President Assad, invigorated by Obama’s recent backtracking, lays down his own view and conditions. Here they are, citing an interview with Assad to air in its entirety later today on RT, courtesy of AP: :
- ASSAD CALLS FOR ISRAEL TO DISPOSE OF WMD
- ASSAD: ‘REBELS MAY USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST ISRAEL AS PROVOCATION’
- ASSAD SAYS CHEMCIAL ARMS DEAL DEPENDS ON US STOPPING AID TO TERRORISTS
- ASSAD SAYS WILL COMPLETE DEAL ONLY IF US STOPS “POLICY OF THREATS”
- ASSAD ACCUSES TURKEY, SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR OF SUPPORTING TERRORISTS IN SYRIA
- ASSAD EXPECTS TO START HANDING OVER INFO ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS ONE MONTH AFTER JOINING OPCW
- ASSAD: ‘ANY WAR AGAINST SYRIA WILL BECOME A WAR THAT WILL DESTROY THE WHOLE REGION’
- ASSAD: ‘NO COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST, PRIMARILY ISRAEL, SHOULD HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION’
- SYRIA TO SEND DOCUMENTS TO UN, CHEMICAL WEAPONS GROUP SOON
- ASSAD SAYS IMPLEMENTATION OF DEAL MAY TAKE A MONTH OR MOREWith Obama’s bluff called, it’s back over to him and his TelePrompTer to beat that drum like never before.
I have wrote several times about the conflict in Syria, here, here and here and how it is the UK, US, Saudi, Qatar, Turkey and France that are fuelling and backing terrorism. NATO has acknowledged that 70% of the population of Syria support President Assad and only 10% support the rebels. German intelligence states 95% of the rebels are made up of foreign jihadists. The so called ‘Friends of Syria’ have very little representation (if any at all) in the population of Syria.
Hague and Cameron have to accept that with 70% support of the Syria people, any future government must involve negotiations with President Assad. Unfortunately their hurt pride is more important to them than the lives of the Syrian people. They will eventually be tried for war crimes and I look forward to that day as my heart goes out to Syrian families and children caught in this proxy war!
Courtesy of The Guardian
An aerial view shows the destruction in the Khalidiya district of Homs. Photograph: Reuters
Syrian president Bashar al-Assad wasn’t supposed to survive. Since the uprising began in 2011, it’s been long presumed in western political and media circles that he would be deposed or killed and that a new, more US-friendly autocrat would be installed. This hasn’t happened.
We know Russia and America have vastly different interests in the conflict. As for Australia, foreign minister Bob Carr predictably parroted the Washington line in October 2012 when he said, “this sounds brutal and callous, perhaps an assassination [of Assad] combined with a major defection, taking a large part of its military, is what is required to get … a ceasefire and two, political negotiations”.
Carr was rightly condemned for his comments, yet he ignored another harsh reality: when it comes to Syria, the US and its Saudi Arabian and Qatari allies are backing Islamic fundamentalism under the guise of defeating the west’s key Middle East villain, Iran. Al-Qaida is now thriving, and the number of beheadings and other assorted acts of extreme sectarian violence have been steadily rising. It’s like the funding of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan never happened, or that the lessons learned after the west armed what became al-Qaida under Osama Bin Laden were wiped from the record.
By June this year, Carr accepted the necessary presence of Assad in any successful peace negotiations. Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Julie Bishop urged for a “negotiated settlement” in February, but refused to condemn the role of western-backed jihadis.
Meanwhile, foreign fighters are flooding into Syria – and they’ve become some of the fiercest and most successful insurgents against the Assad regime. US officials talk of the country becoming an extremist haven. Blue-eyed jihadists from Europe recently told Foreign Policy that they were committed to establishing an Islamic state inside the nation. Abu Salman (not his real name) said that, “They [the United States] only give weapons to the worst groups … These groups operate inside the Free Syrian Army, but they even don’t fight for democracy, they just steal money”.
