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.

Al Qaeda-linked Rebels Unleashed Mayhem on a Christian Village in Syria as the United States Plans to Attack

The United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations passed the Syria Authorization endorsing military action against Syria. The resolution will now be transferred to the full house of the Senate for debate and vote.

Meanwhile, Washington's new found friend, al Nusra, previously labelled a terrorist group by the State Department but became a rebel group because it is fighting Assad, Russia's last ally in the Middle East is busy unleashing its beastly acts after killing both Christian and Alawite clerics and its member even ate the heart of a captured soldier.

The Al-Qaeda-linked group attacked a predominantly Christian village sympathetic to the Assad regime in western Syria while rebel and government forces clashed in Damascus.

RT reports that the attack began at dawn when a Jabhat al-Nusra fighter blew himself up at a government checkpoint near the entrance to Maaloula – a village of 2,000 residents - according to a Syrian official and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which collects information from anti-regime activists.

Following the suicide bombing, al-Nusra rebels and government forces traded fire, with the rebels eventually seizing the checkpoint and taking over a hotel on a mountain overlooking the village, according the Observatory and a local nun.

Rebels also disabled two tanks and an armoured personnel carrier and killed eight regime soldiers during the fighting. From the mountaintop hotel, rebels fired shells into the village, forcing around 80 people to take refuge in a convent, the nun said.

A Syrian government official has confirmed the attack, AP reported. Rebel mortar fire hit a sports hall in Damascus, killing Mohammed Ali Neimeh, a member of the national taekwondo team, state news agency SANA reported.

Syria and Obama's Nobel Prize: Bush's Clone Prepares for War in Syria; 'unreliable' Russia takes on Saudi

Who gave President Barack Hussein Obama, the presumed first 'man of colour' to rule America a Nobel Prize? The bribe is not working. It will never work. He is a clone. This is just like giving George Walker Bush the prize of a 'man of peace'.

The world is again been fooled by some microscopic warmongers who see wars as the only cards to be played once a government refused to dance to their nefarious whims and caprices. Logically, Bashar al Assad made the mistake earlier of embarking on such massive crackdown of protesters and in the other angle, Syria's earliest responses to the protests were better and satisfactory compared to Mubarak's Egypt and Gaddafi's Libya. Assad's government kept on making concessions on Thursdays.

He kept on paving the way for peace and peaceful resolutions but the recalcitrant elements among the protesters, probably belonging to al Qaeda, bolstered by NATO elements through Turkey or maybe waiting to catch in on Western hatred of al Assad refused to mellow down and allowed for peace. They chose to go so nauseously militaristic beginning from Homs and the government cannot just fold its arms watching. The crackdown though affected a lot of unarmed protesters but where two elephants fight, the grass suffers.

Almost all governments on earth employ the same tactics to silence protesters but that of a government not on the same page with western diktats are usually blown beyond proportion otherwise was Bahrain better than Syria when Damascus' protests started? Syria was much reasonable. It did not order for thousands of Iranian troops to silence and kill its citizens.

Saudi sent over one thousand soldiers into Bahrain to crush all peaceful protests. That will be allowed because Bahrain must not fall because of Iran. America's fifth fleet is there, Saudi needs a buffer zone and an ultimate 'destruction' of Iran to eliminate its most potent rival. Israel needs that too as Iran is a formidable bone on its throat. It is a real Middle East of confusion. America continues to claim al Qaeda is its enemy, that is just another slap on the world. People are taken to be morons. Al Nusra was listed by the State Department as a terrorist group but when its actions and bestial acts are needed in Syria, it became a rebel group. Who is fooling who?

Al Qaeda was created through Osama bin Laden in the nomenclature of a Mujahideen to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan but became a terrorist group after accomplishing the CIA-led mission and decided to bite its master a little. That is the same way the Free Syrian Army will be tagged in some few years. The world is in real mess. Libya knows no peace again. Gaddafi like Assad was about completing the job; hence, the rebels would have surrendered and Libya would be stabilized. Those who took up arms against a government should fight their wars to the last not when a monster comes in and turns the whole country into a continuous 'graveyard'. That is what Iraq is today. That is what Libya is now.

North to West Africa is now suffering from the outcome of NATO's involvement in Libya. Islamist militants parade the territories blatantly, causing mayhem and havoc. Russia has centrally been an unreliable partner, hence it is really usually better and safer to dance to the tune of the United States who can flex its muscle than depend on a country with much noises and less action but cries. If the news making the round is anything to go by, which revealed the Kremlin has ordered massive strikes on Saudi Arabia because it was threatened by Makkah to hands off Syria and allow Assad to fall, then Moscow is not taken seriously because the powers know it is not ready to act, hence the bombs would likely rain on Syria.

Tentative UN report proved the rebels not Assad may have likely used the sarin nerve gas. NO! The powers do not want any conclusion again and they will never go through the UN. Going through the UN means Russia will stop them. How can that be? They want wars. They have been able to save a little after the depression and financial meltdown. They need to charge world's tension. They need to strike and create pandemonium. It is not about regime change but 'humanitarian'. Yes! We know how Gaddafi was deposed and Libya is now left naked.

It is always 'humanitarian' with bombs. The same government that encouraged Saddam Hussein to gas Iran is now the police against such weapons. The same government that refused to apologise on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the alpha and omega. Soon, another declassified document of the CIA will come out in some years and it will be revealed that Israel, Saudi Arabia or even Turkey with the backing of the United States pushed the rebels to use or knew the rebels will use the gas on 'children' like it happened in the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88. The world is full of noises; no actions. They know Russia and China will not risk wars, so they behave like injected dogs everywhere.

