Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah says ”terror” group has bolstered its capabilities since Second Lebanon War, and can now destroy any specific target within occupied Palestine.
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah threatened in a speech on Friday that the terror group has bolstered its capabilities and can now destroy any specific target within “occupied Palestine.”
Nasrallah told supporters via a video link that if a new war breaks out, the group will ruin targets in Israel for every building destroyed in Beirut.
“The era in which we are afraid and they are not is over,” he said. “The time has come to declare that we are here to stay, and they must cease to exist.”
He said that Hezbollah is “capable of striking very specific targets not only in Tel Aviv but everywhere in occupied Palestine.”
Nasrallah asserted that Israel’s goal in the Second Lebanon War was to “crush the resistance” – and not to drive Hezbollah away from southern Lebanon’s Litani River or to liberate soldiers captured by the organization, as the Jewish state claimed.
“The war has failed to achieve its goal,” he said.
“The Israeli enemy has tried to make our lives hell,” he added. “The question is, why wasn’t it content with the killings in the battlefield or with bombing military bases? Why did it expand its aggression to destroy homes and schools? It committed war crimes.”
Nasrallah thanks Iran
In 2006, Hezbollah and Israel fought a 34-day war that killed about 1,200 people in Lebanon and 160 in Israel. Hezbollah fired nearly 4,000 rockets at Israel during the war and is believed to have upgraded its munitions in recent years.
Nasrallah’s speech focused on the rehabilitation of the Dahiya district in Beirut, an area that was severely damaged in the war.
“Today we celebrate the victory of restoration after the war,” he said. “(…) The homeowners insisted on rebuilding their houses on the same spots where they were previously destroyed, and that’s a message of celebration that is sent to the Israelis. This is the will of the people.”
He mentioned the funds that were allocated by Iran for the renovation of the district.
“Without these funds, we wouldn’t have been able to complete the restoration so quickly,” he said.
US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel funded and have backed regional army of Sunni terrorists since 2007 specifically to overthrow Syria and Iran.
By Tony Cartalucci
May 11, 2012 – A 2007 New Yorker article written by renowned journalist Seymour Hersh revealed a plan under the Bush Administration to organize, arm, train, and deploy a regional army of Sunni terrorists, many with ties directly to Al Qaeda, in a bid to destabilize and overthrow both Syria and Iran. The plan consisted of US and Israeli backing, covertly funneled through Saudi proxies to conceal Washington and Tel Aviv’s role, in building the Sunni extremist front.
According to Seymour Hersh’s 2007 article, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?,” (1) Saudi Arabia, a more credible candidate for openly interfacing with the militants, openly admitted that it was a danger, but that they “created it,” therefore could “control it,” in meetings with Washington. The plan called for not only setting up enclaves in nations neighboring Syria, including Lebanon, Jordan, and US-occupied Iraq, but also for building up the Muslim Brotherhood, both inside Syria’s borders and beyond – including Egypt.
Hersh’s work now holds new relevance as revelations that indeed a Sunni-extremist element is behind the violence in Syria, including a horrific bombing in Damascus (2) that has killed scores and injured hundreds. That these Sunni elements are openly supported by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, with militants and weapons flowing in from the above mentioned Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon, (3) just as planned in 2007, shows clearly that the US-Israeli-Saudi plan is unfolding just as intended.
As the West feigns shock and horror over the rise of their Sunni front, from Egypt to Syria, and beyond, along with the resurrection of the Muslim Brotherhood, who Hersh confirmed was already benefiting from US and Saudi aid in 2007, it is clear that in reality this is the fruition of a complex premeditated plan, years in the making.
The accomplices include Neo-Conservatives Dick Cheney, Elliott Abrams, and Zalmay Khalilzad – who also serves on the board of the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy, (4) a chief facilitator of the “Arab Spring” destabilizations that brought the Muslim Brotherhood (purposefully) back into the Middle East’s political landscape after Arab nations fought difficult battles against their brand of violent extremism and anti-secular policies. Martin Indyk of the State Department under former President Clinton, former Ambassador to Israel, and a director at the corporate-financier funded think-tank, the Brookings Institution, was also mentioned in Hersh’s report, and was a co-author of the infamous 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, (5) openly declaring US machinations in bringing down the Iranian government.
Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar is noted by Hersh as instrumental in coordinating efforts between the Saudis, Israel, and the United States, while the political party built up around pro-Saudi Lebanese tycoon Rafic Hariri set the groundwork in Lebanon for the creation of a violent Sunni front.
With Sunni-extremists committing increasingly frequent and violent atrocities across Syria, the US and the Western media in general, has attempted to portray it as a natural progression of Syria’s internal conflict – when in reality, based on Hersh’s report and confirmed again more recently as the source of the rebels’ funding and support is revealed, it is clearly the result of this long-planned act of foreign aggression against Syria, perpetrated by the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and their Sunni proxies in the Muslim Brotherhood.
Hersh’s report had warned of the tragic consequences to be expected once this Sunni-front had been unleashed, namely, according to former CIA agent Robert Baer in Lebanon, ” Sunni Arabs carrying out a “cataclysmic conflict.” Baer warned of the need to protect Christians from a predictable onslaught by Sunni extremists – an onslaught now playing out against Syria’s 10% Christian population, according to the LA Times’ “Church fears ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Christians in Homs, Syria,” (6) and more recently in USA Today’s distorted, but still telling, “Christians in Syria live in uneasy alliance with Assad, Alawites.” (7)
Christians are not the only minorities being targeted by the US-Israeli-Saudi terrorist front, but all minorities are as is secularism itself, being systematically targeted, as is the case after the NATO-backed dismemberment of Libya. (8)
As the US State Department, and the US representative to the UN, Susan Rice attempt to portray terrorist violence in Syria as the fault of Syria’s government for not yielding to “international” demands – we must remember that while they are absolutely correct – it is not because the Syrian government has reaped the consequences of inciting its own people into violence, but is instead suffering the consequences of disobeying foreign interests who have at their disposal a vast terrorist army they have been preparing for years – designed solely to undermine and depose the Syrian and Iranian governments.
Syria’s UN Ambassador Bashar Jaafari told the UN Security Council on Thursday that suicide bombers who struck Damascus and killed more than 50 people came from countries “well known” to the international community, dpa reported.
Jaafari did not name the countries in an address delivered to the 15-nation council, which was meeting on international terrorism. But he had been accusing Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and also al Qaeda, for assisting the armed opposition in Syria.
Jaafari said the twin bombings in Damascus killed 56 people, wounded 372 others and at least 50 people were still unaccounted for.
