Pages

Hama Massacre and Syria’s Today- the implementers of plots


Bashar al-Assad has recently been demonized by the mainstream and so-called alternative media who claim that he is a brutal dictator(?). Actually Bashar is a reformer who has done much to further the causes of democracy and freedom.

It is the opposition and their foreign supporters who represent the most repressive elements of the former ruling party in Syria. To fully understand this its is helpful to look at the historical context of the current crisis. The so-called “spontaneous popular uprising” started in Daraa on March 15th, 2011. The court house, police stations, governor’s house, and other public buildings were looted and torched by the “peaceful protestors” in the first week of the crisis. The people in Homs then began to protest in solidarity with Daraa, but this was uncharacteristic of peaceful Homs and many Syrians knew that it was a fake revolution.

About 110 unarmed police officers were murdered in Daraa and Homs, sparking anger against the “revolutionaries.” There was an incident in the city Baniyas where an Alawite truck driver was attacked by an armed mob, skinned, and paraded through the city. This disgusted almost all Syrians and since then not a single major city actually rebelled against the government. The foreign backed “revolutionaries” would attack a neighborhood, police station, or army base, from across the borders of Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, and Iraq. Then they would claim that the city was in rebellion.

But the Syrians, seeing the same lies in all the western and Arab news stations, and the exiled rotten officials adopting the ‘revolution’, mostly took an anti-revolution stance. That is why whenever the rebels would infest a town or city you would immediately hear of a massacre to punish the residents for not supporting them. Of course the mainstream media would claim that it was Assad forces punishing the town that dared to oppose him!

Assad took advantage of the revolution to introduce his packages of reforms, putting aside those in the old guards who opposed them. Many of the old guard then joined the opposition abroad.

The opposition demanded the removal of article 8 from the Syrian constitution making the Baath Party head of the government. Instead of just deleting it Bashar Assad had the constitution rewritten buy a specialized committee of Syrian experts from all parties in Syria and with input from all Syrians. A referendum was held and the new constitution was approved with almost 90% of a voter turnout of 60%. Assad then enacted a Media Law that would allow more freedom of expression and the establishment of new independent media outlets. Assad eased requirements on the formation of political parties, excluding sectarian based parties. We now have at least nine new political parties.

Municipal elections were held in December 2011. Many of those who won seats were assassinated or threatened throughout the country by the same revolutionaries who claimed to want democracy. Parliamentary elections were held in May 2012 with no eligibility restraints on the candidates. Many new members of parliament have also been assassinated by the FSA including the wife and three daughters of parliament elect trustee Abdulla Mishleb in the infamous Houla massacre.

Historical Context: Syria in the 1980s

Recent events can be better understood in the context of Syrian history. Bashar al-Assad is the son of late president Hafez al-Assad. Hafez was described by western mainstream media as a tyrant and oppressor but he was not nearly as bad as any other leader in his time like Thatcher, Reagan, or any of the region’s rulers including Turkey’s military rule.

The current anti-Assad opposition often refer to the 1982 Hama ‘massacre’. They claim that Hafez besieged the city and then bombed it killing up to 40,000 civilians. I lived in Damascus at that time and you must understand the conditions in the country at the time to know what really happened. 1) The Muslim Brotherhood was engaged in a war of terror at that time, nothing less than what the Free Syrian Army (FSA) is doing now. The Muslim Brotherhood’s forces were called the ‘Fighting Vanguard’ (Arabic “Al Taleea Al Muqatleh”). Many of the present leaders of the FSA are the same men who led the Fighting Vanguard in the 80s; and they were as savage as their sons now. One of the Fighting Vanguard’s bombings included the Azbakiyeh Bombing in Damascus which took the lives of over 175 civilians and injured hundreds more, and there were many other terror attacks.

2) The entire Hama episode was led by Hafez al-Assad’s younger brother (Bashar al-Assad’s uncle) Rifaat Assad. Rifaat was heading the Saraya Difaa (later to become the Republican Guard). At that time the Syrian minister of defense was Mustapha Tlass, and the Syrian minister of foreign affairs was Abdul Halim Khaddam. All three of them: Riffaat al-Assad, Mustapha, and Abdul Khaddam are leading and financing the political opposition against Bashar from abroad right now.

In the current conflict Mustapha’s son Manaf Tlass was sent to negotiate a settlement with his cousins who were rebelling in Rastan. But instead of negotiating he gave them weapons from the Republican Guards caches and leaked secrets causing the deaths of many Republican Guard soldiers at the hands of the FSA.

Thirty years after the fighting in Hama a report by US intelligence was declassified revealing that the death toll didn’t even reach 2,000. That number included 400 Muslim Brotherhood Fighting Vanguard militants; many Syrian Army soldiers and officers; Baath Party and other state officials; and a number of civilians who were caught in the fire.

3) At the same time the Syrian Army was fighting the Israeli, US and French Armies in Lebanon.

4) Syria was under harder sanctions than it is now. Syria has been under increasingly severe western sanctions since 1956, 15 years before Hafez Assad took power.

Bashar al-Assad’s Damascus Spring: Syria in the 2000s

Late Hafez Assad followed a more complex policy regarding foes and foreign agents in his government than Bashar does. Hafez would keep his foes in their posts but under his watchful eyes. When Bashar was selected by the Syrian Parliament to succeed his father in 2000 he removed all of the treasonous foes and foreign agents that Hafez had maintained in office.

Bashar’s first reform was to ease some political restrictions, allowing politicians to move more freely. In June 2000 the Damascus Spring was started. It lasted until Autumn 2001 by which time most of the treasonous opposition’s foreign funding, and relations with the US Department of State and corporate think tanks had been exposed. The corrupt officials and their families were expelled from Syria and settled in foreign countries. They used their massive accumulations of wealth to mount political opposition to Bashar from abroad.

In 2003 the US was occupying Iraq. US Secretary of State Collin Powell visited Bashar and handed him a list of demands including: 1. Cutting all ties with the five main Palestinian factions in Syria, 2. Severing Syria’s relations with Iran in exchange for a promise of better relations with some Arab states. 3. Signing a peace treaty with Israel similar to one Syria had already refused. 4. Removing books from schools with any enmity towards Israel. 5. Allowing western banks and companies unhindered access to Syrian markets and resources along with other neo-liberal reforms.

Bashar refused these demands in the face of the nearly 200,000 coalition troops across the Syrian border in Iraq. Instead Bashar sought to hinder the occupation of Iraq and demanded that the occupying forces withdraw. Because of the proximity of Damascus to the western boarder with Lebanon Syria has the strategic need to secure this border. None the less in 2000 Bashar started withdrawing Syrian troops from Lebanon where they had battled Israeli forces. The troops were reduced from 35,000 in the year 2000 to 14,000 in early 2004.

In 2005 Lebanese Prime Minster Rafic Hariri was assassinated with the help of members of the Lebanese Future Movement party and likely the help of the US and France. This was a political blow to Assad within Lebanon, and he was also blamed for the assassination using media manipulation and prepared activists. Tens of thousands of Lebanese took to the streets to condemn the killing of Hariri including members of Syria’s closest allies Hizbullah and Amal. The media claimed that the crowds were against the Syrian Army presence in Lebanon. US and France tried to pressure Assad into reinforcing the Syrian Army in Lebanon to stabilize the country but Bashar withdrew all Syrian troops from Lebanon. This background gives the context accompanying president Assad’s reform attempts in Syria, where he had to face foreign powers from abroad and their agents from within. The current crisis is not a civil war or rebellion, but a foreign aggression against a sovereign nation.