The war on Iran has begun. President Morsi who has a soft side for Hamas has been sent packing. Syria will soon be out. Russia should be ready, it will be left naked. Iran is the main target. Arabs like Africans are the problems of their lands now. They blame Israel but refused to think and settle disputes among one another. The greed of the leaders has destabilized their region. Saudi Arabia does not allow Israelis into its territory but it is working for Israel by allowing Washington to continue to invade any nation Israel wants out of the 'map'.

Assad is winning the war; no doubt. They want the table overturned like in the Iraq-Iran war. Syrian opposition says it will not not attend Geneva-2 peace conference if does not gain militarily. It needs a leverage to force Assad out on the negotiating table. It has happened before, it is happening and will likely continue. They control and determine it. The shi'ites are going down. Saudi wants that. The sunnis must 'rule'. It is a planned agenda. Sunni monarchies; Saudi Arabia and Qatar primarily have committed to the war in order to ensure their own continued hegemony, especially in terms of energy production. A renowned author and geopolitical analyst F. William Engdahl has noted, Israel’s new gas discoveries off the Mediterranean coast add a new dimension to the struggle for dominance in the region.

The real terrorists are the police of the world. They are the ones who determine what terrorism is and label anyone not working in their favour as a terrorist. Everything looks like a planned agenda. President Obama spoke and said categorically: 'I have told Assad to leave so we can have a transitional government'. Obama, the president of another country ordering another sovereign head to leave. Will they not use all means even if sarin gas is the key? How come it is all coming after Obama's 'red line' speech? He was so bold because he knew they control the world. This is no real joke. That is just it. Bahrain and all repressive regimes on Washington's good book can kill their citizens with smile but once your act are against Washington, just try not to touch even a criminal.

It is the Balkan wars all over again. Balkanization of the Middle East has been effected. The wars must keep coming like it led to the first world war (WWI). Like the Balkans almost exactly 100 years ago, Syria has become the proverbial powder keg in which Western leaders play with matches. Almost all the players and powers in the Balkan wars are still present today. America did not join the start but joined in the larger war (WWI). The world should brace up once again.

United States Calls for Calm and Restraint in Congo as Fighting Escalates

The United States said it was alarmed by an escalation in fighting in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo between M23 rebels and Congolese soldiers; called on neighbouring Rwanda to stop its support for the rebels. The State Department condemned attacks by the M23 that killed at least three people in Congo's eastern city of Goma. It also expressed concern over reports by the United Nations of shelling by the M23 into Rwanda territory.

"We urgently call on (the) DRC and Rwandan governments to exercise restraint to prevent military escalation of the conflict or any action that puts civilians at risk," State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a statement. "We are deeply concerned about evidence of increasing ethnic tensions in Goma and call on all parties to avoid any actions that could exacerbate such tensions." Harf said the United States was ready to consider further targeted sanctions against M23 rebel leaders and other armed groups.

Washington urged the UN mission in Congo, MONUSCO, to thoroughly investigate charges of cross-border shelling. Rwanda said five mortar bombs had fallen on Rwandan villages, following a rocket the previous and blamed Congo's army.

United Nations Brigade, created by the Security Council and composed of Tanzanian, South African and Malawian soldiers has had its first clash with the Congolese rebels menacing the Eastern town of Goma bordering Rwanda since it was created in March to neutralise the rebels at all cost; by the use of force if and when necessary. The brigade fired artillery at the rebels according to reports.

The rebels were reported to have entered a security zone ringing Goma that had been established by the newly-designed UN Intervention Brigade and at least two people were killed when three shells landed in the city centre. The fighting entered a third successive day near Goma, a city of about a million people after a relative lull in the 18-month-old M23 rebellion. The city was seized by the M23 rebels last year and the United Nations pledged in July to prevent the rebels from getting back within range of the city.

UN Lieutenant-Colonel Felix Basse said another M23 shell crashed near Munigi on Goma's outskirts, where a UN peacekeepers' base is located, causing some civilian casualties. Clashes between M23 and the Congolese army continued. Government forces repelled two rebel assaults according to Colonel Olivier Hamuli, spokesman for the Congolese army, known as FARDC. "The (UN) brigade is engaged on our side, they're supporting us with their artillery," he told reuters.

Rwanda, which has long had strained relations with Congo, accused the Congolese army of deliberately firing artillery into its territory. Kinshasa denied the reports and repeated its accusation that Rwanda backs M23. Rwanda denies it. Martin Kobler, head of the UN mission known as MONUSCO, said populated areas and UN positions had been directly attacked during the clashes.

American Public Rejects War in Syria; Obama Urges Restraint, Iran Warns of Consequences

The American public has expressed real unwillingness to get involved in another costly conflict in the Middle East, a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests. Only 9 percent of the surveyed believe President Barack Obama should take action on Syria, while some 60 percent of Americans said the United States should not intervene in Syria's bloody civil war.

According to the poll taken on August 19-23, 25 percent of Americans would back intervention if it is proven that the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against civilians, while almost double that number – 46 percent – would still oppose such a move. Iran has also lent its voice against any intervention in Syria.

Obama has discussed the latest developments in Syria with British PM David Cameron and both expressed grave concern over the alleged chemical attack. "They reiterated that significant use of chemical weapons would merit a serious response from the international community and both have tasked officials to examine all the options." President Obama has received the awaiting intelligence report with no specific details of the options but the emphasis on responses in the event of confirmation of chemical attacks.

US Secretary of Defence, Chuck Hagel, while speaking at a conference in Malaysia indicated that the US military is ready to exercise options on Syria, should Obama choose military action. “President Obama has asked the Defence Department to prepare options for all contingencies. We have done that and we are prepared to exercise whatever option - if he decides to employ one of those options," Hagel told reporters.

President Obama himself, however, has been cautious about intervention in Syria. In an interview with CNN, the president said the United States should be wary of “being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region.”

