Jump to content
The Education Forum

The British Daily Star = Western Troops are inside Syria


Steven Gaal
 Share

Recommended Posts

The British Daily Star = Western Troops are inside Syria

====================================================

Western Troops are inside Syria

Report: 200 British SAS Forces "Hunting for WMDs"

http://globalresearc...xt=va&aid=32502

by Tony Cartalucci 8/26/12

RELATED THREAD

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19286

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

LETS ALL GIVE THANKS THAT BRITISH SAS and al-Qaeda can work together.(see above post)

Senior CFR official: Free Syrian Army needs al-Qaeda support

August 28, 2012

http://www.blacklist.../38/38/Y/M.html

============================

“The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks,” writes Ed Husain, a Senior Fellow of Middle East Studies with the CFR, which is considered in political circles to be America’s most influential foreign-policy think tank. According to Husain, the participation of the group blamed for the 9/11 attacks has made a significant difference in the military effectiveness of the rebellion. He went on to write:

By

and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Assad regime’s superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.”

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The British Daily Star = Western Troops are inside Syria

====================================================

Western Troops are inside Syria

Report: 200 British SAS Forces "Hunting for WMDs"

http://globalresearc...xt=va&aid=32502

by Tony Cartalucci 8/26/12

RELATED THREAD

http://educationforu...showtopic=19286

The Star is tabloid not known for the accuracy of its reporting that said I would not be surprised if the SAS were in Syria trying to secure bioweapons nor do I think any reasonable person would object to this IF true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LETS ALL GIVE THANKS THAT BRITISH SAS and al-Qaeda can work together.(see above post)

Senior CFR official: Free Syrian Army needs al-Qaeda support

August 28, 2012

http://www.blacklist.../38/38/Y/M.html

============================

“The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks,” writes Ed Husain, a Senior Fellow of Middle East Studies with the CFR, which is considered in political circles to be America’s most influential foreign-policy think tank. According to Husain, the participation of the group blamed for the 9/11 attacks has made a significant difference in the military effectiveness of the rebellion. He went on to write:

By

and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Assad regime’s superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.”

Nothing indicating they work together. During WWII the west helped the USSR which does not mean they approved the way Stalin ran the Soviet Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US-Saudi Sponsored Al Qaeda Killers in Syria

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-saudi-sponsored-al-qaeda-killers-in-syria/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Al Qaeda Blitzkrieg: West's Terror Battalions Eye Russia Next

Groundwork for Western support of Al Qaeda terrorists in Russia's Caucasus region. With the US openly supporting, arming , and literally " cheering" for Al Qaeda in Syria, it should be no surprise that their support for Al Qaeda's ...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-blitzkrieg-wests-terror-battalions-eye-russia-next/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

British Government Sends Money to Al Qaeda "Rebels" on the UN-State Department List of Terrorist ...

US-UK listed terror organization Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) fighters and commanders are clearly amongst militants underwritten by latest UK funding. In direct violation of both American and British anti-terrorism legislation, particularly provisions regarding providing material support for listed ...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/mi6-sas-cia-western-troops-in-syria/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

UN Designates "Free Syrian Army" Affiliates as Al Qaeda

US, UK, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey stand accused of state sponsorship of terrorism. UN failure to enforce its own resolutions will resign their legitimacy, necessitate their expedient removal and replacement with multipolar system. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group ...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/un-designates-free-syrian-army-affiliates-as-al-qaeda/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Libyan Terrorists Are Invading Syria

US, British, NATO, and GCC are arming and funding the foreign invasion of Syria - Western media providing increasingly tenuous "revolutionary" cover. Reuters today provides us with a spectacularly contradictory headline in their report, " Libyan fighters join Syrian ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow you truly are a SPAMbot in your haste you posted the wrong link for "British Government Sends Money to Al Qaeda "Rebels" on the UN-State Department List of Terrorist .." yes elements of AQ are mixed up with the FSA and other Syrian rebels. Get back to us with evidence the US or its allies are directly funding or arming LIFG or other AQ groups.

In any case none of this has anyting to do with the presence (or not) of UK special forces in Syria. Once again you are scrambling a topic.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing indicating they (SAS al-Qaeda) work together. During WWII the west helped the USSR which does not mean they approved the way Stalin ran the Soviet Union. // END COLBY

Get back to us with evidence the US or its allies are directly funding or arming LIFG or other AQ groups. // end COLBY

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

past is prologue,dummy.