1- “No word of truth from Erdogan”: Al- Assad

http://www.islamicinvitationturkey.com/2013/04/03/no-word-of-truth-from-erdogan-assad-2/

2- “Syria is a Battle for Palestine”

http://www.islamicinvitationturkey.com/2013/04/03/syria-is-a-battle-for-palestine/

3- Arab League working for Whoms?

http://www.islamicinvitationturkey.com/2013/03/28/arab-league-working-for-whoms/

4- The Whys Enemies of Palestine are the enemies of Syria at the same time
http://www.islamicinvitationturkey.com/2013/03/19/exclusive-the-whys-that-enemies-of-syria-are-the-enemies-of-palestine/

Source:http://www.islamicinvitationturkey.com/2013/04/04/exclusive-hama-massacre-and-syrias-today-the-implementers-of-plots/

THE UPRISING AGAINST BROTHER ERDOGAN BEFORE OUR VERY OWN EYES

A MUST-READ ARTICLE | by Thierry Meyssan |  | BEIRUT (LEBANON)  


For Thierry Meyssan, the Turkish people are not protesting against Recip Tayyeb Erdogan’s autocratic style, but against his policies; in other words, against the Muslim Brotherhood, of which he is the mentor. What started on Taksim Square is not a color revolution over a new building project, but an uprising that has spread across the entire country; in short, it is a revolution that calls the "Arab Spring" into question.

In ten days, the crackdown on the anti-Erdogan protests has already claimed three (4 actually) lives and injured 5,000 people.
The Turkish uprising is rooted in the inconsistencies of the Erdogan government. The latter—after having billed itself as "Muslim Democrat" (based on the "Christian Democratic" model)— suddenly revealed its true nature with the advent of the Arab Spring "color revolutions."

In terms of domestic and foreign policy, there is a before and after the volte face. The previous stage involved the infiltration of institutions. The aftermath has been characterized by sectarianism. Before, Ahmed Davutoğlu’s theory of "zero problems" with Turkey’s neighbors took center stage. The former Ottoman Empire seemed to be coming out of its slumber and returning to reality. After that, the opposite happened: Turkey fell out with each of her neighbors and went to war against Syria.

The Muslim Brotherhood

Piloting this shift is the Muslim Brotherhood, a secret organization that Erdogan and his team have always been affiliated to, despite their denials. Even if this shift is subsequent to the one involving Qatar—the financier of the Muslim Brotherhood—it bears the same implication: authoritarian regimes that claimed to be foes of Israel suddenly act like close allies.

It is important to remember that the label "Arab Spring" given by the West is a deception to make people believe that the Tunisian and Egyptian governments were overthrown by a mass movement. While there was a popular revolution in Tunisia, its goal was not to change the regime, but to achieve economic and social changes. It was the United States, not the street, that ordered Zinedine el Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak to step down. Then it was NATO that toppled and lynched Muammar al-Gaddafi. And it is again NATO and the GCC that have fueled the attack against Syria.

Across North Africa—with the exception of Algeria—the Muslim Brotherhood have been placed in power by Hillary Clinton. Everywhere, Turkish communications advisors are on board, courtesy of the Erdogan government. Everywhere, "democracy" was a facade which allowed the Brothers to Islamize firms in exchange for embracing the pseudo-liberal capitalism of the United States.

The term "Islamize" reflects the rhetoric employed by the Brothers, not reality. The Brotherhood intends to control the privacy of individuals based on principles which are outside the scope of the Quran. It calls into question the role of women in society and imposes an austere lifestyle without alcohol or cigarettes, and without sex...at least for others.

Over the past ten years, the Brotherhood has stayed under the radar, leaving the transformation of public education in the hands of the sect run by Fethullah Gülen, of which President Abdullah Gül is a member.

Although the Brotherhood flaunts its hatred for the American way of life, it thrives under the protective wing of the Anglo-Americans (UK, USA, Israel) who have always been able to use its violence against those who resisted them. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had appointed to her cabinet her former "body woman," Huma Abedin (wife of former Zionist Congressman Anthony Weiner), whose mother Saleha Abedin presides the women’s division of the Brotherhood. It was through this channel that Clinton stirred up the Brotherhood.

The Brothers purveyed the ideology of Al-Qaeda, through one of their members: Ayman al-Zawahiri, the organizer President Sadat’s assassination and currently the leader of the terrorist organization. Al-Zawahiri, like Bin Laden, has always been an agent of U.S. services. Although officially listed as a public enemy, from 1997 to 2001 he met regularly with the CIA at the U.S. Embassy in Baku in the context "Operation Gladio B," as testified by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds [1].

A progressive dictatorship

During his imprisonment, Erdogan claimed to have broken with the Brothers and to have quit the party. Then, he got himself elected and gradually imposed a dictatorship. He ordered the arrest and incarceration of two thirds of the generals accused of involvement in Gladio, the secret network under U.S. influence. In addition, he put behind bars the highest number of journalists for an individual counry. This fact has been obscured by the Western media, unwilling to criticize a NATO member.

The army is the traditional custodian of Kemalist secularism. However, after the September 11 attacks, senior officers were concerned about the totalitarian drift of the United States, and made contact with their counterparts in Russia and China. To nip these unwelcome initiatives in the bud, certain judges pointedly reminded them about their historical ties with the U.S.

If, like in any other profession, journalists can be rascals, the world’s highest incarceration rate is indicative of a policy: intimidation and repression. With the exception of Ululsal, television turned into an official eulogy, while the press followed the same path.

"Zero problems" with its neighbors

The foreigh policy of Ahmed Davutoğlu was equally laughable. After seeking to tackle the unresolved problems left over from the Ottoman Empire one century earlier, he tried to play Obama against Netanyahu by organizing the Freedom Flotilla to Palestine [2]. However, less than two months after Israel’s act of piracy, he accepted the international commission of inquiry created to cover it up and resumed in secret his collaboration with Tel Aviv.

As a token of the cooperation between the Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda, the Brotherhood had placed on the Marvi Marmara al-Mahdi Hatari, the second in command of Al Qaeda in Libya and a likely British agent [3].

Economic disaster

How did Turkey squander not only a decade of diplomatic efforts to restore its international relations, but also its economic growth? In March 2011, she participated in the NATO operation against Libya, one of its major economic partners. With Libya devastated by the war, Turkey lost its market. At the same time, Ankara embarked on a war against neighboring Syria, with whom a year earlier she had signed a trade liberalization agreement. The impact was swift: the growth in 2010 was 9.2%, in 2012 it fell to 2.2% and continues to fall [4].

Public Relations

The rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in North Africa went to the Erdogan government’s head. By brandishing his Ottoman imperial ambition, he disconcerted the Arab public to begin with, and then turned the majority of his people against him.

On one hand, the government is funding Fetih 1453—a film that gobbled up an astronomic budget for the country—which is supposed to celebrate the conquest of Constantinople, albeit historically flawed. On the other hand, it attempts to ban the most popular television series in the Middle East, The Sultan’s Harem, because the truth does not project a peaceful image of the Ottomans.

The real reason for the uprising

In the present context, the Western press has focused on specific details: a housing project in Istanbul, ban on late-night sales of alcholol, or statements encouraging population growth. All this is true, but it doesn’t add up to a revolution.

By showing its true nature, the Erdogan government has cut itself off from the population. Only a minority of Sunnis can identify with the backward and hypocritical programme of the Brothers. As it happens, about 50% of Turks are Sunni, 20% Alevi (that is to say Alawites), 20% are Kurds (mostly Sunni), and 10% belong to other minorities. It is statistically clear that the Erdogan government can not hold out against the uprising that its own policies helped to ignite.

