According to new reports, the al-Nusra Front has already assassinated a huge number of officers from the so-called “Free Syrian Army” (FSA), while both terrorist groups are still supported by foreign governments in order to maintain the proxy war and terrorism on Syrian soil.

It is better to let other hands fight than to fight by his own hands in order to achieve specific goals in the Middle East, isn’t it? Nothing has changed in all the last years.

In addition, these reports also mention the fact that the dangerous al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front still systematically threatens family members of the so-called officers from the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA), while it is known for many months now, that both, the FSA as well as the al-Nusra Front, threatened and still threaten the families of Syrian civilians, too.

Of course, both terrorist groups have already implemented some of these threats and so, they raped, tortured and massacred civilians in Syria.

It is also stated that the most “officers” of the so-called “Free Syrian Army” (FSA / terrorists and also jihadists and US slaves) fear the huge influence of the foreign-backed al-Qaeda offshot, the al-Nusra Front, and thus, they did not have the courage to speak about all the crimes and threats committed by this front of religious radicals and uneducated, dangerous fools.

The al-Nusra Front is a clear offshot of al-Qaeda, which has been created by the U.S. administration years ago – Hillary Clinton has confirmed this already some time ago in an interview and laughed about it. Typical, dangerous U.S. schizophrenia (government levels, not the American people, of course).

Al-Nusra Front Terrorists

The treacherous acts include (partly successful) attempts to assassinate “officers” from the so-called “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) and also the implementation of political and military deals with different Syrian and foreign parties in order to gain the power in Syria. In addition, some members of the Syrian government in the capital Damascus have also dealt with the radical al-Nusra front and were parts of meetings with the religious radicals of this al-Qaeda offshot.

As mentioned in many articles here, some parts of the Syrian government are still a threat for the majority of the Syrian people and it is really the time to care about these traitors and people who think they personally benefit from such “acts”, which are dangerous for all sects on Syrian soil.

The post Syria: Al-Nusra Front already killed some FSA-Officers appeared first on SyriaNews.

“We call on the Syrian authorities and opposition at the Geneva Conference jointly to commit to destroying and expelling from Syria all organisations and individuals affiliated to Al Qaeda, and any other nonstate actors linked to terrorism.”

In Point 84 of this communique, there is actually the talk of a transitional government, which probably cannot be the addressee of the above-cited call from Point 86 of this communique by the G8 because there is no transitional government in the meant sense of this.

In other words: the “Illegitimacy of Assad” is forgotten. The call was made in direction to a legitimate Syrian government. At the same time, there are no signs that the Americans, the French or the perfidious Albion and its Middle Eastern branches take some distance from their idea to just arm exactly these terrorist groups of whom they demand their killing and expulsion here.

And even if one assumes in a quickly made interpretation that the passage in the communiqué of the G8 means the FSA (“Free Syrian Army”) or their Supreme Military Council including the “opposition”, this just cannot be correct after a closer examination: the fraternal cooperation of the leaders of the FSA with the officially designated as terrorist organization and al-Qaeda offshoot classified al-Nusra Front is undoubtedly confirmed (thanks to Kaumi for the link). It also seems that they make no bones about it.

Two variants: Either the potentates in Lough Erne had no longer a better idea in the face of the menacing-looking doctor Putin, as they continue to stubbornly pretend madness.

All previous:

The staggering has so far not prevented the world community from continuing to keep this current generation of politicians for sane and driven by humanitarian motives. Maybe even this stunt now will work?

Or it is quite simple and they meant the political opposition in Syria, which is represented in the parliament and in the government.

Apart from this, the G8 is at the present time a part of the G20, and if they already exchanging opinions, so they would have also to listen to those States, which have no less weight than the majority of those who are represented in the G8.

It is actually very strange to hear the opinion of Canada about a problem, which does address this country in any level, while the positions of China and India are not even asked, although both are more directly affected by all processes in the region.

Insofar, basically nothing has happened, even if the media is now emphasizing a “transitional government”. Do not worry, this is chosen by the Syrians themselves in 2014. Nothing happened, because nothing should happen until now. Even if the Russians had clenched their fists there and banged the doors, that would be nothing more than a small scandal.

Moreover, the communique regarding the Syrian crisis is pretty much exactly what the Russians have consistently followed from the beginning and what was already enshrined in the Geneva agreement last year. Apparently, such a paper has, in spite of everything, no real weight. So everything stays like it is.

As in advance of the meeting of the G8, everything will be decided in Syria at the bottom of the facts in Damascus, Aleppo, Idlib, Deir az-Zur. The “peace process” will begin when the West has no other choice left.

As long as the West has the will and the opportunity to go to war (especially with foreign peoples hands), he will do it.

PS: A few new pictures from Damascus and suburbs by Alexandr Rytschakow.

Source: apxwn

The post Syria: Wondrous Communique by the “G8″ appeared first on SyriaNews.

Yesterday, June 18, a coward sociopath remotely detonated an IED attached to the car of Dr. Seham Dannoun, with her in it. Professor Dannoun was rushed to the hospital, where physicians were forced to perform bilateral above the knee amputations on her, as her femurs were shattered, her musculature decimated, and her veins and arteries completely gone.

Dr. Seham Dannoun from Damascus University targeted by FSA

Dr. Dannoun is the most recent of leading Syrian professors targeted for assassination, including professors of cardio-thoracic surgery, and architectural and nuclear engineering. Additionally, these barbarian friends who Cameron, Hollande, Obomba, and McCain would not want as neighbors, have bombed university students, in one monstrous attack against Aleppo University killing more than 80 students injuring 160 in January 2013, another attack on Damascus University killing 20 architectural pupils, in another barbarous attack and five medical engineering students in another.

Architect College in Aleppo University, most of those students appearing in this picture were killed by ‘freedom fighters’

The brutal targeting, for assassination, of brilliant minds, is the perverse attempt to extinguish the light of humanity. It has been done by the most vicious, during the worst dark ages in history. It is a heinous attempt to blot out the future, to exterminate humanity’s incessant hope.

Dr. Dannoun has a daunting rehabilitation recovery before her. She will, at times, suffer pain that medications cannot control (hopefully, the bombed of the Syrian state-owned pharmaceutical factory, by the NATO proteges has been sufficiently repaired to be making necessary quantities of narcotics for the Syrian people.). She will have to survive such pain, and anger, and depression, and a terrible sense of loss of self, to know that the savages have not succeeded in destroying her mind.

We wish her a recovery as speedy as possible.

Note to US Americans: There are two important petitions circulating; one calls for the arrest of illegal alien McCain: [Click Here] initiated after the senator sneaked into a border town inside Syria illegally and met members of terrorist groups responsible for kidnapping and slaughtering numerous innocent human beings. The other is by U.S. Senator Tom Udall, calling upon Congress not to declare war against Syria. Though wrongly referring to the invasion of Syria by NATO and friends’ mercenary savages, it is, nonetheless, of significant consequence: [Click Here].

Video of Dr. Dannoun’s hospital treating by Syrian TV (banned in the west claiming to promote free speech):

The post John McCain’s Barbarian Friends Target Another Scientist, in Damascus appeared first on SyriaNews.

These sources stated that the West plans to provide more weapons to the already well-armed terrorists and Islamists in the eastern city of Dara`a and to the radicals and religious fanatics in northern Syria, near at the border to Turkey. This dangerous plan of some Western governments is said to be already in its implementation phase and thus, the West could soon send more weapons to fanatic Islamists, al-Qaeda linked thugs and the usual dumb human ressources fighting in Syria for an Islamist state.