SAS 'Smash' squads on the ground in Libya to mark targets for coalition jets

http://www.dailymail...ition-jets.html

=================================

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/248134.html

DEBKAfile said the British incursion was aimed at securing the start of western intervention in Syria to topple President Bashar Al Assad.

Earlier this year, the Israeli website also revealed that British troops and intelligence agents were operating in the Syrian city of Homs, assisting Syria’s armed rebels in their bloody battle against civilians and the Syrian army.

Moreover, earlier this month, The Daily Star reported that Britain’s Special Air Service (SAS) and MI6 agents were setting up camps in Syria to assist armed rebels if a civil war would break out in the country.

Disingenuous posting is what you are doing ,since this is my forth time I quoted sources that the SAUDI clan are the

covert back-channel. Direct ?? Who does direct covert funding ?? GET BACK TO US WHEN YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT TRICK.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF as

Ed Husain, a Senior Fellow of Middle East Studies with the CFR, which is considered in political circles to be America’s most influential foreign-policy think tank.

SAYS

By

and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Assad regime’s superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.”

THEN for victory SAS WILL RIDE THIS al-Qaeda horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF as

Ed Husain, a Senior Fellow of Middle East Studies with the CFR, which is considered in political circles to be America’s most influential foreign-policy think tank.

SAYS

By

and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Assad regime’s superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.”

THEN for victory SAS WILL RIDE THIS al-Qaeda horse.

"Feeling abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Assad regime’s superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.”

Thus if they no longer felt 'abandoned by the West' they would no longer 'need' AQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

intelligence officials have recently told the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times that the truth is that the US doesn’t know who is getting the money and weapons.

--------------- REALLY DONT CARE wink !

US Sends More Spies to Help Organize, Train Syria’s Rebels

The President has chosen to contribute to an opposition filled with al-Qaeda extremists

by John Glaser, September 06, 2012

This President Obama is sending more spies and diplomats to Turkey’s border with Syria to train more of Syria’s rebel forces and increase the supposed vetting process put in place to weed out al-Qaeda militants, who now make up a large part of the opposition fighters.

For months the CIA has had people there on the ground funneling weapons from third party allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They were there to keep the aid coming from the US and its allies from going to Islamic extremists looking to overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

But the process is made up of untrustworthy, third-party sources and intelligence officials have recently told the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times that the truth is that the US doesn’t know who is getting the money and weapons.

The Washington Post describes this ramped up US presence on the Turkish border as part of Obama’s plan “to bolster the rebels militarily without actually contributing weapons to the fight, and politically, to help them stave off internal power challenges by the well-organized and often better-funded hardline Islamic militants who have flowed into the country from Iraq and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region.”

But it isn’t accurate to say the US isn’t contributing weapons to the fight in Syria. Washington provides arms to the Gulf allies that are currently lending weapons through our CIA to the rebels, so it is an effective policy of arming the opposition fighters.

And on the second point, one would think that an expansive al-Qaeda presence fighting for regime change in Syria might dissuade the Obama administration from aiding any part of the opposition. But apparently that isn’t even enough to disrupt Washington’s plan to change the regime in Syria, in order to eliminate Iran’s main ally in the Middle East and to gain an even stronger foothold in the region.

The al-Qaead presence alone should be enough, but the Obama administration is also aiding a group of rebels that the United Nations has found have committed war crimes in the conflict.

If administration policy starts to be more successful and the Assad regime becomes destabilized enough to actually collapse, it doesn’t at all appear that there will be an appropriate alternative to rise to power – and one would that the current band of disparate rebel fighters, thugs, and al-Qaeda members wouldn’t be it.

The conflict in Syria has essentially become a convoluted proxy war, thanks most especially to US policy, that has the potential to carry on for the foreseeable future and has very dangerous potential to generate blowback and further terrorism against the US. (GOLLY GOLLY GOOD GOOD FOR MIC !!!!!!!!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US Sends More Spies to Help Organize, Train Syria’s Rebels

The President has chosen to contribute to an opposition filled with al-Qaeda extremists

by John Glaser, September 06, 2012

Who the fluke is John Glaser? His claims are inadequately documented

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the fluke is John Glaser? His claims are inadequately documented // end Colby

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

VERY GOOD BLOGGER !!!!!!!! John Glaser, Assistant Editor at Antiwar.com //Bio: John Glaser is an editorial assistant at The American Conservative

Recent US Drone Strike May Generate ‘A Hundred’ New al-Qaeda Recruits

September 07, 2012| News | John Glaser

From a CNN report on a US drone strike this week in Yemen that killed killed 13 civilians, including three women:

Residents are not denying the existence of al Qaeda elements in their region but say that misdirected strikes work in favor of the militant group, helping them recruit new operatives.

