By Mathew Schofield: Russia gave UN 100-page report in July blaming Syrian rebels for Aleppo sarin attack!

Russia says a deadly March sarin attack in an Aleppo suburb was carried out by Syrian rebels, not forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, and it has delivered a 100-page report laying out its evidence to the United Nations. A statement posted on the Foreign Ministry website late Wednesday said the report included detailed scientific analysis of samples that Russian technicians collected at the site of the alleged attack, Khan al Asal in northern Syria. The attack killed 26 people. A U.N. spokesman, Farhan Haq, confirmed that Russia delivered the report in July. The report itself was not released. But the statement drew a pointed comparison between what it said was the scientific detail of the report and the far shorter intelligence summaries that the United States, Britain and France have released to justify their assertion that the Syrian government launched chemical weapons against Damascus suburbs on Aug. 21. The longest of those summaries, by the French, ran nine pages. Each relies primarily on circumstantial evidence to make its case, and they disagree with one another on some details, including the number of people who died in the attack. The Russian statement warned the United States and its allies not to conduct a military strike against Syria until the United Nations had completed a similarly detailed scientific study into the Aug. 21 attack. It charged that what it called the current "hysteria" about a possible military strike in the West was similar to the false claims and poor intelligence that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Russia said its investigation of the March 19 incident was conducted under strict protocols established by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international agency that governs adherence to treaties prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. It said samples that Russian technicians had collected had been sent to OPCW-certified laboratories in Russia. "The Russian report is specific," the ministry statement said. "It is a scientific and technical document." The Russian statement said Russian officials had broken the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons' code of silence on such probes only because Western nations appear to be "preparing the ground for military action" in retaliation for the Aug. 21 incident. A U.N. team spent four days late last month investigating the Aug. 21 incident. the samples it collected from the site and alleged victims of the attack are currently being examined at the chemical weapons organization's labs in Europe. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has urged the United States to delay any strike until after the results of that investigation are known. But U.S. officials have dismissed the U.N. probe, saying it won't tell them anything they don't already know. White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said U.S. officials were unmoved by the Russian report and held the Assad government responsible for both the Khan al Asal attack in March and the Aug. 21 attack outside Damascus. "We have studied the Russian report but found no reason to change our assessment," she said.

By Matthew Schonfield: Russia gave UN 100-page report in July blaming Syrian rebels

for Aleppo sarin attack. Russia says a deadly March sarin attack in an Aleppo suburb was carried out by Syrian rebels, not forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, and it has delivered a 100-page report laying out its evidence to the United Nations. A statement posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry website late Wednesday said the report included detailed scientific analysis of samples that Russian Foreign Ministry website late Wednesday said the report included scientific analysis of samples that Russian technicians collected at the site of the alleged attack, Khan al Asal in northern Syria. The attack killed 26 people. A U.N. spokesman, Farhan Haq, confirmed that Russia delivered the report in July. The report was not released. But the statement drew a pointed comparison between what it said was the scientific detail of the report and the fat shorter intelligence summaries that the United States, Britain and France have released to justify their assertion that the Syrian government launched chemical weapons against Damascus suburbs on Aug. 21. The longest of those summaries, by the French, ran nine pages. Each relies primarily on circumstantial evidence to make its case, and they disagree with one another on some details, including the number of people who died in the attack. The Russian statement warned the United States and its allies not to conduct a military strike against Syria until the United Nations had completed a similarly detailed scientific study into the Aug. 21 attack. It charged that what it called the current "hysteria" about a possible military strike in the West was similar to the false claims and poor intelligence that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Russia said its investigation of the March 19 incident was conducted under strict protocols established by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international agency that governs adherence to treaties prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. It said samples that the Russian technicians had collected had been sent to OPCW-certified laboratories in Russia. "The Russian report is specific," the ministry statement said. "It is a scientific and technical document."The Russian statement said Russian officials had broken the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons' code of silence on such probes only because Western nations appear to be "preparing the ground for military action" in retaliation for the Aug. 21 incident. A U.N. team spent four days late last month investigating the Aug. 21 incident. The samples it collected from the site and alleged victims of the attack are currently being examined at the chemical weapons organizations' labs in Europe. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged the United States to delay any strike until after the results of that investigation are known. But U.S. officials have dismissed the U.N. probe, saying it won't tell them anything they don't already know. White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said U.S. officials were unmoved by the Russian report and held the Assad government responsible for both the Khan al Asal attack in March and the Aug. 21 attack outside Damascus. "We have studied the Russian report but have found no reason to change our assessment," she said.   

By Peter Fairley: How the Fukushima Ice Barrier Will Block Radioactive Groundwater!

