USA Government Shuts Down

If Government Shuts Down, Who Will…

 

govt shutdown

 

 

14 Christian Crusaders made car bombs in Baghdad kill at least 54 Muslims

 

A series of car bombs in mostly Shiite neighborhoods of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, have claimed over 50 lives, leaving over 100 people injured. Officials are blaming Al-Qaeda for the string of attacks, but no group has claimed responsibility yet.

Car bombs went off in crowded outdoor market places and parking lots in the Shiite-dominated neighborhoods of New Baghdad, Habibiya, Kazimiyah, Shaab, Sabaa al-Bour, Shula, Ur; the Sunni neighborhoods of Jamiaa and Ghazaliyah; and the eastern Sadr-City district.

The blasts left at least 54 people dead and 139 wounded, AP cited police and medical sources as saying. At several explosion sites fires broke out and firefighters assisted by police that sealed the sites off spent some time extinguishing debris.

 

A destroyed vehicle is removed following a car bomb in a car park in Baghdad Jadida, on September 30, 2013. (AFP Photo)A destroyed vehicle is removed following a car bomb in a car park in Baghdad Jadida, on September 30, 2013. (AFP Photo)

 

Iraq’s Interior Ministry laid the blame on Al-Qaeda-linked insurgents. Earlier this year Al-Qaeda’s organizations in Iraq and Syria merged to form the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which has been staging attacks in both Iraq and Syria.

“Our war with terrorism goes on,” Interior Ministry spokesman Saad Maan told AP. “Part of the problem is the political infighting and regional conflicts … There are shortcomings and we need to develop our capabilities mainly in the intelligence-gathering efforts.”

 

Residents inspect the mangled remains of a vehicle at the site of a car bomb attack in Baghdad's Sadr City, September 30, 2013. (Reuters/Wissm al-Okili)Residents inspect the mangled remains of a vehicle at the site of a car bomb attack in Baghdad’s Sadr City, September 30, 2013. (Reuters/Wissm al-Okili)

 

According to the Iraq Body Count monitoring group, more than 6,000 people have died in Iraq in terrorist attacks so far this year. Explosions with multiple casualties occur in Iraq practically every day.

Monday’s attacks came a day after a series of blasts struck various parts of Iraq, including two suicide bombings in the comparatively quiet region of Kurdistan, killed 46 people.

Last Saturday, a bomb went off at a funeral in Sadr City, killing 104 people.

The ongoing wave of violence resembles the situation in 2006-07, when Iraq was in the midst of a brutal sectarian civil war.

 

A man walks near a damaged Shi'ite mosque a day after a suicide bomb attack in Hilla, 60 km (40 miles) south of Baghdad, September 30, 2013. (Reuters/Habib)A man walks near a damaged Shi’ite mosque a day after a suicide bomb attack in Hilla, 60 km (40 miles) south of Baghdad, September 30, 2013. (Reuters/Habib)

In the first place Al Qaeda is staging terror acts against the Sunni minority in Iraq trying to stir discontent against the Shiite that forms the ruling majority of the country, including the government.

Another reason is sectarian warfare ignited in Iraq by the American occupation which practically ended up with a civil war in the country already devastated by years of foreign occupation.

Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites are actually already fighting against each other – in neighboring Syria, where Sunni rebels with Al Qaeda links are desperately trying to overthrow the Alawite government of President Bashar Assad backed by Shiite Iran.

Terrorists from 83 Christian Countries fighting in Syria

The Syrian government is fighting against “terrorist groups from 83 countries” as part of its “constitutional right” to protect the country’s people, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem told the UN General Assembly in New York.

 

In his speech to the UN Assembly, Muallem on Monday dismissed the definition of the Syrian conflict as a civil war, saying that the Syrian government is engaged in a “war against terrorism that recognizes no values, nor justice, nor equality, and disregards any rights or laws.”

Confronting this terror in my country requires the international community to act in accordance with relevant resolutions on countering terrorism, particularly the UNSC resolution No. 1373 of 2001,” he said.

Muallem said that it’s the terrorist groups, including those linked to Al-Qaeda, who are violating Syrian people’s human rights “on a daily basis.” Any Syrians who do not share the extremist ideology risk being “killed, slaughtered,” with the women also taken as “captives on the basis of perverted concepts of religion that have nothing to do with Islam, Syria’s FM said.

We are the ones who were targeted by poisonous gases in Khan Al-Assal, near Aleppo,” Muallem asserted, saying that Syria asked the UN inspectors to include in its mandate the ability to determine who used chemical weapons, but that it was omitted due to pressure from the US, the UK and France.

Syria had “waited for five months” for the UN chemical inspectors to arrive, and even before the completion of their work “certain states began beating the drums of war,” Muallem said. He added that Syria was committed to fully implement the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention and cooperate closely with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Syria’s top diplomat went on to question whether those countries “supplying terrorists” with weapons would “abide by their legal commitments,” saying there “remains the challenge” that they would not do so.

