Revealing western lies about Syrias „moderate rebels“ and other lies against Russia

This is another excellent article by Patrick Cockburn proving that Russia indeed is hitting ISIS:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/egypt-plane-crash-this-attack-shows-that-russia-is-hurting-isis-a6725566.html

There are, however, some further remarks of interest:
„Prominent among those congratulating President Erdogan is the Army of Conquest (Jaysh al Fateh), which captured much of Idlib province earlier in the year and 90 per cent of whose fighters reportedly come from al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham.“
=> So, the most successful non-IS rebel faction consists to 90% of Al Qaeda affiliates and yet you hear western media and politicians seriously complaining that Russia – when targeting the „army of conquest“ – is attacking the „moderate rebels“?

And these „moderates“ do not even try to hide their true color and malicious intentions:
„Mr Gurcan cites a well-informed Turkish authority saying many of these Syrian opposition “groups are trying to sign non-hostility pacts with Isis” – pacts that say they will not fight Isis unless attacked by them. Governments pretending to distinguish between “moderate opposition” and Isis in Syria should keep this in mind.“

In another instance western media launched a smear campaign against Russia distributing and repeating unverified rebel claims accusing Russia of systematically and frequently bombing hospitals.
This is the truth:
Medecins Sans Frontieres and the Red Cross both denied these bombings:
http://m.sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151030/1029343621/msf-hospital-russia-bomb-claim.html

https://www.rt.com/news/320046-stillhart-red-cross-hospital-russia/#.VjK1xu-XwPE.twitter

The third highly interesting recent case of misinformation was when western media (Reuters) changed news which could prove negative for the „reputation“ of western backed rebels and as a side effect could refute earlier claims like „Only the Syrian Army could have used chemical weapons“:
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/662735640073637889/photo/1

Just look, how „rebels“ was changed to „fighters“ within a day by the same news outlet.

Yemen: In „liberated“ Aden Al Qaeda roams the streets

BBC on July 17th, 2015:
„Yemen’s southern province of Aden has been „liberated“ from Houthi rebel forces, the country’s exiled vice-president has declared.“

„The Saudi leadership is feeling triumphant over today’s announcement of what it calls „the liberation of Aden“. “
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33563190

BBC on October 6th, 2015:
„Jihadist militants have reportedly been seen on the streets of Aden since southern militiamen backed by coalition forces drove the Houthis out of the city“
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34451549

More interesting and shocking is the fact that BBC changed this report later. In the original version which I saved the text was this:
„Residents have complained that the city has descended into chaos and lawlessness, with jihadist militants affiliated to al-Qaeda and Islamic State seen on the streets. “

It´s a mystery why BBC chose to omit the complaint of the residents. Probably it does not fit well into the farce of the liberated happy city.

How „moderate“ is the FSAs „Southern Front“

When confronted with the fact that there is no relevant moderate rebel faction going by the name of „Free Syrian Army“, still some people disagree pointing to the so called „Southern Front“ as a supposed success model of a secular/liberal force fighting against the Syrian government.

The more interesting then to zoom deeper into the Southern Front:

„The simultaneous claims of success indicate that the Southern Front’s fighters likely participated in the battle alongside the jihadists, even though the FSA’s southern alliance has repeatedly rejected cooperation with Al Nusrah.“

„Just days after Al Reis’ [Southern Front commander] public rejection of any cooperation with al Qaeda’s arm in Syria, Ahrar al Sham, Al Nusrah and their allies in the region announced the creation of a southern wing of Jaysh al Fateh (“Army of Conquest”).“

„Some FSA groups rejected cooperation with “Jaysh al Fateh in the South,” but others reportedly joined it. Adding to the battlefield confusion, the Southern Front apparently fought alongside Ahrar al Sham just days before publicly rejecting any collaboration with Al Nusrah (Ahrar’s closest ally in Syria)“

„According to a recent account, FSA groups operating under its umbrella are peeling off and joining Ahrar al Sham.“
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/10/al-nusrah-front-free-syrian-army-battle-assad-regime-for-un-hill-in-southern-syria.php

So much about the Southern Front being a reliable „moderate“ rebel faction and so much about it´s leaders credibility when they claim they will not cooperate with Jabhat al Nusra, Al Qaedas Syrian branch.

Another perspective of Syrias civilian casualties

While condemning loss of civilian life in Syrias war, western and arab anti-Assad media has almost never cared to mention and criticize the collectively harmful and often deadly actions taken by the Syrian rebels such as blowing up gas pipelines, disrupting or destroying power plants, blocking water supply or attacking state owned factories and killing their staff as happened with a factory that produces army uniforms.

