Archive | October 1st, 2013

HAND’S OFF SYRIA الجيش العربي السوري ومعركته مع الارهاب في اللاذقية – press TV







Posted in SyriaComments Off on HAND’S OFF SYRIA الجيش العربي السوري ومعركته مع الارهاب في اللاذقية – press TV

Chillean terrorist captured in Syria confess about terrorist abduct women, children from Latakia



Posted in SyriaComments Off on Chillean terrorist captured in Syria confess about terrorist abduct women, children from Latakia

I obey the will of Syrian people, not a particular group – Assad

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.(AFP Photo / SANA)Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.(AFP Photo / SANA)

If quitting the post could really somehow improve the situation in Syria, President Assad says he would not hesitate to resign. But he is not ready to leave the country during a time of crisis unless the majority of Syrians tell him to.

“You don’t quit your position and leave your country in the middle of the storm,” Syria’s President Bashar Assad said in an interview with the Italian Rai News TV channel on Sunday. “Your mission is to take your country to the shore, not to abandon the ship and the Syrian people.”

‘Self-evident’ aim to cooperate

Assad stressed Syria’s willingness to eliminate chemical weapons in the country, saying that Syria has no reservations on this issue.

On Friday the UN unanimously passed a resolution which outlines the details of taking under international control and ultimately destroying Syria’s chemical arsenal by mid-2014.

The President said it is “self-evident” that the government will ensure security to the UN team, which will be responsible for the dismantling process, adding however that terrorists might undermine the efforts.

“Of course our role is to offer the data and to facilitate their procedures, which is available so far. But I think it’s about the technical side or aspect of the implementation, about how to reach those places, especially when you have terrorists who could put any obstacle, and about how to dismantle and get rid of those materials,” Assad said.

Rebel fighters prepare explosive devices to be used during fighting against Syrian government forces on September 7, 2013 in Syria's eastern town of Deir Ezzor.(AFP Photo / Ricardo Garcia Vilanovoa)Rebel fighters prepare explosive devices to be used during fighting against Syrian government forces on September 7, 2013 in Syria’s eastern town of Deir Ezzor.(AFP Photo / Ricardo Garcia Vilanovoa)

In the interview Assad pointed out that his government is ready for political dialogue with the opposition that has “a political program, a political vision,” stressing “when they are armed you don’t call them the opposition, you call them terrorists.”

“So, we can speak with every party in the opposition. Regarding the militants, if they give up their arms, we’ll be ready to discuss with them anything like any other citizen.” 

“We cannot talk with al-Qaeda offshoots and organizations that are affiliated with al-Qaeda,” he added.“We cannot negotiate with the people who ask for foreign intervention and military intervention in Syria.”

Framework of Geneva conference unclear

Concerning the Geneva 2 peace talks that will focus on a political resolution of the ongoing Syrian civil war  and are expected to take place in November, Assad said that as the framework of the conference is “not clear” yet, he is uncertain who will head the government delegation and if he will participate in it personally.

The agreement to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons was prompted by the chemical attack on August  21 in Ghouta near the capital Damascus. The US and its allies have blamed the Assad regime and threatened to carry out a military strike as a punitive measure.


The United Nations Security Council votes to approve a resolution that will require Syria to give up its chemical weapons during a meeting September 27, 2013 at UN headquarters in New York on the sidelines of the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly.(AFP Photo / Stan Honda)The United Nations Security Council votes to approve a resolution that will require Syria to give up its chemical weapons during a meeting September 27, 2013 at UN headquarters in New York on the sidelines of the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly.(AFP Photo / Stan Honda)

In the interview Assad reiterated that the idea of a military intervention is “not acceptable” for Syria, adding that there is no “armistice line” where you can put the UN enforcers.

“So, even if you want to suppose that you can accept that idea – which is not acceptable for us – but if you want to accept it, where can you position those troops? No-one can draw a map. You need a clear map. There is no clear map. There are gangs coming from everywhere, and they are terrorists who should be fought, not isolated from the Syrian troops.” 

Assad blamed European states for “adopting the American practice” of cutting off relations with the opposing side. He stressed that there is no credibility in “talking about humanitarian aid and at the same time establishing the worst embargo we’ve ever seen since the existence of Syria after [gaining] independence.”

Using chemical weapons near Damascus ‘illogical and unrealistic’ 

Answering the question about the infamous August chemical attack, the  head of state reiterated that the Syrian army never arranged to use chemical weapons during the crisis.

“Logically and realistically, you don’t use it when you’re in advancement. The army was advancing. Why use it? You didn’t use it for two and a half years while you had many difficult situations in different areas in Syria, you had much more terrorists facing you in other places more than Damascus. Why didn’t we use it? Why only in that place?” 

He points out that the Syrian government itself invited the UN inspectors to investigate the use of chemical weapons, adding that it would have been illogical for the government forces to use chemical weapons the next day. Assad said there are still no verifications of the alleged  videos and photos of the Ghouta attack circulating on the Internet that were used to build a case against the government.

“In many places, the same pictures of the same children were used in different photos in different places, and you can find those pictures on the Internet,” he said.


Photo from Mother Agnes report to UN.Photo from Mother Agnes report to UN.

“On the other side, we have complete evidence, like the materials, containers that the terrorists used, we have the confessions of some of the terrorists that conveyed chemical materials from neighboring countries, and you have the indication that the interest of whoever committed this crime wasn’t the Syrian Army; it was the terrorists.”

Assad compared the use of chemicals to the use of nuclear weapons, which is “under strict procedure because it’s complicated technically first of all to activate the material itself.”

“Second, not a single unit in the Syrian Army has chemical weapons anyway; you have specialized units, and if you want to use it, these specialized units should join the army in order to use the chemical weapons,” the President added.

‘Constitutional duty to fight terrorists’

When asked if he regrets acting tough against any sign of opposition at the very beginning of the crisis, President Assad explained that he “dealt with the situation according to the constitution,” citing as an example US actions during the 1992 riots in Los Angeles.

“We have to define the word ‘tough’ because we dealt with the situation according to the constitution. It’s like, if you say, the Americans sent the army to Los Angeles in 1992. Do you call it tough, or do you call it that they sent the army to fight the rebels?” he asked.

“So, according to the constitution we should have fought the terrorists, because from the very first week, we had many victims from the army and the police, from the very first few weeks.”

“Mistakes committed on the ground that could happen anywhere in the world,” Assad said.

‘I will run for reelection only if Syrian people want me to be president’

When asked whether he thought of leaving stepping down, Assad answered he would if it guarantees peace and stability in the country.

“But there is the other question; would the situation be better? So, for me as president, so far, I have to be in my position because when you have a storm, you don’t give up your position.”


Syrian demonstrators waving their national flag and pictures of President Bashar al-Assad during a march near the central city of Homs, in support of the country's army.(AFP Photo / SANA)Syrian demonstrators waving their national flag and pictures of President Bashar al-Assad during a march near the central city of Homs, in support of the country’s army.(AFP Photo / SANA)


However it is not for him to make the decision, Assad noted, it is the decision of the Syrian people who can talk through a ballot box.

“I should obey whatever the Syrian people want,” he said. “There’s no other way in any country. I mean, it’s not the decision of any group in Syria; it’s the decision of every Syrian citizen.”

Concerning the 2014 elections the president said “if I feel that the Syrian people want me to be in that position, I will run. If not, I will not.” 

Assad urged that reform be led by the Syrian people, adding that when the crisis is over a lot of work will need to be done.

“Even if we get over this crisis, we have so many things to manage after the crisis, the leftovers of this crisis, especially the ideological, the psychological and the social consequences on this society, so we have a lot of work.”


