As much of Washington prepared for the inauguration of President Donald Trump, I spent last week on a fact-finding mission in Syria and Lebanon to see and hear directly from the Syrian people. Their lives have been consumed by a horrific war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians and forced millions to flee their homeland in search of peace. It is clear now more than ever: this regime change war does not serve America’s interest, and it certainly isn’t in the interest of the Syrian people. [Candobetter.net Editor: This communication was issued as an email to a list by Ms Gabbard and we reproduce it here in the assumption that it was intended as a kind of press release. More on Tulsi Gabbard, who was a distinguished soldier in Iraq: https://www.votetulsi.com/tulsi-gabbard]
We met these children at a shelter in Aleppo, whose families fled the eastern part of the city. The only thing these kids want, the only thing everyone I came across wants, is peace. Many of these children have only known war. Their families want nothing more than to go home, and get back to the way things were before the war to overthrow the government started. This is all they want.
I traveled throughout Damascus and Aleppo, listening to Syrians from different parts of the country. I met with displaced families from the eastern part of Aleppo, Raqqah, Zabadani, Latakia, and the outskirts of Damascus. I met Syrian opposition leaders who led protests in 2011, widows and children of men fighting for the government and widows of those fighting against the government. I met Lebanon’s newly-elected President Aoun and Prime Minister Hariri, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Elizabeth Richard, Syrian President Assad, Grand Mufti Hassoun, Archbishop Denys Antoine Chahda of Syrian Catholic Church of Aleppo, Muslim and Christian religious leaders, humanitarian workers, academics, college students, small business owners, and more.
Their message to the American people was powerful and consistent: There is no difference between “moderate” rebels and al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) or ISIS — they are all the same. This is a war between terrorists under the command of groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Syrian government. They cry out for the U.S. and other countries to stop supporting those who are destroying Syria and her people.
I heard this message over and over again from those who have suffered and survived unspeakable horrors. They asked that I share their voice with the world; frustrated voices which have not been heard due to the false, one-sided biased reports pushing a narrative that supports this regime change war at the expense of Syrian lives.
I heard testimony about how peaceful protests against the government that began in 2011 were quickly overtaken by Wahhabi jihadist groups like al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) who were funded and supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the United States, and others. They exploited the peaceful protesters, occupied their communities, and killed and tortured Syrians who would not cooperate with them in their fight to overthrow the government.
I met a Muslim girl from Zabadani who was kidnapped, beaten repeatedly, and raped in 2012, when she was just 14 years old, by “rebel groups” who were angry that her father, a sheep herder, would not give them his money. She watched in horror as masked men murdered her father in their living room, emptying their entire magazine of bullets into him.
I met a boy who was kidnapped while walking down the street to buy bread for his family. He was tortured, waterboarded, electrocuted, placed on a cross and whipped, all because he refused to help the “rebels” — he told them he just wanted to go to school. This is how the “rebels” are treating the Syrian people who do not cooperate with them, or whose religion is not acceptable to them. Although opposed to the Assad government, the political opposition spoke strongly about their adamant rejection of the use of violence to bring about reforms. They argue that if the Wahhabi jihadists, fueled by foreign governments, are successful in overthrowing the Syrian state, it would destroy Syria and its long history of a secular, pluralist society where people of all religions have lived peacefully side by side. Although this political opposition continues to seek reforms, they are adamant that as long as foreign governments wage a proxy regime change war against Syria using jihadist terrorist groups, they will stand with the Syrian state as they work peacefully toward a stronger Syria for all Syrians.
Originally, I had no intention of meeting with Assad, but when given the opportunity, I felt it was important to take it. I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there’s a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering.
I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government. From Iraq to Libya and now in Syria, the U.S. has waged wars of regime change, each resulting in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life, and the strengthening of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.
I call upon Congress and the new Administration to answer the pleas of the Syrian people immediately and support the Stop Arming Terrorists Act. We must stop directly and indirectly supporting terrorists — directly by providing weapons, training and logistical support to rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS; and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, who, in turn, support these terrorist groups. We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.
The U.S. must stop supporting terrorists who are destroying Syria and her people. The U.S. and other countries fueling this war must stop immediately. We must allow the Syrian people to try to recover from this terrible war.
Melbourne came in at six in the study, while Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth were all ranked in the top 20 most expensive cities in the world.
Demographia, which ranks housing affordability in 406 cities with a population over one million, said urban containment policies were the cause of Australia’s affordability crisis.
Urban containment policies aim to curb the growth of the urban sprawl by encouraging greater density in existing housing areas rather than opening up new sites, commonly called “greenfields”.
Restrictions on development are often put forward as a reason for high house prices, but given the level of urban sprawl in Melbourne, which is geographically speaking, quite large, this doesn't seem adequate as an explanation. Perhaps there is something else??
More than 82,700 residential properties — or 4.8 per cent of Melbourne’s housing stock — sit empty, while many people struggle to afford to buy or even rent accommodation. It’s a figure which has sparked anger from social housing agencies and some scepticism from the Real Estate Institute of Victoria (REIV).
The study Speculative Vacancies by tax reform advocates Prosper Australia estimates 82,724 Melbourne properties are unoccupied based on water use of less than 50L per day during 2014, from data provided by City West Water, South East Water and Yarra Valley Water.
Based on this information the Melbourne vacancy rate jumped 28 per cent in a year. The report said putting the 24,872 properties deemed “demonstrably unoccupied” — due to a zero litres per day reading — on the market for rent would increase Melbourne’s vacancy rate to 8.3 per cent.
This figure seems to match what I observe in my local neighbourhood. Why are these houses vacant?
Prosper Australia project director Karl Fitzgerald said the report showed land was being hoarded for profit.
“The incentives for property speculators to hold prime locations empty is an affront to anyone locked out of housing,” Mr Fitzgerald said.
So while developers want to push further out in the fringes of Melbourne, and "in-fill" existing suburbs, many useful houses and empty blocks of land are left vacant. This is a clear sign of a market failure, where some investors find it more profitable to leave a house vacant, during a time when demand is high. This failure is largely due to government policy, predominantly Negative Gearing and Capital Gains Tax concessions, which distort the economics of property ownership to such a degree that despite the gains that would be realised from selling to a hot market, the tax concessions the government gives outweigh that benefit. Because these tax concessions make property investment more desirable, people are prepared to pay more, and have the taxpayer cover the cost of NG when the rental yields can't return a positive income.
Lets ask an economist why the prices are high...
Economist Alan Moran wrote that the costs were due to excessive regulation. “A fully finished new house (three bedrooms, two garages) costs as little as $150,000,” he wrote. “Preparation of the land with sewerage, local roads, water and other utilities costs around $70,000 per block. The land itself is mainly used for agriculture and is intrinsically worth maybe $2,000 a block. Yet that new house in western Sydney costs upward of $700,000.
“The fact is that governments have agreed to an ever-growing set of regulations covering everything from phony endangered species to requirements for set-asides for child care, community centres and so on.
“These compound the shortage of land created by refusals to allow development outside of some designated growth corridors, which means rationing of land available for housing. That rationing’s end product is housing that is increasingly out of the budget reach of younger buyers.”
This is the standard argument given, but it falls flat for a number of reasons. Firstly, the cost of building a new property shouldn't impact that price of existing properties. yet it is existing properties, especially the older ones, which are higher in price. Existing properties exist in established areas, where there is no concern about "phony endangered species" or set-asides for child care, community centres and the like. This might increase the cost of new developments, but it doesn't explain the astronomical cost in established suburbs, where these concerns could for close to nothing.
Secondly, the argument about shortage of land implies that there is a problem getting developments up and running. Yet Melbourne has turned into a giant construction zone. Every second free standing house sold is pulled down for subdivisions. Apartment blocks are going up everywhere. I have never, ever seen so much construction in my life in this city. The CBD's sky is full of cranes and there is now apparently an oversupply of apartments. It's difficult to drive through Melbourne, and come to the conclusion that there is not enough development going on. Development is everywhere.
Not to mention all the empty houses and empty blocks.
But why is there such demand in the first place, that such rampant building can't meet?
Trump has just done something good. WhiteHouse.gov has announced, via President Trump, that the TPP deal will no longer have the United States as a participant. The TPP was one of Obama’s deeply unpopular 'achievements', in terms of trade deals, and Trump has quickly lived up to his promise to remove the United States from the deal. Will anti-Trump demonstrators who shout about 'democracy' concede that this is what most of us wanted and the thing that the power-elite pre-Trump were determined to withold from us? The MSM (mainstream media) will probably hardly report this or it will report it as disastrous, using econogabble and corporate talking heads for hire to confuse everyone.
For too long, Americans have been forced to accept trade deals that put the interests of insiders and the Washington elite over the hard-working men and women of this country. As a result, blue-collar towns and cities have watched their factories close and good-paying jobs move overseas, while Americans face a mounting trade deficit and a devastated manufacturing base.
With a lifetime of negotiating experience, the President understands how critical it is to put American workers and businesses first when it comes to trade. With tough and fair agreements, international trade can be used to grow our economy, return millions of jobs to America’s shores, and revitalize our nation’s suffering communities.
This strategy starts by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and making certain that any new trade deals are in the interests of American workers. President Trump is committed to renegotiating NAFTA. If our partners refuse a renegotiation that gives American workers a fair deal, then the President will give notice of the United States’ intent to withdraw from NAFTA.
In addition to rejecting and reworking failed trade deals, the United States will crack down on those nations that violate trade agreements and harm American workers in the process. The President will direct the Commerce Secretary to identify all trade violations and to use every tool at the federal government’s disposal to end these abuses.
To carry out his strategy, the President is appointing the toughest and smartest to his trade team, ensuring that Americans have the best negotiators possible. For too long, trade deals have been negotiated by, and for, members of the Washington establishment. President Trump will ensure that on his watch, trade policies will be implemented by and for the people, and will put America first.
By fighting for fair but tough trade deals, we can bring jobs back to America’s shores, increase wages, and support U.S. manufacturing.
Video of conference inside: Speeches verbally translated in English, live. Leaders of several European nationalist parties gathered for the ‘Freedom for Europe’ congress, in Koblenz, on Saturday, January 21. The meeting was the first official appearance of Frauke Petry, chair of the AfD (Alternative for Germany), alongside Front National leader Marine Le Pen. Both were joined by Geert Wilders, founder and leader of the Dutch PVV (Party for Freedom), and Liga Nord leader Matteo Salvini. Dubbed a “European counter-summit”, this first-of-its-kind gathering was organised by the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF) group from the European Parliament.
"It's not often you hear about something like that happening. The man who called Donald Trump a 'would-be dictator' got bearish after the President Elect's victory in November and lost nearly a billion dollars. Reportedly, he thought a Trump win was going to cause massive sell. Wrong! The market rallied and the hedge fund legend and Clinton supporter lost out. The Dow Jones has climbed nearly 10% since November 9th." Analysts are saying that Trump's new policies could boost the economy and corporate earnings in particular for this market rally. "So it looks like Soros's millions of dollars sunk into a Superpac, back in the Clinton campaign, didn't work out." A super PAC is a modern breed of political-action committee that is allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, individuals and associations to influence the outcome of state and federal elections. (Quotation from presenter in Boom Bust, [752] Why is the America middle class disappearing?) - see video inside for the report, plus an analysis of how and why the middle classes are disappearing from the United States.
Women's marches against Trump
Soros is a sore loser and he is subsidising protests against Trump through the many organisations that he has brought into existence to manipulate public perception. These organisations present caring facades but they take over real movements and turn them into vehicles for the billionaire's agenda and that of the ousted recent US regime. For instance, feminism has been used as a banner for women and others to march under, even though they are mainly pushing for open borders. Whilst possible restraint on US women's access to abortion is a legitimate concern, brought about by Trump's need to appeal to the Right to Life components of the Republicans, open-borders is not a feminist concern. So, these marchers have hijacked feminism for a globalist agenda.
The Women’s March’s official partner’s list includes 350.org, CODEPINK, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Many are bankrolled by Soros, including Amnesty International, Center for Constitutional Rights, Green For All, Human Rights Watch, MoveOn.org, NAACP, NARAL Pro-Choice, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, and Sierra Club. A number of these organisations once had their own agendas, but they have been taken over and made to push for open borders, an agenda that runs against civil rights and assists globalisation. The Sierra Club purports to protect natural environment and other species but it also has gradually stopped members from criticising high immigration, thus defeating all its other efforts.
Historically planned parenthood gave up on major politics because it found that its agenda to provide contraception and abortion to those who wanted it became subsumed in a fight against being labeled eugenicist. See /node/995Unfortunately it seems that it now has unsavory bedfellows again. So, on the one hand you have Trump who wants to limit immigration which will lessen competition for jobs for ordinary Americans, and, on the other hand, you have an organisation that used to fight overpopulation marching for open borders. We all need to become more sophisticated and stop responding to branding.
During the US presidential inauguration ceremonies Trump's elegant and disciplined clan members appeared brave in the face of multiple violent threats, fanned by a jilted mainstream press, for example, CNN's, <"a href="http://wwlp.com/2017/01/19/disaster-could-put-obama-cabinet-member-in-oval-office/">"Disaster could put Obama cabinet member in oval office." Beside their chubbier leader, beaming like John Candy, the females of the Trump clan, with their gazelle-like legs and long hair, flawless skin and physiques, seemed like avatars from another world.
A correspondent commented to me this morning on her perception that the Age and the ABC underreported aspects of President Trump's inauguration. "Melania really did look stunning, but there was a lack of positive comment re Melania’s dress, a lack of any sympathetic camera work on her. This was in contrast to the gushing over Michelle Obama eight years ago. It is to do with the level of warmth. I felt that, with the Trumps, the commentary and footage were overly cold and objective compared with the same event eight years ago. In fact, I found this article, which bore out my feelings: "How we plan on covering (or not covering) Melania Trump's fashion choices". It shows that there has even been a politicisation of reporting on fashion with regard to the Trumps."
Indeed, the New York Times, which does gives some quite interesting fashion details on who dresses the Trump entourage and the semiotics of their costumes, also reports in the embedded video, on how a number of fashion publications have snubbed the Trumps because of a perception that Donald Trump is racist. This is based on his attitude to protecting jobs for Americans, illegal immigrated violent offenders and immigration from source countries for ISIS - all defensible positions even if you don't happen to agree with them. They do not make Trump racist.
