[Peace-discuss] Obama's goal in Syria & Greater Middle East

[C. G. Estabrook]

That paragraph doesn't mention the gas attack, which the article says elsewhere may have been an "amateur concoction potentially linked to the rebels."


On Aug 31, 2013, at 10:42 PM, "Brussel, Morton K" <brussel at illinois.edu> wrote:

> Did you overlook this, Carl?  Here's a quote from that article:
> 
> "The latest episode is merely one more horrific event in a conflict that has increasingly taken on genocidal characteristics. The case for action at first glance is indisputable. The UN now confirms a death toll over 100,000 people, the vast majority of whom have been killed by Assad’s troops. An estimated 4.5 million people have been displaced from their homes. International observers have overwhelmingly confirmed Assad’s complicity in the preponderance of war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Syrian people. The illegitimacy of his regime, and the legitimacy of the uprising, is clear."
> 
> --mkb
> 
> On Aug 31, 2013, at 8:30 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> I don't think the article "takes for granted Obama's assertions with respect to responsibility for the gas attack," viz.
>> 
>> "Experts are unanimous that the shocking footage of civilians, including children, suffering the effects of some sort of chemical attack, is real – but remain divided on whether it involved military-grade chemical weapons associated with Assad’s arsenal, or were a more amateur concoction potentially linked to the rebels."
>> 
>> The point of the article is the nature and goal of US policy in the region. It's not a matter of "keeping America safe from terrorism."
>> 
>> The clearer that goal is, the better the chance of convincing Americans to oppose U.S. intervention in Syria.  --CGE
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 31, 2013, at 7:07 PM, "Brussel, Morton K" <brussel at illinois.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> It is unclear to me whether this article is for or against incipient U.S. intervention in Syria. Moreover, it contains several unverified assertions and takes for granted Obama's assertions with respect to responsibility for the gas attack, if that is what it was. Which should render one suspicious. 
>>> 
>>> --mkb
>>> 
>>> On Aug 31, 2013, at 12:27 PM, Karen Aram wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I just read the same article on Alternet, excellent. It clearly spells out what the potential bombing of Syria is really about and for how long they have planned it.
>>>>  
>>>> > From: carl at newsfromneptune.com
>>>> > Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 11:49:06 -0500
>>>> > To: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>> > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Obama's goal in Syria & Greater Middle East
>>>> > 
>>>> > http://www.popularresistance.org/syria-intervention-plan-fueled-by-oil-not-chemical-weapons-concerns/
>>>> >