Syria

See also: Mark Latham's political gift to John Howard of 19 Nov 2007; Labor Leadership Contenders' Views on East West Link - Albo opposes it! of 6 Oct 2013; Contendor for Australian Labor Party leadership defends Syria against US-sponsored terrorism of 21 Sep 2013; Appendix: "refugee rights" activist opposed to Albanese (includes video).

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 substance of Latham's case against Albanese was that he had failed to distance himself from NSW Labor member of Legislative Council Ian Mcdonald who had been found on 31 July 2013 by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) to have behaved corruptly.

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".

Given Mark Latham's support for the re-election of John Howard in 2007 and his opposition to the ACTU's "Your Rights at work" campaign, his hostility to Anthony Albanese seems a very good reason to vote for him.

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.

Published on Global Research, 1 October 2013.
    - inclues embedded video of anti-government terrorist admitting to having used chemical weapons.

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 not to mention the strong evidence implicating the US-backed terrorists as the most likely perpetrators of recent chemical attacks. This was reported in 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.

Anti-government terrorist admits to having used chemical weapons in Syria

See also: Mark Latham, who opposed "Your Rights at Work" campaign and supported Howard in 2007, says Albanese shouldn't be Labor leader of 9 Oct 2013; Labor Leadership Contenders' Views on East West Link - Albo opposes it! of 6 Oct 2013.

Update, 28 Nov 2013: No mention was made of Syria by Albanese, Shorten or the audience in the leadership debate 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 United States 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 Bob Carr have colluded to help facilitate the terrorist war against Syria by 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]

1. ↑ Nominations for the ballot of Labor Party members for the National leadership closed on 20 September, according to an ABC report.

2. ↑ The included Youtube broadcast was embedded in the Crikey article of 2  2013 by Andrew Crook, Support for Syrian missile strike could test Labor unity.

3. ↑ 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.

An equivalent process has occurred in the United Kingdom as documented by Tony Gosling in Labour's surrender monkeys dare not criticize Britain's conscript economy of 16 August 2013 in Russia Today.

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.

4. ↑ 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 a so-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.

5 Lies Invented to Spin UN Report on Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack

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 BBC's article, US and UK insist UN chemicals report "blames Syria", again states unequivocally, [emphasis added]:

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.

The Washington Post's logic fails even at face value. Terrorists operating inside of Syria also possess rifles and even tanks of Russian origin - stolen or acquired through a large network of illicit arms constructed by NATO and its regional allies to perpetuate the conflict.

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.

Update, 17 Sep 2013: Quite possibly, the description, below, of President Barack Obama as a "despicable lying hypocrite" may be completely wrong and unwarranted. (if so, my apologies) Please see comment Does President Obama want peace with Syria after all? and Press TV article Obama, Dempsey slap down neocons on Syrian false-flag of 16 2013 by Dr. Kevin Barrett.

(Includes embedded YouTube broadcast, George Galloway rips Obama for supporting the massacre at ancient Christian town of Maaloula and transcript.) For more news of the town of of Maaloula of which George Galloway speaks, see Patriarch Laham holds US responsible for terrorists' acts in Maaloula of 6 Sep 2013, ...

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, George Galloway 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.

For more news of the town of of Maaloula of which George Galloway speaks, see Patriarch Laham holds US responsible for terrorists' acts in Maaloula of 6 Sep 2013, Army continues pursuing terrorists in Maaloula and other areas of 9 Sep 2013, The Battle of Maaloula in the Land of Jesus: US Sponsored Rebels Destroy Syria Christian Heritage of 13 Sep 2013, Western-Backed Rebels Bring Death and Destruction to Historic Syrian Town of Maaloula of 10 Sep 2013, Al-Qaeda Vows to Slaughter Christians After US "Liberates" Syria of 12 Sep 2013, Jihadists re-take historic Syrian Christian village as stand-off continues of 8 Sep 2013, Dramatic report: Inside the battle for Syria's ancient Christian village (VIDEO) of 6 Sep 2013, Fate of Christians in the Levant in danger of 13 Sep 2013.

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)."

Comments can be made on the New York Times site.

Update, 10 Sep 2012: Videos of Part 1 and Part 2 of full CBS interview, together with full transcript from President al-Assad's interview with American CBS news of 10 Sep 2013 at SANA, added. Global Research (GR) has similarly published the full transcript and video broadcast. (Highlighting from GR article has been reproduced here.) (This story originally published: 2013-09-10 03:27:34 +1000) See also: What 'dictator' ever willingly faced such media scrutiny? of 1 Jun 2013.

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."

President al-Assad's interview with American CBS news

Republished from the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) 10 September 2013

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 Part 1 and 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.

Part 2 (28:18) of the full CBS Interview

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? 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.

1. ↑ 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.

2. ↑ 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.

Paul Craig Roberts, Stephen Lendman: Obama and Kerry Declare that Amerika Stands for War and is Proud of It

This article was first published on paulcraigroberts.org and on Information Clearing House 8 Sep 2013. See also: A brief for animals of 5 June 2013, Nature's Capital Is The Limiting Resource of 24 Jan 2013

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?

Editorial Comment: This article is, in many ways, contrary to the views of YouTube broadcaster, the Syrian Girl. In her broadcast If Syria disarms chemical weapons we lose the war, she argues that the agreement is a betrayal of Syria by President al-Assad, Vladimir Putin and the Iranian Government.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36179.htm

Lavrov Calls Kerry's Bluff

By Stephen Lendman

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.

On Monday, Lavrov met with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem. He did so in Moscow.

"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 lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 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.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Updates: The rule of zombies: Why Are Obama and Kerry So Desperate to Start a New War? of 8 Sep 2013 by Paul Craig Roberts. More updates here.

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.

Footnote[s]

1. ↑ The ludicrous claim, that the Syrian Government, which even NATO admitted in June 2013, enjoys the support of 70% of Syrians, murdered hundreds of its own citizens with chemical weapons, has been comprehensively disproven on web sites such as , PressTV, Russia Today, Voltaire Net and the Land Destroyer Report.

Appendix: Updates on Syria conflict

The rule of zombies: Why Are Obama and Kerry So Desperate to Start a New War? of 8 Sep 2013 by Paul Craig Roberts

Number of U.S. military aircraft at Shannon [air base, Ireland] raises concerns of 8 Sep 2013 on Shannon Watch

Majority of Turks against Syria intervention: Survey of 6 Sep 2013 on the Hurriet Daily News

Amash: ‘Some Things Are Being Embellished’ by White House of 8 Sep 2013 by Patrick Brennan. Artcle includes video (1:42) of Representative Justin Amash, a libertarian-leaning Republican who opposes U.S. intervention in Syria.

Update, 8 Sep 2013 : Stories which reveal complicity of former 'Labor' Foreign Minister Bob Carr in U.S. plans to start war against Syria: Interview of January 2013 with Bob Carr on Australia Network, Australia right to back Syria strike: Carr, Australian spies confirmed chemical use on civilians by Syrian regime (which confirms the complicity of Australia's 'intelligence' agencies), US and allies further isolated on Syria after French President Francois Hollande waits on UN report.

