flotilla of five Russian warships laden with hundreds of troops, which is headed toward Syria, is a show of force meant to deter Western armies from intervening in the war-torn nation, the London-based Sunday Times reported.
Previous reports cited Russian diplomats to the effect that the vessels were being put in place in order to evacuate thousands of Russians who still remain in Syria if the situation in the country called for it.
However, a Russian intelligence source was quoted on Sunday as saying that the presence of over 300 marines on the ships was meant as a deterrent to keep countries hostile to the Bashar Assad regime — a key ally of the Kremlin — from landing special forces in the country.
“Russia should be prepared for any developments, as it believes the situation in Syria might reach its peak before Easter,” a Russian diplomatic source was quoted as saying.
The ships are headed to the port of Tartus, where Russia has been operating a naval facility since signing an agreement with Bashar Assad’s father, Hafez, in 1971.
The Times quoted an Israeli source who said that it was conceivable that a Russian ground force would step in “to defend the Alawite corridor stretched between the Lebanese border in the south and the Turkish border in the north.”
There have also been increasing indications that Israel and the US are mulling a military move in Syria to secure the country’s sizable stockpile of chemical weapons, which decision-makers fear could be turned against Israel, as well as on Syrian rebels, should Assad come to the conclusion that his days are numbered.
In late December it was revealed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had held clandestine talks in Jordan regarding possible methods for destroying the weapons, including airstrikes or a ground assault, but that Amman was reluctant to put its weight behind such action.
This article is interesting mainly due to the conclusion:
I don’t often go out on the limb of religious doctrine, but you have to admit that in the aggregate, this all lends credence to Armageddon dogma, whether one subscribes to the Millennialist view, of if one merely accepts the Book of Revelation (there being a difference). If one recognizes neither, there’s still the dystopian science fiction atrociously-oppressive government scenario. Interpreting it as politics as usual would be, in my view, a form of desperate denial.
Whether the individual American, apprised of these facts, determines to become a full-blown prepper in response to it, or to set aside a revolver with one bullet in the chamber, the days of sitting on the sidelines are over, like it or not.
Whether the individual American, apprised of these facts, determines to become a full-blown prepper in response to it, or to set aside a revolver with one bullet in the chamber, the days of sitting on the sidelines are over, like it or not.
And below we see more bad news for Israel:
"Key Democrats working closely on the nomination process" told TheDaily Beast's Eli Lake that the president is expected to announce the Hagel selection Monday or Tuesday. These sources said Obama did not decide on Hagel until this week, after considering Ash Carter, the current deputy secretary of defense, and Michèle Flournoy, a former No. 3 at the Pentagon, for the job.
Sen. John Cornyn (R, TX) told Lake Friday, “Chuck Hagel’s opposition to Iranian sanctions and support for direct, unconditional talks with its leaders is both at odds with current U.S. policy and a threat to global security.
To make matters worse, he has called for direct negotiations with Hamas. The worst possible message we could send to our friend Israel and the rest of our allies in the Middle East is Chuck Hagel."
The nomination is going to encounter stiff opposition from Republicans, but some Democrats also oppose the move. "Many of the most right-wing GOP Senators have already categorically vowed that they will oppose the nomination," writes the Guardian, "claiming he's hostile to Israel, 'soft' on Iran and anti-military. Hagel's confirmation thus likely hinges on the willingness of Democrats to support it."
Some of the democrats who oppose the nomination, such as Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Eliot Engel, agree with Republicans that Hagel's views on Hamas and Iran are soft.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, Hagel made an objectionable statement when he served as president and CEO of the World USO from 1987 to 1990. Hagel reportedly "expressed intense opposition to the USO Haifa Center during a tumultuous 1989 meeting with Jewish leaders, according to multiple sources involved in the fight to keep the post open."
The Free Beacon quotes Marsha Halteman, director for military and law enforcement programs at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which led the battle to keep USO Haifa operational, who said: “He said to me, ‘Let the Jews pay for it.' He essentially told us that if we wanted to keep the USO [in Haifa] open—and when I say ‘we’, he meant ‘the Jews’—he said the Jews could pay for it,” said Halteman.
“I told him at the time that I found his comments to be anti-Semitic,” she said. “He was playing into that dual loyalty thing.”
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar