Syrias „revolution“: What we did NOT (want to) see

„Merhej and Dayoub were the first of eighty-eight soldiers killed throughout Syria in the first month of this conflict“
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/336934-syria-war-conflict-narrative/
Did you know this? That 88 Syrian soldiers were killed in that very early phase of the Syrian civil war?

5 years ago the Syrian „uprising“ or „revolution“ started in the city of Deraa. It is not much that we really know about the details and the dynamics that triggered the deadly cycle of cause and effects which – not long later – climaxed into a spirale of violence that now enters it´s sixth year.

The western mainstream media and along with it the media of it´s Gulf Arab allies – especially the state-owned channels Al Arabiyya and Al Jazeera –  knew the „facts“ from the beginning:
Unarmed people demonstrated peacefully for democracy
– The state security forces responded with lethal force without a real reason

While it is true that security forces in Deraa strongly overreacted to youths spraying anti-government graffiti on the walls of a school by torturing some of them and insulting their parents when they protested against the treatment of their kids, this narrative which exclusively displays the opposition perspective of the events leaves other, less pleasant facts untouched.
Though the uncomfortable facts undermining the romantic myth of the „peaceful revolution“ are still widely un(der)reported by most western news outlets, other more independent sources have revealed them:

„But there were signs from the very start that armed groups were involved…A Syrian television crew, working for the government, produced a tape showing men with pistols and Kalashnikovs in a Deraa demonstration in the very early days of the “rising”.“
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-civil-war-five-years-on-2011-bashar-al-assad-isis-iran-conflict-a6929186.html

„According to several different opposition sources, up to 60 Syrian security forces were killed that day in a massacre that has been hidden by both the Syrian government and residents of Daraa.
One Daraa native explains: “At that time, the government did not want to show they are weak and the opposition did not want to show they are armed.”
Beyond that, the details are sketchy. Nizar Nayouf, a longtime Syria dissident and blogger who wrote about the killings, says the massacre took place in the final week of March 2011.“
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/157412-syria-hidden-massacre-2011/

Here is another case of early violence against the Syrian army which western media either denied or attributed to the army itself. This article, however, debunks the media lie and clearly identifies armed opposition as the perpetrators:
http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/western-press-misled-who-shot-the-nine-soldiers-in-banyas-not-syrian-security-forces/

„According to the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, the combined death toll for Syrian government forces was 2,569 by March 2012, the first year of the conflict. At that time, the UN’s total casualty count for all victims of political violence in Syria was 5,000.“
So, 50% of the casualties were soldiers of the army. Do you still believe that the „opposition“ was unarmed and peaceful? Considering this enormous death toll of the Syrian army, do you still believe that they „overreacted“?

No country likes to have the media of hostile western countries on its soil, especially after Iraq 2003 and Libya 2011 blatantly showed how media deliberately misreported events, concealed „unfavorable“ facts and exaggerated/overemphasized other facts. The Syrian government had no interest in exposing weakness and revealing the degree of it´s loss of control in some cities. Western and Arab media and governments simply declared all reporting by Syrian and pro-Syrian sources „propaganda“ and treated every claim by Syrian „activists“ as undisputed truth.
Whenever army soldiers were killed, Al Jazeera and co. had an „activist“ on the phone line explaining that the Sunni soldiers were executed by Alawite officers because they refused to shoot at unarmed civilians or because they wanted to defect. This myth, often cited by anti-Syrian mass media was so ridiculous that even Rami Abdulrahman from the frequently quoted pro-rebel Syrian Observatory of Human Rights (SOHR) commented it as follows: „“This game of saying the army is killing defectors for leaving – I never accepted this because it is propaganda.”
Especially in the first year of the civil war, the primary source of western news channels, the activists, were quick declaring every person killed by the Syrian army as „civilian“. This was exposed as a lie by – no joke! – Al Jazeeras own reporter Nir Rosen: „Many of those reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters, but the cause of their death is hidden and they are described in reports as innocent civilians killed by security forces, as if they were all merely protesting or sitting in their homes.“

One of the best-known and most cited „activists“ was Danny Abu Dayyem. Watch this video that exposes him and embarasses CNN:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lWB5ssifTg

