Obamas Syrienanfall stoppades av militärens myteri, interna och internationella protester (på engelska)

"Obama var tvungen att stoppa sitt planerade anfall mot Syrien beroende på ett gigantiskt myteri i den amerikanska militärledningen. Uppenbarligen kunde inte soldaterna finna någon strategi i presidentens planer och framförde massvis med invändningar mot insatsen. Aldrig tidigare har soldater i amerika så öppet vägrat lyda en president", skrev den tyska näringslivshemsidan DWN med många citat från ledande amerikanska militärer. Artikeln citerar också förre genaralsekreteraren för Nato Jaap De Hoop Scheffers uttalande i The Telegraph den 27.8: "Varenda en som tror att det finns en militär lösning på detta fruktansvärda krig som pågår i Syrien behöver få sitt huvud undersökt."

"Historic Flop: Mutiny of U.S. Military Forces Obama Into Retreat"

Sept. 2 (EIRNS)--Under this headline, the (euro-critical) website
"Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachrichten" (DWN) reports at length on the
U.S. military revolt against Obama, based on the article in the
{Washington Post}, however much more favorable to the military
than the {Post}.
"U.S. President Obama had to call off the planned military
strike against Syria because of a giant mutiny in the leadership
of the U.S. military, apparently," the DWN article begins,
continuing, "the soldiers could not recognize any strategy of the
President--and voiced massive concerns against the action. Never
before, have soldiers in America refused to obey a President so
Among other leading military, the DWN quotes Generals Martin
Dempsey and James Mattis, as strongly opposing a Syria
adventure. The article adds: "Many leading military are also
becoming insecure, because the rapid disintegration of the
anti-Syria coalition prompts new tactical planning. Without the
British, an operation looks quite different. And the lukewarm
support from NATO has made the military think twice. To rely only
on France seems too little for many. And Turkey is being eyed
with mistrust by the U.S. military anyway. [Prime Minister]
Erdogan is not trusted, because the [his ruling party] AKP is
rated by many U.S. elites as an Islamicist movement, which
pursues its own agenda."
This DWN article has been the only one in the German
language outside of the LaRouche movement's publications, that
takes account of the U.S. military revolt, and the website is
widely read--as shown by the fact that already by noon,
330 internet comments were listed under this article.

US must look to Vladimir Putin as military action in Syria 'will achieve nothing'
By Gregg Morgan, 31 Aug 2013, The Telegraph

Former Nato Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer says military action in Syria will "achieve nothing" and instead the US must look to Russia and Iran for a political solution.
Speaking to the Telegraph from the Netherlands, Mr De Hoop Scheffer said the US should avoid taking military action against Bashar al-Assad's regime, and claimed it was "impossible" to find a solution to the Syrian crisis that did not involve Russia or Iran.
He called on the respective world leaders "to cross their lines" and arrange a conference in Geneva in order to discuss how to peacefully the civil war.
Mr De Hoop Scheffer, Nato Secretary General between 2004 and 2009, argued that the planned US strikes would achieve nothing.
"Anyone who thinks there is a miltary solution for this horrible war going on in Syria needs their head examined," he said.