There are also several new reports that some armored vehicles, even including a shipment of t-62 and t-55 tanks from Libya, were already transferred to the terrorists within Syria by the help of some so-called democratic governments in the West and their special services in Libya, Jordan, Lebanon and the Turkish border to Syria.

Washington and the usual allies intend to send more arms to the terrorists fighting in Syria in order that these religious fanatics and al-Qaeda-linked thugs are able to shift the balance of the battles for their benefits again. In recent weeks, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) was successful in the most operations against the terrorism of these foreign-backed thugs and gunmen.

In addition, it is reported that the U.S. administration and some of its usual allies intend to disturb the military balance, prolong the clashes and change the situation into a war of attrition within Syrian borders.

Further reports speak of another plan by some Western non-democratic governments – a plan for training and organizing thousands of volunteers from Syria including those who had avoided military service or civilians capable of carrying weapons and taking military training. In addition a comprehensive reconnaissance mission is currently carried out on the borders of the most neighboring countries of Syria – as a preparation for the start of the delivery of arms and other equipment to the terrorists and Islamists in Syria.

It is said that about 8.000 British, French and American forces are near the borders to Syria – in Turkey and Jordan. These foreign forces are there to supervise the process of supplying the religious radicals, terrorists, thugs and al-Qaeda idiots with weapons – while the Western mainstream media shall primarily report about the strength and success of the so-called “Syrian rebels” who are finally nothing else than armed cockroaches, born to be killed.

A Nusra Front terrorists with ‘non-lethal’ machine guns provided by the West, they’re expecting ‘lethal’ weapons now to be paid for by western taxpayers

Finally, some other reports stated that about 650 military groups, among them are jihadists and armed strangers near the Syiran area of Dara`a, have already received fresh weapons by some foreign nations.

The process of sending weapons to the foreign-backed militants is expected to be carried out by training around 3000 Syrian Kurds who had failed to get Syrian residency in the past and finally became traitors to the Kurdish and Syrian people. In addition, these Syrian Kurds will have the helping hand of many Syrian refugees and the usual shit who thinks to gain some personal benefits by destroying his home country.

The post West: More Weapons for the Terrorists in Syria appeared first on SyriaNews.

The two leaders had emerged from a «difficult» – diplomatic language for «combative» – private meeting in which Syria was top of the agenda. Apparently, President Putin had kept his British host waiting for one hour before arriving.

Afterwards, at the press conference, Cameron winced and gripped the podium as if it was a precipice from which he was hanging, as Putin delivered his comments. Cameron had good reason to look fearful as he hung on every word emanating from the Russian leader.

Then Putin pushed diplomacy to the limit when he said: «You will not deny that one does not really need to support the people who not only kill their enemies, but open up their bodies, eat their intestines in front of the public and cameras. Are these the people you want to support? Is it them who you want to supply with weapons? Then this probably has little relation to humanitarian values that have been preached in Europe for hundreds of years».

It was the rhetorical equivalent of a public slap in the face for the conceited British prime minister.

Putin was referring explicitly to the countless videos that have emerged over recent months showing a litany of barbarities committed by the Western so-called «rebels» who have been waging a war inside Syria for the past two and half years to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The depravities include eviscerating bodies of slain victims and forcing children to decapitate soldiers and civilians.

In reality these «pro-democracy rebels» whom the Western governments and media have lionized are a rag-tag paramilitary force of extremists and terrorists who have gravitated to Syria from up to 30 countries, including Libya, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the Russian Caucasus. These mercenaries share the same abstruse Wahhabi/Salafist theology, which gives them an ideological green light to butcher anyone that stands in their way of setting up a fundamentalist Emirate in Syria. The NATO powers, led by the US, Britain and France, have armed this proxy army to the teeth and equipped it with logistics and training from Special Forces to do the West’s dirty work of regime change.

Consistent reports testify that the American CIA and British M16 are directing the terrorist traffic into Syria from bordering Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel. There are also reliable reports that Western military intelligence agents have equipped and trained the mercenaries in Syria in the use of chemical weapons, including the deadly nerve poison sarin, which confounds British, French and American government claims last week that it is the Syrian national forces that are using these weapons. That Western claim – presented without of a scintilla of evidence – has been firmly rebutted by both Russia and Syria.

Yet when Cameron spoke first at the London press conference, he appeared to be exhorting Putin on the need for humanitarian principles and urgency.

Ironically, Britain and its allied Western sponsors of state terrorism in Syria have accused Russia of destabilizing Syria and the region from its maintenance of normal diplomatic relations with the sovereign government in Damascus and for Moscow’s support of a planned peace conference in Geneva between the Assad administration and members of the internal political opposition. Putin reminded his British host that Russian delivery of weapons to Assad, in particular the S-300 anti-aircraft defense system, was part of a long-standing legal transaction – unlike the clandestine orchestration of foreign jihadists by Western and Arab rogue states in complete violation of international law and norms.

Still, in face of this damning evidence, Cameron struggled to sound statesmanlike as Putin looked on with an admixture of indignation and tedium.

Cameron tried ever-so desperately to strike a pose of consensus with his Russian guest. He said: «What I take from our conversation today is that we can overcome these differences if we recognize that we share some fundamental aims: to end the conflict, to stop Syria breaking apart, to let the Syrian people decide who governs them, and to take the fight to the extremists and defeat them».

Cameron’s vow «to let the Syrian people decide who governs them, and take the fight to the extremists and defeat them» is plain old execrable duplicity of the flavour that British politicians are past masters at selling.

The British premier added that Britain and Russia should put aside their differences to find «common ground». What this archetypal British dissembling is aiming at is to somehow inveigle Moscow into jettisoning its strategic relations with the Assad government and to leave Syria at the mercy of marauding Western-backed death squads. Where is the «common ground» in that arrangement? It sounds more like wanting to push Russia and Syria over the abyss.

Within hours of the Downing Street meeting between Cameron and Putin, the former French foreign minister Roland Dumas was separately revealing to French media that he was approached by British officials with a plan to destabilize Syria – two years before the outbreak of conflict in March 2011.

Elsewhere at the weekend, British foreign minister William Hague was maintaining the fiction that Britain was on the side of «moderates» in Syria. Hague told the BBC: “We are currently sending equipment that saves lives, and who are we sending that to? Well, we are sending it to those more moderate, more sensible elements of the opposition. Obviously, we’re not sending it to extremist groups, to groups that we’re very concerned about, that could become a terrorist threat».

This is again sheer British duplicity and dissembling in the glaring spotlight of truth. The so-called Free Syrian Army of mercenaries, better known as the Foreign Supplied Army, is comprised of more than 70 per cent of foreign jihadist, most of whom like the Jabhat Al Nusra are affiliated with Al Qaeda. The liaison between British and American military intelligence and Al Qaeda-linked Mujahideen is a long-standing collusion, dating back to Afghanistan during the 1980s when these foot soldiers waged a dirty war for the West against the Soviet Union.

The Russians hardly need to snoop on British government phone calls and emails to know of the decades-old collusion that exists between Britain, the US and Al Qaeda proxy terrorists – a collusion which has now caused a maelstrom of destruction and human suffering in Syria, with over 90,000 deaths.

