The „Hooligan theory“ and Syria

I have a „theory“, which I call „Hooligan theory“:

You can smuggle hooligans into a football stadium, bypassing the security personell or bribing them. You may think this is a good idea in order to counter-balance the guest teams hooligans or to contain them. But, once you got 5000 hooligans into an arena with even 80000 other spectators there is no way you can control those guys. It´s an illusion to think they listen to you or that you can predict or even determine their actions.
Eventually there is a good chance „your“ hooligans vandalize your own assets and harm your own team and fans.

What has this to do with Syria?

The Nato security council member states or „FUKUS“ (France/UK/USA) along with their regional allies Turkey and the Gulf states Saudi Arabia and Qatar decided that the ultimate goal of removing the pro Iranian Syrian State led by Bashar al Assad justifies literally each and every means.
Thus, everyone who volunteered to fight the Syrian government, no matter whether Syrian or not, no matter whether secular or radical Islamist, no matter whether criminal or „clean“ was supported directly and indirectly with arms, money, military training, intelligence, equipment, medical care, etc.
The myth of the „moderate“ opposition, supposedly fighting to establish a liberal, democratic, human rights abiding, „pro western“ state is long busted. The broad majority of „Syrian“ rebels are sectarian and radical Islamists. Many of them are not even Syrians, like the ethnically Turk (or Turkic) „Turkistan Islamic Party“ or „the Chechen Jaish al Muhajireen wal Ansar, the Moroccan Harakat Sham al Islam“.

It is extremely delusional and childish to assume that tens of thousands of well-armed and battle-hardened Jihadists who have gotten accustomed to roaming their (and other people´s) country to kill „infidels“, „apostates“, „traitors“ (e.g. fellow Sunnis who fight in the Syrian army) or simply „Shabiha“ (a derogatory expression used to defame and dehumanize all kind of Sunni and non-Sunni militias and civilians who reject the rebels) would lay down their weapons and re-enter their ordinary civilian life on the day the Syrian government falls and Assad is killed.
This is pure nonsense. We have seen how this did NOT happen in Afghanistan after the Mujahedeen first defeated the Russian army and later the communist government of Najibullah.
We have seen what happened and is going on today in Libya, almost 4 years after the „revolutionaries“ liberated that country and killed Ghaddafi.

Afghanistan is an interesting case. The Russian army and it´s airforce did not kill as much people in 9 years as the Mujahedeen did in Kabul and some other cities through their daily shelling with mortars and artillery. Naive people argue that Assad must be removed to stop the killing, the barrel bombs etc. Look at Afghanistan. There, the distinction was not Shia bs Sunni but Pushtoons vs. Non-Pushtoons, but after the departure of the Russian everybody allied with everyone and fought against everyone else. There was cross-ethnic fighting as well as inter-ethnic (Pushtoon against Pushtoon) and „inter-sect“ (e.g. Sunni Tajiks against Sunni Pushtoons). The communist Uzbek commander allied with the mainly Tajik Rabbani government but earlier also with the Taliban. There was hardly a greater mess than the Afghan civil war which has not really ended to this date.
There is little reason to think something similar could not happen in Syria. Radicalized and violent rural based rebels, often uneducated and unemployed, but indoctrinated with hateful sectarian ideology preached by the Wahhabi Sheikhs and Imams, whose sermons are broadcasted on Arabic satellite channels are out to kill all those „Shia“ heretics and non-aligned pro-government Sunnis in what they consider „revenge“, although many of them coming from distant places such as Chechnya and central Asia, Northern Africa, the Gulf states, South East Asia or Europe definitely never suffered torture or any other repression in Syria which they did not know prior to their arrival for „Jihad“.

In all likelihood these „hooligans“ won´t stop „Jihad“. Rather they will export Jihad to the next place where they assume „infidels“, to the next „dar al harb“, for example to Lebanon, where they will declare war to the Shias who – although a minority – constitute the single biggest community in that country. These people are not „freedom fighters“ seeking to build a secular state. None of them gives a damn for any pro-western „Syrian National Council“ (SNC) living in Istanbul or elsewhere in comfortable safety. To pretend that any foreign-based Syrian expatriates wearing ties under their clean-shaven faces represent the myriad of militias fighting against Assad (and often against themselves) is to fool unknowing people. The militias are the hooligans those SNC people pretend to exert control over while the former not even take notice of them.

Why the Nusra Front is „moderate“ and Assad is the „magnet of terrorism“

It seems that creativity with regards to twisting facts and changing definitions beyond recognition is a key strength of rightwing american think tanks and neoconservative policy makers.

