Syrians vow to “burn America’s skies” on Obama’s Facebook

By Tiffany Madison

Assad-Kerry-640_s640x427As the U.S. marches toward war with Syria, thousands of Assad-sympathizers bombarded President Obama’s Facebook page with threats of retaliation.

Comments from seemingly original profiles represented Syrians from the cities of Homs, Tartus, Damascus and Aleppo and more. Warnings of counter-attacks on U.S. soil and against Israel were not confined to one photograph or post, but the most disturbing were observed on today’s picture honoring Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

This comment was pasted 356 times at last check in both English and Arabic:

“We will burn the cities of the United States if it attacked Syria, and will remove Israel from the map.” Others referenced burning America’s skies and called for immediate jihad retaliation should America strike “another Muslim land”.

The second most common remarks were also in English or Arabic and translated by Facebook:

“To the American people: Have you ever asked yourselves why your flag is burning all over the world by protesters? We always distinguish between the American regime and the American people…but if the American people remain silent they will be murders as their government. Wake-up Americans and stand for humanity.”

One poster, Al-Assad Buttar, wrote and then apparently deleted this comment, “You will attack my people based on still unconfirmed reports? The rebels have all the advantage in claiming this happened while killing children themselves. U.S. has been arming and fighting Al Qaeda so long and you cannot see this because you want war and nothing will stop your blood thirst. Bomb one more country and we will rain fire from the sky.”

Pro-Assad posters vow retaliation

Anti-Assad Internet activists claim these comments were likely organized by “cyber-thugs” working for the regime. The battlefield of the civil war has taken place before on Twitter and Facebook. During the 2011 uprising, social media feeds documented egregious government abuses and organized protests, allowing revolutionaries to circumvent Assad’s censors.

Should Americans be worried? Analysts familiar with the tangled web of Middle Eastern politics warned repeatedly that a strike would likely net a wave of terrorism directed at the U.S. and Israel. Even if Internet activists do not take action beyond social media, Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese militia, supports Syrian President Bashar Assad and could retaliate swiftly against Israel.

Analysts are concerned because an attack on Syria could motivate terrorist cells currently dormant, or those that want Al Qaeda-backed rebels to win Syria’s future over the western-backed factions. Power struggles within the insurgency between the two groups threatens U.S.-led opposition to Assad.

Pending the results of the UN inspectors’ results, the White House claims there is “no doubt” that President Assad attacked the opposition. But a national security analyst speaking anonymously warned, “The U.S. should let the UN conclude their investigation before posturing for war. The rebels have used chemical attacks before to gain western sympathy and aid. An investigation could likely lead to interesting results and pre-emptive attacks could once again discredit the U.S.”

Last May, after reports that chemical agents were used by Assad, United Nations investigators concluded that rebel forces dispersed the deadly weapons. Assad gained no decisive tactical advantage from the use of weaponized gases, but with the crossing of the “red line”, the U.S.-supported rebel faction has action from Washington instead of empty promises of support.

In response to Washington’s move, a Syrian National Coalition official said in Beirut that the group expects a Western military intervention and has been consulted over targets.

“It’s a question of days and not weeks,” said Ahmad Ramadan, adding that “there have been meetings between the Coalition, the (rebel) Free Syrian Army and allied countries during which possible targets have been discussed.”

According to the White House, the limited Syrian bombing campaign would reportedly only target military sites. The strategy of this bombing effort has yet to be defined. Despite warnings from General Martin Dempsey that Syrians aren’t ready to take power or back American interests, the U.S. is moving aggressively toward war.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem responded that Damascus would defend itself by all means at their disposal. Russia and Iran both joined Syria in warning disastrous consequences would face the U.S. if an attack on their ally launched.

“Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa.”


Article submitted by:  Veronica Coffin

What Kerry Presented is Based on Old Stories Published by Terrorists Over a Week Ago

Article submitted by:  Veronica Coffin


An official source at the Foreign and Expatriates Ministry said that after days of media exaggeration about what the US administration described as decisive evidence, US Secretary of State John Kerry only produced material based on old stories which were published by terrorists over a week ago and are full of fabrication and lies.

The source said that the Ministry is surprised that one of the bigger countries in the world is attempting to deceive its public opinion in such a naïve manner by relying on non-evidence, and that the Ministry denounces the US act of basing its positions on war and peace on what was published on social networking sites, which the Ministry views as a desperate attempt to talk the world into accepting the upcoming US aggression.

