As Israel strikes back, fake Gaza images dominate social media

A BBC report has found that many of the photographs used to illustrate the situation in Gaza are from years ago, and even from the conflicts in Iraq and Syria.

Aryeh Savir, Tazpit News Agency

Latest Update:  07.08.14, 21:10 / Israel News

A significant part of any battle nowadays is waged in the media, as each sides tries to garner public support through the exploit of images and footage used to influence popular opinion.

• Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter

A report by the BBC shows that Palestinian supporters are using fake images to illustrate the suffering in Gaza.

"Graphic images are being shared on social media to show how people have been affected by the renewed tensions between Israel and the Palestinians," the BBC reported.

"Over the past week the hashtag #GazaUnderAttack has been used hundreds of thousands of times, often to distribute pictures claiming to show the effects of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza."

The hashtag has received 375,000 retweets in eight days.

The network found that several graphic photos, that spread through social media proporting to show killed Gazans and destruction caused by IAF strikes in recent days, were actually photos taken several years ago, some of which in other war areas like Syria and Iraq.

"BBC Trending," a show that examines trends in social media, checked the veracity of widely spread photos on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram with the hashtag #GazaUnderAttack.


Over 300,000 posts were made under that hashtag. In one case, a picture of a neighborhood being bombarded was posted with the caption "This happened today in gaza while ramadhan.Our prayers always be w you. Israel is the real terrorist! (sic)"

But a BBC investigation found that the photo was taken during an IAF strike in 2009 in Beit Lahia during Operation Cast Lead.

In another instance, a photo of blooding children was posted with the caption "This is not a matter of religion. This is a matter of humanity."

According to the BBC, the photo was taken in Aleppo in Syria and not in Gaza. Another photo in the same post was taken in Iraq in 2007.

The British broadcaster also spoke to one of the posters who shared a photo under the #GazaUnderAttack, even though the photo was taken in Syria. "I deleted one of my posts that has the image in there," she said. "It's disappointing that images get shared quite quickly. I guess that's the different between the internet and credible newspaper publisher where pictures are from a source."

A Ynet examination found that photos that are not from the IDF's current Gaza operation are still being shared on Twitter.

A search of the hashtag found a photo of two men rescuring a boy severely wounded in IAF bombings with the caption "The world is silent as Israel wipes out Gaza with airstrikes. Another kid, one of many, says goodbye." with the #GazaUnderAttack hashtag.

But a search of Google Images found the photo was taken in 2012 during Operation Pillar of Defense. The boy in the photo was killed along with his family in an Air Force attack.

Hamas has used this tactic in the past too. Tazpit's Anav Silverman reported in 2012 that during Operation Pillar of Defense, the militant organization used fake images of Gaza with false headlines, inciting a flurry of comments on Facebook against Israel.

The photos were of massacres that occurred in Syria the previous month, but were depicted as massacres of Gazan families by the IDF. Other such incidents reoccur persistently.

Ynet contributed to this report.

The Syria Confidence Trick | FrontPage Magazine

The Syria Confidence Trick | FrontPage Magazine

AMERICA, SYRIA, AND RUSSIA: OPENING THE GATES OF HELL

By Paul McGuire
Reblogged from www.newswithviews.com/McGuire

September 2, 2013

The whole world is reacting to President Obama’s decision for America to attack Syria over an alleged chemical attack because Assad’s forces had been accused of using chemical weapons several times in the last year, including the August 21st attack in the suburbs of Damascus. However, a number of news analysts such as Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul have called this a “False Flag” attack.

The Pentagon is moving a sixth warship armed with cruise missiles to the eastern Mediterranean Sea, giving the U.S. more firepower for a possible attack on Syria in response to alleged use of chemical weapons, a U.S. defense official said. According to reports, the guided-missile destroyer Stout will soon join four other missile-carrying U.S. destroyers within range of Syria. Each destroyer can carry up to 90 cruise missiles which have a range of nearly 1,000 miles. Whether they will acknowledge it in public or not, the international community and the United Nations look to the American Empire to supply its massive military force to solve international conflicts.

What is happening in Syria will not only affect America, Russia, Great Britain, China, Syria, Iran, and Israel. It will affect the entire world because Syria, controlling major oil assets off its coast, occupies a critical position in the global oil economy. It is possible for oil prices to go through the roof, and that would send a tsunami across the global economy. There have been reports put out by big banks like SocGen and Goldman Sachs that oil could soar to $150 a barrel if the Syrian conflict goes hot and draws in Russia and China.