This article was originally published on www.paulcraigroberts.org on 5 September 2013 as The US Government Stands Revealed to the World as a Collection of War Criminals and Liars. See also: Paul Craig Roberts: U.S. war criminals (and their Australian accomplices) totally discredited of 2 Sep 2013.

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 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 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 Libya₄, is Kevin Rudd's shameful role in starting the NATO invasion of Libya in 2011. 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.

The US Government Stands Revealed to the World as a Collection of War Criminals and Liars

Paul Craig Roberts, 5 September, 2013

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.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. 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.

Footnotes

1↑. Putin Calls Kerry a Liar on Syria of 5 Sep 2103 by David Jackson on Information Clearing House

2.↑ Russia Releases Key Findings on Chemical Attack Near Aleppo Indicating Similarity With Rebel-made Weapons
of 5 Sep 2103 from Russia Today on Information Clearing House

3. ↑ 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.

4. ↑ The Illegal War on Libya (Clarity Press, 2012) by Cynthia McKinney.

5. ↑ See US lied about absence of Al Qaeda in Syria - President Putin in the Voice of Russia of 5 September 2013.

6. ↑ See Rudd, PM Split On Libya No-Fly Zone in the Melbourne Age of 5 March 2011.

Andrew Holden, Age Editor-in-chief

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, ₁ plans to sack 7,000 Federal public servants. He also plans to give approval to the horrifically destructive East West Link project. 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

But didn't the same Fairfax Age newspaper of 22 June 2013, editorialise "For the sake of the nation, Ms Gillard should stand aside"? :

"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 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, 8:36AM, Thur 5 Sep: Hockey to give costings today

The Age reports, "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."

As noted in the Australian Financial Review :

"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]

1. ↑ 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 of 9:10AM, Thursday 5 September, above.)

2. ↑ 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.

3. ↑ 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-book Syria: 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.

4. ↑ Roger Corbett subsequently admitted he was a member of the Liberal Party.

There's an excellent article by the ever-reliable McClatchy News, analysing the various 'inconsistencies and hinges' in the Obama administration's 'red line' case against Syria. In the light of the latest allegations by French intelligence services, it raises several unanswered and often unasked questions:

by Matt

1. Why would Syria carry out a chemical weapons attack in its capital, within 72 hours of the arrival of the UN Inspection Team, which it had invited to the country to investigate the earlier alleged use of chemical weapons?

2. Which of the UN Security Council members agreed to limit the mandate of the Weapons Inspection team to investigating whether chemical weapons attack had taken place, but not their provenance?

3. According to the case presented by Kerry, the US had 'collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence”' that showed the Syrian regime preparing for an attack three days before it took place. Why didn't the administration issue a public warning beforehand in an attempt to prevent it?

4. Why did the US immediately seek to undermine the UN Weapons Inspection team when news of the Ghouta attack first became public, by declaring that any further investigation would be irrelevant and 'too late'?

5. Sarin gas traces can last not only for months, but for years. Why have the US, Britain and France insisted that any evidence at Ghouta will have been destroyed by the regime or become 'degraded' and therefore useless to the UN Inspectors - a barefaced, flat out lie?

6. The US and France claim to have collected traces of sarin in samples of hair and blood from first responders that were 'provided to the United States.' How were these samples collected and why were they provided to the US and not the UN?

7. What explains the huge discrepancy between the alleged casualty figures provided by the US, Britain and France?

8. Why has the US insisted that the rebels have no chemical weapons capability, even though Carla del Ponte, a senior member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria claimed in May that UN investigators in May had found ' strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof' that rebel forces may have used them?

9. Is there any truth in the reports by the MintPress News that Saudi-backed rebels may inadvertently have set off a sarin gas explosion?

10. Do the US and its allies actually want a full, scientifically-based, independent investigation into what happened at Ghouta, or are they merely ignoring any contrary facts that contradict their allegations and using stitched-up 'intelligence' information as a pretext for 'humanitarian' bombing?

Matt | September 3, 2013 at 8:22 am | URL: http://wp.me/p1wQsg-IJ

War criminals and serial liars, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, and their Australian accomplices, Prime Minster Kevin Rudd and Foreign Minister Bob Carr

This coming Saturday 7 September, most Australians will be forced to make the unpalatable choice between, on the one hand, the Opposition Liberal Party and the ruling Labor Party. The Liberal Party is resolved to destroy 7,000 public service jobs, remove the right of trade unions to enter workplaces and give the Green light to destructive and horrifically expensive projects such as the East-West Link and the Phillip Island industrialisation project. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, as well as promoting rampant population growth and section 457 visas has, on the international stage, facilitated military aggression against Libya in 2011 and has done his utmost to repeat the exercise with Syria. Fortunately for Syria and the rest of the world, President Obama's war plans against Syria have been defeated by international and domestic opposition as described in the included article of 30 Aug 2013 by Paul Craig Roberts. It is vital, if peace and democracy are to survive that Kevin Rudd, Bob Carr and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott be held to account for their support for the U.S. Government's criminal actions.

Editorial comment

In recent days world public opinion prevented war criminals and serial liars, U.S. President Barack Obama, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and French 'socialist' President François Hollande from launching a war against Syria on the pretext of the laughable allegation that the Syrian Government had killed between 300 and 1,400 of its citizens with poison gas. Whilst evidence supporting that claim was non-existent, a body of evidence that implicated the U.S.-sponsored anti-government terrorists was growing day by day. In site of the lack of evidence and the sheer implausibility of the allegation that the Syrian Government, which even NATO admits, enjoys the support of 70% of Syrians, would attempt to murder its citizens, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Foreign Minister Bob Carr were quick to give their strident support to President Barack Obama against Syria.

Fortunately, world public opinion, which had already been twice deceived by similar lying allegations against Iraq, saw through these lies and opposed the war. Opinion polls in the U.S. showed only 11% supported war. In the U.K., in response to overwhelming public opposition, the U.K. Parliament voted to not participate in the planned war. Over the following days, Francois François Hollande also decided not to participate in the planned war. left on his own and faced with overwhelming domestic opposition, President Barack Obama has decided to delay the war until after he has put his case to the U.S. Congress.

The likelihood that the 'evidence' that Obama and Kerry say they are going to present will stand up to the vast amount of evidence to the contrary is close to nil.

America Totally Discredited

Paul Craig Roberts, 30 August 2013

A foolish President Obama and moronic Secretary of State Kerry have handed the United States government its worst diplomatic defeat in history and destroyed the credibility of the Office of the President, the Department of State, and the entire executive branch. All are exposed as a collection of third-rate liars.

Intoxicated with hubris from past successful lies and deceptions used to destroy Iraq and Libya, Obama thought the US "superpower," the "exceptional" and "indispensable" country, could pull it off again, this time in Syria.

But the rest of the world has learned to avoid Washington's rush to war when there is no evidence. A foolish Obama was pushed far out on the limb by an incompetent and untrustworthy National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, and the pack of neoconservatives that support her, and the British Parliament cut the limb off.

