The ADL beats the drums of war (and so does AIPAC)

I know that Israelis are in favour of the US striking Assad along with McCain, Graham, Boehner, Cantor and others in the US, but what about Israpundit’s informed readers. My preference is for the US to stay out of it.  Israel is better off having as neighbour, an Iranian backed Syria than a melange of Islamists headed by the MB in tandem with Erdogan.  The US and the EU is more likely to support Israel if we are confronted with the former rather than the latter.  Ted Belman

AIPAC to mount major lobbying blitz for Obama’s Syria strike plan

EU sides with Russia’s Putin, urges against US ‘military solution’ in Syria

Syrian War Suck-Up The ADL Ignores It’s Mission (Again) To Beat The War Drums For Obama

By Jeff Dunetz

If the IRS really wanted to go after charitable organizations that are blatantly political they would go after the ADL, but then that will never happen because the ADL is a huge supporter of progressive politics and President Obama. But ever since Abe Foxman has taken over the group has abandoned its mission to fight anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, and is using its donated tax-free funds to concentrate on a political agenda.

Today they released a statement supporting Obama’s ramp up to war in Syria:

Barry Curtiss-Lusher, ADL National Chair and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

    We welcome President Obama’s demonstration of U.S. leadership in responding to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. In recent days, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have forcefully made the case for United States action against the Syrian regime in the wake of its use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.

The president clearly and unequivocally identified the significant national security interests of the United States and moral imperative underlying his decision to use military force against Syria. We support the president’s decision.

Congress should act swiftly to add its voice to hold President Bashar al-Assad accountable for the wanton slaughter of his own citizens.

Any nation that violates international norms and obligations which threaten the peace and security of the world must face the consequences of those dangerous acts. 

This is not even close to the first time the ADL as strayed from its mission to support the progressive agenda with money donors’ believed was being used for a different purpose. Below are some examples:

  • Supported Partial Birth and other forms of Abortion. In 2008, urging both parties to adopt a pro-choice stance in their presidential platforms. I wonder if Abe Foxman realizes that not all Jews support the ADL’s pro-choice position. 
  • Before Chuck Hagel was appointed to Defense Secretary position they strongly opposed his selection. Once Obama named Hagel they tamed their words considerably.
  • Advocates for Gay Marriage. Remember in NY#9 when many Orthodox Jews voted against the Democrat because he voted for the New York State Gay Marriage Bill? Well Abe Foxman’s ADL couldn’t care less.
  • Issued a “White Paper” promoting the progressive’s negative PR spin about the Tea Party movement. They said the Tea Party was part of the “New Rage in America”
  • Refused to recognize the anti-Semitism present within Occupy Wall Street, until Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com embarrassed them into making a statement.

The ADL has become nothing but a tool for the progressive movement. If you wish to donate to the progressive movement allow me to suggest you donate to Organizing for Action–they do it better.  If you want to donate to a Jewish Organization allow me to suggest you don’t donate to  the ADL, there are hundreds of Jewish Organizations dealing with Jewish, or other worthy charitable work, unlike the ADL those groups don’t waste their time and your donations being political wannabes.

September 5, 2013 | 58 Comments »

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 58 Comments

  1. yamit82 Said:

    anything the reduces Iranian foot print and threat to us is good or better than whatever comes after.

    I agree and I beleive that Israel is happy to see Assad and hezbullah in conflict and weaker. However, I beleive that the US wants Israel to be more active in the Nato/GCC enterprise and Israel must be careful not to become the fall guy and front man doing their work. as you know I believe that Israel was offered understandings/deals but US and GCC have not fully delivered and want Israel to finish their part of the job. In any case I hope that Israel can take advantage of the split of hezbullah forces between Lebanon and syria. If the Lebanese sunnis are activated fully in Lebanon and the jihdis in Syria need more hezbullah troops, there might be an opportunity for Israel to aid the muslims to bring down hezbullah in the 2 arenas or for Israel to exploit the split. There is argument as to whether the jihaids or assad are better for Israel but I doubt that anyone sees disadvantage to weakening or bringing down hezbullan.

