Already Syrias „moderate“ rebels work with al-Nusra and are almost aligning with IS

It speaks volumes:
Obama, Kerry and their willing central European co-warmongers still claim there are moderate Syrian rebels. Then they display either total ignorance or naivety by further claiming that these hardly identifiable moderates deserve to get (more) American weapons because they are supposed to do the ground fighting against the „Islamic State“.
The more interesting then that these rebels already are announcing openly that they are signing truces („non-aggression“ pacts) with IS in order to focus on their common agenda: „the Nussayri regime“ (Nussayri is a perjorative term for the Syrian Alawites. Calling the government „Nussayri“ not only proves the sectarianism of the rebels including the „moderates“ but also shows that they ignore that major parts of the government and the armed forces are in fact Sunnis).

Once again it is proven that alleged moderates (like the Syrian Revolutionary Front) closely work with the Al-Nusra Front, while the latter openly cooperates with IS on several fronts, e.g. Lebanon.

What is Obamas (true) problem with Syria?

Sure, Syria under the Assads was no paradise of human rights, but which other arab country in that region is better?
At least Syria is a secular government. Sunni, Alawi, Druze, Christians, women and men, all can and are pilots, teachers, doctors, Generals, foot soldiers, ministers. Can you say that about Saudi Arabia?
Plus, Syria kept a 40 year peace with Israel until today and has not attacked any country.
So, what the hell is the problem the Nato countries have with Syria? Did Assad torture their people?
If the „lack of legitimacy“ is an issue, what about Qatar? Has anyone there elected the ruler democratically?
If they say it is nepotism and family rulership, what about Kuwait? Is it not the same family ruling there for decades?
If it is the suppression of human rights and freedom of press, what about Bahrain? There a minority not only rules but also sidelines the majority totally, visible through the fact that Shia are absent from ministerial posts, the army and the security services. Instead the monarchy naturalizes Pakistani, Jordanian and other Sunnis to tip the demographic situation to the disadvantage of the indigenous Shia.
Despite having not a fraction of the petrodollars of the Gulf States Syria hosted hundreds of thousands of mostly Sunni Palestinian refugees for decades. How many Palestinian refugees live in Qatar and Saudi Arabia?

The „vetted, moderate rebels“ of the Free Syrian Army – Who and where are they?

You have probably heard that the US is (once again) considering to boost the support for the „moderate“ rebels in Syria. These rebels are supposed to fight at once the Syrian Army and its affiliate forces (the NDF, the lebanese Hezbollah) and the „Islamic State“ militia.
Very often when the phrase „moderate rebels“ is used by western politicians and media it occurs in verbal connection with the „Free Syrian Army“, but what/who exactly is this  moderate „Army“?

If one bothers to read through battlefield news all over Syria it becomes clear that the major anti-government forces are all radical sectarian Islamists, mostly Salafis. At best you can distinguish between Pro Saudi and „less Pro Saudi“ Salafis, but what does this have to do with „moderate“?
In particular the major rebel forces are:
The „Islamic State“ (former ISIS or ISIL)
The al Qaeda affiliate Nusra Front or „Jabhat al Nusra“ (JAN), designated as terrorist organization by the US
The „Islamic Front“ (IF)

The IF is an umbrella group featuring as its major factions the „Ahrar al Sham“ (which just lost its entire leadership), the „Liwa al Tauheed“ (whose leader was killed a few months ago) and Jaish al Islam (Army of Islam).

Another umbrella organization is the „Syrian Revolutionary Front“ (SRF) headed by (another) Saudi favourite called Jamal Maarouf. In addition to Maarouf being labeled „highway robber“ by some other rebel factions, he openly declares support for and coordination with the Salafis of JAN, so again there is no way to view the SRF as „moderate“.

But never underestimate the „creativity“ of Syrias rebels and their US- and (mostly Wahhabi) GCC-Backers: In order to confuse the international audience and create the impression that there are indeed rebels other than the above mentioned three which were exposed as clearly non-moderate, yet more rebel organization names were created.
One which was meant to give itself the pretense of being Syrian nationalist, liberal and non-sectarian is the „Southern Front“. The Southern Front is said to consist of 49 different factions and 30.000 fighters. At the second look however it becomes clear that the two major factions of this Front are the above mentioned SRF of Jamal Maarouf who praises the Nusra Front and the Yarmouk Brigade that took Unifil peacekeepers as hostages. Plus, the Yarmouk brigade strongly cooperates with JAN:
Interestingly the Southern Front was sidelined by the Nusra and many of its fighters joined the latter:

This is finally how Aron Lund comments the „honesty“ behind the Southern Fronts non-extremism/non-sectarianism:
Rather than an initiative from the rebels themselves, word is that it was foreign officials that called on rebel commanders to sign a statement declaring their opposition to extremism, saying it was a precondition for getting more guns and money. Since beggars can’t be choosers, the commanders then collectively shrugged their shoulders and signed—but not so much to declare a new alliance as to help U.S. officials tick all the right boxes in their reports back home, hoping that this would unlock another crate of guns.

