Dr Tim Anderson shows how the group 'Human Rights Watch', far from upholding human rights around the world, has, instead, by falsely claiming that governments, such as the Syrian and Venezuelan governments, are guilty of human rights abuses, has provided fraudulent casüs bellorum for the United States government to wage war against the people of these countries. In Syria's case up to 130,000, according to one estimate, have died since March 2011 as a consequence.
The Washington-based group 'Human Rights Watch' – controlled by the US foreign policy elite – has released another volley in its campaign to back the 'humanitarian war' being waged against the independent nation of Syria.
This is not the first or second fabrication against Syria run by Human Rights Watch. The group was amongst the first to falsely blame the Syrian government for the East Ghouta chemical weapons incident of August 2013. The 'moral panic' from that accusation almost sparked a major escalation of the war.
Several reports have since proven that the accusation was a fraud. A group led by Catholic nun Mother Agnes Mariam produced a report showing the video evidence of the incident had been manipulated and staged; US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh showed that US intelligence implicating the Syrian Government had been fabricated; and the New York Times retracted its support for speculative telemetry evidence, which they had claimed implicated the Syrian Army. On the other side, Syrian witnesses, a Jordanian reporter and a Turkish human rights group ('Peace Association and Lawyers for Justice in Turkey') implicated Saudi-backed terrorists. Further, the last UN report on the incident says that, in most instances, chemical weapons were used 'against soldiers'; that is, against the government. HRW has neither retracted nor apologised for its role in this scam.
The latest HRW story ('Razed to the Ground', 30 Jan) is that the Syrian Government over 2012-13 demolished residential buildings in seven areas of Hama and Damascus as 'punishment' for certain neighbourhoods supporting 'the rebels'. Thousands of families lost their homes in this way, yet there have been 'no similar demolitions in areas that support the government'.
HRW said it 'has not documented that anybody was injured or killed in the process.' Nevertheless, the use of home demolition as punishment was 'a violation … of the laws of war' and amounts to a war crime. HRW 'calls on the UN Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court'.
Of course, this claim will go nowhere, as previous more serious provocations have failed at the UNSC. Yet the HRW report adds to a poisoned climate of vilification and intervention, appearing to add moral logic to arming the sectarian groups. Yet propaganda for war is a war crime, in itself.
Syrian NDF soldier and political analyst Mazen al-Akhras points out that videos associated with the HRW report show the presence of anti-government 'militants' as witnesses (just as in East Ghouta), tainting the story at the outset. The HRW report does not observe that areas like Tadamon had been crowded with illegal constructions and, when they were damaged during the conflict, the government decided it more efficient to demolish and rebuild.
HRW does not mention that the government took the decision, many months ago, to compensate 'all citizens whose houses were damaged or totally destroyed by the conflict'. Al-Akhras says HRW ignores the compensation already paid, and then pretends to 'demand' compensation. His full commentary is below.
The BBC, which has played a key role in relaying and amplifying propaganda for war on Syria, promoted this 'Razed to the Ground' story. An earlier notable contribution by the BBC was to help cover up the terrorist murder of Syria's most senior Muslim cleric, Sheikh Mohamad al Bouti. He and fifty others were murdered inside the al Iman mosque on 21 March 2013 by a suicide bomber from the al Qaeda-linked and Saudi-backed Jabhat al Nusra.
Because Sheikh Bouti had always opposed salafist sectarians, the armed sectarian gangs ('takfiris') said he was 'not a real Sunni' and called for his death. After they murdered him they celebrated and then, in typical fashion, blamed the Government.
Jim Muir of the BBC picked up the al Nusra scam, based on the fact that the Sheikh did not die instantly, to run claims that he had been killed by some other means. Nevertheless, in December 2013, five members of al Nusra confessed on Syrian television to the murders. Al Nusra cleric, Samir al-Ordoni, had given them religious permission to enter the mosque and kill other Muslims.
The BBC also gave full prominence to a more recent stunt put on by the oil monarchy of Qatar, a major funder of sectarian Islamist fighters. On the eve of the Geneva 2 peace talks, they promoted a report by three British lawyers, hired by Qatar, which pronounced the Syrian Government guilty of 'torture and 11,000 executions'. The lawyers had gone to Qatar to interview one man, who said he had not witnessed any torture or murder, but gave them thousands of photos of dead bodies. They examined some of these photos and made some extravagant statements. Yet with such tainted evidence, who knows where the bodies came from or who killed them?
Human Rights Watch has been a key player in the manufacture of propaganda for war and foreign intervention. It gets most of its funds from a variety of US foundations, in turn funded by many of the biggest US corporations. HRW Middle East reports often rely on and acknowledge grants from pro-Israel foundations. The group is tightly linked to the US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a virtual 'Who's Who' of the US foreign policy elite.
HRW has 'soft-pedalled' on US-compliant regimes such as Colombia, the worst human rights abuser in Latin America as shown by the murder of trade unionists, journalists and other social activists. By contrast, HRW repeatedly attacked the government of the late Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
The group has always had a political agenda. According to José Miguel Vivanco, director of the group's Americas division, its December 2008 report on Venezuela ('A Decade under Chavez'), was written 'because we wanted to demonstrate to the world that Venezuela is not a model for anyone'. That report was roundly criticized by more than a hundred academics for not meeting 'even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy of credibility'. Rather than a careful report on human rights, it was an attempt to discredit a government, mainly on the basis of allegations of 'political discrimination' in employment and the judiciary. The evidence was poor and the approach anything but systematic. HRW disregarded this criticism.
Mazen al-Akhras from Damascus. Comments on HRW's "Razed to the Ground" Story
'Before we were evacuated due to the military conflict in November 2012 I was a resident of Harasta, one of the eastern suburbs of Damascus, and the closest to Duma, which in turn, is the stronghold of the anti-government forces in the outer suburbs of Damascus.
'Harasta is adjacent to the freeway connection Damascus to the north (Damascus-Aleppo freeway), and can be seen by eye while travelling, and it can be also monitored by Satellite images. And like many other towns around Damascus, Harasta had its share of demonstrations and battles. And although it was considered the second stronghold for the anti-government forces in the eastern Ghouta, Harasta has not witnessed anything similar to the accusations in HRW's report.
'There are several other examples of the same situation around Damascus like Al-Tal, Zabadani and Qudsaia, and if one goes a bit further to the north, such alleged demolitions mentioned in HRW's report did not take place in Nabk, or in Qara (Kara).
Even in Qussair, demolitions were limited to the results of the battles that happened there, and once the fighting stopped, there was no act of demolition or destruction. Quite the opposite, the government rushed to restore electricity and water and other public services to the city, while putting reconstruction works into action where they were possible.
'One might need to be reminded that Qussair was not just a city that opposed the government, it was also the strongest stronghold for the militias opposing the Army in mid-west Syria.
'All these examples and many others are actual real-life proof that the government is not "punishing" areas for supporting the insurgency like HRW's report claims.
Now, to the videos, they show no sign or indication of the places they were filmed, and one can argue many details about the ID of the militants showing in the second part of the video.
'While HRW's report maliciously wonders why other areas of illegally-constructed residences have not been demolished, and assuming (with the same malicious ill-will) that it's because the areas are Pro-Assad, they fail to mention that these areas already provide shelter and refuge for thousands of families who have evacuated their areas because of still ongoing battles, including those areas that are being demolished. So, in other words, they are simply wondering why the Syrian government doesn't kick those refugees (again) from the safe areas, along with thousands more of families who were originally in these areas. Of course such wondering is acceptable for them because doubling the numbers of homeless families inside Damascus (or any other city in Syria) poses no discomfort on their dead consciences.
'Any resident of Damascus knows that Tadamon (among many other areas) is a crowded area of illegally constructed residences, and that the Syrian government has been trying for years to organize it, and now with all the battles-caused destruction, it is very difficult and expensive to just renovate the area, making it easier and cheaper for the government to bring down the rest of the area and then reconstruct it in an organized way, eventually guaranteeing the residents to go back to healthier and better shaped area.
'That itself is something else HRW's report failed to mention, and this time it's not by mistake, they deliberately chose to ignore the simple fact that the Syrian government had already decided and announced they would be compensating all citizens whose houses were damaged or totally destroyed in the conflict, and that was many months before HRW made their report and "demanded" what the Syrian government had already granted.
'Mashaa Al-Arbaeen in Hama (as anyone can inquire and verify) is nearly the same as Tadamon, only with worse official documentation of property.
'So, to sum it all up: many areas, towns and cities are a living proof that the government is not "punishing" anybody. Yet, HRW issues a report about a governmental plan of reorganizing some areas of illegally-constructed residences that are already damaged because of the battles, then HRW twists that plan into an alleged "punishment", because the plan does not – yet – include other areas (although those areas were not in the conflict and were not damaged, and demolishing them now will double the numbers of homeless families in Damascus, which will also include the families that were evacuated the first time), and to add insult to the injury, HRW ignores the compensations granted and promised by the government to the Syrian citizens and choses to "demand" those compensations.'
After years of openly arming al-Qaeda extremists, firstly in Libya in its war to overthrow the government of the late Colonel Muammar Qaddaffi and, secondly, in Syria against the government of President Bashar al-Assad, the Obama administration and its mainstream media mouthpieces have since turned this reality on its head and are claiming that the Syrian government is arming al-Qaeda.
With her usual rigour, the Syrian Girl compares these claims with known facts and logic in her YouTube broadcast.
Be sure to watch the next Syrian Girl video in which she will dissect the recently concluded Geneva 2 conference and the media reporting of it.
Inside, two interviews with Dr Tim Anderson, Sydney academic, on Syria. The first is by Channel 7 on 24 January 2014 and shows incredible bias. The second is by Journalist Joshua Blakeney, who interviewed Anderson and Hands Off Syria's Jasmine Saadat about their recent visit to Syria where they met with Syrian officials including the President of Syria Bashar al-Assad. The interview was conducted at a time when the pro-war Australian press was attempting to discredit members of Hands Off Syria Australia for meeting with members of the Syrian government. See inside for videos.
This is supplied to readers of candobetter.net in order to balance Channel 7's ridiculously biased interview with Tim Anderson, which you may access here.
The second (larger picture) is the link to the longer and more intelligent interview.
The interview was recorded on January 12, 2014 and can be found archived on The Real Deal radio show's blog: http://radiofetzer.blogspot.ca
Update, 8 Jan 2014: Nowhere in the Australian mainstream print or broadcast media is Walid Al-Moallem's speech printed, or even adequately paraphrased.
In his opening address to the Geneva 2 Peace conference on 22 January 2014, published by SANA, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Moallem gave a comprehensive account of the terrorist war of aggression that has, according to some estimates, cost Syria 100,000 lives in almost three years since March 2011. His speech named other conference attendees, including the United States, Israel and the Arab dictatorships of Qatar and Saudi Arabia as the principle perpetrators of these crimes. This speech was also published on Global Research on 22 Jan 2013.
The address by Secretary of State, John Kerry, which contains a number of known falsehoods, is also included as an Appendix for comparison with Walid Moallem's speech. The original can be found on the U.S. Secretary of State's web-site.
Montruex, (SANA) - The international conference on Syria, Geneva2, kicked off on Wednesday morning with the participation of Syria's official delegation, headed by Deputy Premier, Foreign and Expatriates Minister, Walid al-Moallem.
Minister al-Moallem said at the opening session of the conference:
Ladies and Gentlemen,On behalf of the Syrian Arab Republic,SYRIAN – steeped in history for seven thousand years.ARAB – proud of its steadfast pan-Arab heritage despite the deliberate acts of aggression of supposed brotherly Arabs.REPUBLIC – a civil state that some, sitting in this room, have tried to return to medieval times.Never have I been in a more difficult position; my delegation and I carry the weight of three years of hardship endured by my fellow countrymen - the blood of our martyrs, the tears of our bereaved, the anguish of families waiting for news of a loved one - kidnapped or missing, the cries of our children whose tender fingers were the targets of mortar shelling into their classrooms, the hopes of an entire generation destroyed before their very eyes, the courage of mothers and fathers who have sent all their sons to defend our country, the heartbreak of families whose homes have been destroyed and are now displaced or refugees.
Al-Moallem: My delegation and I carry the hope of a nation for the years to come
My delegation and I also carry the hope of a nation for the years to come – the right of every child to safely go to school again, the right of women to leave their homes without fear of being kidnapped, killed or raped; the dream of our youth to fulfill their vast potential; the return of security so that every man can leave his family safe in the knowledge that he will return.
Finally, today, the moment of truth; the truth that many have systematically tried to bury in a series of campaigns of misinformation, deception and fabrication leading to killing and terror. A truth that refused to be buried, a truth clear for all to see – the delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic representing the Syrian people, the government, the state, the Army and the President - Bashar al-Assad.
It is regrettable that seated amongst us are representatives of countries that have the blood of Syrians on their hands
It is regrettable, Ladies and Gentlemen, that seated amongst us today in this room, are representatives of countries that have the blood of Syrians on their hands, countries that have exported terrorism along with clemency for the perpetrators, as if it was their God given right to determine who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. Countries that have prevented believers from visiting holy places of worship whilst abetting, financing and supporting terrorists. Countries that gave themselves the authority to grant and deny legitimacy to others as they saw fit, never looking at their own archaic glasshouses before throwing stones at acclaimed fortified towers. Countries that shamelessly lecture us in democracy, in development and in progress whilst drowning in their own ignorance and medieval norms. Countries that have become accustomed to being entirely owned by kings and princes who have the sole right to distribute their national wealth granting their associates whilst denying those who fall out of favor.
They lectured Syria – a distinguished, virtuous, sovereign state, they lectured her on honour whilst they themselves were immersed in the mud of enslavement, infanticide and other medieval practices. After all their efforts and subsequent failures, their masks fell from their quivering faces, to reveal their perverse ambitions. A desire to destabilize and destroy Syria by exporting their national product: terrorism. They used their petrodollars to buy weapons, recruit mercenaries and saturate airtime covering up their mindless brutality with lies under the guise of the so-called " Syrian revolution that will fulfill the aspirations of the Syrian people."
Ladies and Gentlemen, how is what has happened and continues to plague Syria, meeting these aspirations? How can a Chechen, Afghani, Saudi, Turkish or even French and English terrorists deliver on the aspirations of the Syrian people, and with what? An Islamic state that knows nothing of Islam except perverse Wahhabism? Who declared anyway that the Syrian people aspire to live thousands of years in the past?
In Syria, the wombs of pregnant women are butchered and their foetuses killed
In Syria, Ladies and Gentlemen, the wombs of pregnant women are butchered and their foetuses killed; women are raped, dead or alive, in practices so heinous, so vile and repulsive that they can only be attributed to their perverse doctrine. In Syria, Ladies and Gentlemen, men are slaughtered in front of their children in the name of this revolution; worse still, this is done whilst the children of these foreign perpetrators sing and dance. In Syria, how can so-called revolutionaries cannibalize a man's heart and claim to promote freedom, democracy and a better life?
Under the pretext of the "Great Syrian Revolution," civilians, clergymen, women and children are killed, victims are indiscriminately blown up in streets and buildings regardless of their political views or ideologies; books and libraries are burned, graves are dug up and artifacts stolen. In the name of the revolution, children are killed in their schools and students in their universities, women are extorted in the name of jihad al-nikah and other forms, mosques are shelled whilst worshipers kneel at prayer, heads are severed and hung in the streets, people are burned alive in a true holocaust that history and many countries will deny without being accused of anti-Semitism.
In the name of a revolution, "to free the oppressed Syrian people from the regime and to spread democracy," does a father blow himself up with his wife and children to prevent foreign intruders from entering his home? Most of us in this room are fathers - I ask you then, what would compel a man to kill his own family to protect them from freedom fighting monsters. This is what happened in Adra, a place that most of you have not heard of but where the same alien monsters attacked: killing, looting, beheading, slaughtering, raping and burning people alive. You have heard nothing of this brutality for sure, yet you have heard of other places where the same heinous crimes were committed and where the same blood soaked finger was pointed at the Syrian Army and government. And when these flagrant lies were no longer credible, they stopped spinning their web of deceit.
This is what their masters ordered them to do, these countries that spearheaded the war against Syria, trying to increase their influence in the region with bribes and money, exporting human monsters fully soaked in abhorrent Wahabi ideology, all at the expense of Syrian blood. From this stage, loud and clear, you know as well as I do that they will not stop in Syria, even if some sitting in this room refuse to acknowledge or consider themselves immune.
Ladies and Gentlemen, everything you have heard would not have been possible, had our border sharing countries been good neighbours during these challenging years. Unfortunately they were far from it; with backstabbers to the North, silent bystanders to the truth in the West, a weak South accustomed to doing the bidding of others, or the tired and exhausted East still reeling from the plots to destroy it along with Syria.
Mimsery and destruction, wich has engulfed Syria, has been made possible by the decision of Erdogan's government
Indeed, this misery and destruction, wich has engulfed Syria, has been made possible by the decision of Erdogan's government to invite and host these criminal terrorists before they entered into Syria. Clearly, oblivious to the fact that magic eventually turns on the magician, it is now beginning to taste the sour seed it has sown. For terrorism knows no religion, and is loyal only unto itself. Erdogan's government has recklessly morphed from a zero problems with its neighbours policy to zero foreign policy and international diplomacy altogether, crucially leaving it with zero credibility.
Nevertheless, it continued on the same atrocious path falsely believing that the dream of Sayyid Qutb and Mohammad Abdel Wahab before him was finally being realized. They wreaked havoc from Tunisia, to Libya, to Egypt and then to Syria, determined to achieve an illusion that only exists in their sick minds. Despite the fact that it has proven to be a failure, they nevertheless are still determined to pursue it. Logically speaking, this can only be described as stupidity, because if you don't learn from history, you will lose sight of the present; and history tells us: if your neighbor's house is on fire, it is impossible for you to remain safe.
Some neighbours started fires within Syria whilst others recruited terrorists from around the globe – and here we are confronted with shockingly farcical double standards: 83 nationalities are fighting in Syria - nobody denounces this, nobody condemns it, nobody reconsiders their position - and they impertinently continue to call it a glorious SYRIAN Revolution! While when a few scores of young resistant fighters supported the Syrian Army in a few places, all hell broke loose and it suddenly became foreign intervention! Demands were made for the departure of foreign troops and the protection of Syrian sovereignty and for it not to be violated. Here I affirm, Syria - the sovereign and independent state, will continue to do whatever it takes to defend herself with whatever means it deems necessary, without paying the least bit of attention to any uproar, denunciations, statements or positions expressed by others. These have been and always will be Syria's sovereign decisions.
They imposed sanctions on our food, our bread and our children's milk
Despite all of this, the Syrian people remained steadfast; and the response was to impose sanctions on our food, our bread and our children's milk. To starve the population, pushing them into sickness and death under the injustice of these sanctions. At the same time, factories were looted and burned, crippling our food and pharmaceutical industries; hospitals and healthcare centers were destroyed; our railroads and electricity lines sabotaged, and even our places of worship - Christian and Muslim – were not spared their terrorism.
When all of this failed, America threatened to strike Syria, fabricating with her allies, Western and Arab, the story about the use of chemical weapons, which failed to convince even their own public, let alone ours. Countries that celebrate democracy, freedom and human rights regrettably only choose to speak the language of blood, war, colonialism and hegemony. Democracy is imposed with fire, freedom with warplanes and human rights by human killing, because they have become accustomed to the world doing their bidding: if they want something, it will happen; if they don't, it won't. They have heedlessly forgotten that the perpetrators who blew themselves up in New York follow the same doctrine and come from the same source as those blowing themselves up in Syria. They have heedlessly forgotten that the terrorist that was in America yesterday is in Syria today, and who knows where he will be tomorrow. What is certain, however, is that he will not stop here. Afghanistan is an ideal lesson for anyone who wants to learn – anyone! Unfortunately, most do not want to learn; neither America nor some of the ‘civilized' western countries that follow its lead, starting from the city of lights to the kingdom over which "the sun never set," in the past; despite the fact that they have all felt the bitter taste of terrorism in the past.
And then suddenly they became "Friends of Syria." Four of these ‘friends' are autocratic, oppressive monarchies that know nothing of a civil state or democracy, whilst others are the same colonial powers which occupied, pillaged and partitioned Syria less than one hundred years ago. These so called ‘friends' are now convening conferences to publicly declare their friendship with the Syrian people, whilst covertly facilitating their hardship and destroying their livelihoods. They openly express their outrage over the humanitarian plight of Syrians whilst deceiving the international community of their complicity. If you were truly concerned about the humanitarian situation in Syria, you would remove your strangle hold on her economy by lifting the sanctions and the embargo, and by partnering with her government in tightening security by fighting the influx of weapons and terrorists. Only then can we assure you that we will be well as we once were, without your deep concern for our wellbeing.
Some of you may be asking yourselves: Are foreigners the sole manufacturers of the happenings in Syria? No Ladies and Gentlemen, Syrians amongst us here, having been legitimized by foreign agendas, have played a contributing role as facilitators and implementers. They did this at the expense of Syrian blood and the people whose aspirations they claim to represent, whilst they themselves were divided hundreds of times and their leaders on the ground were fleeing far and wide. They sold themselves to Israel becoming her eyes on the ground, and her fingers on the trigger for Syria's destruction; and when they failed, Israel intervened directly to reduce the capabilities of the Syrian Army and thus ensuring the continued implementation of her decades old plan for Syria.
Our people were being slaughtered while opposition figures legitimized by foreign agendas were living in five star hotels
Our people were being slaughtered while they were living in five star hotels; they opposed from abroad, met abroad betraying Syria and selling themselves to the highest foreign bidder. And yet, they still claim to speak in the name of the Syrian people! No, Ladies and Gentlemen, anyone wishing to speak on behalf of the Syrian people cannot be a traitor to their cause and an agent for their enemies. Those wishing to speak on behalf of the people of Syria should do so from within her borders: living in her destroyed houses, sending their children to her schools in the morning not knowing if they will return safe from mortar shelling, tolerating the freezing cold winters because of the shortage in heating oil and queuing for hours to buy bread for their families because sanctions have prevented us from importing wheat when we were once exporters. Anyone wanting to speak in the name of the Syrian people should first endure three years of terrorism, confronting it head on, and then come here and speak on behalf of the Syrian people.
Syria has welcomed hundreds of international journalists and facilitated their mobility
Ladies and gentlemen,
the Syrian Arab Republic – people and state, has fulfilled its duties. It has welcomed hundreds of international journalists and facilitated their mobility, security and access; and they in turn have reflected the stark and horrific realities they witnessed to their audiences, realities that have perplexed many Western media organisations who couldn't bear their propaganda and narrative being exposed and contradicted. The examples are too many to count. We allowed international aid and relief organizations into the country, but the clandestine agents of certain parties sitting here, obstructed them from reaching those in dire need of aid. They came under terrorist attack several times, whilst we, as a state, did our duty in protecting them and facilitating their work. We issued numerous amnesties and released thousands of prisoners, some even members of armed groups, at the anger and dismay of their victim's families; these families though, like the rest of us, ultimately accepted that Syria's interests come before anything else, and hence we must conceal our wounds and rise above hatred and rancor.
What have you done, you who claim to speak on behalf of the Syrian people. Where is your vision for this great country? Where are your ideas or your political manifesto? Who are your agents of change on the ground other than your armed criminal gangs? I am certain that you have nothing and this is only too apparent in the areas that your mercenaries have occupied or to use your words "liberated."
In these areas, have you freed the population or have you hijacked their moderate culture to enforce your radical and oppressive practices? Have you implemented your development agenda by building schools and health centres? No, you have destroyed them and allowed polio to return after it had previously been eradicated in Syria. Have you protected Syria's artifacts and museums? No, you have looted our national sites for your personal profit. Have you demonstrated your commitment to justice and human rights? No, you have enforced public executions and beheadings. In short, you have done nothing at all except muster the disgrace and shame of begging America to strike Syria. Even the opposition, over which you are the self-appointed masters and guardians, do not acknowledge you or the methods in which you manage your own affairs, let alone the affairs of a country.