Children play in front of damaged buildings in the Arabeen neigbourhood of Damascus. Photograph: Reuters
At least a few hundred Australians are involved, causing growing sectarianism in Sydney between Sunni and Shia communities. I’ve spoken to many local Muslims who say the blindness being displayed on both sides – Assad backers ignoring the vast crimes perpetuated by his forces and rebel backers denying the extent of hardline Islamist support – is fuelling resentment and violence on the streets and online.
I’ve attended events where the estimated death toll of over 100,000 Syrians and immense refugee crisis engulfing neighbouring countries is mostly forgotten amidst the conflicting visions of a future Syria without war. The Syrian diaspora is fragmenting along lines that their birth country never experienced. Syrians pushing for the overthrow of Assad are often as belligerent as his loudest advocates, willing to ignore the war crimes committed by their own side. Like we see daily in Iraq, rampant sectarianism fuelled by outside forces only leads to chaos.
Tammam Sulaiman, the former Syrian ambassador to Australia, now
Damascus-based senior member of Assad’s foreign ministry and soon to be head of mission at the Syrian embassy in Pyongyang in North Korea, told me last week in an exclusive interview that he didn’t understand why the west remained silent when “rebel terrorism” was committed. He acknowledged that the regime had made “mistakes”, but stressed his government was determined to win. “Our general impression is that the battle will not finish soon”, he said.
I pushed him on human rights reports that found regime forces were
slaughtering civilians. “The US talks about collateral damage”, he
argued. “The US coined that term and what we’re doing is the same. We don’t want to kill civilians. They started the war.”
In fact, I told Sulaiman, there were peaceful protests in Daraa in March 2011, and these were brutally crushed by Assad forces. How could the regime talk about democracy when civilians were tortured and killed by pro-government soldiers?
Sulaiman had little to say about this question. And yet, he correctly said, the war in Syria has exposed the hypocrisy of the western powers. “Those western officials, including in Australia, don’t say anything because they’ll upset their allies in Qatar and Saudi Arabia. I recently said to a representative from the Vatican here in Damascus, ‘I can’t understand why Catholic Europe is standing up behind Saudi Arabia, and yet no Christian can stand in Riyadh with a beer. The Vatican man smiled and responded by saying nothing’”.
This is the kind of ugly truth the western media is too keen to ignore, rushing to repeat US, UK and Australian talking points about a regime that for decades has refused to bow to western dictates – the ultimate sin of which Tehran is also guilty of.
The war in Syria has become an ugly proxy battle between innumerable outside forces, and virtually none of them care about the plight of the Syrian people. The announcement by the Assad regime that private security firms can now operate inside the nation is yet another ominous sign that unaccountable terror will be roaming the streets.
Australia can play a small but significant part by looking clearly at
the failures of western policy towards Syria since the first rumblings
of major public dissent against the regime. Canberra should urge all
parties to de-escalate the fighting and not arm, train or fund either
side. If the Australian government is so worried about terrorism on
its shores, it should stop backing it in Syria.
We are told we have to be fearful of terrorism, it is a war on an emotion which will never yield a winner but billions of losers. Why don’t we have a war on heart disease, something which is clearly more dangerous to our health than terrorism. A simple question, why? I believe the banking, oil and military industrial complex wont make any money from it. The below infographic is for US populous…be afraid of terrorism or from choking on your own vomit…alternatively you can wake up!
This article is from The Economic Collapse blog and asks the question, is Obama trying to take the heat off his tenure by stoking the fire in Syria and readying to throw petrol on the fire? The USA has lost all credibility, along with The French and UK government, by backing Al Qaeda loyal terrorists. Logic today seems to be lost on the people, how can we send our troops to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda but support them in Syria? The point being, we can’t but these ignorant, arrogant, narcissistic sociopaths who are in government can’t see this…or want to divert from their own issues at home.
Reason obeys itself, while ignorance submits to whatever is dictated.
