HOW SHOULD THE WORLD NOW RESPOND TO THE USE OF
CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN SYRIA?

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday, Sept. 1, that there now is no uncertainty whatsoever as to whether chemical weapons were used in the Aug. 21 massacre of nearly 1,500 people — including over 400 children — in Syria.

Mr. Kerry said that hair and blood samples from the victims of that attack, collected by first responders and provided to the United States, have tested positive for sarin, which, an NBC News report said, “is considered to be the most toxic and fast-acting chemical warfare agent.” Mr. Kerry revealed the results of those tests on the NBC program Meet the Press.

The government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has steadfastly insisted that it was not responsible for the use of those weapons, claiming that opposition rebel forces, whom the government labels “terrorists,” launched the chemical attack in order to claim that the government did so, thus to rile international sentiment against the Assad regime.

Mr. Kerry on Friday, Aug. 30 said, however, that the U.S. believes with “high confidence” that the Assad government is responsible for the attack on its own people, based on a number of highly reliable intelligence sources, including intercepted communications between regime military commanders, satellite tracking of missiles launched from government-control areas to the site of the massacre, and other intel, which Mr. Kerry said could not be detailed publicly without jeopardizing sensitive sources.

The question before the world is: What should be the response of the international community if it is proven that the Assad regime did, in fact, gas its own people to quell the citizen rebellion that has plagued it for over two years?

As well: What should be the response of the international community if it is proven that the rebel forces perpetrated the attack in order to have something to pin on the government and give the U.S. and other Western powers a justification for launching attacks on Syrian government military assets, thus weakening the government’s ability to fend off the two-year-old rebellion?

Conversations with God said in Book One that if despots are allowed to continue in their despotism, what does that teach those despots? It also famously said:

“Sometimes man must go to war to make the grandest statement about who man truly is:  he who abhors war.  There are times when you may have to give up Who You Are in order to be Who You Are.  There are Masters who have taught:  you cannot have it all until you are willing to give it all up.  Thus, in order to “have” yourself as a man of peace, you may have to give up the idea of yourself as a man who never goes to war. History has called upon men for such decisions.”

This leaves me, as a person who opposes any decision by U.S. President Barack Obama to employ U.S. missile power in targeted strikes against strategic military installations in Syria, in a challenging position. If there is proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that Syrian President Assad used that nerve gas on his own people, that would make him a despot of the first rank.

As President Obama himself has implied: What is a despot being taught if he is allowed to get away with despotism? And, likewise, if the Syrian rebels actually did use sarin on their own fellow citizens in order to “frame” Assad and his regime, what would it teach them if they were allowed to get away with it?

The spiritual response to these events would be to find a way to allow growth and remembering (or what some people would call “learning”) to occur. CWG says sometimes humans must go to war. But now, here is where I notice something very important in the CWG cosmology. The dialogue does not define exactly what it means to declare war. Ah, but my dictionary does. Under “war” it offers as one of its definitions: “a sustained effort to deal with or end a particular unpleasant or undesirable situation or condition”…as in: the authorities are waging war against all forms of smuggling.

Now this is something I can agree with. We must not let those who used chemical weapons in Syria think they can do so with impunity. There will be consequences to pay, and severe ones that will not be pleasant, or easily ignored. Yet those consequences do not have to involve lethal military weapons. They do not have to involve the killing of people.

It is as Einstein said. We cannot solve a problem at the same level and with the same energy that created the problem. We cannot end killing with killing, violence with violence, hatred with hatred. Yet neither can we look the other way as despots commit despotism.

If the Syrian government is proven to have used nerve gas on its own people (and much of the current evidence points that way), the world (and yes, that includes Russia and China) can and should turn that regime into a pariah government, supported by not even its present allies. Not in the U.N., not in the international trade markets, not in the court of global public opinion, not in any way whatsoever.  All imports of every kind, by any nation, should cease. Blockades ensuring that edict should be enforced. All cooperation with the government should end. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would find out soon enough that he made not only a humanly horrific, but also a politically horrendous, error.

And if new evidence emerges that the rebels were, after all, responsible for the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in an effort to frame the Assad regime, then any and all support from any and all quarters now flowing to the rebels must be immediately and forever ended.

Mr. Kerry said that the second scenario is completely fabricated by the Assad government and is impossible to believe, because of the high improbability that the rebel forces could get their hands on such weapons grade nerve gas, much less have the capability of delivering it from rockets tracked by satellites to be blasting off from government held territory at the moment of the attack.

The world’s job now must be to deliver all the evidence gathered so far to allow the international community to deal with this monstrosity with certainty and sureness, bringing the perpetrators to non-violent but effective reckoning. It is possible to do this. It is just as possible as launching missiles and killing more people.

As well, as spiritual beings, we have another option: Pray. Envision. Intend.

Call it by whatever word fits into your personal understanding, but use the power of Purposefully Focused Energy to generate an expanded contextual field around the experience that humanity is co-creating regarding Syria — a field that now includes the reality of peace and safety, harmony and cooperation, joy and celebration.

This can work. Yes, it can. Along with practical measures taken on the ground in Syria. Like the establishment of War Free Zones (as suggested by Michael in his Comments Entry below), protected on the ground and in the air by nonaligned U.N. peacekeepers. And the shipping in of extensive food and medical supplies and other necessities. And the use of the same enormous expenditures that it would take to launch missile strikes against that country, to offer aid in many forms (education, social services, etc.) to the rank-and-file citizens of that country, so that they could ultimately decide for themselves who they want to govern them, and by what national approach or mechanism.

Give the power back to the people to determine their country’s future. Remove it from the warring factions on both sides, and return it to the people. Freedom is the highest expression of spirituality, because it is a characteristic of Divinity.

Divinity has two essential qualities: Unconditional Love and Total Freedom. Bring that to Syria and watch the situation resolve itself without the use of a single killing weapon.

 

Please Note: The mission of The Global Conversation website is to generate an ongoing sharing of thoughts, ideas, and opinions at this internet location in an interchange that we hope will produce an ongoing and expanding conversation ultimately generating wider benefit for our world. For this reason, links that draw people away from this site will be removed from our Comments Section, a process which may delay publication of your post. If you wish to include in your Comment the point of view of someone other than yourself, please feel free to report those views in full (and even reprint them) here.
Click here to acknowledge and remove this note:
  • Jeanne Marie Troge

    Shouldn’t we be offering help to the Syrian people, they are the ones suffering here? Not who did what. It is like they have been forgotten in this power struggle. No more suffering for the people. The innocent children were half the casualties of this nerve gas. The tragedy of this is more than one can fathom. No more pain on the people please.

    • NealeDonaldWalsch

      The question, Jeanne, is how. How to “help the Syrian people.” May I ask, what do you suggest, specifically? Let’s talk. Let’s hear your ideas. Let’s have a dialogue.

      • iamlife iam

        I think the help should come directly from the United Nations. What are they doing? Does anyone know? Isn’t it time we become one party of life for all participants and not expect one nation to be savior? We need a council that truly works for all life on earth. Let it be one of love called United Nations, and, let all nations come to the table and say what they need. Let all be there and hear what is needed. If we can hear each nation as a collective, maybe we can come in love more often as a collective instead of as individual nations playing dominant one. love to all here <3 <3 <3

        • NealeDonaldWalsch

          Yes, but again, specifics, please. What would the United Nations do, specifically? i like the War Free Zones that Michael proposed, above. Then send in food, medical supplies, etc. as well. And the, No Fly Zones for military aircraft. Let the nonaligned U.N. planes keep the peace, since the warring factions in the country have both indicated that they cannot.

          • iamlife iam

            I’m all for war-free zones, so that’s grand. I think there should be a council that oversees problem areas on a regular basis, not just when things get critical. I think more problems could be alleviated if the UN took more action on a regular basis. Actions could be supplying food, schools, medical supplies to all people throughout the world. Education is key to a better life. We all know it, and, the supplies needed for that must come from a general source. The U.N. could oversee that all people are granted access to what they need medically, nutritionally, educationally, and living will get better. When living gets better people create love not war. If all come together to help people in these specific ways, all life can create better lives everywhere for love. There could be councils within the general council that controls how supplies are doled out, but, it needs to be a truth that all nations come together to know all have what they need. All can share resources more equitably. If one nation can offer more oil, then share it. Don’t hog it. If one nation can offer more corn, share it. Don’t hog it. That’s all I know. We need to play better, and, we need a general council that acts not just looks good on paper. Love Hi

          • Jeanne Marie Troge

            These are such great ideas! Thank you for sharing them. If we could all hold this vision in our hearts, we can make it happen.
            Bombing is not the answer. I would rather see us take out Asaad, go after him personally than bomb the country. That just makes no sense to me. That only inflicts more suffering on the people. I think it is hopeful that the rest of the world will not back us—it suggests to me that change is happening, and we must embrace it and not rely on the old “tried and true” way. We need to think globally and act globally. This is why I just love your ideas. Thank you!!!!

          • iamlife iam

            Hi :))) Thanks for the love and light <3 <3 <3 Maybe we ought to let the Goddesses lead a little while. Haven't the guys had enough opportunity to get it right, life? <3 <3 <3 Maybe it's our turn. . .no more war, no more bombs, only food, only life as a warm hug, not bombs, and, let us show the guys how it's done Wow That would be a day. that would bring love in to all life as oneness. It's just an opinion. We don't need to play cops and robbers anymore. Let's just play house instead 🙂 You bring the bread, and, I'll bring the butter.Let's bring it in and sing a new feminine song called I amness as Goddess Hi Ho He

          • Jeanne Marie Troge

            The Divine Feminine is rising up and it is women’s jobs to step forward now into the political arena. We need to create a balance of masculine and feminine. We’ve been out of whack for far too long!

          • iamlife iam

            Amen, SiStar 🙂 🙂 🙂 We are coming together as a life force called one reving up engine, and, we’re going to put the pedal to the metal and let it be a woman’s foot to hit the gas 🙂

          • Stephen mills

            Women would hammer out justice ,where men only play the hammer game.Go ladies go the men of the New spirituality are right by your side arm in arm hand in hand. The power has never been in the Pyrimid but on the line never over but always,s with.

            Namaste

          • iamlife iam

            Thanks, Guy 🙂 We’ll definitely want the men on our side, as long as they lay the hammer down. We love the guys. 🙂 It’s just they have placed too much value on longing, huffing, puffing on their way to lift life. We would rather keep the lifting of life withr loving instead of huffing and puffing. thanks for being such a grand guy hi ho he <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

          • iamlife iam

            Kind of like this, life. “It is time for us to place before humanity a New Cultural Story; a manifesto created by all of us, working as co-authors.” NDW that’s what I am talking about 🙂

  • Awareness

    I do not believe United States secretary of state John Kerry 🙂
    Bless ALL 🙂

    • Victor

      Of course! Credibility below zero! Before and now.

      Much more now after his fake picture of the supposedly syrian death children…

      Greetings!

      • Awareness

        Greetings 🙂

  • politics

    I once heard a line in a movie that went something like this: “Do you know what the greatest crime propagated by the Devil on Mankind was”?

    Is that he exists.

    Do you know what an even bigger crime committed by Humanity was?

    Is that we believed it…

  • Victor

    Of course Jonk Kerry is lying. Perhaps he knows it, perhaps he doesn’t:

    And this is just the tip of the iceberg…

    Breitbart : John Kerry’s Syria Proof Was A Recycled Iraq Photo From 10 Years Ago

    by Steven Goddard

    Posted on August 31, 2013 by stevengoddard

    When John Kerry stood in as surrogate president yesterday making the
    case for war in Syria (Apparently Obama was leading from behind again.
    Either that or he wanted someone with the ‘Voice of God’ making the
    pitch for him. Sorry Mr. Kerry, only Charleton Heston had the Voice of
    God and you’re no Charleton Heston.). Kerry talked about and emphasized
    the ‘thousands of pieces of evidence’ we should look at for ourselves,
    things Kerry said he had witnessed with his own eyes. And this photo was
    one of them.

    Then he repeated his challenge to look for ourselves. And I did. And I
    knew I had seen this ‘evidence’ picture, a long time ago. And I knew he
    was lying, again! And I knew what Kerry seems not to have learned yet.
    That in this age of the internet and information you can’t lie for long.
    You will be caught.

    This picture was taken by Marco Di Lauro. Rather than try to explain
    it I’ll use his own words. The ones he used on his web site to describe
    it.

    “Al Musayyib, Iraq – May 27, 2003

    An Iraqi child jumps over a line of hundreds of bodies, in a school
    where they have been transported from a mass grave, to be identified.
    They were discovered in the desert in the outskirts of Al Musayyib, 40
    km south of Baghdad. It has been estimated that between 10,000 and
    15,000 Iraqis had been reported missing in the region south of Baghdad.
    People have been searching for days for identity cards or other clues
    among the skeletons to try to find the remains of brothers, fathers,
    mothers, sisters and even children who disappeared when Saddam’s
    government crushed a Shi’ite uprising following the 1991 Gulf War.”

    • Victor

      With dozens and hundreds of employees in Security, Departament of Defense, Intelligence, Presidence, Vice-Presidency, MIlitary research, CIA, etc., etc., etc., is this the best John Kerry could come with…?

      Please, c’mooonnn…!

      This gives us a brief idea of the credibility and seriousness of this people…

      So hurry for launching attacks that they fall in these ‘little’ mistakes…

  • iamlife iam

    hmmm I agree the world must act as one, but, I don’t know what good will come from witholding food, supplies from those impacted by the government that is acting so inhumanely. Should we repeat inhumanity, or should we be love? love to all

    • NealeDonaldWalsch

      I would not withhold food and supplies from the people, I would withhold cooperation of many sorts from either (a) the rebels or (b) the government, depending upon who it can be proven perpetrated this act. But I would airdrop food, medical supplies, and other necessities to the people of the country, for sure.

      • iamlife iam

        okay 🙂 much better. Sorry for doubting you. I wondered Whew Love you are hi ho he

  • Victor

    And about the ‘impossibility’ of the ‘rebels’ of getting chemical weapons, it has been reported all the time that the UK, Saudi Arabia, have been providing them. And of course, first convertly, and after openly, the US, via Turkey, Qatar, etc. has been supporting with all kind of weapons, funds, etc. this so-called rebels that include Al Qaeda…

    I’m glad that our dear Neale includes this version as a possibility in what’s been happening here.

    • NealeDonaldWalsch

      Thank you for noticing that I did. I am not naive.

  • JerPan

    Assad did NOT do this. THINK about it. Who benefits from this gas attack? Assad has nothing to gain and everything to lose if he was to do this, he is winning against the rebels. On the other hand the rebels have EVERYTHING to gain from it to garner support from the west. It amazes me NDW cannot see such a simple equation. It makes me doubt very highly that he actually knows what he is talking about. ANYONE who is reportedly conversing with God would see through these lies immediately.

    • NealeDonaldWalsch

      My goodness, you must not have read my note, above, very carefully. It allowed for both possibilities, and simply noted that, at this moment, much of the evidence seems to indicate that the government could well have done this. There is such a thing, you know, as reverse psychology. In other words, precisely because it does not seem that it would benefit the Assad regime to do this, that regime could think it could do it with impunity. In the politics of intrigue that is called Plausible Denial.

      On the other hand, my writing, above, takes pains to indicate, not once, but twice, that evidence could also ultimately point to the rebels. So I am not sure where you are coming from with your commentary above, but it does not seem to be an accurate assessment of what I offered as my observation.

      I think it is highly possible that either scenario could turn out to be true. You seem to feel that only one scenario is possible. Which one of us, then, is more open-minded on this, I wonder….?

      • JerPan

        Your article leans to the fact that Assad did it. Yes it mentions the rebels but you seem to indicate more strongly that it was Assad. And I would like you to show me what evidence you are talking about, because the UN already stated that it was most likely the rebels that used these weapons. All you seem to be doing is parroting what you are hearing in the media. Have you SEEN any evidence? I have not, all I have done is hear them say “we believe” or “we are confident” NEVER we are SURE they did it. To imply at all that Assad did it is wrong. This is very important. You do realize that this could easily escalate into WWIII don’t you? If a person so close to God as you supposedly are how can you NOT see these are total lies? They LIED about the Gulf of Tonkin to get us into Vietnam. They LIED to us about WMD’s to get us into Iraq. They LIED to us about spying on us. How can you think for one SECOND they are not lying about this. You actually THINK this is about chemical weapons and human lives? You really have never studied history have you? In 1945 the agreed that the DOLLAR would be the worlds currency. ONLY if it was backed by gold and printed in limited amounts. In 1970, during the Vietnam war, the world realized we didn’t have the gold to back the money we were printing, so in 1971 Nixon took us off the gold standard. He convinced the Saudi King and members of OPEC to accept WORTHLESS dollars in exchange for oil, pulling off the biggest scam in history. NOW Iran and Syria want to start trading their oil for gold instead of worthless dollars, and this has the Federal Reserve and the banks that control them in a panic. Because if they are allowed to do this, it will cause a complete collapse of the dollar, and their power structure collapses. Saddam was about to do it, look what happened to him. Quadhaffi was going to do it, look what happened to him. If are supposedly so close to GOD you would be told these facts and understand the TRUE nature of why we want to attack Syria. To even THINK this is about chemical weapons and saving human lives is as ignorant as it gets. So I say to YOU NDW, before you write a piece on something and pretend you are conversing with God, it would behoove you to get some actual FACTS. A lot of people believe what you say, even I do to some extent, but when you parrot the powers that be narrative, you do a disservice to the people who look to you for answers!!

  • Michael L

    Hi all,
    Wether gas from one side or another was lobbed, folks in that country are killing each other. Even one bullet at a time.

    So we go a little further into where we as created beings are headed with this event.
    “We” humans who don’t believe that most violence by man perpetrated on man is of much value. Could suggest this idea.

    Instead of the millions of dollars in military aid ,now is the time for millions of dollars in civilian aid. Like maybe a war free zone, where peace keepers protect the innocent. Could this be an idea whose time has come? Like Berlin after WWII.

    • NealeDonaldWalsch

      I like this. And neither the government nor the rebels could object. On humanitarian grounds alone, both sides would have to accept it and agree to it, I would think. I like this. Perhaps several such zones, not just one city or one area, but several such zones around the country, protected by U.N. peacekeepers beholden to neither side. i like it.

  • Victor

    September 02, 2013

    Debunking Obama’s Chemical Weapons Case Against the Syrian Government

    by ERIC DRAITSER

    The documententitled “U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013”, released in tandem with public
    statements made by Secretary of State John Kerry, is merely a summary of
    a manufactured narrative designed to lead the US into yet another
    criminal and disastrous war in the Middle East. Having been released
    prior to even preliminary reports from UN chemical weapons investigators
    on the ground in Syria, the document is as much a work of fiction as it
    is fact.

    It begins with the conclusion that “The United States Government
    assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a
    chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013.”
    Naturally, one would immediately wonder how such a conclusion was
    reached when even the expert investigators on the ground have yet to
    conclude their own study. If these experts with years of training in the
    field of chemical weapons, toxicology, and other related disciplines,
    have yet to make such a determination, it would seem more than
    convenient that the US has already reached their own assessment.

    Moreover, based on its own admissions as to the sources of this
    so-called “intelligence”, very serious doubt should be cast on such a
    dubious government report. The document explains that:

    These all-source assessments are based on human, signals,
    and geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of
    open-source reporting…In addition to US intelligence information, there
    are accounts from international and Syrian medical personnel; videos;
    witness accounts; thousands of social media reports from at least 12
    different locations in the Damascus area; journalist accounts; and
    reports from highly credible non-governmental organizations.

    First and foremost, any critical reading of this document must begin
    with the notions of “human intelligence” and “witness accounts”. Such
    terminology indicates that the US is simply basing pre-conceived
    conclusions on rebel sources and the much touted “activists” who seem to
    always be the sources quoted in Western media reports. Secondly, it is
    obvious that US officials have cherry-picked their eyewitness accounts
    as there are many, from both sides of the conflict, which directly
    contradict this so-called high-confidence assessment.

    As reported in the Mint Press News by Associated Press reporter Dale Gavlak,
    Syrians from the town of Ghouta – the site of the chemical attack – tell
    a very different story from the one being told by the US government.
    Residents provide very credible testimony that “certain rebels received
    chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin
    Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.”
    What makes such testimony even more compelling is that it comes from
    anti-Assad Syrians, many of whom have seen their children die fighting
    Assad’s forces. One of the Ghouta residents described his conversations
    with his son, a fighter tasked with carrying the chemical weapons for
    the Nusra Front jihadi group, who spoke of Saudi-supplied weapons being
    unloaded and transported. His son later was killed, along with 12 other
    rebels, inside a tunnel used to store weapons.

    It is essential to also dispute the very notion that “social media
    reports” constitute credible evidence to be used in making a case for
    war. It is a long-established fact that US and other intelligence
    agencies are able to manipulate twitter, Facebook and other social media
    in whatever way they see fit. As the Guardian reported back in 2011:

    The US military is developing software that will let it
    secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to
    influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda…each
    fake online persona must have a convincing background, history, and
    supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be
    able to operate false identities from their workstations ‘without fear
    of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries.’

    It seems as if the United States is now using social media, a system
    over which they have control, to justify their pre-fabricated war
    narrative. Additionally, the idea that videos constitute a shred of
    evidence is laughable. As any investigator can tell you, videos are
    easily manipulated and, even if they are untouched, they cannot be used
    to assess the culprit of a crime. Videos merely show what is visible,
    not the underlying motives, means, and opportunity – all part of genuine
    investigation.

    Finally, one must feel serious apprehension at the idea of journalist
    reports as being part of this pastiche called a “high confidence
    assessment,” for the simple reason that Western coverage of the conflict
    in Syria is mostly coming from journalists outside the country or those
    already sympathetic to the rebel cause. Whether they are paid
    propagandists or simply convenient tools used as mouthpieces of the
    corporate media, their reports are highly suspect, and certainly should
    have no role in shaping war-making policy.

    It is critical to examine the “intelligence information” referred to
    in the assessment. It would seem that, according to the document itself,
    much of the case for war is based on human intelligence. Many news
    outlets have reported that the entire case against Assad is being based
    on an intercepted phone call provided to US intelligence by none other
    than the Israelis. Israel, with its long track record of fabricating
    intelligence for the purposes of war-making, is not exactly a neutral
    observer. As one of the principal actors in the region calling for the
    overthrow of the Assad government, Tel Aviv has a vested interest in
    ensuring a US intervention in Syria.

    The ardently pro-Israel FOX News reported that:

    The initial confirmation that the regime of Syrian
    President Bashar Assad was responsible for a chemical weapons attack
    Aug. 21 came from a tip from the Israeli intelligence service…a special
    unit of the Israeli Defense Force – an intelligence unit that goes by
    the number 8200…helped provide the intelligence intercepts that allowed
    the White House to conclude that the Assad regime was behind the attack.

    It would seem rather convenient that one of the primary beneficiaries
    of a war to topple Assad would be the primary source of the sole piece
    of evidence purportedly linking Assad to the attack. If this strikes you
    as at best a flimsy pretext for war, you would be correct.

    The report also outlines the way in which Washington arrived at its
    conclusion that Assad carried out the attacks. The document states:

    We assess with high confidence that the Syrian government
    carried out the chemical weapons attack against opposition elements in
    the Damascus suburbs on August 21. We assess that the scenario in which
    the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely. The
    body of information used to make this assessment includes intelligence
    pertaining to the regime’s preparations for this attack and its means of
    delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and
    its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between
    the capabilities of the regime and the opposition.

    In analyzing the above excerpt, it should be immediately clear to
    anyone who has been following events in Syria closely, that this
    conclusion is based on faulty premises and outright lies. First, the
    idea that it is “highly unlikely” that the chemical attack was carried
    out by the opposition is an impossible assertion to make given that
    there is abundant evidence that the “rebels” carried out chemical
    attacks previously. As the widely circulated video
    showing rebels mounting chemical weapons onto artillery shells
    demonstrates, not only do they have the capability and delivery system,
    they have a significant supply of chemicals, certainly enough to have
    carried out the attack. Moreover, the multiple massacres carried out by
    Nusra Front and other extremist rebel factions demonstrates that such
    groups have no compunction whatsoever about killing innocent civilians
    en masse.