A country they want to homogenize; not in the sectarian, ethnic or religious sense, but rather in a warped ideological sense. Anyone against them, whether Christian or Muslim, is an infidel; they killed Muslims of all sects and targeted Syrian Christians with severity. Even nuns and bishops were targeted, kidnapping them after they attacked Ma'loula, the last community that still speaks the language of Jesus Christ. They did all this to force Syrian Christians to flee their country. But little did they know, that in Syria we are one. When Christianity is attacked all Syrians are Christians, when mosques are targeted all Syrians are Muslims. Every Syrian is from Raqqa, Lattakia, Sweida, Homs or the bleeding Aleppo when any one of these places is targeted. Their abhorrent attempts to sow sectarian and religious sedition will never be embraced by any levelheaded Syrian. In short, Ladies and Gentlemen, your "glorious Syrian revolution" has left no mortal sin uncommitted.
There is another side to this dark gloomy picture. A light at the end of the tunnel shinning through the Syrian people's determination and steadfastness, the Syrian Army's courage in protecting our citizens and the Syrian state's resilience and perseverance. During everything that has happened, there are states that have shown us true friendship, honest states that stood on the side of right against wrong, even when the wrong was clear for all to see. On behalf of the Syrian people and state, I would like to thank Russia and China for respecting Syria's sovereignty and independence. Russia has been a true champion on the international stage strongly defending, not only with words but also with deeds, the founding principles of the United Nations of respecting the sovereignty of states. Similarly China, the BRICS countries, Iran, Iraq and other Arab and Muslim countries, in addition to African and Latin American countries, have also genuinely safeguarded the aspirations of the Syrian people and not the ambitions of other governments for Syria.
The Syrian people, like other people of the region, aspire to more freedom, justice and human rights
Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Syrian people, like other people of the region, aspire to more freedom, justice and human rights; they aspire to more plurality and democracy, to a better Syria, a safe, prosperous and healthy Syria. They aspire to building strong institutions not destroying them, to safeguarding our national artifacts and heritage sites not looting and demolishing them. They aspire to a strong national army, which protects our honour, our people and our national wealth, an army that defends Syria's borders, her sovereignty and independence. They do not, Ladies and Gentlemen, aspire to a mercenary army ‘Free' to kidnap civilians for ransom or to use them as human shields, ‘Free' to steal humanitarian aid, extort the poor and illegally trade in the organs of living women and children, ‘Free' to canibalise human hearts and livers, barbequing heads, recruiting child soldiers and raping women. All of this is done with the might of arms; arms provided by countries, represented here, who claim to be championing "moderate groups". Tell us, for God's sake, where is the moderation in everything I have described?
Where are these vague moderate groups that you are hiding behind? Are they the same old groups that continue to be supported militarily and publicly by the West, that have undergone an even uglier face-lift in the hope of convincing us that they are fighting terrorism? We all know that no matter how hard their propaganda machine tries to polish their image under the name of moderation, their extremism and terrorism is one and the same. They know, as we all do, that under the pretext of supporting these groups, al-Qaeda and its affiliates are being armed in Syria, Iraq and other countries in the region.
This is the reality, Ladies and Gentlemen, so wake up to the undeniable reality that the West is supporting some Arab countries to supply lethal weapons to al-Qaeda. The West publically claims to be fighting terrorism, whilst in fact it is covertly nourishing it. Anyone who cannot see this truth is either ignorantly blind or willfully so in order to finish what they have begun.
Is this the Syria that you want? The loss of thousands of martyrs and our once cherished safety and national security replaced with apocalyptic devastation. Are these the aspirations of the Syrian people that you wanted to fulfill? No, Ladies and Gentlemen, Syria will not remain so, and that is why we are here. Despite all that has been done by some, we have come to save Syria: to stop the beheadings, to stop the cannibalizing and the butchering. We have come to help mothers and children return to the homes they were driven out of by terrorists. We have come to protect the civil and open-minded nature of the state, to stop the march of the Tatars and the Mongols across our region. We have come to prevent the collapse of the entire Middle East, to protect civilization, culture and diversity, and to preserve the dialogue of civilizations in the birthplace of religions. We have come to protect tolerant Islam that has been distorted, and to protect the Christians of the Levant. We are here to tell our Syrian expatriates, to return to their home country because they will always be foreigners anywhere else, and regardless of our differences we are all still brothers and sisters.
We have come to stop terrorism as other countries that have experienced its bitter taste have done, whilst affirming loudly and consistently that a dialogue between Syrians is the only solution; but as with other countries that have been struck by terrorism, we have a constitutional duty to defend our citizens and we shall continue to strike terrorism that attacks Syrians regardless of their political affiliations. We have come to hold those accountable, for as long as particular countries continue to support terrorism, this conference will bear no fruit. Political pluralism and terrorism cannot coexist in the same landscape. Politics can only prosper by fighting terrorism; it cannot grow in its shadow.
We are here as representatives of the Syrian people and the state; but let it be clear to all, – and experience is the best proof – that nobody has the authority to grant or withdraw legitimacy from a president, a government, a constitution, a law or anything else in Syria except Syrians themselves; this is their constitutional right and duty. Therefore, whatever agreement is reached here will be subject to a national referendum. We are tasked with conveying our people's desires, not with determining their destiny; those who want to listen to the will of the Syrian people should not appoint themselves as their spokesperson. Syrians alone have the right to choose their government, their parliament and their constitution; everything else is just talk and has no significance.
Finally, to all those here and everyone watching around the world: in Syria we are fighting terrorism, terrorism which has destroyed and continues to destroy; terrorism which since the 1980's Syria has been calling, on deaf ears, for a unified front to defeat it. Terrorism has struck in America, France, Britain, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan; the list goes on and it continues to spread. Let us all cooperate to fight it, let's work hand in hand to stop its black, horrifying and obscurantist ideology. Then, let us as Syrians stand united to focus on Syria and start rebuilding its social fabric and material structures. As I said, dialogue is the foundation to this process, and despite our gratitude to the host country, we affirm that the real dialogue between Syrians should in fact be on Syrian soil and under Syrian skies. Exactly one year ago, the Syrian government put forward its vision for a political solution; think of how much innocent blood we would have saved had some countries resorted to reason instead of terrorism and destruction. For a whole year, we have been calling for dialogue, but terrorism continued to strike at the Syrian state, her people and institutions.
Today, in this gathering of Arab and Western powers, we are presented with a simple choice: we can choose to fight terrorism and extremism together and to start a new political process, or you can continue to support terrorism in Syria. Let us reject and isolate the black hands and the false faces, which publicly smile but covertly feed terrorist ideology, striking Syria today, but ultimately spreading to infect us all. This is the moment of truth and destiny; let us rise to the challenge.
Editorial comment : This speech contains a number of falsehoods of which Jon Kerry cannot be unaware. Readers, who are informed about the Syrian conflict will be able to spot most of them. It is included so that readers can compare for themselves the fraudulent case against Syria put by the likes of John Kerry and the presstitute media with the facts included above and elsewhere. We will endeavour to footnote the lies. -&nbdp;Ed
Thank you very much, Secretary Ban, and thank you, Ambassador Brahimi, for your commitment to helping the Syrian people find a new future. And I join with Foreign Minister Lavrov in thanking all of the countries around the table, all of the groups around the table. I thank President Burkhalter and the people of Switzerland for making this important meeting possible. And I thank the Russian Federation and Foreign Minister Lavrov for his cooperation and efforts together with us, working to try to initiate this process. I also want to welcome the leaders of the Syrian opposition, and I thank them for the courageous decision they've made. Everybody here knows the pressures that have existed.
Today is a beginning. It's a beginning of what will obviously be a tough and complicated negotiation; peace talks to end a war and to end a struggle like this always are tough. Frankly, this is a test for all of us who support the Syrian people in their effort to end the extraordinary suffering that the world has witnessed, and which continues. And it is a test of the global community's ability to come together and ultimately secure a Syria where people can live in dignity and not in fear.
I want to start by saying that I think it is impressive, I think it is significant in and of itself, that so many countries have come together, even though we know it's for one day that all the countries will be here in this forum. But all of them have come together because everybody understands how critical it is for the world to prove that we have the ability to make a difference in this kind of a conflict.
Now, lost in the daily reports of violence is the fact that this revolution did not begin as an armed resistance. This started peacefully. It was started by schoolboys in Daraa who are armed only with graffiti cans, citizens who were peacefully and legitimately calling for change. And they were met almost immediately with violence. When their parents came out to protest the arrest of the children, 120 people died. That was the beginning.
And tragically, the Assad regime answered peaceful demonstration after peaceful demonstration with ever-increasing force. In the three years since then, this conflict has now left more than 130,000 dead, and it's hard to count accurately. We all know that. The fact is that these people have been killed by guns, by tanks, by artillery, by gas, by barrel bombs, by Scud missiles. They've been killed by weapons almost exclusively of the magnitude not possessed by the opposition. Starvation has been used as a weapon of war. And most recently, we have seen horrific reports of systematic torture and execution of thousands of prisoners. This is an appalling assault, not only on human lives, but on human dignity and on every standard by which the international community tries to organize itself, recognizing the horrors of the humanitarian catastrophe that has unfolded, the destabilization of neighboring countries, and the endless exile of refugees.
As a result, the international community came together 18 months ago to support the Syrian people as they sought to change course. Now, this has taken a lot longer than many of us wanted to bring everyone together. But we have come here determined as ever to implement the Geneva communique. Sergey Lavrov just mentioned the Geneva communique; I reiterate the Geneva communique. And the Geneva communique can only be implemented through the concerted efforts of everybody in this room. Millions of people are relying on the international community's ability to help find a solution that can save their lives and their country. And we see only one option: a negotiated transition government formed by mutual consent.
Now, we need to deal with reality here. We really need to deal with reality. Mutual consent, which is what has brought us here, for a transition government means that that government cannot be formed with someone that is objected to by one side or the other. That means that Bashar Assad will not be part of that transition government. There is no way – no way possible in the imagination – that the man who has led the brutal response to his own people could regain the legitimacy to govern. One man and those who have supported him can no longer hold an entire nation and a region hostage. The right to lead a country does not come from torture, nor barrel bombs, nor Scud missiles. It comes from the consent of the people. And it's hard to imagine how that consent could be forthcoming at this point in time.
So just as there could be no place for the perpetrator of this violence, there could also be no place for the thousands of violent extremists who spread their hateful ideology and worsen the suffering of the Syrian people. And as we hear talk about terrorism today, make no mistake: It is the presence of the current intransigence within the existing government that makes this problem worse. That is creating a magnet for terrorists. And until a transition takes place, there is no prayer of reducing the increase of terrorism.
There is another way forward. We all know it. It is what this conference is organized around. It is the Geneva communique, which has the support of the international community as a peaceful roadmap for transition. And the only thing standing in its way is the stubborn clinging to power of one man, one family. I believe the alternative vision of the Syrian people is one that can gather the respect and support of people all around the world. It is a place that doesn't force people to flee or live in fear, a Syria that protects the rights of every group. We have not only an opportunity, but we have an obligation to find a way forward so that the people of Syria can choose their leadership, know peace, and for 9 million refugees, finally be able to return home in dignity.
Geneva , (SANA) – The plane of the Syrian official delegation participating in the international conference on Syria arrived at Geneva airport after being delayed at Athens International Airport for four hours due to being prevented from refueling.
Earlier, SANA's correspondent, who is on the plane as part of a media delegation, said that the Secretary General of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs also relayed the Greek authorities' apology for the unintentional delay to the crew and passengers, particularly to the members of the official delegation.
In turn, Olympic Air apologized to the crew of the plane and the official and media delegation, saying that the delay was caused by reasons beyond its control, adding that the plane has been refueled and took off towards its original destination.
The private plane carrying the delegation left Syria on Tuesday morning and landed at Athens International Airport around 12 PM Damascus time. Upon its arrival there, the pilot was informed that it cannot be refueled due to the European sanctions imposed on Syria, despite having all the proper clearances for entering the airspace of the concerned countries and landing and refueling at the aforementioned airport. This caused the plane to wait for four hours.
The official delegation informed the UN office in Geneva of the situation, and that the office promised to make the necessary calls to ensure that the plane is refueled.
This delay resulted in the head of the delegation, Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign and Expatriates Minister Walid al-Moallem, being unable to reach Montreux, Switzerland, in time for his scheduled meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the eve of the begining of the international conference on Syria "Geneva 2."
#PublicEnquiry" id="PublicEnquiry">Editorial comment : Given the gravity of the situation in Syria and neighbouring Lebanon, the explanation given by the Greek Ministry for Forign Affairs is not believable. At best. the four-hour delay was the result of gross incompetence on the part of Greek officials – or it was intentional. Greek citizens, who support their brothers and sisters in Syria, should demand of its government, which as shown itself to be no more than a puppet of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) austerity merchants, a full public inquiry into the incident.
(The interview in this format and with these images was originally published by SANA on 21 Jan 2014, the day the before the scheduled Geneva 2 Peace talks. It has also been re-published on Global Research.) Editorial introduction: As noted before on candobetter on 11 June 2013, for a leader, whom even many ostensibly anti-war spokespersons insist is a corrupt and brutal dictator, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has shown an astonishing willingness to be interviewed by critical and often hostile reporters. In not one interview have I seen President al-Assad fail to give informative and clearly truthful answers to all questions put to him (with the exception of those questions relating to military security and areas outside of his own direct reponsibility). Not only is President al-Assad acting upon the most laudable and humane motivations, he is also astonishingly intelligent, well-informed and quick-thinking as the interview below will show.
One of the few political leaders I can think of, who comes close to President al-Assad in these qualities, is the late United States President John F. Kennedy (JFK) who was murdered over 50 years ago for standing up to the same sorts of criminals that President al-Assad and the Syrian people are fighting today. It seems that President al-Assad and most supporters of Syria have not been made aware that the late JFK, as Senator in the 1950s and as President from January 1961, was an outspoken supporter of Arab nationalism, particularly that of the Algerian FLN. Were that to be made known, then possibly support for the Syrian people's fight against aggression could be made even broader still.
Jan 21, 2014
Damascus, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to Agence France Presse. Following is the full text of the interview:
AFP: Mr. President, what do you expect from the Geneva conference?
President Assad: The most basic element, which we continuously refer to, is that the Geneva Conference should produce clear results with regard to the fight against terrorism in Syria. In particular, it needs to put pressure on countries that are exporting terrorism, - by sending terrorists, money and weapons to terrorist organisations, - especially Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and of course the Western countries that provide political cover for these terrorist organisations. This is the most important decision or result that the Geneva Conference could produce. Any political solution that is reached without fighting terrorism has no value. There can be no political action when there is terrorism everywhere, not only in Syria but in neighbouring countries as well. From the political side, it is possible for Geneva to contribute to a process of dialogue between Syrians. There has to be a Syrian process within Syria and whilst Geneva could support this, it cannot be a substitute for it.
AFP: After nearly three years of devastating war and the big challenge of reconstruction in the country, is it likely that you will not be a candidate for the presidency?
President Assad: This depends on two things: It depends on personal aspirations or a personal decision, on the one hand, and on public opinion in Syria, on the other. As far as I am concerned, I see no reason why I shouldn't stand; as for Syrian public opinion, there is still around four months before the election date is announced. If in that time, there is public desire and a public opinion in favour of my candidacy, I will not hesitate for a second to run for election. In short, we can say that the chances for my candidacy are significant.
AFP: In these past years, have you thought for a moment about losing the battle, and have you thought of an alternative scenario for you and your family?
President Assad: In any battle, there is always the possibility of winning and losing; but when you're defending your country, it's obvious that the only choice is to win. Should Syria lose this battle that would mean the spread of chaos throughout the Middle East. This battle is not confined to Syria and is not, as Western propaganda portrays, a popular uprising against a regime suppressing its people and a revolution calling for democracy and freedom. These lies have now become clear to people. A popular revolution doesn't last for three years only to fail; moreover, a national revolution cannot have a foreign agenda. As for the scenarios that I have considered, of course these types of battles will have numerous scenarios – 1st, 2nd, 3rd……tenth, but they are all focused on defending the country not on running away from it. Fleeing is not an option in these circumstances. I must be at the forefront of those defending this country and this has been the case from day one.
AFP: Do you think you are winning this war?
President Assad: This war is not mine to win; it's our war as Syrians. I think this war has, if you will, two phases. The first phase, which took the form of plans drawn up at the beginning, was the overthrow of the Syrian state in a matter of weeks or months. Now, three years on, we can safely say that this has failed, and that the Syrian people have won. There were countries that not only wanted to overthrow the state, but that also wanted to partition the country into several ‘mini-states;' of course this phase failed, and hence the win for the Syrian people. The other phase of the battle is the fight against terrorism, which we are living on a daily basis. As you know, this phase isn't over yet, so we can't talk about having won before we eliminate the terrorists. What we can say is that we are making progress and moving forward. This doesn't mean that victory is near at hand; these kinds of battles are complicated, difficult and they need a lot of time. However, as I said, and I reiterate, we are making progress, but have not yet achieved a victory.
AFP: Returning to Geneva, do you support a call from the conference for all foreign fighters to leave Syria, including Hezbollah?
President Assad: Clearly the job of defending Syria is responsibility of the Syrian people, the Syrian institutions, and in particular the Syrian Army. So, there would be no reason for any non-Syrian fighters to get involved had there not been foreign fighters from dozens of countries attacking civilians and Hezbollah especially on the Syrian-Lebanese border. When we talk about fighters leaving Syria, this would need to be part of a larger package that would see all the foreign fighters leave, and for all armed men – including Syrians – to hand over their weapons to the Syrian state, which would consequently achieve stability. So naturally, yes, one element of the solution in Syria – I wouldn't say the objective – is for all non-Syrian fighters to leave Syria.
AFP: In addition to the prisoner exchange and a ceasefire in Aleppo, what initiatives are you ready to present at Geneva II?
President Assad: The Syrian initiative was put forward exactly a year ago, in January of last year. It's a complete initiative that covers both political and security aspects and other dimensions that would lead to stability. All of these details are part of the initiative that Syria previously put forward. However, any initiative, whether this one or any other, must be the result of a dialogue between Syrians. The essence of anything that is proposed, whether it's the crisis itself, fighting terrorism, or the future political vision and political system for Syria, requires the approval of Syrians. Our initiative was based on a process to facilitate this dialogue rather than a process to express the government's point of view. It has always been our view that any initiative must be collective and produced by both the political actors in Syria and the Syrian people in general.
AFP: The opposition that will participate in Geneva is divided and many factions on the ground don't believe it represents them. If an agreement is reached, how can it be implemented on the ground?
President Assad: This is the same question that we are asking as a government: when I negotiate, who am I negotiating with? There are expected to be many sides at Geneva, we don't know yet who will come, but there will be various parties, including the Syrian government. It is clear to everyone that some of the groups, which might attend the conference, didn't exist until very recently; in fact they were created during the crisis by foreign intelligence agencies whether in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, the United States or other countries. So when we sit down with these groups, we are in fact negotiating with those countries. So, is it logical that France should be a part of the Syrian solution? Or Qatar, or America, or Saudi Arabia, or Turkey? This doesn't make any sense. Therefore, when we negotiate with these parties, we're in fact negotiating with the countries that are behind them and that support terrorism in Syria. There are other opposition forces in Syria that have a national agenda; these are parties that we can negotiate with. On the issue of the vision for Syria's future, we are open for these parties to participate in governing the Syrian state, in the government and in other institutions. But as I mentioned earlier, anything that is agreed with any party, whether in Geneva or in Syria, must be subject to people's endorsement, through a referendum put to Syrian citizens.
AFP: In this context, could the ceasefire agreements that have been started in Moadimiya and Barzeh be an alternative to Geneva?
President Assad: The truth is that these initiatives may be more important than Geneva, because the majority of those fighting and carrying out terrorist operations on the ground have no political agenda. Some of them have become professional armed robbers, and others, as you know, are takfiri organisations fighting for an extremist Islamic emirate and things of that kind. Geneva means nothing for these groups. For this reason, the direct action and the models that have been achieved in Moadamiyeh, in Barzeh and other places in Syria has proven to be very effective. But this is separate from the political process, which is about the political future of Syria. These reconciliations have helped stability and have eased the bloodshed in Syria, both of which help pave the way for the political dialogue I mentioned earlier.
AFP: Are you prepared to have a prime minister from the opposition in a future government?
President Assad: That depends on who this opposition represents. When it represents a majority, let's say in parliament, naturally it should lead the government. But to appoint a prime minister from the opposition without having a majority doesn't make any political sense in any country in the world. In your country, for example, or in Britain or elsewhere, you can't have a prime minister from a parliamentary minority. This will all depend on the next elections, which we discussed in the Syrian initiative; they will reveal the real size of support for the various opposition forces. As to participation as a principle, we support it, of course it is a good thing.
AFP: Are you prepared to have, for example, Ahmed Jarba or Moaz Khatib, be your next prime minister?
President Assad: This takes us back to the previous question. Do any of these people represent the Syrian people, or even a portion of the Syrian people? Do they even represent themselves, or are they just representatives of the states that created them? This brings us back to what I mentioned earlier: every one of these groups represents the country that created them. The participation of each of these individuals means the participation of each of those states in the Syrian government! This is the first point. Second, let's assume that we agreed to the participation of these individuals in the government. Do you think that they would dare to come to Syria to take part in the government? Of course they wouldn't. Last year, they claimed that they had control of 70% of Syria, yet they didn't even dare to come to the areas that they had supposed control of. They did come to the border for a 30-minute photo opportunity and then they fled. How can they be ministers in the government? Can a foreigner become a Syrian minister? That's why these propositions are totally unrealistic, but they do make a good joke!
AFP: Mr. President, you said that it depends on the results of the elections, but how can you hold these kinds of elections if part of Syria's territory is in the hands of insurgents?
President Assad: During this crisis, and after the unrest started in Syria, we have conducted elections twice: the first was municipal elections and the second was parliamentary elections. Of course, the elections cannot be conducted in the same way they are conducted in normal circumstances, but the roads between Syrian regions are open, and people area able to move freely between different regions. Those who live in difficult areas can go to neighbouring areas and participate in the elections. There will be difficulties, but it is not an impossible process.
AFP: Now that opposition fighters are battling jihadists, do you see any difference between the two?
President Assad: The answer I would have given you at the beginning of the events or during its various phases, is completely different to the answer today. Today, there are no longer two opposition groups. We all know that during the past few months the extremist terrorist groups fighting in Syria have wiped out the last remaining positions that were held by the forces the West portrays as moderates, calling them the moderate or secular forces, or the Free Syrian Army. These forces no longer exist. We are now dealing with one extremist group made up of various factions. As to the fighters that used to belong to what the West calls ‘moderate forces,' these have mostly joined these extremist factions, either for fear or voluntarily through financial incentives. In short, regardless of the labels you read in the Western media, we are now fighting one extremist terrorist group comprising of various factions.
AFP: Would it be possible for the army and the opposition to fight against the jihadists side by side?
President Assad: We cooperate with any party that wants to join the army in fighting terrorists, and this has happened before. There are many militants who have left these organisations and joined the army to fight with it. So this is possible, but these are individual cases. This is not an alliance between ‘moderate' forces and the army against terrorists. That depiction is false and is an illusion that is used by the West only to justify its support for terrorism in Syria. It supports terrorism under the pretext that it is backing moderation against extremist terrorism, and that is both illogical and false.