According to an article by Steve Quayle in his, “V - The Guerrilla Economist Updates,” “The trouble for Syria began with two things. First the discovery of natural gas in the Mediterranean right off the coast of Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Read that list again, especially Lebanon and Syria. Is the picture becoming clearer? This discovery took place about a decade ago but the thing is that there already exists in the Middle East a Liquid Natural Gas Producing power house. This is the tiny nation of Qatar.” 

Quayle continues, “Now here is where you need to put your thinking caps on. Qatar is floating in LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) it has over 77 Billion Tonnes in Reserve and that is with a moratorium in place. The problem is that Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is their regional big brother Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud.” The Qatar / Syria region has vast reserves of natural gas. Russia has a deal with Syria that allows it to sell this Natural Gas and Oil to Europe.”

Russia now controls the oil coming out of Syria and being sold throughout Europe and China. However, there appears to be a battle for the control of that oil.

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way. 

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

With the strong possibility of the strike from America happening, there is massive fear in the market and oil prices are surging. Now the end game is to cut Russia's lock on natural gas and oil that it supplies to Europe. If this connection is cut in any way, it will bring severe consequences to the Russian economy as well as Russia's natural gas company Gazprom.

There are two opposing factions in Syria. On one side you have the Qatari backed Muslim Brotherhood and its subsidiaries that have very close ties with the Emir of Qatar. On the other side you have the Saudi backed Wahhabi AL-Qaeda and its subsidiaries. These groups commit atrocities, like the cannibalism of the Wahabis and the "Brotherhood" slaughtering Christians. 

What the international bankers are not telling the American people is that the U.S. economy is in reality crumbling and being propped up by the Federal Reserve printing money from nothing which they call Quantitive Easing. Using the pretense of spreading love and democracy throughout the Middle East, the U.S. has already seized control of six Arab nations.

For Russia, Syria is more than just the location of a strategic port in the gas rich Middle East; it is an essential strategic area. Russia is now forced to draw a very hard line in the sand lest they lose the entire European market to Middle Eastern and Caspian Energy interests. Syria is in the heart of Eurasia and historically, the empire that controls Eurasia controls the world. Russia cannot allow that; this is why they are putting their military assets in place. China, one of the world’s super powers, cannot have its natural gas flow interrupted as well, and China has sided with the Russians when it comes to Syria.

If Obama attacks Syria, some analysts believe Vladimir Putin is prepared to strike Saudi Arabia. This could stop the flow of oil from the Middle East. The United States government could go into a state of emergency and immediately restrict private access to fuel in this country in order to conserve the reserves inside of the United States! This would paralyze our economy. Grocery stores, major retail outlets, and pharmacies which operate on real time delivery principles would be virtually empty in matter of days. It is not inconceivable that banks would be closed and martial law established. Obviously, this is a worst case scenario.

Given the present sociological climate in the U.S. and the stirring up of potential race wars, it would not take much for chaos to take over. There are a lot of people who stand to benefit from this chaos or “manufactured crisis.”

Retiring DHS head Janet Napolitano made an ominous statement about a coming “cyber event.” A “cyber event” would shut down all commerce and communication on the internet. The point of all this is that this is not just about the U.S. invading Syria unilaterally. There is potential blowback from this that could be catastrophic! If you believe in prayer, now is the time to pray, as our Founding Fathers did. That means round the clock intercessory prayer, churches open all night for prayer, fasting, and a sense of intense spiritual urgency. 

We are in grave danger!

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

© 2013 Paul McGuire - All Rights Reserved

Who Benefits From A War Between The United States And Syria?

Who Benefits From A War Between The United States And Syria?

Senator Obama would impeach President Obama

Senator Obama would impeach President Obama

“Limited, narrow” US strike on Syria risks leaving Assad's air force and chemical arsenal intact

“Limited, narrow” US strike on Syria risks leaPublish Postving Assad's air force and chemical arsenal intact

Syrian military using humans as shields

Syrian military using humans as shields

Al-Qaida ready to storm into Syria if U.S. strikes?

Reblogged from www.wnd.com    

Thousands of Islamic fighters mobilizing on border

Published: 4 hours ago

 

NEW YORK – Thousands of jihadist fighters have mobilized in Turkey and Jordan, ready to storm into Syria if the U.S. begins a bombing campaign, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials.

The Islamic militants, fighting alongside the Syrian rebels, are being directed in part by Turkish, Saudi and Jordanian military staff, according to the security officials.

Al-Qaida and its affiliated organizations are known to be within the rebel ranks. The security officials said the jihadists waiting to advance into Syria include members of the al-Qaida-affiliated Jihadiya Salafiya group.

The information comes amid the increased likelihood of U.S. military action, with both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry presenting the case against Syria today.
Get Aaron Klein’s “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,” autographed, at WND’s Superstore

Obama said he was considering a “limited” attack, while Kerry spoke of “clear” and “compelling” evidence that Assad gassed his own people.