Japanese officials desperate to contain an ever-growing crisis at the Fukushima with an underground wall of ice. Here's how it how it would works. Japanese officials desperate to contain an ever-growing crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power station are looking to use artificial permafrost to stop radioactive water from leaking. The idea is to build a mile-long wall of frozen earth around Fukushima's toxic reactor buildings to stem the groundwater contamination, the most experienced specialists in the field say the plan should work. The Japanese firms involved appear to be taking a go-it-alone approach. Two weeks ago, a top official at Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) signaled that the utility behind the Fukushima disaster would seek international assistance with the Fukushima disaster would seek international assistance with the Fukushima water contamination crisis. But experts at the U.S.-based firms and national labs behind the world's largest freeze-wall systems, and the only one proven in containing engineering and construction firms and national labs behind the world's largest freeze-wall systems, and the only one proven in containing nuclear contamination -have not been contacted by either Tepco or its contractor, Japanese engineering and construction firm Kajima Corp. One of these experts is Elizabeth Phillips, who managed the installation of a 300-foot-long, 80-foot deep freeze wall to isolate radioactive waste at the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee in 1996 and 1997. While freeze walls are commonly used to hold back groundwater to facilitate evacuations at constructing sites and mines, this case calls for specialized expertise, she says. "You should go with someone who has done it before." Every day roughly 400 tons of groundwater flowing down from the nearby mountain enters cracks in the reactor buildings damaged by the meltdowns and explosions at Fukushima in 2011, according to an April 2013 Tepco briefing document. Water that escapes from the buildings pollutes the groundwater downstream and ultimately spills into the sea. The contaminant levels are dangerously high. Last month were orders of magnitude higher than the levels deemed safe by the Japanese Nuclear Regulation Authority. Tepco's efforts to prevent that spread so far have been ineffective, risky, and ultimately unsustainable. It's primary response has been to pump contaminated groundwater into holding tanks, adding to the more than 300,000 tons of radioactive water already stored at Fukushima in hastily assembled tanks that are vulnerable to future earthquakes. Some have already leaked. Last week Japan's Nuclear Authority recorded one recent 300-ton leak as a level-3 incident, the first incident at Fukushima that it has rated on the international nuclear event scale since 2011. The freeze wall would be a more definitive approach to managing groundwater. As proposed by Kajima in April and endorsed in May by a Nuclear Regulation Authority expert panel, it would run 1.4 kilometers and encircle the site's four destroyed reactors. Vertical pipes are to be drilled or driven into the ground at one-meter intervals, creating what looks like an array of sub-soil fence posts. Fourteen 400-kilowatt refrigeration plants would pump -20-C coolant down each pipe to absorb heat from the ground, producing an expanding cylinder of frozen earth.

by Mike Adams: Bombshell: Syria's 'chemical weapons' turn out to be sodium flouride, used

used in the U.S. water supply? Natural News can now reveal that the Syria chemical weapons narrative being pushed by the White House is an outlandish hoax. To understand why, you have to start with the story published in The Independent entitled Revealed: Government led British company export gas chemicals to Syria. Sounds scary, right? As the Independent reports: The Government was accused of "breathtaking laxity" in its arms controls last night after it emerged that officials authorised the export to Syria of two chemicals capable of being used to make a nerve agent such as sarin a year ago. What, exactly, are those two dangerous chemicals that need to be controlled via "arms control" regulations? You won't believe me when I tell you. They are: sodium flouride, potassium flouride. You can see this yourself in the screen capture of The Independent breaking news story. Note the headline and the subhead. The headline describes "nerve gas chemicals" and the subhead explains them as "sodium flouride" and "potassium flouride." You'll also notice that the label includes instructions for using this sodium flouride baby water: "ready to mix with formula and cereal, dilute juice or drink, just open and pour!" Yep. you read it: the same "chemical weapon" that's about to start World War III is part of your baby's formula recipe. when sodium flouride is in the hands of Syria's Assad, it's called a "chemical weapon," but when it's part of your baby's diet, it's called "nutrition." How's that for Orwellian doublespeak? Syria's "chemical weapon" to baby water isn't enough for you, it's also a key ingredient in Colgate toothpaste. Yep, according to dentists, chemical weapons also "fight tooth decay," so they should be added to toothpaste and see for yourself: Keep this in mind the next time you carry toothpaste with you when you attempt to travel by air. The TSA can pull you aside and legitimately accuse you of working for the Assad regime as a chemical weapons terrorist while charging you with the federal crime of "transporting chemical weapons." Mainstream media admits U.S. food companies use chemical weapons against their own customers. Unless the mainstream media retracts all its thousands of stories about sodium flouride being a "chemical weapon" sold to Syria, it must come to terms with the fact that it is also accusing the U.S. food industry of using chemical weapons on consumers. Sodium flouride, after all, is added to countless consumer products, from toothpaste and mouthwash to drinking water. Sodium flouride does not magically change from a "chemical weapon" in Syria to a "nutritive mineral" by crossing the ocean. Sodium fluoride is sodium flouride, and it's dangerous no matter who consumes it. Keep this in mind the next time you hear a dentist recommending dumping sodium flouride into the local water supply. You can correctly counter their absurd request by threatening to call Homeland Security to report them as a terrorist for engaging in the indiscriminate deployment of a chemical weapon in the water supply, a favorite target for terrorists worldwide.

Infowars.com: President Bashar al-Assad's interview with Le Figaro!

Note: English translation of the Le Figaro interview reposted from SANA, the Syrian state government news agency. President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to Le Figaro. Following is the full text: Le Figaro: Mr. President, the Americans and the French have accused you of perpetrating a chemical attack on the 21st of August in Ghouta, which led to the death of hundreds. Do you have evidence suggest that your army did not launch the attack? President al-Assad: First of all, anyone making such an accusation is also responsible for providing the evidence to substantiate the allegation. We have challenged them to present a shred of legitimate evidence, which they have not been able to do. Since their foreign policy should be tailored to suit the interests of their own people, we have challenged them to present legitimate evidence to their own public opinion to substantiate their claims, again they have not done so. Secondly, where is the logic in us carrying out an attack of this nature: two years into the crisis I can confidentially state that the situation on the ground is much better now than it was a year ago, how is it conceivable then that an army making significant advancements on the ground through conventional armament would resort to using weapons of mass destruction. I am neither confirming nor denying that we possess such weapons, this is not a matter for discussion. For the sake of argument, if the army had such weapons and decided to use them, is it conceivable that it would use them in areas where its own troops are deployed? Where is the logic in that? Additionally is it really plausible that the use of these weapons in a heavily populated area in the suburbs of the capital did not kill tens of thousands, these substances of the capital did not kill tens of thousands, these substances travel in the air. Le Figaro: Were soldiers from the Syrian Army injured by these weapons? President al-Assad: Yes, in the 'Baharia' area, in the suburbs of Damascus, the inspectors from the UN team met with them in the hospital. Le Figaro: Some do acknowledge that there has been some advancement by the army on the ground, however in other areas the rebels have also advanced and you are looking to wipe them out. President al-Assad: Again, the areas in question are residential areas. The use of chemical weapons in these areas would result in the deaths of tens of thousands. All the accusations are based on unsubstantiated claims made by the terrorists and random
pictures and videos posted on the Internet. Le Figaro: The Americans have stated that they have intercepted a telephone conversation between an executive in your inner circle and officers in the Army giving the order to use these weapons. President al-Assad: If the Americans, the French or the British had a single shred of evidence they would have disclosed it from day one. We will not contest rumours and dubious allegations, we will only discuss substantiated truths, if they have any, they should present them. Le Figaro: Is it possible that someone from your inner circle or officers in the Syrian Army took the decision without your knowledge? President al-Assad: Again, regardless of whether we do so or do not possess such weapons, in any country that does possess these weapons, the decision to deploy is usually centralized. Either way, this is classified military information.

