The Rebels have lost absolutely all credibility if this come out as true. The ends do not justify the means.

Assuming for the moment that Assad was really behind the attack, as opposed to the rebels or even a faction of the army without being ordered to from high level, why is this the tipping point to going into Syria?
Why is it okay for Assad to kill Syrians by other methods but not by chemical weapons (or nuclear weapons I guess)?
If Syrians are worth defending from being killed by chemical weapons why are they not worth protecting from conventional weapons?

THE former girlfriend of Kim Jong-un has been executed by firing squad in a dramatic porn scandal as the North Korean despot's totalitarian regime continues its brutal grip.

Claims are being made by the South China Morning Post that singer Hyon Song-wol was gunned down in front of her family just three days after being arrested for breaching North Korean pornography laws, South Korea's largest daily newspaper reported.

Hyon, who first met Kim about a decade ago, was among a dozen well-known performers executed with machineguns.

North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un and, right, Hyun Song-wol sings during a concert in Pyongyang. Picture: Supplied
North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un and, right, Hyun Song-wol sings during a concert in Pyongyang. Picture: Supplied Source: Supplied
The dead - members of the Unhasu Orchestra and the Wangjaesan Light Music Band - were accused of filming themselves having sex and selling the tapes.

Seoul-based Chosun Ilbo newspaper also revealed some allegedly had Bibles in their possession, although they were all treated as political dissidents.

Hyon - famous for propaganda songs including Footsteps of Soldiers, I Love Pyongyang and We are Troops of the Party - was a singer with the country's popular Pochonbo Electronic Ensemble.

EXCELLENT HORSE LIKE LADY

"They were executed with machine guns while the key members of the Unhasu Orchestra, Wangjaesan Light Band and Moranbong Band as well as the families of the victims looked on," a source said.

The families of the executed have allegedly been sent to prison camps under the rogue country's guilt by association laws.

Kim and Hong dated until his despot dad Kim Jong-il ordered their relationship to end.

They were rumoured to be having an affair despite eventually marrying other people, with Kim's new wife Ri Sol-ju herself a former member of the Unhasu Orchestra.

"Kim Jong-un has been viciously eliminating anyone who he deems a challenge to his authority," a source told Chosun Ilbo, adding the executions "show that he is fixated on consolidating his leadership".

The horrors witnessed in Damascus last week are a painful reminder of the abuses that take place when the flow of information is shut down. Both the Assad regime and the anti-Assad forces have made Syria a hostile environment for journalists. As a result there is still no clarity about why this toxic chemical release happened.

Going to war is a very serious business with very serious repercussions, and must not be undertaken until the facts are in. Australia's federal election must not be used as a cover for taking our country into war.

The prospect of regime change in Damascus has long appealed to the US. For the Americans to be able to assert effective influence over Syria would serve US geopolitical interests in at least three ways. It would push back the last extended limb of Russian hard power and cement US victory in its long-term cold-war project to isolate Russian influence globally. It would strengthen Israel's hand by removing one of Hezbollah's main sources of support in Lebanon. And it would complete the encirclement of Iran, whose Shiite Islamist government US hawks have long been looking to overthrow.
Advertisement

The only thing holding the US back in its goal of regime change in Syria has been the difficulty in identifying a sufficiently strong and ''reliable'' partner in this endeavour. The Syrian opposition is kaleidoscopic. It includes extremist Sunni militant groups such as al-Nusra, which is affiliated to al-Qaeda, and has been reported to be in possession of sarin gas. As this civil war has progressed, it has increasingly become a Sunni-Shiite proxy war, which threatens to embroil the entire Middle East region, with all the major players aligning themselves with one side or another.

Meanwhile, Syria's traditional No. 1 foe Israel is ever at the ready with its own powerful arsenal of missiles.

In 2011, the Obama administration laid down its ''red line'' for intervention - any use of any chemical weapons. There is no doubt that there was a large-scale toxic chemical release in Damascus last week. And there is no denying the horror this has inflicted on innocents. It remains far from clear, however, who used it, and with what motivation. Was this an authorised deployment of chemical weapons by the Syrian government or something else? In whose strategic interest would such an attack be? The Syrian government, which has gained the upper hand in the conflict in recent months, stands to gain nothing by the use of chemical weapons.

Internal documents from the US intelligence contractor Stratfor, which were released by WikiLeaks, reveal that US-led military intervention in Syria has been on the US military agenda since at least December 2011. The document describes how special operations forces were ''already on the ground'' at that time, and were focused on ''training opposition forces''. The document states: ''They [the Pentagon] don't believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Gaddafi move against Benghazi.''

In May 2012, the English-speaking media fell over themselves to attribute the Houla massacre to the Assad government. WikiLeaks cautioned at that time that the reality might be more complex. We were right. The UN commission of inquiry into the massacre was inconclusive. It also showed that there had been significant misreporting in the Western press, and that semi-autonomous militias were likely responsible for many of the deaths.

In an eerie reminder of the lead-up to the disastrous Iraq war, the US government is once again pre-empting the findings of the UN fact-finding mission, declaring that its mind is already made up and that the Assad government is responsible. And the Australian Labor government, personified by the pro-Washington Bob Carr, is dutifully toeing the line, saying a UN mandate is not necessary for legitimate intervention.

But look again. The humanitarian case is weak. Despite the misleading euphemistic rhetoric of the US ''striking across the bow'', it is a dead certainty that missile strikes will kill innocent civilians. It is no less certain that any kind of intervention will intensify the conflict and create even greater refugee flows. More than 1.2 million refugees have already fled the conflict and these migrations are destabilising the whole region.

We must remember the lessons of Iraq - when Australia was led into war by the US/British war machine masquerading its propaganda as ''intelligence''. Then, as now, we were fed on a diet of fear mongering about chemical weapons. And then, as now, the war machine is pre-empting the fact-finding missions of the UN, rendering its job impossible.

What Australian interests are served by going along with a US-led intervention in Syria? The answer is none. The case for intervention has not been made.

Julian Assange is the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks and a candidate for the Senate.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/war-wont-serve-australias-cause-20130830-2swb2.html#ixzz2dV9uHa00

Hasnt Obama actually increased the amount of US military operations compared to Bush?

They've pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq so I doubt it.

This, but he has increased drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.

yeah, but that's drones rather than active military engagement with troops on the ground. ..

They've pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq so I doubt it.

It's still armed operations, just done by the CIA.

I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU BUT YOU HAVE TO ARGUE FINE POINTS ALL THE TIME

I totally missed the "this" and took it as a disagreement lol

Apparently the US defence spending is significantly down since Bush but due to the CIA budget doubling since 2005 the overall budget is significantly higher.

So basically the Democrats have just shifted their war expense rather than reduced it.

Given that the beginning of that CIA blow-out was the 2005-2009 term of Bush's presidency that would be mighty foolhardy of you to point the finger squarely at the Democrats.

I am not. All I am saying is that the Democrats' "Bush is a war monger" rhetoric is just that. They are no different.

Cold War is still better than active combat.

I totally missed the "this" and took it as a disagreement lol

Apparently the US defence spending is significantly down since Bush but due to the CIA budget doubling since 2005 the overall budget is significantly higher.