Posted in SyriaComments Off on I obey the will of Syrian people, not a particular group – Assad

Syrian civil war could end in weeks – Foreign Minister

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem.( AFP Photo / Yuri Kadobnov)Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem.( AFP Photo / Yuri Kadobnov)

The conflict in Syria could be over in weeks once the West and other regional powers stops supporting the opposition fighters on the ground, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem told RT after the UNGA session in New York.

RT: Now that Russia and the United States have determined what they want to come out of the Security Council, with what sentiment will your delegation be departing from New York? Will it be a sense of diplomatic success, relief?

Walid Muallem: We found that this session of the UN General Assembly is different than the previous one. The leaders have started to understand better what is going on in Syria, that we are fighting a terrorist group related to Al-Qaeda. We are receiving fighters from 83 countries all over the world. Second, they start to speak about the political solution after we joined the treaty of chemical weapons.

And here I want to thank President Putin for his initiative. We have discussed with Minister Lavrov this morning the project of Security Council resolution under Chapter 6 concerning Syria. First it thickens the procedures of how to get rid of these chemical arms. Second they spoke in the draft about Geneva 2. And we believe always that the political solution through the dialogue between Syrians is the way to solve the issue in Syria.

RT: Considering the violence on the ground, you believe that a political solution is still viable?

WM: Many countries speak about supporting a political solution. This is important but this means that they need to be committed to stop their financing, their arming of the terrorist groups. Especially the neighboring countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In this way if they are a friend of doing this, I assure you this is the starter of the success of Geneva 2.

RT: Under the existing circumstances of war on the ground, how much is the government in control of the chemical arsenal?

WM: We control the chemical arsenal but we are worried that the terrorist groups also have chemical weapons and they want to use it to show the West that Syria is not committed to its commitments. This is our point of worry. Otherwise if the West controls these groups, because they have relations with them, in this case I assure you, this process will be successful.

RT: During this disarmament process, what is your assessment as to rebel’s capability to lay their hands on the weapons throughout the process that is now to come?

WM: If you mean that they can obtaincontrol of government weapons – this is very difficult but the problem is not this. The problem is that they are receiving this type of weapons from the neighboring countries and from the West.

RT: Describe to us the decision to hand over the strategic weapons? What lead to this choice? How much of an influence was the Western threat of strikes? And was it something that the government realized that they would have to do eventually or did it occur when the threats started happening?

WM: It is not related to the threat more than it is a free sovereign Syrian government decision.  We are adopting this decision after consultation with Russia. And we are convinced that this Russian initiative at the end is a good initiative to open the door  for political solution.


The UN chemical weapons investigation team arrives in Damascus.( AFP Photo / Louai Beshara)The UN chemical weapons investigation team arrives in Damascus.( AFP Photo / Louai Beshara)

RT: When Syrian hands over its chemical weapons, do you think there is still a possibility of a threat from the West?

WM: Always the threat from the West is remaining but before they are using this threat indirectly through supporting the armed group, the terrorist group. But we take into our account that any country which is not yielding to the American pressure or yielding to the American will is under threat.

RT: Why do you think there is so much doubt in the West that the Syrian government will comply with what has been agreed in handing over its weapons?

WM: Because this is part of their plan, the anti-Syrian plan. Even before we started to execute our obligation, they started to put doubts. This is part of the formula to attack Syria.

RT: If this anti-Syria plan is coming from the West, why do you think this agreement was feasible between Russia and the US to reach the agreement on chemical weapons and also what we’re now expecting to come out of the Security Council?

WM: Now it is the international will after the Security Council and the Americans are a very essential part of it. But still we need to take into account that the Americans are changing their mood, changing their position. But for that the role of Russia to bring with them the Americans and the Security Council – it is a very wise thing.

RT: What is going on in the village of Maloula and the attack on Christians?  Are the people being helped by the government?

WM: We are against any discrimination based on religion or origin between the Syrian people. This terrorist group, they are trying to find ways and means to separate the Syrian people through threatening Christians. They are doing massacres against these Christians but we are proud to see the Christian part of our society and our army is defending them and Maloula today is under the control of the Syrian army.

RT: What is your assessment of the timeframe to the possibility of ending the conflict? 

WM: I’m sorry I cannot tell you the timeline, but I tell you that as long the US, Europe and some Gulf countries are supporting the terrorist group, the crisis will continue. If they are willing for a political solution and refrain from supporting this group, I assure you it will end in a few weeks.


Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syrian civil war could end in weeks – Foreign Minister

How the Syrian War Is Stoking Sectarian Tensions in Turkey

 “We are against war,” Karasu said. “The people here, they know that the government is using Hatay to attack Syria, to stoke tensions between Sunnis and Alevis.” As evidence, he pointed to the May 2013 car bombings in Reyhanli, a nearby town, in which over 50 people were killed. Erdoğan’s Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP) had attributed the attack to Syrian intelligence agents, but Karasu had other ideas. “We know the AKP was behind the bombing in Reyhanli, when they killed our Sunni brothers,” he said. “Why? To pin the blame on the Alevis, to stoke violence between us and our Sunni brothers.”“We’re afraid of tensions with Sunnis,” Khatifa Çapar, an older woman clad in a pink headscarf, told me on the way back from the funeral. “If there’s war with Syria, Hatay will be the first to get hit, the first to explode.”
Çapar and others appeared to retain a soft spot for the Syrian regime. “Bashar doesn’t kill people, they are the ones killing people, the jihadists,” she said. A young man, Mehmet Dağ, chimed in. “Before the war, everyone was living comfortably in Syria. Then the Americans came, along with the Turks, with their so-called Middle East democracy projects, and made war,” he said. “I used to go to Syria all the time. The kind of democracy they had there, you could hardly find in most other places.In Armutlu, evidence that Turkey’s role in Syria was fueling a new wave of Alawite resentment towards Erdoğan’s government was everywhere. On my way back from Atakan’s funeral, and en route to a protest that would end with yet more clashes with police, tear gas, burning barricades and even reports of gunshots, I stopped at a teahouse on the edge of the neighborhood.One of the local men, on recognizing a foreigner, asked me where I was from. Poland, I answered. “You look Al Qaeda,” he said, deadpan. (The cargo pants must have been a clear giveaway.) “That’s because I’m Polish Al Qaeda,” I explained, winking. “I see,” he said. I looked for some trace of a smile on his face. There was none.“Leave while you can,” a younger man sitting next to him yelled. “War’s coming.” At least he, to judge by a good-natured grin and a subsequent invitation to tea, appeared to be joking.But only to some extent. The man, Aytaç Bağcı, a sports instructor, was convinced that the U.S. would attack Syria at any moment, and that this would play right into Erdoğan’s hands. “Every day they’re sending Islamist terrorists across the border,” he said, referring to reports that extremist groups were transiting Turkey en route to Syria. He and his friends had had enough of seeing bearded foreigners on the streets of Antakya, Bağcı said. “Wherever they go, people die,” he said. The chemical weapons attack in Ghouta, he was persuaded, had been staged by the rebels, not Syrian regime forces, in order to goad the U.S. into military action against Assad.Erdoğan, he believed, wanted to “Sunnify” both Syria and Turkey. “They want political Islam here, and they want political Islam there, too,” he said Alevis, he said, wanted the government to stop sticking its nose into their private lives. “We want a secular country.”

Posted in Syria, TurkeyComments Off on How the Syrian War Is Stoking Sectarian Tensions in Turkey

President al-Assad interview with TeleSUR TV Journalist who was shot by sniper in Syria.


