Assad

Why all these anti-regime disclosures in the middle of the Geneva talks?

radioyaran Syria , , , , , ,

„Syrian government ‚demolished thousands of homes'“
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25947345

While noone should justify or play down the extensive damage inflicted on entire blocks and neighborhoods, one should wonder why the disclosure of these „war crimes“ (HRW) happens just as the Syrian government and opposition are negotiating in Geneva.
The satellite images are dated from mid 2012 to mid 2013. Did HRW and co. really need 6-18 months to „analyze“ these images or is the timing of the publication no coincidence?

Interestingly at exactly the same time there was first the publication of the Qatari financed torture photos and then (today) the expression of „concern“ by the US regarding the slow progress of Syrias chemical weapons disarmament.

Is all this meant to prepare the ground for either the declaration of new „red lines“ or an accelerated and intensified arming of the (definitely all but) „moderate“ rebels?

US continues hypocrisy and double standard regarding Syria

radioyaran Syria , , , , , ,

„The US says only 4% of Syria’s declared chemical weapons has been surrendered and expresses concern at the lack of progress.“
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25968616

But at the same time the US has announced to resume the supply of weapons to Syrian rebels.
The same rebels have either laid storage facilities under siege or they control roads leading to or from such weapons´ sites.
Both are considered „succcesses“ that the usually pro-rebel western press hails as „blows against the Assad regime“.

Congress Secretly Approves Arms for Syria Rebels

radioyaran Syria , , , , , ,

After all the embarassing and shocking revelations about the Syrian rebels, after the broad majority of the rebels either openly declare themselves as part of Al Qaeda or strongly sympathize and ideologically identify with Al Qaeda, the US has begun resupplying the rebels with arms.
How can an honest government officially endorse peace talks but at the same time arm a warring faction that is opposed to peace talks and will certainly feel emboldened and encouraged to fight on after getting further arms?
To justify this appalling decision the US has once again resumed reinvigorating the myth of the „moderate rebels“, no matter how ridiculous and incredible such claims have become in the mean time:

„One close observer of the  opposition, who recently returned from travelling in the rebel-held areas of northern Syria, says that “you could go an awful long way talking to these jihadi groups before you met any fighters who did not thoroughly approve of 9/11 as a well-deserved blow against the US”.“
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/27/return-to-damascus/

http://news.antiwar.com/2014/01/27/officials-congress-secretly-approves-arms-for-syria-rebels/

Israels bombing of Latakia is for torpedoing Rouhani

radioyaran Iran, Israel , , , , , ,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24767571

„Israeli aircraft have carried out a strike near the Syrian coastal city of Latakia, a US official says.“

There is close to zero logic and military necessity in attacking defensive weapons of a neighboring country that is already stuck in a vicious and devastating civil war. The unprovoked attack on a country with which Israel is (at least officially) not at war does not become any more meaningful or legitimate even if we accept Israels claim that the destroyed weapons were supposed to be transferred to the lebanese Hezbollah.
Why is Israel so much concerned about the possible boost of the defensive capabilities of a militia in another neighboring country which has not violated a ceasefire that began 7 years ago?

Needles to object to Israels apparently unlimited „carte blanche“ to attack souvereign countries with impunity. This was the fifth or sixth such attack on Syria which Israel itself did not officially admit and which did not subject Israel to any criticism by the international mainstream media or by more or less unconditionally supportive western states. This is a disgraceful manifestation of blatant double standard. Just imagine Iran would attack a military airbase in Croatia to destroy weapons that were (allegedly or really) about to be shipped to Syrian rebels. Or Syria would attack a military convoy on the Turkish side of the border claiming it were carrying weapons for rebel fighters in Northern Syria. Nato would have declared war on Syria and each and every media outlet would have torn Assad apart.

The real motivation and purpose for Israels renewed attack on Syria is two-fold:
a) Provoke Syria to make the „mistake“ to retaliate, thus giving Israel and probably also Obama the pretext to unleash massive air raids on Syrian army positions and weaponry in order to help the rebels win a fight that they would not win otherwise in the short and mid term.
b) and this is much more important and relevant: „bomb“ Rouhani, his charm offensive and any perspective of US-Iranian rapprochment. Humiliating Syria and Assad once again is meant to provoke Iranian hardliners to undermine and defame Rouhanis peace initiative. Rouhani would be portrayed as a traitor and weak if he and Iran would ignore continuous unjustified attacks on Irans most important arab ally by the US´ most important anti-Iranian ally Israel.

The attack and also it´s time of occurrence – on the day the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said all Syria’s declared equipment for making chemical weapons had been destroyed – is no coincidence. Israel is the true and most active systematic „destabilizer“ of the Middle East and currently Israels number one priority is to achieve Rouhanis failure.