    As for the claim that the US has based their conclusions at least in
    part on “the regime’s preparations for this attack”, this too is a
    dubious assertion simply because there has been no evidence provided
    whatsoever to support it. Ostensibly, the United States would like
    international observers to “take their word for it” that they have such
    evidence, but the fragile public simply cannot be allowed to see it.
    More echoes of Bush’s lies before the Iraq War.

    And the so-called “post-attack observations” are again suspect
    because, as I have previously noted, the US has not bothered to wait for
    the results of the UN chemical weapons investigation. Therefore, these
    observations could only come from anti-Assad sources on the ground or
    international observers not present at the site who merely repeat the
    same information fed to them from those same anti-regime sources.

    As if intended as a cruel joke to the reader, the document points out
    that, despite the claim that this is an irrefutable, evidence-based
    conclusion, it is in fact based on nothing but hearsay and rumor. Buried
    at the end of the first page is the most important quote of all:

    Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation [emphasis added].

    So, the US is supposed to wage war on a country that has not attacked
    it or any of its allies based on admittedly unconfirmed evidence? This
    would be laughable if it weren’t so utterly outrageous and criminal.

    The “U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of
    Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013” is a poorly constructed attempt to
    justify the politically, militarily, and morally unjustifiable war
    against Syria. It relies on lies, distortions, and obvious propaganda to
    create the myth that Assad is the devil incarnate and that the US, with
    its clear moral high-ground, must take it upon itself to once again
    wage war for the sake of peace. Nothing could be more dishonest. Nothing
    could be more disgusting. Nothing could be more American. Let’s hope
    Congress shuts it down.

  • Victor

    September 02, 2013

    Cruise Missiles for al-Assad and Impunity for the Generals in Egypt

    The Human Rights Hypocrisy of the West

    by AJAMU BARAKA

    “…while the undermining of the rule of law, the normalization
    of war to advance national interests and the hollowing out of the human
    rights idea in order to justify “humanitarian interventions” might seem
    to be beneficial in the short term, the people of the world who have
    been slowly liberating themselves from the conceptual myopia of
    colonization see very clearly the hypocrisy of the West’s supposed
    commitment to universal human rights, democracy and the rule of law… “ (War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity: The Story of U.S. Exceptionalism in Iraq)

    In a surreal replay of the Iraq debacle, the U.S. along with Britain
    and the “socialist” government of France are preparing another violation
    of international law with their plans to attack the sovereign state of
    Syria. The justification for this breech of the United Nations Charter
    is based on the dubious claims made by an insurgency, armed and trained
    by those same western powers and their regional allies, that a chemical
    attack was launched by the al-Assad government. An attack that
    illogically and irrationally took place at the precise moment the Syrian
    government was clearly winning the war against the so-called rebel
    forces and when United Nations inspectors were already in the country.

    In a move that can only be seen as bizarre and came just as the UN
    inspectors who were invited to investigate the alleged attack by the
    Syrian government were starting their work, the U.S. asserted that it
    was too late for the inspectors and called for them to be withdrawn.

    This forceful reaction stands in stark contrast to the feeble
    response to the slaughter of more than 1,000 demonstrators by the
    Egyptian generals over the last few weeks. With Egypt, the U.S.
    administration did not have to violate international law to express its
    opposition to the wanton violation of the rights of demonstrators to
    peacefully assemble. It could have condemned the coup and withdrawn its
    economic support, but chose to do neither.

    Clearly there are two standards operative in the world today: one for
    the vast majority of nations and another for those comprising the dying
    but dangerous collection of European colonial capitalist nations that
    have decided to use military means to maintain their global hegemony.

    U.S. criminality seems to be completely out of control. The
    U.S.-based peace and anti-imperialist movements continue to be in
    disarray, despite the fact that the majority of the population in the
    U.S. continues to oppose military intervention in Syria. During the
    Obama era, other progressives and radicals who traditionally have seen
    through the crude propaganda of the U.S. government have found
    themselves on the same side as the U.S., the dictatorships of the Gulf
    Cooperation States, Israel and the collection of second-rate European
    powers regarding Israeli attacks on Gaza, Libya, Egypt and Syria.

    And Western-based human rights organizations continue to either
    provide intellectual cover for this rampant militarism with racist
    notions of “humanitarian intervention” or respond to these blatant
    violations of international human rights law with the most tepid and
    technocratic positions imaginable.

    The merging of neoliberalism and militarism over the last decade
    coupled with the weak and often accommodationist positions of many
    Western-based human rights organizations demonstrate in graphic terms
    why a new “people-centered” human rights movement must be built, a
    radical human rights approach that is anti-imperialist and committed to
    systemic change in order to bring about social justice. A movement that
    is grounded in one ethical standard related to the conduct of States.

    Until we build an independent human rights movement, we will continue
    to have Western hypocrisy posing as a “universal” norm, and the blood
    will continue to flow.

  • Victor

    In either case, if Assad´s government or the ´rebels´ committed atrocities in Syria, I agree, this has to be stopped.

    But not with a coalition of interests of a bunch of countries, violating international laws, launching missiles that will kill innocent civillians for allegedly protecting them… , and with an obvious agenda against Iran, China and Rusia, and of course, more than obvious interests for reassuring the region´s vast supply of oil and gas.

    It would have to be made by a gathering, a vast community of nations with equal rights, voice and vote, with a deep and wide examination of real facts, not propaganda nor ´information´ arranged by one side of interested assessments.

    That means, real Democracy among nations. We´re far from that.

    But that would be the focus.

    Of course nothing of this happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia or Serbia. Etc.

    What have been the results of those ´humanitarian´ intervention? More chaos, destruction, war, deaths, poverty, misery, pain, division. And of course, inmense, superb, astronomichal profits for some people…

    Why in this case of Syria it would be different? It´s absolutely the same pattern…

    Do you want to punish, or stop, or impose sanctions to the bullies and abusers…?

    You´d have to target someone else than sovereign nations that oppose hegemonical interests.

    But how to impose sanctions to USA, UK, France, Germany, OTAN, etc..?

    Almost unconceivable in these times…

  • Judy Harcourt Rice

    It is very hard to believe our government with Iraq so fresh in our memories. The mere threat of retaliation may keep ‘them’ from using chemical weapons again, but that’s not a lot to hold onto. Civil war happens, we lost over 600,000 citizens during ours, some say as high as 750,000. Let them fight it out, if they don’t play ‘fair’ we step in, wait, that is whats going on… Or should we have a totally hands off policy, non-interference? However, that would not, should not, stop us from offering food, medical personal (volunteer) & supplies. Perhaps an enormous refugee center that is safe for those that wish to flee the madness. The cost would be enormous, but this may be something the entire rest of the world could get behind, all of us participating. ‘Namaste’

    • ned kelly

      and cheaper than a war

  • Sofia

    and who, in God’s name, is the United States to punish anyone?

    • iamlife iam

      I agree. It’s the collective that is shoved here, and, it’s the collective that needs to respond as a collective not as an individual nation. Amen <3 <3 <3

  • Brigitte

    Whatever way is choosen the syrian people suffer. What do they realy want? Maybe they need help to express them selfs? In between time my thoughts and love will be with them and also with the decision-takers around this world. Personaly I don’t see what more I can do.

  • Aino Vesanen

    I just would like to point out that by now, according to my understanding, it has not been possible to get humanitarian aid into Syria. Thus, as long as the regime continues to have hold on its territories and the international aid organizations don’t want to risk transporting that aid there without its permission, the latter part of the war free zones with all humanitarian help inculded, will not work any better than it has by now.

    • Michael L

      Aino,

      Where there is a will there is a way. It just hasn’t been our collective will yet.

  • Beverley Ann Elliott

    Holding our visión for love & light especially for the Syrian people at this time is important. We all have our personal views of who is to blame but that takes us off the focus of sending our collective love to those in need. We know that love especially collective love dissolves fear so it is my suggestion that we totally focus on this. It would be fantastic to have a war free zone controlled by a neutral party like the UN at ground level and we, the collective of love & light continue to send our love with all our hearts. Lets continue with planned meditations and perhaps with an affirmation that includes protection for the innocent people. Do not under-estimate the power of a collective prayer…..xxx

    • Sofia

      Absolutely! In CwG we learned the new paradigm is “We Are All One”. So, are we going to bomb ourselves? Which part of “us” is to blame and who is going to punish who?
      We know everything has a reason. What have those Souls in Siria offered their bodies for? For us to decide Who We Are is “judgement, punishment, revenge, bombing, murder…” – or are they giving us a chance to choose to be “compassion, love, understanding, forgivness….”???
      I choose the latter! For me the only possible response is NO (active, agressive) RESPONSE AT ALL. Instead, let’s visualize the Sirian people enjoying a peaceful life!
      And the weapon industry manufacturing bycicle supplies… 🙂

      • Shirley

        I agree with you, Sofia! Love and light <3

  • Aino Vesanen

    Also, it seems to me that during the whole war and still now, the world has had difficulties to believe what kind of cruelties the Assad regime is ready to commit against its opponents. Still now, many don’t want to believe that they could actually bomb their own people ruthlessly with weapons of mass destruction. Not to mention all the horrible torture etc. that has been going on for more than two years now.
    I can believe it all, as I have some Syrian Kurdish friends (living in europe) whose families I visited a few years ago in Syria. Every family had one more members missing/detained/ had been detained and tortured etc. etc. in the past. They didn’t dare to talk about these things & politics without turning all the mobile phoness off and putting them then on a loud TV, so that the possibilities of goventment intelligence listening would minimize. And they drove hundreds of kilometers just to pick me up so that I wouldn’t take a bus & the authorities wouldn’t notice a foreigner going to that area.. But still, after my visit police came to interrogate them because of it. I could feel and see the fear around then, about 2 years before this war.
    Even without these observations, it shouldn’t be forgotten what happened in Hama in 1982, when tens of thousands of people died because of a chemical bomb dropped by Mr.Bashar’s father.
    I don’t want to spread negativity, but if seems like all that’s happening is too bad for the world to believe, and that’s why it (we!) have avoided taking the responsibility to react to it. Now the world is finally, hopefully, waking up to recognize the dark reality. And that is good, because once we recognize the reality there are better chances that we all decide to change it together for the better, in one way or another!
    Watching it from aside going on and on is not an option.

    With all that said, I don’t deny that the opposition can do equally
    horrific things if they get the means.. We all have that potential of
    “turning to beasts” inside of us, this should never be forgotten! And probably our unwillingness to recognize the depth of that horror is also unwillingness to admit that we – each of us- could do that too, if we are not aware and unconciously end up slipping so deep in to the darkness.

    • Sofia

      As horrific it is to watch, NOBODY can take responsability for the Syrians but the Syrians themselves. It’s not up to anyone else on the planet to “solve” their problems as if they were helpless children and daddy USA is their only hope; especially when this “spreader of democracy” has a hidden agenda and talks through bombs.
      Helping to rise the whole planet’s consciousness is the only way to help everybody involved! And that we can only do by reminding everybody who doesn’t remember yet, that We Are All One. With love and compassion. Not with bombs. Deffinetly not answering terror with terror.

      • Aino Vesanen

        I agree with what you say about raising the consciousness. But I believe it involves recognizing that there’s darkness, too, that needs to be healed. In Syria and in everyone of us. When I ignore my “beast” it will more likely attack me. When we dare to watch the beast-side of the humanity in the eyes, we will eventually be free to CHOOSE the divine side of the humanity, and I believe that the latter can finally show us the way to the Light, also with Syria!
        There’s a difference in solving others problems on their behalf (impossible) and helping them and showing them that the world does actually care!
        And I said nothing about bombs, I only said that I don’ t see turning our backs to the suffering of our brothers ans sisters as an option anymore!

        • Sofia

          very well put, Aino!
          I totally agree on not turning our backs on them. Actually I think if they invested all the money they are willing to use for war into humanitarian and reconstruction help, instead, real good would be done. That’s acting with compassion, yes, the line of action I would always suggest.
          And I would act exactly the same if they were family – because it’s how I see all of humanity without distinction – though the feelings their tragedy would produce in myself would be different if they were indeed my own blood.
          But ignoring the beast within is exactly what I would do! Of course it’s there and I acknowledge it’s existance, but I (try) not reacting on it, because that always means reacting with violence, producing an escalation of violence. that’s what I was refering to with no intervention. I believe we shouldn’t intervene even on a political level. It’s their country, not ours!

  • Janice Langlinais

    Can we share this with our congressmen and President Obama. They should all read these words of wisdom.

    • iamlife iam

      and, all our lovely comments, too 🙂 we can email the President. Supposedly, he has made himself available on a certain .gov website that I won’t post, because I tried it already 🙂 anyhoo, letters to the President are more quickly read when emailed apparently. that’s what I’m doing. Love to you

  • jake431

    I condemn the use of chemical weapons, Putin SHOULD condemn the use of chemical weapons, the world should also condemn the use of chemical weapons, if we all got together and spoke out against this practice, rather than all the hateful comments and general crap that I have seen on the internet, the world might be a better place.

    • iamlife iam

      Amen, it’s a collective thing, and, the collective needs to act as if it’s one thing called love. love to you <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

  • Ahmad Charabeh

    Syrian regime asked since 3 month to send UN investigators to Syria after “rebels” who are terrorist extrimest and from alqeada used chemical weapons, when the UN team decided to come to Syria the same day chemical weapon was used, USA try to use the same lie that allowed them to invent Iraq and killed more then million innocents, and in Libya the NATO killed more 150 000 innocents in both country’s until now they are suffering from a civil war. in Syria the regime is fighting terrorism since 2 years USA is arming them, the regime is the only who can garantie Syrians unity, “rebels” did 100 of massacres killing complete villages for being with the government. USA doesn’t care about humanity they only care about oil and gas and what Israel want. but they know how to control the masses they brained washed humanity with media, you see what they want you to see! no to war in Syria Love and Peace from the cradle of civilisation Syria

    • Victor

      Excellent summary, Ahmad! Brief in words, but with great scope.

      If you improve your writing’s wording, you could publish this everywhere and get some attention and reflections. Even researchs, perhaps.

      Blessings!

  • Darcie French

    One idea: Families of Syrians who live in the US and elsewhere could start fundraisers for things their loved ones actually need to rebuild and broadcast it all over the internet. Media could support these families in their fund raisers and getting the goods to their Syrian relatives. Peace prevails where peace is, and what we hold in mind tends to manifest. It’s imperative to hold peace in mind, to take our attention and energy off “the war” and the politics of it and actively get down to business doing what’s needed for humanity. My prayer “My Lord, show me what I can do towards the greatest good of the people of Syria and the world”

    • iamlife iam

      What a great idea 🙂 I think this would be a group project. We could always throw up a website, but, donations might start rolling in and we need a wearhouse, money to mail stuff, manpower to pack it and mail it, and, then, we need people to sort through lists. I would love to be in on that. I could help if we get a group started. I love, love, love this!!!

      • Darcie French

        Perhaps could start with raising funds for families to ship things they already have?

        • iamlife iam

          count me in, Darcie. What a great idea. Who is the writing tribe? 🙂 I am a writer of sorts. Fancy that. . . meeting like this 🙂 Anyhoo, I would love to be a part of something so lovely. What a grand idea!!! email me if you can from this link. Otherwise, friend me on facebook. I am there, too, under the same name. Love to you!!!

          • Darcie French

            Shipping’s been pointed out to likely be a block, so we’d have to think outside the box in terms of what to supply. Perhaps a Wish Foundation kind of idea. “Raise funds to bring Uncle home after the war” “Raise funds to bury Auntie in the family plot” “Raise funds to adopt nephew” “Raise funds for niece’s wedding that was post-poned by the war” etc The article could point families to organizations like Fundrazr that allows them to manage their own fund raising so no need for a central site, warehouse or donation collection. I write on a site called Squidoo, mainly, how about you?

    • NealeDonaldWalsch

      Do it, Darcie. Grab the domain name: familiesofsyrians.com

      then put up a simple website. then, create a mechanism by which families elsewhere (not just in the U.S.) could help their relatives in Syria.

      Do it!

      • Darcie French

        I’ve put a request out to my writing tribe – we’ll see what we can come up with. It seems an article that teaches families how to set up their own online fundraising campaigns might be a start.

  • Can’t really agree with you. You want to go to Syria and start poisoning them with our sick Western values that are already killing our planet. Why not to just turn the other cheek and forgive what everyone has done? Who are we to judge others and tell them what they should do and how they should live? Nobody.

    • oscar ayala arana

      No way. That would be to turn thousands of innocents alone to face a sure death.

  • oscar ayala arana

    I live with my beloved wife, a Syrian descent and we cannot agree with the monstruosity that seems to be building in the US agenda. I agree with the posted solutions because they do not follow the horrendous and primitive rule of the “Eye for an eye”… that soon will leave all of us blind.

  • Shirley

    I choose to recognize the “poor children,” “innocent people,” and “despots” as souls like myself who are creating their own reality in order to live their soul purposes. I choose to remember that we are all in this big act together to experience whatever we choose.

    I choose to send love and light and peace, I choose to do what my heart feels right to help, but I choose to do so from a place of love and understanding, instead of hatred and anger and condemnation. I choose to see through the illusion and remember all souls as who they really are, instead of the “suffering human being” and/or “evil villain” characters in this big drama.

    I choose to remember that I am a co-creator of this reality, and I choose to love and honor every soul’s path no matter what they choose. If I saw a person being robbed I would choose to help them, but I would not hate the robber and speak words of violence towards them, for I understand there is a bigger picture, a higher purpose at work, and both the “robber” and “victim” are voluntarily participating in this act of crime so that all souls involved may benefit from this event and its consequences.

    Hell only exists for those who believe in it. The same is true for “sins” and “evils.”

    There is no up if there is no down, no cold if there is no hot. Giving can’t exist if there is no one to receive. I choose to remember who I really am and I know that everything will be okay in the end.

  • jean

    the idee is very good in smae time for know the true, is very difficult because when we see wath the governement of us have done and after admid ho sorry we made a mistake, like vietnam they admite that the war was not for the raison they said in firth time, irak now where the soon of america is use like pion on tablegame and that for wath for benefit of fwee person. and now for the same raison they want a war in syria and trye everyting to make it… mabe the us pepoel have to stop too suport they own systhem and govenment who play with them and take them for stupid… the popultion have the power, awake you mind and your heart….we are all shining stars

  • Raelene Gavin

    None of this is what it seems and to take action against Syria will be playing into the hands that want bloodshed and who are setting the Syrians up for a major fall. Why should a country that had no problem using Agent Orange be pointing the finger at another country and so eager for war. The ‘evidence’ that the Assad Government used chemicals upon its own people has only come from the Americans where contradictory statements from other sources say it was used by the rebels and supplied by the Arabs. Even the father of one of the deceased in the ‘attack’ said his son was a rebel and they were trying to work out how to use the weapons they received from the Arabs when they set the cannisters off and killed themselves and others around them. If the people of Syria want Assad removed then they should be able to do so with safety and with the knowledge that they won’t be killed for doing what the majority want. Perhaps the United Nations should intervene in these matters more so than America who have their own agenda for finding the Assad Government guilty and responsible for this tragedy. I also think if a so called ‘Christian’ country intervenes then it will be seen as a religious war which will create more problems with other countries. I’m all for praying and manifesting a peaceful outcome for all concerned and for the happiness and safety of the Syrian people

  • Awareness

    “Those who are in power at this time are in blind panic, for they, for the first time, are UNABLE to see truly what lies ahead. Therefore these ones are hedging their bets, that they are trying to enact various timelines that they anticipate will bring a satisfactory resolution to their quandary of not knowing what is ahead.

    These ones who are of an Archonian nature, who DO NOT know how to be a creative force and only know how to feed upon the energies of those who are creative in nature, how to destroy the very things that give life, are hoping that those machinations that they have been doing and are doing, will ensure that they are still around after the winds of change have blown everything apart so that it may reform into new patterns. But, they do not truly know what will happen, and for this reason, for the first time ever for them, they are in fear and panic. They are at this time pushing the boat so that they can be on the ark, so that when things go down, they are on the ark riding high, perceiving themselves to be safe therefore from the winds of change and all the alteration it will bring. But this is a false concept, for security is NOT found by riding in an ark or hiding underground or destroying the world’s populace so that there will be more left in a limited planetary scenario.

    That they simply DO NOT GET IT, DO NOT UNDERSTAND, and they are in panic, blind and in terror that things will not work out, and are desperate now in their actions. They are therefore initiating many actions that are also part of the winds of change, but these actions, their actions, are not the only actions of change that are coming.

    The solar winds that you have asked about blow very strongly now and they will affect the electromagnetic fields of the planet and are already doing so. They will create huge results and effects, and as this Awareness has been speaking for so long, the effects will be devastating to many but it is not necessarily so that they will devastate all. They will have impact primarily on those who know not what is happening, who are not understanding, interested or aware that the changes that are coming are necessary changes deemed to be the changes desired by that which is the Divine Source, the GODHEAD ITSELF.

    The Godhead however also presents the opportunity to ride the winds of change, to exhilarate in those winds, to find the strength and power of the Divine once again, and to know one has the capacity to remove themselves from that which is the artificially created reality that they have so long found themselves in, and to become part of the true reality of Spirit and of the Divine. To move into their own higher states of consciousness and to participate in the events, NOT as a victim to the events occurring around them, but as a CO-CREATOR given the opportunity to surf the waves of change that are coming, that will drive all, that will bring forth the NEW WORLD of Mother Earth as She is ready herself now to become the new consciousness that She has always sought to be.” by Cosmic Awareness (GREAT SPIRIT! GREAT CREATOR!) 🙂

    LOVE, Oneness, LAUGHTER and The LIGHT of GOD Almighty, ALL That IS, GREAT SPIRIT! GREAT CREATOR! 🙂

  • maximilinium

    i dont know!!! why should bashar asaad kill his own people with chemical weapon!! with this idea , would there be any people for bashar asaad to be president of???!!!! thats so STRANGE!! just a mad person could kill his people with chemical weapons! i think its not true that asaad used chemical weapons against his own people, if he did so he is like a satan! even worse!

    • Aino Vesanen

      Did you know that his father already gassed tens of thousands of civilans in Hama 1982?
      And that Assad has been imprisioning, torturing and killing some of his own people for decades (political opponents, Syrian kurds etc.). Yes he can gas his own people just to cling to the power, no doubt if you get familiar with what he and his family has been doing before this war.

  • iamlife iam

    Hi Darcie, I mailed a reply to you yesterday twice, so I guess it will show up soon. Just so you know, I went ahead and got one website, but, I decided I want to help the whole world and not just Syria, but, if you want you can join me or focus on Syria. I’ll need help. That’s for sure. Love to you

    • Hi iamlife iam – The website automatically flags posts with links (or anything that resembles a link) and prevents it from being published. Your comments got delayed by our system, but I have taken care of that and you should see your posts in this thread now. We appreciate your terrific ideas and contributions here on The Global Conversation! Keep ’em coming!

      • iamlife iam

        Thanks, sweetheart <3 I don't recall a link being present, but, oh well. Thanks for posting them. Love to you <3 <3 <3

        • The website filters got confused by the familiesoftheworld.com and world.org. But we always manually double check everything to make sure posts like yours make it onto the site, which sometimes will create a short delay.

  • Seb

    I absolutly with what is being said here! I can only hope that this concept of “war” will reach the leaders of our world.

  • I wonder if Neale will be considering doing another global prayer visualization?

  • Victor

    Another thing to do in these crucial moments when US Congress will enter deliberations about this subjet:

    DO SOMETHING:
    Tell Your Representatives
    to Vote NO on War With Syria

    rootsactiondotcom

    Prevent an Attack on Syria Now

    The terrible and widespread killing in Syria will become even more terrible and
    more widespread if the U.S. military (or a coalition of allies)
    launches an attack.

    The choice is not between doing nothing and bombing the Syrian people.
    Background:

    Bob Dreyfuss, The Nation: No War With Syria

    IPA: An Illegal War Forced on Syria That Benefits Al-Qaeda?

    Mairead Maguire: Syria: No Armaments to Rebels

    Click below to let those who could bomb people in our names know that they have alternatives:

    • iamlife iam

      Whew Amen, Victor. Love to you, Life <3 <3 <3

      • Victor

        Love to you too, my dear… 🙂

        • iamlife iam

          Thank you, Victor. Thank you for being love in action <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

  • Victor

    August 29th, 2013 11:25 AM

    Opposition to Iraq War May Save Syria

    By David Swanson

    Evidence of “weapons of mass destruction” is “no slam dunk,” U.S.
    officials are saying this time around, reversing the claim made about
    Iraq by then-CIA director George Tenet.