Strike on Syria Could Spark Pacific Thermonuclear War

September 2 (LPAC)--Citing the bipartisan letter circulated by
Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., where Rigell warns Obama that a
military strike without Congressional approval would be
unconstitutional, reporter Kenric Ward continues to spread the
warning by LaRouchePAC that Obama's attack on Syria would trigger
a larger war.
Ward writes: ``Still, Rigell's letter says Congress stands
``ready to come back into session, consider the facts before us,
and share the burden of decisions made regarding U.S. involvement
in the quickly escalating Syrian conflict.''
``It was unclear Sunday if the Obama administration would
proceed if Congress does not authorize action.
"Meantime, Watchdog.org reported that only 9 percent of
Americans support military intervention.
"`Even if it was proven that Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad used chemical weapons on civilians what the White House
has called a red line for military intervention--only 25 percent
of Americans would want to intervene,' Watchdog said, citing the
latest Reuters survey.
``The Lyndon LaRouche PAC, an unstinting opponent of
American military involvement, told Examiner that any U.S. attack
on Syria has the potential to trigger a larger war.
```The U.S. military has been decimated through more than a
decade of long wars. The logic of the U.S. buildup against Russia
and China (both strong allies of Syria) is moving the world
toward a Pacific thermonuclear war.'
```Once the fuse is lit with even a limited military strike
against Syria, the situation immediately moves out of control.''
``The LaRouche group previously accused the U.S. government
of sending weapons to Syrian rebels through Libya and Turkey.
``Caution was even sounded by the military analyst who
devised the much-discussed strategy for a `surgical strike' on
the Mideast country.
``Writing in Foreign Policy, John Hudson reported that U.S.
Navy planner Chris Harmer `now has serious misgivings' about
using cruise missiles to attack Syrian military installations.
"`Tactical actions in the absence of strategic objectives is
usually pointless and often counterproductive,' said Harmer, a
senior naval analyst at the Institute for the Study of War. `I
never intended my analysis of a cruise missile strike option to
be advocacy, even though some people took it as that.'
``Harmer said, `I made it clear that this is a low cost
option, but the broader issue is that low cost options don't do
any good unless they are tied to strategic priorities and
`Any ship officer can launch 30 or 40 Tomahawks. It's not
difficult. The difficulty is explaining to strategic planners how
this advances U.S. interests.'"

Obama's War Resolution Would Authorize World War III

Sept. 2 (EIRNS)--A number of analyses have been published over
the past 24-48 hours, which show that the war resolution
(Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF), which
President Obama has submitted to Congress, is completely
open-ended, and could be used to authorize an attack on Iran,
Lebanon, Hezbollah, etc. It could also authorize a ground war --
"boots on the ground" -- in any number of countries. It is
without any limitation both with respect to time, and the type of
military force to be used.
Jack Goldsmith, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel in
2003-04 during the Bush-Cheney Administration, writes on the
Lawfare blog:
"There is much more here than at first meets the eye. The
proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad.
It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed
Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific
limits on targets -- either in terms of the identity of the
targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah,
Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on
the purposes for which force can be used. Four points are worth
making about these purposes.
"First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use
force `in connection with' the use of WMD in the Syrian civil
war. (It does not limit the President's use force to the
territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must
have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict.
Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection
to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.)
"Second, the use of force must be designed to `prevent or
deter the use or proliferation' of WMDs `within, to or from
Syria' or (broader yet) to `protect the United States and its
allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.'
"Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final
interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are
satisfied (`as he determines to be necessary and appropriate').
"Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural
restrictions on the President's powers (such as a time limit)."
Goldsmith poses some questions that Congress should ponder:
"(1) {Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take
sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels
associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power?} Yes,
as long as the President determines that any of these entities
has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil
war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent
or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from,
Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against
the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to
imagine the President making such determinations with regard to
Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.
"(2) {Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use
force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon?} Again,
yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah
has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil
war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent
or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from,
Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against
the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. Again, very easy to
What Goldsmith and other analysts miss, is that, by the same
token, the AUMF could be used to justify an attack on Russia --
which the Obama Administration has already claimed is
facilitating Syria's war effort through the provision of war
Marcy Wheeler, writing on her Emptywheel.net blog, points
out the broad geographic scope of Obama's proposed AUMF, when it
is taken in conjunction with the other active AUMFs still in
force, those pertaining to Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Put all three of them together, and the government would
have authorization to use military force in Syria, Lebanon,
Shia-governed and increasingly violent Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan,
and parts of Pakistan (plus Yemen, with its Houthi insurgency on
Saudi Arabia's southern border). The President would have
authorization to use military force in an unbroken band of land
from Israel's border east to nuclear-armed Pakistan, with both
the counter-Saudi Shia block and Sunni al-Qaeda-related
terrorists included within the AUMFs." [ews]