AFP: The state accuses the rebels of using civilians as human shields in areas under their control, but when the army shells these areas, do you not think this kills innocent people?
President Assad: The army does not shell neighbourhoods. The army strikes areas where there are terrorists. In most cases, terrorists enter particular areas and force out the civilians. Why do you think we have so many displaced people? Most of the millions of displaced people in Syria have fled their homes because terrorists forcefully entered their neighbourhoods. If there are civilians among these armed groups, why do we have so many displaced people? The army is fighting armed terrorists, and in some cases, terrorists have used civilians as human shields. Civilian casualties are unfortunately the consequences of any war. There is no such thing as a clean war in which there are no innocent civilian victims. This is the unfortunate nature of war, and that is why the only solution is to put an end to it.
AFP: Mr. President, some international organisations have accused the government and the opposition of committing abuses. After this war ends, would you be ready for there to be an investigation into these abuses?
President Assad: There is no logic to this claim made by these organisations. How can the Syrian state be killing its own people, and yet it is still standing three year on, despite the fact that there are dozens of countries working against it. Had the Syrian state been killing its people, they would have revolted against it long ago. Such a state could not survive for more than few months; the fact that it has resisted for three years means that it has popular support. Such talk is more than illogical: it is unnatural. What these organizations are saying is either a reflection of their ignorance of the situation in Syria, or, in some cases, it shows they are following the political agenda of particular states. The Syrian state has always defended its civilians; it is well documented, through all the videos and the photos circulating, that it is the terrorists who are committing massacres and killing civilians everywhere. From the beginning of this crisis, up until today, these organizations do not have a single document to prove that the Syrian government has committed a massacre against civilians anywhere.
AFP: Mr. President, we know of foreign journalists who were kidnapped by the terrorist groups. Are there any foreign journalists in state prisons?
President Assad: It would be best for you to ask the relevant, specialised agencies on this issue. They would be able to give you an answer.
AFP: Would a reconciliation be possible, one day, between Syria on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey on the other?
President Assad: Politics changes constantly, but this change depends on two factors: principles and interests. We share no common principles with the states you mention; these states support terrorism and they have contributed to the bloodshed in Syria. As for interests, we need to ask ourselves: will the Syrian people agree to shared interests with these countries after everything that has happened and all the bloodshed in Syria? I don't want to answer on behalf of the Syrian people. If the people believe they share interests with these states, and if these states change their policy on supporting terrorism, it is plausible that the Syrian people might agree to restore relations. I can't individually as President, answer on behalf of all the Syrian people at such a time. This is a decision for the people.
AFP: Mr. President, you were welcomed on the occasion of July 14 (Bastille Day) in the Elysee Palace in Paris. Are you now surprised by France's position, and do you think France may one day play some kind of role in Syria?
President Assad: No, I am not surprised, because when that reception took place, it was during the period - 2008 to 2011 - where there was a attempt to contain Syria's role and Syria's policy. France was charged with this role by the United States when Sarkozy became president. There was an agreement between France and the Bush administration over this, since France is an old friend of the Arabs and of Syria and as such it is better suited to play the role. The requirement at that time was to use Syria against Iran and Hezbollah, and to pull it away from supporting resistance organisations in the region. This French policy failed, because its goal was blatantly obvious. Then the so-called Arab Spring began, and France turned against Syria after it had failed to honour the pledge it had made to the United States. This is the reason behind the French position during that period why it changed in 2011.
As for France's role in future, let's talk frankly. Ever since 2001 and the terrorist attacks on New York, there has been no European policy-making to speak of (and that's if we don't look back even further to the 1990s). In the West, there is only an American policy, which is implemented by some European countries. This has been the case on all the issues in our region in the past decade.
Today, we see the same thing: either European policy is formulated with American blessing, or American policy is adopted by the Europeans as their own. So, I don't believe that Europe, and particularly France, which used to lead the European policy in the past, is capable of playing any role in the future of Syria, or in neighbouring countries. There is another reason too, and that is that Western officials have lost their credibility. They no longer have double standards; they have triple and quadruple standards. They have all kinds of standards for every political situation. They have lost their credibility; they have sold their principles in return for interests, and therefore it is impossible to build a consistent policy with them. Tomorrow, they might do the exact opposite of what they are doing today. Because of this, I don't think that France will play a role in the immediate future, unless it changes its policy completely and from its core and returns to the politically independent state it once was.
AFP: How long do you think Syria needs to rid itself completely of its chemical weapons stockpiles?
President Assad: This depends on the extent to which the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will provide Syria with the necessary equipment to carry out the process. So far, the process of making this equipment available has been quite slow. On the other hand, as you know dismantling and neutralizing the chemical materials is not taking place inside Syria nor by the Syrian state. A number of countries in different parts of the world have accepted to carry out that process; some have agreed to deal with the less dangerous materials, whilst others have refused completely. Since, the timeframe is dependent on these two factors - the role of the OPCW and the countries that accept to neutralize the materials on their territories – it is not for Syria to determine a timeframe on this issue. Syria has honoured its part by preparing and collecting data and providing access to inspectors who verified this data and inspected the chemical agents. The rest, as I said, is up to the other parties.
AFP: Mr. President, what has changed in your and your family's daily, personal lives? Do your children understand what has happened? Do you talk to them about this?
President Assad: There are a few things that haven't changed. I go to work as usual, and we live in the same house as before, and the children go to school; these things haven't changed. On the other hand, there are things which have affected every Syrian household, including mine: the sadness which lives with us every day - all the time, because of what we see and experience, because of the pain, because of the fallen victims everywhere and the destruction of the infrastructure and the economy. This has affected every family in Syria, including my own. There is no doubt that children are affected more deeply than adults in these circumstances. This generation will probably grow up too early and mature much faster as a result of the crisis. There are questions put to you by children about the causes of what's happening, that you don't usually deal with in normal circumstances. Why are there such evil people? Why are there victims? It's not easy to explain these things to children, but they remain persistent daily questions and a subject of discussion in every family, including my own.
AFP: Through these years, what was the most difficult situation you went through?
President Assad: It's not necessarily a particular situation but rather group of elements. There are several things that were hard to come to terms with, and they are still difficult. The first, I believe, is terrorism; the degree of savagery and inhumanity that the terrorists have reached reminds us of what happened in the Middle Ages in Europe over 500 years ago. In more recent modern times, it reminds us of the massacres perpetrated by the Ottomans against the Armenians when they killed a million and a half Armenians and half a million Orthodox Syriacs in Syria and in Turkish territory. The other aspect that is difficult to understand is the extent of Western officials' superficiality in their failure to understand what happened in this region, and their subsequent inability to have a vision for the present or for the future. They are always very late in realizing things, sometimes even after the situation has been overtaken by a new reality that is completely different. The third thing that is difficult to understand is the extent of influence of petrodollars in changing roles on the international arena. For instance, how Qatar was transformed from a marginal state to a powerful one, while France has become a proxy state implementing Qatari policies. This is also what we see happening now between France and Saudi Arabia. How can petrodollars make western officials, particularly in France, sell their principles and sell the principles of the French Revolution in return for a few billion dollars? These are only a few things, among others, which are difficult for one to understand and accept.
AFP: The trial of those accused of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri has begun. Do you think it will be a fair trial?
President Assad: Nine years have passed since the beginning of this trial. Has justice been served? Every accusation was made for political reasons. Even in the past few days, we have not seen any tangible proof put forward against the parties involved in the case. The real question should be: why the timing? Why now? This court was set up nine years ago. Have the things produced in the last few days been uncovered only now? I believe that the whole thing is politicized and is intended to put pressure on Hezbollah in Lebanon in the same way that it aimed at putting pressure on Syria in the beginning, immediately after al-Hariri's assassination.
AFP: You have said the war will end when terrorism is eradicated. But the Syrians and everyone else want to know when this war will end. Within months? After a year? In years to come?
President Assad: We hope that the Geneva conference will be able to provide an answer to part of this by exercising pressure on these countries. This aspect has nothing to do with Syria; otherwise we would have put pressure on these states from the beginning and prevented terrorism from entering Syria. From our side, when this terrorism stops coming in, ending the war will not take more than a few months.
AFP: It appears Western intelligence agencies want to re-open channels of communication with Damascus, in order to ask you for help fighting terrorism. Are you ready for that?
President Assad: There have been meetings with several intelligence agencies from a number of countries. Our response has been that security cooperation cannot be separated from political cooperation, and political cooperation cannot be achieved while these states adopt anti-Syrian policies. This was our answer, brief and clear.
AFP: You have said in the past that the state has made mistakes. In your view, what were the mistakes that could have been avoided?
President Assad: I have said that mistakes can be made in any situation. I did not specify what those mistakes were because this cannot be done objectively until the crisis is behind us and we can assess our experience. Evaluating them whilst we are in the middle of the crisis will only yield limited results.
AFP: Mr. President, without Russia, China and Iran's help, would you have been able to resist in the face of the wars declared against you?
President Assad: This is a hypothetical question, which I cannot answer, because we haven't experienced the alternative. Reality has shown that Russian, Chinese and Iranian support has been important and has contributed to Syria's steadfastness. Without this support, things probably would have been much more difficult. How? It is difficult to draw a hypothetical picture at this stage.
AFP: After all that has happened, can you imagine another president rebuilding Syria?
President Assad: If this is what the Syrian people want, I don't have a problem with it. I am not the kind of person who clings to power. In any case, should the Syrian people not want me to be president, obviously there will be somebody else. I don't have a personal problem with this issue.
John Kerry must have been dreading forthcoming exchange with Syrian delegation at Geneva 2 Peace Conference.
Approximately half a day before (2:30AM +10:0, 22 Jan 2013) the scheduled peace talks are to begin in Geneva, the plane carrying the Syrian delegation has been delayedat Athens Airport.
"A plane with a Geneva 2 peace talks delegation onboard has been reportedly prevented from refueling as it landed in Athens."
"The plane en route to Switzerland was permitted to pass through the relevant airspace and had to land at Athens' airport for refueling, Reuters reported.
"Despite having proper clearances, the plane was still refused a refuel and the delay, so far, is three hours, according to SANA."
A Greek foreign Ministry spokesman claimed that "the issue has been settled. "Everything is OK, it has been cleared for take-off," he said, without specifying the reasons for the delay.
A Greek foreign Ministry spokesman claimed that "the issue has been settled. "Everything is OK, it has been cleared for take-off," he said, without specifying the reasons for the delay.
Despite claims by the Greek Foreign Ministry that the situation was resolved, the plane is still at Athens International Airport and hasn't been allowed to refuel and thus cannot take off.
Speculated reasons for the delay, from local media reports include:
"Ground crew refused the refuel because the pilots had not provided the airport with any flight plans or informed them of their intention to land there." – cited by ITAR-tASS
"It could have been 'sanctions against the Assad regime.'"
Such explanations are simply not believable, given that a peaceful resolution of the Syrian conflict at Geneva conference, scheduled to start tomorrow, was at stake. That conflict has lasted nearly three years and has so far cost the lives of 100,000 Syrian citizens according to some estimates.
Almost certainly the real reason for the attempt to ground the Syrian delegation in Athens is a fear by Syria's enemies of the voices of members of Syria's delegation being heard by the people of the world. Given that:
The evidence of the criminality of other participants at the Geneva, including United States Secretary of State John Kerry, on whose hands the blood of many Syrians lies, is overwhelming and conclusive; and
The Syrian Government, particularly President Bashar al-Assad, has shown itself to be very effective at putting its case to the people of the world, through interviews with critical and often hostile journalists and through their media outlets such as the aforementioned SANA and Syria News,
... John Kerry and his allies will be seen for what they are by large numbers of people who are able to witness to the exchanges between them and the Syrian delegation.
Update: 2:40AM +10:00
A report by the Wall Street Journal only 15 minutes ago stated: "Syrian Delegation's Plane Grounded in Athens, Denied Fuel" but that has since changed to "Syrian Delegation's Plane Leaves Athens After Grounding Over Fuel". (Hopefully, the latter report proves to be correct.)
The Geneva Peace Conference 2 had to take place, despite the obstacles strewn by the enemies of Syria.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who had invited Iran Monday night withdrew his invitation Tuesday morning. Indeed, the delegation of the Syrian opposition had responded by canceling its attendance. To justify his retraction, Ban hypocritically evoked Iran’s refusal to endorse the Geneva I communique, which Iran can not do because it wasn't there.
Except for a last minute change, the delegation of the Syrian National Coalition should not include any member of its main component, the National Council. It should not include either any members of the Provisional Government in exile, whose Prime Minister has resigned.
The European Union is trying to delay the arrival of the Syrian delegation. Thus, France has denied the Syrian airplane fly over rights. Now, a small part of the Geneva International Airport is located on French territory. The plane should thus land near Montreux. On the other hand, Greece has refused to provide fuel to the Syrian plane which has been waiting for several hours on the tarmac in Athens. Although the Syrian delegation, whose composition has been known for a long time, is making the trip at the invitation of the UN Secretary-General, France and Greece-which are participating in the conference-argue that they are applying the sanctions of the European Union.
Damascus, (SANA) - Syrian Singer Mayada al-Hinawi affirmed that she wouldn't abandon her national stances whatsoever the price was.
In a statement to SANA, al-Hinawi said that she received an offer to participate in Sola Program, which is presented by Assala Nasri, in return for large amounts of money.
She added that she rejected the offer based on her national stances which oppose any intervention in Syria's sovereignty, moreover, the program presenter is well known for her negative stance towards the crisis in Syria.
Al-Hinawi reiterated her confidence in PresidentBasharal-Assad and the Syrian army's members who are confronting terrorism in Syria.
Ottawa, (SANA) - Mother Agnes Mariam el-Salib said that the international media is involved in hiding the facts and incidents taking place in Syria such as sending mercenaries and Takfiri gunmen to fight beside the armed terrorist groups.
During a gathering organized by Solidarity Group with Syria n cooperation with Syrian-Canadian Association in Ottawa, Mother Agnes, mother superior of St. James Monastery in Qara, screened images and footages at St. Paul University clarifying the reality of events in Syria.
She stressed that the Syrian people are always able to reach a solution formula provided that they are let alone without foreign interference, yet the problem lies in those mercenaries who came only to kill and sabotage.
Mother Agnes stressed the importance of dialogue and the need for renouncing violence and concentrating on the role of national reconciliation.
People all over the world have been shocked to discover that Mother Agnes Mariam, heroine to many women and men all over the world and peace activist on the ground in Syria, withdrew from speaking at a UK peace conference because two British supposedly 'left-wing' male speakers and journalists - Jeremy Scahill and Owen Jones - threatened to withdraw from speaking if she spoke. Neither speaker has given any substantive explanation for their objections to Mother Agnes, but it seems that both have succumbed to propaganda that the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad is brutal and that Agnes Mariam supports the government. This treatment of Mother Agnes Mariam is tragically bizarre, when she has eclipsed professional peace negotiators in so many spheres at once: In her physical bravery in rescuing thousands of people in the war-torn region; as a nun-pacifist woman-leader in the male-dominated politics of church and war; and as a local peace-activist in an internationalised field of jihadists. The article below seeks to highlight just some of these injustices. See links at the end of this article, under "Notes," including a filmed interview with Mother Agnes Mariam done by Susan Dirgham of AMRIS in Australia July 2013.
A few weeks ago, following months of siege in a suburb of Damascus, over 5000 civilians were helped to safety during a ceasefire negotiated by Mother Agnes Mariam of the Cross. This suburb of Moadamiya al Sham was one of several around Damascus held by armed rebel groups and foreign jihadists, with the residents trapped there and facing serious food and supply shortages.
Whether these residents were supportive of the 'revolution' - or insurgency - or not, it was in the rebel groups interests to hold them there as 'human shields'; negotiating their release. Movement to the safety of government shelters in Damascus was therefore fraught with difficulties and dangers.
Mother Agnes risked life and got 5,400 people released from rebel capture
A 'negotiating team' was assembled to go into the heart of rebel territory, led by Mother Agnes - not just figuratively. She went ahead with a white flag, risking her life and faith that a sniper would not put an end to this humanitarian mission. Joined by the rest of the team she then came to a reconciliation and agreement with rebel leaders on the release of some 5,400 people, mostly women and children.
While this was a great success, perhaps more significant was the voluntary surrender of over 500 'rebel fighters', who had clearly been impressed by her entreaties to give up the fight and return to 'fight for Syria', accepting the Government's offer of amnesty.
In her report on the 'rescue of Moadamiya' she emphasises that the Government for its part kept to its word, and faith - that those men who genuinely surrender will not be punished or ill-treated. /?q=node/3527
Syria inspired
It is as though the spirit of reconciliation and peace embodied in Jesus' preachings and actions 2000 years earlier in this land is being reborn, and it is happening through the agency of people of such genuine good will and faith as Mother Agnes. Such a spirit is infectious, and others are inspired to forgive and to reconcile and to trust; this is the spirit now which can heal Syria's dreadful wounds.
Treacherous foreign powers
The spirit that could heal those wounds .... were it not for the treachery and ill-intent of foreign powers who have already invested so much in destabilising Syrian society and destroying its wealth and infrastructure with their proxy armies of fanatics and mercenaries. The regaining of control by the Syrian government threatens the whole project for regional influence and control that is the driving force behind 'the West's' behaviour over Syria. It is increasingly clear that the West has lost the battle, in the absence of military intervention.
What should the 'Western powers' do?
So what should 'We' do? How can the West stop the truth of the last two and a half years emerging? The truth behind the many 'massacres' confected to excuse Western intervention? The truth of Syrians fleeing from rebel 'liberated' areas? ("Liberated from their inhabitants," as Mother Agnes points out.) The truth of the 'Chemical Weapons attack' on Ghouta that nearly brought about a regional war, despite not a single proven victim? ( The OPCW team did no autopsies.)
Perhaps those responsible for the recent denigration of Mother Agnes Mariam were inspired by biblical history, realising that a 'betrayal' from those who would be her supporters could deliver a mortal blow. And so it came to pass that contributors to the Stop the WarPeace Conference in the UK refused to share a platform with this true peacemaker.
Highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards of Australia's official 'commitment' to the 'war on terror' in Afghanistan, and the celebration of the 'heroic sacrifices' made there by Australian soldiers on Remembrance day, was the appearance in our media of a video clip from Syria the following day.
This video, from the studios of the 'Al Qaeda linked group' Jabhat al Nusra, showed the last minutes before the martyrdom of 'Abu Asma al Australi', as he drove an explosives packed truck towards a military checkpoint at an airport in Deir al Zour, in Syria's north-east. In the video 'Abu Asma's' face was fuzzed out, though we could see a bushy beard and a stocky physique. He delivered a propaganda message of encouragement to Muslims everywhere to take up the Jihad in Syria, and make the ultimate sacrifice.
While this man was known to Australian authorities, - allegedly 'Ahmad' from Logan near Brisbane - and belonged to a community there which supports 'the jihad' against the Assad government, his family claims he never went to Syria to fight, and is alive and well and living in Turkey. They also claim that he didn't speak Arabic like the man shown in the video ....
But these are details; the intent was there, and the 'operation' supported by Australian supporters of the insurgency or jihad if you prefer. Our concern should be whether this support extends beyond Ahmad's community, and whether allowance is being made for Australia's first suicide bomber because he was striking an 'approved target'?
Although our media may not be strictly government operated, the man who pays the piper calls the tune; the language used to describe this terrorist atrocity tells us the story. Nowhere is there mention in the ABC report on this video of 'terrorist' or 'war crime' - we have only 'jihadist', and 'hard-line group'. But worse by far than this, we are never told about 'the target' of 'the operation'. A TV reporter referred to 'people' killed, but honourably corrected himself with 'government soldiers', but failed to say how many.
The truth is shocking.
This one Australian 'hero' ( as he is regarded now as a martyr) on one day killed as many Syrian soldiers as those of our Australian 'heroes' who have been killed in Afghanistan in a decade. Thirty five Syrian soldiers were obliterated by 'Abu Asma al Australi's' truck bomb; ordinary men with families, mothers, wives, sons, fathers. Men fighting to save their nation from a foreign invasion of barbarians and fundamentalist psychopaths; fighting to protect their neighbours and communities from random acts of violence, and save their country from the malign foreign powers who slash and burn what they have failed to seduce.
An estimated 27,000 Syrian soldiers have now died protecting their country, many as a result of similar bombings; along with a further 15,000 militia members fighting on the government side, they constitute the largest group of casualties in the total death toll of around 115,000.
"Friends of Syria" would deny Syrians the right to choose this man to be their President.
The Friends of Syria—an 11 country coalition ranged against the Syrian government—favors what it calls a "democratic" transition in Damascus. There are multiple problems with this.
The coalition says that the current president, Bashar al-Assad, must have "no role in Syria." How odd that an ostensibly democracy-promoting coalition should dictate to Syrians who it is who can't be president of their country, rather than democratically leaving the question up to Syrians themselves.
The "Friends of Syria" wish to deny Syrians any choice over whether President Bashar al-Assad (pictured) can remain as President.
More than half of the eleven "Friends of Syria" do not support democracy in their own countries. Five are monarchies and emirates and Egypt is a military dictatorship.
The formally democratic members of the coalition—the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Turkey claim only to be concerned about democracy in Syria.
All formally democratic "Friends of Syria" are former colonial powers which denied even formal democracy to most of humanity in the colonial era.
The ostensible 'dictatorship' of Syria is to hold presidential elections in which any Syrian can nominate in 2014.
The Friends of Syria—an 11 country coalition ranged against the Syrian government—favors what it calls a "democratic" transition in Damascus. There are multiple problems with this.
The coalition says that the current President, Bashar al-Assad, must have "no role in Syria." How odd that an ostensibly democracy-promoting coalition should dictate to Syrians who it is who can't be president of their country, rather than democratically leaving the question up to Syrians themselves.
Equally strange is that half of the coalition members do not support democracy in their own countries. Five of the 11—nearly one-half—are not, themselves, democracies, but are monarchies and emirates (Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) and one, Egypt, is a military dictatorship.
The formal democracies that make up the coalition's other half—the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Turkey—are not promoting democratic transitions within the territories of their coalition partners, limiting their intervention to Syria alone.
Yet, while Syria has hardly conformed to the Western model of a multi-party democracy, it is not at all the undemocratic dictatorship it has been made out to be. It is not, for example, a Saudi Arabia. It has a parliament. It is anti-colonial and anti-imperialist. And parts of the state, much to the annoyance of the US State Department, remain committed to socialist goals. Presidential elections are scheduled for 2014. Any Syrian, so long as he or she meets minimal basic criteria, is free to run. If Syrians don't want Assad, they'll be free to toss him out then.
On the other hand, coalition member Saudi Arabia is a family business. The Saud family calls the shots. There's no chance they'll be tossed out in elections, since they'll never have any. If Washington were truly interested in cobbling together "Friends of" coalitions to promote democratic transitions in undemocratic countries, it would have long ago put together a Friends of the Saudi People group.
Not that the United States ought to be ranging the globe, foisting its brand of democracy on others. Rather, its selective commitment to democracy promotion (only in countries not under its thumb but not in satellite states), speaks volumes about what US foreign policy is really about—and just how far removed from a meaningful democracy the US version is.
Equally fatal to the idea that the Friends seek democracy in Syria is this: one of its number, Egypt, is ruled by a government installed by the military, after it ousted a democratically-elected government. The charge that Syria's Assad has to go because he is killing his own people (insurgents) hasn't stopped the Egyptian military from killing demonstrators who call for the restoration of their elected government. They deserve the appellation "pro-democracy protestors" more than do the Islamist insurgents who used turmoil in Arab countries to inspire a return to jihad against the secular Arab nationalists in Damascus.