Doctors Without Borders (MSF) has said that nearly 3,600 patients with neurotoxic symptoms were treated in three Damascus hospitals on the day a toxic gas attack was reported, while 355 patients were reportedly pronounced dead. Moscow has commented that it was monitoring events surrounding the alleged attack. “We’re getting more new evidence that this criminal act was of a provocative nature,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Aleksandr Lukashevich, said in a statement.

“In particular, there are reports circulating on the Internet that the materials of the incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack. Thus, it was a pre-planned action,” he said.

The revelation by MSF happened within a week of a UN investigative team entering the country to examine three different sites of alleged chemical weapons usage. It was also just hours after UN disarmament chief, Angela Kane, arrived in the Syrian capital of Damascus to apply pressure on the Syrian government to grant access to the site of the reported attack in the Damascus suburbs.

Professor of International Law at Georgetown University, Daoud Khairallah, told RT that the US would not act without verifiable evidence.

“The US can’t take any action without verifiable evidence about who is the party who is responsible. If it turns out that it was the rebels that used this poisonous material, the US will be embarrassed because it will be the allies of US, the opposition the US has been supporting and claiming that these are people who are seeking democracy and rule of law in Syria.”

“The US would like to prove that it was the regime who has done this, but it has not been independently proved or verified and without independent verification I doubt that Obama will act. Obama did say that ‘we need to be sure who has used these weapons, evaluate the costs to the US both financially and morally, we need international approval.’”

"We are ready to go into Syria" ~White House. Do not venture into Syria; Iran warns

Syrian state media accused the rebels of attacking regime's soldiers with chemical weapons while the rebels said Assad's forces were behind the Damascus chemical massacre that occurred in Damascus. The UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Angela Kane is in Syria to try to get access for the team of international inspectors to work at the site in the Damascus suburbs.

The rebels earlier assured the UN officials of their safety in rebel-controlled areas and told them they need to get to the site before 48 hours. Russian foreign ministry also assured the UN experts that the Syrian government is ready to guarantee them maximum cooperation in their quest to verify the truth; separate facts from fictions.

Some western nations seem not to be satisfied with whatever arrangement is going on. The United States, France and the United Kingdom, the three traditional supporters of wars and unrest in countries not in support of them, not on the same page with them and not in tandem with whatever principles they purport to project have blamed the attack on the regime solely. Earlier UN report speculated the regime as well as the rebels have used toxic agents on the populace.

White House says:

"We have a range of options available, and we are going to act very deliberately so that we're making decisions consistent with our national interest as well as our assessment of what can advance our objectives in Syria," the White House official said. "Once we ascertain the facts, the President will make an informed decision about how to respond."

President Obama is set to meet with his national security team later on in the day to discuss possible options.

Tehran says:

"Iran has announced several times that there is no military solution to the Syrian crisis, these provocative measures and moves make regional issues more complicated and fuel tensions. The Syrian problem could be resolved only through a peaceful solution and there is no international permit for military meddling in Syria." ~Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Abbas Araqchi.

The Foreign Ministry said there is evidence showing that terrorist groups and rebels have been using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians.

Commentaries from RT on the developing story of chemical attack in Syria:

"According to US press reports the US government is preparing to launch attacks on Syria using the Kosovo intervention as justification. A route that lies outside the UN. The Russian government should note this will reduce the UN to the same status as its forerunner the League of Nations. It is clear that Western Imperialism will not be deflected by any treaties it has signed with Russia. Look to your military preparations. " ~Babeouf

"Putin and all the Russian citizens must realise that if they success to take down Assad, Iran is their next target and then they will come after the Russian empire. It's not time to play the waiting game, it's time to get ready for all the consequences of the Syrian proxy-war." ~Corbis

"Well it seems like the western warmongers want to have there war no matter the cost. The people of Syria are just a pretext for the war you only have to look at Iraq and Afghanistan to see the concern the US and UK had for its civilians. A negotiated peace was the only solution but the west doomed it from the start. If they succeed this will have ramifications for Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and could well spread to Saudi. If the west wants to see the entire region in flames they are going about it the right way." ~Carlos

"Bingo. What both sides fail to ralize is that neither West, nor East, nor anyone in between is squeaky clean. Media and government from both sides lie through their teeth. Be they Russian, be they Syrian, be they British, French or American; none are to be trusted. Furthermore, I pray the my own government (the US) keeps a level head and chooses inaction until every last detail is uncovered in undisputable fashion. Even then I would recommend the US does nothing." ~Shark McCallister (sic).

"It is horrific to see there is an anti-Assad faction willing to murder the women & children of their erstwhile allies to provide pretext for Western Humanitarian Intervention, that, or the Assad regime is willing to wage unlimited & criminal warfare to assure the survival of his Ba'athist Dynastic Dictatorship. With the information currently at hand it is impossible to definitively determine. Humanity can not allow this Internecine Civil War to ignite WWIII. It is encumbant upon Russia, the United States, the European Union member States & China to work cooperatively as possible to prevent Global Armageddon." ~Paris Nicolaides

"William Hague will wish he never had a Twitter account if this keeps up.. Have you noticed it is the French and British demanding "action" whilst the other enablers stay strangely quiet ? What is it about these subservient countries and their fake concern for humanity who fund terrorists in the name of democracy? From where i am standing they are all criminally insane and i wonder who they get that from shhh from that little terrorist haven in the Middle East.." ~Jubba

Next Theatre of War: China Flexes Muscle in East Asia as Washington Boosts Military Presence

As the United States prepares to boost its military presence in East Asia by expanding her troops' strength in the Philippines, China shows off her military might; probably telling Washington, 'this is not the Middle East or Africa'. China has been embroiled in series of conflicts with her neighbours over land issues, mostly bothering on sea routes and maritime endowments. It is based on the skirmishes with some East Asian countries that Washington feels it has to contain China in her territory not elsewhere.