International Law Expert Boyle: Impeach Obama on Sept. 9

September 2 (EIRNS)--In a statement released to EIR News Service
on September 2, 2013, Professor Francis Boyle said, ``I think we
have to play jujitsu with Obama. He wants Congress to vote for
war on September 9. Instead of playing his game, we should call
for Congress to impeach him on September 9--immediately, which
they can do. That will send a shot across his bow now.''
Boyle, who is a professor at the University of Illinois
College of Law, was interviewed live on Sept. 1 on a Chicago
WLUW-FM broadcast called the Logic Consortium. The show is hosted
by a former law student of Boyle's, Jake Briskman. The entire
show can be heard at http://www.logicconsortium.org/Syria.mp3
Boyle, and another guest on the same show, University of
Illinois History Professor Kenneth M. Cuno thoroughly debunked
Obama Administration claims on the Syria situation.
In summary, Boyle identifies the Syrian war push as
continuing the lies behind the 2011 war on Libya, and as a
prelude to the next War With Iran, which is already on the
drawing boards. Boyle described the post-9/11 policies of the
neo-conservatives, a group which he says Obama is part and parcel
of. Obama is the same and worse than George W. Bush.
Boyle also de-bunked the White House proposed war powers
resolution which he thoroughly reviewed after it was published by
the Administration. The resolution is not limited, it gives the
White House a blank check for boots on the ground and regime
change. Obama's claims of calling for a limited specific action
are lies.
Boyle also compared the lies of Syria to the lies used to
start both the Iraq War and the Vietnam War, going after the
``Best and the Brightest'': {liars} from Harvard and Yale
University Law Schools, which include Obama and many other
Harvard graduates.
Boyle also referred people to a posting he had made on the
Institute for Public Accuracy website on Aug. 30, in which he and
Daniel Ellsberg and Robert Parry debunk the ``Dodgy Dossier,''
put forward by the Obama Administration to attempt to lie their
way into justifying the war with Syria. In that posting, repeated
by Boyle on the radio interview, he says, "the test of the
Administration dossier is `high confidence,' but the appropriate
standard by the International Court of Justice at The Hague, is
`beyond a reasonable doubt.' The dossier notes that it does not
'confirm' the allegations against Syria. So the U.S.
intelligence community refuses to 'confirm' that the Syrian
government did it.''
Kerry claimed in his remarks that the opposition has not
used chemical weapons, but Carla Del Ponte of the United Nations
Commission that investigated chemical weapons usage in Syria,
said that the rebels had used CW.