A „moderate“ muslim is normally supposed to be a liberal, secular, non-sectarian and non-violent muslim. None of this applies to Syrias Al Nusra Front, IS or any of the many Salafi Islamists fighting against the Syrian government and for the establishment of an „islamic state“, „emirate“ or otherwise Sharia based government.
Yet, James Clapper, the „Director of National Intelligence“ has now simply decided to redefine „moderate“:
„Moderate these days is increasingly becoming anyone who is not affiliated with ISIL“¹

So, Al Nusra, a vehemently sectarian Jihadi faction that mass executes disarmed prisoners and beheads captives could suddenly be considered „moderate“, because the group is fighting ISIL (or IS) as well. Al Nusra, by the way, also executes women, e.g. for the „crime“ of adultery:

Maybe, someone should inform Mr. Clapper that the Syrian Army and it´s allies, the National Defense Forces and the Lebanese Hezbollah are fighting IS as well. Probably these forces are the ones that have inflicted the heaviest casualties on IS and themselves suffered the highest casualties as well. A major battle ground has been and is the province of Raqqa and now increasingly Deir al Zour. The Syrian Army fights IS also in Qalamoun and on the Syrian-Lebanese border, where – listen Mr. Clapper – IS and al Nusra have been cooperating and coordinating operations for a long time.

Now, Qatar, which is an „Arab partner“ openly admits that it is supporting the same al Nusra that has been designated a terrorist group by the US state department:
„A source close to the foreign ministry confirmed that Qatar wanted Nusra to become a purely Syrian force not linked to al Qaeda. „They are promising Nusra more support, i.e. money, supplies etc, once they let go of the Qaeda ties,“ the official said.„²
Now, how is this possible that Qatar is not punished by sanctions for supporting a terrorist group?

Now, back to James Clapper, who uttered the following nonsense:
„at some point Assad has got to go because, as, particularly many in Europe feel, that the magnet for all this extremism that has found its way to Syria is because of him.“¹

What? So, Assad, whose country is ravaged by a civil war in which his mostly sectarian opponents have been receiving fighters, money, arms and other supplies from Nato member Turkey and the Gulf States and whose armed forces have suffered the highest casualties is the „magnet for all extremism“??? Did Assad invite Libyan, Saudi, Kuwaiti, Tunisian, Moroccan, Chechen…Filipino, Australian, Belgian, German, French…Jihadists to suicide bomb Syrians, both soldiers and civilians?
Would Mr. Clapper or any other genius behind such brainless phrases all Netanyahu the „magnet“ for Palestinian terrorism? How about calling American presidents „magnets“ for 9/11?




Syrian insurgents: Either Salafi Jihadists or criminals – and Jamal Maarouf in the middle

In an earlier article I pointed out that the „moderate“ Syrian rebel is more an object of wishful thinking and a tool for the US administration for fooling itself and others. Still major parts of international mass media along with the leaders and officials of (mainly) Nato countries speak about the „Free Syrian Army“ without any of them bothering to explain of whom this phantom army consists.

In recent weeks the so called „Syrian Revolutionaries Front“ (SRF), led by Jamal Maarouf is increasingly mentioned and it seems this group is supposed to be the army of moderate, vetted rebels receiving money, arms and training through the GCC-Turkey-CIA with training facilities in Jordan and Turkey.
The problem is, however, that the SRF is hardly the organization any sane person would seriously consider moderate:
„Syrian Revolutionaries Front again supports al Qaeda…in Quneitra…The SRF, which is supplied and backed by the United States, continues to fight alongside the Al Nusrah Front, al Qaeda’s official branch in Syria. While it is unclear whether they share the same ideology, it is still worth noting that a Western-backed force works in conjunction with al Qaeda.

The best favor one could do the „Free Syrian Army“ would be to say the FSA are all those rebels who are NOT „Islamic State“, „Nusra Front“, „Islamic Front“ and also not SRF. What remains is a bunch of armed, unorganized criminals:

„The FSA, a collection of tenuously coordinated, moderately Islamic, rebel groups was long the focus of the West’s hopes for ousting President Bashar al-Assad.
But in northern Syria, the FSA has now become a largely criminal enterprise, with commanders more concerned about profits from corruption, kidnapping and theft than fighting the regime, according to a series of interviews with The Sunday Telegraph…
Suddenly many of the fighters bought new homes, and started flashing more money. One man said of Jamaal Marouf: “He had nothing before the revolution, now he drives around in his personal bullet proof car.”“


„Liberated“ Libya: female human rights activist Salwa Bughaighis killed

This is Libya, a(nother) place „liberated“ by NATOs airforce and qatari paid and armed islamist militias:

More about the disaster produced in Libya as a result of „humanitarian intervention“ and „responsibility to protect“ (R2P):




Shamirs brilliant sarcasm exposes the US´ policy in Ukraine

„The new Kiev regime had dropped the last pretence of democracy by expelling the Communists from the parliament. This should endear them to the US even more. Expel Communists, apply for NATO, condemn Russia, arrange a gay parade and you may do anything at all, even fry dozens of citizens alive. And so they did.“