What comes easily to mind is how Washington denounced any interference in her own 'sphere of influence' during the Cold War to the extent of 'risking' a nuclear holocaust with the Soviet Union. Washington also rebuffed the International Court of Justice when it was to rule between her and Mexico on land dispute. She said she will not accept any arbitration in her 'sphere of influence'.

Apparently, the United States has succeeded to a good extent in destabilizing the Middle East as the region is really boiling now from Damascus to Cairo and among major countries that mattered most; notably, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Africa is already under her grip militarily and in all other facets. Africa is a perfect stooge, continually under her tutelage and seems to notoriously nauseously love to genuflect for her. Now it is time to go Asia and China is simply waiting.

As reported by RT, China has launched four days of live-fire naval exercises in the East China Sea that coincide with the anniversary of Japan’s defeat in WWII. The exercises come after Japanese Cabinet ministers visited Tokyo’s most controversial war shrine.

China and South Korea, which both suffered under Japan’s militarist expansion in the 1930s and 40s, have expressed concern at Japanese Cabinet ministers’ visit to the Tokyo Yasukuni Shrine as glorification of the country's militaristic past and aggression. Established in 1869 and funded by the Imperial Japanese government until 1945, the shrine has been dedicated to the nation's 2.5 million war dead, including – controversially – 1,000 convicted war criminals.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry summoned Japan's envoy and issued a statement condemning the visits by nearly 100 Japanese lawmakers, saying they "fundamentally attempt to deny and gloss over Japan's history of invasion." According to the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, the East China Sea drills will be conducted off the coast of Zhejiang province by the East Sea Fleet, which oversees the waters around the disputed Diaoyu Islands.

Earlier this month, on August 8, four Chinese coast guard vessels stayed a record 28 hours in waters near islands claimed by Japan and China. Japan summoned the Chinese envoy in Tokyo to lodge a formal protest. The latest intrusion into Japanese territorial waters near the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea by Chinese ships was twice as long as the last one, on February 4. Chinese ships have been entering the disputed area regularly since last September, when the Japanese government bought the islands.

China and Japan have long struggled for the ownership of supposedly oil-rich islands located in the East China Sea. The islands are known as the Diaoyu to the Chinese, and Senkaku to the Japanese. The dispute over the islands and the maritime boundaries around them has continued for years. The Senkaku Islands have been controlled by Japan since 1895, but China insists that it has historic rights to them dating back to the 16th century.

The standoff escalated after Tokyo announced the purchase of three of the islands from a private Japanese owner in September of last year. After that, China witnessed mass anti-Japanese demonstrations. A diplomatic scandal led to problems in bilateral economic relations, with Japanese businesses withdrawing investment. Several Japanese companies in China suspended their work for security reasons, and Chinese Customs’ clearance of goods slowed from Japan.

The tiny archipelago of islands, which is halfway between both countries, are currently uninhabited, but the ground below could house significant mineral resources.

"It is expected that there will be more drills in the East China Sea to build up the combat capabilities of the Chinese Army," Ni Lexiong , director of the Sea Power and Defence Policy Research Institute at the Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, told the South China Morning Post. "It is also possible that China's aircraft carrier will participate in some of these drills."

China News Service reported that Liaoning, the country's first aircraft carrier, which it refitted after buying a Soviet-era vessel from Ukraine, has also been dispatched from its home port of Qingdao, in Shandong province, for training of ship-borne aircraft in the East China Sea. The ship is reportedly sailing to the northern Bohai Sea, off Liaoning province, where a separate round of military exercises was launched.

Asia as the New Theatre of War?: United States boosts Military Presence in the Philippines

If  the theory of 'imperial overstretch' means anything in the historical analysis of international relations, then the United States will have to and must definitely watch her acts. She has been putting her talons on many lands; overtly and covertly and has been the bane of many agonies. Though she does all for her survival but the pains and repercussions are felt mostly among innocents; the poor people. The Middle East is almost gone, the Shia'a-Sunni divide now has become an institutionalised phenomenon. Thanks to Washington's gunboat diplomacy.

Africa is already a tool in her hand as always since the 60s and centrally since the demise of the Soviet Union. The Obama administration once opined that America will now concentrate her efforts in the Asia-Pacific. Which means she will bolster her military presence as wars in the Mideast are becoming queasy, nauseous and tiresome. Now, the United States after holding on firmly to South Korea and Japan wants to really prove her commitment to choking China.

US forces are set for an “increased rotational presence” in the Philippines, following negotiations in Manila. The two countries aim to counter China’s growing ambitions in the region. The Pentagon currently conducts a regular joint exercise and has a rotating force of 500 troops in the Southern Philippines, but may send more soldiers and advanced equipment, or upgrade local facilities.  Officials say that no specifics have been laid out in the first round of a four-stage negotiation.

“There should be a focus on high-impact, high-value training exercises and activities that would focus on maritime security, maritime domain awareness and our perennial problem with disasters,” said Defence Undersecretary Pio Batino, who was present at the discussion. The Philippines was a US colony between 1898 and 1946, and the presence of American troops remains a controversial issue. The US abandoned its last base in the South Asian country in 1992.

But tensions in the region have escalated as in the past decade Beijing began to lay forceful claims to almost the entirety of the South China Sea (which the Philippines calls West Philippine Sea), that rounds the coastlines of most of the states in the region. As disputes over potentially lucrative sea lanes and underground mineral resources have grown more bitter, Manila has made diplomatic appeals to the UN over what it calls “excessive claims”, and has sought greater assistance from the United States.

After years of being bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington has also re-directed its foreign policy towards Asia, signing a docking agreement for its warships with Singapore, and bolstering its troop numbers in Australia. Officials say that even when finalized, the new agreement will not specify exact troop numbers, and those will have to be negotiated on an annual basis.