By Timothy Heritage: World leaders pressure Obama over Syria at G20 summit!

St. Petersburg, Russia, U.S. President Barack Obama faced growing pressure from Russia's Vladimir Putin and other world leaders on Thursday to decide against launching military strikes in Syria, which many of them fear would hurt the global economy and push up oil prices. At a summit of the Group of 20 (G20) and developing economies in St. Petersburg, Putin greeted Obama with a thin smile and a businesslike handshake, a clear sign of the strains between them over how to respond to a chemical weapons attack in Syria. Obama also wore a stiff smile before talks began over dinner on the world economy and then on Syria, and there was none of the arm clutching or hugs between the two presidents that is typical of such occasions. The rift over Syria overshadowed the discussions on how to revive growth but not before splits emerged within the group over a U.S. plan to wind down an economic stimulus program. The G20 accounts for two thirds of the world's population and 90 percent of its output. The first round at the summit went to Putin, as China, the European Union, the BRICS emerging economies and a letter from Pope Francis all warned of the dangers of military intervention in Syria without the approval of the U.N. Security Council. "Military action would have a negative impact on the global economy, especially on the oil price, it will cause a hike in the oil price," Chinese Vice Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao said. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon later told the leaders over the dinner in a tsarist-era seafront palace that any military action must have the Security Council's backing. "Let us remember: every day that we lose is a day when scores of innocent civilians die," his office quoted him as saying. "There is no military solution." Obama blames forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the August 21 poison gas attack in the Damascus suburbs that killed up to 1,400 people. Moscow says Obama has not proven that claim and says rebel forces may have carried it out. In New York, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power left no doubt that Washington had given up trying to work with the U.N. Security Council" and accused Russia of holding it hostage. Moscow has signaled it would veto any resolution on the use of force unless Washington produced stronger proof. Obama has asked the U.S. Congress to approve military action and France has said it is ready to support U.S. intervention. Showing he was undeterred by the criticism, Obama said before talks with Japan's prime minister on the sidelines of the summit that using chemical arms was "not only a tragedy but also a violation of international law that must be addressed." Aides said he would set out his views at the leader's dinner and hoped to build support for military action, although they acknowledged a concensus might be hard to find.Long after midnight, there was still no word from officials on how the dinner discussion had gone. Putin was isolated on Syria at a Group of Eight meeting in June, the last big summit of world powers, but could now turn the tables on Obama, who recently likened him to a "bored kid in the classroom" who slouched at meetings.

by Reuters: Russia warns of catastrophe if Syria reactor hit by U.S. strike!

St Petersburg, Russia. Russia said on Wednesday that a military strike on Syria could have catastrophic effects if a missile hit a small reactor near Damascus that contains radioactive uranium. The Foreign Ministry called on the U.N. nuclear agency to urgently assess the risk as the United States considers military action to punish Syria's government for an alleged gas attack. "If a warhead, by design or by chance, were to hit the Miniature Neutron Source Reactor (MNSR) near Damascus, the consequences could be catastrophic," a ministry statement said. It said nearby areas could be contaminated by highly enriched uranium and that it would be impossible to account for the nuclear material after such a strike, suggesting it could fall into the hands of people who might use it as a weapon. Russia urged the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency secretariat to "react swiftly" and present IAEA members "an analysis of the risks linked to possible American strikes on the MNSR and other facilities in Syria". Moscow has been the most powerful ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, shielding him from tougher U.N. resolutions and warning that a Western military attack on Syria would raise tensions and undermine efforts to end the country's civil war. "The IAEA is aware of the statement but has not received a formal request from the Russian Federation, an IAEA spokesperson said. "We will consider the questions raised if we receive such a request." The IAEA is aware of the statement but has not received a formal request from the Russian Federation, an IAEA spokesperson said. "We will consider the questions raised if we receive such a request." The IAEA said in a report to member states last week that Syria had declared there was a "small amount of nuclear material" at the MNSR, a type of research reactor usually fuelled by highly enriched uranium. Nuclear expert Mark Hibbs, of the Carnegie Endowment think-tank, said the MNSR was a very small reactor and their would not be a lot of nuclear material there. But he said there could be "a serious local radiation hazard"if there was irradiated nuclear material in the reactor and it was dispersed by a weapon strike. Olli Heinonen, a former IAEA chief inspector, said the core of such a reactor typically has 1kg of highly-enriched uranium, much less than the 25 kg that would be sufficient to build an atomic bomb. "Thus for nuclear explosive purposes it is of a limited value," he said in an e-mail comment. Any radioactive contamination, he added, "would be a local problem". In 2007, Israel bombed a desert site in Syria that U.S. intelligence reports said was a nascent, North Korean-designed reactor geared to producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. Syria said the site, at Deir al-Zor, was a conventional military facility. Additionally reporting by Fredrik Dahl in Vienna, writing by Steve Gutterman, editing by Tom Pheiffer and Ralph Boulton.        

By vihan: Is The United States Going To War With Syria Over a Natural Gas Pipeline?

Michael Snyder. Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe. Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Elysee Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region. On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom. Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar, and possibly for both, and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all. It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time. The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009: Quatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gas-after it finishes an ambitious program to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG). "We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency. Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas. "For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers.

Justin McCurry in Tokyo: Fukushima radiation leaks reach deadly new high!