“Syria expects the UN Security Council to clearly and strongly condemn these cowardly acts,” Jaafari said.
Syria envoy says British, French, Belgian fighters killed
UNITED NATIONS — Syria’s UN envoy said Thursday that British, French and Belgian nationals were among foreign fighters killed in the country’s mounting conflict and that there was Al-Qaeda involvement.
The ambassador, Bashar Jaafari, told the UN Security Council that 12 foreign fighters had been killed and 26 detained in recent clashes with Syrian forces.
“We have a list that contains 12 names of foreign terrorists killed in Syria, including one French citizen, one British citizen, one Belgian citizen,” Jaafari told the 15-member council.
He said a list of the 26 foreigners detained had been sent to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and to the Security Council.
The 26 have “confessed they are terrorists and entered Syria to carry out terror operations,” he added. Some were “associated” with Al-Qaeda.
The ambassador later told reporters that those detained were mainly Tunisians and Libyans but there was one Palestinian and one Jordanian.
All of the “confessions” have been shown on Syrian television, Jaafari said.
The ambassador said that recent bomb attacks in Syria “carried the stamp of Al-Qaeda methods.”
Jaafari renewed condemnation of Gulf Arab states and Turkey who he accused of backing the foreign fighters and Syrian rebels.
Elias Davidsson is the son of German-Jewish holocaust survivors who migrated to Occupied Palestine.A human rights activist and researcher who has proved that the alleged 19 hijackers were innocent and framed for 9/11, No Evidence Muslims Hijacked Planes 911 Elias Davidsson.
Elias recently visited Iran as part of a peace delegation – and was viciously attacked by Zionists when he got home to Germany! “We were met by a barrage of hateful blogs and thereafter mainstream media attacks, for having met ‘the butcher’ of Teheran who ‘denies the Holocaust’ and threatens to ‘annihilate Israel.’” Sounds like Germany is still being run by nazi types – only now they’re zio-nazis! (And yes, know some of you will say that’s an insult to the Nazis, who at least knew how to run an economy.)
-KB
Report on a visit to Iran
by Elias Davidsson, 6 May 2012
Between 19 and 29 April 2012, I had the opportunity and pleasure to visit the Islamic Republic of Iran with a group of 15 German intellectuals. I will attempt to summarize my numerous impressions.
Preparations
In 2011 I was invited by Dr. Yavuz Özuguz (the tall person with the gray beard) , who manages the Muslim website Islam-Market and leads a local Shi’a community in North Germany, to participate in a trip to Iran he intended to organize. For the first time, Dr Özuguz intended to organize a trip to Iran by a group of non-Muslims whom he knew to be committed to justice and peace. An Iranian NGO would host us but we had to pay our airfare.
At that time I was already aware that what Western mass-media reported about Iran was tendencious and partly untrue. I knew that Iran was a relatively modern state which emphasizes education and science; in which the majority of university students are female; where the largest Jewish community in the Middle-East (outside Israel) lives, and where excellent films are produced. I was also aware that Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (in the center of the photograph) was neither an antisemite, a Holocaust denier or a dangerous person, but – as I discovered by reading his addresses to the General Assembly of the United Nations – one of the most progressive statesmen in today’s world. I also was aware of the accusations leveled by Western governments and NGOs against Iran, particularly in the field of human rights. It was obvious to me that if I were to accept the invitation to Iran, Iran’s enemies would tar me after my return as a friend of an “antisemitic dictator” who endangers world peace. I decided nevertheless to accept this invitation.
Before we left, we were invited over refreshments and food to the home of Dr. Özuguz, who introduced us to Shi’a Islam and to the country and people of Iran. This meeting provided me with the opportunity to meet him and his lovely family as well as my travel companions, some of whom I had already known through email contacts. This coming-together was by itself an unforgettable event for me, due mainly to the warm personality and friendliness of our hosts.
The trip
On April 19, 2012 we all met at the Hamburg airport. After an unexpected customs check, in which German officials searched in our handbags for “secret technological documents” that might have violated Germany’s embargo against Iran, we embarked and enjoyed a trip with Iran Air.
After our arrival at Imam Khomeini airport outside Teheran in the late evening, a delegation of our hosts met us and invited us to refreshments before bringing us to a luxurious hotel. The personnel from the host organisation, Ebn Sina, accompanied us throughout the visit in Iran and tried to accommodate all our wishes as much as they could. Without their diligent organisation, we could not have managed to accomplish all we did within 9 days.
It is, evidently, impossible to get a thorough impression of a country such as Iran in 9 days. It would require more than one lifetime to do so, if at all. Our hosts were, of course, committed to show us only what they considered as valuable. To learn about the down side of Iran there was no need to travel. It would have sufficed to read Western newspapers, which systematically vilify and demonize the Islamic Republic and its leaders.
On the way from the airport to the hotel we experienced our first impressions. All of us were surprised by the modern infrastructure we perceived along the way and the cleanliness of the streets. Although past midnight, traffic was heavy. These sights unwittingly called forth in my memory the first trip I made to the USA in 1960. Arriving to New York, I was so shocked by the shabbiness and dirt that I saw from the bus bringing us to Manhattan that I wanted to return immediately to Europe. The contrast to Tehran 2012 could not be greater.
I find it difficult to summarize my Iran impressions in the requisite compactness. A mere listing of our meetings, visits and lectures would not communicate the depth of these impressions. A couple of my co-travelers wrote an essay about their impression they entitled “The land of love”. That designation was prompted by the fact that the word “love” was repeatedly pronounced by those whom we met. They did not use that word in the commercial sense as abused by Western business nor in the hypocritical sense used by numerous christian preachers, but in relation to Iran’s policies. Who would dream that Western politicians would talk of God’s grace and the love of God to justify their worldly policies? Everywere we went, we encountered friendliness, hospitality and thoughtfulness. Iranians are indeed known for their high regards for politeness and thoughtfulness.
Our hosts of the Foundation Ebn Sina emphasized repeatedly the Islamic character of Iran. As most of us were secular people, such emphasis was rather obnoxious. But it would be unfair to blame our hosts for their insistence because it impossible to understand today’s Iran without considering its religious basis and knowing something about Shi’a Islam. We also found out that numerous Iranians found the constant barrage of religious messages, as well as the quasi obligatory hijab that all women in Iran carry, highly irritating. I am certain that if the authorities would lift the rule on the hijab, the majority of women would stop wearing it. Nevertheless, a substantial portion of the Iranian people is deeply religious and would probably not accept the secularization of the regime in the near future. Religion plays a major role in the daily lives of millions of Iranians and will probably do so for the foreseeable future. Shi’ite Islam, as practiced in Iran, combines piety with the promotion of scientific knowledge, as reflected in the high standards of education. Many of those we met and who have not lived in the West could not fathom that most of us were non-believers.
