Monday, September 16, 2013

Are the UN Chemical Attack Report and the Washington Shooting Spree Related?

Dear readers, perhaps I am too cynical...but why would there be an attack at a Washington DC naval facility at the very moment that the UN report on the Syria chemical attack was released? Was it to take the chemical attack report off TV Page One, to avoid highlighting the information in the UN report that says 85% of victim blood samples tested positive for sarin, that the missile canister fragments tested positive for sarin, that the canisters had Cyrillic lettering on them, i.e., Russian. Am I being paranoid? ~~~~~ UN inspectors said Monday there is "clear and convincing evidence" that chemical weapons were used on a "relatively large scale" against civilians, including children as young as 7, in an attack on August 21 in Damascus suburbs that killed hundreds and perhaps more than a thousand people in Syria's civil war. The report was clear about the use of chemical weapons, but, as expected, it did not answer the key question of who launched the attack. The US has said the regime of President Bashar al-Assad was behind the attack, while the Syrian government accuses the rebels. US Secretary of State John Kerry met in Paris with his counterparts from France, Britain, Turkey and Saudi Arabia before seeking a UN resolution that would detail how the international community can secure and destroy Syria's stockpile and chemical precursors. Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov clashed Monday over possible military action if Syria doesn't abandon its chemical weapons.Kerry said the US-Russia agreement "fully commits the United States and Russia to impose measures under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter in the event of non-compliance." Chapter 7 resolutions permit military enforcement. Russia's Lavrov said Chapter 7 was the subject of "fierce debate" during the US-Russia talks but said that "the final document...doesn't mention it" and that the Security Council resolution being negotiated will not be under Chapter 7. He said if Syria fails to cooperate, the Security Council can pass an entirely different resolution "which may employ Chapter 7." Lavrov stressed that attempts to threaten the use of force against Syria would disrupt a chance for Geneva peace negotiations that the US and Russia have been trying to organize. But in a public statement today, UN Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon called the chemical attack "a war crime" and said those who perpetuated it "must be held to account." ~~~~~ So, dear readers, we must ask if America has once again been successfully targeted by those who prefer to keep the United States off-balance in its war on terrorism - a war on terrorism that President Obama refuses to label as such. There is no doubt that al-Qaida, other jihadists and the al-Assad regime have benefitted from sharing the media spotlight today. Whether because of a terrorist plot or by coincidence we will learn as the investigation continues. And sad as today's news out of Washington is, the real news is that the United Nations has labelled the August 21 chemical attack a war crime, whose perpetrators must be held to account. Take notice, Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin.

6 comments:

  1. I just hate to think the 2 atrocities are related.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The two dear reader, let's not forget the Boston Marathon attack, Benghazi, Egypt.

    Folks we simply as a whole don't really get the Big Picture here do we. Or are we simply unwilling to connect the dots of radical Islam/jihadists/terrorists/Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas/Hezbollah, AL-Qaeda,Aby-Sayaf, etc., etc. from A to B to C to D, etc., etc,.

    We have entered a phase of this global war of terrorism that brings us face to face with the reality that not all people love us. Some people in our own country don't like us and want to see us fail in our quest against terrorism.

    We should all (with eyes wide open) take another look at what happened today.

    News was hijacked and replaced with some very questionable terrorists activity a half mile from Congress in Washington DC. WAKE UP and stop thinking that 1+2 always equals 3.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Certainly, yes, any doubt, who said differently

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is very evident that ALL terrorists attacked are at least somewhat connected to the previous one and the upcoming one. Whether they are ALL connected via one"central clearing house" that has a gigantic attack calendar comprised of every terrorists groups plans is a stretch.

    Terrorists are no different than other groups ... they like to keep secrets and their planned activity somewhat private.

    So although we are fighting a Global War against ALL terrorism, we are in all actualization fight many little regional wars also against many little organizations.

    So as President Jefferson told us so many long years ago ... "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

    ReplyDelete


  5. Time after time, public murder sprees occur in “gun-free zones” – public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The list is long, including massacres at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School along with many less deadly attacks. Last week’s slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different – except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist opened fire.

    Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.

    Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. That’s why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s rampage.

    Everyone wants to keep people safe – and no one denies Mr. Clinton’s good intentions. The problem is that law-abiding good citizens, not criminals, are the ones who obey those laws. Bans end up disarming potential victims and not criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal – or in this case, the terrorist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I simply do not believe that the USA is in position militarily, financially, or with public support to venture into Syria or any other country to help them out. Even fro a "human rights stand point"

    Obama is is unstable on his spoken words and his "stick to it" record to do anything.

    Yesterday he had to go off the deep end while the situation was still unraveling at the Washington DC over the "terrorists" attack that killed 13 people, about the republican lack of supporting his economic recovery proposals.

    Everything he does is about him. Not us as a nation, or or those that are in need,just HIM and HIM alone.

    He sees the world as revolving around him solely.

    ReplyDelete