So, when Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke in London of organ-eating terrorists supported by the NATO powers, he was right to rhetorically slap Britain’s Cameron in the face. Putin was just right, too, to make Cameron wince and grip that podium with white knuckles before delivering the all-embarrassing slap. For Cameron had minutes earlier just tried to insult Putin’s intelligence, and the rest of the world’s, with bare-faced lies about Britain’s nefarious role in Syria.

Author: Finian Cunningham

Source: strategic-culture.org

The post Cameron insults our intelligence over Syria… and gets a slap from Putin appeared first on SyriaNews.

The U.S. proposal, backed by the Israeli Lobby, was in direct contravention of the principal of universal membership pushed by countries like Australia during the tenth anniversary of the UN in 1955. However, the United States and Soviet Union never addressed the issue of universal membership of the UN or the issue of small states becoming members, preferring instead to admit new members based on a de facto understanding that a balance would be maintained among pro-Western, Soviet bloc, and neutral nations.

Between 1954 to 1956, new member nations were admitted to the UN that reflected a continuation of the status quo between pro-Western, Soviet bloc, and nonaligned nations. These nations were Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Ceylon, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Laos, Libya, Nepal, Portugal, Romania, and Spain.

It was not until the early 1960s, when France and Britain conferred independence upon a number of colonies in Africa that Israel and its Zionist supporters became worried. Many of these African nations severed diplomatic relations with Israel after the 1973 Israeli-Arab War and in 1975, Israel’s worst fears were realized when the General Assembly passed a resolution equating Zionism with racism.

Goldberg saw a more nonaligned-oriented UN General Assembly becoming a permanent adversary of Israel in mid-1960s. By trying to create a second-tier of UN membership, Goldberg’s gambit was to prevent a permanent working majority among largely African and Asian nations of the Third World that would consistently vote against the interests of Israel in the General Assembly and other specialized agencies. Those fears were realized in 1975 with the Zionism as racism resolution in the General Assembly. Israel and its supporters have always been assured of a U.S. veto in the UN Security Council against anti-Israeli resolutions but that guarantee never extended to the UN General Assembly and other bodies where the vote of the United States was equal to the vote of Malta.

The Zionists’ concern about mini-states being admitted to the UN also involved Israel’s concern that Jerusalem might be recognized as an international entity and be admitted to the UN as either a full member or state observer, the latter similar to the status of the Holy See in Rome. There was some basis for Israel’s concern since even its major supporter, the United States, had, during the Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy administrations, pushed for an international regime to govern Jerusalem. An example of such American support for an independent Jerusalem was an aide-memoire, dated July 9, 1952, that stated: «The Government of the UnitedStates has adhered and continues to adhere to the policy that there should be a special international regime for Jerusalem». The idea of an independent Jerusalem, composed of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim officials, having a seat at the UN, along with the real potential of an internationally-recognized Palestine sharing a UN seat, was too much for the Zionists. The UN, once supported by Zionists like Goldberg and Bernard Baruch, became overnight a perceived enemy of Israel and a target for the Israel Lobby.

Goldberg and his deputy representative, William Buffum, later to become the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs and UN Undersecretary General for Political Affairs, first sought to apply a system of «associate membership» for small states. On July 14, 1969, Buffum raised the issue of associate membership with the President of the Security Council Ibrahim Boye of Senegal. Nixon’s ambassador to the UN, Charles Yost, proffered the concept of associate membership for «micro-states» in an August 27, 1969 speech. The idea received the support of UN Secretary General U Thant after he received a letter from Goldberg in December 1967.

U Thant called for a «study of the criteria for membership with a view to laying down the necessary limitations on full membership for the emerging states which are exceptionally small in area, population, and human and economic resources, while also defining other forms of association which would benefit both the ‘micro-states’ and the United Nations».

Prior to Yost’s speech, the CIA planted a story in its favored propaganda conveyor, The Washington Post, by Robert Estabrook, a former Army intelligence agent in Brazil and former editor of the Post’s editorial page titled «Ministates Raise UN Question: What Qualifies as a Country?»  Details of Goldberg’s and Yost’s UN Charter changes included membership qualification changes based in «population, area, and economic resources».

In 1969, the CIA, relying on two agents of influence, Premier Eric Gairy of the British West Indies semi-independent state of Grenada and Jack Holcomb, a CIA adviser to the unilaterally-declared independent Anguillan government of President Ronald Webster, inquired about associate membership status for their respective island nations in the UN.

The associate status was seen as critical as a way to handle potential UN membership for Pitcairn, with a population of 90, along with possible independent status for the islands of the U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the inhabited atolls and islands of which could have resulted in as many as 20 new members from Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Marianas Islands, and Caroline Islands, alone.

When the associate membership idea was rejected, the United States offered up a system whereby members would be able to cast weighted votes based on their financial contributions to the UN and its specialized agencies. Goldberg and Yost had earlier argued that in the late 1960s, the smallest of the then-126 members of the UN could barely afford the $50,000 minimum annual membership dues. Why should they have the same vote as the United States or India, with its half-billion population?

The United States, the largest contributor to the UN, with 25 percent of the organization’s budget paid for by Washington, wanted its vote to carry an equivalent weight to its financial contributions. During the Reagan administration, the weighted vote idea was pushed by Washington and its man in the UN Secretariat, Buffum, one of the original supporters of a change in how the UN counts its votes. However, Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar was opposed to any changes even though his political deputy Buffum had long favored such a move. The Reagan administration responded by withdrawing from the nonaligned-oriented UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, exempting the United States from compliance with political decisions of the World Court, and ordering the Soviet Union to scale down its diplomats in Washington by limiting the New York staffs of the missions of the Ukrainian and Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republics to the UN. Congress adopted the Kassebaum Amendment, named for its chief sponsor, Republican Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, which slashed the U.S. contribution to the UN to 20 percent of the body’s total dues.

Although the General Assembly last year voted to upgrade Palestine’s status to a state observer, the 193-member General Assembly has seen a working majority able to approve American-backed resolutions on Syria and Libya. In March, an Israeli-Iranian singer named Rita sang in Hebrew and Farsi in the UN General Assembly with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon wishing everyone shalom and General Assembly President VukJeremic vowing to be the first General Assembly president to visit Israel. Ha’aretzreported that Israeli delegates were dancing in the aisles of the assembly hall and 140 delegations clapped in unison to Persian-Israeli songs.

In the early 1990s, when the UN saw its largest increase of membership since the early 1960s, there was a change of heart by the Israel Lobby about UN membership. Rather than limit the size of the UN based on size and population, there was a realization that micro-states like Andorra, Liechtenstein, Kiribati, Nauru, San Marino, Monaco, Malta, Samoa, Tuvalu, Palau, and the Solomon Islands could be controlled as far as their UN votes are concerned. The Israel Lobby and the United States was able to cobble together a working bloc of votes in the General Assembly. The last two members admitted to the UN, Montenegro and South Sudan, received support only because they were assured to be pro-Israel votes in the world body. The U.S. and its allies have pushed for Kosovo to be the 194th member, which would also be a pro-Israel vote but has met resistance from Russia, Serbia, Spain, and China.

The litmus test for support for Israel has kept out of the UN Western Sahara, Somaliland, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia. Among the pro-Israeli bloc’s first actions was repealing the UN Zionism is racism resolution in 1991. Except for last year’s Palestine state observer resolution, this bloc has largely served the interests of Israel and the United States, culminating this past March with klezmer music blaring throughout the General Assembly hall.