  2. Vinnie Said:

    I agree with Dweller above that maybe year and a half ago, two years ago, it might have made sense to get involved in order to support a western-oriented, democratic secular opposition movement.

    I do not believe that there was ever enough democratic secular opposition but rather that it was orchestrated to give that appearance so that the paid foreign mercenaries could move in under the fig leaf of a democratic revolution. Same in Libya. Benghazi proves that this goes back a while and was planned as a collaboration between Nato and GCC.

  3. mar55 Said:

    do you think that Saudi Arabia might be offering Obama a few million dollars to do the job for them?.

    In my view, from the beginning, it was not an “arab spring democratic revolution” It is easy to pay a few bucks, emplly the twitters and get the “democratic” groups on the street. This provides a fig leaf and cover to bring in the paid jihdi mercenaries. Are you aware of the articles which allege that Obama was finance into harvard by saudi prince bin talal of Guiliani fame? I think this includes western energy interests. I dont see the US under Obama staying out because there are likely enough bought politicians to talk the talk. Israel, I believe, is trying to sit on the fence but under pressure to enter.

  4. Laura Said:

    The last thing we need is for Jews to promote the idea that Jews are pushing for war.

    I agree, it is dangerous and it allows an avenue for Obama to lay the blame for failure and casualties on the Jews. This would serve as a fig leaf for his collaboration to prosecute the Saudi(GCC)agenda in Syria. I believe he has already tried to draw Israel into the war with leaks and now he is using Israel as a carrot to get congressional backing, while Israel never said asked for that.

  5. dweller Said:

    Yossef Bodansky has written recently on the subject, citing in particular the remarks of Saleh Muslim, of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) — not exactly an Assad ‘ally’:

    also not exactly a jihadi ally(saleh muslim and PYD cannot be considered newutral sources):

    Jabhat al-Nusra also reportedly bombed the PYD headquarters in the nearby Kurdish city of Qamishli, also situated on the Syria-Turkey border.
    http://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian-kurds-to-declare-autonomy-from-damascus/

    Perhaps, not exactly an enemy of Assad either:

    Although it is critical of the Assad government, the PYD has been accused by the Syrian opposition of collaboration with the Ba’athist regime, acting as enforcers for Assad in Kurdish areas, silencing critics such as Mashaal Tammo.[5]…….
    Certain Kurdish opposition figures have even claimed that the Syrian Army has handed over control of certain parts of northeastern Syria to the PYD, leading to disputes and clashes between the PYD, the KNC, and the Syrian National Council.[6] The PYD has accused the SNC as acting as Turkey’s henchmen, and due to a long running dispute between the PKK and the KDP, it is also at odds with the KDP supported Kurdish National Council.[7]…….
    …the PYD remains dedicated to trying to solve the Syrian civil war through dialogue with the regime.[8]……
    Despite its current apparent strength in Syria, the group’s leader, Salih Muslim, claims that the group desires Kurdish autonomy within a new democratic Syria rather than Kurdish independence…….
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Union_Party_(Syria)

  8. I think the best strategy is to do whatever it takes to keep the crazies in Syria fighting one another. Of course I’d be foolish to suggest what to do because I admit that I’m not privy to any of the intelligence required to make that type of informed decision. I do find it pathetic however that organizations like the ADL and many of the writers of the comments above think they know exactly what to do. I’ve read each comment above and some are unfortunately garbage while others offer flawed and biased opinions. I do agree 100% with the overriding theme that Obama is not Israel’s friend and cannot be trusted. If I was American, I would have voted for ABO (anyone but Obama). He scares me.

    My 2 cents: Israel should stay out of Syria as much as possible. Israel must continue to wreck Iran’s nuclear ambitions covertly as it has been doing until THEY see fit to destroy them. ADL, AIPAC and sadly many other Jewish organizations are not worthy of donating our hard earned dollars to or belonging to. I myself refuse to officially belong to any organizations as I’ve learned in the past, I often don’t agree with their policies. I might donate to some of them (this applies not just to Jewish organizations) but I will never join them. That way I am free to voice my own opinions.