William Lara interviews President Bashar al-Assad. TeleSUR and Axis of Logic
 Editor’s comment: The following article includes TeleSUR’s interview of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with videos and a transcript. But first we report on William Parra, a journalist working for TeleSUR and his camerman, William Moreno who came under fire by the US-backed terrorists on September 16 in Damascas. Parra was singled out by a terrorist sniper and shot in the leg. He was rescued from the terrorists by the regular Syrian Army and transported to a hospital where his wounds were treated. TeleSUR issued a statement that both men were clearly identified as journalists. If Parra or Moreno would have been injured by an explosion or shrapnel in the war zone it would have been one thing; but shot by a sniper with a scope-mounted rifle while they were boldly labeled as PRESS has obvious implications. Moreover, if these courageous reporters had been shot by the Syrian Army it would have immediately received great attention by the government-controlled media in the United States and Europe. This attack by terrorists however has received little to no coverage by the western media. Parra went back to work after having been treated for his wounds and interviewed President Bashar al-Assad.  TeleSUR is an international television channel reaching the whole of Latin America, powered by the Simon Bolivar Satellite and based in Venezuela.
We include two video excerpts of the interview with English subtitles below followed by the full transcript.

– Les Blough in Venezuela
“US advocates peace but legitimizes violence”
Following is the full text of the interview:
TeleSUR: Welcome TeleSUR viewers to this special program covering the events in Syria. Our distinguished guest has managed to capture the attention of the whole world – President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. President, thank you for giving this interview to TeleSUR, which we hope will provide an opportunity for our viewers in Latin America to understand your perspective and your views. Welcome to the program.
President Assad: I would like to welcome you and TeleSUR in Syria and to extend my good wishes to you on your recovery from your leg injury. I believe that my interview with a journalist who has witnessed terrorism first hand will be pragmatic and rich. Once again, I welcome you as a journalist whose blood has been mixed with the blood of soldiers from the Syrian Arab Army.
TeleSUR: Thank you. Indeed, there are many common factors between us, including this blood. You mentioned terrorism – a car bomb exploded in Damascus yesterday, killing and injuring many civilians. What is the terrorist’s message particularly in these circumstances facing Syria and the world? And how do you see the current efforts to confront terrorism in Syria?
President Assad: These terrorists have only one message, which is the dark ideology they carry in their minds; for them, all those who do not think like them do not deserve to live. Every so often, they carry out these acts of terror to either attract people to their cause or to frustrate them. In other words, they want people to lose hope – and when you lose hope, life has no meaning. So in one way or another you become closer to them. From another perspective, these terrorist operations are financed, planned and instigated by people outside Syria with the aim of pushing Syrians towards complete despair, making them believe that there is no hope in their homeland and that the Syria which has existed for centuries no longer exists. Loss of hope pushes people towards defeat, which in turn makes them stop defending their country. What you saw yesterday was only one of hundreds of attempts in that direction; in fact they have all had the opposite effect – Syrians today are more committed than ever before to defending their country.
Since the beginning of the Syrian crisis American policy has been based on lies
TeleSUR: Mr. President, yesterday we heard US President Barack Obama speech reflecting on what the United States has done in different parts of the world, he spoke specifically about the situation in Syria; Syria was also a major issue at the United Nations. President Obama, more or less agreed on the need for a political solution in Syria, however, he called on the United Nations or the Security Council to pass a tough resolution against Syria and against your government if you do not continue to fulfill requirements of the chemical weapons agreement. He also stressed that, as far as the United States is concerned, your government was responsible for the chemical weapons attack against civilians.
President Assad: His speech yesterday was more of the same – full of allegations based on fabrications and lies. In general, most statements made by American officials, whether in the current or previous administrations, do not have the least bit of credibility. Their statements are often similar and repetitive, and as such we do not feel it is necessary to comment.
Since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, American policy, whether knowingly or unknowingly, has been based on lies. I believe that they were aware of most of these lies, which increased in intensity, and the administration played a direct role in these fabrications after the chemical weapons issue was raised on August 21st. The administration has not provided any evidence to support its claims, which implies that it was lying to the American people. From the beginning, we challenged them to present their evidence, which they didn’t; when they failed to convince the American people of their allegations, they couldn’t retreat and so became more determined.
As for their talk about invoking Chapter Seven, this does not concern us in Syria. First since independence, it is well known that Syria has always committed to all agreements it signs. Second, today there is balance in the Security Council which prevents the United States – as was the case in the past, from using the Security Council as an instrument to achieve its special agendas, including toppling regimes and destroying states as was the case in 1990s. As I said, these American allegations are nonsense and have no realistic or logical foundation.
The actions of the US, through wars and interventions, completely contradict their interests
TeleSUR: Back to President Obama’s speech, we saw that he was confused and didn’t know what he wanted. Sometimes he speaks about the use of force and sometimes he speaks about a political solution. He says that the Israeli aggression against Syria is in defense of American interests in the region. What are America’s interests in the region, and what is it looking for in Syria? Taking into account what’s happening at the Security Council concerning Syria, are you able to rule out an American aggression against Syria?
President Assad: With regards to the contradiction you mentioned, this has become the hallmark of every statement made by every American official, be it the President, his Secretary of State or others. For instance, they say that Syria’s military capabilities do not pose any concern to the American army should it decide to carry out any military action or aggression against Syria; however, at the same time, they say that Syria is a threat to American national security. This is just one of many examples in this regard.
As for the possibility of an American aggression, if you look back at the wars waged by the United States and American policies – at least since the early 1950s, you find that it has always been a policy of one aggression after another – starting with Korea, then Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq; this is the American policy. We also cannot forget American policy in South America where it instigated military coups and caused the deaths of millions; tens of governments were toppled as a result of American policy. For decades this has been their policy, which continues today – unchanged, it is also unlikely to change in light of the current American domestic situation. So the possibility of aggression is always there, this time the pretext is chemical weapons, next time it will be something else.
The more important element in all of this is that for decades, the United States has been superseding the Security Council, superseding the UN Charter, superseding the sovereignty of states and superseding all human and moral conventions. So, maybe all of us in the world need to keep this possibility in our minds – and this what we are doing in Syria. Is there a possibility of aggression? It might not be now, but nobody knows when it could happen. It remains a possibility, and we shouldn’t rule it out.
As for the interests of the United States, I believe that for decades, the actions of the United States, through wars and interventions, completely contradict their interests. It is a superpower and as such has political, economic, military and other interests. It can achieve these interests through mutual respect, good relations, trust, credibility and promoting science and knowledge instead of spreading terrorism, destruction and fear. There’s no doubt that as a superpower it has interests. Most of the big powers have interests around the world, but these interests need to be based on achieving stability in the world first. You cannot have any interests in an unstable region full of wars and terrorism. So yes, it has interests, but everything the United States is doing and all its policies, contradict its interests and the interests of the American people.
Violence destroys any chance for political action
TeleSUR: As Your Excellency said, the speech of the American President is in line with this great degree of contradiction, which characterizes the American empire. Yesterday he talked about a political and peaceful solution for the Syrian crisis; nevertheless he left the door open for you to step down. He literally said that the time has come for Russia and Iran to know that President Assad remaining in power means giving extremist groups a wider space to step up their activities. What do you think of what Obama said, and do you consider it likely that you will step down?
President Assad: As for your first point, this is another example of American contradictions; it’s like saying that we are seeking war and peace on the same issue and we are using the same roadmap to resolve the matter. This logic means promoting violence in the world and legitimizing violence as a means to reach a political solution. This is illogical. There is nothing in common between violence and political action. Violence destroys any chance for political action. We reject this logic, which the United States has recently tried to promote in order to justify aggression on Syria.
As to the question of stepping down, American officials – or some of their European allies, have been raising this issue for over a year. It doesn’t concern us for a simple reason: Syria has been independent for generations – for more than five decades, the United States has not toppled a president in Syria and has not brought any official to a position of power. So the United States cannot presume now that it has the right to decide, on behalf of the Syrian people who is in power and who isn’t. This issue is decided upon one hundred percent by the wishes of the Syrian people; even friendly countries have no say in this matter. This is determined by the desires of the Syrian people, which are solely expressed through the ballot box. When the Syrian people don’t want you, you should leave immediately; and the opposite is true. Regardless of what the United States says or does in this regard, it has no role whatsoever. That’s why these statements are of no significance to us.
The world is better when the United States stops interfering
TeleSUR: Let’s finish this discussion about Obama with what he said: “the world is better now thanks to the United States.” How do you think that the world is better thanks to the United States?