Syria Debate Sets Town Hall Meetings Afire

Sept. 2 (EIRNS)--The sudden back-down of Obama over the Syria war
drive, has opened the door to a new flank against the British
oligarchy: the American people. The issue has transformed these
town hall meetings in the final week before Congress returns to
Washington, with many elected officials saying they would be
scheduling additional meetings expressly for this purpose. A
sampling of headlines:
* Dozens of Republican members of the House of
Representatives spent the month of August promising their
constituents they would fight President Obama's attempt to strike
Syria without their approval, a quiet national campaign that may
have helped lay the groundwork for the President's surprising
concession of power Saturday.
I spent much of the last month watching recorded videos and
live streams of the town hall meetings that members of Congress
of both parties traditionally hold in their districts during the
August recess. I watched more than 48 hours of video in total,
featuring nearly 50 members of Congress, most of them
Republicans. And the overwhelming message for President Obama was
clear: We want a vote on Syria.
Some Democrats heard the same from their constituents. At a
town hall in Cliffside, New Jersey Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell
found an audience almost unanimously opposed to any U.S. action
in Syria. "We shouldn't be involved in Syria whatsoever," a
constituent said to applause from the audience. "We are not the
world police." [Pascrell said he still supported intervention.--
* U.S. Rep. John Larson (CT) will spend Labor Day hearing
from constituents on whether Congress should authorize President
Barack Obama to launch a military strike on Syria. Larson has
scheduled a community forum at West Hartford Town Hall on Monday.
He said he will update residents and invite those who attend to
express their opinions and ask questions.
Larson, a Democrat, said in a news release on Saturday that
he commends Obama for seeking congressional authorization to
punish Syria's Assad regime for an alleged chemical attack on its
own people. Larson did not say how he will vote on the issue.
[WTNH TV 8 Hartford CT]
* Congressman Tom Reed (R-NY) today announced that he will
conduct six listening sessions this week before returning to
Washington next week to debate President Obama's request for
consent from Congress to launch attacks on Syria. "While we have
had many constituents calling our offices with their thoughts on
whether or not the U.S. should get involved in this civil war, I
also want to hear peoples thoughts in person," Reed said.
* Justin Amish (R-MI) said he was unconvinced a strike was
needed, schedules town hall: "Pres Obama hasn't come close to
justifying war in #Syria," Amash tweeted Saturday. "I look
forward to this debate. Pres must comply w/ vote of Congress; not
He was scheduled to host a town hall meeting at 5:30 p.m.
Tuesday, Sept. 3, at the Grand Rapids Public Library. [MLive]
* Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, a Democrat from Missouri's
5th District, joined 41 Action News Sunday morning. He said he
would vote no if a vote on military action was taken today.
"We're ignorant in the Middle East; we make dumb decisions,"
Cleaver said. "We supported the Shah of Iran. We supported Saddam
Hussein. We have a long list of making ignorant selections on who
we support, so I think we need to let the Syrians solve this
Cleaver will announce meeting dates and times today.


Sept. 2 (LPAC)--A number of governments from around the world
have expressed their extreme opposition and/or misgivings about
American military action against Syria. This comes at a moment
when the Obama Administration, having postponed military action
until Congress debates and votes on authorization of the use of
force, is desperate to show there is a large ``coalition of the
willing'' backing American military strikes.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said on
yesterday that he is opposed to any attack on Syria stressing
that the Palestinians do not accept a foreign country bombing an
Arab one. He said at the opening session of a meeting for Fatah
Revolutionary Council held in Ramallah that the solution to the
crisis in Syria must be political and that there is no military
On Aug. 28, Egypt weighed in strongly against military
intervention in Syria, which is a 180 degree about-face from the
pro-jihad stance of the deposed Morsi government. Egypt's Foreign
Minister Nabil Fahmy asserted, that Egypt rejects military
intervention in Syria, ``as we believe a political solution is
the only way out for the crisis there.'' Egypt supports the
Geneva-2 talks. By referring to the Geneva process, Egypt
appeared to have aligned its position with that of Russia and
China, which remain the most outspoken advocates of the
commencement of diplomacy to resolve the Syrian crisis. The
Egyptians also made it clear that they had not jumped to the
summary conclusion drawn by the Western powers that the Syrian
government was responsible for the chemical gas attack the
previous week. Accountability should be based on accurate
information, in order to determine who is responsible for the
chemical attack in Ghouta, observed Fahmy.
On Sept. 1, Algeria also rejected any military action, also
demanding diplomacy instead. The Algerian Foreign Minister Murad
Madlisi told an Arab League meeting in Cairo that ``The military
intervention's expenses and implications over the whole region
will be severe.'' Based on the complicated situations in Syria,
the Arab ministers should be keener than ever before to take all
necessary procedures to avoid slipping into tragedy, not only in
Syria but in the whole region, Xinhua reports. His country
repeated calls for the international community to encourage the
Syrian side to respond to the international efforts for holding
Geneva II conference and find a political solution to preserve
the safety of Syria and the unity of its people.
Other Arab League members states including Tunisia, Lebanon
and Iraq joined Algeria and Egypt in opposing U.S. military
intervention. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wrote to Vice
President Joe Biden demanding that the U.S. avoid any military
attack on Syria, according to Al-Mayadeen TV and Israel's
{Yedioth Ahronoth}. Last week, Iraq declared it will not allow
its airspace to be used for a strike on Syria.
Jordan has added that the Kingdom will not be used as a
launching pad for attacks on Syria and King Abdullah II favors a
diplomatic solution to the crisis, a Jordanian government
spokesman said Aug. 28.
Pakistan on Aug. 29 urged Western powers to avoid the use of
force to settle the conflict in the Middle Eastern state.
Expressing deep concern over the ongoing violence in Syria at his
weekly news briefing, Foreign Office spokesperson Aizaz Ahmed
Chaudhry said the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity
must be respected. Pakistan has called on all sides to exercise
restraint and engage in an inclusive political dialogue to
facilitate a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Syria in
keeping with the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people, he
India on Aug. 31 expressed reservations suggesting it will
not support any action against the Bashar Assad regime which is
not authorized by the UN. Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid
described the situation as very complicated as he said India will
remain committed to any action by the UN. ``When UN acts we are
willing to take positions which are adverse to our friends as
well...we will support the UN (on Syria) but it isdifficult to
say if we can go beyond that,'' said Khurshid.
Brazil also opposes military intervention in Syria without
the full backing of the United Nations, Brazilian Foreign
Minister Luiz Alberto Figueiredo said Aug. 28. ``The Brazilian
government's position is and has always been not to consider
armed intervention if it is not done under the support of a
resolution from the United Nations Security Council,'' Figueiredo
said at his first press conference as Foreign Minister.
``Otherwise, we will always consider it a violation of
international law and of the UN Charter,'' added Figueiredo, who
previously served as his country's ambassador to the UN. ``Force
should be used only in self-defense, as stipulated in the United
Nations Charter, or under special authorization from a UN
Security Council resolution,'' he said. On the alleged use of
chemical weapons by the Syrian government against civilians,
Figueiredo stressed that the incident was still under
investigation. ``There is strong evidence of the use of chemical
weapons, which is intolerable, unacceptable, but let us wait for
the results of the UN investigations. There is an impartial group
verifying the facts,'' he said.
South Africa vehemently opposes any military intervention in
Syria over the alleged use of chemical weapons by the regime
against its people, warning such a move would worsen the
humanitarian crisis in the war-ravaged country. ``We are against
military intervention in Syria because we believe it will not
contribute to a sustainable solution,'' Clayson Monyela,
spokesman for the Department of International Relations and
Cooperation (DIRCO), told Anadolu Agency in a Friday telephone
interview. ``It will only lead to more deaths and the
destruction of Syria like happened in other Arab countries,'' he

