Update, 21 September : 12 minute video of interview now included.
Video-link and transcript inside: Finally the Australian media has shown some professionalism and has asked questions of the 'other side', Syria, instead of simply making it up. And it was Tony Jones of the ABC who courageously led the way on Lateline tonight. Assad's advisor, Dr Bouthaina Shaaban, does an admirable job of clarifying the problem and sorting out priorities. Mr Jones asks questions that reflect Western paranoia, but Shaaban is not diverted from her representation of the needs of the Syrian people. "...Targeting presidents in the Middle East does not aim at presidents. It aims at destroying our country, turning our identity, erasing our cultural heritage, destroying our institution. It is Syria that has been targeted, it is not President Assad. President Assad is standing with his army and people to fight for the unity and territorial integrity of his country and this is what we are doing here." This interview probably comes in the wake of the Russian interview with President Assad (republished here). Dare we hope that justice might prevail; that some sense of proportion might restore itself in the western world's to date unhealthy interest in 'regime' changes in the Middle East, each of which has been more of a humanitarian disaster than the last? Yes, we dare hope. Thank you Tony Jones.
Dr Bouthaina Shaaban denies that Russian forces could escalate the conflict in Syria. She also denies that President Assad's forces have been involved in crimes against humanity.
Transcript
TONY JONES, PRESENTER: We're joined now from Damascus by President Assad's key advisor, Dr Bouthaina Shaaban.
Dr Shaaban, thanks for being there.
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN, ADVISOR TO SYRIAN PRESIDENT: Thank you.
TONY JONES: Now can we start with this: the Australian Air Force has now joined the US-led coalition in air strikes against ISIS targets inside Syria, in eastern Syria. What's your message to the Australian Government about its involvement?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: My message to the Australian Government is that there should be a real intention to fighting terrorism that is not only against the Syrian people, but against the entire world and the real intention should come through a real coalition and cooperation with Russia, Iran, China, the Government of Syria and all countries and governments who truly are interested in fighting terrorism.
TONY JONES: Let me ask you this then: I mean, the Syrian Army is obviously also fighting ISIS. If the Australian Air Force is hitting ISIS targets in eastern Syria, doesn't that actually help your fight against ISIS?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: Actually, the Syrian Army and the Syrian people have been fighting ISIS for the last four years, but I don't think the coalition led by the United States until now has done any real job against ISIS. In President Obama's words, they wanted to contain or to limit the influence of ISIS, But not to eradicate, to get rid of ISIS for the benefit of Syria and the benefit of the region and the entire world.
TONY JONES: OK, President Assad himself has said in the past 24 hours he's got no objection to cooperating with the US and his allies, provided it's a genuine coalition against terrorism, as he calls it. What would cooperation look like? How could you imagine it happening?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: I could imagine the entire world taking a real stand against these extremist terrorist forces by at least supporting the implementation of Security Council resolution 2170, 2178 and 3199, which dictates on countries not to allow the arming, the financing and the facilitating of terrorists across borders - the three things that are being done for four years by Turkey and by Saudi Arabia with full-fledged support by the West.
TONY JONES: Now, how soon would you expect to see Russian jets joining this fight against ISIS and fighting in this rather contested and crowded sky over Syria?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: Well, the Syrian people would love any party in the world to join us in fighting ISIS, but in cooperation with the Syrian Government, and by the way, the report you broadcast, Tony, at the beginning of this program, you mentioned the regime about 10 times and you mentioned President Assad and you said that the Russians are coming to support President Assad. The Russians are coming to support the restoration of safety and security to the Syrian people. It is the Syrian people who are suffering, and by the way, there is no civil war in Syria. Over 80 per cent of the Syrian people live in the region which is still controlled by the Syrian Government and the Syrian Army and there is no religious or any other conflict among the Syrian people. There's only one conflict between the Syrian people and the extremist terrorist forces that are being brought to our country from 83 countries in the world.
TONY JONES: OK, let's talk about this Russian military buildup because the United States is very worried about it. I mean, the airport at Latakia is being heavily reinforced, it's being changed, it looks like it's being turned into a giant Russian military base, Russian transport planes are flying in every day and ships are bringing into your ports Russian weapons. Are we going to see Russian troops fighting on the ground in Syria and Russian aircraft in the skies above Syria supporting, as you say, your army?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: Russian advisors and Russian people and Syrian-Russian relations have been here strong and well for the last 40 years. The Russians do not build colonial bases. The Russians are not an occupying force like others are. The Russians left Egypt in one day when Sadat asked them to leave. So, the Russians are supporting us by advisor, by military armaments, by the way, we have contract with them that had been signed for years and they are implementing these contracts. And if you ask the Syrian people, you would see that the Syrian people are happy to see any country in the world supporting the Syrian people and the Syrian Army against extremist forces and against terrorist forces.
TONY JONES: OK, alright. But a very quick question here: are you expecting Russian forces to be expanding their operations into Syria, more Russian troops than just the advisors and Russian Air Force pilots flying Russian aircraft over Syrian territory?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: We are only expecting support to the Syrian Army. That's all what we are expecting. And we know that the Russians will not do anything except in cooperation with the Syrian Government and with the Syrian Army and thus the agenda is Syrian, and as I said, the best way to fight terrorism is to have this coalition broadened, not only from Russia. Really, you know, the terrorism you find now here and you describe now here, you might find tomorrow in Europe and next day in the United States. It's a cancer that is hurting the entire world and we would love the world to understand that this is an existential danger to the entire humanity.
TONY JONES: OK, but earlier this year the Secretary of State John Kerry laid down some very strict conditions. Syria cannot have peace, stability, nor can it be saved as long as President Bashar al-Assad remains in power. Have you any reason to believe the White House has changed its mind on that fundamental issue?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: Well I would like to ask you: has John Kerry any right to decide who the President of Syria should be? Do we in Syria decide who the President of the United States should be? I think this statement is erroneous right from the beginning. It is the Syrian people who decide who have the right to be the President of Syria. Nobody else in the world has the right to decide that.
TONY JONES: OK, but just - we know that obviously US and its allies participated in regime change in Iraq and they did so because they said Saddam Hussein was involved in building weapons of mass destruction, but also because of his crimes against humanity. Now President Assad also stands accused of crimes against humanity, of torturing, starving, of killing thousands of his opponents and that killing was done by branches of the Syrian security services, according to evidence. Do you accept that Western leaders simply cannot turn a blind eye to that evidence and those allegations?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: I would like the Western governments who - and the Western people to think what they did with Libya with their own decision, turning Libya into a failing state, and I would like them to review their policy in Iraq, which turned Iraq into a failing state. I have no reason to believe what the Western governments say about my country. I am a Syrian, rooted in Syria. We, the Syrian people know what is right for our country, and by the way, targeting presidents in the Middle East does not aim at presidents. It aims at destroying our country, turning our identity, erasing our cultural heritage, destroying our institution. It is Syria that has been targeted, it is not President Assad. President Assad is standing with his army and people to fight for the unity and territorial integrity of his country and this is what we are doing here.
TONY JONES: Alright, but you see the obvious problem. I mean, the West cannot turn a blind eye to it when three former UN war crimes prosecutors investigated the evidence smuggled out of Iraq by a former - smuggled out of, I beg your pardon, Syria by a former military policeman. He brought 55,000 photographs of 11,000 dead bodies, all of whom he claimed were killed by your security services, starved, tortured, beaten, and his evidence by those three war crimes prosecutors was found to be most credible.
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: Listen. Listen, Tony, let us respect the intelligence of your viewer. I was interviewed at least three times by CNN and Wolf Blitzer on CNN about -0 about these fabricated pictures that have been paid for by a cattery company in London. You know, if anybody is careful about the lives of the Syrian people, why don't you condemn the missiles that are killing innocent civilians? Why don't you condemn the killing of thousands of Syrian children at school? The destruction of 5,000 schools. The erosion of Palmyra. The erosion of old Aleppo. Where is the West from all what the extremists and terrorists are doing in Syria? The myth of ...
TONY JONES: Dr Shaaban, can I interrupt you there for a one moment? 'Cause we are running out of time.
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: Please do. Please do.
TONY JONES: But I believe it is possible to do - it's possible to do both things at the same time. It's possible to condemn what happens to those children, at the same time, to condemn a history of repression. Now these three war crimes prosecutors, all very credible men, believed the evidence to be real. If that is true, should your president in fact stand trial for crimes against humanity, in spite of the fact that Russia would stop that from happening?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: Did you - I would only focus on what you said. The three men believe that the evidence could be real. What if the evidence was absolutely nonsense? What if these three men were absolutely wrong? What - I mean, why are you trying to suppose something about our president instead of trying to solve the problem for the Syrian people and for Syria and for the Middle East and for the world at large? I tell you once again: Syria is 10,000 years old. The Syrian people are very civilised people. They are very well capable of choosing their government and choosing their president without any interference from the West. This war on Syria, Tony, is about the independent opinion of Syria. Syria has been a very independent country and that's not what the West wants. They want us like a country that is a satellite for the West and we will never be that.
TONY JONES: Dr Shaaban, we'll have to leave you there. I'm merely of course putting the case that bothers - the dilemma that bothers Western leaders when they worry how they can support your president. But we'll have to leave you there. We thank you very much indeed for your time.
Europe is "not dealing with the cause" of the current refugee crisis, Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview with Russian media, RT among them, adding that all Syrian people want is "security and safety."
"It's not about that Europe didn't accept them or embrace them as refugees, it's about not dealing with the cause. If you are worried about them, stop supporting terrorists. That's what we think regarding the crisis. This is the core of the whole issue of refugees.
To see 1:49 minute interview, see original story, also linked to from the above image.
"If we ask any Syrian today about what they want, the first thing they would say - 'We want security and safety for every person and every family'," the Syrian president said, adding that political forces, whether inside or outside the government "should unite around what the Syrian people want."
The "Syrian fabric," as Assad has called it, includes people of many ethnicities and sects, including the Kurds. "They are not foreigners," the Syrian president said, adding that without such groups of people who have been living in the region for centuries "there wouldn't have been a homogeneous Syria."
Assad said that the dialogue in Syria should be continued "in order to reach the consensus," which cannot be implemented "unless we defeat the terrorism in Syria."
"If you want to implement anything real, it's impossible to do anything while you have people being killed, bloodletting hasn't stopped, people feel insecure," the Syrian president said.
"I would like to take this opportunity to call on all forces to unite against terrorism, because it is the way to achieve the political objectives which we, as Syrians, want through dialogue and political action," Bashar Assad said.
Read and watch the full version of the interview with President Bashar al-Assad interview on RT.com Live at 03:00 GMT (or 1:00PM 16 September in Australia's East or 11:00PM in Western Australia) on 16 September.
Read and watch the full version of the interview with President Bashar al-Assad interview on RT.com Live at 03:00 GMT (or 1:00PM 16 September in Australia's East or 11:00PM in Western Australia) on 16 September.
Question 1:Mr. President, thank you from the Russian media, from RT, from Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Channel 1, Russia 24, RIA Novosti, and NTV channel, for giving us all the opportunity to talk to you during this very critical phase of the crisis in Syria, where there are many questions that need to be addressed on where exactly the political process to achieve peace in Syria is heading, what's the latest developments on the fight against ISIL, and the status of the Russian and Syrian partnership, and of course the enormous exodus of Syrian refugees that has been dominating headlines in Europe.
Now, the crisis in Syria is entering its fifth year. You have defied all predictions by Western leaders that you would be ousted imminently, and continue to serve today as the President of the Syrian Arab Republic. Now, there has been a lot of speculation recently caused by reports that officials from your government met with officials from your adversary Saudi Arabia that caused speculation that the political process in Syria has entered a new phase, but then statements from Saudi Arabia that continue to insist on your departure suggest that in fact very little has changed despite the grave threat that groups like ISIL pose far beyond Syria's borders.
So, what is your position on the political process? How do you feel about power sharing and working with those groups in the opposition that continue to say publically that there can be no political solution in Syria unless that includes your immediate departure? Have they sent you any signal that they are willing to team up with you and your government? In addition to that, since the beginning of the crisis in Syria, many of those groups were calling to you to carry out reforms and political change. But is such change even possible now under the current circumstances with the war and the ongoing spread of terror in Syria?
President Assad: Let me first divide this question. It's a multi question in one question. The first part regarding the political process, since the beginning of the crisis we adopted the dialogue approach, and there were many rounds of dialogue between Syrians in Syria, in Moscow, and in Geneva. Actually, the only step that has been made or achieved was in Moscow 2, not in Geneva, not in Moscow 1, and actually it's a partial step, it's not a full step, and that's natural because it's a big crisis. You cannot achieve solutions in a few hours or a few days. It's a step forward, and we are waiting for Moscow 3. I think we need to continue the dialogue between the Syrian entities, political entities or political currents, in parallel with fighting terrorism in order to achieve or reach a consensus about the future of Syria. So, that's what we have to continue.
If I jump to the last part, because it's related to this one, is it possible to achieve anything taking into consideration the prevalence of terrorism in Syria and in Iraq and in the region in general? We have to continue dialogue in order to reach the consensus as I said, but if you want to implement anything real, it's impossible to do anything while you have people being killed, bloodletting hasn't stopped, people feel insecure. Let's say we sit together as Syrian political parties or powers and achieve a consensus regarding something in politics, in economy, in education, in health, in everything. How can we implement it if the priority of every single Syrian citizen is to be secure? So, we can achieve consensus, but we cannot implement unless we defeat the terrorism in Syria. We have to defeat terrorism, not only ISIS.
I'm talking about terrorism, because you have many organizations, mainly ISIS and al-Nusra that were announced as terrorist groups by the Security Council. So, this is regarding the political process. Sharing power, of course we already shared it with some part of the opposition that accepted to share it with us. A few years ago they joined the government. Although sharing power is related to the constitution, to the elections, mainly parliamentary elections, and of course representation of the Syrian people by those powers. But in spite of that, because of the crisis, we said let's share it now, let's do something, a step forward, no matter how effective.
Regarding the refugee crisis, I will say now that Western dealing in the Western propaganda recently, mainly during the last week, regardless of the accusation that those refugees are fleeing the Syrian government, but they call it regime, of course. Actually, it's like the West now is crying for the refugees with one eye and aiming at them with a machinegun with the second one, because actually those refugees left Syria because of the terrorism, mainly because of the terrorists and because of the killing, and second because of the results of terrorism. When you have terrorism, and you have the destruction of the infrastructure, you won't have the basic needs of living, so many people leave because of the terrorism and because they want to earn their living somewhere in this world.
So, the West is crying for them, and the West is supporting terrorists since the beginning of the crisis when it said that this was a peaceful uprising, when they said later it's moderate opposition, and now they say there is terrorism like al-Nusra and ISIS, but because of the Syrian state or the Syrian regime or the Syrian president. So, as long as they follow this propaganda, they will have more refugees. So, it's not about that Europe didn't accept them or embrace them as refugees, it's about not dealing with the cause. If you are worried about them, stop supporting terrorists. That's what we think regarding the crisis. This is the core of the whole issue of refugees.
Question 2:Mr. President, you touched on the subject of the internal Syrian opposition in your first answer; nevertheless, I would like to go back to that because it's very important for Russia. What should the internal opposition do in order to cooperate and coordinate with Syrian authorities to support them in battle… which is what they say they intend to do? How do you see the prospects for the Moscow-3 and Geneva-3 conferences? Will they be useful to Syria in the current situation?