    Opposition to a U.S.-led attack on Syria is growing rapidly in Europe
    and the United States, drawing its strength from public awareness that
    the case made for attacking Iraq had holes in it.

    A majority in the United States, still very much aware of Iraq war
    deceptions, opposes arming the “rebel” force in Syria, so heavily
    dominated by foreign fighters and al Qaeda. And a majority opposes U.S.
    military action in Syria.

    But that public opinion is only just beginning to get expressed as
    activism. With Republicans more willing to actively oppose a war this
    time, and some section of Democrats still opposed, there’s actually
    potential to build a larger antiwar movement than that of 2003-2006.

    Thus far, however, what’s discouraging an attack on Syria is the
    public uproar that was created back then over the disastrous attack on
    Iraq.

    The nation of Iraq was destroyed. Millions of refugees still can’t
    safely return. As with every other humanitarian war thus far, humanity
    suffered, and the suffering will last for ages. While the damage done
    to the United States itself doesn’t compare with the damage done to
    Iraq, it has been severe enough to make many a near-sighted potential
    war supporter cautious.

    The problem with attacking Iraq was not that the vast stockpiles of
    weapons were fictional. Had every claim been true, the war would have
    remained illegal, immoral, and catastrophic.

    Were it true that the Syrian government really chose the moment of
    the U.N. inspectors’ arrival to use chemical weapons, launching a U.S.
    war on Syria would still hurt the people of Syria — who are
    overwhelmingly opposed to it, regardless of their level of support for
    their government.

    A regional or even global war could result. The U.S. military is
    planning for such scenarios, as if preparing for the apocalypse while
    igniting it makes the action less insane.

    A war of supposed humanitarian philanthropy should consider the value
    to humanity of the rule of law. Launching a war in violation of the
    Kellogg-Briand Pact, the United Nations Charter, and the U.S.
    Constitution hurts the rule of law.

    A war of beneficial generosity should consider other possible
    medicines that lack the deadly side-effects of war. For example, the
    United States could easily stop supporting and arming abusive
    dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Yemen, and Egypt, not to
    mention the horrors inflicted on Palestine by Israel.

    A so-called good and noble war against the evil of chemical weapons
    should probably be launched by a nation that doesn’t itself use chemical
    weapons. Yet, the United States used white phosphorous and napalm as
    weapons in Iraq, not to mention such internationally sanctioned weapons
    as depleted uranium and cluster bombs — weapons the United States also
    sells to other governments regardless of their human rights records
    (including a big shipment of cluster bombs now headed to Saudi Arabia).

    A humanitarian and just war should perhaps show equal concern for
    those humans killed with any kind of weapon. Bombing Syria would
    inevitably kill significant numbers of people. Isn’t that a problem
    even if they’re killed with the “right” kind of weapons?

    Both sides in the war in Syria have killed large numbers of people.
    We have heard as many serious accounts of the rebels using chemical
    weapons as the government. Should indisputable facts establish that
    both sides have used those forbidden weapons, surely the proper response
    will not be to bomb both sides.

    By joining in this war, on the side of an armed opposition dominated
    by people with no concern for democracy or human rights, the United
    States will make itself more hated in the region than its previous
    military actions already have. While this war has nothing to do with
    defending the United States, it will in fact endanger it.

    Here’s what should be done instead: Pressure Saudi Arabia and the
    Gulf states and Turkey to stop arming one side, while pressuring Russia
    and Iran to stop arming the other. Insist on a cease-fire. Support
    U.N. inspections of the evidence of crimes by both sides. Provide
    humanitarian aid to Syria, Syrian refugees (now fleeing in greater
    numbers as the U.S. threatens to attack), and others suffering in the
    region. Support nonviolent democracy movements.

    And why stop there? End the occupation of Afghanistan, which we think
    of as “ending” but which is still twice as large as when President
    Obama was elected. Stop arming brutal dictatorships and calling the
    weapons “aid.” Close Guantanamo and other lawless prison sites. Halt
    U.S. drone and other missile strikes worldwide. Bring U.S. troops home
    from 175 nations. Spend 10% of the U.S. military budget providing the
    world with clean drinking water, food, and assistance in sustainable
    agriculture and energy.

    Our options are not to do nothing or to bomb Syria into the sort of
    disaster created in Iraq. There is an alternative that benefits
    Syrians, makes us safer, and costs less in money, lives, and morality.

    • Victor

      Great article, and great ideas!

    • iamlife iam

      good job, Victor love to you, life <3 <3 <3

  • That is idiotic and breaking copyrights of the original authors of the linked material. Please don’t encourage people to break laws and commit copyright infringement. Or did you remove the link because it was challenging your view, like censorship? It certainly looks so.

    • Dear Global Nomad couple – Please know that if our intention was to only welcome non-challenging views on our site, we certainly would not invite our visitors to print material in its entirety here. In addition to our desire to keeping the dialogue flowing here on this website, we simply do not have the resources to follow up each and every shared link to verify that it is appropriate and meets the mission of our site to remain family friendly, so we, after giving it much consideration, created a “no links” policy.

      We love to hear the thoughts and opinions of the people who are here taking part in the discussions, but we understand that occasionally some people like to share thoughts or ideas other than their own. In that case, it is always our desire that, when doing so, proper credit is given to the original author or source, as has been the practice of our Global Conversation readers so far. We have a wonderful community of bright and well-informed thinkers. And we are really glad to have you here with us.

  • iamlife iam

    I didn’t see the link, but, I know we are the light. We are here for the light as love. All here are love sweet love, and, all here care about the earth, all inhabitants, or we wouldn’t be here typing our heart out. Here’s a cheer to all here who speak everyday like clockwork for justice, and liberty and inalienable lifts, gifs that should be given to all humanity. We are the light. and, we are here for all. We just are. Love to all here Whew weeee what a day <3 <3 <3

  • Awareness

    “Heavenletter #4667 The Holy Land, September 4, 2013

    God said:

    This is a time of great glad rejoicing, for this is the day of your debut
    into the world of LIGHT and light-heartedness. That which was once so
    serious is not so serious any longer. The whole extant world is not so
    serious as it once seemed, for you are now balancing your conscious time
    in terms of the two worlds, less to the world at large and more to the
    world often referred to as beyond the veil.

    This other world, the world of Heaven, has gained equal time with the
    world. Both are beautiful. Both are heavenly, yet the one, the world of
    the concrete, comes with a price tag and payment of one kind of another
    while the Heaven world comes with no price, no tax, no penalty and
    requires no admission price.

    The balancing of the two worlds puts you in a position of what We will
    call equanimity. Both are wonderful. Both are beyond compare. Both are
    beautiful evidence of all that is, and one, the World of Heaven, comes
    without tears, comes as it is, wonderful indeed, the peace known as
    Heaven, known as Paradise, known deep in the heart with all its powers.

    The World of Earth comes with every denomination possible, every
    contrast, every up and down, and you love it, no matter how it portrays
    itself. Both are your worlds in your hands, in your hearts, in your
    foreverness, even as one is changing ostensibly before your very eyes,
    and the other, the reflection of your heart, your soul, full of the
    obvious – God, Love, Purity, Wholesomeness, and the oft-touted Wholeness
    of which all is made and made from for the enjoyment of All.

    The Love entwined in both worlds becomes outstanding in its light. Love
    is portrayed. Love is upheld. Love stars. All is welded in love, melded
    in love, dwelled in love, and there is embrace, embrace of the Vastness.

    The world of the extant is no less sweet than the Heaven world, for, as
    example, there lives the Oneness of One World. What else can live in
    Oneness but Oneness? The two worlds not only take place as Oneness, they
    are Oneness shining before all who can see, and everyone can see. No
    longer is there duplicity or one substitute for another. What can
    possibly substitute for anything in Eternity?

    In Oneness, the two considered as One are simply One, purely One,
    purified by Love. The seeming two counterparts play each other, and who
    on Earth can tell which is which, for, wherever you may be – the One of
    Us may be – We are One, that is, I, God am One Holy One immortalized and
    emblemized as the Holy of the Holies. Oneness reigns, and what is the
    difference, and who can tell?

    Both are Elysian Fields, and you roam, and you play, and never is heard a
    discouraging word, for Oneness, the Only Oneness, has declared itself
    the Unity of Life. Who would question? Who has anything to question, and
    why would anyone, and for what reason? Who would declare himself
    sovereign when there is no other to reign over, when Independence has
    been declared, and everyone is Self-Realized, realizes himself as he is
    in the Heart of God’s Light and God’s Truth which is the Wholeness of
    Life which is to say, the Holiness of All Life.

    I, GOD, DECLARE YOU HOLY, and so declared, you claim yourself in the
    Holy Land, the Holy Land being Earth where peace and ONLY peace reign
    and Love penetrates everywhere, there being nothing but LOVE and GOD
    ALMIGHTY.” 🙂

    • iamlife iam

      yeah that’s what I’m talking about 🙂

  • Victor

    Yes, It seems as if the world is learning or remembering something… O has learned something, at last…

    September 04, 2013

    Most of the World Sees Through Latest Ruse

    Saddam’s WMDs, Found at Last … in Syria!

    by WILLIAM BLUM

    Secretary of State John Kerry: “There is no doubt that Saddam
    al-Assad has crossed the red line. … Sorry, did I just say ‘Saddam’?”

    A US drone has just taken a photo of Mullah Omar riding on a motorcycle through the streets of Damascus.

    So what do we have as the United States refuses to rule out an attack
    on Syria and keeps five warships loaded with missiles in the eastern
    Mediterranean?

    * Only 9 percent of Americans support a US military intervention in Syria.

    * Only 11% of the British supported a UK military intervention; this
    increased to 25% after the announcement of the alleged chemical attack.

    * British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a parliamentary vote August 29 endorsing military action against Syria 285-272.

    * 64% of the French people oppose an intervention by the French Army.
    4 “Before acting we need proof,” said a French government spokesperson.

    * Former and current high-ranking US military officers question the
    use of military force as a punitive measure and suggest that the White
    House lacks a coherent strategy. “If the administration is ambivalent
    about the wisdom of defeating or crippling the Syrian leader, possibly
    setting the stage for Damascus to fall to Islamic fundamentalist rebels,
    they say, the military objective of strikes on Assad’s military targets
    is at best ambiguous.”

    * President Obama has no United Nations approval for intervention.
    (In February a massive bombing attack in Damascus left 100 dead and 250
    wounded; in all likelihood the work of Islamic terrorists. The United
    States blocked a Russian resolution condemning the attack from moving
    through the UN Security Council)

    * None of NATO’s 28 members has proposed an alliance with the United
    States in an attack against Syria. NATO’s Secretary General Anders Fogh
    Rasmussen said that he saw “no NATO role in an international reaction to
    the [Syrian] regime.”

    * The Arab League has not publicly endorsed support of US military
    action in Syria; nor have key regional players Saudi Arabia and Qatar,
    concerned about a possible public backlash from open support for US
    intervention.

    We don’t even know for sure that there was a real chemical attack.
    Where does that accusation come from? The United States? The al-Qaeda
    rebels? Or if there was such an attack, where is the evidence that the
    Syrian government was the perpetrator? The Assad regime has accused the
    rebels of the act, releasing a video showing a cave with alleged
    chemical-weapon equipment as well as claiming to have captured rebels
    possessing sarin gas. Whoever dispensed the poison gas – why, in this
    age of ubiquitous cameras, are there no photos of anyone wearing a gas
    mask? The UN inspection team was originally dispatched to Syria to
    investigate allegations of earlier chemical weapons use: two allegations
    made by the rebels and one by the government.

    The United States insists that Syria refused to allow the UN
    investigators access to the site of the attack. However, the UN request
    was made Saturday, August 24; the Syrian government agreed the next day.

    In rejecting allegations that Syria deployed poison gas, Russian
    officials have argued that the rebels had a clear motivation: to spur a
    Western-led attack on Syrian forces; while Assad had every reason to
    avoid any action that could spur international intervention at a time
    when his forces were winning the war and the rebels are increasingly
    losing world support because of their uncivilized and ultra-cruel
    behavior.

    President George W. Bush misled the world on Iraq’s WMD, but Bush’s
    bogus case for war at least had details that could be checked, unlike
    what the Obama administration released August 29 on Syria’s alleged
    chemical attacks – no direct quotes, no photographic evidence, no named
    sources, nothing but “trust us,” points out Robert Parry, intrepid
    Washington journalist.

    So, in light of all of the above, the path for Mr. Obama to take – as a rational, humane being – is of course clear. Is it not? N’est-ce pas? Nicht wahr? – Bombs Away!

    Pretty discouraging it is. No, I actually find much to be rather
    encouraging. So many people seem to have really learned something from
    the Iraqi pile of lies and horror and from decades of other American
    interventions. Skepticism – good ol’ healthy skepticism – amongst the
    American, British and French people. It was stirring to watch the
    British Parliament in a debate of the kind rarely, if ever, seen in the
    21st-century US Congress. And American military officers asking some of
    the right questions. The Arab League not supporting a US attack,
    surprising for an organization not enamored of the secular Syrian
    government. And NATO – even NATO! – refusing so far to blindly fall in
    line with the White House. When did that last happen? I thought it was
    against international law.

    Secretary of State John Kerry said that if the United States did not
    respond to the use of chemical weapons the country would become an
    international “laughingstock”. Yes, that’s really what America and its
    people have to worry about – not that their country is viewed as a
    lawless, mass-murdering repeat offender. Other American officials have
    expressed concern that a lack of a US response might incite threats from
    Iran and North Korea.

    Now that is indeed something to laugh at. It’s comforting to think
    that the world might be finally losing the stars in their eyes about US
    foreign policy partly because of countless ridiculous remarks such as
    these.

  • Victor

    Details about the “incontrovertible evidences” in Syria… :

    Syria Dossier: Another Failed Argument

    by Virginia Tilley,
    August 31, 2013

    The U.S. Government has released an “Assessment
    of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons,” which argues that
    the Syrian regime was responsible for a devastating chemical weapons attack
    on civilians. The statement is presented as justification for U.S. military
    intervention in Syria, as punishment or deterrent against Syria for violating
    the international norm prohibiting use of chemical weapons.

    This document requires our closest attention. Analysis, by this writer and
    others, of the famous speech by Colin
    Powell to the United Nations Security Council on 5 February 2003 justifying
    the invasion of Iraq identified many holes and weaknesses later confirmed as
    faulty intelligence and distorted analysis. The results in Iraq were disastrous
    for the Iraqi people and for international security in fostering far greater
    ethnic and sectarian tension in the Middle East and the unprecedented proliferation
    terrorist networks in the region and beyond. Given this hard lesson, an international
    spotlight has rightly been brought on this document.

    The following is a point-by-point response to the document’s claim that President
    Assad was responsible for a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government
    on 21 August 2013. This analysis does not, and cannot from existing evidence,
    conclude that the Syrian regime did not deliberately deploy chemical weapons
    on this or other occasions. It does conclude that the U.S. Government Assessment
    has not made the case for this claim, and certainly not to the point of justifying
    its own unilateral intervention (which, in any case, would clearly violate the
    United Nations Charter).

    The full text document is extracted here for the main points.

    (b)The Syrian regime maintains a stockpile of numerous chemical agents, including
    mustard, sarin, and VX and has thousands of munitions that can be used to deliver
    chemical warfare agents. This is true, but the regime is not the only source
    of these agents. We assess with high confidence that the Syrian regime has used
    chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the
    last year, including in the Damascus suburbs. This assessment is based on multiple
    streams of information including reporting of Syrian officials planning and
    executing chemical weapons attacks and laboratory analysis of physiological
    samples obtained from a number of individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin. (/b)

    The evidence supporting these assessments is the our entire concern here. In
    the 2003 UN speech by Colin Powell, he made repeated references to intelligence
    sources that turned out to be obviously fake, wrong or distorted. Verifiability
    of this intelligence, including the channels through it was obtained, must be
    shared in order to have credibility. This is not done.

    We assess that the opposition has not used chemical weapons.

    No evidence is provided for this short statement, although rebel use of chemical
    weapons has been asserted by Syrian officials and the Russian government and
    at least deserves some explanation. The UN inspection team was brought in to
    examine cases of chemical weapons use in incidents where the Syrian
    government asserted that its own forces had come under such attacks. On
    what basis is this sweeping US assessment made, prior to independent studies?

    The Syrian regime has the types of munitions that we assess were used to
    carry out the attack on August 21, and has the ability to strike simultaneously
    in multiple locations.

    The rockets videoed near the sites of apparent other chemical attacks in Syria
    were of unique designs that have
    not been seen before. They have not been associated with any side’s regular
    arsenal. Some suspicious aspects of the rockets filmed near alleged attacks
    are evident: for example, less damage to the rockets than would be expected
    if they had been impacted the ground at full speed.

    We assess that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons over the last
    year primarily to gain the upper hand or break a stalemate in areas where it
    has struggled to seize and hold strategically valuable territory. In this regard,
    we continue to judge that the Syrian regime views chemical weapons as one of
    many tools in its arsenal, including air power and ballistic missiles, which
    they indiscriminately use against the opposition.

    This assessment still has no evidence to support it. “We assess”
    and “we judge” is not enough.

    The Syrian regime has initiated an effort to rid the Damascus suburbs of
    opposition forces using the area as a base to stage attacks against regime targets
    in the capital. The regime has failed to clear dozens of Damascus neighborhoods
    of opposition elements, including neighborhoods targeted on August 21, despite
    employing nearly all of its conventional weapons systems. We assess that the
    regime’s frustration with its inability to secure large portions of Damascus
    may have contributed to its decision to use chemical weapons on August 21.

    That the US intelligence community can offer no more than speculation to explain
    the sudden use of these weapons (“may have”) indicates that “we
    assess” In this paragraph equates with “we guess”. Many other
    assessments of regime motivations have found stronger prima facie arguments
    why the Assad regime would be highly averse to use chemical weapons, especially
    on such a scale (which could not be covered up), when a UN chemical weapons
    inspection team is actually in the country and international attention is focused
    on this very question.

    We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons
    personnel – including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC – were
    preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. In the three days prior to
    the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence
    that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations
    for a chemical weapons attack.

    Since the Syrian government has a formal policy not to use chemical weapons,
    it is not clear who these “chemical weapons personnel” are. Certainly,
    having chemical weapon stockpiles, the regime has scientists and engineers handling
    and monitoring them. But this phrasing suggests field personnel – people trained
    and tasked to deploy chemical weapons in the field. How are such people identified
    in the field? Who identified them? Again, the source of this intelligence and
    the evidence itself must be shared in order to be assessed by the public. The
    track record of false and misleading assessments driving US foreign policy in
    Iraq and Libya over the past decade, sometimes found to come from partisans
    who were deliberately providing biased or inaccurate information, does not allow
    the public to accept this level of vagueness regarding this crucial question.

    Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb
    of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August
    21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin.

    Proximity to the attack is no explanation. Earlier instances of suspected chemical
    weapons attacks were not in this area.

    On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack
    in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks.

    Three problems here. First, what “Syrian regime element”? And is
    this “element” under the full control of the Presidency?

    Second, the conclusion proposed by the U.S. Government is that having anti-chemical
    weapon equipment like gas masks signifies an offensive posture – intention to
    use such weapons. As reporters and photographers have been documenting for some
    time, rebels and activists also have gas masks: see here
    (from a week ago), here
    (from an article posted on 14 June), and here
    (from 27 May). Some of these reports, drawing from opposition sources, suggest
    that the regime is using chemical weapons, but if the rebels were using chemical
    weapons, as others have alleged, this could explain the presence of gas masks
    by regime forces (assuming they were using them, as no hard evidence is offered
    of this).Gas masks and atropine (anti-Sarin) syringes have also been reported
    to have been found among rebel supplies, yet this is not being argued to represent
    the rebels’ own preparation for using a chemical weapon but their preparation
    for defense against it. The Syrian government has claimed that its own troops
    have been affected by chemical weapons deployed by the opposition. While this
    claim also is unsubstantiated, it would make their use of gas masks, and indeed
    use by either side, insufficient evidence in itself of intent by either side
    to deploy such weapons. In sum, the presence of gas masks in the area
    is not enough to assume any side’s plans to use chemical weapons.

    Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications
    in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to
    use chemical weapons.

    This is particularly insufficient, as we must assume that he US government’s
    principal sources of intelligence in the Syrian battlefield are from the opposition’s
    side. It is highly unlikely that pro-rebel intelligence sources would communication
    to the US its own plans to use chemical weapons, particularly if the plan was
    to make them look like a Syrian military operation. Independent sources are
    mandatory here.

    Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket
    and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August
    21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area
    struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including
    Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the
    detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning,
    approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared
    in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads
    us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack.

    It is unexplained why a chemical weapon rocket attack would not be reported
    until 90 minutes later. Oral testimony from the area confirmed that people heard
    the impact and smelled a noxious odor seconds later. Why is this satellite data
    being associated with the gas attack an hour and half later?

    Local social media reports of a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs
    began at 2:30 a.m. local time on August 21. Within the next four hours there
    were thousands of social media reports on this attack from at least 12 different
    locations in the Damascus area. Multiple accounts described chemical-filled
    rockets impacting opposition-controlled areas.

    That there was a chemical weapons attack is not in dispute, so the rest of
    this section is not addressed here. However, that such a wide-spread attack
    could not possibly escape public exposure and scandal, and would therefore be
    highly detrimental to the regime at this sensitive juncture regarding international
    intervention, is reinforced by the details provided here. This argues against
    a calculated decision by the Assad presidency to use such weapons on this scale
    at this sensitive time.

    We have a body of information, including past Syrian practice, that leads
    us to conclude that regime officials were writing of and directed the attack
    on August 21.

    What “past Syrian practice” involving chemical weapons? No such “past
    practice” is documented here.

    We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar
    with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime
    on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence.
    On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons
    personnel were directed to cease operations.

    This is the US statement’s only suggestion that hard evidence exists linking
    the regime to the attack and is therefore the sole basis on which US policy
    is presently resting. The “communications involving a senior official”
    must therefore be shared in much greater detail. Who is this senior official?
    What exactly did he or she say? Several questions are pressing here:
    the confidence of this intercepted communication (did it really happen, who
    sent it, what exactly was said); and what it might imply for fissures within
    the regime, which would inform an assessment of regime culpability and an appropriate
    international response.

    At the same time, the regime intensified the artillery barrage targeting
    many of the neighborhoods where chemical attacks occurred. In the 24 hour period
    after the attack, we detected indications of artillery and rocket fire at a
    rate approximately four times higher than the ten preceding days. We continued
    to see indications of sustained shelling in the neighborhoods up until the morning
    of August 26.

    Again we have reference to “Syrian chemical weapons personnel”, whom
    we have no other information to know exist as deployed field operatives. That
    the artillery barrage increased is no evidence at all: if the rebels launched
    this attack as a false flag operation, then the barrage would be the perfect
    cover.

    To conclude, there is a substantial body of information that implicates
    the Syrian government’s responsibility in the chemical weapons attack that took
    place on August 21.As indicated, there is additional intelligence that remains
    classified because of sources and methods concerns that is being provided to
    Congress and international partners.

    This paragraph replicates the Powell Speech in concluding substantial evidence
    from unverified sources, coincidences and dubious claims.

    A second question must arise in this scenario. In the second paragraph under
    “Background”, the US statement affirms that President Assad is responsible
    for everything done by his armed forces:

    Syrian President Bashar al-Asad is the ultimate decision maker for the chemical
    weapons program and members of the program are carefully vetted to ensure security
    and loyalty. The Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC) – which
    is subordinate to the Syrian Ministry of Defense – manages Syria’s chemical
    weapons program.

    This is legally true, but Syria is not in a normal condition presently. Defections
    from the armed forces have brought many officers to the rebel side or into exile.
    While the regime has generally retained control of the state’s armed forces,
    it cannot be assumed with confidence that legal responsibility is presently
    translating into full command and control. Confirming Syrian state responsibility,
    even for an attack organized by an “element” within the regime, therefore
    requires far more information that is presented here.