President Assad: Let’s talk about facts. Has Iraq become better with the American presence? Has Afghanistan become better? Is the situation in Libya better? Is the situation in Tunisia better? Is the situation in Syria better? In which country is the situation better? Was Vietnam better when the Americans interfered or when it was left alone to become independent and develop on its own? Look at the situation in South America: is it better now or when the United States used to interfere? The truth is that the world is better when the United States stops interfering – we don’t want it to help anyone. He (Obama) said yesterday “we cannot solve the problems of the whole world” – well, I say that it is better if the United States does not solve the problems of the world. In every place it tried to do something, the situation went from bad to worse. What we want from the United States is for it not to interfere in the affairs of other countries, then, the world will certainly be better.
However, if he meant that the spread of terrorism everywhere is better, this confirms what some Americans are saying in the American media – that the Obama policy is based on supporting extremism and terrorism. If this is the case, then what he said in this regard was accurate – that the world is better because of the spread of terrorism throughout the world.
The Iranian position towards the Syrian crisis is very objective
TeleSUR: Did you found anything new in Obama’s position towards President Rohani when he quoted President Rohani as saying that there is no military solution to the Syrian crisis, and that the chemical weapons were passed to the armed groups fighting in Syria by Western countries? And how do you see President Rohani’s position when he calls for the cessation of financing and arming of the opposition?
President Assad: The Iranian position towards the Syrian crisis is very objective because they know the reality of what is happening in Syria. At the same time, they understand that this is one region, and consequently if there is a fire in Syria, it is bound to spread to neighboring countries and later to countries further away, including Iran. Iran bases its policies on these foundations and also on the grounds that it is the Syrian people’s right to solve their own problems.
As to American remarks on the Iranian position: first, as I said before, regardless of whether American statements are positive or negative, whether they praise, criticize, condemn or denounce – nobody believes them. In the same token, the Iranians are not naive to be deceived by the American position; Iran’s experience is similar to Syria’s experience with successive American administrations, at least since the Islamic Revolution in Iran. That’s why what concerns us is not the American remarks, what is important for us is the essence of Iranian policy towards Syria; and once again I stress that in essence it is objective and achieves stability for our region, if different parties in Syria have adopted the Iranian vision.
TeleSUR: In fact, in Iranian statements at the United Nations, there was a proposal about Iran’s relations with the United States to the effect that a meeting will be held between the Iranian president and the American administration. Such meetings have not taken place for a long time. How do you see the rapprochement? Is the United States really engaging Iran, or is it just an attempt to push Syria’s friends away from it? Or is this position another way of saying that the United States has no choice but negotiations rather than the use of force to protect its interests?
President Assad: First, unfortunately even the United States’ closest allies do not trust them; so the Iranian-American rapprochement does not mean that Iran trusts the United States. Our relations with the United States have been through various stages of ups and downs, but trust has never existed at any of these stages. However, in politics, you need to try all methods and means and to knock on all doors in order to reduce tension in the world. So, communication and dialogue are necessary in relations between states. We believe that the rapprochement between Iran and the United States, whether regarding the Iranian nuclear program or regarding anything else, is positive and good for the region, if the United States has a real and genuine desire to deal with mutual respect with Iran, not to interfere in its domestic affairs, and not to prevent it from acquiring nuclear technology.
On the other hand, I can’t imagine that the United States has abandoned its principle of resorting to military force. I think the opposite is true; when the United States saw that it had competitors on the international arena – or let’s say partners, if not competitors, in the form of great and emerging powers in the world, – it started to resort more to the principle of force, although this same administration was elected on the basis of rejecting the Bush doctrine of using force; now, it returns to the same doctrine. I believe that they are trying to co-opt the Iranian position as they tried to do with Syria a few years ago, but the Iranians are fully aware of this game.
TeleSUR: Mr. President, going back to Syria and the chemical weapons issue. What are the real guarantees provided by your government that the list you submitted on your chemical arsenal is truly representative of the weapons you possess? And what are the guarantees you provide to the UN investigators in order that they do their job, inspect the sites and put the chemical weapons under international control?
President Assad: Our relationship on this issue will be with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Syria is not required to provide guarantees to the world or to the organization, it is required to deal with specific mechanisms or to abide by specific mechanisms stipulated in the chemical weapons convention. And as I said before, Syria is committed to all agreements it signs.
Syria has recently sent the required data to the OPCW. Shortly, OPCW’s experts will visit Syria to familiarize themselves with the status of these weapons. As a government, we do not have any serious obstacles. However, there is always the possibility that the terrorists will obstruct the work of the investigators in order to prevent them from reaching the identified sites, either because they have their own motives or because they are acting on instructions from the states that support and finance them. Either way, we expect that their objective is to blame the Syrian government for not cooperating with the investigators. But as far as we are concerned as a government, we have no problem with agreeing to the mechanisms provided by in this agreement.
It was the Syrian government who invited the investigators to come to Syria last March
TeleSUR: The international investigators will return to Damascus today to identify other places where there were allegations that chemical weapons were used, in addition to the August 21st incident. What are your government’s guarantees that the investigators will do their job freely and independently?
President Assad: This group hasn’t come to Syria on the initiative of the United Nations or any other country. It was the Syrian government who invited the investigators to come to Syria last March, when the terrorists used toxic gases in an Aleppo suburb in the north. In fact, it was the United States that created obstacles in order to prevent them from coming. We invited them, since we have an interest in their visit in order to determine the truth about the use of chemical agents in Syria. So, it is illogical for us to invite them and create obstacles to prevent them from doing their work. Even when the mission left Syria a few weeks ago, we had wanted them to complete their visits to the areas where chemical weapons had allegedly been used; it was the United States that insisted on them leaving before they had completed their mission. Now that they have returned, the Syrian government certainly supports their mission. And as I already mentioned, there are no obstacles except when the terrorists obstruct the work of the mission, particularly in the places where terrorists exist in large numbers.
TeleSUR: Despite the allegations that it was the Syrian government who used chemical weapons, the Russian government provided the United Nations with evidence that it was the armed groups who used the chemical weapons. What evidence do you have? And what is the Russian and Syrian government doing in order to prove that it was the terrorist groups and not the Syrian government who used chemical weapons?
President Assad: Of course we have both evidence and indicators. As for the evidence, when toxic gasses were used in Khan al-Assal, we took samples from the soil, blood samples from the victims, and also pieces from the projectiles used to carry the toxic material to that region. Later on, during operations carried out by the Syrian Army, a number of hiding places were discovered housing different sized containers filled with chemical agents – and in some cases toxic materials, as well as the instruments required to manufacture them. We provided the evidence to the Russian government before the UN mission came to Syria. We also have the confessions of the terrorists who brought some chemical agents from neighboring countries into Syria. These confessions were broadcast on television about a week ago.
Why the Syrian government did not use these materials?. First, the Syrian forces were making progress: they did not use them a year ago, when the terrorists were much stronger, so why should they use them now? The Syrian forces did not use them in remote areas where there are a much larger number of terrorists than in Damascus suburbs, so why should they use them here? You can’t use these materials in residential areas where they likely to kill tens of thousands and not only several hundreds or a thousand. You cannot use them in places close to your own forces – Syrian soldiers, because the soldiers themselves will be killed. So, logically, practically, militarily, they can’t be used in such conditions.
In any case, when you have a crime, one of the first questions a detective asks is who has an interest in using these weapons, or who has an interest in this crime. It is very clear that the terrorists have an interest in this crime, particularly when these allegations coincide with the investigating team’s mission to Syria. Can you really believe that the Syrian government invites an investigation mission, only to use chemical weapons so that the mission can investigate their use? This is unbelievable, totally illogical. All the indicators show that the Syrian government did not use them, and all tangible evidence shows that it was the terrorists who used the chemical weapons near Damascus.
TeleSUR: In this context, what was the role of Saudi Arabia and Qatar in bringing these chemical weapons to the armed groups?
President Assad: To be precise, we have no evidence that they passed chemical weapons to these groups. But it is well-known that these countries have been supporting the terrorists since the beginning of the crisis in Syria. They have, without exception, provided them with all kinds of sophisticated weapons; this is certain and well-documented. So, it is to be expected – that when these countries openly and publically support these groups and provide them with all kinds of weaponry, it is to be expected – that they are accused, especially Saudi Arabia, of delivering these types of materials to the terrorists to be used against the Syrian Army.