And what of the coalition's formal democracies? All are former colonial powers. They cared not one whit about democracy when they held the greater part of humanity in colonial thrall, including the people who lived in what is modern day Syria. By their actions and duplicity, they've revealed themselves to care as little about democracy in the Arab world as they did when four of them (the Turks, Italians, British and French) ruled Arabs by edict from afar.
Six former colonial powers in a coalition with five tyrannies, telling Syrians who they can't have as president, supporting a group of exiles who wait in the wings for the signal to traipse onto the Syrian stage as Washington's marionette, is hardly the picture of democracy-promoters. If you believe otherwise, then democracy is nothing but a euphemism for imperialism, an emotionally appealing word tossed around as a cover for the very negation of what the Friends of Syria profess to seek.
550 men decided to leave Moadamiya and surrender to the Syrian Army. All were taken to a rest house and served with dignity. Then 50 at a time were taken to the frightening Air Force Intelligence headquarters for two hours of discussion and registration. They will spend one more night in the rest house and then the majority will be able to go back to normal civilian life. Those who have perpetrated crimes will be kept in this rest house for a rehabilitation period.
It is the FIRST time that we have seen such a thing in Syria.
These matters of facts are UNIQUE in the history of the Syrian conflict. No one entered at the air force security services and went out in two hours unless to the grave! A transformation is ongoing.
Agnes-Mariam of the Cross, Head of the International Support Team for Musalaha (Reconciliation) in Syria.
The real story of Moadamiya
October 31, 2013
And how the ‘release’ of over 5000 women and children was negotiated and secured by a team led by Mother Agnes Mariam.
While Western media have been talking of the siege of Moadamiya – of a siege imposed on suffering civilians by the ruthless Syrian army – and of the urgent need for intervention to prevent starvation, Mother Agnes has been working steadily with ALL parties to the conflict to negotiate a way out of this deadly confrontation for the innocent civilian population trapped in the suburb of Damascus.
On Tuesday, 29th October, the final stage of the plan was achieved, and all those civilians wishing to leave were able to reach the safety of a government ‘guest house’ in Damascus, where they will stay until new plans can be made when the Syrian army ‘liberates’ Moadamiya from the remaining ‘rebel’ fighters.
This photo reportedly depicts Mother Agnes proceeding into rebel territory under the anxious eyes of those she has left. She is carrying a white flag. "Despite the entreaties of her team, Agnès-Mariam is producing a white flag and adventure beyond the entrance arch, in rebel territory, a no man’s land known for hiding 12 snipers among the deadliest. Members of the team are watching anxiously for her. Her team follows her. Joined by Sister Carmel and two members of her team, Mother Agnès-Mariam is welcomed by the men of the revolution that came without their weapons. Out of the factory they find themselves with women from Mouaddamiyya waiting for their evacuation."
You may read Mother Agnes's account of what has been happening for the last couple of weeks, as well as showing how a remarkably committed and brave single person can change the course of an intractable conflict on the "Step Back Site." This site has the mission of appealing to journalists reporting on the war in Syria to question pro-war statements by politicians.
The site is not in perfect English and some photographs are missing. This is why I did not transcribe it here. I did not want to confuse any of the message, which is one of bravery and day by day negotiations with warlords.
The wives and daughters of those who have fallen defending their country against terrorists are stepping forward to take their places. The terrorists, who have killed these husbands and fathers, and who have murdered many other unarmed Syrians, have been shamefully supported by the United States, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel and their allies, including Australia. This video report, of 7 October by Press TV, features an interview with one of the fallen Syrian soldiers before his death in battle. His daughter, who is volunteering to join the army to replace him, is also interviewed. The report also features interviews with daughters, wives and mothers of other fallen Syrian soldiers, who are also volunteering to join the Syrian Arab Army. The video also features scenes of the new women recruits in training.
Female members of the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG). File photo.
The commander of the al-Qaeda affiliated "Tawhid and Jihad Brigade" in al-Hasaka, north-eastern Syria, has surrendered his group's weapons to the Kurdish Peoples Protection Units (YPG).
According to the pro-opposition and Britain-based group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the "Tawhid and Jihad Brigade", known in Arabic as "Liwa al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad", agreed to surrender as Kurdish protection units swept through the Jawadiya area of al-Hasaka.
"The weapons include a tank, 2 multiple rocket launchers, 4x4s with manned machine-guns, mortars and mortar launchers and others," the pro-opposition group wrote in a statement via their official Facebook page.
A statement earlier released by the "Tawhid and Jihad Brigade" suggest that the remnants of the group will merge with the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" with its allies and continue their fight against the Kurds and YPG as well as the Syrian government.
The Kurdish People's Protection Units have had significant success battling Islamist militants in recent weeks and the YPG announced in a statement early Tuesday that it had gained full control over the villages of Tal A'lo Ghamer, Abu Hajar, Kari Fati, Karhouk, al-Yusufiya, al-Jneidiya, the al-Sawame' area, the Dajla oil company and the fields in Reef Jal A'gha suburb, all located in the al-Hasaka province.
August 21st 2013 may go down as the day of 'the Schism' - between the narrative of 'Western' culture as it promotes itself, and the reality for those across the Gulf. Ironically this is both a physical gulf, known both as 'The Persian gulf' by the countries aligned with 'Persia', and as 'The Arabian gulf' by the Arab gulf nations bordering it on the south, and a psychological and cultural gulf.
What happened on August 21st in Damascus was of course NOT a Sarin attack in East Ghouta which killed hundreds or thousands of civilians and children; we have little evidence that any of these assertions are true - that Sarin was used in E. Ghouta, that people died from it there or elsewhere. We have evidence only that some people tested in the area a few days later had been exposed to some form of Sarin. Because these 'victims' were provided by one of the parties in the armed conflict we cannot say where or how they were exposed.
At the same time we have some significant evidence that a different and far more serious crime was committed around this time, by some element of the opposition armed groups. In the many videos released after the alleged attack purporting to show its consequences, and on which the whole series of events of the last month has been based, it appears that some children pictured had been abducted from villages near Lattakia following brutal massacres by Al Nusra groups a few weeks earlier. (1)
Because the armed opposition groups had been struggling to hold ground against the Syrian army recently, and particularly following the stategic recapture of Al Qusair on the Lebanese border, it was clearly in the interests of these groups to stage the 'Chemical Weapons attack' to bring in the foreign assistance they needed. It was also in the interests of certain Western powers seeking to extend their influence in Syria to conspire with these rebel groups to provide a pretext for an 'intervention'.
Since very early in the Syrian conflict, and in fact since the start, 'false flag' massacres and attacks have been staged and used to raise Western voices against the Syrian government. So successful was this campaign, which essentially has brainwashed the mainstream Western audience into a completely false narrative, that Opposition forces were able to stage a 'Sarin Attack' in circumstances which made it almost impossible to believe that the Syrian government would be responsible. Even solid supporters of the Western imperial campaign were forced to concede this point, but finally succumbed to the continuing and unyielding accusations of US and NATO leaders. Vladimir Putin famously called the suggestion that President Assad would use Sarin under these circumstances "Utter Nonsense", but we are told that most of what Putin says cannot be trusted.
Now as time goes on, and we have a 'historic agreement' at the Security Council to secure Syria's chemical weapons, the Gulf has become too wide to cross; we have been brought to the brink of a regional war, and saved from it by Russia, all based on a fabricated narrative about Syria using chemical weapons. Those who believe this lie can see no problem in the events of the last month, while those who know it is a lie can see that all the Western leaders are liars and criminals pusuing Western self interest.
There is no intermediate position possible in this 'schism' of two worlds; for those on the side of 'the Resistance' we can trust nothing and noone from the West and its allies - anything is possible. Whereas for them it is simply a question of who knows it is a lie, and who just believes it.
Comments made on the previousMiscellaneous comments page from 15 Sep 2013 can be found here.
If you have anything you would like to raise, which is likely to be of interest to our site's visitors, which is not addressed in other articles, please add your comments here.
Former Labor Party leader Mark Latham and two mainstream corporate newspapers, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review have shown their particular dislike for Anthony Albanese, a candidate for the leadership of the Australian Labor Party. Albanese's video speech in support of Syria against terrorism was embedded in an article published on candobetter on 21 September 2013. On 26 September 2013 the Australian Financial Review published an article by former Labor Party leader Mark Latham, Why Anthony Albanese shouldn't lead Labor. Judith Ireland of the Sydney Morning Herald referred to Latham's article in Anthony Albanese is an 'intellectual lightweight': Mark Latham. The article featured an embedded Sydney radio 2UE interview with Mark Latham.
The article largely consisted of restatements of the economic neoliberal views he shares with Hawke, Keating and the late Margaret Thatcher:
"...The Hawke/Keating economic model of open, competitive markets can be used to appeal to Australia's rising aspirational class. Obstacles exist internally, but the sooner Labor stops thinking of itself as a trade union party rather than an aspirational party, the sooner it will regain power."
"After 20 years of economic growth and wealth accumulation, people have become more self-reliant. They have less need for government and less interest in government. This should work to the ALP's advantage. It no longer needs to juggle dozens of issues simultaneously, developing a labyrinth of new spending programs that drive the budget into deficit."
"...
"... he was wrong to endorse ... protectionism ..."
"If he wins next month's leadership ballot, he will be a case study in inner-city, left-wing bunkum."
Latham described Anthony Albanese's speech, embedded above, as "one of the worst speeches in recent Labor history" and a "a throwback to the 1960s, a narrow, insular pitch to the party's ever-shrinking industrial base".
#appendix3491" id="appendix3491">Appendix: "refugee rights" activist opposed to Albanese
Another group who have shown hostility to Anthony Albanese are ostensible refugee rights activists. In this video, whilst campaigning for Labor Party Leadership on the railway bridge at Sydenham station on 29 Aug 2013, Anthony Albanese is confronted by a refugee rights activist who objects to Papua New Guinea asylum seeker solution of the previous Federal Labor Government.
In this video Albanese is denied a chance to state his view.
It is curious that, unlike Albanese, who spoke up for Syria, few ostensible Australian refugee rights organisations concern themselves with what drives many refugees to flee their own countries, namely wars fought against Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, Somalia, etc. by the US, the UK, France, Australia and their allies.
Continuing the ABC's misreporting of the Syrian conflict, ABC Newsradio's Middle East reporter, Matt Brown described in lurid tones the inspection and destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stock pile. He described Syria's chemical weapons as the most deadly weapons known to man. Matt Brown appeared ignorant of the fact that across the border in Israel. lies a massive arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Given that and that Syria, has lost 100,000 lives since March 2011, as a result of a bloody insurgency by terrorists supported by Israel and its Western allies, and has suffered past aggression from Israel in 1956, 1967 and has witnessed repeated Israeli aggression against neighbouring Lebanon from the 1980's, Syria's possession of a means to deter its bullying expansionist neighbour from launching an outright invasion is hardly unreasonable.
Of course, Matt Brown was careful nottomentionthestrongevidenceimplicatingtheUS-backedterroristsasthemostlikelyperpetratorsofrecentchemicalattacks. This was reportedin May of the March Chemical weapons attack by United Nations special investigator Carla del Ponte. Photographic evidence by overflying Russian satellites show evidence of the recent chemical weapons having been launched from a 'rebel' controlled area, whilst evidence which implicates the Syrian government in the chemical attacks is non-existent.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem wages fresh blow at west at the UN meeting
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem has taken a fresh jab at the west and its Arab allies at the UN meeting who support "organ eaters."
Addressing world leaders at the UN General Assembly in New York, he also charged that the US, Britain and France had blocked the naming of the real perpetrators of chemical weapon attacks in Syria.
He said terrorists fighting the government in the civil war are being supplied with chemical weapons, but he did not name specific nations accused of supplying them.
US President Barack Obama told the UN last week that it was Syrian President Bashar Assad's army that was behind a chemical weapons attack in August that killed hundreds in the Damascus suburbs and brought threats of a US strike.
Syria has committed to getting rid of its stockpiles of chemical weapons and the UN Security Council voted unanimously on Friday to oblige it to do so based on a plan made by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
Al-Muallem said it is clear to all that offshoots of al-Qaeda — "the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world" — is fighting in Syria. But some countries refuse to recognize it, he said.
"The scenes of murder, manslaughter and eating human hearts were shown on TV screens, but did not touch blind consciences," al-Moallem said.
"There are innocent civilians whose heads are put on the grill just because they violate the extremist ideology and deviant views of al-Qaida. In Syria … there are murderers who dismember human bodies into pieces while still alive and send their limbs to their families, just because those citizens are defending a unified and secular Syria."
A video published online in May purported to show a member of Syria's armed opposition eating a human heart while the body of a Syrian soldier lay close by. Another video the minister referred to purportedly showed rebels grilling the head of a Syrian soldier.
The video with the heart drew condemnation from human rights groups as well as the Syrian National Council, one of the main opposition groups.
Al-Muallem said his government was committed to a political solution to his country's conflict which he called a war against "terror" and not a civil war as the international community has been calling it for months.
"Our commitment to a political solution does not mean watching our mosques and churches destroyed, as is happening in Homs and Aleppo, and is happening now in the town of Maaloula, the only place in the world whose people still speak the language of Jesus Christ."
Syrian leaders have averted a US-led invasion to the state by agreeing to a call to put its chemical weapons under international watchdog.
The move was applauded by the international community and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council unanimously issued a resolution on Syria's chemical weapons.
#admission" id="admission">Anti-government terrorist admits to having used chemical weapons in Syria
On 10 April 1993, one of the greatest heroes of the anti-apartheid struggle, Chris Hani, was gunned down by a neo-fascist in an attempt to disrupt the seemingly inexorable process of bringing majority rule to South Africa. Although direct legal culpability for this tragic assassination belonged to only two men — a Polish immigrant by the name of Janusz Walus #fnSubj1" id="txtSubj1">1#fnSubj2" id="txtSubj2">2 and a senior Conservative Party MP named Clive Derby-Lewis — the crime formed part of a much wider onslaught against the ANC and its allies. ...
... This onslaught — paramilitary, political, legal, psychological, journalistic — was not primarily conducted by fringe lunatics such as Walus and Derby-Lewis, but by the mainstream white political forces and their puppets within the black community (such as the Inkatha Freedom Party). The leaders of the ANC, and particularly the MK (Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed liberation movement with which Chris Hani's name will forever be associated) were subjected to a wide-ranging campaign of demonisation. This campaign created conditions such that political assassinations of anti-apartheid leaders became expected, almost inevitable. Of course, the more 'dovish' leaders of the main white party, the National Party, were quick to denounce Hani's assassination; but the truth is that they were at least partly responsible for it.
Speaking at Hani's funeral, Nelson Mandela spoke of this phenomenon: "To criminalise is to outlaw, and the hunting down of an outlaw is regarded as legitimate. That is why, although millions of people have been outraged at the murder of Chris Hani, few were really surprised. Those who have deliberately created this climate that legitimates political assassinations are as much responsible for the death of Chris Hani as the man who pulled the trigger."
Turning to the current situation in Syria, we see a parallel between the "climate that legitimates political assassinations" in early-90s South Africa and a media climate that legitimates the "limited military strikes" being planned in Washington.
The Syrian state has been under direct attack by western imperialism for the last two and a half years (although the US and others have been "accelerating the work of reformers" for much longer than that). The forms of this attack are many: providing weapons and money to opposition groups trying to topple the government; implementing wide-ranging trade sanctions; providing practically unlimited space in the media for the opposition whilst effecting a near-total media blackout on pro-government sources; and relentlessly slandering the Syrian president and government. In short, the western media and governments have — consciously and deliberately — "created this climate that legitimates" a military regime change operation against Syria.
An anti-war movement that takes part in war propaganda
Building a phoney case for imperialist regime change is, of course, not unusual. What is really curious is that the leadership of the anti-war movement in the west — the people whose clear responsibility is to build the widest possible opposition to war on Syria — has been actively participating in the propaganda and demonisation campaign. Whilst opposing direct military strikes, they have nonetheless given consistent support to the regime change operation that such strikes are meant to consummate.
Wilfully ignoring the indications that the Syrian government is very popular, Tariq Ali — perhaps the most recognisable figure in the British anti-war movement — feels able to claim that "the overwhelming majority of the Syrian people want the Assad family out". Indeed, he explicitly calls for foreign-assisted regime change, saying "non-violent pressure has to be kept up externally to tell Bashar he has to go."
Rising star of the British left Owen Jones used his high-profile Independent column of 25 August this year (just as the war rhetoric from Cameron, Hollande and Kerry was reaching fever pitch) to voice his hatred of the "gang of thugs" and "glorified gangsters" that run Syria, before worrying that "an attack could invite retaliation from Iran and an escalation of Russian's support for Assad's thugs, helping to drag the region even further into disaster." Jones evidently doesn't know very much about Syria, but that doesn't stop him from participating in the Ba'ath-bashing: last year, his response to a bomb attack in Damascus which killed several Syrian ministers was the gleeful "Adios, Assad (I hope)".
According to Stop the War Coalition national officer John Rees, "no-one can minimise the barbarity of the Assad regime, nor want to defend it from the justified rage of its own people." Any objectively progressive actions ever taken by the Syrian government (such as its support for Palestine and Hezbollah) are nothing more than "self-interested and calculated acts of state policy" — which claim is rather reminiscent of the Financial Times accusing Hugo Chávez of "demagogy" in pushing for land reform in Venezuela!
Rees is only too clear that the number one enemy for Syrians is the government, and that pro-west sectarian Saudi-funded rebels are a secondary enemy — a position virtually indistinguishable from the Israelis, who state: "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran." Further, Rees believes that what is really needed is to "give the revolutionaries the chance to shake off their pro-western leaders and defeat Assad." That's presumably if they're not too busy eating human hearts or murdering people on the basis of their religious beliefs.
“Frankly, this leader of independent, anti-imperialist Syria is subjected to far more severe abuse from the mainstream left than are the leaders of Britain, France and the US.”
These are not isolated examples. It is decidedly rare to find a British anti-war leader mentioning Bashar al-Assad and his government in anything but an intensely negative light. Bashar is "brutal"; he is a "dictator"; he should be indicted at the International Criminal Court. Frankly, this leader of independent, anti-imperialist Syria is subjected to far more severe abuse from the mainstream left than are the leaders of Britain, France and the US. In the imperialist heartlands of North America and Western Europe, the defence of (Preview) Syriahas (#BrokenLink">Preview) beenlefttoa (#BrokenLink">Preview) smallminority, although thankfully the (far more important) left movements in Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere have a much richer understanding of anti-imperialist solidarity.
At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious: if you're trying to spread anti-war sentiment and build the most effective possible movement against military action, then taking part in the demonisation of the country under threat is probably not a very smart strategy.
This campaign of propaganda, lies and slander has been very effective in creating a public opinion that is ambivalent at best in relation to the attack that is under preparation. Whilst most people may be "against" bombing Syria in principle, to what extent are they passionate enough to actually do anything to prevent this criminal, murderous act from taking place? Two million people marched against war in Iraq (and given the right leadership, they would have been willing to do considerably more than just march); yet no demonstration against war on Syria has attracted more than a couple of thousand people. Would thousands of people be willing to participate in direct action? Would they be willing to conduct, say, a one-week general strike? Would workers follow the great example of the Rolls Royce workers in East Kilbride and actively disrupt imperialist support for regime change? Highly unlikely. And this is because all they have heard about Syria — from the radical left to the fundamentalist right to the
Saudi-sponsored Muslim organisations — is that Bashar al-Assad is a brutal dictator whose overthrow is long overdue.
OK, but haven't we just prevented a war?
In the light of the House of Commons exhibiting an unusual level of sense by voting against Cameron's motion authorising use of force against Syria, some anti-war activists were quick to claim that the "sustained mass power of the anti-war movement" has "undoubtedly been a decisive factor." Members of this movement should "recognise what we have achieved in recent weeks : we have stopped the US and Britain from waging a war that, if the British parliament had voted the other way, would already have taken place, with who knows what consequences."
Now, optimism and jubilation have their place, but they shouldn't be used to deflect valid criticism or avoid serious reflection. Anybody who has been involved in the anti-war movement in Britain over the past decade will have noticed the level of activity steadily dwindling. Just two years ago, we witnessed a vicious war fought by the western imperialist powers (with Britain one of the major instigators) in order to effect regime change in Libya. Over 50,000 died. Murderous racists were brought to power. A head of state was tortured and murdered, while imperialism celebrated. Decades of development — that had turned Libya from a colonial backwater into the country with the highest living standards in Africa — have been turned back. Stop the War Coalition weren't able to mobilise more than a tiny protest against this war, and yet we are expected to believe that, two years later, Britain suddenly has a vibrant and brilliantly effective anti-war movement capable of preventing war on Syria? This is obviously not the case.
Regardless of how much attention the British public pays to the anti-war movement, the fact is that public opinion in the west is only a small factor in the much larger question of the balance of forces. Syria is different to Libya in that it has powerfulallies and that it has never disarmed. Furthermore, it shares a border with Israel and is capable of doing some serious damage to imperialism's most important ally in the Middle East. This makes military intervention a highly dangerous and unpredictable option from the point of view of the decision-makers in Washington, London and Paris.
The uprising was supposed to take care of this problem. A successful 'Arab Spring' revolution — armed, trained and funded by the west and its regional proxies in Saudi, Turkey, Qatar and Jordan — would have installed a compliant government and would have constituted an essential milestone in the imperialist-zionist regional strategy: the breakup of the resistance axis and the overthrow of all states unwilling to go along with imperialist diktat. This strategy — seemingly so difficult for western liberals and leftists to comprehend — is perfectly well understood by the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah: "What is happening in Syria is a confrontation between the resistance axis and the U.S./Israeli axis. They seek aggression against the resistance axis through Syria in order to destroy Syria's capabilities and people, marginalize its role, weaken the resistance and relieve Israel."
Beyond the Middle East, a successful 'revolution' in Syria would of course be a vital boost to the US-led global strategy: protecting US hegemony and containing the rise of China, Russia and the other major developing nations.
And yet, in spite of massive support given to the armed opposition; in spite of the relentless propaganda campaign against the Syrian government; in spite of Israeli bombing raids on Damascus; in spite of a brutal and tragic campaign of sectarianhatred being conducted by the rebels; in spite of the blanket support given to the rebels by the imperialists and zionists#fnSubj4" id="txtSubj4">4; the Syrian Arab Army is winning. The tide has clearly turned and the momentum is with the patriotic forces. Hezbollah have openly joined the fray. Russia has sent its warships to the region and has demonstrated some genuine creative brilliance in the diplomatic field in order to prevent western military strikes. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and others have been immovable in their demands for a peaceful, negotiated solution to the crisis.
Nobody in imperialist policy circles expected things to turn out like this. The 'revolution' was supposed to have succeeded long ago. As a result, the western ruling classes have moved from a firm, united policy (i.e. help the rebels to victory and then 'assist the transition to democracy') to chaos, confusion and division. There are hawkish elements that want to bomb their way to victory, and there are more cautious/realistic elements that realise this would be an incredibly dangerous course of action for the western powers and for Israel. Imperialism is faced with a very delicate, even impossible, balance: trying to preserve its increasingly fragile hegemony whilst actively attacking the global counter-hegemonic process. It is a case of "damned if they do and damned if they don't".
Such divisions within the ruling circles in the west are to be welcomed, but it would be an act of significant deception to claim victory for a western anti-war movement that has persistently refused to ally itself with global anti-imperialism.
Decriminalise and defend Syria
If we are going to build an anti-war movement capable of mobilising people in a serious way to actually counter imperialist war plans for Syria, we cannot continue with the hopeless "neither imperialism nor Assad" position, which is designed to avoid the obvious question: when imperialism is fighting against the Syrian state, which side should we be on?
A far more viable anti-war slogan is: Defend Syria from imperialist destabilisation, demonisation and war.