So what scandals are following Obamas administration, remember the most transparent government ever…
- Mexican gun running
- The State Deptartment lying about Benghazi
- The IRS targeting conservatives
- The Department of Injustice spying on the press, AP journalists
- Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives
- The NSA monitoring all phone calls, e-mails and everything else on the web
- The State Deptartment interfering with an IG investigation on departmental sexual misconduct
- HHS employees being given insider information on Medicare Advantage
- Clinton, the IRS, Clapper & Holder all lying to Congress
- Record number of Americans on food stamps and in poverty
- False economic indicators such as understated inflation
- All commodity markets fixed by the TBTF banks
To name just a few, so Obama is under pressure but don’t worry, he can sing Al Green so he’s A OK. I think not. He is a dangerous patsy and needs to be impeached but the whole system needs to be exposed for what it is, mass fraud and debt servitude.
The full article:
Well, isn’t that convenient? At the moment when the Obama administration is feeling more heat then ever before, it starts another war. Suddenly everyone in the mainstream media is talking all about Syria and not about the IRS scandal, Benghazi, NSA snooping or any of the other political scandals that have popped up in recent weeks.
As if on cue, Obama made headlines all over the globe on Thursday by claiming that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the rebels “multiple times”, and that the U.S. was now ready to do more to assist the rebels. That assistance is reportedly going to include “military support” for the rebels and a no-fly zone over at least part of Syria is being discussed. Without a doubt, these are acts of war, and this conflict is not going to end until Assad has been ousted. But Assad will not go quietly.
And all it would take is for Assad to fire a couple of missiles at Tel Aviv for a huge regional war to erupt in the Middle East. And what happens if Russia or China decides to get involved in the conflict in Syria? Obama is playing with fire, but he has shown again and again that he is willing to do virtually anything if it will benefit him politically.
As far as the Obama administration is concerned, there is no such thing as a coincidence. The timing of this announcement regarding Syria was not an accident. If Obama wanted to use chemical weapons as an excuse to go after Syria he could have done it weeks ago, or he could have waited several more months before taking action. He chose to do it right now for a reason, and hopefully the American people will be able to see right through this.
So exactly what are we going to be doing for the Syrian rebels? Well, we will definitely be arming them and training them. And it is probably reasonable to assume that there will be American “advisers” on the ground inside Syria helping to organize the Syrian resistance. In fact, according to Debka, a large U.S. Marine force has already been deployed to the Jordanian border with Syria.
In addition, according to the Wall Street Journal, U.S. aircraft may be involved in enforcing a no-fly zone inside Syria…
A U.S. military proposal for arming Syrian rebels also calls for a limited no-fly zone inside Syria that would be enforced from Jordanian territory to protect Syrian refugees and rebels who would train there, according to U.S. officials.
Asked by the White House to develop options for Syria, military planners have said that creating an area to train and equip rebel forces would require keeping Syrian aircraft well away from the Jordanian border.
To do that, the military envisages creating a no-fly zone stretching up to 25 miles into Syria which would be enforced using aircraft flown from Jordanian bases and flying inside the kingdom, according to U.S. officials.
No matter how you slice it, the United States is now in a state of war with Syria. The only question is how “involved” we are going to get.
And several prominent Republicans are already rushing forward to applaud Barack Obama on this latest move. The following comes from a CBS News report…
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who met with the rebels last month and has been a vocal critic of the president’s Syria policy said in a joint statement with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.: “We appreciate the President’s finding that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on several occasions. We also agree with the President that this fact must affect U.S. policy toward Syria. The President’s red line has been crossed. U.S. credibility is on the line. Now is not the time to merely take the next incremental step. Now is the time for more decisive actions.”
But you know what? Many of these Syrian rebels have actually pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda.
Yes, you read that correctly.
The whole point of the “war on terror” was to supposedly fight al-Qaeda, but now the U.S. military is allied with them.
Why in the world would we want to help the people who are supposed to be our greatest global enemy?…
A Syrian rebel group’s pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda’s replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group’s influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.
The pledge of allegiance by Syrian Jabhat al Nusra Front chief Abou Mohamad al-Joulani to al-Qaeda leader Sheik Ayman al-Zawahri was coupled with an announcement by the al-Qaeda affiliate in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq, that it would work with al Nusra as well.