This is all the more so, since these terrorist groups have failed to present to their masters outside Syria with any real achievements militarily on the ground. Of course, they have been able to destroy a lot in Syria; they have destroyed the infrastructure, they have affected the economy, and they have affected the life of civilians in a very negative way. We have no doubt that these terrorist groups have caused a great deal of suffering, but I’m referring here to military achievement in line with the objectives that were given to them. In this regard, they failed miserably, so they had to resort to a different kind of weapon. By using these weapons, they would either defeat the Syrian Army or apply political pressure to reach an agreement on foreign intervention so that the United States and its allies can launch an aggression against Syria and weaken the Syrian Army. Of course, the second option is the more likely scenario.
Israel is an aggressive state. It was created based on expansion
TeleSUR: There is a chessboard under the table. It’s known that there are agreements done under the table, and someone is moving the pieces under the table, and that someone is Israel. Israel has a role in what is happening in Syria. Why are they talking about chemical weapons in Syria and nuclear weapons in Iran while not talking about the Israeli nuclear weapons?
President Assad: Israel is an aggressive state. It was created based on expansion. It occupies other people’s land and kills the people surrounding it. It has killed numerous Palestinians for over six decades. It killed numerous Lebanese and many Egyptians, Syrians and others using assassinations, bombing, terrorism and other methods. Today it plays the same role by supporting the terrorists directly in the areas adjacent to the Syrian front, i.e. near the occupied Golan, where it provides them with logistic and medical support and also with information, weapons and ammunition.
TeleSUR: There are also reports that Israel has oil interests in some Syrian regions?
President Assad: This has been reported, particularly concerning oil on the Eastern Mediterranean coast, but these are mere analysis and we have no concrete information. As for Israeli nuclear weapons, as you said, nobody talks about them because Israel, the aggressive state, the rogue state, enjoys full support from the United States in all its policies. It covers up all its crimes. As long as this process of covering up continues inside the United States, in the Security Council and the United Nations, in the international organizations, including the IAEA, it’s no longer surprising that any weapon anywhere in the world can be discussed, but not Israeli weapons. This is the prevailing logic in the world, the logic of hegemony, of colonialism, the logic of force.
Dialogue is inevitable among Syrians, all Syrian parties about the future of Syria
TeleSUR: Mr. President, while they are trying to reach a political solution for the crisis at an international level, what are you doing inside Syria in order to reduce the tension? Are there any attempts to engage the different parties in Syria? Is there any hope of an internal solution in Syria leading to the Geneva conference?
President Assad: No matter how intense the terrorist operations become, and how bad the situation is, we should continue to initiate political action to solve any problem. We believe in this and have pursued it from the very beginning, despite the recent escalation of terrorist acts. Political action requires, first of all, putting an end to smuggling terrorists from neighboring countries and stopping the support for these terrorists with weapons, money, and all the logistical support necessary to help them carry out their terrorist operations.
At the same time, dialogue is inevitable among Syrians, all Syrian parties about the future of Syria. This dialogue should start with the political system in the country: which system do the Syrians want, and consequently address the laws and regulations that stem from that system. There are many other elements and details: when the Syrians at the table reach a certain conclusion, it should be presented to the Syrian people for approval through a popular referendum. Now, the Geneva conference is an important venue, and it provides an opportunity for dialogue among the different Syrian constituents. Of course, we do not assume that the terrorists who carried out acts of killing will attend, neither do we accept that dialogue can be conducted with entities which called for foreign intervention. By law, and judging by the popular sentiment in Syria, those who called for foreign intervention are traitors and cannot be accepted by anyone.
As for the principle of the Geneva conference, it is an important and necessary step towards paving the way for dialogue between Syrian constituents. But the Geneva conference cannot replace internal Syrian dialogue, and certainly it does not replace the opinion of the people, which should be determined through a referendum. These are the broad lines of our vision for political action to solve the Syrian crisis; all these elements will not achieve any real results on the ground if support for terrorism is not stopped.
TeleSUR: You stressed that you’ll not negotiate with the armed groups and the terrorists in Geneva. Who are the parties with whom you will negotiate? How can this dialogue be achieved on the international level, and what is the timeframe for achieving a political solution for the Syrian crisis?
The parties outside Syria do not represent the Syrian people
President Assad: I can answer the part of the question that is related to the parties inside Syria, which represent the Syrian people. There are different types of parties – opposition parties, parties in the middle, or parties supporting the state. With regards to the parties outside Syria, we need to ask the states that support them because these states, – the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others – have propped up these individuals who do not represent the Syrian people. If these states tell them to go to Geneva, they will go; they will say and do as they are told. If we want to have an answer to this part of the question, we need to ask those states whether they intend to send these individuals or not, because they do not represent the Syrian people, neither the Syrian people nor the Syrian government will be sending them. This is why I have said that by dialogue, I mean engaging with the various opposition groups, basically, based in Syria as well as other influencers and movements that do not necessarily belong to the opposition.
TeleSUR: I cannot finish this interview without mentioning the leader Hugo Chavez who visited Syria and went with you to Maaloula, which only a few days ago suffered an attack carried out by extremists. When he was in Maaloula, President Chavez said “Nothing human or humanitarian can be used to justify an attack and an aggression against Syria. How can we not support the Syrian government? How can we not support the government of President Bashar al-Assad?” How can they support armed groups?” Could you please give us your impressions and your recollections of President Chavez’s visit to Syria? And what do you think of the position of Venezuela and the ALBA countries in defending freedom and defending Syria and the rights of the Syrian people?
President Assad: We have always said that the developing world, of which we are both a part of, has been through a number of stages in its pursuit of independence. The first stage was with the evacuation of foreign forces from our occupied countries, which most countries have been able to achieve through their independence. The second stage, which is more important, is the independence of political, economic and military decisions – the independence of national decision-making so to speak. This was achieved in Latin and Central America in the past two decades. There were two symbols for this independence: President Castro – five decades ago, and President Chavez. When we remember President Chavez, we remember this second stage because the endeavors we are facing in our region, in the Middle East, are similar to those that you went through earlier in Latin America.
When you achieved independent national decision-making, the situation in South America, and even Central America, became much better and political stability started to yield economic benefits. When you started economic development, some countries emerged as industrial powers and have become important economic powers. This is the natural outcome of independence. To date in the Arab region, we have barely achieved minimum independent political decision-making and in a limited number of countries. The conflict with the West now is in part related to this point, in other words, gaining independent national decision-making. I believe that South America in general, Venezuela and President Chavez, and before him President Castro, are important role models to be followed on the road towards independence and freedom sought by nations trying to shrug off Western hegemony in the form of long decades of direct colonization and, today, indirect colonization.
There are many similarities in temperament, in emotions and in the warmth felt by citizens of the same nation in your country and in ours. There are also similarities in our histories. President Chavez and President Castro aside, there are many presidents in Latin America today walking the same line of President Chavez.
But, I would also like to especially mention my friend and brother President Maduro whom I know through a number of meetings, during my visit to Venezuela and his visits to Syria. We are very happy that the Venezuelan people decided to choose this person to represent and enforce the political line taken by the President Chavez. He is a resilient and proud leader who has a clear understanding of our region; I am sure that he will continue to lead Venezuela to the path of independence. We all know that the United States and some of its allies had great hopes that Venezuela will return to America’s embrace in the absence of President Chavez. With President Maduro at the helm, these dreams have evaporated. I believe that as Arab states, we should follow the path of Latin America if we want to make a mark in the world, to be independent and advanced.
We are defending the future of our children and the future of the whole region
TeleSUR: Thank you very much, Mr. President for everything you have said, give us one last message to Latin America: will Syria remain steadfast? Will she triumph?
President Assad: Had we had other choices but to stand fast, I would have shared them with you, but we have no other choice but to stand fast because the political future of this region is tied to what is happening in Syria. We are not only defending Syria, or just our interests and principles, we are defending the future of our children and the future of the whole region – and this region is the heart of the world. An unstable Middle East undermines the stability of the world, even remote parts of the world. We cannot refer today far away regions like Latin America, North America or East Asia; the world today is a small village, and what’s happening in Syria will affect the surrounding region. What happens in this region will affect the remotest part of the world. I don’t want to say that we want the peoples of Latin America to support our causes, because they always support Arab causes with no less warmth and objectivity than our own people who live in this region and belong to these causes. We hope to enhance this relationship between us in order to enlarge the space of independence and reduce the space of colonization represented by the West and the United States in particular.
TeleSUR: Thank you very much, Mr. President. This was a special interview with His Excellency President Bashar al-Assad. Thank you to our friends in TeleSUR and in Latin America for staying with us. Be sure that our objective at TeleSUR is to bring people together.
President Assad: Thank you.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on President al-Assad interview with TeleSUR TV Journalist who was shot by sniper in Syria.