The White House released a four-page intelligence document it said was based in part on communications intercepts concluding Assad’s regime had “carried out a chemical weapons attack” outside Damascus, killing more than 1,400 people, including more than 400 children.

“Read for yourselves the evidence from thousands of sources,” stated Kerry. “This is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons. This is what Assad did to his own people.”

Obama, meanwhile, warned against inaction.
“It’s important for us to recognize that when over a thousand people are killed, including hundreds of innocent children, through the use of a weapon that 98 or 99 percent of humanity says should not be used even in war, and there is no action, then we’re sending a signal,” he said.

U.S., British release intel reports of Syrian chemical attacks. (Read full texts.) Nearly 1,500 killed, including 426 children. Now what?

U.S., British release intel reports of Syrian chemical attacks. (Read full texts.) Nearly 1,500 killed, including 426 children. Now what?

25 Quotes About The Coming War With Syria That Every American Should See

Reblogged from

 - By Michael Snyder - http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/25-quotes-about-the-coming-war-with-syria-that-every-american-should-see

 

If Barack Obama is going to attack Syria, he is going to do it without the support of the American people, without the approval of Congress, without the approval of the United Nations, and without the help of the British. Now that the British Parliament has voted against a military strike, the Obama administration is saying that it may take "unilateral action" against Syria. But what good would "a shot across Syria's bow" actually do? 

A "limited strike" is not going to bring down the Assad regime and it is certainly not going to end the bloody civil war that has been raging inside Syria. Even if the U.S. eventually removed Assad, the al-Qaeda affiliated rebels that would take power would almost certainly be even worse than Assad. Even in the midst of this bloody civil war, the rebels have taken the time and the effort to massacre entire Christian villages. Why is Barack Obama so obsessed with helping such monsters? There is no good outcome in Syria. The Assad regime is absolutely horrible and the rebels are even worse. Why would we want the U.S. military to get involved in such a mess?

It isn't as if it is even possible for the U.S. military to resolve the conflict that is going on in that country. At the core, the Syrian civil war is about Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam. It is a conflict that goes back well over a thousand years.

Assad is Shiite, but the majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict, because they would love to see the Assad regime eliminated and a Sunni government come to power in Syria. On the other side, Iran is absolutely determined to not allow that to happen.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have no problem with using Sunni terrorists (al-Qaeda) to achieve their political goals. And as a very important ally of the Saudis, the U.S. has been spending a lot of money to train and equip the "rebels" in Syria.

But there was a problem. The Syrian government has actually been defeating the rebels. So something had to be done.

If it could be made to look like the Assad regime was using chemical weapons, that would give the U.S. government the "moral justification" that it needed to intervene militarily on the side of the rebels. In essence, it would be a great excuse for the U.S. to be able to go in and do the dirty work of the Saudis for them.

So that is where we are today. The justification for attacking Syria that the Obama administration is giving us goes something like this...

-Chemical weapons were used in Syria.

-The rebels do not have the ability to use chemical weapons.

-Therefore it must have been the Assad regime that was responsible for using chemical weapons.

-The U.S. military must punish the use of chemical weapons to make sure that it never happens again.

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the world is not buying it. In fact, people are seeing right through this charade.

The U.S. government spends $52,000,000,000 a year on "intelligence", but apparently our intelligence community absolutely refuses to see the obvious. WND has been able to uncover compelling evidence that the rebels in Syria have used chemical weapons repeatedly, and yet government officials continue to insist over and over that no such evidence exists and that we need to strike Syria immediately.

Shouldn't we at least take a little bit of time to figure out who is actually in the wrong before we start letting cruise missiles fly?

Because the potential downside of an attack against Syria is absolutely massive. As I wrote about the other day, if we attack Syria we have the potential of starting World War 3 in the Middle East.

We could find ourselves immersed in an endless war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah which would be far more horrible than the Iraq war ever was. It would essentially be a war with Shia Islam itself, and that would be a total nightmare.

If you are going to pick a fight with those guys, you better pack a lunch. They fight dirty and they are absolutely relentless. They will never forget and they will never, ever forgive.

A full-blown war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah would be a fight to the death, and they would not hesitate to strike soft targets all over the United States. I don't think that most Americans have any conception of what that could possibly mean.

If the American people are going to stop this war, they need to do it now. The following are 25 quotes about the coming war with Syria that every American should see...

1. Barack Obama, during an interview with Charlie Savage on December 20, 2007: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

2. Joe Biden, during a television interview in 2007: "The president has no constitutional authority ... to take this nation to war ... unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him."

3. U.S. Representative Ted Poe: "Mr. President, you must call Congress back from recess immediately to take a vote on a military strike on Syria. Assad may have crossed a red line but that does not give you the authority to redline the Constitution."