What kind of fool would put himself in that vulnerable position?

Now Obama stands alone, isolated, trying to back away from his threat to attack without authorization from anyone--not from the UN, not from NATO, not from Congress who he ignored--a sovereign country. Under the Nuremberg Standard military aggression is a war crime. Washington has until now got away with its war crimes by cloaking them in UN or NATO approval. Despite these "approvals," they remain war crimes.

But his National Security Advisor and the neocon warmongers are telling him that he must prove that he is a Real Man who can stand alone and commit war crimes all by himself without orchestrated cover from the UN or NATO or a cowardly US Congress. It is up to Obama, they insist, to establish for all time that the President of the United States is above all law. He, and he alone is the "decider," the Caesar, who determines what is permissible. The Caesar of the "sole superpower" must now assert his authority over all law or Washington's hegemony over the world is lost.

As I noted in an earlier column today, if Obama goes it alone, he will be harassed for the rest of his life as a war criminal who dares not leave the US. Indeed, a looming economic collapse could so alter the power and attitude of the United States that Obama could find himself brought to justice for his war crimes.

Regardless, the United States government has lost its credibility throughout the world and will never regain it, unless the Bush and Obama regimes are arrested and put on trial for their war crimes.

Obama's destruction of US credibility goes far beyond diplomacy. It is likely that this autumn or winter, and almost certainly in 2014, the US will face severe economic crisis.

The long-term abuse of the US dollar's reserve currency role by the Federal Reserve and US Treasury, the never-ending issuance of new debt and printing of dollars to finance it, the focus of US economic policy on bailing out the "banks too big to fail" regardless of the adverse impact on domestic and world economies and holders of US Treasury debt, the awaiting political crisis of the unresolved deficit and debt ceiling limit that will greet Congress' return to Washington in September, collapsing job opportunities and a sinking economy all together present the government in Washington with a crisis that is too large for the available intelligence, knowledge, and courage to master.

When the proverbial hits the fan, the incompetent and corrupt Federal Reserve and the incompetent and corrupt US Treasury will have no more credibility than Obama and John Kerry.

The rest of the world--especially Washington's bullied NATO puppet states ₁ --will take great delight in the discomfort of "the world's sole superpower" that has been running on hubris ever since the Soviet collapse.

The world is not going to bail out Washington, now universally hated, with currency swaps, more loans, and foreign aid. Americans are going to pay heavily for their negligence, their inattention, their unconcern, and their ignorant belief that nothing can go wrong for them and that anything that does is temporary.

Two decades of jobs offshoring has left the US with a third world labor force employed in lowly paid domestic nontradable services, a workforce comparable to India's of 40 years ago. Already the "world's sole superpower" is afflicted with a large percentage of its population dependent on government welfare for survival. As the economy closes down, the government's ability to meet the rising demands of survival diminishes. The rich will demand that the poor be sacrificed in the interest of the rich. And the political parties will comply.

Is this the reason that Homeland Security, a Nazi Gestapo institution, now has a large and growing para-military force equipped with tanks, drones, and billions of rounds of ammunition?

How long will it be before American citizens are shot down in their streets by "their" government as occurs frequently in Washington's close allies in Egypt, Turkey, Bahrain?

Americans have neglected the requirements of liberty. Americans are so patriotic and so gullible that all the government has to do is to wrap itself in the flag, and the people, or too many of them, believe whatever lie the government tells. And the gullible people will defend the government's lie to their death, indeed, to the death of the entire world.

If Americans keep believing the government's lies, they have no future. If truth be known, Americans have already lost a livable future. The neocons' "American Century" is over before it begun.

Update: I have heard from educated and aware friends that the presstitute media on the evening news are beating the drums for war. This shows what paid whores the US media is and their total disconnect from reality. Anyone who wastes their time on the US media is a brainwashed idiot, a danger to humanity.

Update 8:52 PM August 30: Is the White House idiot going to be a victim of his own careless presidential appointments?

Does he have no one to tell him how to escape the dilemma his moronic Secretary of State and National Security Advisor have put him in? Someone needs to tell the WH Fool that he must say that he accepts the conclusion of the world

community that there is not sufficient evidence for launching a military attack on Syria and killing even more people

than were killed in the alleged, but unproven, chemical attack, and that he awaits further and better evidence.

God help the moron and the unfortunate country that the fool represents.

Appendix: Updates↑

Why have were updates included in the first place? Why were they moved out of the teaser and into this appendix?. I was motivated to include so many updates, because I knew it was not possible to publish enough material, whether original or reposted, to inform readers about the Syrian conflict. One alternative was to link directly to news about Syria from the front page. However, this became unwieldy due to the large number of news items. As an alternative, visitors our now advised which are the most prominent web-sites carrying truthful news about the Syrian conflict on the main front page.

Another goal was to show visitors links to deceitful mainstream media (other) web pages about Syria, so that they could be compared to the other articles, which are supported by evidence and logic (informative). The sites that lie about Syria include ABC News, the Age, SBS News, the Sydney Morning Herald and Rupert Murdoch's Australian (behind a paywall). - GT

Whilst the UK Parliament has acted to prevent that country's armed forces from participating in the planned act of war against Syria, the United States is apparently still prepared to take action "on its own" in the face of the evidence and ovewhelming domestic and international opposition.

We must act to stop this outrage!

Where: Outside State library, 328 Swanston St, Melbourne
When: 2:00PM, Sat 31 August.                            Be there!

Syria chemical warfare "Evidence" by "Brown Moses Blog" debunked

Saturday 31st Melbourne Syria Protest military attack plan

Dear AMRIS and friends,

There will be a rally on Saturday 31st at 2pm outside the State library, Melbourne (328 Swanston St Melbourne VIC 3000 - Cnr La Trobe St) to protest the planned military attack on Syria. Various groups will be involved. Layla will be speaking on behalf of AMRIS.

Please circulate this, an update on my previous email, in which the Mother Agnes link didn't work. Also a second article from today by Alastair Crooke, and below that a message from Robert Bekhazi on the dangers to Christians in particular from the threatened attack, and the assistance it will give to Takfiri groups:

Mother Agnes Mariam was interviewed by James Corbett yesterday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSCCBnnHgfs&feature=c4-overview&list=UUvtTGZEcS8mbWdB7prg4QNw
(Also here)

She asks some important questions about the children killed in the 'chemical attack' last week. Where did so many children come from when that area had lost a lot of its population after the 'rebels' took over? I was disturbed by the fact that there were virtually no signs of women - mothers and grandmothers, aunts etc - showing care for the children or lying beside the children, also killed by the chemical attack. If the children had been in a normal family situation when there had been a chemical attack, then where were their mothers? It raises the question: had the children been kidnapped from Lattakia, for example, for this attack? The men around the bodies show little to no anguish. Is this because they are the children of 'infidels'? (This is a news report from Syria showing interviews with relatives of people killed by Takfiris in villages around Lattakia earlier in August. They show the enormous heart-felt grief one would expect from family members in this situation.)