Our hosts attempted to acquaint us with Shi’ite Islam, partly by emphasizing its links to Christianiany. Thus, an Islamic scholar, Ayatollah al-Shirazi, emphasized in a lecture he made the role of Mary, Jesus’ mother, who is revered as much as Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet Mohamed. Equally were Jewish prophets presented as part of Muslim heritage and deserving respect. Our hosts appear to have believed that we needed to be reminded, again and again, that Islam was not an enemy of Judaism and Christianity.
One lecturer explained to us the principle of Imamat, namely the attributes a person must possess in order to be eligible to become an imam. Some of these attributes were specifically Islamic while 8-10 of these attributes did not relate to religious beliefs and were thus applicable to any person. Among such attributes were superior knowledge of statescraft, wisdom, steadfastness, modesty, honesty, courage and the love of human beings. Indeed, the highest office holder in Iran, Imam Khameini, is legally required to lead an austere life. How would politics look in the West if office holders were required to demonstrate such qualities?
After the death of Imam Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution, an expert commission of 85 Islamic scholars (elected by the population) elected his successor, Imam Syyed Ali Khameini, who is currently the supreme spiritual leader in Iran. This commission’s mandate is also to monitor the Supreme Leader and ensure that he abides by Islamic law. In parallel, the population elects the parliament and the president in direct, secret, elections.
Unique to Iran are the prerogatives of the Supreme Spiritual Leader. According to the Constitution, he is not only the spiritual leader of the nation and thus represents, as it were, the spirit of the Prophet (Mohammad) but represents the supreme commander of the Iranian armed forces. Thus, his statements on war and peace possess greater weight than even those of the President. His position on nuclear weapons is unequivocal. He repeatedly stated that Iran will not and cannot acquire nuclear weapons because these are inhuman and incompatible with the principles of Islam. He in parallel called for the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle-East, an appeal rejected mainly by the State of Israel and its western backers. Finally, he urged the states of the world to work for the total abolition of weapons of mass-destruction, a call rejected by NATO member states. Western media do not relish to report these facts, preferring to promote distrust and hate against the Iranian leadership. Enemies of Iran have a hard time to believe that Imam Khameini is honest and bound by religious and ethical norms because they themselves do not consider ethical and religious norms as binding.
We visited also the grandiose Iranian parliament (Majlees), where we attended a noisy debate about the status of teachers and met a few members of parliament for a short exchange. Among them were MPs representing the Jewish, Christian, Sunnite and Zoroastrian communities. According to the Iranian constitution, each of these minorities is entitled to at least one member in parliament.
One of the highlights in Iran was for me the visit to the National Library. Apart from the exquisite architecture of the building, its spaciousness and friendly athmosphere, I was highly impressed by the modern facilities offered to the users, including for the blind, facilities seldom found even in European university libraries. The library houses over 1.5 million books, a huge collection of old manuscripts, mostly in Farsi (Persian) and innumerable scientific journals published in Farsi. Glancing over the English titles of articles published in these journals, I found that the level of inquiry in Iranian social and physical sciences was as high as anywhere in the West.
Our hosts surprised us by organizing an audience with Iran’s President, Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. After making what amounted to a philosophical lecture (unfortunately badly translated), he spent a few minutes talking to our group. His demeanor confirmed his known modesty and moderation. Even when he mentioned in his lecture the threats and attacks leveled by the United States and Israel against his country, he never demonstrated any hatred or anger towards those countries or their peoples.
Elias Davidsson
I did not manage to inquire sufficiently about social and economic policies nor about the situation of human rights. We had, however, an opportunity to meet the President’s advisor for women’s affairs. She informed us about family and inheritance rights, and dispelled some wrong ideas that we had about Islamic family law. According to her, there exist in Iran approximately 8,000 women’s associations (NGOs), organized into several national federations. These networks consult the President’s advisor with regard to families’, women’s and children issues. It became apparent to me that Iranian women do not need the motherly assistance of their “emancipated” Western sisters to defend their rights. Their self-confidence convinced me that they are capable to defend their rights, thank you very much.
We were told that the working week in Iran is 30 hours and that women and men receive equal salaries for equal work. If this is really the case (something we had no time to have confirmed), Iran would be in advance over Western countries in this matter.
An interesting insight into Islamic criminal law emerged as a result of my question regarding the death penalty. As an opponent of the death penalty I expressed my concern regarding the number of death sentences in Iran. What I did not know is that most death sentences in Iran are not carried out because the families of the victims (or the victims themselves in cases such as rape or assault) can and do “forgive” the attacker. According to Islamic law, judges are bound to suggest to the victims or their representatives to “forgive” the defendant, rather to demand a revenge (punishment). Victims or their representatives are not, however, obliged to forgive and can insist that the sentence, whichever it is, be carried out according to the principle “eye-for-eye”. By that mechanism, victims or their families, take upon themselves the psychological burden of deciding the fate of the defendant. This system may explain why many prefer forgiveness to revenge.
When the Security Council of the United Nations imposed in August 1990 economic sanctions against Iraq, it caused almost immediately food shortages in the country. The reason was that Iraq at the time imported 70 percent of its food needs, a great deal from the United States. The Islamic Republic of Iran avoided such vulnerability: Iran produces most of its own foodstuffs and most medicines. It also encourages industrial production to reduce imports, domestic scientific research and technological innovation. Today Iran not only produces a substantial portion of its own motor vehicles but develops space technology, biotechnology and nanotechnology.
Does a scientifically developed Iran represents a threat to world peace? Enemies of Iran, including the Zionists, do not tire to demonize the Islamic Republic, accusing it of evil intentions. It is difficult to know whether such accusations are based on lack of knowledge or on malice. One fact is undisputed. Contrary to the United States and Israel, whose history of aggressive wars is well documented, Iran has not attacked any country for centuries. There is no basis for imputing to Iran aggressive intentions. Iran’s leaders are led by a religion of peace and by the wish to share their faith with others.