Lebanese Sheik Omar Bakri, a Salafist who says states must be governed by Muslim religious law, says al-Qaeda has assisted al Nusra for some time.
“They provided them early on with technical, military and financial support , especially when it came to setting up networks of foreign jihadis who were brought into Syria,” Bakri says. “There will certainly be greater coordination between the two groups.”
This group of jihadists has been responsible for car and suicide bombings all over Syria, and they are the ones that have been doing the heaviest fighting on the front lines…
When the group Jabhat al Nusra first claimed responsibility for car and suicide bombings in Damascus that killed dozens last January, many of Syria’s revolutionaries claimed that the organization was a creation of the Syrian government, designed to discredit those who opposed the regime of President Bashar Assad and to hide the regime’s own brutal tactics.
Nearly a year later, however, Jabhat al Nusra, which U.S. officials believe has links to al Qaida, has become essential to the frontline operations of the rebels fighting to topple Assad.
Not only does the group still conduct suicide bombings that have killed hundreds, but they’ve proved to be critical to the rebels’ military advance. In battle after battle across the country, Nusra and similar groups do the heaviest frontline fighting. Groups who call themselves the Free Syrian Army and report to military councils led by defected Syrian army officers move into the captured territory afterward.
The prominence of Nusra in the rebel cause worries U.S. and other Western officials, who say its operations rely on the same people and tactics that fueled al Qaida in Iraq – an assertion that is borne out by interviews with Nusra members in Syria.
These are no “freedom fighters”. In fact, if these guys take over they will be much worse than Assad. These “rebels” recently massacred an entire villages of Christians, and just two days ago they slaughtered a 14-year-old boy for supposedly insulting Mohammed…
The rebels, according to ABC News’ reconstruction of the Syrian groups’ reports, appear to have whipped Qatta. When they brought him back to where they’d taken him, his head was wrapped by a shirt.
The rebels waited for a crowd to gather; Qatta’s parents were among them. Speaking in classical Arabic, they announced that Qatta had committed blasphemy and that anyone else who dared insult the Prophet Mohammed would share his fate. Then, the shirt still wrapped around the boy’s head, the rebels shot him in the mouth and neck.
Is this really who the U.S. government wants to be allies with?
Are we that stupid?
And guess what? According to the Los Angeles Times, the Obama administration is considering plans to bring all of the poor “refugees” that are allied with these “rebels” to the United States…
Two years into a civil war that shows no signs of ending, the Obama administration is considering resettling refugees who have fled Syria, part of an international effort that could bring thousands of Syrians to American cities and towns.
A resettlement plan under discussion in Washington and other capitals is aimed at relieving pressure on Middle Eastern countries straining to support 1.6 million refugees, as well as assisting hard-hit Syrian families.
But now we are committed to this conflict thanks to Obama.
There will be no backing down until Assad is gone.
Of course this could create a huge regional war in the Middle East or even eventually lead to World War III, but Obama doesn’t seem to care.
For now, Obama is saving his own skin, and that is the most important thing to him.
The world woke up to the name of the NSA PRISM whistleblower over the weekend and his name is Edward Snowden. I take my hat off to him for bringing this totalitarian spying programme to the worlds attention. How can the leaders of the supposed free world carry out this spying on its citizens and justify it in the name of fighting terrorism? Quite simply, they can’t!
The only terrorists are our own governments, look at who they are backing in Syria for regime change as an example…Al Qaeda and Jabhat al Nusra. Or the apartheid state of Israel or the governments of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or Jordan who do not tolerate free speech or political opponents…yer really spreading democracy. If this is not a sign for citizens across the world to rise up against our political and corporate masters, who no longer represent us, I do not know what is!
Above is Edward Snowden, this is the face of a hero, along with Bradley Manning who is willing to stand up for what he believes in. I thank Glen Greenwald from the Guardian for bringing this to the attention of the British people and the people of the world. Imagine if Hitler had this technology? How many more millions would he have been able exterminate? I’ve said it before and I will say it again, Orwells 1984 was not meant to be an instruction manual!