    Shana Tova to All!

  9. dweller Said:

    You can go back to sleep now, HB.

    Never sleep,Honey and never on a Sat night.

    dweller Said:

    But he or his “brain trust

    The USA is bein governed by the Harvard Law Review.

  11. dweller Said:

    Moreover, there’s something about it that doesn’t smell right.

    There might’ve been a suitable juncture for USA involvement: 18-20 months ago, when the opposition was still largely secular. Perhaps if we’d gone in at that time, we might’ve kept the Islamist elements from seizing the reins of control. . . . Timing can be everything in such matters.

    There has been mounting suspicion for some time now that the Sarin Gas attack was a set-up by elements of the rebellion: a la Sarajevo 1995 — to prompt an international assault on Assad. It’s not as if he isn’t capable of chemical warfare, TBS, but it hardly makes sense that he’d resort to it when he was, by all objective accounts, WINNING at the time. Under such circumstances, what’s in it for him? — What’s to gain?


    Report: Hezbollah Admitted that Assad Was Behind Chemical Attack
    German intelligence says it intercepted a phone call in which Hezbollah official admitted that Assad gassed his own people.

    According to a report in the Reuters news agency on Wednesday, Hezbollah considered the move a mistake which showed Assad was losing his grip.

    🙂

  12. @ dweller:

    Ideology over reality and common sense???

    The Real Agenda: Dimona

    “I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.” – President Barack Hussein Obama, June 4, 2009

    “As a policy statement, this means that America (or any other country) cannot deny the right of any country to Weapons of Mass Destruction. It undercuts the reasons for America’s attack in Iraq, assents to nuclear proliferation and precludes any action against Iran. It also turns the focus on Israel.”

    “By linking support for Israel against Iran with a halt to all settlement building, and establishing a second Arab Palestinian state, Obama has set the stage for his big prize: Dimona. Read More

  13. @ yamit82:

    “[T]he whole Obama exercise in the ME is primarily designed to get Israel in a position to either neutralize our Nukes or to barter a negotiated tradeoff… Iranian Nukes for Israeli Nukes. Obama wants Iran to get their Nukes for that purpose. They will not be an immediate threat to the USA so he can play out the scenario with little risk to the Americans.”

    Could be. But he or his “brain trust” must know that if the Mullahs get the Big One, this will set off a M-E arms race that will make the Cold War arms race look like a fond memory. . . . Turks, Egyptians, emiratis, etc

  14. @ honeybee:

    “…there’s something about [the claim that Assad used Sarin gas this time] that doesn’t smell right.”

    “Take a shower,Darlin”

    I came out of the shower just before writing that.

    — Gotta be something else. . . .

    You can go back to sleep now, HB.

  18. Vinnie Said:

    Word is out from your esteemed Giora Eiland via “Spengler” that Netanyahu was ready to pull the trigger on Iran a year ago right now, but flinched due to pressure from Obama. He should have acted then…but at least there seems to have been some sabotage actions in the intervening months that have set back Iran’s nuke program enough to at least buy some time. But where are we on this now? I have no way of knowing in any definite sense, but it is clear that Iran is not going to relent and that at some point her nuke weapons sites are going to have to be bombed.

    I like Spengler but not Eiland who is an idiot who changes his opinions with the political wind as long as it puts him in a positive light.

    There is a lot of spin and disinformation be applied to BB and the Iranian threat.

    I believe the hesitation on BB’s part is that he waited too long to use a conventional attack and has a choice of nuking Iran or seeing them getting their Nukes. We can always nuke Iran when they announce for the first time, or intelligence believes they are about to have it immediately.

  21. @ Vinnie:

    It’s too late to stop Iran by conventional means. For all we know they could have their real project and fissile material in a warehouse in the middle of Tehran or in the middle of over 20 million people… Intellectual properties and know how are not going to be destroyed so even if you could knock out the physical sites of their whole known project, they could reconstitute the project pretty quickly. That said, I would knock out a few key installations, just to make replacement very costly.

