Fasten your seatbelts - It looks like the U.S. Strike will happen this weekend. The aftermath is what will make this whole scenario interesting from a prophetic perspective.
The 13 inspectors, led by Ake Sellstrom, brought forward their departure from 7am on Saturday to 4am, despite travel being considered dangerous around that time.
Their departure has opened a window for a possible US strike after President Barack Obama on Friday gave his clearest indication yet that a military intervention was imminent.
He said his administration was looking at the possibility of a "limited, narrow act", while stressing no final decision had been taken on whether to unleash military strikes against Bashar al-Assad's regime.
Meawhile, Syria said Saturday morning it was expecting a military attack "at any moment" after the last of the inspectors left Damascus.
A Syrian security official told AFP: "We are expecting an attack at any moment. We are ready to retaliate at any moment."
The experts are due to report straight back to United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon and detail their conclusions on whether a poison gas attack actually did take place on August 21, based on samples collected on site.
However, the results from testing of alleged chemical weapons in Syria could take up to two weeks.
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, yesterday dismissed any findings of the inspectors as essentially irrelevant because, he said, their mandate was restricted to determining only if chemical weapons had been used, not who launched the attack.
Syria is expecting a military strike “at any moment,” a security official said on Saturday, only hours after U.N. inspectors left the country after investigating the aftermath of suspected chemical weapons attacks said to be perpetrated by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
“We are expecting an attack at any moment. We are ready to retaliate at any moment,” an unnamed Syrian security official told AFP news agency.
The departure of the U.N. inspectors has given the United States an opportunity to carry out a military strike, after President Barack Obama on Friday indicated that military intervention was pending.
The U.S. president said that his administration was looking at the possibility of a “limited, narrow act,” while emphasizing that no final decision had yet been made on possible military strikes against the Syrian regime.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has declared ‘utter nonsense’ the idea that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its own people and called on the US to present its supposed evidence to the UN Security Council.
Putin has further called the Western tactic a ‘provocation.’
Washington has been basing its proposed strategy of an attack on Syria on the premise that President Bashar Assad’s government forces have used chemical agents, while Russia finds the accusations unacceptable and the idea of performing a military strike on the country even more so. Especially as it would constitute a violation of international law, if carried out without the approval of the UN Security Council.
Further to this, Putin told Obama that he should consider what the potential fallout from a military strike would be and to take into consideration the suffering of innocent civilians.
The Russian president has expressed certainty that the strategy for a military intervention in Syria is a contingency measure from outside and a direct response to the Syrian government’s recent combat successes, coupled with the rebels’ retreat from long-held positions.
But now there is concern that bombing other sites could accidentally release dangerous chemical weapons that the U.S. military didn't know were there because they've lost track of some of the suspected nerve agents.
Bombing stockpiles of chemical weapons - purposely or accidentally - would likely kill nearby civilians in an accidental nerve agent release, create a long-lasting environmental catastrophe or both, five experts told The Associated Press. That's because under ideal conditions - and conditions wouldn't be ideal in Syria - explosives would leave at least 20 to 30 percent of the poison in lethal form.
"If you drop a conventional munition on a storage facility containing unknown chemical agents - and we don't know exactly what is where in the Syrian arsenal - some of those agents will be neutralized and some will be spread," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a nonprofit that focuses on all types of weaponry. "You are not going to destroy all of them."
Take a look at the following paragraphs and consider Isaiah 17:
"It's a classic case of the cure being worse than the disease," Kimball said. He said some of the suspected storage sites are in or near major Syrian cities like Damascus, Homs and Hama. Those cities have a combined population of well over 2 million people.
There is one precedent for bombing a chemical weapons storehouse. In 1991, during the first Persian Gulf War, the U.S. bombed Bunker 13 in Al Muthanna, Iraq. Officials figured it contained 2,500 artillery rockets filled with sarin, the same nerve gas suspected in Syria. More than two decades later the site is so contaminated no one goes near it even now.
That bunker is a special problem for inspectors because "an entry into the bunker would expose personnel to explosive, chemical and physical hazards," says a 2012 report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which implements the international chemical weapons convention.
Pentagon planners are also worried about accidentally triggering a nerve agent attack by hitting weapons stores that have been moved by the government to new locations.
After Secretary of State John Kerry’s melodramatic speech on Friday, August 30, it is clear that it was intended to prepare Americans for an attack on Syria by U.S. forces, presumably missiles and excluding the use of troops. The navy would take the lead, but what Americans are likely unaware of is the fact that Russian-made surface-to-ship missiles could retaliate and, if U.S. aircraft are also involved, surface-to-air missiles would come into play.
