The Thinkers, Leaders and their War of Words; Washington versus the Kremlin

Either President Putin is fervently hated or mildly loved, he has done what the world continues to wish since the demise of the Soviet Union; reduction in wars especially Washington-led and backed wars. He has successfully dissuaded the United States from the usual 'no one can question me' nature. He has moved the thinking of the US away from 'I can strike any nation at will if it does not comply with Washington-imposed standards and red lines'.

Putin might be hated really based on Western fabrication and portrayal of him but he is currently ensuring all rational humans have the best rest of minds as possible. Had the US struck Syria, the world would currently be moving closer to an Iraq and a Libya by now. It is natural of Washington and NATO to strike, leave the country in disarray and stylishly exit such. Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya are ready-made illustrations.

Putin has finally completely changed the perception of the powers in Washington that everything is not all about war-war; it could be a case of word-word too and he is succeeding in that. No American leader would naturally have written an op-ed in any Russian Times long before now because to them, the US is too powerful and no one can challenge it in all spheres of life. Putin just did and basically through Snowden, Syria and his op-ed in the New York Times. In response, Senator McCain, the seemingly most 'powerful' war-hawk today retorted in kind.

Republican Senator John McCain has slammed President Vladimir Putin’s polices in an op-ed headlined “Russians deserve better than Putin,” written for Russia’s online newspaper Pravda.ru. McCain accused Putin and his associates of corruption, punishing dissent and creating an economy “based almost entirely on a few natural resources.” The US senator also singled out the case of Russian lawyer Sergey Magnitsky, who died in prison. McCain, who says he is often referred to as “an active anti-Russian politician,” described himself as “pro-Russian” and said he was not an antagonist of that country’s citizens.

McCain apparently refused to link the case of Edward Snowden and Sergey Magnitsky as well as failed to grab the tenets of Putin's op-ed which was primarily to tell Obama not to create fundamentalist ideology in the Americans through his 'Exceptionalism Stance'. What Putin is simply saying is that sensible countries of the world are tired of over-dependence on brute force by the US to force nations to bow at its feet and the message in guise to the Americans is that their nation is hated because it is God's own. Which nation is Devil's own?

Amnesty International Calls for the Trial of Gaddafi's Son by ICC; AU to Debate Member States Pull-out

Again the cry is on Africa. After the deposition of Maummar Gaddafi and the turning of Libya into a 'beggar nation' those who never believed anything good can come out of Africa are calling again for the transfer of erstwhile figures of the Gaddafi regime to the Hague for trial. The Kenyan deputy President, William Ruto is currently facing trial at the Hague over the post-election violence of 2007. He is the first serving official to stand trial at the Hague. Uhuru Kenyatta, the Kenyan President is to begin his own trial in October.

Kenya's spokesman for the presidency Manoah Esipisu said the country had not canvassed for the coming AU summit on October 13, but "welcomed the opportunity by African leaders to discuss what is obviously an important matter for the continent". Kenya's Parliament has passed the resolution endorsing the withdrawal of the country as a signatory to the Rome Statute.

"The Kenyans have been criss-crossing Africa in search of support for their cause, even before their parliament voted to withdraw from the ICC," an AU official told Reuters. "An extraordinary summit will now take place to discuss the issue. A complete walk-out of signatories (to the Rome Statute) is certainly a possibility, but other requests maybe made." The summit would be preceded by a meeting of African foreign ministers a day earlier, he said.

Questions continuously have been asked on the real target and mission of the ICC owing to the fact that George Bush and Tony Blair were never even called into question over their involvement in the Iraqi massacre not to talk being indicted by the body. It is always easy pointing to Africa by ICC than to Syria, Britain and the United States because the powers are present there.

Amnesty International called on Libyan authorities to hand over Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, second son of late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and former intelligence chief Abdallah Senussi to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Both are wanted for crimes against humanity. Amnesty met with both detainees last week ahead of the referral of their cases to the Indictment Chamber in Tripoli on September 19.

However, Libya insists they be put on trial inside the country. “The referral of these cases to the Indictment Chamber brings us one step closer to the start of national trial proceedings for Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, in violation of Libya’s legal obligation to surrender him to the ICC,” Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa, Hassiba Hadj Sahrahoui, said. In 2012, the ICC charged Saif al-Islam with crimes against humanity during the revolution that toppled his father the year prior. The court also ruled that he be extradited to The Hague.

The perceived selective justice of the ICC is making it lose all credibility if it ever has any in the face of many reasonable African nations. The next AU summit will discuss the revocation of the acceptance of the statute by African states in solidarity with Kenya. No one doubts the fact that impunity of African leaders and their gluttonous acts for bloodshed and wanton desire for destruction all because of greed and avaricious tendencies must be checkmated but it is about time Africans take their destiny in their hands than rely on those who brought the continent to this state since 1443.

Pentagon Prepares to Overtly Arm Syrian Rebels

All options are always and still are on the table to get Bashar al Assad out at all cost. The apparent frustration of the United States in exploring all options are evident in its continued, consistent and constant policies in raising one dust or another each time Assad seems to be knocking it off. Around April, John Kerry categorically stated that Assad has no place in the future of Syria.

When defending the aborted US strike on Syria during the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, he mulled the same note that President Obama has said and stood on his words that Assad must go. The United States has been training the rebels covertly since 2012 in Turkey but it looks more like they are no match for Assad's military.

The US has also explored the sarin gas option since April, all moving towards stalemate and maybe an incoherent end with Russia's stance. Now Pentagon is about to do what it knows how to do best in situations like this; arm the rebels directly under the guise and cloth of 'moderates'. Does it mean radicals and terrorists like Al Nusra have been armed before and are losing; hence new ones must be joined in the nomenclature of being 'moderates'?

RT reports that Pentagon has put together a plan to equip and train “moderate” Syrian rebel forces, marking the first instance of the American military having direct contact with the opposition. Information regarding the new plan was relayed by two Obama administration officials to CNN. The idea has allegedly been under consideration since the first evidence of a massive chemical weapons attack outside of Damascus on August 21 emerged, which the US maintains was carried out by Assad’s government.

Though the two officials did not cite many specifics on the proposal, the effort would involve training which would take place in a country near Syria. However, weapons would not be directly supplied as the Pentagon has no authority to do so.

"We have any number of options under development that could expand our support to the moderate opposition, but no decision has been taken at this point," Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey told reporters on Wednesday in response to questions on the proposal. The Pentagon’s plan would involve US troops training selected rebels on the use of small arms, along with command and control and other military tactics.

No matter how diplomatic Washington tries to package and cook its intervention, it is seemingly glaring to most objective observers that the benefits and utmost advantages would serve the radicals in the Syrian war. The oppositions are disjointed, disoriented, disorganized and disunited. All attempts to bring them together by Washington, the house of Saud in Makkah, Turkey, some selected EU countries, Qatar among others have always ended in a more disconnected mission.