The political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran is in some respects unique in this world. It can be regarded – with some reservations – as an experiment following the theology of liberation that was so opposed by the Vatican. The Islamic revolution is celebrated by many Muslims in a similar way as communists celebrate the October 1917 revolution, namely as an act of liberation from oppression. The Iranian revolution is, however, only 33 years of age and can either mature or disintegrate. The Iranian leadership are still groping with internal and external challenges and are, as any human beings, fallible. They attempt to maintain the revolutionary zeal, prevent corrupting influences from the imperialist countries, fend off foreign attempts at destabilisation, and ensure the well-being of the population. It is easy for Westerners to criticize the Islamic Republic for some of its oppressive policies. It must be remembered that Western democracies have evolved over centuries to what they are today and still cannot be regarded as democratic or socially just. Iran must be left in peace to find its own way. The people of Iran are well educated and can be relied to ensure their own future without the help of foreign invaders. Western countries, whose history comprises the enslavement of African people, the extermination of the North American natives, and two world wars, should learn some humility before lecturing Iran.
I ask myself what are the deep reasons for the West’s alleged fear from Iran. Is it because Iran attempts to free itself from the grip of global capital or represents a thriving alternative to wild capitalism, an alternative that might appear attractive to more nations and endanger the imperialist system? I should at this point add that no one we talked to in Iran believed that his or her country will be attacked by Israel or the United States. We found no fear, panic or concern among Iranians. They are all busy with their lives. Construction can be observed everywhere. Real estate prices have increased dramatically in recent years because of high demand. Tourists are most welcome and can look forward to excellent accommodations and an extremely hospitable population. Photographing is allowed virtually everywhere – with the evident exception of military and security installations. Those who claim Iran is a totalitarian state should visit that country and find out by themselves whether such a designation is appropriate.
For a humanist such as myself, Iran was a real discovery. I would gladly visit the country again, for a longer time, visit musicians (I am a composer), enjoy the exquisite sights and air of Isfahan (one of the most beautiful cities I ever visited), and stroll among the friendly crowds. I pray and hope that Western governments will recognize the futility of coercing, threatening or attacking Iran, lift the ineffectual and self-defeating embargo on that country and build up a fruitful cultural and economic cooperation with the Iranian people
Top Saudi religious figure blames Muslim sinfulness for instability taking hold of Arab world
ed note–argumentatively-speaking, this is akin to saying that ‘germs cause disease’ without giving any further context.
No, the reason there is unrest in the Middle East is because interested outside players such as Israel and the US, along with the political AND RELIGIOUS leadership of these countries have colluded to bring oppression, instability and chaos.
The ‘sin’ he is discussing here is not that of the people, but rather of the aforementioned interested parties.
Saudi Arabia’s top religious official has blamed Muslim sinfulness for instability in the Middle East, where pro-democracy unrest has toppled four heads of state.
“The schism, instability, the malfunctioning of security and the breakdown of unity that Islamic countries are facing these days is a result of the sins of the public and their transgressions,” Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz Al al-Sheikh was quoted as saying by al-Watan newspaper.
In a Friday sermon, he accused “chaotic” people of wearing the mask of “democracy and equality” for actions leading to injustice and instability within the Ummah, or Muslim nation.
Revolts that erupted last year have removed Arab autocrats in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen and are still raging in Syria and Bahrain. They gave voice to millions of people who suffered decades of repression but have alarmed Gulf Arab rulers.
Ties between Riyadh and Cairo were strained by the fall of President Hosni Mubarak, a close Saudi ally, and by the rising power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, an organization viewed with suspicion by many Gulf governments.
On Friday an Egyptian delegation visited Saudi King Abdullah to smooth a spat caused by protests at the Saudi embassy in Cairo, which had led to the recall of the Saudi ambassador. The king later ordered the envoy back Cairo and the embassy said he would return on Saturday.
Last month, the grand mufti was criticized after international media quoted him as saying all churches in the Arabian Peninsula should be destroyed, angering Christian bishops in Austria, Germany, and Russia. The comments could not be verified by Saudi officials.
Enormously popular, extremist Saudi clerics are promoting hatred, violence, and intolerance on Facebook and Twitter. Can they be stopped?
BY JONATHAN SCHANZER, STEVEN L. MILLER
Despite assurances from the Saudi government that it is cracking down on religious radicalism, the kingdom’s top clerics continue calling for attacks on Christians across the Arab world. And in the Internet age, these voices of hate have been handed a larger megaphone than ever before.
You don’t have to look hard to find examples of religious intolerance emanating from the very top of the Saudi religious hierarchy. On a visit to Kuwait in March, Saudi Arabia’s grand mufti, Abdulaziz al-Sheikh,told the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society — which has been designated as a “specially designated global terrorist” entity by theUnited States and the United Nations for arming and financing al Qaeda — that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches in the Arabian Peninsula.” And there’s more where that came from. The mufti also believes that proponents of women’s rights are “advocates of evil and misguidance.”
These sentiments are particularly troubling as Saudi clerics flock to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and mobile apps to amplify their messages. Despite Saudi religious figures’ historical opposition to modern technologies, they now see online social media as a crucial means of communicating with the Saudi public and the Muslim world. The top three Saudi clerics on Twitter –Salman al-Odah,Mohamad al-Arefe, and Aidh al-Qarnee – all have well over 1 million followers.
To put this in perspective, Arefe’s 1.5 million Twitter followers rival the number who follow football phenom Tim Tebow. Tebow’s religious messaging may be controversial, but Arefe has him beat. In a July 2010 sermon, Arefe declared, “The desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of his religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer.”
Qarnee spews similar invective. Shortly after Israel and Hamas completed the prisoner swap for Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit in October 2011, Qarnee rushed to the defense of a fellow Saudi cleric who offered $100,000 to any Palestinian who could capture another Israeli soldier. Qarnee lauded “all who struggle with their tongue, their money, their blood, or their knowledge [against] the Zionist entity.”
This is just a taste of the messaging we sampled in our six-monthstudy, conducted from Jan. 1 to June 30, 2011, to learn what these clerics are saying online and how they spread their messages.
With the help of ConStrat, a Washington-based technology company, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies collected and analyzed more than 40,000 social media entries in both English and Arabic. ConStrat’s researchers combed through the online data, which included content Saudi clerics posted personally, as well as content referencing the Saudi clerical establishment. ConStrat then assigned a sentiment to each post and flagged them by topic to help us better digest the large amount of data.
Alarmingly, of the thousands of messages ConStrat scored, 75 percent could be described as xenophobic, bigoted, or openly hateful. Some Saudi clerics like Abdul Rahman al-Sudais, head imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, still describe Jews as “sons of monkeys and pigs.” Saleh al-Fawzan of the Council of Senior Ulema (CSU) ruledthat fathers may arrange marriages for their daughters “even if they are in the cradle.” And the Permanent Committee for Research and Ifta, one of the kingdom’s highest religious bodies, suggested in December 2011 that repealing the Saudi ban on female driving could “provoke a surge in prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, and divorce,” predicting that in 10 years, there would be “no more virgins.”