President Assad: As you know, we are at war with terrorism, and this terrorism is supported by foreign powers. It means that we are in a state of complete war. I believe that any society and any patriotic individuals, and any parties which truly belong to the people should unite when there is a war against an enemy; whether that enemy is in the form of domestic terrorism or foreign terrorism. If we ask any Syrian today about what they want, the first thing they would say is: we want security and safety for every person and every family.
So we, as political forces, whether inside or outside the government, should unite around what the Syrian people want. That means we should first unite against terrorism. That is logical and self-evident. That's why I say that we have to unite now as political forces, or government, or as armed groups which fought against the government, in order to fight terrorism. This has actually happened.
There are forces fighting terrorism now alongside the Syrian state, which had previously fought against the Syrian state. We have made progress in this regard, but I would like to take this opportunity to call on all forces to unite against terrorism, because it is the way to achieve the political objectives which we, as Syrians, want through dialogue and political action.
Intervention:Concerning the Moscow-3 and Geneva-3 conferences; in your opinion, are there good prospects for them?
President Assad: The importance of Moscow-3 lies in the fact that it paves the way to Geneva-3, because the international sponsorship in Geneva was not neutral, while the Russian sponsorship is. It is not biased, and is based on international law and Security Council resolutions. Second, there are substantial differences around the ‘transitional body' item in Geneva. Moscow-3 is required to solve these problems between the different Syrian parties; and when we reach Geneva-3, it is ensured that there is a Syrian consensus which would enable it to succeed. We believe that it is difficult for Geneva-3 to succeed unless Moscow-3 does. That's why we support holding this round of negotiations in Moscow after preparations for the success of this round have been completed, particularly by the Russian officials.
Question 3:I would like to continue with the issue of international cooperation in order to solve the Syrian crisis. It's clear that Iran, since solving the nuclear issue, will play a more active role in regional affairs. How would you evaluate recent Iranian initiatives on reaching a settlement for the situation in Syria? And, in general, what is the importance of Tehran's support for you? Is there military support? And, if so, what form does it take?
President Assad: At present, there is no Iranian initiative. There are ideas or principles for an Iranian initiative based primarily on Syria's sovereignty, the decisions of the Syrian people and on fighting terrorism. The relationship between Syria and Iran is an old one. It is over three-and-a-half decades old. There is an alliance based on a great degree of trust. That's why we believe that the Iranian role is important. Iran supports Syria and the Syrian people. It stands with the Syrian state politically, economically and militarily. When we say militarily, it doesn't mean - as claimed by some in the Western media - that Iran has sent an army or armed forces to Syria. That is not true. It sends us military equipment, and of course there is an exchange of military experts between Syria and Iran. This has always been the case, and it is natural for this cooperation to grow between the two countries in a state of war. Yes, Iranian support has been essential to support Syria in its steadfastness in this difficult and ferocious war.
Question 4:Concerning regional factors and proponents, you recently talked about security coordination with Cairo in fighting terrorism, and that you are in the same battle line in this regard. How is your relationship with Cairo today given that it hosts some opposition groups? Do you have a direct relationship, or perhaps through the Russian mediator, particularly in light of the strategic relations between Russia and Egypt. President Sisi has become a welcome guest in Moscow today.
President Assad: Relations between Syria and Egypt have not ceased to exist even over the past few years, and even when the president was Mohammed Morsi, who is a member of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood organisation. Egyptian institutions insisted on maintaining a certain element of this relationship. First, because the Egyptian people are fully aware of what is happening in Syria, and second because the battle we are fighting is practically against the same enemy. This has now become clearer to everyone. Terrorism has spread in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, in other Arab countries, and in some Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and others. That's why I can say that there is joint vision between us and the Egyptians; but our relationship exists now on a security level. There are no political relations. I mean, there are no contacts between the Syrian Foreign Ministry and the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, for instance. Contacts are done on a security level only. We understand the pressures that might be applied on Egypt or on both Syria and Egypt so that they don't have a strong relationship. This relationship does not go, of course, through Moscow. As I said, this relationship has never ceased to exist, but we feel comfortable about improving relations between Russia and Egypt. At the same time, there is a good, strong and historical relation between Moscow and Damascus, so it is natural for Russia to feel comfortable for any positive development in relations between Syria and Egypt.
Question 5:Mr. President, allow me to go back to the question of fighting terrorism. How do you look at the idea of creating a region free of ISIS terrorists in the north of the country on the border with Turkey? In that context, what do you say about the indirect cooperation between the West and terrorist organizations like the al-Nusra Front and other extremist groups? And with whom are you willing to cooperate and fight against ISIS terrorists?
President Assad: To say that the border with Turkey should be free of terrorism means that terrorism is allowed in other regions. That is unacceptable. Terrorism should be eradicated everywhere; and we have been calling for three decades for an international coalition to fight terrorism. But as for Western cooperation with the al-Nusra Front, this is reality, because we know that Turkey supports al-Nusra and ISIS by providing them with arms, money and terrorist volunteers. And it is well-known that Turkey has close relations with the West. Erdogan and Davutoglu cannot make a single move without coordinating first with the United States and other Western countries. Al-Nusra and ISIS operate with such a force in the region under Western cover, because Western states have always believed that terrorism is a card they can pull from their pocket and use from time to time. Now, they want to use al-Nusra just against ISIS, maybe because ISIS is out of control one way or another. But that doesn't mean they want to eradicate ISIS. Had they wanted to do so, they would have been able to do that. For us, ISIS, al-Nusra, and all similar organizations which carry weapons and kill civilians are extremist organizations.
But who we conduct dialogue with is a very important question. From the start we said that we engage in dialogue with any party, if that dialogue leads to degrading terrorism and consequently achieve stability. This naturally includes the political powers, but there are also armed groups with whom we conducted dialogue and reached agreement in troubled areas which have become quiet now. In other areas, these armed groups joined the Syrian Army and are fighting by its side, and some of their members became martyrs. So we talk to everyone except organizations I mentioned like ISIS, al-Nusra, and other similar ones for the simple reason that these organizations base their doctrine on terrorism. They are ideological organizations and are not simply opposed to the state, as is the case with a number of armed groups. Their doctrine is based on terrorism, and consequently dialogue with such organizations cannot lead to any real result. We should fight and eradicate them completely and talking to them is absolutely futile.
Intervention:When talking about regional partners, with whom are you prepared to cooperate in fighting terrorism?
President Assad: Certainly with friendly countries, particularly Russia and Iran. Also we are cooperating with Iraq because it faces the same type of terrorism. As for other countries, we have no veto on any country provided that it has the will to fight terrorism and not as they are doing in what is called “the international coalition” led by the United States. In fact, since this coalition started to operate, ISIS has been expanding. In other words, the coalition has failed and has no real impact on the ground. At the same time, countries like Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Western countries which provide cover for terrorism like France, the United States, or others, cannot fight terrorism. You cannot be with and against terrorism at the same time. But if these countries decide to change their policies and realize that terrorism is like a scorpion, if you put it in your pocket, it will sting you. If that happens, we have no objection to cooperating with all these countries, provided it is a real and not a fake coalition to fight terrorism.
Question 6:What is the Syrian army's current condition? They've been fighting for over four years. Are they exhausted by the war, or become stronger as a result of engagement in military operations? And are there reserve forces to support them? I also have another important question: you said a large number of former adversaries have moved to your side and are fighting within the ranks of government forces. How many? And what is the extent of their help in the fight against extremist groups?
President Assad: Of course, war is bad. And any war is destructive, any war weakens any society and any army, no matter how strong or rich a country is. But things cannot be assessed this way. War is supposed to unite society against the enemy. The army becomes the most-important symbol for any society when there is aggression against the country. Society embraces the army, and provides it with all the necessary support, including human resources, volunteers, conscripts, in order to defend the homeland. At the same time, war provides a great deal of expertise to any armed forces practically and militarily. So, there are always positive and negative aspects. We cannot say that the army becomes weaker or stronger. But in return, this social embrace and support for the army provides it with volunteers. So, in answer to your question ‘are there reserves?'… yes, certainly, for without such reserves, the army wouldn't have been able to stand for four-and-a-half years in a very tough war, particularly since the enemy we fight today has an unlimited supply of people. We have terrorist fighters from over 80 or 90 countries today, so our enemy is enjoying enormous support in various countries, from where people come here to fight alongside the terrorists. As for the army, it's almost exclusively made of Syrians. So, we have reserve forces, and this is what enables us to carry on. There is also determination. We have reserves not only in terms of human power, but in will as well. We are more determined than ever before to fight and defend our country against terrorists. This is what led some fighters who used to fight against the state at the beginning for varying reasons, discovered they were wrong and decided to join the state. Now they are fighting battles along with the army, and some have actually joined as regular soldiers. Some have kept their weapons, but they are fighting in groups alongside the armed forces in different parts of Syria.
Question 7:Mr. President, Russia has been fighting terrorism for 20 years, and we have seen its different manifestations. It now seems you are fighting it head on. In general, the world is witnessing a new form of terrorism. In the regions occupied by ISIS, they are setting up courts and administrations, and there are reports that it intends to mint its own currency. They are constructing what looks like a state. This in itself might attract new supporters from different countries. Can you explain to us whom are you fighting? Is it a large group of terrorists or is it a new state which intends to radically redraw regional and global borders? What is ISIS today?
President Assad: Of course, the terrorist ISIS groups tried to give the semblance of a state, as you said, in order to attract more volunteers who live on the dreams of the past: that there was an Islamic state acting for the sake of religion. That ideal is unreal. It is deceptive. But no state can suddenly bring a new form to any society. The state should be the product of its society. It should be the natural evolution of that society, to express it. In the end, a state should be a projection of its society. You cannot bring about a state which has a different form and implant it in a society. Here we ask the question: does ISIS, or what they call ‘Islamic State', have any semblance to Syrian society? Certainly not.
Of course we have terrorist groups, but they are not an expression of society. In Russia, you have terrorist groups today, but they do not project Russian society, nor do they have any semblance to the open and diverse Russian society. That's why if they tried to mint a currency or have stamps or passports, or have all these forms which indicate the existence of a state, it doesn't mean they actually exist as a state; first because they are different from the people and, second, because people in those regions flee towards the real state, the Syrian state, the national state. Sometimes they fight them too. A very small minority believes these lies. They are certainly not a state, they are a terrorist group. But if we want to ask about who they are, let's speak frankly: They are the third phase of the political or ideological poisons produced by the West, aimed at achieving political objectives. The first phase was the Muslim Brotherhood at the turn of the last century. The second phase was al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in order to fight the Soviet Union. And the third phase is ISIS, the al-Nusra Front and these groups. Who are ISIS? And who are these groups? They are simply extremist products of the West.
Question 8:Mr. President, at the beginning of the Syrian crisis, the Kurdish issue started to be discussed more often. Previously, Damascus was severely criticized because of its position towards the Kurdish minority. But now, practically, in some areas, Kurdish formations are your allies in the fight against ISIS. Do you have a specific position towards who the Kurds are to you and who you are to them?
President Assad: First, you cannot say there was a certain state policy concerning the Kurds. A state cannot discriminate between members of its population; otherwise, it creates division in the country. If we had been discriminating between different components of society, the majority of these components wouldn't have supported the state now, and the country would have disintegrated from the very beginning. For us, the Kurds are part of the Syrian fabric. They are not foreigners - they live in this region like the Arabs, Circassians, Armenians and many other ethnicities and sects who've been living in Syria for many centuries. It's not known when some of them came to this region. Without these groups, there wouldn't have been a homogenous Syria. So, are they our allies today? No, they are patriotic people. But on the other hand, you cannot put all the Kurds in one category. Like any other Syrian component, there are different currents among them. They belong to different parties. There are those on the left and those on the right. There are tribes, and there are different groups. So, it is not objective to talk about the Kurds as one mass.
There are certain Kurdish demands expressed by some parties, but there are no Kurdish demands for the Kurds. There are Kurds who are integrated fully into society; and I would like to stress that they are not allies at this stage, as some people would like to show. I would like to stress that they are not just allies at this stage, as some suggest. There are many fallen Kurdish soldiers who fought with the army, which means they are an integral part of society. But there are parties which had certain demands, and we addressed some at the beginning of the crisis. There are other demands which have nothing to do with the state, and which the state cannot address. There are things which would relate to the entire population, to the constitution, and the people should endorse these demands before a decision can be taken by the state. In any case, anything proposed should be in the national framework. That's why I say that we are with the Kurds, and with other components, all of us in alliance to fight terrorism.
This is what I talked about a while ago: that we should unite in order to fight ISIS. After we defeat ISIS, al-Nusra and the terrorists, the Kurdish demands expressed by certain parties can be discussed nationally. There's no problem with that, we do not have a veto on any demand as long as it is within the framework of Syria's unity and the unity of the Syrian people and territory, fighting terrorism, Syrian diversity, and the freedom of this diversity in its ethnic, national, sectarian, and religious sense.
Question 9:Mr. President, you partially answered this question, but I would like a more-precise answer, because some Kurdish forces in Syria call for amending the constitution. For instance, setting up a local administration and moving towards autonomy in the north. These statements are becoming more frequent now that the Kurds are fighting ISIS with a certain degree of success. Do you agree with such statements that the Kurds can bet on some kind of gratitude? Is it up for discussion?
President Assad: When we defend our country, we do not ask people to thank us. It is our natural duty to defend our country. If they deserve thanks, then every Syrian citizen defending their country deserves as much. But I believe that defending one's country is a duty, and when you carry out your duty, you don't need thanks. But what you have said is related to the Syrian constitution. Today, if you want to change the existing structure in your country, in Russia for instance, let's say to redraw the borders of the republics, or give one republic powers different to those given to other republics - this has nothing to do with the president or the government. This has to do with the constitution.
The president does not own the constitution and the government does not own the constitution. Only the people own the constitution, and consequently changing the constitution means national dialogue. For us, we don't have a problem with any demand. As a state, we do not have any objection to these issues as long as they do not infringe upon Syria's unity and diversity and the freedom of its citizens.
But if there are certain groups or sections in Syria which have certain demands, these demands should be in the national framework, and in dialogue with the Syrian political forces. When the Syrian people agree on taking steps of this kind, which have to do with federalism, autonomy, decentralization or changing the whole political system, this needs to be agreed upon by the Syrian people, and consequently amending the constitution. This is why these groups need to convince the Syrian people of their proposals. In that respect, they are not in dialogue with the state, but rather with the people. When the Syrian people decide to move in a certain direction, and to approve a certain step, we will naturally approve it.
Question 10:Now, the U.S.-led coalition has been carrying out airstrikes on Syrian territory for about one year on the same areas that the Syrian Air Force is also striking ISIL targets, yet there hasn't been a single incident of the U.S.-led coalition and the Syrian Air Force activity clashing with one another. Is there any direct or indirect coordination between your government and the U.S. coalition in the fight against ISIL?
