Article by the „renowned“ Reuters news agency is embarrassing

I have seldom come along such a garbage pretending to be serious news:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0JA1C220141126?irpc=932

Just some excerpts:
1. „At a desert base, Gulf state Qatar is covertly training moderate Syrian rebels with U.S. help to fight both President Bashar al-Assad and Islamic State“
It´s puzzling that western press still is using the expression „moderate“ as though it has not been proven on several instances that no recipients of western weapons and training among Syrian rebels has ever refused to sell/hand over his weapons to IS/Al-Qaeda (Nusra Front) or even voluntarily join them.

2. „Syrian rebel sources said training in Qatar has included rebels affiliated to the “Free Syrian Army” from northern Syria.“
In case anyone has forgotten it, the FSA from northern Syria is hardly anyone else than the much celebrated „moderates“ from the Syrian Revolutionaries Front (SRF) and the Hazm movement, both of them either openly cooperated with the Nusra Front or let them take their weapons.

3. „Once cleared of links with „terrorist“ factions, they travel to Turkey and are then flown to Doha and driven to the base.“
It would be nice how this kind of „clearance“ is done. As mentioned above, those groups who were considered „vetted moderate rebels“ turned out to work with the beheaders of the Nusra front which has correctly been labelled terrorist by the US state department.

4. „Gulf states dislike the West’s emphasis on fighting Islamic State. Assad is the bigger problem, they say.“
Really? For whom? In how far is Assad a bigger problem or a threat for the Gulf states? How much money and resources did the Gulf states invest in funding, arming, training or even housing Palestinian militias fighting the Israeli occupation?

5. „“The training would last a few months, maybe two or three, and then a new group would be flown in, but no lethal weapons were supplied to them,“ one of the sources said.“
Who is to believe this nonsense? Where do then all the seemingly endless sophisticated long-range anti-tank (ATGMs) weapons come that rebels proudly show in their „success clips“ from Syria?

6. „In recent weeks, the Qataris, disappointed by lack of progress in the fight against Assad, have started to consider training members of the Islamic Front, a coalition of Islamist rebels less militant than Islamic State or the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front, but stronger than the FSA.“
Now, this is the absolute lowlight in an already extremely weak piece: „Islamist rebels less militant than Islamic State or the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front“. How is militancy measured by the way? The „Islamic Front“ includes several Salafi sectarian Islamists like the „Ahrar al Sham“, „Liwa Tauheed“ and the „Jaish al Islam“ (Islamic Army). They have both cooperated with IS and the Nusra front, among others during the infamous attack on Adra where they beheaded government supporters and threw people into baking ovens:
http://rt.com/news/russia-condemns-adra-massacre-406/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/12/us-syria-crisis-adra-idUSBRE9BB0PM20131212

 

Saudi Arabia wants to export its Wahhabi cancer to Kosovo

Saudi Arabias Wahhabism, a minority branch of Sunni Islam, has already infected several countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and even parts of Egypt, Lebanon, Libya and Tunisia to name some places where this violent and highly sectarian ideology is behind a wave of bombings and beheading.

While there might be minor theoretical differences Wahhabis and Salafis are the fathers of jihadism and takfirism. Both are highly self-righteous narcissistic and supremacist ideologies that easily name others including Sunni muslims „infidels“ or „apostates“ whose killing is „legitimate“.

Saudi Arabia which is awash in money, is not subject to the slightest sanctions and enjoys superb relations with western countries has freely exported its very radical brand of Islam to places that used to know moderate Islam. Western countries have kept silence in order to not offend one of their major weapons buyers and at the same time the world´s most crucial exporter of petroleum. The same applies to Kuwait and Qatar, two other strongholds and exporters of Wahhabism and fundraisers of terrorism (https://radioyaran.com/2014/11/03/will-qatar-become-part-of-the-axis-of-evil-or-sanctioned-as-rogue-state/).