By overthrowing him, the Turks would be solving not only their own problems, but would also be putting an end to the war against Syria. I have often pointed out that the war would stop the day one of its foreign sponsors exits the scene. This will soon be the case. Thus, the Turkish people will also halt the Brotherhood’s expansion. Erdogan’s fall foreshadows that of his friends; Ghannouchi in Tunisia and Morsi in Egypt. It is in fact most unlikely that these artificial governments, imposed via rigged elections, can survive their powerful sponsor.



Thierry Meyssan

(Translation Gaia Edwards)


[1] "Al Qaeda Chief was US Asset," by Nafeez Ahmed, 21 May 2013.


[2] "Why did Israel attack civilians in the Mediterranean?" and "Freedom Flotilla: The detail that escaped Netanyahu," by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 1 and 8 June 2010.


[3] "Free Syrian Army commanded by Military Governor of Tripoli," by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 19 December 2011.


[4] "Turkey’s Economic Growth Slows Sharply," by Emre Perer and Yeliz Candemir, The Wall Sreeet Journal, 1 April 2013.


--

President al-Assad INTERVIEW with the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

Jun 17, 2013


President Bashar al-Assad gave the following interview to the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper:

Interviewer: Mr President, how do you view the situation in your country? The Syrian Army has lost control over large parts of Syria, in other words those areas are outside the control of central government. What’s your take on the situation?

President Assad: Your question requires us to put things into their proper context: this is not a conventional war with two armies fighting to control or liberate particular areas or parts of land. What we are in fact dealing with is a form of guerrilla warfare.

As for the Syrian Army, there has not been any instance where our Armed Forces have planned to enter a particular location and have not succeeded. Having said this, the Army is not present - and should not be present - in every corner of Syria. What is more significant than controlling areas of land, is striking terrorists. We are confident that we can successfully fight terrorism in Syria, but the bigger issue is the ensuing damage and its cost. The crisis has already had a heavy toll but our biggest challenges will come once the crisis is over.

Foreign element seeks politically and militarily to prolong crisis

Interviewer: In your recent interview with Al-Manar it appeared as though you were preparing the Syrian public for a protracted struggle. Was that your intention?

President Assad: No, this was not specific to Al-Manar. From the early days of the crisis, whenever I was asked, I have stated that this crisis is likely to be prolonged due to foreign interference. Any internal crisis can go in one of two ways: either it is resolved or it escalates into a civil war. Neither has been the case for Syria because of the foreign component, which seeks to extend the duration of the crisis both politically and militarily; I think its fair to say that my predictions were right.

Genuine re-construction is reconstructing mentalities, ideologies and conceptions

Interview: Mr President, how do you expect to overcome the large-scale destruction that has been inflicted in Syria?

President Assad: In the same way you, in Germany, overcame the devastation after World War II, and in the same way many other nations have progressed and been rebuilt after their wars. I am confident Syria will follow the same path. As long as we have resilient people, we can rebuild the country. We have done this before and we can do it again, learning from all we have been through.

In terms of funding, we have been a self-sufficient country for a very long time. Of course we will need to be more productive than before as a result of the situation. Friendly countries have helped us in the past and continue to offer their support, maybe in the form of loans in the future. It may take a long time, but with our determination, our strength and our solidarity, we can rebuild the country.

However, the more arduous challenge lies in rebuilding, socially and psychologically, those who have been affected by the crisis. It will not be easy to eliminate the social effects of the crisis, especially extremist ideologies. Real reconstruction is about developing minds, ideologies and values. Infrastructure is valuable, but not as valuable as human beings; reconstruction is about perpetuating both.



Re-drawing map of region will be map of wars in the Middle East


Interviewer: Mr President, during the crisis some areas of the country have become either more self-reliant or more reliant on external support. Do you think this could potentially lead to the re-drawing of borders?

President Assad: Do you mean within Syria or the region in general?

Interviewer: The region - one hundred years after the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

President Assad: One hundred years after Sykes-Picot, when we talk about re-drawing the borders in our region, we can use an analogy from architecture. Syria is like the keystone in the old architectural arches; by removing or tampering with the keystone, the arch will collapse. If we apply this to the region, to the world, – any tampering with the borders of this region will result in re-drawing the maps of distant regions because this will have a domino effect which nobody can control. One of the superpowers may be able to initiate the process, but nobody – including that superpower, will be able to stop it; particularly since there are new social borders in the Middle East today that didn't exist during Sykes-Picot. These new sectarian, ethnic and political borders make the situation much more complicated. Nobody can know what the Middle East will look like should there be an attempt to re-draw the map of the region. However, most likely that map will be one of multiple wars, which would transcend the Middle East spanning the Atlantic to the Pacific, which nobody can stop.

Interviewer: Mr President, in your opinion what will the region look like in the future?

President Assad: If we rule out the destructive scenario of division in your last question, I can envisage a completely different and more positive future, but it will depend on how we act as nations and societies. This scenario involves a number of challenges, first of which is restoring security and stability; our second challenge is the rebuilding process. However, our biggest and most important challenge lies in facing extremism.

It has become extremely clear that there has been a shift in the societies of our region away from moderation, especially religious moderation. The question is: can we restore these societies to their natural order? Can our diverse societies still coexist together as one natural whole? On this point allow me to clarify certain terms. The words tolerance and coexistence are often used to define our societies. However, the more precise and appropriate definition, of how our societies used to be - and how they should be, is harmonious. Contrary to perception, the issue is neither about tolerance - since there will come a day when you are not tolerant, nor is the issue about coexistence - since you co-exist with your adversaries, but rather it is about harmony. What used to characterize us in the region was our harmony. You cannot say that your hand will coexist with or tolerate your foot because one compliments the other and both are a part of a harmonious whole.

Another challenge is political reform and the question of which political system would keep our society coherent: be it presidential, semi-presidential or parliamentary, as well as deciding the most appropriate legislation to govern political parties. In Germany, for example, you have the Christian Democratic Party. In Syria we could not have religious parties, neither Christian nor Muslim, because for us religion is for preaching and not for political practice. There are many other details, but the essence is in accepting others. If we cannot accept each other we cannot be democratic, even with the best constitution or the best legislations.

we are a secular state that essentially treats its citizens equally

Interviewer: Mr President, where do you see secularism in the midst of the rising Islamic current in the region?

President Assad: This is a very important question; many in the region do not understand this relationship. The Middle East is a hub of different ideologies. Arab society is primarily based on two pillars: Pan-Arabism and Islam. Other ideologies do exist, such as communism, liberalism, Syrian nationalism, but these are not nearly as popular. Many people understand secularism as synonymous with communism in the past, in that it is against religion. In fact it is the complete opposite; for us in Syria secularism is about the freedom of confession including Christianity, Islam and Judaism, and the multiple diverse sects within these religions. Secularism is crucial to our national unity and sense of belonging. Therefore we have no choice but to strengthen secularism because religion is already strong in our region, and I stress here that this is very healthy. What is not healthy is extremism because it ultimately leads to terrorism; not every extremist is a terrorist, but every terrorist is definitely an extremist.

So in response to your question, we are a secular state that essentially treats its citizens equally, irrespective of religion, sect or ethnicity. All our citizens enjoy equal opportunities regardless of religious belief.

Syria is passing through most difficult circumstances, definitely not a spring

Interviewer: Mr President, how do you view the two-and-a-half years since the so-called ‘Arab Spring?’