It is sad but true that in fact it is that cheap and easy to make populist politics in the US and „Nato“/central Europe by simply antagonizing, polemizing and, yes, insulting Russia and Putin.
The cheapest newspapers in Germany, usually only bought by the lowest and most voyeurist elements of the society because of the naked front page girl, and at the same time many, if not most of the allegedly better upper class dailies play to the same unified, remote controlled, unsceptic tune of Putin bashing.
Nowadays, you are an intellectual human rights activist by merely stating that Putin is the „new Hitler“, no matter how faulty, misleading and free of any facts the comparison is.

Be sceptic: HRW and Amnesty International have close ties to the US government

„Human Rights Watch characterizes itself as “one of the world’s leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights.” However, HRW’s close ties to the U.S. government call into question its independence.“


„Mistakenly considered by many as the final word on human rights worldwide, it might surprise people to know that Amnesty International is in fact one of the greatest obstacles to real human rights advocacy on Earth…Amnesty international is indeed funded and run by not only governments, but also immense corporate-financier interests, and is not only absolutely entwined with political ideology and economic interests, it is an essential tool used for perpetuating just such interests.“

„For decades, Amnesty International has been a respected name in the cause of human rights, but its recent hiring of Suzanne Nossel, a longtime U.S. “humanitarian interventionist,” has swung the organization more behind the Afghan War and the use of U.S. military force..“

„n May 2012, Amnesty International participated in a campaign to sell the war in Afghanistan under the logo: „NATO: Keep the Progress Going“. Ann Wright and Coleen Rowley discuss this campaign and the appointment of Suzanne Nossel, the new head of AI-USA and the possible source of this campaign.[6] Philip Weiss discusses the reason Amnesty might have embraced this campaign, and it has all to do with the appointment of Suzanne Nossel.[7]

„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.

Die (angebliche) „Internationale Gemeinschaft“

Wenn die USA, Israel und ihre üblichen Nato-Verdächtigen (GB, Frankreich und inzwischen leider auch Deutschland) mal wieder auf der Suche nach einem regime change Opfer sind, dann schlägt die Stunde des verdammenden und belastenden Vokabulars, mit dem die Politiker der Weltpolizei und ihrer Co-„Befreier“ samt ihren meist gleichgeschalteten Massenmedien dem auserkorenen Feind zu Leibe rücken.

Während das Zielobjekt der Aggressionspläne der sich selbstherrlich „zivilisiert“ nennenden Neokolonialisten/Invasoren zum „Schurkenstaat“ erklärt wird, bestätigt man sich selbst gerne, indem man sich verbal ins Zentrum einer angeblich „internationalen Gemeinschaft“ begibt, die mit der gleichen selbstlosen und humanistischen Inbrunst das deklarierte Reich des Bösen beseitigen und dessen gepeinigte Bürger erlösen wolle.

Dem Konsumenten solcher Propaganda wird – oft erfolgreich – der Eindruck vermittelt, die breite Mehrheit der Menschheit und Staatengemeinschaft sei quasi demokratisch zu dem Schluss gekommen, das Erreichen des ach so hehren Ziels nötigenfalls mit Militärgewalt zu erzwingen.

So ungern es der Durchschnittsamerikaner und der zentraleuropäische, sich mindestens subtil im rassistischen Herrendenken befindende  „Eurozentrist“ auch sehen, sie sind nicht die „internationale Gemeinschaft“, als die sich ihre Mainstreammedien gerne bezeichnen und preisen.

Ende August findet das 16. Treffen des Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Teheran statt, einem der eingangs erwähnten angeblichen „Schurkenstaaten“.  118 von 192 Staaten der Welt werden teilnehmen, darunter die BRICS Staaten (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). Zum Ärger der führenden Kriegstreiber-, Waffenexport- und Besatzerstaaten der Welt, USA und Israel, wird auch UN-Generalsekretär Ban Ki Moon teilnehmen.
Es gibt also auch offensichtlich diese „andere“ und sehr grosse internationale Gemeinschaft, die keine Probleme hat, ihr Treffen in Teheran abzuhalten.
Die Existenz dieser doch so unterschiedlichen aber grösseren Staatengemeinschaft  sollten sich alle Nachrichtenleser und -hörer vor Augen führen, wenn das nächste Mal die ach so seriösen öffentlich-rechtlichen TV-Sender oder niveauvollen Tageszeitungen von jener „internationalen Gemeinschaft“ sprechen, die jetzt „die Geduld mit dem Diktator verloren“ hat und daraufdrängt, die bis an die Zähne bewaffneten militärischen Kampfhunde von der Leine zu lassen.