VIDEO — Syria chemical attack facts tough to trace amid US & UK war hardline
RT
August 26, 2013
The US and many of its allies seem impatient to wait for the UN findings – with American warships already converging near the war-torn state – and the British are preparing to join them. RT’s Maria Finoshina looks at where their confidence comes from in blaming the Syrian government for using chemical weapons – and where it might lead.
RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air
Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c…
Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt
Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT
RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.
VIDEO — Tripoli Torment: Libya crippled by jihad & oil brawl 2 yrs after Gaddafi ouster
RT
August 26, 2013
Two years on from the fall of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, the euphoria of the revolution has all but gone. Today, armed militias and Islamists rule much of the country fighting over territory, smuggling routes, and shares of dwindling oil revenue. To top that off, a desperate government is quietly re-activating Colonel Gaddafi’s feared surveillance apparatus, using it to hunt down dissenters. RT’s Paula Slier reports on the sobering anniversary.
RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air
Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c…
Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt
Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT
RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.
Talking NDAA With My Congressman
P.A.N.D.A. People Against The NDAA
August 21, 2013
Christopher Corbett
PANDA Northern Nevada Chapter
On August 7, 2013, I attended U.S. Congressman Mark Amodei’s Town Hall meeting held at the beautiful Montreaux Country Club in Reno, NV. My primary reason for attending was to, once again, address the Congressman’s voting record regarding the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This was my third attempt to discuss the NDAA with him. In previous conversations, he had always attempted to dodge and deflect questions regarding the NDAA and to shut me down in my effort to push the issue. This town hall would be no different.
The meeting began with a question from an influential attendee as to why there has been no response from Congress regarding the many impeachable acts committed by the Obama Administration. Congressman Amodei danced around the question of “why no impeachment” and somehow landed on the Farm Bill. I wondered if anyone else noticed the lack of substance from the Congressman regarding the essence of the actual question posed. This then led to a string of follow up Q & A and comments from participants within the room. I patiently watched and listened and allowed the dialogue to flow and run it’s course.
As the number of hands raised for questions began to decrease, I raised my hand and was surprised when Congressman Amodei pointed to me on my first try, recognizing me and saying something to the effect of, “yeah, I know, the NDAA, right?”.
I had spoken to the Congressman previously on two occasions regarding the NDAA. He also has had an advisor of his contact me to discuss the NDAA and, shortly thereafter, attended a meeting of the Conservative Talk Lunch group which I had been a regular guest speaker, at the time. The bottom line is that he knows who I am and that I take issue with the NDAA.
Taking the floor, I felt a slight grin cross my face, I stated that I had a few questions but first thanked him for upholding his oath of office and voting in favor of the Amash-Conyers Amendment to a recent Defense Department appropriations bill which, if passed, would have defunded the NSA’s megadata collection program and that his vote was a step in the right direction. The Congressman seemed pleased with my acknowledgement.
Moving on, I mentioned “However, I do have a few other issues with your voting record on a couple of issues” and posed three questions. The first, “Why did you vote for NDAA 2012 which includes the authorization of indefinite detention of American citizens without charge, trial or access to legal counsel?”; the second, “Why did you vote against the Smith-Gibson Amendment to the 2014 NDAA which would have repealed the authorization of indefinite detention without charge or trial?”; and the third, “Why did you vote for the Cyber Intelligence Security and Protection Act, CISPA, which infringes upon internet freedom and First Amendment rights?”
Amodei’s response was, “We’ve already discussed this (NDAA). I’ve had my advisor call you. We agreed to disagree and we still disagree. As to the second question about the Amendment, I don’t recall it. I will have to look it up”. Regarding CISPA, Amodei provided a long diatribe but never really seemed to answer my question. His response to my question on CISPA was of little consequence to me. My primary concern was to raise the issue of his voting record in favor of the NDAA’s authorization of indefinite detention. The only reason I brought up CISPA at all is because I don’t think very many people are aware that the bill has been passed by the House of Representatives.
To follow up, I began by stating that I had read his legal analysis on the NDAA which the Congressman had directed me to in a previous encounter. His legal analysis relies heavily on HR 1540 Section 1021 Subsection (e) and Section 1022 Subsection (b) 1 and stated that it was faulty. He became visibly and verbally more aggressive towards me. I proceeded to read Section 1021 Subsection (e) to the room and asked the Congressman to identify any prior or existing laws which cover the military detention of U.S. Citizens. He did not offer a response. I added, “There are no existing laws nor authorities to affect. This (Section 1021 Subsection (e)) is the benchmark. He did, however, offer a one on one meeting with me stating that he would prefer to discuss the issue there as opposed to the forum we were in. I found it interesting that he was uncomfortable discussing the NDAA publicly.
Juanita Cox, another participant at the town hall, spoke up and said, “I’d like to take you up on your offer of a meeting because I too am concerned about the NDAA and I believe that you violated your oath of office”.
Amodei said, “Okay”, and asked if he had her’s and my contact info.