This is a misconception. Spring does not include bloodshed, killing, extremism, destroying schools or preventing children from going to their schools, or preventing women from choosing what to wear and what is appropriate for them. Spring is the most beautiful season whilst we are going through the direst circumstances; it is definitely not Spring. Is Spring compatible with what is happening in Syria - the killing, the slaughtering, the beheading, the cannibalism, I leave it to you to decide.

Interviewer: What are the issues that the so-called “Arab Spring” is supposed to resolve?

President Assad: The solution doesn't lie in the ‘Spring’ or in anything else, the solution lies in us. We are the ones who should provide the solutions, by being proactive instead of reactive. When we address our problems proactively we ensure that we get the right solutions. Solutions imposed reactively by the ‘Spring’ will only lead to deformed results.

Like many countries in the Middle East, we have numerous problems that we are aware of and view objectively. This is how these problems should be solved, in that the solutions are internally manufactured and not externally administered, as the latter would produce a distorted or stillborn solution. It is for this very reason that when we call for dialogue or solutions, they need to be home-grown in order to ensure that they lead to the Syria we aspire to.

what is happening in Iraq now, and in Lebanon previously, are repercussions of the situation in Syria

Interviewer: Mr President, you have rejected any form of foreign intervention and have warned that this would extend the battle to wider areas, have you reached this?

President Assad: Let’s be clear about this, there are two types of foreign intervention: indirect through proxies or agents, and direct intervention through a conventional war. We are experiencing the former. At the beginning of the crisis I warned that intervention in Syria – even indirectly, is similar to tampering with a fault line, it would lead to shockwaves throughout the region. At the time, many people - especially in the media, understood this as President Assad threatening to extend the crisis beyond Syria’s borders. Clearly they did not understand what I meant at the time, but this is exactly what is happening now.

If we look at the reality in front of us, we can see clearly that what is happening in Iraq now, and in Lebanon previously, are repercussions of the situation in Syria, and this will only extend further and further. We are seeing these ramifications and the intervention is still indirect, so imagine the consequences of military intervention? The situation will, of course, be much worse and then we will witness the domino effect of widespread extremism, chaos and fragmentation.

Relations with Russia and Iran are cooperation guaranteed by international law

Interviewer: You criticise countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Britain for their interference in the Syria crisis, isn’t it true that Russia and Iran are also involved?

President Assad: There is a significant difference between the co-cooperation of states as opposed to the destabilisation of a certain country and interference in its internal affairs. Cooperation between countries is conceived on the concept of mutual will, in a way that preserves their sovereignty, independence, stability and self-determination. Our relationship with Russia, Iran and other countries that support Syria are cooperative relations certified under international law.

The countries you mentioned, have adopted policies that meddle in Syria’s internal affairs, which is a flagrant violation of international law and our national sovereignty. The difference therefore, is that cooperation between countries is intended to preserve stability and perpetuate the prosperity of these nations, whilst foreign interference seeks to destabilise countries, spread chaos and perpetuate ignorance.

Interviewer: Sir, you have discussed the repercussions of the Syrian crisis on Iraq and Lebanon whose societies are based on what one might call a sectarian system. Do you think that such a system with Sunni and Shiite pillars could be established in Syria?

President Assad: Undoubtedly, sectarian systems in neighbouring countries, sectarian unrest or civil wars – as in Lebanon 30 years ago, will inevitably affect Syria. That is why Syria intervened in Lebanon in 1976 – to protect itself and to safeguard Lebanon. It is for this reason that we are observing carefully the unfolding events in Iraq - they will affect us directly. This was also for this reason that we adamantly opposed the war on Iraq, despite a mixture of American temptations and threats at the time. We rejected losing our stability in return for appeasing the Americans. Sectarian systems are dangerous and that is why we insist on the secular model where all citizens are equal regardless of religion.

Jabhat al-Nusra is a branch of al-Qaeda, they uphold same ideology

Interviewer: Mr President, you are fighting “Jabhat Al-Nusra.” Can you tell us about it, what is this organization, who supports them, who supplies them with money and weapons?

President Assad: Jabhat Al-Nusra is an Al-Qaeda affiliated group with an identical ideology whose members live in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan as well as other Arab and Muslim countries; they are very well financed and have plenty of arms. It is difficult to trace their sources due to the fact that their support resides in a covert manner through wealthy individuals and organisations that adopt the same ideology.

Their primary aim is to establish an Islamic State in accordance to their interpretation of Islam. Central to their political thought is the Wahhabi doctrine - comparable to Al-Qaeda’s in Afghanistan. This ideology is administered wherever they are present, especially on women. They claim to be applying Sharia Law and the Islamic Religion; however, in reality their actions are a complete distortion of the real religion of Islam. We have seen examples of their brutality on our satellite channels taken from footage they publish on purpose on YouTube in order to spread their ideology; a recent example was the beheading of an innocent man, which was aired on Belgian TV.

Interviewer: What is the motivation for Saudi Arabia and Qatar to assist and arm the terrorists against you, what do they seek to achieve?

President Assad: Firstly, I believe that this is a question they should be answering. I will respond by raising a few questions. Do they support the armed gangs because of their vehement belief in freedom and democracy as they claim in their media outlets? Do they harbour any form of democracy in their own countries, in order to properly support democracy in Syria. Do they have elected parliaments or constitutions voted on by their people? Have their populations decided at any time during the previous decades on what type of governing system they want – be it monarchy, presidency, principality or any other form? So, things are clear: they should first pay attention to their own nations and then answer your question.

France and Britain look for puppets to carry out their interests

Interviewer: In this quagmire, why do Britain and France delegate leadership to Saudi Arabia and Qatar? What do they hope to achieve?

President Assad: I also cannot answer on behalf of Britain or France, but I can give you the general impression here. I believe that France and Britain have an issue with the ‘annoying’ Syrian role in the region – as they see it. These countries, like the United States, are looking for puppets and dummies to do their bidding and serve their interests without question. We have consistently rejected this; we will always be independent and free. It seems as though France and Britain have not forgotten their colonial history and persist in attempting to manipulate the region albeit through proxies. Indeed, Britain and France can direct Saudi Arabia and Qatar on what they should do, but we must also not forget that the policies and economies of France and Britain are also dependent on petrodollars.

What happened in Syria was an opportunity for all these countries to get rid of Syria – this insubordinate state, and replace the president with a “yes man.” This will never happen neither now nor in the future.

Interviewer: The European Union has not renewed the arms embargo imposed on Syria and yet it has not approved arming the opposition. What is your assessment of this step?

President Assad: Clearly there is a split within the European Union on this issue. I cannot state that the EU is supportive of the Syrian government; there are countries, especially Britain and France, who are particularly hostile to Syria. On the other hand, there are countries – Germany in particular, which are raising logical questions about the future consequences of arming the terrorists. Well firstly, that would perpetuate the destruction in Syria, forcing the Syrian people to pay an even heavier price. Secondly, by supplying arms, they are effectively arming terrorists, and the Europeans are well informed that these are terrorists groups. Some are repeating the American rhetoric of “good fighters and bad fighters,” exactly as they did a few years ago with the “good Taliban and bad Taliban, good Al-Qaeda and bad Al-Qaeda.” Today there is a new term of “good terrorists and bad terrorists” being promoted. Is this logical?

When terrorism prevails, it will spread towards Europe

They are aware that weapons sent to the region will end up in the hands of terrorists, which will have two consequences. First, Europe’s back garden will become a hub for terrorism and chaos, which leads to deprivation and poverty; Europe will pay the price and forfeit an important market. Second, terrorism will not stop here – it will spread to your countries. It will export itself through illegal immigration or through the same terrorists who returned to their original countries after being indoctrinated and trained more potently. These pressing issues in my opinion are creating a considerable split or disagreement within the European Union; they may not like it, but they have no other choice than to cooperate with the Syrian government, even if they disagree with it.

