Here a couple of reasons:
1. There is no single rebel entity with a top down commando structure and a clear political agenda. With hundreds of „battalions“ and „brigades“ operating all around the country none can rule out that the other could have used chemical weapons
2. Rebel units mostly composed of Jihadis and/or foreign militants do not feel much affinity with ordinary Syrians. It might be that for them the end (removing Assad and establishing an islamist state) justifies the means (massacring pro- but also anti-regime civilians and blaming it on the government)
3. Why should a massacre with chemical weapons be „too barbaric“ to have been carried out by the rebels? After all these are the same people, who:
– have executed disarmed soldiers and pro-regime civilians (at times presenting the throat-cut bodies of victims as civilians killed by the „Shabiha“ while they had filmed the same people in another video as captured „Shabiha“ of Assad!)
– have killed state workers and bombed factories, railways, gas and oil pipelines, water supply infrastructure, power plants, etc.- have kidnapped people
– have tortured and beheaded civilian and military captives or kidnapping victims
– have cannibalized dead enemies
– shot children for being „blasphemous“
– fired at civilian airliners
– bombed and burned mosques, captured it on video and proudly celebrated it
– committed sectarian massacres on many occasions
– used poisonous gas against army soldiers (killing 16 of them) in Khan al Assal
– dehumanize their opponents by declaring them infidels and apostates whose blood can be spilled lawfully
Assad
Homs: The massacre that did NOT take place
Sarkozy once pressed for an intervention in Syria when „Assads army“ was pounding the rebel-held Baba Amr district. Sarkozy warned that unless the „international community“ intervenes (militarily) Assad would commit a massacre just as Gaddafi would have done in Benghazi if Nato had not attacked his forces.
Now, warning of a massacre by pointing to a massacre that never occurred is itself ridiculous, but those who have followed the utterances of the likes of Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and co. since the Iraq war (2003) at latest are used to brazen lies and bizarre comparisons.
Now, it seems that the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), Syrias regular army – which contrary to incorrect mainstream media reports – is predominantly Sunni (including many high ranking commanders such as the defense minister) is „making key gains in Homs“:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23483717
Homs was given the title „Heart of the revolution“. It is Syrias 3rd largest city with a population between 600.000 and 1,2 million people, predominantly Sunni.
Taking into account these facts and assuming as a „fact“ the rebels claim that they represent the (will of the) majority of (especially Sunni) Syrians, one could (and should) expect two things to happen:
a) (almost) the whole population should rise up in support of the rebels and push back the army, if not even inflict heavy casualties on it
b) the allegedly sectarian SAA will commit against the „civilian population“ the massacre it did NOT commit in February 2012 when it retook Baba Amr
Instead rebel spokesmen are lamenting the purported participation of Hezbollah fighters on the side of the SAA as a major reason for the latters strength. Why and how should a few hundred to few thousand Hezbollah fighters matter when the rebels not only themselves are relying (increasingly) on all kind of arab and non-arab „foreign combatants“ but also supposedly enjoy the backing of Homs´Sunni majority?
BBC article about bombing of Christians avoids blaming the rebels
This article about the killing of christian Syrians in Damascus does everything to not denounce the rebels:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23086213
Look at this:
First it says „Rebel sources confirmed the number of dead, but said the attack was caused by a mortar bomb.“
Then: „No-one has claimed responsibility for the attack.“
So, what does this article want to tell us? That their are any serious doubts about the rebels being responsible for this killing? That the regime „staged“ this?
Nowhere in the report a syrian government is quoted. Neither is a Christian is quoted while one could assume that any Christian being interviewed would have very probably blamed the western-backed rebels.
It gets „better“: „There have been consistent but unverified reports of violence directed against Christians in Syria..“
The word „unverified“ is used to put doubt on any reports of anti-christian violence. Plus, the text deliberately avoids to associate this violence to the rebels, creating the impression that the government could have been behind the reported cases of anti-christian violence as well.
The last text passageis the highlight: „They were at first reluctant to take sides in the rebellion against President Bashar al-Assad but have gradually been drawn into the conflict on both sides.“
So, one could assume the rebels have no more committed violence against the Christians than the government, which is of course utter nonsense since the mostly better-off Christians had little reason to side with Islamists trying to topple a secular arab government.
Who promoted sectarianism in the syrian civil war?
It is both irresponsible and factually wrong to claim that the Shia lebanese Hezbollah introduced sectarianism into Syrias civil war by taking side with the regime and later entering the battlefield.
In order to prove why the sectarian claims of the syrian rebels and their arab and euro.american backers are utter nonsense its important to keep the following facts in mind.