The UK government and in particular Mr Scrotum face himself, Mr Hague, a known liar and war criminal who should be tried for treason and crimes against humanity, had this to say…
Hague added that it was “fanciful” and “nonsense” to suggest that GCHQ would work with an agency in another country to circumvent the law.
Lying to the British public again…There’s only one answer to that lie and that is “extraordinary rendition”. There is clear evidence that British intelligence agencies were not truthful about their involvement in this as well as torture. Also adding to the illegal detention and torture of Afghanistan nationals.
This is why secret courts were introduced by Hagues own government to cover this immoral action. We were told that widespread phone hacking was fanciful nonsense, until the Guardian broke the story. Lies, lies and more lies.
For over 20 years what went on at the Hillsborough disaster was covered up, the families of victims abused and misled with lies.
We were firmly told about the intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, hence the justification to invade. That was and is ridiculous, look at Israel saying Iran are close to a nuclear bomb but the only nuclear armed country in the Middle East is Israel, who have not signed the NPT, Iran has.
Recent history is littered with examples of how those in government have misled the public and acted in a way contrary to law, or have simply turned a blind eye, after sitting on the evidence. The only fanciful deceitful nonsense is that spoken by William Hague. When are we going to hold these people to account? That time is upon us!
“If you are a law-abiding citizen of this country going about your business and your personal life you have nothing to fear”
One name which jumps to my mind is “Jean Charles de Menezes”
This is I think one of the most sinister statements ever made by a British politician. There is plenty of evidence that innocent people do have things to fear.
“But if you are a would-be terrorist or the centre of a criminal network or a foreign intelligence agency trying to spy on Britain you should be worried because that is what we work on and we are, on the whole, quite good at it.”
Is this liar for real?
What about the 7/7 Bomber that the intelligence services followed after meeting with a known terrorist, and decided not to follow up because they were not a threat? What about the Aurora shootings, Christopher Dorner, the Boston Bombings, Sandy Hook and the death of Lee Rigby. This PRISM programme is not for our safety but for power and control.
I call on anyone who reads this, for our children and their children, to resist and rise up against these liars. Write to your MP, talk to your friends and family. I’m a big believer that history repeats itself, lest not forget what Hitler did when he had people’s information.
An article from the NY Times:
THE United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years — or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts.
But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naïvely played their parts until they were arrested.
When an Oregon college student, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, thought of using a car bomb to attack a festive Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Portland, the F.B.I. provided a van loaded with six 55-gallon drums of “inert material,” harmless blasting caps, a detonator cord and a gallon of diesel fuel to make the van smell flammable. An undercover F.B.I. agent even did the driving, with Mr. Mohamud in the passenger seat. To trigger the bomb the student punched a number into a cellphone and got no boom, only a bust.
This is legal, but is it legitimate? Without the F.B.I., would the culprits commit violence on their own? Is cultivating potential terrorists the best use of the manpower designed to find the real ones? Judging by their official answers, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department are sure of themselves — too sure, perhaps.
Carefully orchestrated sting operations usually hold up in court. Defendants invariably claim entrapment and almost always lose, because the law requires that they show no predisposition to commit the crime, even when induced by government agents. To underscore their predisposition, many suspects are “warned about the seriousness of their plots and given opportunities to back out,” said Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman. But not always, recorded conversations show. Sometimes they are coaxed to continue.
Undercover operations, long practiced by the F.B.I., have become a mainstay of counterterrorism, and they have changed in response to the post-9/11 focus on prevention. “Prior to 9/11 it would be very unusual for the F.B.I. to present a crime opportunity that wasn’t in the scope of the activities that a person was already involved in,” said Mike German of the American Civil Liberties Union, a lawyer and former F.B.I. agent who infiltrated white supremacist groups. An alleged drug dealer would be set up to sell drugs to an undercover agent, an arms trafficker to sell weapons. That still happens routinely, but less so in counterterrorism, and for good reason.
“There isn’t a business of terrorism in the United States, thank God,” a former federal prosecutor, David Raskin, explained.