Interviewer: Your Excellency has stated that if European countries were to send weapons to Syria, they would effectively be arming terrorists. Do you consider all armed militants as terrorists?

President Assad: As a European or German citizen I will pose the following question: does your country allow you to carry arms, intimidate or kill innocent people, vandalise and loot? Any individual or group excluding the army and police who carries arms, kills people, threatens and intimidates public safety are by definition terrorists, this is a norm in every country. Regardless of their background, be it extremists, criminals or convicted felons, those who are carrying weapons in Syria are essentially committing these acts. Therefore, they are terrorists. We differentiate between terrorists and conventional opposition groups, since the latter is a political entity and has a political agenda. Killing and slaughtering is terrorism and plunges the country back years into regression.

Interviewer: So Mr President, you see the future as being against terrorism?

President Assad: This is the logical conclusion; however in Europe you have many illogical, unrealistic and irresponsible politicians who are applying their negative sentiments instead of their reason. Politics should not be fuelled by love or hatred, but by interests. As a German citizen, you should ask yourself what do you stand to gain from what is happening in our region? Basically, what is happening now is against your national interests, your genuine interest lies in fighting terrorism.

Interviewer: Some view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization; we know that it has fought alongside Syrian troops in al-Quseir. We have also heard that there are fighters from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard fighting with you. Do you really need these forces?

President Assad: The media is trying to portray Hezbollah as the main fighting force on the ground and the Syrian Army as weak and unable to achieve victory. In reality, over the last months we have achieved significant victories on the ground in different parts of Syria; in all of these victories, some of which were more important than al-Quseir, the Syrian army fought alone. None of this is highlighted in the media. One of the reasons for these victories is the National Defence Forces - local citizens fighting alongside the army to defend their communities and regions. Al-Quseir received more international attention because of statements by western officials projecting it as a strategic town, to the extent that even some United Nation's officials claim to understand the situation in al-Quseir! There was a lot of exaggeration, but there were also a large number of arms and militants. These terrorists started attacking the bordering towns loyal to Hezbollah, which warranted their intervention alongside the Syrian army in order to restore stability.

The Syrian Army is a large army capable of accomplishing its missions across Syria, with the support of the local communities. If we were in need of such assistance, why not use these forces in the rural parts of Damascus, close to the capital? Damascus is certainly more important than al-Quseir, as is Aleppo and all the other major cities; it doesn’t make any sense. But as I said at the beginning, the aim of this frenzy is to reflect an image of Hezbollah as the main fighting force and to provoke Western and International public opinion against Hezbollah.

Interviewer: How strong and large are the Hezbollah brigades currently in Syria?

President Assad: There are no brigades. They have sent fighters who have aided the Syrian army in cleaning areas on the Lebanese borders that were infiltrated by terrorists. They did not deploy forces into Syria. As you are aware, Hezbollah forces are positioned towards Israel and cannot depart Southern Lebanon. Additionally, if Hezbollah wanted to send fighters into Syria, how many could they send? A few hundred? The Syrian Army has deployed hundreds of thousands of troops across the country. Several hundred would make a difference in one area, but it would not conceivably constitute enough to tip the balance across all of Syria.

Interviewer: Mr President, Britain and France claim to have clear evidence that chemical weapons have been used. The White House has stated that it possess information to ascertain this claim, which consequently led to the death of 100 to 150 people in one year, in addition to that you have denied the UN investigators access to areas in Syria except for Aleppo. How do you explain the situation?

President Assad: Let’s begin with the statement from the White House regarding the 150 casualties. Militarily speaking, it is a well-understood notion that during wars, conventional weapons can cause these number of deaths, or even higher, in a single day, not in a year. Weapons of mass destruction generally kill thousands of people at one given time; this high death toll is a primary reason for its use. It is counterintuitive to use chemical weapons to create a death toll that you could potentially reach by using conventional weapons.

America, France, Britain and some European officials claimed that we have used chemical weapons in a number of areas. Regardless of whether such weapons exist or not, we have never confirmed or denied the possession of these weapons.

Had they obtained a single strand of evidence that we had used chemical weapons, do you not think they would have made a song and dance about it to the whole world?, then where is the chain of custody that led them to a such result?

These allegations are ludicrous. The terrorist groups used chemical weapons in Aleppo; subsequently we sent an official letter to the United Nations requesting a formal investigation into the incident. Britain and France blocked this investigation because it would have proven the chemical attacks were carried out by terrorist groups and hence provided conclusive evidence that they (Britain and France) were lying. We invited them to investigate the incident, but instead they wanted the inspectors to have unconditional access to locations across Syria, parallel to what inspectors did in Iraq and delved into other unrelated issues. We are a sovereign state; we have an army and all matters considered classified will never be accessible neither to the UN, nor Britain, nor France. They will only be allowed access to investigate the incident that occurred in Aleppo.

Therefore, all the claims relating to the use of chemical weapons is an extension of the continuous American and Western fabrication of the actual situation in Syria. Its sole aim is to justify their policies to their public opinion and use the claim as a pretext for more military intervention and bloodshed in Syria.

Interviewer: The protests started in Syria peacefully before they turned into an armed struggle. Your critics claim that you could have dealt with the protests through political reforms, which makes you partly responsible for the destruction in Syria. What is your take on this?

President Assad: We started the reforms from the first days of the crisis and, perhaps even to your surprise, they were initiated years before the crisis. We issued a number of new legislations, lifted the emergency law and even changed the constitution through a referendum. This is a well-known fact to the West; yet what the West refuses to see is that from the first weeks of the protests we had policemen killed, so how could such protests have been peaceful? How could those who claim that the protests were peaceful explain the death of these policemen in the first week? Could the chants of protesters actually kill a policeman?

From the beginning of the crisis, we have always reiterated that there were armed militants infiltrating protesters and shooting at the police. On other occasions, these armed militants were in areas close to the protests and shot at both protesters and police forces to lead each side into-believing that they were shot at by the other. This was proven through investigations and confessions, which were publicised on a large scale in the media.

Interviewer: Mr President, it is reported that the Syrian Army has bombarded certain areas. Was there no other option?

President Assad: We are pursuing terrorists who repeatedly infiltrate populated areas. If we take Al-Qseir as an example, there was a western media frenzy claiming that there were 50,000 civilians, which is more than the town’s original population. In fact, when the terrorists entered the area, the inhabitants consequently fled; when we entered we did not find civilians. Usually wherever the terrorists infiltrate, civilians flee and battles occur afterwards. The evidence clearly shows that most of the casualties in Syria are from the armed forces. Civilians mostly die in suicide bombings. They also die when terrorists enter an area, proceed to carry out executions and use them as human shields. The rest of the causalities are either foreign or Syrian terrorists.

Interviewer: After the momentum you have achieved in Al-Qseir, do you feel it is now time to extend a hand to the opposition and consider reconciliation?

President Assad: From day one we have extended a hand to all those who believe in dialogue; this position has not changed. At the start of the crisis, we held a national dialogue conference whilst simultaneously fighting terrorists. But when we talk about the opposition, we should not put them all into one basket; it is imperative to differentiate between terrorists and politicians. In Germany, you have an opposition but they are not armed. Opposition is a political act, and so when we refer to the opposition, we mean the politicians to whom we are always committed to dialogue, regardless of what happened in Al-Qseir.