Muallem then accused “regional and Western countries that are well known to all of us” of supplying chemical agents to “terrorists who used poisonous gases” in Syria.

Syria calls for “necessary and prompt measures to compel those well-known countries that finance, arm, train and provide a safe haven and passage for terrorists coming from different countries of the world,” Muallem said.

 

http://rt.com/news/syria-un-foreign-chemical-542/

Top 45 lies in Obama’s speech at the UN

 

1. President Obama’s opening lines at the U.N. on Tuesday looked down on people who would think to settle disputes with war. Obama was disingenuously avoiding the fact that earlier this month he sought to drop missiles into a country to “send a message” but was blocked by the US Congress, the UN, the nations of the world, and popular opposition — after which Obama arrived at diplomacy as a last resort.

2. “It took the awful carnage of two world wars to shift our thinking.” Actually, it took one. The second resulted in a half-step backwards in “our thinking.” The Kellogg-Briand Pact banned all war. The UN Charter re-legalized wars purporting to be either defensive or UN-authorized.

3. “[P]eople are being lifted out of poverty,” Obama said, crediting actions by himself and others in response to the economic crash of five years ago. But downward global trends in poverty are steady and long pre-date Obama’s entry into politics. And such a trend does not exist in the US.

4. “Together, we have also worked to end a decade of war,” Obama said. In reality, Obama pushed Iraq hard to allow that occupation to continue, and was rejected just as Congress rejected his missiles-for-Syria proposal. Obama expanded the war on Afghanistan. Obama expanded, after essentially creating, drone wars. Obama has increased global US troop presence, global US weapons sales, and the size of the world’s largest military. He’s put “special” forces into many countries, waged a war on Libya, and pushed for an attack on Syria. How does all of this “end a decade of war”? And how did his predecessor get a decade in office anyway?

5. “Next year, an international coalition will end its war in Afghanistan, having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.” In reality, Bruce Riedel, who coordinated a review of Afghanistan policy for President Obama said, “The pressure we’ve put on [extremist forces] in the past year has also drawn them together, meaning that the network of alliances is growing stronger not weaker.” (New York Times, May 9, 2010.)

6. “We have limited the use of drones.” Bush drone strikes in Pakistan: 51. Obama drone strikes in Pakistan: 323.

7. “… so they target only those who pose a continuing, imminent threat to the United States where capture is not feasible.” On June 7, 2013, Yemeni tribal leader Saleh Bin Fareed told Democracy Now that Anwar al Awlaki could have been turned over and put on trial, but “they never asked us.” In numerous other cases it is evident that drone strike victims could have been arrested if that avenue had ever been attempted. A memorable example was the November 2011 drone killing in Pakistan of 16-year-old Tariq Aziz, days after he’d attended an anti-drone meeting in the capital, where he might easily have been arrested — had he been charged with some crime. This week’s drone victims, like all the others, had never been indicted or their arrest sought.

8. “… and there is a near certainty of no civilian casualties.” There are hundreds of confirmed civilian dead from US drones, something the Obama administration seems inclined to keep as quiet as possible.

9. “And the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction casts a shadow over the pursuit of peace.” In reality, President Obama is not pursuing peace or the control of such weapons or their reduction and elimination in all countries, only particular countries. And the United States remains the top possessor of weapons of mass destruction and the top supplier of weapons to the world.

10. “[In Syria, P]eaceful protests against an authoritarian regime were met with repression and slaughter. … America and others have worked to bolster the moderate opposition.” In fact, the United States has armed a violent opposition intent on waging war and heavily influenced if not dominated by foreign fighters and fanatics.

11. “[T]he regime used chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.” Maybe, but where’s the evidence? Even Colin Powell brought (faked) evidence.

12. “How should we respond to conflicts in the Middle East?” This suggests that the United States isn’t causing conflicts in the Middle East or aggravating them prior to altering its position and “responding.” In fact, arming and supporting brutal regimes in Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Israel, etc., is behavior that could do a great deal of good simply by ceasing.

13. “How do we address the choice of standing callously by while children are subjected to nerve gas, or embroiling ourselves in someone else’s civil war?” That isn’t a complete list of choices, as Obama discovered when Russia called Kerry’s bluff and diplomacy became a choice, just as disarmament and de-escalation and pressure for a ceasefire are choices. Telling Saudi Arabia “Stop arming the war in Syria or no more cluster bombs for you,” is a choice.

14. “What is the role of force in resolving disputes that threaten the stability of the region and undermine all basic standards of civilized conduct?” Force doesn’t have a role in civilized conduct, the most basic standard of which is relations without the use of force.