Exposure to emissions would be fatal within hours, say Japanese authorities, as race to build frozen wall begins. The crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has radiation leaks strong enough to deliver a fatal dose within hours, Japanese authorities have revealed, as the government prepares to step in to help contain leaks of highly toxic water at the site. On Wednesday the country's nuclear regulation authority said radiation readings near water storage tanks at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have increased to a new high, with emissions above the ground of tanks were as high as 2,200 millisieverts (mSV) per hour, a rise of 20% from the previous high. Earlier this week the plant's operator, Tepco, said workers had measured radiation at 1,800 mSv an hour near a storage tank. That was the previous highest reading since Tepco began installing tanks to store huge quantities of contaminated water that have built up at the plant. An unprotected person standing close to the contaminated areas would, within hours, receive a deadly radiation dose. The nuclear regulation authority said the radiation comprised mostly beta rays that could be blocked by aluminum foil, unlike more penetrative gamma rays. Tepco's admission in August that about 300 tonnes of radioactive groundwater is escaping into the nearby Pacific Ocean every day, and the more recent discovery of leaking storage tanks and pipes, prompted the government to inject more than 300m to contain the water crisis. The emergency measures, announced on Tuesday, involve building a mile-long impenetrable frozen wall beneath the plant to prevent groundwater from mixing with contaminated coolant water. The coolant becomes tainted after coming into contact with melted uranium fuel deep inside the damaged reactors. Currently about 400 tonnes of groundwater are streaming into the reactor basements from the hills behind the plant each day. The water is pumped out and held in about 1,000 storage tanks. The tanks contain 330,000 tonnes of water with varying levels of toxicity. Officials are conducting a feasibility study into the frozen wall, with completion expected by March 2015. Although the technology isn't new, the scale of the Fukushima Daiichi project is unprecedented for an atomic facility. The government also wants to speed up the development of a new water treatment system that can remove most radioactive substances from the water storage tanks at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have increased to a new high as 2,000 millisieverts (mSV0 per hour, a rise of 20% from the previous high. Earlier this week the plant's operator, Tepco, said workers had measured radiation at 1,800 mSv an hour near a storage tank. That was the previous highest reading since Tepco began installing tanks to store huge quantities of contaminated water that have built up at the plant. An unprotected person standing close to the contaminated areas would, within hours, receive a deadly radiation dose. The nuclear regulation authority said the radiation comprised mostly beta rays that could be blocked by aluminium foil, unlike more penetrative gamma rays.

By Michael Snyder: The U.S. Military Does Not Want To Fight For Al-Qaeda Christian Killers In Syria!

Why is the Obama administration so determined to have the U.S. military help al-Qaeda win the civil war in Syria? why are we being told that the U.S. has "no choice" but to help rabid jihadist terrorists that are slaughtering entire Christian villages, brutally raping Christian women and joyfully beheading Christian prisoners? If you are a Christian, you should not want anything to do with these genocidal lunatics. Jabhat al-Nusra is a radical Sunni terror organization affiliated with al-Qaeda that is leading the fight against the Assad regime. If they win, life will be absolute hell for the approximately two million Christians in Syria and other religious minorities. According to Wikipedia, Jabhat al-Nusra intends "to create a Pan-Islamic state under sharia law and aims to reinstate the Islamic Caliphate." As you will see below, many members of the U.S. military understand this, and they absolutely do not want to fight on the side of al-Qaeda. Not that we should be supporting Assad either. Assad is horrible. He should be rotting in prison somewhere. But just because a country has a bad leader does not mean that we have justification to attack them. The U.S. military should only be put into action when there is a compelling national interest at stake. And getting involved in a bloody civil war between Assad and al-Qaeda does not qualify. For the moment, we have a little bit of time to educate the American people about this because the Obama administration has decided to try to get the approval of Congress before striking Syria. Hopefully  cooler heads will prevail. Unfortunately, some members of the U.S. Congress are actually trying to push Obama into even stronger action. In fact, some Senators are now saying that they will not support military intervention in Syria unless it is a part of an "overall strategy" to remove Assad from power. If the U.S. does try to remove Assad, it will unleash hell in the Middle East. Syria has already threatened to attack Israel if the U.S. tries to remove Assad and so has Hezbollah. As I mentioned the other day, right now there are 70,000 Hezbollah rockets aimed at Israel. When Hezbollah and Syria start sending rockets into the heart of Tel Aviv, Israel will respond with even greater force. And if a single one of those rockets that land in Tel Aviv have an unconventional warhead, Israel will respond by absolutely flattening Damascus. When I say that, what I mean is that a city of 1.7 million people will be gone permanently. Do our politicians have any idea of the hell that they are about to unleash? Do our leaders actually want Israel to be attacked? Do our leaders actually want millions of precious people to die? As I mentioned above, those serving in the U.S. military understand these things better than most people, and right now many of them are expressing a very strong desire to stay out of this conflict. According to a tweet from U.S. Representative Justin Amash, he has heard from numerous members of the U.S. military that urging him to vote against an attack on Syria. "I've been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces. The message I consistently hear: Please vote now on military action against Syria."Journalist Paul Szoldra says that he has also heard from a lot of service members that want nothing to do with this conflict. I've reached out to my own sources who are either veterans or currently on active duty in the military, and asked them to share their thoughts on whether we should, or should not, intervene in the two-year old Syrian civil war. Most have responded with a resounding no.

By yihan On September 2, 2013. Paul Joseph Watson. Military Revolt Against Obama's Attack on Syria!