For a long time (long before any Hezbollah fighter entered Syria), the rebels – motivated by takfiri ideology and paid and instigated by wahhabi/Salafi backers from the Persian Gulf monarchies – were regularly involved in:
– sectarian anti-Shia slogans
– kidnapping non-syrian Shia pilgrims on several occasions
– besieging and attacking shiite villages in Syria (e.g. Nubbul and Zahra)
– kidnapping and killing (often beheading or otherwise executing) Shia civilians by alleging that they are Shabiha or even worse simply „accusing“ them of rejectionism (Rafidha) and „apostasy“ (Irtidaad)
– targeted destruction of Shia mosques and shrines, vandalization of Shia graves
More and more radical Sunni clerics, among them top-notch influential preachers such as Yousef al Qaradawi started to openly attack the Shia as a faith and community. This is of course the same fascist, anti-human polemic talk that the Nazis used against Jews, but the west prefers to ignore this. While this kind of hate speech has already led to the killings (by the rebels) of Sunni clerics because of their good relations with the Assad regime or with Hezbollah, the rebels western supporters seem to not care for this as long as „arch enemy“ Irans ally Syria is the target and is getting weakened.
On the other side not a single Shia statesman or top-level Shia cleric (in Iran, Iraq or Lebanon) has attacked the rebels for being Sunnis or has used the term „Sunni“ in connection with denouncing the rebels faith. „Sunni“ has not been used as insult or otherwise derogatory against the rebels or the states supporting them. Hezbollah leader Nasrallah clearly used the word „Takfiri“ to attack the rebels and in the same speech said that when he says „Muslims“ he is addressing not only Shias, but also Sunnis, Alawis and others, thus making crystal clear that he is not attacking Sunnis or doubting their islamic belief and loyalty.
Even while reporting a „massacre“ on 60 Shiite villagers in eastern Syria by the rebels, the same BBC article mentions the increased desire of France to arm the rebels. The underlying „logic“ (which is an insult to this words real meaning) is to make the syrian conflict more „balanced“, pointing out that the syrian army has an airforce which the rebels don´t have.
Maybe the rest of the world should use the same flawed logic to arm the Islamists in Mali. After all the French special troops are much better armed. Or „we“ should consider arming the Taliban to make the war in Afghanistan more „balanced“ and „fair“, since the Taliban have no drones. This is of course a fiction scenario but the grotesque analogy should open the eyes of those people who prefer to strengthen the syrian rebels by further (and better) arming them instead of putting them under pressure to enter serious peace talks with the syrian government without demanding brazen preconditions which are solely aimed at sabotaging any negotiations.
Syria – The assassination of pro-regime Sunni clerics by the rebels
„Damascus, Feb 16 (Prensa Latina) Gunmen assassinated Sheikh Mohammad Ahmad Ouf Sadeq, an imam at the mosque Anas bin Malek“
„Terrorist in Syria killed Sheikh Abdullah al-Saleh“
„The funeral has been held for the son of the grand mufti of Syria, shot dead along with a history professor on Sunday near the city of Aleppo.“
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15152676
„Pro-Assad Cleric Killed in Blast in Damascus“
„rebels captured a pro-government Sunni Muslim cleric in the fighting, killed him and then paraded his body through the neighborhood.“
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/30/syrian-rebels-enter-sheik-maqsoud-aleppo_n_2984865.html
The lifting of the Syrian weapons embargo
The cannibalizing of dead Syrian soldiers bodies, the proudly publicized executions of other soldiers, beheadings of pro-regime civilians (including Sunni clerics), the bombings of mosques and universities, kidnapping of UN personel in the Golan heights, the open allegiance to Al-Qaeda, the shooting at civilian airlines, the targeted killings of reporters and journalists…all this was apparently not enough to turn away the EU, led by warmongers UK and France, from promoting the removal of the ban on arming the rebels.
That the rebels are already armed through shipments coming from Libya and through hundreds of tons of airlifted weaponry coming partly from the croatian army, paid and delivered by Qatar and Saudi Arabia via Turkey and Jordan is well known and documented. It is as well a blatant fact that the US and EU states encouraged and facilitated the arming of the rebels all the time.
The EUs decision comes at a time when after a series of (minor to medium) gains by the Syrian army one could hope that the SNC would be more open for realistic negotiations with the syrian government and would abandon its fruitless policy of demanding unserious preconditions like Assads giving up of power prior to any talks. Instead the rebel side will feel more emboldened and even less inclined towards finding any peaceful agreement.
What is most appalling is that any of the above mentioned rebel crimes would suffice to call them terrorists by the western press and politicians and reject any talks with them. Instead the rebel violence is either ignored or justified, or in some cases even attributed to the syrian government upon unsubstantiated allegations by the rebels.
Did the Syrian Army use chemical weapons?