    That unilateral action by the United States in this instance is illegal, in
    violating the United Nations Charter provisions regarding collective security
    and international norms prohibiting aggression, is a separate but hardly irrelevant
    question. It should not be the obligation of the international community hastily
    to analyze partial information and opaque claims of fragmentary, unclear and
    mostly circumstantial evidence to deter aggression by a single state, even one
    acting aggressively in the name of international security, the defense of international
    norms and possibly the ‘responsibility to protect’ (although this is not spelled
    out). Such behavior has led to wars in the past and is expressly prohibited
    by the UN Charter precisely because it is inherently destabilizing to international
    order. The ‘responsibility to protect’ is formulated in international law as
    a collective obligation, not a justification for unilateral aggression by a
    single great power. It is highly ironic that this most important norm for international
    security, the prohibition on aggression, is being baldly violated in the name
    of defending another one, the prohibition on chemical weapons. As new information
    has freshly confirmed that the U.S. and British governments apparently endorsed
    use of chemical weapons on the Iraq-Iran battlefield, the contradiction is both
    legally and morally untenable.

    However, analysis here considers only whether the U.S. Government has made
    a case that the Syrian regime is responsible for an appalling chemical weapons
    attack on civilians. It is concluded here that the U.S. has failed in this effort.

  • Victor

    Yes, this was before Al Assad was a “thug” a “Hitler”… just 4 years ago…

    Or kerry likes dining with Hitlers…

    Pictures emerge showing US Secretary John Kerry and President Assad dining in Syria together

    Heather Saul

    Tuesday, 3 September 2013

    Pictures have emerged showing the US Secretary of State John
    Kerry dining with President Bashar al-Assad, as Mr Kerry continued to
    push for a military strike on Syria following a suspected chemical
    attack.

    The images, believed to have been captured in Damascus in February
    2009, come in stark contrast to comments Mr Kerry recently made about
    the Syrian president, describing him as a “thug” and drawing comparisons
    between Mr Assad and Adolf Hitler over their use of chemical weapons.

    MrKerry was visiting the region when he was Chairman of the Senate
    Foreign Relations Committee. He met with Mr Assad at least six times,
    according to The Daily Telegraph.

    During the visit, he said in a press conference: “President Barack Obama’s administration
    considers Syria a key player in Washington’s efforts to revive the
    stalled Middle East peace process.

    “Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region.”

    Therestaurant pictured is understood to be situated in Damascus’ Old Town,
    where Mr Kerry and Mr Assad were joined by their wives Teresa Heinz and
    Asma al-Assad, the First Lady of Syria.

    Mr Kerry was also reportedly a strong supporter of the decision made by the US government
    to send an ambassador to Damascus in January 2011.

  • Therese

    “you cannot have it all until you are willing to give it all up. ”

    Yes, but does “it all” have to include who you really are of necessity, or can it not also mean that we must be willing to give up the illusions of this life and do that thing we call “die” to experience ourselves as peaceful? As I said before, can it not mean that we are willing to die, but not willing to kill?

    In CWG you state that if something doesn’t resonate with me, don’t accept it as me. I don’t accept this. It feels like spiritual gaming to me. You get to have your cake and eat it too. If the game isn’t going the way you wish it to go, or fast enough for you, just jump in and play the same game the rest of the bunch is playing. Isn’t that what we are ALREADY doing?

    We either believe what we are saying, or we don’t! If I believe that this world and this life isn’t the only chance I get, and that I will go on with endless opportunities to experience myself as who I really am, then wouldn’t that mean that I (and OTHERS, so many others) can just STOP!?

    I choose to believe this of myself…I would rather die demonstrating who I really am, than die during a demonstration of who I am not!

    There IS a solution out there that does not include more killing. If I can think it, it exists. So, I will continue to use the prayer I hear you like to pray:

    Thank you Creator for letting me (us) know there is already a solution to this problem. (and I like to add) Help me now to see what my part in that solution might be.

    • It’s a very advanced being who knows themselves enough that they will lay their physical life down rather then take another. Yes parents sometimes will die for their kids, strangers die trying to protect another/s etc.

      This is different, it’s about if I understand you correctly, about refusing to go to war or kill anyone to the point of allowing the possibility to be physically killed yourself in order to prove a higher point. When you are willing to give up your physical life who then can have power over you?

      It would be nice to do this without having to lay your physical life down to prove a point & I think you can. Yet other circumstances may call for this type of demonstration.

      This can be considered very dangerous to talk about as well. But I think your point is, how far are we willing to go for our beliefs? Consciouslly allowing ones own physical death is profound statement.

      Yes suicide bombers do this, but it’s in the atempt to take others with them without their consent. Very very different in energy, tone & intent.

      I don’t see most people willing to go this far, but it’s an interesting subject to talk about.

    • iamlife iam

      “I choose to believe this of myself…I would rather die demonstrating who I really am, than die during a demonstration of who I am not!”
      I love this. Since there is no death, we are free to be who we really are as love springing life, love into action 🙂

  • iamlife iam

    Well, it looks like the Senate has okayed it. McCain is definitely not my guy anymore. He is for this decision to use bombs in order to prevent bombs. I hear that if Congress says no go then it would be Unconstitutional for the president to go ahead with this insane move. I hope we all write our congressmen now. Love to all Whew Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee let it be us who make a ruckus Hi

    • Victor

      I think Obama has suggested -or said- that if Congress says ‘nay’ , he’ll give the order to attack anyway…

      Really, laws, be them national or international, have not been a big deal when dominion is at stake…

      Wasn’t the Iraq war “illegal, inmoral”, in violation of UN mandates, laws, resolutions, etc., and US government launched it anyway…?

      Of course, this effort of writing, calling, etc., US representatives has to be made…

      Perhaps a miracle is still possible…

      • iamlife iam

        Hi Victor,
        I love you, I just do <3 <3 <3 We can write those representatives, congressmen, who decide our move in life. If the movement of life is moving in a direction that is not us, who are we if we don't shift to the movement that is us? Love acts with love, and, sometimes love is called to be love in action. Now is that time.

  • iamlife iam

    Sometimes Love springs forth action. This is a time for love to spring forth action. Beings of love create actions of peace not war. This is the time for all here, all loves of oneness, to spring forth in peace not war.

    love to all

  • iamlife iam

    We as Americans are greeting life as if we are disempowered. We seem to accept what the government doles out, as if we’re not free. What a long way from that which created our Freedom. Our government was founded on free choice, yet, we seem to be freedom fighting, fighting against any other way. As a freedom fighting government we have become that which we are fighting for. We need to stop fighting against those who believe a different way, and, accept all ways of governments. Allow all nations to come together in Unity and create anewness.

    Allow a unified Body to decide what should be done with a single nation, a nation acting so inhumanely against all life. Allow another collective, a collective that truly represents a Collective, to move forward without meeting life with fear. To meet fear with fear will only beget war. We are meeting all with fear when we allow government to decide it knows what’s best for the people without a choice to decide what’s best for people. Let People decide what’s best for People. Murder of People anywhere is not helping People anywhere. allow the United Nations to greet the people of all life with love not war. Love is what we are. Allow love to decide what to do in response not reaction. We as Americans need to coalesce and move towards responding with peace to the government that reacts in fear.

    We need not be the caretaker of every nation’s problems. Allow a collective to take care of the collective. Love can survive with our prompt spirit moving swiftly as one loud voice for Freedom for people everywhere. Give us our vote that truly greets the Freedom we fought for so many years ago. Where did our Freedom to have choice go? Who listens to us anymore? Whew Love to all <3

  • Erin

    Victor, You are Amazing. 🙂

    I find it funny that We, as a Humanity, assume that the citizens under any governance are helpless, unintelligent, & incapable of tending to their own dysfuntions. I find it hysterical that the U.S. government & it’s military deems their selves as the med pros to everyone else’s dis-eases, especially considering that it’s main form of economy is based in medial, medical & pharmaceutical magnates withholding & obstructing cures while ‘chemically inducing it’s own people’ to suppress the symptoms of their own agenda.
    If I did not find the strength to laugh, I would cry in total disappointment of Our kind…and I refuse to shed a tear for Stupidity.

    We humans have an innate & fabulous strength within Our wholeness…when combined with focus & same intent, miraculous stuff can be manifest…Instantaneously. Oh, but this takes a moment or two…a tad of effort by each of the One…Such an inconvenience!

    Perhaps there are many who do not know that there are verrry ‘gifted’ among Us who only need to feel this ‘coming together’ of like-energy to create a force that could expand our beingness into a whole ‘nother state. Such miracles have been done before…quite a few times, actually…but was proven as moot to raising primitives to higher beingness without their whole-hearted involvement in the process. No wisdom was gained because they did not See that they themselves were the miracle-workers…Without wisdom, the forward motion was reversed to ‘that which they knew’…that which they were ‘comfortable’ with. And here we are today, comfortable with leaderships who dele the demise & progress unto the masses as they so whim.

    Can you imagine no boundaries? Can you imagine a Universal Counsel of Guidance? Can you imagine All served while All are serving a Wholeness? Can you imagine these in Now time? If not, then We are simply unready for such growth & beingness. Perhaps We are still working on Our virtue of Patience?

    If yes, then come to an Understanding…an Understanding that there is more to Life than what We know…that Life is an exquisite & perpetual movement that defines do no justice. The focus would be Universal…a vibrant white light surrounding Earth. The intent, also All-encompassing…a calm…a breathe-easy in, a breathe-easy out of calmness. No pics of humans, no picking out of ‘evils’, or lessers of them, no grandiose imagery of celebrity style or the lacks of otherwise…KIS & be Amazed…Amazed at how Amazing WE can-Be!!!

    Put this focus & intent into your moments…whenever & wherever you are sparked to do so. Now would be just fine. 🙂 Let’s SEE what We wish to Be from these moments forward. Have at a most excellent Life. <3

    • iamlife iam

      Love this 🙂 Sometimes the love we are spreads a light so bright all over the earth that it meets and greets with fear, and, that’s time love springs forth as love in action. Thank you for a beautiful post

    • Victor

      Thank you Erin…!

      Yes, we are at the very moment of producing these miracles…

      Starting by intending another way in this issue of Syria different to kill innocent citizens in order to ‘protect innocent citizens’…

      How can it be that if 90% percent of a whole nation says that they do not want to launch another war, nor launch missiles to another country, even if it was true that their government committed gas attacks against their population, the leaders of the first nation still do it?

      If 90% says; ¡NO!, isn’t it possible to create a real, concrete, huge force that impedes those leaders to pass-by the majority’s will?

      I think it is very possible. But this 90% have to organize is some way. Or some leaders have to do something, to make the first step. The rest 90% surely will follow.

      Le’s see. Vietnam took near 8 years until the voice of majority could be heard.

      Iraq took 10 years, and still troops are there. In a destroyed country after bringing ‘democracy and freedom’. Afghanistan has almost 12 years and it seems that public oppinion could do nothing, or not big thing…

      Obama won elections with the promise of ending wars, but there you have it: Lybia and now Syria (plus drones in Pakistan, covert ops, etc.).

      Isn’t 90% enough…?

      Unless it is not so…

      • Victor

        Examples:

        No No No No No No No
        No No No No No No No No
        No No No No No No No No No
        No No No No No No No No No No

        “The active public is against this. I don’t know a member of Congress whose
        e-mails and phone calls are in favor of this.” – Rep. Brad Sherman

        – No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
        No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
        No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
        No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
        “If you’ve got 95 percent of them saying one thing, it becomes far
        more difficult to go against them.” – Rep. Elijah E. Cummings
        on what his Baltimore constituents are telling him

        • iamlife iam

          wow that gives me hope. i’m writing my letter now. Can we forward letters all over the land, or are we limited to just one congressman? anybody know?

      • Erin

        More than ‘enough’, Dear One…but shall we now See into their back-up…aka, Military?

        One of the things that did not adjust with our perspectives of war, is how We view military. We (90%) still deem these children, trained & led by those who looove to war, as heroic servers of Man & Country. We buy into their small ‘benefit’ packages built on strife of life, we encourage our youth to participate with great pride, we celebrate those that survive, we erect grand memorials for those that don’t, we call all of them Our Heroes.

        These, our children, are taught to fire upon & kill their own, including family, as they are ordered…and they do so with shouts of “Allah” or “Ooo-Rah” or whatever. The punishment for not yielding to order is death or life in prison…I believe Marko had some interesting views on giving physical life for others to See…Hmmm…???

        Leaders of all nations obviously find enough ‘peace’ in knowing that our children will do as They tell them to…without question, without hesitation. They are as the spine of their power…and WE support this…We provide them the bodies, We allow the dismantling of their ethics & spirit to serve as such.

        It would be wonderful for every parent to ‘re-call’ their children…to See them as fabulous without cammo & weaponry…to guide them as servers of Man & World as they are. Then where will the political regimes be? They would truly be ‘the few’, yes? Much easier to hold those few accountable for their titles when the backbone of might is no longer fueled. WE must take back Our children! WE must See that it is

        • Victor

          Thank you Erin…!

          You made me remember the movie “Full Metal Jacket”…

          Ok, this is a good example…

          Nevertheless, the military will not be send to Syria, (allegedly) if Congress says NO. This means that at least, primarily, the decision is in the hands of whom ARE NOT military. (well, what an illusion, hah?).

          90% of whom are not military, or behind some decision making task, wouldn’t be enough to say to the military of politicians: No! No is NO! ?

          I think we are in the brink of a huge lesson here about it…

          Big hugs!

  • Janet Lesley Brown

    Thank You for this article and for this website! I simply know, in my heart that physically ‘fighting back’ against those judged as wrong is not the way. It will perpetuate conflict into the future. Humans will not evolve that way, that is how we self-destruct. I do believe we can have more effect and make permanent, positive changes by working with loving, non-judgmental energy. By working within self and with others, dissolving judgments and integrating separation, seeking to understand self and others, we come to realize that if love is not driving us, it is always fear. Fear in its many guises of hate, judgments, reprisals and accusations.

  • Victor

    Some very important points regarding the Senate’s debate yesterday.

    The original text has many important links that you can review in the site: reasondotcom.

    There was one thing that surprised me a lot: it is well known even for US senators that a big part of the ‘rebels’ are constitud by Al-Qaeda fighters!!! I thought that this was sort of a forbidden or hidden truth in US mainstream. Even more in a politicians context. But there you have it:

    Tom Udall (D-New Mexico): “How can we guarantee that one surgical strike will have any impact other than to tighten the vice grip Assad has on his power or allow rebels allied with
    al-Qaida to gain a stronger foothold in Syria?”……………. WOW!

    Well here it is the complete article:

    John Kerry’s Morally, Linguistically, and Historically Obscene Case for War in Syria

    Matt Welch| Sep. 4, 2013 8:01 am

    If we are to takeour roles as citizens as “seriously” as members of the Senate
    Foreign Relations Committee claim to take their decision to support
    the bombing of Syria (“very, very seriously,” said
    Bob Corker [R-Tennesse]; “seriously and solemnly,” added Dick
    Durbin [D-Illinois]), then we really ought to give full attention
    to the testimony yesterday by the war’s principal salesman,
    Secretary of State John Kerry.

    Unfortunately for the politician who made famous the line
    “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”,
    Kerry’s case in front of the committee was more a textbook example
    of how acting as the world’s policeman for decades has warped the
    country’s values, judgment, and even language.

    I counted at least seven moments that qualified in my judgment
    as obscene, exposing along the way the administration’s empty and
    contradictory arguments for air-mailing death upon a regime that
    does not pose a direct threat in the United States:

    1) Repeatedly insisting that the war would not be a “war”

    During a testy exchange with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), Kerry
    introduced into the lexicon of political evasion a jaw-dropping new
    phrase, war in the classic sense:

    “[W]e don’t want to go to war. We don’t believe we are going to
    war in the classic sense of taking American troops and America to
    war. The president is asking for the authority to do a limited
    action that will degrade the capacity of a tyrant who has been
    using chemical weapons to kill his own people. […]

    [W]hen people are asked, do you want to go to war with Syria, of
    course not! Everybody, a hundred percent of Americans will say no.
    We say no. We don’t want to go to war in Syria either. It’s not
    what we’re here to ask. The president is not asking you to go to
    war. He’s not asking you to declare war. He’s not asking you to
    send one American troop to war. He’s simply saying we need to take
    an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who’s been willing
    to kill his own people by breaking a nearly hundred-year- old
    prohibition, and will we stand up and be counted to say, we won’t
    do that. That’s not — I don’t — you know, I just don’t consider
    that going to war in the classic sense of coming to Congress and
    asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending
    people abroad and putting young Americans in harm’s way.”

    The 1949 Geneva Conventions, to which the United States is a signatory, is the
    basic international legal framework of what can and cannot be done
    during war. There is no definition of what the U.S. plans to do in
    Syria that doesn’t qualify under that treaty:

    [T]he present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared
    war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or
    more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is
    not recognized by one of them…. Any difference arising between
    two States and leading to the intervention of members of the armed
    forces is an armed conflict within the meaning of Article 2, even
    if one of the Parties denies the existence of a state of war. It
    makes no difference how long the conflict lasts, or how much
    slaughter takes place.

    Pretending that a campaign of hostile, deadly bombing overseen
    by the U.S. military is somehow not a “war” is both an Orwellian
    mangling of the English language, and a formulation central to the
    administration’s sale. As Kerry said in his prepared remarks,

    “So let me be clear: President Obama is not asking America to go
    to war. And I say that sitting next to two men — Secretary Hagel
    and Chairman Dempsey — who know what war is. Senator McCain knows
    what war is. They know the difference between going to war and what
    President Obama is requesting now. We all agree, there will be no
    American boots on the ground.”

    There were no American boots on the ground in NATO’s 1999
    bombing of Kosovo, either, but the 38,000 combat missions over 78 days killed an
    estimated 500 civilians and changed the political reality on the
    ground. It was a war.

    2) Insisting simultaneously that the military action
    will be “limited,” with no boots on the ground…and also that
    Assad’s behavior could trigger an expanded U.S. retaliation,
    including boots on the ground.

    As seen above, Kerry maintained throughout the day that “there
    will be no American boots on the ground.”Well, except for
    maybe….

    “But in the event Syria imploded, for instance, or in the event
    there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the
    hands of al-Nusra or someone else and it was clearly in the
    interest of our allies and all of us, the British, the French and
    others, to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into
    the hands of the worst elements, I don’t want to take off the table
    an option that might or might not be available to a president of
    the United States to secure our country.”

    What-what-WHAT? Kerry then walked the dog back a couple of
    times. Here’s one of them:

    “And I want to emphasize something. I want to come back to it
    because I don’t want anybody misinterpreting this from earlier.
    This authorization does not contemplate and should not have any
    allowance for any troop on the ground. I just want to make that
    absolutely clear. You know, what I was doing was hypothesizing
    about a potential it might occur at some point in time, but not in
    this authorization, in no way—be crystal clear—there’s no problem
    in our having the language that has zero capacity for American
    troops on the ground within the authorization the president is
    asking for. I don’t want anybody in the media or elsewhere to
    misinterpret that coming out of here. As I said earlier, I repeat
    it again now, that’s important.”

    Got it! Except, uh, if Assad responds to being attacked by
    acting like the illogical, murderous dictator that he’s already
    acting like:

    “You all have to make a kind of calculation here, just as Assad
    does. If he is foolish enough to respond to the world’s enforcement
    against his criminal activity, if he does, he will invite something
    far worse, and I believe, something absolutely unsustainable for
    him.”

    So in that case the U.S. would be using its military for regime
    change, even though the congressional authorization is not about
    regime change (even if the administration’s stated policy since
    before the authorization is to remove Assad, which would be regime
    change). But that’s OK, because it’s still not war!

    That doesn’t mean the United States of America going to war, as
    I said in my comments. There are plenty of options here.

    3) Using as a causus belli the fact that the
    U.S. turned away a boat of Jewish refugees from the Third Reich in
    1939.

    After being asked a series of appropriately skeptical questions
    from Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), such as “How can we guarantee
    that one surgical strike will have any impact other than to tighten
    the vice grip Assad has on his power or allow rebels allied with
    al-Qaida to gain a stronger foothold in Syria?”, Kerry got haughty
    and uncorked this historical haymaker:

    “History is full of opportunity of moments where someone didn’t
    stand up and act when it made a difference. And whether you go back
    to World War II or you look at a ship that was turned away from the
    coast of Florida and everybody on it lost their lives subsequently
    to German gas, those are the things that make a difference. And
    that’s what’s at stake here.”

    That ship was the MS St. Louis, which was indeed a historically bungled
    opportunity. To take in refugees fleeing Hitler. Any
    usable analogy with refusing to accept Jewish refugees in June 1939
    should be focused on the U.S. taking in Syrians displaced by
    Assad’s butchery. And how have we been doing on that score?

    Abysmally: Just 90 refugees granted permanent asylum in the
    last two years, with a recent announcement that we’ll expand the
    number to 2,000, though asylum seekers will have to undergo
    terrorist background checks that could last as long as one
    year.

    To sum up: The administration is so shamed by America’s
    historical behavior with the MS St. Louis that it has
    accepted only 10 percent the St. Louis’s passenger cargo
    as refugees from Syria in the last two years, yet has seen fit to
    invoke the lesson as a non-sequitur in its publicity campaign to
    launch a war that isn’t being called a war.

    The final insult? Kerry was wrong that “everybody” on the St.
    Louis “lost their lives subsequently to German gas.” Here’s the
    United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:

    Great Britain took 288 passengers; the Netherlands admitted 181
    passengers, Belgium took in 214 passengers; and 224 passengers
    found at least temporary refuge in France. Of the 288 passengers
    admitted by Great Britain, all survived World War II save one, who
    was killed during an air raid in 1940. Of the 620 passengers who
    returned to continent, 87 (14%) managed to emigrate before the
    German invasion of Western Europe in May 1940. 532 St.
    Louis passengers were trapped when Germany conquered Western
    Europe. Just over half, 278 survived the Holocaust. 254 died: 84
    who had been in Belgium; 84 who had found refuge in Holland, and 86
    who had been admitted to France.

    4) Describing this decision as a “Munich moment”

    In a conference call Monday with congressional representatives,
    Kerry characterized the upcoming Syria vote as a “Munich
    moment.” In his testimony yesterday, he aimed to send “the
    unmistakable message that when the United States of America and the
    world say, never again, we don’t mean sometimes; we don’t mean
    somewhere; never means never.”

    Along with the MS St. Louis anecdote above, the three
    Hitler references center on the infamous September 1938 Munich
    Agreement, at which British Prime Minister Neville
    Chamberlain and French Premier Edouard Daladier handed western
    Czechoslovakia to the expansionist Nazi dictator without
    representatives of Czechoslovakia even being present, and despite
    the fact that France had treaty obligations to defend the Czechs
    from attack. That act of appeasement and treachery is to the Syrian
    civil war what a fish is to a bicycle.

    “Munich” has been the go-to historical analogy for every sizable U.S. intervention since
    World War II. As former Armed Services Committee staffer Jeffrey
    Record wrote in a March 1998 Air War College paper titled Perils of
    Reasoning by Historical Analogy: Munich, Vietnam, and American Use
    of Force Since 1945, “Reasoning by historical analogy can be
    dangerous, especially if such reasoning is untempered by
    recognition that no two historical events are identical and that
    the future is more than a linear extension of the past….In
    Vietnam…Munich blinded rather than enlightened American
    policy-makers….[And] helped lay the foundation for the very
    disaster, memories of which today shape U.S. policy just as
    profoundly as did Munich in Southeast Asia.”

    5) Denying that the U.S. is the self-appointed policeman
    of the world.

    Sen. Udall made another worthwhile and factually accurate point:

    “To the international community we’re saying once again the
    United States will be the world’s policeman. You break a law, and
    the United States will step in. We are on shaky international legal
    foundations with this potential strike[.]”

    In many ways, this is one of the key questions about U.S.
    foreign policy, about which there is plenty of dispute: Is playing
    the world’s policeman a wise, cost-effective, or legal role? Kerry
    responded with a humdinger of a euphemism:

    “[Y]ou raised the question of doesn’t this make the United States
    the policeman of the world. No. It makes the United States a
    multilateral partner in an effort that the world, 184
    nations strong, has accepted the responsibility for.”

    Besides attempting to sustain the cognitive dissonance of having
    a strategy to remove Assad but seeking the authorization to only
    lob bombs at him, the administration is attempting to claim the
    mantle of international legitimacy for a strike that has no
    international legal footing, and which almost the entire rest of
    the world has chosen not to join.

    6) Making the laugh-out-loud claim that a post-Assad Syria will be “secular.”