Author: Wayne Madsen

Source: strategic-culture.org

The post Israel Lobby Controlled Size of UN General Assembly appeared first on SyriaNews.

Interviewer: Mr President, how do you view the situation in your country? The Syrian Army has lost control over large parts of Syria, in other words those areas are outside the control of central government. What’s your take on the situation?

President Assad: Your question requires us to put things into their proper context: this is not a conventional war with two armies fighting to control or liberate particular areas or parts of land. What we are in fact dealing with is a form of guerrilla warfare.

As for the Syrian Army, there has not been any instance where our Armed Forces have planned to enter a particular location and have not succeeded. Having said this, the Army is not present – and should not be present – in every corner of Syria. What is more significant than controlling areas of land, is striking terrorists. We are confident that we can successfully fight terrorism in Syria, but the bigger issue is the ensuing damage and its cost. The crisis has already had a heavy toll but our biggest challenges will come once the crisis is over.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

Foreign element seeks politically and militarily to prolong crisis

Interviewer: In your recent interview with Al-Manar it appeared as though you were preparing the Syrian public for a protracted struggle. Was that your intention?

President Assad: No, this was not specific to Al-Manar. From the early days of the crisis, whenever I was asked, I have stated that this crisis is likely to be prolonged due to foreign interference. Any internal crisis can go in one of two ways: either it is resolved or it escalates into a civil war. Neither has been the case for Syria because of the foreign component, which seeks to extend the duration of the crisis both politically and militarily; I think its fair to say that my predictions were right.

Genuine re-construction is reconstructing mentalities, ideologies and conceptions

Interviewer: Mr President, how do you expect to overcome the large-scale destruction that has been inflicted in Syria?

President Assad: In the same way you, in Germany, overcame the devastation after World War II, and in the same way many other nations have progressed and been rebuilt after their wars. I am confident Syria will follow the same path. As long as we have resilient people, we can rebuild the country. We have done this before and we can do it again, learning from all we have been through.

 In terms of funding, we have been a self-sufficient country for a very long time. Of course we will need to be more productive than before as a result of the situation. Friendly countries have helped us in the past and continue to offer their support, maybe in the form of loans in the future. It may take a long time, but with our determination, our strength and our solidarity, we can rebuild the country.

 However, the more arduous challenge lies in rebuilding, socially and psychologically, those who have been affected by the crisis. It will not be easy to eliminate the social effects of the crisis, especially extremist ideologies. Real reconstruction is about developing minds, ideologies and values. Infrastructure is valuable, but not as valuable as human beings; reconstruction is about perpetuating both.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

Re-drawing map of region  will be map of wars in the Middle East

Interviewer: Mr President, during the crisis some areas of the country have become either more self-reliant or more reliant on external support. Do you think this could potentially lead to the re-drawing of borders?

President Assad: Do you mean within Syria or the region in general?

Interviewer: The region – one hundred years after the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

President Assad: One hundred years after Sykes-Picot, when we talk about re-drawing the borders in our region, we can use an analogy from architecture. Syria is like the keystone in the old architectural arches; by removing or tampering with the keystone, the arch will collapse. If we apply this to the region, to the world, – any tampering with the borders of this region will result in re-drawing the maps of distant regions because this will have a domino effect which nobody can control. One of the superpowers may be able to initiate the process, but nobody – including that superpower, will be able to stop it; particularly since there are new social borders in the Middle East today that didn’t exist during Sykes-Picot. These new sectarian, ethnic and political borders make the situation much more complicated. Nobody can know what the Middle East will look like should there be an attempt to re-draw the map of the region. However, most likely that map will be one of multiple wars, which would transcend the Middle East spanning the Atlantic to the Pacific, which nobody can stop.

Interviewer: Mr President, in your opinion what will the region look like in the future?

President Assad: If we rule out the destructive scenario of division in your last question, I can envisage a completely different and more positive future, but it will depend on how we act as nations and societies. This scenario involves a number of challenges, first of which is restoring security and stability; our second challenge is the rebuilding process. However, our biggest and most important challenge lies in facing extremism.

It has become extremely clear that there has been a shift in the societies of our region away from moderation, especially religious moderation. The question is: can we restore these societies to their natural order? Can our diverse societies still coexist together as one natural whole? On this point allow me to clarify certain terms. The words tolerance and coexistence are often used to define our societies. However, the more precise and appropriate definition, of how our societies used to be – and how they should be, is harmonious. Contrary to perception, the issue is neither about tolerance – since there will come a day when you are not tolerant, nor is the issue about coexistence – since you co-exist with your adversaries, but rather it is about harmony. What used to characterize us in the region was our harmony. You cannot say that your hand will coexist with or tolerate your foot because one compliments the other and both are a part of a harmonious whole.

 Another challenge is political reform and the question of which political system would keep our society coherent: be it presidential, semi-presidential or parliamentary, as well as deciding the most appropriate legislation to govern political parties. In Germany, for example, you have the Christian Democratic Party. In Syria we could not have religious parties, neither Christian nor Muslim, because for us religion is for preaching and not for political practice. There are many other details, but the essence is in accepting others. If we cannot accept each other we cannot be democratic, even with the best constitution or the best legislations.

we are a secular state that essentially treats its citizens equally

Interviewer: Mr President, where do you see secularism in the midst of the rising Islamic current in the region?

President Assad: This is a very important question; many in the region do not understand this relationship. The Middle East is a hub of different ideologies. Arab society is primarily based on two pillars: Pan-Arabism and Islam. Other ideologies do exist, such as communism, liberalism, Syrian nationalism, but these are not nearly as popular. Many people understand secularism as synonymous with communism in the past, in that it is against religion. In fact it is the complete opposite; for us in Syria secularism is about the freedom of confession including Christianity, Islam and Judaism, and the multiple diverse sects within these religions. Secularism is crucial to our national unity and sense of belonging. Therefore we have no choice but to strengthen secularism because religion is already strong in our region, and I stress here that this is very healthy. What is not healthy is extremism because it ultimately leads to terrorism; not every extremist is a terrorist, but every terrorist is definitely an extremist.

So in response to your question, we are a secular state that essentially treats its citizens equally, irrespective of religion, sect or ethnicity. All our citizens enjoy equal opportunities regardless of religious belief.

Syria is passing through most difficult circumstances, definitely not a spring

Interviewer: Mr President, how do you view the two-and-a-half years since the so-called ‘Arab Spring?’

This is a misconception. Spring does not include bloodshed, killing, extremism, destroying schools or preventing children from going to their schools, or preventing women from choosing what to wear and what is appropriate for them. Spring is the most beautiful season whilst we are going through the direst circumstances; it is definitely not Spring. Is Spring compatible with what is happening in Syria – the killing, the slaughtering, the beheading, the cannibalism, I leave it to you to decide.

Interviewer: What are the issues that the so-called “Arab Spring” is supposed to resolve?

President Assad: The solution doesn’t lie in the ‘Spring’ or in anything else, the solution lies in us. We are the ones who should provide the solutions, by being proactive instead of reactive. When we address our problems proactively we ensure that we get the right solutions. Solutions imposed reactively by the ‘Spring’ will only lead to deformed results.