President Assad: You'd be surprised if I say no. I can tell you that my answer will be not realistic, to say now, while we are fighting the same, let's say enemy, while we're attacking the same target in the same area without any coordination and at the same time without any conflict. And actually this is strange, but this is reality. There's not a single coordination or contact between the Syrian government and the United States government or between the Syrian army and the U.S. army. This is because they cannot confess, they cannot accept the reality that we are the only power fighting ISIS on the ground. For them, maybe, if they deal or cooperate with the Syrian Army, this is like a recognition of our effectiveness in fighting ISIS. This is part of the willful blindness of the U.S. administration, unfortunately.
Question 11:So not event indirectly though, for example the Kurds? Because we know the U.S. is working with the Kurds, and the Kurds have some contacts with the Syrian government. So, not even any indirect coordination?
President Assad: Not even any third party, including the Iraqis, because before they started the attacks, they let us know through the Iraqis. Since then, not a single message or contact through any other party.
Question 12:Ok, so just a little bit further than that. You've lived in the West, and you, at one time, moved in some of those circles with some Western leaders that since the beginning of the crisis have been backing armed groups who are fighting to see you overthrown. How do you feel about one day working again with those very same Western leaders, perhaps shaking hands with them? Would you ever be able to trust them again?
President Assad: First, it's not a personal relation; it's a relation between states, and when you talk about relation between states, you don't talk about trust; you talk about mechanism. So, trust is a very personal thing you cannot depend on in political relations between, let's say, people. I mean, you are responsible for, for example in Syria, for 23 million, and let's say in another country for tens of millions. You cannot put the fate of those tens of millions or maybe hundreds of millions on the trust of a single person, or two persons in two countries. So, there must be a mechanism. When you have a mechanism, you can talk about trust in a different way, not a personal way. This is first.
Second, the main mission of any politician, or any government, president, prime minister, it doesn't matter, is to work for the interest of his people and the interest of his country. If any meeting or any handshaking with anyone in the world will bring benefit to the Syrian people, I have to do it, whether I like it or not. So, it's not about me, I accept it or I like it or whatever; it's about what the added value of this step that you're going to take. So yes, we are ready whenever there's the interest of the Syrians. I will do it, whatever it is.
Question 13:Regarding alliances in the fight against terrorism and ISIS, President Putin called for a regional alliance to fight the so-called ‘Islamic State'; and the recent visits of Arab officials to Moscow fall into that context, but Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said that would need a miracle. We are talking here about security coordination, as described by Damascus, with the governments of Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. How do you envisage that alliance? Will it achieve any results, in your opinion? You said that any relationship is based on interests, so are you willing to coordinate with these countries, and what is the truth behind the meetings held between Syrian, and maybe Saudi, officials as reported by the media?
President Assad: As for fighting terrorism, this is a big and comprehensive issue which includes cultural and economic aspects. It obviously has security and military aspects as well. In terms of prevention, all the other aspects are more important than the security and military ones, but today, in the reality we now live in terms of fighting terrorism, we are not facing terrorist groups, we are facing terrorist armies equipped with light, medium and heavy weaponry. They have billions of dollars to recruit volunteers. The military and security aspects should be given priority at this stage. So, we think this alliance should act in different areas, but to fight on the ground first. Naturally, this alliance should consist of states which believe in fighting terrorism and believe that their natural position should be against terrorism.
In the current state of affairs, the person supporting terrorism cannot be the same person fighting terrorism. This is what these states are doing now. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan, who pretend to be part of a coalition against terrorism in northern Syria, actually support terrorism in the south, the north and the north-west, virtually in the same regions in which they are supposed to be fighting terrorism. Once again I say that, within the framework of public interest, if these states decide to go back to the right position, to return to their senses and fight terrorism, naturally we will accept and cooperate with them and with others. We do not have a veto and we do not stick to the past. Politics change all the time. It might change from bad to good, and the ally might become an adversary, and the adversary an ally. This is normal. When they fight against terrorism, we will cooperate with them.
Question 14:Mr. President, there is a huge wave of refugees, largely from Syria, going to Europe. Some say these people are practically lost to Syria. They are deeply unhappy with the Syrian authorities because they haven't been able to protect them and they've had to leave their homes. How do you view those people? Do you see them as part of the Syrian electorate in the future? Do you expect them to return? And the second question has to do with the European sense of guilt about the displacement happening now. Do you think that Europe should feel guilty?
President Assad: Any person who leaves Syria constitutes a loss to the homeland, to be sure, regardless of the position or capabilities of that person. This, of course, does not include terrorists. It includes all citizens in general with the exception of terrorists. So, yes, there is a great loss as a result of emigration. You raised a question on elections. Last year, we had a presidential election in Syria, and there were many refugees in different countries, particularly in Lebanon. According to Western propaganda, they had fled the state, the oppression of the state and the killing of the state, and they are supposed to be enemies of the state. But the surprise for Westerners was that most of them voted for the president who is supposed to be killing them. That was a great blow to Western propaganda. Of course, voting has certain conditions. There should be an embassy, and to have the custodianship of the Syrian state in the voting process. That depends on relations between the states. Many countries have severed relations with Syria and closed Syrian embassies, and consequently Syrian citizens cannot vote in those countries. They have to go to other countries where ballot boxes are installed, and that did happen last year.
As for Europe, of course it's guilty. Today, Europe is trying to say that Europe feels guilty because it hasn't given money or hasn't allowed these people to immigrate legally, and that's why they came across the sea and drowned. We are sad for every innocent victim, but is the victim who drowns in the sea dearer to us than the victim killed in Syria? Are they dearer than innocent people whose heads are cut off by terrorists? Can you feel sad for a child's death in the sea and not for thousands of children who have been killed by the terrorists in Syria? And also for men, women, and the elderly? These European double standards are no longer acceptable. They have been flagrantly exposed. It doesn't make sense to feel sad for the death of certain people and not for deaths of others. The principles are the same. So Europe is responsible because it supported terrorism, as I said a short while ago, and is still supporting terrorism and providing cover for them. It still calls them ‘moderate' and categorizes them into groups, even though all these groups in Syria are extremists.
Question 15:If you don't mind, I would like to go back to the question about Syria's political future. Mr. President, your opponents, whether fighting against the authorities with weapons or your political opponents, still insist that one of the most-important conditions for peace is your departure from political life and as president. What do you think about that - as president and as a Syrian citizen? Are you theoretically prepared for that if you feel it's necessary?
President Assad: In addition to what you say, Western propaganda has, from the very beginning, been about the cause of the problem being the president. Why? Because they want to portray the whole problem in Syria lies in one individual; and consequently the natural reaction for many people is that, if the problem lies in one individual, that individual should not be more important than the entire homeland. So let that individual go and things will be alright. That's how they oversimplify things in the West. What's happening in Syria, in this regard, is similar to what happened in your case. Notice what happened in the Western media since the coup in Ukraine. What happened? President Putin was transformed from a friend of the West to a foe and, yet again, he was characterized as a tsar. He is portrayed as a dictator suppressing opposition in Russia, and that he came to power through undemocratic means, despite the fact that he was elected in democratic elections, and the West itself acknowledged that the elections were democratic. Now, it is no longer democratic. This is Western propaganda. They say that if the president went things will get better. What does that mean, practically? For the West, it means that as long as you are there, we will continue to support terrorism, because the Western principle followed now in Syria and Russia and other countries is changing presidents, changing states, or what they call bringing regimes down. Why? Because they do not accept partners and do not accept independent states. What is their problem with Russia? What is their problem with Syria? What is their problem with Iran? They are all independent countries. They want a certain individual to go and be replaced by someone who acts in their interests and not in the interest of his country. For us, the president comes through the people and through elections and, if he goes, he goes through the people. He doesn't go as a result of an American decision, a Security Council decision, the Geneva conference or the Geneva communiqué. If the people want him to stay, he should stay; and if the people reject him, he should leave immediately. This is the principle according to which I look at this issue.
Question 16:Military operations have been ongoing for more than four years. It's likely that you analyze things and review matters often. In your opinion, was there a crucial juncture when you realized war was unavoidable? And who initiated that war machinery? The influence of Washington or your Middle East neighbours? Or were there mistakes on your part? Are there things you regret? And if you had the opportunity to go back, would you change them?
President Assad: In every state, there are mistakes, and mistakes might be made every day, but these mistakes do not constitute a crucial juncture because they are always there. So what is it that makes these mistakes suddenly lead to the situation we are living in Syria today? It doesn't make sense. You might be surprised if I tell that the crucial juncture in what happened in Syria is something that many people wouldn't even think of. It was the Iraq war in 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq. We were strongly opposed to that invasion, because we knew that things were moving in the direction of dividing societies and creating unrest. And we are Iraq's neighbours. At that time, we saw that the war would turn Iraq into a sectarian country; into a society divided against itself. To the west of Syria there is another sectarian country - Lebanon. We are in the middle. We knew well that we would be affected. Consequently, the beginning of the Syrian crisis, or what happened in the beginning, was the natural result of that war and the sectarian situation in Iraq, part of which moved to Syria, and it was easy for them to incite some Syrian groups on sectarian grounds.
The second point, which might be less crucial, is that when the West adopted terrorism officially in Afghanistan in the early 1980s and called terrorists at that time ‘freedom fighters', and then in 2006 when Islamic State appeared in Iraq under American sponsorship and they didn't fight it. All these things together created the conditions for the unrest with Western support and Gulf money, particularly form Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and with Turkish logistic support, particularly since President Erdogan belongs intellectually to the Muslim Brotherhood. Consequently, he believes that, if the situation changed in Syria, Egypt, and Iraq, it means the creation of a new sultanate; not an Ottoman sultanate this time, but a sultanate for the Brotherhood extending from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean and ruled by Erdogan. All these factors together brought things to what we have today. Once again, I say that there were mistakes, and mistakes always create gaps and weak points, but they are not sufficient to cause that alone, and they do not justify what happened. And if these gaps and weak points are the cause, why didn't they lead to revolutions in the Gulf states - particularly in Saudi Arabia which doesn't know anything about democracy? The answer is self-evident, I believe.
Mr. President, thank you for giving us the time and for your detailed answers to our questions. We know that in September you have your golden jubilee, your 50th birthday. Probably the best wishes in the current circumstances would be the return of peace and safety to your country as soon as possible. Thank you.
Afshin Rattansi goes underground with the world's most wanted publisher - the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange. He has just co-authored a book - the WikiLeaks Files, and it paints a picture of systemic US torture and killing as well as the destruction of the lives and livelihoods of billions of people right around the world.
Damascus, SANA- Under the patronage of President Bashar al-Assad, activities of the #ac193d">International Trade Union Conference (ITUC) in solidarity with workers and people of Syria against terrorism, blockades and economic sanctions kicked off Sunday at Sahara hotel in Damascus. #ac193d"> The two day conference, organized by the General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU) in Syria in cooperation with World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) and International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions (ICATU), includes sessions discussing terrorism and its threats on the working sector and people in addition to the means of fighting it alongside with blockades and economic sanctions imposed against some peoples.
In a speech during the opening of the Conference, Assistant Regional Secretary of al-Baath Arab Socialist Party Hilal al-Hilal said “Holding the conference under the patronage of President al-Assad reflects the importance of bringing????? 2 elite members of the trade unions together in Damascus, the beating heart of Arabism, and President Bashar al-Assad’s keenness on making this event a success.”
Al-Hilal highlighted the importance of the conference which shows that the Syrian people are not facing terrorism alone as they have been supported by the trade unions which are one of the most qualified social segments that are eligible to play this role and they are one of the most important national axes that play a significant role in achieving political stability of societies.
He added that the Syrian people are feeling today that they are left alone in face of a danger that does not only threaten them, but threatens the entire world.
He affirmed that the war launched against Syria is very different from any other wars as it is a war launched by mercenary groups backed by some countries and an economic war coupled by an unjust political, diplomatic and economic siege as well as a media war.
Regarding the migration crisis, al-Hilal said that it is part of the results of the war against Syria in which most of the European countries participated, indicating that the biggest number of Syrian migrants have been displaced by terrorists. “Europe’s approach to the refugees’ issue shows discrepancy between its economic interests and its racial feelings,”al-Hilal said, adding that despite of the fact that the European media focuses on the Syrians, yet the same statistics show that the Syrians represent only 25 percent of the total number of refugees.
He added that one of the most important results of the war against Syria is the phenomenon of political mercenary the “hotels’ opposition” that has opened the door wide for some rulers such as Erdogan to express their psychological diseases depending on terrorists to realize their illusions.
On the reasons of targeting Syria, al-Hilal indicated that they wanted to destroy Syria because it has proven that it can achieve the independence of its decision and has always supported just causes, on top the Palestinian cause, in addition to its standing in the face of racism, Zionism, and the reactionary and Takfiri mentalities and its calling for establishing a world where peace, international law and coexistence prevail.
“We are side by side with Iraq and Egypt in facing terrorism and in asserting the national independence and protecting the pan-Arab security,” al-Hilal said, calling for forming an Arab and international counter-terrorism alliance.
Al-Hilal reiterated confidence in Syria’s victory thanks to the resilience of its people and its unbowed army and leader who only listens to the voice of his people and who usually affirms that Syria will not give up any inch of its territories.
Al-Hilal concluded by saluting the personnel of the armed forces and Syrian workers and their union, wishing that the conference will achieve the hopes and aspirations of the workers and the nations on building a new world that is free of terrorism and hegemony.
For his part, Chairman of GFTU Jamal al-Qadiri asserted that the conference is a chance for the participants and representatives of many countries to see the true image of what is happening in Syria and convey it to their peoples. The participants, al-Qadiri added, are due to discuss the issue of terrorism that Syria is facing, pointing out that the Syrian model had laid bare the reality of some Arab countries’ retardation
He called for unifying efforts to defend the human right to life, security, stability, progress and to face the extremist powers, reiterating that the “Syrian workers reiterate their loyalty to the homeland and its sovereignty, and independence and their adherence to their army and principles.”
General Secretary of ICATU Rajab Ma’atouq said that the international community and the Western countries, despite all what Syria has experienced at the hands of terrorist organizations, are still supporting all forms of terrorism.
Ma’atouq indicated that the fierce war launched against Syria aims at destroying it like what happened in other Arab countries to implement the project of the so-called “Creative Chaos” in the Arab world in an attempt to divide it and redraw its map in a way that meets their interests and ensures the security of the Zionist entity after destroying the resistance powers in the Arab countries and liquidating the Palestinian cause.
For his part, WFTU Secretary General George Mavrikos called for stopping the external intervention in Syria and lifting the siege and the unjust sanctions imposed against the Syrian people.
He asserted that the WFTU participation in the conference aims at expressing solidarity with the Syrian people and workers who have been targeted by the imperialism and its terrorism for about five years.
#ac193d">He affirmed that the WFTU has stood by Syria since the very beginning of the systematic crisis, and clearly said that there are terrorists and mercenaries in Syria who are trying to destabilize the country and its people in the interest of the US and the European Union as the WFTU has supported the Syrian people and worked on conveying a true image about what is taking place.
#ac193d">He strongly condemned the policies of intervention adopted by the US administration and the governments of the EU member states who are seeking to undermine the freedom of choice of the Syrian people to usurp their resources.
He concluded by expressing solidarity with the immigrants and refugees who are “looking for a better future,” wondering at exploiting the refugees by the European governments and who treat them as modern slaves.”
He called for stopping all forms of discrimination against the immigrants and the refugees.
#ac193d">More than 250 union figures and representatives of 100 Arab and international union organizations from 29 Arab and foreign countries are taking part in the conference.