As to national reconciliation, I do not think that it can be accurately applied to Syria. It implies a scenario of civil war, as was the case in Lebanon, or the conflict between black and white in South Africa. In our case it is about a national dialogue to determine a way out of the crisis and for the terrorists to put down their weapons. In any case, we are awaiting the Geneva conference, which essentially aims at the same political solution. However there are external impediments; Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France and Britain, continue to exert all their efforts at sabotaging dialogue in order to prolong the Syrian crisis and prevent a political resolution.

Interviewer: How would you define the legitimate political opposition?

President Assad: Essentially, any opposition party that does not support terrorism, does not carry weapons, and has a clear political agenda. But opposition groups are also linked to elections; their clout will depend on how well they fare in local administration elections and more importantly, in parliamentary elections. We are dealing with many groups who call themselves opposition, their success will be determined by two important questions: what is their popular base? And what is their political manifesto? We will then act accordingly.

Interviewer: Segments of the opposition claim that you have not taken steps to form a united front with them against foreign intervention. Is this true Mr President?

President Assad: On the contrary, in the national dialogue conference in 2011, there was an open invitation to all those who considered themselves in the opposition to come forward. Some chose to participate whilst others chose to boycott and blame us for not taking steps towards a solution. But we must ask ourselves, what do they mean by making advances towards them? What should we be offering? Ministerial positions in the government? The opposition in the current government has won hard-fought seats in parliament. When an opposition, made up of hundreds, does not have any seats in parliament how does one ascertain who deserves to be part of the government? We need clear criteria; it should not be haphazard.

To put it another way, the government is not owned by the President for him to bestow gifts upon others in the form of ministries. It requires national dialogue and a political process through which the electorate can choose among other things their government and the constitution.

Interviewer: What are your set criteria for dialogue between you and the opposition, could this include foreign-based opposition?

President Assad: We have no issues with autonomous opposition groups who serve a national agenda. With regards to the foreign-based opposition, we need to be very clear; its members live abroad and report to western foreign ministries and intelligence agencies. They are based outside their country and are in essence manipulated by the states that provide their flow of finance. They are best described as a “proxy opposition.” As far was we are concerned, genuine Syrian opposition means representing the Syrian people - not foreign countries, it means being based in Syria and sharing the burdens and concerns of the Syrian people. Such an opposition would inevitably be part of any political process.

Interviewer: Fighting terrorism has become the priority now. In reference to your recent interview most probably on Al-Manar television, you stated that if you were to engage in a dialogue, you would rather do so with the master than the slave. To what extent are you prepared for dialogue with these entities in the future once you have effectively fought terrorism?

President Assad: It is for this precise reason that we will attend the Geneva conference. I used the notion of the master and the slave to explain what we know will happen in reality. Negotiating with those who have no autonomy over their own decisions essentially means that you are in fact negotiating with the decision makers who dictate to them how to act, what to accept and what to reject. You will have seen on television recently footage of the French Ambassador to Syria giving the external opposition orders and insulting them, or the American Ambassador to Syria shouting and insulting them. Therefore in reality, we are negotiating with the United States, Britain, France and their regional instruments, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Those groups who call themselves external opposition are mere employees; hence the masters and the slaves.

We hope Geneva conference will push forward the dialogue process in Syria

Interviewer: What are your expectations from the conference? Will it be followed by progress or a continued stalemate?

President Assad: We hope that the Geneva conference will push forward the dialogue process in Syria especially since, earlier this year we presented a vision for a political solution based on the Geneva I communiqué. However, even though we will attend the conference with this understanding, we should be clear on the facts. First, the same countries I mentioned earlier that are supporting the terrorists in Syria have a vested interest in the talks failing. The logical question is: what is the relationship between the Geneva conference and terrorism on the ground? Simply, if the Geneva conference is successful – as is our hope, in preventing the smuggling of weapons and terrorists - there are over 29 different nationalities documented to be in Syria, then this would be a catalyst for resolving the Syrian crisis.

However if the smuggling of weapons and terrorists continues, there is no value for any political solution. We hope that the Geneva conference will make this its starting point; it is the single most important element in the Geneva talks, which would ultimately determine its success or failure.

Interviewer: If Geneva II fails, what are the consequences?

President Assad: The countries I mentioned previously would continue to support the terrorists. Failing to solve the Syrian crisis will make it spread to other countries and things will only get worse. Logically speaking therefore, all parties have a vested interest in its success. As to the external opposition, if Geneva succeeds they will lose their funding; if you don't have money and you don't have popular support, you end up with nothing.

Interviewer: Could Geneva II propose a government from different political entities?

President Assad: This is what we have suggested in our political initiative. We proposed the formation of an extended government from diverse political entities that would prepare for parliamentary elections; the winners of these elections would have a role in the future. This is an approach that we have been open to from the beginning.

Interviewer: Mr President, some of your critics claim that much blood has been shed in Syria; they blame the leadership and see it as an obstacle standing in the way of Syria’s future. Would you consider stepping down in order to bring about a new Syria?

President Assad: The president has a mandate in accordance with the constitution; my current term ends in 2014. When the country is in a crisis, the president is expected to shoulder the burden of responsibility and resolve the situation, not abandon his duties and leave. I often use the analogy of a captain navigating a ship hit by a storm; just imagine the captain jumping ship and escaping in the lifeboat! If I decide to leave now, I would be committing treason. If on the other hand, the public decided I should step down, that would be another issue. And this can only be determined through elections or a referendum. As an example, in the previous referendum on the constitution, there was a 58% turnout – which is pretty good in the circumstances, and the constitution was approved by 89.4%.

The issue was never about the president, however they tried to project it as such in order to force the president to sell out to those countries backing the opposition, in order to install a puppet president.

Interviewer: Mr President, you live with your family in Damascus. How much public support do you and your family enjoy?

President Assad: When numerous neighbouring and regional countries as well as the West are all opposing you, you couldn't possibly continue without popular public support. The Syrian people are highly aware of what is happening and have understood the dynamics of the crisis early on; hence their support for their government and their army.

Interviewer: Next year there will be presidential elections, how do you see these elections playing out?

President Assad: They will follow the new constitution, in other words multi-candidate elections. It will be a new experience, which we cannot predict at this point.

Interviewer: Mr President, what is your vision for Syria in the next five years?

President Assad: I reiterate that our biggest challenge is extremism. If we can fight it, with better education, new ideas and culture, then we can move towards a healthy democratic state. Democracy, as we see it in Syria, is not an objective in itself, but rather a means to an end - to stability and to prosperity. Legislations and constitutions are also only tools, necessary tools to develop and advance societies. However, for democracy to thrive, it needs to become a way of life - a part of our culture, and this cannot happen when so many social taboos are imposed by extremist ideologies.

In addition to this, there is of course the reconstruction process, reinvigorating our national industries and restoring and opening up our economy. We will continue to be open in Syria, continue to learn and benefit from the lessons of this crisis. One of these lessons is that ignorance is the worst enemy of societies and forms the basis for extremism; we hope that Europe has also learned from these lessons.

Interviewer: Mr President, thank you very much. I have been greatly influenced by your personality and your vision; I hope Europe and the West will benefit from this interview and look at you and your country differently.

President Assad: Thank you very much and welcome again to Syria. 
-

"Red Line" Lies Indicate Full Scale War Coming to Syria

Friday, June 14, 2013

"Red Line" Lies Indicate Full Scale War Coming to Syria

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

On June 13, 2013 U.S. President Barack Obama announced his plan to authorize weapons shipments directly to al-Qaeda death squads currently operating in Syria.

