■ Any possibility of British involvement in a military campaign in Syria has been effectively ruled out after British lawmakers voted down the prospect in parliament, costing the US the nation’s closest ally in a potential strike. By a 285 to 272 margin British MPs rejected the government’s motion to support in principle military action against Syria. A second vote was due to be held on committing to action following the report by United Nations weapons inspectors, who are currently investigating claims that President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons on civilians.

Paul Craig Roberts: UPDATE AUGUST 29 ● The British Parliament has rejected British military intervention in Syria. The US puppet, Cameron, who serves as Prime Minister was forced to admit that he had no evidence that Assad had used chemical weapons, and Parliament said, no evidence, no war. It is unlikely the French will go along without the British, so this leaves Obama all alone with Israel. If Washington goes ahead with the strike, Obama will be branded with the War Criminal moniker. The decisive action by Parliament shames the cowardly US Congress.

Russia is sending an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the Mediterranean as Western powers prepare for possible strikes against Syria. ● The news comes as Britain deployed six RAF Typhoon jets to its Akrotiri base in Cyprus in a move to protect British interests as tensions grow over Syria. Russia, who has stood staunchly behind the Syrian regime during its two-year civil war, has warned Western powers over strikes against Bashar al-Assad's forces for the use of chemical weapons. Russia's Interfax news agency quoted a source in the armed forces' general staff as saying the warships would arrive in the coming days because of the "well-known situation" - a clear reference to the conflict in Syria. The navy later denied the deployment was linked to events in Syria and said it was part of a long-planned rotation of its ships in the Mediterranean.

Events Are Moving Quickly In Syria … Here’s What You Need to Know
Tony Cartalucci: CONFIRMED: US Claims Against Syria - There is no Evidence

Russia says calls for a strike on Syria are an “undisguised challenge” to the United Nations Charter and international law. ● The Russian Foreign Ministry quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov as saying, “Declared plans by some states to inflict a military strike on Syria are an undisguised challenge to the key provisions of the UN Charter and other norms of international law.” Gatilov made the comments during a meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at The Hague on Wednesday.

Syria: Any military attack on Syria is violation of UN Charter ● Syria's Permanent Representative to the UN, Bashar al-Jaafari, stressed that any military attack on Syria would constitute a violation of the UN Charter and an attack on the UN investigation mission, pointing out that Syria asked the UN Secretary-General to investigate into three new sites where the armed terrorist groups used chemical weapons against the Syrian Arab Army. At a press conference in New York, al-Jaafari said that the tripartite meeting of Britain, France and the United States at the Security Council is illegal and it is not consistent with the mission of preserving the international peace and security.

Thomas Gaist & Alex Lantier: US-NATO campaign to justify Syria war disintegrates as attack looms Washington’s campaign to justify war against Syria is disintegrating, as it becomes ever clearer that the war is illegal, and that Washington has no evidence to back up charges that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime used chemical weapons in Ghouta. Despite press reports of an imminent US-NATO attack, US and British officials suggested yesterday that they might delay launching the war.

LA Times: Syria resolution dies at U.N., and British lawmakers balk - The moves are a setback for the U.S. bid to strike Syria militarily for its alleged chemical weapons use. British lawmakers refuse to approve Syria strike, demand Cameron wait for UN report. ● The Obama administration's move to punish Syria's government for allegedly using chemical weapons in a deadly attack last week appeared to suffer a setback Wednesday when the U.S. failed to get United Nations approval for use of force and British support was thrown into question. The collapse of diplomatic efforts aimed at securing a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Syria was expected. The British impediment was not.

Hans-C von Sponeck (Former UN Assistant Secretary General & UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, 28 August 2013) ■ [The] US Navy and other NATO ships are assembling in the Eastern Mediterranean. “We are ready to strike” are the words from Chuck Hagel, the US Secretary of Defence. A morally, financially and politically exhausted America prefers the rockets from the sea to boots on the ground. The decision to go ahead, as with the Iraq war in 2003, rests with the Commander-in-Chief, US President Obama, and his minions in London and Paris, not with the President of the UN Security Council. The UN weapons inspectors, deployed to Syria to get the facts, are told by Washington, as their predecessors were in Iraq in 2003, “Do not waste your time. You are too late to make a difference”. Once again, a pre-meditated act of aggression is about to take place with no regard to law and the mandate of the UN Security Council. A sign on the doors of the UN Security Council might as well read: “Until further notice out of order!” ■ The ramifications of military action against Syria rather than multilateral negotiations are far-reaching. The price will be paid first and foremost by the Syrian people. They are forced to join the many others before them who have become victims of hegemonial double standards. Confrontation will intensify well beyond the borders of the Middle East. Impunity will not survive. People worldwide are disgusted and angry. One thing is certain: they will show it.