Another „prominent“ Activist and primary source for Al Jazeera was Khaled Abu Saleh, who was also exposed as a liar and forger of news:
http://counterpsyops.com/2012/07/07/khaled-abu-saleh-a-multitask-syrian-hacktivists-on-western-payroll/

So, for many months the fairy tale was perpetuated of a population enduring it´s governments unlimited and unjustified violence peacefully and patiently until one day it had enough and decided to „defend“ itself. Some went so far to claim that this allegedly nonviolent phase of the „revolution“ lasted almost one year. This is a brazen lie. In a single incident in early June 2011 – note that this is less than three months after Deraa – some 120 soldiers and police were killed in the city of Jisr al Shughur.
This is what Syria expert Joshua Landis tells about the massacre: „There is little evidence of wide-scale mutiny of Syrian soldiers. No solid evidence that they shot at each other, and some evidence that the young men of Jisr set a trap for Syrian soldiers with simple weapons and dynamite…The Syrian government then published tapped phone calls of activists in Jisr that it collected on the eve of the initial combat. If they can be taken at face value, the activists establish a plan to send all the women and children of the city to Turkey. They were instructed to tell foreigners that Syrian military personnel shot each other. When enlisted men refused to shoot on unarmed demonstrators, their Alawi officers mowed them down – that was the story to be told to the Western press.“:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0cwLeMX8MA

Despite persistent media claims that the Syrian forces were acting with „irresponsible“ or „disproportional“ brutality, video clips like the following from Douma near Damascus (not later than March 2012) show a different picture: The soldiers carry no weapons, they are throwing stones back at the demonstrators:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdWH-SlIz6w

This video from Homs (not later than 2012) is even more unmasking for the „unarmed opposition“ as it shows armed „civilians“ firing at unarmed riot police:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsfsMVEO3nc

One thing is crystal clear: Syrias „uprising“ was armed and violent from its very first days. No doubt, many innocent people were killed by the security forces, but to claim that the violence was one-sided, that the protesters were unarmed and entirely peaceful, that police and army had no reason to resort to violence means ignoring the bitter truth of the not so romantic beginnings of what became a full scale armed insurrection.

American foreign policy „logic“ regarding Syria, Iran and the „Islamic State“

What is going on in Syria with regards to the „Islamic State“ (former ISIS) is appalling:
The Syrian Army is waging heavy attacks on IS positions everyday, while the US is claiming that IS is a creation of the Syrian government or its „ally“.
At the same time the US considers Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia „coalition partners“ in the fight against IS, while all of them have been funding, arming and supporting IS for years.
The US wants to invest even more in the „moderate rebels“ of the so called „Free Syrian Army“, an entity that mostly exists on paper and hardly plays a role in Syrias civil war. Now, these „moderates“ who are supposed to do the ground fighting have openly declared a „truce“ with IS because both want to fight against the Syrian government. The deal was brokered by Al Qaidas affiliate in Syria, the Nusra Front.

So, according to „American foreign policy „logic“:
„Moderate“ rebels who work with Al Qaida (Nusra) and make truce with IS = Good
Syrian government that fights Al Qaida and IS = Bad

It becomes even more bizarre:
„John Kerry says Iranian role in coalition to confront Islamic State in Syria precluded by support of Damascus regime“
http://live.aljazeera.com/Event/Syria_Live_Blog/126725135

This is just as rational as if Stalin had said in 1945 that the Americans are not entitled to be part of the „allies“ against Nazi Germany because they support England (who was already fighting Nazi Germany).
At the same time the Americans support the Kurdish Peshmerga in Iraq in their fight against IS. ==> Kurdish Peshmerga who fight IS = Good
Now, listen what the Kurds say about Iran:
„“They gave us rockets, cannons, maps,“ a grateful Bakhtiar said of the Iranians, gesturing at the large-scale maps competing for wall space. „We needed these things badly.“
The Kurdish leader also confirmed the presence of consultants from the Pasdaran, also known as the Revolutionary Guard — who, he said, „were very helpful““
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iraq-iran-20140915-story.html

Syria: looking back at 2011 and the eruption of violence

I came along and excellent article about Syria, which exposes the role of the mass media and western policymakers by shedding light on truths that were suppressed during the early stage of the Syrian conflict:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/03/more-nato-aggression-against-syria/

From the onset most western and arab media invented and persistently promoted one major narrative in order to demonize the Syrian government:
They claimed that the protests were entirely peaceful for a very long time. Some went so far to say that in the entire first year or at least in the first 6 months of the „revolution“ the „opposition“ stuck to peaceful means.
Only after suffering continuously indiscriminate and disproportionate violence at the hands of the security forces, the allegedly secular/liberal/moderate opposition turned to violence as a means of self defense.