15. “[T]he international community must enforce the ban on chemical weapons.” Except against Israel or the United States.

16. “… and Iranians poisoned in the many tens of thousands.” This was good of Obama to recognize Iran’s suffering, but it would have been better of him to recall where Iraq acquired some of its weapons of mass destruction.

17. “It is an insult to human reason — and to the legitimacy of this institution — to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack.” Really? In the absence of evidence, skepticism isn’t reasonable for this Colin-Powell institution, the same UN that was told Libya would be a rescue and watched it become a war aimed at illegally overthrowing a government? Trust us?

18. “Now, there must be a strong Security Council Resolution to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there must be consequences if they fail to do so.” Meaning war? What about the UN’s commitment to oppose war? What about the United States’ violation of its commitments to destroy the chemical weapons sitting in Kentucky and Colorado? “Consequences” for the US too?

19. “I do not believe that military action — by those within Syria, or by external powers — can achieve a lasting peace.” Yet, the US government is shipping weapons into that action

20. “Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine who will lead Syria … Nevertheless, a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a badly fractured country.” The Syrians should decide their own fate as long as they decide it the way I tell them to.

21. “[N]or does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-being of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons, and ensuring it does not become a safe-haven for terrorists.” That’s funny. Elsewhere, you’ve said that weakening Syria would weaken Iran.

22. “[W]e will be providing an additional $340 million [for aid].” And vastly more for weapons.

23. “We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil…” That first remarkably honest sentence is only honest if you don’t think about what “free flow” means. The second sentence points to a real, if slow, trend but obscures the fact that only 40% of the oil the US uses comes from the US, which doesn’t count much of the oil the US military uses while “ensuring the free flow.” Nor is switching to small domestic supplies a long-term solution as switching to sustainable energy would be.

24. “But when it’s necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attacks, we will take direct action.” In Libya? Syria? Where does this make any sense, as US actions generate rather than eliminate terrorism? Michael Boyle, part of Obama’s counter-terrorism group during his 2008 election campaign, says the use of drones is having “adverse strategic effects that have not been properly weighed against the tactical gains associated with killing terrorists … . The vast increase in the number of deaths of low-ranking operatives has deepened political resistance to the US program in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries.” (The Guardian, January 7, 2013.) Why is Canada not obliged to bomb the world to “defend against terrorist attacks”?

25. “Just as we consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a threat to our own national security …” We who? How? Congress just rejected this ludicrous claim. Ninety percent of this country laughed at it.

26. “[W]e reject the development of nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, and undermine the global non-proliferation regime.” By Israel which has done this, or by Iran which all evidence suggests has not?

27. “We deeply believe it is in our interest to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous,” we just choose to work against that deep belief and to sell or give vast quantities of weapons to brutal dictatorships and monarchies.

28. “Iraq shows us that democracy cannot be imposed by force.” This could have been true had the US attempted to impose democracy.

29. “Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.” Iran’s what?

30. “Arab-Israeli conflict.” That’s a misleading way of naming the conflict between the government of Israel and the people it ethnically cleanses, occupies, and abuses — including with chemical weapons.

31. “[A]n Iranian government that has … threatened our ally Israel with destruction.” It hasn’t. And piling up the lies about Iran will make Iran less eager to talk. Just watch.

32. “We are not seeking regime change.” That’s not what Kerry told Congress, in between telling Congress just the opposite.

33. “We insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and UN Security Council resolutions.” Among Iran, the US, and Israel, it’s Iran that seems to be complying.

34. “We are encouraged that President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course.” More moderate than what? Threatening to destroy Israel and creating nukes?

35. “[T]heir own sovereign state.” There’s nowhere left for Palestine to create such a separate state.

36. “Israel’s security as Jewish and democracy.” Both, huh?

37. “When peaceful transitions began in Tunisia and Egypt … we chose to support those who called for change” … the minute everyone else was dead, exiled, or imprisoned.

38. “[T]rue democracy as requiring a respect for minority rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, and a strong civil society. That remains our interest today.” Just not in our own country and certainly not in places that buy some of the biggest piles of our weapons.

39. “But we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of suppressing dissent,” and if you don’t believe me, ask the Occupy movement — Happy Second Birthday, you guys!

40. “This includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue to surface in places like Iraq, Syria and Bahrain.” One liberated, one targeted, and one provided with support and weaponry and former US police chiefs to lead the skull cracking.

41. “[A] vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.” All criminal outrages should have a vacuum of leadership. “Who would bomb countries if we don’t do it?” is the wrong question.

42. “Some may disagree, but I believe that America is exceptional — in part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest, but for the interests of all.” When was that? The United States certainly comes in at far less than exceptional in terms of per-capita humanitarian aid. Its humanitarian bombing that Obama has in mind, but it’s never benefitted humanity.