„Der Spiegel“ Interview with Bashar al Assad

radioyaran Syria , , ,

The brazen, arrogant and disrespectful manner in which the stupid reporters of Germanys „Der Spiegel“ are conducting this interview with Assad are appalling. In contract Assads answer is a slap in their face:

„Der Spiegel: Isn’t it puzzling that we, in the West, have a completely different assessment of the situation?“

„President Assad:I n fact, your region is always late in recognizing reality and is extremely slow in understanding this reality. In the beginning, we talked about violent protests, while you talked about peaceful demonstrations. When we started talking about extremists, you were still talking about “some militants.”When we talked about al-Qaeda, you were still talking about a few terrorists, although they are actually the majority. Now you realize that it is about 50/50. Take, for instance, Secretary of State Kerry who still sticks to the past and talks about 20%. This is exactly what I meant with the reality deficit you have.“

http://syriareport.net/al-assad-interview-with-der-spiegel-full/

Attacking Syria would be an unjustified and criminal act

radioyaran Syria , , , , , , , , , ,

Attacking Syria is not an act of self-defense. Syria has not attacked the United States. Nor is Syria a danger to the US.
Syria has not attacked Israel and has not even responded to numerous Israeli bombings of its soil.
In addition the US attacking Syria would also not amount to defending „democracy“ for the syrian army is not fighting against any democratic state or entity.

What we know is that an attack with poisonous gas killed around 350 people in the early hours of August, 21st.
The much quoted „Syrian Observatory for Human Rights“ and the „Doctors without borders“ both spoke of 350 dead. There is a gap of 1100 dead to the approximately 1450 victims John Kerry mentioned.
We don´t know who committed the attack. We also don´t know which gas was used. Judging from the symptoms it is rather unlikely that a „classic“ chemical weapon such as Sarin has been used:
http://strongpointsecurity.co.uk/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Revised-Thoughts-on-Damascus.pdf

While the US says that an attack on Syria would only be limited and directed against military targets earlier cases of  so called „surgical strikes“ or „precision attacks“ have managed to hit civilians with alarming regularity.
The prospect of incoming Tomahawks and cruise missiles has led many Syrians to flee their houses in panic and head towards neighbouring countries.
Any decision that transforms thousands of ordinary civilians to fugitives forcing them to live in uncertainty regarding their houses, their abandoned belongings, their jobs, their childrens school…is highly irreponsible and all but a necessary „humanitarian intervention“.

So far the US government has talked a lot about solid evidence but brought forward none. After days of building up tension and expectations by announcing the upcoming presentation of clear proof against the syrian government, a 4pages PDF file supposed to be full of damning facts contained nothing but a mess of assumptions and platitudes. Kerrys „evidence“ was actually a confession of failure, the evidence of no evidence.
Based on such (non-)facts and „evidence“ no US court would convict the defendant.
One of the main points in the paper meant to „prove“ that only the syrian government could have perpetrated the crime was the claim that the rebels have no chemical weapons. Something the CIA itself implicitly refutes:

„Al-Qa’ida and associated extremist groups have a wide variety of potential agents and delivery means to choose from for chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) attacks…however, most attacks by the group—and especially by associated extremists—probably will be small scale, incorporating relatively crude delivery means and easily produced or obtained chemicals, toxins, or radiological substances…Analysis of an al-Qa’ida document recovered in Afghanistan in summer 2002 indicates the group has crude procedures for making mustard agent, sarin, and VX.“
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/terrorist_cbrn/terrorist_CBRN.htm

The likelihood of an attack on Syria causing catastrophic consequences is high. Here some scenarios:
– If the syrian government or the syrian president are indeed „insane“ or „delusional“ they could fire chemical missiles at Israel once they feel desperate, humiliated and cornered
– The syrian army is fighting mostly the same people, the US uses to call Al-Qaida and subject to drone attacks elsewhere:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/does-obama-know-hes-fighting-on-alqaidas-side-8786680.html

The Nusra front, by far the most active and effective rebel faction fighting the syrian army has been declared a terroristorganization by the state department. In addition there are other islamist Jihadi groups raising the same Al Qaida banner assisting the Nusra fighters:
http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2013/05/blogs/graphic-detail/20130518_gdc631.png

The allegedly secular „Free Syrian Army“ hardly exists anymore:
http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/the-free-syrian-army-doesnt-exist/

– In Iran a new, more moderate president is elected who seems to be willing to adopt a more friendly policy and improve ties with the United States. Attacking Syria would make it very hard for the new Iranian government to not take position
– A further strengthening of the syrian-iraqi Al-Qaida branch „Islamic State of Iraq and Syria“ by weakening Assad would pose an increased threat to the already fragile Iraqi state. The conflict could spill pver even more to Iraq and Lebanon. After many years of relative calm there are almost weekly bombings and skirmishes leaving hundreds of dead every month. In Iraq the AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) who backs the syrian rebels has intensified (suicide) bombings of market places, mosques, Cafes and even funerals killing more than 1000 people, most of them Shia muslims.

The american congress should vote against an attack on Syria. The attack would only bring further suffering to the syrian people and strengthen and embolden forces our media and politicians would call terrorists if they were fighting the US or Israel.

Syria 2013 = Iraq 2003 reloaded

radioyaran Iraq, Syria , , , , , ,

Syria 2013 is close to becoming „Iraq 2003 reloaded“. Already the Kerrys, McCains, Camerons and Hagues exactly know who used chemical weapons in Syria. So, why then the UN inspections? As with Saddams weapons of mass destructions that later turned out to be non-existent the leaders of the „civilized world“ will over and over repeat their biased and unproven allegations against Syria to manipulate the opinion of a public that is heavily opposed to military intervention.