The myth of the peaceful unarmed opposition does not withstand if scrutinized without bias. „When mass protests began in Syria they included violent attacks and murders of police from the beginning„:

„…up to 60 Syrian security forces were killed that day in a massacre that has been hidden by both the Syrian government and residents of Daraa.

One Daraa native explains: “At that time, the government did not want to show they are weak and the opposition did not want to show they are armed.”

Beyond that, the details are sketchy. Nizar Nayouf, a longtime Syria dissident and blogger who wrote about the killings, says the massacre took place in the final week of March 2011.“

„on April 25, 2011, nineteen Syrian soldiers were gunned down in Daraa by unknown assailants. „

„April 10 was also the day when we learned of the first massacre of Syrian soldiers – in Banyas, Tartous – when nine troops were ambushed and gunned down on a passing bus. The BBC, Al Jazeera and the Guardian all initially quoted witnesses claiming the dead soldiers were “defectors” shot by the Syrian army for refusing to fire on civilians.

That narrative was debunked later, but the story that soldiers were being killed by their own commanders stuck hard throughout 2011 – and gave the media an excuse to ignore stories that security forces were being targeted by armed groups.

The SOHR’s Rami Abdul Rahman says of the “defector” storyline: “This game of saying the army is killing defectors for leaving – I never accepted this because it is propaganda.”

„on April 23, seven soldiers were slaughtered in Nawa, a town near Daraa. Those killings did not make the headlines like the one in Banyas. Notably, the incident took place right after the Syrian government tried to defuse tensions by abolishing the state security courts, lifting the state of emergency, granting general amnesties and recognizing the right to peaceful protest. „

„Instead, all we ever heard was about the mass killing of civilians by security forces: “The dictator slaughtering his own people.” But three years into the Syrian crisis, can we say that things may have taken a different turn if we had access to more information? Or if media had simply provided equal air-time to the different, contesting testimonies that were available to us? „

„Syrian-based Father Frans van der Lugt was the Dutch priest murdered by a gunman in Homs just a few weeks ago. His involvement in reconciliation and peace activities never stopped him from lobbing criticisms at both sides in this conflict. But in the first year of the crisis, he penned some remarkable observations about the violence – this one in January 2012:

“From the start the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.”

In September 2011 he wrote: “From the start there has been the problem of the armed groups, which are also part of the opposition…The opposition of the street is much stronger than any other opposition. And this opposition is armed and frequently employs brutality and violence, only in order then to blame the government.”
http://rt.com/op-edge/157412-syria-hidden-massacre-2011/

Then there is the myth of the „moderate opposition“. To this date major parts of euro-american mass media continue to uphold the bizarr claim that the armed Syrian opposition or at least the major bulk of the fighters, the so called „Free Syrian Army“ are moderates.

„It is often suggested the “moderate opposition” is popular, democratic and secular. President Obama has recently proposed giving $500 million to the “moderate opposition”.
Patrick Cockburn sums up the reality in the newly released book “The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising”:

“It is here that self-deception reigns, because the Syrian military opposition is dominated by ISIS and by Jabhat Al Nusra, the official Al Qaeda representative, in addition to other extreme jihadi groups. In reality there is no dividing wall between them and America’s supposedly moderate opposition allies.”