Calls in Russia, Ukraine, Central Europe for Putting the USA,
Barack Obama in Particular, on Trial for Crimes Against Peace

Sept. 3, 2013 (EIRNS) -- The past week has seen a number of
strong statements issued in Ukraine, Russia, and Central Europe,
on Barack Obama's threatened actions against Syria making him
subject to trial for "crimes against peace," or even for war
* Former Member of Parliament, Chairman of the Progressive
Socialist Party of Ukraine Natalia Vitrenko issued a statement
Aug. 27 that the USA and NATO were matching Hitler in "the crime
of preparing and carrying out aggression," and could be put on
trial before a new Nuremberg Tribunal. (Full text below.)
* In Latvia, lawyer and human rights activist Illarion Girs
yesterday issued a detailed argument that Obama's recent
statements and actions qualify as violations of "one of the
fundamental principles of contemporary international law, namely,
the principle of non-use of force or the threat of force,
violation of which is considered an act of aggression." This has
been the case since the UN Charter replaced "might makes right"
in the world, Girs said.
* Russian political activist Yuri Krupnov, leader of the
Development Movement, both publicized Girs's statement, and
issued his own set of demands that the Russian Foreign Ministry
explicitly invoke international legal standards, in Russia's
attempts to stop the U.S. attack on Syria.