Alastair Crooke, ex-MI6, warned against war in Afghanistan decades ago and has been warning about the use of propaganda for war purposes, the information war. His article, Straining Credibility, is an excellent reference.

He has also just written this article on the US committing an 'Act of War', which succinctly exposes the false pretext being used by the West, as well as the evident culpability of the 'rebels'. : US Attack on Syria Would be Illegal 'Act of War'.

Dr Jeremy Salt, Australian ME expert who spoke at the last AMRIS information night, presents an analysis of the current crisis, "The Guardian of what? The Media and War Propaganda"

On the AMRIS Youtube page, there is an interview with Jeremy about the media and war propaganda.

Regards,

Susan

Breaking news : (30 August, 11:30AM GMT+10) UK Parliament votes against war

In response to an as yet unattributed use of chemical weapons in Syria, the US and its allies are seriously considering military action against including surgical air strikes in Syria. Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation) in Syria (AMRIS), regards these proposals as an extreme escalation of the conflict. Updates inside.

Military escalation in Syria cannot defuse the crisis, limit the casualties of war or produce peace. Instead, some believe it can lead to a world war.

[Updates for this article: Selective ‘obscenity’: US checkered record on chemical weapons of 29 August (with video) on RT, Obama ‘not yet made a decision’ on Syria as UK political rows stall intervention of 28 August (with video) on RT, Team of chemical weapons experts to leave Syria Saturday: UN of 29 August on PressTV, Calls for strike on Syria challenge UN Charter: Russia of 29 August on PressTV (with video), UK government forced to put off plans for war on Syria of 29 August on PressTV (with video), Syria asks UN to immediately investigate 3 new ‘chemical attacks’ by rebels of 28 August in Bloomberg, U.S., U.K. Pressure for Action on Syria Hits UN Hurdle of 28 August in Bloomberg,Poland against military operations in Syria of 28 August in Poland - News Review, Investigate Chemical Weapons Attack In Damascus (2) of 25 August, Dennis Kucinich: Bombing Syria would make US pilots ‘Al-Qaeda's air force’ of 25 August on RT, Church statements on possible attack on Syria of 27 August, Obama should be stripped of his Nobel Peace prize if he starts Syria war of 29 August on RT, CIA files implicate Washington in chemical weapons use against Iran of 29 August by Paul Craig Roberts. (This article originally posted 2013-08-27 16:07:36 +1000)]

Protest in London on 28 Aug 2013 against planned war against Syria. To watch video, see Syria 'chemical weapons' crisis: LIVE UPDATES on RT or download mp4 file (13.5Mb).

Facing strong opposition in the UK parliament, military action against the Syrian regime over the alleged use of chemical weapons could be delayed until next Tuesday.

On Thursday, the House of Commons will be asked by the government to approve a "strong humanitarian response" to the Syrian government’s alleged war crimes.

However, British opposition leader Ed Miliband said he would call on his MPs to vote against the government motion if the amendment calling for the delay of any military action is defeated, the Guardian reports.

"We will continue to scrutinise this motion but at 5.15pm David Cameron totally ruled out a second vote, an hour and a half later he changed his mind," a Labour source told the Guardian. "Ed was determined to do the right thing. It has taken Labour forcing a vote to force the government to do the right thing."

The delay of parliamentary approval could push back the military response timetable until next Tuesday when MPs are expected to have another vote.

Among other conditions the Labour Party said it would support military action only if members of the UN Security Council saw the chemical weapons inspectors report first.

A motion in the UK parliament has been called to let the UN Security Council see findings from chemical weapons inspectors before backing any military action in Syria.

"The United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken," the motion says.

Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr, informant for the US embassy since the 1970's

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who colluded in the invasion of Libya by calling for a "no-fly" zone

Breaking news : (30 August, 11:30AM GMT+10) UK Parliament votes against war

(Originally posted: Mon, 26 Aug 2013, 01:20:28 +1000) See also: Syria 'Chemical Weapons' Crisis: Live Updates on RT, Appendix 1: Links to factual reporting on Syria, Appendix 2: Mainstream media war propaganda.

Unlike Syria, Australia has participated in several unjust wars since the end of the Second World War.₁ As a result of two of those wars, 1,300,000 Iraqis, fled to Syria. The illegal wars, in which Australia participated include: The Korean War,₂ the Vietnam War, the Gulf War of 1991, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In its "demographics" section The Wikipedia Syria article, states:

According to the World Refugee Survey 2008, published by the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, Syria hosted a population of refugees and asylum seekers number approximately 1,852,300. The vast majority of this population was from Iraq (1,300,000), but sizeable populations from the former Palestine (543,400) and Somalia (5,200) also lived in the country.[106]

So, as a result of the illegal wars against Iraq in which Australia participated in 1991 and 2003 and the sanctions in which Australia also participated, which even denied medicine to critically ill Iraqi children and food to starving Iraqi children, 1,300,000 Iraqis fled to Syria, where they have since been cared for.

By rights, Syria should have received aid from Australia to help it cope with a problem of Australia's making.

Instead, Bob Carr, who claims to have opposed the wars against Iraq, found a convenient excuse to side with the world's bullies against Syria.

In May 2012, on the pretext of the unproven allegation that the Syrian Government had massacred 108 unarmed civilians at Houla, 'Labor' Foreign Affairs Minister Bob Carr expelled the Syrian ambassador and tightened existing sanctions against Syria.

Appendix 1: Factual reporting on Syria ↑

Regarding allegations that government had killed its citizens with chemical weapons

The links below do not include links to articles on Global Research (http://globalresearch.ca). At around 10:00PM (GMT +10) on 27 Aug 2013, the web browser showed the message "Error establishing a database connection" every time I tried to view a page on that site.

Lying about Syria, and the lying liars who lie about the lying ₃ of 25 Aug 2013 by David Swanson, Moallem: We Dare Anyone to Reveal Evidence that Damascus Used Chemical Weapons of 27 Aug 2013 in Almanar News, Sarin Gas : a new propaganda campaign against Syria of  Aug 2013 Voltaire Network, Strike on Syria serves Israel interests: Syrian FM of 27 Aug 2013 on PressTV, of 27 Aug 2013 on The Voice of Russia,
Congress Should Veto Obama's War of 27 Aug 2013 by Patrick J. Buchananan on antiwar.com , Information Minister : US has no evidence on Syria's use of chemical weapons (SANA) of 27 Aug 2013.

Other aspects of the Syrian conflict

Syria opposition handed Western powers lists of targets for strike of 27 Aug 2013 in The Voice of Russia, Aleppo Christians Fear Iraq-Style
Ethnic Cleansing of 26 Aug 2013 on Almonitor of  Aug 2013.