This situation is not new. A NY Times article in summer 2012 discussed the hidden presence of Al Qaeda within the “Free Syrian Army” „

In another article Patrick Cockburn writes: „Jihadi groups ideologically close to al-Qa‘ida have been relabeled as moderate if their actions are deemed supportive of U.S. policy aims. In Syria, the Americans backed a plan by Saudi Arabia to build up a “Southern Front” based in Jordan that would be hostile to the Assad government in Damascus, and simultaneously hostile to al-Qa‘ida-type rebels in the north and east. The powerful but supposedly moderate Yarmouk Brigade, reportedly the planned recipient of anti-aircraft missiles from Saudi Arabia, was intended to be the leading element in this new formation. But numerous videos show that the Yarmouk Brigade has frequently fought in collaboration with JAN, the official al-Qa‘ida affiliate. Since it was likely that, in the midst of battle, these two groups would share their munitions, Washington was effectively allowing advanced weaponry to be handed over to its deadliest enemy. Iraqi officials confirm that they have captured sophisticated arms from ISIS fighters in Iraq that were originally supplied by outside powers to forces considered to be anti-al-Qa‘ida in Syria.“
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/21/why-washingtons-war-on-terror-failed/

“In the East of Syria, there is no Free Syrian Army any longer. All Free Syrian Army people [there] have joined the Islamic State,” says Abu Yusaf, a high-level security commander of the Islamic State, whom The Washington Post’s Anthony Faiola wrote about last week…“

„some of the people the U.S. and their allies had trained to fight for ‘democracy’ in Libya and Syria had a jihadist agenda — already or later, [when they] joined al Nusra or the Islamic State,” a senior Arab intelligence official said in a recent interview…“

„For a long time, Western and Arab states supported the Free Syrian Army not only with training but also with weapons and other materiel. The Islamic State commander, Abu Yusaf, added that members of the Free Syrian Army who had received training — from the United States, Turkey and Arab military officers at an American base in Southern Turkey — have now joined the Islamic State. “Now many of the FSA people who the West has trained are actually joining us,” he said, smiling.“
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/18/the-terrorists-fighting-us-now-we-just-finished-training-them/

To this day many western mainstream media still stick to two fairy tales:
a) That there is a single entity called „Free Syrian Army“ and that it is the biggest rebel faction
b) That the FSA, unlike ISIS or Jabhat al Nusra (JAN) is „moderate“

Just a single example that clearly demonstrates how moderate and respectable the FSA is (IRONY):

„Contacted by telephone, Adnan al-Assadi, Iraq’s deputy interior minister, said Iraqi border guards had witnessed the Free Syrian Army take control of a border outpost, detain a Syrian army lieutenant colonel, and then cut off his arms and legs.

„Then they executed 22 Syrian soldiers in front of the eyes of Iraqi soldiers,“ Assadi said.“
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/07/201271919353589773.html

For more detailed information about the non-existence of a „moderate“ Free Syrian Army, look here:
https://radioyaran.com/2013/12/19/syria-it-is-insane-that-the-west-still-considers-supporting-islamists/
https://radioyaran.com/2013/10/11/syrian-rebel-massacre-in-lattakia-and-the-moderate-fsas-involvement/
http://100wordz.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/was-not-the-southern-front-supposed-to-be-dominated-by-moderate-pro-western-rebels/

 

 

The „moderate“ FSAs cooperation with Al Qaeda in Syria

Not only has the allegedly moderate, non-sectarian, pro-western and Israeli tolerated FSA been using the lethal combat efficiency of the Al Qaeda affiliated Nusra Front (JN), but they have also sold advanced anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons to the even more radical Salafi Al Qaeda branch Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISUS/ISIL):

„He didn’t want to be filmed. But he told us: if we wanted to cut the supply lines it is easier for us to take the warehouses of the FSA. Anyhow we are buying weapons from the FSA. we bought 200 anti-aircraft missiles and Koncourse anti tank weapons. We have good relations with our brothers in the FSA. For us, the infidels are those who cooperate with the West to fight Islam. “
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/middle-east/meeting-al-qaeda-syria

As usual Obama, Kerry and co. ignore or play down such embarrassing facts when they openly speak about funding and facilitating (through Saudi Arabia) the further arming of the FSA.