Al Qaeda FSA Terrorists Release Prisoners from Harem Prison for Recruiting



Posted in SyriaComments Off on Al Qaeda FSA Terrorists Release Prisoners from Harem Prison for Recruiting

EXPOSED: Indy “Newspaper” Funded by US Government

Note: A copy of Prachatai’s recent disclosure can be found here.
Editor’s Addition: A conflict of interest occurs “when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.” Prachatai, in their own disclosure admits that such a conflict of interest indeed does exist, one they address by simply “giving us their word” their motivations are not corrupted.
This is before we even consider the extent to which Prachatai supports the talking points, agenda, and websites of other Soros-funded globalist organizations, like Amnesty International (page 10), Global Voices, and Human Rights Watch which end up as posts and/or saturate Prachatai’s “links” column.
Bangkok, Thailand August 11, 2011 – After initially trying to downplay, obfuscate, and deny accusations that the Thai “independent, non-profit, daily web newspaper” Prachatai was in fact a US-funded propaganda front, a series of reports from Land Destroyer provided irrefutable evidence taken directly from the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy website.
Additional backpedaling, lying, and obfuscating prompted a follow-up report on Prachatai featuring several unlisted funding sources the duplicitous organization most likely thought were well buried.

Video: Noam Chomsky in 1993 on the NED’s projects in Nicaragua: “It’s about what you would expect from a bipartisan democracy campaign – it’s an attempt to impose what is called democracy, meaning rule by the rich and the powerful, without interference by the mob but within the framework of formal electoral procedures.”


Perhaps fearing a third onslaught, or in a desperate attempt to salvage its sagging legitimacy, just this week Prachatai has made a seemingly complete disclosure of their US government and US corporate foundation funding laying to rest its own supporter’s erroneous assumptions and defense that the organization was “just barely getting by.”
In fact, they are doing quite well and receive millions of baht consistently year to year from the US National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros’ Open Society Institute, and more recently USAID.
In fact, an overwhelming 77% of Prachatai’s nearly 8 million baht in funding during 2011 has come directly from Uncle Sam – overt funding that would cut the legs of legitimacy out from under any alleged “news organization.”
Still, Prachatai’s utter contempt for both journalism and their readerships’ intelligence is best encapsulated in a cautionary reminder posted directly before their full financial disclosure which claims, “it is important to state here that none of our foreign donors has ever put up any demands connected to the funds they provided, nor did they ever interfere with our reporting.”
[ed notes:click link for whole expose

Posted in USAComments Off on EXPOSED: Indy “Newspaper” Funded by US Government

Nazi Gistabo Shabak Nabs Alleged Iranian Spy–Surprise!–Same Day Bibi Leaves for UN to Skewer Iran



The Israeli Shabak announced (and in Hebrew) with a flourish today that on September 11th it had apprehended an alleged Iranian spy who had been working on behalf of the Iran Revolutionary Guards.  He is Ali Mansuri, 55, a dual Belgian-Iranian citizen.  He went by the name Alex Mans when he entered Israel.  He was born in Iran and lived there until 1980.  Then he emigrated to Turkey, where he lived till 1997 as a businessman.  Then, Belgium offered him a visa to reside there and continue his business activities.  In 2006, he applied for and received Belgian citizenship by marrying a Belgian citizen from whom he was later divorced.
Because of his dual nationality, Mansuri was an especially attractive target for Iranian intelligence.  It should be remembered that the Mossad too recruited Israeli dual citizens like Ben Zygier who were citizens of friendly countries and would not attract undue attention.
The Israeli security service claims that he visited Israel a total of three times under cover of being a businessman. Anyone visiting his website will wonder how he could be a successful businessman, let alone spy:

Hello, World!

European Folded Glass System is Big Company in Europe

We sell the beauty happiness and comfort You could change your design with our system to be more relax and space We have several model such a balcony ,elegant , ray Balcony model in two tempered glass 8 and 10 mm you could use for your any place. Elegant model with 100mm tempered glass Ray model with 10mm tempered glass All usable in different profile and glass color

us embassy israel

The Shabak statement doesn’t offer any information on how he was identified.  It does note the Iranians promised Mansuri a $1-million payment for his services though it offered no proof such payments were actually proferred.

Alleged photo of U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv taken by Mansuri

Among the charges offered against Mansuri is this strange one:

The detainee tried to aid Iran in its efforts to circumvent the trade embargo and transfer funds [internationally].

