Chemical weapons stockpiles in various nations not willing to knuckle under to US global hegemony has been a many-decades long standing issue. John Kerry mentioned it again concerning Syria, and Russia seized on it. It has been suggested and is emphatically stated by Richard Spencer in the linked article that Kerry's remark "was less off-the-cuff than it appeared." The idea being put forward is to give the Obama administration the credit rather than the Putin administration, that Obama played Putin, used him to gain Obama's ends.
Well, the proposed attack on Syria was highly unpopular with even Obama's base of support, such as it is. It wasn't popular with very many other people either. Why would Obama have not wanted the full and immediate political credit in a more direct way by very publicly pushing for chemical-weapons disarmament as a way out for Assad rather than relying upon people speculating that Kerry mention the idea as some clever poker or chess move? Rather than take credit for even that, the Obama administration seemed more as a deer caught in the headlights at Putin's team jumping on Kerry's off-the-cuff remark? If Obama and Kerry planned it, it certainly wasn't well thought out politically, to play well at home politically, to reinvigorate Obama's waining support with the less-militant wing of the Democratic Party, again, such as it is, and to gain some credibility with the anti-war members of the Libertarian Movement (millions of them). Even while this was going on, Kerry suggested an "unbelievably small" attack while Obama said the US doesn't do "pin-prick" attacks. Their talking points hardly appear so well-coordinated that they've have thought through playing Putin even down to appearing surprised by Putin's swift actions all the while not gaining much, if any, home-base political capital via the whole exercise. It just doesn't seem consistent.
I raise that as a point of credibility, among many, in terms of just how seriously to accept The Telegraph article. It must be kept in mind that The Telegraph is a decidedly neocon/Zionist publication. The exact same mentality and methods were behind the whole lead-up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the one based entirely on a pack of known lies, including about chemical and other weapons of mass destruction.
So, here comes "Zaher al-Sakat, a former chemical weapons chief in President Bashar al-Assad's own army," who claims, according to The Telegraph, "he was ordered three times to use chemical weapons against his own people, but could not go through with it and replaced chemical canisters with ones containing harmless bleach." I wonder if he'd be willing to submit to a couple of lie-detector tests by completely independent experts not of the neocon/Zionist persuasion. He may be telling the truth and lie-detector tests are not yet foolproof, but his willingness, or lack thereof, and passing or failing grade would be telling.
The article states:
Gen Sakat says he has his own sources: a network inside the country of activists who are specifically monitoring the programme. One member, calling himself Abu Mohammed, told The Telegraph he had hacked into Unit 450 computer systems and read orders, including some relating to the transfer to Hizbollah.
So, this skilled hacker didn't download the documents and supply them to WikiLeaks? Well, he didn't even supply them to The Telegraph, which is on his side in the conflict. Could such downloads be fabricated? Yes; however, the better the hacker, the better the other information that would come long in the download. I won't go into detail about that, but suffice it to say that there is forensic evidence that could be grabbed by a hacker to help substantiate the alleged smoking gun.
Also notable in the article is the lack of any suggested countervailing evidence concerning exactly who attacked whom with chemical weapons. The mainstream Western media, which is mostly neocon/Zionist, doesn't give much column space to spelling out the Assad regime's and Russia's submissions as evidence. There's at least as much of that as has been produced by the Obama administration. Some of what has come out from the Assad side has seemed much more credible, such as the rebels who openly admitted to having a deadly accident while handling chemical weapons supplied to them.
Concerning the notion that Assad would cheat because he already has moved chemical weapons around is PSY-OPS meme generation. Of course he had, and has, chemical weapons, and of course, he has been moving them around as the fighting has raged around various areas of the country. If he has given weapons to Hezbollah, is anyone suggesting that the focus isn't on the use of chemical weapons in Syria? Hezbollah is in Syria but only close to the Lebanese border. They aren't going to use such weapons in Syria after the deal is brokered unless all-out war breaks out with the Zionists, who have a not-so-secret secret nuclear-weapons program with many warheads and missiles (see: Mordechai Vanunu) against which the chemical weapons are seen as a deterrent. Is someone insisting that Syria be attacked by the US if Hezbollah doesn't join the deal? If so, it would be an extremist Zionist doing so; and please be reminded again that it was such Zionists/neocons who lied the US into committing the huge war crime of attacking and invading and occupying Iraq based upon lies about chemical weapons and a number of other things, such as Saddam Hussein's involvement in 9/11 (concerning which there was zero).
Zionist-neocons are some of the biggest liars on the planet, if not the biggest. Their entire ideology is based upon lying. It's their way of life. They aren't the only ones who live that way, but they are perhaps the worst offenders; and there are many Zionists in the US and in the US government, State Department, etc. If you trust them, you're a fool; and I'll stand by that statement before God on Judgment Day.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)