This is a letter written to the Second secretary at the Russian Embassy in Canberra, Alexander Odoevsky, subsequent to his interview on ABC Insiders, about the biased representation of the Syrian Government and related matters by Australia's ABC.
Dear Alexander Odevsky,
I recently contacted the embassy as the spokesperson for AMRIS – Australians for Reconciliation in Syria, which has been working for the last three years to try to spread correct information on the Syrian conflict and on the nature and intentions of Syria's allies, particularly Russia.
In June 2013 Mother Agnes Mariam visited Australia at the invitation of AMRIS ( for which she is ‘patron’ as we are linked to the reconciliation movement in Syria). During her visit she met with several government representatives, including Julie Bishop who was shadow FM at that time, and spoke to media including the ABC. She was interviewed by James Carleton at length, but the interview was not broadcast despite its importance and relevance for nearly two months. It was impossible [for me] not to conclude that Carleton’s personal friendships with members of the Australian Syrian community who supported the ‘Free Syrian Army’ didn’t play a role in this delay. Listening to Carleton this morning it is clear that he has learnt nothing about the true nature of the fight in Syria in two years, but rather had his prejudices confirmed by the weight of Western propaganda.
I have personally put the case to Carleton on the legitimacy of the Syrian government, before last year’s election, and I have also made a number of lengthy submissions to Julie Bishop both on this question and on the alleged Chemical Weapons attack on Ghouta. She has repeatedly denied the validity of my viewpoint – Syrians’ viewpoint – despite the weight of evidence I presented to support it.
Following the interview on the ABC’s Insiders programme last Sunday, I wrote an article for ‘Russia Insider’ which presents the situation; I hope you will appreciate reading it:
My most recent letter to Julie Bishop, conveyed through my local MP Cathy McGowan, was a call for an enquiry into the presentation by both government and state media of the Syrian conflict, and particularly concerning the legitimacy of the Assad government. As Russia has repeatedly observed, the choice of who governs Syria is only for the Syrian people to make, and currently they overwhelmingly chose Bashar al Assad. It defies understanding that the Australian government continues to hold to its ridiculous stand on this – that the SNC somehow is Syrian’s legitimate representative – so we continue to try to make them see sense!
If there is any way I can be of further assistance please contact me,
with many thanks for your solid support for Syrians,
The Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, is pushing long-refuted lies about Syria as she speculates where she and her colleagues might find a replacement for Assad, without the slightest suggestion of irony or 'elections'. Article first published in Russian Insider at http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/australia-fm-pushing-long-refuted-syria-lies/ri10271, October 6, 2015.
In an interview with Australia's state broadcaster on Sunday, foreign minister Julie Bishop stated that there must be a 'political solution' to the Syrian crisis, and that this would have to involve Syria's President Bashar al Assad during a 'transitional period'.
Although this position is being portrayed as 'going soft on Assad', it is actually not a new position for Australia, which has privately conceded to the Russian proposals in the 2012 Geneva agreement. What was striking about Bishop's statement was that it elicited such consternation in the interviewer, who clearly saw 'working with the Assad government' as being similar to helping the head-choppers of ISIS.
Up to this point in the interview Bishop's answers to his questions - like 'what is Russia doing?', and 'why is Russia doing this now?' were properly diplomatic, and displayed the effects of conversations she has had with Russian and Iranian ministers. We shouldn't doubt that they 'put her in the picture' on Russia's viewpoint and red lines over Syria.
But this experienced ABC commentator, who frequently interviews government representatives on important issues, displayed shocking bias against both Russian and Syrian leaders with a series of heavily loaded questions, pushing Bishop to make some surprisingly ill-judged statements. She was forced to 'concede' that 'the Assad regime is truly odious', and that 'Assad cannot remain - as he has used chemical weapons against his own people… this is how it all began'.
The well mis-informed interviewer was reassured by this embellishment of the familiar old story (the 'Chemical Weapons attack' - or 'Ghouta false flag' - happened two and a half years after 'it all began'), and displayed his own evident outrage at Russia for 'targeting the moderate opposition forces fighting against the brutal tyrant Assad'. The two then speculated on where we might find a replacement for Assad, without the slightest suggestion of irony, or mention of 'elections' or of Syrians' democratic choice.
To say I am exasperated at this renewed barrage of anti-Syrian and anti-Russian propaganda is insufficient; it is becoming both intolerable and dangerous, and with every new development in the war being misrepresented by Western leaders and media, the real war is more than ever an information war. Of course it always has been, with the covert use of snipers to incite violence in the first protests.
But after four and a half years of fighting this battle for the truth, and the feeling that some progress was being made, it is infuriating to see the same old stories resurrected with added vigour. I had entertained the ridiculous idea that sooner or later the Australian government would 'admit' to understanding two essential truths about the Syrian government - that it was legitimately elected, and that it did NOT use chemical weapons in 2013.
Sadly quite the opposite is happening, and Russia's intervention is evidently 'the cause' of it. Russia has called the West's bluff, that it is fighting terrorism in Syria, so we might expect a certain amount of squealing from those who were just pretending to do so, accompanied by some muffled denials. What is a little unexpected is the resurrection of some long-dead myths instead, like the 'moderate rebels' and the 'Free Syrian Army' ( whose resurrection was remarkably rapid and involved many new converts!)
Some other myths have been exposed too - the myth of the CIA trained forces from Jordan has been exposed as true! With remarkable cunning, the US and its complicit media have devised a cover story for this revelation - of 10,000 fighters trained over the last several years; 'we trained 54 'moderates', but only 4 or 5 survived an assault by Al Nusra' - says US defence secretary Ashton
Carter. Some of those thousands of US trained and armed insurgents were discovered by Russian bombs, when the CIA shamefacedly dared to complain that their 'moderate forces' in Western Syria had been hit. In as strange twist for the chronically misinformed ABC, another senior presenter then revealed her apparent ignorance of the main terrorist group the Syrian Army is fighting in this area - the so-called 'Army of Conquest', which Saudi Arabia and Turkey launched into Syria back in March in a last ditch attempt to impose their own 'political solution' on Syria.
The Army of Conquest is purportedly mostly Al Nusra fighters of Chechen and Turkmen origin, but given the advice of the CIA's David Petraeus recently that 'we should work with Al Nusra in Syria', - well one might conclude that 'we' already are!
So when Julie Bishop and other Western officials say that 'there must be a political solution in Syria' they are missing the rest of the sentence - 'for our goals to be achieved'. And because it was long intended by the US coalition to achieve those goals by military means, no amount of careful Russian diplomacy would ever have succeeded in countering them.
Let's hope now that Russia is delivering a message to the West in the only language it seems to understand, that the 'military solution' to Syria's battle will be swift and effective - with a little information back-up…
Having brought chaos, lawlessness and terrorism into Libya and Iraq, the United States is now trying to do the same in Syria. Europe has become fed up with Washington’s wrongdoings and says Russia should become a new world leader, Czech journalist Jiri Vyvadil wrote for newspaperParlamentnilisty.cz.
The White House wants the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad gone and will do whatever it takes to achieve its objective — even arm Islamic militants to fight against government troops, creating a civil war that resulted in millions of people fleeing the country to save their lives.
Washington’s method of conducting foreign policy is to create chaos at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and destroy entire countries in the name of US economic and political interests. However, the US has constantly failed at it — all of its wars in the last two decades have ended in a fiasco, but Washington still hasn’t learned and keeps sticking to the same destructive policy which hasn’t worked, the Czech newspaper said. This article first published on NOVOROSSIA TODAY at http://novorossia.today/czech-media-world-leadership-should-be-given-to-russia-not-the-united-states/?_utl_t=fb on October 3, 2015.
There is only one solution Vyvadil argues and that’s to ditch the United States, as Washington has miserably failed as the leader of the international community.
“Leadership has to be given to Russia,” the journalist said, as cited by Parlamentnilisty.cz.
The author argued that Russian President Vladimir Putin, unlike his US colleague, has shown that he cares about problems in the Middle East and most importantly he understands that the refugee crisis in Europe and the rise of ISIL are tightly interconnected, and that’s the only way to solve these problems is to support the legitimately elected government of al-Assad and his national army. Putin has also shown that he can talk with Israel and take into account the interests of Iranian and Iraqi leaders.
If Europe continues to blindly follow Washington’s leash, the number of refugees fleeing from the Middle East and North Africa to Europe will keep growing further. Nothing will stop them — no fences, no security guards, no refugee receiving stations, the Czech journalist warned.
ALEPPO, SYRIA, October 5, 2015: I hesitated about sending this information, as it's only a little detail in a huge long conflict. Then I thought it was better to share such photos, the ones you never see in the daily propaganda against Syria and its people and government, who are facing such random attacks daily. I also talk about how Syrians seem to feel about Russia coming to help defend us against the terrorists.
This is a roof of 4-story building, that was shelled by the terrorists yesterday. The building is on the way to the Military Hospital, so shootings and mortars hit it from time to time accidentally, while targeting the hospital.
A cooking-gas-cylinder bomb damaged two water cisterns on the roof, a solar cell heating system for water, plus a room that looks like a studio with a master bed and toilet. Window glass on the 4th floor was shattered.
The Syrian Arab Army [the national army defending Syria] investigated the spot and removed the shrapnel from the bomb.
How Syrians seem to feel about Russia helping the Syrian government
I was asked for my assessment of the morale of the Syrian people in the post-Russian intervention phase. It was commented that across the world there seems to be a genuine support for the Russian role in Syria.
I can say that almost everyone I have met over here and everyone one I know online, in other Syrian provinces or among the diaspora, supports the Russians and their coalition with Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanese Resistance against the terrorists.
I wish to see the end of this nightmare before the end of the year. That dream is closer now, thanks to the Russians, who are targeting the real bases of terrorists, not just claiming to do so like the U.S. Coalition.
Only now, terrorists in Idleb are fleeing to Turkey, and the ones in Reqqa are fleeing to Iraq.
Some people have expressed fear that this could be a new trap for the Russians, like the one in Afghanistan back in the 70's and 80's. However I am guessing that they learned their lesson and won't make the mistake again.
I'm waiting for the Russians to start intervening in Aleppo. So far nothing happened over here. But they are preparing the arena for it.
Audio podcast: This is a really good podcast discussion about what Russia is doing in Syria. The mainstream western media is desperately trying to come up with any reasons it can to say that Russia fighting ISIS is a bad thing. Tim Kirby and Robert Bridge rip through the hysteria and get to the bottom of what the mainstream is trying to obfuscate. (First published at http://www.rt.com/shows/tim-kirby/317446-syria-russia-strikes-media/ on 2nd October 2015.)
Regime change PR: Your guide to Western-sponsored propaganda in Syria “Propaganda is the spreading of information in support of a cause. It’s not so important whether the information is true or false or if the cause is just or not — it’s all propaganda.” “The word, propaganda is often used in a negative sense, especially for politicians who make false claims to get elected or spread rumours to instigate regime change [sic]. In fact, any campaign that is used to persuade can be called propaganda.” Russia’s involvement in Syria has caused a flurry of “cold war”, Assad/ISIS co-dependency propaganda, all being produced by the usual suspects and all with the primary objective of invoking a No Fly Zone in Syria and stoking the “Russian Bear threat” fires that have been smouldering for some time. I am going to attempt to dismantle this propaganda edifice one brick at a time. Article first published at http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/10/02/humanitarian-propaganda-war-against-syria-led-by-avaaz-and-the-white-helmets/ on October 2, 2015 by Vanessa Beeley at 21stcenturywire.com.
“The FSA is considered the most moderate of factions fighting Bashar al-Assad’s government, but has been increasingly side-lined on the battlefield by more extremist Islamist factions. It has also been riven by leadership disputes.
“American-led attempts to train up moderates to hold ground against ISIL are months behind schedule because of the difficulty of finding groups which were not linked to the extremists.”
The term “moderate rebels” has become one of the most significant misnomers (by now, a running joke in international intelligence circles) of this soon-to-be five year conflict. The hijacking of any semblance of a legitimate opposition to the Syrian Government by NATO, the US and regional allies including Israel in order to achieve their desired regime change – has been well documented.
Who are these elusive “moderate rebels”? You may well ask. Traditionally it is the US-backed “Free Syria Army” (FSA) which has long been marketed as the cuddly, viable alternative to the duly elected government led by President Bashar al Assad – which incidentally is the internationally recognised (outside of Washington and London) official government of Syria, supported by the majority of the Syrian people. Recent polls place Assad’s popularity at around 80%. Unfortunately, we don’t have to dig too deep to reveal the hard-line Islamist, Salafi affiliations of this so-called ‘moderate’ group of brigands.
Journalist Daniel Greenfield puts it most succinctly: “Few media outlets are willing to say that out loud, but it’s quite true. There is no Free Syrian Army. It’s an umbrella for providing Western aid to a front group run by the Muslim Brotherhood.” He deplores the shaky Pentagon math that Obama and Congress have used in an attempt to downplay the reality that even in 2013 Pentagon sources were reluctantly admitting that extremist groups constituted over 50% of Syrian “opposition” and that these numbers were steadily increasing.
This map below clearly shows the weakness of this “moderate rebel” argument as it unequivocally demonstrates the minor FSA presence at the frontline of Syrian opposition. They compose of fragmented mercenary groups largely unable to operate without extremist logistical support.
So this rather dispels the “moderate” myth and leads to the conclusion that, in reality, Russia was targeting areas north of Homs that contained very few civilians and is an area controlled by a dangerous conclave of militant fighting groups that include the Muslim Brotherhood, Jabhat al Nusra, and other Jihadist opposition fighters supported by the US alliance.
It must also be remembered that the majority of civilians will flee an area infested by such mercenaries and seek refuge in Syria government-held areas. That fact alone should indicate who the people of Syria really favor. So, 90% of IDPs are in government-held areas. This is another fact conveniently omitted from most mainstream media reports.
It also makes a mockery of Defence Secretary Ashton B. Carter’s claims in the New York Times yesterday:
“By supporting Assad and seemingly taking on everybody fighting Assad,” Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said Wednesday, Russia is “taking on the whole rest of the country that’s fighting Assad.” Some of those groups, he added, are supported by the United States and need to be part of a political resolution in Syria.
“That’s why the Russian position is doomed to fail,” Mr. Carter said.
Despite Carter’s pleas, the opposite seems to be true. Russia is effectively exposing US policy in Syria as naked hegemony, and America is not happy.
While the US has been supplying TOW missiles and a variety of arms/equipment to extremists and deliberately funding any group that will secure regime change, Russia is actively deploying its military to target the nests of terrorist mercenaries and opportunists waiting eagerly for the political vacuum that would be created by the “removal” of Assad, in order to inflict their extremism upon the Syrian people. They may not be technically called ISIS but they are cut from the same cloth of US/Israeli proxy terrorism and should be eliminated from any sovereign nation. Failure to do so has catastrophic results as seen in Libya and Iraq.
The Propaganda Trail
As soon as Russia launched its first airstrike against terrorist positions this week, the western media immediately piled-in with disinformation, in an attempt to demonize their efforts to support the Syrian government’s own 4 year-long war on terror.
Now let’s examine the unsavoury marketing aspect of the propaganda campaign being waged by a frustrated and increasingly infuriated US alliance. Of course the usual triad has leapt into action. Human Rights Watch (HRW), Avaaz and the White Helmets.
When we watch the videos, particularly the longer Live Leak version, it is hard to detect the women and children that are being described. The majority of protagonists appear to be male and of fighting age. There is no evidence of “civilian” life among the deserted buildings, the only movement is of males, some on foot, some on scooters and presumably some taking the time to film events even as the bombs are falling. Not the actions of terrified, innocent civilians.
There is one other video that does show about 2 seconds of a young boy crying and obviously injured. However this video must be questioned as to its authenticity as the claims are that the initial shot of planes overhead is not even of Russian planes. The quality of the video is poor and apart from the footage of the one child, again demonstrates that the majority of people involved are men of fighting age in a deserted built up area to the north of Homs.
In this disgusting display of blatant propaganda calling for the long sought after no fly zone, Emma Ruby-Sachs, deputy director of the activist web portal, Avaaz.org, makes this extraordinary statement:
“Russia says it’s bombing ISIS, but eyewitnesses say their brutal attacks targeted areas way outside of ISIS control. This will only sow instability and radicalisation and should be an urgent wake-up call to the US and its allies to enforce a targeted no-fly zone to save lives, counter ISIS and alleviate the refugee crisis. Syrians civilians need protection now, not further attacks from Russian bombs.”
Speaking to one Damascus resident this morning, I asked for their opinion on this statement. His reply was simple, “I am just relieved that the Russian Air Force is in action”. The hypocrisy of this statement from Ruby-Sachs perfectly mirrors the hypocrisy of Congress, Obama’s Teflon speech at the UNGA, Pentagon’s barefaced obscurantism over the US role in creating exactly this instability and radicalisation in Syria and bringing misery, terror and bloodshed to the people of Syria with the sole aim of securing their interests in the region [and those of their staunchest partner in crimes against Humanity, Israel]
If we wish to speak of real civilian casualties, then perhaps we should turn the spotlight on the pre- existing Coalition bombing campaign. The civilian death rates from these strikes is rarely discussed and often concealed by the Pentagon and US/European associated analysts like the British-led ‘humanitarian’ organisation – the Syria Observatory for Human Right (SOHR).
“Syria has also seen a number of troubling mass casualty events attributed to Coalition actions. On the first night of bombing on September 23rd 2014, US aircraft killed as many as 15 civilians in the village of Kafar Daryan. On December 28th at least 58 civilians reportedly died when the Coalition struck a temporary Daesh prison at al Bab (see report). And on April 30th 2015, 64 civilians died in a likely Coalition airstrike at Ber Mahli. In these three incidents alone, 106 non-combatant victims have so far been publicly named – 38 of them children. It remains unclear whether any of these events have been investigated by the Coalition.”
Avaaz did actually promote a petition for a No-Fly Zoneback in March 2015 – a PR campaign which just happen to align perfectly with Washington plans for a No-Fly Zone for the purpose of dominating the skies over Syria in the same way it did in the NATO’s intentional destruction of the nation-state of Libya.
In order to spare more innocent lives and preserve the secular nation-state of Syria, its citizens will need to a spanner placed in the spokes of this trendy ‘change’ propaganda vehicle that rides roughshod over their genuine needs with devastating consequences. Those needs are simple: stop the lying, stop fabricating and stop creating, funding, arming and incubating the terrorist cancer in Syria.
The White Helmet element
Now we come to perhaps one of the most insidious and damaging elements of the propaganda machine.
In September, we first introduced readers to the humanitarian interventionist, covert intelligence program and regime change PR operation known as the White Helmets, created by the Soros partnered, Svengali of PR giants, Purpose.com. The White Helmets with the debonair, Sandhurst-educated James Bond of humanitarianism at its helm, James Le Mesurier, a high-level British mercenary commander and trainer whose CV reads like a NATO itinerary, and whose high-level connections delve deep into the Empire’s underworld of international subterfuge, media manipulation and strategy cultivation.
The first slick photo campaign was hot off the press almost immediately after the first Russian air strikes in the Homs region:
Unfortunately for them, perhaps White Helmets are exhausting their supply of heart string tugging images as their twitter campaign almost immediately came under attack by those who are waking up to this cynical propagandization of human misery.
This was incredible sloppy work by this western-backed propaganda outfit. The following is a quote from Sott.net:
“The White Helmets in their haste to point the finger of blame at Moscow, managed to tweet about Russia’s air strikes several hours before the Russian Parliament actually authorized the use of the Air Force in Syria.”
This image was also picked up and run with by RT who accurately pinpointed the deep-rooted deceit that lies at the heart of the majority of White Helmet publicity campaigns. The flurry of activity on the White HelmetsTwitter page must have taken, even them, by surprise.
The result was a series of fake and fraudulent Tweets churned-out by the White Helmets, like this Tweet:
For so long they have enjoyed the fruits of their marketing campaign depicting them as selfless heroes, saviours of humanity, impartial protectors of kittens and Syrians in equal measure. Their self-styled image is that of unarmed, neutral, demi-saints climbing the “Mount Everest of war zones”. Unfortunately so many of their masks have slipped that they can no longer bask in their Purpose reflected glory.
Yesterday like HRW before them they were exposed to be the fabricators and deceivers they really are. Anyone can make a mistake I hear you say, yes sure, one mistake is acceptable, 2 is questionable but a consistent conveyor belt of misleading, perception altering, “nudging” images ceases to be innocent and enters the realm of manipulation on a terrifying scale with horrifying ramifications for the people of Syria who so far, have resisted their country being plunged into the same abyss as Libya or Iraq.