“I would not be surprised if a hundred tribesmen joined the lines of al Qaeda as a result of the latest drone mistake,” said Nasr Abdullah, an activist in the district of the attack. “This part of Yemen takes revenge very seriously.”

See here and here for more on how US drone strikes generate blowback and new al-Qaeda recruits. ((LINKS AT SITE)) ((http://antiwar.com/blog/ GOOGLE GLAZER))

#################################

Kingly Presidential Powers to Murder Anyone Are None of Your Business

September 06, 2012| News | John Glaser

Listen up, and get this straight. President Obama doesn’t answer to you or me or any American citizen or to the press, and if he doesn’t feel like explaining to you how he utilizes his kingly powers of executing anyone, anywhere on his immediate command, he won’t. And you just have to deal with it. Got that!?

Noah Shachtman at Danger Room points to a recent CNN interview with President Obama on his use of targeted killing by drone. Obama does two things only: (1) completely dodges the questions and (2) what he does actually say, are lies. Shachtman says it’s “baloney.”

((CNN VIDEO AT SITE))

Regarding the alleged criteria for targeted killings – the target has to be “authorized by our laws” for a threat that’s “not speculative,” etc. – Shachtman writes:

In both Yemen and Pakistan, the CIA is allowed to launch a strike based on the target’s “signature” — that is, whether he appears to look and act like a terrorist. As senior U.S. officials have repeatedly confirmed, intelligence analysts don’t even have to know the target’s name, let alone whether he’s planning to attack the U.S. In some cases, merely being a military-aged male at the wrong place at the wrong time is enough to justify your death.

“What I found most striking was his claim that legitimate targets are a ‘threat that is serious and not speculative,’ and engaged in ‘some operational plot against the United States,’ That is simply not true,” emails the Council on Foreign Relations’ Micah Zenko, who has tracked the drone war as closely as any outside analyst. “The claim that the 3,000+ people killed in roughly 375 nonbattlefield targeted killings were all engaged in actual operational plots against the U.S. defies any understanding of the scope of what America has been doing for the past ten years.”

Zenko later describes Obama’s supposed inability to speak on such classified matters as “total BS.” According to law, the President can declassify anything. And anyways, it could not be any clearer that Obama avoids answering these questions, not because it would harm “national security,” but because it would harm his own political career if he simply admitted that he took it upon himself to kill anyone, even Americans, on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing, without charges or trial by jury.

Not only are we not allowed to know who Obama is targeting for assassination by drone, we can’t even know who they’ve killed after the fact. As the Washington Post reported late last year, “the identities” of almost all drone victims “remain classified, as does the existence of the drone program itself.” And, “Because the names of the dead and the threat they were believed to pose are secret, it is impossible for anyone without access to U.S. intelligence to assess whether the deaths were justified.”

If Obama doesn’t have to tell us who he kills, he doesn’t have to face public scrutiny for how many were innocent. “When you have warfare with no political costs at all, it becomes much too easy to resort to violence,” as Clive Stafford Smith put it. An ignorant public is absolutely essential to the functioning of Obama’s foreign policy. The normalization of covert war, gratuitous secrecy, and tyrannical executive authority is blithely accepted by most of the public, which is the final ingredient that will prevent this president and any of his administration from ever facing legal scrutiny for their actions.

Comments (8)

##########################################################

Bahrain Documentary Shows the Brutality Supported by the US

September 06, 2012| News | John Glaser

Yesterday, in our news section, we provided a link to Glenn Greenwald’s article on CNN International’s refusal to air a documentary it commissioned uncovering the brutal crackdown by the US-backed dictatorship in Bahrain. Greenwald linked to the documentary, now available on YouTube, but many people still have not seen it. It does a brilliant job of illustrating the abuses the people have suffered at the hands of the regime.