Listen to this radio interview with Mother Agnes-Mariam entitled, "Syrian Refugee Crisis Caused by Western Provocation." Recorded on September 7th, 2015. The featured guest is a Christian Palestinian nun stationed in Syria for last 20 years. She exposed the US/Allies/NATO hoax that Syria had chemical WMDs and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2014.
Mother Agnes-Mariam describes what caused the Syrian refugee crisis and the necessity of healing the problem at the root. She tells Europe to look into their conscience and determine how their interference provoked displacement.
The Western powers have created a lawless intervention that denies the sovereignty of Syria. Sister Agnes asks Canadians to consider how they would feel if their powerful neighbor intervened in their country in the same way. She also addresses Pope Francis' words, the Russia and Saudi Arabia dialog, and the thinking and role of the Syrian army upon whom the people call for protection. She ends with her advice to Canada, Great Britain and the US
regarding how to stop the refugee crisis. [Click HERE for the audio file]
Kangaroos won! Please share. Thanks to everyone who emailed Californian Senators. You joined up to 100,000 people around the world who signed petitions and contacted the Senators directly. The main use - or abuse - of wild kangaroos in California is for the manufacture of soccer cleats!
Keep an eye on the Kangroos at risk website www.kangaroosatrisk.org for more pages going up soon about ecology, surveys and the industry.
Thanks to Jennifer Fearing
Brilliant work by the amazing Californian lobbyist Jennifer Fearing, Kangaroos at Risk partner US team Humane Society US and CA, and the wonderful Australian organisations who co-signed letters to Californian senators and put out the call via their networks. It’s been an inspiring win.
Helen Bergen Bathurst NSW Australia +61 (0)423 405 993 Kangaroos at Risk science & research
By Maria Leonila Masculino, Sep 09, 2015 11:14 PM EDT
In 2007, the California government has exempted the bill prohibiting the sale of kangaroo products imported from Australia. As the extended exemption ends on December 31st, lobbyists and lawmakers hired by the Australian government and manufacturers are calling to extend or repeal the prohibition.
California is currently the world's largest market for soccer cleats - with many of these made with kangaroo leather. The growing sale of kangaroo skin as shoes didn't happen if it weren't for the aggressive lobbying of Adidas, the Australian government and the kangaroo meat and skin industry in 2007 and 2010 - repealing for the prohibition which was upheld by the California Supreme Court in 1970.
California assemblyman Mike Gipson of Los Angeles has recently proposed a last-minute bill known as "gut and amend" to step-aside from the wildlife protection law. This came after the freshman lawmaker was courted by Australians.
"The Australian government have, as well as other people, approached me around this particular measure," Gipson said. "We have seen members of the Australian Consulate lobbying alongside these paid lobbyists in the building last week. People should be concerned about a foreign government's influence here that's not being disclosed to their people or ours."
According to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), kangaroos are "the world's largest wildlife slaughter" - threatening the population of the said species.
The Dodo reports that in the Australian states of Queensland and Western Australia, 2014 surveys show massive declines in the kangaroo population of up to 50%. Hunters have killed over 130,000 female kangaroos last year. As a result, tens of thousands of joeys have been abandoned and killed.
"I think everything about this stinks," said Jennifer Fearing of the HSUS. "I think it's all meant to be cloaked in secrecy and obfuscate a real conversation."
The Australian government reportedly paid $143,000 to lobbyists and lawmakers to activate the debate including $1,000 to Gipson.
The former head of the Australian Defence Force, Retired General Peter Gration, has signed an open letter to the Prime Minister opposing bombing raids in Syria. The open letter suggests bombing IS targets could strengthen the organisation and divide the Australian community, while increasing refugees and civilian casualties.
DAVID MARK: The former head of the Australian Defence Force, retired General Peter Gration, has signed an open letter to the Prime Minister Tony Abbott, opposing bombing raids in Syria.
Australia is considering a request by the US to join its bombing campaign against the so-called Islamic State in Syria.
The open letter suggests bombing IS targets could strengthen the organisation and divide the Australian community.
I spoke to retired General Peter Gration a short time ago.
PETER GRATION: The central issue is that I believe this would be a strategically bad decision; in fact I would call is strategically dumb and I can give you the reasons for this.
To commit us to what is complex and confused war with a century's old religious conflict between the Sunnis and the Shias, the underlying issue, I think is really inviting disaster.
The second point is that the Americans have already been doing extensive air strikes for some months, and it hasn't stopped IS, and if we add our contribution to this it would be at best, a marginal increase and I think the inevitable thing, if we are seeking some sort of victory there, is that the conflict would have to escalate to get ground operations into Syria.
And, if we're already committed to air strikes, we would be part of that escalation.
DAVID MARK: Is that why you say it would be inviting disaster, because the natural conclusion would be a ground war?
PETER GRATION: Yeah, if we want to win, whatever that means in Syria, I think it's essential that, eventually there has to be ground operations and we would be drawn into that.
DAVID MARK: The Prime Minister, as you know, refers to IS as a death cult and he says they've committed some appalling atrocities and that we have a moral obligation to stop them. So how would you respond to him?
PETER GRATION: I think there's no doubt that IS have committed atrocities and altogether a very bad lot, but conceding that fact, that in itself is not an issue requiring Australian contribution halfway around the world, and I think the balance off between a moral imperative to do something about IS and the downside for Australia, the downside is much stronger.
The humanitarian issue is a significant one. If we escalate the air war, there are undoubtedly going to more civilian casualties; there'll be more refugees generated; there'll be more infrastructure damage, and eventually getting Syria back on its feet will be quite difficult.
DAVID MARK: We heard just the other day that the former commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, David Petraeus said Australia should join the campaign. He said there would be a military advantage in bombing IS targets in Syria.
How can it be that a former general of such high standing has got it wrong?
PETER GRATION: Ah well, it's a matter of opinion. I'd just point to the fact that the Americans have been having, been carrying out air strikes now for some months and it certainly hasn't produced any decisive effect.
DAVID MARK: Your letter to the Prime Minister also cites potential legal issues. What are they?
PETER GRATION: There are two things: first of all there is no direct threat form IS to Australia and secondly there is no UN cover for that particular operation.
I believe that will give them a strong indication that it would be illegal.
DAVID MARK: The Government might take issue with you about that issue of whether the IS poses any direct threat to Australia; they might argue that it does.
PETER GRATION: Yeah, I'm aware of that. What I think they're talking about is that IS will urge Muslims in Australia to carry out more terrorist acts, but the scale and the likely outcome of that is minute compared to the effort that we are contemplating putting into Syria.
DAVID MARK: We heard on AM this morning, General Gration, that there is evidence that civilians may have been exposed to Australian bombing raids in Iraq. If the Australian Air Force did take part in bombing raids in Syria, would they be adequately able to investigate any potential civilian casualties?
PETER GRATION: Ah well, it would be very difficult unless we were on the ground in Syria. It would be more difficult than it is in Iraq but I'm sure they would do their level best to carry, to do proper investigations.
DAVID MARK: General Gration, as a former commander of the Australian Defence Forces, do you expect the Federal Government will listen to your counsel?
PETER GRATION: Well, I do hope they listen and I do hope they listen to the points that we're making, but I'm not terribly confident.
I think there are some indications that the Prime Minister's mind is already made up, but I do urge the Prime Minister and the Government to consider these issues.
DAVID MARK: General Gration, we're seeing a humanitarian crisis in Europe at the moment as asylum seekers flee Syria and other countries in the region. Would bombing raids on IS targets in Syria have any effect on that exodus?
PETER GRATION: I think the only effect it could have would be to increase it. If we step up, increase air strikes, it will not only generate more casualties inside Syria, but will increase the flow of refugees from Syria outwards, to Europe. I can't see any other way it could happen.
DAVID MARK: Retired General Peter Gration, was the Commander of the Australian Defence Force from 1987 to 1993.
Senator Ludlam has called for War Powers reform and the obligation that all decisions on war involvement must be taken only in consultation with parliament. David Macilwain argues that the matter of Australian intervening militarily in Syria without Syria's permission should be pursued in the Senate and with the attorney general, George Brandis, because it is in breech of international law.
Letter to Senator Ludlam, Fri, Sep 11, 2015
Dear Senator Ludlam,
Last week on behalf of AMRIS the attached media release was sent to all MPs and media; my apologies if you have already seen and read it.
I am writing because I just saw a video of part of your speech on Thursday, echoing Melissa Parke’s call for War Powers reform and the obligation that all decisions on war involvement must be taken only in consultation with parliament.
As you point out of course, in this case such consultation would have led nowhere, because the Labor opposition has no problem with the government’s military deployment and submission to US authority. I would suggest therefore, that the matter – of what is quite clearly a breach of international law, for which their must be consequences – should be pursued in the senate and with the attorney general George Brandis.
While Brandis laid out the supposed justification for breaching Syria’s sovereignty on the spurious and irrelevant basis of ‘collective self-defence’, in an article in Thursday’s Australian, this seems no different from the advice received from Lord Goldsmith in 2003 that the attack on Iraq was justified. (even had there been WMD it is hard to see how such an act of aggression against a sovereign state by a country not sharing any border with it could have been ‘legal’.
It is not too late to pursue this, because Australia may be brought before the ICC for its infringements when they lead to culpable casualties of Syrians. The idea that somehow the North East of Syria where we intend to confine our military is ‘ungoverned space’ has already been dramatically exposed as nonsense by this report from Deir Al Zour. Leith Fadel of Almasdar news is quite reliable, and he reports how the Syrian army and air-force have repelled an attempted attack on Deir al Zour airbase, killing up to 100 IS fighters. Deir al Zour of course is on the Euphrates, and in a direct line between Anbar and Raqqa, in the area that Australia intends to deploy its fighter jets. It is easy to see the possibility that an Australian missile could hit a Syrian army platoon or vehicle if they are in close combat with IS. Such a strike would have consequences.
I hope that you will keep pursuing this matter with supportive colleagues. Australia can make a decision at any time to start cooperating with the Syrian government, if it is truly serious about stopping the terrorist groups, but otherwise we should immediately withdraw our support for the US coalition’s dirty little war and its terrorist ‘boots on the ground’.
As has been quite obvious to most of us, the motivation and intention of the whole Western campaign in the Middle East remains the removal of Assad and the subsequent moves against Iran and Russia. IS is a Trojan horse, and the Great Refugee Crisis is the most egregious false flag yet devised to dupe the Western support base of the criminals in power.
Australia’s entry into the war on Syria has passed under our radar, thanks to manipulation of the refugee supporters – who are the main group who would be protesting against another US war in the M/E. My local paper published a letter today, (the third on this page) which explains for me – and probably almost me only – ‘no war in my name’.
But at the same time there was this report on the ABC from longtime ‘Friend of Syria’ Liz Jackson, interviewing former ambassador Ross Burns.:-
ELIZABETH JACKSON: A former Australian ambassador to Syria says it's possible Australia could play a significant role in the ultimate removal of Bashar al-Assad.
Australia's Foreign Minister Julie Bishop is reportedly working with US secretary of state John Kerry on a political solution to oust Assad without promoting Islamic State.
I asked Dr Ross Burns, who was Australia's ambassador in Syria in the 1980s, whether the ambitious plan had any chance of success.
ROSS BURNS: I would think it might have some chance. I mean, it has more chance than any of the other moves which have taken place so far. It's very interesting that we are part of the stimulus behind it - if all this is confirmed, of course.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: Why do you say that it's interesting that we would be part of the stimulus?
ROSS BURNS: Well, I think our part is that - I mean, A: we're in the coalition on the air strikes; but B: we've also had this rather interesting relationship with the Iranians over the years. So we have - I mean, the Americans are not in Tehran; we are. So we can be a useful channel in that direction.
And I'd think the fact is that Julie Bishop was there a few months ago and seemed to get a lot out of the visit. So it doesn’t surprise me at all that she sees this as a bit of a challenge, where we can help out a bit.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: So do you see this as America directly using its ally, Australia, to achieve what it wants to achieve in the Middle East?
ROSS BURNS: Well, I think it's probably casting around for anything which can help at the moment. If you put together the hints from Kerry, the stuff which is coming out of Lavrov and the quite interesting statements from the Russian ambassador in Canberra, (NB this is pernicious fantasy...) I think you get a picture of a situation where people are beginning to realise this has gone on too long.
It's gone through many crises, many permutations and combinations. But we're now at a point where it's simply threatening to become a crisis of mammoth proportions.
If you - The way I read the Russian concern is that they're trying to bolster whatever effort the Syrian official army can still make to protect the Alawite heartland along the Syrian coast.
There really is a new strategic picture developing and I think everything has to be thrown into it from the Syrian side in order to prevent what could be the endgame. Now, when I say "endgame", I mean an endgame which might be a very slow endgame. But I think we know a bit more now about how the final configuration of this conflict might look.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: Well, how will that process of removing Assad actually unfold?
ROSS BURNS: What you have to set in place is to get all the players who have been backing various components of the crisis over the last four or five years to back off from their support of their - I wouldn't say "proxies" - but support of the groups that they've favoured over this time and just get across to them that the danger now is of ISIS grabbing more of Syria, getting further into western Syria where the greater part of the population is, where the greater number of minorities are and, of course, where the regime heartland has always been: in those coastal mountains.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: Is there anyone within his regime who looks like an attractive alternative?
ROSS BURNS: I can't think of too many in the family, I must say.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: I mean, it is a problem, isn't it? There aren't many contenders?
ROSS BURNS: Yeah. There are presumably some generals still around who might have a little less blood on their hands than the others. You know, that's what I think the Russians will be looking for.
And of course, the people who emerge in these situations in the past in Syria are people you've never, ever heard of before. That's how Bashar al-Assad's father came to power in 1970.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: Is there any successful precedent for this sort of transition in the Middle East at all?
ROSS BURNS: Ah, that's a good question. probably not in the Middle East, no. (latin America?...)
ELIZABETH JACKSON: So it would be a tremendous victory if they were able to remove him in this way?
ROSS BURNS: Oh, it'll be a terrifically difficult process; tremendously difficult.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: That's Dr Ross Burns, former Australian ambassador to Syria.
There was more to this interview in the earlier broadcast of the program on national radio, which included Jackson’s comments about the removals of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qadhafi ‘not going so well’ – or some similar, which is why she says ‘so it would be a tremendous victory....’
Sometimes you hear something which makes you sit bolt upright, at 7am, and choke on the first sips of the morning tea...
Last week I received the final rejection from Julie Bishop, of my latest call for a parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s position on Syria, and the role of the state media, ABC and SBS in fostering and supporting the illegal and covert behaviour of our government.
What more can we do?
And I might say, that after a couple of days when barely anything has been said or discussed about the dangers of our intervention in escalating into a global war, on Saturday when there is nothing open for comment – no-one to abuse over the phone – we have this! By monday we’ll have moved on, or moved back to the tried and tested social issues that monopolise our ABC.
Abbott has now taken Australia to (yet another) illegal war on Syria. We should be implacably opposed to this.
We must counter the dominant narrative
The dominant narrative on Syria depicts the conflict as a ‘civil war’ sparked by a brutal dictator cracking down on a popular movement. While it is true that there was, from the beginning, anti-government protests and calls for reform, the evidence suggest, as Tim Anderson has persuasively argued, the military conflict in Syria was/is "between a pluralist and popularly supported state, against armed sectarian islamists, backed by western and regional powers."