4. U.S. Representative Kurt Schrader: "I see no convincing evidence that this is an imminent threat to the United States of America."

5. U.S. Representative Barbara Lee: "While we understand that as commander-in-chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our national interests from direct attack, Congress has the constitutional obligation and power to approve military force, even if the United States or its direct interests (such as its embassies) have not been attacked or threatened with an attack."

6. The New York Times: "American officials said Wednesday there was no 'smoking gun' that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation."

7. U.S. Senator Rand Paul: "The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring in to power people friendly to the United States."

8. U.S. Senator Tim Kaine: "I definitely believe there needs to be a vote."

9. Donald Rumsfeld: "There really hasn't been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation."

10. Robert Fisk: "If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured - for the very first time in history - that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa'ida."

11. Former congressman Dennis Kucinich: "So what, we're about to become al-Qaeda's air force now?"

12. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem: "We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves."

13. A Syrian Army officer: "We have more than 8,000 suicide martyrs within the Syrian army, ready to carry out martyrdom operations at any moment to stop the Americans and the British. I myself am ready to blow myself up against US aircraft carriers to stop them attacking Syria and its people."

14. Khalaf Muftah, a senior Ba'ath Party official: "We have strategic weapons and we're capable of responding."

15. An anonymous senior Hezbollah source: "A large-scale Western strike on Syria will plunge Lebanon virtually and immediately into the inferno of a war with Israel."

16. Ali Larjiani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament: "...the country which has been destroyed by the terrorists during the past two years will not sustain so much damage as the warmongers will receive in this war."

17. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "Starting this fire will be like a spark in a large store of gunpowder, with unclear and unspecified outcomes and consequences"

18. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards: (an attack on Syria) "means the immediate destruction of Israel."

19. Israeli President Shimon Peres: "Israel is not and has not been involved in the civil war in Syria, but if they try to hurt us, we will respond with full force."

20. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "We are not part of the civil war in Syria, but if we identify any attempt whatsoever to harm us, we will respond and we will respond in strength."

21. The Jerusalem Post: "The lines between Hezbollah and the Syrian regime are so blurred that Israel will hold Damascus responsible if Hezbollah bombards Israel in the coming days, Israeli officials indicated on Wednesday."

22. Ron Paul: "The danger of escalation with Russia is very high"

23. Pat Buchanan: "The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war."

24. Retired U.S. General James Mattis: "We have no moral obligation to do the impossible and harm our children's future because we think we just have to do something."

25. Syrian refugee Um Ahmad: "Isn't it enough, all the violence and fighting that we already have in the country, now America wants to bomb us, too?"

Happening tonight.... Alert!

Happening tonight....

ALERT!

Will Israel enter the fray regarding Syria?

Reblogged from Elizabeth Prata´s the-end-time.blogspot.com   

I am watching the Middle East situation carefully. I have some concerns regarding if the conflagration will widen, and if it does, whether some of the prophesied wars will begin. I don't know if the time is now or not, but it seems to me that we have had so many near misses of late (in the last 4 years) and those near misses are coming faster and more frequently, that they seem like birth pangs to me, ready to break water and flood the world with Tribulation. That is my opinion. In any case, we know that the last days wars will happen and one of these days they will begin. I just happen to think it will be sooner rather than later.

In watching the news and reading the Old Testament prophets, I noticed something that Knesset Foreign Affairs and Security Committee Chairman MK Avigdor Lieberman yesterday struck me. He said--

"that Israel does not want to become embroiled in the Syrian conflict, but may have to hit back if it is struck. ... Lieberman said that Israel does not want to enter the fray against Syria but added, “We may have no choice, but I hope that everyone knows how to read the map correctly and understand that Israel has no interest in entering the whirlpool of the Arab world.” "

What I believe he was referring to is that Israel is a tiny nation, completely surrounded by implacable enemies. If the situation goes south in Syria, well, Israel is to the south and undoubtedly Israel will receive either purposeful targeting or accidental blowback. Either way, the job of the Foreign Affairs Secretary is to protect the people.

However, when has that situation ever been different? Israel has always been surrounded by implacable enemies. We we do know how to read a map and we do know that at some point every single one of those enemies abutting the tiny nation of God's people will attack. Many prophecy interpreters believe that battle is prophesied in Psalm 83.

Psalm 83 is an imprecatory psalm, imprecatory meaning calling a curse upon someone or on a nation. In Psalm 83 Asaph is calling for God to intervene against a coalition of nations which are colluding to attack Israel.