Why and how an Iranian spy would focus on Israel as a target to transfer funds or circumvent the trade embargo makes very little sense unless he was attempting to export forbidden products from Israel to Iran.  If so, it would seem a fool’s errand given the level of security in place inside Israel to prevent such developments.  In fact, the Shabak report says he attempted to establish business connections inside Israel by providing roofing and windows for restaurants and other businesses.  Do these sample products featured on his website appear to be of the sort that would allow massive violations of international sanctions?
This arrest follows another a few weeks ago of a mentally-troubled Israeli citizen who visited the Iranian embassy in Berlin asking to spy on its behalf inside Israel.  The Shabak believes that Iran turned him in in the hopes of distracting from the real spy it was working in Israel’s midst.
Though I don’t doubt the IRG would want to infiltrate its agents into Israel, I somehow find it highly suspect that Israel didn’t know from almost the first moment Mansuri showed up at Ben Gurion that he was a suspicious character.  Even if he tried to conceal his Iranian ethnicity, these things aren’t hard to trace.  I believe that Shabak knew almost from the first moment he arrived what or who he was.  It allowed him to enter Israel, tracing what he was doing to figure out the methods being used by the IRG to try to spy on the country.

bibi netanyahu un speech
The Shabak statement says it didn’t pick up Mansuri the first few times he visited.  Personally, I find it hard to believe the Shabak couldn’t detect someone entering Israel under an assumed name.  But even if true, I never believe he posed a threat to anyone.  In short, this incident is nothing like the Israeli-MeK assassination campaign and sabotage of Iranian missile facilities, which are crimes of state terrorism for which the Mossad and its leadership should be tried before an international court.  Israel’s spying and terror is far more lethal than anything Iran has mounted (even including bombs allegedly exploded in Dehli and Thailand).

Bibi’s speech later today at UN featuring his very own bomb-throwing Iranian spy (Amir Schiby)

My Israeli source confirms that the timing of this announcement is deliberate.  Haaretz confirms this with the following:

Exposure of Iranian agent: ammunition for Bibi’s UN speech

Mako goes even farther:

Security Sources: the Timing of the Arrest of the Iranian Spy is No Accident

Maariv quotes a “senior official accompanying the prime minister,” who my Israeli source tells me is Bibi himself, giving this desperate spin to the incident:

At a time when Iran was denouncing terror on American soil, it sents its agent to gather intelligence for a terror attack against the U.S. embassy in Israel.

Holy smokes! Because they found a single picture in his camera that means Iran was about to blow the U.S. embassy sky-high!
Haaretz columnist Uri Misgav is brutally acerbic in his evaluation of the Shabak’s performance:

An Embarrassing, Troubling Episode in Shabak History:
The report was hurried and amateurish.  The timing ridiculously transparent.  The substance not earth-shaking.  The security services don’t usually supply PR and hasbara services for the prime minister, nor political fodder for the road.

Only the NYT’s Isabel Kershner naively and typically called the timing “serendipitous.”
As Yossi Melman so rightly noted in his latest piece for The Post (Jerusalem Post’s Hebrew edition), Bibi has cried Wolf so many times in the past that it no longer registers with anyone but his own followers.  No one believes that Israel can or will attack Iran given the latest moderating voices that have been heard in New York and Washington.
Yediot also notes that Shabak uncharacteristically released this story before it had completed its investigation.  Another reason to suspect political timing to the report.
Bibi is desperate to change the momentum in world discourse away from Iran’s peace overture and Obama’s embrace of it.  What better way to do that than to remind the world Iran is a perfidious enemy stopping at nothing to attain regional domination through infiltration of its enemies territory and sabotage of its infrastructure.  You’ll note however, there was no display of the weapons, bomb-making equipment, etc. Mansuri was using in his dastardly plot.  All they had to offer was a picture of the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv that Mansuri allegedly shot.  Incriminating!

This reminds me somewhat of the Saudi ambassador assassination plot allegedly orchestrated by an Iranian drug-dealer and wife-beater who was a cousin of a senior member of the IRG.  Much ado about very little.  If Bibi does shine a spotlight in his speech on this plot he risks another Wile E. Coyote moment like the one last year in which he offered a magic marker poster board mock up of Iran’ s ticking nuclear time-bomb.  Instead of that ticking time bomb, he might as well hold up a new poster featuring Ali Mansuri holding that bomb in his hands.  It will look about as foolish as last year’s episode.
In short, Mansuri is a convenient foil for Bibi’s upcoming fulminations at the General Assembly in which he will tell the world “the truth” about Iran.  A speech, I might add, that the entire world awaits with bated breath.
Just as interesting as what’s contained in Shabak’s revelations about the Iranian spy incident is what isn’t.  In a list of Iran-inspired terror attacks against Israel there is curiously no mention of the attack on the airport in Burgas.  Those with some memory will remember that Bibi shouted from the rooftops after that attack that Iran’s IRG was responsible.  Now it appears that even this Israel intelligence agency disagrees.  Though the quiescent Israeli press has never called Bibi on his lie.  Unfortunately, Amos Harel’s Haaretz story linked above repeats the false claim that Iran was involved.   In this, he amplifies Bibi’s lies.
So one might add that any Israeli claim that it has proven the hand of Iran is behind anti-Israel terror must be taken with very large grains of salt unless and until proven otherwise.  Further, Israel appears to be making the same mistake the CIA did in 2003 when it allowed itself to be politically co-opted by the Bush-Cheney folks to gin up a false WMD charge and war against Iraq.  Politicizing intelligence is a very bad idea.  But Israel does it shamelessly as I’ve shown here many times.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi Gistabo Shabak Nabs Alleged Iranian Spy–Surprise!–Same Day Bibi Leaves for UN to Skewer Iran

Kenya terror attack: Putting the Westgate siege in context


Horace G Campbell (2013-09-26)The Somali militant group Al Shabaab has claimed responsibility for the September 21 attack at an upmarket shopping mall in Nairobi in which dozens of people were killed. Progressives must intensify their opposition to extremists who manipulate Islam, but also reject the imperial forces inside Africa and their alliesTHE FUTURE OIL BONANZA IN SOMALIA

In the past two years the news from Somalia has been dominated by the information that there could be as much as 110 billion barrels of oil and gas off the shores of Somalia. There is also likely to be vast natural gas reserves in Somali waters in the Indian Ocean. Fields containing an estimated 100 trillion cubic feet of gas have been found off Mozambique and Tanzania. British politicians and British oil companies have been the most active in seeking to corner the future exploration of this oil and it is not by accident that the most recent conferences on the future of Somalia has been held in London and hosted by David Cameron, the Prime Minister and head of the Conservative Party of Britain. One of the first companies to have signed a contract with the Government of Somalia is the front for British petroleum interests that is now registered as Soma Oil & Gas Exploration Ltd. This company was recently founded in the United Kingdom and its chairman is Michael Howard, a former leader of the Conservative Party. We are also informed that CEO Robert Sheppard has experience as an adviser for the U.K. oil company BP PLC (LON: BP) in Russia.

Very soon after the long transition and the more than fifteen meetings to organize a sensible form of governance in Somalia, the British moved in to muscle out an African as the Special Representative of the Secretary General (SRSG) for Somalia. Nicholas Kay has emerged as the SRSG for Somalia at a moment when Britain is seeking to dominate the institutions and organizations that will have control over the decision making processes for the oil and gas exploration in Somalia. From the moment of the decomposition of the Somalia government and the manipulation of the military entrepreneurs by western forces, Britain had been cooling its heels working with the political elements in that section of Somalia that had been colonized by Britain after the Berlin Conference. During the colonial era Britain had used this region to provide meat for its troops in the Gulf and British Somaliland was governed from India.