“You’re not going to be able to go to a street corner and find somebody who’s already blown something up,” he said. Therefore, the usual goal is not “to find somebody who’s already engaged in terrorism but find somebody who would jump at the opportunity if a real terrorist showed up in town.”
And that’s the gray area. Who is susceptible? Anyone who plays along with the agents, apparently. Once the snare is set, law enforcement sees no choice. “Ignoring such threats is not an option,” Mr. Boyd argued, “given the possibility that the suspect could act alone at any time or find someone else willing to help him.”
Typically, the stings initially target suspects for pure speech — comments to an informer outside a mosque, angry postings on Web sites, e-mails with radicals overseas — then woo them into relationships with informers, who are often convicted felons working in exchange for leniency, or with F.B.I. agents posing as members of Al Qaeda or other groups.
Some targets have previous involvement in more than idle talk: for example, Waad Ramadan Alwan, an Iraqi in Kentucky, whose fingerprints were found on an unexploded roadside bomb near Bayji, Iraq, and Raja Khan of Chicago, who had sent funds to an Al Qaeda leader in Pakistan.
But others seem ambivalent, incompetent and adrift, like hapless wannabes looking for a cause that the informer or undercover agent skillfully helps them find. Take the Stinger missile defendant James Cromitie, a low-level drug dealer with a criminal record that included no violence or hate crime, despite his rants against Jews. “He was searching for answers within his Islamic faith,” said his lawyer, Clinton W. Calhoun III, who has appealed his conviction. “And this informant, I think, twisted that search in a really pretty awful way, sort of misdirected Cromitie in his search and turned him towards violence.”
THE informer, Shahed Hussain, had been charged with fraud, but avoided prison and deportation by working undercover in another investigation. He was being paid by the F.B.I. to pose as a wealthy Pakistani with ties to Jaish-e-Mohammed, a terrorist group that Mr. Cromitie apparently had never heard of before they met by chance in the parking lot of a mosque.
“Brother, did you ever try to do anything for the cause of Islam?” Mr. Hussain asked at one point.
“O.K., brother,” Mr. Cromitie replied warily, “where you going with this, brother?”
Two days later, the informer told him, “Allah has more work for you to do,” and added, “Revelation is going to come in your dreams that you have to do this thing, O.K.?” About 15 minutes later, Mr. Hussain proposed the idea of using missiles, saying he could get them in a container from China. Mr. Cromitie laughed.
Reading hundreds of pages of transcripts of the recorded conversations is like looking at the inkblots of a Rorschach test. Patterns of willingness and hesitation overlap and merge. “I don’t want anyone to get hurt,” Mr. Cromitie said, and then explained that he meant women and children. “I don’t care if it’s a whole synagogue of men.” It took 11 months of meandering discussion and a promise of $250,000 to lead him, with three co-conspirators he recruited, to plant fake bombs at two Riverdale synagogues.
“Only the government could have made a ‘terrorist’ out of Mr. Cromitie, whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in its scope,” said Judge Colleen McMahon, sentencing him to 25 years. She branded it a “fantasy terror operation” but called his attempt “beyond despicable” and rejected his claim of entrapment.
The judge’s statement was unusual, but Mr. Cromitie’s characteristics were not. His incompetence and ambivalence could be found among other aspiring terrorists whose grandiose plans were nurtured by law enforcement. They included men who wanted to attack fuel lines at Kennedy International Airport; destroy the Sears Tower (now Willis Tower) in Chicago; carry out a suicide bombing near Tampa Bay, Fla., and bomb subways in New York and Washington. Of the 22 most frightening plans for attacks since 9/11 on American soil, 14 were developed in sting operations.
Another New York City subway plot, which recently went to trial, needed no help from government. Nor did a bombing attempt in Times Square, the abortive underwear bombing in a jetliner over Detroit, a planned attack on Fort Dix, N.J., and several smaller efforts. Some threats are real, others less so. In terrorism, it’s not easy to tell the difference.
David K. Shipler is the author of “Rights at Risk: The Limits of Liberty in Modern America.”