Like many countries in the Middle East, we have numerous problems that we are aware of and view objectively. This is how these problems should be solved, in that the solutions are internally manufactured and not externally administered, as the latter would produce a distorted or stillborn solution. It is for this very reason that when we call for dialogue or solutions, they need to be home-grown in order to ensure that they lead to the Syria we aspire to.

what is happening in Iraq now, and in Lebanon previously, are repercussions of the situation in Syria

Interviewer: Mr President, you have rejected any form of foreign intervention and have warned that this would extend the battle to wider areas, have you reached this?

President Assad: Let’s be clear about this, there are two types of foreign intervention: indirect through proxies or agents, and direct intervention through a conventional war. We are experiencing the former. At the beginning of the crisis I warned that intervention in Syria – even indirectly, is similar to tampering with a fault line, it would lead to shockwaves throughout the region. At the time, many people – especially in the media, understood this as President Assad threatening to extend the crisis beyond Syria’s borders. Clearly they did not understand what I meant at the time, but this is exactly what is happening now.

If we look at the reality in front of us, we can see clearly that what is happening in Iraq now, and in Lebanon previously, are repercussions of the situation in Syria, and this will only extend further and further. We are seeing these ramifications and the intervention is still indirect, so imagine the consequences of military intervention? The situation will, of course, be much worse and then we will witness the domino effect of widespread extremism, chaos and fragmentation.

Relations with Russia and Iran are cooperation guaranteed by international law

Interviewer: You criticise countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Britain for their interference in the Syria crisis, isn’t it true that Russia and Iran are also involved?

President Assad: There is a significant difference between the co-cooperation of states as opposed to the destabilisation of a certain country and interference in its internal affairs. Cooperation between countries is conceived on the concept of mutual will, in a way that preserves their sovereignty, independence, stability and self-determination. Our relationship with Russia, Iran and other countries that support Syria are cooperative relations certified under international law.

The countries you mentioned, have adopted policies that meddle in Syria’s internal affairs, which is a flagrant violation of international law and our national sovereignty. The difference therefore, is that cooperation between countries is intended to preserve stability and perpetuate the prosperity of these nations, whilst foreign interference seeks to destabilise countries, spread chaos and perpetuate ignorance.

Interviewer: Sir, you have discussed the repercussions of the Syrian crisis on Iraq and Lebanon whose societies are based on what one might call a sectarian system. Do you think that such a system with Sunni and Shiite pillars could be established in Syria?

President Assad: Undoubtedly, sectarian systems in neighbouring countries, sectarian unrest or civil wars – as in Lebanon 30 years ago, will inevitably affect Syria. That is why Syria intervened in Lebanon in 1976 – to protect itself and to safeguard Lebanon. It is for this reason that we are observing carefully the unfolding events in Iraq – they will affect us directly. This was also for this reason that we adamantly opposed the war on Iraq, despite a mixture of American temptations and threats at the time. We rejected losing our stability in return for appeasing the Americans. Sectarian systems are dangerous and that is why we insist on the secular model where all citizens are equal regardless of religion.

Jabhat al-Nusra is a branch of al-Qaeda, they uphold the same ideology

Interviewer: Mr President, you are fighting “Jabhat Al-Nusra.” Can you tell us about it, what is this organization, who supports them, who supplies them with money and weapons?

 President Assad: Jabhat Al-Nusra is an Al-Qaeda affiliated group with an identical ideology whose members live in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan as well as other Arab and Muslim countries; they are very well financed and have plenty of arms. It is difficult to trace their sources due to the fact that their support resides in a covert manner through wealthy individuals and organisations that adopt the same ideology.

Their primary aim is to establish an Islamic State in accordance to their interpretation of Islam. Central to their political thought is the Wahhabi doctrine – comparable to Al-Qaeda’s in Afghanistan. This ideology is administered wherever they are present, especially on women. They claim to be applying Sharia Law and the Islamic Religion; however, in reality their actions are a complete distortion of the real religion of Islam. We have seen examples of their brutality on our satellite channels taken from footage they publish on purpose on YouTube in order to spread their ideology; a recent example was the beheading of an innocent man, which was aired on Belgian TV.

Interviewer: What is the motivation for Saudi Arabia and Qatar to assist and arm the terrorists against you, what do they seek to achieve?

President Assad: Firstly, I believe that this is a question they should be answering. I will respond by raising a few questions. Do they support the armed gangs because of their vehement belief in freedom and democracy as they claim in their media outlets? Do they harbour any form of democracy in their own countries, in order to properly support democracy in Syria. Do they have elected parliaments or constitutions voted on by their people? Have their populations decided at any time during the previous decades on what type of governing system they want – be it monarchy, presidency, principality or any other form? So, things are clear: they should first pay attention to their own nations and then answer your question.

France and Britain look for puppets to carry out their interests

Interviewer: In this quagmire, why do Britain and France delegate leadership to Saudi Arabia and Qatar? What do they hope to achieve?

President Assad: I also cannot answer on behalf of Britain or France, but I can give you the general impression here. I believe that France and Britain have an issue with the ‘annoying’ Syrian role in the region – as they see it. These countries, like the United States, are looking for puppets and dummies to do their bidding and serve their interests without question. We have consistently rejected this; we will always be independent and free. It seems as though France and Britain have not forgotten their colonial history and persist in attempting to manipulate the region albeit through proxies. Indeed, Britain and France can direct Saudi Arabia and Qatar on what they should do, but we must also not forget that the policies and economies of France and Britain are also dependent on petrodollars.

What happened in Syria was an opportunity for all these countries to get rid of Syria – this insubordinate state, and replace the president with a “yes man.” This will never happen neither now nor in the future.

Interviewer: The European Union has not renewed the arms embargo imposed on Syria and yet it has not approved arming the opposition. What is your assessment of this step?

President Assad: Clearly there is a split within the European Union on this issue. I cannot state that the EU is supportive of the Syrian government; there are countries, especially Britain and France, who are particularly hostile to Syria. On the other hand, there are countries – Germany in particular, which are raising logical questions about the future consequences of arming the terrorists. Well firstly, that would perpetuate the destruction in Syria, forcing the Syrian people to pay an even heavier price. Secondly, by supplying arms, they are effectively arming terrorists, and the Europeans are well informed that these are terrorists groups. Some are repeating the American rhetoric of “good fighters and bad fighters,” exactly as they did a few years ago with the “good Taliban and bad Taliban, good Al-Qaeda and bad Al-Qaeda.” Today there is a new term of “good terrorists and bad terrorists” being promoted. Is this logical?

When terrorism prevails, it will spread towards Europe

They are aware that weapons sent to the region will end up in the hands of terrorists, which will have two consequences. First, Europe’s back garden will become a hub for terrorism and chaos, which leads to deprivation and poverty; Europe will pay the price and forfeit an important market. Second, terrorism will not stop here – it will spread to your countries. It will export itself through illegal immigration or through the same terrorists who returned to their original countries after being indoctrinated and trained more potently. These pressing issues in my opinion are creating a considerable split or disagreement within the European Union; they may not like it, but they have no other choice than to cooperate with the Syrian government, even if they disagree with it.

 Interviewer: Your Excellency has stated that if European countries were to send weapons to Syria, they would effectively be arming terrorists. Do you consider all armed militants as terrorists?