Just one other example of the White Helmets duplicitous image use:
Another image was brought to my attention this morning that further shatters the high-gloss White Helmet image. Whilst it is now well-known that far from being neutral, the White Helmets are in fact embedded with Jabhat al Nusra aka Al Nusra Front [the Syrian arm of Al Qaeda], it is perhaps not so well-known that their southern Damascus depot is situated at the heart of ISIS held territory, to the south of the notorious Palestinian YarmoukRefugee Camp. This image shows their insignia and emblem clearly on the wall and gates behind the selfie-taking ISIS mercenary in the foreground.
It is becoming harder and harder for White Helmets to maintain their veneer of impartiality, a fact that is borne out quite effectively by the fact that the majority of Syrians in government held areas have never heard of them, even unbiased civilians in Aleppo have not come across them. Their association is exclusively with the extremist elements of the Syrian opposition. Their purpose is to facilitate calls for a No Fly Zone, cue Avaaz, and destabilize the region in the manner demanded by their masters in the US, UK and Syrian National Council.
These same agents of change can also be seen organising various NGO-affiliated live events in both Europe and the US, in order to drum-up political support and cash for the western-backed regime change project. This aspect of the campaign is detailed here in the article by Tim Hirschel-Burns, entitled, Developing Change A blog on development, activism, political advocacy, and NGOs.
Conclusion
We can safely conclude that the US, Israel and their allies are furious that they have been out-manoeuvred and outsmarted by Russia and Syria, despite billions of dollars and countless man hours that have already spent by the US, UK and the NATO aligned allies – all the while in open violation of numerous international law and “norms”. The West’s initial No Fly Zone plans in Syria have been consistently thwarted and derailed. Russia has effectively demanded a No Fly Zone for the US-led coalition – which is the ultimate insult to US hegemony and self-proclaimed world police status. Russia, unlike the US, is targeting ISIS in all its distorted guises and nomenclature. It’s expected that Russian airstrikes will be more accurate and efficient than the US-led coalition for the simple fact that their targeting is based on actual ground intelligence from the Syrian Arab Army.
And yes Mr Defence Secretary, Russia is bombing US supported “rebels” in Syria for the very simple reason that, in one way or another, ever since Washington DC had first started down the blood strewn road of regime change, the US has either equipped or funded every single extremist faction in Syria.
If we lived in a just world, we would see Avaaz and their ilk clamouring for an end to interventionism and demanding diplomatic solutions to support internal, sovereign nation, peace processes [as in fact Russia has unwaveringly called for in Syria]. However, we do not live in a world based upon a universal understanding of justice, we live in a world governed by the powerful and the greedy, devoid of compassion, intent only on their geopolitical prowess and humanity-exempt colonialism.
For the sake of the Syrian people and all other nations being crushed by this well used, well-oiled propaganda machine we must question, we must demand answers, and we must wake up to our responsibility to reject calls for the destruction of nations and peoples who ask only for their basic human right to determine their own futures.
Avaaz, HRW, White Helmets and their associates have no place in that brave new world.
Author Vanessa Beeley is a contributor to 21WIRE, and since 2011, she has spent most of her time in the Middle East reporting on events there – as a independent researcher, writer, photographer and peace activist. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement, and a volunteer with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine. See more of her work at her blog Will The Fall.
Following Russia’s intervention to help the Syrian army on Wednesday 30 September, there was a report on the World Today by Barney Porter (who also produces the program). It left an awful lot to be desired, not all of which could be blamed on Porter and his choice of interviewees. He only allowed Kerry to describe his own delusion that ‘Assad only controls 25% of the country’ – ( so Russia is backing a loser..). But of course the whole tone of the report was anti-Russian and Anti-Putin.
Today October 2, 2015, there was another report from Barney on the World Today, which wasn’t a huge lot different. I have noticed in the past that he often speaks to half a dozen people – but of course they still all sit on the same side of the fence. There continues to be a stunning lack of different viewpoints in the Western media sphere, think-tanks and commentators.
Porter’s report was followed by an interview by ELizabeth Jackson, who is quite hopelessly biased against Assad. She was speaking to Peter Jennings from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (APSI). It is significant that this man (a) was from the dept of Defence, and (b) was appointed to APSI – an ‘independent’ government funded think-tank set up by Stephen Smith in 2012, with Hugh White as director.
So Peter Jennings effectively suggests or promotes government policy.
I also noticed in the interview today that Jennings referred to ‘Bashir al Assad’, and to Tarsus, not Tartus ( both corrected in the transcript).
Clearly the man doesn’t have the slightest idea about Syria, or Russia, and what he advises seems based on bigotry and a fossilised idea about the region.
But it’s also an indication of the problem for the ABC for instance, if it thinks to present a reasonable alternative point of view.
Porter also interviewed the hawkish Kilcullen briefly today, who oddly allowed some truth to slip through the orchestrated propaganda. Kilcullen admitted something about Al Nusra and ISIS being around Homs in Syria. In this he contradicted the falsity of what the west has been maintaining. The West has been pretending that ISIS isn't prevalent in the area where Russia has dropped bombs, and, on the basis of this fiction, has accused Russia of actually dropping bombs on the spuriously designate 'moderate opposition'.
ABC Australia World Today, Thursday, October 1, 2015 12:20:00
ELIZABETH JACKSON: Peter Jennings is the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
He says Russia's actions demonstrate that its loyalty to Bashar al-Assad is stronger than its desire to defeat IS.
PETER JENNINGS: I think everyone needs to be looked at pretty sceptically when it comes to Syria. I certainly don't believe the Russians because their only interest is really in propping up Bashar al-Assad, and the Americans I think are scrambling to cover for really three or four years of completely ignoring the crisis and they're coming to this rather late and in a weak position.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: So you are of the view then that Russia has deliberately bombed rebels not IS fighters. Is that correct?
PETER JENNINGS: That seems to be the effect of the reporting. It's happening in the city of Homs where IS has not actually been present. This is all about shoring up their client’s position, but you know, one has to wonder if the Russians haven't in some ways made a really big strategic mistake.
Because I don't see Assad being able to claw himself back from what is a continually weakening position, and the Russians need to be careful that they don't find themselves actually becoming the brunt of the jihadist's campaign.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: So the Russians now appear to be trying to justify their actions using very diplomatic language, saying we agree about the goal, we just have different ideas about the methods of achieving that goal. What do you make of all of that?
PETER JENNINGS: Well, we've seen what their methods are, which is frankly indiscriminate bombing, and then after the Russian strikes, in flew the Syrian helicopters to drop more barrel bombs. This is, as we've seen with Vladimir Putin's behaviour in Ukraine, it's deeply cynical.
It's covered in the language of principle, but it's clearly not that, and it is only about shoring up Russia's increasingly weak looking client in the form of Bashar al-Assad.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: Is there any significance, do you think to the fact that the Russians only gave the Americans an hour's notice that they were going to start bombing?
PETER JENNINGS: Well, the Russians are in a position to do this, because they have the forces in the country and have had for decades, although they've recently reinforced them.
The Americans are really in no position to do anything other than watch what's going on, so you know, there is very clearly a sort of tactical advantage that the Russians have, and I guess the hour's notice to the Americans is just to make sure that when their aircraft are in the air, they're not going to be targeted by the Americans in any way, which neither side would have an interest in wanting to do.
So really, Washington can only sit back with some frustration, I imagine, at this moment to actually watch what the Russians are about.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: Do you consider this to be a risky strategy on the part of Russia?
PETER JENNINGS: Highly risky, highly. I mean I think there are two elements to this: one is there are significant number of Chechens, several hundred possibly already fighting for IS, so by going in more actively and targeting Sunni extremist groups, the Russians risk terrorism coming back into their own country through enraging their own Chechen population.
And secondly, in the Middle East themselves, they're now going to be making themselves a principle target of IS and every other extremist group in Syria.
So this is, like a lot of the things we see from Vladimir Putin, it's highly risky, but he does have the advantage of being on the offensive and having some momentum, and I guess the challenge for Russia is not to let themselves get bogged down in the Syrian crisis in ways which make them the principle target.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: But why would he take a risk of that magnitude?
PETER JENNINGS: Well, they've backed the Syrian regime since the early 1970s, including Assad's father. They have a military naval port in Tartus in Syria, and I think Putin also sees that he's got a certain international political advantage to play be presenting himself as being a fighter against Islamic extremism in ways which might help him sort of bring him back from the outer after his invasion of Crimea.
So he's got a set of sort of political and strategic objectives at play, and I think we also see in Putin the instincts of a gambler who's prepared to take some risks, as against Obama who has really been only trying to avoid risk when it comes to dealing with Syria for the last three or four years.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: That's Peter Jennings, the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
If you want to know more about Jennings, appointed to head the ASPI by Stephen Smith in 2012, read what he wrote for the Weekend Australian on September 12th, ... and scream!
Julian Assange and other whistleblowers including Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, have revealed much of what we now know about how and why America, Israel, Australia and their allies have waged bloody wars against the peoples of the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe. As a result of these wars several millions have died since 1990. If the US-NATO aligned powers can get their way, they intend much of the same for the people of Latin America, Russia and East Asia. On these and related issues, the Wheeler Centre conducted a superb interview with Assange tonight 30 September 2015 and there seems to be a podcast there at http://www.wheelercentre.com/events/julian-assange. Check it out.
To help them plan to overcome domestic opposition to their plans for war, the United States' NSA and other spy agencies have been listening to all of our 'phone conversations and reading all our e-mails, at least since 2007, purportedly to fight 'terrorism'.
Curiously, the 'Islamist' terrorists the intelligence agencies claim to be protecting us from seem strikingly similar to the terrorists, armed and paid for by the United States and its allies, who have, according to our newsmedia, been fighting against the "hated Syrian dictator", President Bashar al-Assad, since March 2011. See Julian Assange’s Wikileaks Files, Chapter 10, “Syria”.
In the face of these lies about the Syrian President, Syrians have, in fact, rallied behind their government since March 2011.
According to Haaretz which can hardly be accused of bias towards the Syrian government, 88.7% of the 73.42% of eligible Syrian voters who voted in the Presidential elections of 4 June 2014, voted for President Bashar al-Assad. [1]
But for having stood by their government at the ballot box and with the Syrian Army in their neighbourhoods against the terrorists, the Syrian people have paid a terrible price. By one estimate as many as 250,000 have been killed and several millions have been displaced internally and externally.
Now, most conveniently for advocates of dragnet surveillance, the Western world also faces terrorism, if on a vastly smaller scale, from some of the same terrorists who have been fighting the people for Syria.
Those who have waged illegal wars against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Yemen, and in previous generation against the people of Vietnam cannot be trusted with all our personal data. Dragnet Surveillance must be stopped.
Ask your local member of Parliament - or at election time - all candidates seeking your vote - what he/she has done and intends to do to stop the surveillance by the NSA of your emails and your 'phone conversations.
Also, ask your local member of the Federal Parliament or of the Victorian Parliament, how he/she intends to stand up for Julian Assange that courageous whistleblower and native of Victoria, Australia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Monday and said sadly that the West was making an "enormous mistake" by not cooperating with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the struggle against ISIS. With regard to US-NATO conduct in Middle Eastern affairs he said,“I cannot help asking those who have caused this situation: Do you realize now what you have done? [...] "[...]It is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including the process of trafficking and illicit trade in oil and arms. It would be equally irresponsible to try to manipulate extremist groups and place them at one's service in order to achieve one's own political goals in the hope of later dealing with them or, in other words, liquidating them. To those who do so, I would like to say — dear sirs, no doubt you are dealing with rough and cruel people, but they're in no way primitive or silly. They are just as clever as you are, and you never know who is manipulating whom. And the recent data on arms transferred to this most moderate opposition is the best proof of it."
PUTIN (via interpreter): Your excellency Mr. President, your excellency Mr. Secretary General, distinguished heads of state and government, ladies and gentlemen, the 70th anniversary of the United Nations is a good occasion to both take stock of history and talk about our common future.
In 1945, the countries that defeated Nazism joined their efforts to lay solid foundations for the postwar world order.
But I remind you that the key decisions on the principles guiding the cooperation among states, as well as on the establishment of the United Nations, were made in our country, in Yalta, at the meeting of the anti-Hitler coalition leaders.
The Yalta system was actually born in travail. It was won at the cost of tens of millions of lives and two world wars.
This swept through the planet in the 20th century.
Let us be fair. It helped humanity through turbulent, at times dramatic, events of the last seven decades. It saved the world from large-scale upheavals.
The United Nations is unique in its legitimacy, representation and universality. It is true that lately the U.N. has been widely criticized for supposedly not being efficient enough, and for the fact that the decision-making on fundamental issues stalls due to insurmountable differences, first of all, among the members of the Security Council.
However, I'd like to point out there have always been differences in the U.N. throughout all these 70 years of existence. The veto right has always been exercised by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, the Soviet Union and Russia later, alike. It is absolutely natural for so diverse and representative an organization.
When the U.N. was established, its founders did not in the least think that there would always be unanimity. The mission of the organization is to seek and reach compromises, and its strength comes from taking different views and opinions into consideration. Decisions debated within the U.N. are either taken as resolutions or not. As diplomats say, they either pass or do not pass.
Whatever actions any state might take bypassing this procedure are illegitimate. They run counter to the charter and defy international law. We all know that after the end of the Cold War — everyone is aware of that — a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that if they were strong and exceptional, they knew better and they did not have to reckon with the U.N., which, instead of [acting to] automatically authorize and legitimize the necessary decisions, often creates obstacles or, in other words, stands in the way.
It has now become commonplace to see that in its original form, it has become obsolete and completed its historical mission. Of course, the world is changing and the U.N. must be consistent with this natural transformation. Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.
We would get a world dominated by selfishness rather than collective work, a world increasingly characterized by dictate rather than equality. There would be less of a chain of democracy and freedom, and that would be a world where true independent states would be replaced by an ever-growing number of de facto protectorates and externally controlled territories.
What is the state sovereignty, after all, that has been mentioned by our colleagues here? It is basically about freedom and the right to choose freely one's own future for every person, nation and state. By the way, dear colleagues, the same holds true of the question of the so-called legitimacy of state authority. One should not play with or manipulate words.
Every term in international law and international affairs should be clear, transparent and have uniformly understood criteria. We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the only right one. We should all remember what our past has taught us.
We also remember certain episodes from the history of the Soviet Union. Social experiments for export, attempts to push for changes within other countries based on ideological preferences, often led to tragic consequences and to degradation rather than progress.
It seemed, however, that far from learning from others' mistakes, everyone just keeps repeating them, and so the export of revolutions, this time of so-called democratic ones, continues. It would suffice to look at the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, as has been mentioned by previous speakers. Certainly political and social problems in this region have been piling up for a long time, and people there wish for changes naturally.
But how did it actually turn out? Rather than bringing about reforms, an aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster. Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life.
I cannot help asking those who have caused the situation, do you realize now what you've done? But I am afraid no one is going to answer that. Indeed, policies based on self-conceit and belief in one's exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned.
It is now obvious that the power vacuum created in some countries of the Middle East and North Africa through the emergence of anarchy areas, which immediately started to be filled with extremists and terrorists.
Tens of thousands of militants are fighting under the banners of the so-called Islamic State. Its ranks include former Iraqi servicemen who were thrown out into the street after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many recruits also come from Libya, a country whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. And now, the ranks of radicals are being joined by the members of the so-called moderate Syrian opposition supported by the Western countries.
First, they are armed and trained and then they defect to the so-called Islamic State. Besides, the Islamic State itself did not just come from nowhere. It was also initially forged as a tool against undesirable secular regimes.
Having established a foothold in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State has begun actively expanding to other regions. It is seeking dominance in the Islamic world. And not only there, and its plans go further than that. The situation is more than dangerous.
In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including the process of trafficking and illicit trade in oil and arms. It would be equally irresponsible to try to manipulate extremist groups and place them at one's service in order to achieve one's own political goals in the hope of later dealing with them or, in other words, liquidating them.
To those who do so, I would like to say — dear sirs, no doubt you are dealing with rough and cruel people, but they're in no way primitive or silly. They are just as clever as you are, and you never know who is manipulating whom. And the recent data on arms transferred to this most moderate opposition is the best proof of it.
We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just short-sighted, but fire hazardous (ph). This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions, especially given that Islamic State camps train militants from many countries, including the European countries.
Unfortunately, dear colleagues, I have to put it frankly: Russia is not an exception. We cannot allow these criminals who already tasted blood to return back home and continue their evil doings. No one wants this to happen, does he?
Russia has always been consistently fighting against terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military and technical assistance both to Iraq and Syria and many other countries of the region who are fighting terrorist groups.
We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad's armed forces and Kurds (ph) militias are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.
We know about all the problems and contradictions in the region, but which were (ph) based on the reality.
Dear colleagues, I must note that such an honest and frank approach of Russia has been recently used as a pretext to accuse it of its growing ambitions, as if those who say it have no ambitions at all.
However, it's not about Russia's ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world. What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests, rather than ambitions.
On the basis of international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism.
Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of forces that are resolutely resisting those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind. And, naturally, the Muslim countries are to play a key role in the coalition, even more so because the Islamic State does not only pose a direct threat to them, but also desecrates one of the greatest world religions by its bloody crimes.
The ideologists (ph) of militants make a mockery of Islam and pervert its true humanistic (ph) values. I would like to address Muslim spiritual leaders, as well. Your authority and your guidance are of great importance right now.
It is essential to prevent people recruited by militants from making hasty decisions and those who have already been deceived, and who, due to various circumstances found themselves among terrorists, need help in finding a way back to normal life, laying down arms, and putting an end to fratricide.
Russia will shortly convene, as the (ph) current president of the Security Council, a ministerial meeting to carry out a comprehensive analysis of threats in the Middle East.
First of all, we propose discussing whether it is possible to agree on a resolution aimed at coordinating the actions of all the forces that confront the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations. Once again, this coordination should be based on the principles of the U.N. Charter.
We hope that the international community will be able to develop a comprehensive strategy of political stabilization, as well as social and economic recovery, of the Middle East.
Then, dear friends, there would be no need for new refugee camps. Today, the flow of people who were forced to leave their homeland has literally engulfed first neighboring countries and then Europe itself. There were hundreds of thousands of them now, and there might be millions before long. In fact, it is a new great and tragic migration of peoples, and it is a harsh lesson for all of us, including Europe.
I would like to stress refugees undoubtedly need our compassion and support. However, the — on the way to solve this problem at a fundamental level is to restore their statehood where it has been destroyed, to strengthen the government institutions where they still exist or are being reestablished, to provide comprehensive assistance of military, economic and material nature to countries in a difficult situation. And certainly, to those people who, despite all the ordeals, will not abandon their homes. Literally, any assistance to sovereign states can and must be offered rather than imposed exclusively and solely in accordance with the U.N. Charter.
In other words, everything in this field that has been done or will be done pursuant to the norms of international law must be supported by our organization. Everything that contravenes the U.N. Charter must be rejected. Above all, I believe it is of the utmost importance to help restore government's institutions in Libya, support the new government of Iraq and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria.
Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and regional and global stability remains the key objective of the international community with the U.N. at its helm. We believe this means creating a space of equal and indivisible security, which is not for the select few but for everyone. Yet, it is a challenge and complicated and time-consuming task, but there is simply no other alternative. However, the bloc thinking of the times of the Cold War and the desire to explore new geopolitical areas is still present among some of our colleagues.
First, they continue their policy of expanding NATO. What for? If the Warsaw Bloc stopped its existence, the Soviet Union have collapsed (ph) and, nevertheless, the NATO continues expanding as well as its military infrastructure. Then they offered the poor Soviet countries a false choice: either to be with the West or with the East. Sooner or later, this logic of confrontation was bound to spark off a grave geopolitical crisis. This is exactly what happened in Ukraine, where the discontent of population with the current authorities was used and the military coup was orchestrated from outside — that triggered a civil war as a result.
We're confident that only through full and faithful implementation of the Minsk agreements of February 12th, 2015, can we put an end to the bloodshed and find a way out of the deadlock. Ukraine's territorial integrity cannot be ensured by threat of force and force of arms. What is needed is a genuine consideration for the interests and rights of the people in the Donbas region and respect for their choice. There is a need to coordinate with them as provided for by the Minsk agreements, the key elements of the country's political structure. These steps will guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized society, as an essential link and building a common space of security and economic cooperation, both in Europe and in Eurasia.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have mentioned these common space of economic cooperation on purpose. Not long ago, it seemed that in the economic sphere, with its objective market loss, we would launch a leaf (ph) without dividing lines. We would build on transparent and jointly formulated rules, including the WTO principles, stipulating the freedom of trade, and investment and open competition.
Nevertheless, today, unilateral sanctions circumventing the U.N. Charter have become commonplace, in addition to pursuing political objectives. The sanctions serve as a means of eliminating competitors.
I would like to point out another sign of a growing economic selfishness. Some countries [have] chosen to create closed economic associations, with the establishment being negotiated behind the scenes, in secret from those countries' own citizens, the general public, business community and from other countries.