But the fight is really nationalist vs globalist. The globalist open-borders exiting US regime pursued the most racist of wars in the Middle East and now it is going after Trump, the anti-Soros. The out-going regime and the press that supports them are heavily sponsored by Soros who also has succeeded in diverting many organisations from their original agendas and getting them to push for open borders, an agenda that runs against civil rights and assists globalisation. We can see this in the Women's marches today, 22 January 2017, where feminism has apparently been coopted to incoherently support globalism as well as protest more reasonably on behalf of abortion-rights. (See "George Soros big loser in US elections funds hi-jacking of feminism for globalist agenda."
New York Times video
Witty, charismatic and politically incorrect
Am I the only one whom Trump's goofy smile reminds of John Candy, the charming Canadian comedian who died in March 1994 and who played many eccentric characters? There is something in the eyes and the mouth and a way of moving, but perhaps it is mostly that Trump appears larger than life and is funny and outrageous, like Candy. "If I was elected, you would be in jail, Hillary!"[1]
Admittedly, if you don't think there is anything funny about politics, and particularly about Donald Trump, you might not see the humour and you might hate the charisma, but you still might agree that the 2017 US election had elements of a National Lampoon comedy that Candy might have played in. The statuesque wife, who looks half her age, the lanky daughters displayed on stage like two legged-giraffes in designer gowns and the pizza-gate-lolita-island scandals surrounding the departing US regime and Donald, larger than life, prevailing, assisted by his unforgettable hair.
NOTES
[1] Second Presidential debate dialogue:
HILLARY CLINTON: “It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” Mrs. Clinton observed.
TRUMP: “Because you’d be in jail.”
After having returned back home to Berkeley last week, I assumed that I was finally finished with writing about Mexico City -- but apparently not.
One of the top images from there that still keeps popping into my brain, one that I apparently brought back home in my luggage, is a flashback to Mexico City's glorious main cathedral -- and that image still haunts me. From floor to ceiling, it seemed like the whole place was garishly covered with gold. Gold. Gold everywhere you looked. So now I feel compelled to write about that.
All that wealth in just one single church. Enough gold to keep me and all of my friends in riches for the rest of our lives.
But the wealth in just this one cathedral represents only a minuscule fraction of the fabulous tons and tons of gold that Spain extracted from Latin America a few centuries ago -- so much gold. Scrooge McDuck woulda gone nuts.
Which reminds me of the vast wealth of another nation -- ours. America also used to be the richest nation on earth. Not any more. First Franklin Roosevelt died and the Dulles brothers and Richard Nixon schemed their evil schemes to steal what they could from the New Deal. https://www.amazon.com/Devils-Chessboard-Dulles-Americas-Government/dp/0062276174
And what ever happened to all that gold in Fort Knox -- let alone all that gold in the Social Security slush fund. And then 9-11 happened, the most evil scheme of them all -- and eleven trillion dollars in "war" blood-money suddenly began disappearing down this or that rat hole too. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/16/donald-trump-v-the-spooks/
Mexico City still has its grand gold-encrusted cathedral to remind us tourists of what the power and glory of the old Spanish empire used to look like. But we Americans don't even have something like that left to remind us -- except perhaps the glaring monument of our gigantic national debt.
********
Stop Wall Street and War Street from destroying our world.
(Submission inside) Plans for the proposed underground railway from north west to south east of the city are not yet finalised. On Friday the 13th the Minister of Planning said the location of the proposed Domain station may be moved and yet the Age announces 14th Jan that work would begin on Monday the 16th. This is clearly vandalism. They are going to start destroying trees and moving gas and sewer lines at the Domain. Remember that St Kilda Road is heritage listed and Heritage Victoria have received thousands of objections and Heritage Vic have not yet made a determination. One has to wonder how much pressure they are under by this State Government in their determination to start digging. We are sick to death of hearing them say they are 'shovel-ready'. How dare the government say that the damage to St Kilda road will be worth it for the advantage the rail will give. The necessity for this rail is being questioned by respected planners in Melbourne. There are far more important road and rail projects that are needed first.
Hard to believe that they are intent on wrecking one of the most beautiful boulevards in the world. One of the most picturesque parts of Melbourne. Compare this to what London are doing right now - putting in 42 kms of underground from west to east called Crossrail, without disrupting anything up on top. This took years in the planning before one shovel was put in the ground so that they got it perfectly done. Please Minister ask for their help. (Mary Drost, Convenor, Planning Backlash.) [Candobetter.net Editor: Illustrations inserted by candobetter.net editor. See also Submission from the National Trust of Australia. and this Port Phillip Council information about its trees which include the historic St Kilda Road historic boulevard.]
December 2016
Re: Heritage Victoria – VHR: H2359; P25649, St Kilda Rd
Submission regarding heritage controls on St Kilda Road, The Domain and the Trees and the Gardens
Introduction
This in relation to the damage by the proposed Metro Underground Railway to the wonderful Boulevard known as St Kilda Road. I write to object to the granting of this permit.
The Route
First point to be made is that the routing must be changed. More sensibly the route should be from the north of Melbourne via Southern Cross Station to Docklands and then to Fishermans Bend and from there across South Melbourne and crossing under St Kilda Road in the vicinity of Toorak Road and coming right through and linking to South Yarra Station.
The proposed route does not make sense in that there would be a station at the north of the city and then at the southern end, really duplicating the existing city loop, totally unnecessary. On the other hand it makes much more logical sense to be on the west of the city and include Docklands and Fishermans Bend.
However I really believe that this concept of an underground in that location, using that route, is not going to help Melbourne at all and it will be detrimental to the beauty and heritage of the city. This connection between north and south already exists using Southern Cross Station and Flinders St Station and connecting into the loop. There are far more important railway extensions that should be made first e.g. to the airport and to Doncaster. Why not require MMRA to submit costings and details of alternative routes for public consideration?
The Tunnel
It is hard to believe that they would even for one minute contemplate not tunnelling deep enough to avoid any damage on the surface that can be avoided in this significant heritage area. The idea of any cutting and filling rather than using deep tunnel mining throughout from the Arts Centre down Toorak Road and in South Yarra is absurd to the point of stupidity. Why is deep mining tunnelling not being used right through? It should be.
It is thirty plus years since the City Loop was put in. That is deep and I think no cutting and filling was done. The idea of cutting and filling to save money is short sighted in the extreme.
When Singapore want to do something new they send a team around the world to see where it is done best and get them to help. We believe our government needs to re-think this whole plan and route. They should immediately get in touch with authorities in London and ask their help and advice. They are the world’s best, having started their underground in 1863 and have an incredible underground network and only recently tunnelled out 42 kms from Heathrow airport to Canary Wharf and even further east without disrupting anything on top in such a devastating manner as this proposal from MMRA/Lovell Chen would. Or the government could ask Switzerland for help. They dig tunnels through miles of mountain.
But we talk of cutting and filling down one of the most beautiful boulevards in the world. Try doing this in Paris and you would be sent straight to the guillotine.
In contrast this proposal is for cutting and filling down one of the most beautiful boulevards in the world – and that is unacceptable loss and destruction of cultural heritage and the defining character, identity and beauty of Melbourne.
St Kilda Road must not be damaged. It would a tragedy to have all the threatened trees knocked down. It would take many years for them to grow again to maturity. These are mature elms that have been there for probably 100 years. How dare they damage them in any way.
The tunnels should be deep enough to prevent any damage or vibration to anything up on top whether buildings or trees as was done recently in London. (see: the Crossrail project, http://www.crossrail.co.uk/, “A world-class new railway for London and the south east,” with integrated transparent planning and design up-front and the project planned around heritage protection as a priority, including protection of the setting and visual amenity of protected heritage squares in London as a result of either the permanent or temporary works). We believe this application for a Permit should be refused. More time, planning and consideration for protecting and maintaining heritage and the defining landmarks, gardens and monuments of the city should be the starting and guiding principles around which transport and underground railway tunnels are planned.
The Shrine
What is planned in the area of the Shrine is a total disgrace and a disregard of the importance and history and location of this beautiful Shrine in memory of the men and women who have lost their lives in wars defending Australia. It was superbly planned and located in relation to St Kilda Road and the city and the surrounding gardens, and these visual lines and vistas are part of its heritage significance registration, and they should be maintained and left undisturbed. How dare any government propose to turn this into an excavation site wrecking the parks and gardens and trees surrounding it at least for years, possibly damaged forever. This must not be allowed. We, the people of Victoria, rely on you at Heritage Victoria to protect these heritage sites.
The Domain
This beautiful area of parks and gardens and trees must not be touched and damaged in the dreadful way proposed in this plan and application. In fact there is no need to have a train station in that position, at ‘Domain’, at all. Other locations and routes should be considered, costed and submitted, ones that are not on heritage sites, places and gardens and do not propose to do such dreadful damage to the whole precious heritage, gardens and monuments precinct. The current St Kilda Rd trams and tram stops and the current number 8 tram in its present route are sufficient. As said earlier the underground must be rerouted and avoid this whole area and come under St Kilda Road to link up with South Yarra Station. The plan and proposal is misconceived and would fail the people of the State of Victoria and cause loss of irreplaceable cultural heritage and civic identity and pride.
There are alternative routes that are not on heritage lands and places and that is where MMRA should focus its planning and transport routes, tunnels and hubs.
Whilst we support the development of transport infrastructure, this proposal, shockingly, is situated entirely in heritage sites and lands (St Kilda Road, the Shrine of Remembrance and Shrine reserve gardens and trees, the Domain Gardens, the South African Soldier’s Memorial, and adjacent affected trees, gardens and sites) and the costs of the proposal is heritage devastation, a far-too great a price to pay. It is an unnecessary and completely undesirable destruction of the entire area that is and should be heritage protected. Heritage Victoria should protect this heritage gardens and monuments precinct as a whole, and require MMRA consideration and costings for alternate routes that are not on and through heritage places be made available to the public.
Is that protection not what Heritage Victoria and heritage registration is for?!
South African Soldier’s Memorial
The plans to dismantle and store this borders on an insult to the sacred nature of this cherished memorial. It must not be allowed to happen. Is nothing sacred? Like the Shrine, it is a sacred memorial to the fallen and must be totally protected. Do not allow this to happen to the South African soldiers’ memorial.
Heritage Victoria
This entire area is under Heritage Victoria protection and they would be derelict in their responsibilities if they approve such terrible destruction under their watch, even if they are at odds with the Government Department under which they operate. Their duty must be to protect these important heritage sites of State significance which this area most certainly is even if it means preventing the Government from following their plans.
I and the coalition of 250+ resident groups (representing at least several thousand people of the State of Victoria; some groups have hundreds of members e.g. my local group has 600 members) strongly request this permit application be denied. The proposal is out of keeping with the values and heritage rights of the people of the State of Victoria. We ask that Heritage Victoria acts to stop this proposal and protects our heritage. We rely on you to act in accordance to protect this entirely-heritage registered area and to refuse this permit.
Mary Drost OAM
Convenor
Planning Backlash Inc
Coalition of 250+ resident groups
Note: Candobetter.net has removed Mary Drost’s home address and email contact for privacy and to prevent spam. You can contact Mary via our contact link at top left corner of this site.
Just how effective is the power of prayer? For many of us who are poor and helpless, prayer is the only WMD that we can get our hands on.
Prayer is our AK-47, our Uzi, our nuclear missile, our Glock. It is the only defense that we have against the slings and arrows that are constantly aimed at our hearts by those more rich and powerful and brutal than we are.
In Mexico City, the Sacred Heart of Jesus has become our bunker, our NORAD, our Marine Corps and even our numbered bank account in the Caymans.
But are we -- the victims, the vulnerable, the unprotected, the powerless -- are we actually being armored and protected by prayer or is it just wistful thinking because we have nothing else? Who knows.
Are the poor and defenseless in places like Yemen, Ferguson, Honduras, Tibet, Syria, Ukraine, Standing Rock, Afghanistan, Gaza and Libya actually being protected by their prayers to Yahweh, Allah, God, Buddha, Shiva, the Great Spirit, etc.?
Will my own heartfelt and constant prayers for world peace ever be answered? Who the freak knows? They haven't been so far. However, realistically, do we who are the meek and wretched of the earth really have any other choice?
And here in Mexico City, like everywhere else, the defenses of we the defenseless are limited too -- and yet here in both the grand cathedrals and the humble churches by the side of the road, the defenseless grandmothers and beggars and disabled and working stiffs and vulnerable salt of the earth all continue to pray.
PS: Here's another thing that we clearly need to pray about: America's government!
According to The Saker, a trustworthy political blog site, there is currently a huge clash of Titans going on far above our heads -- as the neo-con Deep State struggles to discredit, impeach, assassinate and/or eliminate (wait for it!) Donald J. Trump. Any way that they can. Apparently those guys really really really hate The Donald -- even more than the Left in America hates him. And that's saying a lot.
With regard to the phony intelligence document recently leaked by John McCain, The Saker warns us that, "After several rather lame false starts, the Neocons have now taken a step which can only be called a declaration of war against Donald Trump... This is a political coup d’etat."
But. "If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President à la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people. That is the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give the order to crack down on the population, the police, security and military services might simply refuse to take action." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46202.htm
And also let us pray for the soggy and cold protesters on the much-raided "Poor Tour" in my hometown of Berkeley, CA. They are protesting the criminalization of being homeless in America and need all the help they can get. You don't have to go thousands of miles away to find something to pray for these days. https://www.facebook.com/firsttheycameforthehomeless/
******** Stop Wall Street and War Street from destroying our world.
Sheikh Nawaf al-Bashir, the highest figure in the western fabricated opposition in Syria, the chief of Baggara Tribe in northeast Syria, [has] returned to Damascus and declared his loyalty to the Syrian people, the Syrian leadership and praised the Syrian Arab Army and put himself under the command of the Syrian president Dr. Bashar Al-Assad. Original source of this article by Arabi Souri: http://www.syrianews.cc/top-opposition-figure-nawaf-al-bashir-repents-returns-syria/.
With 1.2 million tribesmen and women in his Der Ezzor base, he left them behind and joined the ranks of makeshift opposition individuals convinced by Qatari officials that the days of the ‘regime’ are numbered and if they defect now they’ll reserve a place for them in the future Syria. Some were bribed with tens of millions of dollars, others were seduced with leading post-Assad posts, and the vast majority who couldn’t be bought or deceived were intimidated, only few fell for any of those.
A parliament member 1990 – 1994, the 63 years old who heads his large tribe since he was 28 after his late father, had a very controversial political career, served as an ambassador to Iraq and yet was a member of the first ‘Arab Springing‘ of the Syrians the so-called ‘Damascus Declaration’.