 President Assad: As a European or German citizen I will pose the following question: does your country allow you to carry arms, intimidate or kill innocent people, vandalise and loot? Any individual or group excluding the army and police who carries arms, kills people, threatens and intimidates public safety are by definition terrorists, this is a norm in every country. Regardless of their background, be it extremists, criminals or convicted felons, those who are carrying weapons in Syria are essentially committing these acts. Therefore, they are terrorists. We differentiate between terrorists and conventional opposition groups, since the latter is a political entity and has a political agenda. Killing and slaughtering is terrorism and plunges the country back years into regression.

Interviewer: So Mr President, you see the future as being against terrorism?

President Assad: This is the logical conclusion; however in Europe you have many illogical, unrealistic and irresponsible politicians who are applying their negative sentiments instead of their reason. Politics should not be fuelled by love or hatred, but by interests. As a German citizen, you should ask yourself what do you stand to gain from what is happening in our region? Basically, what is happening now is against your national interests, your genuine interest lies in fighting terrorism.

Interviewer: Some view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization; we know that it has fought alongside Syrian troops in al-Quseir. We have also heard that there are fighters from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard fighting with you. Do you really need these forces?

President Assad: The media is trying to portray Hezbollah as the main fighting force on the ground and the Syrian Army as weak and unable to achieve victory. In reality, over the last months we have achieved significant victories on the ground in different parts of Syria; in all of these victories, some of which were more important than al-Quseir, the Syrian army fought alone. None of this is highlighted in the media. One of the reasons for these victories is the National Defence Forces – local citizens fighting alongside the army to defend their communities and regions. Al-Quseir received more international attention because of statements by western officials projecting it as a strategic town, to the extent that even some United Nation’s officials claim to understand the situation in al-Quseir! There was a lot of exaggeration, but there were also a large number of arms and militants. These terrorists started attacking the bordering towns loyal to Hezbollah, which warranted their intervention alongside the Syrian army in order to restore stability.

The Syrian Army is a large army capable of accomplishing its missions across Syria, with the support of the local communities. If we were in need of such assistance, why not use these forces in the rural parts of Damascus, close to the capital? Damascus is certainly more important than al-Quseir, as is Aleppo and all the other major cities; it doesn’t make any sense. But as I said at the beginning, the aim of this frenzy is to reflect an image of Hezbollah as the main fighting force and to provoke Western and International public opinion against Hezbollah.

 Interviewer: How strong and large are the Hezbollah brigades currently in Syria?

President Assad: There are no brigades. They have sent fighters who have aided the Syrian army in cleaning areas on the Lebanese borders that were infiltrated by terrorists. They did not deploy forces into Syria. As you are aware, Hezbollah forces are positioned towards Israel and cannot depart Southern Lebanon. Additionally, if Hezbollah wanted to send fighters into Syria, how many could they send? A few hundred? The Syrian Army has deployed hundreds of thousands of troops across the country. Several hundred would make a difference in one area, but it would not conceivably constitute enough to tip the balance across all of Syria.

Interviewer: Mr President, Britain and France claim to have clear evidence that chemical weapons have been used. The White House has stated that it possess information to ascertain this claim, which consequently led to the death of 100 to 150 people in one year, in addition to that you have denied the UN investigators access to areas in Syria except for Aleppo. How do you explain the situation?

President Assad: Let’s begin with the statement from the White House regarding the 150 casualties. Militarily speaking, it is a well-understood notion that during wars, conventional weapons can cause these number of deaths, or even higher, in a single day, not in a year. Weapons of mass destruction generally kill thousands of people at one given time; this high death toll is a primary reason for its use. It is counterintuitive to use chemical weapons to create a death toll that you could potentially reach by using conventional weapons.

 America, France, Britain and some European officials claimed that we have used chemical weapons in a number of areas. Regardless of whether such weapons exist or not, we have never confirmed or denied the possession of these weapons.

Had they obtained a single strand of evidence that we had used chemical weapons, do you not think they would have made a song and dance about it to the whole world?, then where is the chain of custody that led them to a such result?

These allegations are ludicrous. The terrorist groups used chemical weapons in Aleppo; subsequently we sent an official letter to the United Nations requesting a formal investigation into the incident. Britain and France blocked this investigation because it would have proven the chemical attacks were carried out by terrorist groups and hence provided conclusive evidence that they (Britain and France) were lying. We invited them to investigate the incident, but instead they wanted the inspectors to have unconditional access to locations across Syria, parallel to what inspectors did in Iraq and delved into other unrelated issues. We are a sovereign state; we have an army and all matters considered classified will never be accessible neither to the UN, nor Britain, nor France. They will only be allowed access to investigate the incident that occurred in Aleppo.

Therefore, all the claims relating to the use of chemical weapons is an extension of the continuous American and Western fabrication of the actual situation in Syria. Its sole aim is to justify their policies to their public opinion and use the claim as a pretext for more military intervention and bloodshed in Syria.

 Interviewer: The protests started in Syria peacefully before they turned into an armed struggle. Your critics claim that you could have dealt with the protests through political reforms, which makes you partly responsible for the destruction in Syria. What is your take on this?

President Assad: We started the reforms from the first days of the crisis and, perhaps even to your surprise, they were initiated years before the crisis. We issued a number of new legislations, lifted the emergency law and even changed the constitution through a referendum. This is a well-known fact to the West; yet what the West refuses to see is that from the first weeks of the protests we had policemen killed, so how could such protests have been peaceful? How could those who claim that the protests were peaceful explain the death of these policemen in the first week? Could the chants of protesters actually kill a policeman?

From the beginning of the crisis, we have always reiterated that there were armed militants infiltrating protesters and shooting at the police. On other occasions, these armed militants were in areas close to the protests and shot at both protesters and police forces to lead each side into-believing that they were shot at by the other. This was proven through investigations and confessions, which were publicised on a large scale in the media.

 Interviewer: Mr President, it is reported that the Syrian Army has bombarded certain areas. Was there no other option?

President Assad: We are pursuing terrorists who repeatedly infiltrate populated areas. If we take Al-Qseir as an example, there was a western media frenzy claiming that there were 50,000 civilians, which is more than the town’s original population. In fact, when the terrorists entered the area, the inhabitants consequently fled; when we entered we did not find civilians. Usually wherever the terrorists infiltrate, civilians flee and battles occur afterwards. The evidence clearly shows that most of the casualties in Syria are from the armed forces. Civilians mostly die in suicide bombings. They also die when terrorists enter an area, proceed to carry out executions and use them as human shields. The rest of the causalities are either foreign or Syrian terrorists.

 Interviewer: After the momentum you have achieved in Al-Qseir, do you feel it is now time to extend a hand to the opposition and consider reconciliation?

President Assad: From day one we have extended a hand to all those who believe in dialogue; this position has not changed. At the start of the crisis, we held a national dialogue conference whilst simultaneously fighting terrorists. But when we talk about the opposition, we should not put them all into one basket; it is imperative to differentiate between terrorists and politicians. In Germany, you have an opposition but they are not armed. Opposition is a political act, and so when we refer to the opposition, we mean the politicians to whom we are always committed to dialogue, regardless of what happened in Al-Qseir.

As to national reconciliation, I do not think that it can be accurately applied to Syria. It implies a scenario of civil war, as was the case in Lebanon, or the conflict between black and white in South Africa. In our case it is about a national dialogue to determine a way out of the crisis and for the terrorists to put down their weapons. In any case, we are awaiting the Geneva conference, which essentially aims at the same political solution. However there are external impediments; Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France and Britain, continue to exert all their efforts at sabotaging dialogue in order to prolong the Syrian crisis and prevent a political resolution.