Calls for violence accounted for only a small percentage of our total content — less than 5 percent — though such messages are still getting out. This appears to be the direct result of the Saudi crackdown on “deviant” ideologies after the 9/11 attacks. Since then, clerics have adapted and found ways to promote intolerance without running afoul of Riyadh. But not every cleric understands the state’s red lines, and some have paid the price for crossing them. In September 2008, Saleh al-Luhaidan, another CSU cleric, declared it “morally permissible” to kill the owners of satellite television channels that promoted “moral depravity.” To the monarchy, the statement was beyond the pale, and King Abdullahfired Luhaidan from his position as chief judge of the Saudi Supreme Judicial Council.
To put it mildly, Saudi Arabia has never been known for freedom of speech and assembly. But now the kingdom faces an even tougher challenge — balancing greater freedom of expression with the need to counter extremist and hateful language. As social networks have enabled clerics to disseminate their radical Wahhabi sentiments more widely, the monarchy is now trying to temper the views it once promoted.
The Saudis endured three major confrontations with religious figures in the 20thcentury alone. In the 1920s, Islamist maraudersrebelled against the state, leading to a 10-month battle for control of the Saudi state. In 1979, a violent group of Salafi separatists seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca. And in the early 1990s, the Sahwa (Awakening)clerics denounced the U.S. military presence in the Gulf and demanded a more Islamic government. Indeed, this was a message that Osama bin Laden leveraged to build support for his nascent al Qaeda network.
In all those situations, Riyadh successfully quelled dissent by co-opting its challengers or crushing them through harsher measures. In co-opting the radicals, the regime embraced their dangerous worldview, but carefully channeled it elsewhere, “exporting” radicalism abroad. This approach worked, but only to a point. Indeed, extremists re-emerged within the kingdom in each instance to challenge the regime again.
Saudi Arabia, like the rest of the Arab world, confronts a new, rapidly changing political environment. For decades, the Saudi state has attempted to cater to radical elements of the religious establishment while also placating Washington’s demands for moderation and reform. This balancing act is now more difficult than ever, however, due to the clerics’ use of social media and growing demands for change.
For Washington, the challenge is to ensure that the Saudis keep social media free from draconian censorship while simultaneously ensuring that the radicals who employ it cannot threaten international security. But with radical clerics gaining Twitter and Facebook followers at eye-popping rates, it won’t be easy.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (L) meets with Slovenian President Danilo Turk, Ljubljana,
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan says Ankara is ready to ask NATO for a military intervention in Syria, Press TV reports.
“I am ready to ask NATO for a military intervention in Syria,” Erdogan was quoted as saying on Monday.
The Turkish premier made the remarks in an interview with Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera in the Slovenian capital, Ljubljana, prior to his trip to Italy. He met with Slovenian President Danilo Turk in Ljubljana on Monday.
Erdogan also stated that the turmoil in Syria has to be brought to an end with the cooperation of international powers.
“We have been very patient with Syria issue so far,” he claimed.
The Monday remarks by the Turkish prime minister came as Syria held the first parliamentary elections under a new constitution approved by an overwhelming support of the people in a February referendum.
On May 6, Erdogan also expressed Turkey’s support for the Syrians seeking refuge in Turkey during a meeting of his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) in the southern Turkish city of Gaziantep near the Syrian border.
Over the past few months, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar expressed support for providing weaponry to the armed groups fighting against the Syrian government.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu claimed on March 3 that the “international community’s message might be conveyed to the Syrian administration via certain methods including the arming of the Syrian National Council (SNC).”
On April 8, the Syrian Foreign Ministry said UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan had not “submitted written guarantees from the governments of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey on stopping their funding to terrorist groups.”
“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. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.” - page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
As if to alleviate any lingering doubts, NATO’s “Alliance News Blog” has confirmed that the US is committed not to “peace,” but rather to the overthrow of Syria’s government and is “already committed to helping [President Bashar al-Assad] fall,” but is “merely looking for the least violent, lowest cost way to get there.”
Image:NATO’s official “Alliance News Blog proudly reports that the US is already committed to helping “Assad fall” and is simply using the lull in fighting brought on by Kofi Annan’s disingenuous “peace plan” to rearm, reorganize, and redeploy their terrorist proxy forces against Assad. The op-ed featured on NATO’s blog was featured in the LA Times and written by CFR member Doyle McManus. (click image to enlarge)
And now, the Brookings Institution itself has predictably declared the Annan “peace deal” a failure and states that the time to “stretch” Syria’s military to the breaking point through expanded foreign-backed unrest has come. In an article titled, “Annan’s Mission Impossible: Why is everyone pretending that the U.N. plan in Syria has a prayer of suceeding?” Brookings Doha Center director Salman Shaikh insults the intelligence of his readership while handing out useful talking points surely to be parroted by the corporate-media over the next few days and weeks. Shaikh depicts the ceasefire’s failure as solely the result of the Syrian government’s belligerence and brutality, while mentioning nothing of the Syrian opposition’s documented and even admitted atrocities.
Video: Michael Weissof the Neo-Con “Henry Jackson Society,” openly admits that diplomatic options are being paraded publicly to satisfy public opinion, but ultimately NATO plans to unilaterally intervene militarily in Syria, and will do so with the UN’s purposefully sabotaged “humanitarian operation” as its pretext.
And while portraying the Syrian government as irrationally carrying out a campaign of brutality against the Syrian people, Shaikh admits that the “Free Syrian Army” is operating militarily out of Turkey and that the Syrian National Council (SNC) represents foreign harbored and influenced leadership. While Shaikh portrays Syria’s minorities as “on the sideline,” he declines from explaining why they have not joined the foreign-driven unrest. In reality, these groups have been the hardest hit by rebel atrocities, including Syria’s large Christian communities.
Image: Christians in Syria have been particularly hit hard by what is being described as “ethnic cleansing,” not by Syrian security forces, but by NATO-backed death squads under the banner of the “Free Syrian Army.” The LA Times has been quietly reporting on the tragedy of Syria’s minorities at the hands of the Syrian rebels for months – and indicates that wider genocide will take place,just as it is now in Libya, should Syria’s government collapse under foreign pressure.