Now, it seems that Saudi Arabia is extending it´s devastating grip to Kosovo, a European country with a muslim majority that so far has been well known for its tolerant islam:
There is a real threat to the society and the state in Kosovo, where a ‘tolerant’ brand of Islam, which is becoming more and more rare in our world, today prevails. This report sheds light on how Wahhabism is trying to infiltrate the Kosovar society after the war, amid suspicious Western silence that resembles the silence vis-à-vis the Wahhabi infiltration of Syria and Iraq prior to the disaster that befell the two Arab nations.
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/will-kosovo-be-able-confront-takfiri-threat-facing-balkans

Al Qaeda rebels and the „Southern Front“ in Syria

Parts of western and arab press on the one hand and spokespersons of Syrias insurgents on the other hand try to portray the so called „Southern Front“ as the one major „moderate“ faction fighting to topple the Syrian government. They emphasize that this front line which is the only one to witness relevant successes and territorial gains  hardly hosts any al Qaeda or otherwise sectarian militants.

Interestingly though, whenever major attacks on Syrian army positions is under way, the al Nusra is not far:
„Another Syrian province looks set to fall out of Assad government control soon, with al-Qaeda’s Jabhat al-Nusra sending some 2,000 fighters against Ba’ath City and Khan Arnaba, the last towns they yet control in Quneitra Province.“
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/11/20/al-qaeda-attacks-last-syrian-govt-town-along-israeli-frontier/

But al Nusra, which is considered Syrias al Qaeda branch is not the only radical islamist (Salafi) group fighting for the „Southern Front“:
„Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front and other Islamist brigades and rebels fighting under the umbrella of the Western-backed Free Syrian Army, who the US and other allies want to arm and train, currently have “the upper hand in the area,” Abu Yahya al-Anari, a militant from the Ahrar al-Sham rebel group, said.“
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/assad-says-isis-not-out-thin-air-israel-continues-treat-syria-rebels

So far the western mainstream news coverage has successfully covered up the role of Israel, but several reports leaked about Israel shooting down Syrian planes, bombing Syrian bases and military equipment and treating wounded rebels.

Ruling a country as member of a minority

For a long time western media has been highlighting that the Syrian government is „Allawi-led“. Even if this were true: So, what?
Since when and according to which logic should a country be ruled by members of its ethnic or religious majority? Even in truly democratic countries the president or parliament are not elected along ethnic or religious lines. To illustrate the ridiculousness of such thinking we could add two other parameters that describe or define a persons character and personality:
– sexual orientation
– support for football teams
Now, should – according to the „majority logic“ (which is in fact a fallacy) – the German chancellor be lesbian if the majority in Germany were lesbian women?
Or should the British premier be a member or a fan of Manchester United if that team is the most popular football team in England?

The election or appointment of politicians and authorities should be according to competency and skills and not a matter of that persons ethnic or religious background.
So, theoretically the parliament of a country with 90% Shia Arabs could consist of the 10% Sunni Kurds, if the latter are the „best people“ for their various departments and tasks. This is neither undemocratic nor unjust.

The argumentation along ethnic/religious (or other) majorities becomes only relevant under particular circumstances: If namely the minority leadership tries to suppress and discriminate the majority in a systematic way.
An example: Considering the „public share“ (ethnic/religious affiliation) aspect alone, I don´t have a problem with the minority Sunni al Khalifa family ruling Bahrain where the Shia constitute the majority. The issue becomes however an apparent matter of injustice and sectarianism when the Bahraini monarchy naturalizes Sunni Pakistani, Jordanians and others in order to change the demographic balance, integrates these new „Bahrainis“ into the security forces and let them go against the regular Bahrainis who are totally absent from government and army and police.

Putins Isolation

Der Westen, allen voran europäische Medien und Politiker sind bemüht zu betonen, wie einheitlich und systematisch sie Putin isolieren, doch diese demonstrative Zuschaustellung entschlossenen Verhaltens stellt die Europäer insofern bloss, dass das immense Ausmass ihrer Doppelmoral klar wird.