Philippine officials have also sought to reassure the domestic audience that the increased presence will only be allowed with strict stipulations. Foreign Affairs Assistant Secretary Carlos Sorreta, who led the talks on his country’s side, told Reuters that the specific areas where the US troops will be stationed were to be listed, as well as their the activities and exercises. “But not the number of troops, not the operational details," he added.

Sorreta emphasized that no US facilities could be off-limits to Philippine officials (some have previously been denied access), and insisted that the country will not host nuclear weapons, and will not be used as a platform for “acts of aggression”. Not everyone is placated. Some politicians have objected both to the substance of the agreement, and the fact that it is likely to be signed only by the executive branch, without any input from lawmakers.

“Any policy that the government wants to implement as regards our security or military should undergo close scrutiny,” said Senator Gregorio Honasan. “It poses a lot of danger now that military troops and their equipment will soon arrive in the country.  It might create an impression of hostility and just add to the on-going tensions in our troubled waters.” A heightened US military presence in the region to offset Chinese influence will only increase tensions, argues author and journalist Afshin Rattansi.

“The idea that the United States is protecting the interests of the world against Chinese influence is clearly absurd,” Rattansi told RT. “All the United States is doing is ratcheting up military tension and pressure at a time when the world doesn’t need it.” Several dozen anti-American supporters also staged a protest outside the main army base where the talks took place. The next round of negotiations will take place in Washington before the end of the month.

Military, Democracy and the Muslim Brotherhood: Counting the Cost in Egypt

When Morsi was first ousted, many who supported his ouster thought it would be for  a period of time in which the Muslim Brotherhood will be made to dialogue and a real third way will be worked out for Egypt. Abdel Fattah El Sisi, as a good Field Marshal ought to know better that killing one's own citizens or allowing citizens to kill one another in a country where the military is reputed to be the most patriotic in the world is the hallmark of barbarism.

Continuous dialogue is the only panacea. Although Muslim Brotherhood was defiant, the interim government should and must know it has the right to. Its mandate was stolen. To the Brotherhood, Egypt has been taken back to where it was 18 months ago. It has every right to. El Sisi's act was to calm the tension many believed and as a good Egyptian, he should have avoided taken sides and encourage dialogue.

This left many with no doubt that he was indirectly responding to the Washington's cash oiling the engine of the Egyptian military. He is covertly protecting the interest of Tel Aviv which Washington is paying the military for not the interest of Egyptians unlike what many thought when Morsi was removed from the centre stage.

Four journalists died in violent clashes which swept the land of the Pharoahs. With a number of the press core suffering serious injuries in the clashes. At least 238 civilians died in total as security forces brutally broke up pro-Morsi rallies. The country has been swept by horrific street violence, showers of gunfire, blazing fires and tear gas as relentless clashes have shaken cities in government attempts to break up the demonstrations.

Among the 238 protesters killed were children, including the 17-year old daughter of a prominent Muslim Brotherhood official, Mohamed Al Beltagy. Police stations were torched or stormed by pro-Morsi groups amid the ruthless government suppression. The violence also took the lives of Sky News cameraman Mick Deane and Dubai-based XPRESS journalist Habeeba Abdelaziz.

Both had been covering the pro-Morsi protests in Egypt’s capital which security forces began to ‘disperse’ earlier in the day. Deane, 61, was shot as he was documenting the turmoil in Cairo. Despite receiving medical treatment for his injuries he died shortly afterwards, according to a statement from Sky. Habeeba Abdelaziz was a 26 year old Egyptian reporter from Dubai, who worked for XPRESS – a ‘sister’ publication to the country’s Gulf News.

“It’s hard to believe she’s gone. She was passionate about her work and had a promising career ahead,” XPRESS Deputy Editor Mazhar Farooqui told Gulf News, commenting that the entire team was in a state of shock. Abdelaziz had been covering protests near Cairo’s Rabaa al-Adawiya Mosque, which has been the site of one of the largest protests for over a month, and a subsequently heavy-handed crackdown by governmental security forces. Security forces later reclaimed the area.

The third journalist killed was Egyptian Ahmed Abdel Gawad of Al Akhbar newspaper. He died while covering the clashes  at Rabaah al-Adawiya. The Egyptian Press Syndicate, a journalist union, confirmed Gawad's death, but did not provide any details.

The fourth reporter to have been confirmed killed is photojournalist Mosab El-Shami Rassd of the news website (RNN), an alternative pro-Islamist media network, Ahram online reports. The agency wrote that he “was killed by the hand of betrayal while covering the Rabaa massacre at the hands of those who executed the coup,” wrote the network on its Facebook page.

Reuters photojournalist Asmaa Waguih also suffered serious injuries after being shot in the leg during protests. Shortly afterwards, she was moved to the international medical center to receive treatment. The Committee to Protect Journalists has released a statement on the issue, saying that the group condemned the killing of Sky News cameraman Mick Deane, prior to hearing of the second death.

“We call on Egyptian authorities to issue clear orders to security forces to respect the right of journalists to work freely and safely while covering events in Cairo and the rest of the country,” said CPJ Deputy Director Robert Mahoney. “The killing of Mick Deane underscores the urgent need for such action and for all sides to show restraint and allow the media to do their job. The authorities must investigate all attacks on journalists and hold those responsible to account,” he said.

Other journalist were also treated for wounds. An AP photographer was hit in the back of the neck by two birdshot pellets, while Al Jazeera claims its cameraman Mohammed al-Zaki was shot in the arm. In addition, Paris-based Reporters Without Borders says that Tarek Abbas — a reporter for local Al-Watan newspaper sustained gunshot wounds to his leg and eye; and photographer Ahmad Najjar was wounded in the arm.