The reason some interpreters think this is an unfulfilled prayer is that the particular configuration of nations who are colluding and attacking have never joined up to attack Israel in history past. Though parts of the psalm have been fulfilled and now are history, the psalm has not seen fulfillment in the exactly as described. So they believe it is still future. Here are the first 8 verses to the Psalm:
A Song. A Psalm of Asaph.

1 O God, do not keep silence;
do not hold your peace or be still, O God!
2 For behold, your enemies make an uproar;
those who hate you have raised their heads.
3 They lay crafty plans against your people;
they consult together against your treasured ones.
4 They say, “Come, let us wipe them out as a nation;
let the name of Israel be remembered no more!”
5 For they conspire with one accord;
against you they make a covenant—
6 the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites,
Moab and the Hagrites,
7 Gebal and Ammon and Amalek,
Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre;
8 Asshur also has joined them;
they are the strong arm of the children of Lot. Selah

The nations named also in today's modern language, are:

• Edom & Moab, are southern and middle Jordan.
• Ishmaelites, Hagrites, and Amalekites are descended from Hagar and Ishmael, and settled in southern Jordan and Saudi Arabia. (Map shows Amalekites being solely in Egypt, again, this is another interpretation)
• Ammon is norther Jordan. Its capital today is still Ammon.
• Gebal & Tyre are in Lebanon.
• Philistia is Gaza.
• Asshur is northern Iraq and western Syria (Assyria)

So in reading the map, we see that Asaph is pleading for deliverance from a coalition which intends to wipe Israel from the map.

Be advised that there is a lot of disagreement about the purpose of this psalm (imprecatory only? partially prophetic?) and its fulfillment's timing, (past? present? or still far future?)

One thing I like to do is look at the bible's end and work backward. We know that in the end, all nations will be against Israel. (Zechariah 12:3). Backing up some, we know that in Ezekiel 38-39 another, different coalition attacks Israel while Israel is dwelling securely. We know that battle is going to take place in the latter days because it says so in Ezekiel 38:16. Also, in Ezekiel 38:22 God says He will rain down sulfur on the hordes coming to attack Israel. This has never happened.

So the coalition named in Ezekiel's attack are are non-abutting neighbors of Israel. Israel's abutting neighbors are all named in the Psalm 83 prayer. It is thought that the victory given Israel over the Psalm 83 coalition nullifies them and takes them out of action. So when the second waves of attacks comes in Ezekiel's coalition, it is subsequent to Psalm 83 because none of the nearer inner circle is named. Logic dictates they would be part of this attack if they could be. Others wonder about Israel dwelling securely, without bars or walls. What could make Israel lower their security vigilance? Perhaps the fulfillment of Psalm 83, where Israel vanquishes all her abutting enemies and is dwelling safely in the land? (Ezekiel 39:26)

If you think of satan's attempts to get rid of Israel, as Israel being the bulls eye, and Psalm 83 being the first wave, then Ezekiel 39-39 being the widened wave of a larger and further-afield coalition of enemies, and then culminating in Armageddon with all the world coming against her, this seems to be the prevailing thought on the successive prophesied battles of the latter days.

Mr Lieberman is right. Anybody looking at a map can see that Israel is surrounded, small, and in all likelihood, going to be obliterated. However, that is not in God's plan. As surprising as it is and as it will be to those who dwell on the earth, Israel is in fact an immovable rock, and those who try to dig her up or push her over will themselves be injured. (Zechariah 12:3).

If only Mr Lieberman knew that his nation has the only perfect and strong protector! What comfort that would be as all the missiles are aimed at her, as all the hordes storm the mountains like insects. As the bombs come down, the Lord will personally bat them away! (Ezekiel 39:3)

"The fish of the sea and the birds of the heavens and the beasts of the field and all creeping things that creep on the ground, and all the people who are on the face of the earth, shall quake at my presence. And the mountains shall be thrown down, and the cliffs shall fall, and every wall shall tumble to the ground." (Ezekiel 38:20).

Not that Israel won't be harmed at all during the Tribulation, she will, (Zechariah 14:2) but the Lord God Almighty will not let His people nor His designated land be overrun or destroyed at the hands of the Gentiles. He keeps His promises. Though we do see by the map that tiny Israel is beleaguered, beset, and besmirched, she will prevail in the end. That is because God always prevails in the end.

“And my holy name I will make known in the midst of my people Israel, and I will not let my holy name be profaned anymore. And the nations shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel." (Ezekiel 39:7)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

further reading

Fears of a Larger War in the Middle East
"Will the phrase “Guns of August” one day refer not only to the prelude to World War I in 1914 but also to the prelude to a Middle East war in 2013?  That is the ominous question posed by Roger Boyes, the diplomatic editor of the Times of London and a foreign correspondent for the past 35 years.  “The direction of events in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Iran should keep us awake at night. History is taking a dangerous turn,” he writes. “The region certainly cannot sustain two wars — Syria’s bloody insurgency and a near-civil war in Egypt — without wrecking established peace treaties and the normal mechanisms for defusing conflict.”