    Israel should concentrate on the regime, it’s command and control and the revolutionary guard, it’s rocket and missile sites and it’s navy and air-force. Degrade Iran’s ability to retaliate to the point they are no longer a threat. Then Nuke their oil fields rendering them worthless for a thousand years. Without money from oil and gas the regime will be toppled and they nor their successors won’t have the financial ability
    to replace what’s destroyed and the financial ability to continue the project.

    Another reason to knock off Assad is the Sunnis will seek revenge against the Alawites and the Hezbollah. There could be a bloodbath that will weaken the elements on our northern border considerably, deny Iran a forward Proxy threat from the North to the whole civilian population of Israel and our direct intervention will only be if not attacked first, to neutralize the chemical weapons, and the manufacturing facilities. The sunnis in Lebanon have a long score to settle with Hezbollah and a civil war will probably ensue. That we will not have stable neighbors on our northern borders as far as the eye can see is something we can live with or deal with without having the deterrence of Assad’s chemical weapons at Iran’s disposal.

    I have long maintained that the whole Obama exercise in the ME is primarily designed to get Israel in a position to either neutralize our Nukes or to barter a negotiated tradeoff… Iranian Nukes for Israeli Nukes. Obama wants Iran to get their Nukes for that purpose. They will not be an immediate threat to the USA so he can play out the scenario with little risk to the Americans.

    Initially Obama tried to woo Assad away from the Russians and Iranians Even returned the American Ambassador Bush pulled years before but he offered Assad peanuts so he stuck to the deal he had. Mubarak refused to play ball with Obama so he was taken down. Same with Gaddafi. American oil and Gas companies want pipelines through countries they can control. They do not want independent national states in the way. Breaking them up into small dependent diverse state-lets, using MB and other Jihadists as their foreign legion seems to be the method of choice. Affords cheap low cost operations and political deny-ability at home.

  25. Yamit:

    OF COURSE, Iran is the problem. So, why not skip the preliminaries and simply go after Iran??

    Word is out from your esteemed Giora Eiland via “Spengler” that Netanyahu was ready to pull the trigger on Iran a year ago right now, but flinched due to pressure from Obama. He should have acted then…but at least there seems to have been some sabotage actions in the intervening months that have set back Iran’s nuke program enough to at least buy some time. But where are we on this now? I have no way of knowing in any definite sense, but it is clear that Iran is not going to relent and that at some point her nuke weapons sites are going to have to be bombed.

    This is the way to deal with the Iranian “problem”, and there is ample justification to do so – even for the U.S., let alone Israel, though Obama would never do this.

    A successful strike on Iran’s nuke weapons program would accomplish a number of things at once. It would greatly enhance Israeli deterrence credibility – or U.S., if she chose to do so – to a far greater degree than mucking around in Syria. It would also directly go a long way in cutting the legs out from under Assad’s – and Hezbollah’s – primary patron. In any event, an attack on Iran would probably result in a Hezbollah assault on Israel, which would in turn give Israel the excuse to finish them off once and for all…except that unlike in the case of a probable Hezbollah attack unleashed as a result of a strike on Syria, this time due to crippling Iran, reconstitution of Hezbollah is much more problematic.

    As Melanie Phillips pointed out recently, why go after the puppet, when you can – and should – go after the puppetmaster instead?

    And even without the chemical weapons issue – assuming your assertion is correct that Israel can dispose of these – do we want an Obama proxy MB/Al Queda-led Syria on Israel’s frontier? Is that really preferable to Assad, given Morsi’s behavior when he was in charge of Egypt?

    If there is one thing the last four and a half years should have taught us, it is that nothing Obama wants to do in the Middle East is intended to benefit Israel in any way…quite the opposite (as I describe in #19 above). This clear pattern of behavior on the part of Obama & Co. should make us VERY suspicious of Obama’s motives with respect to Syria (even if AIPAC and ADL are too incredibly stupid to see this).

    Oh, and BTW, the food was great at the luncheon. No, not ‘fat and gluten free’, Honeybee. Bagels, lox, excellent salad, casseroles, fruit, fresh-baked desserts…definitely worth blowing the diet for a day. Unlike perhaps other Reform temples, we ain’t so ‘politically correct’…my rabbi is a retired USAF colonel, a staunch Republican, hates Obama as much as anyone on this forum…and our temple kitchen does a fantabulous job besides.