Approximately a dozen other journalists were arrested or threatened as they tried to document the mayhem: Reuters’ Tom Finn tweeted his own arrest. Daily Beast reporter Mike Giglio also said on Twitter he was arrested alongside two photographers named Mahmoud Abou Zeid and Louis Jammes, stating they had been beaten too.

A month-long state of emergency has been declared after Egyptian security forces violently broke up the sit-in camps of Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Cairo. Health Ministry officials say that over 2000 were injured in the nationwide violence, alongside the 278 who were killed including policemen. “The dead are both from police and civilians,” said the ministry's spokesman, Hamdi Abdel Karim. However, Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Gehad El-Haddad claimed that as many as 2,000 people had been killed and 10,000 injured in the police operation.

Security forces succeeded in gaining control of the protest camps by the end of the day after turning the capital into what journalists called “a war zone”. A state of emergency has been declared and curfew imposed in major cities including Cairo, Alexandria and Suez. The curfew is set to last for the next month – or until further notice. @beltrew tweeted: "I've never seen such a bloody fight in Egypt.The security forces kept us ducking behind cars,under a barrage of bullets for 8 hours straight" as well as "If the massive bloodshed today wasn't bad enough, the Coptic Christians are under attack as well. Oh Egypt, Egypt, Egypt. Why?

South Sudan: Independence or Avenue for Tribal Carnage?

South Sudan is the youngest nation, not only on the African continent, but on earth. It is a nation that many in Africa had hoped will be able to get its onus right and move away from the Sudan experience of wars and carnage.

No sooner had South Sudan became independent than numerous crises began. First it was oil bout with Sudan which almost led to war over Abyei. Then, tribal conflicts began and now becoming a major quagmire for the newest African nation.

Officials in South Sudan revealed that more than 300 people were killed and thousands sent fleeing into bush during two weeks of fighting between the army, rebels and rival tribes in the east of the country in July. The east is the major flash-point in South Sudan.

The army is grappling with a rebellion led by politician David Yau Yau in vast Jonglei state and new clashes have broken out between the Lou Nuer and Murle tribes. More than 1,600 people have been killed in a cycle of tribal violence in Jonglei since the break-up of Africa's largest country.

According to Reuters, a team of local chiefs travelling around Pibor County in Jonglei had reported 328 deaths so far - all Murle members and some of them women and children, according to Jodi Jonglei Boyoris, a senior state representative. The number of Lou Nuer killed and wounded remained unknown.

The death toll is expected to rise although the fighting had died down this month. Representatives of the South Sudan army and humanitarian groups said they were not able to confirm the figures. Boyoris said the fighting ended nearly three weeks ago but local officials were only now able to count the number of killed and wounded as people had started returning to their homes.

The United Nations has said thousands of people are hiding in the bush outside Pibor town in Jonglei to avoid the conflict between the army and Yau Yau, who says he is fighting corruption, army abuses and one-party rule in South Sudan.

The United Nations estimates 100,000 people have been affected by the conflict, with many fleeing to the bush and cut off from humanitarian access. To boost security, the UN recently advocated for drones and gunships to be deployed.

The situation in South Sudan could degenerate into cataclysmic civil war in the fashion of another Sudan or Somalia. In fact, Africa has two Somalias to currently contend with. One is South Sudan, the other is Central African Republic.

United States braces up for Military Action in Syria

President Barack Obama is considering using military force in Syria, and the Pentagon has prepared various scenarios for possible United States intervention. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Obama administration is deliberating whether or not it should use the brute of the US military in Syria during a Thursday morning Senate hearing.

Gen. Dempsey said the administration was considering using “kinetic strikes” in Syria and said "issue is under deliberation inside of our agencies of government,” the Associated Press reported from Washington.

Dempsey, 61, is the highest ranking officer in the US military and has been nominated by Pres. Obama to serve a second term in that role. The Senate Armed Services Committee questioned him Thursday morning as part of the nominating process when Dempsey briefly discussed the situation in Syria.

Last month, the Obama administration concluded that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons during the ongoing battles. Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes said, “The intelligence community estimates that 100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date; however, casualty data is likely incomplete.”

Pres. Obama said previously that the use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and likely trigger American intervention. When the White House concluded Assad had relied on chemical warfare, Rhodes said, “both the political and the military opposition . . . is and will be receiving US assistance."

That claim was met with skepticism, though. The Syrian Foreign Ministry called Obama’s claims a “caravan of lies.” Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, later presented to the UN evidence supplied to his government that suggested the Syrian opposition fighters used chemical weapons.

With regards to foreign intervention, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said, “Providing arms to either side would not address this current situation.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and his father, former congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) have also cautioned the White House against aiding Syrian rebels.

“You will be funding today the allies of al Qaeda” by aiding Syrian rebels, Sen. Paul said in May.

On his part, the retired lawmaker from Texas insisted that the administration’s lead up to possible intervention is “identical to the massive deception campaign that led us into the Iraq War.”

That isn’t to say the GOP is entirely opposed to taking any action. Although directly using the American military — either through boots-on-the-ground or unmanned aircraft — has been rarely discussed in public, Sens. John McCain (R-Arizona) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), two long-time leaders within the Republican party, have been relentless with efforts to equip opposition fighters.

"I don't care what it takes," Graham told Foreign Policy’s The Cable earlier this year. "If the choice is to send in troops to secure the weapons sites versus allowing chemical weapons to get in the hands of some of the most violent people in the world, I vote to cut this off before it becomes a problem."

Other US officials have previously said Washington is considering implementing a no-fly zone above Syria, and last month the Pentagon left a fleet of F-16 fighter planes and its Patriot anti-missile system on the border of neighboring Jordan following a routine military drill.

Russia Today

Drones Kill Ten Times more than Conventional Aircraft ~ Expert

An expert on drone casualties has told reporters that the use of unmanned aerial vehicles by American forces has caused 10 times the number of deaths brought on by more conventional aircraft.