Russland soll für seine Ukraine-Politik „bestraft“ werden. Daher die Isolation Putins doch diese vermeintlich logische Ursache-Wirkung-Kette wirft Fragen auf, die die Europäer in wenig gutem Licht belassen:

1. Warum werden Israel und Netanjahu nicht isoliert, wo doch Israels Besetzung der Westbank, die Blockade und das heftige Bombardement des Gazastreifens und der fortwährende Siedlungsbau auf besetztem Territorium weit tödlicher, verheerender und völkerrechtswidriger sind als die Annexion der Krim.

Erstens war die Krim vor wenigen Jahrzehnten noch Teil Russlands und wurde erst 1954 der Ukraine „übergeben“:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/02/david-ignatius/historical-claim-shows-why-crimea-matters-russia/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/02/27/283481587/crimea-a-gift-to-ukraine-becomes-a-political-flash-point
Zweitens gab es auf der Krim eine Umfrage, in der eine breite Mehrheit den Anschluss an Russland befürwortete. Nichts dergleichen kann über den Gazastreifen und seine Bewohner gesagt werden.

2. Warum „isolierten“ die Europäer nicht die USA und Grossbritannien (bzw. ihre Regierungen) in 2003?
Nach 12 Jahren unmenschlicher Sanktionen, die bis zu einer Million Irakern das Leben kosteten, griffen die USA und Grossbritannien den Irak auf Basis fadenscheiniger Anschuldigungen (Verbindung Iraks zu 9/11) und glatter Lügen (Irakischer Besitz von Massenvernichtungswaffen) an. Hunderttausende Iraker wurden getötet oder verletzt, das ganze Staatswesen zerbrach, Sach- und Infrastrukturschaden in zwei- bis dreistelligem Milliardenwert (USD) wurde angerichtet, über Hunderttausend amerikanische und britische Soldaten besetzten das Land, ein Bürgerkrieg mit bis heute zehntausenden Toten brach in der Folge aus, amerikanische Söldner erschossen unbestraft Einheimische, im Abu Ghuraib-Gefängnis folterten Amerikaner Iraker…
Das amerikanisch-britische Verbrechen im und gegen den Irak mit der russischen Annexion der Ukraine oder der Unterstützung pro-russischer Seperatisten in der Ostukraine vergleichen zu wollen ist, wie wenn man die Lehmanpleite mit der Insolvenz eines regionalen Mittelstandsunternehmens vergleicht.

Wo waren die (anderen) Europäer da, um Sanktionen gegen die USA/GB anzudrohen und zu implementieren?
Wurde Tony Blair von irgendwelchen Gipfeltreffen ausgeladen?
Wurde George W. Bush isoliert?

Die „Empörung“ der Europäer über Putin und Russland wirkt verlogen, heuchlerisch und vor allem lächerlich und dreist, wenn man bedenkt, dass ihr amerikanischer Natopartner USA seit Jahrzehnten in fremde Länder einmarschiert bzw. sie gern auch ohne UN-Mandat bombardiert. Anstatt die USA dafür zu isolieren, dass ihr Präsident G.W. Bush diese als „irrelavant“ bezeichnete, echauffieren sich die Europäer darüber, dass China und Russland im Sicherheitsrat der gleichen UN den nächsten auf Lügen basierenden Angriffskrieg (gegen Syrien) durch ihre Vetos verhinderten.
Sicher kann man auch davon ausgehen, dass weder die Europäer noch die USA sich irgendeiner Schuld bezüglich der Tragödie bewusst sind, die Libyen befallen hat, nachdem Natobomber mit dem „Segen“ eines inhaltlich „verdrehten“ UN-Mandats dort Islamisten zum Sieg verhalfen. In der Folge zerbrach auch dort jegliches Staatswesen. Statt regulärer Sicherheitsstrukturen gibt es in dem Land Hunderte, teils mit schweren Waffen ausgestattete Milizen, die die Menschen terrorisieren.
Die Väter und Mütter des Libyenkriegs sind Sarkozy, Cameron, Obama und Clinton. Keiner von ihnen wurde während seiner Amtszeit deshalb isoliert, und bei Clinton muss man befürchten, dass sie sogar US-Präsidentin werden könnte.