The source said that the numbers quoted by Kerry are fictional and produced by armed groups in Syria and the opposition abroad, both of whom instigate the US aggression, adding that this scene brings to mind the lies promoted by Colin Powell before the invasion of Iraq.

The Source said that Foreign and Expatriates Ministry confirms that all the accusations leveled by Kerry against the Syrian state are lies and devoid for truth for the following reasons:

1-Syria has challenged the US to produce one piece of true and logical evidence that it used the alleged chemical weapons, and Kerry relied on fabricated images from the internet, and the alleged call made by a Syrian officer after the alleged attack is too ridiculous to be discussed.

2-Syria never impeded or restricted the international investigation committee, on the contrary; as the UN Secretary-General has lauded the Syrian cooperation with the committee in his most recent call with the Foreign and Expatriates Minister on 30/8/2013, asserting that Syria permitted the committee to move exactly as per the agreement signed by the two sides.

3-The UN itself said time and again that the traces of using any form of toxic gas do not dissipate over time, and the proof of this is that the UN sent the investigation committee 5 months after the Syrian government requested an investigation of Khan al-Assal incident. Therefore, the Syrian government did not delay the investigation committee’s access to the alleged attack site, as this occurred within 48 hours of the arrival of UN envoy Angela Kane to Damascus.

4-The Syrian government affirms that Kerry’s allegations that the Syrian Army knew about chemical weapons use three days prior to the incident are lies, as proven by the fact that Syria requested the investigation committee to visit al-Baharia area where Syrian Army soldiers were exposed to toxic gas, and the committee met the affected soldiers in the hospital.

5-If the aggression on Syria, as Kerry claims, intends to halt the use of chemical weapons, we would like to remind Kerry and the United States that Syria was the first to propose a draft resolution at the Security Council to make the Middle East free of all forms of weapons of mass destruction, and that the United States was the one who prevented the draft resolution from being passed.

6-Regrarding Kerry’s hints which he made to bypass the Security Council under the pretext that the investigation committee isn’t responsible for determining who used chemical weapons and that it’s task is only to verify that such weapons were used or not, the Foreign and Expatriates Ministry would like to affirm that the committee’s tasks were deiced upon by the Security Council, and that the US had pressured the committee to make its authority this limited, something which Kerry, being State Secretary, certainly knows.

The source said that the Foreign and Expatriates Ministry, while appreciating Kerry’s concern over the Syrian people’s security, affirms that this pretext has become exposed to everyone, and that under the pretext of defending the Syrian people, the US is paving the way for an aggression against this very people, an aggression which will claim hundreds of innocent victims whose blood will be on the hands of the United States and those who join it in this aggression morally, politically or effectively.

The source concluded by saying that this unilateral behavior only serves the political interests of the United States, not the interests of its people, and that it throws aside all international law and blatantly violates international legitimacy and the UN charter.

Al-Moallem: Syria rejects any incomplete report before UN experts wrap up investigations

Syria rejects any incomplete report by the UN General Secretariat before the UN experts wrap up missions and have the results of laboratory tests of gathered samples checked, and conduct investigations at sites where the Syrian soldiers had been exposed to toxic gases, Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign and Expatriates Minister Walid al-Moallem said.

Al-Moallem was speaking during phone call on Friday with the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that focused on the work of the UN mission investigating an alleged chemical weapons’ use.

The UN Secretary-General thanked Syria for its full cooperation with the mission, saying the UN Secretariat is in the process of evaluating the results of mission’s work and submitting its findings to international accredited labs.

Al-Moallem inquired about the motives behind having the experts withdrawn from Damascus before completing their mission. ”They will return to complete their mission,” Ki-moon replied.

Syria expects the UN Secretary-General to maintain objectivity and rebuff pressure, and play his role in preserving world security and peace, al-Moallem said, adding Syria throws its weight behind his efforts to convene Geneva conference as it considers a political solution an exit route from the current situation.

”Any aggression on Syria would wreck efforts for finding a political solution, al-Moallem pointed out.


Source:  Syria TV

The Imperial Presidency Marches On

By Onan Coca


On Thursday night the British Parliament voted not to take action in Syria, so the United States has lost a key ally in their hope to reprimand Syrian President Bashar al Assad for the possible use of chemical weapons.

Watching the breaking news that the British would not be getting involved drove me to consider the difference between British Prime Minister David Cameron, and our President, Barack Obama. Under British law Cameron could still push forward using “royal prerogative” and use the British military to intervene in Syria. However, when pressed on what he would do, Cameron seems to dismiss that possibility out of hand.  “I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly.”