Finally, the newest „unified“ rebel umbrella organization is the „Revolutionary Command Council„, featuring 18 rebel factions, but it suffices to read the names of SRF and „Jaish al Islam“ (Army of Islam) to know that outright Salafis and those who proudly declare to cooperate with them are definitely not qualified to be called moderates.

Summarizing, we see that there are six major rebel „joint ventures“: ISIS, JAN, Islamic Front, SRF, Southern Front and the Revolutionary Command Council. And we see that none of them is moderate. So, what exactly is the „Free Syrian Army“? Who are it´s leading commanders?
It seems the FSA has ceased to exist if it ever really existed as a clearly defined army with commando structure and clear battlefield agenda.
There was for instance General Salim Idriss, the former head of the allegedly moderate FSA, but it came out his „good“ rebels were involved in the massacre of pro-government villagers in Lattakia.
Then there was top ranking FSA Commander al-Okaidi who thanked ISIS and JAN for their crucial role in capturing Syrias Mennagh airbase.

It´s time to stop fooling ourselves, fabricate fairy tales and spread them dishonestly. A moderate FSA does not exist. Full stop. Many of those rebels deemed reliable and moderate by US, UK and France and trained and armed in Turkey and Jordan have either defected to ISIS and co. or sold/handed over their US and Saudi/Qatari supplied weapons to ISIS and Nusra. Here is a good document of shame for Obama and McCain who continue to speak about the moderates who should be further armed:

And here another one:
„Of most interest was the capture of two M-79 rockets that were identical to a batch of such weapons supplied by Saudi Arabia to rebels in southern Syria in January 2013. “

Obama wants to attack IS in Syria without a UN mandate and without the approval of the Syrian government. One major reason is the recent beheading of journalist Steven Sotloff. Obama wants to support the moderate rebels against IS (and Assad), but how „funny“ that – according to Sotloffs family – it were the MODERATE REBELS who sold him to ISIS:

Finally I like to quote Rand Paul, son of former US presidential candidate Ron Paul:

“They say there are some pro-Western people and we’re going to vet them. Well, apparently we’ve got a senator over there who got his picture taken with some kidnappers, so I don’t know how good a job we’re going to do vetting those who are going to get the arms.”

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. “

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.


Israels Haaretz admits Israeli terrorism against Iran

So, finally Israeli press is admitting that Israel has been assassinating Iranian scientists for years, which is nothing short of (state) terrorism:

Of course, you won´t hear western press and even less western politicians admit these acts of terror, let alone condemn them.

Read also:
An important secondary insight of the terror revelations by Israeli sources themselves is that the Iranians were damn right when they were accusing Israel of terrorism for years. All the time their allegations were brushed off as either conspiracy theory or „propaganda“.

Attacking Syria would be an unjustified and criminal act

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:

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.“

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:

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:

The allegedly secular „Free Syrian Army“ hardly exists anymore:

– 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 – Western democracies ignore their people´s will

Polls taken in France, UK and US show that the broad majority of these Nato countries populations are vehemently opposed to military intervening in Syria. A similarly high level of opposition is also expressed towards the idea of further arming the increasingly radicalized and sectarian syrian rebels.

The sight of often non-syrian Salafi jihadists beheading christian Pastors as well as syrian Alawites but also the video clip showing a leader of an allegedly moderate syrian rebel faction cannibalizing the body of a dead syrian soldier will hardly have changed public opinion in favor of the rebels.

So, why are the Camerons, Hagues, Hollandes,…and probably also Obamas so keen on attacking Syria?
Why don´t they care for their people´s will? Is not a democracy about representing and fulfilling the people´s will?

Syria: How western governments ignore their peoples will

Polls in the US ( and UK ( show that the broad majority of the public is against an intervention in Syria. Now it turns out that this also applies to the majority of Turks:

So, whom are the democratically elected leaders Obama, Cameron and Erdogan representing when they push for an attack on Syria?

Have they degraded themselves to be the „foreign secretaries“ of Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

Here is what the public of Syrias arab neighbours think:

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.” <<<
  • 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:
    Lediglich eines von offenbar fünf Schiffsladungen an Waffen für die Rebellen wurde vorzeitig entdeckt und (von der libanesischen Marine) beschlagnahmt:
  • 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. <<<
  • 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“. <<<
  • 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“…