US, UK and Israel have increasingly been claiming that they have „proof“ that the Syrian Army used Sarin gas in Aleppo. This is however very unlikely, for many reasons:
1. A man is quoted who says his wife and his two children died because of a Sarin grenade that had fallen into his house. He says he felt a „a sharp, bitter odor„, but this does not make sense because Sarin is odorless.
2. Incidentally a team of US experts came very quickly to the house of the victim and took hair samples to analyze in a lab. This does not make sense either because Sarin is a volatile gas. It does not „remain“ to leave a trace.
3. Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction as can be seen from the Iraqi attack on Halabja in 1988 when within one day 5000 people died. Neither are chemical weapons suited for small scale attacks nor does it make sense militarily to kill single civilians with them.
4. The US has made clear many times that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Army would constitute passing a red line which could trigger a US military intervention. Why should the Syrian Army expose itself to such a danger only to have killed few civilians?
5. Syria has made clear that they would not use chemical weapons in an internal conflict and in any case using chemical weapons is a last resort. The military situation is by far not that bad that the regime would need to take such suicidal measures.
6. It is by now well known that the rebels are not a united power but consist of many different groups with varying degrees of radicalism, not to mention that a sizable portion of the rebels are non-Syrians. There is no way to rule out that either the attack- if it happened – was a false flag attack or that the reports about it are made up to draw the US into the war, especially since the rebels have suffered military setbacks in the recent weeks. The rebels would have a clear and undeniable motivation to let the world believe chemical weapons were used, while it is completely to the disadvantage of the Syrian government to use them.
„Assad must first step down“ (?)
The syrian foreign opposition declares Assads departure as a precondition for any dialogue with the syrian government. This attitude of self-imposed negotiative inflexibility is rooted in the fact that very early on in the current syrian conflict major western governments and almost all arab leaders took the uncompromising position that Assad MUST go. This again gave the disunited and unorganized rebel factions inside Syria the wrong or at least premature impression that the libyan scenario would be repeated with NATOs high tech airforce destroying Syrias military and governmental infrastructure and making it easy for rag-tag militias to „liberate“ cities.
After all, why seek a dialogue with Assad when he was supposed to be dragged out of a hole (like Saddam) or a drainage pipe (like Ghaddafi) and lynched, they thought.
The fact that after two years Assad is still alive and in power is evidence that a major part of the syrian society is behind him or at least prefers him to the rebels. Attemps to explain Assads survival by referring to Russian and Iranian help are not convincing. If a) Syrias majority is against Assad and b) the rebels control vast swathes of syrian territory, and c) given that the rebels are supplied with both foreign fighters and weapons from four borders (Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Lebanon), there is no way the syrian arab army (SAA) could have not collapsed only because of getting weapons supplies from Iran and Russia. As a matter of fact it is hard to believe that either of these Assad supporters could have managed to supply real heavy weapons (helicopters, fighter jets or even significant number of tanks). If (a) and (b) were true as the syrian opposition and its international backers (and financiers) regularly claim, then at least a million syrian Sunnis must be armed and highly motivated to fight the regime. After all, how often does it happen that both, the rich arab monarchies and the US and the EU support someone?What is really happening, despite the syrian oppositions supporters denying it, is that the SAA is not disintegrating and collapsing. There are no mass defections. Explaining the lack of high profile and mass defections with the often repeated claim that the regime is closely observing (Sunni) officers is ridiculous. On the one hand some experts claim that Assad has only 100.000 soldiers (of which only 50.000 are considered loyal and reliable) and on the other hand these same 50.000 are spending their strained ressources and man power to stop the other demoralized or otherwise „shaky“ 50.000 from deserting? And yet, the 50.000 are fighting on several fronts across the country against hundreds of FSA „battalions“ that are allegedly embedded in local (Sunni) populations who love them and hate the regime? This is highly unlikely nonsense.
But let´s return to the american, european and gulf-arab calls for Assad to go or to be removed forcefully. Why should Assad do this? What, if really a substantial portion of syrian people either actively want him to stay or as mentioned above consider him the lesser plague than the rebels? One can argue whether Assad has „lost legitimacy“ as european and american politicians repeatedly assert, but in how far have the various previously unknown and foreign based syrian opposition „leaders“ and „interim presidents“ ANY legitimacy at all?
On which basis are Moaz al Khatib or Ghassan Hitto more representative of the syrian people than Assad? Assad may have not won a single democratic election, but have the mentioned gentlemen taken part in any regular elections and received peoples majority vote?
If the western nations are serious regarding a future democratic Syria then noone – including Assad – should be excluded in advance. If they and the arab leaders who themselves were never elected are so sure that the vast majority of Syrians hate and despise Assad and prefer Salafists or the Muslim Brotherhood or any other faction then they should not insist on Assad stepping down prior to any talks.