Sunnis in the Syrian army and government

For more than four years (since the start of the Syrian civil war) we have been hearing the same odd and dishonest mantra again and again:
The Syrian state and army are sectarian…The state hates Sunnis…The rebels are fought because they are Sunnis…The CIVILIANS are deliberately killed, simply because they are Sunnis…THE GOVERNMENT AND ARMY (+ LOYALIST MILITIAS) ARE „ALMOST ENTIRELY“ ALAWITES WHO HATE SUNNIS, etc.

Let´s first debunk the nonsense that the Syrian army, militias and security services are „almost entirely“ Sunni:

„As for General Swaidan’s soldiers, they arrive to salute their commander and are invited to talk to me: a group of conscripts who give their full names and their civilian jobs – one was a tailor, another a carpenter – and cheerfully say they are Sunni Muslims. Assad, of course, is an Alawite, but the general is careful of percentages, saying that 60 to 65 per cent of the 4th Brigade are Sunnis. „There is no sectarianism in this army, not in our brigade, and if you tour the checkpoints around the city, you will find most of the soldiers are Sunnis.“

The rebel forces in Syria, of course, are almost all Sunni Muslims, and that was the general’s point: Syrian Sunnis also fight for the army. And when I did stop at the general’s checkpoints and rather cruelly demanded to know their religion, almost all of them were indeed Sunni, some conscripts, many regular soldiers
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/there-is-no-sectarianism-in-the-army-syrias-war–the-generals-view-9206169.html

Sunnis are the backbone of the Syrian army
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/in-assads-syria-death-notices-litter-the-walls–and-life-goes-on-9836912.html

„There are a lot of senior Sunni officers who are still in the Syrian army and security institutions…the majority of the Syrian army (around 60%) are Sunni.“
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2013/05/syrian-conflict-failed-sectarian-analysis.html#ixzz3d44F14an

„The Syrian army is largely made up of Sunni conscripts, while many willing Sunni volunteers in the paramilitary groups that support regular government forces fight alongside foreign Shia militias, like Hezbollah, against a plethora of rebel groups that are all exclusively Sunni Muslim of varying extremes – both local and foreign.“
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/syria-why-assad-still-power-544952547

„The perception of the opposition as a rural-based movement led by religiously conservative, poor, and unsophisticated villagers has alienated wide segments of urban Sunnis, who have little in common socially with their co-religionists…Sunnis and, more specifically, Sunni Arabs, continue to make up the majority of the regular army’s rank-and-file membership…Estimates indicate that Sunnis account for between 60 and 65 percent of the regular army…Sunnis continue to be well represented in Syria’s security institutions in various capacities, including leadership and other specialized roles…Sunnis, for example, are well represented in NDF units based in Aleppo and elsewhere…has also bolstered the NDF’s ranks with loyal Sunni Arab tribesmen who act as crucial proxies for the regime to different degrees in provinces as diverse as Al-Raqqah, Al-Hassakah, Dara’a, and Deir al-Zour“
https://www.ctc.usma.edu/?p=35407

And now, let´s take a look at the government itself:

The Vice President, the Prime minister, the Foreign minister, the Defense minister, the Interior minister, the heads of the security services and many more influential and first level functionaries are Sunnis. Even the wives of Bashar al Assad and his brother are Sunni women:
http://www.syrianperspective.com/2015/06/liars-syrper-pulls-the-veil-off-the-alawi-canard-syria-is-ruled-by-sunnis-and-sunnis-only.html

 

 

Syria: Nusra Fronts recent massacres should open some eyes

Recently some western and Gulf Arab circles have been bringing up the idea to „reconsider“ the Nusra Fronts (Jabhat al Nusra) status as terrorist organization. They attempt to sugarcoat Nusra as „moderate Islamists“ who are supposedly the arch enemy of ISIS and therefore sort of „not that bad“.
The argument is totally flawed as the Syrian army is also fighting ISIS in places such as Qalamoun, eastern Homs (Palmyra), Deir al Zour and Hasakah to name some of the battlefronts, not to mention that ISIS is fighting pro Assad factions in the Yarmouk camp of Damascus, where – interestingly – it was al Nusra who let ISIS enter the camp.

