Posted on 09/06/2013 6:51:23 AM PDT by maggief
Headlines only:
BREAKING: Russia will help #Syria in case of foreign military assault - Putin http://on.rt.com/0yh5ju
DETAILS: Russia sells weapons to #Syria, we have strong economic ties. Syria is our strategic partner - Putin http://on.rt.com/0yh5ju
(Excerpt) Read more at rt.com ...
NEXT Tuesday?
Hell, he can't even play a decent game of tic-tac-toe.
I’ll be Russia and China and many others will help asad..
Putin please do us a favor and keep him there.
A Russia that is no longer broke and no drunken Yeltsin at the helm.
Hope it helped.
I had RT G20 live feed, RT Syria live feed, RT twitter, AFP twitter, and Reuters Syria live coverage, etc. tabs all open. Our MSM is crap.
############################
Agence France-Presse @AFP 2m
BREAKING: France to await UN chemical report before any Syria strike: Hollande
“You realize that RT is a propaganda organ funded by the Russian government and founded by Vlad’s press secretary.”
I do. I also realize our MSM is propaganda supporting Obama.
I have been linking other sources for updates and verification; WaPo, Reuters, AP, AFP, etc.
F. Chuck Todd was at the G20 presser ... here is what he tweeted.
*crickets*
/waitingformarchingorders?
Next Tuesday?
NEXT Tuesday?
I think the House is voting on 09/09 - Monday
Plus, it gives Obama’s rebels more chances to get info on the targets Obama is planning to hit. I’m sure he’ll share that with them. Also, still time for Obama’s rebels to try to concoct some other deadly attack to blame on Assad.
Surely Putin will back down in fear after Obambi meets with the powerful Russian Gay & Lesbian activists.
Sorry - I don’t read “tweets”. I frankly think that any politician or journalist that relies on that “technology” is a moron.
http://live.reuters.com/Event/Syria_9
Speaking at the G20 summit in St Petersburg, French President Hollande says France will wait for both the U.S. Congress vote and the report of the U.N. inspectors before deciding on participating in any military action on Syria. www.reuters.com
We also heard from U.N.-Arab League peace mediator on Syria Lakhdar Brahimi today that “International law says that no country is allowed to take the law into their hands - they have to go through the Security Council.” www.reuters.com
Perhaps he’s responding to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, who said on Thursday that the United States was closing the door on the council when it comes to the Syrian crisis because Russia is holding it “hostage.”
Here’s what she said: “Our considered view, after months of efforts on chemical weapons and after 2-1/2 years of efforts on Geneva (peace talks), the humanitarian situation is that there is no viable path forward in this Security Council.”
As the United States did in Kosovo in 1999, Washington will bypass the council and will not seek U.N. authorization for any military action in Syria, Power said. In 1999, Washington relied on NATO authorization for its bombing campaign, which forced Serbian troops and militia to pull out of Kosovo.
A full story on Power’s comments can be seen here: www.reuters.com
by Louis Charbonneau 10:27 AM
Then this tidbit appears in the news: House Might Not Vote on Obama’s Syria Resolution
I posted a link to the entire text of Obama’s presser, among other supporting reports.
Take what you want from it ...
Including the one in the White Hut
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/06/joint-statement-syria
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 06, 2013
Joint Statement on Syria
The Leaders and Representatives of Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America made the following statement on the margins of the Group of 20 Nations Leader’s Meeting in Saint Petersburg, Russia:
The international norm against the use of chemical weapons is longstanding and universal. The use of chemical weapons anywhere diminishes the security of people everywhere. Left unchallenged, it increases the risk of further use and proliferation of these weapons.
We condemn in the strongest terms the horrific chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21st that claimed the lives of so many men, women, and children. The evidence clearly points to the Syrian government being responsible for the attack, which is part of a pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime.
We call for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world’s rules and conscience that will send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated. Those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable.
Signatories have consistently supported a strong UN Security Council Resolution, given the Security Council’s responsibilities to lead the international response, but recognize that the Council remains paralyzed as it has been for two and a half years. The world cannot wait for endless failed processes that can only lead to increased suffering in Syria and regional instability. We support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.
We commit to supporting longer term international efforts, including through the United Nations, to address the enduring security challenge posed by Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles. Signatories have also called for the UN fact finding mission to present its results as soon as possible, and for the Security Council to act accordingly.
We condemn in the strongest terms all human rights violations in Syria on all sides. More than 100,000 people have been killed in the conflict, more than 2 million people have become refugees, and approximately 5 million are internally displaced. Recognizing that Syria’s conflict has no military solution, we reaffirm our commitment to seek a peaceful political settlement through full implementation of the 2012 Geneva Communique. We are committed to a political solution which will result in a united, inclusive and democratic Syria.
We have contributed generously to the latest United Nations (UN) and ICRC appeals for humanitarian assistance and will continue to provide support to address the growing humanitarian needs in Syria and their impact on regional countries. We welcome the contributions announced at the meeting of donor countries on the margins of the G20. We call upon all parties to allow humanitarian actors safe and unhindered access to those in need.
European signatories will continue to engage in promoting a common European position.
“”Special cargo” is an utterly unveiled reference to nuclear weaponry,...”
I’m asking you a serious question: Where would Russia use this “nuclear weaponry” in Syria. That doesn’t make sense as a nuclear blast in Syria would kill Syrians and Syria is Russia’s friend. They aren’t going to turn Syria into glass. If Russia attacked our ships, they wouldn’t use a nuclear bomb to do that since it would also destroy their ships and personnel. What am I missing????
Not to worry. Obama’s homo brigades will volunteer to fight Putin’s army.
So Obama launches a cruise missile attack. The obvious response is the Syrians “defend themselves” by attacking the ships launching the cruise missiles, likely the P-800 Oniks they bought from Russia, and probably supplied “advisors” to man the systems, and given targeting data from Putin as well.
Regardless how good the Aegis system of our surface warships to defend from the Russian missiles, some of these Mach 2.5 sea skimming missiles will probably find their mark, and we lose at least one surface combatant.
Dead sailors, lost prestige and credibility to the US, along with world wide spread pictures of dead Syrians from the cruise missiles that did (or didnt) get through the Russian manned S300 SAMs, the US loses a major military event, and we are lucky if it stops there.
Obama not only confirms why he has no credibility among allies such as GB, but confirms to the world he has no idea what he is doing.
The Mediterranean, while small for ships because of their spheres of influence, is still large enough to detonate a small nuke — sufficient to take out a ship (or ships) — and not damage the originator of the ordnance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.