They could stop arming and uncritically supporting the rebels and pressure them to enter into a truce with the government. Russia, China and even Iran would put pressure on Assads government to observe the truce as well. Then elections should be held under the supervision of international observers within 3-6 months.
Warum Frankreich und GB die syrische Rebellen noch mehr bewaffnen wollen
Frankreich und England wollen – notfalls unter Umgehung des Waffenembargos der EU – die syrischen Rebellen bewaffnen.
Es fragt sich nur warum. Welche zwingenden Gründe lösen bei diesen beiden europäischen Ländern einen Drang nach weiterer Bewaffnung der Rebellen aus? Steht Syrien mit einem dieser Länder im Krieg? Und welche weiteren Schwerverbrechen müssen die Rebellen noch begehen, damit sie sich für die Titulierung „Terroristen“ qualifizieren?
Diese Absichtserklärung der beiden europäischen Länder täuscht und verharmlost den Istzustand, indem sie den Anschein erweckt, die Rebellen besässen keine Waffen. Angesichts Hunderter gesprengter syrischer Armeepanzer und Dutzender abgeschossener Hubschrauber und Kampfflugzeuge, begleitet von täglichen Youtube Videos, auf denen die Rebellen mit schweren MGs, Mörsern, Raketenwerfern, MANPADs und inzwischen auch Panzern posieren ist es grotesk zu beahupten, man möchte die „Opposition“ in die Lage versetzen sich zu verteidigen. Wie soll denn das Trugbild einer angeblich kaum bewaffneten und sich lediglich verteidigenden Opposition zu der Behauptung passen, dass selbige die angeblich schwer bewaffnete reguläre Armee des Landes aus 60% des Staatsgebiets vertrieben hat?
Die Wahrheit hinter der nahezu enthusiastischen britisch-französischen Bewaffnungslust der Rebellen kann man nur ahnen. Es wird wahrscheinlich mehr als nur eine Motivation geben. Folgendes ist denkbar:
– Beide Länder, speziell Frankreich, wollen die mehrheitlich der Unterschicht zugehörigen, teilweise fundamentalistisch veranlagten moslemischen Minderheiten durch Parteinahme für die angeblich gute, unterdrückte Seite im syrischen Konflikt besänftigen und „ruhig stellen“
– Im gleichen Zusammenhang sollen sich die radikalsten britischen und französischen Moslems durch den Versuch nach Syrien zu gelangen „outen“ und dort „optimalerweise“ den Jihad-Tod sterben, aber bloss nicht kriegserprobt zurückkommen und „Stunk“ machen
– Beiden Ländern sind wahrscheinlich von Saudi Arabien, Katar und eventuell anderen reichen Golfmonarchien signifikante wirtschaftliche Verträge in Aussicht gestellt worden. Das kann auch bilateral sein, z.B. in Form konkreter Zusagen zum Kauf von Waffen
Assad und die Palästinenser
Palästinenser sollten die letzten sein, die auf Assad schimpfen. Die Wurzel aller Probleme Assads und Syriens ist die ungebrochene Solidarität mit den (sunnitischen) Palästinensern. Die „sunnitischen“ Staaten Jordanien und Ägypten schlossen Frieden mit Israel und haben ihre Ruhe, während der angeblich ach so sunnitenfeindliche Staat des Alawiten Assad weiterhin auf die Rückgabe der Golanhöhen pocht und keinen Friedensvertrag mit Israel eingeht. Würde Assad heute mit Israel Frieden schliessen, würden die Sanktionen in Kürze fallen, und die Bewaffnung und die Hofierung der Rebellen durch Israels westliche Unterstützer aufhören. Die USA würden Saudi Arabien und Katar zurückpfeiffen. Assad würde Gelder und Hilfen für den Wiederaufbau bekommen.
Assads Syrien, das ein relativ armes Drittweltland und keine von Gastarbeitern und Einwanderern aufrecht erhaltene, von den USA geschützte Petrodollarmonarchie ist beherbergt seit Jahrzehnten Hunderttausende Palästinenser. Selbst die untreue Hamas ist friedlich gegangen und wurde nicht wie die PLO in Jordanien anno 1970 (Schwarzer September) mit Tausenden Toten aus dem Land gejagt.
Die Palästinapolitik der Assads ist der beste Beleg, dass das Baathregime in Syrien durchaus säkular veranlagt ist und nicht religiös motiviert. Würde man die mehrheitlich sunnitischen Rebellen ihrer sunnitischen Glaubensrichtung wegen bekämpfen, würde es keinen Sinn machen, seit Jahrzehnten Partei für die Sunniten Palästinas zu ergreifen. Ausserdem würde sich unter solchen Umständen keine syrische Armee aufrecht erhalten, die mehrheitlich aus Sunniten besteht.
radioyaran 