Saturday, 7 September 2013

The European Union Times

Putin: Syria chemical attack is ‘rebels’ provocation in hope of intervention’

Posted: 06 Sep 2013 02:44 PM PDT

The alleged chemical weapons use in Syria is a provocation carried out by the rebels to attract a foreign-led strike, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the G20 summit.
There was no 50/50 split of opinion on the notion of a military strike against the Syrian President Bashar Assad, Putin stressed refuting earlier assumptions.
Only Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and France joined the US push for intervention, he said, adding that the UK Prime Minister’s position was not supported by his citizens.
Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa and Italy were among the major world’s economies clearly opposed to military intervention.
President Putin said the G20 nations spent the “entire” Thursday evening discussing the Syrian crisis, which was followed by Putin’s bilateral meeting with UK Prime Minister David Cameron that lasted till 3am Moscow time.
Russia “will help Syria” in the event of a military strike, Putin stressed as he responded to a reporter’s question at the summit.
“Will we help Syria? We will. And we are already helping, we send arms, we cooperate in the economics sphere, we hope to expand our cooperation in the humanitarian sphere, which includes sending humanitarian aid to support those people – the civilians – who have found themselves in a very dire situation in this country,” Putin said.
Putin said he sat down with US President Barack Obama on the sidelines of the G20 summit and talked for about half an hour in “a friendly atmosphere”.
Although the Russian and the American leaders maintained different positions regarding the Syrian issue, Putin said they “hear” and understand each other.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry will continue discussing the situation in Syria “in the short run,” Putin said.
Meanwhile, President Obama reiterated in his summit speech that the US government believes Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces were behind the chemical weapons use.
Obama pledged to make a good case on the issue for both the international community and the American people, saying many nations are already “comfortable” with the US’ opinion.
While admitting “a number of countries” at the summit stressed any military action plan should go through the UN Security Council, Obama said the US is in a different “camp” that questioned the UNSC effectiveness.
“Given the Security Council’s paralysis on this issue, if we are serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use, then an international response is required and that will not come through the Security Council action,” Obama said.
‘A dangerous precedent’
Both presidents stressed that the situation in Syria could create a dangerous precedent, but supported their points with contrasting arguments.
Obama stressed his “goal” and US “responsibility” was to maintain international norms on banning chemical weapon use, saying he wanted the enforcement to be “real.”
“When there is a breach this brazen of a norm this important, and the international community is paralyzed and frozen and doesn’t act, then that norm begins to unravel. And if that norm unravels, then other norms and prohibitions start unraveling, and that makes for a more dangerous world,” Obama said.
Putin, on the contrary, stressed that setting precedents of military action outside a UN Security Council resolution would mean the world’s smaller countries can no longer feel safe against the interests of the more powerful ones.
“Small countries in the modern world feel increasingly vulnerable and insecure. One starts getting the impression that a more powerful country can at any time and at its own discretion use force against them,” Putin said, citing the earlier statement made by the South African President.
Such practice would also make it much harder to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear program, Putin pointed out.
The meeting of the leaders of the major world economies – G20 – took place in St. Petersburgh, Russia. The participants of the summit focused on economic issues during round-table talks, including unemployment, the lack of global investment, and better international financial regulation. While on the sidelines the conversation shifted to the issue of the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria and the possibility of military action in the war-torn country.
Source