Shaikh’s shoddy salesmanship also reveals another truth – when he claims that “opposition leaders inside and outside the country do not have the resources to unite their ranks alone.” Surely any opposition group that represented the vast majority of the Syrian people, as the UN and the corporate-media claim daily, would not have trouble finding the resources inside of Syria “alone.” In reality, the unrest in Syria is driven by a foreign-backed violent minority, carried out by a combination of violent Sunni-extremists from Syria and many foreign fighters brought in from abroad. Many of Syria’s real oppositionfind the “Free Syrian Army’s” collaboration with foreigners “unacceptable.”
NATO and its proxies’ efforts have failed primarily because the movement’s semi-covert foreign backing is still not enough to turn the tide, and more overt backing is needed, including foreign military intervention. Shaikh’s entire argument hinges on the creation of a “genuine grand opposition coalition ” that currently, admittedly, does not exist.
As the Brookings Institution prepares the next stage of its premeditated escalation against the sovereign nation-state of Syria, and continues framing the violence as one-sided, a torrent of report seven from the corporate media itselfconfirms what many geopolitical analysts have been saying for over a year – that the “Free Syrian Army” is conducting a vicious campaign of terrorism leaving Syrian security forces no choice but to continue fighting on to restore order.
In fact, just today, Wednesday May 9, 2012,Syrian rebels attempted to attack a convoy consisting of Kofi Annan’s UN monitors. France inexplicably then blamed the Syrian government for not providing adequate security for the UN monitors, after a year of condemning the government for attempting to restore order in the face of the very growing militant violence the attacks resulted from. And in recent weeks, everything from Human Rights Watch reports, toopen admissions from the rebels themselves confirm that they are committing widespread human rights abuses and turning toward indiscriminate bombing tactics. This indicates a threat Syria’s government would be remiss not to counter – and surely a threat the “international community” would be remiss to continue supporting, funding, and even arming.
Now a concerted effort will be made to sabotage the UN peace plan in every shape, form, and manner, especially through increased violence and particularly in cross-border incidents to help sell NATO-backed, Turkey-led incursions into Syria to carve out “safe havens.” From there a steady stream of weapons and fighters from around the world will be funneled in, in an attempt to, as Brookings Shaikh puts it, stretch Syria’s forces “to a breaking point.”
Image: The cover of theCFR’s flattering report on US-Turkey relations, full of empty promises to entice Turkish leaders into falling on their swords for Western ambitions across the Middle East. And of course, the report is written in the context of what Turkey can do for the US in terms of Syria and Iran in particular.Pro-genocide Madeleine Albrightchaired the “task force” that produced the report.
To help convince Turkey to “take the plunge” for NATO, the Council on Foreign Relations has recently published a report attempting to flesh out an improved alliance between the US and Turkey – claiming the new relationship would trump the potential for US cooperation with any BRICS nation(except perhaps India). This patronizing political stunt attempts to fill Turkish leaders with delusions of grandeur, tempting them with “goodies” ahead of falling on their swords for Wall Street and London’s ambitions in Syria and Iran. Turkish leaders might reassess such grandiose claims and remember BRICS’ growth and benefits are based on solidarity and production, avoiding “alliances” with Wall Street, London, and their institutions, while conversely, Wall Street and London’s “benefits” are based on domination, exploitation, betrayal, and unsustainable pyramid schemes.
Syria’s fate rests on both Syria and its allies’ ability to produce a tactical reality on the ground that would make any foreign military incursion a disaster. It also depends on either Turkey’s wisdom or foolishness in considering the elementary ploy and poisoned “goodies” the West is dangling in front of it in exchange for complicity in dividing and destroying neighboring Syria.
The corporate-financiers centered around the capitals of the West have committed to a global war aimed at permanently destroying nation-states and replacing them with a homogeneous administrative system built out of Wall Street and London-funded NGOs, interlocking with the West’s contrived “international institutions.” It is in essence, a World War, currently being foughtwith 4th generation warfare to build a neo-imperial global government. With overt efforts to destabilize nations around the world, including Russia and China, the West’s hand is revealed and there is no turning back.
The only hope of stopping disaster if either the corporate-financiers succeed or fail (thus turning in and feeding on itself), is to recognize their source of power, and begin undermining it on a daily basis through bothboycotting their goods and services, while simultaneously replacing their corporations and institutions with local, genuine alternatives. Syria may seem like an isolated conflict, but is in reality linked to us directly, regardless of where we live. Either we live in a nation that will be next, or a nation who will be further crushed under the hubris, power, and arrogance of an empowered Wall Street and London elite.
Western attempts to destroy Syria have not been going to plan, revealing that what the West fears most is a peaceful resolution to the crisis
By Dan Glazebrook
The strategy was simple, clear, tried and tested. It had been used successfully not only against Libya, but also Kosovo (in 1999), and was rapidly underway in Syria. It was to run as follows: train proxies to launch armed provocations; label the state’s response to these provocations as genocide; intimidate the UN Security Council into agreeing that “something must be done”; incinerate the army and any other resistance with fragmentation bombs and Hellfire missiles; and finally install a weak, compliant government to sign off new contracts and alliances drawn up in London, Paris and Washington, whilst the country tore itself apart.
Result: the heart torn out of the “axis of resistance” between Iran, Syria and Hizbullah, leaving Iran isolated and the West with a free hand to attack Iran without fear of regional repercussions.
This was to be Syria’s fate, drawn up years ago in the high- level planning committees of US, British and French defence departments and intelligence services. But this time, unlike in Libya, it has not all gone according to plan.
First, there was Russia and China’s veto of the “regime change” resolution at the UN Security Council in October 2011, followed by a second veto in February of this year. This meant that any NATO attack on Syria would be denied the figleaf of UN approval, and seen instead as a unilateral act of aggression not just against Syria, but potentially also against China and Russia as well.
Vicious and reckless as they are, even Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama do not necessarily have the stomach for that kind of a fight. That left the burden of destroying the Syrian state to NATO’s proxy forces on the ground, the “Free Syrian Army” — a collection of domestic and (increasingly) foreign militias, mostly ultra-sectarian Salafi extremists, along with a smattering of defectors and Western special forces.
However, this army was not created actually to defeat the Syrian state; that was always supposed to be NATO’s job. As in Libya, the role of the militias was simply to provoke reprisals from the state in order to justify a NATO blitzkrieg. Left to their own devices, they have no chance of gaining power militarily, as many in the opposition realise.