Now, Mr. Kerry, the same person who declared the military takeover in Egypt and the subsequent killings „restoring democracy“ is saying this:
„Attacking the area, shelling and systematically destroying evidence is not the behaviour of a government that has nothing to hide. The regime’s belated decision to allow access is too late… to be credible,“ Mr Kerry said.

So, unless a sovereign country´s president does not immediately jump at the tune of the US´ whistle this is proof of guilt and reason enough to fire Tomahawks, yes?

The „civilized worlds“ short-breathed diplomacy regarding Syria

radioyaran Syria , , ,

They say about Syria that the time for diplomacy is over, but when did this diplomacy start and when did it finish? All I remember is that the Americans, British, the French and their wahhabi allies from Qatar and Saudi Arabia sabotaged every negotiation and conference by stupidly demanding Assads political departure as a pre-condition.

But is it not „funny“ that the same war mongering Nato countries who expect Palestinians to take part in the farce of decade long end- and fruitless „peace talks“ with Israel now say their patience with Syria is over?

Syrias rebels and the perfect orchestration of the gas attacks

radioyaran Syria , , , , , , , , , , ,

It cannot be denied that some sort of poisonous gas was used near Damascus with devastating effect. This is a fact. What is no fact is that it is clear who perpetrated the attack. The permanent statements of western politicians pointing at the syrian government are not evidence based and impartial but an intentional method to manipulate public opinion. There seems to be another fact to arrive at: That the rebels/“activists“ lied:

The sophisticated level of post-attack orchestrations by the opposition:
– immediate social media uploads reporting chemical attacks on 4 different suburbs/outskirts of Damascus
– spreading the apparently exaggerated claim of 1300 dead
– the lining up of heart breaking children corpses in almost total absence of rebel dead

and by contrast the relatively late first reaction of an obviously surprised government side suggest that one party in this conflict had a plan and a detailed chain of events to follow, while the other was caught in „shock an awe“ failing to publicize their version of the story through high ranking officials and at the right time (earlier than the rebels). The syrian government had no real story to tell.
By now, it seems that there were at most 350 dead, which is still a lot, especially given the high number of children deaths, but almost a 1000 casualties less than the very first horror reports. Then it seems, that only one place was really subject to a gas attack. These corrected versions that are either untold or played down by mainstream media in the days following the attack are no minor details: The claim of a four-fold almost simultaneous chemical attack and the high casualty figures were meant to assume that such a well-coordinated attack can only be carried out by an army with regular command and communication structure.

If the article below regarding the „Doctors without borders“ (Medicins sans frontieres) is true, then the statements by this organization cannot be considered 100% reliable and have to be taken with a grain of salt:
landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/doctors-behind-syrian-chemical-weapons.html

 

 

(Too) many open questions regarding the alleged chemical attack near Damascus

radioyaran Syria , , , , , , , , ,

To start, here is a brief summary of arguments that highlight the unlikeliness of the syrian army being behind the chemical attacks around Damascus:

1. The syrian army has been making a number of military gains, especially in the Homs governorate but also in and around Damascus. The current military situation was not threatening at all. Resorting to chemical attacks in the midst of „normal“ military clashes does not make sense.
2. The syrian government for month has been threatened with military intervention by Nato countries in case the „red line“ of using chemical weapons would be crossed.
3. It has been the syrian government itself that invited a UN inspector team which arrived only 2 days before the alleged attacks.
4. Contrary to repeated accusations by western media and politicians from the US, UK and France (among others) the syrian government is not „insane“. Even after being subject to multiple attacks by the israeli airforce and artillery and in one case by the turkish army – acts that resulted in destruction and many casualties for the syrian army – the regime did not hit back, knowing well that any violent reaction would trigger a massive military attack that would be suicidal.

But there are more questions:
a) If it was the syrian army why did they not use „regular“ and much more deadly chemical weapons that they posses?
b) Why did they chose areas around Damascus for such an attack?
c) Why did the army not carry out a more massive chemical attack followed up by a major troop incursion, both to finish off the (remaining) rebel fighters and  – more important – remove the traces of the attack?
d) If it was the army, it must have been crystal clear to them that such a gas attack cannot be concealed. They would know that the victims would be brought to hospitals and clinics. It should not be difficult for the army to take control of those facilities in advance to avoid that medical reports „leak“ out and doctors give interviews that could implicate the army. Besides, the regime could break down the internet connection and block access to Youtube and co., while being prepared to spread their own (fabricated) story to the media before the „activists“ shape public opinion
e) It would be obvious to the army that the military value of apparently blind attacks on civilian areas supportive of rebels would be limited while the resulting outrage and revenge feelings would be huge

In addition there are a number of valid reasons why it is not just a conspiracy theory to suspect the rebels:
https://radioyaran.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/why-it-is-not-unlikely-that-the-rebels-could-have-used-chemical-weapons/

A good scientific analysis:http://strongpointsecurity.co.uk/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Revised-Thoughts-on-Damascus.pdf