Sheikh al-Bashir in a statement he personally read before a group of people who went to greet him at his home said: “I return to Syria and I publicly declare that we stand with our people, and with our homeland, and with its leadership against the obscurantist terrorism, which is represented by ISIS, Nusra and the Muslim Brotherhood and their supporters, and to restore the security of the country, its safety and its territorial integrity.”
He was an essential figure in the ‘regime’ he denounced and now returned to. Most of the leaders of the opposition who fled abroad were essential figures of the ‘regime’ but the ones who were mostly corrupt: Abdul Halim Khaddam, the long-serving vice president of Syria and the one with the worst record of corruption in the country when he was relieved from his office he became an opposition figure and sought refuge in France, like Rifaat Assad (president Bashar’s uncle and his father’s deputy and foe!!), Tlass and his sons Firas and Manaf, and so on.
When he joined the opposition in Turkey, they celebrated him being the most prominent person in the country to join and who leads a huge tribe, when he returned now and almost instantly he became in their eyes: ‘opportunist’, ‘dumb’, ‘thug’, ‘traitor’.. and all similar descriptions.
This could be a game-changer for many in his province Der Ezzor which borders the ISIS declared capital Ragga and borders the hotbed and birthplace of Al-Qaeda Levant and ISIS itself in Iraq Anbar province. Der Ezzor countryside and parts of the city itself is infested with herds of ISIS.
A U-turn in politics is not unusual when a power shift occurs and the traitor does not wish to remain a loser in exile. When this one realized he would not return to Syria on a parade float, he chose to offer an apology, hoping to get back some of what he forfeited.
The Liberation of Aleppo didn't stop the Opposition juggernaut and its propaganda machine - now its '100,000 civilians under siege' on the outskirts of the capital, and four million hostages in Damascus... Article first published on Russian InsiderJanuary 6, 2016. Republished here with author's permission.
The 'liberation of Aleppo' didn't just free tens of thousands of people from oppression and intimidation by violent militants and mercenaries; it also freed hundreds of thousands in Western Aleppo from a four-year long regime of terror. As the citizens of European countries become increasingly paralysed by the terrorist attacks on public gatherings in some cities, they might spare a thought for the millions of Syrians who have been living with this threat every day since the US and its allies launched the 'War OF Terror' on Syria in 2011.
But there may be another welcome change brought by Aleppo's liberation; that the Syrian Opposition and its supporters are now living on borrowed time. The propaganda juggernaut that was unleashed against the Syrian Army and its allies - Russia, Iran and Hezbollah - had gained so much momentum that it simply kept going, despite being mortally wounded. And even as the last militants were forced from their hold out in Aleppo's old city, a literal juggernaut of aid was being dispatched from Europe to help them stay there.
Barely pausing to acknowledge that Aleppo had indeed 'fallen' - as they described it - a new narrative was rapidly developed to sustain the 'Syrian Revolution' both in its supporters' minds and on the ground. As the real Syrian civilians in need of food and medical care streamed into reception centres set up by the Russian and Syrian governments in West Aleppo, the mythical 'quarter of a million civilians besieged by Assad's and Putin's bombs' in East Aleppo were urgently relocated to Idlib province, where they could again be used as human shields to protect the dwindling insurgent army.
They weren't actually relocated of course, as the evacuations showed quite dramatically that these masses of anti-Assad Syrian civilians had never been there in the first place. Even some of the fighters in the East deserted the fake revolution, bravely accepting the government's amnesty and re-joining their liberated fellow Syrians.
Adding insult to the injury of watching Syrians across the country celebrate the dramatic new gains in Syria's War on Terror, Russian and Turkish diplomats had talks with representatives of some Syrian armed groups and negotiated a nationwide ceasefire with them, later ratified by the UN Security Council. The jihadists who had just been bussed out of East Aleppo with their families into the remaining 'rebel-held' territory around Idlib evidently weren't party to the ceasefire agreement, having refused to cease firing in East Aleppo. But for the insistence of the UN, and the necessity to force an agreement to end the 'rebel' siege, those recalcitrant extremists would have been imprisoned or executed. Such punishment was certainly deemed reasonable by most Syrians, many of whom had lost relatives from their violent criminal attacks.
So what to do? How to sustain the fake 'revolution' when the revolutionaries have been so comprehensively exposed, not just as violent terrorists no different from those involved in attacks in European cities, but as mercenaries being assisted by the coalition of Syria's enemies in the West. For not only did the clearance of the last jihadists from East Aleppo allow people to go back and see what remained of their dear city - they also discovered what had really being going on there, particularly in the last few months.
Hospitals and schools had become military bases and weapons factories, and basements were used to torture prisoners and hostages and to store weapons and ammunition. Most extraordinarily, the 'rebels' had been forced to leave behind an arsenal of weapons that filled seven warehouses, as well as betraying the sponsors of the 'democratic revolution'. Truckloads of missiles and ammunition, and even tanks, all shipped in from the West via Turkey were brought out for display to the World's media...
And the 'World's' media? They lost interest a few days before the siege was ended. In a collective act of diversion, reminiscent of 'displacement activity', all those Western media organisations who had been so recently hysterical about 'saving Aleppo's children' suddenly found other urgent or trivial events to focus on. Having been prepared to support a full-scale military attack on Syrian Defence forces and their allies, if only leaders could be persuaded to launch one, the many foreign false 'Friends of Syria' could barely even admit to themselves what had just happened.
Not only had their concocted false narrative been exposed as criminally fraudulent, but their endless attacks on Russia, Syria and their allies for 'brutal carelessness' and 'war crimes' had also been betrayed by events on the ground. Unlike examples from recent history, where the breaking of sieges was accompanied by huge 'collateral damage' - one thinks of Fallujah in 2004 or Sirte in 2012 - the death toll of civilians sustained in the Syrian Army's operation in East Aleppo appears to have been minimal. Indeed the greatest number of casualties that could be claimed by supporters of the insurgency was less than 100, and most of those appear to have been prisoners or civilians trying to escape who were killed by the militants.
The widely broadcast warnings from the likes of Samantha Power, that this was going to be another 'Guernica' or 'Sbrenica', were revealed as merely desperate and grotesque attempts to save the West's fast-collapsing regime-change project.
But sadly that is not the end of it.
Even before the siege was over Al Jazeera was preparing to continue its daily 'Aleppo Onslaught' news broadcast with an 'Idlib Onslaught' one. We may remember how in the last days opposition armed groups refused to accept the agreed liberation of villages Foua and Kefraya, setting fire to 25 buses sent to bring out residents and holding the drivers hostage. This was an indication of the nature of the armed groups holding power west of Aleppo and around Idlib, and even Western commentators acknowledged they were dominated by Jabhat al Nusra. But Al Jazeera continued to provide global media support to their terrorist 'brothers under siege' in East Aleppo, and intended to follow them as they were finally expelled from their to Idlib province.
While Al Jazeera and its partner organisations have continued with this unconvincing theme - that 'civilians' and 'moderate rebels' in Idlib will be endangered by Syrian and Russian airstrikes against Al Qaeda linked militants not covered by the ceasefire agreement - support groups in the UK, and proabably elsewhere seem to have come up with a better scheme.
A group calling itself 'Syria Solidarity UK' claims to have received a statement from 'local community organisations' in Wadi Barada, which is a valley extending north-west from Damascus that contains the ancient spring of Ain al Fijeh that supplies 70% of the city's water.
Reliable Syrian sources reported that militants occupying the valley had poured diesel into the water, forcing authorities to cut off the supply to Damascus about ten days ago. The Syrian Army and Hezbollah allies ( the area is close to the Lebanese border) are now trying to kill the armed jihadists - Jabhat al Nusra - in the villages close to the spring, following the evacuation of remaining civilians in the area. Along with the nearby 'rebel' hold-outs of Madaya and Zabadani, Wadi Barada has been under opposition control since 2012, and attempts to negotiate ceasefire settlements in this area have so far failed. The success of such negotiations in many other towns and cities, including suburbs of Damascus, Homs and now Aleppo, mostly hinged upon an 'escape clause' for the Islamist extremist groups and their families, and it is imporant to understand how this bizarre policy could work and why it was necessary.
Most of the fighters in these liberated areas were prepared to accept the Government amnesty, which guaranteed that no punitive action would be taken against those who surrendered their arms. The determined jihadists who refused were given safe passage, with their families and even their weapons to Idlib province, which was and remains under 'rebel' control. This was a very hard pill to swallow for loyal Syrians, and particularly for Syrian soldiers who had seen their comrades slaughtered by suicide bombers and IEDs, or tortured and executed while trying to defend the community from the mostly foreign and foreign-armed terrorists.
But in Madaya, which became well-known in the West as a place 'under siege' where residents were alleged to be dying of starvation, no such evacuation agreement was reached, thanks mostly to the massive propaganda campaign supporting the extremist groups who controlled the town - Ahrar al Sham and Jabhat al Nusra. As in Aleppo, these militants were actually the ones responsible for the siege, taking control of UN-provided Food Aid and shooting civilians trying to escape.
When a UN aid convoy finally arrived in Madaya a year ago, many residents jumped at the opportunity to escape, but Ahrar al Sham survived with its remaining 'human shields'. Now that the scheme to protect their terrorist brothers in East Aleppo has failed, it is Ahrar and its allies around Madaya who are called on to carry the torch of the fake revolution forward.
This is the vital context, and the context missing from Western news and media, which is now reporting the exact narrative prepared by Al Jazeera, Syria Solidarity UK and other leaders of the propaganda war on Syria.
It is not the 'rebels' of Wadi Barada who are responsible for sabotaging Damascenes' drinking water, but Hezbollah and the Syrian Army. The Syrian Army is not targeting Jabhat al Nusra, who don't have a presence or support in Wadi Barada, but is trying to drive out the civilian population and its 'rebel' defenders. And the 'regime' in now holding 100,000 civilians under siege, cut off from food and water and essential supplies.
But - say the 'defenders of Wadi Barada' - 'we will urgently seek to restore the water supply, and arrange for maintenance persons to come in, as soon as the Syrian Army and Hezbollah cease all their attacks on our citizens.'
'And if they don't agree to this, then we can no longer recognise the ceasefire..'
No doubt there will be many Syrians now saying 'why did you let the terrorists go to Idlib and not take them straight to prison?'
(I have a 'disclaimer' - I work with the Syria Solidarity Movement, which rather like the REAL Syrian Civil Defence works to support Syrians in their fight against Western backed terrorists and their supportive propaganda. We are totally opposed to everything that 'Syria Solidarity UK' stands for and supports, which include the fake 'Syrian Civil Defence' or 'White Helmets', a No Fly Zone over Syria, and the removal of Syria's democratically elected and popular President by whatever means are necessary.)
There is a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Syria and the "western" media ignore it. On December 22 al-Qaeda aligned Takfiris in the Wadi Barada valley shut down the main water supply for the Syrian capital Damascus. Since then the city and some 5-6 million living in and around it have to survive on emergency water distributions by the Syrian government. That is barely enough for people to drink - no washing, no showers and no water dependent production is possible. Article originally published at Moon of Alabama. Sources of pictures and enlargements also available there.
This shut down is part of a wider, seemingly coordinated strategy to deprive all government held areas of utility supplies. Two days ago the Islamic State shut down a major water intake for Aleppo from the Euphrates. High voltage electricity masts on lines feeding Damascus have been destroyed and repair teams, unlike before, denied access. Gas supplies to parts of Damascus are also cut. A similar tactic was used by the Zionist terrorists of the Haganah who in 1947/48 poisoned and blew up the water mains and oil pipelines to Palestinian Haifa.
Wadi Barada is a river valley some 10 miles west of Damascus at the mountain range between Lebanon and Syria. It has been in the hands of local insurgents since 2012. The area was since loosely surrounded by Syrian government forces and their allies from Hizbullah.
Two springs in the area provide the water for Damascus which is treated locally and then pumped through pipelines into the city's distribution network. Since the early 1990s there is a low level conflict over the water diversion of the Barada river valley to the ever growing Damascus. The drought over the last years has intensified the problems. Local agriculture of the water rich valley had to cut back for lack of water as this was pumped into the city. But many families from the valley moved themselves into the city or have relatives living there.
The local rebels had kept the water running for the city. Al-Qaeda aligned groups have been in the area for some time. A propaganda video distributed by them and taken in the area showed (pic) the choreographed mass execution of Syrian government soldiers.
After the eastern part of the city of Aleppo was liberated by Syrian government forces, the local rebels and inhabitants in the Barada river valley were willing to reconcile with the Syrian government. But the al-Qaeda Takfiris disagreed and took over. The area is since under full al-Qaeda control and thereby outside of the recent ceasefire agreement.
On December 22 the water supply to Damascus was suddenly contaminated with diesel fuel and no longer consumable. A day later Syrian government forces started an operation to regain the area and to reconstitute the water supplies.
Photos and a video on social media (since inaccessible but I saw them when they appeared) showed the water treatment facility rigged with explosives. On Dec 27th the facility was blown up and partly destroyed.
Suddenly new organized "civil" media operations of, allegedly, locals in the area spread misinformation to "western" media. "There are 100,000 civilians under siege in Wadi Barada!" In reality the whole area once had, according to the last peacetime census, some 20,000 inhabitants. The White Helmets propaganda organization now also claims to be in the area. "The government had bombed the water treatment facility," the propaganda groups claimed.
That is a. not plausible and b. inconsistent with the pictures of the destroyed facility. These show a collapse of the main support booms of the roof but no shrapnel impact at all. A bomb breaking through the roof and exploding would surely have left pocket marks all over the place. The damage, in my judgement, occurred from well designed, controlled explosions inside the facility.
Some insurgents posted pictures of themselves proudly standing within the destroyed facility and making victory signs.
There is more such cheer-leading by insurgents on social media. Why when they claim that the government bombed the place?
On December 29 the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs issued an alarm about the water crisis:
The United Nations is alarmed that four million inhabitants in Damascus and surrounding areas have been cut off from the main water supply since 22 December. Two primary sources of drinking water- Wadi Barada and Ain-el-Fijah-which provide clean and safe water for 70 percent of the population in and around Damascus are not functioning, due to deliberate targeting resulting in the damaged infrastructure.
One of the two springs, Al-Feejeh, has now been retaken by the Syrian army. 1,300 civilians from Ain AlFeejeh, the nearby town with the treatment facility, have fled to the government held areas and were taken in by the Syrian Red Cross. The other spring and the treatment facility are still in Takfiri hands. The government has said that it will need some ten days to repair the system after the Syrian army has gained control of the facilities. That will still take some time.