Tony Cartalucci: Defeated NATO Dangerously Desperate in Syria ● Did the West Gas Thousands to Rescue Failed Syrian War? As far back as 2007, it was a documented fact that the West, including the United States and its allies Saudi Arabia and Israel, conspired to use terrorists drawn from the ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda in an attempt to overthrow the governments of Iran and Syria. Starting in 2011, this conspiracy was catapulted into all out war - albeit behind the tenuous smokescreen of "pro-democracy activists" and the so-called "Free Syrian Army" fighting for "freedom" within and along Syria's borders.

Phil Greaves: Syria: Obama’s Pretext for War? The “Rebels” are in Possession of Chemical Weapons ● It seems many have forgotten the last two and a half years of western sabre-rattling and covert military aggression against the Syrian state. It is worth reiterating that without the vast amount of military, financial, and diplomatic largesse the west and their regional clients have thrown at the “revolutionary rebels” in Syria – who have now beyond doubt been exposed as sectarian extremists, lead and dominated by Al Qaeda ideologues – the violent insurgency in Syria would have been defeated long ago by the Syrian army. These extremist-dominated “rebels” were armed and funded by Syria’s enemies – with the tacit approval and coordination of the west – from an early stage in the supposed “Syrian uprising” (read: local protests), to wage a sectarian insurgency upon the Syrian state and its security apparatus on behalf of the US and its various allies. ● “Rebels” in Possession of WMD - There is already a strong case being made that the “rebels” have deployed a form of sarin in a home-made shell fired on government forces in Khan al-Assal. Russia has provided the UN with evidence to this effect and Khan al-Assal was one of the sites on the list to be visited by the UN inspection team. Moreover, in May this year UN investigator Carla Del Ponte pointed the finger at the “rebels” for the use of chemical weapons, a fact that has been thoroughly whitewashed in both western media and from the duplicitous mouths of western diplomats – who still claim that “rebels” don’t have the capability to launch chemical weapons. Contrary to western diplomats hollow claims; in late May militant cells with links to Jabhat al Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham were found in both Iraq and Turkey with sarin and other chemical weapons materiel in their possession – another fact that received only light attention in western media, and has been virtually ignored in any western diplomats talking points.

Jason Ditz: Syria: Three Other Chemical Attacks by Rebels in Same Area ● The Syrian government is continuing to reject allegations that it launched the August 21 chemical weapons attack at the center of the so-called Jobar Incident, being used as an excuse for an impending US war on Syria. They say the rebels did it, and they’re putting forward evidence. The Syrian government has also presented some evidence to the United Nations of three other, smaller rebel chemical attacks in the general vicinity of the first strike, carried out on the 22nd, 24th and 25th, and targeting Syrian soldiers.

Russia Today: As we can see, Britain, as well as some other countries, is ready to go ahead. But where does the rest of Europe stand on this?
Nigel Farage: Split I think is the honest truth. But overall, I sense that the feeling of moral outrage will win and therefore a majority in Europe will decide that a military action is acceptable. I would just say this. Number one: can we please actually find out for certain that it was Assad that used those weapons. It’s probable, but please can we find out for certain. Moral outrage on its own is not a good enough reason to get involved in a war, but could have unforeseen consequences.

RT: At this point there is no proof or any identification that the Assad government carried out the chemical attack, right?
NF: What I’m saying that I do myself believe that it’s probable that they did but it’s not absolutely certain. This whole situation is very very complicated. And the so-called opposition are very split amongst themselves. And, probably, there are stronger hatreds between some of the opposition groups than there are against the Assad regime. We ought to be slightly cautious and we ought to absolutely make sure that it was Assad that used those weapons.

Alex also interviews Paul Craig Roberts on how U.S. officials are radicalizing Muslim groups in order to destabilize Russia and China.