Appendix 2: Mainstream media war propaganda ↑

To understand the stories listed below, first read Lying about Syria, and the lying liars who lie about the lying ₃ of 25 Aug 2013 by David Swanson (also linked to above).
Mainstream media war propaganda: UN to inspect site of alleged Syrian chemical weapons attack, US say it's too late (includes embedded interview with Lisa Millar) of 26 Aug 2013 on ABC News, Obama's Guns of August of 24 Aug 2013 in Slate, Baird, counterparts express 'outrage' over alleged chemical attacks in Syria of 26 Aug 2013 on CTV, Air, missile strikes on Syria considered by US, UK of 26 Aug 2013 in Rupert Murdoch's Australian (possibly behind a paywall), Kevin Rudd's Syria briefing 'could have been by phone' of 26 Aug 2013 also in Murdoch's Australian, DFAT urges 64 Australians to leave Syria of 25 Aug 2013 in Murdoch's Sydney daily Telegraph, Australia to use UN role to push for Syria solution: Kevin Rudd of 25 Aug 2013, Syria to allow UN to inspect 'chemical weapons' site of 25 Aug 2013 in the BBC, Cameron and Obama warn of 'serious response' to Syria attack of 25 Aug 2013 also on the BBC, Caution needed in considering intervention in Syria ₄ of 26 Aug 2103 on ABC TV's Lateline, Carr says West could act on Syria without UN as US, allies gear up for probable military strike of 28 Aug 2013 and embedded video,
US intelligence to justify looming missile strike against Syria of 28 Aug 2013, 10 Simple points to help you understand the Syria conflict ₅ of 28 Aug 2013, Kevin Rudd talking to 'global leaders' on Syria, suggests he may attend G20 of 28 Aug 2013 in the Australian (includes another video of Bob Carr again making the lying claim that "evidence [is] accumult[ing].").

Footnotes

1. ↑ Contrary to some misguided "left-wing" narratives of the Second World War, the fight by the Western allies, the Soviet Union and other allies against German Nazism, Italian Fascism and Japanese colonialism was one in which all the people of the world have a vital stake, as Oliver Stone has shown in the TV series "The Untold History of the United States" (2012) and book of the same name. For all the flaws of the Allied nations, humanity is greatly indebted to them. Had the Allies lost, a new and more terrible of barbarism would have begun.

2. ↑ Whilst the Korean war can be technically viewed as the defence of 'South' Korea against aggression from 'North' Korea, in reality, it was an extension of the national war of liberation against the brutal regime of former Japanese collaborators, which had been imposed on 'South' Korea by U.S. occupiers in 1945. From 1945 until 1950, a guerrilla war had been fought against the southern regime.

3. ↑ This otherwise insightful and informative story is flawed by the following words: "5. Both sides in Syria have used horrible weapons and committed horrible atrocities. ...". In conducting a war against ruthless insurgents who use unarmed civilians as human shields and who conceal conceals themselves inside their residences, the Syrian Army has bombarded these residences and undoubtedly caused death and injury. However, in conducting an armed struggle to ensure that the terrorist killers do no triumph the Syrian Army would have little other choice. David Swanson seems to have been influenced by the false "far-left" opinion that every government (except for a truly "revolutionary socialist" of the old Leninist-Trotskyist paradigm) must necessarily be corrupt. However, it appears that a number of notable historical figures who have risen to the top are indeed well-meaning and courageous individuals. One obvious example is the late President Kennedy. President Bashar al-Assad may be of a similar mould. Certainly I have yet to see any evidence that he is corrupt.

4. ↑ On the surface, Bob Carr appears fair, calm and rational in this interview by Lateline presenter Emma Alberici. However, as this interview only likely to be viewed by a very small minority of the public who take the time to watch Lateline and would be overshadowed by news of the strident beating of the drums of war by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and John Kerry, Bob Carr's apparent urging of caution would have negligible impact, particularly given that Bob Carr has repeated the lies about Syria and has not made the effort to question them.

5. ↑ The 'points' are anything but simple. Includes some token pretences at being objective and not biased, for example: "5. And pretty soon, bad guys on both sides are killing civilians…".

Reposted from article of same title of 26 Aug 2013 on Paul Craig Roberts' web-site, http://www.paulcraigroberts.org.

The US and UK governments have revealed none of the "conclusive evidence" they claim to have that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. Listening to their voices, observing their body language, and looking into their eyes, it is completely obvious that John Kerry and his British and German puppets are lying through their teeth. This is a far more shameful situation than the massive lies that former Secretary of State Colin Powell told the UN about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell claims that he was deceived by the White House and did not know that he was lying. Kerry and the British, French, and German puppets know full well that they are lying.

The face that the West presents to the world is the brazen face of a liar.

Washington and its British and French (and Australian - Ed) puppet governments are poised to yet again reveal their criminality. The image of the West as War Criminal is not a propaganda image created by the West’s enemies, but the portrait that the West has painted of itself.

The UK Independent reports that over this past week-end Obama, Cameron, and Hollande agreed to launch cruise missile attacks against the Syrian government within two weeks despite the lack of any authorization from the UN and despite the absence of any evidence in behalf of Washington’s claim that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the Washington-backed "rebels", largely US supported external forces, seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.

Indeed, one reason for the rush to war is to prevent the UN inspection that Washington knows would disprove its claim and possibly implicate Washington in the false flag attack by the "rebels," who assembled a large number of children into one area to be chemically murdered with the blame pinned by Washington on the Syrian government.

Another reason for the rush to war is that Cameron, the UK prime minister, wants to get the war going before the British parliament can block him for providing cover for Obama's war crimes the way that Tony Blair provided cover for George W. Bush, for which Blair was duly rewarded. What does Cameron care about Syrian lives when he can leave office into the waiting arms of a $50 million fortune.
Syria: UN weapons inspectors attacked as they try to reach site of alleged poison gas attack

The Syrian government, knowing that it is not responsible for the chemical weapons incident, has agreed for the UN to send in chemical inspectors to determine the substance used and the method of delivery. However, Washington has declared that it is "too late" for UN inspectors and that Washington accepts the self-serving claim of the al Qaeda affiliated "rebels" that the Syrian government attacked civilians with chemical weapons. Syria: UN weapons inspectors attacked as they try to reach site of alleged poison gas attack See also Syria Accepts UN Inspectors, US Spurns Call as 'Too Late'

In an attempt to prevent the UN chemical inspectors who arrived on the scene from doing their work, the inspectors were fired upon by snipers in "rebel" held territory and forced off site, although a later report from RT says the inspectors have returned to the site to conduct their inspection. UN inspectors visit site of alleged Syria chemical attack despite sniper fire

The corrupt British government has declared that Syria can be attacked without UN authorization, just as Serbia and Libya were militarily attacked without UN authorization. In other words, the Western democracies have already established precedents for violating international law. "International law? We don't need no stinking international law!" The West knows only one rule: Might is Right. As long as the West has the Might, the West has the Right.

In a response to the news report that the US, UK, and France are preparing to attack Syria, the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, said that such unilateral action is a "severe violation of international law," and that the violation was not only a legal one but also an ethical and moral violation. Lavrov referred to the lies and deception used by the West to justify its grave violations of international law in military attacks on Serbia, Iraq, and Libya and how the US government used preemptive moves to undermine every hope for peaceful settlements in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

Once again Washington has preempted any hope of peaceful settlement. By announcing the forthcoming attack, the US destroyed any incentive for the "rebels" to participate in the peace talks with the Syrian government. On the verge of these talks taking place, the “rebels” now have no incentive to participate as the West’s military is coming to their aid.

About Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.

See also: Defeated NATO Dangerously Desperate in Syria -- Did the West Gas Thousands to Rescue Failed Syrian War? of 25 Aug 2013 by Tony Cartalucci, Head of International Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction (Hans Blix) questions chemical attack allegations in Syria of 22 Aug 2013, Information Minister: We have incontrovertible proof that terrorists used chemical weapons of 24 Aug 2013 on SANA, General Command of the Army: terrorists' possession of chemical materials is clear-cut evidence of their use of chemical weapons of 24 Aug 2013 on SANA.

Misreporting: Syria, rebels deny using chemical weapons as NGO says 355 people died of 'neurotoxic symptoms' of 25 Aug 2013 on the ABC (includes embedded speech by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd feigning moral indignation), Thousands fell victim to Syria's chemical poisoning, say doctors in the UK Telegraph of 23 Aug 2013, Don't rush to conclusions on Syria: Kevin Rudd of 25 Aug 2013 in the Australian (the content, including much of the same embedded speech mentioned above, is contrary to the somewhat more objective headline).

Anyone informed about the Syrian conflict would know that the Syrian Government has nothing to gain by killing, in cold blood, hundreds of unarmed Syrians. The fact that the Syrian Government, without the help of a foreign occupying army, has withstood the insurgency for over two years now, is surely proof that it enjoys the support of the Syrian people. No Government, as hated by its own people as the Western newsmedia claims the Syrian Government is, could hope to crush a popular uprising by those people for more than a fraction of the time that has elapsed. Indeed in June, it was revealed that a study by NATO (which is helping to orchestrate the terrorist war against Syria) found that 70% of Syrians supported the Syrian Government.

The Orwellian mainstream newsmedia, which, in recent weeks has ignored the spate of deadly terrorist bombings against Syrian civilians, has made the baseless accusation that the Syrian Government has killed hundreds of its own citizens and is feigning moral outrage. Mainstream media misreporting, as well as that listed above, includes:

'A crime against humanity': Ban Ki-moon (SBS, 23 Aug 2013);Proof of chemical weapons use in Syria would be a 'crime against humanity', UN says (ABC News, 23 Aug 2013); Syria pressured to allow weapons inspectors in after suspected chemical attack (The Australian, 23 Aug 2013); France says force needed if Syrian chemical attack claims prove true (ABC News, 23 Aug 2013); Call for investigation into Syria 'chemical attack' (Sydney Morning Herald, 23 Aug 2013);

Truthful reporting, about the alleged "Crime against humanity" by the Syrian Government, as well as that listed above, includes:

Syria gas attack story has whiff of Saudi war propaganda by William Engdahl (RT, 23 Aug 2013); Syria 'Chemical Attack' was 'Planned Provocation' by Rebels (RT, Global Research, 23 Aug 2013); China calls for 'objective' UN investigation in Syria (PressTV, 23 Aug 2013); UN: Investigation needed into Syria chemical attack report (RT, 22 Aug 2013); Vatican calls to not issuing judgment of chemical weapons use in Syria without evidence (SANA, 22 Aug 2013);

Those who stand to gain from the deaths of so many Syrians, and not just for their propaganda value, are the same criminals who waged genocidal wars against Iraq which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

See also: Syria: Only Rebels Benefit from Recent Chemical Attack - grtv of 22 Aug 2013 (Includes embedded Global Research TV broadcast).

by Barbara Nimri Aziz. Republished from Syria News, Global Research.

The blockade on Syria -- on Syrian life not weaponry -- reaches into the heart of social, historical and cultural life.This policy is integral to the US-led assault against the country and against Arab national integrity.

Includes: Editorial comment: Australia's shameful complicity in the war against Syria.

(Original image)

This policy is integral to the US-led assault against the country and against Arab national integrity.

No-fly zone, poison gas, foreign guerrillas, sectarian massacres. These frightening yet alluring, ambitious yet wearying thoughts define Syria today. More reason to take time for other dramas--Syrian TV serials and their politics.

Apart from an opportune 'Ramadan' reference, this topic may seem inconsequential or out of place for a nation engulfed in conflict. Yet the subject isn't too slight a target for US policies.

Extending its aggression against Syria into every corner of the economy, the United States has seen TV productions by its longstanding enemy dumped from international satellites, a move that essentially severs global access. This move followed withdrawal of supporting infrastructure for widely popular Syrian programs by US-Gulf state allies, erstwhile co-sponsors, customers and distributors of TV dramas originating in Damascus.

Now, why would anyone censor Syrian TV? Are we not led to believe that Syrian media's sole purpose is to mislead rather than inform? How could anything of value originate from that 'brutal dictatorship'? Anyway, how can 'mindless' TV soaps warrant an international embargo?

People familiar with the range of public issues which Syrian producers address through popular drama will understand.

Over the past decade the Damascus-based industry rose to become a major center of high quality TV drama. Its productions won admiration across the Arab-speaking world, rivaling once dominant Egyptian dramas.

What Syrian dramas, most of which are made by private companies, offer is best illustrated by two productions:-- 'Bab al-Hara' (http://www.istikana.com/en/episodes/bab-el-hara-1-1), first released during Ramadan month in 2006, and a hugely successful 2010 production, 'Ma Malakat Aymanukum' (http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=41098).

'Bab al-Hara' is a colonial period drama typical of the historical productions Syria excels in. This and dramatizations of early epochs hold special significance throughout the Arab world through portrayals and reflections of Arab civilization's accomplishments and historical events.

By contrast with 'Bab al-Hara', 'Ma Malakat' explores contemporary social concerns: --religious fanaticism, homosexuality, abuse of women. Written by Syrian author Halla Diyab (), 'Ma-Malakat' was directed by her accomplished compatriot Najdat Ansour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najdat_Anzour).

The work of these and other brilliant Syrian artists is renowned.

Yes, armed conflict itself thwarts artistic production. Hundreds of Syria's most talented and liberal-thinking people-- actors, designers, musicians, writers, technicians-- are jobless today. Many flee in search of outside employment, like those featured in a token CNN Ramadan story. By contrast view your yourself the Syrian Ramadan 2013 series broadcast over lbc TV. Theater is one of many institutions devastated by war. But the destruction of this industry is not collateral damage. It's deliberate. The sale of Syrian series came to a standstill when networks in Saudi Arabia and UAE (where major distributors are located) cancelled orders for Syrian productions.

Next, in June 2012 the Arab League itself ordered satellite transmitters Hotbird, Nilesat and Arabsat to cease carrying Syrian media including Syrian TV and Syrian Drama TV. Whereas Syria exported 25 new TV series in 2010, the following year producers were able to sell only one--a direct effect of the US-designed embargo.

Of course this blockade has significant economic consequences for Syria. But its real target is Syria's cultural and ideological position in the region.

The Arab public and specialists recognize that Syrian productions are unrivaled in their authenticity and ideology. Syria is known to have the highest standards in historical research (applied to the arts) and in Arabic language. Besides the technical, literary and entertainment value of specific stories, Syria's dramatic productions represent a struggling political consciousness--the Arab nationalist ideal. (This includes celebration of Palestinian resistance.)