Western media have hardly taken notice of the water crisis in Damascus and their coverage seems to actively avoid it. A search for Barada on the Washington Post website brings up one original piece from December 30 about the freshly negotiated ceasefire. The 6th paragraph says:
Airstrikes pounded opposition-held villages and towns in the strategically-important Barada Valley outside Damascus, activists said, prompting rebels to threaten to withdraw their compliance with a nationwide truce brokered by Russia and Turkey last week.
Then follow 16 paragraphs on other issues. Only at the very end of the piece comes this (mis-)information:
The Barada Valley is the primary source of water for the capital and its surrounding region. The government assault has coincided with a severe water shortage in Damascus since Dec. 22. Images from the valley’s Media Center indicate its Ain al-Fijeh spring and water processing facility have been destroyed in airstrikes. The government says rebels spoiled the water source with diesel fuel, forcing it to cut supplies to the capital.
On December 29 a piece by main WaPo anti-Syria propagandist Liz Sly did not mention the water crisis or the Barada valley at all.
The New York Times links a Reuters pieces about the UN alarm about the water crisis. But I find nothing in its own reporting that even mentions the water crisis. One piece on December 31 refers shortly to attacks on Wadi Baradi by government forces at its very end.
A Guardian search for Barada only comes up with a piece from today mixed from agency reports. The headlines say "Hundreds of Syrians flee as Assad's forces bomb Barada valley rebels". The piece itself says that they flee to the government side. In it the Syrian Observatory (MI-6) operation in Britain confirms that al-Qaeda rules the area which "Civil society organisations on the ground" deny. Only the very last of the 12 paragraph piece mentions the capital:
The Barada valley is the primary source of water for the capital and its surrounding region. The government assault has coincided with a severe water shortage in Damascus since 22 December. The government says rebels spoiled the water source with diesel fuel, forcing it to cut supplies to the capital.
Surely a few people "fleeing" (to the government side) "as Assad's forces bombs" are way more important than 5 million people in Damascus without access to water. That the treatment facility is destroyed seems also unimportant.
All the above papers have been extremely concerned about every scratch to any propaganda pimp who had claimed to be in then rebel held east-Aleppo. They now show no concern at all for 5 million Syrians in Damascus who have been without water for 10 days and will likely be so for the rest of the month.
Posted by b on January 2, 2017 at 02:42 PM | Permalink
Interviews with Syrians in Aleppo regarding how they perceive the defeat of the 'rebels', whom they call terrorists. They feel they have been liberated and they consider that France and its allies (US-NATO) were keeping them imprisoned by supporting the terrorists. Arabic, French and English, with French and English subtitles. A number of christian church officials are interviewed.
Good News: Washington Frozen Out of Syria Peace Plan
"As the US mainstream media obsessed last week about Russia's supposed “hacking” of the US elections and President Obama’s final round of Russia sanctions in response, something very important was taking place under the media radar. As a result of a meeting between foreign ministers of Russia, Iran, and Turkey last month, a ceasefire in Syria has been worked out and is being implemented. So far it appears to be holding, and after nearly six years of horrible warfare the people of Syria are finally facing the possibility of rebuilding their lives." [...]
"The fact is, it is often US involvement in “solving” these crises that actually perpetuates them. Consider the 60-plus year state of war between North and South Korea. Has US intervention done anything to solve the problem? How about our decades of meddling in the Israel-Palestine dispute? Are we any closer to peace between the Israelis and Palestinians despite the billions we have spent bribing and interfering?" Ron Paul. Read more here: Good News: Washington Frozen Out of Syria Peace Plan
Just a quick update for our authors and readers to explain how and why candobetter.net disappeared without explanation for several days after Christmas. We were hacked, yet again, by miserable varmints who don't seem to believe in freedom of the press and especially hate the alternative media. Our thanks to LVPShosting for their help in recovering the site. We have replaced nearly all the lost articles now. We will be establishing more secure sites over the next few weeks. We have had to close all the writers' accounts temporarily. If you are an author, please contact Sheila to have your account reopened and be sure then to reset your password. Seasons Greetings to all (except the keyboard spiders).
The UN has concluded its investigation of the 19 September bombing of a UN aid convoy in Syria. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released the summary of the Board of Inquiry’s report on 21 December, but it received virtually no publicity, unlike the wall-to-wall reporting of the USA’s and UK’s hysterical accusations at the time that Russia deliberately bombed the convoy. The lack of publicity is doubtless because the report proves there was no evidence for the accusations against Russia.
Following is a chronology of the incident:
On 11 September, Russia and the USA agreed to a ceasefire in Syria, which Barack Obama insisted must last seven days before any further Russian-US cooperation in the five-year conflict. Senior officials in the Obama administration, including Defence Secretary Ash Carter, were known to be opposed to any cooperation with Russia.
On 17 September, US, Australian and other members of the US-led coalition in Syria bombed Syrian Arab Army soldiers holding a position against ISIS at Deir ez-Zor. More than 62 soldiers were killed in an attack that lasted more than an hour, and when a Russian officer called the US military’s emergency hotline to inform them they were attacking the Syrian army, the Russian officer was put on hold for 27 minutes! The USA later claimed the attack was an “accident”. (The CEC launched a petition demanding the Australian government withdraw its presence from Syria, as it was only assisting ISIS.)
On 19 September, a UN convoy transporting aid for Aleppo was bombed in an area controlled by rebels. The attack occurred at precisely the moment that the al-Qaeda-led rebels in Aleppo launched a furious offensive to break the Syrian Army lines. It was reported as a bombing, but the burnt out trucks remained intact, and there were no craters or other signs of aerial bombardment. The eyewitness reports that the attack was an aerial bombing came from the so-called White Helmets—British- and American-funded jihadists masquerading as civilian rescuers. The USA and Britain accused Russia of a war crime, and—ignoring the attack on the Syrian army two days earlier—of destroying the ceasefire!
The most hysterical accusations came from the British government and Parliament, in an 11 October emergency debate. They were also the most hypocritical and cynical. Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell, who moved the debate, compared Russia’s actions in Syria to those of the Nazis in the Spanish Civil War.
Greens leader Caroline Lucas asked Mitchell: “Does he agree that our own Government should follow the example of the French in supporting a referral of Russia to the International Criminal Court?”
Blairite (a crony of disgraced former PM Tony Blair) Labour MP Ann Clwyd—the politician who first publicised the notorious Iraq war lie, that Saddam killed people in a human shredding machine, yet remains completely unapologetic for the illegal invasion of Iraq—called for the UK to take the same approach to Syria as it did to Iraq! “We do not have to wait for the International Criminal Court”, Clwyd urged. “Indict, an organisation that I chaired, collected evidence on Iraqi war crimes years before they were heard. That can be done again, for example through the Foreign Office.” (Emphasis added.)
When Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry at least attempted to inject into the debate the reality that the rebels were predominantly al-Qaeda jihadists, another shameless Blairite Labour MP, Ben Bradshaw, erupted in contrived outrage, and attacked his own colleague: “We had a ceasefire; it was brutally blown apart by Russian and Syrian air power. I still have not heard from my hon. Friend a clear and unequivocal condemnation of Russia’s and Assad’s action. I have not heard her call it out as it is—a war crime!” (Bradshaw is another with the blood of Iraqis on his hands, having aggressively prosecuted the fraudulent case for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and later having voted against convening Sir John Chilcot’s Iraq inquiry into that criminal and disastrous decision.)
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said: “All the available evidence therefore points to Russian responsibility for the atrocity. I trust that the UN board of inquiry will establish exactly what happened, and we in the United Kingdom Government stand ready to help.” Johnson’s speech made headlines for his reiteration of Ann Clwyd’s call for anti-war protestors to demonstrate outside of the Russian embassy in London. It is worth noting that Johnson was interrupted by a question from Prince Charles’s close friend Sir Nicholas Soames, demanding war crime prosecutions for the attack. Another toady for the British arms industry, Soames is notorious for his threats against Princess Diana when she spearheaded the international campaign against land mines just before her death in 1997. (The inquest ruled Diana’s death an “unlawful killing”, which is effectively a verdict of murder, where the perpetrators are not identified.)
The only contributor to this House of Commons debate who emerged with any credibility intact was Labour Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry, who exposed the self-righteous hypocrisy of the other contributors by insisting that the UK could not condemn the alleged crimes in Syria while simultaneously arming Saudi Arabia to bomb civilians in Yemen.
UN’s finding
Following are excerpts of numbered sections from the UN Headquarters Board of Inquiry Report summary that Ban Ki-moon released 21 December. While the report still assumes an aerial attack that many experts insist could not have been possible, nevertheless it absolves Russia of a war crime. The findings include:
The area where the convoy was attacked was under the control of Islamist jihadists:
“11. The SARC compound, the incident site, is located approximately 1.5 km east of the town of Urem al-Kubra.”
“13. On the date of the incident, Urem al-Kubra was under the control of armed opposition groups, with Jaish al-Mujahideen being the predominant group in the area. The Board was informed that other groups, including Nour al-Din al-Zenki also had a presence there. In addition, the Board received reports of a Jabhat al-Nusra presence in the area.”
Nour al-Din al-Zenki is one of the so-called “moderate” rebel groups backed by the US, members of which filmed themselves beheading a 12-year-old Palestinian boy in July (the same cameraman later took the staged photo of the five-year-old Aleppo boy in an ambulance that suckered the world media). Jabhat al-Nusra is the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda.
The White Helmets’ claim that a hospital was bombed was bogus:
“33. Despite initial reports that a medical clinic had been destroyed, the Board found no evidence of a medical clinic neighbouring the SARC compound.” (Emphasis added.)
This is an important finding, as the most oft-repeated accusation against Russia is that its aircraft deliberately targeted hospitals in Aleppo. The US and UK-financed White Helmets were the source of these claims, which were always baseless. Not only did they claim dozens of times that the “last hospital” in Aleppo had been destroyed, the recent liberation of Aleppo has proved that almost every site they called a hospital was just a jihadist stronghold.
If the Syrian Arab Air Force (SAAF) were responsible for the attack, given the convoy’s location in a jihadist-controlled area they most likely thought it was a military target:
“36. … The Board considered that the location of the SARC compound, on the outskirts of a populated area, in an industrial zone and astride one of the two primary roads leading to southwestern Aleppo, made it a realistic possibility that the buildings around it were used by armed opposition groups prior to the date of the incident. Therefore the Board considered that it had most likely been attacked by pro-Government forces.”
The UN found no evidence to prove that SAAF perpetrated the attack; an SAAF attack does not implicate Russia:
“39. The Board stated that it had received reports that information existed to the effect that the SAAF was highly likely to have perpetrated the attack, and even that the attack was carried out by three Syrian Mi-17 model helicopters, followed by three unnamed fixed-wing aircraft, with a single Russian aircraft also suspected of being involved. However, the Board did not have access to raw data to support these assertions and, in their absence, it was unable to draw a definitive conclusion.”
“40. The Board noted in this connection that there were technical issues pertaining to a hypothesis of the incident being a result of a joint Syrian Arab Air Force/Russian Federation strike. The Board had been informed that that the Russian Federation did not conduct joint strikes. A high degree of interoperability and co-ordination would also be required for two air forces to operate in the same airspace, targeting the same location.”
The UN found no evidence of a war crime:
“42. The Board stated that it did not have evidence to conclude that the incident was a deliberate attack on a humanitarian target.”
Since the US presidential election, the Anglo-American establishment and their corporate media lackeys have coined the term “fake news” for anything that contradicts their lies. In fact, many times since the genocidal fiasco of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, it is they who have been exposed as the real peddlers of fake news. The most extreme example is their litany of lies against Russia, but those lies are also the most dangerous, as they have pushed the world towards nuclear war. Thankfully, with Aleppo now liberated from the USA’s and UK’s terrorists, and a change of government in the USA, there is a chance to turn away from the policies of permanent war, and achieve a just international order based on respect for national sovereignty and a commitment to peace through cooperative economic development. As we approach 2017, all people of good will should resolve to ensure that it happens.
NOTES
Although candobetter.net's philosophy of land-use and population policy reform runs counter to that of the Citizens Electoral Council, we are pleased to publish this press release about Syria and Russia.
The source of this article was a press release dated 30 December 2016, from Craig Isherwood‚ National Secretary of the Citizens' Electoral Council
PO Box 376‚ COBURG‚ VIC 3058
Phone: 1800 636 432
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.cecaust.com.au
Here it is, that time of year,
When we look back and shed a tear
To me the facts are very clear
That better times are in the rear
The world around me is going bats
Replacing houses and gardens with big ugly flats
Digging caverns for cars - are they underground bunkers?
Melbourne's traffic increasing by ever more clunkers
Further afield every bit of space
is under attack from those seeking a place
For ever more cars and bicycle wheels
Thru our peaceful parks where we once cooled our heels
Small pieces of land with scatters of trees
Are deemed surplus to needs and sold off in the breeze
"No one will notice" behind closed doors they say
But the community loses a little each day
On a national scale we had an election,
It threw up an amazing Senate confection!
Such a surprise, One Nation arise!
Who else can the poor, disaffected turn to?
In the US t'was the same situation
though they really did it to utter perfection
Not just a loud voice from the red gallery
A developer star from reality TV
Over in Britain, they put in a lady
to mop up the spillage, (we won’t call her Sadie)
from a sudden and brutal and final exit
From the EU by a disgusted proletariat
Meanwhile in a wedge between India and France
We just can’t ignore that there isn’t a chance
Of stopping the wars in the Middle East
Or all sitting down to a peace giving feast
Until all are united in stamping out ISIS
or Da’esh or any damned name in a crisis.
With this situation let’s watch this space
We really don’t know quite what we will face.
Next year’s an unknown in international affairs
If you are religious then please say your prayers
Can it be worse ? Well may you wonder.
Lets hope that Trump, as he promised, will cast war asunder.
Syria is on the cusp of peace, but the propaganda war is still raging in the west. What about Bashar al-Assad's reputation in the west as a torturer? Does the evidence of this mean that the Syrian state has no right to defend Syria?
To paraphrase from the Russian Marxist Plekhanov who wrote about this kind of "moral" argument in 1901 in his essay "Cant Against Kant", it is one thing to morally object to violence, torture, etc. But it is another thing to use this objection to then say that someone attacked in the street should then be forced to fight with their hands tied behind their backs.