Other states whose interests may be affected are not informed of anything, either. It seems that we are about to be faced with an accomplished fact that the rules of the game have been changed in favor of a narrow group of the privileged, with the WTO having no say. This could unbalance the trade system completely and disintegrate the global economic space.
These issues affect the interest of all states and influence the future of the world economy as a whole. That is why we propose discussing them within the U.N. WTO NGO (ph) '20.
Contrary to the policy of exclusiveness, Russia proposes harmonizing original economic projects. I refer to the so-called integration of integrations based on universal and transparent rules of international trade. As an example, I would like to cite our plans to interconnect the Eurasian economic union, and China's initiative of the Silk Road economic belt.
We still believe that harmonizing the integration processes within the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union is highly promising.
Ladies and gentlemen, the issues that affect the future of all people include the challenge of global climate change. It is in our interest to make the U.N. Climate Change Conference to be held in December in Paris a success.
As part of our national contribution, we plan to reduce by 2030 the greenhouse emissions to 70, 75 percent of the 1990 level.
I suggest, however, we should take a wider view on this issue. Yes, we might defuse the problem for a while, by setting quotas on harmful emissions or by taking other measures that are nothing but tactical. But we will not solve it that way. We need a completely different approach.
We have to focus on introducing fundamental and new technologies inspired by nature, which would not damage the environment, but would be in harmony with it. Also, that would allow us to restore the balance upset by biosphere and technosphere (ph) upset by human activities.
It is indeed a challenge of planetary scope, but I'm confident that humankind has intellectual potential to address it. We need to join our efforts. I refer, first of all, to the states that have a solid research basis and have made significant advances in fundamental science.
We propose convening a special forum under the U.N. auspices for a comprehensive consideration of the issues related to the depletion of natural resources, destruction of habitat and climate change.
Russia would be ready to co-sponsor such a forum.
Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, it was on the 10th of January, 1946, in London that the U.N. General Assembly gathered for its first session.
Mr. Suleta (ph) (inaudible), a Colombian diplomat and the chairman of the Preparatory Commission, opened the session by giving, I believe, a concise definition of the basic principles that the U.N. should follow in its activities, which are free will, defiance of scheming and trickery and spirit of cooperation.
Today, his words sound as a guidance for all of us. Russia believes in the huge potential of the United Nations, which should help us avoid a new global confrontation and engage in strategic cooperation. Together with other countries, we will consistently work towards strengthening the central coordinating role of the U.N. I'm confident that by working together, we will make the world stable and safe, as well as provide conditions for the development of all states and nations.
The Syrian Network for Human Rights and Irin both purport to be disinterested information sources on conflict in Syria and boast that the UN relies on them as its primary source. But they are not disinterested. There is abundant evidence that they promote the 'rebel' or terrorist side of the conflict and that their funding is from organisations and countries aligned with US-NATO support for aggression in the region. They are in fact promoting war propaganda against Syria and it is amazing that people one would expect to be more discerning, take this on face value. In this article I try to find out why Tim Costello, of World Vision, came to accuse the Syrian government of killing more people than ISIS without taking into account that these deeds were actions by a national army defending its people from multiple assaults by violent gangs, including ISIS, many of them supported by US-NATO funding and arms.
"Question for Tim Costello: Why does World Vision ignore analysis on the war in Syria (it seems to me) and instead repeat the claims of 'rebel' supporters and western politicians with no scrutiny, and in so doing World Vision ignores experts, for example MIT's Prof Ted Postol and former UN weapons inspector Richard Lloyd http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1006045-possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.html and more importantly it ignores millions of Syrians who take refuge in government controlled cities and towns, such as Damascus, Hama and Latakia? Australians should be aware of the terror and fear faced by those Syrians who don't support 'rebels', men with guns who depend on foreign money, clerics who incite the killings of civilians (leading to killing fields), foreign jihadis and the foreign policy of US neocons?" (Susan Dirgham on QandA facebook in response to Tim Costello's remarks on QandA of 14 September 2015.)
QandA, the very popular Australian TV program on public television, on 14 September 2015, dealt with the question of bombing ISIS in Syria without the Syrian government’s permission, supposedly at the invitation of Syria’s neighbour Iraq asking for help. (Program link here.)
World Vision's ambiguous message
Tim Costello, the CEO of the 'community development organisation World Vision', spoke generally against interventions and bombing in general, saying correctly that war survives on arms manufacture and that the US and Russia account for 60% of arms exports, and that the arms are funnelled by the US and Europe via Saudi Arabia and by Russia ‘with’ Iran. He stated that the war has now killed 250,000 people and that there are 16 m Syrians in need of humanitarian relief. Failing to note that Syrian Government is helping many millions itself, he said, “We are working there and in the camps.” He suggested that the war could only end if ‘Putin and Obama’ came to the decision not to send any more arms. He then repeated, apparently gratuitously, a new piece of war propaganda against the Syrian Government, with, “You’re right, Assad has killed, this year, seven times more people than ISIS has.”
Origin of war slogan circulated by mass media and 'trusted' 'authorities'
Now where did that ‘information’ come from and what did it mean? Although the same phrase was quoted as far and wide as the Washington Post[1] and the International Business Times, it seems to have come from two NGOs which profess to be neutral but which clearly support ‘rebel’ terrorism against the Syrian Government.
These organisations are the Syrian Network for Human Rights and Irin - a corporate subsidised branch of a UN publication.[2] They are 'responsible' for almost all 'fact and opinion' cited by the western mainstream and the UN on Syria.[3]
World Vision, by taking sides. could cause more deaths than it prevents
Tim Costello's remarks, arguing against war on the one hand, but demonising an elected government on the other hand, cancel each other out and pose no effective logical obstacle to Australia’s illegal entry into Syrian airspace. They show that the CEO of World Vision has taken sides in a war against a legally elected government which provides with the Syrian national army the only safe haven for 70 to 80 percent of the population against terrorists which ‘our side’ calls ‘rebels’, ‘moderates’ and Da’esh. World Vision should maintain impartiality in all wars because it expects to have access to people in need in territories at war and cannot be trusted if it takes sides. World Vision also solicits donations all over the world on the principle that it is a trustworthy force doing good in conflict zones and refugee camps. It was therefore alarming that Costello spoke against the elected Assad Government, whilst ostensibly talking down war.
Shadie Taled's logical and important challenge to war propaganda
On the same episode of QandA there was a video question from Shadie Taled, who said, under the heading, “Assad is fighting ISIS”, that, “Statistics suggest that most Syrians, my father included, support Dr Bashar Al Assad, even though he has been labelled by the West as a dictator, despite the lack of information and evidence to suggest so. If we genuinely cared about Syrian citizens and were serious about combating ISIS, why haven't we considered supporting Dr Assad who has been fighting ISIS for years? https://www.facebook.com/abcqanda/posts/10152989388771831
After this impressive videoed question/statement, the members of the ‘expert’ panel, to a man or woman, including famed 'peace' activist, Joan Baez, completely ignored this Mr Taled's burning question. It was a remarkable televised demonstration of ‘selective perception’; how people simply choose not to see or hear things that contradict a particular bias. However the same panel agreed with lengthy remarks from two members of the audience, who called for the bombing and removal of the Syrian Government.[4]
Syrian point of view suppressed
There were several Syrians in the audience who, like Mr Taled, held the opposite view and wanted to express this. We must remember that they had come to that studio in an effort to stop further destruction of their country. Although they had been invited to the studio, they were not given the chance. They were extremely disappointed, with one describing their treatment as ‘appalling’.
Experts or war-mules?
Although I am used to seeing and hearing constant propaganda about Syria on Australian and US media, I was dumbfounded by the crassness of the propaganda that came out of Tim Costello and other panelists’ mouths because I realised that it would be used to help justify the Australian airforce invasion of Syria on the flimsiest of pretexts and would decrease the ability of the Syrian Army to defend the Syrian people. To me there is no excuse for educated people to market propaganda in a war because they have every opportunity to find out the other side. Were none of these irresponsibly arrogant 'experts' capable of looking at RT or Iranian Press TV or the numerous citizen reports on you-tube or studying the many detailed interviews given by President Bashar al-Assad? Were they completely ignorant of the June 2014 elections where he was resoundingly re-elected in elections that were monitored by international observers who reported to the UN? Could they possibly be unaware of the role of our criminal ally, the grotesquely brutal Saudi Arabia dictatorship, in financing the attempted destruction of Syria and the obliteration of Yemen?
Each member of the panel came out damning the Syrian government and thereby providing positive propaganda for the Australian Government’s invasion of Syria purportedly in defense of Iraq, but with a stated desire to see the ‘Assad regime’ removed. The consequences of such a role could not just mean many millions more refugees and economic migrants from a devastated territory, but a new world war over this region so bitterly contested by world powers. In the short term it could mean the survival or obscene destruction of one of the oldest civilisations in the world and its people. It therefore seems to me that to repeat allegations that justify illegal invasion or comfort aggression by the questionable painting of a leader of an elected government as evil is a war crime.
NOTES
[1] The Washington Post used the remark in a big article about a battle in Douma,[1] which quotes its source as, "Syrian Network for Human Rights, a monitoring group based in Britain."
[2] Note that anyone including many business organisations or governments may become partners and supporters of the United Nations and advertise themselves as such. All kinds of businesses do, including disaster capitalists, awful government departments and propaganda units. The UN has “corporate, government, community and media partners as well as our supporters whose generous support ensures the ongoing success of our many programs and activities.” That is not to say that there are not good things about the UN; just that you need to be sure which bit of the UN you are dealing with who their donors are.
Irin http://newirin.irinnews.org/our-team/, has 'partners' in major development organisations in Switzerland, Sweden, and indirectly via the Jynwel Foundation , which is a branch of ‘Jynwel Capital, an international investment and advisory firm’ that promotes an association with the United Nations. Irin's website carries frankly anti-Assad propaganda, such as this article, http://www.irinnews.org/report/101861/the-road-to-damascus-key-syrian-artery-under-threat
The Syrian network for Human Rights and Irin involved in promoting the Syrian Government as worse than ISIS describe themselves as impartial on their websites, but their statements elsewhere show them to be pro-‘rebel’; Prepared to accept US military strikes at any cost, including the destruction of Syria.
“But Fadel Abdul Ghani of the Syrian Network for Human Rights told me that he and his group feel that a likely post-attack surge in Syrian refugees and possible deaths resulting from U.S. strikes are still preferable to doing nothing.
[4] BOURAN ALMIZIAB: "They are - they are brutal. They are - they are the worst kind of people. We acknowledge that. But before ISIS, tens of thousands of Syrians were killed. Why wasn't there any kind of intervention before? Why is it only ISIS that's the lights are spot on ISIS? We were killed before that. We were killed in tens of thousands, massacres, chemicals, bombs. Everything you call - everything that's in the book, we were there. Tens of thousands of Syrians were killed in jails. They were starved. They were tortured and then they died slowly. Why is it only ISIS being targeted? Why isn't it the Assad regime targeted as well? [...]"
Video inside:This article is the text of a speech by Sheila Newman about how Kennett Government policies pushed up population growth in Victoria and Australia. Whilst many people remained for a long time under the impression that immigration numbers were a Federal domain, he began the practise of using regional migration definitions to attract people to urban Melbourne. He also de-toothed Victorian industrial law, affecting wages, condition and enforcement. The new interpretation of regional migration was adapted by other States and territories. Kennett's attack on Victorian industrial laws would ultimately pave the way for Workchoices and a much less effective system for ensuring that imported workers were not paid less than Australians, creating a new pull-factor in Australia.
Regional migration under Kennett
This is the text of a speech given to SPAVICTAS AGM 2015.
Way under the radar of the general public, the Kennett Government (1992-1999) began a practice of using the rural category of ‘region in need of migration’ to reclassify Melbourne itself.
Melbourne was thus reclassified a regional migration area by the Kennett Government in 1998, which meant it became a destination for people who traditionally migrated to country regions under softer entry rules. [1]
Regional migration categories permitted easier entry for immigrants. Rural employers could sponsor workers for positions they claimed they were unable to fill, with fewer tests than urban employers and immigrants coming in under classical federal schemes. They could also sponsor a wider range of family reunion, such as nephews, to work in family businesses. [2]
The trend that Kennett started was imitated by the other States. Over time all the other states also declared their CBDs in need of immigration under regional migration rules. This was the time of the rise of the internet. Before this time, immigration had been a long drawn out process that was hard for individuals to initiate or get approval for. Now Australian States started up state Immigration websites advertising state and private sponsorship of immigrant workers and their families. Currently, these include:
Kennet was congratulated by people in favour of high Migration for having increased migration to the regions and reversed the long-term trend of migration out of Victoria, much of it to Queensland.
This perception was criticised because the so-called ‘regional migrants’ mostly ended up in urban Melbourne. [3]
Nonetheless, I would make the following case that these migration policies and several of Jeff Kennett’s other policies were a major factor in creating conditions which would set Australian on a terrible path to rapid and uncontrolled mass migration.
Kennet’s changes to industrial law made it easier to import cheap labour
Before the Kennett government, most Victorian wage earners worked under state awards which prescribed minimum conditions and wages, including holidays, benefits and penalties for an extensive range of employment roles. Any employee could look these up or have them explained easily by the Victorian Industrial Relations Commission, through a hotline called Wageline – where I worked. But in 1993, the Kennett Government abolished the Victorian Industrial Relations Act, replacing it with the weaker and harder to enforce, and poorly staffed, Employee Relations Act. [4]
Other Australian states imitated this initiative.
Unions scrambled to cover employees by registering new awards under Federal law, under s.51(xxxv) of the Australian constitution. These awards, however, had to be negotiated between individual organisations and their employees. Their enforcement was very limited under the Federal constitution. They were mostly inaccessible and incomprehensible for individual employees.
This right-wing revolution in Victorian industrial law under Kennett in 1993 set the scene for Workchoices under the John Howard government, (11 March 1996 to 3 December 2007). The Howard Government, entering this weakened industrial law and industrial relations situation, went on to widen the use of the corporations clause in the Australian constitution, which exempted corporations from many employer obligations. [5]
Up until now Australian employers had not had much to gain by importing immigrant workers because they had been required to employ them under the same industrial awards as native born workers. That meant that there was not the same opportunity to import cheap labour as there was, notoriously, in the United States.
Today we are in a situation where the Australian labour market has been greatly deregulated and it is now possible to employ overseas immigrants according to individually tailored employment contracts where they have little or no bargaining power or recourse for legal protection.
Coupled with the deregulation of immigration, this has created local pull factors which the Australian growth lobby has been keen both to lobby for and to exploit.
Deregulation of housing market and Rise of the Internet as factors
Two further processes have helped to expand the trends that Jeff Kennett’s actions set in motion. These further processes were:
- Deregulation of the Australian housing market to permit overseas purchase and investment
- The rise of the internet, which was exploited by state governments, private migration agents in conjunction with employers; universities seeking students; and property financiers, conveyancers, developers and real-estate agencies, to globalise Australian employment, public institutions, universities, and property.
Steve Bracks and John Brumby would continue Kennett’s big population campaign, despite the different brand presentations of their politics.
Was Kennett aware of his contribution to setting in motion Australia’s unfortunate population tsunami? He was a great population growth spruiker and had served formally as Minister for Housing, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in 1981 under the Hamer government. He has made many public declarations on his perception that very high immigration is desirable.
In The Age in March 1998, the following businessmen and politician argued that population growth was desirable and inevitable: Tony Berg, then Chief Executive Officer of Boral Industries (building materials and components) and still, in 2001, director of numerous banking, insurance and property trust related groups and holdings, and the Midland Brick Company; Jeff Kennett, populationnist Premier of Victoria (who presided over a developmentalist Ministry for Planning and Infrastructure which decreased housing lot sizes under a code and administration largely unresponsive to public outrage), and Phil Ruthven, who again claimed that by the end of the 21st century Australia's population would be 150 million.
An article in Civil Engineers Australia – December 1998, entitled, “Big Population Growth Needed, Forum Told – enVision ’98 Conference", reported speakers for high immigration and a big population. Among them were Tony Berg, Jeff Kennett, Alan Stockdale, Treasurer of the Kennett Victorian Liberal Government, Dr Jack Wynhoven, chairman of the enVision 98 organising committee and chief executive officer of Connell Wagner (Engineering and major infrastructure projects) and John White, chief executive officer of Richard Pratt's Visy [Paper and Packaging but also manufacturers of Visy board, a building material] Industries. (Pratt was Vice President of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures and has extensive involvement in business.)
The theme of needing a big population in order to repel invaders remains popular. In "More Migrants, Pleads Kennett", by Christine Jackman in the Melbourne Herald Sun, 12/2/1999, Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett was quoted telling "a New York business lunch" that "Australia's population was so low it would not even be able to defend Tasmania", attacking immigration levels as "almost negligible".... and underestimating them at "about 60,000 a year." (Source of quote is Sheila Newman, The Growth Lobby and its Absence, Chapter 6, http://tinyurl.com/p4ykwup)
The following graphs show interstate migration trends over the period discussed
[2] “Persons sponsored by relatives in the SDAS visa subclasses currently receive concessions in two ways: no points test to pass and a lower English language threshold criterion. More than half of those visaed are being sponsored by relatives living in Melbourne. Given that the underlying reason for providing points concessions is to attract persons to locations where the Government is anxious to promote settlement (notably regional locations) there does not seem to be any rationale for Melbourne to continue as a designated area in the SDAS visa subclass.” Evaluation of the General Skilled Migration Categories, Dept of Immigration, March 2006, by Bob Birrell et al, “Evaluation of the General Skilled Migration Categories,” Dept of Immigration, March 2006, p.178. http://www.flinders.edu.au/sabs/nils-files/reports/GSM_2006_Full_report.pdf
[3] John O'Leary, “The Resurgence of marvellous Melbourne - trends in Population distribution in Victoria, 1991-1996,” People and Place, Vol.7,no.1 and Catherine Best, “Culture shock strikes region,” The Courier, Fairfax regional media, December 12, 2003, http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/577142/culture-shock-strikes-region/)
[4] My reference is personal experience in the Victorian Department of Labor at the time, and, Richard Tracey, “Standing Fast, Federal Regulation of Industrial Relations in Victoria,” H.R. Nicholls Society, http://archive.hrnicholls.com.au/archives/vol14/vol14-3.php]
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorkChoices: “Relying on the corporations power of Section 51(xx) of the Constitution, the Howard Government extended the coverage of the federal industrial relations system to an estimated 85% of Australian employees. All employees of "constitutional corporations" (i.e. trading, financial, and foreign corporations) became covered by the WorkChoices system. Other constitutional powers used by the Federal Government to extend the scope of the legislation included the territories power to cover the Australian territories, including the external territories of the Christmas and Cocos Islands, the external affairs power, the interstate and overseas trade and commerce power, and the powers of the Commonwealth to legislate for its own employees. Victoria voluntarily had referred its industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth in 1996, under Section 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution.”
[8] “Trevor Sykes, The Bold Riders, Allen and Unwin, St. Leonards, New South Wales, Second Edition, 1996, (Year 2000 reprint), p.337 mentions that Pratt controlled Regal Insurance and Occidental Insurance in the late 1980s and was one of the funders of a shelf company called Bacharach Pty Ltd, which corporate cowboy, Abe Goldberg, used to purchase Brick and Pipe Industries, which he believed to be an unrealised land bank. Additional information about business interests was obtained from the Business Who's Who of Australia, Dun and Bradstreet Marketing P/L, 35th Edition, 2001.” Cited in Sheila Newman, The Growth Lobby and its Absence, Chapter 6, http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/swin:7395 (with appendices) or (without appendices) http://tinyurl.com/p4ykwup
Multi-signatoried letter to UK Guardian Saturday 26 September 2015: We are gravely concerned at the possibility of a parliamentary decision to bomb Syria. David Cameron is planning such a vote in the #005689">House of Commons in the near future. He is doing so in the face of much evidence that such an action would exacerbate the situation it is supposed to solve. Already we have seen the killing of civilians and the exacerbation of a refugee crisis which is largely the product of wars in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. The US and its allies have dropped 20,000 bombs on Iraq and #005689">Syria in the past year, with little effect. We fear that this latest extension of war will only worsen the threat of terrorism, as have the previous wars involving the British government. Cameron is cynically using the refugee crisis to urge more war. He should not be allowed to.