    A classic lie, when selling Americans on intervening in civil
    wars from Vietnam to Nicaragua to Iraq, is over-hyping the
    democratic and peace-loving credenials of the side who stands to
    gain most from U.S. military intervention. Here are a couple of
    passages from Kerry, in response to understandable concerns by
    senators that the opposition to Assad is composed of Islamic
    militants:

    “The opposition has increasingly become more defined by its
    moderation, more defined by the breadth of its membership and more
    defined by its adherence to some, you know, democratic process and
    to an all-inclusive, minority-protecting constitution, which will
    be broad-based and secular with respect to the future of Syria. And
    that’s very critical. […]”

    “I would also say to you, Syria historically has been secular,
    and the vast majority of Syrians, I believe, want to remain
    secular. It’s—it’s our judgment that—and the judgment of our good
    friends who actually know a lot of this in many ways better than we
    do because it’s their region, their neighborhood — I’m talking
    about the Saudis, the Emirates, the Qataris, the Turks, the
    Jordanians—they all believe that if you could have a fairly rapid
    transition, the secular component of Syria will re-emerge […]

    [T]he fundamentals of Syria are secular, and I believe, will
    stay that way.”

    The recent historical record of secular dictators in the Muslim
    world being removed suggests that Kerry’s optimism is fantasia.

    7) Asking us to trust U.S. intelligence on chemical
    weapons because of James Clapper.

    Presented with historically understandable skepticism about the
    quality of U.S. intelligence about Assad using chemical weapons,
    Kerry said this:

    The intelligence community, represented by DNI Clapper, has
    released a public document, unclassified, available for all to see
    in which they make their judgment with high confidence that the
    facts are as they have set forth. So you know, I think that speaks
    for itself.

    Clapper, as you may recall, is a sworn liar. That, like so much of Kerry’s testimony yesterday,
    indeed speaks for itself.

  • Awareness

    “What we are witnessing in the media is being orchestrated by a few people’s fallen human egos. The human ego is a fear-based, fragmented aspect of Humanity’s consciousness that is doing everything it can to maintain control and to prevent us from manifesting the patterns of perfection for the New Earth. Know that regardless of what may temporarily manifest in the outer world of illusion, any attempt to block our Ascension in the Light will fail. The tangible manifestation of the New Earth is our Divine Destiny and has already been accomplished in the Realms of Cause. The patterns of Oneness, Reverence for ALL Life, and Transfiguring Divine Love associated with the New Earth are daily and hourly being magnetized into the world of effects by an Awakened Humanity.

    The Beings of Light in the Realms of Illumined Truth want us to keep in perspective what is happening on Earth. They are asking us to be the solution and not the problem. If we just wring our hands and focus on the chaos, we empower the chaos. If we go within to the Divinity of our Hearts and empower through our thoughts, feelings, words, actions, and beliefs the patterns for our New Planetary CAUSE of Divine Love and our newly Birthed Renaissance of Divine Love, we are the solution—As God In Action.

    Remember, we are multidimensional Sons and Daughters of God and we function in various Realms and Dimensions simultaneously. The physical plane of Earth that we think is so real is actually the least real of all of the Dimensions we abide in. The physical plane of Earth is also the very last dimension to reflect the changes that are taking place in the Realms of Cause.

    Even though there are powerful people trying to control what is taking place around the world, it is important for us to realize that these recalcitrant souls comprise a minuscule fraction of the 7,500,000,000 people existing on this Planet. Every single day at a grass roots level there are billions of people who in one way or another turn their attention to a Higher Power and invoke the Light of God into their life. These heartfelt invocations are always heard and they are always answered.”

    “2013 is Year One of the New Earth. This year the Company of Heaven determined that the greatest need of the hour was for Awakened Humanity to assist our sisters and brothers in the Family of Humanity who are so buried in the effluvia of their painful life experiences that they cannot perceive their own Divinity. This predicament has prevented these precious souls from remembering who they are and from realizing the unprecedented moment they are living in. Without the knowledge of what is actually happening on Earth these people do not comprehend that they have the ability to transform their lives into the patterns of perfection for the New Earth, even though that is their Divine Destiny.”

    “With every single thing you are presented with each day say to yourself:

    “I AM my I AM Presence and I AM One with the I AM Presence of ALL Humanity. In this higher level of Christ Consciousness I AM able to see with new eyes and hear with new ears. I respond to this (person, place, condition, or thing) with Divine Love and I easily perceive viable solutions that will result in the highest good for all concerned.”

    As you move through your daily experiences affirming that profound Truth, you will be amazed by the new ideas, the new ways of responding, and the viable solutions your I AM Presence presents to you. As this new level of Christ Consciousness filters into your heart and mind, you will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that something wonderful has happened to you. And you will be lifted into a higher sense of Divine Purpose, Enthusiasm, and Joy than you ever dreamed possible.

    You are a very bright Light on this Planet. You are the Open Door that no one can shut. You are the Light of the world and your time is NOW!” from “A Victorious Shift of Consciousness” by Patricia Cota-Robles 🙂

    Bless ALL 🙂

  • Awareness

    “While President Barack Obama attempts to drum up support overseas for a potential strike against Syria, lawmakers in the United States House of Representatives appear not all that likely to authorize the use of military force.

    According to analysis conducted Think Progress, lawmakers in the House are leaning towards a “no” vote with regards to approving a strike against Assad to retaliate against his alleged use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilian last month outside of Damascus.

    Compared to earlier in the week, lawmakers in the House are now more likely to vote against authorizing a strike. The website reported Thursday morning that 199 US representatives are expected to shut-down any strike against Syria, with 49 lawmakers in the House looking towards voting yes.

    Think Progress says their latest research reveals a drastic change that has occurred literally overnight. According to their reporters, 30 new lawmakers are now likely to vote against a strike, while the group of those expected to approve military action has only accumulated three new representatives since the previous day.

    The latest figures posted by Think Progress were updated Thursday morning, only hours after lawmakers in both the House and Senate discussed what action, if any, should be taken to reprimand Assad’s regime.” – RT

    Bless ALL 🙂

    • Victor

      Amen!

  • Therese

    Just quickly, because I believe it still relates to what we are talking about.

    Regarding the Global Prayer Initiative…

    I started out, visualizing what I know to be just outside my view…Peace, and that was very powerful, of course, but I felt most clear and focused, and powerful, when my mind went to Gratitude.

    I began to thank Assad for assuming the role of “evil Dictator”, that I could know myself as Peace. I began thanking all of the players in this game for giving us so very opportunities to Decide, Declare and Do who we are.

    I found myself thanking the “victims” of the civil war, in much the same way I now thank the Jewish “victims” in WWII for giving us their lives (decided on a soul level, of course), so that we, as a world, could open our eyes and have these discussions about what works and doesn’t work…and how we can do things differently.

    I completely believe that every life has a purpose…and that every death has a purpose. I feel going to war is demeaning that purpose. Finding a way to Peace because of these deaths, would give these deaths dignity and see their Divine purpose.

    • “Finding a way to Peace because of these deaths, would give these deaths dignity and see their Divine purpose.”

      I agree.

  • iamlife iam

    Hi All,
    I believe in prayer. We are God’s prayer. Prayer moves mountains. I believe President Obama will do the right thing, when all is said and done. I hope Congress and the Senate put forth the notion that war is not the way to peace. Love and Peace to all humanity. We are Peace. Let us be peace and give peace to all life everywhere. Peace to all Whew

  • mewabe

    Watch Red Cry on youtube (free)…

    Please take 2 hours to learn what is now going on in America’s own backyard, while also attempting to make other nations and the whole world better!

    Civilization, stripped of its hypocritical pretenses and lies, is a crime against Indigenous people, against the earth, against life, and against the Divine when claiming to be under the guidance of a god while molesting all life.

    • iamlife iam

      what is Red cry, love <3 Thank you for the indigenous view on everything here. I am that I am. Love to you Hi

      • mewabe

        Red Cry is an original, feature-length documentary film chronicling the lives of Lakota elders and oyate (people) in the face ofongoing genocide against the Lakota by government and corporate interests.

        The incendiary film is the result of a historic collaboration between
        traditional Tetuwan Lakota Elders and Warriors from Pine Ridge Reservation and a growing group of native and non-native solidarity activists. In togetherness they are working to bring Lakota elders – particularly Grandmothers – to the world stage to speak with their own voices to the International community.

        Shot in high-definition digital over the summer of 2012 by the Lakota Solidarity Project, Red Cry is the centerpiece of educational outreach for Wagunpi Woashake Ikicupi (Elders Take Back Their Strength) and Stand Behind the Lakota Grandmothers solidarity movement. Extensively researched, the documentary advances the struggles of the Lakota in their own words, from their unique perspectives.

        • iamlife iam

          Wow Thanks, Mewabe, for sharing. We create a new day every time we allow life to teach life. Why don’t we listen to the indigenous who speak for All Life? They took care of the land. They took of all life because they cared about all life. They didn’t perceive land as owned. They used what they needed and gave to each other what others needed. They are heros to me. I am them I am. Love to you, Love Whew Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Hi

          • mewabe

            Thank you Michelle…if you have time and a quiet space, I encourage you (as well as everyone here, including Neale) to be patient and watch the entire documentary. It will move you, perhaps make you cry, make you angry, and you will learn a lot.

            It will give you perspective on current events and policies.

          • iamlife iam

            Thanks Love. I will watch it. I love youtube. I can watch everything there and anytime, kind of like the way love meets life in notime whew that’s why I love that culture. They lived it, didn’t they? <3 <3 <3

    • Awareness

      Offer this prayer:

      “I AM my I AM Presence and I AM One with the I AM Presence of ALL Humanity. In this higher level of Christ Consciousness I AM able to see with new eyes and hear with new ears. I respond to this (person, place, condition, or thing) with Divine Love and I easily perceive viable solutions that will result in the highest good for all concerned.”

      Bless ALL 🙂

    • Stephen mills

      Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

      Yes the culture of superiority that is the illusion continues devouring everything in it,s path heading too its own demise .That is until we wake up there have been many important thinkers and historians in our culture giving us different choices people like Thom Hartmann ,Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky to name a few .

      Our cultural myth,s are the key,s to changing all this and restoring balance .

      The prime value is life and all people matter but the earth that supports life so we all can thrive is the part that we forget at our peril this has all been explained to us in cwg book 3 and how the highly evolved beings live in the universe and is very much aligned with your post,s and thoughts .

      Thanks for supporting and bringing as valuable information on the older cultures and getting the truth out there of what,s really happening.

      Hempwise

  • Aino Vesanen

    I would like to quote here Lorna Byrne, who just wrote a good column at Huffington Post with the headline “Why we should all pray for Assad”:

    We all need to stop for a moment and realise that violence begets
    violence. It’s a never ending cycle of revenge. Military force is not
    the answer.

    Many people, in Syria and outside, including our leaders are feeling
    hopeless and that the only action available is to use weapons. Making
    war is easy; making peace is a much more challenging task.

    I would ask everyone to pray for Bashar al-Assad. I am being told that he is the key to resolving this crisis.

    I am very aware that he has committed some terrible atrocities but I
    am being told that he feels very threatened. He is in fear for himself
    and his family and this fear is overwhelming and paralyzing him. He
    feels cornered and is responding as a trapped animal does. He has
    forgotten his responsibility to his people, and the good that he has
    done in the past, he is seeing no way out other than through escalating
    the violence.

    I would dearly love to see the United Nations and the leaders of the
    world call on Assad to stand down for the sake of his people. I am told
    that this is what should happen and that there is a possibility it could
    happen if he is asked by the whole world in the right way.

    We all need to pray for Assad. That he will have the strength to
    quiet his fears and reflect on what he really should do. Assad like all
    of us has peace deep in his heart, he needs to reach in and feel this
    peace and act from there.

    The world needs to provide Bashar al-Assad with an opportunity to do
    the right thing. I know he has been given chances that he hasn’t taken
    but for the sake of the Syrian people he needs to be given another one.

    I am told that if Assad is asked to step down, and allowed to do so
    with dignity, there is a chance he could say yes, but that it will need
    all of our prayers to get him to listen and do the right thing.

    I am told that if he steps down peace will come to Syria. It won’t be
    easy and will require the international community to help in providing
    positive solutions and support.

    We are all accountable for helping to find a solution, each and every
    one of us. We can’t say it’s our leaders responsibility, or that of the
    United Nations, we all have a part to play and if we don’t play it, our
    world, and all of us in it will suffer.

    This is why we all need to pray now, and keep on praying for Bashar al-Assad.

    • Victor

      Ok, but please let’s no forget that in the same line of reasoning, Al Assad, and Syrian government have been under factual WAR two years and half ago… 30 months!

      With heavily armed and funded actual terrorists, including Al Qaeda and other armed groups, by whom? Armed, funded, supported, justified, and encorauged by western countries, the first of all USA, initially covertedly but afterwards, openly. Let’s be clear about this. These are not ‘peaceful protesters’ or civillians Occupy, this is just war. With armed forces that execute prisoners in front of cameras, or eat their livers happily and put it on video on internet… What would happen in USA, UK, France, or Germany if something like this happen to them?

      So, Assad government has been, yes, threatened and cornered by military groups capably of getting almost 1/3rd of the syrian territory or more! This is not fluffy thing if we remember that the armed forces in Syria are one of the mightiest in the region. What would happen in USA, UK, France, or Germany if something like this happen to them?

      So, this is not about Al-Assad that is a horrible criminal guy like Hitler (though Kerry and his wife had dinner glady with him and his wife just a couple of years before) that has no way of using common sense, and has to be enlightened. Of course Assad has commited terrible doings, like Obama, Bush, Clinton, or other Presidents have done in one or other way, including killing of civillians. This is about a President cornered by heavily armed forces to withdraw his position and the people that supports him and that has huge reasons to be afraid to full under the power of these fundamentalist merciless terrorists that no hesitate to massacre entire populations just because they are cristians… What would happen in USA, UK, France, or Germany if something like this would happen to them? How would they act?

      I don’t see any of this highlited by mainstream media, of course, so, again, Assad is the only ‘bad guy’ here to be enlightened.

      So, in this case, we would have to pray for the terrorist opposition too…

      Fine, good idea…

      • Aino Vesanen

        Now (as most of the time) you are saying things that are counter to what I have perceived to be true about the situation in Syria, based on what I’ve learned about Middle East and Syria during my 8 years of
        university studies (with a focus in Arabic language & Egypt, not
        Syrian politics so much) and what I’ve seen and heard from my several Syrian
        friends in Europe and in Syria,
        and by following this war in the media since 2011.
        You are claiming that there has not been peaceful protester, just armed terrorists, and Assad has the right to do what he has been doing to his opponents.
        I have visited my firends in Syria before this war and I met people there..Every family had one more members missing/detained/dead mysteriously/ had been detained and tortured etc. etc. in the past, in the hands of this government. They dared to talked to me about these things only after taking up all the imaginable measures (at their homes!) that we were not listened to via mobile phones etc.. I could almost touch the fear and hate against the government, and that was several years before the current war!

        I haven’t checked through all the articles you have copy-pasted here, but several of them are from the Counterpunch- site, which is not a neutral and reliable news agency or something. Also at some point, you referred to evidence from Iranian ans Russian sources as if it were more reliable than anything that the western mainstream media is publishing.
        Anyone who reads your stuff and compares it to the Syrian state propaganda (see for example Syria360), can see the many similarities.

        It is very sad that this channel, which was aimed to be a place to discuss from a spiritual point of view possible solutions to change the acute and horrible conditions where the Syrian people are living, has turned into another place of propaganda and media war.

        • Victor

          Well, Aino, interesting points…

          Spirituality, neutrality, media, HIstory, and more… Let’s see…

          Spirituality: all depends on what you understand or mean for it. If you understand for it ‘nothing of this world’, or ‘nothing related to current affairs’, I understand your discomfort. It has not been few people who get enraged or unpleased with Neale because he constantly puts in this website and others topics about what’s happening currently in our world, and even his opinions or CWG’s opinions about them. It has not been few people who say: “hey Neale, we’re here to talk about spirituality, not politics!”; “why are you focusing in the negative events of this world, please Neale, be positive!”; “you’re constantly throwing negativity and trouble’ s energy, and you should know that you are reinforcing negativity!”, and sort of that…

          But as I understand it, -and I think that also CWG, Neale and many others-, precisely Spirituality has to do with all these things, including politics, history, economics, current events, etc., because Spirituality is about Life, and Life as we are experiencing it here and now, and about purpose and meaning. So, I don’t think that Spirituality is just about angels, dimensions, wishful thinking, or praying to God, or chanting Omm all day long. Or much less, about digging the head on the sand, or closing eyes and ears: and declaring: “everything is wonderful in the world, Hallelujah!”.

          Spirituality indeed can provide other points of view for current events of our world, enlightning if you want, but it does not have to hide or turn away the head of them. If it would, it wouldn’t be but the old “people’s opium”. That I observe often is…

          But this points of view have to be based in something. And one of the most important concepts about this is OBSERVATION. As CWG proposes: “observing clearly what is so”: No denying, no evading, no calling things by other names. Having in awareness that everybody observes according to his/her model of the world, and a scale of values, and an existential purpose or goal. This is not little thing, and I’ll comment it later again.

          By the other side, this topic is not about the evaluation of the Syrian regime, or Al-Assad whole behaviour, or its government or as you said “change the acute and horrible conditions where the Syrian people are living”. Those are other topics. We’re talking about “HOW SHOULD THE WORLD NOW RESPOND TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN SYRIA?”, in other words, about this present and particular aspect of a major theme, that involves primarily the spoken intention by US goverment of bombing Syria as a response.. Of course, everything is related, but what you’ve mentioned is not the primary point.

          About this; I’ve not emitted opinion about the Syrian government. As far as I know, I’m aware that it has been and authoritarian regime, with many faults and terrible procedures, etc.

          I think you’ve distorted my declarations. I didn’t say that at the beginning (March 2011) there weren’t peaceful protests by peaceful people opposed to the Al-Assad govenrment. perfectly justified. What I said was:

          “Syrian government has been under factual WAR two years and half ago… 30 months! with heavily armed and funded actual terrorists, including Al Qaeda and other armed groups, […] Let’s be clear about this. These are not ‘peaceful protesters’ or civillians Occupy, this is just war. With armed forces that execute prisoners in front of cameras, or eat their livers happily and put it on video on internet.”. In other words, I’m referring to the MILITARY conflict, that has gone ahead its beginning. And in this military conflict, nobody can deny at the risk of being dishonest or misinformed, that what I’ve said is a fact.

          Neutrality and media: wow, what a topic! I’m a media worker and I’ve studied media for more than 25 years. I don’t want to be extensive, my friend, I’ll just say: Mainstream media is ‘neutral’? Unbiased? Without an agenda? The agenda of the ‘ones in charge’ and the rich and powerful of this world? Is mainstream media fair, ‘objective’, reliable, and balanced? PLEEEASSSEEEE…!

          Of course alternative media IS NOT neutral, my friend. That doesn’t mean is not reliable, credible, or honest.. Nobody can be pure, objective, unbiased, nor without purposes. The alternative media has the general purpose of dismanting the narrative, goals, agendas, and LIES of the ones in charge. Of course! There is too much to be said about this topic, but it would be another big theme.

          But, what a coincidence that you mention the usual accusation that this is “propaganda”, and that it is very similar to the ‘regime propaganda’… Mmmmm…! No; Fox, CBS, Times, CNN, and the majority of mainstream press, etc., etc. is not propaganda… no, no, no…!

          That’s the reason because so much people say that hegemonic media: press, TV, movies, ‘entertaniment’, is the main WEAPON OF MIND DESTRUCTION of this world, for destroying common sense, human values, spiritual focus, for manufacturing consense (please read Chomsky), brainswashing brains, and accepting as ‘normal’, the deep disfunctionalities of this world.

          And mainly for destroying the very first thing that tyranic power wants to destroy if it wants to last. the Truth.

          A very sad thing is that even spiritual people is not aware of this, and accepts it and promotes as the real and good thing…

  • Angelika Wagner

    I believe in peace, I dob’t believe any killing action will solve any problem, rather create new ones. I believe in praying and visualization. We tried warfare before and it never worked. Try praying….for a change

  • Aino Vesanen

    For your interest, Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, seems to be active at Facebook. If you “like” his site you can comment on his posts! It even seems like he’s reading them..
    I quote last one here:

    Greetings to all friends,

    The recent abhorrent developments in Syria once again highlight the
    fundamental legal, political and moral question on the utility and
    effectiveness of the use or threat of force to advance humanitarian
    causes or even national policies. This has been a constant intellectual
    and practical concern for me over the past three decades. A few thoughts
    on the current issue and wider implications:
    1- Any use of chemical
    weapons must be condemned, regardless of its victims or culprits. This
    is Iran’s unambiguous position as a victim of chemical warfare. But has
    it always been the position of those who are now talking about punishing
    their presumed culprit? How did they react when civilians in Iran and
    Iraq were victims of independently established massive and systematic
    use of advanced chemical weapons by their then-friend Saddam Hussein?
    So, it is prudent to take their assertions at face value now,
    particularly since the circumstances and available evidence indicate the
    likelihood of the use of chemical agents by extremist groups.

    2-Violence, repression, killing and extremism are repugnant crimes and
    every actor with influence in Syria must compel the parties to come to
    the negotiating table. But is a threat to use force the solution? Or
    does it represent the paradigm and the mentality that have helped to
    create this humanitarian tragedy and political catastrophe?
    3- Are
    all options really on the table as the US president repeatedly declares?
    Is every nation with military might allowed to resort to war or
    constantly threaten to do so against one or another adversary? Isn’t the
    inadmissibility of resort to force or threat of force a peremptory norm
    of international law? Is there any place for international law and the
    UN Charter at least in words if not deeds?
    4- Can one violate a
    peremptory norm of international law in order to punish – taking the
    claim at face value – a violation of law or even a crime?
    5- Why in
    fact has the UN Charter — and other sources of international law dating
    back to the 1928 Paris Accord – have prohibited the use or threat of
    force? Is this a wishful idealism of a bunch of lawyers? Or is it in
    fact a legal reflection of a political reality? In other words, is war a
    useful instrument to advance foreign policy or humanitarian
    responsibilities in the 20th and 21st centuries? Or have war and the use
    of force been prohibited because they lost their practical utility?

    6-Have those who maintain “all options on the table” noticed what these
    options have brought them and others in the past 100 years? Have they
    examined empirical evidence of the outcome of wars in the 20th and 21st
    century, all of which were initiated by those who were assured that
    their military might will lead to “shock and awe” and a quick victory?
    Have they not examined the fact that initiators of wars were totally
    annihilated or failed to achieve their objectives in 85% of the cases?
    and …
    Let us hope that we can avert another catastrophic adventurism.”

    • Victor

      Excellent!

      For me, unavoidable questions, with subsequent incontrovertible reflections and answers.

      Very good stuff for those who think that iranians, ‘ arabs’ , or mid-easteners are a bunch of crazy, fanatic, mindless, primitive people… (of course iranians are not arabs, but for common understanding, they are)

      Thanks, Aino Vesanen!

  • Victor

    Prominent phrase in this article: “If Congress endorses Obama’s war, it will prove that American democracy is a hoax.” I would say: it will prove AGAIN that US democracy is a hoax. Jimmy Carter told it already: “America has no functioning Democracy anymore”:

    But the rest of the article is overwhelming. People of the US: what will you Be? What will you do?

    Weekend Edition September 6-8, 2013

    No Check, No Balance

    Will Congress Now Save Obama’s Face By Selling Out Democracy and the Syrian People?

    by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

    As I observed in previous columns, Obama was pushed out onto the
    end of the limb by Israel and the neoconservatives. The UN, NATO, the
    British Parliament, and the rest of the world left the White House Fool
    there, out on the limb where Israel put him, to make war on Syria all
    alone.

    This proved to be beyond the Fool’s ability, but instead of crawling
    back off the limb and finding an excuse to get down, Obama decided to
    buy the Congress and to tell more lies.

    The White House and its presstitute media are telling Congress that
    it is too humiliating for the President of “the world’s only superpower”
    to have to crawl back along the limb and get down just because he told a
    lie. Congress must ”save face” for the liar who is “America’s first
    black president,” or the prestige and credibility of the US will be
    lost.

    What this really means, of course, is that the credibility of the
    Israel Lobby and the neoconservatives will be lost unless America again
    commits a war crime and destroys the life and prospects of many more
    people in the Middle East.