British oil companies for decades had knowledge of the massive oil reserves off the coast of Somalia and the British teased the ‘leaders’ of Somaliland with the gesture that they would recognize this secessionist region as a breakaway state. Pan Africanists will remember that at the Berlin Conference in 1885 the peoples of Somalia were divided in to five areas (French Somaliland, -now called Djibouti, British Somaliland, Italian Somaliland, the Ethiopian areas of Somalia –in the Ogaden and the Somalia peoples who were located in what came to be known as Kenya), There are up to 300,000 citizens of Somali extraction in Europe and while the racism of Britain alienates the more than 100,000 Somali youth, Britain is opportunist and when Mo Farah won the gold medal for the 10,000m at the London 2012 Olympics, the British press forgot the jingoism that alienated and confused many youth of Somali extraction who yearned for some purpose in their lives.

British newspapers and politicians had showered praises on the breakaway region telling them that this was a region of peace in a haven of violent Somalia. However, the British always had their eyes on the massive oil resources. Some foreign companies signed deals with the breakaway governments of Puntland and Somaliland but these entities were never recognized by the African Union.

For about ten years the British were waiting in Somaliland until they knew that Ugandans had cleaned up the situation and many Africans died. They were quite willing for Africans (Ugandans and Burundians) to die in the AMISOM operation while the western P3 members of the Security Council quibbled over how much money the UN should spend on the peacekeeping force in Somalia. Nicholas Kay, the new SSRG, has traveled to the General Assembly this week to lobby for more resources for AMISOM, presumably because it will be important to guard the British nationals who will be flocking to Mogadishu. Kay is by no means a small player in the British political establishment. Before he was deployed to Mogadishu as the SSRG he had been the Africa Director at the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Prior to this position at the FCO, he served as Ambassador to the Republic of the Democratic of the Congo and the Sudan from 2007 to 2010 and 2010 to 2012, respectively. He was also the United Kingdom’s Regional Coordinator for Southern Afghanistan and Head of the Provincial Reconstruction Team for Helmand Province from 2006 to 2007. In short, he has the experience of serving British interests in war zones. There are numerous other British elements in the interstices of the United Nations system working to ensure the ascendancy of British interests.


The US form of warfare in Somalia had followed the new template of drones, local militia forces, private military contractors and third party countries. In the war in Libya, this form of warfare had been used with the army of Qatar acting as the third party country. In Somalia; Uganda had been the country most willing to serve imperial interests after the Ethiopians had invaded to oust the Union of Islamic Courts. The historic differences between Somalia and Ethiopia ensured that Ethiopia could not be a real force for peace, especially in the very undemocratic and repressive conditions inside Ethiopia. Ugandans deployed more than 6000 fighters to Mogadishu and hundreds lost their lives. The Ugandans and Burundians formed the bulk of the African Union Peace Keeping forces (AMISOM) that drove Al Shabaab out of Mogadishu

The reports from the families in Uganda were that hundreds, if not thousands of Ugandans lost their lives in the forms of battle that raged from street to street and alley to alley in Somalia. Reports of the fighting were that it was similar to the kind of warfare of 1914-1918. While this fighting was going on, the western countries were opposed to financing the AMISOM mission and were quite willing and ready to have Africans die in the streets of Mogadishu as it turns out now to serve the interests of western oil companies.

If Museveni was a front for the US military in Somalia, by the time the body bags were being flown back to Kampala, Museveni had his own interest in ensuring that the violent extremists in Somalia were decapitated. Museveni worked closely with Augustine Mahiga who had moved from the safety of Nairobi when he took up the position of SRSG in 2010. Both Mahiga and Museveni had worked closely with Nyerere and both had been on the periphery of the Dar es Salaam school in the era of Walter Rodney, Issa Shivji and the period when all operatives in Tanzania identified with the African liberation project. When Britain wanted to get the position of SRSG, the campaign of disinformation intensified about the diplomatic and military capabilities of their African allies such as Mahiga and Museveni.

After the Ugandans died in the hundreds, the Western military lobby moved against Augustine Mahiga the Special Representative of the Secretary General. Mahiga is a Tanzanian and he worked hard from Mogadishu while the European members of the UN team spend their time in Nairobi. There had been a struggle between Germany, Norway, Britain and South Africa to get this SRSG post that can be like the neo-colonial governor in Mogadishu. Kay won out using the British special relationship with the USA to succeed.

The Norwegians wanted the position of SRSG and promised $30 million in aid to the new Somalia government, but the British muscled out the Norwegians. The secessionist state of Somaliland had signed a production sharing agreement with DNO, a Norwegian oil and gas company, but British interests were working hard against Norway. Enter David Cameron who became the champion for the convening of conferences to reconstruct Somalia. This very same Cameron who had been attacking Somali nationals in Britain as the forces that ensured that multiculturalism does not work was the same who dispatched William Hague to Mogadishu in n 2012. The Prime Minister of Turkey, Edrogan had been the first leader of a foreign government to visit Mogadishu in 2011 and Britain wanted to be counted as a state that supported the people of Somalia. More recently in September 2013, there was the convening of a special EU New Deal for peace meeting in Brussels. The European Union pledged 650 million euros to help Somalia’s peace and rebuilding process but after one read the fine print one could see that most of what was said amounted to pledges. The British Department for International Development (DFID) rolled out and published its own commitments made in the meeting but when the sums were added it did not come to the $30 that had been pledged by Norway and rejected by the Government of Somalia in favor of the British promises.


The heavy fighting to remove Al Shabaab from Mogadishu had been undertaken by Ugandans and Burundians but in September/October 2011, the Kenya Defense Forces (KDF) invaded Somalia under the banner of Linda Nchi (Kiswahili for defend the nation). At the time of the Kenyan incursion in 2011, I had written in Pambazuka that the intended remilitarization of Africa will fail. I had written,

“The government of Kenya has declared that it will end its military campaign against Al-Shabaab in Somalia when it is satisfied it has stripped the group of its capacity to attack across the border. If one goes by the experience of the past 18 years, then this statement can be read that Kenya will be in for a long-term deployment to Somalia. The corollary to this is the reality that Kenya and its cities will be spaces of war, security clampdown and general destabilisation of the population. Since the Kenyan foray, there have been two grenade attacks at a bar and a bus terminal that killed one person and wounded more than 20 people in the Kenyan capital Nairobi. These attacks have already affected the tourism industry, one of the most important sources of revenue for the government of Kenya.”

From the books mentioned above we have read that the Kenyan incursion into Somalia had been planned long in advance by the KDF and that the Kenyans were looking for the most opportune time to justify the incursion into Somalia. The international media blitz about famine, refugees and Al Shabaab in 2011 provided the right background for the Kenyan people to support the KDF into Somalia. Kenyans had been lukewarm towards the military after the security forces had failed to protect innocent civilians after the violence of 2008.

The political leaders of Kenya had been working with French companies to map out the future of the recovery of oil resources in Kenya on land and offshore. There had been disputes between Kenya and the Federal Transition Government of Somalia over the Exclusive Economic Zones of Kenya and Somalia. Both countries had produced competing maps to lay claim to the EEZ off the coast of Southern Somalia. The Kenyan forces had collaborated with a questionable military entrepreneur of the Ras Kamboni group and the Ugandans were not happy that Kenya had intervened in Somalia after hundreds of Ugandans had already lost their lives.
[ed notes;click link for whole article..just citing few excerpts..

Posted in AfricaComments Off on Kenya terror attack: Putting the Westgate siege in context

Shoah’s pages