Will Qatar become part of „the axis of evil“ or sanctioned as „rogue state“?

In an earlier article I quoted evidence for Qatars role as large scale fundraiser of terrorism by Jihadi groups, mainly operating in Syria:
https://radioyaran.com/2014/10/27/qatar-the-world-bank-of-jihadi-terrorism-in-syria-and-elsewhere/

Now, further evidence has surfaced pointing at Qatar as „world bank of terrorism:
„The cousin of Qatar’s foreign minister has been convicted of funding international terrorism and is believed to be linked to an alleged terrorist known as the “Wolf of al-Qaeda”…
On social media, al-Attiyah appears to have energetically supported Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda’s Syria franchise, the al-Nusra Front. He also appears to have tweeted support for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil.).
The al-Nusra Front last year instructed donors to channel money to it through an organisation closely linked to al-Attiyah. Al-Attiyah is also associated with Umar al-Qatari, known as the “Wolf of al-Qaeda”. Al-Qatari was named last month by the United States government as a designated terrorist.“
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/11203140/Ministers-family-ties-to-terror.html

The question has to be seriously asked why Qatar should be allowed to host the 2022 soccer world cup.
The fact that western politicians are silent with regards to Qatars highly dubious role in Syrias bloody civil war proves once again that economic interests overweigh ethic, moral, legal or human rights principles.

Obamas debacle to support „moderate“ rebels is complete

As pointed out in an earlier article it has become more and more unclear who and where the much-hyped „moderate“ Syrian rebels are supposed to be:
https://radioyaran.com/2014/09/11/the-vetted-moderate-rebels-of-the-free-syrian-army-who-and-where-are-they/

From among the rebel coalitions introduced and exposed in the article above there was one specific group that some western media and „think tanks“ had attempted to portray as „vetted“ and „moderate“ and thus worthy of receiving sophisticated weapons, particularly ATGMs (anti-tank) and MANPADs (anti-aircraft): The „Syrian Revolutionaries Front“ (SRF), led by Jamaal Maarouf.
While the western and Gulf Arab intention was to portray the SRF as an Assad enemy which at the same time was opposed to ISIS and the al-Nusra Front (Syrias Al Qaeda branch and designated as „terrorist“ by the US state department), Mr. Maarouf humiliated his backers by openly admitting that not only he was not fighting al-Nusra but that his fighters even frequently conduct joint operations with that group:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/i-am-not-fighting-againstalqaida-itsnot-our-problem-says-wests-last-hope-in-syria-9233424.html

Months later another article exposed SRF for cooperating with al-Nusra and another Salafi dominated group, the „Islamic Front“ in the southern front of Syria:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2014/09/syrian_revolutionaries_front_a.php#ixzz3DtQMjSAC

Now, let´s shift attention to another much featured allegedly moderate rebel militia which has received american TOW anti-tank missiles: The Hazm movement. This group which is said to number some 5.000 fighters has been again and again described as the kind of non-islamist rebel group that deserves to receive american arms. During the last months the Hazm movement uploaded several video clips showing them firing successfully at Syrian tanks and (grounded) planes.

In an unexpected turn of events the al-Nusra front attacked both the SRF and the Hazm movement. Nusra fiighters managed to inflict heavy losses on the SRF and force them to flee their strongholds:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/11/01/245423_in-setback-islamic-state-nusra.html?sp=/99/117/&rh=1

Worse, „on Saturday night Harakat Hazm surrendered military bases and weapons supplies to Jabhat al-Nusra, when the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria stormed villages they controlled in northern Idlib province.“
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11203825/Syrian-rebels-armed-and-trained-by-US-surrender-to-al-Qaeda.html

Watch this video clip with SRF leader Jamaal Maarouf cursing al-Nusras leader al-Jolani (after being defeated and ousted by the latter): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CTie56i46g
Maaroufs accusations and rants are totally paradoxical as he fabulates of an Iranian->Nusra connection.