Statement of Natalia Vitrenko, chairman of the Progressive
Socialist Party of Ukraine, August 27, 2013

Aggression against Syria Will Lead to a Nuremberg-2 Against the
NATO Axis of Evil

Members of the North Atlantic Alliance -- the USA, the UK,
France, and Turkey -- have publicly announced that they are
prepared to launch aggression against the sovereign nation of
Syria, on the pretext of fabricated and unproven charges that
Syrian government troops used chemical weapons. The NATO
countries, led by the USA, are thereby transforming themselves
into a world axis of evil, in a total historical parallel with
the European axis headed by Hitlerite Germany. That axis of evil
was condemned by the International War Crimes Tribunal (IWCT) at
Nuremberg for the crime of preparing and carrying out aggression.
The Nuremberg court of the nations condemned the Hitlerite
aggressors and their henchmen for violating the norms and
principles of international law, convicting them of crimes
against peace and humanity, and of war crimes.
From the moment that the Verdict of the IWCT was proclaimed
in Nuremberg, international law has taken precedence over any
national or group agreements. The UN Charter, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the International Pact on Civil and
Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and
dozens of UN and UNSC resolutions have affirmed the principles of
resolving conflicts peacefully, and guarantee the protection of
sovereign nations from aggressors on the basis of the presumption
of innocence.
The USA and the NATO countries have shamelessly trampled
international law in carrying out aggression against Yugoslavia,
Iraq, and Libya. The Iraqis paid in millions of casualties, for
the American lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) in Iraq. This lie was officially presented
using U.S. videos made by the U.S. special services, purporting
to show factories for producing those weapons. This fabrication
was used for carrying out aggression against Iraq and seizing its
rich natural resources. But in the ten years of the occupation of
Iraq, no WMD were found.
Against Libya, the USA and its satellites used fabrications
about Qaddafi as having a dictatorial regime. The country was
flooded with blood, and, once again, the richest natural
resources of Libya were seized.
Now, continuing this diabolical policy, the NATO countries,
without proof, are fanning psychosis about the supposed use of
chemical weapons by Syrian government troops against civilians.
On the basis of this fabrication, they are prepared to launch
overt armed hostilities against Syria, without waiting for the
findings of the UN experts or a Security Council resolution.
I am profoundly indignant about this and I condemn
lawlessness of the USA and its satellites. And if they dare to
initiate aggression against Syria, I call on human rights
defenders, politicians, and national leaders from all countries
to convene a new Nuremberg Tribunal and bring the world axis of
evil to trial.
I call on Russia and China not only not to abandon Syria,
but to stand firmly in its defense. All progressive mankind
expects no less.

Turkish Opposition Prepares Protests Against "Third World War"

Sept. 2 (EIRNS)--After warning that an intervention in Syria
could lead to World War III, Turkey's main opposition Republican
People's Party (CHP) is launching a mobilization through holding
anti-war meetings and rallies in many Turkish provinces. "If the
intervention in Iraq and Libya is repeated in Syria in the
upcoming days, we will be in the heart of a war. As the CHP, we
will stage anti-war rallies," CHP Deputy Chairman Gürsel Tekin
told reporters in Izmir yesterday. "Intervention in Syria has the
potential to bring on a Third World War. For the issue of Syria,
the common mind of the whole world must be activated. There will
not be a winner of this war," Toprak said in a written statement
on Sept. 1.
"While the essential actors of an intervention in Syria are
discussing this historic issue in their Parliaments, the [Turkish
ruling party] AKP has been avoiding this. They have been ignoring
the Parliament," Toprak said, referring to the recent decisions
by the U.K. and the U.S. to consult their respective
legislatures. "The AKP has been trying to drift the country into
war by disregarding the nation's will. AKP's main concern is not
to relive the March 1 frustration, and not to cause a division in
its party. The AKP has been sacrificing the country's future for
its party's future," Toprak said and called the AKP Syria policy
a "mind eclipse." Comparing it to the U.S. intervention in Iraq
in 2003, he said, "Does the AKP intend to create an Iraq out of
Meanwhile hundreds of demonstrators in Istanbul joined hands
in Istanbul yesterday in a silent protest against a possible
military intervention in Syria. Drivers expressed support for the
demonstrators by honking, waving, and making peace signs from
their car windows. While the one-hour protest was peaceful almost
everywhere in Istanbul, riot police forcibly broke up the human
chain in central Taksim Square. Prior to the protests, police had
also cordoned off the adjacent Gezi Park and the Ataturk statue
on the square. Similar protests took place in other Turkish
cities. In the Turkish border town of Reyhanli, protesters formed
a human chain between the two sites where car bombs had killed 53
people in May.