But can we really defend this brutal, oppressive, repressive regime? Wasn't the much-missed Hugo Chavez just being a bit of a nutcase when he expressed his fondness for "brother President Bashar al-Assad" and worked to counter the offensive against Syria by shipping fuel to it?
As with so many things, we have to start with a total rejection of the mainstream media narrative. The country they paint as a brutally repressive police state, a prison of nations, a Cold War relic, is (or was, until the war started tearing it apart) a dignified, safe, secular, modern and moderately prosperous state, closely aligned with the socialist and non-aligned world (e.g. Venezuela, Cuba, DPR Korea), and one of the leading forces within the resistance axis — a bloc that the imperialists are absolutely desperate to break up.
In the words of its president, Syria is "an independent state working for the interests of its people, rather than making the Syrian people work for the interests of the West." For over half a century, it has stubbornly refused to play by the rules of imperialism and neoliberalism. Stephen Gowans shows that, in spite of some limited market reforms of recent years, "the Ba'athist state has always exercised considerable influence over the Syrian economy, through ownership of enterprises, subsidies to privately-owned domestic firms, limits on foreign investment, and restrictions on imports. These are the necessary economic tools of a post-colonial state trying to wrest its economic life from the grips of former colonial powers and to chart a course of development free from the domination of foreign interests."
Syria has done a great deal — perhaps more than any other country — to oppose Israel and support the Palestinians. It has long been the chief financial and practical supporter of the various Palestinian resistance organisations, as well as of Hezbollah. It has intervened militarily to prevent Israel's expansion into Lebanon. It has provided a home to hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees, who are treated far better than they are elsewhere in the Arab world. In spite of massive pressure to do so — and in spite of the obvious immediate benefits that it would reap in terms of security and peace — it has refused to go down the route of a bilateral peace treaty with Israel. Palestine is very much at the forefront of the Syrian national consciousness, as exemplified by the Syrians who went to the border with Israel on Nakba Day 2011 and were martyred there at the hands of the Israeli 'Defence' Forces.
Whatever mistakes and painful compromises Ba'athist Syria has made over the years should be viewed in terms of the very unstable and dangerous geopolitical and economic context within which it exists. For example:
It is in a permanent state of war with Israel, and has part of its territory occupied by the latter.
While it has stuck to the principles of Arab Nationalism and the defence of Palestinian rights, the other frontline Arab states — Egypt and Jordan, along with the reactionary Gulf monarchies — have capitulated.
It has suffered constant destabilisation by the western imperialist countries and their regional allies.
It shares a border with the heavily militarised pro-western regime in Turkey.
It shares a border with the chronically unstable Lebanon (historically a part of Syria that was carved out in the 1920s by the French colonialists in order to create a Christian-dominated enclave).
Its most important ally of the 70s and 80s — the Soviet Union — collapsed in 1991, leaving it in a highly precarious situation.
Its economic burdens have been added to by longstanding sanctions, significantly deepened in 2003 by George W Bush, specifically in response to Syria's support for resistance movements in the region.
Its economic problems of recent years have also been exacerbated by the illegal imperialist war on Iraq, which created a refugee crisis of horrific proportions. Syria absorbed 1.5 million Iraqi refugees and has made significant sacrifices to help them. Given that "Syria has the highest level of civic and social rights for refugees in the region," it's not difficult to understand how its economic and social stability must have been affected.
In recent years, Syria has been suffering from a devastating drought "impacting more than 1.3 million people, killing up to 85 percent of livestock in some regions and forcing 160 villages to be abandoned due to crop failures". The root of this problem is the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, as one-third of Israel's water is supplied from Golan.
Given the number of different religious sects and ethnicities within Syria, it has never been difficult for the west and its regional proxies to stir up tensions and create unrest.
While there is clearly a need to enhance popular democracy and to clamp down on corruption and cronyism (in what country is this not the case?), this is well understood by the state. As Alistair Crooke writes: "There is this mass demand for reform. But paradoxically — and contrary to the 'awakening' narrative — most Syrians also believe that President Bashar al-Assad shares their conviction for reform."
So there is every reason to defend Syria. Not because it is some sort of socialist utopia, but because it is an independent, anti-imperialist, anti-zionist state that tries to provide a good standard of living for its people and which aligns itself with the progressive and counterhegemonic forces in the region and worldwide.
Tasks for the anti-war movement
If the anti-war movement can agree on the need to actively defend Syria, then its tasks become relatively clear:
Clearly explain to the public that this is not a revolution or a civil war, but an imperialist war of regime change where the fighting has been outsourced to sectarian religious terrorists. It is not part of a region-wide 'Arab Spring' process of "overthrowing reactionary regimes"; rather, it is part of a global process of destabilising, demonising, weakening and removing all states that refuse to play by the rules. It is this same process that brought about regime change in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Grenada, Nicaragua, Chile, Argentina, Congo, Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Brazil and elsewhere. This process was described in a very clear, straightforward way by Maurice Bishop, leader of the socialist government in Grenada that was overthrown 30 years ago: "Destabilisation is the name given to the newest method of controlling and exploiting the lives and resources of a country and its people by a bigger and more powerful country through bullying, intimidation and violence… Destabilisation
takes many forms: there is propaganda destabilisation, when the foreign media, and sometimes our own Caribbean press, prints lies and distortions against us; there is economic destabilisation, when our trade and our industries are sabotaged and disrupted; and there is violent destabilization, criminal acts of death and destruction… As long as we show the world, clearly and unflinchingly, that we intend to remain free and independent; that we intend to consolidate and strengthen the principles and goals of our revolution; as we show this to the world, there will be attacks on us."
Stop participating in the demonisation of the Syrian state. This demonisation — repeating the media's lies against Syria, exaggerating the negative aspects of the Syrian state and downplaying all the positive things it has done — is totally demobilising. It is preventing the development of a meaningful, creative, courageous, audacious anti-war movement.
Campaign for an end to trade sanctions on Syria.
Campaign for an end to the arming and funding of rebel groups by the British, French and US governments and their stooges in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan and Kuwait.
Send peace delegations to Syria to observe the situation first hand and report back. The recent delegation by Cynthia McKinney, Ramsey Clark, Dedon Kamathi and others is an excellent example that should be emulated.
Campaign for wide-ranging industrial action in the case of military attack.
Support all processes leading to a peaceful, negotiated resolution of the Syrian crisis, reflecting the will of the vast majority of the Syrian people.
The defense of Syria is, at this point in time, the frontline of the struggle worldwide against imperialist domination. It is Korea in 1950, Vietnam in 1965, Algeria in 1954, Zimbabwe in 1970, Cuba in 1961, Nicaragua in 1981, Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, Palestine since 1948. It's time for us to step up.
Further reading
Patrick Seale's biography of Hafez al-Assad, 'Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East', provides an excellent overview of 20th century Syria and a very balanced, detailed depiction of the Ba'athist government.
The following articles are also particularly useful:
13 Sp 2013 by Max Blumenthal. From behind a paywall at The Nation
Article consists of interviews with refugee opponents of Syrian government in Jordan:
...
When news of the August 21 chemical attacks that left hundreds dead in the Ghouta region east of Damascus reached Zaatari, terror and dread spiked to unprecedented levels. Many residents repeated to me the rumors spreading through the camp that Bashar would douse them in sarin gas as soon as he crushed the last vestiges of internal resistance—a kind of genocidal victory celebration. When President Barack Obama announced his intention to launch punitive missile strikes on Syria, however, a momentary sense of hope began to surge through the camp. Indeed, there was not one person I spoke to in Zaatari who did not demand US military intervention at the earliest possible moment.
13 Sep 2013 by. From behind a paywall at crikey.com.au
Evidently W H Chong, one of Crikey's "Culture Mulcher's", spent time in August 2013 "hanging out" with the above-mentioned eaters of human hearts. The article consists of 7 photos including two of W H Chong's rebel mates horsing around in the apartment of a Syrian police captain. A link to a propaganda video from the pro-war New York Times is also included.
by former Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown, 2 Jun 2011
Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown today supported Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd's call for the United Nations to refer Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the International Criminal Court to account for his atrocities.
by former Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown, 9 Feb 2012
Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown moved in the Senate today to condemn human rights abuses in Syria and said China and Russia's veto of the UN Security Council resolution aimed at stemming the bloodshed was reprehensible.
...
"The Greens back the sanctions measures imposed by the Foreign Minister.
"The next question to consider is whether the embassy here in Canberra should be closed, as at present they don't represent decency or democracy."
Senator Brown successfully moved:
That the Senate -
a) condemns the appalling human rights abuses and escalating violence in Syria, that has seen thousands of innocent civilians killed; and
b) calls on President Assad to step down, to finally put an end to the intolerable bloodshed of the Syrian people.#fnSubj5" id="txtSubj5">5
Curiously, in spite of the Greens' past professed concern about Syria and in spite of the death toll having risen from around 20,000 in February 2011 when Senator Brown's first motion was put to the Senate to around 100,000 at the time of the Federal elections on 7 September 2013 nothing was said about Syria on the Greens campaign web-site during the election campaign. Could it be more than coincidence that, according to the latest figures, in 6 states and 2 territories only 3 Greens were elected to the Senate whilst 7 candidates from other minor parties were elected?
Footnote[s]
#fnSubj1" id="fnSubj1">1. #txtSubj1">↑ See page 205 in Chapter 10, "Democracy born in chains South Africa's constricted freedom" of The Shock Doctrine (2007) by Naomi Klein.
#fnSubj2" id="fnSubj2">2. #txtSubj1">↑ The name is rightly spelt with a final character of the special Polish character known as 's acute'. It has the same slash above it as á ('a acute' or á). Curiously much text rendering software from Anglophone countries or Western Europe can't handle this character.
"... Syria hosted a population of refugees and asylum seekers numbering approximately 1,852,300. The vast majority of this population was from Iraq (1,300,000), but sizable populations from the former Palestine (543,400) and Somalia (5,200) also lived in the country."
Australia, under Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard, participated in the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to John Howard's 1996 election to Prime Minister, the previous Labor Party Governments of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating imposed sanctions on Iraq commencing in 1990. Those sanctions by Australia and other members of the "Coalition of the Willing", which denied food and medicine even to starving or ill children, eventually cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Australia also participated in the 1991 war against Iraq, for which the fraudulent claim, that brutal Iraqi invaders had thrown Kuwaiti babies out of incubators onto the hospital floor to die, was used as a pretext.
#fnSubj4" id="fnSubj4">4. #txtSubj4">↑ Whilst Ia am strongly opposed to the reactionary geopolitical role played by the state of Israel and support those forces resisting Israel, I, nevertheless take exception to the way in which the term 'zionist' is used pejoratively in almost all written material in support of the Arab cause. Whilst the appalling conduct of Israel should be resolutely opposed, it does not follow that every person who labels himself/herself 'zionist' necessarily supports all of Israel's actions.
#fnSubj5" id="fnSubj5">5. #txtSubj5">↑Shortly after this was carried by the Senate, United States Government asset, Foreign Minister Bob Carr expelled the Syrian ambassador from Australia as the ambassador's daughter was preparing to sit for her year 12 exams.
Update, 28 Nov 2013: No mention was made of Syria by Albanese, Shorten or the audience in the leadershipdebate of 24 September. (Whilst this could have been because of time constraints, it seems a surprising omission.) On 20 April, 2013, Anthony Albanese, a candidate for the national leadership of the Labor Party by membership ballot,1 expressed 2 his support for Syria3. This is contrary to how much of the senior leadership of the Labor Party has acted. 4 For two and a half years they supported the United States as Syria has tried to defend itself against invasion by proxy terrorists armed, paid for and supplied by the United States. This war has, so far, since March 2011, cost 100,000 lives.
Although Labor is no longer in Government following its defeat at the elections of 7 September 2013, Anthony Albanese's support for Syria is a welcome change to the collusion of senior members of the previous Labor Government with the United States in its war against Libya and the proxy terrorist war Syria. Kevin Rudd, as "roving" Australia Foreign Minister in the Middle East in March 2011, colluded with the UnitedStates to help create the international environment that enabled the U.S and its NATO allies to bomb and invade Libya in 2012. Since then, both Kevin Rudd and former Foreign Minister BobCarr have colluded to help facilitatethe terrorist war against Syriaby the United States.
The above video is cause to hope that Labor may to return to its past tradition of opposing unjust wars as exemplified by the withdrawal of Australia from the Vietnam War by the newly elected Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in December 1972. Had Labor as a whole so vocally opposed the war against Syria, the level of the political discussion during the election campaign would have been raised and the outcome of the 7 September elections may well have been different.
Footnote[s]
#fn3465_1" id="fn3465_1">1. #txtSubj1">↑ Nominations for the ballot of Labor Party members for the National leadership closed on 20 September, according to an ABC report.
#fn3465_3" id="fn3465_3">3. #txtSubj3">↑ As appears to be mandatory, Anthony Albanese also expressed his support for 'multi-culturalism'. Whilst Syria can rightly be held up as an example of different cultures living in harmony alongside each other for centuries, most notably, between Christians and Muslims, the same cannot be said for Australia, where multiculturalism has been used since the 1970's as a smokescreen to enable governments to impose high immigration.
As a consequence, native Australian workers have had their working conditions reduced or have been replaced altogether. The most infamous example is Section 457 visas by which employers are able to import workers with the supposed skills they claim to need in preference to properly training their own workforce, with on-the-job training or apprenticeships. 'Temporary' backpacker workers are employed in industries such as fruit-picking where that work was once available to low-skilled native workers or university students on summer vacation.
Another effect of high immigration, welcomed by by landlords and property speculators, is to ensure a scarcity of housing stock, thus driving up the prices that can be demanded of tenants and home-buyers.
#fn3465_4" id="fn3465_4">4. #txtSubj4">↑ how this was dealt with in the Federal Labor Parliamentary Caucus, would be very interesting to know, as much of Bob Carr's most explicit and determined encouragement of U.S. military aggression against Syria followed Anthony Albanese's speech.
Perhaps Bob Carr's sudden resignation from the Senate is not such a mystery given the failure of President Obama, John Kerry, himself, Kevin Rudd and their international allies to win international diplomatic support for their war plans.
Sadly, Kevin Rudd has not resigned from Parliament and it can't be completely ruled out that he will again attempt to contest the national leadership. However, Bob Carr has vanished completely from public view. Nothing more has been posted to his web-site Thoughtlines with Bob Carr since 2 Sep 2013.
In March 2011 'roving' Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, then in the Middle East called for the establishment of aso-called "no-fly zone" over Libya. This helped prepare the groundwork for NATO's subsequent invasion of Libya. The Australian government, whose delegate to the United Nations currently holds the office of President of the United Nations' Security Council, has supported United States as it has waged a proxy terrorist war against Syria that has already cost 100,000 deaths in two and a half years. The hostility towards Syria by the previous 'Labor' Government, which was voted out of office on 7 September, is apparently to be continued by the new Liberal/National Coalition Government according to the new Foreign Minister, Senator Julie Bishop.
The Australian mainstream media, including the ABC, SBS the Fairfax and Murdoch newsmedia, has persistently lied to the Australian public about Syria. The most recent example is the ludicrous claim that the Syrian Government, which, as even NATO acknowledged, has the support of 70% of Syrians, killed 1,400 Syrians with chemical weapons. The claim that the Syrian government used chemical weapons has since been comprehensively demolished in a number of articles on the web. One such article, by Tony Cartalucci, the creator of the Land Destroyer Report is included below.
September 17, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) - As predicted days before the UN's Syrian chemical weapons report was made public, the West has begun spinning the findings to bolster their faltering narrative regarding alleged chemical weapon attacks on August 21, 2013 in eastern Damascus, Syria. The goal of course, is to continue demonizing the Syrian government while simultaneously sabotaging a recent Syrian-Russian deal to have Syria's chemical weapon stockpiles verified and disarmed by independent observers.
Image: 107mm rocket shells frequently used by terrorists operating within and along Syria's borders. They are similar in configuration and function to those identified by the UN at sites investigated after the alleged August 21, 2013 Damascus, Syria chemical weapons attack, only smaller.
A barrage of suspiciously worded headlines attempt to link in the mind of unobservant readers the UN's "confirmation" of chemical weapons use in Syria and Western claims that it was the Syrian government who used them. Additionally, the US, British, and French governments have quickly assembled a list of fabrications designed to spin the UN report to bolster their still-unsubstantiated accusations against the Syrian government.
The UN report did not attribute blame for the attack, as that was not part of its remit.
However, that did not stop UK Foreign Secretary William Hague who claimed:
From the wealth of technical detail in the report - including on the scale of the attack, the consistency of sample test results from separate laboratories, witness statements, and information on the munitions used and their trajectories - it is abundantly clear that the Syrian regime is the only party that could have been responsible.
And US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power who stated:
The technical details of the UN report make clear that only the regime could have carried out this large-scale chemical weapons attack.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius is also quoted as saying:
When you look at the findings carefully, the quantities of toxic gas used, the complexity of the mixes, the nature, and the trajectory of the carriers, it leaves absolutely no doubt as to the origin of the attack.
The Washington Post went one step further, and perhaps foolishly, laid out a detailed explanation of each fabrication the West is using to spin the latest UN report. In an article titled, The U.N. chemical weapons report is pretty damning for Assad, 5 points are made and explained as to why the UN report "points" to the Syrian government.
1. Chemical weapons were delivered with munitions not used by rebels: This claim includes referencing "Syria watcher" Eliot Higgins also known as "Brown Moses," a UK-based armchair observer of the Syrian crisis who has been documenting weapons used throughout the conflict on his blog.
While Higgins explains these particularly larger diameter rockets (140mm and 330mm) have not been seen (by him) in the hands of terrorists operating within and along Syria's borders, older posts of his show rockets similar in construction and operation, but smaller, most certainly in the hands of the militants.
The Washington Post contends that somehow these larger rockets require "technology" the militants have no access to. This is categorically false. A rocket is launched from a simple tube, and the only additional technology terrorists may have required for the larger rockets would have been a truck to mount them on. For an armed front fielding stolen tanks, finding trucks to mount large metal tubes upon would seem a rather elementary task - especially to carry out a staged attack that would justify foreign intervention and salvage their faltering offensive.
2. The sarin was fired from a regime-controlled area: The Washington Post contends that:
The report concludes that the shells came from the northwest of the targeted neighborhood. That area was and is controlled by Syrian regime forces and is awfully close to a Syrian military base. If the shells had been fired by Syrian rebels, they likely would have come from the rebel-held southeast.
What the Washington Post fails to mention are the "limitations" the UN team itself put on the credibility of their findings. On page 18 of the report (22 of the .pdf), the UN states [emphasis added]:
The time necessary to conduct a detailed survey of both locations as well as take samples was very limited. The sites have been well travelled by other individuals both before and during the investigation. Fragments and other possible evidence have clearly been handled/moved prior to the arrival of the investigation team.
It should also be noted that militants still controlled the area after the alleged attack and up to and including during the investigation by UN personnel. Any tampering or planting of evidence would have been carried out by "opposition" members - and surely the Syrian government would not point rockets in directions that would implicate themselves.
3. Chemical analysis suggests sarin likely came from controlled supply: The Washington Post claims:
The U.N. investigators analyzed 30 samples, which they found contained not just sarin but also "relevant chemicals, such as stabilizers." That suggests that the chemical weapons were taken from a controlled storage environment, where they could have been processed for use by troops trained in their use.
Only, any staged attack would also need to utilize stabilized chemical weapons and personnel trained in their use. From stockpiles looted in Libya, to chemical arms covertly transferred from the US, UK, or Israel, through Saudi Arabia or Qatar, there is no short supply of possible sources.
Regarding "rebels" lacking the necessary training to handle chemical weapons - US policy has seen to it that not only did they receive the necessary training, but Western defense contractors specializing in chemical warfare are reported to be on the ground with militants inside Syria. CNN reported in their 2012 article, Sources: U.S. helping underwrite Syrian rebel training on securing chemical weapons, that:
The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday.
The training, which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.
4. Cyrillic characters on the sides of the shells: The Washington Post claims:
The Russian lettering on the artillery rounds strongly suggests they were Russian-manufactured. Russia is a major supplier of arms to the Syrian government, of course, but more to the point they are not a direct or indirect supplier of arms to the rebels.
Additionally, had the attacks been staged by terrorists or their Western backers, particularly attacks whose fallout sought to elicit such a profound geopolitical shift in the West's favor, it would be assumed some time would be invested in making them appear to have originated from the Syrian government. The use of chemical weapons on a militant location by the militants themselves would constitute a "false flag" attack, which by definition would require some sort of incriminating markings or evidence to accompany the weapons used in the barrage.
5. The UN Secretary General's comments on the report: The Washington Post itself admits the tenuous nature of this final point, stating:
"This is perhaps the most circumstantial case at all, but it's difficult to ignore the apparent subtext in Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's news conference discussing the report..."
That the Washington Post, and the interests driving its editorial board, could not even produce 5 reasonably convincing arguments as to why the UN report somehow implicates the Syrian government casts doubt on claims regarding the "wealth of technical detail" pointing in President Bashar al-Assad's direction.
The UN report confirms that chemical weapons were used, a point that was not contended by either side of the conflict, before or after the UN investigation began. What the West is attempting to now do, is retrench its narrative behind the report and once again create a baseless justification for continued belligerence against Syria, both covert and as a matter of official foreign policy.
To help overcome public opposition to U.S. President Barack Obama's planned conventional war against Syria, the mainstream media, as well as fabricating lies such as the claims of the use of Chemical weapons by the Syrian Government, is concealing news of how members of the Christian community of Syria are being murdered by the Western-supported jihadist 'rebels' who are fighting to overthrow the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad. Many of the Syrian Christian community can trace their family roots back to the time of Jesus, In this embedded speech, just posted to YouTube, British Parliamentarian, GeorgeGalloway shows up U.S. President Barack and other Western leaders, who claim to be Christian, for the despicable lying hypocrites that they are.
Transcript of George Galloway's Speech
You know that stinking hypocrite Obama is frequently seen in churches. Have you seen him, creeping Jesus with these hands together praying? Did you see Christianity on his sleeve? Did you know that he used to attend churches in Chicago and sing along all happy, clappy for Jesus and for God? Obama, the Syrian Christian town of Maaloula is on fire this evening! This evening, its ancient Christian churches are on fire! Its priests and its parishioners are being butchered by al-Qaeda paid by you! Churches in which the language of Jesus himself is still spoken. The last Churches in the world still speaking Aramaic, the language of Jesus, are now on fire.
The faithful Christians fleeing for their lives and being murdered by al-Qaeda paid for by you, and you are about to become their Air Force. You're a disgusting hypocrite, Obama. You're a liar when you say you're a Christian. You care nothing about Christians. You care nothing about God! You don't believe in the prophets. Peace be upon them. You just believe in the profits and how to get a bigger piece of them.
for the people that back to ... (continuity lost?) .. Westminster Abbey, or you see that disgusting hypocrite, Obama -- happy clapping in Christian churches in the United States.
Remember this: that the Christians of Syria are being murdered and massacred by al-Qaeda paid for and armed by Britain and the United States and France and the other hypocrite so-called Christian leaderships in the world.
May god preserve Maaloula. May god save as many Christians as can be saved from the inferno which has been launched against them. Its a beautiful village. I've been there. The monastery there is one of the most serene places on the earth. Actually the best place in the Arab world to be a Christian is Syria! But these hypocrites in the so-called Christian West don't give a toss about that.
As I said, their leaders care nothing about the prophets -- peace be upon them -- everything about the profits and how to get a bigger piece of them.
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, whose pronouncements on Syria have featured on candobetter.net recently, has authored today's editorial opinion for the New York Times, calling on the US not to invade Syria. Full text reproduced here.