To destroy any myths about Nusra being „moderate“ or otherwise „non-terrorist“ I refer to this comprehensive article, but it´s noteworthy to read some very recent news about al Nusra AFTER the Al Jazeera interview with the groups leader al Jolani. The aim of the interview was to advertise for Nusras „rebrandishing“ by allowing al Jolani to portray the group as one that not only has no plans to attack the west but also respects minorities, is non-sectarian, almost liberal one should think…

Here are some stories featuring the Nusra Fronts actions in the last weeks:

„“There was a garrison of 40 of our men in one battle in Idlib province, and 14 were killed in the fighting and the other 26 were captured,” General Ghassan says. “They executed them one by one, going from one man to the next to shoot him in the back of the head so that the others in the row would know what was about to happen to them.“
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/an-army-boot-is-placed-on-the-face-of-the-dead-men-general-ghassan-of-the-syrian-army-on-the-war-against-nusra-10289588.html

the Islamist gunmen picked off the Syrian checkpoints around Jisr al-Shugour, firing at ambulances taking the wounded to hospital, creating panic among civilians who poured into the centre of the town – much as the Muslims of Bosnia had fled for their lives under Serb attacks into the towns of the Drina Valley almost 25 years ago. 

„Some men who showed they were alive were immediately shot.“
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-syria-hospital-siege-thatturned-into-a-massacre-jisr-alshugour-breakout-was-less-of-a-victory-than-damascus-claims-10301084.html

„At least 20 Druze villagers have been shot dead by the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front in north-western Syria“
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33092902

With regards to the killing of the members of the Druze minority, especially this part of the BBC article should draw attention for many reasons:
„Wednesday’s shooting occurred after a Tunisian al-Nusra commander tried to confiscate a house belonging to a Druze man who he claimed was loyal to the Syrian government…the al-Nusra commander accused the Druze of being „kuffar“ (infidels) before ordering the mass shooting.“

This is exactly the point: Nusra harbors key non-Syrian radically sectarian elements, going from the Chechen commander Muslim Shishani to the Saudi Salafi „field ideologue“ Abdullah al Muhaysini.
There have been dozens of cases of similar mass executions of „non-aligned“ civilians, including many Sunnis, by simply declaring them „loyal to the Syrian government“, as if this in itself is a grave crime.
The international media has for years been very receptive and tolerant for Syrian rebel crimes as soon as the victims were defamed as „Shabiha“ or otherwise dehumanized. „Shabiha“, „Assad supporter“, „regime loyalist“, these and other negatively colored terms have been the standard vocabulary of Syrian rebels and their media mouthpieces when it came to justify terrorism and crimes against humanity.

Finally, the following article about Nusra and whether they really deserve reconsideration and „rehabilitation“ is highly recommendable:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/06/rebranding-nusra-front-isil-syria-qaeda-150605062901260.html

Some excerpts:
„The Nusra Front, concluded HRW, was „responsible for systematic and widespread violations including targeting civilians, kidnappings, and executions„.

Like ISIL, the group has „committed systematic rights abuses, including the intentional targeting and abduction of civilians“ with „repeated claims of responsibility for lethal car bombing attacks that have targeted civilians in Syria„.

The Nusra Front, HRW added, has – again, like ISIL – „imposed strict and discriminatory rules on women and girls and they have both actively recruited child soldiers„.

So, a moderate or pragmatic group then? Not by any stretch of the imagination….

This notion that JN [the Nusra Front] isn’t as violent as [ISIL] is wrong; both groups follow the extremism of bin Ladinism, though the former uses a bullet while the latter prefers a blade – or worse“

Clear indications that Syria is NOT using chlorine as a weapon

One of the reasons cited about why the Syrian army allegedly used Sarin in August 2013 in the eastern Ghouta area near Damascus was the baseless claim that the rebels were on the verge of victory and Sarin was the only way to stop them. This claim is not based on facts but wishful thinking with a clearly pro-rebel bias.
None of the reporters covering news of that battle front in the time of the attacks seriously claimed the rebels were close to any serious military breakthrough. On the contrary, the consensus was that the Syrian army had the upper hand.

This along with the fact that it was the Syrian government that had invited the chemical weapons instructors makes it highly unlikely that the Syrian army would resort to a single and relatively small scale chemical weapons attack in the very moment of the presence of international experts.