The point I am making is not to endorse torture but to say that whatever moral objections one might have to things done by many governments (and certainly Syria has nothing on the US with its Abu Ghraib and secret prisons all over the world and its invasion and occupation of one country after another) the important thing about what is happening in Syria is not whether there is torture or no torture but that the country is being attacked by terrorists in the interests of imperialism and so Syria has the right to fight back.
In terms of characterizing the Syrian government, torture has been used by both "good" and "bad" governments, as abhorrent as it may be, so that does not tell us very much about Syria. But Syria has many policies that many on the left in imperialist countries only dream about for their own countries. To list some:
- parliament seats are 50%+1 reserved for workers and peasants
- city council seats are 25% reserved for low-income residents
- retail prices are capped by popular committees
- the country's loan capital prioritized public infrastructure and investment so much that private businesses had to go to Europe for loans because they were lower in priority, compare this to crumbling underfunded infrastructure in the US
- university education has nominal (practically free) or low cost
- generally free health care for most people
These are things those in the US want for their "own" countries which Syria already has, so that should give us an idea that the US or the West has no moral superiority over Syria. Even with the Maher Arar case it was after all at the US's request, and as mentioned the US has tortured far worse.
About the Author
Saleh Waziruddin is an Indian/Pakistani (South Asian)-Canadian who grew up in Saudi Arabia. He is on the executive committees of the Canadian Peace Congress and also the Canadian Network on Cuba.
In this article a Syrian gives an opinion on torture in the Syrian state, in the region, and on behalf of the United States. The article responds to western propaganda used to justify US-NATO policies to remove Bashar al-Assad in a foreign 'regime-change'. Note that Bashar al-Assad was legally, popularly and resoundingly elected, so the Syrian Government should not be referred to as a 'regime'. The foreign intervention which has supported mercenaries and terrorists in a so far unsuccesful plan for 'regime-change' makes it difficult for Syrians to write under their own names. Their own lives and those of their families could suffer reprisals. Hence this article is anonymous. The article was initially a response to correspondence under Sean Stinson's article "Aleppo has been liberated, so why isn’t anyone talking about it?" on the Australian Independent Media Network
Reality: Before the events of 2011, serious torture existed, in small numbers, in Syrian prisons. Humiliation (often bordering on torture) was widespread. Most Americans believe torture was justified after 9/11 (where 3,000 Americans died). In Syria, we have a savage war… 200,000 Syrians have died. It wouldn’t be surprising that today many Syrians also believe torture (by their favorite side of the conflict) is legitimate. This corrupting of people’s values takes place during conflicts and the best way to confront it is to end those conflicts, not through propaganda stunts.
Torture in jails, in most countries of this planet, through most eras of history and current history, is a natural horrible act that almost every jail officer does when they want to know hidden secrets from people they believe are dangerous criminals. There is torturing in the US, or by US officers in other parts of the world; by British in Iraq; by Arabs, by Israelis... Even states like Canada, Australia, and the Scandinavian states would have such incidents pop up in the media from time to time, and we can trace such atrocities 50 years ago in their archives.
Back to Syria, does it have a notorious history in torturing in jails? Yes, there are arguments as to whether there were few or many victims.
Did some people lose their lives in Syrian jails through acts of torture? Yes. It happens in crisis times (like in the 80's after the Muslim Brotherhood fighting era).
Were some of these victims innocents? Yes, but not as exaggerated.
Comparing prisons and torture in other Middle Eastern countries
But, what is the reputation on Turkish jails? Worse than the Syrian.
The Jordanians'? Worse.
The Iraqis'? Egyptian's? So bad.
What about the Saudi's? Horrible.
The Israelis'? Beyond discussion.
What I'm trying to say? It's one of the repulsive cultural attitudes that run in the blood of the people and the political officials of that whole region (among so many others around the world). It's so similar to that dangerous habit of shooting in the air in celebrations and funerals (the oldest act I read about so far goes back to WWI, when rabble and mobs were shooting bullets in the air in the Levant). Bashar al-Assad asked the soldiers so many times to stop that dangerous habit and save the bullets to use against the terrorists. Hasan Nasrallah begged his fans over and over again, and threatened any Hezbollah member to kick him out of the Resistance if he shot bullets in the air; yet, it runs in the blood of the ordinary people and fans. It seems that it's so hard to stop or control it no matter what.
It's similar with the act of torture. It's something I'm not proud of at all, but it is normalised in investigations, as it's the only way to know what this or that criminal is hiding.
I still remember a cartoon in a local newspaper in Dubai in 2003 after the fall of Baghdad. It was made up of two sketches. The first shows pre-2003, where there is an officer who looks like Saddam Hussein torturing a person in a jail. The next one shows after 2003, where that old victim has become the new jail officer, and he's torturing the old officer in the same way. In other words: Nothing has changed! Perhaps, Hezbollah after the Lebanese civil war is one - if not the only one - of the rare exceptions, because they don't use those tactics. (They did use torture in the civil war, though, like all the other militias of the time).
Who gets tortured?
Torture against whom? Acts of torture are usually not against people who do individual criminal acts (stealing money, raping, even murdering for personal reasons...etc). Torture ia done to dangerous people whom investigators believe have an agenda, or that they are part of something bigger (terrorism, agents for enemies, spies, funded by other intelligence organizations, people who are preparing for a political coup-d'etat...etc). Those are the kinds of people who tend to be tortured, as it's the only way the old school investigators know to discover what secrets the criminals are hiding.
The Near East was under the control of the Ottoman Empire for centuries, and all the previous empires that ruled that area were famous for torturing. It's mentioned in all the history books. Syrian governments before the Assad family came to power also carried out torture.
I want to say that these horrible acts are not reliant on the Assad family. Anyone who rules after Assad will carry out the same acts of toture. We have enough examples of what Syrian terrorists (opposition gangs of 'rebels' and mercenaries) did to captured Syrian soldiers in the last 5.5 years. They murdered people under torture and in front of cameras and published those films for the world to see.
Ironically, some Syrian people today remember the old torturing days of the Syrian Mukhabarat (intelligence officers), and wish for the old days to come back! I mean, they regret how they used to criticize that horrible acts of the time, in comparison to what they have gone through in this current crisis. The old atrocities in Syrian jails seem to them like a piece of cake compared to the practices of Nusra, Da'esh, and the rest of the terrorists.
The colonial and neo-colonial context
Syria and other Middle Eastern states have needed to be pretty firm in government to avoid being overturned by foreign powers and states. The late Syrian president, Hafiz al-Asad, was Bashar al-Asad's father. Hafiz was pretty tough against the enemies of the state. During his time, people complained about that iron fist. Today, people bless his soul when remembering him, and wish he was alive to terminate all these terrorists and be merciless against them. Many Syrians today blame Bashar al-Asad of being "too good" and "naive" in dealing with the crisis. Hafiz was tough against the Muslim Brotherhood's (MB) terrorism in (1979-1982), and many innocent people died while crushing the Muslim Brotherhood movement, and many innocent people went to jails, but that toughness saved Syria for three decades and made it one of the most secured countries around the globe.
When Bashar came to power in Syria, he wanted to make peace with all the political prisoners. He began to set them free, one after the other, both the radical Muslim Brotherhoods and the radical Leftists (Communists, Socialists, Democrats, etc.). Many Syrians today say that those criminals should never have left the jails in the first place because many of them have stabbed the government and the president's reputation in the back when they have had the opportunity to do so. They never thought about the state infrastructure, they thought only about taking revenge.
Lack of evidence that Bashar committed crimes the west accuses him of
Did Bashar al-Assad order the police officers to torture criminals? NO.
Did he torture any criminal (or civilian) himself? Absolutely Not.
Where is the evidence of him doing this to his own people"?
Bashar is a very humble person. He used to walk in the streets with his family, eating in restaurants, talking to people without any obvious bodyguard presence. But he has his father's stubborn's genes for sure. That was so obvious in the current crisis, and he used that trait in defending Syria and Syrians, not in torturing them.
"I don’t know why USA turned on former best friend Assad, but it certainly wasn’t because he was a nasty person. They’d known that for ages and it suited them fine. I suspect it was something to do with Russia or Iran and oil/gas." Miriam English,December 20, 2016 at 8:40 am, explaining why she thinks Bashar al-Assad is not a good guy in a discussion following Sean Stinson's article "Aleppo has been liberated, so why isn’t anyone talking about it?" on the Australian Independent Media Network.
Was Bashar al-Assad (or even his late father) a "best friend" to the US? That is not accurate! The following diagrams are from Camille Alexander Otrakji's articles: http://creativesyria.com/syriapage/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/cycles_syria.jpg This is a record of American-Syrian relations since 1970. It shows the ups and fowns between them.
And http://creativesyria.com/syriapage/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/English-syria-recent-relations-history-chart1.jpg this schedule as well shows the relation between the two sides was hostile for 52% of the time between 1967-2017. (The schedule goes up to 2013, but nothing changed between 2013 and today on that subject). Relations were 24% Normal, and 26% Friendly, mostly not in Bashar al-Assad's era.
They had a type of normalization from time to time, but Syria remained on the U.S.'s "Axis of Evil" list for decades. So, when were the US and Bashar al-Assad "best friends"?
Syria wants to make good relations with the US, but they don't trust the Americans because of their blind support for Syria's enemy - Israel. So, Syria has preferred to depend on many smaller regional and international powers instead of depending on a sole superpower like the US, that it can't trust.
What about foreign intelligence relations?
Were there relations between the CIA and the Syrian intelligence? Of course, there were, and perhaps there still are today. There have been secret meetings between the French, Saudi, Turkish, and Jordanian intelligence officials from one side with the Syrian intelligence officials on the other side within the current years of crisis. The Syrian government has often mentioned that "these states are cursing us daily in front of the media, and asking us to secretly coordinate with them. We decided not to work and coordinate with them until they ceased their publicly hostile rhetoric and making war on us, and until they open their embassies in Damascus.
Extraordinary Rendition
What about the "Extraordinary Rendition" act between the US and Syria? It's possible, but not so sure. We all heard of the Canadian Syrian Maher Arar's case between Canada, the US, and Syria after 9/11.
By the way, Maher Arar has gone on to show support for the terrorists in Syria since 2011. This seems to me like another example of vengefulness overwhelming concern for the consequences for Syria. [I've rewritten this in a calm way and as your opinion; works better I think.]
Did other incidents like the one with Maher Arar happen many times? Did they happen a few times? Were such things taking place all the time? I really have doubts about all of that. We have to keep in mind that what happened in 9/11 can't be compared to any other crisis before and after that date. So, the anomalous situation inclines me to think that such "renditions" only happened in the first couple of years after 9/11.
It's documented that Syrian intelligence helped the CIA to capture real terrorists between 2001 and 2003. Arar's issue was in that short period. This has been mentioned in the Colin Powell discussions with Bashar al-Assad after the invasion of Iraq, where Assad reminded Powell of the services and information the Syrian government gave to the US which led to the safety of American people's lives, and Powell thanked him for it. (Yet, Powell gave a list of requests to Assad by that time, which were understood as "American bullying and threats").
I hope Otrakji's and my answers help to understand the situation. I was always so proud of the Syrian foreign policies, and so ashamed of the Syrian internal policies (mainly corruption). But that has nothing to do with the current crisis.
I'm supporting the Syrian Army and Bashar al-Assad in this global war on Syria. Once that war ends, then I can criticize him and his actions like any other president of this world. Now is not the right time to be divided on who's the good, the bad, and the ugly in this war.
Published on Dec 13, 2016, "Syriennes" - "Syrians" is a beautiful documentary made in Syria by Julien Rochedy for TV Libertés, about how Syrian girls and women feel about the prospect of a 'rebel' win. It includes an interview with an Australian-Syrian woman who returned to Syria when the war began. Girls in Damascus and the regions not controlled by the US-NATO-backed rebels are currently free to study, to follow their passions and to exercise their professions, but they live in fear of a 'rebel' win in the Syrian conflict. We see how many women in Damascus wear western clothes and bare heads, walk freely down the street and eat in cafes alone, just like girls in Sydney or Brisbane. The film also interviews women in Damascus who have escaped the 'Free Syrian Army', Daesh/ISIS and Al Nusra. Their tales are chilling. It is obvious that no woman could benefit from a victory by the militia that the US and NATO support. Women are 50% of Syria's population, so why does Australia and the US NATO support the 'rebels', who are all 'takfiris', that is, Islamic fundamentalists? And what excuse does the west have for the crippling and illegal sanctions imposed on Syria for decades now. It is pointed out that Iraq was subject to similar sanctions for ten years before the US invasion, and that tens of thousands of children died because of this. This film about the most bloody conflict of the early 21st century permits us to understand a much more complex reality than the mainstream media paints.
Two videos: Day after day, they are discovering piles and piles of food, heating gasoline, medical equipment, and weapons in east Aleppo that are enough for hundreds of thousands to stay alive for years, coming from Turkey, Qatar, the US, and Saudi. Yet, they were stocking them and leave the civilians to starve, to keep the lies on the Syrian government and blame it for all the starving of the people.
These piles of wheat might be enough to feed all Syria!
and this is a short clip from Reuters, however I didn't find the original source.
Article by Leith van Onselen. Dick Smith is a national treasure. Yesterday he used his own money to fund an ad in Australia’s major newspapers challenging Lucy Turnbull – the chief commissioner of the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) – on mass immigration, and asking her what her eventual plans are for the population of Sydney – querying whether it could be 16 or even 100 million.
Below is the ad:
The response from Lucy Turnbull’s office was pathetic. From The Australian:
The Australian sought comment from Ms Turnbull, through the Greater Sydney Commission. Commission chief executive Sarah Hill responded that Sydney’s rate of population growth was the “hallmark of all successful cities around the world”, and the group based its planning on a middle range of growth forecast, prepared by the state’s demographers.
“More than half of this growth is through natural increase,” Ms Hill said. “Our responsibility is to plan for this to make our city more liveable, sustainable and productive, rather than to debate the facts.”
So, “more than half of this growth is from natural increase”, according to the GSC? Not according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). As shown in the below charts, net overseas migration (NOM) into NSW (read Sydney) accounted for 67% of population growth in financial year 2016, and has done so on average over the past 30-plus years:
However, the above charts significantly understate the true impacts of immigration on Sydney’s population growth because “natural increase” captures the children of migrants. That is, NOM brings with it an immediate direct boost to population as well as a subsequent boost as new migrant arrivals have children (subsequently classified as “natural increase”).