Mark Rylance Charlotte Church John Williams Mairead Maguire Nobel peace laureate Brian Eno Len McCluskey General secretary, Unite the Union Christine Shawcroft Labour NEC Diane Abbott MP Jenny Tonge Caroline Lucas MP Andrew Murray Chair, Stop the War Campaign Lindsey German Convenor, STWC Tariq Ali John Pilger Tim Lezard David Edgar Alan Gibbons Andy de la Tour Michael Rosen Eugene Skeef Victoria Brittain Anders Lustgarten David Gentleman David Swanson Gerry Grehan Peace People Belfast
We renew our call made five months ago for the governments of the US and UK to cease turning a blind eye to war crimes and to the destruction of Yemen by aerial bombardment and blockade of food and fuel. Behind a virtual silence in the western media, the US and the UK have inexplicably acquiesced in the ruination of #005689">Yemen. We renew our call for a sharp change in policy: to work for an immediate ceasefire, to respect Yemeni sovereignty, and to foster political negotiations between the Yemeni parties in the neutral state of Oman, or elsewhere. We reject our countries’ unconscionable support for this war and urge a diplomatic solution.
Robert Burrowes University of Washington Louise Cainkar Marquette University Steve Caton Harvard University Sheila Carapico University of Richmond Rochelle Davis Georgetown University Paul Dresch University of Oxford Najam Haidar Barnard College Anne Meneley Trent University (Canada) Brinkley Messick Columbia University Flagg Miller University of California, Davis Martha Mundy London School of Economics Jillian Schwedler Hunter College, CUNY Graduate Center Lucine Taminian American Academic Research Institute in Iraq Gabriele vom Bruck Soas, University of London Janet Watson University of Leeds Lisa Wedeen University of Chicago Shelagh Weir London John Willis University of Colorado Stacey Philbrick Yadav Hobart and William Smith Colleges Sami Zubaida Birkbeck College, London
For all those who fought "Chadstone on Sea" in the St Kilda Triangle here is the new interim Master Plan.
See http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/lean-and-green-the-st-kilda-triangles-new-angle-20150923-gjsvxw.html "Lean and Green: The St Kilda Triangle's New Angle" The Interim Master Plan by Bianca Hall 23 September 2015 The Age. Letters to the Editor have expressed doubts over the new plan purportedly to have open green space with a "Pleasure Garden" and "Pavilions"!
http://stkildatriangle.com/index.htmSee website Latest News on the St Kilda Triangle - invitation to "Co-Design the Triangle's Public Space"Registrations close Thursday 8 October 2015. Have your say!
Warning - Avoid St Kilda Saturday 26 September 2015 - Concert in the Catani Gardens
Tomorrow 26 September 2015 the City of Port Phillip has allowed a concert or some kind of musical event - "Listen Out" - is to be held in the Catani Gardens St Kilda 2 pm to 11 pm. Sorry re delay in notifying you but we only just found out.
Despite our long standing protests, Port Phillip Council is persisting in holding sports, festivals and musical events in the Catani Gardens which were once magnificent heritage, botanic Gardens established by the famous Carlo Catani. (We have repeated ad infinitum that sports events should be held in purpose built sports grounds or concerts in music venues.) Unfortunately the Catani Gardens have, in our view, been increasingly degraded and trashed by these events..It appears that they have turned into a cash cow for the Council as the income for advertising must be very profitable.
In setting up the infrastructure for tomorrow's "Listen Out" - a giant concert stage and shell.- workers appear to have squashed an avenue of Canary Island palms. The other trees may not have been protected either, witness a shed erected under the magnificent Moreton Bay Fig Tree on Beaconsfield Parade.
It is plain that these events are a health hazard as the rubbish is sometimes left for a day or so piled up in the Gardens and the rows of full portaloos sometimes left standing over the weekend. I will spare you the photos. Tourists report being revolted by the state of the Gardens after events. Is it any wonder that the tourist numbers have declined?.
We say avoid St Kilda as roads are closed - Beaconsfield Parade and Pier Road along the foreshore. There are others which have road works in progress. Parking will be limited. And Councillors cannot understand why people are not flocking to Fitzroy Street in weekends! There is even a sign in Beaconsfield Parade saying something to the effect that there will be crowds spilling onto the roads so "drive safely"! No mention by the City of Port Phillip staff of police providing security or drug surveillance. An alcohol licence has been issued despite the fact alcohol is not normally allowed in the Gardens. Will the St Kilda Triangle development turn into another Catani Gardens once built?
We suggest that you visit the Catani Gardens another fine day to enjoy its serenity and views of the Bay. Also a walk along the Pier to see the penguins. If anyone would like to join the Friends of Catani Gardens to help our campaign to honour the great Carlo Catani by restoring the Gardens to their former glory and for use for "passive recreation" and informal sport as they were in the early days of St Kilda simply contact me on jbell5[at]bigpond.com or my Mobile 0408022408.
Paternalism: When dominant big business make secret comments to governments – there is a problem. 25-Sep COSBOA has expressed deep concern at the existence of a confidential briefing letter provided to the Federal Cabinet from the Business Council of Australia (BCA), arguing against an effects test in competition regulation.
The fact that this letter is confidential and unavailable to the public and other industry groups is highly concerning and COSBOA calls on the BCA to immediately release this letter for scrutiny and comment from other interest groups.
Paul Nielsen, Chairman of COSBOA said today, “We note, as reported in the AFR (24 Sept 15), that the Chairman of the BCA, Catherine Livingstone has provided a confidential eight page briefing letter on 25 August to the Federal Cabinet that spells out the BCA’s case against an effects test, including an attachment containing their views on unintended consequences.
“Whilst we understand the need for secret inter-governmental briefings from departments such as Defence on security matters, the BCA and its members are public companies and competition policy affects the whole business community – not just the big businesses that make up the BCA,” said Mr Nielsen.
Mr Nielsen further questioned whether the clandestine document was provided at the behest of the Government. “If that is the case, has the Government requested a similar briefing letter from organisations with a different view? So far all anyone has seen from the BCA are assumptions to ‘protect their patch’ and fly in the face of organisations and regulators like the ACCC, who are chartered with protecting and preserving the rights of the whole community, not just big business.
“Given that Competition Policy and the proposed changes to the effects test by the Government’s own Harper Review will affect all businesses in Australia, we are dismayed that the BCA should try and unduly influence Government policy under a sinister cloak of secrecy. What do they have to hide?” asked Mr Nielsen.
Peter Strong, CEO of COSBOA added: “The only comment that we have seen from the confidential briefing from the BCA is that an effects test will ‘put at risk developments such as the iPhone’. The iPhone was developed in a country that has an effects test, the USA. There is an argument that it was because of the effects test that innovators were able to prosper and grow in that country. What other pieces of misinformation are in the BCA’s submission?
“COSBOA, and its members, as well as many regulators, noted economists and the broader community, know the power and influence held by this small number of big businesses is having a hugely negative effect on innovation and productivity in Australia. An effects test will aid the ACCC to make informed assessment of competition and ensure any dominance is good for the economy and not just for a few big businesses,” said Mr Strong.
NOTES
1. The Council of Small Business Australia (COSBOA) was founded in 1979 and was incorporated in 1985.
2. COSBOA is Australia’s peak body exclusively representing the interests of small businesses.
3. For more information on COSBOA visit: http://www.cosboa.org.au/
4. Connect through social media channels:
Facebook: /COSBOA
Twitter: @COSBOA
5. COSBOA is a long-time advocate of small business on issues from taxation and workplace relations, through to competition law and retail tenancy.
6. The goals of COSBOA are to promote and support the development of small businesses in Australia and the council recognises that it is a national imperative for Australia that the needs of small business are on the national policy agenda.
California just dealt Monsanto a blow as the state’s Environmental Protection Agency will now list glyphosate — the toxic main ingredient in the U.S.’ best-selling weedkiller, Roundup — as known to cause cancer. Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 — usually referred to as Proposition 65, its original name — chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm are required to be listed and published by the state. Chemicals also end up on the list if found to be carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — a branch of the World Health Organization.
In March, the IARC released a report that found glyphosate to be a“probable carcinogen.” Besides the “convincing evidence” the herbicide can cause cancer in lab animals, the report also found: “Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the U.S.A., Canada, and Sweden reported increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustments to other pesticides.” California’s decision to place glyphosate on the toxic chemicals list is the first of its kind. As Dr. Nathan Donley of the Center for Biological Diversitysaid in an email to Ecowatch, “As far as I’m aware, this is the first regulatory agency within the U.S. to determine that glyphosate is a carcinogen. So this is a very big deal.” Now that California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has filed its “notice of intent to list” glyphosate as a known cancer agent, the public will have until October 5th to comment. There are no restrictions on sale or use associated with the listing. Monsanto was seemingly baffled by the decision to place cancer-causing glyphosate on the state’s list of nearly 800 toxic chemicals. Spokesperson for the massive company, Charla Lord, told Agri-Pulse that “glyphosate is an effective and valuable tool for farmers and other users, including many in the state of California. During the upcoming comment period, we will provide detailed scientific information to OEHHA about the safety of glyphosate and work to ensure that any potential listing will not affect glyphosate use or sales in California.” Roundup is sprayed on crops around the world, particularly with Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready varieties — genetically engineered to tolerate large doses of the herbicide to facilitate blanket application without harming crops. Controversy has surrounded this practice for years — especially since it was found farmers increased use of Roundup, rather than lessened it, as Monsanto had claimed. Less than a week after the WHO issued its report naming glyphosate carcinogenic, Monsanto called for a retraction — and still maintains that Roundup is safe when used as directed. On Thursday, an appeals court in Lyon, France, upheld a 2012 ruling in favor of farmer Paul Francois, who claimed he had been chemically poisoned and suffered neurological damage after inhaling Monsanto’s weedkiller, Lasso. Not surprisingly, the agrichemical giant plans to take its appeal to the highest court in France. It’s still too early to tell whether other states will follow California’s lead.
Notice of Annual General Meeting and call for Nominations. Take the opportunity to catch up with other members over a cuppa. Consider nominating for a position in this historic group for the protection of Melbourne's oldest public park.
Notice is hereby given of the Annual General Meeting for 2015 of the Royal Park Protection Group Inc. Saturday October 24th 2015, at Flemington Community Centre at Debneys Park.
2.00 pm for 2.15pm start
Elections and formalities will precede the speaker and are expected to take about 30-45 minutes.
Guest Speaker: Rod Quantock OAM
Nominations
The positions are: Convenor, Deputy Convenor, Secretary, Treasurer and Committee Members.
Do consider nominating.
These nominations should be received one week prior to the Annual General Meeting.
Please return to the PO Box 197, Parkville, 3052
If you would like to stand for a position and require someone to nominate you please let us know.
Royal Park Protection Group Inc
Registration No A0035478L, PO Box 197 Parkville 3052
Contact Paul Leitinger (Convenor) mobile 0401 99 2000
Email: royalparkprotectiongroup[AT]gmail.com
In 2005 John Howard had been Prime Minister for nearly a decade and didn't look particularly vulnerable. But then he decided to ramp up Australia's migration intake. Net overseas migration jumped from the 100,000 it had been in 2004 to over 200,000 in just a couple of years. In 2005 migration overtook natural increase as the dominant driver of population growth, and we entered an era of rapid population growth, which we are still in. Our population now increases by a million people every three years.
The era of rapid population growth has also been one of great political instability. John Howard lost the 2007 election and indeed lost his own seat. His successor, Kevin Rudd, maintained and even increased net migration. When he was questioned about rapid population growth in 2009 he declared he was in favour of a Big
Australia. His personal approval ratings had been high until that time, but then they started to fall. He was replaced by Julia Gillard in 2010.
Julia Gillard was aware of the damage that "Big Australia" had done to Kevin Rudd, and said she was not in favour of Big Australia. But she did not change the migration intake much and the problems of rapid population growth persisted. She was replaced by Kevin Rudd in 2013, and he in turn lost the 2013 election and the Liberal
Party came to power with Tony Abbott as Prime Minister. Tony Abbott maintained Australia's net migration intake at over 200,000 per annum, and rapid population growth continued.
Now just two years later Tony Abbott has been replaced by Malcolm Turnbull. Australia has been described as the democratic coup capital of the world, and our political instability has been the subject of international comment. Now of course there are many factors at work in every political setting. I acknowledge the role of Workchoices in the demise of John Howard. I acknowledge the role of internal undermining and the difficulties of managing the hung Parliament in the demise of Julia Gillard. I think that Tony Abbott made a Faustian deal with the devil by promising that there would be no cuts to health, education, or pensions when he was Opposition Leader, only to renege on these promises in the 2014 Budget.
But those factors are insufficient to explain the political instability of the past decade, especially when you see it going on at a State level too. In Victoria and Queensland we have seen right wing governments elected then defeated after just one term, with the elected Victorian Premier toppled in his first term by his own Party, just as
happened to Kevin Rudd and as has just happened to Tony Abbott.
In 2011 I gave a speech which I called the Witches’ Hats Theory of Government. Having studied a lot of countries around the world, I had come to the conclusion that countries with large and rapidly growing populations had more political instability than countries with small and relatively stable populations. I compared governing a country, with various public policy problems you have to solve, to an advanced driving course, where you have to navigate a road without knocking over strategically placed orange traffic cones known as Witches Hats. Each public policy failure -
education, unemployment, aged care, planning, represents a witches hat knocked over.
If you knock over too many Witches Hats, you fail the test, that is to say the electorate, or your party, votes you out. I noted back in 2011 that if a country was stable or only growing slowly its leaders seemed to have fewer problems, and more time to solve the problems, a more content population, and much better political longevity.
But if a country was growing rapidly, problems such as traffic congestion, housing affordability, planning disputes and infrastructure shortfalls generated political instability. It is like driving the car at great speed. Inevitably you are going to hit more hats. Infrastructure is a particular difficulty. A country or community growing at 2 per cent has double the infrastructure task of a stable community, which is why pensioners and retirees feel particularly under the pump from utility charges in a rapidly growing population.
The Abbott Government had little support from young people, who are the victims of job insecurity, housing unaffordability, and rising student debt. All of these things were made worse by rapid population growth. When the jobs at Seven Eleven and numerous other retail outlets are all going to easily exploited temporary migrant
workers, how are young Australians supposed to become financially independent and get entry level work experience?
The Abbott Government also lost the support of older people with its broken promises over cuts to education, health and pensions. It was looking to find money to deliver on Mr Abbott's promise to be the Infrastructure Prime Minister, and avoid a Witches Hat which would not have been there if our population growth had not been so rapid.
So the Witches Hats have claimed another victim. I offer the same advice to Prime Minister Turnbull and his incoming Government as I have freely offered to his predecessors. If you want to last, stop driving so fast!
Source:
The Hon Kelvin Thomson, Federal Member for Wills
Thursday 17 th September, 2015
ALEPPO, SYRIA: These vehicles look as if they were burned out years ago, but it was only a couple of nights ago. This damage done by 'rebels' took place in the Christian area (mixed residential and commercial) in Aleppo. The strategy is to make pressure on families to leave their homes, cities, and country.
The cars were shelled by the 'rebels' with cooking-gas cylinder bombs. They are targeting people in the markets, and children in schools. Around 40 civilians died, and 200 were injured in Aleppo in one week (back to school week). Other attacks took (and still taking) place in other cities, like Homs, Hasaka, and Damascus, by using vehicle bombs or/and shelling mortars.
The kids in the photograph were trying to take whatever they could find that was useful from the wreckage. I took advantage of the situation and shot my picture.
Those cooking-gas cylinder bombs are rained by terrorist 'rebels' upon the heads of civilians, blindly damaging and killing. The attacks are everywhere and against everyone, Muslim and Christian. The war unites the blood of Syrians of any religion against terrorism.
With the terrorists launching 20 bombs a day, up to 200 bombs, the results are way more damaging than the claimed "barrel bombs" allegedly dropped by the Syrian Airforce.
At least the Syrian Airforce is targeting terrorists and armed gangs, not civilians in their markets, schools, or homes.
Rumors about new Russian weapons (and forces) have reached several cities, including Aleppo. Although this brings hope, it will also probably mean more fighting and clashes in the coming 'Eid' official holiday.
The only real difference between King Herod in the Bible and Bibi Netanyahu in Tel Aviv today is that Bibi has a much better public-relations team. Does Netanyahu now suffer from buyers' remorse after killing all those babies in Palestine during the past few years? Hardly. Not if he can fix it with propaganda!
After Netanyahu (and the rest of that sleazy neo-colonialist gang who have seized control of Israel) had so much fun blowing up, murdering and/or maiming approximately one thousand Palestinian children in the past two years, Bibi suddenly started to get a bit worried about his current international image as a baby-killer, right? Just look at all the bad press that Herod received after doing the exact same thing! http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/09/18/429769/Israeli-soldiers-Aqsa-mosque-Jerusalem
So Netanyahu got to worrying that he too might go down in history as the 2.0 version of King Herod.
And so he put all his vast propaganda weapons and skills to work in order to dispel all of this latest "anti-Semitic" talk from people who actually objected to babies being maimed, burned alive and killed. "I've got an idea," said one of Bibi's propaganda guys. "How about that we publish a children's book showing Israeli soldiers rescuing abandoned kittens in Gaza?" http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4694647,00.html
And that makes it okay to slaughter a few hundred Palestinian children and maiming over a thousand more?
I guess so.
"By massacring hundreds of children, actual kittens were saved!"
But why the freak were those kitten abandoned in the first place? Because the children who owned them were melted alive by white phosphorus bombs of course. Shame on those thoughtless, bad children!
"But what does all this kitty propaganda have to do with trying to make America great again?" you might ask at this point. That's easy.
So much of American taxpayers' money is being funneled to Israeli neo-colonialists and to the American "war" industry in the Middle East these days that there is hardly any money left to spend here at home on stuff like infrastructure and schools. And all those trillions of dollars spent on bombing other countries, no matter how carefully the cluster-bombs and daisy-cutters and drone strikes are aimed, can only result in killing thousands more babies -- and even, God forbid, also killing more kittens! http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/15/obamas-response-to-the-refugee-crisis-regime-change-in-syria/
But there is really only one (1) way to make America great again: Stop killing all those kittens in the Middle East. And in Afghanistan. And in Ukraine, Africa, Asia and Latin America... There are possibly millions of kittens that are being killed by American taxpayers' dollars all over the world these days. http://news.yahoo.com/assad-says-only-syrian-people-decide-quits-064717348.html
YouTube viewers would be (rightly) appalled.
Americans don't seem to even care that their tax dollars are being used to violently slaughter thousands of children in the Middle East and even all over the world right now, and that their tax dollars have been used to carry out this slaughter of the innocents routinely since the Eisenhower era.
America's rapid return to greatness can only be achieved if America will only just stop killing kittens. Stop killing kittens in Palestine, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen. And stop killing kittens in Europe, Africa, Latin America and Asia too. Just stop it right now -- if for no other reason than we owe that much to the millions of kitten-followers on YouTube.
PS: Also in heavy competition for the King Herod Award for slaughtering innocents is King Salman, titular head of the infamous House of Saud in Arabia. He is currently fire-bombing, barrel-bombing and neutron-bombing Yemen like it was barbecue time for kittens!
"But why is he doing that?" you might ask. For the oil, of course.
PPS: If you find this article particularly offensive, then please ask yourself why you don't find America's "war" on the world's babies offensive as well -- and then go out and do something to stop all these hideous wars on babies. And kittens.
PPPS: A large part of me wants to be a war correspondent and fight against injustice both at home and abroad -- but some small part of me still just wants to be normal. And the normal part of me has just become addicted to the peanut-butter-creme-filled-sandwich cookies featured at the "Love at First Bite" cupcakery in north Berkeley. http://www.loveatfirstbitebakery.com/index.html
Oh if only the starving children of Syria, Palestine and Yemen now under deadly siege by the American/Saudi/Israeli/Turkish neo-colonial military-industrial complex could have some of these cookies too!
Australia has committed to joining the US 'war against IS' which is illegal since Syria has not invited it to conduct military actions on its territory
Meanwhile its media fights a war against Russia and Iran which are genuinely helping Syria fight terrorism
On Wednesday the ninth of September 2015, Australia unofficially declared war on Syria. The announcement by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop seemed almost an afterthought, following news of the government's generous commitment to help Syrian refugees.
With the intense media focus on the refugee crisis in Europe, and sudden concern following the symbolic death of Aylan Kurdi on a Turkish beach, some media seemed barely to notice we were now 'at war' again, while those that did seemed to think it was a good idea, or at least a reasonable one.
We had been told repeatedly that 'Islamic State' had to be stopped because it threatened us all, and now apparently it was also causing Syrians to take flight from their country – so we simply had to act.
Australia's political contortions to maintain appearances within ICC convention
For those of us who have ceased believing anything our governments say, based on their track record of lies and fabrications, the new pretext for 'legitimately' invading Syrian sovereign territory was unconvincing. Although we are assured 'the collective defence of the Iraqi people' fulfils the requirements of international law under Article 51 as a pretext for military intervention – and it may do so – it is tempting to say "but I thought we had to protect Syrians from IS". Many would conclude that we are simply following the Americans, as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that our 'contribution' is primarily political and strategic. The reason Australia also needs a legal umbrella for its troops is that we are signatories to the ICC convention, unlike the 'exceptional' Americans.