Now, let´s take a look at the allegations of the use of chlorine as a weapon by the Syrian army.
Even taking the claims of rebels in Idlib at face value, the question remains what military purpose single barrel bombs – allegedly filled with chlorine – are supposed to achieve. Does the Syrian army get a military edge, a clear battlefield advantage, by dropping a couple of such bombs on isolated targets? The chlorine attacks – if they really occured – have killed very few people and among those even fewer rebel fighters, so why should the Syrian army use a weapon which is media-politically a great own goal and military totally useless?
Thus there is valid reason for scepticism regarding chlorine attack accusations.
Below are some good articles focusing on such accusations and more or less refuting them:

1. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/03/about-those-chlorine-gas-attacks-in-syria/
„According to its report, in May 2014, an OPCW team tried to investigate at the site of alleged chlorine gas attacks. The Syrian government gave the OPCW team passage to the rebel controlled area but the convoy was attacked by a rebel faction. None of the team members was injured but that stopped their on-site investigation. Instead, the OPCW worked with the well-funded opposition-supporting Violations Documentation Center to arrange interviews with numerous people from three villages. The interviews were conducted outside Syria, probably in Turkey. They gathered photographs, videos and other evidence and expressed “high confidence that chlorine had been used as a weapon in Syria” in three villages. They did not ascribe responsibility…The interviews with villagers were done with OPCW “working closely” with the partisan “Violations Documentation Center.” How did OPCW verify the integrity of the witnesses?“

This is a very good question. The VDC is 100% pro-rebel and totally biased. For instance, the VDC reports on the casualties of the Syrian war. Apart from the fact that it calls all non-government casualties „martyrs“ while calling government casualties „regime fatalities“, the organization makes the doubtful claim that adult-males make up 73% of civilian casualties:
http://www.vdc-sy.info/index.php/en/
This makes no sense as there is no reason why the portion of adult men among civilian casualties should be so high.
This proves that the VDC is no neutral source and all but reliable.

2. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/20/biased-reporting-on-syria-in-the-service-of-war/
This article examines (and exposes) the main sources:
“ Syria Civil Defence was funded and created by UK and USA. Initial training was provided in Turkey by former British military officer and current contractor based in Dubai. In the past year Syria Civil Defence has been rebranded as “White Helmets” by “The Syria Campaign” which itself is the creation of corporate PR firm. Syrian Civil Defence (aka White Helmets) is heavily into social media and actively campaigning for a No Fly Zone.“

Next, the article analyzes some of the „evidence“:
„Video of the three dead children is tragic but it’s questionable how they actually died. Scenes from the medical clinic indicate illness but not the cause. Scenes showing the “proof” of a “barrel bomb” containing “chlorine cylinders” is highly dubious. Some of the scenes are almost comical with one person in full hazmat gear, another with mask and another casually with hands in pocket and no mask at all. Then we have someone talking to camera with a bulldozer and some scrap metal on the ground. Then there is the figure holding what they report as a container with a “red liquid”“

Finally, it proves that the Al Nusra front has access to chlorine since 2012:
„the major chlorine gas producing factory in northern Syria was over-run and seized by Nusra rebels/terrorists in late 2012…The factory owner reported there were about 400 steel cylinders of chlorine gas, one Ton each, captured by Nusra/Al Qaeda along with the factory.“
http://world.time.com/2013/04/01/syrias-civil-war-the-mystery-behind-a-deadly-chemical-attack/

3. The well-known bipartisan blogger „AngryArab“ cites a western middle east journalist rightfully casting doubt on the chlorine use allegations:
https://twitter.com/leithfadel/status/600205503235497984

4. This article analyzes the „evidence“ from the only alleged chlorine gas attack that resulted in more than one death, the attack from March 16th, 2015:
http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.de/2015/04/what-killed-talebs.html
The summary of the articles findings includes the following: „Clinical signs point away from chlorine, and from aerial delivery and towards a locally-administered drug overdose.“
The article is worthy of reading in full as it shakes the foundation of the accusations and refutes the so called evidence.

In conclusion I would like to quote the second of the four sources above with the most important question: cui bono?
the Syrian government has nothing to gain and everything to lose by using chlorine gas. Especially after the UN Security Council made a specific resolution regarding use of this industrial gas, why would they arouse world ire and hostility against themselves by using this weapon? Why would they do that when they have conventional explosive weapons which are more deadly? On the other hand, the ones to benefit from such an accusation against the Assad government are the armed opposition and other proponents of a No Fly Zone in northern Syria.“

Further, with regards to Human Rights Watch´s (HRW) war mongering, I recommend these articles:
http://www.alternet.org/world/nobel-peace-laureates-slam-human-rights-watchs-refusal-cut-ties-us-government?hc_location=ufi
https://radioyaran.com/2015/05/10/why-are-amnesty-international-and-human-rights-watch-hrw-fact-faking-against-syria/