    L’Shanah Tova again, everybody.

  27. Vinnie Said:

    First, as noted above, there has been the marginalization of western-oriented democratic secular elements among the Syrian opposition. Now, no matter who wins, Syria will be implacably hostile to Israel.

    You are still living in La La Land. Iran is the problem and anything the reduces Iranian foot print and threat to us is good or better than whatever comes after.Whoever comes to power in whatever constellation is decided will be anti-Israel. With or without Assad Syria could be tied up in civil war for decades. Israel knows where the gas is being stored and could on her own destroy them even if there is as a result significant collateral casualties, which is not an absolute given.

    It was the CIA the Brits and French who started the rebellion against Assad in villages along the Turkish Syrian and Jordanian Syrian borders were the insurgents were easily supplied with weapons shipped out of among other places from Libya, (Benghazi). The MB and Al-Qaeda are American proxies. Gaddafi screwed up the timetable by holding out for almost a half year longer than the CIA and NATO expected. The original plan was to make it look like another Arab Spring popular uprising. Nobody claims that today.

    BUT…if he hits Assad hard enough to shift the advantage to the rebels in a decisive way, Assad is not going to go down quietly. He’s going to hit Israel with everything he has in a last-ditch bid to unite the country behind him in a war against the “Zionist enemy”, and to go down in local history as a “hero” for killing a bunch of Jews. This in turn will lead to an Israeli reaction that Obama will not want. I leave that for readers to speculate on….but in addition, it will also distract from The Whole Reason For The Obama Presidency – i.e., these stupid talks with the PA – and it will increase sympathy for Israel.

    Popular wisdom dictates that Assad will no attack Israel unless he is about to go under. Israel could bury him and his regime and there is no % in adding to the threats against him by attacking Israel. I think to that end Obama will go after Assad just enough the make Assad attack Israel but it better be good and really threatening because the whole of the Alawite sect is riding on Assad’s shoulders and that’s the main reason he won’t capitulate. Again I believe Obama wants Israel on her knees or someone to blame when it all goes South.

    Yesterday, I was at my Reform temple for Rosh Hashona services, and we had a luncheon afterwards.

    I can imagine the Kosher menu 😉

  30. @ krown:

    I think it is becoming increasingly clear to Israelis – if Barry Rubin’s recent article “Turning Point” reflects mainstream Israeli sentiment – that the U.S. under Obama simply cannot be considered a “friend” in any genuine sense. At some point, Netanyahu is going to have to stand up to Obama in a very forceful way…or he may run a real risk of being replaced by someone who will.

    As many others in this forum have pointed out, Israel is not so helpless vis-a-vis the U.S. as some assume. Israel is a much more important player in the world economy than she has been in years past; new energy reserves being exploited, all sorts of high-tech stuff that people want, fourth largest arms exporter in the world, very big pharmaceutical player, etc. – and this translates into having more “friends” than what might be apparent in the petrodollar brothel otherwise known as the UN.

    Obama is becoming weaker politically by the month. He is already a laughingstock on the world stage, and his popularity at home is sinking like a stone. Netanyahu can stand up to him over the PA, and hopefully, even over Iran, if he can figure out where he hid his Big Boy Pants and decides to wear them for a change.

  32. @ honeybee:

    TAKING A WOMAN TO BED

    What is the difference between girls/women
    Aged 8, 18, 28, 38, 48, 58, 68, and 78?

    At 8 -You take her to bed and tell her a story

    At 18 – You tell her a story and take her to bed

    At 28-You don’t need to tell her a story To take her to bed

    At 38- She tells you a story and takes you to bed

    At 48- She tells you a story to avoid going to bed

    At 58- You stay in bed to avoid her story

    At 68- If you take her to bed, that’ll be a story

    At 78- What story? What bed? Who the hell are you?