 

Militärbasis westlich von Aleppo von Rebellen eingenommen; wenige von ihnen sind Syrer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20666047

Interessant diese Passage:

„The videos posted online…showed the rebels sporting the insignia and black flags of radical jihadist militants. A journalist for AFP news agency on the ground said many of them were from abroad, and that the attack had been led by the al-Nusra Front and related groups. The rebel Free Syrian Army was not involved in the assault…“

Es wird noch „interessanter“: „In Aleppo itself, rebels are still in control of at least half the city, despite attempts by government forces to dislodge them. There too, jihadist groups are reported to have largely displaced the FSA…“

Das bedeutet: In Syriens grösster Stadt Aleppo mit über 2 Mio. Einwohnern haben jihadistische Gruppen, die von der Al-Nusra Front geführt werden und zu grossen Teilen – wenn nicht sogar mehrheitlich – aus Nichtsyrern bestehen, die freie syrische Armee verdrängt.
Das lässt zwei elementare Fragen zu:
a) Repräsentiert die freie SYRISCHE Armee noch tatsächlich den militärisch relevanten Teil der bewaffneten SYRISCHEN Opposition? Oder kämpfen inzwischen „importierte“ bzw. „angereiste“, überwiegend jihadistische Araber und Nichtaraber aus verschiedensten Ländern gegen Syrer?

b) Warum wird die Rolle der eigentlichen freien SYRISCHEN Armee offenbar immer nebensächlicher? Haben sie mehr Verluste gehabt, als sie durch neue SYRISCHE Rekruten ersetzen können? Oder identifizieren sich viele inzwischen nicht mehr mit einer immer brutaler werdenden militanten Opposition, die immer mehr radikalreligiöse Nichtsyrer für ihren Kampf braucht?

In jedem Fall bleibt leider festzustellen, dass der syrische Konflikt – wie „säkular“ auch seine Anfänge waren – inzwischen sehr stark islamistisch gefärbt und infiziert ist. Im totalen Kontrast zu der westlichen und „golfarabischen“ Berichterstattung war es aber nicht die syrische Regierung, die auf die polarisierende „sektiererische“ Karte setzte und den Konflikt als Glaubenskampf einer sunnitischen Mehrheit gegen eine unterdrückende alawitische (schiitische) Minderheit darstellte. Diese absichtlich verzerrende und eindeutig tendentiöse Fehldarstellung der Lage wurde bewusst von den wahhabitisch-radikalen Herrschaftshäusern der Golfstaaten Saudi Arabien und Katar sowie ihren faktisch hauseigenen Sendern Aljazeera und Al-Arabiyya geschaffen und verbreitet. Rebellen oder ihre Vertreter durften unverhohlen und unzensiert abwertende Bezeichnungen für Alawiten verwenden (Affen der Berge, „Majous“ (ursprüngl. ein Ausdruck zur rassistischen Beleidigung von Persern), Ungläubige). Tote Rebellen und Zivilisten waren gleichermassen „Märtyrer“, während Opfer auf Seiten der Armee und der Sicherheitskräfte sachlich-kühl als „getötet“ bezeichnet wurden. Die Sender boten und bieten Gruppierungen unlimitiert eine Platform, die die Soldaten der regulären Armee pauschal als „Hunde Assads“ beleidigen.

Massaker bzw. „Völkermord“? Eine Analyse der Opferzahlen im Syrienkonflikt

Von Hillary Clinton über Francois Hollande bis Tayyip Recep Erdogan, wann immer es darum ging das syrische Regime nicht nur zu kritisieren sondern gleich zu verteufeln wurde das Wort Massaker benutzt. Assads „Schergen“ (also nicht Soldaten, Polizisten oder andere Streit- und Sicherheitskräfte) sind seit März 2011 immer wieder in Massakern (an der Zivilbevölkerung) involviert. Speziell Erdogan ging sogar so weit von einem Völkermord zu sprechen, welchen er dem „Schlächter“ Assad vorwarf.

In diesem Artikel soll anhand des vorhandenen Datenmaterials, welches durch internationale Medien verbreitet wurde untersucht werden, ob bzw. in welchem Umfang der laufende Bürgerkrieg in Syrien ein Massaker staatlicher Kräfte gegen die Zivilbevölkerung darstellt.

