Friday, December 28, 2012
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Watch Syrian Rebels Make Rockets Out of Assad's Cluster Bombs | Danger Room | Wired.com
"When Bashar Assad attacks his own people with cluster munitions, enterprising Syrian rebels don’t just run for cover. They harvest unexploded cluster bombs for parts they can use in homemade rockets to turn back on regime forces. Do not try this at home."
SYRIA DEEPLY EXCLUSIVE: US Trains Rebel Brigades to Secure Chemical Weapons | Syria News
"The US and its allies have hired contractors to train some Syrian rebel brigades in chemical weapons security, Syria Deeply has exclusively learned from four diplomats, including one US official."
Syrian Bombs Are Now Filled With Chemicals — And Could Be Up for Grabs | Danger Room | Wired.com
“Uncertainties regarding this crisis are pervasive, yet at least one outcome is highly probable: terrorist acquisition of chemical weapons if the regime falls,” writes Federation of American Scientists analyst Charles Blair
Tracking Pakistan’s nukes to Saudi Arabia?
"Pakistan may have transferred nuclear weapons to the chief bankroller of its development program, Saudi Arabia, as far back as 2004"
Russian Navy supplies 30,000 nationals in visit to Syrian port | World Tribune
"They said some 30,000 Russian nationals were believed working in Syria, mostly in cooperation with the regime of President Bashar Assad"
Report: Israeli Special Forces Inside Syria Tracking Chemical and Biological Weapons | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com
US, Israeli, Jordanian and Turkish special forces are spread out on the ground in Syria, armed with special gear for combating chemical arms
"US, Israeli, Jordanian and Turkish special forces are spread out on the ground in Syria, armed with special gear for combating chemical arms"
Saturday, December 8, 2012
President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech from Oslo, Norway
On the eve of a rumored invasion of Syria over it's potential use of chemical weapons, I bring you President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Speech. In this speech, he talks about the causes for a "just war". Delivered almost exactly three years ago, his speech has become uncomfortably spooky to listen to today. It also serves as a revelation of what was to come in Libya, and possibly in the very near the future in Syria.
The speech is striking in it's entirety, fast forward to 15:00 exactly to get to what I wanted to show everybody. The context of todays situation addressed on Dec. 10, 2009. That’s before Syria, Libya, Arab Spring and so on... Highly suggested viewing.
"...and it requires us to think about the notion of a just war and the imperatives of a just peace."
"...there will be times when nations acting individually or in concert will the find the use of force not only necessary, but morally justified."
"...the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens, and the strength of our arms."
"More and more we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war who's violence and suffering can engulf an entire region. I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scared by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later"
"That's why NATO continues to be indispensable."
~ President Barack Obama at his Nobel Peace Prize Lecture in Oslo, Norway, on December 10, 2009.
The Japanese government has ordered its military to shoot down the missile that is expected to be launched by North Korea as early as Monday
Japan poised to shoot down North Korean missile - Telegraph: "The Japanese government has ordered its military to shoot down the missile that is expected to be launched by North Korea as early as Monday."
'via Blog this'
Psy hates America, loves it's money.
Psy, sorry my country got in the way of your destiny to become a commie forced to worship the fearless three Kims' of the north at the but of a gun. Juche style! Psy apologizes: Please dont make your money mad at me
Rebels captured the “chloride factory” at Al Safira east of Aleppo. This is a codename for the Syria army’s biggest chemical weapons store and base which also houses Syrian Scud D missiles armed with chemical warheads ready to fire at Israel
Rebels captured the “chloride factory” at Al Safira east of Aleppo. This is a codename for the Syria army’s biggest chemical weapons store and base which also houses Syrian Scud D missiles armed with chemical warheads ready to fire at Israel.
'via Blog this'
Friday, December 7, 2012
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Syria loads chemical weapons into bombs; military awaits Assad's order - World News
So,
will U.S. and allies strike before or after chemical weapons are used?
U.S. officials stressed that as of now, the sarin bombs hadn't been loaded onto planes and that Assad hadn't issued a final order to use them. But if he does, "there's little the outside world can do to stop it." Is this fashion of talk alluding to the fact that the only option for stopping a chemical attack is to strike before the order goes? Or, is the comment implying that we will not strike to prevent a chemical attack, and that Assad would be held accountable after the fact? If your the decision maker and you believe a chemical attack is going to be launched by Assad, do you strike first and take the heat? Or, do you let him kill with chemicals so that your unquestionably justified when you strike back with military force? Under who's leadership is either choice the more prudent one to make? Or do you do nothing?
U.S. officials stressed that as of now, the sarin bombs hadn't been loaded onto planes and that Assad hadn't issued a final order to use them. But if he does, "there's little the outside world can do to stop it." Is this fashion of talk alluding to the fact that the only option for stopping a chemical attack is to strike before the order goes? Or, is the comment implying that we will not strike to prevent a chemical attack, and that Assad would be held accountable after the fact? If your the decision maker and you believe a chemical attack is going to be launched by Assad, do you strike first and take the heat? Or, do you let him kill with chemicals so that your unquestionably justified when you strike back with military force? Under who's leadership is either choice the more prudent one to make? Or do you do nothing?
.jpeg)
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
.jpeg)
Monday, December 3, 2012
.jpeg)
Muslim Brotherhood 'paying gangs to go out and rape women and beat men protesting in Egypt' as thousands of demonstrators pour on to the streets | Mail Online
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)