Britain, France, Germany and Israel Lie for Obama

Stephen Lendman
Activist Post

Obama rages for more war. He intends more mass killing and destruction. Attacking Syria is virtually certain. It’s just a matter of when.

It’s likely shortly after Congress reconvenes on September 9. So-called token strikes conceal planned shock and awe.

Tomahawk cruise missiles usually carry 1,000 lb. warheads. Hundreds may be launched over several days.

Doing so will cause extensive destruction. Perhaps thousands will die. Many more will be injured. If damage assessment is insufficient, more strikes will follow.

Bombs away is longstanding US policy. America’s a killing machine. It’s history is bloodstained. More lawless aggression is imminent. It’s based on lies.

John Kerry replicated Colin Powell’s moment three times. He lied repeatedly. So-called evidence he claimed about Assad using chemical weapons is fabricated. None exists.

It’s baseless. It’s fake. It’s manufactured out of whole cloth. No evidence links Syria to chemical weapons use. None!! Claiming otherwise reflects Obama’s rage for war.

Britain, France, Germany and Israel are imperial partners. Lies are contagious. They’re spreading their own.

On September 1, the Express UK headlined “Senior Syrian military chiefs tell captain: fire chemicals or be shot,” saying:

“British intelligence chiefs have intercepted radio messages in which senior Syrian military chiefs are heard ordering the use of chemical weapons.”

“The dramatic revelation, disclosed by a high-placed RAF source, came as the defiant Syrian government declared it was ‘fully ready’ with ‘its finger on the trigger’ for an expected US attack.”

The unnamed RAF officer lied, saying:

“The commander of the artillery battery told the regional commander that he would not comply and there was a heated exchange.”

“He was told in direct language that unless the order was carried out, he would be shot.”

“A total of 27 chemical artillery shells were then fired at the suburb in a 14-minute period.”

“The conversation was monitored and recorded by British officers based at the remote mountain-top RAF Troodos Signals Intelligence listening post in Cyprus and within minutes details of the conversation had been relayed to GCHQ, Whitehall and the Pentagon,” said the Express.

On September 2, AFP headlined “French intel says ‘massive use’ of chemical weapons by Syria regime,” saying:

“A French intelligence report released Monday said there was ‘massive use of chemical agents’ in an August 21 attack in Syria and that only the regime could have been responsible.”

AFP’s report followed French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault saying:

Syria “launched an attack on some suburbs of Damascus held by units of the opposition, combining conventional means with the massive use of chemical agents.”

John Kerry claimed 1,429 killed. “French intelligence had counted at least 281,” said AFP. Actual numbers are unknown. They’re likely many fewer than higher estimates.

So is the cause of death. Natural News editor Mike Adams headlined “Bombshell: Syria’s ‘chemical weapons’ turn out to be sodium fluoride used in the US water supply and sold at Wal-Mart.”

He called the chemical weapons narrative claimed by Kerry and others “an outlandish hoax.”

He cited the London Independent’s report about Britain providing Syria with two chemicals able to produce nerve gas.

What are they, asked Adams? “You won’t believe me when I tell you. They are: sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride.”

The Independent‘s “headline describes ‘nerve gas chemicals’ and the subhead (calls them) ‘sodium fluoride’ and ‘potassium fluoride.’ “

According to Adams, so-called toxic chemicals evidence is “nothing more than hair samples of people who drank sodium fluoride.”

“Tests done on Syrian citizens using ICP-MS (instrumentation) would not be able to distinguish between sodium fluoride and sarin exposure in terms of the detection of elemental fluorine.”

Sarin’s chemical formulation includes fluorine, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and phosphorous. Four elements occur naturally. Fluorine doesn’t. It’s used in sodium fluoride.

ICP-MS testing can intentionally “blur” evidence, said Adams. Doing so can make sodium fluoride appear like sarin “signatures.” That’s “precisely” what Kerry claimed.

He faked so-called evidence to fit policy. So did US allies their way.

On September 3, Russia Today headlined “German intelligence concludes sarin gas used on Assad’s orders – reports,” saying:

Germany’s BND claims “enough evidence to conclude (Assad) ordered suspected chemical attack in Syria, Germany’s Der Spiegel reports, quoting the results of a secret security briefing.”

Der Spiegel headlined “Syria crisis: BND captures evidence of use of poison gas by Assad regime.”

“The German intelligence is certain that (Assad’s) responsible for the poison gas attack in Syria.”

“Even though there is no definitive proof, (there are) many clues. A wiretapped telephone call from the BND could be decisive.”

BND president Gerhard Schindler cited “a lack of clear evidence.” He lied claiming only Syria’s government has the ability to produce sarin and launch it using rockets.

BND’s analysis “is consistent with the findings presented by the United States,” said Der Spiegel.

Schindler lied saying insurgents “were not in a position to carry out such a concerted attack.”

US officials “reported only in abstract,” he said. He admitted Germany has no definitive proof.

It won’t participate in America’s attack. It’s targeting Assad its own way. It claims its own fake evidence.

So-called intercepted communications don’t exist. Claiming otherwise is a convenient canard. Germany can claim whatever it wishes. So can Washington, Britain, France and Israel.

On September 1, Haaretz headlined “Report: Syrians used chemical weapons repeatedly against rebels,” saying:

An unnamed “senior Israeli official said that, so far, small quantities of chemical weapons have been used in all cases, and in low dosages.”