For this reason, the Productivity Commission this year estimated that Australia’s population would peak at 27 million by 2060 under zero NOM, versus 41 million under NOM of 200,000 – a difference in population of 14 million! This comes despite only 9 million of this population increase coming directly from NOM. The other 5 million comes from migrants and the decedents of migrants having children (see next chart).
These are “the facts”, which the GSC seems only too willing to ignore: it is primarily mass immigration that is causing Sydney’s infrastructure woes, as well as pressuring housing.
Clearly, the best way for Lucy Turnbull to make Sydney “more livable” is to tap her husband on the shoulder and convince him to rein-in Australia’s mass immigration program.
Because as far as high immigration goes, the buck stops with the federal government. If you are in local or state government then you don’t have much choice but to cope with continuing mass immigration putting an ever-increasing strain on already stretched infrastructure, housing and public services.
Lucy Turnbull is in a unique position to influence federal policy and effect change for the betterment of both Sydney and Australia. But like her husband she is a mouthpiece for the ‘growth lobby’ that gains from never-ending population expansion at the expense of the rest of us.
President Bashar al-Assad : “[The ]West is telling Russia that Syrian Army went too far in defeating terrorists … Daesh could only attack Palmyra the way it did with supervision of U.S. alliance”. President Obama’s announcement of a waiver for arming unspecified rebel groups in Syria came shortly before the terrorist group Islamic State launched a massive attack on Palmyra. Syrian President Bashar Assad believes it was no coincidence, he told RussiaToday. In the interview, the Syrian leader explained how his approach to fighting terrorism differs from that of the US, why he believes the military success of his forces in Aleppo was taken so negatively in the West, and what he expects from US President-elect Donald Trump. [Full Video and Transcript]
“The announcement of the lifting of that embargo is related directly to the attack on Palmyra and to the support of other terrorists outside Aleppo, because when they are defeated in Aleppo, the United States and the West, they need to support their proxies somewhere else,” Bashar al-Assad said.
“The crux of that announcement is to create more chaos, because the United States creates chaos in order to manage this chaos,” Assad added.
He added that Islamic State (Daesh, IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) forces “came with different and huge manpower and firepower that ISIS never had before during this attack, and they attacked on a huge front, tens of kilometers that could be a front of armies. ISIS could only have done that with the support of states. Not state; states.”
Russia Today (Maria Finoshina): Mr. President, thank you very much for agreeing to speak with us.
President Bashar al-Assad: You’re most welcome in Damascus.
RT: We start with Aleppo, of course. Aleppo is now seeing what is perhaps the most fierce fighting since the war started almost six years ago here in Syria, but the Western politicians and Western media have been largely negative about your army’s advance. Why you think this is happening? Do they take it as their own defeat?
B.A.: Actually, after they failed in Damascus, because the whole narrative was about “liberating Damascus from the state” during the first three years. When they failed, they moved to Homs, when they failed in Homs, they moved to Aleppo, they focused on Aleppo during the last three years, and for them this is the last most important card they could have played on the Syrian battlefield. Of course, they still have terrorists in different areas in Syria, but it’s not like talking about Aleppo as the second largest city which has the political, military, economic, and even moral sense when their terrorists are defeated. So, for them the defeat of the terrorists is the defeating of their proxies, to talk bluntly. These are their proxies, and for them the defeat of these terrorists is the defeat of the countries that supervised them, whether regional countries or Western countries like United States, first of all United States, and France, and UK.
RT: So, you think they take it as their own defeat, right?
B.A.: Exactly, that’s what I mean. The defeat of the terrorists, this is their own defeat because these are their real army on the ground. They didn’t interfere in Syria, or intervened, directly; they have intervened through these proxies. So, that’s how we have to look at it if we want to be realistic, regardless of their statements, of course.
RT: Palmyra is another troubled region now, and it’s now taken by ISIS or ISIL, but we don’t hear a lot of condemnation about it. Is that because of the same reason?
B.A.: Exactly, because if it was captured by the government, they will be worried about the heritage. If we liberate Aleppo from the terrorists, they would be – I mean, the Western officials and the mainstream media – they’re going to be worried about the civilians. They’re not worried when the opposite happens, when the terrorists are killing those civilians or attacking Palmyra and started destroying the human heritage, not only the Syrian heritage. Exactly, you are right, because ISIS, if you look at the timing of the attack, it’s related to what’s happening in Aleppo. This is the response to what’s happening in Aleppo, the advancement of the Syrian Arab Army, and they wanted to make this… or let’s say, to undermine the victory in Aleppo, and at the same time to distract the Syrian Army from Aleppo, to make it move toward Palmyra and stop the advancement, but of course it didn’t work.
‘ISIS could only attack Palmyra the way it did with supervision of US alliance’
RT: We also hear reports that Palmyra siege was not only related to Aleppo battle, but also to what was happening in Iraq, and there are reports that the US-led coalition – which is almost 70 countries – allowed ISIL fighters in Mosul in Iraq to leave, and that strengthened ISIL here in Syria. Do you think it could be the case?
B.A.: It could be, but this is only to wash the hand of the American politicians from their responsibility on the attack, when they say “just because of Mosul, of course, the Iraqi army attacked Mosul, and ISIS left Mosul to Syria.” That’s not the case. Why? Because they came with different and huge manpower and firepower that ISIS never had before during this attack, and they attacked on a huge front, tens of kilometers that could be a front of armies. ISIS could only have done that with the support of states. Not state; states. They came with different machineguns, cannons, artillery, everything is different. So, it could only happen when they come in this desert with the supervision of the American alliance that’s supposed to attack them in al-Raqqa and Mosul and Deir Ezzor, but it didn’t happen; they either turned a blind eye on what ISIS is going to do, and, or – and that’s what I believe – they pushed toward Palmyra. So, it’s not about Mosul. We don’t have to fall in that trap. It’s about al-Raqqa and Deir Ezzor. They are very close, only a few hundred kilometers, they could come under the supervision of the American satellites and the American drones and the American support.
RT: How strong ISIS is today?
B.A.: As strong as the support that they get from the West and regional powers. Actually, they’re not strong for… if you talk isolated case, ISIS as isolated case, they’re not strong, because they don’t have the natural social incubator. Without it, terrorists cannot be strong enough. But the real support they have, the money, the oil field investment, the support of the American allies’ aircrafts, that’s why they are strong. So, they are as strong as their supporters, or as their supervisors.
RT: In Aleppo, we heard that you allowed some of these terrorists to leave freely the battleground. Why would you do that? It’s clear that they can go back to, let’s say, Idleb, and get arms and get ready for further attacks, then maybe attack those liberating Aleppo.
B.A.: Exactly, exactly, that’s correct, and that’s been happening for the last few years, but you always have things to lose and things to gain, and when the gain is more than what you lose, you go for that gain. In that case, our priority is to protect the area from being destroyed because of the war, to protect the civilians who live there, to give the chance for those civilians to leave through the open gates, to leave that area to the areas under the control of the government, and to give the chance to those terrorists to change their minds, to join the government, to go back to their normal life, and to get amnesty. When they don’t, they can leave with their armaments, with the disadvantage that you mentioned, but this is not our priority, because if you fight them in any other area outside the city, you’re going to have less destruction and less civilian casualties, that’s why.
‘Fighting terrorists US-style cannot solve the problem’
RT: I feel that you call them terrorists, but at the same time you treat them as human beings, you tell them “you have a chance to go back to your normal life.”
B.A.: Exactly. They are terrorists because they are holding machineguns, they kill, they destroy, they commit vandalism, and so on, and that’s natural, everywhere in the world that’s called as terrorism. But at the same time, they are humans who committed terrorism. They could be something else. They joined the terrorists for different reasons, either out of fear, for the money, sometimes for the ideology. So, if you can bring them back to their normal life, to be natural citizens, that’s your job as a government. It’s not enough to say “we’re going to fight terrorists.” Fighting terrorists is like a videogame; you can destroy your enemy in the videogame, but the videogame will generate and regenerate thousands of enemies, so you cannot deal with it on the American way: just killing, just killing! This is not our goal; this is the last option you have. If you can change, this is a good option, and it succeeded. It succeeded because many of those terrorists, when you change their position, some of them living normal lives, and some of them joined the Syrian Army, they fought with the Syrian Army against the other terrorists. This is success, from our point of view.
RT: Mr. President, you just said that you gain and you lose. Do you feel you’ve done enough to minimize civilian casualties during this conflict?
B.A.: We do our utmost. What’s enough, this is subjective; each one could look at it in his own way. At the end, what’s enough is what you can do; my ability as a person, the ability of the government, the ability of Syria as a small country to face a war that’s been supported by tens of countries, mainstream media’s hundreds of channels, and other machines working against you. So, it depends on the definition of “enough,” so this is, as I said, very subjective, but I’m sure that we are doing our best. Nothing is enough at the end, and the human practice is always full of correct and flows, or mistakes, let’s say, and that’s the natural thing.
‘West’s cries for ceasefire meant to save terrorists’
RT: We hear Western powers asking Russia and Iran repeatedly to put pressure on you to, as they put it, “stop the violence,” and just recently, six Western nations, in an unprecedented message, they asked Russia and Iran again to put pressure on you, asking for a ceasefire in Aleppo.
B.A.: Yeah.
RT: Will you go for it? At the time when your army was progressing, they were asking for a ceasefire.
B.A.: Exactly. It’s always important in politics to read between the lines, not to be literal. It doesn’t matter what they ask; the translation of their statement is for Russia: “please stop the advancement of the Syrian Army against the terrorists.” That’s the meaning of that statement, forget about the rest. “You went too far in defeating the terrorists, that shouldn’t happen. You should tell the Syrians to stop this, we have to keep the terrorists and to save them.” This is in brief.
Second, Russia never – these days, I mean, during this war, before that war, during the Soviet Union – never tried to interfere in our decision. Whenever they had opinion or advice, doesn’t matter how we can look at it, they say at the end “this is your country, you know what the best decision you want to take; this is how we see it, but if you see it in a different way, you know, you are the Syrian.” They are realistic, and they respect our sovereignty, and they always defend the sovereignty that’s based on the international law and the Charter of the United Nations. So, it never happened that they made any pressure, and they will never do it. This is not their methodology.
RT: How strong is the Syrian Army today?
B.A.: It’s about the comparison, to two things: first of all, the war itself; second, to the size of Syria. Syria is not a great country, so it cannot have a great army in the numerical sense. The support of our allies was very important; mainly Russia, and Iran. After six years, or nearly six years of the war, which is longer than the first World War and the second World War, it’s definitely and self-evident that the Syrian Army is not to be as strong as it was before that. But what we have is determination to defend our country. This is the most important thing. We lost so many lives in our army, we have so many martyrs, so many disabled soldiers. Numerically, we lost a lot, but we still have this determination, and I can tell you this determination is much stronger than before the war. But of course, we cannot ignore the support from Russia, we cannot ignore the support from Iran, that make this determination more effective and efficient.
‘Stronger Russia, China make world a safer place’
RT: President Obama has lifted a ban on arming some Syrian rebels just recently. What impact you think could it have on the situation on the ground, and could it directly or indirectly provide a boost to terrorists?
B.A.: We’re not sure that he lifted that embargo when he announced it. Maybe he lifted it before, but announced it later just to give it the political legitimacy, let’s say. This is first. The second point, which is very important: the timing of the announcement and the timing of attacking Palmyra. There’s a direct link between these two, so the question is to whom those armaments are going to? In the hands of who? In the hands of ISIS and al-Nusra, and there’s coordination between ISIS and al-Nusra. So, the announcement of this lifting of that embargo is related directly to the attack on Palmyra and to the support of other terrorists outside Aleppo, because when they are defeated in Aleppo, the United States and the West, they need to support their proxies somewhere else, because they don’t have any interest in solving the conflict in Syria. So, the crux of that announcement is to create more chaos, because the United States creates chaos in order to manage this chaos, and when they manage it, they want to use the different factors in that chaos in order to exploit the different parties of the conflict, whether they are internal parties or external parties.
RT: Mr. President, how do you feel about being a small country in the middle of this tornado of countries not interested in ending the war here?
B.A.: Exactly. It’s something we’ve always felt before this war, but we felt it more of course today, because small countries feel safer when there’s international balance, and we felt the same, what you just mentioned, after the collapse of the Soviet Union when there was only American hegemony, and they wanted to implement whatever they want and to dictate all their policies on everyone. Small countries suffer the most. So, we feel it today, but at the same time, today there’s more balance with the Russian role. That’s why I think we always believe the more Russia is stronger – I’m not only talking about Syria, I’m talking about every small country in the world – whenever the stronger Russia, more rising China, we feel more secure. It’s painful, I would say it’s very painful, this situation that we’ve been living, on every level; humanitarian level, the feeling, the loss, everything. But at the end, it’s not about losing and winning; it’s about either winning or losing your country. It’s existential threat for Syria. It’s not about government losing against other government or army against army; either the country will win, or the country will disappear. That’s how we look at it. That’s why you don’t have time to feel that pain; you only have time to fight and defend and do something on the ground.
‘Mainstream media lost credibility along with moral compass’
RT: Let’s talk about media’s role in this conflict.
B.A.: Yeah
RT: All sides during this war have been accused of civilian casualties, but the Western media has been almost completely silent about the atrocities committed by the rebels… what role is the media playing here?
B.A.: First of all, the mainstream media with their fellow politicians, they are suffering during the last few decades from moral decay. So, they have no morals. Whatever they talk about, whatever they mention or they use as mask, human rights, civilians, children; they use all these just for their own political agenda in order to provoke the feelings of their public opinion to support them in their intervention in this region, whether militarily or politically. So, they don’t have any credibility regarding this. If you want to look at what’s happening in the United States is rebellion against the mainstream media, because they’ve been lying and they kept lying on their audiences. We can tell that, those, let’s say, the public opinion or the people in the West doesn’t know the real story in our region, but at least they know that the mainstream media and their politicians were laying to them for their own vested interests agenda and vested interests politicians. That’s why I don’t think the mainstream media could sell their stories anymore and that’s why they are fighting for their existence in the West, although they have huge experience and huge support and money and resources, but they don’t have something very important for them to survive, which is the credibility. They don’t have it, they lost it. They don’t have the transparency, that’s why they don’t have credibility. That’s why they are very coward today, they are afraid of your channel, of any statement that could tell the truth because it’s going to debunk their talks. That’s why.
RT: Reuters news agency have been quoting Amaq, ISIL’s mouthpiece, regarding the siege of Palmyra. Do you think they give legitimacy to extremists in such a way? They’re quoting their media.