A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013 in the New York Times
MOSCOW — "RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."
Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.
Originally published on the New York Times site, where you can also read over 500 comments (at time of this report - 2135hrs 12/9/2013 Melbourne time)."
For more than two years, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been demonised by the Western presstitute newsmedia as a brutal dictator, a mass murderer, corrupt and, most recently, a chemical war criminal.
Unlike the serial liars Barack Obama and John Kerry, who have yet to face real questioning by the western 'journalists', Syrian President President Bashar al-Assad, for a brutal and corrupt dictator, has shown himself remarkably willing and able to face critical and probing interviews.
On 3 September 2013, he was interviewed by the French daily Le Figaro. On 6 Jun , he was interviewed by the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper. On 5 April 2013, he was interviewed by a Turkish television station. On 23 February, he was interviewed by a German television station. In all of these interviews, the claims made against his government were put to him and he was able to convincingly refute them. It is hard to conceive of how President al-Assad could have appeared so calm and credible if there were any factual basis to the allegations made against him.
On 9 September 2013, as the United States was preparing to strike Syria, President Assad was interviewed by Charlie Rose of CBS News, a station which has been presenting lying propaganda as news about the Syrian conflict. Although not a native English Speaker, President al-Assad, calmly and clearly put his case and answered the unsubstantiated claims aginst his government including the claim that his government had used poison gas against Syrian civilians.
CBS News Presenter
CBS Interview Charlie Rose
President Bashar al-Assad calmly putting his case and refuting mainstream media lies.
CBS commentator, who labeled President al-Assad's words 'propaganda'.
Following the interview, viewers were dissuaded from forming their own judgment, when President al-Assad's words were labeled 'propaganda'.
During the interview President al-Assad neither confirmed nor denied that Syria had chemical weapons. He pointed out that Israel, from which his country had faced invasion on a number of occasions, as well as Syria, was not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nevertheless, his government wished to see chemical weapons abolished and had taken initiatives to ensure that they were. This was brushed aside after the interview concluded, when one female commentator asserted that "Syria has a very large stockpiles of chemical weapons according to multiple intelligence communities around the world."
#part1_3455" id="part1_3455">Part 1 (29:27) of the full CBS Interview
Update, 15 August 2015: The full video of length 56:28 minutes can be watched here on YouTube in place of #part1_3455">Part 1 and #part2_3455">Part 2 on this page. - Ed
Charlie Rose: Mr. President thank you very much for this opportunity to talk to you at a very important moment because the President of the United States will address the nation this week and, as you know an important conversation is taking place in Washington and important things are happening here in your country. Do you expect an airstrike?
President al-Assad:As long as the United States doesn't obey the international law and trample over the Charter of the United Nations we have to worry that any administration -- not only this one -- would do anything. According to the lies that we've been hearing for the last two weeks from high-ranking officials in the US administration we have to expect the worst.
Charlie Rose: Are you prepared?
President al-Assad: We've been living in difficult circumstances for the last two years and a half, and we prepare ourselves for every possibility. But that doesn't mean if you're prepared things will be better; it's going to get worse with any foolish strike or stupid war.
Charlie Rose: What do you mean worse?
President al-Assad: Worse because of the repercussions because nobody can tell you the repercussions of the first strike. We're talking about one region, bigger regions, not only about Syria. This interlinked region, this intermingled, interlocked, whatever you want to call it; if you strike somewhere, you have to expect the repercussions somewhere else in different forms in ways you don't expect.
Charlie Rose: Are you suggesting that if in fact there is a strike; there will be repercussions against the United States from your friends in other countries like Iran or Hezbollah or others?
President al-Assad: As I said, this may take different forms: direct and indirect. Direct when people want to retaliate, or governments. Indirect when you're going to have instability and the spread of terrorism all over the region that will influence the west directly.
Charlie Rose: Have you had conversations with Russia, with Iran or with Hezbollah about how to retaliate?
President al-Assad: We don't discuss this issue as a government, but we discuss the repercussions, which is more important because sometimes repercussions could be more destroying than the strike itself. Any American strike will not destroy as much as the terrorists have already destroyed in Syria; sometimes the repercussions could be many doubles the strike itself.
Charlie Rose: But some have suggested that it might tip the balance in the favor of the rebels and lead to the overthrow of your government.
Any strike will be as direct support to Al-Qaeda
President al-Assad: Exactly. Any strike will be as direct support to Al-Qaeda offshoot that's called Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. You're right about this. It's going to be direct support.
Charlie Rose: This is about chemical warfare. Let's talk about that. Do you approve of the use of chemical warfare, the use of deadly chemicals? Do you think that it is an appropriate tool of war, to use chemicals?
President al-Assad: We are against any WMD, any weapons of mass destruction, whether chemical or nuclear.
Charlie Rose: So you're against the use of chemical warfare?
20130910-065004.jpg
President al-Assad:Yes, not only me. As a state, as a government, in 2001 we proposed to the United Nations to empty or to get rid of every WMD in the Middle East, and the United States stood against that proposal. This is our conviction and policy.
Charlie Rose: But you're not a signatory to the chemical warfare agreement.
President al-Assad: Not yet.
Charlie Rose: Why not?
President al-Assad: Because Israel has WMD, and it has to sign, and Israel is occupying our land, so that's we talked about the Middle East, not Syria, not Israel; it should be comprehensive.
Charlie Rose: Do you consider chemical warfare equivalent to nuclear warfare?
President al-Assad: I don't know. We haven't tried either.
Charlie Rose: But you know, you're a head of state, and you understand the consequences of weapons that don't discriminate.
President al-Assad: Technically, they're not the same. But morally, it's the same.
Charlie Rose: Morally, they are the same.
President al-Assad: They are the same, but at the end, killing is killing. Massacring is massacring. Sometimes you may kill tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands with very primitive armaments.
Charlie Rose: Then why do you have such a stockpile of chemical weapons?
President al-Assad: We don't discuss this issue in public because we never said that we have it, and we never said that we don't have it. It's a Syrian issue; it's a military issue we never discuss in public with anyone.
Charlie Rose: This is from the New York Times this morning: Syria's leaders amassed one of the world's largest stockpiles of chemical weapons with help from the Soviet Union and Iran as well as Western European suppliers, and even a handful of American companies. According to American diplomatic cables and declassified intelligence records, you have amassed one of the largest supplies of chemical weapons in the world.
President al-Assad: To have or not to have is a possibility, but to depend on what media says is nonsense, or to depend on some of the reports of the intelligence is nonsense and that was proven when they invaded Iraq ten years ago and they said "Iraq has stockpiles of WMD" and it was proven after the invasion that this was false; it was fraud. So, we can't depend on what one magazine wrote. But at the end, I said it's something not to be discussed with anyone.
Charlie Rose: You accept that the world believes that you have a stockpile of chemical weapons?
President al-Assad: Who?
Charlie Rose: The world. The United States and other powers who also said that you have chemical weapons.
President al-Assad: It isn't about what they believe in, it's about the reality that we have, and this reality, we own it, we don't have to discuss it.
Charlie Rose: Speaking of reality, what was the reality on August 21st? What happened in your judgment?
President al-Assad: We're not in the area where the alleged chemical attack happened. I said alleged. We're not sure that anything happened.
Charlie Rose: Even at this date, you're not sure that chemical weapons -- even though you have seen the video tape, even though you've seen the bodies, even though your own officials have been there.
President al-Assad: I haven't finished. Our soldiers in another area were attacked chemically. Our soldiers - they went to the hospital as casualties because of chemical weapons, but in the area where they said the government used chemical weapons, we only had video and we only have pictures and allegations. We're not there; our forces, our police, our institutions don't exist there. How can you talk about what happened if you don't have evidence? We're not like the American administration, we're not social media administration or government. We are a government that deals with reality. When we have evidence, we'll announce it.
Charlie Rose: Well, as you know, Secretary Kerry has said there is evidence and that they saw rockets that fired from a region controlled by your forces into a region controlled by the rebels. They have evidence from satellite photographs of that. They have evidence of a message that was intercepted about chemical weapons, and soon thereafter there were other intercepted messages, so Secretary Kerry has presented what he views as conclusive evidence.
Kerry reminds about the big lie that Collin Powell said in front of the world on satellites about the WMD in Iraq
President al-Assad:No, he presented his confidence and his convictions. It's not about confidence, it's about evidence. The Russians have completely opposite evidence that the missiles were thrown from an area where the rebels control. This reminds me - what Kerry said - about the big lie that Collin Powell said in front of the world on satellites about the WMD in Iraq before going to war. He said "this is our evidence." Actually, he gave false evidence. In this case, Kerry didn't even present any evidence. He talked "we have evidence" and he didn't present anything. Not yet, nothing so far; not a single shred of evidence.
Charlie Rose: Do you have some remorse for those bodies, those people, it is said to be up to at least a thousand or perhaps 1400, who were in Eastern Ghouta, who died?
President al-Assad: We feel pain for every Syrian victim.
Charlie Rose: What about the victims of this assault from chemical warfare?
President al-Assad: Dead is dead, killing is killing, crime is crime. When you feel pain, you feel pain about their family, about the loss that you have in your country, whether one person was killed or a hundred or a thousand. It's a loss, it's a crime, it's a moral issue. We have family that we sit with, family that loved their dear ones. It's not about how they are killed, it's about that they are dead now; this is the bad thing.
Charlie Rose: But has there been any remorse or sadness on behalf of the Syrian people for what happened?
President al-Assad:I think sadness prevails in Syria now. We don't feel anything else but sadness because we have this killing every day, whether with chemical or any other kind. It's not about how. We feel with it every day.
Charlie Rose: But this was indiscriminate, and children were killed, and people who said goodbye to their children in the morning didn't see them and will never see them again, in Ghouta.
President al-Assad:That is the case every day in Syria, that's why you have to stop the killing. That's why we have to stop the killing. But what do you mean by "indiscriminate" that you are talking about?
Charlie Rose: Well, the fact that chemical warfare is indiscriminate in who it kills, innocents as well as combatants.
20130910-065057.jpg
President al-Assad: Yeah, but you're not talking about evidence, you're not talking about facts, we are talking about allegations. So, we're not sure that if there's chemical weapon used and who used it. We can't talk about virtual things, we have to talk about facts.
Charlie Rose: It is said that your government delayed the United Nations observers from getting to Ghouta and that you denied and delayed the Red Cross then the Red Crescent from getting there to make observations and to help.
President al-Assad:The opposite happened, your government delayed because we asked for a delegation in March 2013 when the first attack happened in Aleppo in the north of Syria; they delayed it till just a few days before al-Ghouta when they sent those team, and the team itself said in its report that he did everything as he wanted. There was not a single obstacle.
Charlie Rose: But they said they were delayed in getting there, that they wanted to be there earlier.
President al-Assad: No, no, no; there was a conflict, there was fighting, they were shooting. That's it. We didn't prevent them from going anywhere. We asked them to come; why to delay them? Even if you want to take the American story, they say we used chemical weapons the same day the team or the investigation team came to Syria; is it logical? It's not logical. Even if a country or army wanted to use such weapon, they should have waited a few days till the investigation finished its work. It's not logical, the whole story doesn't even hold together.
Charlie Rose: We'll come back to it. If your government did not do it, despite the evidence, who did it?
President al-Assad:We have to be there to get the evidence like what happened in Aleppo when we had evidence. And because the United States didn't send the team, we sent the evidence to the Russians.
Charlie Rose: But don't you want to know the answer, if you don't accept the evidence so far, as to who did this?
President al-Assad:The question is who threw chemicals on the same day on our soldiers. That's the same question. Technically, not the soldiers. Soldiers don't throw missiles on themselves. So, either the rebels, the terrorists, or a third party. We don't have any clue yet. We have to be there to collect the evidences then we can give answer.
Charlie Rose: Well, the argument is made that the rebels don't have their capability of using chemical weapons, they do not have the rockets and they do not have the supply of chemical weapons that you have, so therefore they could not have done it.
President al-Assad:First of all, they have rockets, and they've been throwing rockets on Damascus for months.
Charlie Rose: That carry chemical weapons?
President al-Assad: Rockets in general. They have the means - first. Second, the sarin gas that they've been talking about for the last weeks is a very primitive gas. You can have it done in the backyard of a house; it's a very primitive gas. So, it's not something complicated.
Charlie Rose: But this was not primitive. This was a terrible use of chemical weapons.
President al-Assad:Third, they used it in Aleppo in the north of Syria. Fourth, there's a video on YouTube where the terrorists clearly make trials on a rabbit and kill the rabbit and said "this is how we're going to kill the Syrian people." Fifth, there's a new video about one of those women who they consider as rebel or fighter who worked with those terrorists and she said "they didn't tell us how to use the chemical weapons" and one of those weapons exploded in one of the tunnels and killed twelve. That's what she said. Those are the evidence that we have. Anyway, the party who accused is the one who has to bring evidences. The United States accused Syria, and because you accused you have to bring evidence, this first of all. We have to find evidences when we are there.
Charlie Rose: What evidence would be sufficient for you?
President al-Assad: For example, in Aleppo we had the missile itself, and the material, and the sample from the sand, from the soil, and samples from the blood.
Charlie Rose: But the argument is made that your forces bombarded Ghouta soon thereafter with the intent of covering up evidence.
President al-Assad: How could bombardment cover the evidence? Technically, it doesn't work. How? This is stupid to be frank, this is very stupid.
Charlie Rose: But you acknowledge the bombardment?
President al-Assad: Of course, there was a fight. That happens every day; now you can have it. But, let's talk... we have indications, let me just finish this point, because how can use WMD while your troops are only 100 meters away from it? Is it logical? It doesn't happen. It cannot be used like this. Anyone who's not military knows this fact. Why do you use chemical weapons while you're advancing? Last year was much more difficult than this year, and we didn't use it.
Charlie Rose: There is this question too; if it was not you, does that mean that you don't have control of your own chemical weapons and that perhaps they have fallen into the hands of other people who might want to use them?
President al-Assad: That implies that we have chemical weapons, first. That implies that it's being used, second. So we cannot answer this question until we answer the first part and the second part. Third, let's presume that a country or army has this weapon; this kind of armaments cannot be used by infantry for example or by anyone. This kind of armament should be used by specialized units, so it cannot be in the hand of anyone.
Charlie Rose: Well, exactly, that's the point.
President al-Assad: Which is controlled centrally.
Charlie Rose: Ah, so you are saying that if in fact, your government did it, you would know about it and you would have approved it.
President al-Assad: I'm talking about a general case.
Charlie Rose: In general, you say if in fact it happened, I would have known about it and approved it. That's the nature of centralized power.
President al-Assad: Generally, in every country, yes. I'm talking about the general rules, because I cannot discuss this point with you in detail unless I'm telling you what we have and what we don't have, something I'm not going to discuss as I said at the very beginning, because this is a military issue that could not be discussed.
Charlie Rose: Do you question the New York Times article I read to you, saying you had a stockpile of chemical weapons? You're not denying that.
President al-Assad: No, we don't say yes, we don't say no, because as long as this is classified, it shouldn't be discussed.
Charlie Rose: The United States is prepared to launch a strike against your country because they believe chemical weapons are so abhorrent, that anybody who uses them crosses a red line, and that therefore, if they do that, they have to be taught a lesson so that they will not do it again.
President al-Assad: What red line? Who drew it?
Charlie Rose: The President says that it's not just him, that the world has drawn it in their revulsion against the use of chemical weapons, that the world has drawn this red line.
We have our red lines: our sovereignty, our independence
President al-Assad:Not the world, because Obama drew that line, and Obama can draw lines for himself and his country, not for other countries. We have our red lines, like our sovereignty, our independence, while if you want to talk about world red lines, the United States used depleted uranium in Iraq, Israel used white phosphorus in Gaza, and nobody said anything. What about the red lines? We don't see red lines. It's political red lines.
Charlie Rose: The President is prepared to strike, and perhaps he'll get the authorization of Congress or not. The question then is would you give up chemical weapons if it would prevent the President from authorizing a strike? Is that a deal you would accept?
President al-Assad: Again, you always imply that we have chemical weapons.
Charlie Rose: I have to, because that is the assumption of the President. That is his assumption, and he is the one that will order the strike.
President al-Assad: It's his problem if he has an assumption, but for us in Syria, we have principles. We'd do anything to prevent the region from another crazy war. It's not only Syria because it will start in Syria.
Charlie Rose: You'd do anything to prevent the region from having another crazy war?
President al-Assad: The region, yes.
Charlie Rose: You realize the consequences for you if there is a strike?
President al-Assad: It's not about me. It's about the region.
Charlie Rose: It's about your country, it's about your people.
President al-Assad: Of course, my country and me, we are part of this region, we're not separated. We cannot discuss it as Syria or as me; it should be as part, as a whole, as comprehensive. That's how we have to look at it.
Charlie Rose: Some ask why would you do it? It's a stupid thing to do if you're going to bring a strike down on your head by using chemical weapons. Others say you'd do it because A: you're desperate, or the alternative, you do it because you want other people to fear you, because these are such fearful weapons that if the world knows you have them, and specifically your opponents in Syria, the rebels, then you have gotten away with it and they will live in fear, and that therefore, the President has to do something.
President al-Assad: You cannot be desperate when the army is making advances. That should have happened -- if we take into consideration that this presumption is correct and this is reality -- you use it when you're in a desperate situation. So, our position is much better than before. So, this is not correct.
Charlie Rose: You think you're winning the war.
President al-Assad: "Winning" is a subjective word, but we are making advancement. This is the correct word, because winning for some people is when you finish completely.
Charlie Rose: Then the argument is made that if you're winning, it is because of the recent help you have got from Iran and from Hezbollah and additional supplies that have come to your side. People from outside Syria supporting you in the effort against the rebels.
President al-Assad: Iran doesn't have any soldier in Syria, so how could Iran help me?
Charlie Rose:Supplies, weaponry?
President al-Assad: That's all before the crisis. We always have this kind of cooperation.
Charlie Rose: Hezbollah, Hezbollah fighters have been here.
President al-Assad:Hezbollah fighters are on the borders with Lebanon where the terrorists attacked them. On the borders with Lebanon, this is where Hezbollah retaliated, and this is where we have cooperation, and that's good.
Charlie Rose: Hezbollah forces are in Syria today?
President al-Assad: On the border area with Lebanon where they want to protect themselves and cooperate with us, but they don't exist all over Syria. They cannot exist all over Syria anyway, for many reasons, but they exist on the borders.
Charlie Rose: What advice are you getting from the Russians?
President al-Assad: About?
Charlie Rose: About this war, about how to end this war.
President al-Assad:Every friend of Syria is looking for peaceful solution
President al-Assad: Every friend of Syria is looking for peaceful solution, and we are convinced about that. We have this advice, and without this advice we are convinced about it.
Charlie Rose: Do you have a plan to end the war?
President al-Assad: Of course.
Charlie Rose: Which is?
President al-Assad: At the very beginning, it was fully political. When you have these terrorists, the first part of the same plan which is political should start with stopping the smuggling of terrorists coming from abroad, stopping the logistic support, the money, all kinds of support coming to these terrorists. This is the first part. Second, we can have national dialogue where different Syrian parties sit and discuss the future of Syria. Third, you can have interim government or transitional government. Then you have final elections, parliamentary elections, and you're going to have presidential elections.
Charlie Rose: But the question is: would you meet with rebels today to discuss a negotiated settlement?
President al-Assad: In the initiative that we issued at the beginning of this year we said every party with no exceptions as long as they give up their armaments.
Charlie Rose: But you'll meet with the rebels and anybody who's fighting against you if they give up their weapons?
President al-Assad: We don't have a problem.
Charlie Rose: Then they will say "you are not giving up your weapons, why should we give up our weapons?"
President al-Assad: Does a government give up its weapons? Have you heard about that before?
Charlie Rose: No, but rebels don't normally give up their weapons either during the negotiations; they do that after a successful...
President al-Assad: The armament of the government is legal armament. Any other armament is not legal. So how can you compare? It's completely different.
Charlie Rose: There's an intense discussion going on about all the things we're talking about in Washington, where if there's a strike, it will emanate from the United States' decision to do this. What do you want to say, in this very important week, in America, and in Washington, to the American people, the members of Congress, to the President of the United States?
President al-Assad: I think the most important part of this now is, let's say the American people, but the polls show that the majority now don't want a war, anywhere, not only against Syria, but the Congress is going to vote about this in a few days, and I think the Congress is elected by people, it represents the people, and works for their interest. The first question that they should ask themselves: what do wars give America, since Vietnam till now? Nothing. No political gain, no economic gain, no good reputation. The United States' credibility is at an all-time low. So, this war is against the interest of the Untied States. Why? First, this war is going to support Al-Qaeda and the same people that killed Americans in the 11th of September. The second thing that we want to tell Congress, that they should ask and that what we expect them to ask this administration about the evidence that they have regarding the chemical story and allegations that they presented.
I wouldn't tell the President or any other official, because we are disappointed by their behavior recently, because we expected this administration to be different from Bush's administration. They are adopting the same doctrine with different accessories. That's it. So if we want to expect something from this administration, it is not to be weak, to be strong to say that "we don't have evidence," that "we have to obey the international law", that "we have to go back to the Security Council and the United Nations".
Charlie Rose: The question remains; what can you say to the President who believes chemical weapons were used by your government; that this will not happen again.
President al-Assad: I will tell him very simply: present what you have as evidence to the public, be transparent.
Charlie Rose: And if he does? If he presents that evidence?
President al-Assad: This is where we can discuss the evidence, but he doesn't have it. He didn't present it because he doesn't have it, Kerry doesn't have it. No one in your administration has it. If they had it, they would have presented it to you as media from the first day.
Charlie Rose: They have presented it to the Congress.
President al-Assad: Nothing. Nothing was presented.
20130910-065134.jpg
Charlie Rose: They've shown the Congress what they have, and the evidence they have, from satellite intercepted messages and the like.
President al-Assad: Nothing has been presented so far.
Charlie Rose: They have presented it to the Congress, sir.
President al-Assad: You are a reporter. Get this evidence and show it to the public in your country.
Charlie Rose: They're presenting it to the public representative. You don't show your evidence and what you're doing and your plans to people within your own council. They're showing it to the people's representative who have to vote on an authorization to strike, and if they don't find the evidence sufficient...
President al-Assad: First of all, we have the precedent of Collin Powell ten years ago, when he showed the evidence, it was false, and it was forged. This is first. Second, you want me to believe American evidence and don't want me to believe the indications that we have. We live here, this is our reality.
Charlie Rose: Your indications are what?
President al-Assad: That the rebels or the terrorists used the chemical weapons in northern Aleppo five months ago.
Charlie Rose: And on August 21st?
President al-Assad: No, no, no. That was before. On the 21st, again they used it against our soldiers in our area where we control it, and our soldiers went to the hospital, you can see them if you want.
Charlie Rose: But Ghouta is not controlled by your forces, it's controlled by the rebel forces. The area where that attack took place is controlled by rebel forces.
President al-Assad: What if they have stockpiles and they exploded because of the bombardment? What if they used the missile by mistake and attacked themselves by mistake?
Charlie Rose: Let me move to the question of whether a strike happens, and I touched on this before. You have had fair warning. Have you prepared by moving possible targets, are you moving targets within civilian populations, all the things that you might have done if you have time to do that and you have had clear warning that this might be coming?
President al-Assad:Syria is in a state of war since its land was occupied for more than four decades, and the nature of the frontier in Syria implies that most of the army is in inhabited areas, most of the centers are in inhabited areas. You hardly find any military base in distant areas from the cities unless it's an airport or something like this, but most of the military bases or centers within inhabited areas.
Charlie Rose: Will there be attacks against American bases in the Middle East if there's an airstrike?