Russian Forces Went on High Alert at Israeli Launch, Detected as
Coming Toward Russia

Sept. 3, 2013 (EIRNS) -- Russia reacted with utmost seriousness
to today's Israeli launch of what Tel Aviv called two "ballistic
targets" (for air defense practice) eastward across the
Mediterranean. It took hours after the Russians announced
detecting it, to clarify that the launch was not an attack on
Syria. The point made in Russian national TV news coverage
tonight, however, was that it had been detected and responded to
as possibly aimed at Russia. Deputy Defense Minister Anatoli
Antonov was shown on Channel One Russia saying, "Note where this
is going on, and what direction the missile was moving: it was
flying to the east, i.e., toward the Russian Federation."
"Is there any other region more volatile and packed with
weapons than the Mediterranean today?" asked Antonov in the TV
clip. "I cannot completely understand how anybody could play
with weapons, with missiles, in this region." According to RIA
Novosti, he went on to say, "The Mediterranean is a powder keg. A
match is enough for fire to break out and possibly spread not
only to neighboring states but to other world regions as well. I
remind you that the Mediterranean is close to the borders of the
Russian Federation."
Channel One Russia emphasized that the launches were
detected by the new Voronezh-DM-class radar at Armavir in
southern Russia, the strategic anti-missile facility that Russia
has repeatedly offered for missile defense cooperation with the
USA. Upon the detection, the report said, Defense Minister
Sergei Shoygu immediately briefed President Putin. Antonov said
that the early-warning system worked well, including procedures
that quickly put the Central Command Point of the General Staff,
as well as the Air-Space Defense Forces Command Center, on
heightened combat-ready status.
The Russian TV report drew out the contradiction between
Israeli statements that the launches were a test conducted
jointly by the USA and Israel, and earlier denials from
Washington that the United States had anything to do with it.
The reporter, as well as Antonov, however, also stated that even
if the USA was merely notified beforehand of a planned Israeli
solo launch, the Americans were obligated under the 1988
Soviet-American agreement on missile launch notification, to have
informed Moscow.
"Launches of this kind of missile cause alarm in various
countries," Antonov said. The Russian report asserted that the
"target" used was a "Sparrow" medium-range ballistic missile, and
the TV graphics showed it travelling half the length of the
Mediterranean. Russian analysts were interviewed on what message
it might have been intended to send to Iran, as well.

Russian Strategic Missile Forces Staff Exercises Begin

Sept. 3, 2013 (EIRNS) -- The Russian Ministry of Defense
announced today that the autumn military training season has
begun, with a planned four-day command and staff exercise in the
Strategic Missile Forces. The practice is under the command of
Gen.-Col. Sergei Karakayev, commander-in-chief of the Strategic
Missile Forces. Two thousand servicemen at 150 locations will
take part. The announcement highlighted that simulated terrorist
attacks on Russia's strategic defenses are included in the

German conflict researcher warns against another Syrian rebel provocation

Sept. 3, 2013 -- Andreas Zumach, a senior conflict researcher and arms control expert in Germany, said in an interview with (the alternate ) Radio Lora that Obama's Redline speech was an invitation to the rebels to provoke a U.S. military intervention on their side by a poison gas trap.
He also speculates on scenarios, that a lower ranking officer "on his own" used the poison gas in the recent incident.
Q: As a non-military option, talks with Russia? A: the example of Libya will not be tolerated again by Russia and China. Saudi and Qatars admit openly that an attack on Syria is preparation for going after Iran. Nothing to do with Human Rights.
Zumach supports a UN Blue Helmet deployed, with soldiers from Russia and China. (http://lora924.de/ In the search function type in "zumach")