Russia pledges to help Syria in case of US war

Posted: 06 Sep 2013 02:30 PM PDT

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that his country will help the Syrian government in the event of a foreign military intervention.
Putin made the remarks on Friday at a news conference on the final day of the G20 summit in St. Petersburg.
The Russian president, however, did not elaborate on how Moscow would help Damascus.
It was not clear if Moscow planned to defend Syria and increase military assistance.
“Will we help Syria? We will. We are helping them now. We supply weapons, we cooperate in the economic sphere, and I hope we will cooperate more in the humanitarian sphere … to provide help for those people – civilians – who are in a difficult situation today,” Putin said.
He added that Washington and Moscow have not bridged their differences over the issue of possible military action in Syria, noting that any such attack is considered counter-productive and will only further destabilize the region.
Putin noted that allegations of chemical weapons use by the Syrian army were fabricated by foreign-backed militants in a bid to pave the way for an external military intervention.
US President Barack Obama used the meeting to push for his strike plan against Syria, despite strong opposition from China, Russia and many other countries.
Washington’s war rhetoric against Syria intensified after militants operating in the country claimed that the Syrian army had carried out a deadly chemical attack on the suburbs of Damascus on August 21, which killed hundreds of Syrians.
Damascus has repeatedly said the deadly attack was a false-flag operation carried out by the Takfiri groups in a bid to draw in foreign military intervention.
Source

Sen Graham Warns of Nuke Strike After Missing Warheads Report

Posted: 06 Sep 2013 02:13 PM PDT

Senator warns South Carolina is nuclear bomb target following Infowars report on black ops nuke transfer.
Senator Lindsey Graham has warned South Carolinians about the threat of a ‘terrorist nuclear attack’ on the same day our exclusive high level military intel revealed to us that nuclear warheads were being shipped to South Carolina from a major Texas airforce base under an ‘off the record’ black ops transfer.
Found in the CBS report entitled ‘Graham: Nukes In Hands Of Terrorists Could Result In Bomb Coming To Charleston Harbor’, the report details Graham’s warning that a lack of military action in Syria could result in a nuclear ‘bombing’ in Charleston, South Carolina — the very destination of the black ops nuclear transfer. The CBS report reads:
“He [Graham] says if there is no U.S. response [to Syria], Iran will not believe America’s resolve to block Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Graham also says those nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists could result in a bomb coming to Charleston Harbor.”
Graham is quite literally saying that if we do not launch a war with Syria, South Carolina may be nuked. And this ultimately reeks of yet another false flag being orchestrated by the United States government in order to send us into war, or at the very least a threat. Except this time, we’re talking about nuclear weapons. Amazingly, we were the first to get intel on this from our credible and extremely high level military source, who told us the following:
“Dyess is beginning to move out nuclear war heads today. I got a tap from DERMO earlier. He said it was the first time they have been even acknowledged since being put there in the 80′s. No signature was required for transfer… There was no directive. He said that Dyess Commander was on site to give authority to release. No one knew where they were going really, but the truck driver said to take them to South Carolina and another pick up will take them from there.”
This was sent to us before the Graham report came out warning about the nuclear attack on South Carolina, and coincides exactly with what Graham is saying. I am deeply concerned by these findings, and ask everyone to spread the word on this information immediately. Whether or not Graham is receiving intel from higher ups and believes in a legitimate terror attack on the horizon is unknown, but the reality here is that we have intelligence that has linked the unsigned transfer of nuclear warheads to this exact location.
Here is the video report we did on Tuesday regarding the missing nuclear warheads:

Now, we need answers.
The entire event is eerily similar to the unsigned nuke transfer that is now known as the ’2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident’, in which nuclear warheads went ‘missing’ from Minot Air Force Base and Barksdale Air Force Base back in August of 2007. The Minot event, however, was major national news and was even covered by the mainstream media extensively. Disturbingly, however, numerous individuals from the base began dying like flies and committing suicide after the event — and that’s even when it was in the mainstream.
Hopefully, this entire thing will amount to nothing and pass by without any form of ‘terror’ attack. Hopefully the attendee during the speech who told the US News publication that Graham’s speech was ‘absolute fear mongering’ is right. Unfortunately, the military source revealing this information is extremely accurate and is absolutely certain that a black ops nuclear transfer did indeed take place. And what’s more concerning is the fact that we have not heard from the source in quite some time.
We are risking our lives bringing you this report on the high level intel and connecting the dots here to what Lindsey is saying. You won’t hear about this in the mega media unless we force them to cover it, and it’s up to us to get this out there. For the first time, we may be able to utilize this high level intelligence to get answers and stop a potential attack.
Source

US will bomb Syria with long-range bombers, official says

Posted: 06 Sep 2013 02:01 PM PDT

US stealth B-2 bomber

An American national security official has reportedly outlined Washington’s war strategies for Syria, saying the US administration is preparing to use B-2 and B-52 bombers for a potential military strike against the country.
President Barack Obama’s national security team is preparing for a “significantly larger military attack than most had anticipated,” ABC News reported.
The unnamed official told ABC News the military action could do more damage to forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “in 48 hours than the Syrian rebels have done in nearly two years of civil war.”
“The air campaign which is expected to last at least two days will potentially include an aerial bombardment of missiles and long range bombs fired from B-2 and B-52 bombers flying from the United States,” according to the ABC News report by Jonathan Karl.