  33. Israel unfortunately has to do what US wants It is the only so-called friend.(not so much now) who knows what O promised (remember freeing terrorist at his command)
    I have a very bad feeling about this

  34. This American Jew also has no use for AIPAC and even less for ADL.

    I am sooooo tired of these self-important judenrats who presume to speak for the rest of us. Believe me, they don’t.

    Yesterday, I was at my Reform temple for Rosh Hashona services, and we had a luncheon afterwards. NO ONE I talked to thinks we should be involved in Syria. The overwhelming sense among the congregants I spoke with is that Obama is absolutely over his head on this one, and simply does not know what he is doing.

    I agree with Dweller above that maybe year and a half ago, two years ago, it might have made sense to get involved in order to support a western-oriented, democratic secular opposition movement. But Obama did not want to do this, for the same reason he wouldn’t support similar elements in Iran during the summer of ’09: because if this effort were to succeed, one effect would be to reduce pressure on Israel.

    That is the defining characteristic of Obama’s foreign policy: If it relieves pressure on Israel, don’t do it. If it increases pressure on Israel, do it. His entire presidency seems to revolve around shoving a Saudi-style “peace” [surrender] plan with respect to the PA down Israel’s throat. His intention all along was to increase regional pressure on Israel so as to increase U.S. leverage on Israel to this end, kind of like a guy from a glass repair business who throws a rock through your window, just to get your business.

    Syria is particularly vexing for Obama because his basic point of foreign policy reference – f****** Israel – is no help to him here.

    He sat by and did nothing about Syria for more than two years, but then a convergence of two events – neither of which had to do with the use of chemical weapons – have motivated him to his ‘urgency’ over this issue.

    First, as noted above, there has been the marginalization of western-oriented democratic secular elements among the Syrian opposition. Now, no matter who wins, Syria will be implacably hostile to Israel.

    Second, Obama’s Moslem Brotherhood pals in Egypt have been overthrown, and are now rotting in jail (or dead). So, he now sees the need/opportunity to install another MB regime on Israel’s frontier, and if he overthrows Assad, he can do this.

    BUT…if he hits Assad hard enough to shift the advantage to the rebels in a decisive way, Assad is not going to go down quietly. He’s going to hit Israel with everything he has in a last-ditch bid to unite the country behind him in a war against the “Zionist enemy”, and to go down in local history as a “hero” for killing a bunch of Jews. This in turn will lead to an Israeli reaction that Obama will not want. I leave that for readers to speculate on….but in addition, it will also distract from The Whole Reason For The Obama Presidency – i.e., these stupid talks with the PA – and it will increase sympathy for Israel.

    Oh, and then there’s the morning after Assad is overthrown, if it comes to that: Who wants this motley crew of MB/Al Queda savages to get their hands on whatever is left of Assad’s stockpile of chemical and even biological weapons? Won’t that be grand?

    So, what to do, what to do? Obama has really and truly painted himself into a corner with this one, him and his asinine “red lines”.

    He has passed the buck to Congress in order to shirk responsibility for his sorry excuse for policy, and I hope and expect Congress – at least the House – to turn him down. This will be a huge blow to him politically..and if he strikes anyway and it becomes a mess – which it probably will – he is REALLY through politically. A complete lame duck, and all the greater chance for impeachment. I really hope that AIPAC’s efforts are spectacularly ineffective, and I intend to write them expressing total disgust with their willingness to carry water for Obama…for all the good that might do.

    Obama and these morons he surrounds himself with…they remind me of a bunch of twenty-something grad students sitting around the student lounge, coming up with all manner of outrageous policy ideas, exclaiming to one another, “Wouldn’t it be cool if we did THIS?!”

    I didn’t like Bush the Younger very much when he was president…and I can still find much fault with him…but with each passing month, he sure looks better and better, as compared with this lying, corrupt, incompetent, treasonous fraud for a “president” we now have.

    L’Shanah Tova, everybody.

  35. Obama wants to attack Syria just hard enough that Assad will have to retaliate.

    Obama may want Israel to finish off Assad,

    Assad can’t touch the Americans in retaliation so Israel or Jordan are most obvious. Jordan by themselves won’t retaliate but Israel will.