No real opposition party in Australia
Endorsing the 'intervention', and demonstrating the absence of a real opposition party in Australia at the same time, the shadow foreign minister Tanya Plibersek explained the details of the government's pretexts in an interview on the ABC's weekly political commentary program 'Insiders'. The Syrian government was 'unable or unwilling to prevent IS from launching cross-border attacks' she claimed, and in order to defend 'the Iraqi people, territory and military' from IS terrorists, Australia must be able to take action against IS bases in Syria. Most importantly she said that intervention is justified because "we will be responding to calls for assistance from a democratically elected government threatened by terrorist groups coming across its borders."
Clever new false pretext
So how did this happen? How is it that two years after Russia helped foil the US/NATO plans for Libya-style regime change in Damascus, based on fabricated claims of a chemical weapons attack, that such illegitimate plans are unaltered and now put into action with a clever new false pretext? And what does it tell us about the true nature of those who thought up this dastardly way to trick their publics, not just to put up no resistance to the new war but to actually cheer it on? Did they really mean to only target IS forces as they maintained, and effectively assist the Syrian government? Or would 'new circumstances' soon reveal the real meaning of "we have no plans to intervene" – in Syria, as they declared a year ago in order to get support for joining the fight against IS in Iraq?
De-facto declaration of war on Syria by Australia
And so it was, because only the day after our de-facto declaration of war on Syria, the Defence minister stated that the 'commitment' would be for 'two or three years'- which seemed a rather long time simply to 'stop cross-border attacks'. But government ministers didn't have to spell out the longer term plans, and admit that they still included forced 'regime change', and that in fact this was the only long-term plan they ever had. Because the public, whose opinion had been comprehensively narrowed into seeing Syria's President Assad as the chief cause of Syria's descent into hell, soon started calling for the (popularly re-elected) 'brutal dictator' to be removed. Commentators in Western media and think-tank experts observed that 'degrading' IS would also be 'upgrading' Assad, who – they claimed – had killed ten times as many people as the 'Da'esh death-cult'. Even worse, it would effectively be – God forbid – helping Russia, and everyone knows what they are like, and have been doing in Ukraine.
Orchestrated internationally
Australia's move against Syria became a precedent for France and the UK to join the campaign against IS and Assad, with the UK's David Cameron almost forgetting IS in his emotive call to protect Syrians from the murderous regime of Bashar al Assad. Coinciding with huge rallies in support of refugees in London and around the world it all seemed rather orchestrated … and the appearance in those rallies of the 'wrong Syrian flag' – the flag of the armed rebellion and its Western cheer squad - reinforced the feeling. With exquisite irony, the London rallies followed on from the excitement over the election of a new leader of the British Labor party – Jeremy Corbyn, who has been a leading light of the Stop the War movement since the Iraq invasion of 2003, and recently a staunch opponent of Britain's Trident Nuclear Deterrent.
Struggle we face in fighting for the rights of Syrians
It tells us a lot about the struggle we face in fighting for the rights of Syrians, and in helping the heroic Syrian army fight its many foes, that nearly all of those millions who came out to 'stop the war' in 2003 are now unwittingly conscripted into the war to stop the Syrian army from protecting its people, and the President that they have chosen to lead their fight. What's more, those protesters are also with the war to stop Russia from helping the Syrian army, oblivious to the fact that Russia can more rightly claim that it is 'helping a democratically elected government threatened by terrorist groups coming across its borders'.
Syrian army defeats IS in area Australia claims Syria lacks control
Still, we shouldn't lose heart. On the same day that Australia proudly revealed its first foray into Syria in pursuit of IS targets, the Syrian army and air-force successfully defended an air-base in Deir al Zour from IS attack, killing up to 100 of their fighters. Deir al Zour is in the very area that Australia claims the Syrian government lacks any control, lying on the Euphrates between Iraq and the IS capital Raqqa. We might imagine that the Australian contingent, which 'didn't release its weapons', thought better of it when it saw the exploding bombs from the Syrian air-force…
It seems that the current mass migration invasion of Germany was organised from the US and the UK, via tweets. A Russian group have analyzed net traffic to ascertain why the mass migration crisis to the EU started and why now. Apparently there were large spikes in social media just before the current big migrations to Europe took off and thousands of men packed and left for the EU. The Russians also anaylzed the content of tweets. Their analysis points to a social media driven event, a call, to come to the EU. There were, in fact, BOTs, that tweeted and re-tweeted. Most bot servers emanated from the USA and the UK, inviting people to Germany. (Article by Eugene Black, first published in KP RU Daily on 18 September 2015. )
We are publishing this imperfect translation because of the interesting content, which we assume is likely to be true.
After reading an article in "Komsomolskaya Pravda", the Russian scientist Vladimir Shalak conducted its own investigation into the Internet
- I read a very interesting article Uliana Skoybedy in "Komsomolskaya Pravda" - "Chronicles of the death of Germany", - says Vladimir Ph.D. Shalak. - It struck me. I wanted to check what was really going on, whence the flow of migrants. I used the microbloggin network, Twitter.
Welcome to Germany!
Question to researcher: - Why, Vladimir?
Vladimir: - Twitter most quickly responds to all events in the world. Just a minute after the incident. It presents a lot of different points of view. And a lot of additional information. Who exactly wrote, where, etc. [...] The content analysis method was used.
- What's the method?
- One thing is to simply read the text. Different people have different ways they assess, understand.
- Really, there are still heated debates around the "German Chronicle" Skoybedy. Some of our former citizens write that things are quiet in the Fatherland. It's Russian media hysteria, Kremlin propaganda. Although the head of the UN response, Chancellor of Germany, other European leaders is clear that it smells like kerosene ...
- There is quite a rigorous analysis method based on the frequency of words or phrases in body text, titles, etc. I've been doing this for 22 years. Logician by profession, after graduation, I worked for seven years at the Research Center for Artificial Intelligence in Pereslavl there and became interested in the content analysis of the texts. Including the Internet. To do this, set up special computer programs. Content analysis - rigorous method. If someone suddenly have questions, you can always refer to specific sources and to prove that it was not my imagination, but the harsh reality.
With the help of a computer system SKAI launched search and collection of messages at the request of «refugees» (refugees). I searched for Twitter only the original message. It was necessary that a person really had written the tweet, use that word. For the purity of the original investigation it is important. If you take more and retweets will be hundreds of thousands of messages that only stir up the picture.
Quickly gathered more than 19 thousand texts in Twitter. So I wonder what the name of the European countries most frequently mentioned in the messages. I chose to analyze the countries Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Great Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Sweden. Well, and Ukraine.
It turned out that Germany is in the same context with the refugees mentioned in half of all messages. Ie two and a half times more likely than its neighbor Austria, and almost five times more likely than Hungary, through which tens of thousands of transit travel of refugees. England with a modest 6% - in fourth place. On the rest of the world and say no.
So what is going on with Germany? If we restrict tweets that mention only she, the vast majority of them - 93% - admiration for the hospitality and humane policy on refugees Germans.
• Germany Yes! Leftists spray a graffiti on a train sayin "Welcome, refugees" in Arabic
• Lovely people - video of Germans welcoming Syrian refugees to their community
• Respect! Football fans saying "Welcome Refugees" across stadiums in Germany.
• This Arabic Graffiti train is running in Dresden welcoming refugees: (ahlan wa sahlan - a warm welcome).
• 'We love Germany !,' cry relieved refugees at Munich railway station
• Thousands welcome refugees to Germany - Sky News Australia
• Wherever this German town is that welcomed a coach of Syrian refugees with welcome signs and flowers -thank you.
• Germany Yes! Graffiti on train "Welcome" to refugees in Arabic.
• Lovely people (video), the Germans invited Syrian refugees into their communities.
• Respect! Football fans will say "Welcome" to refugees in Germany.
• Thousands welcome the refugees in Germany, etc.
I drew attention to the extraordinary popularity of the slogan «Welcome, refugees», «Welcome, refugees!" I decided to repeat the collection of information already specifically with this invitation. Sobral 5704 original, emphasize tweets that contained the phrase «Welcome, refugees». Again, the exclusion of all retweets, which would be a tremendous increase in the volume of data being analyzed, but did not clarify.
The first three places in Germany - 76.8%, Austria - 12.4%, while Britain only 4.6%.
- Impressive stats!
- So there was my suspicion that Germany is not all right. As my friend likes to joke Mikhail Dymshits, even if you are paranoid, does not mean that you have no one pursues.
- Of course, in Germany, life secure, high benefits for the workers, but there are other rich countries in Europe. Same England, France, Sweden, Norway ...
- But Twitter is inviting mostly in Germany! Intrigued. To continue to investigate, without leaving your computer. Estimates on public accounts published posts «Welcome, refugees» and references to Germany. Select only those accounts, which contains regional identity, built rating. The following chart shows the percentage of the eight leading countries that invite the refugees to visit inviting Germany.
Percentages of eight leading countries that invite the refugees to visit inviting Germany
Oddly enough, but the Germany with 6.4% turned out to be only the third place. The first two places divided between her loyal friends - Britain and the United States and 19.2% from 17.0%.
Interestingly, when the initial study, the interest of England and the US were nearly two times less than it is now.
The moral is that Germany itself is not particularly committed to ensuring that it captivated hordes of miserable refugees. But the rest of the world led by the US and Britain tearfully persuades them to take advantage of traditional German hospitality.
- What happened? Two Anglo-Saxon Allies deliberately invited the refugees last week to ... Germany!
What a remarkable discovery you have made, Vladimir, congratulations! [...] a humanitarian catastrophe of migrants in Europe.
- Through analysis, it became clear to me that the current invasion of refugees already called the 'Great Migration' - was a deliberate campaign.
Digging Deeper!
- Who gave the order? Obama? Cameron? The head of the State Department Kerry?
- Sami these figures glow in Twitter, of course, will not. But the interesting artists who clearly on someone's team started at the same time entice refugees to the Germans.
1) August 30 at 10:25:11 in the film account was taken @ LotteLeicht1 message «Wonderful" #REFUGEES WELCOME ". Banners draped across football stadiums in #Germany this weekend. Via @ markito0171 http://t.co/8Nhyi7Ujfy »(" Great "# REFUGEES, welcome." Banners at football stadiums in Germany this weekend. ") It soon gained over 2000 retweets. Now they are much more.
Lotte Leicht - the lady is not easy. Director of the European Office of the famous human rights organization "Human Rights Watch» (HumanRightsWatch, HRW - Human Rights Watch), headquartered in the United States. Office of the Lotte - in Brussels, the capital of the European Union. But the refugees, as we see, not beckoning to Belgium - Germany.
Lotte Leicht
2) on August 30 at 8:08:37 in the tape posted accountJfxM message «" REFUGEES WELCOME ". Banners draped across Germany's football stadiums this weekend. (@ markito0171) http://t.co/fJYq0xXrXe », (Lotte Leicht similar message), who scored more than 1,600 retweets.
This is Jack Moore, a journalist from England. World ReporterNewsweekEurope. FoundedWorldOutline. Formerly at The Times / King's College. London, England.
3) On August 31, 23:59:06 in the film account was takenWashingtonPost message «In Germany, tabloids welcome refugees. In Britain, they propose sending the army to keep them out. http://t.co/gKMdQX4UDt ». (In German tabloids welcome refugees. In the UK, offer to send an army to keep them). The newspaper "Washington Post" is known throughout the world. Washington, you know, across the ocean.
Such messages, each of which gathers hundreds of thousands of retweets in recent weeks is very, very much.
Bots from Texas
- Further analysis showed that individual enthusiasts is not limited to, - continues the story of Vladimir Shalak. - On the whole battalions of reinforcements came bots. There are different methods to determine whether the owners of the accounts from which the messages are, real people or a computer program, managed from outside. The so-called bots.
- Do not hide Twitter!
- But he is good.
Here are just a few examples.
1) August 27, forty-botschanging_news, @ changing_news1, ..., @ changing_news39 US simultaneously in 8:00:33 - the working day has begun! - Publish the message «A new welcome: Activists launch home placement service for refugees in Germany and Austria http://t.co/jA3MX1J6ak #News#Change#Help» (Welcome: Activists launch service home placement of refugees in Germany and Austria) . All forty-tweets are gone in one second!
Belongs to the group of bots resource «Your News Will Never Be The Same» («Your news will never be the same!") The most amazing thing, despite its name five days later, on September 1, at 22:30:37, the bots send the same message, changing only the beginning of the word lowercase to uppercase. To look like a new tweet: «A New Welcome: Activists Launch Home Placement Service For Refugees In Germany And Austria http://t.co/C2J4QiTvoY #News#Change#Help».
2) Another group of 50 bots, which are united by the fact that they were created February 14, 2014 in the time interval from 6:02:00 to 6:24:00, published on August 31 at 17:26:08 the same Message «#hot Football Fans in Germany Unite with 'Refugees Welcome' Message http://t.co/aNfawL0Ogd #prebreak#best». (Football fans in Germany support the slogan "Refugees Welcome"). Their mestoracpolozhenie could not be determined.
Two Anglo-Saxon Allies deliberately invited the refugees last week to ... Germany!
Photo: REUTERS [Image not included in this republication]
- Well hidden!
3) 95 bots, September 1 at 07:29 publish the message "German Soccer Fans Welcome Refugees Amid Ongoing Crisis: As Europe faces the challenge of a wave of migration ... "http://t.co/9F74YFGPyJ. "German football fans: Welcome Refugees! "
All these bots come from United States, Texas, Dallas. It belongs to a very interesting resource «Media for Social and Cultural Impact» - Media for the social and cultural impact.
4) August 29 at 23:02, another group of 80 bots publish the same message «Thousands Welcome Refugees to Germany at Dresden Rally: Thousands of people took to the streets of the German city of Dresden on Satu ...». Identify regional nature of this group of robots is not possible.
Examples bots again goes on and on. The most curious readers of "Komsomolskaya Pravda" can test their detective skills in Twitter.
It is important to note that each original tweet Refugee exponentially immediately acquires a large number of retweets. As the nuclear reaction. Thread a masthead as kindly tells the same Twitter!
There is an illusion that Twitter harmless. Well, think of just 140 characters that can I say ?! This is a big misconception. Twitter - a serious impact on people's arms. It is massively used in the "color revolutions" in the same "Arab Spring" to raise people, especially young people, to overthrow the government. And in Tunisia, and Egypt, Yemen, Libya ...
- To bring the people to the streets for specific addresses, 140 characters is more than enough.
- In Libya, by the way, NATO has used Twitter to coordinate military action against Gaddafi. It was created by a number of special accounts where they sent the information. Goes nondescript man on a camel, he sees several government tanks Gaddafi. Immediately send tweets with geo-referenced to within a few meters. And go home. And the tanks of NATO missiles hit soon.
This time, Twitter is used as a tool for the mass withdrawal of people in other countries. Arrange with the help of a new Great Migration.
Braking German locomotive
- What a great suit, "relocation", "invasion"?
- Here it is difficult to give a definite answer. I can only assume.
On the one hand, the Germans, who still suffer guilt for World War II. Wishing to atone for the sins of parents and grandparents create hothouse conditions for truly unfortunate of the hot spots in Africa and the Middle East. To once again prove to the world community, they say, they - not the Nazis.
- Yes, they drove deep sense of guilt!
- Refugees should not be confused with migrants, as are different categories of people. On the subject of refugees simplified registration form, receipt of social benefits and housing.
On the other hand, social networks and media used in order to direct the flow of refugees is in Germany, which is already groaning from this disaster, and even threatened to suspend the Schengen agreement.
In short, enjoy the German guilt complex.
Against the background of this blatant mockery looks posts that «US to admit 1,500 Syrian refugees by end of September» (US let in 1500 Syrian refugees by the end of September) or «US to Accept 5,000 to 8,000 Syrian Refugees Next Year» (the US takes from 5000 to 8,000 Syrian refugees in the next year). After all, today, every day of the German border crossing several thousand refugees.
The newly arrived claim their rights. Requires the provision of comfortable housing. Refugees well exist on benefits paid to them and do not tend to get a job and integrate into German culture.
There is a growing crime - rape, theft, murder, robbery, distribution of drugs. Along with the wave of refugees arriving and Adventure LIH ...
No need for a highly developed imagination to extrapolate this trend into the future.
From Germany, we knew it, we can say goodbye forever. None of those who came there and began to receive benefits, will never return to Libya, Syria, Iraq, and the list goes on.
- Until recently it said that the German authorities will take until the end of the year 800 thousand. Now projected to increase to one million! This year alone.
- This will inevitably lead and already leads to the growing influence of right-wing parties. A growing number of their supporters begin burning placement of refugees being beaten. Since the refugees - it's mostly young people who are good, much better than German natives, speak with knives and other weapons, they will resist. Already, they blocked the road and claim their rights. Further more. You can expect to destabilize the internal situation in Germany. Inevitable conflicts on religious, ethnic or cultural grounds. How not to recall the prophetic books of Helena Chudinova "The Mosque of Notre Dame."
Germany called the locomotive of the European Union, which is going through hard times. The destruction of Germany - is the destruction of the EU and all of Europe. Is not this is the purpose of the hegemon of the ocean and its loyal ally - Britain, which, though in Europe, but on the island? Finally, the weakening of the United States of Europe is advantageous, as would lead to capital flows, will support its economy and for some time to retain world leadership. At the same time it will be a blow to Russia, as soon as a gamble with Ukraine failed.
One can only wish that the forecasts have not come true, but it hurts all converge at one point.
From the Files of "KP".
Shalak Vladimir Ivanovich, Doctor of Philosophy. Senior Researcher, Institute of Philosophy. Creator and leader of Baal. For 20 years, participates in the content analyzes of various issues.
BTW
Shalak
September 23, Vladimir Shalak speaking at a seminar at the Institute of Philosophy Academy of Sciences report "Social networks as a tool for the design of migration." Beginning at 17.00. Free admission. Address: Str. Volkhonka d.14.str. 5. 2nd floor. M. "Kropotkinskaya".
The air strikes carried out by the international alliance against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria "ISIS" terrorist organization in Syria contradict with the international law and don't affect the capability of the terrorist organization, Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin said.
What our western partners are doing in Syria is considered a flagrant violation of the international law as they justify their steps by the Article 51 of the UN Charter on the right to self-defense, Churkin said in a press conference in New York Wednesday, adding that they carry out strikes in the territories of a sovereign country without the approval of its government.
Hailing Syrian government constructive cooperation with the experts of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Churkin indicated that a Russian proposal for the formation of an international alliance for fighting ISIS terrorist organization will be deliberated in the framework of the UN General Assembly.
Syria says Britain, Australia and France have violated UN laws by taking military measures in Syria.
The Syrian Foreign Ministry has sent letters to the UN criticizing the violation of its sovereignty by the three countries.
The letters said the US-led military campaign in Syria grossly contravenes the UN Charter namely Article 51, which bans such interventions without the world body's authorization.
Britain, Australia and France are taking part in the US-led campaign against the ISIL in Syria.
The Syrian Foreign Ministry said their measures are being taken under the pretext of fighting terrorism without the approval of the Syrian government.
Damascus says the three countries should stop sending terrorists into Syria if they want to fight terrorism.
Update, 21 September : 12 minute video of interview now included.
Video-link and transcript inside: Finally the Australian media has shown some professionalism and has asked questions of the 'other side', Syria, instead of simply making it up. And it was Tony Jones of the ABC who courageously led the way on Lateline tonight. Assad's advisor, Dr Bouthaina Shaaban, does an admirable job of clarifying the problem and sorting out priorities. Mr Jones asks questions that reflect Western paranoia, but Shaaban is not diverted from her representation of the needs of the Syrian people. "...Targeting presidents in the Middle East does not aim at presidents. It aims at destroying our country, turning our identity, erasing our cultural heritage, destroying our institution. It is Syria that has been targeted, it is not President Assad. President Assad is standing with his army and people to fight for the unity and territorial integrity of his country and this is what we are doing here." This interview probably comes in the wake of the Russian interview with President Assad (republished here). Dare we hope that justice might prevail; that some sense of proportion might restore itself in the western world's to date unhealthy interest in 'regime' changes in the Middle East, each of which has been more of a humanitarian disaster than the last? Yes, we dare hope. Thank you Tony Jones.
Dr Bouthaina Shaaban denies that Russian forces could escalate the conflict in Syria. She also denies that President Assad's forces have been involved in crimes against humanity.
Transcript
TONY JONES, PRESENTER: We're joined now from Damascus by President Assad's key advisor, Dr Bouthaina Shaaban.
Dr Shaaban, thanks for being there.
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN, ADVISOR TO SYRIAN PRESIDENT: Thank you.
TONY JONES: Now can we start with this: the Australian Air Force has now joined the US-led coalition in air strikes against ISIS targets inside Syria, in eastern Syria. What's your message to the Australian Government about its involvement?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: My message to the Australian Government is that there should be a real intention to fighting terrorism that is not only against the Syrian people, but against the entire world and the real intention should come through a real coalition and cooperation with Russia, Iran, China, the Government of Syria and all countries and governments who truly are interested in fighting terrorism.