President al-Assad: You should expect everything. Not necessarily through the government, the governments are not the only player in this region. You have different parties, different factions, you have different ideologies; you have everything in this region now. So, you have to expect that.
Charlie Rose: Tell me what you mean by "expect everything."
President al-Assad: Expect every action.
Charlie Rose: Including chemical warfare?
President al-Assad: That depends. If the rebels or the terrorists in this region or any other group have it, this could happen, I don't know. I'm not a fortuneteller to tell you what's going to happen.
Charlie Rose: But we'd like to know more, I think the President would like to know, the American people would like to know. If there is an attack, what might be the repercussions and who might be engaged in those repercussions?
President al-Assad: Okay, before the 11th of September, in my discussions with many officials of the United States, some of them are Congressmen, I used to say that "don't deal with terrorists as playing games." It's a different story. You're going to pay the price if you're not wise in dealing with terrorists. We said you're going to be repercussions of the mistaken way of dealing with it, of treating the terrorism, but nobody expected 11th of September. So, you cannot expect. It is difficult for anyone to tell you what is going to happen. It's an area where everything is on the brink of explosion. You have to expect everything.
Charlie Rose: Let's talk about the war today. A hundred thousand people dead. A million refugees. A country being destroyed. Do you take some responsibility for that?
President al-Assad: That depends on the decision that I took. From the first day I took the decision as President to defend my country. So, who killed? That's another question. Actually, the terrorists have been killing our people since the beginning of this crisis two years and a half ago, and the Syrian people wanted the government and the state institutions and the army and the police to defend them, and that's what happened. So we're talking about the responsibility, my responsibility according to the Syrian constitution that said we have to defend ourselves.
Charlie Rose: Mr. President, you constantly say "it's terrorists." Most people look at the rebels and they say that Al-Qaeda and other forces from outside Syria are no more than 15 or 20 percent of the forces on the ground. The other 80% are Syrians, are defectors from your government, and defectors from your military. They are people who are Syrians who believe that their country should not be run by a dictator, should not be run by one family, and that they want a different government in their country. That's 80% of the people fighting against you, not terrorists.
President al-Assad: We didn't say that 80%, for example, or the majority or the vast majority, are foreigners. We said the vast majority are Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda offshoot organizations in this region. When you talk about Al-Qaeda it doesn't matter if he's Syrian or American or from Europe or from Asia or Africa. Al-Qaeda has one ideology and they go back to the same leadership in Afghanistan or in Syria or in Iraq. That's the question. You have tens of thousands of foreigners, that's definitely correct. We are fighting them on the ground and we know this.
Charlie Rose: But that's 15 or 20% of this. That's a realistic look at how many.
President al-Assad: Nobody knows because when they are dead and they are killed, they don't have any ID. You look at their faces, they look foreigners, but where are they coming from? How precise this estimate is difficult to tell, but definitely the majority are Al-Qaeda. This is what concerns us, not the nationality. If you have Syrian Al-Qaeda, or Pakistani Al-Qaeda or Saudi Al-Qaeda, what's the difference? What does it matter? The most important thing is that the majority are Al-Qaeda. We never said that the majority are not Syrians, but we said that the minority is what they call "free Syrian army." That's what we said.
Charlie Rose: Do you believe this is becoming a religious war?
President al-Assad: It started partly as a sectarian war in some areas, but now it's not, because when you talk about sectarian war or religious war, you should have a very clear line between the sects and religions in Syria according to the geography and the demography in Syria, something we don't have. So, it's not religious war, but Al-Qaeda always use religions, Islam - actually, as a pretext and as a cover and as a mantle for their war and for their terrorism and for their killing and beheading and so on.
Charlie Rose:Why has this war lasted two and a half years?
President al-Assad:Because of the external interference, because there is an external agenda supported by, or let's say led by the United States, the West, the petrodollar countries, mainly Saudi Arabia, and before was Qatar, and Turkey. That's why it lasted two years and a half.
Charlie Rose: But what are they doing, those countries you cited?
The West wanted to undermine the Syrian positions
President al-Assad: They have different agendas. For the West, they wanted to undermine the Syrian positions. For the petrodollar countries like Saudi Arabia, they're thinking undermining Syria will undermine Iran on sectarian basis. For Turkey, they think that if the Muslim Brotherhood take over the rest of the region, they will be very comfortable, they will be very happy, they will make sure that their political future is guaranteed. So they have different agendas and different goals.
Charlie Rose: But at the same time, as I said, you used Hezbollah and got support from Iran, from Russia. So, what is happening here. Is this a kind of war that exists because of support from outside Syria on both sides?
President al-Assad: This is cooperation, I don't know what you mean by support. We have cooperation with countries for decades. Why talk about this cooperation now?
Charlie Rose: Then you tell me, what are you receiving from Iran?
President al-Assad: Political support. We have agreements with many countries including Iran, including Russia, including other countries that are about different things including armament. It's cooperation like any cooperation between any two countries, which is normal. It's not related to the crisis. You don't call it support, because you pay money for what you get. So, you don't call it support, it's cooperation, call it whatever you want, but the word "support" is not precise. From Russia for example, we have political support, which is different from the cooperation. We have cooperation for 60 years now, but now we have political support.
Charlie Rose: Well, the Russians said they have ongoing support for you, but beyond just political cooperation. I mean they have treaties that existed with Syria.
President al-Assad: Exactly.
Charlie Rose: And they provide all kinds of defensive weapons.
President al-Assad: You said treaties, and a Russian official said; we have not agreement... contracts, that we have to fulfill, and those contracts are like any country; you buy armaments, you buy anything you want.
Charlie Rose: But do you believe this has become a conflict of Sunni vs. Shia'a?
President al-Assad: No, not yet. This is in the mind of the Saudis, and this is in the minds of the Wahabists.
Charlie Rose: And in the minds of the Iranians?
President al-Assad: No, no, actually what they are doing is the opposite. They tried to open channels with the Saudi, with many other Islamic entities in the region in order to talk about Islamic society, not Sunni and Shi'ite societies.
Charlie Rose: Was there a moment for you, when you saw the Arab spring approaching Syria, that you said "I've seen what happened in Libya, I've seen what happened in Tunisia, I've seen what happened in Egypt, it's not gonna happen to Bashar al-al-Assad. I will fight anybody that tries to overthrow my regime with everything I have."
President al-Assad: No, for one reason; because the first question that I ask: do I have public support or not. That is the first question that I asked as President. If I don't have the public support, whether there's the so-called "Arab spring" -- it's not spring, anyway -- but whether we have this or we don't, if you don't have public support, you have to quit, you have to leave. If you have public support, in any circumstances you have to stay. That's your mission, you have to help the people, you have to serve the people.
Charlie Rose: When you say "public support" people point to Syria and say a minority sect, Alawites, control a majority Sunni population, and they say "dictatorship" and they do it because it because of the force of their own instruments of power. That's what you have, not public support, for this war against other Syrians.
President al-Assad: Now, it's been two years and a half, ok? Two years and a half and Syria is still withstanding against the United States, the West, Saudi Arabia, the richest countries in this area, including Turkey, and, taking into consideration what your question implies, that even the big part or the bigger part of the Syrian population is against me, how can I withstand till today? Am I the superhuman or Superman, which is not the case!
Charlie Rose: Or you have a powerful army.
President al-Assad: The army is made of the people; it cannot be made of robots. It's made of people.
Charlie Rose: Surely you're not suggesting that this army is not at your will and the will of your family.
President al-Assad: What do you mean by "will of the family?"
Charlie Rose: The will of your family. Your brother is in the military. The military has been... every observer of Syria believes that this is a country controlled by your family and controlled by the Alawites who are your allies. That's the control.
President al-Assad: If that situation was correct - what you're mentioning - we wouldn't have withstood for two years and a half. We would have disintegration of the army, disintegration of the whole institution in the state; we would have disintegration of Syria if that was the case. It can't be tolerated in Syria. I'm talking about the normal reaction of the people. If it's not a national army, it cannot have the support, and if it doesn't have the public support of every sect, it cannot do its job and advance recently. It cannot. The army of the family doesn't make national war.
Charlie Rose: Some will argue that you didn't have this support because in fact the rebels were winning before you got the support of Hezbollah and an enlarged support from the Iranians, that you were losing and then they came in and gave you support so that you were able to at least start winning and produce at least a stalemate.
President al-Assad: No, the context is wrong, because talking about winning and losing is like if you're talking about two armies fighting on two territories, which is not the case. Those are gangs, coming from abroad, infiltrate inhabited areas, kill the people, take their houses, and shoot at the army. The army cannot do the same, and the army doesn't exist everywhere.
Charlie Rose: But they control a large part of your country.
President al-Assad: No, they went to every part there's no army in it, and the army went to clean and get rid of them. They don't go to attack the army in an area where the army occupied that area and took it from it. It's completely different, it's not correct, or it's not precise what you're talking about. So, it's completely different. What the army is doing is cleaning those areas, and the indication that the army is strong is that it's making advancement in that area. It never went to one area and couldn't enter to it - that's an indication. How could that army do that if it's a family army or a sect army? What about the rest of the country who support the government? It's not realistic, it doesn't happen. Otherwise, the whole country will collapse.
Charlie Rose: One small point about American involvement here, the President's gotten significant criticism because he has not supported the rebels more. As you know, there was an argument within his own counsels from Secretary of State Clinton, from CIA Director David Petraeus, from the Defense Department, Leon Penetta, Secretary of Defense, and others, that they should have helped the rebels two years ago, and we would be in a very different place, so the President has not given enough support to the rebels in the view of many people, and there's criticism that when he made a recent decision to give support, it has not gotten to the rebels, because they worry about the composition.
President al-Assad:If the American administration want to support Al-Qaeda - go ahead. That's what we have to tell them, go ahead and support Al-Qaeda, but don't talk about rebels and free Syrian army. The majority of fighters now are Al-Qaeda. If you want to support them, you are supporting Al-Qaeda, you are creating havoc in the region, and if this region is not stable, the whole world cannot be stable.
Charlie Rose: With respect, sir, most people don't believe the majority of forces are Al-Qaeda. Yes, there is a number of people who are Al-Qaeda affiliates and who are here who subscribe to the principles of Al-Qaeda, but that's not the majority of the forces as you know. You know that the composition differs within the regions of Syria as to the forces that are fighting against your regime.
The American officials should learn to deal with reality
President al-Assad:The American officials should learn to deal with reality. Why did the United States fail in most of its wars? Because it always based its wars on the wrong information. So, whether they believe or not, this is not reality. I have to be very clear and very honest. I'm not asking them to believe if they don't want to believe. This is reality, I'm telling you the reality from our country. We live here, we know what is happening, and they have to listen to people here. They cannot listen only to their media or to their research centers. They don't live here; no one lives here but us. So, this is reality. If they want to believe, that's good, that will help them understand the region and be more successful in their policies.
Charlie Rose: Many people think this is not a sustainable position here; that this war cannot continue, because the cost for Syria is too high. Too many deaths - a hundred thousand and counting, too many refugees, too much destruction; the soul of a country at risk. If it was for the good of the country, would you step down?
President al-Assad: That depends on the relation of me staying in this position and the conflict. We cannot discuss it just to say you have to step down. Step down, why, and what is the expected result? This is first. Second, when you're in the middle of a storm, leaving your country just because you have to leave without any reasonable reason, it means you're quitting your country and this is treason.
Charlie Rose: You say it would be treason for you to step down right now because of your obligation to the country?
President al-Assad: Unless the public wants you to quit.
Charlie Rose: And how will you determine that?
President al-Assad: By the two years and a half withstanding. Without the public support, we cannot withstand two years and a half. Look at the other countries, look what happened in Libya, in Tunisia and in Egypt.
Charlie Rose: You worry about that, what happened to Gaddafi?
President al-Assad: No, we are worried that rebels are taking control in many countries, and look at the results now. Are you satisfied as an American? What are the results? Nothing. Very bad - nothing good.
Charlie Rose: There was a report recently that you had talked about, or someone representing you had talked about some kind of deal in which you and your family would leave the country if you were guaranteed safe passage, if you were guaranteed that there would be no criminal prosecution. You're aware of these reports?
President al-Assad: We had this guarantee from the first day of the crisis.
Charlie Rose: Because of the way you acted?
President al-Assad: No, because of the agenda that I talked about. Some of these agendas wanted me to quit, very simply, so they said "we have all the guarantees if you want to leave, and all the money and everything you want." Of course, you just ignore that.
Charlie Rose: So, you've been offered that opportunity?
President al-Assad: Yeah, but it's not about me, again, this fight is not my fight, it's not the fight of the government; it's the fight of the country, of the Syrian people. That's how we look at it. It's not about me.
Charlie Rose: It's not about you?
President al-Assad: It's about every Syrian.
Charlie Rose: How will this war end? I referred to this question earlier. What's the endgame?
President al-Assad:It's very simple; once the Western countries stop supporting those terrorists and making pressure on their puppet countries and client states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey and others, you'll have no problem in Syria. It will be solved easily, because those fighters, the Syrian part that you're talking about, lost its natural incubators in the Syrian society - they don't have incubators anymore; that's why they have incubators abroad. They need money from abroad, they need moral support and political support from abroad. They don't have any grassroots, any incubator. So, when you stop the smuggling, we don't have problems.
Charlie Rose: Yeah, but at the same time, as I've said before, you have support from abroad. There are those who say you will not be able to survive without the support of Russia and Iran. Your government would not be able to survive.
President al-Assad: No, it's not me, I don't have support. Not me; all Syria. Every agreement is between every class and every sector in Syria; government, people, trade, military, culture, everything; it's like the cooperation between your country and any other country in the world. It's the same cooperation. It's not about me; it's not support for the crisis.
Charlie Rose: I mean about your government. You say that the rebels only survive because they have support from Saudi Arabia and Turkey and the United States, and Qatar perhaps, and I'm saying you only survive because you have the support of Russia and Iran and Hezbollah.
External support can never substitute internal support
President al-Assad: No, the external support can never substitute internal support, it can never, for sure. And the example that we have to look at very well is Egypt and Tunisia; they have all the support from the West and from the Gulf and from most of the countries of the world. When they don't have support within their country, they couldn't continue more than -- how many weeks? - three weeks. So, the only reason we stand here for two years and a half is because we have internal support, public support. So, any external support, if you want to call it support, let's use this world, is... how to say... it's going to be additional, but it's not the base to depend on more than the Syrian support.
Charlie Rose: You and I talked about this before; we remember Hama and your father, Hafez al-Assad. He... ruthlessly... set out to eliminate the Muslim Brotherhood. Are you simply being your father's son here?
President al-Assad: I don't know what you mean by ruthlessly, I've never heard of soft war. Have you heard about soft war? There's no soft war. War is war. Any war is ruthless. When you fight terrorists, you fight them like any other war.
Charlie Rose: So, the lessons you have here are the lessons you learned from your father and what he did in Hama, which, it is said, influenced you greatly in terms of your understanding of what you have to do.
President al-Assad: The question: what would you do as an American if the terrorists are invading your country from different areas and started killing tens of thousands of Americans?
Charlie Rose: You refer to them as terrorists, but in fact it is a popular revolution, people believe, against you, that was part of the Arab spring that influenced some of the other countries.
President al-Assad: Revolution should be Syrian, cannot be revolution imported from abroad.
Charlie Rose: It didn't start from abroad; it started here.
President al-Assad:These people that started here, they support the government now against those rebels. That's what you don't know. What you don't know as an American you don't know as a reporter. That's why talking about what happened at the very beginning is completely different from what is happening now - it's not the same. There's very high dynamic, things are changing on daily basis. It's a completely different image. Those people who wanted revolution, they are cooperating with us.
Charlie Rose: I'm asking you again, is it in fact you're being your father's son and you believe that the only way to drive out people is to eliminate them the same way your father did?
President al-Assad: In being independent? Yes. In fighting terrorists? Yes. In defending the Syrian people and the country? Yes.
Charlie Rose: When I first interviewed you, there was talk of Bashar al-al-Assad... he's the hope, he's the reform. That's not what they're saying anymore.
President al-Assad: Who?
Charlie Rose: People who write about you, people who talk about you, people who analyze Syria and your regime.
President al-Assad: Exactly, the hope for an American is different from the hope of a Syrian. For me, I should be the hope of the Syrian, not any other one, not American, neither French, nor anyone in the world. I'm President to help the Syrian people. So, this question should start from the hope of the Syrian people, and if there is any change regarding that hope, we should ask the Syrian people, not anyone else in the world.
Charlie Rose: But now they say -- their words -- a butcher. Comparisons to the worst dictators that ever walked on the face of the Earth, comparing you to them. Using weapons that go beyond warfare. Everything they could say bad about a dictator, they're now saying about you.
President al-Assad: First of all, when you have a doctor who cut the leg to prevent the patient from the gangrene if you have to, we don't call butcher; you call him a doctor, and thank you for saving the lives. When you have terrorism, you have a war. When you have a war, you always have innocent lives that could be the victim of any war, so, we don't have to discuss what the image in the west before discussing the image in Syria. That's the question.
Charlie Rose: It's not just the West. I mean it's the East, and the Middle East, and, I mean, you know, the eyes of the world have been on Syria. We have seen atrocities on both sides, but on your side as well. They have seen brutality by a dictator that they say put you in a category with the worst.
President al-Assad: So we have to allow the terrorists to come and kill the Syrians and destroy the country much, much more. This is where you can be a good President? That's what you imply.
Charlie Rose: But you can't allow the idea that there's opposition to your government from within Syria. That is not possible for you to imagine.
President al-Assad: To have opposition? We have it, and you can go and meet with them. We have some of them within the government, we have some of them outside the government. They are opposition. We have it.
Charlie Rose: But those are the people who have been fighting against you.
President al-Assad:Opposition is different from terrorism. Opposition is a political movement. Opposition doesn't mean to take arms and kill people and destroy everything. Do you call the people in Los Angeles in the nineties - do you call them rebels or opposition? What did the British call the rebels less than two years ago in London? Did they call them opposition or rebels? Why should we call them opposition? They are rebels. They are not rebels even, they are beheading. This opposition, opposing country or government, by beheading? By barbecuing heads? By eating the hearts of your victim? Is that opposition? What do you call the people who attacked the two towers on the 11th of September? #fnSubj2" id="txtSubj2">2 Opposition? Even if they're not Americans, I know this, but some of them I think have nationality - I think one of them has American nationality. Do you call him opposition or terrorist? Why should you use a term in the United States and England and maybe other countries and use another term in Syria? This is a double standard that we don't accept.
Charlie Rose: I once asked you what you fear the most and you said the end of Syria as a secular state. Is that end already here?
President al-Assad:According to what we've been seeing recently in the area where the terrorists control, where they ban people from going to schools, ban young men from shaving their beards, and women have to be covered from head to toe, and let's say in brief they live the Taliban style in Afghanistan, completely the same style. With the time, yes we can be worried, because the secular state should reflect secular society, and this secular society, with the time, if you don't get rid of those terrorists and these extremists and the Wahabi style, of course it will influence at least the new and the coming generations. So, we don't say that we don't have it, we're still secular in Syria, but with the time, this secularism will be eroded.
Charlie Rose: Mr. President, thank you for allowing us to have this conversation about Syria and the war that is within as well as the future of the country. Thank you.
President al-Assad: Thank you for coming to Syria.
#fnSubj1" id="fnSubj1">1. #txtSubj1">↑ This incorrectly presumes that the rulers of the New World Order would be threatened by terrorism. In fact, terrorism has helped the ruling elites far more than it has threatened them. In the 19th Century, when bombs thrown by police provocateurs at Haymarket in the U.S. the police were given the excuse needed to shoot protesting strikers. In the late 20th Century, terrorist acts by supposedly 'radical', 'left-wing' groups, such as the Italian Red Brigades and the German Baade-Meinhof gang, have provided the respective governments convenient excuses to spy on opposition political groups and to enact legislation to take away citizens' democratic rights.
The only contexts in which terrorism would make any sense at all is in contexts where formal democracy has been abolished These include Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the Latin American dictatorships of the 20th Century. Conceivably, if the current Syrian government were to be overthrown and replaced by the sectarian theocratic dictatorship that the opposition terrorists are fighting to establish, terrorism could be an appropriate form of resistance. But such a future outcome is hardly a reason for the U.S. and its allies to fear the consequences of the overthrow of the Syrian Government.
Sadly, the other additional terrorism, from anti-Western Islamist ideologues, that would result from the defeat of the Syrian government, of which President al-Assad warns, would be a win-win outcome for the NWO.
#fnSubj2" id="fnSubj2">2. #txtSubj2">↑ On 8 September 2011, Russia Today released a video report (since also embedded here on candobetter) which presented much of the evidence that senior figures within the U.S. administration of President George W. Bush, including the President himself, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz had been complicit in the death of 2,977 American residents on 11 September;2011. They did so to contrive an excuse for the United States to wage wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and, now, Syria, in which hundreds of thousands have died, by blaming the crime on 19 alleged hijackers who were allegedly sent to the U.S. by the government of Afghanistan. Whilst it has been known for years that the Official U.S. Government account of 9/11 was a lie, this exposure of the truth about 9/11 by a mainstream news outlet like Russia Today lifts the whole profile of the struggle for truth and the search for justice for the crime of 9/11. President al-Assad should be advised that his case against the U.S. Government war criminals would be made stronger still, if he were tell the world more directly the facts about 9/11.
Guest column by the distinguished commentator and radio host Stephen Lendman:
Syria has agreed to the Russian proposal to give up its chemical weapons, but the war criminal and totally isolated obama regime, the scum of the earth, says it will attack Syria regardless.
How will the world respond to the Amerikan Third Reich, the worst threat to truth, justice, peace, and humanity that the world has ever experienced? Will the world submit to rule by an outlaw state whose corrupt government represents no one but the Israel Lobby?
September 09, 2013 "Information Clearing House - Russian Foreign Sergei Lavrov wants peace. He's going all out against war on Syria. He's doing it responsibly.
Important world leaders back him. So does overwhelming global anti-war sentiment.
"We are calling on the Syrian authorities not only agree on putting chemical weapons storages under international control, but also for its further destruction and then joining the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons," he said.
"We have passed our offer to Muallem and hope to receive a fast and positive answer."
Al-Moallem pledged "full cooperation with Russia to remove any pretext for aggression." Lavrov promised Moscow's support.
He's trying to broker a diplomatic solution. In return, he wants Obama to cancel attack plans.
He cited John Kerry saying Assad "could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week."
"Turn it over, all of it without delay and allow (a) full and total accounting, but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done."
Doing it would avoid military intervention, Kerry said. Damage control followed his statement. State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki reinterpreted his comments.
He "was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons," she said.
"His point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons, otherwise he would have done so long ago. That's why the world faces this moment."
Reinterpreting Kerry's statement shows Obama's true intention. Falsely blaming Assad for using chemical weapons is cover for long planned regime change.
War is Obama's option of choice. Lavrov's best efforts may fall short. He forthrightly pursued them throughout months of conflict. He's not about to stop now.
He faces long odds. Obama didn't wage war on Syria to quit. He won't do so no matter what Lavrov, Moallem, Assad or other Syrian officials pledge. Rogues states operate that way. America's by far the worst.
Moallem's doing his best anyway. So is Lavrov. From Moscow, he said:
"We have agreed on practical steps to be taken bilaterally and in cooperation with other states for giving the political settlement a chance."
"No matter how serious the current situation may be, our Syrian partners and we are confident that possibilities remain for a political settlement."
"Russia has been staying in touch with all (Syrian) opposition groups without an exception in the recent years and we will carry on our efforts to try to convince them that there is no alternative to an international conference."
"If our contacts express that this (conference) may help, then we do not rule out the possibility of an invitation to Moscow of all who are interested in peace and a political settlement in Syria and reject the military scenario."