43. “And in Libya, when the Security Council provided a mandate to protect civilians, America joined a coalition that took action. Because of what we did there, countless lives were saved, and a tyrant could not kill his way back to power.” The White House claimed that Gaddafi had threatened to massacre the people of Benghazi with “no mercy,” but the New York Times reported that Gaddafi’s threat was directed at rebel fighters, not civilians, and that Gaddafi promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.” Gaddafi also offered to allow rebel fighters to escape to Egypt if they preferred not to fight to the death. Yet President Obama warned of imminent genocide. What Gaddafi really threatened fits with his past behavior. There were other opportunities for massacres had he wished to commit massacres, in Zawiya, Misurata, or Ajdabiya. He did not do so. After extensive fighting in Misurata, a report by Human Rights Watch made clear that Gaddafi had targeted fighters, not civilians. Of 400,000 people in Misurata, 257 died in two months of fighting. Out of 949 wounded, less than 3 percent were women. More likely than genocide was defeat for the rebels, the same rebels who warned Western media of the looming genocide, the same rebels who the New York Times said “feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda” and who were “making vastly inflated claims of [Gaddafi’s] barbaric behavior.” The result of NATO joining the war was probably more killing, not less. It certainly extended a war that looked likely to end soon with a victory for Gaddafi.

44. “Libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed.” No, the war was ending, and Libya IS engulfed in bloodshed. In March 2011, the African Union had a plan for peace in Libya but was prevented by NATO, through the creation of a “no fly” zone and the initiation of bombing, to travel to Libya to discuss it. In April, the African Union was able to discuss its plan with Libyan President Muammar al-Gaddafi, and he expressed his agreement. NATO, which had obtained a UN authorization to protect Libyans alleged to be in danger but no authorization to continue bombing the country or to overthrow the government, continued bombing the country and overthrowing the government.

45. “[S]overeignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder.” Says a man who reads through a list of potential murder victims on Tuesdays and ticks off the ones he wants murdered.

Syria crisis can end if West drops support for militants

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem says the crisis in the country could end within weeks if the states backing militants halted their support.

Muallem made the remarks in an interview with the Russia TV channel after the United Nations General Assembly session in New York City on Saturday.

The top Syrian diplomat stated that war in Syria would continue as long as militants fighting against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were being backed by the United States, Europe and some regional states.

“Many countries speak about supporting a political solution. This is important, but this means that they need to be committed to stop their financing, their arming to the terrorist group. Especially neighboring countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar,” Muallem said.

The Syrian foreign minister also made comments regarding a decision by the Syrian government to hand over its chemical stockpiles, saying, the move was not out of fear of a US military strike, but a sovereign decision.

“We are adopting this decision after consultation with Russia. And we are convinced that the Russian initiative at the end is a good initiative to open the door for political solution,” he added.

On August 21, hundreds of people were killed and scores of others were injured in a chemical attack on the suburbs of Damascus.

The militants operating inside Syria and the foreign-backed Syrian opposition accused the army of being behind the deadly attack.

Damascus, however, has strongly denied the accusation, saying it was a false-flag operation carried out by Takfiri groups in a bid to draw in foreign military intervention.

Following the chemical attack, the US stepped up its war rhetoric against the Syrian government and called for punitive military action against Damascus.

The Syrian government averted possible US aggression by accepting a Russian plan to put its chemical arsenal under international control and then have them destroyed.

Syria has been gripped by deadly unrest since 2011. According to reports, the Western powers and their regional allies — especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey — are supporting the militants operating inside Syria.

In a recent statement, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said the number of Syrian refugees, who have fled the country’s conflict, reached two million.

The UN refugee agency also said some 4.2 million people have also been displaced inside Syria since the beginning of the conflict in the Arab country.

Move UN out of US

Bolivian President Evo Morales has accused the United States of harboring terrorists and urged that UN headquarters be moved from New York.

 

moralas

Morales made the remarks in his speech to the 68th UN General Assembly on Wednesday, AFP reported.

“I would like you to be aware that the United States harbors terrorists and the corrupt,” said Morales, adding, “They take refuge here, and the United States does not help in the fight against corruption.”

The socialist president called for the United Nations to leave New York City because of US “blackmail” and bullying.

“No guaranteed visas, no guaranteed overflights. We feel threatened, bullied and blackmailed over visas,” he said, adding that the United States “has never ratified treaties related to human rights.”

“We must seriously think about changing the headquarters of the United Nations,” said Morales.

The Bolivian president also told the annual UN leaders’ summit that he did not feel safe in the US because of spying and security concerns.

“How can we be safe at a meeting of the United Nations here in New York? Some do not believe in imperialism and capitalism and feel totally unsafe,” Morales said.

The UN headquarters has been in New York since the global body’s creation in 1945.