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?

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/

 

 

Iraq will be doomed if Sunnis should gather behind ISIS

For one, it is clear that ISIS alone surely did not capture Mossul and Tikrit within few days. Local Sunni tribal fighters as well as former Baath party officers had also their share, with the latter being behind a long term planning of the events.

At the same time nobody should have doubts that ISIS is the „muscle“ of what many disgruntled Iraqi Sunnis consider a „Sunni revolution“. Trying to play down ISIS´ role as the primary and most lethal fighting force would be a repetition of similar illusory claims regarding the Al-Nusra front in Syria, which western powers and Arab countries behind the Syrian opposition for a very long time tried to detract from.
In Syria the so called „Free Syrian Army“ had tens of thousands of fighters and was even „assisted“ by the already mentioned hardcore Salafi fighters of the Al-Nusra, but still ISIS managed to fight and rout these groups in eastern Syria and inflict heavy casualties on them elsewhere in that country.
There is little reason to assume that ISIS will „perform“ weaker in Iraq. Other Sunni groups including the more regionally interested tribal fighters as well as the more nationalist and secular minded former Baath party forces are welcome to cooperate with ISIS and contribute but ISIS will demand and enforce to have the final say and call the shots.

Should the Sunnis decide to „enjoy“ ISIS and tolerate the leadership of the „islamic state“, this will be the end of Iraq as a sovereign state as ISIS openly and proudly announces it´s firm will to fight the Shia majority of the country. ISIS is not a mere (and legitimate) resistance movement against an unjust, Shia led government but a vehemently sectarian, supremacist and violent movement, which considers all Shia as infidels who deserve death. But Iraq is not Pakistan where the Shia are basically defenseless. In Iraq the Shia make up a majority of 70-75% among the Arab population and have tens – if not hundreds – of thousands of battle-experienced fighters willing to die when existentially threatened.

BBC (unintentionally) exposes the sheer stupidity of some anti-Assad Syrians

„This election is a mockery,“ said another widow, Fatma Fahal. „It shouldn’t happen. My husband and his three brothers didn’t martyr themselves for God and country just for people to go out and vote for Bashar.“
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27687018

It seems noone told Fatma Fahal that the election was indeed a good platform to display opposition and discontent by voting one of the other candidates and thus AGAINST Assad. This exactly is the dilemma of Syrias opposition: They reject and (try to) sabotage referendums, negotiations and elections but offer no alternative and hence play a major role in extending the suffering of the very people they claim to represent and to protect.

Another totally shameful and ridicuolous aspect of this BBC article is the attempt to portray the Salafist and Saudi funded/supported  „Islamic Front“ (IF) as a nationalist, „moderate islamist“ and purely Syrian movement. Whoever knows the composition of the IF with Ahrar al Sham and Jaish al Islam being its biggest factions is aware of the groups sectarian and radical character. Their attempt to distance themselves from the even more radical ISIS can only deceive naive readers who are not familiar with the IFs regular joint ventures with the beheaders and prisoner executers of the Jabhat al Nusra (JAN). It was during one of the joint endeavours of the IF and JAN in Adraa where loyalist civilians were thrown into ovens and slaughtered.

Also interesting:
„In Deir ez-Zor, another city in the east, JAN militants from the local Sharia court beat and detained women who were not wearing full Islamic dress and who had listened to music at a wedding party in a private house.“
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-fighting-a-civil-war-through-the-ballot-box-9449213.html

JAN is the single most important effective fighting force on the rebel side. They fight as a leading force on all relevant Syrian battlefronts. Hardly any rebel success is unrelated to JAN. For this reason the „good islamists“ of the IF, as the BBC and other pro-rebel anti-Assad sources try to whitewash them, cooperate with JAN. And when for a brief period the rebels of the so called „moderate“ and Jordan/CIA-trained „Southern Front“ achieved some successes in Deraa and Quneitra it were mostly the JAN fighters who were behind it.

Beware of the „breaking news“ regarding Syria on June 2nd or 3rd

On Tuesday the Syrian presidential election is supposed to take place.
There is a good chance that „by incident“ tomorrow or the day after „activists“ will report a chemical attack or another large scale atrocity in Syria.

This article is good:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/30/why-are-they-afraid-of-the-syrian-elections/

„Why are Kerry and the “Friends”  so upset and fearful of Syrian elections?  If they are such a farce, then much of the public will not participate in them. If the vote is seen by the public as meaningless,  then  voter turnout will be very low such as in Egypt this week.

As to the issue of holding an election during a time of conflict, this was done right here in the USA.  The 1864 election which re-elected Abraham Lincoln was held during the midst of the extremely bloody US civil war.“

 

When the US´ favorite gets 93% of the votes, the west won´t call elections a farce

Look at this BBC article about Egypts Sisis landslide (93%) win of the presidential elections:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27614776

Though the article mentions that turnout was low and the powerful Muslim Brotherhood was banned, it does not quote a single western (almost always an american president or foreign secretary or their british-french counterparts) calling the elections a farce, or a fraud or a „parody of democracy“ as UKs William Hague already did with regards to the upcoming Syrian elections.

Imagine Assad would get 93%. Western press and politicians would tear apart the event and ridicule the Syrian regime.
Not however in Egypt where the darling of the US  (and Saudi Arabia) has won.