But if ‘we’ do ‘nothing,’ what about ISIS?
It’s a myth that the western governments have done "nothing" for the last 4 years. In fact they have been heavily implicated in the war on Syria. The anti-war movement should demand that Western governments (including Australia):
1. cease arming, financing, training the so-called 'moderate' opposition, most of whom share the same or similar Islamist ideology to ISIS, and many of whom end up fighting alongside them.
2. cease all military bombings and no fly zones?.
3. assist Syria/Iraq etc to secure the Syrian borders to prevent the aformentioned groups entering Syria, often ending up assisting ISIS et al
4. end sanctions on Syria, so they are better able to deal with these terrorist groups.
All the above will enable the (popularly supported) Syrian Arab Army, in coalition with its own allies, to successfully fight off the unpopular foreign backed Islamist militants.
What if the Syrian people want to replace their authoritarian state (though see over page for myths about Syria!) and institute a new socialist/democratic order?
1. We must always remember a basic libertarian principle: it is only the Syrian people who can determine their own domestic and international policies.
2. Although it is true that states are not sacred, and social liberation is impossible unless peoples live in free confederations of their own communities securing the equal distribution of political and economic power among all citizens, still, national liberation is a precondition for any social liberation.
3. Neither national nor social liberation can ever be achieved with the help of the very elites against whom both types of struggle are fought. This is why any direct or indirect cooperation of the struggling peoples (and the Left in general) with the transnational elite and its client regimes, in order to overthrow a domestic authoritarian regime, is inconceivable.
4. It is always up to the peoples themselves to fight for their own liberation, and the only international help they can ever count on is the solidarity of other peoples (never their elites!), which could be expressed, for example, through the formation of international brigades of volunteers to help the suppressed peoples (as in the classic example of the Spanish Civil War).
5. Therefore, siding with the Syrian “revolutionaries” (who are voluntarily financed, armed and militarily supported by the transnational elite and their client regimes) against the Assad regime (like Gaddafi before it), as suggested by most of the “Left” today, is a blatant betrayal of the above principles.
Debunking the myths about Syria & Assad ….
Myth 1: Bashar Assad presides over a ‘brutal’ dictatorship.
Fact: In response to popular pressure Assad initiated a constitutional referendum which removed the Baath Party’s monopoly and, for the first time, established competitive elections. These were held in June 2014.
Bashar won with 88% of the vote. Moreover the election was legitimate. The world media recognised the massive turnout, both in Syria and from refugees in Lebanon (77.4%). Election observers came from India, Brazil, Russia, China, South Africa, Iran and Latin America, along with non-official observers from the USA and Canada (KNN 2014). The participation rate in Syria’s 2014 wartime election (73.4%) was far higher than any presidential election in the USA(between 52% and 60%)
Myth 2: Bashar Al Assad leads a sectarian ‘Alawi regime’, where a 12% minority represses a Sunni Muslim majority
Fact: The Syrian government is the only secular government in the Middle East. It has guaranteed religious freedom in what remains to this day a Muslim-majority country. Syria is a common home to many ethnicities and 23 different religious groups, and has always been a place where all were free to believe and live out their creed, all relationships were characterized by mutual respect. More than half the Syrian government's army is Sunni.
Myth 3: Bashar Assad has no popular support.
Fact: The Syrian state is indeed deeply authoritarian. Many want change, because of poverty, rising inequality, corruption and the political police. But evidence suggests the many Syrians also liked Assad and support the secular state. Certainly most support the Syrian Arab Army in its struggle against what most see as foreign backed terrorists. As Assad himself points out, how could he have maintained power for over four years, if he did not have a substantial base of popular support? Evidence from several sources suggests he does:
• A poll in late 2011 by Qatar showed that a 51% majority of Syrians wanted Assad to stay
• Three Free Syrian Army leaders (all of whom collaborated with al Qaeda groups) in Aleppo, said the Syrian President had at least “70 percent” support in that city
• An internal NATO study in 2013 estimated that 70% of Syrians supported the President, 20% were neutral and 10% supported the “rebels”
There has been recent media coverage of efforts by the Australian government, in concert with the Australian Kangaroo products industry, to overturn an impending ban on the importation of Kangaroo products to California. The trade in Kangaroo products has been largely in the form of leather products. Aside from ethical issues surrounding the underhandedness of the Australian government’s interference in the Californian legislature on this issue, these events raise broader ethical issues about ongoing attempts to commercialize the harvesting of Australian wildlife, including for international trade.
First, some background about the Kangaroo products trade to California. The Californian legislature imposed a ban on the importation of Kangaroo products in 1971, a highly principled environmental decision, which in part reflected opposition in California to the commercial killing of wildlife. However, this ban was effectively overturned by Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007. As a result, the trade in Kangaroo products has flourished for the past eight years or so. The moratorium on the ban will end in December 2015, and is now due for review in the Californian Senate. The Senate could decide to either discontinue the moratorium, in which case the Kangaroo products trade would cease in accordance with the original ban, or, it may decide to maintain the moratorium, and the trade in Kangaroo products for a limited period or even indefinitely.
The issue has attracted a great deal of critical media attention in California, not merely because of the ethical issues associated with the commercial destruction of wildlife, but because of the way the Australian government has directly funded underhanded political tactics to influence of the decision making of the Californian legislature.
The Australian Department of Agriculture provided the Kangaroo Industries Association A$143,000 to pay U.S. lobbyists to influence Californian law makers. Furthermore, Australian government interference has been criticized because of the dishonest tactics that have been used in its attempt to influence the Californian legislature to maintain the Kangaroo products trade. It has relied upon a ‘gut and amend’ tactic, by which a bill on a completely unrelated issue, which has already reached the floor of the Californian Senate, is rewritten to put a totally different issue to the legislature. In this way, a bill initially related to gambling has been transformed into a bill on the Kangaroo trade issue, in an attempt to have the moratorium continued by stealth. As a result, a complaint has been lodged to the Fair Political Commission alleging that the Australian government may have acted illegally in not declaring its financial payments or to register itself as a lobbyist employer. The U.S. Humane Society observes that this tactic “…smacks of special interest dealing and secrecy”.
The Australian government’s underhandedness and mismanagement of the issue is clearly tarnishing Australia’s reputation in the U.S. Attempting to stick his finger in the dyke, Australian Ambassador to the U.S., former Federal Labor heavyweight, Kim Beazley, staggered into the fray, asserting to the Californian press that Australia’s tactics had been respectable and that criticism of it was ‘emotional’. Predictably supercilious, Beazely asserted that the products traded were not from threatened kangaroo species, that there were twice as many kangaroos in Australia as people and that cessation of the trade would do significant economic damage to both California and Australia – as if these claims exhausted the ethical and ecological issues involved pertaining to wholesale wildlife destruction and commercialization.
In a political climate where there is increasing reluctance to accept that habitat and wildlife species should be quarantined from commercial predation, and where the very concepts of nature and nature conservation are under siege from academic air heads, it is disturbing to witness the lengths to which the Australian government will go to ensure the continuation of wildlife-based trade. The events surrounding the trade in Kangaroo products to California should not be seen in isolation.
Domestically, recreational hunting organizations are ramping up political pressure for increased access to wildlife species, to have wildlife species redefined as 'game'. In fact the recreational and commercial dimensions of wildlife destruction are closely related. Recently in Victoria, state upper house members, elected on a hunting and fishing ticket (with an obscenely small number of votes) called for the introduction of a kangaroo shooting season, similar to the Victorian duck shooting season. While claiming that their voluntary involvement in Kangaroo culling would make a contribution to environmental management (referring to claims of kangaroo overpopulation), it is also asserted that the Kangaroos slaughtered should ‘not go to waste’ and be disposed of commercially. It remains to be seen if the Victorian Labor government will be opportunistic enough (given the need to attract cross-bench support in the upper house) to buy into this insidious double speak. In reality, recreational shooters want access to Kangaroos for the same reasons they have already gained state permission to destroy ducks – nothing to do with environmental management or 'sustainability' (in fact the opposite).
As part of its 2014 policy platform, the Victorian Labor government announced its intention to rewrite and merge the Victorian Wildlife and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Acts. As it stands, the Victorian Wildlife Act holds that all Victorian wildlife is protected by definition. The Act does, however, provide for the destruction of wildlife where property and persons are threatened or damaged. Although it may be argued that these wildlife destruction provisions are currently applied too liberally, the axiomatic principle that wildlife, by definition, is to be protected is highly defensible and responsible. It remains to be seen whether this laudable principle survives Labor’s rewriting of the Wildlife Act; Victorian Labor’s current bio-diversity policy contains no such principle.
"Deja Vu in Northern Syria: Jabhat Al-Nusra Captures the Abu Al-Dhuhour Military Airport" by Leith Fadel, 10 September 2015, reports that the Syrian Al-Qaeda faction “Jabhat Al-Nusra” and their affiliate group “Jund Al-Aqsa”, have captured the north Syria military airbase, "Abu Al-Dhuhour Military Airport, from the Syrian Arab Army and the Al-Daher Hawks Brigade after a long and costly battle for both parties involved." The author of this article, resident in Syria, suspects that these terrorist groups had access to information from western satellites because he finds it inconceivable that, while everyone else in the area was blinded by a sandstorm, the terrorists could somehow still operate effectively.
Da'esh is attacking areas to the west of Palmyra as well, where some oil and gas fields are located. So far they have failed, but the Syrian army is fighting both the sandstorm and the zombies of Da'esh.
I have no proof, but I am suspicious that those terrorists of Nusra and Da'esh are receiving instructions from western satellites, where and when and how to attack this or that military base. I can't believe that these people can see their way around in such storm, plan, and conquer new areas while no one else can see more than few meters around themself. Clips from the western fields of Palmyra look as if they are filmed on Mars, with a red atmosphere, yet the terrorists are making miraculous progress in such weather!...
I wasn't born yesterday, and I don't buy the idea of "heavenly support" to these zombies .... unless that support actually came from satellites and western-Israeli-GCC-Turkish intelligence agents and logistic help.
It's a dirty war.
Syrian army and Hezbollah are winning in many areas, but losing in other places. That endless blindness crisis is not going to end until the states that supported the war with funds, weapons, and media, taste the poison they have created and feel the pain they have showered on innocent nations. Turkey, Saudi, Jordan, and Israel will have to pay a big price from their own pockets to wake up and smell the coffee. Bloodshed started in Turkey recently. Unfortunately it won't stop until till it's too late. That's human nature.
Sustainable Population Party is pleased to endorse a truly local candidate for the 2015 Canning, West Australia, by-election - Angela Smith. Angela is an environmental scientist and resident of Canning, with links to the region going back 30 years.
Angela Smith - Environmental scientist, Carer, Mature-age student
From Angela:
I was born on a farm and grew up in the country. As a child migrant, I understand and appreciate the significant contribution that migration has made to Australia.
I have over thirty years of work/life experience in science and environment, health and social welfare, mining, primary production, stay-at-home caring and most recently, further study as a mature age arts/law student at Murdoch University. I also volunteer at the Mandurah Community Museum.
In my ’spare time’ I enjoy singing (amateur choir), cycling, dog walking and canoeing (the Peel Harvey Estuary and rivers), and bushwalking in Jarrah woodlands on the Darling Scarp. I'm a member of Mensa, Exit, Animals Australia, Australian Society of Authors, Copyright Agency and the Royal WA Historical Society – I am also a recent past member of National Seniors, WA Council on the Ageing and the Alzheimer’s Association.
I have a passion for sustainability, social justice (notably regarding age discrimination, sexism, racism and homophobia), animal rights and human rights. I believe in a sustainable environment for all people, plants and animals - not just the chosen few. I am a strong advocate for the increasing number of vulnerable and downtrodden.
I believe that all Australians (including mature-aged) should be supported with education and training to fill skills shortages - rather than the government and business prioritising skills through high immigration. We have the labour and talent in this country and, especially given our increasingly longer living population, it is not sustainable to continue to waste it.
I also believe the major parties are too closely aligned to vested interests (including the big end of town and big unions) and should get back to their core business of essential services for the public interest i.e. health, education, justice and infrastructure.
In recent decades our politicians have let slide Australia’s once proud ‘fair go for all’. And, while some are unquestionably better off, may more are falling through the cracks. Egalitarianism is a central objective of the Sustainable Population Party's core values.
There are a number of key issues I will be campaigning on for the people of Canning, including:
Education
Paid jobs
Infrastructure
Health care
Renewable energy
Housing affordability
All of these key issues and many more are addressed in our policies page.
Unlike many politicians, the late Don Randall actually listened to his constituents. I was in communication with Don - about infrastructure problems in Canning (including the NBN access and telephone reception) and worker exploitation - when he sadly passed away.
Like Don, I'd like to communicate with as many residents of Canning as possible. So, please contact me with your questions and any feedback.
We need to redefine 'growth' to secure a better, not bigger Canning.
Over the last few months there has been an alarming increase in the numbers of juvenile Eastern Grey Kangaroo's being found either dead or in a very lethargic state and near death in parts of the ACT and adjacent New South Wales. Rosemary and Steve Garlic, who are wildlife carers in the area, were initially contacted by a few Wildcare carers and the issue then seemed to be centred around the Wamboin/Norton Road area. This article was developed from an internal note to members of Wildcare, of which Steve and Rosemary Garlic are members and Helen Stevens is the coordinator.
The situation now seems to be far more widespread as Wildcare have now received sick animals from Queanbeyan NSW, Jerrabomberra NSW, the ACT, Sutton NSW, and this week Burra, near Queenbeyan. Between Rosemary/Steve and myself we have dealt with or known of 60 suspected cases and it is very distressing.
The animals affected appear to be last years offspring ranging from 8kgs to 18kgs. They are either being found dead, with no appearance of injury, in paddocks etc or are showing signs of weight loss, lethargy allowing them to be rescued easily and are hypothermic.
All that have come into care have died, usually between 1 and 24 hours later despite all our efforts as well as medical attention. Contrary to what some believe, it is not starvation due to over population as they are usually still eating and passing normal faeces and post mortem has shown digested food in the stomach and formed pellets in the intestine.
Wildcare are working closely with NPWS, DPI, Australian Registry for Wildlife Health and some of our local vets to try to identify the cause of this unusual occurance and the situation has been escalated to an alert as some national parks in the ACT are recording very high numbers too.
A number of deceased animals have been transported to Sydney for further examination and testing but at the moment results have been unable to identify what is causing the fatal decline in these joeys.
Upon post mortem the 5 animals that have been examined by our local wildlife vet Dr Howard Ralph, and the vets at DPI and the Taronga Conservation Society have all shown fluid in the peritoneal cavity (ascites) and some showing fluid around other major organs.
The majority seem to have a very high number of nematodes (worms) in the intestine but the question is still "why" as parasites will increase if an animal's immune system is compromised.
We are not seeing young in pouch joeys, who would be receiving antibodies via their mothers milk, or adults, who have developed immune systems, affected.
Investigations are looking at possible virus, parasite/protozoa infestation, transmission by ticks (as in Babesia), plant poisoning etc. So far post mortem results have been negative for Babesia and Phyllaris grass poisoning (hundreds of kangaroos are dying from this in Victoria around Bendigo, Kilmore and Broadford) but more testing is needed to compare cases and to continue to try to find a common cause which will hopefully lead to a treatment path if the animal is viable.
