losses on the side of attackers. Third, the further consequences of the launch of airstrikes and a war against Syria are certainly dire and there is a small possibility that such an attack on Damascus triggers a new world war – WWIII then.

While the French MPs will meet on next Wednesday to debate about the so-called Syrian issue and the question whether go to war or not against Damascus, the House of Commons in the UK will be asked by the British government on Thursday if it is willing to approve a so-called “strong humanitarian response” to the alleged chemical weapons attack by the Syrian Army (Ok, they always use the phrase that the Syrian government has conducted such chemical attacks – of course, for reasons).

However, there is no evidence for the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) so far and according to the latest information from Russia, Moscow has radar recordings, which confirm the guilt of the armed terrorists near Damascus. Let`s see what will happen next.

After the UN has concealed further information about the results and documentation of the Russian investigation of samples from the site of attack in Khan al-Assal (Khan al-Asal) near the Syrian city of Aleppo (Halab) since Moscow has handed over the final results and documents of the investigation of these samples by licensed Russian experts, the UN kept very quiet about it.

Probably because the results show that Sarin nerve gas has been used in an attack by armed terrorists against Syrian civilians and soldiers in Khan al-Assal in March, 2013? Who knows – but one thing is certain, the officials and experts of the United Nations (UN) neither trust the results of Russian experts nor do they want to end their policy of double-standards.

At least, it seems that the delay of the parliamentary approval in the UK could be able to push back the military attack (“humanitarian response against Syria”) against the Syrian government in Damascus and to call a war against a sovereign country a “humanitarian response” is also a very questionable use of words.

In a war, there is no humanity and a war against Damascus will only trigger more violence and bloodshed in this secular country of the Middle East. Further, give evidence for the claims or shut up. YouTube videos and statements by officials from Washington and employees of intelligence agencies are already proven by the recent history (e.g. the lies in front of the war against Iraq) to be no credible evidence.

The MPs in Britain will have another vote on the response against Damascus on next Tuesday, while the French MPs will debate this topic of war against Syria on next Wednesday. However, the rejection of a war against Syria is surprisingly larger in the UK than in France. Although, this might even come as no surprise.

It is already a surprise that there is a rejection while the Israel Lobby in the United States, the regime in Tel Aviv and several other powers and war profiteers push for a war against Syria and the war rhetoric has already gained a huge momentum, although there is no real evidence for the accusations against Damascus. Even the Western media seems to call for war against Syria – and in two years, these journalists will then again publish the truth and pretend that they were innocent in terms of all the dead in Syria, caused by the next war of aggression.

Of course, the media wants to sell its stories and a war against Syria is a huge story that sells. However, the morality of these journalists is very questionable and the war against Iraq (somebody found weapons of mass destructions meanwhile?) has already proven that several journalists are among the group of war criminals that also includes persons such as Tony Blair.

While the British MPs will certainly vote again on the kind of response against the Syrian government on next Tuesday, the British Labour Party has stated that it only supports military actions against Syria if there is a Resolution and approval by the UN Security Council (UNSC) for a war against Damascus.

The UN Security Council (UNSC) will certainly wait till the UN chemical weapons inspectors in Syria have sent their first reports about their investigations of samples and places of the alleged use of chemical weapons (Khan al-Assal, Jobar, Homs, other suburbs of Damascus) to the officials of the UN Security Council (UNSC).

However, some other MPs and several officials from Washington already stated that a Resolution by the UN Security Council (UNSC) would be better but finally not really needed for military actions against Damascus. The recent history already tells us that Washington does not care about the opinions and decisions of the UN.

The US President Barack Obama has meanwhile given a new statement to the press and confirmed by his words that he has not made a decision yet whether to order an airstrike and attack on Syria or not – although the U.S. administration in Washington has allegedly evidence that the Syrian Army, sorry, the Syrian government has carried out chemical weapons attacks in suburbs of the capital, Damascus.

According to the statements by US President Obama, Washington has not yet made a final decision about a military strike against Syria, but the “international norm against the use of chemical weapons needs to be kept in place.” Don’t throw bricks when you live in a glass house?

However, while it remains interesting whether the MPs in France and Britain will vote for a war against Syria or again delay such a final decision, it seems that nobody doubts that the majority in Washington is interested to launch the next senseless war against a country in the Middle East – again without real evidence and also based on propaganda, lies and false-flag actions.

At least, even Barack Obama has acknowledged in his interview from yesterday that a war against Syria will not ease the tensions on the Syrian soil. That’s what he said. The US President Barack Obama further explained that “a shot across the bow” in terms of Syria (a so-called “limited attack”? – one should not believe that any military strike against Syria would be limited and just last some few days), would have a positive impact on the national security of the United States over the long term. Others say that the support of jihadists and Islamists in other states has a negative impact on the national security of the United States.

Air Force F-16 Fighter
Air Force F-16 Fighter

However, what they do and what they say has always been a bit different. If one talks about the national security of the United States, while he supports religious fanatics and other dangerous subjects in other states, it is questionable if this guy really has in interest in the national security of the American people and it seems that he is just using these kind of phrases to implement a specific public opinion.

Barack Obama also said in this interview that those who use chemical weapons must be held responsible for the use of such gruesome weapons, while he further stated that he has no real interest in any open-ended conflict in Syria but Washington has to make sure that the countries which break international norms are held accountable. Washington probably better mind its own business in terms of violations of international norms and laws.

After Iraq had the most weapons of mass destruction, Syria has “one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world,” according to Barack Obama. However, this is probably even true – but to be honest, the most Syrian soldiers are not trained to use chemical weapons in combat and several videos from the suburbs of Damascus on August 21/22 show Syrian soldiers without gas masks. Even the team of ANNA-News, responsible for the video recordings from the military operations by the Syrian Army units in Jobar from last week have carried no gas masks.

One would not carry out a chemical weapons attack against a near location when he does not wear a gas masks, would he? Would you?

Advertisment