Evidence: Intercepted calls, satellite imagery & first-hand doctors accounts point to Assad regime role in chemical attacks, officials say.

Reblogged from  flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com
 
In Uncategorized on August 28, 2013 at 1:01 pm

Does the evidence prove President Bashar al-Assad and his regime are guilty?

(Washington, D.C.) — Is the President of the United States certain chemical weapons were used to kill innocent civilians in Damascus last week, and is he certain that the Assad regime was, in fact, responsible for the attack? Is the evidence clear and compelling? Will such evidence stand up in the court of public opinion? The U.S. administration thinks so, and will make the evidence public soon.
We are told such evidence will include:

• Intercepted telephone calls between Assad regime officials and military leaders discussing the chemical attack, picked up by U.S. intelligence
• Intercepted communications from the Syrian military picked up by Israeli intelligence
• Satellite imagery
• First-hand accounts from doctors who treated thousands of victims in Syria

“The Obama administration believes that U.S. intelligence has established how Syrian government forces stored, assembled and launched the chemical weapons allegedly used in last week’s attack outside Damascus, according to U.S. officials,” reports the Washington Post. “The administration is planning to release evidence, possibly as soon as Thursday, that it will say proves that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad bears responsibility for what U.S. officials have called an ‘undeniable’ chemical attack that killed hundreds on the outskirts of the Syrian capital. The report, being compiled by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is one of the final steps that the administration is taking before President Obama makes a decision on a U.S. military strike against Syria, which now appears all but inevitable.”

I’m looking forward to seeing this report. It is important that the American people have a chance to examine the evidence that has led the administration to be so certain that chemical weapons were used, and that the Assad regime was, in fact, responsible.
There are many Americans who deeply distrust this administration. There many who distrust the American government as a whole these days, and not without cause. No country should casually launch military attacks, certainly not the leader of the free world.

That said, it is worth noting that President Obama was a strong opponent of using military force in Iraq over the alleged threat of weapons of mass destruction. So while the President has very little credible with a large percentage of Americans who deeply disagree on all or most areas of policy, it is important to at least consider the notion that Mr. Obama has been a long-time skeptic of U.S. intelligence claims about WMD in the Middle East and the need to use force to deal with such threats. He has also been disinclined to involve the U.S. militarily in Syria for the last two years.

I deeply disagree with this administration on many issues. But I refuse to be a cynic. I refuse to disbelieve anything that comes out of their mouths. I will listen carefully on each and every issue. If the evidence is clear and compelling, I want to see it with honest eyes and make a fair and well-reasoned conclusion. If the Assad regime really did use chemical weapons to murder innocents, then I believe they should be punished severely — in part so that no Syrian government ever uses chemical weapons again, and in part so that no government uses chemical weapons in the future.

Along these lines, I’m interested in an exclusive story in on the Foreign Policy blog this morning, describing intercepted telephone calls.
Key excerpts from the Foreign Policy article:

• Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they’re certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime — and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days….
• American intelligence analysts are certain that chemical weapons were used on Aug. 21 — the captured phone calls, combined with local doctors’ accounts and video documentation of the tragedy — are considered proof positive. That is why the U.S. government, from the president on down, has been unequivocal in its declarations that the Syrian military gassed thousands of civilians in the East Ghouta region….
• However, U.S. spy services still have not acquired the evidence traditionally considered to be the gold standard in chemical weapons cases: soil, blood, and other environmental samples that test positive for reactions with nerve agent. That’s the kind of proof that America and its allies processed from earlier, small-scale attacks that the White House described in equivocal tones, and declined to muster a military response to in retaliation.
• When news about the Ghouta incident first trickled out, there were questions about whether or not a chemical agent was to blame for the massacre. But when weapons experts and U.S. intelligence analysts began reviewing the dozens of videos and pictures allegedly taken from the scene of the attacks, they quickly concluded that a nerve gas, such as sarin, had been used there. The videos showed young victims who were barely able to breathe and, in some cases, twitching. Close-up photos revealed that their pupils were severely constricted. Doctors and nurses who say they treated the victims reported that they later became short of breath as well. Eyewitnesses talk of young children so confused, they couldn’t even identify their own parents. All of these are classic signs of exposure to a nerve agent like sarin, the Assad regime’s chemical weapon of choice. 
• Making the case even more conclusive were the images of the missiles that supposedly delivered the deadly attacks. If they were carrying conventional warheads, they would have likely been all but destroyed as they detonated. But several missiles in East Ghouta were found largely intact. “Why is there so much rocket left? There shouldn’t be so much rocket left,” the intelligence official told The Cable. The answer, the official and his colleagues concluded, was that the weapon was filled with nerve agent, not a conventional explosive.
• In the days after the attacks, there was a great deal of public discussion about which side in Syria’s horrific civil war actually launched the strike. Allies of the Assad regime, like Iran and Russia, pointed the finger at the opposition. The intercepted communications told a different story — one in which the Syrian government was clearly to blame.