Watch out for the reports coming after Assads electoral victory in a couple of days:
You will read about „irregularities“ and manipulation, reported by „activists“. You will read that each and every Syrian was bullied and observed by a Mukhabarat thug or the notorious „Shabiha“ to intimidate him towards voting for Assad. Local „activists“ will report about having witnessed how the same Alawites travelled from one village to the neighbouring one to vote for Assad multiple times while Sunnis were prevented from voting (against Assad) by pro-Assad militiamen. You will read about Assad having allegedly received 100% of votes even from rebel strongholds. All these „facts“ that will rain down on you from various – of course – totally reliable sources inside Syria will be intended to prove to you that – unlike the elections in Ukraine or Egypt – the Syrian election was a „joke“, an insult to „millions of Syrians“ who hate Assad and love the rebels and and and…

 

What? Syrian refugees want to vote FOR Bashar???

After 2-3 years of constantly hearing and reading biased and polemic anti-Assad reporting and comments in the media of their host countries you could expect the broad majority of Syrian refugees to either abstain from voting or use the event to express their opposition to Assad by explicitly voting for another candidate.
Instead it seems that quite a many refuguees appeared at the voting stations to vote for Assad:

The massive turnout for the expatriate Syrian vote at the embassy above Beirut produced scenes rarely observed at any embassy or polling station in the world.

At times it turned into a rowdy support rally for the incumbent Bashar al-Assad, with none of the normal election decorum…

The strength and assertiveness of the vote may have reflected an underlying feeling among many Syrians abroad that the tide is running in the regime’s favour, and it is time to climb aboard.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27599868

Did Bashar forget to „wipe Homs from the map“?

Back in early 2012 Nicolas Sarkozy was pressing for military intervention in Syria to prevent Bashar al Assad from massacring the people of Homs like Ghaddafi wanted to massacre the people of Benghazi. The following article is reminiscent of Sarkozys „warning“ back then:

„Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said Sarkozy, “wants to wipe Homs from the map like Qaddafi wanted to wipe Benghazi from the map.”“
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/wiping-out-6832
This was obviously quite a bizarre analogy referring to something (wiping off Benghazi) that actually never happened.

2 years after the allegedly imminent massacre of civilians or as Sarkozy said the wiping off the map of Homs, the Syrian Army drove out the rebels and retook control of the „capital of the revolution“, but interestingly two things occured of which one actually DID NOT happen despite predictions to the contrary:
1. The government forces did NOT massacre the people
2. Instead of fleeing to the „safety“ of „liberated“ rebel-held areas many of Homs´ inhabitants who had fled the city earlier started returning to Homs

Now a flashback to the original siege of Baba Amr in 2011/12:

The entire western news coverage of the siege of Homs´ Baba Amr district was deceptive and polemic serving merely the purpose of demonizing one side of the conflict.
Baseless claims were made to the effect that the Syrian Army was besieging and indiscriminately shelling entire Homs, Syrias 3rd biggest city. BBC ran a report quoting a rebel (or pro-rebel civilian) that in entire Homs only two bakeries were intact.
Taking a look at this map it becomes clear that Baba Amr is a peripheral district of Homs and putting it under siege is by far not tantamount to besieging entire Homs:
https://i2.wp.com/news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58789000/gif/_58789122_syria_homs_624_v6.gif

 

Syrian Rebel Car Bomb Kills 14 Outside Homs Alawite Mosque

According to some Salafi (and other hardline) muslims the Alawites are no „real“ muslims and do not or „can not“ pray. Apparently they have mosques, in this particular case one named after the first muezzin of Islam, Balal al Habashi, who is respected by both Sunnis and Shias:

„Syrian Rebel Car Bomb Kills 14 Outside Homs Alawite Mosque“
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/04/18/syrian-rebel-car-bomb-kills-14-outside-homs-alawite-mosque/

Once again one has to wonder about both the insanity and bizarreness of bombing mosques and killing worshippers in the name of Islam. Again, shame on all western and arab countries who continue to support such terrorists and their well known backers.

Why Israels claim of capturing Iranian weapons for Gaza is nonsense

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26516704
„the Israeli military unveiled what it alleged was a cache of Syrian-made weapons being sent by Iran to militants in the Gaza Strip.“

Here some reasons why this story is an Israeli fabrication to torpedo the US talks with Iran and another desperate attempt to mislead the international community:
a) For one thing, Syria is not at all in the position to „export“ weapons to anywhere, let alone to Iran, a country with decades of experience in development and production of various short range rockets
b) The Syrian army needs every single bullet right now. Why does not Iran export own rockets to Hamas and instead reduces Syrias bitterly needed arsenal?
c) Syrias relationship with Hamas is at an all time low. Why should they help arm Hamas right now?
d) The Persian Gulf is full of american warships:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Naval_Forces_Central_Command
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Fifth_Fleet
Why should rockets be flown from Syria to Bandar Abbas and then all the way back to Iraq, risking to be intercepted by the US navy:
ship_490_ENGLISH
e) How was the alleged Iranian weapons shipment supposed to break through the Israeli maritime blockade of Gazas coast when even aid flotillas are not passed through?
f) Iran currently has not a good relationship with Hamas and has met with PLO officials in Teheran just recently. One of the main reason is that Hamas took an anti-government position in the Syrian civil war and supports the rebel side
g) Hamas is also in tensions with the new Egyptian government so it would be no good idea to move Hamas bound weapons through the Suez canal
h) What should be the advantage of allegedy hiding the rockets below cement bags when Israel does not allow cement to enter Gaza either? Israel says it could be used to build bunkers or tunnels
i) Why are the cement bags labelled „Made in I.R. Iran“ in English letters but without any Farsi/Arabic script? Is Iran now a proud exporter of cement to non-middle-eastern countries?