This chain of events is well-known and clearly confirms what many people had warned of:
– The so called „moderates“ hardly exist
– The few of them who are „vetted“ and receive arms are either unwilling or unable to fight ISIS, al-Nusra and the Syrian Army
– They have openly sympathized with al-Nusra and regularly lead joint operations
– If the „moderates“ have not handed over/sold their better weapons to ISIS and/or al-Nusra voluntarily the two takfiri/jihadi groups have attacked them and forcefully taken their weapons.

For these reasons, western countries should finally recognize the obvious:
a) Radical (mostly Salafi) Islamists are the broad majority of the rebels in Syria and not an irrelevant minority
b) Neither the remnants of the FSA, let alone ISIS or al-Nusra have the slightest connection to the „Syrian National Council“, which is bare of any political or military power and still treated by the western and arab „friends of Syria“ as the „legitimate representative of the Syrian people“
c) Ignoring the facts and continuing to pretend that there is a relevant and capable „moderate“ rebel force in Syria, which should be armed only means that such a group becomes the „import interface“ of sophisticated weapons for ISIS and al-Nusra

Barrel bombs and beheadings

No doubt the use of barrel bombs is a desperate measure as this weapon is indiscriminate due to it being unguided. But barrel bombs are very probably not a weapon of free choice for the Syrian army. Would the Syrian airforce possess precision „hellfire“ missiles or other smart weapons or would it have defensive weapons that deflect heat seeking anti-aircraft missiles barrel bombs would not have become a military necessity.

To claim that the airforce deliberately uses barrel bombs in order to inflict intentional and maximum civilian casualties is nonsense. Up until July 2012 the Syrian airforce almost played no role. Fixed-wing aircraft entered the civil war after the rebels intrusion into Aleppo and even then often at the rate of dropping 1-2 bombs from Czech L-39 trainer jets.

While the Syrian army implicitly is condoning collateral damage in the shape of civilian casualties its primary target for barrel bombs are rebels fighting from and hiding in civilian neighborhoods. Dozens of rebel video clips clearly show them launching rockets and firing mortars from the middle of civilian areas. Anti-aircraft guns have often been stationed in streets running between peoples houses. Army tanks have been hit by IEDs placed on such streets and convoys have been ambushed on alleyways passing through ordinary neighborhoods.
This is not meant to justify civilian casualties and downplay the devastating effects of inaccurate weapons but it is fair to make clear that many of areas subjected to Syrian army attacks have long lost their „civilian innocence“. Also, especially in vast parts of Aleppo city rebels have chased away the rightful civilian owners and taken away their houses, subsequently turning them into sniper and RPG positions.

In conclusion one could argue that the barrel bomb is a military necessity due to the lack of better weapons.
In contrast many of the violent actions of the rebels are neither accidental nor a „military necessity“.
It is not necessary to:
– mass execute captured and handcuffed prisoners of war
– throw down postal workers from rooftops
– behead disarmed opponents (and accompany a sectarian crime with religious slogans)- send suicide bombers to blow up school children (and later call them „Shabiha kids“)
– detonate water and gas pipelines
– blast electricity plants
– misuse mosques as weapons depots and firing places
– blow up and desecrate mosques and churches of minorities
– intentionally target and kill journalists and reporters critical of the „rebellion“ (and celebrate this on social media)

All these acts have been carried out by all rebel factions, not only the notorious ISIS and al-Nusra. Besides the „others“ who are hardly less sectarian have either closely and regularly cooperated with al-Nusra or openly voiced support and sympathy for them. Thus it is a mystery where and who the „moderate“ rebels are supposed to be and how anyone can seriously claim that it is safe to supply them with more and better weapons because they are „reliable“ and won´t cooperate with the Jihadists or pass their weapons over to them.

Qatar- The „world bank“ of Jihadi terrorism in Syria (and elsewhere)

It is silly that western mainstream media simply quotes the Qatari Emirs denial of his country being a sponsor of Salafi/Takfiri terrorists. Contrary to pro-Russian or at least „not pro-american“ countries Qatar (and likewise Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait..) has a lobby. After all „Qatar is the richest country in the world per capita – and has made significant investments“ into various western countries and corporations.