    Heaven forbid that Washington lose prestige! So money, lots of it,
    is speaking in Washington and in European capitals. We know that the
    despicable Cameron will do all in his power to prostitute the British
    government for Washington.

    What has the “socialist” Hollande been promised that makes him so willing to demonstrate that France is Obama’s whore?

    What larger share of NATO’s military budget is Washington promising
    to underwrite in exchange for NATO’s support for another American war
    crime?

    Will bags of money enable Washington to gather support for its latest crime against humanity?

    But first Congress has to be brought around.

    Congress will be pressured “to show a common front” with the White
    House in order to maintain America’s credibility. Members of the House
    and Senate will be told that now that America has been abandoned
    by its allies, Congress cannot leave the President of the United States
    hanging out to dry. Congress must rush to the rescue of America’s
    prestige or Washington will lose its clout and Congress will lose its
    campaign contributions from the Israel Lobby and the military/security
    complex.

    This argument can even be effective with the strongest opponents to
    the attack on Syria. Americans have a long tradition of jingoism, and
    the prospect of lost prestige rankles. But before Congress is pushed
    into wrapping itself in the flag and giving its OK to another war crime,
    Congress needs to consider whether endorsing Obama’s attack on Syria
    helps US prestige or hurts it.

    It is clear that the American people overwhelming oppose an attack on
    Syria. Whether Americans have caught on over the years to Washington’s
    endless war lies or whether they simply see no point to the wars and no
    gain to America from 12 years of costly war, I cannot say. At a time
    when a large percentage of Americans are having difficulty paying their
    mortgages, car payments, and putting food on the table, Washington’s
    wars seem an expensive luxury.

    It is not only the civilian populations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,
    Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria who have suffered. Tens of
    thousands of America’s young have either been killed, maimed for life,
    or are suffering permanent post-traumatic stress.

    Washington’s wars have caused thousands of divorces, alcoholism, drug
    addiction, and homelessness for veterans who were deceived and had
    their humanity abused by the criminals that rule in Washington.

    For Congress, allegedly the representatives of the American people,
    not the backstop for the executive branch’s undeclared agenda, to ignore
    the people’s will and to endorse a war that the American people do not
    support would be another decisive blow against democracy. If Congress
    endorses Obama’s war, it will prove that American democracy is a hoax.

    If the White House were to succeed in using Congress’ OK to a
    military attack on Syria to convince the British Parliament and NATO to
    go along, despite the strong opposition of the British and European
    peoples, Western Democracy would everywhere be discredited. Where is the
    democracy when a few elites at the top can do whatever they want,
    commit any crime, despite the majority opposition of citizens?

    If Congress endorses Obama’s transparent lies, American democracy
    will never recover. If Congress makes itself the handmaiden of the
    executive branch, Congress will never again have an independent voice.
    Congress might as well close down. It will have rendered itself
    superfluous and powerless.

    If European governments endorse Obama’s lies, it means the end of the
    West’s democratic prestige and will strip away the cloak behind which
    the West has hidden its crimes against humanity. The voice of the West
    will never again carry any moral authority.

    The loss of Western credibility is a huge price to pay in order to
    rescue a discredited president whom no one believes, not even his
    supporters. Essentially Obama is a cipher whose term of office is
    complete. The obama regime epitomizes the degeneration of the American
    state.

    Instead of voting on whether to allow Obama to attack Syria, Congress
    should be voting to impeach Obama and Kerry. Their blatant lies,
    dictatorial claims, and arrogant inhumanity are powerful arguments for
    removing them from office.

    The lies told by the Obama regime are so transparent that it makes
    one wonder just how stupid the regime thinks the American people are.
    Little doubt the white house is relying on its Ministry of Propaganda,
    a.k.a., the presstitute media, to undermine Americans’ confidence in
    their common sense and to make them accept the latest fiction. The
    tactic is to use the peer pressure of the prostitute media to silence
    Americans’ conscience.

    Media insouciance is everywhere. Yesterday NPR calmly reported the
    lies about Assad that the Obama regime has concocted to cover another
    act of naked aggression. In the same breath, NPR voiced “the world’s
    outrage” over the rape and murder of one woman in India.

    I, of course, do not agree with the raping and killing of anyone, but
    just imagine the raping and killing that will occur when Obama
    unleashes the dogs of war on Syria.

    NPR is no longer an alternative voice. Yesterday NPR was beating the
    drums for war. NPR provided a forum for the head of one of the main
    neoconservative lobbies for war, and in the next hour had Democratic
    and Republican House and Senate leaders repeating all of Obama and
    Kerry’s lies about how America’s prestige cannot tolerate allowing Assad
    to use “chemical weapons against his own people.” No one listening to
    NPR heard the voice of those demanding peace and truth. NPR was too busy
    lying for Obama to care about truth and certainly gave truth no voice
    on the program.

    The presstitute media and the House and Senate “leaders” who report
    to the military/security complex and to the Israel Lobby keep talking
    about Assad’s “own people,” but Assad’s own people support him. Polls
    of Syrians show that Assad has more support from the Syrian people than
    every head of every Western country has from their citizens. Cameron’s,
    Hollande’s, Merkel’s and Obama’s poll numbers are dismal compared to the Syrian peoples’ support for Assad.

    Just as there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of
    mass destruction,” but the facts did not stop the Bush regime from
    telling its lies that resulted in massive deaths and destruction of
    Iraqis, deaths and destruction that continue as I write, Assad has not
    used chemical weapons “against his own people.” All of the evidence
    points to a false flag event that Obama could seize upon to launch
    America’s 7th war in 12 years.

    Moreover, al-Nusra fighters are not Assad’s “own people.” The
    al-Nusra front are Islamist extremists recruited from outside Syria and
    sent in by Washington and Saudi Arabia to overthrow an elected Syrian
    government, just as Washington used the Egyptian military to overthrow
    the first elected Egyptian government in history and to shoot down in
    the streets hundreds of Egyptians who were protesting the military’s
    overthrow of the government that they had elected.

    Whether or not Assad used chemical weapons against
    Washington-supported al-Nusra jihadists, and US Intelligence says that
    there is “no conclusive evidence,” it is nevertheless a war crime for
    Washington to attack a country that has not attacked, or threatened to
    attack, the US. Under the Nuremberg standard established by the United
    States, naked aggression is a war crime regardless of the character of
    the country attacked or the weapons it uses against forces that attack
    it.

    If Washington succeeds in enabling the al-Nusra terrorists to
    overthrow the secular Syrian government, how will Washington get Syria
    away from al-Nusra? In Iraq the death and destruction continues today at
    the same pace as under the attempted US military occupation. The
    criminal Bush regime did not bring “freedom and democracy” to Iraq. The
    Bush regime brought death and destruction that continues long after
    Washington’s exit. In Iraq today, as many people are blown apart and
    murdered as during the height of Bush’s war of aggression.

    The chaos in which Washington left Iraq is a far cry from “freedom
    and democracy.” The Obama war criminal did the same to Libya. In
    Afghanistan Washington added 12 years of war on top of the 10 years of
    war that Afghans fought with the Red Army. The purpose of Washington’s
    war in Afghanistan has never been stated. No one knows what the war is
    about or why it continues.

    According to the Bush regime, Afghanistan was attacked because the
    Taliban would not hand over Osama bin Laden without proof that he was
    responsible for 911. So why does the war continue after his death?

    The lies being told by Obama and Kerry are so transparent that it
    makes one wonder if their strategy is to make such a poor case for war
    that the control Israel and the neocons have over US foreign policy will
    be broken. What else is one to make of such absurd statements as John
    Kerry’s claim that “this is our Munich moment!” There is no comparison
    between Assad’s defensive effort to prevent the overthrow of the Syrian
    government by foreign jihadists supported by Washington and Hitler’s
    aggressive stance toward Czechoslovakia.

    The Syrian government has initiated no war and has threatened no one.

    America as my generation knew it no longer exists. Criminals have
    taken over and now rule. Financial policy is in the hands of a small
    handful of banksters who control the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve,
    the financial regulatory agencies and who run the world for their own
    greed and profit. Foreign policy is the preserve of the Israel Lobby and
    the neoconservatives, every one of which is tightly tied to Israel.
    Americans have no voice, and no representation. Whatever America is, the
    government is not influenced by the voices of the American people.

    Whatever America is, it most certainly is not a democracy in which government is accountable to the people.

    America is a country where a tiny elite has all power and does as it wishes.

    If Congress rallies to obama’s war, Congress will have pushed the
    world closer to nuclear war. Russia and China see that the UN is
    powerless to prevent aggression and that Washington’s aggression is
    aimed at them. As Russia and China build their nuclear forces, they will
    draw a starker line at Iran. Iran is Russia’s underbelly, and Iran is
    20 percent of China’s oil supply.

    From what I have been able to discern, both the Russian and Chinese
    governments have lost all confidence in Washington. Neither government
    believes any of Washington’s lies and both countries are aware of
    Washington’s attempt to isolate them diplomatically and to surround them
    with military bases. Both countries know that they can expect the same
    demonization from the presstitute western media as Saddam Hussein,
    Muammar Gaddafi, and Assad have received. They understand that western
    demonization is the prelude to destabilization and to military attack.

    With the hubris, arrogance, and insanity of Washington an established
    fact, Russia and China perceive an enemy that intends their
    destruction. As neither country is going to accept their demise,
    Congress’ acquiescence to obama’s lies in order to save “America’s
    prestige” sets the stage for nuclear war.

    However, if Congress refuses to be committed to a war crime based on a
    lie, rejects Obama’s bribes and intimidation, and vetoes the war
    criminal’s attack on Syria, it means, the end of the influence of the
    Israeli Lobby, the bloodthirsty neoconservatives, and war mongers John
    McCain and Lindsay Graham.

    Without Washington’s neoconservative belligerence, the governments of
    the world might, despite powerful and selfish private interests, be
    able to come together to sustain life on earth by protecting an
    increasingly vulnerable ecology from the predations of private
    capitalism.

    If Congress fails to restrain the war that Obama seeks, the world
    doesn’t have long to exist before the life-destroying bombs drop.

  • Victor

    From a true Nobel Prize to a failed and false Nobel Prize…

    From argentinian Nobel Prize Adolfo Perez Esquival to Obama.

    Open Letter to the President of the U.S. North America Barack Hussein Obama.

    The situation in Syria is worrying and once again the U.S., setting
    themselves up as policeman of the world, seeks to invade Syria in the
    name of “freedom” and “human rights” .

    Your predecessor, George W. Bush, in his messianic madness knew how
    to implement religious fundamentalism to perform messianic wars in
    Afghanistan and Iraq. When stated that he talked to God and God told him
    that he had to attack Iraq, he did because it was God’s ruling to
    export “freedom” to the world .

    You have spoken , on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the
    death of Rev. Luther King, also a Nobel Peace Prize , of the need to
    complete the “Dream ” of a shared table , of whom was the most
    significant expression of struggle for civil rights racism in the
    world’s first slave democracy. Luther King was a man who gave his life
    to give life, and as such he is a martyr of our time. He was killed
    after the March over Washington, because he threatened with civil
    disobedience to remain accomplices of the imperialist war against the
    people of Vietnam. Do you really think that to militarily invade another
    people is to contribute to that dream?

    Arming rebels and then authorize the NATO intervention is not
    something new from your country and your allies . Nor is it new that the
    U.S. intends to invade countries in charges of possession of weapons of
    mass destruction, which in the case of Iraq was not true . Your country
    has supported the regime of Saddam Hussein, which used chemical weapons
    to annihilate the Kurdish people and against the Iranian Revolution,
    and did nothing to punish it because at that time you were allies.
    However, now you want to invade Syria without even knowing the results
    of investigations the UN is doing on authorization of the very Syrian
    government. Certainly the use of chemical weapons is immoral and
    reprehensible, but your government has no moral authority to justify an
    intervention.

    The UN’s Secretary General , Ban Ki -moon said that a military attack on Syria could worsen the conflict .

    My country, Argentina, which is exercising the Presidency of the
    Security Council of the UN, has made public its position against foreign
    military intervention in the Syrian Republic, refusing to be “an
    accomplicit in further deaths”.

    Pope Francis also called on globalizing the order for peace and decreed a
    day of fasting and prayer against the war on September 7, to which we
    adhere.

    Even your historic ally, Great Britain, has refused ( at least for now ) to be part of the invasion.

    Your country is transforming the “Arab Spring” into NATO’s hell,
    provoking wars in the Middle East and unleashing the violence of
    international corporations . The invasion you intend will lead to more
    violence and more deaths, as well as the destabilization of Syria and
    the region. For what purpose? The lucid analyst, Robert Fisk, has stated
    that the (real) target is Iran, and to postpone the realization of the
    Palestinian state, and not the outrage that cause the death of hundreds
    of Syrian children what motivates you to intervene militarily. And just
    when in Iran has won a moderate government, where there could be tried
    to contribute to peaceful negotiation scenarios to existing conflicts.
    This will be a suicidal policy on your part and your country.

    Syria needs a political, not military solution. The international
    community needs to support social organizations seeking peace. The
    Syrian people , like any other, has the right to self-determination and
    to define their own democratic process and we must help wherever they
    need us.

    Obama, your country has no moral authority, nor legitimacy or
    legality to invade Syria or any other country. Much less after murdering
    220,000 people in Japan by launching bombs of mass destruction.

    No congressman from the United States parliament can legitimate what
    is ilegitimate, nor legalize what is illegal. Especially considering
    what said former U.S. President Jimmy Carter a few days ago: “The U.S.
    does not have a functioning democracy . “

    The illegal wiretapping your government doing to the American people
    seem not to be quite efficient, because according to a public poll by
    the Reuters agency, a 60% of Americans oppose the invasion that you
    pretend.

    So I ask you, Obama, Who do you obey?

    Your government has become a danger to the international balance and
    to the American people themselves. The U.S. has become a country that
    can not stop exporting death to keep its economy and power. We will not
    stop trying to prevent it.

    I was in Iraq after the U.S. bombings in the early 90′s , before the
    invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. I saw a shelter full of children
    and women killed by tele-directed missiles. You call them “Collateral
    damages”.

    The peoples are saying ENOUGH wars!. Humanity claims for Peace and
    the right to live in freedom. The peoples want to transform weapons into
    plowshares, and the way to do it is to “DISARM THE ARMED CONSCIENCES” .

    Obama , never forget we always pick the fruits of what we sow. Any
    human being should bring peace and humanity, and indeed a Nobel Prize
    for Peace. I hope you do not end up turning the “dream of brotherhood ”
    that Luther King longed, into a nightmare for people and humanity .

    Receive the greeting of Peace and Good

    Adolfo Perez Esquivel

    Nobel Peace Prize

    September 4, 2013

  • Aino Vesanen

    It is very sad that what was supposed to be an arena of discussing constructive solutions to the Syrian conflict, how to best help the Syrian people who are suffering from this war since more than 2 years now, has become a place of media war like any other discussion you can find around internet.
    In general what I have seen in the social media in the past days is that many pacifists (many of whom have apparently waken up only now and try to quickly figure out what it’s about) have such a big need to justify their stance by finding as much prove as possible that what happened did’t happen, that Assad and the opposition are probably equally right/wrong and equally “well equipped” for the fight, and some even believe that Assad is the good guy and all the western news are just part of a big plot of the USA to conquer the Middle East.. and of course, to prove all that “right”, it is possible to find a lot of stuff in the internet, because we are living times of media wars.
    Believe what you want, but when you read an article, have a look at the site where it’s published, see if it looks like a neutral one, or whether it’s clearly a site with a certain agenda. Also, even if an article were on a neutral-looking site, remember that if only one article tells one thing and most of the other relatively neutral media tells a totally different story, there quite big chances that the different one is wrong. Think about the possible motives of the author to write what he writes.

    The negative side of this discussion arena is that we copy-paste here only the text-part of the articles we want to quote, which means that the reader doesn’t get any idea about the original source of the text unless he/she makes an effort to google it.

    I really recommend that we stop posting here different versions about the events, because it tends to make this a site of one-sided propaganda and cospiracy theories, or makes us argue with one another about what’s reliable news and what’s not, and to bomb each other with different narratives about the events. How on earth can we make this something generating more peace in the world, if we mostly focus bringing the media war here?

    • Victor

      Given that you repeated almost the same that you wrote to me, Aino, I’ll re-post here, what I wrote there.

      I will only add that yes, if we want more Peace in the world, we have to deal with almost interchangeable values such as: God-Life-Love-Freedom-Truth. TRUTH.

      Of course we are iin search for more Truth, and for discarding what is not truth. Not only for a question of values, in abstract, but because, Truth is more functional for Peace and Freedom than the untrue. ‘Freedom’ based in huge lies, mid-truths, or deceipts and manipulation is not freedom and not works for Peace at all. Real Peace at least…

      Well, Aino, interesting points…

      Spirituality, neutrality, media, HIstory, and more… Let’s see…

      Spirituality: all depends on what you understand or mean for it. If
      you understand for it ‘nothing of this world’, or ‘nothing related to
      current affairs’, I understand your discomfort. It has not been few
      people who get enraged or unpleased with Neale because he constantly
      puts in this website and others topics about what’s happening currently
      in our world, and even his opinions or CWG’s opinions about them. It has
      not been few people who say: “hey Neale, we’re here to talk about
      spirituality, not politics!”; “why are you focusing in the negative
      events of this world, please Neale, be positive!”; “you’re constantly
      throwing negativity and trouble’ s energy, and you should know that you
      are reinforcing negativity!”, and sort of that…

      But as I understand it, -and I think that also CWG, Neale and many
      others-, precisely Spirituality has to do with all these things,
      including politics, history, economics, current events, etc., because
      Spirituality is about Life, and Life as we are experiencing it here and
      now, and about purpose and meaning. So, I don’t think that Spirituality
      is just about angels, dimensions, wishful thinking, or praying to God,
      or chanting Omm all day long. Or much less, about digging the head on
      the sand, or closing eyes and ears: and declaring: “everything is
      wonderful in the world, Hallelujah!”.

      Spirituality indeed can provide other points of view for current
      events of our world, enlightning if you want, but it does not have to
      hide or turn away the head of them. If it would, it wouldn’t be but the
      old “people’s opium”. That I observe often is…

      But this points of view have to be based in something. And one of the
      most important concepts about this is OBSERVATION. As CWG proposes:
      “observing clearly what is so”: No denying, no evading, no calling
      things by other names. Having in awareness that everybody observes
      according to his/her model of the world, and a scale of values, and an
      existential purpose or goal. This is not little thing, and I’ll comment
      it later again.

      By the other side, this topic is not about the evaluation of the
      Syrian regime, or Al-Assad whole behaviour, or its government or as you
      said “change the acute and horrible conditions where the Syrian people
      are living”. Those are other topics. We’re talking about “HOW SHOULD
      THE WORLD NOW RESPOND TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN SYRIA?”, in
      other words, about this present and particular aspect of a major theme,
      that involves primarily the spoken intention by US goverment of bombing
      Syria as a response.. Of course, everything is related, but what you’ve
      mentioned is not the primary point.

      About this; I’ve not emitted opinion about the Syrian government. As
      far as I know, I’m aware that it has been and authoritarian regime, with
      many faults and terrible procedures, etc.

      I think you’ve distorted my declarations. I didn’t say that at the
      beginning (March 2011) there weren’t peaceful protests by peaceful
      people opposed to the Al-Assad govenrment. perfectly justified. What I
      said was:

      “Syrian government has been under factual WAR two years and half
      ago… 30 months! with heavily armed and funded actual terrorists,
      including Al Qaeda and other armed groups, […] Let’s be clear about
      this. These are not ‘peaceful protesters’ or civillians Occupy, this is
      just war. With armed forces that execute prisoners in front of cameras,
      or eat their livers happily and put it on video on internet.”. In other
      words, I’m referring to the MILITARY conflict, that has gone ahead its
      beginning. And in this military conflict, nobody can deny at the risk of
      being dishonest or misinformed, that what I’ve said is a fact.

      Neutrality and media: wow, what a topic! I’m a media worker and I’ve
      studied media for more than 25 years. I don’t want to be extensive, my
      friend, I’ll just say: Mainstream media is ‘neutral’? Unbiased? Without
      an agenda? The agenda of the ‘ones in charge’ and the rich and powerful
      of this world? Is mainstream media fair, ‘objective’, reliable, and
      balanced? PLEEEASSSEEEE…!

      Of course alternative media IS NOT neutral, my friend. That doesn’t
      mean is not reliable, credible, or honest.. Nobody can be pure,
      objective, unbiased, nor without purposes. Neale has purposes. This
      Global Conversation has purposes. The alternative media has the general
      purpose of dismanting the narrative, goals, agendas, and LIES of the
      ones in charge. Of course! The point here is not if somebody has or not
      an agenda, but WHICH agenda it is, and what is related with. if the
      procedures and means for that agenda are or are not fair, honest,
      truthful or sufficiently checked. There is too much to be said about
      this topic, but it would be another big subject. And a very important
      one, by the way…

      But, what a coincidence that you mention the usual accusation that
      this is “propaganda”, and that it is very similar to the ‘regime
      propaganda’… Mmmmm…! You make me remember when critics of War on
      Iraq were accused of being “PRO SADDAM”, “anti-patriotic”, or “not
      supporting the troops”, if not “leftiest red pro-terrorists”…
      Mmmmmm…… No; Fox, CBS, Times, CNN, and the majority of mainstream
      press, etc., etc. is not propaganda… no, no, no!, isn’t it?…

      That’s the reason because so much people say that hegemonic media:
      press, TV, movies, ‘entertaniment’, is the main WEAPON OF MIND
      DESTRUCTION of this world, for destroying common sense, human values,
      spiritual focus, for manufacturing consense (please read Chomsky),
      brainswashing people, and accepting as ‘normal’, the deep
      disfunctionalities of this world.

      And mainly for destroying the very first thing that thegemonical power wants to destroy if it wants to last. the Truth.

      A very sad thing is that even spiritual people is not aware of this, and accepts it and promotes as the real and good thing…

      • Aino Vesanen

        Hi Victor,
        Thanks for your constructive response, it had many good points in it.
        I just realized (in a conversation with some other people in another arena) that what most probably contributes to the difference in viewpoints between people like me and you is that you are seemingly following the US media while I am not. I mostly follow the Finnish media, some Middle-Eastern news agencies like al-Arabeyya and al-Ahram and ocassionally other channels when people link them at the social media etc. I have not followed for example CNN, but many of my Egyptian and western friends living in Egypt saw that its reporting about the events in Egypt during the last months were clearly biased, many times untruthful.
        And supposing that most of the US media is more baised than the channels I follow (I’m not claiming that they would be 100% clean, either, because as you said, every writer and source has his/her ideology, even if he/she is trying to be neutral), the people in the US who see that it is so, might sometimes react so strongly that they go to the other extreme. And because they are mostly familiar with their own government’s propaganda and not that of the other regimes, they might easily believe the latter when they try to escape the former.
        But it is most probable that neither of those extreme sides are true. Unfortunately, it has been very difficult to get more neutral reporting from Syria, because of the strict and difficult conditions for reporters to get there.

        Everybody’s responsibility is to use his/her own brain and heart to discern what to rely upon, and not believe anyone blindly. Not any government media.. nor these “alternative media channels”, because while so much focusing on publishing news that differ from the US narrative as much as possible, they are easy prey for the propaganda machines of other world powers – I wonder how many people the Syrian government has employed to spread its stuff full time through the internet and through anyone who is willing to belive it…!

        Also, you’re right, we are living in a world of worldly realities, and not in a pink cloud – and all the solutions, whether spiritual or less spiritual, must somehow relate to this world and the reality on the ground.
        Still, I don’t think it’s necessary to keep repeating and repeating the narrative that you believe that are true, because many other channels and sites are doing that already. And ok, you may belive that almost everything that the so called alternative media is saying is true, but that doesn’t mean that all of us must think like you, because it can also be that the truth is not as simple as you claim it to be, or that part of those articles, too, include pure lies. When we search for some wisdom here together, it could be enough to refer more briefly to “which version of reality” we are believing when we say what we say.