What can you do to help?
Not only do we need to document any possible cases but we require more testing to be carried out by the NPWS suggested agencies.
Please let Wildcare know asap if
a) you come across an animal that appears to be affected - they will usually be alone, appear underweight, may have aeroplane (floppy) ears and do not try to escape/move off if approached;
b) you find a fresh deceased juvenile kangaroo that appears to have no external injury;
c) your friends/neighbours mention finding a number of young kangaroo bodies over the last few months.
If I receive any news regarding possible diagnosis I will send out an update as I know many are very worried about this.
The first day I saw Mani she stood out. When you visit cows on death row they all stare at you without moving. Their eyes pull you into their hearts and you can palpably feel them begging ‘Pick me! Pick me!’ But of course you can’t pick them all unless you are incredibly rich. And even if you were rich and could buy them you also have to think of the cost of maintaining them – feed, veterinary bills, fencing etc. As soon as you buy one, they are quickly replaced by another desperate soul wanting to be freed.
So that first day I saw Mani she took two steps towards me before stopping, which is body language to make her stand out from the others. It worked. She did it every time I visited. So here is her message:-
“Please help me escape from this prison feedlot! I know they are sending me to the cow gulag where I will be quartered and the blood will drain from my neck as I fade into the other world, hearing the sounds of terrified cows screaming all around me.
“I just want to live in peace, feel the grass beneath my feet, the sun on my back and be away from the men with dogs and sticks!
“I will be forever grateful to you if you help purchase me so my rescuer can take me to a cow sanctuary.”
It will cost $1,000 to buy me from the farmer and then a few hundred more to transport her. Will you help me?
If you can help please paypal me any amount at [email protected].
THANK YOU!
Update 27/3/2016:
Well I finally got the money together to purchase Mani from the farmer but he played games with me, giving phony reasons why he could not sell her just yet. One day I went down to the pen and she was gone! I had a strong feeling she was at the slaughterhouse. My friend was willing to drive me there with her horse float but first she called the farmer who lied, saying that Mani and a few others 'jumped the fence'. It was not till next morning that I woke up and knew it was a lie. Unfortunately by then it was too late to save her. I'm so sorry, Mani!!! Forgive me ....
Commentary:
As long as people go on eating steaks and hamburgers, this cycle will never end. As long as people refuse to look at the reality of what happens at the slaughterhouse to these beautiful, gentle animals and how they are causing it with their dietary choices, the suffering will go on and on.
Don’t forget there is more suffering in the dairy industry than the meat industry. Babies are taken from their mothers just 5 hours after birth and trucked to the slaughterhouse or just shot. The mother cows cry for days for their lost babies. Dairy cow mothers must endure not only losing all their precious babies but also the rape rack and being mechanically milked, which can sometimes cause udder infections. And at the end of it she still must face the horrors at the slaughterhouse.
It’s time for humanity to stop and wake up. It’s time for people to make compassionate choices so sentient beings don’t have to suffer. Go vegan! It’s the solution for world peace. (See World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle).
See also http://www.saveacow.com where one incredibly caring man has purchased land and has 150 rescue cows at his cow sanctuary.
See also http://www.farmanimalrescue.org.au where all kinds of farm animals can live their lives in a sanctuary.
Sustainable Population Party rejects the moral posturing and political one-upsmanship surrounding the current Syrian refugee crisis, and calls for sustainable global solutions to the human tragedy of forced migration.
In an ABC Radio interview today, World Vision CEO Reverend Tim Costello says “the [refugee] intake is the pimple on the hippopotamus” and “not really the main game.”[1]
Reverend Costello added “It's actually giving people hope in the camps that they're secure, they're going to be fed, that they don't need to flee - and above all... go back home. That's what they want to do. They just want to go back home, not come here, not go to Europe.”
William Bourke, President of the Sustainable Population Party agrees, saying “Whilst an increased intake should be considered, the current game of moral one-upmanship by politicians is unhelpful and regrettable. The government’s plans to increase the intake by 12,000 will cost a conservative $500 million, or around $40,000 per refugee.[2]
“How many people would $40,000 per year help to live safely in UN camps? According to the UNHCR, a donation of $300 per annum ‘can buy an Emergency Assistance Package to give a family the essentials for survival and shelter’.[3] If we conservatively assume a family is four people, that’s $75 per person. For every one person Australia resettles, we therefore forego the opportunity to help over 500 people in what World Vision’s Tim Costello calls ‘the main game’. Given the scale of the Syrian crisis, $500 million would be better spent helping over 6 million people than 12,000.
”Rather than simplistic moral posturing over increased permanent resettlement numbers, we align with Reverend Costello’s overriding aim to help people live safely now, and ultimately sustainably in their homeland. To achieve this ultimate goal, we also need to address underlying drivers of resource scarcity and conflict in Syria, including rapid population growth.
“Syria’s population has exploded from 3.5 million in 1950 to 23 million today. This growth dilutes natural resources like food and water, and ties into “economic problems, education costs and living costs."[4] At the current extreme growth rate, Syria will reach around 35 million by 2050. This increasing resource scarcity fuels growing conflict between militias and religious groups.
“To help address the global population crisis, Australia should also increase its total family planning and reproductive health services foreign aid from $50 million to at least $500 million immediately and to at least $1 billion by 2020, Mr Bourke added. | ENDS
President Bashar Al-Assad being interviewed by Charlie Rose of 60 Minutes on 10 Sep 2013. For a corrupt, brutal dictator, as he has been depicted by the Western media, he has shown him- self remarkably willing to face long and probing interviews, sometimes even with hostile interviewers.
Most unfortunately for the anti-war movement, even some who oppose Australian military intervention in Syria, including Greens member of Parliament Adam Bandt, accept the claim that President Bashar Al-Assad is a brutal dictator guilty of murdering many tens of thousands of his own people. 1
In fact, Bashar Al-Assad was re-elected President on 4 June 2014 by an overwhelming majority of Syrians. See Syria's press conference the United Nations doesn't want you to see with embedded 52:45 minute YouTube video. 2 This report is of a press conference at the United Nations in New York on 19 June 2014. At that press conference five international observers testified that the elections were conducted fairly. Not one of the journalists present took the opportunity to challenge that testimony. Those, who had reported before and since that Bashar al-Assad was a corrupt and hated dictator, was torturing and murdering his own people, was dropping 'barrel bombs' on civilians, was poisoning Syrians with chemical weapons, etc., etc., etc., seem to have lost their voices on that day, or were absent.
According to the report cited in that article from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which can hardly be accused of bias towards the Syrian government, 88.7% of the 73.42% of eligible Syrian voters who voted, voted for President Bashar al-Assad. So, of 15,845,575 Syrians eligible to vote, eligible voters 10,319,723 or 65.13% voted for Bashar al-Assad. What other government in the world can claim this much popular support? Certainly not one of those countries, listed below, which support the terrorist invasion of Syria.
The supposed 'civil war', which has been going on for over four years in Syria, is, in fact an invasion by hordes of sociopaths from many corners of the globe, armed and paid for by the United States, France, Britain, Turkey, Jordan, Israel and the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia. Over 220,000 Syrians have died in that conflict so far. The sanctions, imposed on Syria by the Australian government under the fraudulent pretext of the claim that the Syrian government had murdered 108 of its citizens at Houla on 25 May 2012#fnAb3" id="txtAb3"> 3 , has further impeded the efforts of the Syrian government to fight the terrorists, thereby contributing to that horrific death toll. So, Australia, which shamefully participated in sanctions against Iraq from 1990 and two genocidal wars against in 1990 and 2003#fnAb4" id="txtAb4"> 4 , also has the blood of Syrians on its hands.
If Adam Bandt and others, who have spoken out against Tony Abbott's planned war against Syria, took the effort to learn that the Syrian government is supported by the people of Syria and made that known to the broader public, the task of ending the war would be that much easier.
Footnote[s]
#fnAb1" id="fnAb1">1.#txtAb1">↑ On 9 September 2015, Greens member of the Federal Parliament Adam Bandt 2016 posted the following comment to his Facebook page (my emphasis):
Adam Bandt I'm also distressed to hear reports that government members are advocating for a discriminatory intake of people who are fleeing the brutality of ISIS and the brutality of the Assad regime. When people around the country saw tragic images of Aylan Kurdi, a 3-year old boy whose body had washed up on the shore, they didn't ask what religion he was. People just said we want to help.
#fnAb2" id="fnAb2">2.#txtAb2">↑ The article was republished from http://www.globalresearch.ca/syrias-press-conference-the-united-nations-doesnt-want-you-to-see/5387795 . The 53 minute embedded video is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnFQd4wBXnk .
A Social Democratic Party that Lost Its Way: Once-upon-a-time Canada’s New Democrats knew that there were Limits to Growth. They knew about the Club of Rome, about Silent Spring and about the Population Bomb. They knew that resources were finite and that their unrestricted extraction would cause irreparable damage. They knew that “growth” was the ideology of the cancer cell. Yes, in the 1970’s the environment was very much on the agenda. Party academic and scholar Charles Taylor spoke of “the politics of the steady-state” and John Harney ran his federal leadership campaign on those kinds of issues.
Here’s what the British Columbia NDP stated in 1972:
a. “An NDP government will undertake a study of the effects of continued exponential growth in the Province of B. C.
b. “Such a study of the exponential growth in B. C. would investigate the possibility of taking all steps deemed necessary to deal adequately with the situation.
c. “The Environmental Control Committee of the provincial NDP will study the adoption of a steady-state economic policy, the concept of progress and limited growth, and the party’s stand on this matter.”
d. “It is recommended that a federally-sponsored permanent research group be established to investigate all aspects of growth and to submit recommendations for action. Such a research group would be required to submit reports within two years of its establishment, and at subsequent two year intervals.”
e. “An NDP government will give top priority to environmental problems with particular emphasis on population control.”
f. “An NDP government will encourage all means which will bring about voluntary limitation of population.”
g. “Immediate steps will be taken to educate the public in the urgent necessity of halting population growth.”
(From Policies for People, Policies of the B.C. NDP 1961-78, p.30)
So what happened to all of this? Somehow the NDP lost its vision. Its prescient grasp of the impending ecological crisis slipped away into the hands of those who would have us believe that we can “have our cake and grow it too”. That we can have Economic Growth—“development”—and environmental integrity at the same time. They reconcile these contradictory goals with self-delusional, trendy oxymorons like “sustainable development” and---my personal favourite—“smart growth”. The NDP has become a party not just about dividing up the economic pie more equitably—but about “growing” the pie too. “Grow the pie to grow the revenues, and increased revenues will allow us to fund and maintain an endless laundry list of social services. Growth is not the problem you see. The problem is that the poorer among us are not in on the action. Apparently the NDP has not heard the terrible news: We’re living on a finite planet.
As I wrote in 2008, when the NDP was led by Jack Layton and the federal Liberals by Stephane Dion,
“In this they are not to be distinguished from any other party. Even the Greens, beneath their rhetoric, are committed to Economic Growth, because their leader Elizabeth May shares Layton, Harper and Dion’s goal of boosting Canada’s population to 40 million plus via immigration (http://www.greenparty.ca/index.php?module=article&view=85). That's right folks. Greens and so-called 'environmentalists' somehow believe that you can add another Metro Toronto to Canada's population every decade without negative ecological impacts! Yeah, and you can eat a liter of ice cream every day and lose weight too. Immigration accounts for two-thirds of the country’s population growth, and it is that, coupled with per capita consumption rates, which drives economic growth. And economic growth is eclipsing wildlife habitat and spurring greenhouse emissions.
No Jack, it’s not about driving Green cars, or building windmills, or retro-fitting houses. It’s about stabilizing our population level, limiting economic growth, and finally establishing what we talked about 35 years ago—a steady-state economy.”
Well that was then and this is now, September of 2015, when the country is in the midst of a federal election campaign. A campaign where, once again, contending leaders employ histrionics and fake outrage to give the impression that each offers the voters a radically different choice than their rivals. And once again, many voters are buying it. Harper is the devil incarnate or he is the one man who can be trusted to guide us through tough economic times. The fate of the world hinges on stopping Stephen Harper or re-electing him. That is what rhetoric can do to peoples’ brains.
But if there is indeed a difference, it is, as Freud would have put it, “the narcissism of small differences”. The differences are so petty that each leader feels obliged to inflate them to stake out a distinctive position. All parties support continued hyper-immigration-driven rapid population and economic growth, but some are careful to couch it those aforementioned oxymoronic euphemisms like "sustainable growth", "sustainable development", and drumbeats, "smart growth" (smart extinctions? smart clear cuts? smart carbon emissions?).
The only difference between the Opposition Parties and Harper's Conservatives is that the former are more adept at Greenwash. Nothing better illustrates this point than the absurd contention of NDP leader Thomas Mulcair that he is committed to getting the oil sands oil to market, but will ensure that it will be extracted and delivered safely and responsibly in accordance with tougher environmental regulations. What Mulcair doesn’t get is that it is not how the oil is procured and shipped to market that is of crucial importance, but the fact that once “marketed” and received, customers are going to actually BURN it. How is Mulcair and his party going to “green” that? And this is the party that accused Stephen Harper of not being serious about tackling climate change.
No doubt Mr. Mulcair took his cue from the newly elected NDP Premier of Alberta, Rachel Notley, who shortly after assuming office this summer, declared that the oil sands project was a “tremendous asset” and an “international showpiece”. That’s quite an abrupt transition for a party that once regarded it as the planet’s most conspicuous environmental blight, and insisted that the oil sands was in reality the “tar” sands. Funny how that works.
ALEPPO, SYRIA, 8 SEPTEMBER 2015: I have several points that I would like to share with you, they might shed a light or help us understand what's really going on. They might be unrelated, contradicted, or has an argumentative nature. I'll share my own ideas, and those of my Syrian friend who moved to Germany 2-3 years ago.
- The hysteric focus on the immigrants to Europe, is to create a public opinion, to support the European governments and armies to interfere in Syria, under humanitarian grounds. It's like scaring their people: "If we don't go to war, Europe will be invaded by Muslims, Arabs, Africans, and Asians."
Why the focus on Syrian refugees?
- Refugees to Europe (and North America and Australia in lesser numbers and portions) have never stopped since the end of WWII. Sinking boats filled with illegal refugees have never stopped in the last decades, and they used to be either totally ignored or partially shown at the end of the news, just to feel a little pity about that tragedy. The whales who committed suicide at the shores would have more cameras though. So what had changed today to focus on the Syrian refugees?
Not all Syrian refugees are Syrian
- A new Syrian refugee who made it up recently to Germany, told my friend over there, that Syrian refugees with him were about 20% of the total refugees on the boats and trains! The rest were from North Africa, Afghanistan, and even from Balkan states (southeastern Europe), yet the mainstream media focus only on Syrian refugees, or worse, call them all as Syrian refugees!... Although I admit that I'm not following the news, [...] but I remember watching some news by coincidence showing refugees reaching different areas in Europe, and I thought that they look like Afghanis or Asians. Then I guessed that they might be Kurds? I didn't give it more attention, till I received that interested note from my friend over there. So what does it mean? Does it mean that many nations are taking advantage of the Syrian crisis, and immigrating to Europe as Syrians? From another source, I heard that some Lebanese are doing so right now, going to Europe as Syrian refugees. Some Syrians families did the same in the 80's, immigrated to Sweden and pretended that they are Lebanese fleeing their civil war....