The following article and the embedded video clip shed more light on Qatars role in devastating Syria (and earlier Libya) through arming and funding radical Islamists:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/11171847/How-Qatar-funds-extremists-across-the-Middle-East.html

The article explicitly mentions Ahrar al Sham. Some western and (Gulf) arab media have attempted to portray Ahrar al Sham as a kind of „acceptable“ – though not explicitly „moderate“ – rebel faction. The focus of such coverage has been to emphasize Ahrar al Shams fighting against IS(IS).  Simultaneously the same sources try to either  downplay Ahrars connection to and regular cooperation with Al Qaedas Syrian branch, the Salafi Al Nusra Front or to create the impression that Al Nusra is the arch enemy of IS(IS) and thus „automatically“ good or worthy of support.
Hence, it may be necessary to once again make absolutely clear that Al Nusra are radically sectarian takfiri Jihadists and 100% non-moderate.
„Islamist rebels decapitated prisoners around the United Nations bases near where Irish troops were serving in Syria, a UN report seen by the Sunday Independent reveals.“
The article makes clear that the beheaders were Al Nusra fighters:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/alqaeda-rebels-dangled-victims-heads-to-goad-un-30638839.html

It is very embarassing for Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey as the main funders, trainers, weapons providers and facilitators of the Syrian insurgent factions as well as for the US administration that continues to stick to the myth of „moderate“ rebels that the Nusra Front increasingly and openly voices sympathy and support for IS (with which it cooperates already in Lebanon during kidnapping and beheading „joint ventures“):
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/06/world/meast/isis-al-nusra-syria/index.html?hpt=imi_r1

More complications for the „standing“ and reliability of the insurgents arise from the Nusra being a major factor on almost all of Syrias frontlines and cooperating with all relevant rebel factions, among them the „Islamic Front“ (where the Ahrar are the biggest single group), the „Syrian revolutionaries front“ and the „Southern Front“.

For more details on Syrias different rebel factions and the radical islamist ties of all of them, see
https://radioyaran.com/2014/09/11/the-vetted-moderate-rebels-of-the-free-syrian-army-who-and-where-are-they/

Western air campaign, Kobane and ineffectiveness

2,5 months after the US began to bomb IS in Iraq and almost one month after the US and allies started an aerial bombing campaign against IS in and near Kobane in Syria it is not clear at all whether any real success has been achieved.

In Iraq IS has again managed to put a siege around the Sinjar area and encircle the Yezidi inhabitants. In Kobane IS has lost a couple of hundred fighters but still in inside parts of the city and was even able to take back a „strategic hill“, which the Kurdish defenders just had recaptured 2 weeks ago as an alleged sign of the tide turning (against IS).

Several questions arise:

1. How is it possible that the most modern airforce of the world is not able (or willling?) to dislodge the 1000 (or so) fighters of a militia that has a dozen of old Russian tanks and no air defense?
2. The weapon of choice against small mobile enemy units would be attack helicopters of the types Cobra, Apache and Black Hawk. Why are they not deployed in Kobane?
3. IS has brought reinforcements from Raqqa and the Aleppo countryside in long convoys of pick ups. Why were these not intercepted and attacked?
4. „Moderate“ FSA rebels, e.g. from the „Hazm movement“ have been extensively using american ATGMs (TOW missiles) against armoured vehicles but also against sniper positions and barracks of the Syrian Army. The FSA claims to side with the Kurds and against IS. Why has not a single ATGM been applied against IS vehicles at Kobane?

Another interesting aspect of the war against IS in Kobane is that major parts of the city have been destroyed, mostly by the aerial bombing and NOT by the mortar fire of IS:
Kobane destruction

Readers all remember, when similar pictures are shown from Syria, western and (Gulf) arab press put the blame squarely on the Syrian army and used phrases such as „Assad is killing his people“. The „lesson“ is that while it´s OK for american fighter jets to demolish civilian areas of a SYRIAN city because of IS presence there, the Syrian army has no right to bomb civilian areas that have been taken by islamist militias and turned to launchpads for mortar attacks.