Linke calls for withdrawal of mandate for Patriot missiles

Sept. 3, 2013 -- The Linke parliamentary group in the Bundestag stated that if there is a military strike by the US and other states against Syria, it will be carried out without a UNSEC mandate, the group's chairman Gregor Gysi wrote in a latter to the chairmen of the other Bundestag groups. "If Syria reacts by firing rockets against Turkey, the Bundeswehr soldiers will react with their air defense missiles (the Patriots-ed.)." This would engage the German soldiers in a war not mandated by international law, Gysi wrote, calling for a special session fo the entire Bundestag to discuss and withdraw the Dec. 14 mandate for the Patriot stationing. That mandate was, by the way, made possible with the "yes" vote of the opposition Social Democrats, with a few exceptions. The Linke voted against.

French release Chemical Weapons report.

Sept. 3, 2013 -- The French have released a 9 page declassified French intelligence report on Monday which claimed Syrian government forced launch a chemical attack ion Damascus suburbs held by opposition units using conventional weapons and "the massive use of chemical weapons".
The report included satellite imagery showing the attach. It is not clear how these images could show a chemical attack. It then claims conveniently that government forces then bombed the areas to wipe out evidence.
"Unlike previous attacks that used small amounts of chemicals and were aimed at terrorizing people, this attack was tactical and aimed at regaining territory," the report said.
This brilliant report then uses 47 amateur video clips allegedly showing the attacks which now appeared to have killed about 280 people, the report said.

Assad Challenges France and U.S. To come up with proof.

Sept. 3, 2013 -- In an interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro Assad said:. "Whoever makes accusations must provide proof. We have challenged the US and France to put forward a single piece of proof. Mr Obama and Mr Hollande have been incapable of doing so. The Middle East is a powder-keg, and today the spark is getting closer."

Labor Party Hardens positions calls for a "Syria Contact Group" to be formed at G-20

Sept. 3, 2013 -- The Labor party is hardening its position on any intervention against Syria, in line with the outcome of the Commons votes.
Party leader Ed Milliband said Labor would only support military action if Britain's national security was threatened or al-Qaida and its affiliates gained possession of large stockpiles of chemical weapons.
A senior Labor source said: "There would need to be very significant change [for Labor to support military action]. There are two examples: if al-Qaida got possession of very large stockpiles of weapons or if there is a direct threat to national security. The political reality is that the prime minister has said Britain will not take part in military action. Everyone is having to work within that context."
Labor's shadow defense secretary, Jim Murphy. Wrote in a blog on Sunday,"A policy of indefinite inaction regardless of what happens in Syria or at the UN would be unwise. An attack on an ally by Assad or further chemical atrocities would give the PM a right to bring this back to parliament. But he cannot just re-run last week's vote and hope for a different result."

In what could be an interesting proposal Labor's shadow foreign secretary, Douglas Alexander, told the Guardian: "An objective for the G20 summit in St Petersburg should be to establish a Syria contact group, like that which helped end the civil war in Lebanon. Unlike the Friends of Syria group, which was established as a forum for supporting the Syrian opposition, a Syria contact group could bring together those countries that are currently backing opposing sides in the Syrian conflict, of course including Russia, but also key sponsors within the region such as Iran and Saudi Arabia."
A poll boy BBC/ICM 71 percent support for the Commons decision to stop British involvement in military action with 67% saying that "the special relationship is not relevant to the modern age"
Philip Hammond, the defense secretary, told Murphy that Britain would not be involved in military action unless circumstances "change very significantly".
The FT reports that "privately some conservatives are hoping that Congress reject military action..." Another is quoted as saying the Prime Minister David Cameron, "wants to put the hole episode in a box and seal it."
The FT writes that it was revealed that the UK government approved an export license for the sale of material to Syria that could have been used to make poison gas in January 2012 but were never shipped because the licenses were revoked after EU sanctions were imposed on Syria. In addition There was British military training of Syrian officers.