The game of exaggerated numbers
- Or, European governments do know where these refugees are coming from, but they are turning a blind eye, to make the numbers of the alleged Syrian refugees 10 times more? The game of exaggerated numbers of dead, wounded, and refugees had been played a lot in the last 5 years. When NATO interfered in Libya, they said that "Qaddhafi's army" had already murdered dozens of thousands of Libyans around Benghazi, and they had to interfere to avoid a massacre of hundreds of thousands. After the toppling of the Libyan state, the real numbers came out, that the casualties were around 200-250, half of them were Libyan policemen and pro-government officials. Lies in numbers today about the real number of Syrian refugees to Europe is very possible. Maybe few years from now, the real numbers will shown, as one tenth or less than what they are shown now on the media.
Is the West coordinating ethnic and religious triage in selecting refugees for a reason?
- There is some two year old gossip, that each European state is taking certain type, sect, or ethnic group of Syrians, to divide them forever. I remember that Cyprus was accepting Syrian Orthodox Christians refugees, while other states were accepting Protestants, Catholics,...etc. Syrian Circassians were asking to take refuge in Russia but Russia offered to support them to stay in their lands. Syrian Armenians were immigrating to Armenia. That wasn't the same for Muslim sects. Iran and Hezbollah for example, are supporting the Shi'a community to stay in their land and to defend it. It was so obvious to me when Da'esh attacked the Assyrians and ancient Christians in northern Iraq, and kicked them out of their homes and towns: France invited them to come right away, as if Da'esh and the French government were working together to cleanse the Levant and the Middle East from its original authentic nations to replace them with all the international trash militias they brought from overseas. Each time a Christian village or town attacked in Syria, France or other European state offer them safe haven outside of Syria. That way of scattering the Syrian people around the globe is a very evil plan.
Rather than help us leave, help us to stay in Syria
- There is an argument about what European states had to do: If they helped the poor Syrian (or other) refugees of seniors, women and children, we say over here that they are cleansing our communities and nation in a systematic pattern. However if Europeans didn't do anything for the Syrians, we will say over here that "No one is helping or giving a hand or offering us a visa as refugees in their states." Part of that type of problematic thinking is because of the dominant idea of "conspiracy theories" over here. Long history of fooling the Arabs made them so suspicious about everything, sometimes not in a healthy way.
I think that supporting people to stay in their lands and to defend themselves instead of simply helping them to leave, might be one of the answers of that ongoing argument.
As Germany welcomes thousands of refugees, with industries seeking ways to integrate newcomers into country's workforce, Berlin's move to temporarily bypass EU-wide regulations has met strong criticism from France's Marine Le Pen who accused Germany of recruiting "slaves."
The German drive to open its doors to refugees, as well as debated plans to resettle asylum seekers across the EU has been met with strong criticism from a number of politicians, including the leader of right-wing French party National Front, Marine Le Pen who accused Germany of imposing its immigration policy on the EU.
"Germany probably thinks its population is moribund, and it is probably seeking to lower wages and continue to recruit slaves through mass immigration," Marine Le Pen said in Marseille, refusing to admit that pure benevolence was Germany's only motive.#fn2" id="txt2"> 2
Le Pen criticised European politicians for "exploiting the suffering of these poor people who cross the Mediterranean Sea."
"They are exploiting the death of the unfortunate in these trips organized by mafia, they show pictures, they exhibit the death of a child without any dignity just to blame the European consciences and make them accept the current situation," the National Front leader said.
Following days of chaos and uncertainty, thousands of refugees – mostly Syrians – were bused from Hungary to Austria, and then brought by train to Germany, after the countries agreed on allowing migrants access, bypassing the Dublin Regulation.
By Sunday night almost 11,000 migrants arrived in Germany, authorities in Munich said. Germany in August registered more than 100,000 asylum seekers with some 800,000 refugees overall expected to come to Germany in total this year – four times the level of last year.
#fn2" id="fn2">2.#txt2">↑ How the RT author can know that Marine Le Pen is wrong about the motives of Angela Merkel and the German corporate interests she represents, is not explained in this artcle.
The death of a child and the blood on Washington's hands
All Americans need to take a good close look at the photo below. This is the result of the Obama administration's attempts to overthrow the government in Syria. It probably was not the intended result, per se, but it is the result nonetheless.
When you finance an army of crazed murderers and send them into a country to deliberately sow chaos and instability, people are naturally going to try and seek safety.
If the chaos persists over a period of years with no end in sight, you will inevitably have a flood of refugees pouring out of the country.
This is the problem Europe is confronting now – and they brought it all on themselves by supporting America's regime-change policies in Syria and Libya. Both countries were prosperous and had stable governments prior to the US interference.
The boy in the photo above, whose body washed up on a Turkish beach Wednesday, has been identified as three-year-old Aylan Kurdi, from the Syrian town of Kobani. His mother as well as his five-year-old brother, Galip, also drowned. Kobani is located near the Turkish border. The family were able to make it over that border and into Turkey, along with many other Syrians, in a stream of refugees that began when ISIS launched its siege on Kobani.
This summer tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have been making their way to Turkey's Aegean coast in particular, this in an effort to gain passage to Greece. According to some estimates, the number departing by boat has averaged about 2,000 per day over the past month.
From the coast of Bodrum, in Turkey, to Kos, one of the eastern-most Greek islands, is only a distance of two miles, and some have been trying to make the trip in rubber dinghies. Early Wednesday, 23 people, including Aylan and his family, crowded into two small boats and set out for Kos from Akyarlar area of the Bodrum peninsula. Both of the vessels capsized in route to the island.
You can go here to watch a video of Aylan's body being found on the beach. The video also shows the body of a woman being pulled from the waves.
Basically the voters of Syria had a choice between President Assad on the one hand, and chaos and cannibalism on the other. Not surprisingly, they chose Assad. Who wouldn't?
Recently Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov referred to Assad as the "legitimate leader" of Syria. He is correct. He is.
But that makes no difference to the US. The US persists in its regime-change operation in Syria, training so-called "moderate" rebels, a group of misfits and degenerates whose thinking and ideology in reality differ very little from ISIS.
Obama and the mainstream media don't credit the American people with a lot of intelligence. They obviously think you're insufficiently bright to put two and two together and figure out that the moderate citizens of Syria, i.e. they who adhere to the principles of religious tolerance, support their government, and that it's the crazies who in reality are enjoying the backing and support of NATO and its allies.
The death of this child is a tragedy. But of course Aylan is only one boy.
Nearly a quarter of a million Syrians, according to some estimates, have died since the outbreak of the conflict in 2011. I'm going to say something that will sound startling and extreme to some, but the blood of every single one of these people is on the hands of the Obama administration, and particularly its policy makers in the State Department, as well as certain US allies.
Anyone and everyone who has provided weapons, training, or any other type of support...to Al Nusra, ISIS or any of the other armed gangs terrorizing Syria and driving people from their homes...bears a share of the responsibility.
Aylan's death, largely thanks to the photo above, has captured the attention of the mainstream media, but of course the media have refused to assign the blame where it belongs.
In fact the media, if anything, will likely spin the boy's death to justify further intervention in Syria. And this too is part of the problem.
By cheering on these conflicts, and demonizing certain leaders of certain countries who do not support Israel's occupation of the Palestinians, the media, too, are a major part of the problem.
So where is all this headed? Latest reports are that Russia has entered the fighting in Syria, although the claim has been officially denied by Russia. Either way, it's hard to see this coming to a peaceful resolution anytime soon. Meanwhile the killing will continue and the refugee problem will not abate, but do not expect this to bother the conscience of the war planners in Washington. In the halls of the State Department, no such thing as a conscience even exists.
"Australia's GDP per capita went backwards in the June quarter, sliding by 0.2 per cent. Reports that it increased depend on the use of "population creep". GDP increased by 0.2 per cent, but that was only due to population growth, and GDP per capita, which is a far more accurate guide to living standards than GDP, declined.
Not surprisingly, then, real net national disposable income per head, which is the best measure of living standards, slid by 1.2 per cent in the three months to June. The Fairfax economist Peter Martin says this is the fifth consecutive slide in real net disposable income per head, which is now 5 per cent below its peak in 2011." (The Hon. Kelvin Thomson, Federal Member for Wills, 3rd September 2015).
Our economic growth rate is lower than the US, the European Union, Britain and Greece.
But the geniuses who have dug us into this hole want us to keep digging. They say that flat growth means we should ratify the China Free Trade Agreement. The fact is that we have recently entered into the Korea and Japan Free Trade Agreements, and yet our real income per capita is declining. The fact is that in the past decade we have entered into Free Trade Agreements with the US, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Chile, Japan and Korea. If Free Trade Agreements are good for us, why are we going backwards?
For the past thirty years Australia has been undergoing an experiment. Free market liberalism. Its hallmarks have been globalisation, privatisation, deregulation, free movement of goods and free movement of people. Its advocates said it would strengthen the Australian economy, and make us resilient to external shocks.
But far from making our economy more diverse and resilient, we have become narrow and vulnerable. The economist Saul Eslake has expressly described our economy as vulnerable to external shocks.
We have much higher levels of unemployment than we did thirty years ago. We have much higher levels of youth unemployment, much worse long-term unemployment, and serious problems of underemployment. We have much larger foreign debt and much larger budget deficits. The distribution of wealth between rich and poor is becoming less equal. And the social problems generated by frustrated ambition - drugs, crime, mental health problems, homelessness - are on the rise too.
If Bilateral Trade Agreements were the way to go, this would not be happening. But it is. Much of our manufacturing has disappeared offshore, and much of our research and development with it. The hi-tech industries have largely passed Australia by. We put our eggs in the mining basket, and are now paying the price.
The flat GDP also shows the folly of rapid population growth. In the past decade we have trebled our net annual migration and claimed that this would drive economic growth, but it is a con job. "Population creep" is used to make the figures look better, but GDP per capita doesn't improve at all. In fact we have higher unemployment, skills shortages and infrastructure backlogs. Population growth reduces productivity per person, the very thing that economists claim to be desperate to increase.
And the third thing the flat GDP does is show what nonsense Joe Hockey has been talking about the economy for the last two years. When they were in Opposition the Liberal Party said there would be no excuses. Now there is a list of excuses as long as your arm. Then at the G20 Conference in Australia last year he trumpeted that there would be an extra 2 per cent global growth! And this year he ridiculed as "clowns" commentators who expressed concern about the direction of Australia's GDP.
Who is wearing the red nose now?
Source of article: Press Release from Kelvin Thomson, Federal MP for Wills
Following a meeting in Melbourne Australia of “Australians for Reconciliation in Syria” (AMRIS) today, 3 September 2015, spokesperson David Macilwain said that AMRIS unequivocally condemns atrocities committed by ‘Islamic State’ in Syria.
AMRIS deplores, however, the decision by the Australian Government to follow the lead of the United States in taking military action against IS within the borders of Syria, one of the founding members of the United Nations, without the consent of the Syrian Government.
Mr Macilwain said, "Such action will do little to ‘degrade and destroy’ the terrorist group, whose control over territory has only continued to increase despite a year of US Coalition airstrikes. Furthermore there have been significant civilian casualties and damage as a result of those airstrikes, leading to further refugee flows."
"While Australian involvement in the campaign in Syria will do little to change this situation, culpability for ‘collateral damage’ sustained within Syrian sovereign territory could bring us before the ICC," added Mr Macilwain.
"Rather than looking for an alternative pretext that might be legal, such as the ‘responsibility to protect’ Iraqis, AMRIS proposes a clear alternative - cooperation with the Syrian Army in its fight against IS and other terrorist groups."
"AMRIS also considers that if the Australian government is genuine in its desire and commitment to defeat IS, Al Qaeda and allied terrorist groups in Syria, and seeks to restore peace and security such that refugees can return, then it must be prepared to work in cooperation with the Syrian government and security forces. Such a commitment also entails the recognition of that government as legally constituted and representing the majority of the Syrian population, as mandated in the election of June 2014."#fn1" id="txt1"> 1
Mr Macilwain further stated, "In the absence of such cooperation with the Syrian authorities, Australian military intervention in the Syrian conflict will be neither legal nor moral, regardless of the stated target and pretext. The consequences of such an illegal intervention, which under international law constitutes the ‘supreme crime’ of launching a war of aggression, would be both inconceivable and uncontrollable."
"AMRIS demands that there must be a full disclosure of the objectives, conditions and limitations of this intervention, subject to a parliamentary debate and public scrutiny before this apparent decision to take us to war is finalised."
#fn1" id="fn1">1.#txt1">↑ At the Presidential election of 4 June 2014, 10,319,723 Syrians, or 88.7% of the 73.42% of eligible Syrian voters who voted, voted for President Bashar al-Assad in spite of the obstruction of expatriate voters by some countries, including Australia and France.
I don't know of one of the leaders any one of the formal democracies opposed to Syria – the United States, Great Britain, Canada, France, Turkey, Israel, Australia, ... let alone the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Qatar – who can claim to have even close to President al-Assad's popular endoresement.
At the conference not one of the 'reporters' who, before and since, have peddled the narrative that Bashar al-Assad is a corrupt, brutal dictator, attempted to challenge their testimony.
While European governments cry crocodile tears over the mass migration of people from this region, Syrians are trying to get them and the US to stop backing so-called 'rebels' who are the very ones forcing people out of the region. The video inside came to candobetter.net from a source describing itself as 'a group of Syrian journalists (living in Syria) who have created a new Middle East Channel'. The video shows Syrian civilians who have come from near Idlib protesting outside the Red Cross in Damascus about the silence of the international press on the predicament of two villages isolated behind enemy ['rebel'] -held areas above Idlib, where two villagers have been kidnapped by Islamic extremists.
#A9F5D0;;">
Note that these rural protesters in the film feel quite comfortable about travelling into Damascus, which is still held safe by the democratically elected Syrian government (usually misreported as 'brutal unelected regime' by the US/NATO sympathetic press). The protesters visiting Damascus are complaining that US/NATO has been misled into supporting the very people who persecute and kill villagers, whilst targeting the Syrian government with clichéd imagined war crimes involving 'barrel bombs'.
'Barrel bombs' has become a kind of code in Syria for what a sick joke the mainstream press that supports US/NATO is.
The narrators in the film say that the region surrounding the villages has been invaded by what the international community refers to erroneously as 'moderate fighters'. These 'moderates' are now blocking access by the villagers to the the rest of Syria. The villagers are specifically trying to get world attention about how two members of these villages have been kidnapped by Islamic Extremists coming from US/NATO ally, Turkey, (which is aiding and abetting the 'rebel' extremists.)
The man pictured is saying, "Where's the UN? Where's the Human Rights? Where are all of these NGOs? If someone got a stomach ache or had diarhorrea in Douma, they get alerted and make a statement, starting by Ban Ki Moon. And so on. While we are 4000 people, Kfaria and Foua, [the abducted villagers] and nobody cares about us."