Gene Braeger, another attendee, also reiterated Cox’s concerns and asked for a straw poll of the room to see how many were opposed to the NDAA. Amodei replied to Braeger by telling him that he had scheduled a conference call town hall meeting in September and would raise the question there. Braeger pushed further again asking “why can’t we just do a straw poll within the room?”. Amodei again mentioned the conference call but quickly gave in and said, “Okay, how many people support the NDAA?”. Not a single person raised their hand. He then asked, “How many people are opposed to the NDAA?”. From my perspective in the room, approximately half of the attendees raised their hands. I was later told by someone who had been standing in the back of the room that I had the majority. He then asked, how many people have no opinion of the NDAA?”, of which around one quarter of the room raised their hands. I then asked, “How many of you have never heard of the NDAA?”, but apparently, the Congressman didn’t wish to pursue the Q&A any further.
After the town hall had concluded, Cox commented, “I think Amodei thinks he’s in trouble. Perhaps the information he was given by the lobbyists or the people he relies on was faulty. He appeared to become more responsive and softened when other participants in the town hall confronted him about the NDAA.”
Overall, it was a successful meeting. I am grateful to those who spoke up about the NDAA. It was good to hear them chime in. We have Congressman Amodei’s attention and an opportunity to share our concerns with him. We were able to engage and push forward the dialogue and our message. Hopefully, those who may not have been aware of the NDAA are now researching it further. There is always plenty of room for more in the fight for liberty.
VIDEO — Threat Against Syria – More Than Hype – Morris
108morris108
August 27, 2013
From Hype To Sabre Rattling the (Zionist) West is raising the stakes, and looks set to make some surgical strikes. Syria seems duty bound to retaliate in some measure, US ships and forces in Jordan would seem likely targets, Israel is a possible target too, and lastly the British base in Cyprus. And would Turkey allows itself to be a target?
VIDEO — Attack On Syria Is All Hype – Morris
108morris108
August 25, 2013
It is a Hollywood hype style story.
For ships to be near a coast it only makes sense for transporting troops or equipment.
VIDEO — Syrian rebels control alleged chemical attack site: Govt can’t grant secure entry
RT
August 23, 2013
Syria has no control over the site where the alleged chemical attack took place, argues Oxford University historian Mark Almond to RT, adding that the opposition controls the area and Damascus can’t guarantee security or even entry for UN experts.
RT: There has not been any form evidence of this attack or who is behind it. So why are we seeing such a harsh condemnation of the Assad government?
Mark Almond: In part it is because key Western governments, America, Britain and France, want to say “Gotcha”. They have been demanding the fall of Assad for more than two-and-a-half years now and it has become increasingly frustrating that his regime has shown much more resilience that they had expected, despite the resources that they and the Gulf Kingdoms have thrown into the war on the other side.
It is also like a distraction from the embarrassment of Egypt, where we see the European and the US governments basically using weasel words to avoid any kind of condemnation of a massacre in the streets of Cairo. So there are both the specifics of Syria and the context of what is going on elsewhere in the Arab world, especially in Egypt.
RT: Is it likely that Assad will launch such an attack at the time UN investigators are visiting Syria and of course the consequences of the chemical attack anyway?
MA: You have to ask with any crime scene, to whose benefit is the crime? And the Syrian government would have to be not only very brutal, but very stupid to have done this in a period when UN chemical weapons inspectors are just down the road in Damascus.
Secondly, if they had done this, if they have launched a very large scale chemical attack, surely they would have sent in special troops under the cover of the chaos caused by such an attack to occupy the area in order to precisely prevent the kind of films and pictures emerging that have been sent around the world by the opposition. This, after all, is the area controlled by the opposition. So a further problem arises with the demands Syrian government permit experts to visit the scene. Syrian government does not control the scene of the crime, if this crime is being committed. It is up to the rebels. Yet we see no attempt to press the rebels to cooperate. So in fact, it seems to be primarily to embarrass the Syrian government, to say, “Why don’t you let the experts go to the scene?” where the fact is they don’t control the scene and therefore could not guarantee their security or even possibly enable them to enter the area where these attacks are supposed to have taken place.”
RT: What would the rebels gain for this?
MA: We do have some very radical groups who would no doubt say, as they have when they have been challenged about using suicide bombers, killing innocent people, that God will recognize his own when the dead die, that he will save for heaven the justified victims and just send to hell the wicked supporters of Assad. So it is not impossible that somebody has staged this.
One thing we have to remember is that amongst chemical weapons experts there are considerable suspicions about what exactly the weapon or the substance has been. If it is sarin gas, which was supposed to be one of the most deadly nerve gases – why do we see such various symptoms, why do we see so many people who do not seem to be affected by the weapon, why do we see people operating in the area without wearing protective clothing? This is a nerve gas, it is not just something that kills you if you breathe it in. It enters through your pores through the skin. So it is that basic question that the most advertised source of the deaths that we have seen in pictures does not seem likely to be the weapon.
Secondly, if it is a poor low-grade version of sarin, then probably it is not made by the Syrian government’s laboratories, functioning in peace and security until very recently, but possibly by people using the elements that you find in various insecticides used on animals which contain some of the precursors for sarin. That is how Nazi scientists invented sarin in the first place. They were making an insect pesticide and then discovered they have found something very deadly, which could be used on people.
So we don’t know exactly what the weapon is and unfortunately, because of where it has been used, we can’t really ascertain who might have used it because there is no independent observation of the scene of the incident.”
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
PN 