The Washington Post reports,
U.S. officials said the administration could provide the rebels with a range of weapons, including small arms, ammunition, assault rifles and a variety of anti-tank weaponry such as shoulder-fired remote-propelled grenades and other missiles. However, a final decision on the inventory has not been made, the officials said.
The Washington Post also quotes Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor, as saying, “This is going to be different in both scope and scale in terms of what we are providing.”

(Ben Rhodes may be familiar to some observers as the brain child behind a “story-telling” PSY-OP against the Assad government early which entailed taking over Syrian television stations and broadcasting demoralizing messages to discourage the Syrian people and encourage desertion among Assad’s ranks.)

Regardless, in addition to weapons shipments, the White House has asked U.S. military planners to present proposals for increasing American involvement inside Syria.

In what appears to be an almost verbatim repeat of the Libyan tragedy, albeit on a slower time scale, one of the proposals being considered consists of creating a “no-fly zone” inside Syria, “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.”

Of course, anyone even slightly familiar with the crisis taking place in Syria should be aware that American claims that the United States has only been providing non-lethal aid to the al-Qaeda death squads who have terrorized the country for two years are patently absurd since the U.S. and its partner nations of the Anglo-American establishment have been arming the death squads via Saudi Arabia and other Gulf State feudal monarchies ever since the destabilization campaign began. The fact that they would now remove the thin veil of cover provided to these operations now, however, is revealing in that the Anglo-Americans have now seemingly committed themselves to military action. This much is evidenced even more so by the open discussion of the implementation of a no-fly zone.

All of these preparations for invasion and plunder, however, have been justified by the claims that the United States has “conclusive evidence President Bashar Assad’s government used chemical weapons against opposition forces trying to overthrow him.” This, of course, crossed the ridiculous “red line” that Barack Obama and his counterparts drew in the sand several months ago when media outlets and Western governments felt more confident in their ability to stage such attacks inside Syria themselves, blaming the attacks on Assad, and justifying subsequent military action as a result.

The American people, proving themselves incapable of showing any limits to their own gullibility, are about to be led into yet another Middle Eastern war against another innocent and sovereign nation, on the basis of “intelligence” indicating the possession or use of a “weapon of mass destruction.”

WMDs were a big lie in Iraq. Chemical weapons are a big lie in Syria.

That is, use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government are a big lie. There have, indeed, been documented cases of use of chemical weapons inside the country. However, these attacks were committed by the death squads of the West, not the government of Assad.

Remember, UN investigator Carla del Ponte stated to Western media outlets as far back as March that chemicals weapons were used, not by the Syrian government, but the Syrian death squads that the Western media so desperately attempts to promote as freedom fighters and peaceful protesters.

It is also helpful to remember that as far back as June 2012, the pieces were clearly seen being moved into place in order to create the environment and subsequent chain of events for a successful false flag attack used to justify an invasion of or, at the very least, some limited military action against Syria. However, the more hidden aspects being used to create infrastructure for such an event could be seen going back even further.

For instance, in November, 2011, it was reported in The Telegraph that the “transitional” government of terrorists, Muslim Brotherhood, and NATO puppets in Libya were offering to send money, personnel (aka terrorists and mercenaries), and weapons to the death squads operating in Syria. It was largely understood, at least after the initial announcement of the weapons deal, that the weapons in question included chemical weapons.

Later, in June of 2012, it was reported by Russia Today that these weapons had indeed found themselves into the hands of the death squads by virtue of their Libyan counterparts now acting as head of the failed Libyan State. RT stated that, “They allegedly plan to use it against civilians and pin the atrocity on the Bashar al-Assad regime.”

Thus, it should be noted that the London Guardian reported that Libya possessed “25 metric tonnes of bulk mustard agent and 1,400 metric tonnes of precursor chemical used to make chemical weapons."

It was also reported in August of 2012 that the death squads had managed to capture a missile site belonging to the Syrian army which contained chemical weapons. The death squads erroneously claimed that the reason for attacking the site was to prevent the Assad government from using the weapons against members of the “opposition.” Regardless, one does not have to speculate very much as to the possibilities available here - in June, the death squads gain access to chemical weapons. In August, they gain access to a delivery mechanism in the form of missiles.

It is just such a coincidence that should cause one to examine another event which occurred shortly before the assault on the missile site. In July 2012, Tony Cartalucci of LandDestroyerReport, described “reports of so-called 'Free Syrian Army' militants seen trying on gas masks, along with reports of Libyan chemical weapon caches & equipment being discovered in Damascus.”

Together with the acquisition of the missile delivery capability by virtue of the conquering of the Syrian missile site and the possession of the chemical weapons themselves via Libya, the acquisition of gas masks points to the preparation for the launch of an actual chemical attack, or at least the possibility of it, on the part of the death squads.

As one of the death squad members stated to Reuters in April, 2012, "The rebels are getting better at bomb-making; as you know, desperation is the mother of invention." Reuters also commented that the death squads were now able to develop “more sophisticated bombs” due to “rare outside donations” although Reuters did not attempt to name those mysterious sources.

Moving forward to August 2012, a false flag plot was discovered which had been hatched between NATO and Saudi Arabia that would have staged a chemical weapons deployment in Syria either by mercenary firms or by the NATO-backed death squads, an attack that would subsequently have been blamed on the Assad government, thus serving as a pretext for NATO intervention and the creation of a “buffer zone” in the country.

According to Paul Joseph Watson, the source reporting the impending attack stated to Syrian news channel Addounia that a Saudi Arabian firm “had fitted 1400 ambulance vehicles with anti-gas & anti-chemical filtering systems at a cost of $97,000 dollars each, in preparation for a chemical weapons attack carried out by FSA rebels using mortar rounds. A further 400 vehicles have been prepared as troop carriers.”

Interestingly enough, the attack was set to make use of white phosphorous, sarin and mustard gas. It then stands as yet another questionable “coincidence” that, among the weapons possessed by the Libyan regime and now in the hands of the death squads, was large quantities of bulk mustard agent.

Nevertheless, the potential false flag attack reported by Addounia was set to be launched on densely populated areas, most likely Daraa, a city on the Syria/Jordan border, after which the newly fitted ambulances would pour into Syria under the guise of humanitarian aid. Although painted with the labels, “Syrian People’s Relief,” the ambulances would actually be nothing more than armored personnel carriers designed to capitalize on a manufactured disaster for the purpose of deploying such personnel in order to create the desired buffer zone.

Furthermore, the same company that manufactured and fitted the ambulances to be used in the attack is one that is based in Riyadh and was negotiating a contract with the Yemeni government for the manufacture of military vehicles for the Yemeni army.

A source also reported that a meeting had taken place between the head of Al Arabiya, the Saudi news channel, and a U.S. diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in the United Arab Emirates. As Paul Joseph Watson writes,
The purpose of the meeting was to agree upon a conditioning program to prepare the public for the likelihood that Bashar Al-Assad’s forces would use chemical weapons. Shortly after the meeting, Al Arabiya began running news segments depicting the inevitability of a chemical weapons attack carried out by Assad’s forces.
Of course, it was around this same time period that discussions of a “red line” by the French and American Presidents as well as the U.S. State Department and Israeli representatives began their repetition in the mainstream media circles and hence the American public at large.

For instance, in August, President Barack Obama warned that not only the use but merely the transportation of chemical weapons would constitute a “red line” that would result in military intervention. French President Hollande also stated at the time that the use of chemical weapons “Would be a legitimate reason for direct intervention.”

Likewise, Watson writes, Israel’s Vice Premier Silvan Shalom told media outlets “that if Syrian rebels obtained chemical weapons from stockpiles belonging to the Assad regime, such a development would force Israel to resort to “preventive operations,” in other words – a military strike on Syria.”