UPDATE 29 September 2015, Click here for video of speech.SPAVicTas AGM, 5 September 2015, Ross House, 247 Flinders Lane, 4th Floor Conference Room: 1.45 for 2pm. Speaker: Dr Angela Munro, Public Policy expert: "Kennett's 'commonsense revolution' and the Melbourne 'growth machine'."The unilateral substitution of an appointed commission for the elected Melbourne City Council in October, 1993 by the incoming, neoliberal Victorian Government, was followed by its disempowerment as a democratic institution before reinstatement in emasculated form in 1996. The resounding defeat of the Labor government, in 1992, coincided with an unprecedented global property collapse whose cataclysmic economic and political consequences in Melbourne were conducive to this marginalisation of the City Council and citizenry. A historic dual conflict over the governance and development of central Melbourne between the Victorian Government and the City Council on the one hand, and between central city property interests and citizenry on the other, was immediately resolved. Whereas efficiencies justified council amalgamations statewide, the Melbourne City Council was subject to separate and extreme centralisation of state government power, deregulation of urban planning and de-democratisation as a micro CBD council."
Sustainable Population Australia,
Victorian and Tasmanian branch
Annual General Meeting 2015
On - Saturday September 5th
At - 1.45 for 2.00pm. (if you arrive late and the front door is closed – ring 0405 825769 or 0409742927)
Venue: Ross House, 247 Flinders Lane, Melbourne 3000 Hayden Raysmith Conference Room, Fourth Floor. – (Turn left from the stairwell; or from lift through fire door and then left. It is the corner room).
Guest Speaker : Dr. Angela Munro, Public Policy expert:
"Kennett's 'commonsense revolution' and the Melbourne 'growth machine"
"The unilateral substitution of an appointed commission for the elected Melbourne City Council in October, 1993 by the incoming, neoliberal Victorian Government, was followed by its disempowerment as a democratic institution before reinstatement in emasculated form in 1996. The resounding defeat of the Labor government, in 1992, coincided with an unprecedented global property collapse whose cataclysmic economic and political consequences in Melbourne were conducive to this marginalisation of the City Council and citizenry. A historic dual conflict over the governance and development of central Melbourne between the Victorian Government and the City Council on the one hand, and between central city property interests and citizenry on the other, was immediately resolved. Whereas efficiencies justified council amalgamations statewide, the Melbourne City Council was subject to separate and extreme centralisation of state government power, deregulation of urban planning and de-democratisation as a micro CBD council."
Sheila Newman (Masters by Research in Environmental Sociology, specialising in population and environment), writer and researcher, current president of the SPA VicTas branch whose own research is complementary will add population specific details to fill in the jig saw of the picture of the population pressures we are experiencing in Victoria: "Victoria's population numbers under Kennett."
Video inside: Obviously it is deeply disturbing for ordinary European populations to realise that wave upon wave of immigrants are now arriving from the war torn states of the Middle East. Why is it that the only voices raised are calling to let all refugees in, but none are raised against western involvement in the wars and other interventions that have caused these recently functional states to collapse? Want to hear the debate from another point of view besides the Australian, UK and US media? Watch this debate between Sukant Chandan, Anders Lustgarten, and Tim Finch. "The real and imagined refugee crisis engulfing Europe: What accounts for the EU’s near indifference to the plight of refugees clamoring to enter European countries? Could it be that these people are from countries NATO members have attacked, and turned into failed states or havens for terrorists? These refugees never wanted to leave home in the first place…" First published on RT on 31 August 2015 at http://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/313860-western-crisis-eu-refugees/
Below is a quote from Obama before he became president, counselling a completely opposite foreign policy to the warmongering one he now heads.[1] He calls for cooperation with Russia, a vigorous enforcement of nuclear non-proliferation, shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, pressure on the Saudis and Egyptians to stop oppressing their own people, and for an energy policy alternative to Big Oil's. Addressing the Bush government of eight years ago, he recognised the inflammatory and unfair process set in train by the United States in the Middle East. Yet now he pursues the same policy even more aggressively and dishonestly than Bush. He effectively heads a global coalition of war-criminals. Australia is a stooge in that coalition and so is the ABC, CBC, BBC, European Press, notably French mainstream press, and the Murdoch and Fairfax Press in Australia. Currently their greatest war-crime is to fail to reveal that President Bashar al-Assad is not an 'unelected dictator' but won overwhelmingly in a fair election in 2014 and currently offers protection to his people, but the Western allies and their corrupt Middle Eastern stooges - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey - are driving the exodus from the Middle East by sponsoring terror-militia.
Why are there so many displaced people? Perhaps somebody wanted a fight
Speech by Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002:
"So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and
a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush?"
"Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush?"
"Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush?
Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil." (Excerpt from speech delivered by Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002.)
(This article by Harrison Koehli was originally published at http://www.sott.net/article/300756-Russian-boots-on-the-ground-in-Syria-Middle-East-mayhem-intensifies on Fri, 28 Aug 2015.) Last month, in a task almost as difficult as Diogenes' search for one honest man, the U.S. allegedly found a staggering 60 'moderate rebels' in Syria to train in its interventionist program to oust Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad 'war against the Islamist terrorists'. This crack team of 'moderate' fighters, trained by the U.S. amid thousands of similarly-motivated terrorists of the Islamic State/al-Nusra/Free Syrian Army variety, demonstrated their valor by immediately refusing to fight Al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front in Syria, a dangerous hesitation because they were subsequently attacked by al-Nusra fighters anyway.
As news of the group's uselessness reached Washington at the beginning of August, Obama then pledged airstrikes in Syria to defend said 'rebels', even from 'attacks' carried out by the legitimate authorities in Syria. The airstrikes began a couple weeks ago, launched from NATO bases in Turkey, thus opening a second front of air raids against Syria from the north, following over a year of NATO airstrikes from Iraq 'against Islamic State targets' in both Iraq and Syria's southern flanks. The massive bomb attack in late July at a Kurdish political youth meeting in Suruc, southern Turkey - allegedly carried out by 'ISIS' from Syria - the day before the Turkish air force joined in US bombing raids against targets in northern Syria, is also extremely suspect. I think we can reasonably suggest that internal political opponents were targeted by Erdogan's neo-Ottomanist regime, and their deaths used to justify cross-border air raids against Kurds in northern Syria.
In a saner world, there would be no confusion as to what is going on in and around Syria because the military intervention there would be called what it is. When one country (and its allies) trains a group of fighters in another country under the pretext of preventing marauding terrorists in that country from spreading to other countries, but really to take down the government of said country, then it is an aggressive act by the forces of one state against another. Just because the U.S. says it is justified in 'self-defending' their foreign-trained subversive group from Syria's legitimate self-defense, does not make it so. To paraphrase John Kerry, you can't just attack a country's military on a trumped-up pretext... Well, actually, you can: the U.S. does it all the time.
With typically diplomatic understatement, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov called Washington's plan "counterproductive." He reasonably pointed out the humanitarian disaster in Syria - caused by the US/NATO intervention - and called for "an immediate end to external intervention" in the crisis. In contrast, White House spokesman Josh Earnest, with typical American bluster and arrogance, said Syria "should not interfere" with the U.S.-trained 'rebel' operations, and threatened "additional steps" would be taken to "defend them".
Despite many months of airstrikes - ostensibly targeting ISIS in Iraq - the marauding bands of mercenaries are apparently as numerous as ever. Not only are the airstrikes killing hundreds of civilians, they are turning locals against the U.S., whom they see as acting with questionable motives. In other words, many are joining ISIS in response to yet more American atrocities in the region. The case can be made, of course, that that serves U.S. interests just fine. The more ISIS fighters they have to fight, the more justified their case for further military intervention; more airstrikes, more carnage, and the chance that maybe, just, maybe, they'll actually succeed in their plans to oust Assad and keep Iran and Hezbollah on a tight leash.
In the meantime, Russia continues doing what it does best: establishing mutually beneficial economic ties with other sovereign nations (instead of working to destabilize them through destruction and murder), attempting to solve problems with diplomacy, and proposing military strategies that respect said nations' sovereignty.
In 2007, Russia signed a deal with Iran to supply S-300 long-range, defensive, surface-to-air missile systems. In 2010, Russia reneged on the agreement, voluntarily embargoing the sale in line with an international (read: U.S.) ban on selling weapons to Iran. Iran filed a lawsuit in response, but the recent 'nuclear' deal, in which Russia played an integral role, has changed the situation. Russia and Iran have now ironed out all but minor technical details, and Iran should see delivery of the S-300s by the end of the year.
The net result of all the violence we've seen in the Middle East since 9/11 to contain Iran - and keep Russia out of the region - is that the two countries have gotten closer. The two nations' respective foreign ministers met recently and stated their united position regarding Syria, warning against any external attempts to dictate a 'resolution'. They also made plans to expand trade, including the possibility of Iran acquiring Russian-built nuclear reactors.
Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov
There is similar news out of Egypt: Putin's recent meeting with President al-Sisi saw the Egyptian government supporting Russia's plan to create a real anti-ISIS coalition made up of the forces actually fighting ISIS: the Iraqis, the Syrians, and the Kurds - who have all done a better job than the U.S.-trained 'rebels' and the ineffectual and counterproductive airstrikes (and airdrops). In addition, Egypt hopes to find itself included in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) free trade zone in the near future, eschewing the high-and-mighty U.S. dollar by facilitating trade between Egypt and Russia in their respective currencies. The sanctions against Russia have benefited Egypt nicely, opening opportunities for increased food trade. Oh, and Egypt too is looking forward to some Russian-built nuclear power plants. The 'reality-creators' in Washington must be very pleased that their anti-Russian sanctions campaign has been so 'successful': it just keeps making Russia more friends, who then support policies that work toward results the anti-Russian sanctions were designed to prevent in the first place!
And now it looks like Russia is moving beyond diplomacy and trade deals to directly support Syria directly in its fight against foreign-backed terrorists destroying the country piece by piece. A Syrian newspaper, Al-Watan, said yesterday that many Russian "military advisors have reached Damascus" in recent weeks, and that Russia has begun supplying Damascus with satellite imagery. Rumor has it (from the opposition-linked Syria Forum's AlSouria.net) that "a Russian technical crew had been scrambled to the outskirts of Latakia ... to bolster the regime's defensive lines as the Islamist Army of Conquest in the nearby Al-Ghab plain threaten to advance on Alawite population centers," and that advisors have proposed to build a military base there.
Al-Watan also reported that the advisors "have set about gathering a large amount of information that will make it possible to study the potential deployment of international forces under the patronage of the United Nations," adding that the Kremlin "will study the potential launch of a separate Russian operation as well as another joint [operation] with the Collective Security Treaty Organization, which will convene in Tajikistan's [capital city] Dushanbe on September 15."
Shortly after the U.S. decision on August 4th to 'defend' its rebels by bombing Syria, the head of Russia's Airborne Troops, Colonel General Vladimir Shamanov, stated that he was willing to deploy elite counter-terror forces on missions in Syria. Dmitry Peskov, Putin's press secretary, denied that Damascus had asked for troops. Perhaps Col. Gen. Shamanov's statement was a message of Russia's willingness to comply should Damascus ask? After all, Russia has been supplying financial and diplomatic support to Damascus since the regime change operation started in 2011, and just recently signed an agreement to provide advanced MiG-29M and MiG-31 fighter jets to Syria's Air Force.
The President asserted that Russia doesn't support individuals or a specific president, saying that this would be unacceptable and would constitute interference in internal affairs; rather Russia supports specific principles, which are the sovereignty of state and people.
On Russian efforts now that Geneva 3 is looming, President al-Assad said:
"We have great trust in the Russians, and they proved throughout this crisis since four years ago that they are honest and transparent with us in relations and that they are principled. These are important points. So, when they meet various sides, we don't feel concern that these sides might distort the true image for the Russians. The Russians have close relations with Syria and are capable of finding out about all that is happening accurately. We believe the goal of the Russians is to bring political sides towards dialogue to cut off calls for war.
"This is the goal, but in the end there won't be an agreement over anything unless we Syrians sit with each other and hold dialogue with each other. It won't be the Russians who impose any solution, so we encourage them to meet all forces and we are relieved when a Russian official meets any figure, without exception."
Whatever happens, it doesn't look like Russia will back down from its fidelity to the principles of sovereignty and international cooperation. Whatever hare-brained insanity the West comes up with - whether directly against Russia, or by proxy in Ukraine, or elsewhere in the Middle East, the Caucasus, or Central Asia - Russia has thus far responded elegantly and reasonably. Like a six-year-old trapped by its own contradictory set of lies, the West is in a bind when it comes to Syria and ISIS (not to mention Ukraine). They can't reasonably keep up the pretense that they want to destroy ISIS while denying Russia's proposal to create a real coalition of those nations actually suffering from ISIS's depravity. Something's gotta give.
Harrison Koehli hails from Edmonton, Alberta. A graduate of studies in music performance, Harrison is also an editor for Red Pill Press and has been interviewed on several North American radio shows in recognition of his contributions to advancing the study of ponerology. In addition to music and books, Harrison enjoys tobacco and bacon (often at the same time) and dislikes cell phones, vegetables, and fascists
"My dog doesn’t eat meat! “ declared Ann. “Neither does my cat” declared Sarah in a satisfied tone.
Well, isn’t that amazing? Two different pet animals who do not eat meat, both of species associated with carnivorous habits. I guess I would not worry about this if I only heard it twice, but it seems now that most of the pet cats and dogs I know eat pebble shaped bites of a mysterious substance or mixture which is purported to be perfectly balanced and to provide “everything they need” !
The trouble is that, from my observations, these hapless canines and felines don’t like this manufactured offering. The unfortunate mutt that I am caring for at the moment whilst his owner is on holiday is only allowed about 20 mustard coloured manufactured morsels for each of his two meals. He madly tried to get into a plastic bag in which I had disposed of a piece of kitchen paper which had absorbed a trace of meat juices whilst the pebbly plateful remained untouched. This little dog barely recognises this stuff as food. He only resorts to it after several hours and after all other avenues of nourishment have been unsuccessfully explored. He eats these granules totally without joy. Another delightful and much loved pooch of my acquaintance who is now about 8 years old has never had anything but “pebbles” pass thorough his black lips. This animal is so much loved that the couple who own him cannot go away together unless he can go with them, yet every night a dizzying array of delicacies adorns their dinner table whilst their doted on dog only gets the same diet food.
Why? you may ask do people comply with a veterinarian-ly authorised dictum that their pets eat a constant and unvaried regime of “science diet”? As we all know these foods do contain meaty substances but in low concentrations. If they didn’t, surely the pets would not get to their 2nd birthday?
With my current charge I have broken the strict rules I was given as I cannot put up with his being constantly hungry and unsatisfied. I am a most unsatisfactory dog sitter. Today I slipped a few chop tails complete with sizzling and crispened fat into the dog’s dish as well as some miniature sausages earlier. All of these disappeared down the hatch at lightning speed. The mustard coloured pebbles, eschewed, sit lifelessly in another white dish, untouched, unwanted.
What a dilemma I have ! I can return the dog in good health and well fed when my friend returns from holiday but she will see, the first time she walks him, that I have not adhered to the yellow ochre pebbles. I could go back to the pebbles the day before, I suppose, and the dog's owner will never know what dietary transgressions took place.
I did ask my friend why her adored pet was not allowed real meat, and a varied diet, and she told me that this prescribed diet for her two year old dog was on the advice of the vet, in whom she has complete faith. This is the same answer to this question that I have had from everyone I know with "pets on pebbles” .
Recent comments