Iran warns Israel will be ‘first victim’ of U.S. attack on Syria. Netanyahu vows to hit Syria hard. US developing target list.

Reblogged from flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com

In Uncategorized on August 27, 2013 at 7:23 pm
 

The alliance between Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is closer than ever.

(Washington, D.C.) — An Iranian-Syrian alliance preparing for a war with Israel involving weapons of mass destruction?  An Israeli Prime Minister threatening to strike? An American President vacillating over what to do even as the situation gets more and more dangerous by the hour? Sounds like a scenario ripped from the pages of my recent political thriller, Damascus Countdown. Unfortunately, this scenario is playing out in real life and in real time in the heart of the Middle East.
Here are the latest developments:

1. Though no final decision has yet been made, a Western military strike on the Assad regime in Syria could happen within days — “Western powers have told the Syrian opposition to expect a strike against President Bashar al-Assad’s forces within days, according to sources who attended a meeting between envoys and the Syrian National Coalition in Istanbul,” reports Reuters. “The opposition was told in clear terms that action to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime could come as early as in the next few days, and that they should still prepare for peace talks at Geneva,” one of the sources who was at the meeting on Monday told Reuters.”
2. The Pentagon says it is ready — “The U.S. Defense Department has presented military options to President  Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said, without outlining them,” reports the Wall Street Journal. “Defense officials have said the U.S. is considering cruise-missile strikes from navy ships in the Mediterranean.  ‘We are ready to go,’ he said. 
3. Iran warns Israel will be the “first victim” of retaliation if the U.S. and other Western allies attack Syria — “A senior Iranian lawmaker said Israel would be the first casualty of any U.S.-led strike on Syria, according to regional media reports,” reports the Washington Beacon. “Hossein Sheikholeslam, the director general of the Iranian parliament’s International Affairs bureau, claimed the United States would not dare attack Syria but said that if it does, ‘the Zionist regime will be the first victim.’” The lawmaker added: “No military attack will be waged against Syria. Yet, if such an incident takes place, which is impossible, the Zionist regime will be the first victim of a military attack on Syria.” The Beacon adds: “Iran has been one of embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s chief allies. It has sent Hezbollah reinforcements to battle rebel forces and acted as Assad’s chief defender in the Middle East….Mohammad Esmayeeli, a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, claimed Washington is not ready for any new military invasion. He said that if the Obama administration does decide to launch an attack, Moscow will support Damascus. Russia has consistently thrown its support behind Assad, providing him with advanced weapons and blocking concrete action at the United Nations.”
4. Israel is on full alert, and Netanyahu warns he is ready to hit Syria hard if threatened — Israeli military forces and civil defense authorities are on full alert, looking for any sign that Syria is about to attack, especially with chemical weapons. Netanyahu warned Israel will hit hard if a Syrian threat is detected. “The State of Israel is ready for any scenario. We are not part of the civil war in Syria but if we identify any attempt whatsoever to harm us, we will respond and we will respond in strength,” Netanyahu said on Tuesday after a meeting with his security advisers, his second in as many days.
5. The White House has made no final decision, but is looking specifically at how to prosecute an attack, what targets to hit, and what weapons systems to use – The New York Times is reporting that “President Obama is considering a range of limited military actions against Syria that are designed to “deter and degrade” the ability of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime to launch chemical weapons, Pentagon officials said Tuesday. Although no final decisions have been made, it is likely that the attacks would not be focused on chemical weapons storage sites, even though the Obama administration says the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian military is the trigger for the planned attack. They said any effort to target chemical sites risks an environmental and humanitarian disaster and could open up the sites to raids by militants. Instead, the American assault would be aimed at military units thought to have carried out chemical attacks, the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks and the headquarters overseeing the effort, the officials said.” The Times also notes: “An American official familiar with the military planning said that the initial target list has fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria’s Russian-made attack helicopters are deployed. The list includes command and control locations as well as a variety of conventional military targets, official said. Like several other military officials contacted for this report, the official agreed to discuss planning options only on condition of anonymity. Planners said that although suspected chemical weapons depots are seductive targets, they are too risky. ’That is a hairy business,’ the official said. ‘Our interest is in keeping the chemical weapons secured. You hit a bunker that holds chemical weapons and all of a sudden you have chemical weapons loose.’”