The military revolt against the Obama administration's plan to launch a potentially disastrous attack on Syria is gathering pace, with both top brass and regular service members expressing their vehement opposition to the United States becoming entangled in the conflict. The backlash began to spread on social media yesterday with numerous members of the military posting photos of themselves holding up signs stating they would refuse to fight on the same side as Al-Quada in Syria. The photos went viral, with one post alone generating over 16,000 shares on Facebook. Others have posted their photos on Twitter alongside the hashtag I #didnt Join. As the Obama administration prepares to present a draft resolution to lawmakers that is by no means "limited" in its scope and would in fact grease the skids for an open ended war, John Kerry and other State Department officials have signaled that Obama will simply ignore Congress if they vote no and launch the assault anyway. This will do little to reassure a growing number of influential figures in the US military who are becoming increasingly recalcitrant about the United States becoming embroiled in yet another war in the Middle East. The Washington Post reports that, "The Obama administration's plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers." Republican Congressman Justin Amash also took to Twitter to state, "I've been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces. The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against Syria." Amash's statement was followed by a series of tweets from military veterans who also expressed their opposition to the attack. Business Insider's Paul Szoldra also spoke to "sources who are either veterans or currently on active duty in the military," and asked them if they supported military escalation in Syria. "Most have responded with a resounding no," writes Szoldra. He quotes an active duty First Class Sergeant who states, "We are stretched thin, tired, and broke," adding that the United States "does not need to be World Police." "Our involvement in Syria is so dangerous on so many levels, and the 21st century American vet is more keen to this than anybody. It boggles my mind that we are being ignored," adds former Cpl. Jack Mandaville, a Marine Corps infantry veteran with 3 deployments to Iraq. Not only are military personnel going public with their concerns, Politico reported that leaks of attack plans are also, "emanating from a Pentagon bureaucracy less enthusiastic about the prospect of an attack than, say, the State Department, National Security Council or Obama himself," unauthorized disclosures that have the White House "peeved". Meanwhile, the Syrian Electronic Army hacked the official US Marines website and left an astounding message calling on US soldiers to join the Syrian Army in fighting Al-Qaeda. The full text of the message reads: "This is a message written by your brothers in the Syrian Army, who have been fighting al-Qaida for at least 3 years. We understand your patriotism and love for your country so please understand our love for ours. Obama is a traitor who wants to put your lives in danger to rescue al-Qaida insurgents.

The Independent: Revealed: UK Government let British company export nerve gas chemicals to Syria

UK accused of 'breath-taking laxity' over export licence for potassium flouride and sodium flouride. U.S. water fluoridation chemical is Syria's "chemical weapon". If these chemical names sound familiar, that's because sodium fluoride is the same toxic chemical that's routinely dumped into municipal water supplies across the USA under the guise of "water flouridation." In fact, the forced feeding of sodium fluoride to the U.S. population is called a "public health" victory by the CDC, FDA and dentists everywhere. Yet this same chemical, when sold to Syria, is openly and repeatedly referred to as a "chemical weapon." This is true across the BBC, the Guardian, Daily Record and Sunday Mail, France 24.com and literally thousands of other news websites. According to the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, any government "regime"that uses chemical weapons against its own people should be bombed, invaded, overthrown by a coalition of other Nations members. By his own definition, then, the United States of America should now be invaded by the UN because the government uses a deadly chemical weapon, sodium fluoride on its own people. By implication, then, John Kerry is now calling for the UN to bomb the USA. As the international media now confirms, sodium fluoride is a chemical weapon, and this chemical weapon is used against the American people every single day in the water supply. a favorite attack vector for terrorists. "Evidence" of chemical weapons nothing more than hair samples of people who drank sodium fluoride. As you migt have guessed, Secretary of State John Kerry is running around "pulling a George Bush" by claiming Syria has used weapons of mass destruction on its own population. Here's a sample of his claims: "In the last 24 hours, we have learned through samples that were provided to the United States that have now been tested from first responders in east Damascus and hair samples ans blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin." Kerry said this on NBC's Meet The Press. But what, exactly, is he saying? The hair samples have tested positive for "signatures" of sarin, not sarin itself. What is a "signature" of sarin? The fluorine element, which is of course the basis for sodium flouride. In other words, this "evidence" of chemical weapons in Syria may be nothing more than a collection of hair samples taken from people who drank fluoride. As this study shows on Science, natural-news.com, hair analysis is a commonly-used practice for assessing exposure to flouride. It concludes, "hair may be regarded as bio-material of high informative potential in evaluating prolonged exposure to flourides." Typically, this analysis is conducted with ICP-MS instrumentation, using a plasma torch that disintegrates all organic molecules, leaving only the resulting elements (fluorine). Tests done on Syrian citizens using ICP-MS would not be able to distinguish between sodium fluoride and sarin exposure in terms of the detection of elemental flourine. Read that again, because it's crucial to understanding the hoax being perpetrated by the White House: Tests on hair or other tissues, if done using ICP-MS, the most common elemental analysis technology used today, would not be able to distinguish between sodium fluoride and sarin. Sarin has the chemical formula: (CH3)2 CH3P(0)F You will notice that the only elements in this formula are: Flourine, Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorous. Out of those five elements, for of them, (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorous) occur naturally in the human body in large quantities.   
   

RT: Breaking News Syrian PM: Army's Ready For Potential Strikes.