Interviewer: How would you define the legitimate political opposition?

President Assad: Essentially, any opposition party that does not support terrorism, does not carry weapons, and has a clear political agenda. But opposition groups are also linked to elections; their clout will depend on how well they fare in local administration elections and more importantly, in parliamentary elections. We are dealing with many groups who call themselves opposition, their success will be determined by two important questions: what is their popular base? And what is their political manifesto? We will then act accordingly.

 Interviewer: Segments of the opposition claim that you have not taken steps to form a united front with them against foreign intervention. Is this true Mr President?

 President Assad: On the contrary, in the national dialogue conference in 2011, there was an open invitation to all those who considered themselves in the opposition to come forward. Some chose to participate whilst others chose to boycott and blame us for not taking steps towards a solution. But we must ask ourselves, what do they mean by making advances towards them? What should we be offering? Ministerial positions in the government? The opposition in the current government has won hard-fought seats in parliament. When an opposition, made up of hundreds, does not have any seats in parliament how does one ascertain who deserves to be part of the government? We need clear criteria; it should not be haphazard.

 To put it another way, the government is not owned by the President for him to bestow gifts upon others in the form of ministries. It requires national dialogue and a political process through which the electorate can choose among other things their government and the constitution.

Interviewer: What are your set criteria for dialogue between you and the opposition, could this include foreign-based opposition?

President Assad: We have no issues with autonomous opposition groups who serve a national agenda. With regards to the foreign-based opposition, we need to be very clear; its members live abroad and report to western foreign ministries and intelligence agencies. They are based outside their country and are in essence manipulated by the states that provide their flow of finance. They are best described as a “proxy opposition.” As far was we are concerned, genuine Syrian opposition means representing the Syrian people – not foreign countries, it means being based in Syria and sharing the burdens and concerns of the Syrian people. Such an opposition would inevitably be part of any political process.

Interviewer: Fighting terrorism has become the priority now. In reference to your recent interview most probably on Al-Manar television, you stated that if you were to engage in a dialogue, you would rather do so with the master than the slave. To what extent are you prepared for dialogue with these entities in the future once you have effectively fought terrorism?

 President Assad: It is for this precise reason that we will attend the Geneva conference. I used the notion of the master and the slave to explain what we know will happen in reality. Negotiating with those who have no autonomy over their own decisions essentially means that you are in fact negotiating with the decision makers who dictate to them how to act, what to accept and what to reject. You will have seen on television recently footage of the French Ambassador to Syria giving the external opposition orders and insulting them, or the American Ambassador to Syria shouting and insulting them. Therefore in reality, we are negotiating with the United States, Britain, France and their regional instruments, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Those groups who call themselves external opposition are mere employees; hence the masters and the slaves.

We hope that the Geneva conference will push forward the dialogue process in Syria

Interviewer: What are your expectations from the conference? Will it be followed by progress or a continued stalemate?

President Assad: We hope that the Geneva conference will push forward the dialogue process in Syria especially since, earlier this year we presented a vision for a political solution based on the Geneva I communiqué. However, even though we will attend the conference with this understanding, we should be clear on the facts. First, the same countries I mentioned earlier that are supporting the terrorists in Syria have a vested interest in the talks failing. The logical question is: what is the relationship between the Geneva conference and terrorism on the ground? Simply, if the Geneva conference is successful – as is our hope, in preventing the smuggling of weapons and terrorists – there are over 29 different nationalities documented to be in Syria, then this would be a catalyst for resolving the Syrian crisis.

 However if the smuggling of weapons and terrorists continues, there is no value for any political solution. We hope that the Geneva conference will make this its starting point; it is the single most important element in the Geneva talks, which would ultimately determine its success or failure.

 Interviewer: If Geneva II fails, what are the consequences?

President Assad: The countries I mentioned previously would continue to support the terrorists. Failing to solve the Syrian crisis will make it spread to other countries and things will only get worse. Logically speaking therefore, all parties have a vested interest in its success. As to the external opposition, if Geneva succeeds they will lose their funding; if you don’t have money and you don’t have popular support, you end up with nothing.

Interviewer: Could Geneva II propose a government from different political entities?

President Assad: This is what we have suggested in our political initiative. We proposed the formation of an extended government from diverse political entities that would prepare for parliamentary elections; the winners of these elections would have a role in the future. This is an approach that we have been open to from the beginning.

Interviewer: Mr President, some of your critics claim that much blood has been shed in Syria; they blame the leadership and see it as an obstacle standing in the way of Syria’s future. Would you consider stepping down in order to bring about a new Syria?

President Assad: The president has a mandate in accordance with the constitution; my current term ends in 2014. When the country is in a crisis, the president is expected to shoulder the burden of responsibility and resolve the situation, not abandon his duties and leave. I often use the analogy of a captain navigating a ship hit by a storm; just imagine the captain jumping ship and escaping in the lifeboat! If I decide to leave now, I would be committing treason. If on the other hand, the public decided I should step down, that would be another issue. And this can only be determined through elections or a referendum. As an example, in the previous referendum on the constitution, there was a 58% turnout – which is pretty good in the circumstances, and the constitution was approved by 89.4%.

The issue was never about the president, however they tried to project it as such in order to force the president to sell out to those countries backing the opposition, in order to install a puppet president.

Interviewer: Mr President, you live with your family in Damascus. How much public support do you and your family enjoy?

 President Assad: When numerous neighbouring and regional countries as well as the West are all opposing you, you couldn’t possibly continue without popular public support. The Syrian people are highly aware of what is happening and have understood the dynamics of the crisis early on; hence their support for their government and their army.

 Interviewer: Next year there will be presidential elections, how do you see these elections playing out?

 President Assad: They will follow the new constitution, in other words multi-candidate elections. It will be a new experience, which we cannot predict at this point.

 Interviewer: Mr President, what is your vision for Syria in the next five years?

President Assad: I reiterate that our biggest challenge is extremism. If we can fight it, with better education, new ideas and culture, then we can move towards a healthy democratic state. Democracy, as we see it in Syria, is not an objective in itself, but rather a means to an end – to stability and to prosperity. Legislations and constitutions are also only tools, necessary tools to develop and advance societies. However, for democracy to thrive, it needs to become a way of life – a part of our culture, and this cannot happen when so many social taboos are imposed by extremist ideologies.

 In addition to this, there is of course the reconstruction process, reinvigorating our national industries and restoring and opening up our economy. We will continue to be open in Syria, continue to learn and benefit from the lessons of this crisis. One of these lessons is that ignorance is the worst enemy of societies and forms the basis for extremism; we hope that Europe has also learned from these lessons.

Interviewer: Mr President, thank you very much. I have been greatly influenced by your personality and your vision; I hope Europe and the West will benefit from this interview and look at you and your country differently.

President Assad: Thank you very much and welcome again to Syria.

Link to the original interview in German:

Syriens Machthaber Assad im F.A.Z.-Gespräch „Europa wird den Preis für Waffenlieferungen zahlen“

Von Rainer Hermann, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 17 Juni 2013

Source: globalresearch.ca

The post President Bashar Al-Assad: Fighting Terrorism in Syria. Rebuilding in the Wake of the Crisis. Interview appeared first on SyriaNews.