Syrian dramas invoke regional pride and values largely absent in productions from neighboring countries. The industry's collapse was targeted because these productions embody and espouse values which the West seeks to eliminate. Nothing is overlooked, it seems, in the US design against Syria. Meanwhile Turkish TV serials, translated into Arabic, heir focus limited to romance and family conflict, keep people distracted. A coincidence?

Barbara Nimri Aziz

Editorial comment: Australia's shameful complicity in the war against Syria

Barbara Aziz has provided further confirmation that the justifications given by the likes of US Secretary of state John Kerry, for the arming of the supposed 'rebels', the threats of "no fly zones" and outright military invasion, are barefaced lies. How could it be possible for a country ruled by a corrupt and brutally repressive despot to have made such an outstanding contribution to culture?

The role of Australia and its Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Bob Carr, has been particularly shameful.

As a result of the illegal wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003 in which Australia participated (and which Bob Carr, incidentally, claimed to oppose), 1,300,000 Iraqis fled to Syria
according to wikipedia. This is in addition to the many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis -- 3,300,000 according to one estimate -- who were killed in the fighting or died through disease or starvation as a result of sanctions imposed by the US, Australia and their allies.

Syria should rightly have expected, at the very least, massive financial aid from Australia for having helped to create such a huge problem for the Syrian government. Instead, in May 2012, on the pretext of the absurd and fraudulent allegation that the Syrian government had massacred 108 of its own supporters in the town of Houla, Bob Carr expelled the Syrian ambassador and tightened existing sanction against Syria.

Prior to that, in May 2012, the current 'Labor' Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, as a roving Australian ambassador in the Middle East, helped initiate the invasion of Libya by urging the establishment of the United Nations "no fly zone".

In 2001, Australia participated in the invasion of Afghanistan on the pretext of the lie of 9/11. One result is that opium production, which had almost been eliminated by the Taliban government has since skyrocketed.

That the war in Syria is no more than an attempt by the United States, Israel, the Arab dictatorships including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and their European allies to conquer and subjugate the Syrian people has even been acknowleged by NATO, which in June admitted that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad enjoys the support of 70% of the Syrian people.

In the embedded interview Oksana Boyko and her guest Ammar Waqqaf presume that their viewing audience do not need to be convinced of this. The interview, instead, focuses on how Syria, led by President Bashar al-Assad, after the crushing of his terrorist enemies, will relate to the rulers of the surrounding countries all led by sworn enemies of Bashar al-Assad, who have staked their reputations on ousting him. This discussion between two people, who are not even native English speakers, is the most informative and insightful I can recall ever having seen.

Also included: FSA Place Food Embargo on West Aleppo - Interview with an Aleppo resident by the Syrian Girl.

Editorial content: The only long term solution that could hope to bring stability and prosperity to the entire region would have to be a reverse of the "regime change" that the surrounding dictatorships are attempting to impose upon Syria, that is, "regime change" by popular revolt from below.

FSA Place Food Embargo on West Aleppo - Interview with an Aleppo resident

Syrian mother giving food to Syrian soldier at checkpoint

Update, 23 June 2013 : Israeli Intelligence News: Syria Rebels Possess Chemical Weapons, US-NATO Delivering Heavy Weapons to the Terrorists on Global Research by Prof Michel Chossudovsky. (This article originally published 8 May 2013.)

See also: The Forbidden Truth: The U.S. is Channeling Chemical Weapons to Al Qaeda in Syria, Obama is a Liar and a Terrorist of 14 June 2013 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky on Global Research.

The mainstream media, including the Australian Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) no longer disputes that the pretexts used to justify the United States' wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003 were lies. Yet, in spite of the appalling consequences, including as many as 3.3 million Iraqi deaths according to one recent estimate, the SBS has shown itself willing to echo a new series of lies, which have been contrived by the same people responsible for the Iraq War. This time the target is Syria.

The new set of lies are to justify their ongoing proxy terrorist war against Syria and, if they see it necessary, escalation to an all-out conventional invasion. That war has so far claimed 70,000 Syrian lives. In spite of this terrible human cost, the Syrian Governemnt and the Syrian Arab Army have still shown themselves to be capable of defending their country and of infliciting crushing defeats upon the terrorist killers.

Chemical warfare claims blamed on wrong side

The latest of many examples of lies used by the SBS against Syria are their reporting of claims by the United States that the Syrian Government has used chemical warfare against its own people. For many weeks now, the truth of from where the real threat of chemical attack has been understood by people prepared to look at the evidence. This includes alternative news services such as Global Research, Tony Caretalucci's landdestroyer.blogspot.com and the Corbett Report. That threat was not from the Syrian Government, which has nothing to gain by killing the same people who support it and have stood with it against the terrorists for more than two years. The threat of chemical warfare came from the terrorists.

Independent commission interviews many but finds no chemical weapons evidence against Syrian government

It was more recently confirmed by the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria. As reported on PressTV and elsewhere:

The UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria could not find any evidence that Syrian government forces used chemical weapons against militants, commission member Carla Del Ponte has said.

"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in television interview.

"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," said Del Ponte, a former Swiss attorney-general who also served as prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Undue prominence given to statements of disbelief from Whitehouse

In its news report of 6 May, the SBS gave prominence to the unfounded claims of US White House spokesman Jay Carney that the Syrian Government, and not its terrorist opponents, has used Chemical weapons. The effect of this report was to diminish the impact the more credible story of Carla Del Ponte's report, which was founded upon evidence, that the perpetrators of the chemical attack were the US-backed terrorists.

Originally published as Johnson: Syrian opposition weapons would be pressing weapons into maniacs & al-Qaeda thugs on 17 June 2013 on SANA. See also: "Don't arm maniacs": London's mayor opposes weapon support for Syrian rebels of 17 June 2013 on Russia Today.

London, SANA Arming the Syrian rebels would be "pressing weapons into the hands of maniacs and al-Qaeda thugs," London’s mayor, Boris Johnson, has said, warning British Premier David Cameron of the risks of arming the Syrian opposition fighters.

Writing for British publication "The Telegraph", Johnson said that the UK must not use Syria as an arena for muscle flexing.

"We can't use Syria as an arena for geopolitical point-scoring or muscle-flexing, and we won't get a ceasefire by pressing weapons into the hands of maniacs," Johnson added.

He joins a number of prominent British political and social figures in an attempt to dissuade Prime Minister David Cameron from sending arms to the Syrian opposition.

"This is the moment for a total ceasefire, an end to the madness," Johnson said, adding: "It is time for the US, Russia, the EU, Turkey, Iran, Saudi and all the players to convene an intergovernmental conference to try to halt what is happening in Syria."

Johnson's comments came after many statements made by high-ranking officials who are opposing arming the opposition and Cameron's stand by U.S. President Barack Obama in providing more aid to the opposition.