Zu diesem Zweck beziehe ich mich auf die Angaben der „Syrian Observatory for Human Rights“ (SOHR) aus London, unabhängig davon, in welchem Masse diese Quelle vertrauenswürdig und zuverlässig ist, da sie die Hauptquelle ist, auf die sich speziell die eindeutig antisyrischen Nachrichtenorganisationen Aljazeera, Al-Arabiyyah, BBC oder New York Times beziehen.

Laut SOHR (Stand 22.08.2012) hat es in Syrien bisher insgesamt etwa 24,500 Tote gegeben.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

Mindestens 8000 Tote sind syrische Soldaten und Polizisten:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Aug-30/186165-over-8000-regime-forces-killed-in-syria-military-hospital.ashx#axzz252JSN1px
Die Zahl der toten regimetreuen, überwiegend aber nicht ausschliesslich alawitischen Paramilitärs der „Shabiha“ ist nicht bekannt, aber laut SOHR sollen einige Tausend Shabiha getötet worden sein. SOHR-Sprecher Abdel-Rahman sagt dass die Zahlen „do not include armed groups supported by the shabiha (pro-regime militia), of which thousands have been killed since the start of the clashes“:
http://www.geo.tv/GeoDetail.aspx?ID=52428
Wir interpretieren diese Angabe konservativ und gehen pauschal von 2000 getöteten Shabiha aus, auch wenn die Möglichkeit naheliegt, dass einige der Toten missliebige Zivilisten waren, die von den Rebellen nach ihrer Tötung als Shabiha deklariert wurden, um Morde zu legitimieren.

In der Summe hat also das Regime mindestens 10000 Verluste gehabt

Auf Rebellenseite werden als „Deserteure“ (defectors) einzig jene getöteten Rebellen genannt, die vorher aus der syrischen Armee übergelaufen  waren.
Die Zahl dieser toten Rebellen wird mit 1050 angegeben:
http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArchiveDetails.aspx?ID=430099

Erst Ende Mai 2012 gab SOHR-Sprecher Abdel-Rahman zu, dass die mit Abstand grösste Opfergruppe der „Zivilisten“ auch die getöteten Rebellen beinhalte, die nicht Armeedeserteure waren:
http://m.aljazeera.com/SE/201272275230449605

Schon vorher wurde dies auch von dem Reporter Nir Rosen in einem Bericht für Aljazeera wie folgt festgehalten:
„Many of those reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters, but the cause of their death is hidden and they are described in reports as innocent civilians killed by security forces, as if they were all merely protesting or sitting in their homes.“
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/02/201221315020166516.html

Die aktuellste Angabe der toten „Zivilisten“ beziffert die Zahl auf etwa 17,300:
http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArchiveDetails.aspx?ID=430099

Eine schätzweise Extrapolation dieser Zahl lässt eine Aktualisierung auf 18,000 Menschen realistisch erscheinen. Um die Zahl der tatsächlichen Zivilisten unter diesen 18,000 Toten zu schätzen mache ich Quervergleiche zu anderen, zumindest teilweise vergleichbaren Konflikten. In aller Regel kann davon ausgegangen werden, dass eine reguläre Armee – erst recht auf heimischem Boden –  aufgrund grösserer Personalstärke, besserer Organisation, Rückgriffs auf meist mehrere Geheimdienste, Besitzes schwerer Waffen, Luftüberlegenheit, etc. ihrem Gegner deutlich mehr Verluste zufügt als sie selbst erleidet.
Folgende Quoten/Verhältniszahlen existieren:

Für Syrien halte ich ein Verhältnis von 1:1,75 für realistisch, d.h dass auf jeden toten der Regimestreitkräfte „1,75“ tote Rebellen kommen. Das würde bedeuten, dass „statistisch“ ca. 17,500 Rebellen getötet worden sein müssten. Es blieben also „lediglich“ 500 Tote, die man wirklich als Zivilisten bezeichnen könnte. So unnötig und bedauerlich auch jeder einzelne (zivile) Tote ist, von einem Massaker bzw. sogar Völkermord kann absolut nicht gesprochen werden. Diese geschätzte Zahl ist sehr wahrscheinlich nicht ganz richtig. Sie verdeutlicht aber, dass entgegen der sehr einparteiischen und hetzerischen Berichterstattung die syrische Armee keine systematischen grossen Massaker an der Zivilbevölkerung begeht. Es stellen sich zudem folgende Fragen:

  1. Wieviel Prozent der zivilen Toten gehen auf das Konto des Regimes und wieviel sind Opfer der Rebellen?
  2. Wieviele dieser Menschen sind gezielt von einer der beiden Konfliktseiten getötet worden und wieviele sind „Kollateralschäden“?