While it is actually not entirely clear what this “Sharia committee” really is, but it looks like a kind of civil or quasi-civil, and thereby needless to say, armed self-government.

In the areas, which are controlled by the rebel brigades, various of such structures do appear: committees, “emirates”, summary courts / martials, security services and so on – like mushrooms out of the blood-saturated soil, in order to be mowed down again shortly after it.

Also see Libya just 1-2 years ago. Geographically, this “Shariah committee” could be a member of the al-Nusra Front. And it was probably these “guys”, who were seen recently, when they replaced a FSA flag with their black banner of death.

Judging by this (and according to the information associated with the now circulating in all mouths operation “Northern Storm”), the situation of the terrorist brigades in the Syrian city of Aleppo is now almost desperate. Just shortly before the spread of this call (for jihad), there was again some attempts for a reinforcement in order to storm the prison of Aleppo (Halab), in which are more than 1,000 rebel fighters jailed according to different reports.

Three days ago the Turkish border for the entry (ie into Turkey) has been closed, whereupon there, between A’zaz and Kilis, were some heavy battles by the Turkish army and the al-Nusra brigades, fighting each other, while the al-Nusra Front members tried to break through at this point.

A’zaz, since mid / end of July 2012 under the control of the FSA (“Free Syrian Army”, ie terrorists and jihadists), is according to my (admittedly not too fresh) information one of the current interim targets of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). It looks like the trap would slowly snap and the masses of the Militia will gradually realize that they have to give in to their destruction.

kafr hama

The attempt of such a “general mobilization” proves that there appears to be no other way to replenish their ranks. While it is clear that civilians under arms, especially those who you have to force into the armed struggle, just suck fewer than nothing in terms of the combat power.

In the past, there may have been cases in which such a hastily thrown together posse were able to stop invading enemies for a while, as in the second World War II in the Battle of Moscow from the end of 1941 or at the so-called “Luga-line” between Pskov and Luga in the summer of 1941.

But it has little sense to compare this to the current situation in Aleppo – the mobilization in the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union followed a completely different quality of motivation, especially since the mobilized civilians probably knew at that time that their death means a gain of time in order to make some space for new lines of defense, in which the enemies could get stalled in again and again and is slowly demoralized – quite also at such a price.

The marauding rebels within and around Aleppo (Halab) would only gain some time till their own end.

There are no reserves for “lines of defense” in the enemy territory, therefore, the call is directed to “all the Muslims” and serves a priori weak and abstract level of group identification.

So here, we certainly have to do with an act of desperation. A remarkable effect will therefore most likely fail to materialise.

Source: apxwn

The post Syria – Aleppo: The Volkssturm appeared first on SyriaNews.

The United States of America by its own officials stated publicly they paid more than $520 million US Taxpayers dollars to the figures they call ‘moderate’ in the Syrian opposition, which in the best guess those figures staying at 5 star hotels outside Syria and forming the ‘legitimate representatives of the Syrian people’ whom they are neither in any contact with and many of them have ever stepped into the country since ages, 25 years for the US appointed prime minister Heto! The US and its puppets it call allies in the NATO alliance and their stooges in regional governments have provided the aid in the shape of ‘non-lethal’ weapons to the same opposition throughout the past 26 months. Non-lethal like they provide loud speakers to Al-Qaeda fighters who scream ‘Allahu Akbar’ and the plane in mid air explodes, or a tank of more than 46 tons meltdown when one of these cannibals scream the glorifying God call with the ‘non-lethal’ devices.

A Libyan flatbed vehicle mounted with a machine gun

In case you didn’t know, it’s worth reminding you that Turkey is a NATO member state, actually it contributes with the biggest army in the evil alliance. Also, NATO occupies Libya where they invaded the country in 2011 and installed a puppet regime there to look after their oil shipments to Europe, mainly France and UK. Now we invite you to watch the following report by a NATO aligned propaganda channel.

WARNING
The following report is meant to show the ‘Rebels’ in Libya by their own are shipping weapons to Syria without any NATO approval.

If your IQ is 90 (average) and above you will laugh, if it’s less than 90 (Below Average till Profound Retarded) you will believe this report as you, the Sheeple, is their target.

This, of course, comes after many reports proved thousands of tons of weapons were shipped to the Syrian opposition fighters (Al-Qaeda Levant aka Nusra Front aka FSA) and hundreds of flights into neighboring countries including Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. In Lebanon it all surfaced out after a ship called Lutfallah 2 was intercepted near Tripoli port by the Lebanese security, and a weapons depot exploded inside Tripoli city. Jordan remains a backyard for NATO operations since the former king Hussein decided to work for the CIA and earn a monthly salary, check the White House records for that. Turkey is a NATO member state which its embattled Muslim Brotherhood prime Erdogan was promised to be a Caliph in case he help destroy secular neighboring states.

Image from the Lutfallah 2 ship carrying weapons to the terrorists in Syria

Today, Syrian president Dr. Bashar Al-Assad was reported to warn European countries arming the terrorists in Syria ‘they will pay a price for that’. In a previous post here we warned that the EU has set a precedent in international law to officially and overtly arm oppositions of sovereign states to seek a regime change, something Syria is obliged now to do with the countries already arming the terrorists against the legitimate state.

The post USA to Arm Syrian Opposition, Really?! appeared first on SyriaNews.

While it is probably important to mention that the decision to send a contingent of about 4,000 men from the famous Iranian Revolutionary Guards to the neighboring country Syria in order to support the secular government in Damascus and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in their fight against the foreign-backed Islamists and terrorists was taken before the presidential election (June 14) in Iran.

The presidential election has brought the reformist cleric Hassan Rouhani into Power in Iran, although nothing will really change in the stances of Iran with this new president, following the steps of Ahmadinedschad.

According to these reports, Iran has allegedly proposed to Syria to “open up a new Syrian front on the Golan Heights against Israel” as a part of the efforts to protect and secure the Syrian leadership under President Bashar al-Assad. Of course, there are no official statement by Iranian authorities to these reports (Source) of this proposal by Syria`s strategic ally to the government in Damascus and about the deployment of about 4,000 men from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to the neighboring country in order to support the Syrian army in its battles against the foreign-backed jihadists and terrorists.

After the U.S. administration under the “drone killer” Barack Obama has decided to increase the military support for the al-Qaeda linked terrorists and Islamists in Syria, which have already proven to be far away from any human rights or democratic stances while they massacred endless Syrian citizens already, the next propaganda by Washington about the “use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime” is just a lie in order to maintain the propaganda and to brainwash the people. As Russia already said – the U.S. administration has no evidence and no facts for this accusations.

Iran / Syria

In addition, the Syrian government in the capital Damascus already said, that there is no evidence for these accusations and they denied the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). In addition, in these urban warfares, the use of chemical weapons would not be the best move or very smart in order to remove the foreign-backed rats and religious fanatics from Syrian soil and streets. Chemical weapons are mainly used in other types of warfares and if a nation has a lot of experiences with the use of chemical weapons then it is certainly America – just ask the people of e.g. Vietnam and the U.S. veterans. (Poor people.)

As stated, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has already said three days ago that the US military aid to Syrian terrorists may lead to further escalation of violence in Syria as well as in the Middle East. Lavrov stressed in his statements on friday that the US accusations of chemical weapons use by Damascus are “not supported by reliable facts” and this is correct.

The post Iran Sends Troops to Syria to Support the Syrian Army appeared first on SyriaNews.