B.A.: Even if they don’t mention their news agencies, they adopt their narrative anyway. But if you look at the technical side of the way ISIS presented itself from the very beginning through the videos and the news and the media in general and the PR, they use Western technique. Look at it, it’s very sophisticated. How could somebody who’s under siege, who’s despised all over the world, who’s under attack from the airplanes, who the whole world wants to liberate every city from him, could be that sophisticated unless he is not relaxed and has all the support? So, I don’t think it is about Amaq; it’s about the West adopting their stories, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly.
RT: Donald Trump takes over as US President in a few weeks. You mentioned America many times today. What do you expect from America’s new administration?
B.A.: His rhetoric during the campaign was positive regarding the terrorism, which is our priority today. Anything else is not priority, so, I wouldn’t focus on anything else, the rest is American, let’s say, internal matters, I wouldn’t worry about. But the question whether Trump has the will or the ability to implement what he just mentioned. You know that most of the mainstream media and big corporate, the lobbies, the Congress, even some in his party were against him; they want to have more hegemony, more conflict with Russia, more interference in different countries, toppling governments, and so on. He said something in the other direction. Could he sustain against all those after he started next month? That’s the question. If he could, I think the world will be in a different place, because the most important thing is the relation between Russia and the Unites States. If he goes towards that relation, most of the tension around the world will be pacified. That’s very important for us in Syria, but I don’t think anyone has the answer to that. He wasn’t a politician, so, we don’t have any reference to judge him, first. Second, nobody can tell what kind of pattern is it going to be next month and after.
‘Western countries only sent aid to terrorists’
RT: The humanitarian situation in Syria is a disaster, and we hear from EU foreign policy chief, Madam Mogherini, that EU is the only entity to deliver humanitarian aid to Syria. Is that true?
B.A.: Actually, all the aid that any Western country sent was to the terrorists, to be very clear, blunt and very transparent. They never cared about a single Syrian human life. We have so many cities in Syria till today surrounded by and besieged by the terrorists; they prevented anything to reach them, food, water, anything, all the basic needs of life. Of course, they attack them on daily basis by mortars and try to kill them. What did the EU send to those? If they are worried about the human life, if they talk about the humanitarian aspect, because when you talk about the humanitarian aspect or issue, you don’t discriminate. All the Syrians are humans, all the people are humans. They don’t do that. So, this is the double standard, this is the lie that they keep telling, and it’s becoming a disgusting lie, no-one is selling their stories anymore. That’s not true, what she mentioned, not true.
RT: Some suggestions say that for Syria, the best solution would to split into separate countries governed by Sunni, Shi’a, Kurds. Is it any way possible?
B.A.: This is the Western – with some regional countries’ – hope or dream, and this is not new, not related to this war; that was before the war, and you have maps for this division and disintegration. But actually, if you look at the society today, the Syrian society is more unified than before the war. This is reality. I’m not saying anything to raise the morale of anyone, I’m not talking to Syrian audience anyway now, I’m talking about the reality. Because of the lessons of the war, the society became more realistic and pragmatic and many Syrians knew that being fanatic doesn’t help, being extreme in any idea, I’m not only talking about extremism in the religious meaning; politically, socially, culturally, doesn’t help Syria. Only when we accept each other, when we respect each other, we can live with each other and we can have one country. So, regarding the disintegration of Syria, if you don’t have this real disintegration among the society and different shades and spectrum of the Syrian society, Syrian fabric, you cannot have division. It’s not a map you draw, I mean, even if you have one country while the people are divided, you have disintegration. Look at Iraq, it’s one country, but it is disintegrated in reality. So, no, I’m not worried about this. There’s no way that Syrians will accept that. I’m talking now about the vast majority of the Syrians, because this is not new, this is not the subject of the last few weeks or the last few months. This is the subject of this war. So, after nearly six years, I can tell you the majority of the Syrians wouldn’t accept anything related to disintegration, they are going to live as one Syria.
RT: As a mother, I feel the pain of all Syrian mothers. I’m speaking about children in Syria, what does the future hold for them?
B.A.: This is the most dangerous aspect of our problem, not only in Syria; wherever you talk about this dark Wahhabi ideology, because many of those children who became young during the last decade, or more than one decade, who joined the terrorists on ideological basis, not for the like of money or anything else, or hope, let’s say, they came from open-minded families, educated families, intellectual families. So, you can imagine how strong the terrorism is.
‘Being secular doesn’t protect a nation from terrorist ideology’
RT: So, that happened because of their propaganda?
B.A.: Exactly, because the ideology is very dangerous; it knows no borders, no political borders, and the network, the worldwide web has helped those terrorists using fast and inexpensive tools in order to promote their ideology, and they could infiltrate any family anywhere in the world, whether in Europe, in your country, in my country, anywhere. You have secular society, I have secular society, but it didn’t protect the society from being infiltrated.
RT: Do you have any counter ideology for this?
B.A.: Exactly, because they built their ideology on the Islam, you have to use the same ideology, using the real Islam, the real moderate Islam, in order to counter their ideology. This is the fast way. If we want to talk about the mid-term and long-term, it’s about how much can you upgrade the society, the way the people analyze and think, because this ideology can only work when you cannot analyze, when you don’t think properly. So, it’s about the algorithm of the mind, if you have natural or healthy operating system, if you want to draw an analogy to the IT, if you have good operating systems in our mind, they cannot infiltrate it like a virus. So, it’s about the education, media and policy because sometimes when you have a cause, a national cause, and people lose hope, you can push those people towards being extremists, and this is one of the influences in our region since the seventies, after the war between the Arabs and the Israelis, and the peace failed in every aspect to recapture the land, to give the land and the rights to its people, you have more desperation, and that played into the hand of the extremists, and this is where the Wahhabi find fertile soil to promote its ideology.
RT: Mr. President, thank you very much for your time, and I wish your country peace and prosperity, and as soon as possible.
B.A.: Thank you very much for coming.
RT: This time has been very tough for you, so I wish it’s going to end soon.
B.A.: Thank you very much for coming to Syria. I’m very glad to receive you.
Dick Smith queries Lucy Turnbull’s Perpetual Population Growth Plan. In a half page advertisement featuring in major newspapers tomorrow morning, including the Daily Telegraph in Sydney,
The Sydney Morning Herald, the Financial Review and The Australian, Dick Smith is asking Lucy Turnbull, the chief planner for Sydney, just what her eventual plans are for the population of Sydney – querying whether it could be 16 or even 100 million.
Dick Smith says, “All of the major political parties, including The Greens, spruik perpetual growth. It is easy to see why Pauline Hanson’s policy to reduce immigration from 200,000 per year to a more sustainable 70,000 is gaining more support.”
Dick Smith also asks Lucy Turnbull, “How are we going to find jobs for these extra people?” Pointing out that with modern robotics and automation there are going to be less jobs.
Dick Smith asks Lucy if we are going to come up with a final plan for population, or are we going to “leave it for our children or grandchildren to solve.”
Four wounded Syrians who survived the bombardment of Deir ez-Zor by Australian, US, British and Danish aircraft on 17 Sep 2016. Sixty-two of their compatriots perished that day. Whether they intended to bomb the Syrian Army, or ISIS as they claimed, any aerial attack on the territory of a sovereign country like Syria, without the consent of its government, is a violation of international law. 1
A US investigation found the coalition 'botched' a strike in Deir ez-Zor, hitting the Syrian Army by mistake. Why did they not return to kill the IS fighters who moved in, or the IS fighters who just moved back to Palmyra?
Following a two-month investigation into the US coalition attack on a Syrian Army base in Deir al Zour in September, the Defence departments of the US and Australia concluded that the 'botched' strike was a result of poor information and human error, and no-one will face charges over the 'incident'.
Australia's chief of Joint Military Operations, David Johnston described it thus in a prepared statement:
"Although the identity of those killed or wounded could not be substantiated, the investigation found it was more likely than not that those struck were irregular forces aligned to the Syrian government.
"The situation on the ground in Syria is complex and dynamic. In many ways these forces looked and acted like Da'esh fighters the coalition has been targeting for the last two years. They were not wearing recognisable military uniforms, or displaying identifying flags or markings."
RAAF F-18 fighter bomber of the type which bombed Syria on 17 September
This conspicuously 'false news' from such a well-briefed source is deeply worrying, particularly as its release coincided with the Syrian Army's 'hour of glory' as it liberates Aleppo's trapped civilians from the four-year long insurgent siege.
Despite the lengthy 'investigation', carried out by the very same people who ordered and executed the murderous attack on the Syrian soldiers defending Deir al Zour from IS, the report's conclusions only confirm the false statements made to the press at the time, though embroidering them with an elaborate cover story. For the hundreds of Syrian victims of this dastardly attack and their families, any confidence in the statements and behaviour of their foreign attackers is now permanently destroyed.
How galling for those families, whose heroic husbands, sons and brothers had held their ground for two years against constant assaults from IS insurgents, to read that 'their identities could not be substantiated'. Or that these members of the Syrian Arab Army's 123rd Republican guard were mere 'irregulars aligned to the Syrian government'.
Never mind the testimony of some of the injured soldiers from hospital broadcast on Syrian state TV, describing the aggression and persistence of their attackers, or their still more incriminating statements that IS fighters moved in to take over the base before their comrades blood was even dry.
Although the US coalition's story is a complete travesty, it deserves closer scrutiny both for what it says and what it leaves out.
While novel unsubstantiated and false allegations are made about the nature of the target, the Australian Defence Forces have admitted responsibility for likely causing some of the deaths of Syrian soldiers - claiming that Australian war-planes had launched six laser-guided missiles, at what they identified as Da'esh fighters.
Since Australia 'joined the US coalition against Da'esh' two years ago, training soldiers in the Iraqi army, Australia's position on the fight against Da'esh in Syria has been obscure, and air-strikes within Syria notionally limited to preventing Da'esh from threatening Iraq. The silence of the Australian government, and the failure of the national broadcaster the ABC to ask questions about our actions against terrorist groups in Syria, contrasts sharply with the rhetoric from both sides of government here for the last five years, both against terrorism and against the Syrian government.
Not only has Australia been a central member of the 'Friends of Syria' group, and a vocal supporter of the Syrian external Opposition, but its anti-Russian and anti-Putin statements and actions have made it one of the most important partners in the NATO war on Syria. Some of that anti-Russian rhetoric is connected with Australia's support for Kiev's post-coup government, and reaction to the deaths of 38 Australians on board MH17. A recent agreement to supply Uranium to Ukraine hardly bodes for our future dealings with Moscow.
In the absence of any sensible discussion or analysis in the Australian media about the Deir al Zour attack and its actual consequences, or how the change in US leadership and likely direction in Syria could affect Australia's strategic position and military involvements in the region, some further investigation is now called for.
In the meantime, and as has happened repeatedly during the Syrian conflict, a resolution of that conflict in one area sees a resumption of it elsewhere. This 'two-steps forward, one back' - or three back - progress of the war is largely why it has taken the Syrian Army and its allies over two years to liberate Aleppo from its insurgent grip.
Of particular interest to those seeking to understand the objectives and allegiances of Syria's foreign invaders and their 'puppet-masters', is a surprising and disturbing development - the reappearance of IS forces in Palmyra.
Palmyra, like Deir al Zour, was stoically defended by the Syrian army until IS forces moved in, controversially crossing hundreds of kilometres of open desert without being noticed by the 'US coalition against IS'. (perhaps they were mistaken for Syrian troops?) In one of Russia's first acts demonstrating that it was serious about fighting and killing terrorist forces in Syria, Russian airpower helped the Syrian Army liberate the historic city and adjacent town of Tadmor ten months later.
But in a situation which is almost a mirror image of that existing today, terrorist groups including IS south of Aleppo took advantage of the Syrian Army's focus on Palmyra to seize control over the main highway linking Aleppo with Damascus, cutting off the Syrian Army contingent protecting Western Aleppo from the insurgents in the East.
As Oscar Wilde said: "to lose one parent may be regarded as misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness."
To strike the Syrian Army while targeting IS may be a 'blunder'; to fail to target IS as it again targets the Syrian Army looks like more than carelessness, and a lot like collusion. And we should ask, why did the US coalition forces not immediately return to kill those Da'esh fighters who moved into the Deir al Zour base that they had just inadvertently 'liberated' of its patriotic Syrian forces in September?
Vice Admiral David Johnston didn't answer that question - but neither was he asked it.
As a virtual postscript, and indication that things are really changing on the ground in Syria even while they remain stagnant in the minds of her foreign 'false friends', it appears that Palmyra has already be re-liberated, with many IS fighters killed in a joint Russian-Syrian operation.
And so we won't be subjected to another call to 'intervene to protect Syria's ancient heritage - from IS terrorists'.
1.↑The images are from the abovementioned Reports: Audio recording between ISIS and US before Deir Ezzor massacre found (26/9/16) by Ron Paul | Ron Paul Forums.
The ideology, or perhaps the theology of neo-liberalism is partly based on the idea that 'markets', that is to say, the scope of human activity where trade of valuable goods and services occurs, reveals a fundamental truth or reality beyond that scope of immediate trade. One could say modern Capitalism, or Neo-Liberalism is essentially a form of 'Marketism', where market forces rule all, judge all and value all. The exact name employed to describe this isn't as important as the realisation that underlying what we call Capitalism today, or Neo-Liberalism, or Growth or even The Economy and Society, is a fairly rigid belief system that market forces are behind much of how the world works, and that market freedom is among the most important freedoms for human liberation. It is an idea which some may argue over its correct taxonomy, but it is clear that it is a distinct thing. Many of its opponents, often people whom Neo-Liberalism has failed, critique the damage wrought upon the environment, the dog-eat-dog mentality which emerges, the financial crises the erupt like clockwork, but often fail to think outside the frame of reference of 'Marketism'.
I will look at three ways in which Market economics on its own can fail to solve major problems or provide a reasonable, dignified quality of life.