TONY JONES: Let me ask you this then: I mean, the Syrian Army is obviously also fighting ISIS. If the Australian Air Force is hitting ISIS targets in eastern Syria, doesn't that actually help your fight against ISIS?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: Actually, the Syrian Army and the Syrian people have been fighting ISIS for the last four years, but I don't think the coalition led by the United States until now has done any real job against ISIS. In President Obama's words, they wanted to contain or to limit the influence of ISIS, But not to eradicate, to get rid of ISIS for the benefit of Syria and the benefit of the region and the entire world.
TONY JONES: OK, President Assad himself has said in the past 24 hours he's got no objection to cooperating with the US and his allies, provided it's a genuine coalition against terrorism, as he calls it. What would cooperation look like? How could you imagine it happening?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: I could imagine the entire world taking a real stand against these extremist terrorist forces by at least supporting the implementation of Security Council resolution 2170, 2178 and 3199, which dictates on countries not to allow the arming, the financing and the facilitating of terrorists across borders - the three things that are being done for four years by Turkey and by Saudi Arabia with full-fledged support by the West.
TONY JONES: Now, how soon would you expect to see Russian jets joining this fight against ISIS and fighting in this rather contested and crowded sky over Syria?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: Well, the Syrian people would love any party in the world to join us in fighting ISIS, but in cooperation with the Syrian Government, and by the way, the report you broadcast, Tony, at the beginning of this program, you mentioned the regime about 10 times and you mentioned President Assad and you said that the Russians are coming to support President Assad. The Russians are coming to support the restoration of safety and security to the Syrian people. It is the Syrian people who are suffering, and by the way, there is no civil war in Syria. Over 80 per cent of the Syrian people live in the region which is still controlled by the Syrian Government and the Syrian Army and there is no religious or any other conflict among the Syrian people. There's only one conflict between the Syrian people and the extremist terrorist forces that are being brought to our country from 83 countries in the world.
TONY JONES: OK, let's talk about this Russian military buildup because the United States is very worried about it. I mean, the airport at Latakia is being heavily reinforced, it's being changed, it looks like it's being turned into a giant Russian military base, Russian transport planes are flying in every day and ships are bringing into your ports Russian weapons. Are we going to see Russian troops fighting on the ground in Syria and Russian aircraft in the skies above Syria supporting, as you say, your army?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: Russian advisors and Russian people and Syrian-Russian relations have been here strong and well for the last 40 years. The Russians do not build colonial bases. The Russians are not an occupying force like others are. The Russians left Egypt in one day when Sadat asked them to leave. So, the Russians are supporting us by advisor, by military armaments, by the way, we have contract with them that had been signed for years and they are implementing these contracts. And if you ask the Syrian people, you would see that the Syrian people are happy to see any country in the world supporting the Syrian people and the Syrian Army against extremist forces and against terrorist forces.
TONY JONES: OK, alright. But a very quick question here: are you expecting Russian forces to be expanding their operations into Syria, more Russian troops than just the advisors and Russian Air Force pilots flying Russian aircraft over Syrian territory?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: We are only expecting support to the Syrian Army. That's all what we are expecting. And we know that the Russians will not do anything except in cooperation with the Syrian Government and with the Syrian Army and thus the agenda is Syrian, and as I said, the best way to fight terrorism is to have this coalition broadened, not only from Russia. Really, you know, the terrorism you find now here and you describe now here, you might find tomorrow in Europe and next day in the United States. It's a cancer that is hurting the entire world and we would love the world to understand that this is an existential danger to the entire humanity.
TONY JONES: OK, but earlier this year the Secretary of State John Kerry laid down some very strict conditions. Syria cannot have peace, stability, nor can it be saved as long as President Bashar al-Assad remains in power. Have you any reason to believe the White House has changed its mind on that fundamental issue?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: Well I would like to ask you: has John Kerry any right to decide who the President of Syria should be? Do we in Syria decide who the President of the United States should be? I think this statement is erroneous right from the beginning. It is the Syrian people who decide who have the right to be the President of Syria. Nobody else in the world has the right to decide that.
TONY JONES: OK, but just - we know that obviously US and its allies participated in regime change in Iraq and they did so because they said Saddam Hussein was involved in building weapons of mass destruction, but also because of his crimes against humanity. Now President Assad also stands accused of crimes against humanity, of torturing, starving, of killing thousands of his opponents and that killing was done by branches of the Syrian security services, according to evidence. Do you accept that Western leaders simply cannot turn a blind eye to that evidence and those allegations?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: I would like the Western governments who - and the Western people to think what they did with Libya with their own decision, turning Libya into a failing state, and I would like them to review their policy in Iraq, which turned Iraq into a failing state. I have no reason to believe what the Western governments say about my country. I am a Syrian, rooted in Syria. We, the Syrian people know what is right for our country, and by the way, targeting presidents in the Middle East does not aim at presidents. It aims at destroying our country, turning our identity, erasing our cultural heritage, destroying our institution. It is Syria that has been targeted, it is not President Assad. President Assad is standing with his army and people to fight for the unity and territorial integrity of his country and this is what we are doing here.
TONY JONES: Alright, but you see the obvious problem. I mean, the West cannot turn a blind eye to it when three former UN war crimes prosecutors investigated the evidence smuggled out of Iraq by a former - smuggled out of, I beg your pardon, Syria by a former military policeman. He brought 55,000 photographs of 11,000 dead bodies, all of whom he claimed were killed by your security services, starved, tortured, beaten, and his evidence by those three war crimes prosecutors was found to be most credible.
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: Listen. Listen, Tony, let us respect the intelligence of your viewer. I was interviewed at least three times by CNN and Wolf Blitzer on CNN about -0 about these fabricated pictures that have been paid for by a cattery company in London. You know, if anybody is careful about the lives of the Syrian people, why don't you condemn the missiles that are killing innocent civilians? Why don't you condemn the killing of thousands of Syrian children at school? The destruction of 5,000 schools. The erosion of Palmyra. The erosion of old Aleppo. Where is the West from all what the extremists and terrorists are doing in Syria? The myth of ...
TONY JONES: Dr Shaaban, can I interrupt you there for a one moment? 'Cause we are running out of time.
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: Please do. Please do.
TONY JONES: But I believe it is possible to do - it's possible to do both things at the same time. It's possible to condemn what happens to those children, at the same time, to condemn a history of repression. Now these three war crimes prosecutors, all very credible men, believed the evidence to be real. If that is true, should your president in fact stand trial for crimes against humanity, in spite of the fact that Russia would stop that from happening?
BOUTHAINA SHAABAN: Did you - I would only focus on what you said. The three men believe that the evidence could be real. What if the evidence was absolutely nonsense? What if these three men were absolutely wrong? What - I mean, why are you trying to suppose something about our president instead of trying to solve the problem for the Syrian people and for Syria and for the Middle East and for the world at large? I tell you once again: Syria is 10,000 years old. The Syrian people are very civilised people. They are very well capable of choosing their government and choosing their president without any interference from the West. This war on Syria, Tony, is about the independent opinion of Syria. Syria has been a very independent country and that's not what the West wants. They want us like a country that is a satellite for the West and we will never be that.
TONY JONES: Dr Shaaban, we'll have to leave you there. I'm merely of course putting the case that bothers - the dilemma that bothers Western leaders when they worry how they can support your president. But we'll have to leave you there. We thank you very much indeed for your time.
Europe is "not dealing with the cause" of the current refugee crisis, Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview with Russian media, RT among them, adding that all Syrian people want is "security and safety."
"It's not about that Europe didn't accept them or embrace them as refugees, it's about not dealing with the cause. If you are worried about them, stop supporting terrorists. That's what we think regarding the crisis. This is the core of the whole issue of refugees.
To see 1:49 minute interview, see original story, also linked to from the above image.
"If we ask any Syrian today about what they want, the first thing they would say - 'We want security and safety for every person and every family'," the Syrian president said, adding that political forces, whether inside or outside the government "should unite around what the Syrian people want."
The "Syrian fabric," as Assad has called it, includes people of many ethnicities and sects, including the Kurds. "They are not foreigners," the Syrian president said, adding that without such groups of people who have been living in the region for centuries "there wouldn't have been a homogeneous Syria."
Assad said that the dialogue in Syria should be continued "in order to reach the consensus," which cannot be implemented "unless we defeat the terrorism in Syria."
"If you want to implement anything real, it's impossible to do anything while you have people being killed, bloodletting hasn't stopped, people feel insecure," the Syrian president said.
"I would like to take this opportunity to call on all forces to unite against terrorism, because it is the way to achieve the political objectives which we, as Syrians, want through dialogue and political action," Bashar Assad said.
Read and watch the full version of the interview with President Bashar al-Assad interview on RT.com Live at 03:00 GMT (or 1:00PM 16 September in Australia's East or 11:00PM in Western Australia) on 16 September.
Read and watch the full version of the interview with President Bashar al-Assad interview on RT.com Live at 03:00 GMT (or 1:00PM 16 September in Australia's East or 11:00PM in Western Australia) on 16 September.
Question 1:Mr. President, thank you from the Russian media, from RT, from Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Channel 1, Russia 24, RIA Novosti, and NTV channel, for giving us all the opportunity to talk to you during this very critical phase of the crisis in Syria, where there are many questions that need to be addressed on where exactly the political process to achieve peace in Syria is heading, what's the latest developments on the fight against ISIL, and the status of the Russian and Syrian partnership, and of course the enormous exodus of Syrian refugees that has been dominating headlines in Europe.
Now, the crisis in Syria is entering its fifth year. You have defied all predictions by Western leaders that you would be ousted imminently, and continue to serve today as the President of the Syrian Arab Republic. Now, there has been a lot of speculation recently caused by reports that officials from your government met with officials from your adversary Saudi Arabia that caused speculation that the political process in Syria has entered a new phase, but then statements from Saudi Arabia that continue to insist on your departure suggest that in fact very little has changed despite the grave threat that groups like ISIL pose far beyond Syria's borders.
So, what is your position on the political process? How do you feel about power sharing and working with those groups in the opposition that continue to say publically that there can be no political solution in Syria unless that includes your immediate departure? Have they sent you any signal that they are willing to team up with you and your government? In addition to that, since the beginning of the crisis in Syria, many of those groups were calling to you to carry out reforms and political change. But is such change even possible now under the current circumstances with the war and the ongoing spread of terror in Syria?
President Assad: Let me first divide this question. It's a multi question in one question. The first part regarding the political process, since the beginning of the crisis we adopted the dialogue approach, and there were many rounds of dialogue between Syrians in Syria, in Moscow, and in Geneva. Actually, the only step that has been made or achieved was in Moscow 2, not in Geneva, not in Moscow 1, and actually it's a partial step, it's not a full step, and that's natural because it's a big crisis. You cannot achieve solutions in a few hours or a few days. It's a step forward, and we are waiting for Moscow 3. I think we need to continue the dialogue between the Syrian entities, political entities or political currents, in parallel with fighting terrorism in order to achieve or reach a consensus about the future of Syria. So, that's what we have to continue.
If I jump to the last part, because it's related to this one, is it possible to achieve anything taking into consideration the prevalence of terrorism in Syria and in Iraq and in the region in general? We have to continue dialogue in order to reach the consensus as I said, but if you want to implement anything real, it's impossible to do anything while you have people being killed, bloodletting hasn't stopped, people feel insecure. Let's say we sit together as Syrian political parties or powers and achieve a consensus regarding something in politics, in economy, in education, in health, in everything. How can we implement it if the priority of every single Syrian citizen is to be secure? So, we can achieve consensus, but we cannot implement unless we defeat the terrorism in Syria. We have to defeat terrorism, not only ISIS.
I'm talking about terrorism, because you have many organizations, mainly ISIS and al-Nusra that were announced as terrorist groups by the Security Council. So, this is regarding the political process. Sharing power, of course we already shared it with some part of the opposition that accepted to share it with us. A few years ago they joined the government. Although sharing power is related to the constitution, to the elections, mainly parliamentary elections, and of course representation of the Syrian people by those powers. But in spite of that, because of the crisis, we said let's share it now, let's do something, a step forward, no matter how effective.
Regarding the refugee crisis, I will say now that Western dealing in the Western propaganda recently, mainly during the last week, regardless of the accusation that those refugees are fleeing the Syrian government, but they call it regime, of course. Actually, it's like the West now is crying for the refugees with one eye and aiming at them with a machinegun with the second one, because actually those refugees left Syria because of the terrorism, mainly because of the terrorists and because of the killing, and second because of the results of terrorism. When you have terrorism, and you have the destruction of the infrastructure, you won't have the basic needs of living, so many people leave because of the terrorism and because they want to earn their living somewhere in this world.
So, the West is crying for them, and the West is supporting terrorists since the beginning of the crisis when it said that this was a peaceful uprising, when they said later it's moderate opposition, and now they say there is terrorism like al-Nusra and ISIS, but because of the Syrian state or the Syrian regime or the Syrian president. So, as long as they follow this propaganda, they will have more refugees. So, it's not about that Europe didn't accept them or embrace them as refugees, it's about not dealing with the cause. If you are worried about them, stop supporting terrorists. That's what we think regarding the crisis. This is the core of the whole issue of refugees.
Question 2:Mr. President, you touched on the subject of the internal Syrian opposition in your first answer; nevertheless, I would like to go back to that because it's very important for Russia. What should the internal opposition do in order to cooperate and coordinate with Syrian authorities to support them in battle… which is what they say they intend to do? How do you see the prospects for the Moscow-3 and Geneva-3 conferences? Will they be useful to Syria in the current situation?
President Assad: As you know, we are at war with terrorism, and this terrorism is supported by foreign powers. It means that we are in a state of complete war. I believe that any society and any patriotic individuals, and any parties which truly belong to the people should unite when there is a war against an enemy; whether that enemy is in the form of domestic terrorism or foreign terrorism. If we ask any Syrian today about what they want, the first thing they would say is: we want security and safety for every person and every family.
So we, as political forces, whether inside or outside the government, should unite around what the Syrian people want. That means we should first unite against terrorism. That is logical and self-evident. That's why I say that we have to unite now as political forces, or government, or as armed groups which fought against the government, in order to fight terrorism. This has actually happened.
There are forces fighting terrorism now alongside the Syrian state, which had previously fought against the Syrian state. We have made progress in this regard, but I would like to take this opportunity to call on all forces to unite against terrorism, because it is the way to achieve the political objectives which we, as Syrians, want through dialogue and political action.
Intervention:Concerning the Moscow-3 and Geneva-3 conferences; in your opinion, are there good prospects for them?
President Assad: The importance of Moscow-3 lies in the fact that it paves the way to Geneva-3, because the international sponsorship in Geneva was not neutral, while the Russian sponsorship is. It is not biased, and is based on international law and Security Council resolutions. Second, there are substantial differences around the ‘transitional body' item in Geneva. Moscow-3 is required to solve these problems between the different Syrian parties; and when we reach Geneva-3, it is ensured that there is a Syrian consensus which would enable it to succeed. We believe that it is difficult for Geneva-3 to succeed unless Moscow-3 does. That's why we support holding this round of negotiations in Moscow after preparations for the success of this round have been completed, particularly by the Russian officials.
Question 3:I would like to continue with the issue of international cooperation in order to solve the Syrian crisis. It's clear that Iran, since solving the nuclear issue, will play a more active role in regional affairs. How would you evaluate recent Iranian initiatives on reaching a settlement for the situation in Syria? And, in general, what is the importance of Tehran's support for you? Is there military support? And, if so, what form does it take?
President Assad: At present, there is no Iranian initiative. There are ideas or principles for an Iranian initiative based primarily on Syria's sovereignty, the decisions of the Syrian people and on fighting terrorism. The relationship between Syria and Iran is an old one. It is over three-and-a-half decades old. There is an alliance based on a great degree of trust. That's why we believe that the Iranian role is important. Iran supports Syria and the Syrian people. It stands with the Syrian state politically, economically and militarily. When we say militarily, it doesn't mean - as claimed by some in the Western media - that Iran has sent an army or armed forces to Syria. That is not true. It sends us military equipment, and of course there is an exchange of military experts between Syria and Iran. This has always been the case, and it is natural for this cooperation to grow between the two countries in a state of war. Yes, Iranian support has been essential to support Syria in its steadfastness in this difficult and ferocious war.
Question 4:Concerning regional factors and proponents, you recently talked about security coordination with Cairo in fighting terrorism, and that you are in the same battle line in this regard. How is your relationship with Cairo today given that it hosts some opposition groups? Do you have a direct relationship, or perhaps through the Russian mediator, particularly in light of the strategic relations between Russia and Egypt. President Sisi has become a welcome guest in Moscow today.
President Assad: Relations between Syria and Egypt have not ceased to exist even over the past few years, and even when the president was Mohammed Morsi, who is a member of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood organisation. Egyptian institutions insisted on maintaining a certain element of this relationship. First, because the Egyptian people are fully aware of what is happening in Syria, and second because the battle we are fighting is practically against the same enemy. This has now become clearer to everyone. Terrorism has spread in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, in other Arab countries, and in some Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and others. That's why I can say that there is joint vision between us and the Egyptians; but our relationship exists now on a security level. There are no political relations. I mean, there are no contacts between the Syrian Foreign Ministry and the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, for instance. Contacts are done on a security level only. We understand the pressures that might be applied on Egypt or on both Syria and Egypt so that they don't have a strong relationship. This relationship does not go, of course, through Moscow. As I said, this relationship has never ceased to exist, but we feel comfortable about improving relations between Russia and Egypt. At the same time, there is a good, strong and historical relation between Moscow and Damascus, so it is natural for Russia to feel comfortable for any positive development in relations between Syria and Egypt.
Question 5:Mr. President, allow me to go back to the question of fighting terrorism. How do you look at the idea of creating a region free of ISIS terrorists in the north of the country on the border with Turkey? In that context, what do you say about the indirect cooperation between the West and terrorist organizations like the al-Nusra Front and other extremist groups? And with whom are you willing to cooperate and fight against ISIS terrorists?
President Assad: To say that the border with Turkey should be free of terrorism means that terrorism is allowed in other regions. That is unacceptable. Terrorism should be eradicated everywhere; and we have been calling for three decades for an international coalition to fight terrorism. But as for Western cooperation with the al-Nusra Front, this is reality, because we know that Turkey supports al-Nusra and ISIS by providing them with arms, money and terrorist volunteers. And it is well-known that Turkey has close relations with the West. Erdogan and Davutoglu cannot make a single move without coordinating first with the United States and other Western countries. Al-Nusra and ISIS operate with such a force in the region under Western cover, because Western states have always believed that terrorism is a card they can pull from their pocket and use from time to time. Now, they want to use al-Nusra just against ISIS, maybe because ISIS is out of control one way or another. But that doesn't mean they want to eradicate ISIS. Had they wanted to do so, they would have been able to do that. For us, ISIS, al-Nusra, and all similar organizations which carry weapons and kill civilians are extremist organizations.
But who we conduct dialogue with is a very important question. From the start we said that we engage in dialogue with any party, if that dialogue leads to degrading terrorism and consequently achieve stability. This naturally includes the political powers, but there are also armed groups with whom we conducted dialogue and reached agreement in troubled areas which have become quiet now. In other areas, these armed groups joined the Syrian Army and are fighting by its side, and some of their members became martyrs. So we talk to everyone except organizations I mentioned like ISIS, al-Nusra, and other similar ones for the simple reason that these organizations base their doctrine on terrorism. They are ideological organizations and are not simply opposed to the state, as is the case with a number of armed groups. Their doctrine is based on terrorism, and consequently dialogue with such organizations cannot lead to any real result. We should fight and eradicate them completely and talking to them is absolutely futile.
Intervention:When talking about regional partners, with whom are you prepared to cooperate in fighting terrorism?
President Assad: Certainly with friendly countries, particularly Russia and Iran. Also we are cooperating with Iraq because it faces the same type of terrorism. As for other countries, we have no veto on any country provided that it has the will to fight terrorism and not as they are doing in what is called “the international coalition” led by the United States. In fact, since this coalition started to operate, ISIS has been expanding. In other words, the coalition has failed and has no real impact on the ground. At the same time, countries like Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Western countries which provide cover for terrorism like France, the United States, or others, cannot fight terrorism. You cannot be with and against terrorism at the same time. But if these countries decide to change their policies and realize that terrorism is like a scorpion, if you put it in your pocket, it will sting you. If that happens, we have no objection to cooperating with all these countries, provided it is a real and not a fake coalition to fight terrorism.
Question 6:What is the Syrian army's current condition? They've been fighting for over four years. Are they exhausted by the war, or become stronger as a result of engagement in military operations? And are there reserve forces to support them? I also have another important question: you said a large number of former adversaries have moved to your side and are fighting within the ranks of government forces. How many? And what is the extent of their help in the fight against extremist groups?