“We don’t believe the Free Syrian Army is a project that can help the Syrian revolution,” said leader of the internal Syrian resistance movement Haitham Al-Manna, recently. “We don’t have an example of where an armed struggle against a dictatorial regime has won.” Of course, one could cite Cuba, South Vietnam, and many others, but what is certainly true is that internal armed struggle alone has never succeeded when the government is the only party in the struggle with any significant mass support, as is the case in Syria.
This reality was brutally driven home in early March in the decisive battle for the Baba Amr district of Homs. This was supposedly one of the Free Syrian Army’s strongholds, yet they were roundly defeated, leaving them facing the prospect of similar defeats in their last few remaining territories as well. The opposition groups are becoming increasingly aware that their best chance of meaningful change is not through a military fight that they will almost certainly lose, and which will get them killed in the process, along with their losing their support and credibility, but through negotiations and participation in the reform process and the dialogue that the government has offered.
This prospect — of an end to the civil war and a negotiated peace that brings about a reform process without destabilising the country — has led to desperation amongst the imperialist powers. Despite their claims to the contrary, a stable Syrian-led process is the last thing they want, as it leaves open the possibility of Syria remaining a strong, independent, anti-imperialist state — exactly the possibility they had sought to eliminate.
Hence, within days of Kofi Anan’s peace plan gaining a positive response from both sides in late March, the imperialist powers openly pledged, for the first time, millions of dollars for the Free Syrian Army: for military equipment, to provide salaries to its soldiers, and to bribe government forces to defect. In other words, terrified that the civil war in Syria is starting to die down, they are setting about institutionalising it. If violent regime change is starting to look unlikely, the hope instead is to keep the country weak and on its knees by sucking its energy into an ongoing civil war.
At the risk of making the opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) appear even more out of touch with ordinary Syrians than it does already, its Western backers have increased the pressure on it to fall into line with this strategy, leading to open calls from the SNC leadership for both the full-scale arming of the rebellion and for aerial bombardment from the West.
This has caused huge rifts in the organisation, with three leading members defecting last month, because they did not want to be “accomplices in the massacre of the Syrian people through delaying, cheating, lies, one-upmanship and monopolisation of decision-making.” The SNC, according to one of the three, Kamal Al-Labwani, is “linked to foreign agendas that aim to prolong the battle while waiting… for the country to be dragged into a civil war.”
This month, one of the few SNC leaders actually based in Syria, Riad Turk, called on the opposition to accept the Anan peace plan, “stop the bloodshed” and enter into dialogue with the government — a call not echoed by his fellow SNC colleagues abroad. Likewise, the main peaceful opposition grouping within Syria — the National Coordinating Committee — has fallen out with the SNC over the latter’s increasingly belligerent role as a mouthpiece of foreign powers.
NCC leader Al-Manna spoke out against the Free Syrian Army recently, saying “the militarisation of the Syrian revolution signifies the death of the internal revolution…We know that the Turkish government is playing an important role in the political decisions of the Free Syrian Army. We don’t believe that an armed group can be on Turkish territory and remain independent of Turkish decisions.”
So, there is a growing perception, even amongst the Syrian opposition movement itself, that both the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Council are working in the interests of foreign powers to prolong a pointless civil war.
Western policy-makers are playing a dangerous game. Short of a NATO attack, their best option for the destabilisation and emasculation of Syria is to ensure that the ceasefire fails and the fighting continues. To this end, they are encouraging their proxy militias to step up their provocations: the purpose of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s and French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé’s statements about “other measures” still being on the table is to keep the idea of a NATO attack alive in the heads of the rebels so that they continue to fight.
Indeed, many more foreign fighters have been shipped into the country in recent weeks, according to The Washington Post, and these have been launching devastating bomb attacks in Damascus and Aleppo. US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford is a protégé of John Negroponte, who organised Contra death squads to destabilise Nicaragua in the 1980s; he will almost certainly have been organising similar groups in Syria during his time there last year and for similar purposes.
Nevertheless, the destabilisation agenda is not going according to plan. The internal opposition in Syria is becoming increasingly frustrated with the way things are progressing, and a clear split is emerging between those based outside the country, happy to see Syria consigned to oblivion in order to please their paymasters and further their careers, and those who actually have to live with the consequences.
The reckless attacks carried out by the armed militias are increasingly alienating even those who once had some sympathy for them, especially as their foreign membership and direction is being exposed ever more clearly. Having been proven unable to win and hold territory, these militias are turning to hit- and-run guerrilla tactics. But the guerrilla, as Mao put it, is like a fish that can only survive in a sea of popular support. And that sea is rapidly drying up.
Syria: External opposition boycotted elections and condemn it as a ploy, of course.
For the first time, the Syrian Parliament was elected on the basis of the new Syrian Constitution yesterday. Actually, the Parliamentary elections in Syria should have already taken place in early 2011 after cycle.
Due to the unrest, the elections were repeatedly postponed in Syria, of course. Yesterday, on 07/05/2012, it was now to come: the voters in Syria were able to determine who should receive the 250 available seats in the Syrian Parliament.
For the 250 seats in the Syrian Parliament, of which 127 are reserved for peasants and workers, over 7,000 candidates have advertised for them, including about 700 women. The Candidates were able to either compete in a party list or as individual candidates for the Syrian Parliamentary elections based on the new Constitution yesterday.
Early in the morning, 7:00 am local time, the more than 12,000 polling stations have opened their doors across Syria. Depending on the region in Syria, one can assume that the voter turnout was more or less. Many predicted increasing attacks at the Election Day and they had worries about their safety.
Until now, it seems that there have been no attacks on polling stations in Syria yesterday. However, there were again reports of gunshots and explosions in some regions of the country, especially in the north of Syria. In the so-called strongholds of the unrest in Syria, the most people have probably taken no advantage of the opportunity to elect the new Syrian Parliament.
The polling stations were opened until 22:00 o`clock. The result of the vote count is not yet certain, of course. Many observers assume, however, that the Baath party and six other organizations, from the National Unity List, were able to obtain the majority of votes in Syria.
Of course, the opponents of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the opponents of the Syrian government and also Western media are particularly critical about the Parliamentary elections in Syria. It is sure no surprise that Western media and the dubious Muslim Brotherhood-council, the “Syrian National Council” (SNC), based in Turkey, says that the election was only a feint.
It is also stated that the Baath Party was strengthened in its role while only tame opposition groups are able to obtain some seats in the Syrian Parliament. Others say that these opposition groups called for a boycott of the elections because they know very well that they do not have the majority of Syrians behind them and thus, they would have no chance at such votes.