        Yes, this is a very tough lesson and I’m now struggling with it everyday – how to involve ourselves actively in this world we live in, and how to detach ourselves when needed. I have during this summer changed a lot and taken the spiritual side of me seriously, aiming to quiet myself every day and stay as focused as possible, so that I could act from my inner power, God’s lght within.. this is something I try to practice.. But at the same time, we as a humanity are living important times of change to which I would love to contribute positively somehow, and the Middle-East is near to my heart, and I have friends and a family member there, for whom I easily start worrying about.. So these things take up my mind sometimes to the point that (especially after some debates at the internet etc.) the inner peace turns to an inner debate and chaos.

        But still I want to believe that it’s possible to bring together those two – the spiritual and the mundane. It has lately bothered me that “the spiritual circles” don’t seem to say a word about those who suffer… about how to relate with our spirituality to actual events that we see in the world around us.. how to contribute to it constructively.. and I’m happy that Neale took up this challenge!

        So let’s keep it up and try to find the way – also as individuals, learn to bring these two things together. Involving ourselves in our full power and detaching ourselves etc. when necessary, when we observe that we need to get more focused and connected to the Divine power!

        • Victor

          Thanks Aino,

          i really don´t follow US media too much, in the sense you mention. I work with latin american media, so I follow international agencies, and as a balance -because we know what international agencies are-, international alternative media. Of course, there are several kinds of ´alternative´ media. The point is how checkable, transparent, funded, honest, wide scoped, related to other sources, documented, etc., this media is. How close to something that we could call ´truth´ it is. What is Truth? Well, the milestone question. But let´s stay with the usual definition of truth: what anybody could verify as assertions linked with facts in a coherent way.

          So, I say it again. Neutrality does not exist. Actual Objectivity doesn´t exist neither. Inherently, because the very nature of what we are as human beings, and because the very nature of what data, information, knowledge, etc. are, there is no such thing as neutrality or objectivity. Every observation, every assertion, every information is based in determined conceptual, cultural, social, psychological, ethical, etc., structrures and conditions. This is a whole subject for discussing and study. The point is how aware you are about your codintionings, your context, your cultural points of view, and your purposes and goals, and how honest and coherent you are with them. In this way, you could try to be the most ´inter-subjective´ as possible, or the most balanced as possible, or the most inclusive, impartial, veracious, etc. as possible. If you do, many people will tell that you are ´neutral´, ´objective´, ´unbiased´, ´truthful´, etc. In common lenguage this could be accepted. But we must know that there´s more, many more behind it.

          So, in this english-language context, I try to find the values and characteristics I´ve mentioned, in what we call alternative media, and there are so many good sources to use.

          But of course, there wil be who say that just doing this is buying ´radical´ -or leftiest, red, communist, you name it…- “propaganda”. Anything that don´t adjust at the agenda of the tyrannical interests of global dominion by transnational corporations and their puppets -politicians- will probably get the name of ´propaganda´ and only saying this word, or suggesting it, inmediately triggers some buttons in the subconscious of many people around the world. Becasuse we have several decades under this kind of conditioning.

          In this way, I´ve found that many, many people, including -or even more- in the context of spirituality is not aware even that there is an “agenda of the tyrannical interests of global dominion by transnational corporations and their puppets -politicians-“. There is not sometimes the tiniest idea of what hegemonism and all their mechanisms, structures, and procedures, worldviews, values, beliefs, etc., are. And this is very sad. Because in my view, THIS IS THE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT SPIRITUALITY WOULD HAVE TO FACE TODAY. Specially in what concerns about the modes of internalizing those values and beliefs: MEDIA AND EDUCATION.

          If religion was the principal mass-media and educational system of the past (and in many ways, it still is), media (all its branches: entertainment, TV, press, magazines, movies, music, books, etc.) is the most important in these times. Schools, university, etc. does the rest, for what Noam Chomsky called “Manufacturing Consent”, or what author Vicente Romano named in his book “The formation of the submissive mentality”.

          Fortunately, some authors in what is called “New Spirituality” are being aware of this, and are daring, little by little to try these subjects in their books. For example, Neale Donald Walsch, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Marianne Williamson and others. But I think we need more.

          Because the agenda of manipulation, Neo-colonialism, and transnational tiranny via economics, military, media, ´international order´, and global brainwashing is not a thing of ´conspiranoic´ people. And when Life and History present us a new opportunity for remembering, awakening, awareness, and transformation, I think we could take the opportunity of understanding this: we live in global tiranny and we can change it. Isn´t this what Spirituality is telling us, proposing us?: “you can observe your past and present collective elections, and in order for a new way of living, you can decide again, and transform all anew”. For this we have to see some truths, and “Truth will set us free”.

          So, here we are again.

          We could see recent events and try to remember, learn something. Perhaps WWII is ´too far away´ now. But there you have Vietnam. Or if you want something very near and present, there you have Iraq. For just mentioning some few. What is happening right now is so, so similar to what happened in the previous months of launching war against Iraq. Almost the same pretexts, the same procedures, the same actors -different frontmen-, the same interests, the same agenda, and yes, very important!, the same media performance. There are some very interesting books with a deep examination about media in this issue of Iraq. Absolutely valuable in this context of a ´new´ war, this time against Lybia, pardon, me, Syria.

          The question is: are we going to repeat the same story this time. All indicates, what is seems today is that we are heading towards yes…

          As Mewabe asks, would we need a global disaster, the world in flames for understanding a paif of very ´simple´ lessons? I ask, do we need another world war with nuclear disasters to understand what the presen and past are telling us…? I hope no.

          In that effort, I´ll put my two cents to help some awareness, rememberings, and common sense.

          To help arise a new humanity, not from the ashes of destruction, but from the whewwws! of “we were close”… “We were close but awakened at time…”

          So be it. Amen.

          • Victor

            Talking about manufacturing consent, here we have this very well detailed article about current events in Syria.

            Yes, from Counterpunch, but no matter. It is very well documented, and with seriously mindful questions…

            Weekend Edition September 6-8, 2013

            The Grand Narrative for War

            Manufacturing Consent on Syria

            by ANTHONY DiMAGGIO

            Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky gained much notoriety from their seminal book, Manufacturing Consent, more than two decades ago. The central thesis of that book – that political and media elites construct propaganda narratives in order to build support for U.S. foreign policy – remains as relevant today as ever. Obama’s proposed intervention in Syria is a case in point. Public support for military action remains quite low – ranging from between one-quarter to one-third of Americans according to recent polls. That’s likely to change in coming weeks to months as the administration ramps up its pro-intervention rhetoric, and as political elites, reporters, and media pundits uncritically repeat and embrace his messages.
            The 2011 intervention in Libya provides a template for the administration’s plan: defend an intervention via humanitarian rhetoric that lambastes a dictator for serious human rights abuses; deliver a number of public speeches in an effort to build support for war; and once troops begin to enter harm’s way, sit back and enjoy increased support as Americans “rally around the flag” in support of the conflict. This formula was enough to gain support for intervention from between 50 to 60 percent of Americans in the case of Libya, and is likely to do the same in Syria once Congress goes along.

            The process has already begun. A senate committee already voted 10-7 to grant authorization for force, and a floor resolution is likely to follow in this Democratic controlled chamber. The Obama administration has largely controlled the narrative on Syria over the last year and a half, stressing that the United States is seriously concerned with Assad’s abuses and use of chemical weapons against rebels and civilians. A September survey from the Pew Research Center finds that by a factor of more than two-to-one, Americans conclude that, from what they have “read and heard,” that “there is clear evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians.” The beleaguered peoples of Syria, Obama contends, need a helping hand from the United States, which is said to be unconditionally concerned with protecting the safety and security of those targeted by Weapons of Mass Destruction. The claim that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against its people has been largely accepted in political and media discourse, despite the fact that the administration has yet to present any concrete evidence. The failure to present evidence presents a particular problem considering claims appearing in news reports that rebel groups may be guilty of using chemical weapons. The Syrian government may very well have used these weapons, and this would probably surprise few people, but the key point here is that the administration has done nothing to present that case before announcing its campaign for war.

            In analyzing major news stories via the Lexis Nexis academic database, my findings suggests that during early 2012 and in the first half of 2013 (both periods when reporting of the Syrian civil war was growing), the percent of stories referencing the Obama administration significantly outnumbered references to Congressional Republican opponents in the news by between ten to twenty percentage points. In other words, the administration had a clear advantage in controlling the narrative on Syria – as presidents typically do when it comes to foreign policy. Reports claiming that both the Syrian government and rebel groups have engaged in human rights abuses and used chemical weapons represent a challenge to Obama’s Syria narrative.

            According to Lexis Nexis, reports referencing these two points barely appeared in U.S. news stories from 2012 to 2013. Instead, the grand narrative on Syria emphasized Obama’s rhetoric on the need to confront Assad, while also stressing the efforts of rebels to take down the government. Predictably, those paying close attention to news on Syria have fallen in line behind the president. My analysis of Pew Research Center polling data from 2012 finds that those paying “a lot” or “some attention” to Syria in the news were significantly more likely to support U.S. military intervention and more likely to embrace supplying weapons to rebels than those paying attention to Syria news “not at all.” The effects of pro-administration media content, however, were blunted by the fact that relatively few Americans were paying attention to Syria from 2012 through early 2013 (typically less than 50 percent in polls when this question was surveyed). Pro-administration coverage is likely to produce growing support for intervention by late 2013 however, considering that a strong majority of Americans (over 60 percent from recent survey findings) are now paying attention as the U.S. prepares for war. Mass support will be necessary to tip the scales in favor of intervention.

            Clearly, Obama read the writing on the wall and saw from the latest polling figures that opposition to war has persisted by a factor of two-to-one; hence his effort to achieve support from Congress. This president would like to spread responsibility for the intervention between himself and the legislature, in an obvious effort to prevent a public mutiny focused on executive and to avoid the tarnishing of his presidential “legacy.” This effort has little to do with a commitment to the rule of law, as Obama argues (Congress according to the Constitution has the power to declare war, not the president). Obama showed contempt for Congress and little interest in securing a congressional resolution in the 2011 Libya intervention.

            Receiving support from Republican hawks and Democratic allies on Syria, however, will add an element of perceived “legitimacy” to the war effort, likely bumping up public support. This much seems clear from late August NBC polling demonstrating that 79 percent of Americans feel that “Obama should be required to receive approval from Congress before taking military action in Syria.”

            Obama’s delivery of a number of speeches shortly before the conflict begins (as happened in Libya), will likely be accompanied by growing support among those paying attention to presidential rhetoric and reporting on Syria. Pundits in the media will fawn over the president for his efforts to promote “transparency” in the intervention by presenting “clear cut” and “definitive” evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons – of course, without bothering to pressure for a return of inspectors to verify these claims. Finally, as the U.S. military enters into the hostilities, many will grant short-term support to the president, seeking to demonstrate their “support for the troops” during a difficult time. This “rally effect” has accompanied every war in recent history, and it will be no different in Syria. The combination of these three developments will likely result in at least a bare majority of Americans (perhaps more) supporting limited intervention, so long as ground troops are not introduced.

            The notion of “manufacturing consent” seems appropriate here, considering that challenges to war are being marginalized in political discourse. Some of those points are worth reflecting on:

            * Why should Americans accept Obama’s artificial “red line” in the sand that dictates intervention based upon evidence of the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons? Estimates suggest that approximately 100,000 Syrians have already been killed in the civil war. Do we even know how many have died as a result of chemical weapons use as compared to conventional weapons? What makes a death via chemical weapons more morally outrageous than a death via conventional weapons? Do the families of the dead care about this distinction? A murder is a murder regardless of the type of bomb used. The “red line” narrative appears to be little more than a propaganda line used to drum up public support for war at the expense of critical thought.

            * Should we really believe that air strikes are going to disarm the Syrian regime, or at least render its alleged chemical stockpile harmless? This seems fanciful, despite the fact that so many pundits are accepting this position. Those familiar with the disarmament process know that it requires the introduction of international inspectors, which first need to identify facilities where chemical weapons reside, in order to disarm them. Without such efforts, there is reason to question the assumption that a bombing campaign will prevent future use of chemical weapons. The bombing campaign seems intended to degrade Assad’s military capabilities – rather than his chemical weapons stockpiles – so as to provide the Syrian rebels with an opportunity to take the offensive against the government. Obama hasn’t been honest with the public about this motive for action.

            * Why is military intervention superior to intensifying sanctions? Increased sanctions send the message that repression is unacceptable, as the guilty country becomes even further isolated from the rest of the world. This solution has the added advantage of removing U.S. responsibility for the bombing of civilians in large numbers. Furthermore, the sanctions alternative will at least ensure that the U.S. does not further exacerbate instability in Syria, considering the concern that violence could spill into neighboring countries. Hezbollah has announced that it will launch attacks against Israel following a U.S. intervention in Syria. Hezbollah’s attacks would most certainly be accompanied by Israeli incursion into Lebanon, contributing to further regional instability, death, and destruction.

            * Why Syria, and why now? There are so many examples of repressive allied regimes that receive a free pass on human rights abuses. Reports suggest that more than 600 civilians were killed in the recent military crackdown by the U.S.-allied Egyptian dictatorship, with scarcely a word from the president, compared to the 1,500 hundred who died in the Syrian government’s alleged chemical weapons attack last month. Plenty of examples of human rights abuses by U.S. favored dictators (or by countries with little strategic value) have produced little to no response from U.S. presidents. To name a few: the Saudi and Bahraini government crackdown on protesters in Bahrain during the Arab Spring; government genocide against civilians in Darfur during the 2000s; the Turkish government’s suppression of tens of thousands of Kurds from the 1990s onward; the murder of hundreds of thousands via genocide in Rwanda during the 1990s; the Indonesian government’s occupation and genocide in East Timor from the 1970s through 1990s; Saddam Hussein’s gassing of the Kurds during the mid to late 1980s, when he remained a valued U.S. ally. We could add more countries to the list, but the main point is that allied human rights abusers (or those responsible for abuses in countries with little strategic value) receive a pass, while designated enemies of state (Libya and Syria being the most recent examples) are targeted due to geopolitical U.S. interests – the most salient being Middle Eastern oil.

            * What about those chemical weapons? Why should the Obama administration expect the public to accept that Assad used chemical weapons when literally no evidence has been presented? To simply accept presidential rhetoric without evidence would be a serious mistake in light of the way that intelligence was knowingly and criminally manipulated by Bush in selling the war with Iraq. If it turns out that both sides are guilty of using chemical weapons, what is the humanitarian or moral basis for intervening in favor of rebels – who themselves have amassed quite a horrendous human rights record – against the government?

            * What of humanitarian concerns? Do we really think that bombing military emplacements located in civilian areas can be defended as humanitarian? Such attacks are likely to escalate the human rights abuses in Syria, rather than curtail them. It is a historical fact that the vast majority of deaths during war are civilians. Perhaps we should stop defending wars by using mythical humanitarian rhetoric when we know that they produce destruction and death, instead of humanitarian relief.

            To date, I have seen little effort to address these criticisms. Such concerns have been brought up from time to time in the news, but if past trends continue, media coverage will privilege presidential narratives over anti-war views. At day’s end, Syria appears to have all the makings of a classic effort to “manufacture consent” in favor of war.

          • Aino Vesanen

            Talking about US media criticism – fair.org seems to do some respectful critical writing on this topic!

  • mewabe

    As we all know war and violence are totally unnecessary, and a matter of poor choice.

    Financially, it would cost of fraction of what war, military readiness and weapons research, development and stockpiling cost to solve ALL of the world problems (adequate housing, basic education, healthcare, clean water, food for every human being on the planet), as long as this effort is not derailed by greedy, corrupt opportunists, of which there is no apparent shortage.

    What is lacking in humanity that it will not give up violence and brutality? We have all the means, the solutions, the technologies to live peaceful, happy, abundant lives, if we stop destroying the natural environment and live in alignment with all life.

    Are we stupid? Is it a matter of testosterone? Are we essentially little more than technologically advanced apes?

    We can look at spiritual writings from the beginning of recorded history to the present, and all possible, profound, world-changing, world-saving messages have been put out there, in different forms to appeal to every taste, for humanity to use and grow.

    So what is missing? NOTHING…except perhaps GOODWILL. It seems that humanity is very attached to its suffering, to its unhappiness with life, to its neurotic need to make a complete mess of it all.

    Which is why I do believe that, like a drunk who passes out in a dark alley and wakes up to realize his life hangs by a thread, humanity will not give up its addiction to suffering until it has manifested and experienced the full extend of its self-created nightmares.

    Some children can only learn the danger of fire after they have experienced a burn. Humanity is at that stage. How much of a global burn it will need to manifest in order to learn is the only real question.

    But you can get an idea by remembering that WW2 and 60 million dead was not enough of a lesson.

  • mewabe

    War is such a convenient distraction…while the world is in a trance over Syria, Obama and the US government are about to sign into law a trade agreement that will give corporations the right to SUE NATIONS if these nations do not open their door to the exploitation of their resources.

    Let’s say a nation outlaws oil exploration in a certain part of its territory…it will be sued and most likely loose in court because of this agreement, giving corporations near absolute power over governments and populations.

    But you won’t hear or read this in the corporate-owned and corporate-controlled mainstream media.

    Yes, the killing of human beings is always horrific, whether it is done by outlawed or legal weapons. Yet there does not seem to be a shortage of humanity. There is however a shortage of natural resources, which is precisely why most wars are resources war, and why corporations want total control.

    What is more horrific, the killing of a few thousand human beings by illegal means (chemical weapons), or the killing of hundreds of thousands or millions in “legal” wars?

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still celebrated as heroic actions by the US government. Exactly what did the children, women and elderly, as well as the civilian men of these towns, do to deserve to be annihilated in such a horrific manner? Was not this a textbook definition of terrorism? (Terrorism: the targeting of civilians to make a government bend to a group’s will and demands).

    What is more destructive, the killing of people or the CONSCIOUS and WILLFUL destruction of the planet’s ecosystems in the name of profit and power, which surely condemn future generations to a life of hell, or no life at all?

    • Victor

      WOW!

  • Least we forget hear’s Neale’s answer to Syria:

    If the Syrian government is proven to have used nerve gas on its own
    people (and much of the current evidence points that way), the world
    (and yes, that includes Russia and China) can and should turn that
    regime into a pariah government, supported by not even its present
    allies. Not in the U.N., not in the international trade markets, not in
    the court of global public opinion, not in any way whatsoever. All
    imports of every kind, by any nation, should cease. Blockades ensuring
    that edict should be enforced. All cooperation with the government
    should end. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would find out soon enough
    that he made not only a humanly horrific, but also a politically
    horrendous, error.

    And if new evidence emerges that the rebels were, after all,
    responsible for the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in an effort to
    frame the Assad regime, then any and all support from any and all
    quarters now flowing to the rebels must be immediately and forever
    ended.

    Mr. Kerry said that the second scenario is completely fabricated by
    the Assad government and is impossible to believe, because of the high
    improbability that the rebel forces could get their hands on such
    weapons grade nerve gas, much less have the capability of delivering it
    from rockets tracked by satellites to be blasting off from government
    held territory at the moment of the attack.

    The world’s job now must be to deliver all the evidence gathered so
    far to allow the international community to deal with this monstrosity
    with certainty and sureness, bringing the perpetrators to non-violent
    but effective reckoning. It is possible to do this. It is just as
    possible as launching missiles and killing more people.

    As well, as spiritual beings, we have another option: Pray. Envision. Intend.

    Call it by whatever word fits into your personal understanding, but
    use the power of Purposefully Focused Energy to generate an expanded
    contextual field around the experience that humanity is co-creating
    regarding Syria — a field that now includes the reality of peace and
    safety, harmony and cooperation, joy and celebration.

    This can work. Yes, it can. Along with practical measures taken on
    the ground in Syria. Like the establishment of War Free Zones (as
    suggested by Michael in his Comments Entry below), protected on the
    ground and in the air by nonaligned U.N. peacekeepers. And the shipping
    in of extensive food and medical supplies and other necessities. And the
    use of the same enormous expenditures that it would take to launch
    missile strikes against that country, to offer aid in many forms
    (education, social services, etc.) to the rank-and-file citizens of that
    country, so that they could ultimately decide for themselves who they
    want to govern them, and by what national approach or mechanism.

    Give the power back to the people to determine their country’s
    future. Remove it from the warring factions on both sides, and return it
    to the people. Freedom is the highest expression of spirituality,
    because it is a characteristic of Divinity.

    Divinity has two essential qualities: Unconditional Love and Total
    Freedom. Bring that to Syria and watch the situation resolve itself
    without the use of a single killing weapon.

    • mewabe

      Blockades, sanctions, etc, never hurt governments…they only hurt the people, and the most vulnerable amongst the people, as in Iraq where up to 500 000 children died as a direct result of the sanctions against that nation.

      Have we forgotten already? I am sure Iraqis have not.

  • Victor

    Join a worldwide Call to Prayer for Syria on Saturday, Sept 7th at 12pm PT /
    3pm EDT. Let’s support His Holiness Pope Francis’ call for a worldwide
    day of fasting & prayer. Free registration: theshiftnetworkdotcom/PrayerforSyria

  • Victor

    Sorry, but a must-read:

    September 7th, 2013 9:46 AM

    Obama Warned on Syrian Intel

    By Ray McGovern

    MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

    FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

    SUBJECT: Is Syria a Trap?

    Precedence: IMMEDIATE

    We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are
    telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your
    administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar
    al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and
    injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence
    officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to
    assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers
    decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as
    “plausible denial.”

    We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandum
    immediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he
    peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq. Then,
    also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt,
    thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised.

    The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so,
    that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the
    discussion beyond … the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war
    for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the
    unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the
    same advice today.

    Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause
    fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They
    insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by
    the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal.
    That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the
    Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is
    perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the
    media, the public – and perhaps even you.

    We have observed John Brennan closely over recent years and, sadly,
    we find what our former colleagues are now telling us easy to
    believe. Sadder still, this goes in spades for those of us who have
    worked with him personally; we give him zero credence. And that goes, as
    well, for his titular boss, Director of National Intelligence James
    Clapper, who has admitted he gave “clearly erroneous” sworn testimony to
    Congress denying NSA eavesdropping on Americans.

    Intelligence Summary or Political Ploy?

    That Secretary of State John Kerry would invoke Clapper’s name this
    week in Congressional testimony, in an apparent attempt to enhance the
    credibility of the four-page “Government Assessment”
    strikes us as odd. The more so, since it was, for some unexplained
    reason, not Clapper but the White House that released the “assessment.”

    This is not a fine point. We know how these things are done. Although
    the “Government Assessment” is being sold to the media as an
    “intelligence summary,” it is a political, not an intelligence
    document. The drafters, massagers, and fixers avoided presenting
    essential detail. Moreover, they conceded upfront that, though they
    pinned “high confidence” on the assessment, it still fell “short of
    confirmation.”

    Déjà Fraud: This brings a flashback to the famous Downing
    Street Minutes of July 23, 2002, on Iraq, The minutes record the Richard
    Dearlove, then head of British intelligence, reporting to Prime
    Minister Tony Blair and other senior officials that President Bush had
    decided to remove Saddam Hussein through military action that would be
    “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.” Dearlove had gotten
    the word from then-CIA Director George Tenet whom he visited at CIA
    headquarters on July 20.

    The discussion that followed centered on the ephemeral nature of the
    evidence, prompting Dearlove to explain: “But the intelligence and
    facts were being fixed around the policy.” We are concerned that this
    is precisely what has happened with the “intelligence” on Syria.

    The Intelligence

    There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the
    Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its
    supporters — providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21
    chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition
    and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been
    to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into
    the war.

    According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were
    brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some
    people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured.

    We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket
    capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact,
    we are aware of no reliable physical evidence to support the claim
    that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with
    expertise in chemical weapons.

    In addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013,
    Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance
    preparations for a major, irregular military surge. Initial meetings
    between senior opposition military commanders and Qatari, Turkish and
    U.S. intelligence officials took place at the converted Turkish military
    garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, now used as the command center
    and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign
    sponsors.

    Senior opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the
    regional commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a
    war-changing development,” which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led
    bombing of Syria.

    At operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior
    Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior
    commanders of the Syrian opposition, the Syrians were told that the
    bombing would start in a few days. Opposition leaders were ordered to
    prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into
    Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government

    The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian
    regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons
    for the coming offensive. And they were. A weapons distribution
    operation unprecedented in scope began in all opposition camps on August
    21-23. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by
    Qatari and Turkish intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S.
    intelligence officers.

    Cui bono?