President Assad: Of course, war is bad. And any war is destructive, any war weakens any society and any army, no matter how strong or rich a country is. But things cannot be assessed this way. War is supposed to unite society against the enemy. The army becomes the most-important symbol for any society when there is aggression against the country. Society embraces the army, and provides it with all the necessary support, including human resources, volunteers, conscripts, in order to defend the homeland. At the same time, war provides a great deal of expertise to any armed forces practically and militarily. So, there are always positive and negative aspects. We cannot say that the army becomes weaker or stronger. But in return, this social embrace and support for the army provides it with volunteers. So, in answer to your question ‘are there reserves?'… yes, certainly, for without such reserves, the army wouldn't have been able to stand for four-and-a-half years in a very tough war, particularly since the enemy we fight today has an unlimited supply of people. We have terrorist fighters from over 80 or 90 countries today, so our enemy is enjoying enormous support in various countries, from where people come here to fight alongside the terrorists. As for the army, it's almost exclusively made of Syrians. So, we have reserve forces, and this is what enables us to carry on. There is also determination. We have reserves not only in terms of human power, but in will as well. We are more determined than ever before to fight and defend our country against terrorists. This is what led some fighters who used to fight against the state at the beginning for varying reasons, discovered they were wrong and decided to join the state. Now they are fighting battles along with the army, and some have actually joined as regular soldiers. Some have kept their weapons, but they are fighting in groups alongside the armed forces in different parts of Syria.
Question 7:Mr. President, Russia has been fighting terrorism for 20 years, and we have seen its different manifestations. It now seems you are fighting it head on. In general, the world is witnessing a new form of terrorism. In the regions occupied by ISIS, they are setting up courts and administrations, and there are reports that it intends to mint its own currency. They are constructing what looks like a state. This in itself might attract new supporters from different countries. Can you explain to us whom are you fighting? Is it a large group of terrorists or is it a new state which intends to radically redraw regional and global borders? What is ISIS today?
President Assad: Of course, the terrorist ISIS groups tried to give the semblance of a state, as you said, in order to attract more volunteers who live on the dreams of the past: that there was an Islamic state acting for the sake of religion. That ideal is unreal. It is deceptive. But no state can suddenly bring a new form to any society. The state should be the product of its society. It should be the natural evolution of that society, to express it. In the end, a state should be a projection of its society. You cannot bring about a state which has a different form and implant it in a society. Here we ask the question: does ISIS, or what they call ‘Islamic State', have any semblance to Syrian society? Certainly not.
Of course we have terrorist groups, but they are not an expression of society. In Russia, you have terrorist groups today, but they do not project Russian society, nor do they have any semblance to the open and diverse Russian society. That's why if they tried to mint a currency or have stamps or passports, or have all these forms which indicate the existence of a state, it doesn't mean they actually exist as a state; first because they are different from the people and, second, because people in those regions flee towards the real state, the Syrian state, the national state. Sometimes they fight them too. A very small minority believes these lies. They are certainly not a state, they are a terrorist group. But if we want to ask about who they are, let's speak frankly: They are the third phase of the political or ideological poisons produced by the West, aimed at achieving political objectives. The first phase was the Muslim Brotherhood at the turn of the last century. The second phase was al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in order to fight the Soviet Union. And the third phase is ISIS, the al-Nusra Front and these groups. Who are ISIS? And who are these groups? They are simply extremist products of the West.
Question 8:Mr. President, at the beginning of the Syrian crisis, the Kurdish issue started to be discussed more often. Previously, Damascus was severely criticized because of its position towards the Kurdish minority. But now, practically, in some areas, Kurdish formations are your allies in the fight against ISIS. Do you have a specific position towards who the Kurds are to you and who you are to them?
President Assad: First, you cannot say there was a certain state policy concerning the Kurds. A state cannot discriminate between members of its population; otherwise, it creates division in the country. If we had been discriminating between different components of society, the majority of these components wouldn't have supported the state now, and the country would have disintegrated from the very beginning. For us, the Kurds are part of the Syrian fabric. They are not foreigners - they live in this region like the Arabs, Circassians, Armenians and many other ethnicities and sects who've been living in Syria for many centuries. It's not known when some of them came to this region. Without these groups, there wouldn't have been a homogenous Syria. So, are they our allies today? No, they are patriotic people. But on the other hand, you cannot put all the Kurds in one category. Like any other Syrian component, there are different currents among them. They belong to different parties. There are those on the left and those on the right. There are tribes, and there are different groups. So, it is not objective to talk about the Kurds as one mass.
There are certain Kurdish demands expressed by some parties, but there are no Kurdish demands for the Kurds. There are Kurds who are integrated fully into society; and I would like to stress that they are not allies at this stage, as some people would like to show. I would like to stress that they are not just allies at this stage, as some suggest. There are many fallen Kurdish soldiers who fought with the army, which means they are an integral part of society. But there are parties which had certain demands, and we addressed some at the beginning of the crisis. There are other demands which have nothing to do with the state, and which the state cannot address. There are things which would relate to the entire population, to the constitution, and the people should endorse these demands before a decision can be taken by the state. In any case, anything proposed should be in the national framework. That's why I say that we are with the Kurds, and with other components, all of us in alliance to fight terrorism.
This is what I talked about a while ago: that we should unite in order to fight ISIS. After we defeat ISIS, al-Nusra and the terrorists, the Kurdish demands expressed by certain parties can be discussed nationally. There's no problem with that, we do not have a veto on any demand as long as it is within the framework of Syria's unity and the unity of the Syrian people and territory, fighting terrorism, Syrian diversity, and the freedom of this diversity in its ethnic, national, sectarian, and religious sense.
Question 9:Mr. President, you partially answered this question, but I would like a more-precise answer, because some Kurdish forces in Syria call for amending the constitution. For instance, setting up a local administration and moving towards autonomy in the north. These statements are becoming more frequent now that the Kurds are fighting ISIS with a certain degree of success. Do you agree with such statements that the Kurds can bet on some kind of gratitude? Is it up for discussion?
President Assad: When we defend our country, we do not ask people to thank us. It is our natural duty to defend our country. If they deserve thanks, then every Syrian citizen defending their country deserves as much. But I believe that defending one's country is a duty, and when you carry out your duty, you don't need thanks. But what you have said is related to the Syrian constitution. Today, if you want to change the existing structure in your country, in Russia for instance, let's say to redraw the borders of the republics, or give one republic powers different to those given to other republics - this has nothing to do with the president or the government. This has to do with the constitution.
The president does not own the constitution and the government does not own the constitution. Only the people own the constitution, and consequently changing the constitution means national dialogue. For us, we don't have a problem with any demand. As a state, we do not have any objection to these issues as long as they do not infringe upon Syria's unity and diversity and the freedom of its citizens.
But if there are certain groups or sections in Syria which have certain demands, these demands should be in the national framework, and in dialogue with the Syrian political forces. When the Syrian people agree on taking steps of this kind, which have to do with federalism, autonomy, decentralization or changing the whole political system, this needs to be agreed upon by the Syrian people, and consequently amending the constitution. This is why these groups need to convince the Syrian people of their proposals. In that respect, they are not in dialogue with the state, but rather with the people. When the Syrian people decide to move in a certain direction, and to approve a certain step, we will naturally approve it.
Question 10:Now, the U.S.-led coalition has been carrying out airstrikes on Syrian territory for about one year on the same areas that the Syrian Air Force is also striking ISIL targets, yet there hasn't been a single incident of the U.S.-led coalition and the Syrian Air Force activity clashing with one another. Is there any direct or indirect coordination between your government and the U.S. coalition in the fight against ISIL?
President Assad: You'd be surprised if I say no. I can tell you that my answer will be not realistic, to say now, while we are fighting the same, let's say enemy, while we're attacking the same target in the same area without any coordination and at the same time without any conflict. And actually this is strange, but this is reality. There's not a single coordination or contact between the Syrian government and the United States government or between the Syrian army and the U.S. army. This is because they cannot confess, they cannot accept the reality that we are the only power fighting ISIS on the ground. For them, maybe, if they deal or cooperate with the Syrian Army, this is like a recognition of our effectiveness in fighting ISIS. This is part of the willful blindness of the U.S. administration, unfortunately.
Question 11:So not event indirectly though, for example the Kurds? Because we know the U.S. is working with the Kurds, and the Kurds have some contacts with the Syrian government. So, not even any indirect coordination?
President Assad: Not even any third party, including the Iraqis, because before they started the attacks, they let us know through the Iraqis. Since then, not a single message or contact through any other party.
Question 12:Ok, so just a little bit further than that. You've lived in the West, and you, at one time, moved in some of those circles with some Western leaders that since the beginning of the crisis have been backing armed groups who are fighting to see you overthrown. How do you feel about one day working again with those very same Western leaders, perhaps shaking hands with them? Would you ever be able to trust them again?
President Assad: First, it's not a personal relation; it's a relation between states, and when you talk about relation between states, you don't talk about trust; you talk about mechanism. So, trust is a very personal thing you cannot depend on in political relations between, let's say, people. I mean, you are responsible for, for example in Syria, for 23 million, and let's say in another country for tens of millions. You cannot put the fate of those tens of millions or maybe hundreds of millions on the trust of a single person, or two persons in two countries. So, there must be a mechanism. When you have a mechanism, you can talk about trust in a different way, not a personal way. This is first.
Second, the main mission of any politician, or any government, president, prime minister, it doesn't matter, is to work for the interest of his people and the interest of his country. If any meeting or any handshaking with anyone in the world will bring benefit to the Syrian people, I have to do it, whether I like it or not. So, it's not about me, I accept it or I like it or whatever; it's about what the added value of this step that you're going to take. So yes, we are ready whenever there's the interest of the Syrians. I will do it, whatever it is.
Question 13:Regarding alliances in the fight against terrorism and ISIS, President Putin called for a regional alliance to fight the so-called ‘Islamic State'; and the recent visits of Arab officials to Moscow fall into that context, but Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said that would need a miracle. We are talking here about security coordination, as described by Damascus, with the governments of Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. How do you envisage that alliance? Will it achieve any results, in your opinion? You said that any relationship is based on interests, so are you willing to coordinate with these countries, and what is the truth behind the meetings held between Syrian, and maybe Saudi, officials as reported by the media?
President Assad: As for fighting terrorism, this is a big and comprehensive issue which includes cultural and economic aspects. It obviously has security and military aspects as well. In terms of prevention, all the other aspects are more important than the security and military ones, but today, in the reality we now live in terms of fighting terrorism, we are not facing terrorist groups, we are facing terrorist armies equipped with light, medium and heavy weaponry. They have billions of dollars to recruit volunteers. The military and security aspects should be given priority at this stage. So, we think this alliance should act in different areas, but to fight on the ground first. Naturally, this alliance should consist of states which believe in fighting terrorism and believe that their natural position should be against terrorism.
In the current state of affairs, the person supporting terrorism cannot be the same person fighting terrorism. This is what these states are doing now. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan, who pretend to be part of a coalition against terrorism in northern Syria, actually support terrorism in the south, the north and the north-west, virtually in the same regions in which they are supposed to be fighting terrorism. Once again I say that, within the framework of public interest, if these states decide to go back to the right position, to return to their senses and fight terrorism, naturally we will accept and cooperate with them and with others. We do not have a veto and we do not stick to the past. Politics change all the time. It might change from bad to good, and the ally might become an adversary, and the adversary an ally. This is normal. When they fight against terrorism, we will cooperate with them.
Question 14:Mr. President, there is a huge wave of refugees, largely from Syria, going to Europe. Some say these people are practically lost to Syria. They are deeply unhappy with the Syrian authorities because they haven't been able to protect them and they've had to leave their homes. How do you view those people? Do you see them as part of the Syrian electorate in the future? Do you expect them to return? And the second question has to do with the European sense of guilt about the displacement happening now. Do you think that Europe should feel guilty?
President Assad: Any person who leaves Syria constitutes a loss to the homeland, to be sure, regardless of the position or capabilities of that person. This, of course, does not include terrorists. It includes all citizens in general with the exception of terrorists. So, yes, there is a great loss as a result of emigration. You raised a question on elections. Last year, we had a presidential election in Syria, and there were many refugees in different countries, particularly in Lebanon. According to Western propaganda, they had fled the state, the oppression of the state and the killing of the state, and they are supposed to be enemies of the state. But the surprise for Westerners was that most of them voted for the president who is supposed to be killing them. That was a great blow to Western propaganda. Of course, voting has certain conditions. There should be an embassy, and to have the custodianship of the Syrian state in the voting process. That depends on relations between the states. Many countries have severed relations with Syria and closed Syrian embassies, and consequently Syrian citizens cannot vote in those countries. They have to go to other countries where ballot boxes are installed, and that did happen last year.
As for Europe, of course it's guilty. Today, Europe is trying to say that Europe feels guilty because it hasn't given money or hasn't allowed these people to immigrate legally, and that's why they came across the sea and drowned. We are sad for every innocent victim, but is the victim who drowns in the sea dearer to us than the victim killed in Syria? Are they dearer than innocent people whose heads are cut off by terrorists? Can you feel sad for a child's death in the sea and not for thousands of children who have been killed by the terrorists in Syria? And also for men, women, and the elderly? These European double standards are no longer acceptable. They have been flagrantly exposed. It doesn't make sense to feel sad for the death of certain people and not for deaths of others. The principles are the same. So Europe is responsible because it supported terrorism, as I said a short while ago, and is still supporting terrorism and providing cover for them. It still calls them ‘moderate' and categorizes them into groups, even though all these groups in Syria are extremists.
Question 15:If you don't mind, I would like to go back to the question about Syria's political future. Mr. President, your opponents, whether fighting against the authorities with weapons or your political opponents, still insist that one of the most-important conditions for peace is your departure from political life and as president. What do you think about that - as president and as a Syrian citizen? Are you theoretically prepared for that if you feel it's necessary?
President Assad: In addition to what you say, Western propaganda has, from the very beginning, been about the cause of the problem being the president. Why? Because they want to portray the whole problem in Syria lies in one individual; and consequently the natural reaction for many people is that, if the problem lies in one individual, that individual should not be more important than the entire homeland. So let that individual go and things will be alright. That's how they oversimplify things in the West. What's happening in Syria, in this regard, is similar to what happened in your case. Notice what happened in the Western media since the coup in Ukraine. What happened? President Putin was transformed from a friend of the West to a foe and, yet again, he was characterized as a tsar. He is portrayed as a dictator suppressing opposition in Russia, and that he came to power through undemocratic means, despite the fact that he was elected in democratic elections, and the West itself acknowledged that the elections were democratic. Now, it is no longer democratic. This is Western propaganda. They say that if the president went things will get better. What does that mean, practically? For the West, it means that as long as you are there, we will continue to support terrorism, because the Western principle followed now in Syria and Russia and other countries is changing presidents, changing states, or what they call bringing regimes down. Why? Because they do not accept partners and do not accept independent states. What is their problem with Russia? What is their problem with Syria? What is their problem with Iran? They are all independent countries. They want a certain individual to go and be replaced by someone who acts in their interests and not in the interest of his country. For us, the president comes through the people and through elections and, if he goes, he goes through the people. He doesn't go as a result of an American decision, a Security Council decision, the Geneva conference or the Geneva communiqué. If the people want him to stay, he should stay; and if the people reject him, he should leave immediately. This is the principle according to which I look at this issue.
Question 16:Military operations have been ongoing for more than four years. It's likely that you analyze things and review matters often. In your opinion, was there a crucial juncture when you realized war was unavoidable? And who initiated that war machinery? The influence of Washington or your Middle East neighbours? Or were there mistakes on your part? Are there things you regret? And if you had the opportunity to go back, would you change them?
President Assad: In every state, there are mistakes, and mistakes might be made every day, but these mistakes do not constitute a crucial juncture because they are always there. So what is it that makes these mistakes suddenly lead to the situation we are living in Syria today? It doesn't make sense. You might be surprised if I tell that the crucial juncture in what happened in Syria is something that many people wouldn't even think of. It was the Iraq war in 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq. We were strongly opposed to that invasion, because we knew that things were moving in the direction of dividing societies and creating unrest. And we are Iraq's neighbours. At that time, we saw that the war would turn Iraq into a sectarian country; into a society divided against itself. To the west of Syria there is another sectarian country - Lebanon. We are in the middle. We knew well that we would be affected. Consequently, the beginning of the Syrian crisis, or what happened in the beginning, was the natural result of that war and the sectarian situation in Iraq, part of which moved to Syria, and it was easy for them to incite some Syrian groups on sectarian grounds.
The second point, which might be less crucial, is that when the West adopted terrorism officially in Afghanistan in the early 1980s and called terrorists at that time ‘freedom fighters', and then in 2006 when Islamic State appeared in Iraq under American sponsorship and they didn't fight it. All these things together created the conditions for the unrest with Western support and Gulf money, particularly form Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and with Turkish logistic support, particularly since President Erdogan belongs intellectually to the Muslim Brotherhood. Consequently, he believes that, if the situation changed in Syria, Egypt, and Iraq, it means the creation of a new sultanate; not an Ottoman sultanate this time, but a sultanate for the Brotherhood extending from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean and ruled by Erdogan. All these factors together brought things to what we have today. Once again, I say that there were mistakes, and mistakes always create gaps and weak points, but they are not sufficient to cause that alone, and they do not justify what happened. And if these gaps and weak points are the cause, why didn't they lead to revolutions in the Gulf states - particularly in Saudi Arabia which doesn't know anything about democracy? The answer is self-evident, I believe.
Mr. President, thank you for giving us the time and for your detailed answers to our questions. We know that in September you have your golden jubilee, your 50th birthday. Probably the best wishes in the current circumstances would be the return of peace and safety to your country as soon as possible. Thank you.
Afshin Rattansi goes underground with the world's most wanted publisher - the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange. He has just co-authored a book - the WikiLeaks Files, and it paints a picture of systemic US torture and killing as well as the destruction of the lives and livelihoods of billions of people right around the world.
Damascus, SANA- Under the patronage of President Bashar al-Assad, activities of the #ac193d">International Trade Union Conference (ITUC) in solidarity with workers and people of Syria against terrorism, blockades and economic sanctions kicked off Sunday at Sahara hotel in Damascus. #ac193d"> The two day conference, organized by the General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU) in Syria in cooperation with World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) and International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions (ICATU), includes sessions discussing terrorism and its threats on the working sector and people in addition to the means of fighting it alongside with blockades and economic sanctions imposed against some peoples.
In a speech during the opening of the Conference, Assistant Regional Secretary of al-Baath Arab Socialist Party Hilal al-Hilal said “Holding the conference under the patronage of President al-Assad reflects the importance of bringing????? 2 elite members of the trade unions together in Damascus, the beating heart of Arabism, and President Bashar al-Assad’s keenness on making this event a success.”
Al-Hilal highlighted the importance of the conference which shows that the Syrian people are not facing terrorism alone as they have been supported by the trade unions which are one of the most qualified social segments that are eligible to play this role and they are one of the most important national axes that play a significant role in achieving political stability of societies.
He added that the Syrian people are feeling today that they are left alone in face of a danger that does not only threaten them, but threatens the entire world.
He affirmed that the war launched against Syria is very different from any other wars as it is a war launched by mercenary groups backed by some countries and an economic war coupled by an unjust political, diplomatic and economic siege as well as a media war.
Regarding the migration crisis, al-Hilal said that it is part of the results of the war against Syria in which most of the European countries participated, indicating that the biggest number of Syrian migrants have been displaced by terrorists. “Europe’s approach to the refugees’ issue shows discrepancy between its economic interests and its racial feelings,”al-Hilal said, adding that despite of the fact that the European media focuses on the Syrians, yet the same statistics show that the Syrians represent only 25 percent of the total number of refugees.
He added that one of the most important results of the war against Syria is the phenomenon of political mercenary the “hotels’ opposition” that has opened the door wide for some rulers such as Erdogan to express their psychological diseases depending on terrorists to realize their illusions.
On the reasons of targeting Syria, al-Hilal indicated that they wanted to destroy Syria because it has proven that it can achieve the independence of its decision and has always supported just causes, on top the Palestinian cause, in addition to its standing in the face of racism, Zionism, and the reactionary and Takfiri mentalities and its calling for establishing a world where peace, international law and coexistence prevail.
“We are side by side with Iraq and Egypt in facing terrorism and in asserting the national independence and protecting the pan-Arab security,” al-Hilal said, calling for forming an Arab and international counter-terrorism alliance.
Al-Hilal reiterated confidence in Syria’s victory thanks to the resilience of its people and its unbowed army and leader who only listens to the voice of his people and who usually affirms that Syria will not give up any inch of its territories.