Speaking to The Guardian’s Spencer Ackerman, Larry Lewis of the Center for Naval Analyses claimed United States-led drone strikes in Afghanistan are not only more likely to cause civilian casualties than traditionally piloted planes, but the impact of UAVs is 10-fold what would be found by using more antiquated air ships.

Lewis has conducted multiple studies on the use of drones in Afghanistan and made his recent determination after reviewing data pertaining to air strikes that occurred there between mid-2010 and mid-2011, Ackerman reported.

“Lewis told the Guardian he found that the missile strikes conducted by remotely piloted aircraft, commonly known as drones, were 10 times more deadly to Afghan civilians than those performed by fighter jets,” Ackerman wrote.

Lewis said that statistic comes from viewing classified information about the number of civilian casualties, data which he is legally prohibited from sharing. But while his findings in full or only accessible to those with proper standing, an unclassified executive summary of his report offers a mere glimpse into how deadly America’s drone wars really are.

“The US government has described drone airstrikes in operations outside declared theatres of armed conflict as surgical and causing minimal civilian casualties,” the summary begins. “Analysis of air operations in Afghanistan, combined with a review of open-source reports for drone strikes in Pakistan, suggest that these fell short of intended goals.”

Elsewhere, the report acknowledges that the classified nature of these statistics could be preventing Americans from lessening the number of civilian drone deaths in the future.

“While consequence management approaches used in Afghanistan may not translate directly into cases where the US does not want to officially acknowledge its actions, the use of proxies or leveraging relationships with cooperative host-nation governments could provide options during these operations.

Conducting more comprehensive assessments of civilian harm during airstrikes in operations outside declared theatres of armed conflict, followed by effective consequence management efforts, should help to protect the reputation of the US, combat false allegations and mitigate negative second-order effects that can undermine US campaign objectives and freedom of action,” it reads.

Ackerman does not stop short of recalling a speech by President Barack Obama earlier this year at Washington’s National Defense Institute in which he insisted that "conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage.” On the contrary, however, the unclassified summary notes that drone strike are “an order of magnitude more likely to result in civilian casualties per engagement” than traditional aircraft.

In an earlier address last year, President Obama said drones had "not caused a huge number of civilian casualties” and insisted "this thing is kept on a very tight leash.”

An August 2011 report from the UK’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that US-led drone strikes in Pakistan have caused upwards of 775 civilian deaths, with total casualties being at least 40 percent higher than what the US government previously reported. This past February, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) said the number of total kills attributed to US drones is close to 5,000.

“We’ve killed 4,700,” the senator said at an event in his home state. “Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we’re at war, and we've taken out some very senior members of al-Qaeda.”

Courtesy: Russia Today

'America is our worst enemy': Pakistani victim of US Drone strikes speaks out

Drone strikes in Pakistan have killed 1,000 civilians, activists say, while the US maintains they only target terrorists. Victims of drone warfare and their families live in constant fear of another strike, and say they are “angry and want revenge.”

A review of classified US intelligence records has revealed that the CIA could not confirm the identity of about one-quarter of those killed by drone strikes in Pakistan during a period spanning 2010 and 2011. In a review of 14 months of classified records, 26 out of 114 attacks designate fatalities as “other militants,” and in four other attacks those killed are described as “foreign fighters.”

The CIA is reluctant to reveal information on its drone programme, Chris Woods of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism told RT.

“With so many civilians reported killed, and yet the CIA reporting that it’s killed no more than 50 or 60 civilians, I think there is need for an open, not only an open inquiry, but also for the CIA to share the information it has on who it believes it’s killed in places like Pakistan. President Obama’s speech the other week did seem to promise more openness but unfortunately we’re not seeing signs of that just yet,” Woods said.

In his post-election address to parliament, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif called for an end to US drone attacks in the country’s northern tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

"This daily routine of drone attacks, this chapter shall now be closed," Sharif said to enthusiastic applause. "We do respect others' sovereignty. It is mandatory on others that they respect our sovereignty."

“Most of the strikes in Pakistan these days are really not related to Al-Qaeda or those terrorist activities but really to the war across the border in Afghanistan. The drone war has changed quite significantly over the ten years or so it’s been running. We see the US talking about using drones in Syria for example; we have had calls from Iraq and Rwanda recently for the US to use drones there. So there’s a concern among some that the US wants now to use these drones as an easy plank in their view of foreign policy,” Woods explained.

Residents of Pakistan say they are living “in constant fear of another strike.” Amin Ullah was on his way to work at a mine near his village when a drone struck the area. He lost his leg in the attack, and three other miners were killed. "The Americans should be able to tell an ordinary person from a Taliban leader. They should know who they're killing. What did we do to deserve this?" Ullah told RT.

“We are simple villagers who are stuck in a war that we didn’t ask for. It’s a hopeless feeling. Death is above our heads all the time,” he added.

Another victim of the drone attack, Nek Bahadar, lost part of his hearing and nearly his foot: “The drone’s shockwave was so intense that it threw us outside far from the place where we were sleeping. After several minutes there was another strike and it killed many more people.”

“Of course this has made me hate the Americans. We are angry and want revenge. They’ve destroyed our lives. My parents, my wife my children – we all see America our worst enemy now,” Bahadar said.

Pakistani human rights lawyer Shahzad Mirza Akbar has sued both the US and Pakistan on behalf of civilian victims in Waziristan, a mountainous region in northwestern Pakistan bordering Afghanistan.

“I simply call it a concentration camp, that you've built a wall of military and militants, and behind this wall you are keeping more than 800,000 people who are not allowed to come out and no one from the rest of the country is allowed to go in. And that is kind of laboratory that US is using to use test its drone program,” Akbar told RT’s Lucy Kafanov.