MAKS headroom: Russia unveils plans for new anti-missile system, 5th-generation fighter jet. Russia's stealth fighters T-50 perform during the MAKS-2013, the International Aviation and Space Show, in Zhukovsky, outside Moscow. Russia is developing a fifth-generation unmanned fighter jet and a completely new missile defense system which can simultaneously engage several supersonic targets in space, it has been revealed at the MAKS-2013 airshow. The fifth-generation unmanned aircraft, weighing in at around 20 tons, takes after the T-50 fighter jet, with most of its characteristics modeled after it, Mikhail Pogosyan, president of Russia's united aircraft-building corporation, told RIA Novosti at the MAKS-2013 show in Zhukovsky, just outside Moscow, which displayed the latest in air combat technology. "We are working in accordance with plans developed together with the Defense Ministry. At this stage this implies further preliminary testing. The current stage is largely based on the technological breakthroughs we have achieved in the framework of the 'fifth generation' program," Pogosyan told the Russian ITAR-TASS agency, in reference to the upcoming drone. With a fifth-generation PAK-FA heavy attack jet already developed and planned to enter service in 2016, Russian aviation is also looking to the future of air combat, conducting research and development for aircraft that can dominate airspace by the mid-21st century. The news comes on the heels of a Thursday announcement by the Russian aircraft construction corporation, which signed a $90 billion deal with the Defense Ministry. Under the contract, the ministry will have the technology and equipment built and serviced by Russia's aircraft builders for the next three years, Pogosyan said at the MAKS-2013 show. National media reports that on top of the new deal, another $3 billion contract has come into effect, stipulating, aside from the servicing of equipment, that the Defense Ministry shall receive 65 new fighter jets by the end of 2013. Another exciting development in the high-tech weapons market is the possible 2017 launch of the promising S-500 anti-aircraft missile system. The Friday news comes courtesy of a top Ministry of Defense figure, speaking to ITAR-TASS. "A promising anti-aircraft missile system S-500 is being designed now," the source said. "The Armed Forces may have it in 2017." The special feature of the formidable new lineup is the ability to lock on to and engage multiple targets in space, never allowing them to reach Russian airspace. Moscow has been making attempting leaps in combat technology, especially missile defense, given the uneasy international climate it finds itself in currently. The plan for a better missile defense is a direct answer to the United States' idea for a missile shield in Europe, which it says is for defensive purposes against unpredictable regimes such as Iran and North Korea. Russia is not feeling very secure with the proposed system to be so close to its territories. Aside from the pursuit of fifth-generation technologies, Russia is also actively developing an unmanned sixth generation aircraft, said a former Air Force commander. Unlike NATO allies who will use American F-35 5Gs, self-sufficiency is an absolute must for Russia, said the commander, so 6G evolution is inevitable. With regard to missile defense, Russia is currently using the S-400 Triumph, which has a range of 400 kilometers. Russian President Vladimir Putin says the Armed Forces are to acquire 28 systems from the current lineup over the next 10 years.

RT: Putin: US should present Syria evidence to Security Council!

A handout image released by the Syrian opposition's Shaam News Network shows smoke above buildings following what Syrian rebels claim to be toxic gas attack by pro-government forcesin eastern Ghouta, on the outskirts of Damascus on August 21, 2013. (AFP Photo/Ammar al-Arbini) Russian President Vladimir Putin has Trends. Keep up with the news by installing RT's extension for Frefox. Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you. Putin: US should present Syria evidence to Security Council. A handout image released by the Syrian opposition's Shaam News Network shows smoke above buildings following what Syrian rebels claim to be a toxic gas attack by pro-government forces in eastern Ghouta, on the outskirts of Damascus in eastern Ghouta, on the outskirts of Damascus on August 21, 2013. (AFP Photo/ Ammar al-Arbini) Russian President Vladimir Putin has Trends declared 'utter nonsense' the idea that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its own people and called on the US to present its supposed evidence to the UN Security Council. Putin has further called the Western tactic a 'provocation.' Washington has been basing its proposed strategy of an attack on Syria on the premise that President Bashar Assad's government forces have used chemical agents, while Russia finds the accusations unacceptable and the idea of performing a military strike on the country even more so. Especially as it would constitute a violation of international law, if carried out without the approval of the UN Security Council. Further to this, Putin told Obama that he should consider what the potential fallout from a military strike would be and to take into consideration the suffering of innocent civilians. The Russian president has expressed certainty that the strategy for a military intervention in Syria is a contingency measure from outside and a direct response to the Syrian government's recent combat successes, coupled with the rebels' retreat from long-held positions. "Syrian government forces are advancing, while the so-called rebels are in a tight situation, as they are not nearly as equipped as the government," Putin told ITAR-TASS. He then laid it out in plain language: "What those who sponsor the so-called rebels need to achieve is simple, they need to help them in their fight and if this happens, it would be a tragic development," Putin said. Russia believes that any attack would, firstly, increase the already existing tensions in the country, and derail any effort at ending the war. "Any unilateral use of force without the authorization of the U.N. Security Council, no matter how 'limited' it is, will be a clear violation of international law, will undermine prospects for a political and diplomatic resolution of the conflict in Syria and will lead to a new round of confrontation and new casualties," said the Russian Foreign Ministry's spokesman, Aleksandr Lukashevich, adding that the threats issued by Washington "in the absence of any proof" of chemical weapons use. On Friday, Washington said a plan for a limited military response was in the works to punish Assad for a "brutal and flagrant" chemical attack that allegedly killed more than 1400 people in the capital Damascus 10 days ago. The Syrian government has been denying all allegations, clling the accusations preposterous and pointing its own accusations against rebel forces, especially Al-Qaeda-linked extremists who have wreaked havoc on the country in the two years since the start of the civil war.

By William Boardman: Jumping the Shark Over Syria!!

President Obama is apparently wobbling on the edge of committing an impeachable offense, specifically a military attack on Syria without the authorization of Congress, without the approval of the United Nations Security Council, and without any imminent threat to the United States. The president finds himself pressured on one side by his own rookie mistake on August 20, 2012. "We have been very clear clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation. To judge from the wording of his answer, the president seems to have been trying to not box himself in. He not only failed then, he has failed since to roll back political and media baiting over his supposed "red line", giving it more symbolic authority each time." Now he's caught in his own trap. After several real or apparent earlier uses of some chemical weapons by somebody in Syria, the most recent alleged chemical weapons by somebody in Syria, the most recent alleged chemical weapons attack has some Washington officials reacting hysterically on the basis of limited uncertain information that, they argue, is sufficient basis for the United States to launch a limited but certain military attack on somebody. Gas Over Syria, Mostly Smoke Blown by Politicians With Hidden Agendas. With his secretary of state ranting in high-pitched tones about this "moral obscenity" and that "cowardly crime" committed by the Assad regime, the president seems weak and vacillating. The lawyer who is president might remind the lawyer who is secretary of state that evidence usually precedes judgment, not only in court but also in the process of mature statecraft. Carrying on as if he thought he was the real president, Secretary of State John Kerry blathers with a fatuous pomposity worthy of a caricature head of state, as he jingoes up a war with demagoguoery about the about the would-be enemy. "Our sense of basic humanity is offended, not only by this cowardly crime, but also by the cynical attempt to cover it up. What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality. The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standards, it is inexcusable, and despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable." The irony is overwhelming: Kerry has accurately described the American use of depleted Uranium weapons that continue to kill men, women, and children every day in Iraq. Depleted Uranium is a chemical, a deadly toxic heavy metal with the added benefit of also being radioactive for billions of years. The chemical weapon apparently used in Syria kills quickly, and using it is a widely-recognized war crime. Not so widely recognized, but just as much a war crime, using DU WMDs not only kills some victims quickly, but goes on killing others slowly, for generations. Why Is Washington So Hot for War Before the Facts Are Known? Kerry was once perceived as a moral man, protesting another American war, in Vietnam. But that was a long time ago. Although he opposed the 1991 Gulf War, he raised no outcry against the criminal use of DU WMDs that mercilessly slaughtered Iraqis and infected the country with toxic air, water, and dust.