Al-Hilal concluded by saluting the personnel of the armed forces and Syrian workers and their union, wishing that the conference will achieve the hopes and aspirations of the workers and the nations on building a new world that is free of terrorism and hegemony.
For his part, Chairman of GFTU Jamal al-Qadiri asserted that the conference is a chance for the participants and representatives of many countries to see the true image of what is happening in Syria and convey it to their peoples. The participants, al-Qadiri added, are due to discuss the issue of terrorism that Syria is facing, pointing out that the Syrian model had laid bare the reality of some Arab countries’ retardation
He called for unifying efforts to defend the human right to life, security, stability, progress and to face the extremist powers, reiterating that the “Syrian workers reiterate their loyalty to the homeland and its sovereignty, and independence and their adherence to their army and principles.”
General Secretary of ICATU Rajab Ma’atouq said that the international community and the Western countries, despite all what Syria has experienced at the hands of terrorist organizations, are still supporting all forms of terrorism.
Ma’atouq indicated that the fierce war launched against Syria aims at destroying it like what happened in other Arab countries to implement the project of the so-called “Creative Chaos” in the Arab world in an attempt to divide it and redraw its map in a way that meets their interests and ensures the security of the Zionist entity after destroying the resistance powers in the Arab countries and liquidating the Palestinian cause.
For his part, WFTU Secretary General George Mavrikos called for stopping the external intervention in Syria and lifting the siege and the unjust sanctions imposed against the Syrian people.
He asserted that the WFTU participation in the conference aims at expressing solidarity with the Syrian people and workers who have been targeted by the imperialism and its terrorism for about five years.
#ac193d">He affirmed that the WFTU has stood by Syria since the very beginning of the systematic crisis, and clearly said that there are terrorists and mercenaries in Syria who are trying to destabilize the country and its people in the interest of the US and the European Union as the WFTU has supported the Syrian people and worked on conveying a true image about what is taking place.
#ac193d">He strongly condemned the policies of intervention adopted by the US administration and the governments of the EU member states who are seeking to undermine the freedom of choice of the Syrian people to usurp their resources.
He concluded by expressing solidarity with the immigrants and refugees who are “looking for a better future,” wondering at exploiting the refugees by the European governments and who treat them as modern slaves.”
He called for stopping all forms of discrimination against the immigrants and the refugees.
#ac193d">More than 250 union figures and representatives of 100 Arab and international union organizations from 29 Arab and foreign countries are taking part in the conference.
Listen to this radio interview with Mother Agnes-Mariam entitled, "Syrian Refugee Crisis Caused by Western Provocation." Recorded on September 7th, 2015. The featured guest is a Christian Palestinian nun stationed in Syria for last 20 years. She exposed the US/Allies/NATO hoax that Syria had chemical WMDs and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2014.
Mother Agnes-Mariam describes what caused the Syrian refugee crisis and the necessity of healing the problem at the root. She tells Europe to look into their conscience and determine how their interference provoked displacement.
The Western powers have created a lawless intervention that denies the sovereignty of Syria. Sister Agnes asks Canadians to consider how they would feel if their powerful neighbor intervened in their country in the same way. She also addresses Pope Francis' words, the Russia and Saudi Arabia dialog, and the thinking and role of the Syrian army upon whom the people call for protection. She ends with her advice to Canada, Great Britain and the US
regarding how to stop the refugee crisis. [Click HERE for the audio file]
Kangaroos won! Please share. Thanks to everyone who emailed Californian Senators. You joined up to 100,000 people around the world who signed petitions and contacted the Senators directly. The main use - or abuse - of wild kangaroos in California is for the manufacture of soccer cleats!
Keep an eye on the Kangroos at risk website www.kangaroosatrisk.org for more pages going up soon about ecology, surveys and the industry.
Thanks to Jennifer Fearing
Brilliant work by the amazing Californian lobbyist Jennifer Fearing, Kangaroos at Risk partner US team Humane Society US and CA, and the wonderful Australian organisations who co-signed letters to Californian senators and put out the call via their networks. It’s been an inspiring win.
Helen Bergen Bathurst NSW Australia +61 (0)423 405 993 Kangaroos at Risk science & research
By Maria Leonila Masculino, Sep 09, 2015 11:14 PM EDT
In 2007, the California government has exempted the bill prohibiting the sale of kangaroo products imported from Australia. As the extended exemption ends on December 31st, lobbyists and lawmakers hired by the Australian government and manufacturers are calling to extend or repeal the prohibition.
California is currently the world's largest market for soccer cleats - with many of these made with kangaroo leather. The growing sale of kangaroo skin as shoes didn't happen if it weren't for the aggressive lobbying of Adidas, the Australian government and the kangaroo meat and skin industry in 2007 and 2010 - repealing for the prohibition which was upheld by the California Supreme Court in 1970.
California assemblyman Mike Gipson of Los Angeles has recently proposed a last-minute bill known as "gut and amend" to step-aside from the wildlife protection law. This came after the freshman lawmaker was courted by Australians.
"The Australian government have, as well as other people, approached me around this particular measure," Gipson said. "We have seen members of the Australian Consulate lobbying alongside these paid lobbyists in the building last week. People should be concerned about a foreign government's influence here that's not being disclosed to their people or ours."
According to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), kangaroos are "the world's largest wildlife slaughter" - threatening the population of the said species.
The Dodo reports that in the Australian states of Queensland and Western Australia, 2014 surveys show massive declines in the kangaroo population of up to 50%. Hunters have killed over 130,000 female kangaroos last year. As a result, tens of thousands of joeys have been abandoned and killed.
"I think everything about this stinks," said Jennifer Fearing of the HSUS. "I think it's all meant to be cloaked in secrecy and obfuscate a real conversation."
The Australian government reportedly paid $143,000 to lobbyists and lawmakers to activate the debate including $1,000 to Gipson.
The former head of the Australian Defence Force, Retired General Peter Gration, has signed an open letter to the Prime Minister opposing bombing raids in Syria. The open letter suggests bombing IS targets could strengthen the organisation and divide the Australian community, while increasing refugees and civilian casualties.
DAVID MARK: The former head of the Australian Defence Force, retired General Peter Gration, has signed an open letter to the Prime Minister Tony Abbott, opposing bombing raids in Syria.
Australia is considering a request by the US to join its bombing campaign against the so-called Islamic State in Syria.
The open letter suggests bombing IS targets could strengthen the organisation and divide the Australian community.
I spoke to retired General Peter Gration a short time ago.
PETER GRATION: The central issue is that I believe this would be a strategically bad decision; in fact I would call is strategically dumb and I can give you the reasons for this.
To commit us to what is complex and confused war with a century's old religious conflict between the Sunnis and the Shias, the underlying issue, I think is really inviting disaster.
The second point is that the Americans have already been doing extensive air strikes for some months, and it hasn't stopped IS, and if we add our contribution to this it would be at best, a marginal increase and I think the inevitable thing, if we are seeking some sort of victory there, is that the conflict would have to escalate to get ground operations into Syria.
And, if we're already committed to air strikes, we would be part of that escalation.
DAVID MARK: Is that why you say it would be inviting disaster, because the natural conclusion would be a ground war?
PETER GRATION: Yeah, if we want to win, whatever that means in Syria, I think it's essential that, eventually there has to be ground operations and we would be drawn into that.
DAVID MARK: The Prime Minister, as you know, refers to IS as a death cult and he says they've committed some appalling atrocities and that we have a moral obligation to stop them. So how would you respond to him?
PETER GRATION: I think there's no doubt that IS have committed atrocities and altogether a very bad lot, but conceding that fact, that in itself is not an issue requiring Australian contribution halfway around the world, and I think the balance off between a moral imperative to do something about IS and the downside for Australia, the downside is much stronger.
The humanitarian issue is a significant one. If we escalate the air war, there are undoubtedly going to more civilian casualties; there'll be more refugees generated; there'll be more infrastructure damage, and eventually getting Syria back on its feet will be quite difficult.
DAVID MARK: We heard just the other day that the former commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, David Petraeus said Australia should join the campaign. He said there would be a military advantage in bombing IS targets in Syria.
How can it be that a former general of such high standing has got it wrong?
PETER GRATION: Ah well, it's a matter of opinion. I'd just point to the fact that the Americans have been having, been carrying out air strikes now for some months and it certainly hasn't produced any decisive effect.
DAVID MARK: Your letter to the Prime Minister also cites potential legal issues. What are they?
PETER GRATION: There are two things: first of all there is no direct threat form IS to Australia and secondly there is no UN cover for that particular operation.
I believe that will give them a strong indication that it would be illegal.
DAVID MARK: The Government might take issue with you about that issue of whether the IS poses any direct threat to Australia; they might argue that it does.
PETER GRATION: Yeah, I'm aware of that. What I think they're talking about is that IS will urge Muslims in Australia to carry out more terrorist acts, but the scale and the likely outcome of that is minute compared to the effort that we are contemplating putting into Syria.
DAVID MARK: We heard on AM this morning, General Gration, that there is evidence that civilians may have been exposed to Australian bombing raids in Iraq. If the Australian Air Force did take part in bombing raids in Syria, would they be adequately able to investigate any potential civilian casualties?
PETER GRATION: Ah well, it would be very difficult unless we were on the ground in Syria. It would be more difficult than it is in Iraq but I'm sure they would do their level best to carry, to do proper investigations.
DAVID MARK: General Gration, as a former commander of the Australian Defence Forces, do you expect the Federal Government will listen to your counsel?
PETER GRATION: Well, I do hope they listen and I do hope they listen to the points that we're making, but I'm not terribly confident.
I think there are some indications that the Prime Minister's mind is already made up, but I do urge the Prime Minister and the Government to consider these issues.
DAVID MARK: General Gration, we're seeing a humanitarian crisis in Europe at the moment as asylum seekers flee Syria and other countries in the region. Would bombing raids on IS targets in Syria have any effect on that exodus?
PETER GRATION: I think the only effect it could have would be to increase it. If we step up, increase air strikes, it will not only generate more casualties inside Syria, but will increase the flow of refugees from Syria outwards, to Europe. I can't see any other way it could happen.
DAVID MARK: Retired General Peter Gration, was the Commander of the Australian Defence Force from 1987 to 1993.
Senator Ludlam has called for War Powers reform and the obligation that all decisions on war involvement must be taken only in consultation with parliament. David Macilwain argues that the matter of Australian intervening militarily in Syria without Syria's permission should be pursued in the Senate and with the attorney general, George Brandis, because it is in breech of international law.
Letter to Senator Ludlam, Fri, Sep 11, 2015
Dear Senator Ludlam,
Last week on behalf of AMRIS the attached media release was sent to all MPs and media; my apologies if you have already seen and read it.
I am writing because I just saw a video of part of your speech on Thursday, echoing Melissa Parke’s call for War Powers reform and the obligation that all decisions on war involvement must be taken only in consultation with parliament.
As you point out of course, in this case such consultation would have led nowhere, because the Labor opposition has no problem with the government’s military deployment and submission to US authority. I would suggest therefore, that the matter – of what is quite clearly a breach of international law, for which their must be consequences – should be pursued in the senate and with the attorney general George Brandis.
While Brandis laid out the supposed justification for breaching Syria’s sovereignty on the spurious and irrelevant basis of ‘collective self-defence’, in an article in Thursday’s Australian, this seems no different from the advice received from Lord Goldsmith in 2003 that the attack on Iraq was justified. (even had there been WMD it is hard to see how such an act of aggression against a sovereign state by a country not sharing any border with it could have been ‘legal’.
It is not too late to pursue this, because Australia may be brought before the ICC for its infringements when they lead to culpable casualties of Syrians. The idea that somehow the North East of Syria where we intend to confine our military is ‘ungoverned space’ has already been dramatically exposed as nonsense by this report from Deir Al Zour. Leith Fadel of Almasdar news is quite reliable, and he reports how the Syrian army and air-force have repelled an attempted attack on Deir al Zour airbase, killing up to 100 IS fighters. Deir al Zour of course is on the Euphrates, and in a direct line between Anbar and Raqqa, in the area that Australia intends to deploy its fighter jets. It is easy to see the possibility that an Australian missile could hit a Syrian army platoon or vehicle if they are in close combat with IS. Such a strike would have consequences.
I hope that you will keep pursuing this matter with supportive colleagues. Australia can make a decision at any time to start cooperating with the Syrian government, if it is truly serious about stopping the terrorist groups, but otherwise we should immediately withdraw our support for the US coalition’s dirty little war and its terrorist ‘boots on the ground’.
This is a letter written to the Second secretary at the Russian Embassy in Canberra, Alexander Odoevsky, subsequent to his interview on ABC Insiders, about the biased representation of the Syrian Government and related matters by Australia's ABC.
The Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, is pushing long-refuted lies about Syria as she speculates where she and her colleagues might find a replacement for Assad, without the slightest suggestion of irony or 'elections'. Article first published in Russian Insider at 
ALEPPO, SYRIA, October 5, 2015: I hesitated about sending this information, as it's only a little detail in a huge long conflict. Then I thought it was better to share such photos, the ones you never see in the daily propaganda against Syria and its people and government, who are facing such random attacks daily. I also talk about how Syrians seem to feel about Russia coming to help defend us against the terrorists.
Regime change PR: Your guide to Western-sponsored propaganda in Syria “Propaganda is the spreading of information in support of a cause. It’s not so important whether the information is true or false or if the cause is just or not — it’s all propaganda.” “The word, propaganda is often used in a negative sense, especially for politicians who make false claims to get elected or spread rumours to instigate regime change [sic]. In fact, any campaign that is used to persuade can be called 
Following Russia’s intervention to help the Syrian army on Wednesday 30 September, there was a report on the World Today by Barney Porter (who also produces the program). It left an awful lot to be desired, not all of which could be blamed on Porter and his choice of interviewees. He only allowed Kerry to describe his own delusion that ‘Assad only controls 25% of the country’ – ( so Russia is backing a loser..). But of course the whole tone of the report was anti-Russian and Anti-Putin.
Today October 2, 2015, there was another report from Barney on the World Today, which wasn’t a huge lot different. I have noticed in the past that he often speaks to half a dozen people – but of course they still all sit on the same side of the fence. There continues to be a stunning lack of different viewpoints in the Western media sphere, think-tanks and commentators.
Julian Assange and other whistleblowers including Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, have revealed much of what we now know about how and why America, Israel, Australia and their allies have waged bloody wars against the peoples of the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe. As a result of these wars several millions have died since 1990. If the US-NATO aligned powers can get their way, they intend much of the same for the people of Latin America, Russia and East Asia. On these and related issues, the Wheeler Centre conducted a superb interview with Assange tonight 30 September 2015 and there seems to be a podcast there at 
Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Monday and said sadly that the West was making an "enormous mistake" by not cooperating with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the struggle against ISIS. With regard to US-NATO conduct in Middle Eastern affairs he said,“I cannot help asking those who have caused this situation: Do you realize now what you have done? [...] "[...]It is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including the process of trafficking and illicit trade in oil and arms. It would be equally irresponsible to try to manipulate extremist groups and place them at one's service in order to achieve one's own political goals in the hope of later dealing with them or, in other words, liquidating them. To those who do so, I would like to say — dear sirs, no doubt you are dealing with rough and cruel people, but they're in no way primitive or silly. They are just as clever as you are, and you never know who is manipulating whom. And the recent data on arms transferred to this most moderate opposition is the best proof of it."
The Syrian Network for Human Rights and Irin both purport to be disinterested information sources on conflict in Syria and boast that the UN relies on them as its primary source. But they are not disinterested. There is abundant evidence that they promote the 'rebel' or terrorist side of the conflict and that their funding is from organisations and countries aligned with US-NATO support for aggression in the region. They are in fact promoting war propaganda against Syria and it is amazing that people one would expect to be more discerning, take this on face value. In this article I try to find out why Tim Costello, of World Vision, came to accuse the Syrian government of killing more people than ISIS without taking into account that these deeds were actions by a national army defending its people from multiple assaults by violent gangs, including ISIS, many of them supported by US-NATO funding and arms.
QandA, the very popular Australian TV program on public television, on 14 September 2015, dealt with the question of bombing ISIS in Syria without the Syrian government’s permission, supposedly at the invitation of Syria’s neighbour Iraq asking for help. (
This article is the text of a speech by Sheila Newman about how Kennett Government policies pushed up population growth in Victoria and Australia. Whilst many people remained for a long time under the impression that immigration numbers were a Federal domain, he began the practise of using regional migration definitions to attract people to urban Melbourne. He also de-toothed Victorian industrial law, affecting wages, condition and enforcement. The new interpretation of regional migration was adapted by other States and territories. Kennett's attack on Victorian industrial laws would ultimately pave the way for Workchoices and a much less effective system for ensuring that imported workers were not paid less than Australians, creating a new pull-factor in Australia.
For all those who fought "Chadstone on Sea" in the St Kilda Triangle here is the new interim Master Plan.
Paternalism: When dominant big business make secret comments to governments – there is a problem. 25-Sep COSBOA has expressed deep concern at the existence of a confidential briefing letter provided to the Federal Cabinet from the Business Council of Australia (BCA), arguing against an effects test in competition regulation.
The fact that this letter is confidential and unavailable to the public and other industry groups is highly concerning and COSBOA calls on the BCA to immediately release this letter for scrutiny and comment from other interest groups.
California just dealt Monsanto a blow as the state’s Environmental Protection Agency will now list glyphosate — the toxic main ingredient in the U.S.’ best-selling weedkiller, Roundup — as known to cause cancer. Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 — usually referred to as Proposition 65, its original name — chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm are required to be listed and published by the state. Chemicals also end up on the list if found to be carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — a branch of the World Health Organization.
Notice of Annual General Meeting and call for Nominations. Take the opportunity to catch up with other members over a cuppa. Consider nominating for a position in this historic group for the protection of Melbourne's oldest public park.
In 2005 John Howard had been Prime Minister for nearly a decade and didn't look particularly vulnerable. But then he decided to ramp up Australia's migration intake. Net overseas migration jumped from the 100,000 it had been in 2004 to over 200,000 in just a couple of years. In 2005 migration overtook natural increase as the dominant driver of population growth, and we entered an era of rapid population growth, which we are still in. Our population now increases by a million people every three years.
The era of rapid population growth has also been one of great political instability. John Howard lost the 2007 election and indeed lost his own seat. His successor, Kevin Rudd, maintained and even increased net migration. When he was questioned about rapid population growth in 2009 he declared he was in favour of a Big
ALEPPO, SYRIA: These vehicles look as if they were burned out years ago, but it was only a couple of nights ago. This damage done by 'rebels' took place in the Christian area (mixed residential and commercial) in Aleppo. The strategy is to make pressure on families to leave their homes, cities, and country.
The only real difference between King Herod in the Bible and Bibi Netanyahu in Tel Aviv today is that Bibi has a much better public-relations team. Does Netanyahu now suffer from buyers' remorse after killing all those babies in Palestine during the past few years? Hardly. Not if he can fix it with propaganda!
It seems that the current mass migration invasion of Germany was organised from the US and the UK, via tweets. A Russian group have analyzed net traffic to ascertain why the mass migration crisis to the EU started and why now. Apparently there were large spikes in social media just before the current big migrations to Europe took off and thousands of men packed and left for the EU. The Russians also anaylzed the content of tweets. Their analysis points to a social media driven event, a call, to come to the EU. There were, in fact, BOTs, that tweeted and re-tweeted. Most bot servers emanated from the USA and the UK, inviting people to Germany.
Damascus, SANA- Under the patronage of President Bashar al-Assad, activities of the #ac193d">International Trade Union Conference (ITUC) in solidarity with workers and people of Syria against terrorism, blockades and economic sanctions kicked off 
He added that the Syrian people are feeling today that they are left alone in face of a danger that does not only threaten them, but threatens the entire world.
Listen to this radio interview with Mother Agnes-Mariam entitled, "Syrian Refugee Crisis Caused by Western Provocation." Recorded on September 7th, 2015. The featured guest is a Christian Palestinian nun stationed in Syria for last 20 years. She exposed the US/Allies/NATO hoax that Syria had chemical WMDs and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2014.
Kangaroos won! Please share. Thanks to everyone who emailed Californian Senators. You joined up to 100,000 people around the world who signed petitions and contacted the Senators directly. The main use - or abuse - of wild kangaroos in California is for the manufacture of soccer cleats!
Keep an eye on the Kangroos at risk website 
The former head of the Australian Defence Force, Retired General Peter Gration, has signed an open letter to the Prime Minister opposing bombing raids in Syria. The open letter suggests bombing IS targets could strengthen the organisation and divide the Australian community, while increasing refugees and civilian casualties.
Senator Ludlam has called for War Powers reform and the obligation that all decisions on war involvement must be taken only in consultation with parliament. David Macilwain argues that the matter of Australian intervening militarily in Syria without Syria's permission should be pursued in the Senate and with the attorney general, George Brandis, because it is in breech of international law.
Recent comments