Obama Marshals Allies for War on Syria and Iraq
Claims by American officials that Washington has the support of 40 countries cannot obscure the fact that this is another US war based on lies, and in flagrant breach of international law. US warplanes have carried out more than 160 air strikes inside Iraq after being invited to do so by its puppet regime in Baghdad, and its aircraft and drones have already carried out reconnaissance inside Syria. Washington has arrogated to itself the right to conduct air strikes inside Syria, despite the expressed opposition of the Syrian government.
Speaking on the ABC’s “This Week” program last night, US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, declared that the US had the “legal basis” for waging an air war on Syria and that there was “universal support” in the international community for attacking ISIS. In fact, Washington lacks even the fig-leaf of a UN resolution to legitimise its new war. When Obama chairs a special UN Security Council session on Wednesday, he is unlikely to seek a resolution supporting air strikes on Syria, as Russia would veto it.
Power made the absurd assertion that military aggression against Syria was justified because Iraq had requested it. “The Iraqis have appealed to the international community to come to their defence not only in Iraq, but also to go after safe havens in foreign countries. And what they mean of course is Syria.
Read more: globalresearch.ca
Syria: first video of the bombing of the pro-US coalition on the city of Raqqa controlled by ISIS HD
Sep 22, 2014
Syria: first video of the bombing of the pro-US coalition on the city of Raqqa, controlled by ISIS
The US is reported to have undertaken a key role in an air strike against ISIS stronghold and regional headquarters.
Pentagon Press Secretary, Rear Adm. John Kirby said in a statement Monday evening that a mix of fighter, bomber and Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles were engaged in the attack.
Tweets monitored coming from a Syrian source in the area :
– Breaking: Huge explosions shook the city in what might be the beginning of US airstrikes on ISIS HQs in Raqqa
– The airstrikes 5/6 concentrated near the ‘governorate building’ ISIS’s main HQ. Meanwhile, sounds of warplanes can be heard clearly
– The sky is full drones over Raqqa now
– Also Tal Abyad, on the Turkish border, was bombed according to activists there
Syria, ISIS, Raqqa
Location: Ar Raqqah, Ar-Raqqah Governorate, Syria
Motives For Bombing Syria at This Exact Time
A Possibility exist the bombings against Syria also was meant to impact the G-20 Summit as well as to destabilize Syria…
Will the Mass corporate controlled media provide meaningful coverage of the G-20 now?
Will focus be shifted to war torn Syria?
How will the 20 nations’ finance ministers respond to the U.S. Show of Force, and was it a veiled threat to any nation at the G20 Summit?
Something big is going on behind the scenes and closed doors with too many secrets.
Interesting that Radio New Zealand reported this morning that Obama gave the Syrian government advance warning of the air strikes (via Turkish diplomats). But the Wall Street Journal denies it: http://online.wsj.com/articles/syria-opposition-says-it-was-informed-strikes-would-begin-1411459825
Also this clip from 2012 where Biden attacks Romney for wanting to go to war with Syria: http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/biden-on-romne-in-2012-ready-for-war-with-syria#4ee14j
So many secrets, lies, and deception…
One thing is certain, attacking a small group in a foreign nation without the sovereign nation’s PERMISSION is an act of aggression and a violation.
This is evidence that some institutions absolutely control everything, at least for now and until they have been dethroned…
This is in the public’s face for all to see that there is no accountability for these forces that can attack without UK, France, Australia, etc.. The White House is going it naked and has Australia or the UK stopped them?
Has Russia & China?
But it does fuel opposition to the White House, is that not obvious and interesting?
Also I read some misgivings from Australia’s former Prime Min. regretting being fooled into supporting the false aggression against Iraq or something that I really did not focus on because I was skimming in search of important matters.
But these self proclaimed leaders really annoy me. I am old ways and elected politicians were meant to be servants, not LEADERS.
But many things remain hidden from us.
I think something BIG is amiss…
The G20 is connected because in the past the G7 led the agenda and now the G7 seems to be begging for G20 support and BRICS continues to Chug along on a path that does not embrace the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency
Is USA again using depleted uranium weapons in Middle East?
US urged to clarify depleted uranium policy as A-10 gunships deploy to the Middle East http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/us-to-deploy-a-10-gunships-to-the-middle-east 23 Sept 14
The Pentagon has announced plans to send 12 A-10 gunships from the 122nd Fighter Wing to an unspecified location in the Middle East as part of its wider campaign against Islamic State (IS) fighters. The aircraft, which can fire 30mm DU cannon rounds, are designed for use in close air support of grounds troops. However President Obama has given assurances that US troops will not be involved in ground combat operations during the conflict.
In June, Iraq called for a global treaty ban on DU, highlighting the need for technical assistance for clearance and urging the UN and member states to act with more urgency on the issue. The renewed use of DU on its territory when contamination from 1991 and 2003 remains unresolved would be politically problematic. ICBUW strongly urges the US not to use DU and to state publicly that it will not do so. The arrival of the A-10s in the Middle East will coincide with debate over a fifth UN General Assembly resolution expressing concern over DU weapons.
With the aircraft not due in the Middle East until mid-October, there is an opportunity for US campaigners to seek clarification on whether DU will be used. Those in countries forming part of the new coalition, such as France and the UK, should ask their governments whether they endorse any use of DU by US forces in the conflict.
US DU usage policy unclear
The deployment may provide a new test for US policy on DU use – namely when does it view its use acceptable or unacceptable. Following the short-lived use of A-10s in Libya in 2011, the US claimed that no DU had been used – although reserved the right to use it in future. Concern over the potential use of DU in Libya had been raised by parliamentarians in a number of NATO countries, including the UK and Belgium. Analysts expressed surprise at the US decision, as tackling Libya’s armoured vehicles seemed like a logical use for the A-10, a role for which the US claims DU ammunition is critically important. This remains the political line although information revealed earlier this year demonstrated that DU was also used against non-armoured targets, unmounted troops and buildings in Iraq in 2003.
A-10 aircraft fire 30mm PGU-14 armour piercing incendiary DU ammunition from a cannon fitted beneath the cockpit. The GAU-8 cannon normally fires a standard combat mixture of PGU-14 and PGU-13 high explosive rounds, which are pre-loaded on an ammunition belt before the plane takes off. The A-10 has been responsible for more DU contamination than any other platform. In the case of Libya, and if the US statement was correct, then it was the first public acknowledgement by the US that A-10s were being loaded only with the high explosive PGU-13 rounds during combat of this type, although the practice has previously been identified in photographs of A-10 units in Afghanistan.
At issue is therefore whether the US has set itself a voluntary code of conduct that determines whether DU use is acceptable or not in any given conflict. Perhaps it is cost/benefit analysis of perceived military necessity versus impact on public relations? The calculation underlines the continuing global stigmatisation of the weapons, which is also reflected in the increasingly large majorities voting in favour of DU resolutions at the UN General Assembly. It is highly likely that, given the level of concern about the weapons in the region, any use of DU by the US would be a propaganda victory for IS.
Policy for contaminating environment & depopulation?
What nation would allow another nation to bomb and nuclear contaminate neighborhoods in the excuse to kill a few terrorists?
The truth is hidden in plain sight.
U.S. Funds and Arms Terrorists and Then Abruptly Bombs Some of Them
First sponsoring, now fighting?
The sick, twisted, hypocritical criminality of Washington policy is called out by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.