Sunday, July 8, 2012

UN Bureaucracy Just a Formality Before US Military Attack On Syria

Susanne Posel, Contributor
Activist Post

The Syrian National Council (SNC) has rejected the international plan for regime change in Syria because current Syrian President Bashar Assad would have the right to participate in the agreement.

At a conference in Geneva this past weekend, the UN brokered “deal” for the “creation of a transitional national unity government” made the illusion to executive powers given to Syria. Russian representatives asserted that Assad should be part of the interim administration.

The ultimate transitional government would also oversee the drafting of a new Syrian Constitution and advise the electoral process.

The international community, headed by the UN has agreed to devise a scheme to remove Assad from the Syrian government and chose his successor by “mutual consent”. Several opposition groups in Syria are vying for representatives that might replace Assad.

Bassma Kodmani, spokesperson for the SNC states that the agreement is not assertive enough and lacks clear mechanisms for the regime change. Kodmani claims that the use of the UN Security Council (UNSC) during the “transition” should not be led by Assad.

Kodmani, who was a participant in the recent Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly, Virginia, has been pushing for an armed attack on Syria.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State displayed optimism at Assad’s removal. Clinton assured the conference attendees that Assad and his inner circle would not be allowed to participate in the “transitional government”.

Clinton, who has blamed Russia for their involvement in the US and UN’s efforts to force Assad out of power, says they have finally joined the US in backing the regime change. “They have committed to trying,” she said. “But they also admitted that they may or may not have enough leverage to convince not just one man, but a family and a regime that their time is over.”

Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister remarked that Russian “will be only glad to support [a Syrian regime change].”

In Geneva, UN representative Kofi Annan’s six-point peace plan was recommended once more for immediate implementation as facilitation for a cease-fire. Annan said that the plan could include members of the current Syrian regime theoretically. Annan said to the audience:
I think people who have blood on their hands are hopefully not the only people in Syria. I think the government will have to be formed through discussion, negotiations, and by mutual consent. And I will doubt that the Syrians — who have fought so hard for their independence, to be able to say how they’re governed and who governs them — will select people with blood on their hands to lead them.
War with Syria has begun covertly. Turkey has mobilized large numbers of troops “including at least 15 long-range artillery pieces and tanks – moved to the Syrian frontier from the eastern city of Diyarbakir.”

Ron Paul has been forthcoming in saying that the “Pentagon indeed has finalized plans” to attack Syria. Paul explains that Syria poses no “national security concerns” to America “that require such a foolish escalation of violence in the Middle East. There should be no doubt that our security interests are best served by completely staying out of the internal strife now raging in Syria.”

CNN affirmed Paul’s assertion by reporting that the Pentagon has “finalized its assessment of what types of units would be needed, how many troops, and even the cost of certain potential operations.” An anonymous member of the Obama administration claims: “There is a sense that if the sectarian violence in Syria grows, it could be worse than what we saw in Iraq.”

Just as with the attack on Libya, the US armed forces will use a no-fly zone, while simultaneously overseeing biological and chemical strategic sites. Central banking controlled nations like the US, Britain and France have discussed the war action against Syria. They have come together in training and “sharing of intelligence about what is happening in Syria with neighboring countries including Jordan, Turkey and Israel.”

Preparatory air strikes against Syria have been planned by the Obama administration. Both the US Navy and Air Force, participating in the no-fly zone with the British and French armed forces have “Their mission to knock out Assad’s central regime and military command centers so as to shake regime stability and restrict Syrian army and air force activity for subduing rebel action and wreaking violence on civilian populations.”

This use of UN military is without Congressional approval and an affront to the Constitutional guidelines of our American Republic. However, since Obama receives his military orders from the UN and NATO, he must feel justified in his unabashed use of our armed forces.

Susanne Posel is the Chief Editor of Occupy Corporatism. Our alternative news site is dedicated to reporting the news as it actually happens; not as it is spun by the corporately funded mainstream media. You can find us on our Facebook page.

You can support this information by voting on Reddit HERE


This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Anonymous said...

Back In 2002, the revelation from the Downing Street memos that, "the facts were being fixed around the policy," pretty well sums up the approach America uses to present theater for the world to see.

Consider that US General Wesley Clarke admitted in 2002 the US was going to invade Syria as part of a plan to take out 7 countries in 5 years. What we're seeing in Syria right now is just the theater for a decision that was made more than 10 years ago. It has nothing to do with what is actually happening in Syria right now.

The decision is made and then the facts are created and/or distorted to justify the action thanks to a corrupt corporate media. We're watching this type of theater develop right now in America with the upcoming American Presidential election.

American citizens are just the audience so we just get to tune in each week, oooh and ahhh at the weekly turn of events and clap at the finale in November but sure as hell we have nothing to do with the outcome.

Anonymous said...

I'm gonna describe someone, and you stop me when you know who he is and why it's important...

He was a Brigadier General and a States Attorney General.

In the war with Mexico he fought a pistol duel with his commanding officer.

He manged to kill thousands of Indians by hurling them against Lincolns' army, after he won the battle he manged to lose all his gains in the counterattack. (He was Americas chief Indian negotiator. his actions killed more Indians than any man that ever lived.)

He's the only confederate officer to be pardoned after the Civil War.

He's the only confederate officer to have an outdoor statue of himself in Washington DC. (At the foot of "judiciary Hill".)

His body lies behind/under glass in a topless pyramid they call a "Temple" on 16th st. in down town Washington DC. (Google-earth: 38°54'49.28" N 77°02'09.20" W) (You couldn't make this stiff up!)

Henry Kissinger recently republished 8 of his books. (Henry Kissinger will headline an event for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney later this month in Connecticut)

I could go on, but maybe you get the point.

What I'm getting at, is, this dude is not exactly a "nobody".

150 years ago he devised a plan for WW1 and it happened exactly as he suggested it should right down to the last detail. He also planed WW2 and it happened exactly as he had planed. He also planed WW3... Are you beginning to get the picture?

His name is Albert Pike. Google "Albert Pike, 3 world wars" and LOL at the Ashkenazi (Converts to "Jew") Jews, and why they are being allowed to act as the they have. (When he talks about "a new religion" that is code for "science.)

TL;DR: The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other.

Q: If you had not one racist bone in your body, what would a "race" have to do to you, for you to want to kill that "race"?

A: What ever your answer... TKS! That is exactly what they need to do to get this ball rolling!

[8] (That's from Fordham University) In the year 740 AD there were a few Israelites and the king and subjects of a huge powerful kingdom was to convert to one of three religions en-mass, and were tricked into not converting to "Israelites" but converting to "Jews" (Notice how the king was corrected about the difference by the Christin):

On the third day he called all the sages together and said to them. "Speak and argue with one another and make clear to me which is the best religion." They began to dispute with one another without arriving at any results until the King said to the Christian priest "What do you think? Of the religion of the Jews and the Muslims, which is to be preferred?" The priest answered: "The religion of the Israelites is better than that of the Muslims."

The King then asked the kadi [a Muslim judge and scholar]: "What do you say? Is the religion of the Israelites, or that of the Christians preferable?" The kadi answered: "The religion of the Israelites is preferable."

Upon this the King said: "If this is so, you both have admitted with your own mouths that the religion of the Israelites is better Wherefore, trusting in the mercies of God and the power of the Almighty, I choose the religion of Israel, that is, the religion of Abraham.

But they still even today use their Babylonian Talmud.

And so that brings me to this: Revelation 2:9. I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [9] I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. (What would Jesus do?)

Now here is a nifty little blood test that can tell the difference: [10]

Post a Comment