By Norman Solomon: While Cameron Defers to British Parliament, Obama Locks into Warfare State of Mind.

The British Parliament's rejection of an attack on Syria is a direct contrast, and implicit challenge, to the political war system of the United States. "It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people. does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the government will not act accordingly." Prime Minister David Cameron said Thursday night. At least for now, Uncle Sam's poodle is off the leash. Now all eyes turn to Congress, where the bar has suddenly been raised. Can the House of Representatives measure up to the House of Commons? It's a crucial question, but President Obama intends to render it moot with unwavering contempt for the war authority of Congress. Like his predecessors. Even with war votes on Capitol Hill, the charade quotient has been high. The Gulf War began in early 1991 after the Senate vote for war was close: 52 to 47. But, as the PBS "Frontline" program reported years later, President George H.W. Bush had a plan in place: if Congress voted against going to war, he'd ignore Congress."The president privately, with most of the inner circle, made absolutely clear he was going to go forward with this action even if he were impeached," said Robert Gates, who was deputy national security adviser. "The truth of the matter is that while public opinion and the voice of Congress was important to Bush, I believe it had no impact on his decision about what he would do. He was going to throw that son of a bitch Saddam Hussein out of Kuweit, regardless of whether the Congress or the public supported him."By the Pentagon's estimate, the six weeks of the Gulf War took the lives of 100,000 Iraqi people. "It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in." the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Colin Powell, said at the time. Eight years later, the War Powers Act's 60-day deadline for Congressional Approval of U.S. warfare expired on May 25, 1999, but large-scale U.S. bombing of Yogoslavia continued. Bill Clinton was unable to get authorization from Congress but, like other wartime presidents before and since, he ignored the law that was passed in 1973 to constrain automatic war-making. Republican Rep. Tom Campbell said: "The president is in violation of the law. That is clear." Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich said: "The war continues unauthorized, without the consent of the governed." And President Clinton said, in effect, I don't care. In October 2002, President George W. Bush won congressional approval for an invasion of Iraq, waving the fig leaf that passage would strengthen his hand at the bargaining table.Of course Bush got what he wanted, a full-scale war on Iraq. "The president's ability to decide when and where to use America's military power is now absolute, pundit Michael Kingsley observed, writing in Time magazine in mid April, just after the U.S. Constitution says, and it's not what the Constitution says, and it's not the War Powers Act says, but that's how it works in practice." We've got to change how it works in practice. During the next few days, a huge and historical battle will determine whether President Obama can continue the deadly record of presidential impunity to ignore Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution "The Congress shall have the Power To declare War" and the War Powers Act as well as public opinion, now strongly against an attack on Syria. In recent days, perhaps as a tactical matter, some progressive groups and members of Congress have focused on urging that Congress get to vote, or at least play a role in the decision on whether to bomb Syria.   

Paul Joseph Watson: Rebels Admit Responsibility fot Chemical Weapons Attack!

Militants tell AP reporter they mishandled Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, causing accident. Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week's chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad's forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia. "From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the deadly gas attack," writes Gaylak. Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained to handle the chemical weapons  or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra. "We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions, one militant named 'J' told Gavlak. His claims are echoed by another female fighter named 'K', who told Gavlak, "They didn't tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn't know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons." Abu Abdel- Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, "My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry," describing them as having a "tube-like structure" while others were like a "huge gas bottle." The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha. According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels. "More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government," writes Gavlak. If accurate, this story could completely derail the United States' rush to attack Syria which has been founded on the "undeniable" justification that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. Dale Gavlak's credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News. The website on which the story originally appeared, Mint Press, which is currently down as a result of huge traffic it is attracting to the article, is a legitimate media organization based in Minnesota. The Minnesota Post did a profile on them last year. Saudi Arabia's alleged role in providing rebels, whom they have vehemently backed at every turn, with chemical weapons, is no surprise given the revelations earlier this week that the Saudis threatened Russia with terror attacks at next year's Winter Olympics in Sochi unless they abandoned support for the Syrian President. "I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threatened the security of the games are controlled by us," Prince Bandar allegedly told Vladimir Putin, the Telegraph reports. The Obama administration is set to present its intelligence findings today in an effort to prove that Assad's forces were behind last week's attack, despite American officials admitting to the New York Times that there is no "smoking gun"that directly links President Assad to the attack.

By Paul Lewis and Spencer Ackerman, Guardian UK Obama's Air Strike Plans in Disarray!