Deputy PM, Nick Clegg, also warned Cameron of the dangers of supplying the Syrian opposition with weapons. Former Commander of the British Army, Lord Dannatt, said he feared any such assistance would lead Britain into further intervention, while the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, urged Cameron to "tread very warily".

The statements of Johnson, Clegg, Dannatt and others agree with the remarks made yesterday by Russian President, Vladimir Putin, in which he called on G8 summit to act on Syria without violating the international rules.

Putin wondered how to support the people who not only kill others, but open up their bodies and eat their intestines, in a reference to a video footage on the internet of a armed terrorist apparently eating the heart of a government soldier.

Russia believes the crisis in Syria will only be brought to an end through negotiations.

Ghossoun /

Originally published on candobetter: 2013-06-19 23:14:45 +1000.

The following two interviews, in addition to the interview embedded here from PressTV below and the Sunday Times interview of 3 March 2013 are only four of many interviews of President al-Assad available on YouTube. It is perplexing that a national leader, who is so prepared to be critically scrutinised in the media, is held, even by some active and outspoken opponents of the terrorist war against Syria, to be 'corrupt' and a 'dictator'. In comparison to the way many of the West's formally democratic politicians have mis-ruled their constituencies, for example, Australia's Foreign Minister Bob Car (pictured), who mis-ruled the State of NSW from 1995 until 2005, President al-Assad appears remarkably able.

All the evidence seems to suggest that, to the contrary, President al-Assad is a courageous and humane national leader who has capably led his country against the foreign terrorist proxy invasion since March 2001. Had Syria been less capably led, the cost to the Syrian people by now would have been even greater than the already terrible death toll, put at more than 70,000 by most estimates. In all probability, the Syrian government would have been overthrown, Syria would have been partitioned and bloody sectarian strife similar to what occurred in Iraq after the United States and its allies invaded in 2003, would now be under way.

President al-Assad, in charge of a nation threatened with invasion, has repeatedly faced close media scrutiny

Above video of 33 minutes, 36 seconds duration can also be viewed here.

Video of 4 minutes, 13 seconds duration can also be viewed here.

Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr echoes media lies against Syria

Readers may be interested to compare President al-Assad's words with those of Australian Foreign Minister Bob Car 10 months ago in July 2012 in an interview with SBS television's Anton Enus. In that interview, both Bob Carr and Anton Enus predicted the imminent overthrow of the Syrian Government and made claims, contrary to the known evidence of the time, that the Syrian Army and 'pro-government militias' had committed atrocities against the Syrian people.

Video of 5 minutes, 57 seconds duration can also be viewed here.

It is striking that while, on the one hand Russia and China are criticised by Bob Carr and Anton Enus for vetoing motions for military intervention against the Syrian Government on the United Nations Security Council, on the other hand the tragic consequences for the Libyan people of the failure of Russia and China to veto the resolution for a "no-fly zone" in 2011, are not even mentioned.

No mention is made either of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 in which Australia participated. That invasion was found by the UK Government Chilcot inquiry to have been in breach of international law.

Assad will not willingly allow Syria to suffer fate of Iraq

Many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result and President al-Assad is rightly resolved not to let the likes of Carr and Obama and the governments of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and other criminal entities on the international arena do the same to his country.

Bob Carr's misrule of NSW, 1995-2005

Australia's current Foreign Minister, Senator Bob Carr, ruled the state of New South Wales from 1995 until 2005. Unlike President al-Assad, whose country has, faced threatened invasions of Syria for much of the time since he assumed office, he was formally democratically elected Premier of New South Wales in 1995.

However, many of the policies Carr imposed or attempted to impose --- privatisation, the massive expansion of global-warming coal exports, enabling the trashing of bushland in Western Sydney against popular protest, etc. -- were harmful to the public and the environment and benficial to vested wealthy corporate interests. Had President Bashar al-Assad ruled Syria as ineptly and unconscionably as Carr ruled New Sout Wales, he would have been removed from office a long time ago.

Republished from Voltaire Network. See also: German Intelligence: 95% of free army non-Syrian extremist groups republished from SANA of 13 Jun 2013. The Anglo-American press reports on an internal NATO study (dated June 2013), which takes stock of Syrian public opinion.₁

The study shows that 70% of Syrians support President Bashar al-Assad, 20% adopt a neutral position and 10% support the "rebels."

See also: Humanitarian Crisis in Syria: "The West should Pay War Reparations to Syria". Interview with Michel Chossudovsky of 9 Jun 2013 (includes embedded interview and text transcription).
Mother Agnes Mariam; UN Human Rights Council; Commission of Inquiry on Syria, 7 June,
Anti-Syrian Blame Game Escalates: Who is Behind Killings of Civilians? of 6 June 2013 on Syria News, Senator John McCain Meets Leaders of Terror Brigade in Syria. The NGOs that Made it Happen of 9 June 2013 by Phil Greaves on Global Research, Syria's Qusair Victory Matters: US-NATO-Israel Supported Death Squads Defeated of 10 June 2013 by Stephen Lendman on Global Research, The Forbidden Truth: The U.S. is Channeling Chemical Weapons to Al Qaeda in Syria, Obama is a Liar and a Terrorist of 14 June 2013 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky on Global Research.

These figures are presented as reflecting a change of heart. The population is tired of the abuses and divisions of the armed opposition. From NATO’s perspective, what we are witnessing is not a phenomenon that is occurring in view of the approaching "Geneva-2" peace conference.

For two years, the events in Syria have been portrayed by the Atlanticist and GCC press as a peaceful revolution cruelly suppressed by a tyrant. The Syrian and anti-imperialist press, on the contrary, brands them as a foreign attack, armed and funded to the tune of billions of dollars.

[1] ↑ NATO data: Assad winning the war for Syrians’ hearts and minds, World Tribune, May 31, 2013.

German Intelligence: 95% of free army non-Syrian extremist groups

13 June 2013

Berlin, (SANA)- German "Die Welt" daily said that only 5% of the armed terrorists in the so-called Free Army are Syrians, while 95% of them are extremist groups which came from several African countries to jihad in Syria baked by the Gulf and Arab countries.

The daily quoted intelligence experts in Germany as saying : "The German intelligence has an official and detailed account of the nationalities of the rebels in Syria and their locations in the country,"

A member of the German intelligence said that some terrorist groups in Syria work in full coordination with al-Qaeda, but the extremist groups are more dangerous than al-Qaeda since they commit genocide against children and women and use them as human shields to achieve the possible biggest number of casualties.

According to a semi-official statistics the number of the gunmen in Syria estimated at 14,800 including experts in many fields like the preparation of improvised explosive devices. Most of those gunmen previously participated in several attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The biggest danger lies in the Arab countries' help releasing Islamic detainees and sending them to Syria with the aim of Jihad against the Syrian state violating the standards of anti-terrorism Conventions.

The armed terrorist groups of the so-called Jabhat al-Nusra have committed a large number of massacres against children, women and elderly in different regions of Syria, the most recently massacre was carried out in Hatleh village in Deir Ezzor Province claiming the lives of over 30 people because of their refusal to support terrorists in their hostile acts against civilians.

H. Zain/ Ghossoun