It’s useful to remind yourself while watching this that Washington wholeheartedly supports this kind of repression. The US has sent more than $60 million in direct aid to Bahrain since 2008, and has another $11 million scheduled for 2013. In recent years, the US has sent Bahrain riot gear, tanks, helicopter gunships, and over a million pounds of ammunition – all of which have been integral to the ruthless crackdown imposed on reform-minded Bahrainis. After international condemnation, the Obama administration was forced to suspend a new $53 million package of military equipment, making it conditional on reform. And when Bahraini opposition groups and a U.N. statement acknowledged that no substantive move towards reform had been made, Obama began secretly pushing through the arms package, circumventing congressional rules and failing to inform the public.

The protests in Bahrain are not just protests against that particular regime; they are de facto protests against this reprehensibly US foreign policy, which bribes dictatorships in order to maintain control of the Middle East. As a 2004 Defense Department report put it, when referring to the Gulf Arab states, “Without the US these regimes could not survive.”

Comments (4)

##################################################

Wasteful Warheads Worth More Than Their Weight in Gold

September 05, 2012| News | John Glaser

According to Jeffrey Lewis at Foreign Policy, “the United States is building a nuclear bomb that costs more than its weight in solid gold.”

There is now a furious debate about whether the United States needs to modernize the B61, which dates to Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration, making it the oldest design left in the stockpile. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, recently revealed that the cost of the program to extend the bomb’s life has more than doubled: Modernizing the approximately 400 B61 gravity bombs in the stockpile will cost $10 billion. That is billions with a “B.” In case you were wondering, it would be less expensive to build solid-gold replicas of each of the 700-pound B61s, even at near-record gold prices.

So even though Washington has a nuclear arsenal that can obliterate much of the world’s population, somehow it’s necessary to “modernize” the warheads at a cost of $10 billion? This at a time when there is a virtual bipartisan consensus that defense budgets can’t be cut in order address deficit issues. “In 2010,” Lewis continues, “the Government Accountability Office took a look at all these changes and noted, quite sensibly, that this looked like the sort of program that might fall behind schedule and go over budget. The project then fell behind schedule and went over budget.”

Normal people might look at this and ask “whether the B61 is worth it.” For the money? No, not worth it. For the security? Absolutely not. For politicians? Yeah, they need it.

Right now, the United States forward-deploys 180 B61s at air bases in five NATO countries. They are “tactical” nuclear weapons, deployed to help stop a Soviet thrust into Western Europe. (That there is no Soviet Union anymore is a mere detail.) If the life-extension program slips, there may be a gap during which the United States does not have B61s in Europe. Do we really need them? Senior military and civilian officials have repeatedly stated, in private and public, that the B61 has no military utility. One senior official with European Command told a task force created by the defense secretary, “We pay a king’s ransom for these things and … they have no military value.” There is no military mission for these weapons; they exist largely to fulfill political needs.

Comments (7)

###################################################

CIA Declassifies ‘Oops’ Review on Iraq WMDs

September 05, 2012| News | John Glaser

In June, the CIA declassified a heavily redacted 2006 review of the intelligence failure on Iraq’s WMD in the lead up to the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion. Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, writing in Foreign Policy describes it as a mea culpa:

This remarkable CIA mea culpa, just declassified this summer and published here for the first time, describes the U.S. intelligence failure on Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction as the consequence of “analytic liabilities” and predispositions that kept analysts from seeing the issue “through an Iraqi prism.”

In reality, the document is much less remarkable when you consider how little a role the intelligence community’s findings played in the decision to invade Iraq. Much is made of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD and how wrong it was, but as Paul Pillar – who was head of the CIA’s Mid East division during the march to war – has written, “the campaign to sell the war [emphasis in original] moved into high gear before the estimate was ever written.” And there is little in the document that speaks to the pressure the Bush administration heaped on the intelligence community to generate findings that would help justify the war, as opposed to ones that would get closer to the truth. Pillar also writes, “The interaction between Bush administration policymakers and the intelligence community about Iraqi weapons programs was entirely one of the administration’s pressing the community for juicier tidbits that would make more of an impression on the public when talking about Iraqi weapons programs.”

As Blanton notes, though, the document does acknowledge confirmation bias: ”Analysts tended to focus on what was most important to us — the hunt for WMD — and less on what would be most important for a paranoid dictatorship to protect. Viewed through an Iraqi prism, their reputation, their security, their overall technological capabilities, and their status needed to be preserved.” This is a reminder of how analogous the case of Iraq is to Iran right now. The case for war against Iran rests on a number of falsehoods, all of which flow from an inability to recognize the Iranian government’s central aim of self-preservation – that is, “their reputation, their security, their overall technological capabilities, and their status,” none of which they seem willing to give up by building nuclear weapons (thereby losing what international support and credibility they have) and adopting an offensive posture (which would immediately invite war and possibly regime change).