    I hear king Hussein has left Jordan for an extended vacation last week

  37. At the receiving should hand stand the Iranians. Whether trough war or talk, they must be the target of this exercise. Better talks than war but perhaps Iran insists on seeing what the mighty US is capable off!!
    The question is: Is Obama trying to convey a message to the whole ME too, Iran or just Assad. In the latter case it will be a waste.

  38. @ Laura:

    Out here I’am “The Lone Jew”, and when these groups make these statements speacking for the “Jewish people”, I’am left with a mess. Thank for yawls post, which I e-mail to prove that Jews have varied opinions.

  42. The time postponment Obama is giving Assad, makes me think that things aren´t entirely as they seem : The foremost fear the west has is that the syrians´ chemical weapons might come in posession of the irrational oposition groups, should they gain the upper hand, and Assad is weaker than he looks.. I believe Obama is secretly negotieting with him to concentrate his chemicals in one spot, giving him time that . when its done, the USA will bomb, and leave the contenders to fight the predominance among themselves, sans WMD.

  45. “My preference is for the US to stay out of it.”

    D’accord.

    Moreover, there’s something about it that doesn’t smell right.

    There might’ve been a suitable juncture for USA involvement: 18-20 months ago, when the opposition was still largely secular. Perhaps if we’d gone in at that time, we might’ve kept the Islamist elements from seizing the reins of control. . . . Timing can be everything in such matters.

    There has been mounting suspicion for some time now that the Sarin Gas attack was a set-up by elements of the rebellion: a la Sarajevo 1995 — to prompt an international assault on Assad. It’s not as if he isn’t capable of chemical warfare, TBS, but it hardly makes sense that he’d resort to it when he was, by all objective accounts, WINNING at the time. Under such circumstances, what’s in it for him? — What’s to gain?

    Yossef Bodansky has written recently on the subject, citing in particular the remarks of Saleh Muslim, of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) — not exactly an Assad ‘ally’:

    “Several Syrian leaders, many of whom are not Bashar al-Assad supporters and are even his sworn enemies, are now convinced that the Syrian opposition is responsible for the August 21, 2013, chemical attack in the Damascus area in order to provoke the US and the allies into bombing Assad’s Syria. Most explicit and eloquent is Saleh Muslim, the head of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) which has been fighting the Syrian Government. Muslim doubts Assad would have used chemical weapons when he was winning the civil war.

    “…’The regime in Syria … has chemical weapons, but they wouldn’t use them around Damascus, five km from the [UN] committee which is investigating chemical weapons. Of course they are not so stupid as to do so,” Muslim told Reuters on August 27, 2013.

    “He believes the attack was ‘aimed at framing Assad and provoking an international reaction.’ Muslim is convinced that ‘some other sides who want to blame the Syrian regime, who want to show them as guilty and then see action,’ [are] responsible for the chemical attack. The US was exploiting the attack to further its own anti-Assad policies and should the UN inspectors find evidence that the rebels were behind the attack, then ‘everybody would forget it,’ Muslim shrugged.

    “…’Who is the side who would be punished? Are they are going to punish the Emir of Qatar or the King of Saudi Arabia, or Mr Erdogan of Turkey?’

    “And there remain the questions: Given the extent of the involvement of the ‘Mukhabarat Amriki’ in opposition activities, how is [it] that US Intelligence did not know in advance about the opposition’s planned use of chemical weapons in Damascus?

    “It is a colossal failure.

    “And if they did know, and warned the Obama White House, then why the sanctimonious rush to blame the Assad [regime]?

    “Moreover, how can the Obama Administration continue to support and seek to empower the opposition which had just intentionally killed some 1,300 innocent civilians in order to provoke a US military intervention?”

    MORE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-white-house-help-plan-the-syrian-chemical-attack/5347542

  49. The last thing we need is for Jews to promote the idea that Jews are pushing for war. Don’t think anti-Semites around the web aren’t going to pick up on this and run with it. Jeff Dunetz is a jerk-off. And I don’t know why you would post this article.