Markets can only provide marketable solutions to problems
The statement that a market system can only provide a marketable solution may seem like a tautology that carries no meaning or profundity, but it only does so if one believes that the limits of the market are the limits of human activity. Free Marketeers argue that the Free Market will provide solutions to problems, because where there is a need, there is the possibility of profit, and therefore an opportunity for someone to benefit by fulfilling that need. This simple analysis seems complete and logical but in doing so disregards quality and places no value on optimal solutions. When people are faced with a problem, a desire, a need or some other challenge which requires a solution, the best solution isn't necessarily the most profitable. We therefore have a disconnect. The most profitable solution, or the most marketable one, is not necessarily the one which most effectively and efficiently addresses the issue, and the more complex the issue, the greater the disconnect between the two is. A market may respond to a need to listen to music while jogging effectively and efficiently, but it is less effective when dealing with problems such as climate change. With this problem, the solution is presented as marketable energy efficient products, "green" technology, carbon credits, things which may at least slightly lower carbon output from what would have otherwise occurred. Missing from these marketable solutions though are caps on carbon output, regulation of industry, cultural change or prioritisation of energy expenditure. The prioritisation of where energy is expended is determined currently by the market, and the market in practice, has not been capable of regulating its use of energy to avert a climate catastrophe.
Cars are another example of a marketable solution to a problem, but not the most efficient solution. A car represents a sell-able item and exists as a solution to efficient transit. But if the problem to be tackled is moving around the city, this isn't the most practical efficient solution. Our roads are clogged with single passenger vehicles and people are taking longer and longer to traverse the city. One can find better solutions in urban design, public transportation and thoughtful measured placement of residential, commercial and industrial areas. Such a solution though exists outside of the market. Market forces cannot control city design writ large and no single company, entrepreneur, businessman or merchant has the power or inclination to approach the problem from this angle.
Governments and other organisations which act on behalf of a collective are able to implement such solutions, but Free Market ideology argues that the government should do as little as possible, and for many Free Market Libertarians, nothing at all. If Free Marketeers were to have their way, such solutions would never eventuate in the future.
A belief in markets solving problems therefore excludes all non-market solutions to problems, solutions which may be more effective, more efficient, or may be the ONLY effective solutions. The more our culture is framing things in terms of market economics, the narrower our scope for human ingenuity and problem solving becomes. Solutions which may have been trivial decades ago, such as prudent regulation disappear from our scope of thought and we are left with non solutions or a belief that nothing can be done.
Free Market ideology is egalitarian
Equality is seen as an unquestioned positive, and Neo-Liberals use equality in a cynical manner to support their ideological agenda. One of the fundamental tenets of Free Market Libertarianism is that all desires and all market activity is equal. The people who want to trade hardcore pornography have just as much right as people who want to trade pharmaceuticals or food. It is argued that it is left to people to determine what they want to buy, want to sell and want to produce, and that this very act of trade is sacrosanct, and cannot be interfered with. To interfere with it is a violation of someone's rights, and regardless of whether that person is seeking to buy cigarettes, amass residential property for their own petty insecurities, or fund development of software or research into Multiple Sclerosis, their rights are the same. As a result, the resulting transactions are deemed equal, and no one has the right to prioritise one over the other, except when dealing with their own personal transactions. So we observe people's right to buy up the entire street for no other reason than a personal whim to be equal to someone's right to buy shelter for their family. Someone's right to remove trees and wildlife from their property is equal to the rights of others to live in a world with nature. Someone's right to pollute as much as they wish is equal to someone's right to secure a future for their children without the disastrous effects of climate change. This ideology states that one person's situation, no matter how dire, or how much more it affects that person, should not impinge upon anyone else.
This ideology levels human needs, and despite being touted as equality, for most people this means their needs, their quality of life are subject to the whims of merchants and the elite. It stultifies political action by convincing people that they don't have the right to shape society in a way which benefits them and their nation. It is essentially a slave morality, and makes people subject themselves to forces that others control. It is ironic, as people like Ayn Rand promoted market capitalism as a force which empowers people to live in their own best interests, to liberate peoples own will to live from the demands of the masses, but in practice it forces people to voluntarily limit their political and social power, and accept intrusions on their quality of life in the name of the market.
Free Markets degrade the human spirit
Going back to Ayn Rand and many Free Market Libetarian thinkers, there is an emphasis placed upon the right of individuals to support themselves through their own work. The idea, noble enough, is that an individual has the right to the fruit of their own labour, and preventing a person from providing for themselves, and denying them the ability to use their own talents and efforts for their own profit is evil. This idea is the cornerstone of much modern freedom, and anyone who supports human freedom and dignity would support this notion, to a practically reasonable degree. Taken to its absolute thought, it works against the human condition. The original thinkers of the Enlightenment, and of early Liberalism saw this condition in opposition to slavery, feudalism and other systems whereby people worked for someone else. It was argued that it was a natural right for a man to be able to work for himself. This idea has been corrupted in the 20th and 21st century, and Free Market Libetarianism today posits this not only as a right, but as an ideal. Free Marketeers today also take it to an absolute, with many claiming that taxation, any level of taxation at all, is essentially no different to theft by gunpoint. What was a general idea of social organisation is now seen as a set of axioms to be followed dogmatically, even if people don't benefit from them.
Also, this idea has been taken from being one person's right not to be enslaved, either literally or figuratively, to an exaltation of work as a good in and of itself. Human beings are seen as Homo economicus, creatures who exist only to gain profit and in the metrics of what is desirable in life, everything which doesn't fit in with Homo economicus's need for profit is disregarded. Spirituality, nature, security, society, belonging. Only that which people do to trade goods counts, and all other aspects of humanity disappear, as they don't appear on the profit registers. Neo-liberalism therefore sees humanity as nothing more than people seeking to consume, reproduce and consume more, trying to consume more than they produce. There is no other goal than to grow and consume, and human beings therefore are seen as nothing but animals. Society, civilisation, should have no other goals, other than self-perpetuated consumption. Humanity therefore is seen as nothing but an endless competition for resources, with that scramble for resources being more honourable than art, contemplation or self enlightenment. In more enlightened times work was seen as an embarrassing necessity, and the highest act that one could take part in was art, politics, education and religious service. They saw the goal of humanity as not to perfect the art of acquiring wealth but to improve itself. Religion rightfully saw base lusts as desires as sin. It is no coincidence that, of the seven deadly sins, greed, avarice, pride, envy, are the most animalistic. Rather than succumb and nurture these, we should move beyond them. Neo-Liberalism however makes greed a virtue. Human beings are ranked solely on their ability to acquire wealth.
The natural hierarchy which occurs in market societies is therefore based solely on one's skill as a merchant. Regardless of one's ability to build, invent, create art, produce food or goods, teach, write or philosophise, one's success is based on one's ability to do business. Therefore, those who progress in companies and "win" at life are those that can play the corporate game. Whether an artist or writer, you are not judged by your ideas, but by your ability to sell. Banal pop music is put ahead of true art because it has a better marketing team. Even whether one can get a house these days is based on one's ability to play the property market. People absorbed into this culture judge a person's success of failure based on their ability to work a market. As a result, it is the merchant class that has become the elite, as the merchant class consists of those most adept at playing markets. People who have valuable social skills, but no desire or skill at profiteering, are left by the wayside. Teens that can't sell themselves in interviews are judged as lazy and a worthless drain on society. People who aren't competitive may miss out at auctions. People who provide no benefit to society, but are aggressive and acquisitive, are lauded as producers and job creators.
During the 2015-2016 financial year, more than 2600 health workers were brought into Australia via government-sponsored 457 visas on the basis they were needed for jobs that could not be filled by Australians. Of these 1692 were general practitioners and resident medical officers, 228 registered nurses, 35 specialists, 38 psychiatrists, 28 surgeons, 19 anesthetists and 20 midwives.
The high intake of health specialists occurred despite a senate inquiry in June 2015 where the Australian Nurses and Midwife Foundation (AN&MF) stated that there were 3000 unemployed graduate nurses, often with high HECS debts, while about 1 in 4 nursing positions were being filled by 457 skilled migrant intake[1]. They also claimed that many of the overseas nurses were victims of underpayment and exploitation because they live and work under threat of deportation[2]. The inquiry was also told that importing health workers was not solving the shortages of health professionals in rural areas because most imported workers went to the cities.
As of March 2016 there were 177,390 subclass 457 visa holders in Australia. To be eligible for a subclass 457 visa via standard business sponsorship, a worker must have an occupation on the Consolidated Sponsored Occupations List (CSOL) which is uncapped, meaning that there is no limit on how many can enter. Instead the numbers are determined from the applications made by employers. However there is a loophole that will allow employers to hire an unlimited number of foreign workers under a temporary working visa, in a move that unions say will bring widespread rorting of the system and insufficient support for local employment.
This reliance on skilled migration has been a long term policy of, not only our governments, but those of many developed nations, particularly the US, UK and Canada. As a consequence, about a quarter of doctors in Australia are from overseas and in 2010 the U.S. had 265,851 licensed physicians trained in other countries, constituting 32% of the physician workforce. Among these, 128,729 came from countries categorized by the World Bank as being from low- or lower-middle income. The World Health Organization (WHO) published a detailed 40-country study on the magnitude and flow of the health professionals. According to this report, close to 90% of all migrating physicians were moving to just five countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, UK and the USA. Even as far back as 1972, 6% of the worlds physicians were located outside their country of origin.
This poaching of skills or brain drain has been embraced by developed nations because it reduces the expense of training in the host nation. According to the African Capacity Building Foundation, African countries lose 20,000 skilled personnel to the developed world every year. All the developed world's efforts to increase aid to these countries may not matter if the local personnel required to implement development programs are absent. Every year there are 20,000 fewer people in Africa to deliver key public services, drive economic growth, and articulate calls for greater democracy and development. South Africa loses almost half of its doctors to Canada, Britain and Australia and is forced to recruit medical staff from countries like Kenya, Malawi and Zimbabwe. Ghana has lost half of its nurses and has more doctors working outside Ghana than in the country itself. This has cost it an estimated $63million of its training investment while the UK has saved $117m by the recruitment of Ghanaian doctors since 1988 alone. To address some of the concerns of “brain drain” from developing nations, the Commonwealth Code of Practice for the International Recruitment of Health Workers was adopted by Commonwealth Health Ministers in 2003. This serves as a framework within which international recruitment should take place and is intended to discourage the targeted recruitment of health workers from countries which are themselves experiencing shortages. The code also suggests that high-income countries consider how to recompense the donor nations for the recruitment of their health workers.
However there has been been considerable opposition to this approach, with some economists arguing that the transfer of skills is actually beneficial to both nations because many 3rd world nations are highly dependent on the remittances that their nationals return . According to the World Bank, workers from developing countries remitted a total of $325 billion in 2010, and in some countries these remittances are more than 20% of the nations GDP. Which of course is great unless you happen to urgently need the doctor that is now somewhere else. It has also been found that researchers and scientists who migrate are far more effective in their new locality because of better facilities that are available but then again this hardly flows on to benefit the donor nation. Shortages of skilled people in the education sector of developing nations is reducing training capacity and according to a report in the Wall Street Journal the US is to blame for Africa's doctor shortage that made the Ebola epidemic much worse than it should have been[3].
Today there are more doctors from Benin working in France than there are in Benin; more Ethiopian doctors in Washington DC than in the whole of Ethiopia. When you add in the effect of other professions that are poached from these countries under skilled immigration policies, teachers, engineers and others, it becomes plain that the developing nations will stay that way, a supplier of resources and skills to the developed world while ever this policy remains in place.
A quick skim of the bill reveals “Title V—Matters relating to foreign countries”, whose Section 501 calls for the government to “counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence … carried out in coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly.”
The section lists the following definitions of media manipulation:
Establishment or funding of a front group.
Covert broadcasting.
Media manipulation.
Disinformation and forgeries.
Funding agents of influence.
Incitement and offensive counterintelligence.
Assassinations.
Terrorist acts.
As ActivistPost correctly notes, it is easy to see how this law, if passed by the Senate and signed by the president, could be used to target, threaten, or eliminate so-called “fake news” websites, a list which has been used to arbitrarily define any website, or blog, that does not share the mainstream media’s proclivity to serve as the Public Relations arm of a given administration.
The momentum has shifted in Aleppo this week as the Syrian Army begin to advance, steadily driving out Western and Gulf-backed terrorist fighters under the command of Al Nusra Front – from their occupied enclaves in Eastern Aleppo. These images and videos will never see the light of day in the corporate media editing rooms because they expose their almost six year narrative on Syria as one of the most criminal propaganda projects ever deployed against a sovereign nation, its people, its state and its national army. This article was first published at http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/11/29/aleppo-updates-tears-hugs-and-smiles-the-relief-of-escaping-imprisonment-in-east-aleppo/ on November 29, 2016.
The prolonged dehumanization of the majority of the Syrian people, the exploitation of their children as cynical props to further the NATO & Gulf state geo-political objectives in the region, the overt and covert endorsement of NATO State-proxy terrorism, the tacit endorsement of economic terrorism via the illegal US/EU sanctions against Syria, all amount to crimes against Humanity and the Syrian people.
The #FakeNews “regime change” cohorts are seeing their pyramid of lies being dismantled stone by stone, by the very people they have been claiming to “protect” for almost six years.
The linked video shows the reactions of civilians, fleeing their four year imprisonment in East Aleppo, subjugated by various militant factions, funded by NATO states and led by Nusra Front aka Al Qaeda. The first woman, collapses into tears, as she reaches the journalist. These touching moments will be sullied by the corporate media reporting and accounting of events, as they desperately try to resuscitate their expiring Aleppo chronicles.
“They are saying God bless the army and they send their greetings to the army. They also said that there was no food and water where they were in eastern Aleppo between terrorist groups , they also said that terrorists treated them very bad and that the army helped them get out to safe areas. They also showed very big happiness seeing the interviewer who is a very famous war reporter in Syrian for Syrian official TV.”
The following images were taken of the fleeing civilians in the last 24 hours.
“Today, more civilians exited terrorists held areas, and reached to Hanano & Al-Sakhour which are under the control of the SAA in Aleppo.”
Sarah Abdallah, analyst and commentator, notes the following:
“Syrian Arab Army’s remarkable east Aleppo advancement continues:
Four more districts freed today, including the pivotal region of Sakhour. In the last 48 hours alone, 12 east Aleppo districts have been liberated. From one area to the next, the “moderate” terrorists are melting down. Most important news today though is the SAA’s recapture of the Suleiman al-Halabi Water Pumping Station. The Aleppo water crisis is over! Since 2012, Turkish-backed “jihadists” have withheld water from Aleppo’s residents as a means of blackmailing them into supporting the “revolution”. This has led to unprecedented levels of sickness and malnourishment. But now, the SAA has restored water to more than one million people as it moves ever-closer to freeing Aleppo entirely.
21st Century Wire will continue to post brief but informative updates as we receive them from known and verified sources on the ground in Aleppo and across Syria or the region.
Recent comments