Blanton writes that “the CIA took almost six years to release the report,” from the date of the declassification request, and asks, “How many years to learn the lessons?”

Comments (4)

###################################################

Bribery: An American Standard

September 04, 2012| News | John Glaser

Since the Egyptian revolution, Washington has been scrambling for leverage in Cairo. Losing longtime US puppet Hosni Mubarak was obviously a major blow to US imperialists who aim to have the policies of Arab states reflect American demands as opposed to the will of the people.

With the Islamist victory in Egypt’s slogging democracy, the leading Arab country wrested back some measure of independence. But Washington has one more trick up its sleeve: bribery. The Wall Street Journal:

American diplomats are closing in on an agreement to dole out $1 billion in debt relief to Egypt, part of a gilded charm offensive that Washington hopes will help shore up the country’s economy and prevent its new Islamist leadership from drifting beyond America’s foreign-policy orbit.

Ah, yes – we’re “charming” them. As Esam Al-Amin described current US policy towards Egypt: “the strategy is to give the Islamic rising powers a chance to govern as long as they agree to: keep the Americans in, the Chinese and Russians out, the Iranians down, and the Israelis safe.” If they don’t agree, America could rely on the use of force. But this could backfire if used too soon, the thinking goes. So one thing America can do to – ahem, nudge them in the right direction, is to throw money at them. Make them owe us.

Consider this ongoing subsidization of the Egyptian government a counter-measure to the Arab Spring. Jacob Hornberger:

Morsi’s election came under military rule, which obviously skews the vote, given that people have to factor in the possibility that the military was monitoring how they voted. Moreover, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that Morsi is simply assuming the same dictatorial powers exercised by military dictator Hosni Mubarak, leaving the military machine in its dominant and privileged position in Egyptian society and simply putting military officers who will be loyal to Morsi in charge. Morsi has also abrogated to himself legislative powers, especially since the military dissolved the legislature just before the elections.

It’s nothing less than what a Don Corleone or Tony Soprano might do to muscle themselves a more profitable outcome and generate leverage – backed up, of course, with an offer Egypt can’t refuse from the world’s leading merchant of military violence.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

British Special Forces In Syria?

28.06.2012

As Syria spirals into civil war, fresh rumours of covert British military support of rebel forces have surfaced. Since late last year there have been rumours of UKSF involvement in supporting the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in their efforts to topple the Syrian regime(1). Such support was rumoured to include training of rebel forces in bases set up outside of Syria. DEBKAfile, an Israeli news website, has now reported that British Special Forces have pushed into Syria via Turkey(2) and have begun covert operations there.

DEBKAfile claims that the British incursion is part of a wider effort which includes the deployment of American, French and Turkish special operations forces into Syria. One of the aims of such covert intervention is to secure safe havens within Syria for civilian refuges fleeing the fighting, DEBKAfile reports. DEBKAfile's sources also suggest that UKSF have provided assistance to the Free Syrian Army (FSA), including the provision of communications equipment. It was also claimed that UKSF provided close protection for Burham Ghalioun of the Syrian National Council, a rebel opposition leader, as he briefly set foot inside Syria after crossing the border with Lebanon(3).

DEBKAfile speculates that a similar pattern is unfolding in Syria as to what occurred in Libya last year : British special forces setting up inside the country and assisting indigenous rebel forces with communications, logistics and tactical planning. A major missing element, however, is that of air power. During the campaign in Libya, UKSF forces coordinated NATO close air support operations with rebel ground movements - arguably the deciding factor in the rebel victory. As of yet there seems to be little political appetite by Western powers for such overt intervention in Syria, especially in light of a likely strong opposition to such a move from Russia and Iran.

more info, further reading:

1: British Special Forces Training Syrian Rebels?

(eliteukforces.info report)

2: British forces in Syria, Assad presidential compound said under attack

(DEBKAfile)

3: Obama rebuffs Erdogan's appeal to lead Turkey in Syria attack

(DEBKAfile)

http://www.eliteukfo...orces-syria.php

##############################################

Al-Qaeda, US, and Syrian Crisis

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/09/09/260661/alqaeda-us-and-syrian-crisis/

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...