Barack Obama's plans for air strikes against Syria were thrown into disarray on Thursday night after the British parliament unexpectedly rejected a motion designed to pave the way to authorizing the UK's participation in military action. The White House was forced to consider the unpalatable option of taking unilateral action against the regime of Bashar al-Assad after the British prime minister, David Cameron, said UK would not now take part a in any military action in response to a chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus last week. Although Britain's support was not a prerequisite for US action, the Obama administration was left exposed without the backing of its most loyal ally, which has taken part in every major US military offensive in recent years. Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for Obama's national security council, indicated the administration would consider acting unilaterally. "The US will continue to consult with the UK government, one of our closest allies and friends. As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States. "He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable." The US appears to have taken British support for granted. Hours before the vote, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Diane Feinstein, expressed confidence that Britain would join any strike. Feinstein, a Democrat and staunch administration ally, told Time magazine: "I think the UK makes a difference. I think if the president were to decide to go there's a very high likelihood that the United Kingdom would be with us." The timing of the British vote, 272 to 285 against the government was disastrous for Obama. Less than 30 minutes after the vote, senior intelligence officials began a conference call with key members of Congress, in an attempt to keep US lawmakers on side. Congressional leaders and the chairs and ranking members of national security committees were briefed by the most senior US intelligence officials, amid signs that some of the support for military strikes against Syria was fading. The officials said there was "no doubt" that chemical weapons were used in Syria last week, Reuters reported. Obama aides cited intercepted communications of Syrian officials and evidence of movements by Syria's military around Damascus before the attack that killed more than 300 people, said Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House foreign affairs committee. The 90-minute briefing was conducted by secretary of state John Kerry, secretary of defense Chuck Hagel, national security adviser Susan Rice, among others. After the briefing, Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate armed services committee, urged a cautious approach. "I have previously called for the United States to work with our friends and allies to increase the military pressure on the Assad regime by providing lethal aid to vetted elements of the Syrian opposition."  

by Mikael Thalen: Ron Paul: Syria Chemical Attack A 'False Flag'

During an interview on Fox Business' Cavuto Wednesday, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) commented on the unfolding situation in Syria, specifically calling the recent chemical attack a 'false flag' likely carried out by the US backed al Qaeda filled rebels. "I think it's a false flag" said Paul. "Why don't we ask about the Al Qaeda? Why are we on the side of the Al Qaeda right now?" Despite the Obama administration's attempt to immediately blame Assad's forces for the chemical attack, multiple U.S. officials have said that the administration's evidence is "not a slam dunk." Officials also mentioned that the administration's evidence is "not a slam dunk." Officials also mentioned that the administration had no "smoking gun." In fact, the rebels have now even claimed responsibility for the attacks. Even with Syrian Deputy Foreign Fayssal Mekdad presenting evidence to the UN that strongly points to a rebel led chemical attack, the Obama administration has continued to ignore any evidence that can't be used to justify military action against Assad, including multiple YouTube videos showing rebels launching rebels launching chemical weapons on civilian targets. Paul's statements are given even more validity in light of the January Yahoo article that details a potential chemical attack on Syria on behalf of the United States. The emails revealed a plan, supported by the Obama administration, to have a chemical weapons attack blamed on Assad in order to gain international support for military action. Paul also exposes the history of lies and propaganda used by the US government to justify military intervention, pointing specifically to the Iraq war. "Look at how many lies were told to us about Saddam Hussein prior to that buildup, war propaganda. It's endless, it happens all the time," said Paul, also pointing to Donald Rumsfeld's role in supplying chemical weapons to Saddam in the 1980's. Mounting evidence forced out by the alternative media has destroyed the government's credibility, with now only 9 percent of Americans supporting military intervention in Syria. The international backlash also caused UK Prime Minister David Cameron to momentarily back down after the British parliament voted against authorizing military action. Cameron later decided to send Military jets to Cyprus, claiming the move was purely "defensive." Despite having no congressional authority or support from NATO, the UN or the Arab League, the Obama administration has brazenly threatened to carry out strikes regardless, openly flouting the Constitution. Now, 140 members of the House of Representatives have signed a letter demanding that President Obama get authorization from Congress if he wants to carry out any strikes against Syria. "The American people right now by a very large majority are opposed to this war," Paul said in closing. Update: Last April during a speech in Austin, Texas, Paul warned of the system's increasing war propaganda and predicted that a false flag incident would likely accelerate the US deeper into the Middle Eastern conflict.      

By Peer Muhammad: Senate told: War on terrorism's price tag, $17.82b

Opposition stages walkout over absence of foreign affairs adviser. Islamabad: The government on Thursday informed the Senate that the country's economy suffered an estimated loss of $17.82 billion due to the war on terror during 2011-12. The finance division provided details of the estimates to the upper house of the parliament on a query posed by Senator Abdul Haseb Khan. The finance ministry further stated that approximately $30.4 billion in aid have been received by Pakistan from the US in connection with the war on terror during the last decade. The finance ministry also informed the house that $647 million in foreign aid had been received from different countries for flood relief activities, and rehabilitation of flood affectees since 2010. Minister of State for Privatisation Khurram Dastagir Khan said the government also acquired $857 million in foreign loans for flood relief activities from 2010 to 2013. He said the amount received under aid and loan heads was disbursed among provinces. The finance ministry also informed the house that the Pakistan government had obtained foreign loans during fiscal year 2008-09 to 2012-13 worth $14.55 billion and the amount paid back by the government during the period in question was $10.62 billion. Opposition walkout. Earlier, the opposition in the Senate walked out of the house in protest over the government's failure to brief the Senate about key components of the foreign policy, particularly its stance on the imminent US attack on Syria and Pakistan's role in the Afghan-Taliban talks. The upper house had earlier sought a detailed briefing from Adviser to Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Sartaij Aziz did not turn up. On a point of order, Pakistan Peoples Party Senator Raza Rabbani raised the issue and lambasted the government for not taking the sensitive issues seriously. "We want to know about Pakistan's role in peace negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban," Rabbani said, adding that they also wanted a detailed briefing on the function of the National Security Council. Rabbani said the government did not give due importance to the opposition in the parliament and kept it in the dark about key strategic issues. "We will not let the government run away by skipping key issues," he remarked. Responding on behalf of the government, leader of the house in Senate Raja Zafarul Haq said Sartaj Aziz would give a detailed briefing on foreign affairs to a joint meeting of parliamentary committees scheduled for September 3, and those parliamentarians interested to know about these issues could attend the meeting. More in Pakistan. Monsoon 2013: Floods inundated villages in Sindh.