Auch die vergleichsweise sehr hohen Verlustzahlen der Regimeseite verstärken nicht den Verdacht vorsätzlicher, rücksichtsloser Tötung von Zivilisten. Hätte die blutrünstige und nichtdifferenzierende Absicht bestanden soviele Zivilisten wie möglich zu töten, weil man ihnen pauschal Nähe zu den Rebellen unterstellte, hätte das Regime viel früher im Konflikt und wesentlich massiver die Luftwaffe einsetzen müssen. Im Gegenteil zeigen die hohen Verluste des Regimes an Mann und Material, dass die Armee auf das sichere grossflächige  Fernbombardement feindlich eingestufter ziviler Gebiete weitestgehend verzichtet hat und stattdessen sich in unmittelbare Nähe von Rebellenstellungen begeben hat.

Warum der „Annan-Plan“ scheiterte: Die inoffizielle Begründung

Folgt man der Berichterstattung der meisten „Mainstream-Medien“ (inklusive der öffentlich-rechtlichen „Quellen“), so scheiterte Kofi Annans 6-Punkte Plan zur Befriedung Syriens fast gänzlich an der syrischen Regierung.

Es gibt aber andere, abweichende Fakten, die man aber offenbar gerne ausklammert:

  • Wie inzwischen bekannt ist hat Obama in etwa zeitgleich mit dem Start von Kofi Annans Initiative „heimlich“ grünes Licht für die Unterstützung der syrischen Rebellen (FSA) gegeben:
    >>> As Reuters reported, President Obama signed a secret order earlier this year—this is, when the U.S. was publicly playing lip service to the Annan peace plan—which permits the “C.I.A. and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.” <<<
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/07/stoking-the-syrian-inferno/
  • Saudi Arabien und Katar sabotierten Annans Plan schon sehr früh, als sie völlig unverhohlen Millionen an USD als „Sold“ (bzw. Lockmittel für syrische „Wackelkandidaten“) sowie zum Kauf von Waffen den syrischen Rebellen bereitzustellen begannen:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrian-rebels-get-influx-of-arms-with-gulf-neighbors-money-us-coordination/2012/05/15/gIQAds2TSU_story.html
    Lediglich eines von offenbar fünf Schiffsladungen an Waffen für die Rebellen wurde vorzeitig entdeckt und (von der libanesischen Marine) beschlagnahmt:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17885085
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/04/the-lutfallah-ii-arms-smuggling-scandal/
  • Die Regierungen der Syrien umfassenden Länder (Türkei, Libanon, Jordanien und Irak) waren weitestgehend entweder nicht in der Lage oder nicht gewillt zu verhindern, dass Waffen von ihren Ländern aus nach Syrein eingeschleust werden und (oft nicht-syrische) Kämpfer ihre Grenzgebiete als Plattform für Angriffe auf syrische Streitkräfte und Polizisten sowie als Rückzugsort für anschliessende Fluchtaktionen missbrauchten
  • Kein einziger Punkt im Annan-Plan sah Sanktionen oder sonstige „Strafmassnahmen“ für die Rebellen oder ihre ausländischen Unterstützer vor
  • Das Zurückziehen schwerer Waffen durch die syrische Armee bedeutete, dass (zurück)eroberte Vorposten der Armee in der Nähe von Rebellenhochburgen leichte Beute für die FSA würden, deren mit mittelschweren Waffen (u.a. RPG-Panzerfäuste) ausgestattete Kämpfer speziell in ländlichen Gebieten einerseits deutlich in der Überzahl waren (sind) und andererseits sich aufgrund ihres „zivilen“ Äusseren unauffällig den in der Regel von wenigen wenigen Soldaten bewachten Checkpoints nähern konnten. Dieser erste Punkt des Annan-Plans war – wenn auch eventuell ungewollt – faktisch eine eindeutige Parteinahme für und militärische Bevorteilung der Rebellen. Welcher Logik folgend muss eine sich im Bürgerkrieg befindende Armee, die einer Vielzahl gut bewaffneter Rebellen gegenüber steht, auf ihre besten Trümpfe verzichten? In zig „Erfolgsvideos“ der Rebellen auf Youtube sieht man, wie Kämpfer von Dächern und Fenstern von Wohnhäusern und sonstigen zivilen Gebäuden Panzer und Truppentransporter des Regimes sprengen. Sollte aber ein Panzer oder ein Hubschrauber des Regimes solche Rebellenstellungen beschiessen hiesse es sofort „Assad lässt Wohnviertel bombardieren“. Dass eine Vielzahl der als „Zivilisten“ deklarierten Opfer FSA-Kämpfer sind ist bekannt:
    >>> Every day the opposition gives a death toll, usually without any explanation of the cause of the deaths. Many of those reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters, but the cause of their death is hidden and they are described in reports as innocent civilians killed by security forces, as if they were all merely protesting or sitting in their homes. Of course, those deaths still happen regularly as well. <<<
    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/02/201221315020166516.html
  • Wie zu erwarten war waren es die Rebellen, die von den wenigen Tagen als der Annan-Plan zumindest teilweise befolgt wurde profitierten:
    >>> The UN monitoring team says that during the ceasefire „the level of offensive military operations by the government significantly decreased“ while there has been „an increase in militant attacks and targeted killings“. <<<
    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-i-fear-this-terrible-massacre-will-be-the-beginning-of-a-long-civil-war-in-syria-7791348.html
  • Die Rebellen aber auch grosse Kreise der sie unterstützenden westlichen und „golfmonarchischen“ Politiker und Medien mockierten vom ersten Tag den Annan-Plan, dessen Scheitern sie im Voraus fast schon schadenfroh verkündeten. Ein Rebellensprecher ging sogar so weit zu sagen, man fühle sich an keinerlei Absprachen mit dem syrischen Regime mehr gebunden, da man das Regime nicht für legtimen Vertreter des syrischen Volkes halte.
    Darauf lässt sich entgegnen, dass die Umstände der Machterlangung und des Machterhalts der herrschenden Baathpartei gewiss nicht modernen, demokratischen Massstäben entsprechen. Sind denn aber die Rebellen in irgendeiner Weise legitimerer Vertreter des syrischen Volkes? Haben sie eine eindeutige politische oder militärische Führung bzw. eine klar definierte parteipolitische Agenda? Haben sie sich denn irgendwann irgendwo zur Wahl gestellt und demokratisch legitimieren lassen?Solch arrogantes Gabaren der vermeintlich unterlegenen und unterdrückten Seite zeugt von einer eindeutig selbstbewussten, wenig kompromissbereiten Haltung einer Konfliktpartei, die über wesentliche finanzielle und materiell-logistische Unterstützer bzw. Drahtzieher verfügt, die ihr in keinster Weise grünes Licht für Verhandlungen geben. Einigung ist in diesem Szenario offenbar nicht vorgesehen.

Diese einseitige und selbstgerechte Beschuldigungsberichterstattung ist bekannt: Die Kriege gegen den Irak in 1991 und 2003 waren angeblich einzig die Folge der sturen und unkooperativen Haltung Saddam Husseins. Grundsätzlich ist in jedem Konflikt der letzten Jahrzehnte der meistens bereits im Vorfeld ausgemachte und deklarierte Feind des „Westens“ (und seiner lokalen Sympathisanten) ausschliesslich „schlecht“ und an allem üblen schuld:

  1. Im Irak-Iran-Krieg wurden die Iraner als die „bad boys“ porträtiert, obwohl die Iraker den Krieg begannen und später auch chemische Waffen einsetzten.
  2. Den selben Irakern blieb aber nach 1988 (dem Ende des Kriegs mit Iran) nur noch die Rolle des „Schurkenstaats“. Plötzlich wurden bestimmte Worte und Phrasen dauernd gegen den Irak verwendet: „Terror“, „Gräueltat“, „Provokation“…