"What are the real interests of the US behind launching this aggression," he asked?
"Obama is not listening to Americans, Europeans, and UK Parliament. We thank American people for standing against striking Syria."
"We admire the American people who voice their protest against military intervention," added Muallem.
"What are the real interests of the United States behind launching this aggression? Why does US want to help those who are behind 9/11?
Washington "will be wrong to destroy (Syria's) army and help Al Qaeda. We're confident Russian efforts on peace talks will stop strikes."
Lavrov replied, saying:
"UN inspectors should return to Syria to investigate alleged use of chemical weapons."
"The alleged chemical attack on August 21 was orchestrated." Anti-Assad elements bear full responsibility.
"We must consolidate government and rebels to evict terrorists. We are taking active moves to prevent devastating strike. Every report on chemical arms use must be closely studied."
"Syria is open to Geneva-2 peace talks with no pre-conditions. We call on US colleagues to focus on talks, not on strikes."
"Syria strike will only enable terrorism. Russia believes no group should monopolize peace talks."
"Dialogue is necessary among all Syrians. It's the only solution. UN inspectors must go back to Syria, but some powers are obstructing."
He left no doubt which ones he means. They're headquartered in Washington. Obama's a warmaker. He deplores peace. He's going all out to prevent it. He plans war to do so.
"Russia is well-supported in the view that military action in Syria will provoke rampant terrorism," said Lavrov.
Moallem said his government is ready for Geneva II with no preconditions. "We are still ready to do that. But I do not know what may happen after an act of aggression by the United States. Probably a missile will fly over and thwart this.
America sides with terrorists, he added. It plans to be Al Qaeda's air force.
"But if such aggression against Syria aims, as we suspect, to considerably weaken the military potential of the Syrian army in the interest of al-Qaeda and various affiliated groups, then we will raise our objections," he stressed.
"Then we have the right to ask a question about the genuine interests of the United States that wishes to unleash an attack on the behalf of Jabhat al-Nusra and similar groups."
"We've come here just as the US is sounding war drums. Our feeling is that Russia plays an important role of staving off aggression."
"That is where Russia's moral ground lies, since a peacekeeper is always stronger than a warmonger."
"Mr. Assad has sent his regards and said he was grateful to Mr. Putin for his stand on Syria both before and after the G20 summit."
"Russia plays an important role in preventing aggression."
Lavrov added that Russia's "stand on Syria is unwavering and does not permit a military solution of the Syrian conflict, especially foreign intervention."
"The position of Russia is well-known. It is immune to change and varying circumstances."
"This position says there is no alternative to peaceful, diplomatic settlement of the Syrian conflict, especially not a military solution employing foreign intervention."
"On the background of the unfolding campaign calling to use force against Damascus, Russia is taking steps to prevent a pernicious situation in the Middle East."
"There cannot be any deals behind backs of the Syrian people from the Russian side in what refers to the policies Russia is following."
He added that force against Syria would cause a wave of regional terrorism. Perhaps that's precisely what Obama intends.
He needs pretexts to intervene. Peace and stability defeat his agenda. It requires violence and destabilization. He plans lots more ahead.
He faces stiff world opposition. On September 9, Reuters headlined "Analysis: Obama growing isolated on Syria as support wanes".
"White House efforts to convince the US Congress to back military action against Syria are not only failing, they seem to be stiffening the opposition."
He's making more enemies than friends. He's doing so at home and abroad. Skeptics way outnumber supporters.
Hindsight may show he shot himself in the foot. Peace activists hope so. He'll give it another go Tuesday night. He'll try enlisting support for what most people reject.
They're tired of being lied to. They want peace, stability, and jobs. They want America's resources directed toward creating them.
They want leadership representing everyone equitably. Obama's polar opposite. He supports wealth, power and privilege alone. He spurns popular interests.
He chooses war over peace. He's less able to sell what most people reject. Odds favor he'll attack Syria anyway.
Pretexts are easy to fabricate. They're longstanding US policy. Expect another major one if Ghouta's Big Lie falls flat. It's likely planned ready to be implemented if needed.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity." http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html - Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
A copy of a video by the western backed anti-government jihadists 'explains' to viewers how Bibles seized from Syrian Christians pose an even greater threat than the chemical weapons1 allegedly used by the Syrian government:
"O nation of Muhammed, wake up! For there are things even more dangerous than chemical weapons. Beware the Christianization campaigns." (sign in arabic displayed near the star of the video)
...
"They exploit the needs of Syrian citzens in order to spread Christian thought."
...
"Very large quantities of evangelization and Christianization books ..."
"... that are brought in by Western organsizations to support the needs of Syrian citizens"
...
Syria was amongst the very first countries to adopt Chrstianity
In fact, Christianity was never "brought in" from the west. Syria, along with neighbouring Palaestine, was one of the first areas to adopt Christianity in the very early years of the first Millenium, well before Islam was founded in 622AD. Christianity was spread from Syria, as well as Palestine, to the west and the rest of the world. The ignorance of hitory and culture in this video is striking.
If the USS Barry had indeed been sunk, I would have thought it would have had the most profound implications for the conflict in Syria and the eastern Mediterranean. However, on the balance of probabilities, it appears that the USS Barry has not been sunk. So why Syria Today, which otherwise publishes apparently factual and informative reports about Syria, would have published this report is a mystery.
Breaking: Syrian Arab Army managed to drown USS Barry, the guided missile destroyer the US Navy deployed off the Syrian coast after the ship launched the first wave of missile attack.
The above is not a current news or breaking, but this what would be the second news on all international and local media after the first news of the commencement of the Obama promised aggression against the sovereign state of Syria, the founding member of the United Nations in case he goes mad enough and attacks.
Guided missile destroyer USS Barry – One of the definite targets to sink
We shouldn't be surprised when such news emerge, the Syrian leadership and its allies have determined to give the bullish and arrogant US regime of Barack Obama a lesson they'll take a very long time to forget and will never get over it.
Breaking international law will be on the responsibility of those not only aiding radical terrorists but also attacking a state that never attacked or threatened to attack the United State of America, thus making such aggression a clear aggression against all laws and against the basis of the United Nations Security Council.
The pariah leader Obama in his press conference today at St. Petersburg confirmed that he prefers to act based on a UNSC resolution, but in the absence of such resolution due to the Russian and Chinese double vetoes already used 3 times till now, he is obliged to take it on his own shoulders to carry the aggression, of course with whomever accept to join him.
The problem with civilian US strategists planning for wars and plotting against humanity is their one-sided vision of any conflict, they never estimate their foes and their capacities, but we can always remind before it's too late. The military strategists who fought wars and know what wars are, know exactly why they are trying to avoid such wars.
The regime of Barack Obama claiming to be a democracy should listen to the majority of his people and the majority of the people of the world. He climbed a very high tree and he's begging someone would help him down and instead his foes and allies are pushing him further up and leaving him up there.
We are obliged to remind the United States citizens, their military and strategists before they go crazy, the last time US came face to face with Syria they lost 241 Marines in one strike in Beirut 1983, at that time the US real cowboy president Ronald Reagan was smart enough to withdraw his forces from the region, will the fake cowboy Barack Obama be as smart? He will be lucky enough if one of his ships is drowned, he will be lucky if his troops in Afghanistan are not fried, he will be very lucky if his regime's military bases in the region are not wiped out one after another not to mention seeing his allies fall one after the other starting with Turkish fanatic Erdogan and the Zionist settlers colonies known in the west as Israel. He will be less lucky if he does go ahead with attacking the last secular state in the region.
Most serving US military leaders warn that Syria is not Libya or Serbia. Perhaps the United States has become too used to fighting third-rate armies. As the Israelis learned in 1973, the Syrians are tough and mean-spirited killers with nothing to lose.
Paul Craig Roberts explains that the serial liars U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are finally being held to account by world public opinion for the death and destruction they have inflicted upon Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. However, unless they are tried for their crimes at the International Criminal Court at the Hague, there can be no enduring peace.
Editorial comment
Unlike what occurred on past occasions when the U.S. Government launched wars against the people of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, much of world public opinion, including majorities within the U.S. and within many countries, whose governments are allied to the U.S., are opposed to its planned war against Syria and have organised effectively to prevent it #fnSubj3" id="txtSubj3">3
Also, there are a number of honest and principled world leaders, who have substantial resources and who are willing to use those resources to stand up to the world's bullies. One is Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, who has been supplying Syria with many of the armaments necessary to defend itself against the West's proxy terrorists and threatened invasion by Western Nations.
Others include the leaders of Iran and the BRICS nations including many governments of Latin America.
That Putin was able to expose U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry before the world for the liar that he is #fnSubj5" id="txtSubj5">5 was because of his profile and that the Russian and other Governments have set up media outlets which are able to tell the truth to a large proportion of the world's population who would otherwise have their views largely moulded by presstitute media.
The Australian government has acted barely less shamefully
Much of what Paul Craig Roberts has written of Barack Obama and John Kerry is also true of Australian 'Labor' Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and Senator Bob Carr, the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs. Australia's role in inflicting harm on the peoples the world in recent years has been largely overlooked. As an example, nowhere in former U.S. Congresswomen Cynthia McKinney's book about Libya#fnSubj4" id="txtSubj4">4, is Kevin Rudd's shameful role in starting the NATO invasion of Libya in 2011. #fnSubj6" id="txtSubj6">6 As 'roving' Australian Foreign Minister in the Middles East in March 2011, Kevin Rudd called for the establishment of the "no-fly" zone, because it was deceitfully reported the Libyan Air Force was indiscriminately bombing civilians.
Since then Kevin Rudd and Bob Carr have done much to help start a new war against Syria They have also spread lies similar to those told by Kerry and they have taken diplomatic initiatives to help start the war. Fortunately for Syria and the world, their hard efforts appear to have come unstuck thanks to the weight of world public opinion in support of Syria.
Does the American public have the strength of character to face the fact that the US government stands before the entire world revealed as a collection of war criminals who lie every time that they open their mouth? Will Congress and the American public buy the White House lie that they must support war criminals and liars or "America will lose face"?
The obama regime's lies are so transparent and blatant that the cautious, diplomatic President Putin of Russia lost his patience and stated the fact that we all already know: John Kerry is a liar. Putin said: "This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them [the Americans], and we assume they are decent people, but he [Kerry] is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad.#fnSubj1" id="txtSubj1">1"
When Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent by the criminal bush regime to lie to the UN, Powell and his chief of staff claim that Powell did not know he was lying. It did not occur to the Secretary of State that the White House would send him to the UN to start a war that killed, maimed, and dispossessed millions of Iraqis on the basis of total lies.
The despicable John Kerry knows that he is lying. Here is the American Secretary of State, and obama, the puppet president, knowingly lying to the world. There is not a shred of integrity in the US government. No respect for truth, justice, morality or human life. Here are two people so evil that they want to repeat in Syria what the bush war criminals did in Iraq.
How can the American people and their representatives in Congress tolerate these extraordinary criminals? Why are not obama and John Kerry impeached? The obama regime has every quality of Nazi Germany and Stasi Communist Germany, only that the obama regime is worse. The obama regime spies on the entire world and lies about it. The obama regime is fully engaged in killing people in seven countries, a murderous rampage that not even Hitler attempted.
Whether the criminal obama regime can purchase the collaboration of Congress and the European puppet states in a transparent war crime will soon be decided. The decision will determine the fate of the world.
As for facts, the report released to the UN by the Russian government concludes that the weapons used in chemical attacks in Syria are similar to the weapons in the hands of al-Nusra and are different from the weapons known to be possessed by Syria. #fnSubj2" id="txtSubj2">2
The obama regime has released no evidence to the UN. This is because the criminal regime has no evidence, only made up fairy tales.
If the obama regime had any evidence, the evidence would have been released to British Prime Minister david cameron to enable him to carry the vote of Parliament. In the absence of evidence, cameron had to admit to Parliament that he had no evidence, only a belief that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons. Parliament told Washington's puppet that the British people were not going to war on the basis of the Prime Minister's unsubstantiated belief.
Are the American people and the rest of the world just going to stand there, sucking their thumbs, while a new Nazi State rises in Washington?
Congress must vote down the war and make it clear to obama that if he defies the constitutional power of Congress he will be impeached.
If the US Congress is too corrupt or incompetent to do its duty, the rest of the world must join the UN General Secretary and the President of Russia and declare that unilateral military aggression by the US government is a war crime, and that the war criminal US government will be isolated in the international community. Any of its members caught traveling abroad will be arrested and turned over to the Hague for trial.
#fnSubj3" id="fnSubj3">3. #txtSubj3">↑ Many, who are opposed to war, nevertheless still accept many of the lies fed to them by the presstitute media. To the extent that they do, their opposition to the war can only be muted. As one example, many accept the unsubstantiated view atrocities are being committed by both sides of the conflict. Others choose to promote the view that President Bashar al-Assad is corrupt, but invariably fail to provide evidence when challenged. In time, more and more people will come to understand that these views are wrong.
#fnSubj4" id="fnSubj4">4. #txtSubj4">↑ The Illegal War on Libya (Clarity Press, 2012) by Cynthia McKinney.
The Age newspaper, owned by Fairfax Media limited, reported on 4 September that Roger Corbett, 4 chairman of Fairfax Media said that Julia Gillard should have remained Prime Minister in preference to the "discredited" Kevin Rudd.
Mr Corbett said, "His colleagues sacked [Kevin Rudd] because they judged him to be incapable as Prime Minister."
The article continued:
'Referring to the damaging cabinet leaks that so badly derailed Ms Gillard's 2010 election campaign, Mr Corbett said: "[Mr Rudd], it's alleged, was active against the government during the elections. May be true, may not be.
'"I think that had a terrible effect upon Labor."
'The leaks led to a collapse in Labor's vote, which led to a hung parliament and forced Labor to enter into coalition with the Greens to form power. The Labor-Greens alliance has been a "very limiting factor" in the past three years, Mr Corbett said.
'And while this was going on, Mr Rudd himself had "destabilised" the Gillard government behind the scenes.'
Mr Corbett also praised Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. "[Mr Abbott's] a very sincere, nice type of human being, and I think he'll be very dedicated, focused in the job," he said.
Tony Abbott, whom Roger Corbett considers "a very sincere, nice type of human being", with less three days before polling begins and 10 hours before the pre-election media news blackout began at midnight on Wednesday, had still not released the costings for his policies, #fnSubj1" id="txtSubj1">1 plans to sack 7,000 Federal public servants. He also plans to give approval to the horrifically destructive East West Link project. #fnSubj2" id="txtSubj2">2
Candobetter and a number of other credible commentators can only agree with Roger Corbett's praise for Julia Gillard (if not with his praise for Tony Abbott).
June 2013: The now 'discredited' Kevin Rudd ousts Julia Gillard in Age-orchestrated putsch
"It is time for Julia Gillard to stand aside as leader of the federal parliamentary Labor Party, as Prime Minister of Australia, so that vigorous, policy-driven democratic debate can flourish once again. Ms Gillard should do so in the interests of the Labor Party, in the interests of the nation and, most importantly, in the interests of democracy. The Age's overriding concern is that, under Ms Gillard's leadership, the Labor Party's message about its future policies and vision for Australia is not getting through to the electorate. Our fear is that if there is no change in Labor leadership before the September 14 election, voters will be denied a proper contest of ideas and policies - and that would be a travesty for the democratic process.
"The Age does not advocate this lightly. We do so with all respect to Ms Gillard, ..."
Editor-in-Chief Andrew Holden, who wrote the editorial, also appeared in a short broadcast video (2:33) on the same page. He made the curious claim, with no supporting evidence. that it is necessary for Julia Gillard to stand aside "so that vigorous, policy-driven democratic debate can flourish once again."
Evidently, Andrew Holden does not wish for the debate to embrace the support given by Foreign Minister Senator Bob Carr and the Age newspaper to the United States' proxy terrorist war against Syria, which has cost, according to one estimate reported#fnSubj3" id="txtSubj3">3 in the Age, 100,000 Syrian lives since March 2011.
Why the Age newspaper itself could not have enabled the debate it claimed to have wanted, without meddling in the internal politics of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Caucus, was not explained.
The above argument was repeated in different guises:
"... [We are saying] Ms Gillard should stand aside ... because she has been unable to lift the party out of a desperately difficult political position. ...
"A big majority of the electorate appears to have stopped listening to Ms Gillard. Voters have been so distracted by internal and external speculation about Labor's leadership that efforts by the Prime Minister and her ministers to enunciate a narrative, a strategic vision, for the nation's future beyond this year have failed. ..."
Much of the editorial, in contrast to the self-fulfilling prophetic value judgements above, provided compelling reasons why Gillard should have remained Prime Minister and not been cast aside for Kevin Rudd :
'We ... [recognise] that in the three years she has occupied the office of Prime Minister - most of it under the vexing circumstances of a hung Parliament - Labor has implemented landmark reforms ...
'The polls in mid-2010 had indicated Labor was in danger of losing an election under Mr Rudd, and inside the party there was concern about his increasingly autocratic style. Ms Gillard said she challenged "because I believed that a good government was losing its way … I love this country, and I was not going to sit idly by and watch an incoming opposition cut education, cut health and smash rights at work". ...'
As Age Editor-in-chief Andrew Holden had demanded, Julia Gillard was subsequently ousted on 26 June and replaced by Kevin Rudd, but the promised improvement in Labor's approval rating never eventuated.
Age readers still to be given explanation
The Age is entitled to change its views, and is even entitled to promote views which may, through the course of events, prove to be mistaken. However, the public is entitled to be informed that what Roger Corbett said less than 3 days before the forthcoming Federal election is contrary to what the Age said on 22 June and why.
Unless this explanation is forthcoming, voters are entitled to assume that Roger Corbett's statements, ostensibly in support of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, so late in the election campaign, are no more than a ploy to harm Labor's electoral prospects.
#update_5sep13" id="update_5sep13">Update, 8:36AM, Thur 5 Sep: Hockey to give costings today
The Agereports, "Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey will unveil the Coalition's election costings on Thursday, leaving voters just hours to digest the numbers while also refusing to say when the budget would be back in the black under his management."
"The timing of the Coalition's costings announcement comes after the electronic media blackout starting at midnight on Wednesday, which applies to all election campaigns. Labor will not be allowed to broadcast any television or radio commercials attacking cuts that may be contained in the documents." (emphasis added)
A poll in the Age article Hockey's 11th-hour costings asked "Should the Coalition have given voters more time to digest its costings?". The results of 5188 votes taken at 9:05AM were:
Yes: 69%
No: 27%
Not sure: 4%
Footnote[s]
#fnSubj1" id="fnSubj1">1. #txtSubj1">↑ The Herald Sun reported at 12:46PM on Wednesday, 4 September 2013, "The federal coalition is releasing its final policies on Wednesday (today) and will reveal its full costings 'very, very soon', Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says." Voters won't have sufficient time to digest the information and understand how it will affect them before they cast their vote on Saturday. (See also: #update_5sep13">Update of 9:10AM, Thursday 5 September, above.)
#fnSubj2" id="fnSubj2">2. #txtSubj2">↑ The construction of the East West Link would require the destruction of much of what remains of Melbourne's iconic Royal Park as well as many surrounding homes and will make Melbourne commuters even more dependent on private vehicles than they already are. It is not possible for the broader public to see the business case for the East West Link and compare it with the known business case for additional public transport because of "commercial in confidence" provisions in the East West Link contract.
#fnSubj3" id="fnSubj3">3. #txtSubj3">↑ As shown in Media Lies Used to Provide a Pretext for Another "Humanitarian War": Protest in Syria: Who Counts the Dead? of 25 Nov 2011 by Julie Lévesque in Global Research, the Western news media may have been exaggerating the number of dead for its own propaganda purposes. But, surely those opposed to war need to be able to accurately convey to the public, how many have been killed as a result of the support provided to the terrorists by Western nations? Nowhere on Global research could I find this figure. It certainly was not included in Professor Michel Chossudovsy's otherwise excellent Online interactive I-bookSyria: NATO's Next "Humanitarian" War? of 11 Feb 2012. Given that death toll of the Iraq wars since 1990 is certainly at least many hundreds of thousands and, according to one estimate could be a many as 3,300,000, including 750,000 children, the figure of 100,000 dead may not be such a great exaggeration, after all. Certainly should Barack Obama and John Kerry achieve their goals, the eventual death toll will be much higher than 100,000.
#fnSubj4" id="fnSubj4">4. #txtSubj4">↑ Roger Corbett subsequently admitted he was a member of the Liberal Party.
Inside, two interviews with Dr Tim Anderson, Sydney academic, on Syria. The first is by Channel 7 on 24 January 2014 and shows incredible bias. The second is by Journalist Joshua Blakeney, who interviewed Anderson and Hands Off Syria's Jasmine Saadat about their recent visit to Syria where they met with Syrian officials including the President of Syria Bashar al-Assad. The interview was conducted at a time when the pro-war Australian press was attempting to discredit members of Hands Off Syria Australia for meeting with members of the Syrian government. See inside for videos.
People all over the world have been shocked to discover that 
Highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards of Australia's official 'commitment' to the 'war on terror' in Afghanistan, and the celebration of the 'heroic sacrifices' made there by Australian soldiers on Remembrance day, was the appearance in our media of a video clip from Syria the following day.
While this man was known to Australian authorities, - allegedly 'Ahmad' from Logan near Brisbane - and belonged to a community there which supports 'the jihad' against the Assad government, his family claims he never went to Syria to fight, and is alive and well and living in Turkey. They also claim that he didn't speak Arabic like the man shown in the video .... 
"Friends of Syria" would deny Syrians the right to choose this man to be their President.
550 men decided to leave Moadamiya and surrender to the Syrian Army. All were taken to a rest house and served with dignity. Then 50 at a time were taken to the frightening Air Force Intelligence headquarters for two hours of discussion and registration. They will spend one more night in the rest house and then the majority will be able to go back to normal civilian life. Those who have perpetrated crimes will be kept in this rest house for a rehabilitation period.
This photo reportedly depicts Mother Agnes proceeding into rebel territory under the anxious eyes of those she has left. She is carrying a white flag. "Despite the entreaties of her team, Agnès-Mariam is producing a white flag and adventure beyond the entrance arch, in rebel territory, a no man’s land known for hiding 12 snipers among the deadliest. Members of the team are watching anxiously for her. Her team follows her. Joined by Sister Carmel and two members of her team, Mother Agnès-Mariam is welcomed by the men of the revolution that came without their weapons. Out of the factory they find themselves with women from Mouaddamiyya waiting for their evacuation."
August 21st 2013 may go down as the day of 'the Schism' - between the narrative of 'Western' culture as it promotes itself, and the reality for those across the Gulf. Ironically this is both a physical gulf, known both as 'The Persian gulf' by the countries aligned with 'Persia', and as 'The Arabian gulf' by the Arab gulf nations bordering it on the south, and a psychological and cultural gulf.
What happened on August 21st in Damascus was of course NOT a Sarin attack in East Ghouta which killed hundreds or thousands of civilians and children; we have little evidence that any of these assertions are true - that Sarin was used in E. Ghouta, that people died from it there or elsewhere. We have evidence only that some people tested in the area a few days later had been exposed to some form of Sarin. Because these 'victims' were provided by one of the parties in the armed conflict we cannot say where or how they were exposed.
Continuing the 
Image: 107mm rocket shells frequently used by terrorists operating within and along Syria's borders. They are similar in configuration and function to those identified by the UN at sites investigated after the alleged August 21, 2013 Damascus, Syria chemical weapons attack, only smaller.
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, whose pronouncements on Syria have featured on candobetter.net recently, has authored today's editorial opinion for the New York Times, calling on the US not to invade Syria. Full text reproduced here.
A Plea for Caution From Russia
Andrew Holden, Age Editor-in-chief
Recent comments