These people also say that these strange opposition groups have thus prevented that the final results of the Parliamentary elections confirm that they are worthless for the Syrian people and that the Syrian population condemns the violence and bloodshed by the “opposition forces” like the radical “Free Syrian Army” (FSA).
That the external “Syrian opposition” was not approved by the Syrian government to take part in these votes is understandable and every Western government would act the same way in a similar situation. These foreign forces declined the elections from the beginning and called for a boycott.
For example, the dubious “Syrian National Council” (SNC), in which the majority are Islamists (confirmed by opposition members and also Reuters), were just busy in trying to criticize the scheduled elections in Syria and to discredit it as a farce. Of course, the “Syrian National Council” (SNC) in Istanbul is, at least, also a huge farce.
Until now, there is no serious agenda or future plan for Syria by this questionable “council”. After over a year, they are only able to criticize, without delivering anything good to Syria and for the Syrian population. This Western-backed “Syrian National Council” (SNC), which has a huge support by the Qatari and Saudi regime, is already responsible for a lot of civilian victims in Syria and has no huge support within the country.
The heads of this “Syrian National Council” (SNC) became puppets of dubious intentions and questionable interests and are only keen on increasing their influence and power in Syria. At least, people like Ghalioun (was “elected” by the Muslim Brotherhood for this “job”) are not better than the Syrian regime / government. Thus, it is understandable that they have no real support within Syria and only try to sell this imagination since a long time.
The Western mass media is a benevolent customer for false information, propaganda and fakes. But it is also to predict, that despite the newly registered political parties and despite the new way of election campaign in Syria, not much will change in this country of the Middle East. Of course, nobody should underestimate the role of foreign governments in the fight against the Syrian President al-Assad and the Syrian government – on whatever level.
The situation within Syria would already be better when Western governments would stop their false games and the financially support for radical opposition groups in and outside Syria. Not to mention the despicable delivery of weapons to religious fanatics, radical opposition fighters and even to Libyan and Iraqi thugs in Syria. This support with weapons and ammo is a violation of the six-point peace plan by Mr. Kofi Annan. It is sure an act which is not in line with the sense of democracy.
Maybe it is the Western design of democracy. This support with ammo and weapons for radical gunmen boosts the bloodshed and violence in Syria. It is far away from being a good method for the ceasefire in this country. No surprise that the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has already said that this delivery of weapons to radical groups in Syria can be assumed as declaration of war against the country.
While delivering weapons and support to radical opposition groups, which have already proven that they also kill and rape Syrian civilians, the West and some Gulf States like Qatar and Saudi Arabia condemn the violations of the ceasefire by the Syrian government – and they only blame the Syrian government, of course.
The Western stance is still one-sided and based on willfully false information and propaganda which is used for propaganda purposes against Syria. The goals of these Gulf States and these Western governments are clear.
The Syrian President, his government, the so-called “Axis of Evil” and some more points are a huge thorn in the eyes of the West and Gulf States like Saudi Arabia. Not to mention that the West, especially America (under pressures of AIPAC and Israel), want to pave the path to Iran. The more destabilized Syria will be the better the way to Iran.
To be honest, not only these strange and dubious opponents of the Syrian President al-Assad have criticized the Parliamentary elections yesterday. Many Syrians expressed their doubts and criticism about the time at which the election is conducted.
Not only the time but also the circumstances are unfavorable for Parliamentary elections in Syria. Also foreign powers are responsible that the times are not very good for elections. How many of the voters have really understood the electoral system? Who knows how many candidates he is allowed to choose?
Who really knows all the new founded parties in Syria since the implementation of the new Syrian Constitution? Who knows about the optional programs of these new parties and who knows some or all individual candidates which were also on the election lists? Are the voters familiar with their programs?
Are the Syrian parties and the individuals, which have really good intentions for Syria and the Syrian population, able to get enough votes and really able to align something during the term of office? It is probably true that, in fact, the young people with real aspirations for a better Syria are the loser, because nobody knows them really and because they were not able to really lead a good campaign before the Parliamentary elections.
But despite all possible objections and doubts, many people have participated in the Parliamentary elections in order to contribute a bit for a better Syria and to push Syria on a new course. It is clear that in all the circumstances and conditions, the problems cannot be overcome overnight. Not to mention the pressure by foreign powers and the armed groups within the country.
Yet there is hope for recovery. The Syrian people want to finally overcome the violence in the country and get back to their normal life. Nobody wants the bomb attacks; nobody wants the language of violence and weapons, implemented by Western-backed armed groups in Syria.
Of course, it is questionable whether new reforms can already be implemented after the election and the reconstitution of the Syrian Parliament. The situation should stabilize first, but some foreign governments are not really interested in a stabilized situation within Syria.
The destabilization of a country is a part of a so-called “regime change” and some foreign powers want to destabilize Syria as much as possible to pave the path for a “regime change” and to pave a path to Iran.
The 300 observers of the United Nations (UN) are till June on location in Syria. These observers should monitor the ceasefire and its implementation. Whether this is really helpful is to question. The last observer mission of the Arab League (AL) was already a bit questionable and the final result of the observers was buried by Qatar, because it had included too much truth about the situation in Syria.
Of course, the United States still warn that the UN mission will end before the deadline of 90 days when the violence continues in Syria. But the U.S. administration does not speak about the fact that they meanwhile support radical groups in Syria with funds and weapons. You see, it stinks.
This fact and contradiction does not stop the U.S. administration from speaking about a military intervention in Syria, which would replace the position of the UN observer team when the violence continues. Of course, the United States only condemns the Syrian government, as usually. This one-sided condemnation is useful for propaganda purposes.
Today, a new report by Mr. Kofi Annan on the situation in Syria is expected. Hopefully, the report will not be one-sided, although more and more Syrians have doubts about the real intentions of Kofi Annan.
Mr. Kofi Annan is actually not on location in Syria and thus, it is questionable whether he has actually a real overview of the processes in the country. It would be no surprise when this updated report on the situation in Syria will be again based on false information and fakes by the “external Syrian opposition”.
Remember as you watch this–all we hear about is how the Syrian people are being ‘brutalized’ by Assad. Dittos with Egypt and Libya before the US and Israel got what they wanted and the leaders of these countries were driven from power. Bahrain is allied with the US, and this is the reason (right now) there is no screaming for ‘intervention’ in that country by the JMSM. You don’t see demonstrations in Israel calling for the Bahraini people to be ‘liberated’ by NATO the way we see it for Syria. You don’t Israeli teachers offering to do a ‘fly in’ to protest what is being done in Bahrain.