The creation of a “buffer zone” inside Syria is also interesting in its own right, not just because of the necessary loss of legitimate territory close to Syria’s borders but also because of its inherent nature of destabilization and weakening of the ruling regime in Damascus. Thus, it is interesting to note that, while the false flag chemical attack and the subsequent creation of a buffer zone was designed to use the pretext of humanitarian aid as mentioned above, such a plan follows the roadmap provided by the Brookings Institution in a paper entitled “Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change,” published in March 2012. The paper essentially argued for the use of a humanitarian issue in order to engage in military intervention on the part of NATO in Syria.

Indeed, the paper states,
An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian-corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power.
Yet one does not have to go any further afield in order to understand that the plan to stage false flag chemical weapons attack inside Syria in order to see the mass of evidence supporting such a claim.

For instance, in January, 2013, hacked emails belonging to British defense contractor Britam actually revealed a plan that was agreed to by the United States and funded in part by Qatar [according to the emails] that would have involved in the staging of a false flag attack chemical attack and the creation of videos to be used in an international propaganda campaign against Assad, who would have been blamed for the attack.

Obtained by a German hacker, the leaked email exchange occurred between Britam Defence’s Business Development Director David Goulding and Britam’s founder Philip Doughty. In the exchange, Goulding wrote,
Phil 
We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington. 
We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record. 
Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion? 
Kind regards 
David
In delivering a CW (chemical weapon) to Homs, “a Soviet origin g-shell similar to those Assad should have,” the stage was clearly set for the rigging of a false flag attack of a chemical nature to be blamed on Assad.

According to Cyber War News, the emails also contained “extremely personal information” which included “copies of passports of Britam employees, some of whom appeared to be mercenaries.” Britam confirmed that it had, in fact, been hacked.

In addition, in December 2012, a video was obtained by the Syria Tribune and subsequently released in their report and posted on YouTube which allegedly shows the NATO-backed death squads testing chemical weapons on “lab” rabbits.

As the Syria Tribune describes the video,
The video (see here) starts with several scenes showing chemical containers with Tekkim labels (Tekkim is a Turkish chemicals company) and some lab equipment, while playing Jihadists chants in the background. A glass box then appears with two rabbits inside, with a poster on the wall behind it reading The Almighty Wind Brigade (Kateebat A Reeh Al Sarsar). A person wearing a lab mask then mixes chemicals in a beaker in the glass box, and we see some gas emitting from the beaker. About a minute later, the rabbits start to have random convulsions and then die. The person says: You saw what happened? This will be your fate, you infidel Alawites, I swear by ALLAH to make you die like these rabbits, one minute only after you inhale the gas.
The Syria Tribune also comments that “Judging from the rabbits’ reaction, the gas must be a nerve agent. The number of containers, if not a bluff, indicates ability to produce a considerable amount of this gas. Deployment could be by means of a smoke generator placed in the target area, an explosion, possibly a suicide one, of a ”chemmed” car, or simply by using a humidifier."

In March, 2013, yet another YouTube video was released which contained a clip of a second “test” of chemical weapons on captive rabbits by the death squads.

This is quite an ironic presentation, since the Assad government has repeatedly vowed never to use chemical weapons inside Syria, while the death squads have repeatedly threatened to do just that. Indeed, in direct contrast to the tone and statements of the death squads, the Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi issued a statement several months ago saying, “No chemical or biological weapons will ever be used, and I repeat, will never be used, during the crisis in Syria no matter what the developments inside Syria.”

Nevertheless, the drums of war and military intervention from the United States, NATO, and Israel have continued to relentlessly beat.

Indeed, the video mentioned above also contains an alleged audio recording of a phone conversation between two Free Syrian Army fighters discussing the “details of a plan to carry out a chemical weapons attack capable of impacting an area the size of one kilometer.”

As Paul Joseph Watson writes,
The recording of the phone conversation purports to be between two FSA militants, one inside Syria and one outside of the country. Abu Hassan, the militant inside Syria, asks the person on the other end of the line to transmit a message to Sheikh Suleiman, a rebel-seized army base in Aleppo, asking for “two chemical bombs ….phosphoric” in order to “finish this whole thing.” 
“I want them to be effective,” states Hassan, adding, “The radius of the strike, or reach of the gases, has to be 1km.”
The video also contains a clip of the death squads openly announcing their plans to engage in chemical weapons attacks, all the while surrounded by bottles of nitric acid and other substances.
In addition, even more circumstantial evidence points toward the possession, delivery capabilities, and use of chemical weapons by the death squads.

Back in December 2012, after the death squads managed to capture a chlorine factory inside Syria, the Syrian government actually issued a warning that the death squads might attempt to use chemical weapons of this nature in their battle to overthrow and oppress the government and people of Syria respectively. The Syrian Foreign Ministry stated, “Terrorist groups may resort to using chemical weapons against the Syrian people ... after having gained control of a toxic chlorine factory.”

Thus, with the subsequent chemical weapon attack which has caused both a frothing and bumbling public relations response from the Anglo-Americans, it is interesting to note that chlorine was fingered as being one of the major ingredients.

As Alex Thomson of The Telegraph reported,
The Syrian military is said to believe that a home-made locally-manufactured rocket was fired, containing a form of chlorine known as CL17, easily available as a swimming pool cleaner. They claim that the warhead contained a quantity of the gas, dissolved in saline solution. 
. . . 
CL17 is normal chlorine for swimming pools or industrial purposes. It is rated as Level 2 under the chemical weapons convention, which means it is dual purpose - it can be used as a weapon as well as for industrial or domestic purposes. Level 1 agents are chemicals whose sole use is as weapons, such as the nerve agents sarin or tabun. 
There has been extensive experimentation by insurgents in Iraq in the use of chlorine, which is harmful when mixed with water to form hydrochloric acid. It vapourises quickly, meaning that in a big explosion it will evaporate; in a small blast - for instance, one delivered by a home-made rocket - it will turn into airborne droplets before dispersing quickly. 
So it is likely only to produce limited casualties. In this case there were only 26 fatalities, far fewer than would be expected from a full chemical weapon attack. In short, it is easily improvised into a chemical device but not one that would be used by an army seeking mass-casualty effects. [emphasis added]
Reports by the Syrian government coincide with the accounts given by the victims of the chemical weapons attack which one can view in the video clip contained in the YouTube video mentioned above. (See here) It is also important to note that many of the victims allegedly name the Free Syrian Army and the “rebels” as the perpetrators as they are being interviewed while waiting for medical treatment.

“The Free Syrian Army hit us with a rocket,” one woman said. "We smelled an odor and everyone fell to the ground. People died where they fell . . . the kids . . . "

A young girl was also interviewed, who said, “My lungs closed and I couldn’t breathe or speak. God curse them. Everyone died on the ground. My mom and dad died. I don’t know where is my brother. God curse them. May they [FSA] all die. This is the freedom they bring us. They [FSA] want to kill everyone. I hope there remains not a single one of them [FSA] alive.”

Regardless of the overwhelming evidence that Assad has not used chemical weapons and that the death squads have indeed done so at every possible opportunity, the Anglo-Americans are moving forward with their march to Damascus.

The conquering of Syria is only one part of a larger agenda. But, in the eyes of the Anglo-Americans, it is a “must be.”

No logic, no evidence, and no public outcry is going to get in the way of the rampage toward a third world war – a war which some say has already begun.

Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here

REBLOGGED FROM | http://www.activistpost.com/2013/06/red-line-lies-indicate-full-scale-war.html