President Obama has left himself with few options because he cannot go to the United Nations Security Council where any effort to condemn Syria or give its blessings to an attack would be vetoed by Russia. After members of Congress saw the British parliament vote against participation in an attack, they are not likely to want to cast votes authorizing one. There’s no coalition of nations supporting Obama though France has said it would be willing. Even the War Powers Act, as squishy as it is, assumes a response to an attack on the homeland.
This observer thinks Obama will launch an attack on Syria and it might well come on Sunday. I also think that a Syrian attack on Israel in retaliation will get little U.S. support because nothing Obama has said (his word is dirt) or done demonstrates any fondness for Israel.
A President who can turn his back on a longtime ally like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak is not likely to feel any concern about Bibi Netanyahu’s little nation. Israel, however, is the only ally in the region with the capability of attacking Iran and damaging its nuclear capabilities.
If a Syrian missile should hit one of our ships, the U.S. will be “all in” whether we want to be or not. Our “allies” in Syria would be a variety of terrorist groups such as al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Conducting a war in such a manner is idiotic, but Obama does not want to go to the up-coming G-20 meeting in Europe looking like a wimp who will not back up his earlier warnings to Assad and will do nothing given the use of poison gas. The “message” he is sending will be for Iran, not Syria.
Iran has been at war with America since 1979 when American diplomats were seized and held hostage. We are the “great Satan” and Israel is the “little Satan.” As Iran moves closer to acquiring nuclear capabilities, its leaders feel emboldened.
That’s how big wars begin.
The key to figuring out who is really behind the push for war is to look at who will benefit from that war. If a full-blown war erupts between the United States and Syria, it will not be good for the United States, it will not be good for Israel, it will not be good for Syria, it will not be good for Iran and it will not be good for Hezbollah. The party that stands to benefit the most is Saudi Arabia, and they won't even be doing any of the fighting.
They have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict in Syria, but so far they have not been successful in their attempts to overthrow the Assad regime. Now the Saudis are trying to play their trump card - the U.S. military. If the Saudis are successful, they will get to pit the two greatest long-term strategic enemies of Sunni Islam against each other - the U.S. and Israel on one side and Shia Islam on the other. In such a scenario, the more damage that both sides do to each other the happier the Sunnis will be.
For the United States, there really is no good outcome in Syria.
If we attack and Assad stays in power, that is a bad outcome for the United States.
If we help overthrow the Assad regime, the rebels take control. But they would be even worse than Assad. They have pledged loyalty
to al-Qaeda, and they are rabidly anti-American, rabidly anti-Israel and rabidly anti-western.
So why in the world should the United States get involved?
This war would not be good for Israel either. I have seen a number of supposedly pro-Israel websites out there getting very excited about the prospect of war with Syria, but that is a huge mistake.
Syria has already threatened to attack Israeli cities if the U.S. attacks Syria. If Syrian missiles start landing in the heart of Tel Aviv, Israel willrespond.
And if any of those missiles have unconventional warheads, Israel will respond by absolutely destroying Damascus.
And of course a missile exchange between Syria and Israel will almost certainly draw Hezbollah into the conflict. And right now Hezbollah has
70,000 rockets aimed at Israel.
If Hezbollah starts launching those rockets, thousands upon thousands of innocent Jewish citizens will be killed.
And below another very strange, disconcerting story which reveals the times in which we are living:
[You can't make stuff like this up]
If your political goal is to murder as many of the unborn as is humanly possible, no one should be surprised that you’re constantly taking the rhetoric to new depths.
Today’s sick twisting of religion comes to us from a pro-abortion rally in Iowa. There, Des Moines activist Midge Slater delivered one of the creepiest prayers you’re ever going to hear.
In attendance were Iowa Democrat gubernatorial candidates Jack Hatch and Tyler Olson. We can only presume that their grasp on religion is tenuous at best, since they apparently support praying for things like this:
"We give thanks, or Lord, for the doctors, both current and future, who provide quality abortion care."
“We pray for increased financial support for low-income women to access contraception, abortion and childcare.”
“Today, we pray for women in developing nations, that they may know the power of self-determination. May they have access toemployment, education, birth control and abortion.”
Just ...wow. Obviously, we get that the left loves to mock the faithful and warp Christian beliefs into a derisive weapon, but this is pretty vile stuff. The fact that two major Democrat candidates were willing to stand there, fold their hands, and bow their heads speaks volumes about how low they’re willing to sink.
Video of the complete “prayer” appears below.