Do you get what just happened there? The leader of the British government could legally still use the military to “reprimand” Syria, but because the will of the legislature is that they not get involved… he won’t.

Contrast that, please, with our President.

According to a new NBC poll, a full 50% of Americans believe we should stay out of Syria. Even more telling, almost 80% of Americans believe that the President must get approval from Congress before launching any attack on Syria.

“Still, a whopping 79 percent of respondents – including nearly seven-in-10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans – say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.

The poll also finds that only 21 percent think taking action against the Syrian government is in the national interest of the United States.“

But if the words being spoken by White House press officials are any indication, it doesn’t much matter what the people or the legislature want. When asked what the decision by the British means for the our chances of getting involved in Syria, a senior official told ABC “that if President Obama decides to strike Syria he is willing to act alone. This stands in contrast to less than a week ago when senior officials were saying the United States would not intervene in Syria alone, and instead they would be acting with a broad coalition of allies.”

So in our nation where it is against the law for the President to send the military into action when we are not under attack, the President will act against the will of the people and attack Syria anyway.

Justin Amash (R-MI) who has taken the administration to task on many subjects, most famously the NSA domestic spying program, has some sharp words for the President on Syria.




It’s incredibly ironic that this President, who for years railed against the Bush administration for the same things he is currently doing, is now willing to go beyond what President Bush ever did. For all his foibles President Bush never sent our troops into battle without first getting authorization from the legislature.

Prime Minister David Cameron, who under British law can send troops to Syria – won’t because the legislature voted not to.

President Obama, who, under American law cannot send troops to Syria – will, even though the legislature has not authorized it.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are observing the creation of an imperial Presidency. Welcome to the new age of monarchism.


Article submitted by:  Veronica Coffin

PROOF: U.S. Backed Chemical Attack on Syria

On January 20, 2013 Yahoo News ran the article listed below.  View the link at: This is also proof that this war was planned right after Obama took his oath of office in January, right after his re-election!

By Veronica Coffin

US ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria, blame it on Assad govt’: Report

By ANI | ANI – Wed 30 Jan, 2013

London, Jan 30 (ANI): The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown.

A new report, that contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence, showed a scheme ‘approved by Washington’.

As per the scheme ‘Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons,’ the Daily Mail reports.

Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S. would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.

According to, the December 25 email was sent from Britam’s Business Development Director David Goulding to company founder Philip Doughty.

The emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumes and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.

According to the paper, the U.S. State Department has declined to comment on the matter. (ANI)


On the Front Lines of Syria’s Civil War

The conventional wisdom—that jihadists are running the rebellion—is not what I’ve witnessed on the ground.

By Elizabeth O’Bagy

With the U.S. poised to attack Syria, debate is raging over what that attack should look like, and what, if anything, the U.S. is capable of accomplishing. Those questions can’t be answered without taking a very close look at the situation in Syria from ground level.

Since few journalists are reporting from inside the country, our understanding of the civil war is not only inadequate, but often dangerously inaccurate. Anyone who reads the paper or watches the news has been led to believe that a once peaceful, pro-democracy opposition has transformed over the past two years into a mob of violent extremists dominated by al Qaeda; that the forces of President Bashar Assad not only have the upper hand on the battlefield, but may be the only thing holding the country together; and that nowhere do U.S. interests align in Syria—not with the regime and not with the rebels. The word from many American politicians is that the best U.S. policy is to stay out. As Sarah Palin put it: “Let Allah sort it out.”


ReutersFree Syrian Army members man a checkpoint in the Aleppo countryside in June.

In the past year, I have made numerous trips to Syria, traveling throughout the northern provinces of Latakia, Idlib and Aleppo. I have spent hundreds of hours with Syrian opposition groups ranging from Free Syrian Army affiliates to the Ahrar al-Sham Brigade.

The conventional wisdom holds that the extremist elements are completely mixed in with the more moderate rebel groups. This isn’t the case. Moderates and extremists wield control over distinct territory. Although these areas are often close to one another, checkpoints demarcate control. On my last trip into Syria earlier this month, we traveled freely through parts of Aleppo controlled by the Free Syrian Army, following roads that kept us at safe distance from the checkpoints marked by the flag of the Islamic State of Iraq. Please see the nearby map for more detail.

Contrary to many media accounts, the war in Syria is not being waged entirely, or even predominantly, by dangerous Islamists and al Qaeda die-hards. The jihadists pouring into Syria from countries like Iraq and Lebanon are not flocking to the front lines. Instead they are concentrating their efforts on consolidating control in the northern, rebel-held areas of the country.


Groups like Jabhat al Nusra, an al Qaeda affiliate, are all too happy to take credit for successes on the battlefield, and are quick to lay claim to opposition victories on social media. This has often led to the impression that these are spearheading the fight against the Syrian government. They are not.

These groups care less about defeating Assad than they do about establishing and holding their Islamic emirate in the north of the country. Many Jabhat al Nusra fighters left in the middle of ongoing rebel operations in Homs, Hama and Idlib to head for Raqqa province once the provincial capital fell in March 2013. During the battle for Qusayr in late May, Jabhat al Nusra units were noticeably absent. In early June, rebel reinforcements rallied to take the town of Talbiseh, north of Homs city, while Jabhat al Nusra fighters preferred to stay in the liberated areas to fill the vacuum that the Free Syrian Army affiliates had left behind.

Moderate opposition forces—a collection of groups known as the Free Syrian Army—continue to lead the fight against the Syrian regime. While traveling with some of these Free Syrian Army battalions, I’ve watched them defend Alawi and Christian villages from government forces and extremist groups. They’ve demonstrated a willingness to submit to civilian authority, working closely with local administrative councils. And they have struggled to ensure that their fight against Assad will pave the way for a flourishing civil society. One local council I visited in a part of Aleppo controlled by the Free Syrian Army was holding weekly forums in which citizens were able to speak freely, and have their concerns addressed directly by local authorities.

Moderate opposition groups make up the majority of actual fighting forces, and they have recently been empowered by the influx of arms and money from Saudi Arabia and other allied countries, such as Jordan and France. This is especially true in the south, where weapons provided by the Saudis have made a significant difference on the battlefield, and have helped fuel a number of recent rebel advances in Damascus.

Thanks to geographic separation from extremist strongholds and reliable support networks in the south, even outdated arms sent by the Saudis, like Croatian rocket-launchers and recoilless rifles, have allowed moderate rebel groups to make significant inroads into areas that had previously been easily defended by the regime, and to withstand the pressure of government forces in the capital. In recent months, the opposition has achieved major victories in Aleppo, Idlib, Deraa and Damascus—nearly reaching the heart of the capital—despite the regime’s consolidation in Homs province.

At this stage in the conflict, barring a major bombing campaign by the U.S., sophisticated weaponry, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapon systems, may be the opposition’s best chance at sustaining its fight against Assad. This is something only foreign governments, not jihadists, can offer. Right now, Saudi sources that are providing the rebels critical support tell me that they haven’t sent more effective weaponry because the U.S. has explicitly asked them not to.

There is no denying that groups like Jabhat al Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham have gained a foothold in the north of Syria, and that they have come to dominate local authorities there, including by imposing Shariah law. Such developments are more the result of al Qaeda affiliates having better resources than an indicator of local support. Where they have won over the local population, they have done so through the distribution of humanitarian aid.

Yet Syrians have pushed back against the hard-line measures imposed on them by some of these extremists groups. While I was last in northern Syria in early August, I witnessed nearly daily protests by thousands of citizens against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham in areas of Aleppo.

Where does this leave the U.S. as the White House contemplates a possible strike? The Obama administration has emphasized that regime change is not its goal. But a punitive measure undertaken just to send a message would likely produce more harm than good. If the Syrian government is not significantly degraded, a U.S. strike could very well bolster Assad’s position and highlight American weakness, paving the way for continued atrocities.

Instead, any U.S. action should be part of a larger, comprehensive strategy coordinated with our allies that has the ultimate goal of destroying Assad’s military capability while simultaneously empowering the moderate opposition with robust support, including providing them with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapon systems. This should be combined with diplomatic and political efforts to first create an international coalition to put pressure on Assad and his supporters, and then working to encourage an intra-Syrian dialogue. Having such a strategy in place would help alleviate the concerns of key allies, like Britain, and ensure greater international support for U.S. action.

The U.S. must make a choice. It can address the problem now, while there is still a large moderate force with some shared U.S. interests, or wait until the conflict has engulfed the entire region. Iran and its proxies will be strengthened, as will al Qaeda and affiliated extremists. Neither of these outcomes serves U.S. strategic interests.


Article submitted by:  Veronica Coffin