US B-52 bomber

“That in addition to a relentless assault of Tomahawk missiles fired from those four Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean. Those ships are loaded with nearly 200 missiles, plans call for firing the vast majority of them,” it added.
In an interview with CNN, a US official also characterized the long-range bombers as options.
“You can employ stand-off weapons from an aircraft, just as easily as from a ship or submarine. Aerial assets can be used from a distance,” he said.
Other reports also indicated that the US military was preparing to employ greater firepower to reach shifting military targets.
“The revised options under development include the use of Air Force bombers to supplement US destroyers in the Mediterranean,” The Wall Street Journal said.
The B-2 and B-52 bombers are equipped with joint air-to-surface missiles, designed to destroy both mobile and fixed targets. The missiles’ primary advantage is that they allow pilots to operate outside the lethal range of most hostile air defense systems.
Source

US farmers challenging Monsanto patent claims appeal to Supreme Court

Posted: 06 Sep 2013 01:45 PM PDT

Public advocacy groups and farmers have joined forces to challenge biotech giant Monsanto’s claims on genetically engineered seed patents, and to halt the company’s aggressive lawsuits against anyone whose fields are contaminated by their GMOs.
Seventy-three US farmers, seed companies, and public advocacy groups appealed their case against Monsanto Co. to the Supreme Court on Thursday.
The case seeks to challenge Monsanto’s aggressive claims on patents of genetically-engineered seeds and aims to bar the chemical and biotech company from suing anyone whose field is contaminated by such seeds.
Monsanto has in the past sued over 100 farmers for patent infringement and won cases against farmers who were found to have used seeds without paying the company royalties.
In June, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a previous ruling which states that the group of organic and otherwise non-GMO farmers and other plaintiffs do not have standing to prohibit Monsanto from suing them should the company’s genetic traits end up on their holdings “because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not ‘take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower’s land).’”
But the company’s assurances did not assuage the plaintiffs’ fear of future alleged patent infringement.
“While the Court of Appeals correctly found that the farmers and seed sellers had standing to challenge Monsanto’s invalid patents, it incorrectly found that statements made by Monsanto’s lawyers during the lawsuit mooted the case,” said Daniel Ravicher, Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) and lead counsel to the plaintiffs in the case, OSGATA et al v. Monsanto. “As a result, we have asked the Supreme Court to take the case and reinstate the right of the plaintiffs to seek full protection from Monsanto’s invalid transgenic seed patents.”
Ravicher says the company’s patents on genetically-modified seeds don’t meet the “usefulness” requirement of patent law. The plaintiffs’ filing cites evidence proving that the genetically-engineered seeds have negative economic and health effects, while the supposed benefits for food production and avoiding toxic pesticides are weak.
“As the leading arbiters of justice in the US, it behooves the Supreme Court to hear this important case to protect America’s farmers from abusive patent infringement lawsuits and invalidate Monsanto’s flawed patents as their products have been shown to be damaging to human health and the environment and failed to live up to the marketing hype,” Dave Murphy, a plaintiff in the case and founder of the advocacy group Food Democracy Now, said in a statement.
Monsanto issued a statement Thursday saying the plaintiffs were looking for controversy where it doesn’t exist.
“The District Court ruled and Court of Appeals affirmed that there was no controversy between the parties,” the company said in the statement. “There is neither a history of behavior nor a reasonable likelihood that Monsanto will pursue patent infringement against farmers who have no interest in using the company’s patented seed products.”
Source