On Trusting your Avowed Enemy

Alf Cengia - http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=7648

Several headlines grabbed my attention these past two weeks. One that stood out described Syria as descending into an ''inferno as the world begins to lose interest.''

"The situation in Syria has descended into a new level of Hell, as the civil war continues, refugees fleeing the country increase, and the fractured rebel groups have begun to turn on each other as much as fight the Assad family regime." ~ John Metzler

The article cites the "carnage" tally now at over 95,000 Syrian civilians. The 2013 exodus from Syria averages out at 6,000 per day and is claimed by the United Nations to be the worst refugee crisis in some twenty years.

Metzler is rightly critical of the Obama Administration's "muddled Mideast policies" and lack of strategic focus. He also notes that the Administration had given assurances of military aid to the rebels: "the good guys, we assume, presume and hope."

Trust these guys with guns?

They would be the same "good guys" who are turning on each other, beheading Christians and posting the videos of these beheadings on the internet. These are the same Free Syrian Army "good guys" who, according to numerous reports, wiped out an entire Christian village.

But U.N. correspondent Metzler doesn't delve into the Christian massacres. That would probably open up a large can of snakes exposing the intolerant Islamist problem; something the United Nations would like to avoid. He does, however, believe that Syria is "hemorrhaging" and has undergone irreparable physical and psychological damage.

Metzler also correctly notes that, regardless of the world at large, the "outcome of Syria's conflict" is a clear cut Russian interest. In fact, one pundit sees Russia as heading for a big win in Syria.

Just in case no one got the memo regarding Russia's desire to re-establish its presence as a potent economic and military power; it has just concluded one of the most massive drills in recent memory. The drill involved: "five Russian armies, the Third Air Force and Air Defense Command, including strategic aviation, and its navy's Pacific Fleet", and included: "nearly 160,000 troops, about 1,000 tanks and armored vehicles, 130 aircraft and 70 warships."

Is Putin serious? You better believe it!

One fly in the ointment, though, is Israel. Not because of its warring policies so much as it's selfish policy to maintain its existence. Israel's possible response to present and future existential threats is bad for business.

The Syrian crisis has spilled over to Israel. The influx of Islamic extremists supporting the Free Syrian Army has compromised border security and these extremists will eventually turn their focus on Israel. That is why the Russians offered to place troops in the Golan recently. That, and Israel's conflict with Iran, is why we can be certain that Russia will maintain an active presence in the region.

Some people are still peddling the absurd notion that most of the Middle East's problems may be resolved if "Israel would just give back the Palestinian's stolen land."

If it were only that simple! Yet, the inconvenient facts are that Israel hasn't stolen Palestinian land and it would be happy to live in peace with a viable Palestinian State, if that State were to reciprocate by accepting a Jewish State.

But not only can Hamas and the Palestinian Authority not agree over the organizational structure a future State (think Libya, Syria and Egypt), but both have consistently demonstrated that they won't abide living alongside a Jewish State.

If nothing else, the "Syrian inferno" and the Egyptian conflict shows that many of these people don't mind ripping each other apart in the pursuit of power or their particular brand of Islamism. That's leaving aside their horrific treatment of non-Muslims.

So why should Israel trust a Hamas?

Well, I guess Hamas showed off their touchy-feely soft side when they expressed sadness at veteran American journalist Helen-Jews-should-go-back-home-Thomas' passing. As per the Al Quassam eulogy: "Rest in peace, Helen Thomas. We respect you for taking a stand."

I suppose that may get her a pass with Allah.

Of course, the recent extreme rioting in the West Bank is a bit of a setback for optimistic peaceniks. I think Khaled Abu Toameh gets it right:

"The thousands of demonstrators didn't forget to condemn the Palestinian Authority for "selling out to Jews" instead of seeking Israel's destruction. Unlike the U.S., Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas sees and hears the voices of the extremists at Jerusalem's al-Aqsa Mosque, in the West Bank, and in the Gaza Strip. This is precisely why Abbas will never agree to sign a peace deal with Israel: it would turn him into the biggest traitor in the Palestinian and Islamic world." (Emphasis mine)

As it stands, the European Union and the Obama Administration are drunkenly fixated on forcing a peace deal between two parties. Yet one of the parties is intent on exterminating the other and has consistently stated so.

Neither the E.U. nor the U.S. have been able to prevent Islamists in Syria and Egypt from killing each other. So what makes them think they can change the two Palestinian leaderships' mindsets about Israel?

Why would Israel simply shake hands and trust someone who is an avowed enemy, just to please the world? That would be insane.

Does anyone else get a sense of déjà vu?