Evidence of drone strikes is difficult to gather; fragments of the attacks were collected by a local journalist Noor Behram, who spent years documenting the civilian toll of drones, especially on children.

“Whenever my 3-year-old daughter hears the plane she runs inside and won’t sleep that night. The children here have been traumatized by the drones. The sound of a door banging shut is enough to terrify them,” Behram said.

There are fears that the US campaign to eliminate terrorists could end up creating more. “By carrying out drone strikes, killing innocent people who are not part of the conflict, you are just widening the conflict. You are giving the reason to people who were not part of the conflict here to become part of the conflict,” Akbar explained.
 
Breakthrough advances in unmanned aircraft technology have also sparked concerns at the UN. The UN’s rapporteur for extrajudicial killings, Christof Heyns, is calling for a worldwide ban on "killer robots" that could attack targets autonomously, without a human having to pull the trigger.

According to the report, the US, Japan, South Korea and Israel have developed various types of fully- or semi-autonomous weapons.

“It’s important to say there’s no particular day we’ll be able to say, now we have fully autonomous robots. But there are already very high levels of autonomy available, and full autonomy may be available within a few years. It’s important to emphasize the distinction between drones and lethal autonomous robots (LARs). With drones you have a human in the loop with somebody sitting behind the computer and taking the decision to pull the trigger. With robots there’s no human being in the loop, it’s a computer that takes a decision,” Heyns explained.

Courtesy: Russia Today

Beyond the Invasion: Western Designs for Mali

The United States is likely to eventually resume direct support for Mali's military, but only after full restoration of democracy through elections, the head of a visiting US Congress delegation said.

Senator Christopher Coons, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Africa, led the first American congressional visit to the West African nation since France sent a military force there last month to halt the advance of al Qaeda-allied islamists.

The United States and United Kingdom have been providing airlift and refueling support for the French-led operation involving hundreds of French and African troops that has driven the Islamist rebels from a string of northern Malian towns in the last five weeks.

Washington has also been sharing intelligence to back the operation, but ruled out sending its own ground troops mainly because of Afghanistan and Iraq's experiences as well as its battered image in the Islamic world.

Coons, heading a four-member delegation from the US Senate and House of Representatives, said both French and African military commanders were happy with the support that Washington was providing, but he indicated they might welcome more.

Asked if increased US support for the military intervention could materialize, Coons said US law prohibited direct assistance to Mali's armed forces because of the military coup there last year that toppled the elected government.

"After there is a full restoration of democracy, I would think it is likely that we will renew our direct support for the Malian military," Coon said.

French and African forces are hunting the Islamist insurgents who have retreated to Mali's remote Northeast, and Malian interim President Dioncounda Traore has said presidential and parliamentary elections will be held in July.

Coons said al Qaeda's North African wing AQIM and its allies in Mali and elsewhere posed a "very real threat" to Africa, the United States and the wider world and he said the United States wanted to be part of the response to this security challenge.

Before last year's coup in Mali - led by a US-trained Malian army captain - the American military had been providing combat training to several Malian army battalions.

But this was quickly suspended after the coup, which plunged Mali into chaos and led to the occupation of its Saharan north by jihadists who hijacked a rebellion by Tuareg separatists.

Although the French-led offensive has driven the bulk of the Islamist forces northwards back up to the Algerian border, there are fears their fighters and sympathizers could strike back with reprisal attacks in Africa and elsewhere.

The election in Mali will be largely determined by Western whims and caprices. France, UK and America's energy interest will determine who wins or not and this will likely contribute to more insurgencies which has always characterised Western interference in nations. This could ruin France's international accolade though they do not care  for as long as the uranium keeps coming.

Is Yemen safer than Africa!!?

Africa has been turned into a continent of emigrants; either seeking greener pastures or running from wars and agonies. If Africans run abroad to Europe, the United States, China and other economically vibrant countries in Asia and the Middle East, everybody to a reasonable and good extent will understand. But when Africans run to Yemen, then something terrible is really wrong with the continent.

Yemen is notorious for al Qaeda activities and she is still grappling with fratricidal wars. A shocking and surprising report came out from the UN refugees' Commission that Africans are trooping into Yemen to escape wars and agonies. A fate they are going to meet in Yemen but it looks as if in all, Yemen is preferable to them.

Since 2006, the commission has never witnessed such an influx. The refugees are coming en masse despite the hazards in the maritime travel. The boats are over-packed which makes everything more precarious yet people are not debarred from the journey. Read More 

Africa and Africans need to wake up seriously before all these completely get out of hand. Africans risk becoming the major destroyers of their continent most especially through the greed of the leaders and the coming avarice of some followers likely to be leaders. This is evident in the various rebel movements and sectionalism.

UN Security Council, Ecowas and Mali

UN Security Council and Ecowas to meet on Mali

France has called on the Security Council to hold a meeting to discuss the situation in Mali, where Paris intervened on Friday to help fight the Islamist insurgency there. The meeting will take place Monday afternoon, a spokesman for the French UN Mission Brieuc Pont, said in a tweet posted Sunday.

This comes as the French operation in its former African colony enters its third day. On Sunday, French fighter jets bombed strongholds in northern Mali, targeting airports as well as training camps, warehouses and buildings used by the Islamists controlling the area.  The militants are said to have links to al-Qaeda.

Ecowas on Monday made it known that the regional group will meet and discuss Mali. This comes after France, the erstwhile colonial master has taken up the challenge and lead to combat the Ansar Dine Islamists. The United Nations last year September gave Ecowas the green light to tackle the insurgency in Mali but the group decided to act in autumn giving the rebels more time to act and cover more tracks.

France has been heavily bombarding the rebels with heavy firepower but has met stiff and unflagging resistance from the islamists too. The rebels are reported to be in possession of heavy ammunitions with sophisticated trainings and military skills.