At the same time, he said:

“Neither Israel nor the United States has intelligence information directly connecting Assad or his close associates to the attack on August 21.”

“However, there is no doubt that there has been use of chemical weapons by elements in the Syrian army.”

Evidence consists largely of so-called intercepted communications. They don’t exist. They’re fake. No verifiable evidence corroborates them.

Assad strongly denies using chemical weapons any time throughout months of conflict. He’s done it publicly. France’s Le Figaro interviewed him. It headlined “Assad’s warning to France.”

Le Figaro’s George Malbrunot asked him to prove a negative.

“Can you prove to us that your army did not use chemical weapons on 21 August in the Damascus suburb, during attacks that killed more than a thousand people, as you are accused of by Barack Obama and Francois Hollande,” he asked?

Assad: “It is for those who are making the accusations to provide the proof.”

“We have challenged the United States and France to put forward a single proof.”

“Obama and Hollande have been unable to do so, even to their own people.”

“Supposing our army wishes to use weapons of mass destruction.”

“Is it possible that it would do so in a zone where it is located and where (our) soldiers were wounded by these arms, as United Nations inspectors have noted during visits to hospitals where they were treated? Where is the logic,” he asked?

Assad called the region “a powder key, and today the flame is coming very near.” The “fuse is getting shorter.”

“Everyone will lose when the powder keg explodes. Chaos and extremism will spread. There is a risk of regional war.”

“Whoever contributes to the terrorists’ financial or military strengthening is the enemy of the Syrian people. Whoever works against the interests of Syria and its citizens is an enemy.”

Assad called Obama weak, saying:

“If (he) was strong, he would have said publicly: ‘We have no evidence of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian State.’ ”

“He would have said publicly: ‘The only way to proceed is through UN investigations.”

” ‘We therefore refer everything to the Security Council.’ ”

“But Obama is weak because he is facing pressure from within the United States.”

It’s too late for dialoguing with insurgents, he said. “We are fighting terrorists. Eighty to 90 per cent of those we are fighting belong to Al Qaeda.”

“They are not interested in reform or in politics. The only way to deal with them is to annihilate them. Only then will we be able to talk about political measures.”

On September 3, Itar Tass headlined “Russian attack warning system fixes launch of two ballistic missiles in Mediterranean Sea targeting coastline,” saying:

According to Moscow’s Defense Ministry:

“The launch of two ballistic missiles was fixed at 10:16am Moscow time on Tuesday by a combat unit of the missile attack warning system in Armavir.”

“The flight trajectory of these bodies went through the central part of the Mediterranean towards Eastern part of the Mediterranean coastline.”

Syria’s Moscow embassy reported no air alerts or explosions in Damascus.

Britain’s Defense Ministry said it’s “aware of the fact that ballistic missiles were launched, but (it had) nothing to do with it.”

Israel said it launched two rockets as test targets for it’s missile defense systems. Washington participated in the joint exercise. Both countries initially denied involvement.

The timing of whatever happened is suspect. It raises disturbing red flags. Potentially it ups the stakes. Will Israel partner with Obama’s war? It’s already very much involved. It remains to be seen how much more.

Sergey Vershinin heads Russia’s MFA Department for Middle East and North Africa affairs. He’s Moscow’s Middle East Peace Process special envoy.

“The (Syrian) situation is hard and emergency,” he said. “A real threat of the use of force exists. Our position is decisive (and) unacceptable of this method.”

“The use of force will yield only a reverse effect.”

It coming. It’s virtually certain. Obama demands it. So do most Democrats. Hardline Republican hawks want much more than what Obama suggests is coming.

Media scoundrels support war. On September 2, The New York Times headlined “Debating the Case for Force,” saying:

“President Obama made the right decision to seek Congressional authorization for his announced plan to order unilateral military strikes against Syria for using chemical weapons.”

According to Times editors, Assad has to be deterred “from gassing his people again.”

The Security Council “failed to act. It is appalling that Russia and China have not been the focus of international outrage and pressure.”

The Arab League “toughened” its position. It remains as “feckless as ever.” Its secretary general said “there should be no military action without a green light from the United Nations.”

On September 1, Wall Street Journal editors headlined “Leading from Behind Congress,” saying:

Seeking congressional authorization “will go down as one of the stranger gambles, if not abdications, in Commander in Chief history.”

“For days his aides had been saying the President has the Constitutional power to act alone in response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, and that he planned to do so.”

“By comparison, George W. Bush on Iraq looks like Metternich.” Obama’s announced intervention won’t end war “or depose Assad.”

He “put America’s role as a global power on the line.”

“The world’s rogues would be further emboldened and look for more weaknesses to exploit. Iran would conclude it can march to a nuclear weapon with impunity.”

“Israel, Japan, the Gulf states and other American friends would have to recalculate their reliance on US power and will.”

“These are the stakes that Mr. Obama has so recklessly put before Congress.”

Journal editors want all-out war on Syria. They urge congressional authorization. It’s “not to save (Obama) from embarrassment.”

It’s “to rescue American credibility and strategic interests from this most feckless of Presidents.”

Times and Journal editors aren’t alone. America’s media largely support war. They’re in lockstep with lawlessness.

They’re mindless of the potential consequences. World peace hangs by a thread. Attacking Syria means regional conflict. It bears repeating. It risks WW III.
< Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/