    That the various groups trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar
    al-Assad have ample incentive to get the U.S. more deeply involved in
    support of that effort is clear. Until now, it has not been quite as
    clear that the Netanyahu government in Israel has equally powerful
    incentive to get Washington more deeply engaged in yet another war in
    the area. But with outspoken urging coming from Israel and those
    Americans who lobby for Israeli interests, this priority Israeli
    objective is becoming crystal clear.

    Reporter Judi Rudoren, writing from Jerusalem in an important article
    in Friday’s New York Times addresses Israeli motivation in an
    uncommonly candid way. Her article, titled “Israel Backs Limited Strike
    Against Syria,” notes that the Israelis have argued, quietly, that the
    best outcome for Syria’s two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least
    for the moment, is no outcome. Rudoren continues:

    “For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a
    humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr.
    Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel
    groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.

    “‘This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose,
    but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,’ said
    Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. ‘Let them both
    bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As
    long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.’”

    We think this is the way Israel’s current leaders look at the
    situation in Syria, and that deeper U.S. involvement – albeit,
    initially, by “limited” military strikes – is likely to ensure that
    there is no early resolution of the conflict in Syria. The longer Sunni
    and Shia are at each other’s throats in Syria and in the wider region,
    the safer Israel calculates that it is.

    That Syria’s main ally is Iran, with whom it has a mutual defense
    treaty, also plays a role in Israeli calculations. Iran’s leaders are
    not likely to be able to have much military impact in Syria, and Israel
    can highlight that as an embarrassment for Tehran.

    Iran’s Role

    Iran can readily be blamed by association and charged with all manner
    of provocation, real and imagined. Some have seen Israel’s hand in the
    provenance of the most damaging charges against Assad regarding
    chemical weapons and our experience suggests to us that such is
    supremely possible.

    Possible also is a false-flag attack by an interested party resulting
    in the sinking or damaging, say, of one of the five U.S. destroyers
    now on patrol just west of Syria. Our mainstream media could be counted
    on to milk that for all it’s worth, and you would find yourself under
    still more pressure to widen U.S. military involvement in Syria – and
    perhaps beyond, against Iran.

    Iran has joined those who blame the Syrian rebels for the August 21
    chemical incident, and has been quick to warn the U.S. not to get more
    deeply involved. According to the Iranian English-channel Press TV,
    Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javid Zarif has claimed: “The Syria
    crisis is a trap set by Zionist pressure groups for [the United
    States].”

    Actually, he may be not far off the mark. But we think your advisers
    may be chary of entertaining this notion. Thus, we see as our
    continuing responsibility to try to get word to you so as to ensure
    that you and other decision makers are given the full picture.

    Inevitable Retaliation

    We hope your advisers have warned you that retaliation for attacks on
    Syrian are not a matter of IF, but rather WHERE and WHEN. Retaliation
    is inevitable. For example, terrorist strikes on U.S. embassies and
    other installations are likely to make what happened to the U.S.
    “Mission” in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, look like a minor dust-up by
    comparison. One of us addressed this key consideration directly a week
    ago in an article
    titled “Possible Consequences of a U.S. Military Attack on Syria –
    Remembering the U.S. Marine Barracks Destruction in Beirut, 1983.”

    For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

    Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)

    Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

    Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan

    Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

    W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)

    David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

    Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

    Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)

    Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)

    Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq

    Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)

    Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)

  • Therese

    An article by Sarah van Gelder, in YES magazine, that is worth reading:

    Syria: Six Alternatives to Military Strikes

    Many of the legal and diplomatic processes that led to peace in other times of conflict haven’t even been tried yet in Syria.
    The Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s approval of military force in Syria makes military strikes against that country more likely. But key questions remain unanswered. Will military strikes help ordinary Syrians or harm them? Will more violence deter the use of chemical weapons and other war crimes in Syria and elsewhere, or exacerbate the problem? Have all other possibilities been exhausted, or are there peaceful solutions that haven’t been tried?

    A quick review of the options suggests there are at least six strategies that could hold wrongdoers to account, deter war crimes of all sorts, and build peace.

    These strategies are based on an idea little discussed but deeply practical for our war-weary country and world. Instead of launching an assault on Syria, the United States could lead a “coalition of the willing” in rebuilding the tattered foundation of international law. This would lay the groundwork for peace, not only in Syria, but in all the lawless regions of the world. And it could do so without adding to civilian casualties, further destabilizing the Middle East, breaking the budget of the United States, and requiring yet more sacrifices by those who serve in the armed forces.

    For several reasons, this is the right time to turn to the rule of law. Why? First, this conflict does not lend itself to the cheap story used to whip up pro-war sentiment: the notion that military strikes will help the “good guys” in the opposition defeat the “bad guys” in the regime. The armed opposition in Syria includes many we don’t want to support—especially those associated with Al Qaeda and other extremist groups. And the United States, too, has things to answer for—among other things its faulty claims about weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to war in Iraq, the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and civilian casualties of U.S. drone attacks in countries including Pakistan and Yemen.

    So building a case for war based on U.S. heroics in support of valiant upstarts against an evil despot just doesn’t work. Our real choice is this: contribute to lawless violence or turn to the rule of law and civility.

    What would we do if we were to choose peace and the rule of law? Here are six approaches that would help build justice and peace in Syria and elsewhere.

    1. Bring those guilty of atrocities to justice. With the backing of the U.N. Security Council, those responsible for the chemical weapons attacks and other war crimes should be brought to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for justice, whether they are part of the Syrian regime or members of opposition forces. “The use of chemical weapons by anyone is a war crime, and international law requires international enforcement,” policy analyst Phyllis Bennis wrote in an email. “No one country, not even the most powerful, has the right to act as unilateral cop.”

    The United States should strengthen the ability of the ICC to hold war criminals accountable by signing on and ratifying the statute that created the court in 1998.

    Even before bringing Assad and his allies to the ICC, Frank Jannuzi of Amnesty International told YES!, it’s possible to punish these individuals with travel restrictions and targeted economic sanctions.

    2. Call for a United Nations embargo on arms, military supplies, and logistical support for both Damascus and opposition forces. Stopping the flow of weapons from around the world into Syria is another important step toward peace. But it will involve complex diplomacy that has not yet been attempted. As Bennis writes, “Russia must stop and must push Iran to stop arming and funding the Syrian regime.”

    But Russia and Iran are not the only culprits. Bennis continues: “The U.S. must stop and must push Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan and others to stop arming and funding the opposition, including the extremist elements.” How can we exert pressure on those regimes? “That won’t be easy,” says Bennis.

    But we and the Russians do have leverage. For example, she says, Washington could tell the Saudis and Qataris that we will cancel all existing weapons contracts with them if they don’t stop arming the opposition.

    3. The U.N. Security Council should hold an international peace conferenceinvolving not only the Syrian government and opposition parties, but their backers from outside the country and those affected by the flow of refugees and arms.

    Non-state actors with an influence on the conflict should also be included, says astatement by the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker group. This should include Hezbollah, the Arab League, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, they say.

    Negotiators should aim for an immediate ceasefire, for the access needed to get humanitarian aid where it’s needed, and for an end to the conflict. This is a tried-and-true solution that resolved the wars in Southeast Asia through the Paris Conference on Cambodia, and in the Balkans through the Dayton Peace Agreement.

    4. Offer aid and support to the nonviolent movements within Syria, or, at least, don’t undermine them. A resurgence in Syria’s broad-based nonviolent movement for change that started in March 2011 is still a source of hope, according to Stephen Zunes, chair of Middle Eastern studies at the University of San Francisco.

    The opposition’s turn from nonviolence to armed struggle resulted in higher civilian casualties, reduced defections from the Assad’s forces, and contributed to the rise of anti-democratic elements within the opposition, Zunes says.

    He goes on to explain that nonviolent movements have a much better chance of building an inclusive democratic government.

    “Military intervention would demoralize and disempower those remaining in the nonviolent resistance who are daily risking their lives for their freedom,” Zunes says, “while encouraging armed elements who—with their vanguard mentality, martial values, and strict military hierarchy—are far less interested in freedom and justice.”

    5. Provide the humanitarian aid desperately needed by the millions of displaced people. Humanitarian organizations are currently able to provide services within Syria only with great difficulty; the United Nations Security Council should insist that Damascus allow them access.

    And the international community, not just the countries housing the refugees, should cover the costs of caring for the displaced inside and outside the country. Yes, it’s expensive. But a military strike would cost much more, as would the long-term costs society would incur from neglecting traumatized refugees.

    6. Force the hand of Russia and China in the Security Council. Many people believe that Russia and China have vetoed efforts in the United Nations to condemn the Syrian regime or to impose sanctions on it. But all these governments have done, so far, is threaten to veto.

    Jannuzi says that the other 11 members of the Security Council should take the issue to a vote and force Russia and China to actually exercise their veto power.

    “That would at least give the rest of the international community the opportunity to say ‘If that’s your position, then what are you for?'” Jannuzi says. This would at least help to clarify the positions of these countries, an important step toward peace.

    Why the rule of law?

    By applying the rule of law through existing international institutions, we can work to isolate the wrongdoers on all sides of the conflict in Syria from their bases of support around the world. We can support those in Syria working for peaceful change and offer humanitarian assistance. And we will move beyond the limitations of responding to lawbreaking with violence.

    There’s another benefit, too, of relying on the rule of law. Doing so would strengthen the institutions, like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, designed to settle conflict without violence. That would mean we’d have more effective options available when future despots threaten to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    To follow this path with credibility, though, the United States must itself live within the rule of law. That means, at the very least, refraining from launching into a war that violates international law. Only when a country is attacked, or when it has the support of a Security Council resolution, is a military assault on another country permitted.

    It might seem naïve to press for peace in a world where there is so much violence. But the belief that a few bombing missions and a quick exit could make a positive difference is in fact the naïve view. And Americans—traumatized, exhausted, and impoverished by war—have no stomach for the protracted military conflict with uncertain aims that is the more likely outcome.

    International law—fairly applied, patiently negotiated, with tough sanctions, and help for refugees—is in fact the most practical way to peace and justice for the people of Syria and beyond.

  • mewabe

    Please let’s not forget that an attack on Syria (as well as Iraq and Iran) was part of the neo-conservative, imperialist agenda that was clearly spelled out in the “Project for the New American Century” think tank, that itself had much influence on Bush and his decision to attack Iraq (9/11 was simply the excuse they needed, as they attempting to push this agenda on Clinton previously, and Clinton laughed them out of his office, essentially).

    The think tank might no longer be active, but its dangerous, aggressive, imperialist ideology and agenda have not vanished, and neo-conservatism is still active in Washington.

    The world is simply being manipulated into another war. Anything new here?

    The problem is not chemical weapons…ALL WEAPONS ARE PROBLEMS! The fundamental, UNCHANGING problem, behind all of the distracting drama, is the drive to dominate, subjugate, control and exploit other nations, populations and individuals many nations, populations and individuals possess and display, having done so since humanity came to existence.

    Even as long as a single individual is driven to DOMINATE and CONTROL another, there will be conflict and war throughout the world. The same obviously goes with nations.

    Let’s get completely rid of this alpha, top dog mentality…unless we choose to keep behaving as do SOME animals, in which case we should be honest about it, and cease pretending to be superior to them, evolved and civilized.

    This is why a return to MATRIARCHY is necessary…to BALANCE the male drive to dominate and subjugate everything in sight.

    Matriarchy does not mean dominance, for those who are so brainwashed by the patriarchy that they cannot imagine anything outside dominance. Matriarchy means EQUALITY, COMMUNICATION, COOPERATION and ruling by CONSENSUS (which necessitates equality and communication).

    This is not going to happen however, because most women have been so conditioned by the patriarchy that they themselves do not understand their own power (EXCEPT INDIGENOUS WOMEN), and the world is so far gone on the self-destructive male dominance path that it will have to burn to realize it took a wrong turn.

    • Victor

      Thank you Mewabe! This is always beneficial of being highlighted. Not many people is aware of what you´ve exposed. Including -again- the people in spiritual movements that by-pass all of this as ´negative stuff´.

      So, thank you again.

      Keep going…!

      • mewabe

        Thanks Victor! Keep going as well, you have a lot of great contributions aimed at going beyond mainstream propaganda to get to the truth!…

  • mewabe

    War crime?

    WAR IS A CRIME, by definition.

    There is nothing HUMAN about war, about killing, about blowing people up.

    ALL WARS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.

  • We talk too much, discuss too much & then still do nothing. Let’s do something as a mini collective & stop intellectualizing so much.

    Now the praying visualization, that’s doing something! Yet once is not enough. I think it should be a regular part of this global mini collectives activities, along with whatever else we eventually decide.

    We discuss things to death. If we created more action along with the discussion that seems more beneficial.

  • mewabe

    Many people, from many different cultures, pray for world peace…every day…or often, on this side of life AND ON THE OTHER SIDE (people who are on the other side are not unconcerned, and are not powerless). If they did not, we would have probably blown each other to pieces long ago.

    Yet, if disaster can be avoided, evolution cannot be forced. And world peace requires evolution and understanding. We are not as lambs yet…too many humans are still as wolves, or rather as hyenas (let’s not insult wolves!)

    • “evolution cannot be forced.”

      Yet we direct & control much if not all of what happens by our thoughts & feelings & actions, be they conscious or unconscious.

      Peoples evolution can be forced to some degree. That is what is meant by getting hit with a 2 by 4 board or getting accidents that really wake us up, thus forcing us to evolve.

      Imagine what life might be like without so many people praying for peace, our adding to it can only benefit.

      • mewabe

        When we “get” into “accidents” that really wake us up, it’s because we are ready to wake up…as there are no accidents.

        The problem is that most of humanity is still unconscious…operating from unconscious motivations. No matter how much the conscious may seek all that is good in life, if the unconscious is stuck and blocked, these blockages will show up on our journey towards happiness.

        Many mystics and saints (even Jesus) thought, because of their beliefs, that they experienced “hell” or temptations by a “devil” on their way to be reunited with their God…the “hell” or “devil” was simply the unconscious material showing up to be resolved. They worked it out in accordance with their belief systems and mythology, which included a belief in a devil and in hell.

        The journey is the same for the world…the more we seek the “light”, the more crap (our “demons”) comes up from the collective unconscious, which translates as wars, social upheavals, all possible kinds of crisis, it’s all coming out, some call it a cleansing.

        We have to understand the process. Yes it is good to pray…but we must realize that the unconscious CANNOT be bypassed, that whatever lays there in its shadow HAS to be faced, by the individual and be the collective, for actual resolution and liberation to happen.

        And we have to realize that praying for the “good” of the world will speed up the release of this unconscious, “bad”, dark collective material, not because of polarity, not because we need to experience what we are not in order to be what we are, but because love cleanses, and leaves no place untouched, hidden, unclean, unhealed, unresolved.

        • And yet all our unconscious & conscious demons, all our negative drama, negative thoughts & feelings simply show us by their strong charge what we don’t prefer & allow us a choice to choose differently.

          When we choose differently, we take advantage of the negative experiences to move us closer to what we do prefer & desire.

          When asleep or unconscious we don’t usually realize we have the choice, when we awake more, we see that we do. That makes all the difference.

          • mewabe

            Yes, but the nature of the unconscious is to be unconscious…we cannot make a conscious choice about unconscious material. The unconscious material must become conscious first, and the best way to approach it, when conscious, is not to control it (making a choice) but to integrate it.

            For example, if someone has a compulsion to drink, s/he can control it (making a choice), which requires a 24/7 effort and struggle, or s/he can get to what caused this compulsion (unconscious material) and feel and heal, in context, the original “drama” (trauma, pain, neglect, etc) that caused it.

            That’s where we differ, we have already covered this extensively in other comments.

            My point is that once you are healed, you no longer have to make a choice, because you are free of these unconscious negative dramas or demons.

            This approach is understood in psychotherapy, but not by most spiritual individuals and not by the general public, unfortunately.

  • ivonne und ute

    wann lernen die Menschen zu begreifen das wir alle eins sind
    muss immer erst was schlimmes passieren bevor die Menschen verstehen
    Friede Liebe Gesundheit

  • Arion444

    The moral dilemma I see is that although there is proof of sarin being used, there has been no proof offered that it was Assad (or one of his generals) who ordered the attack. Conversely, if it was the rebels who did it, in order to draw the U.S. into their civil war, then where is that proof. Finally, why is Assad a despot (or the rebels) for using chemical weapons, when Obama is at the same time using drones and illegal extrajudicial assassination against even U.S. citizens, why has the U.S. and Israel been exempted from criticism for using depleted uranium munitions, phosphorous munitions and other types of chemical agents like Agent Orange during the Vietnam War? This is the thorny issue no one seems to want to touch…”behold, I have become that which I beheld.”

    • Victor

      Hello Arion444!

      We´ve touched many aspects of what you´ve said in this thread and others.

      Greetings!

  • Victor

    Marianne Williamson
    Group prayer and love blast:

    With our eyes closed for three minutes, let’s see angels, light,
    whatever image occurs to us surrounding and infusing the nation of
    Syria. May peace somehow, miraculously prevail. Amen

  • mewabe

    “Anthem”

    The birds they sang at the break of day
    Start again I heard them say
    Don’t dwell on what has passed away
    Or what is yet to be.

    Ah the wars they will be fought again
    The holy dove She will be caught again
    Bought and sold and bought again
    The dove is never free.

    Ring the bells that still can ring
    Forget your perfect offering
    There is a crack in everything
    That’s how the light gets in.

    We asked for signs, the signs were sent
    The birth betrayed, the marriage spent
    Yeah the widowhood of every government
    Signs for all to see.

    I can’t run no more with that lawless crowd
    While the killers in high places say their prayers out loud
    But they’ve summoned, they’ve summoned up a thundercloud
    And they’re going to hear from me.

    Ring the bells that still can ring
    Forget your perfect offering
    There is a crack in everything
    That’s how the light gets in.

    You can add up the parts but you won’t have the sum
    You can strike up the march, there is no drum
    Every heart, every heart to love will come
    but like a refugee.

    Ring the bells that still can ring
    Forget your perfect offering
    There is a crack, a crack in everything
    That’s how the light gets in.

    Leonard Cohen

  • disqus_uR6fwEtcxy

    There are two observed attributes of the universal source of all things,
    which we must emulate if there is to be any accrual of spiritual advancement.
    The first is; we must not Judge, Jesus said for judgement he came into the
    world, this does not mean to judge, but rather because of the excess of
    judgement we display as a species. His intent was to stop us judging all the
    time. The universe does not judge and it does not force its will upon us, it
    allows us to do, no matter how destructive. This leads to the second attribute.
    A lesson learned is one that is learned freely from within, once again nothing
    forced. If the perpetrators of the current calamities are forced into changing
    their behaviour then nothing is gained, we are where we started with one set of
    rules being favoured over another. The only answer is to change ourselves and
    live those changes fully. To force another to do as we see fit is human and
    emanates from the ego. To allow others to do as they see fit until they awaken
    and realise those ways are wayward is of the universe. It is only our lack of
    patience – which is equivalent to grace – that prompts us to judge and act on
    those judgements.

  • ivonne und ute

    bitte Betet alle jeden Tag für alle Lebewesen und alles im Universum Frieden und Liebe

  • Victor

    It seems as if the miracle is happening!

    US Congress delayed the vote about bombing Syria. And other alternatives different to bombs are arising!

    And it seems, that we, the people, are the cause.

    So be it! Let’s keep on! Amen!

    September 10th, 2013 9:21 AM

    The Other Super Power Is Winning

    By David Swanson

    It’s not Russia. It’s not al Qaeda. It’s not Bashar al-Assad. The
    other super power is the people of the world — and the people of, but
    not by or for, the United States.

    The world’s people are protesting. U.S. citizens abroad are
    protesting at U.S. embassies. The British Parliament said no to war for
    the first time since Yorktown.

    The U.S. polls began with single-digit support for attacking Syria,
    climbed a little with the corporate media onslaught, and then started
    sinking again as the propaganda push shifted into self-defeating top
    gear.

    Taking the stage after Colin Powell, the Obama-Kerry war marketing
    team was compelled by public pressure, foreign pressure,
    government-insider pressure, past public statements, and the inability
    of even the corporate media to keep a straight face, to take this war
    proposal to Congress — and to do so while Congress members and senators
    were at home in their districts and states, where people were able to
    get in their faces.

    Congress has been feeling the heat. Sure, there is greater
    willingness by some Republican members to oppose a war if the president
    is a Democrat. But there are also Democrats openly supporting the war
    because the president wants them to. The decisive factor has been
    public pressure. Senators and representatives have been turned around
    by their constituents, and that minority still supporting an attack on
    Syria openly says they’re defying the people who elected them. If there
    is no vote in Congress, it will be because the vote would fail.

    Now is the time for Congress and the president to hear our voices more loudly than ever.

    Secretary Kerry stressed on Monday that he hadn’t been serious about a
    diplomatic solution. It was just “rhetoric.” He was just pointing out
    the “impossibility” of Assad handing weapons over. He didn’t want
    anyone to take it seriously. Not when we have to get a war started. Not
    when the clock is ticking and he has already Colin-Powelled himself in
    front of his old committee with his wife behind him and protesters with
    bloody hands filling the room and everybody snickering when he claimed
    al Qaeda would install a secular democracy. Not after all THAT!

    How can you ask a man to be the last one to lie for a dead idea?

    But warmongering senators and presidents and presidential wannabes
    jumped at the chance of a way out of watching Congress vote down a war,
    and watching Congress vote down a war because we made them do it.
    Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee has a proposal for a diplomatic
    resolution. Republican Congressman Chris Smith has proposed a United
    Nations war crimes tribunal. (One might hope it will even look at the
    crimes of both sides in the Syrian war.) The always obvious, but
    hidden, fact that there are alternatives to bombing people is bursting
    out all over.

    Sure, some people dislike this war because it would cost money, or
    because the Iraqis are ungrateful for the destruction of their country,
    or because Obama was born in Africa, but mostly people oppose this war
    for very good reasons — and the financial cost is not really a bad
    reason. From right to left, people don’t think the United States should
    be the world’s vigilante. From left to right, people don’t believe the
    justifications presented without evidence. From right to left, people
    understand that killing people with the right weapons to protest their
    being killed with the wrong weapons is little bit crazy. From left to
    right, people don’t believe tales of short and easy wars that will pay
    for themselves. And, across the political spectrum, people have begun
    to be able to smell lies, even when those lies are wrapped in flags and
    uniforms.

    We should give our government credit for listening — if it listens.
    By no means are we out of the woods yet. If you want to be able to say
    you were part of the movement that prevented a U.S. war, now is the time to email and telephone and join in activities.
    We should not, however, fantasize that our government secretly held our
    position against the war it was trying to roll out, before we compelled
    it to hold our position.

    Let them thump their chests a bit about how their threats won
    something out of Assad, if that allows their war fever to pass. But
    don’t for a minute lose the significance of what the U.S. public has
    done to the otherwise broken U.S. government. Out of whatever
    combination of factors, it just may turn out that we’ve stopped a war.
    Which means that we can stop another war. Which means that we can begin
    to work our way out of the war machine that has eaten our economy, our
    civil liberties, our natural environment, and our soul.

    Assad may be lying. Or Obama may lie that Assad is lying. Or this
    whole thing may otherwise fall apart and the push for this war be back
    with a full-court press on Congress. But we can stop it if we choose to do so.
    We can push as hard for peaceful solutions in Syria as we’ve pushed to
    prevent the bombs from falling. In fact, we can push 10 times harder.

    And the warmakers will be back with another war. Have no fear of
    that. Seriously, have no fear of it: We are a super-power. They are a
    vestige of a barbaric practice that has become an anachronism even while
    remaining our largest public investment. They are dinosaurs. They’ll
    come back with a “defensive war”. That was their biggest failure this
    time; they didn’t make Syria a threat. Senator Harry Reid on Monday
    painted Syria as Nazi Germany, but he sounded like Elmer Fudd warning of
    a killer rabbit.

    Laughter is our most potent tool. We must mock their
    fear-mongering. We must laugh at their claims of power and benevolent
    intent. We must ask to see the list of nations that are grateful for
    past bombs. We must inquire whether senators who play video poker while
    debating war plans, or secretaries of state who promise wars that will
    be both tiny and significant with no impact and a decisive result, are
    perhaps in need of better medication.

    But let’s not count our doves before they hatch. Get in on this successful movement now. It’s going to be one to tell your grandchildren about.