24-06-13

News Syria: Ministry of Water Resources – UNICEF

Image

Ministry of Water Resources and UNICEF hold workshop to support water sector

Jun 24, 2013

The workshop held by the Ministry of Water Resources in al-Sham Hotel in cooperation with United Nations Children's Fund(UNICEF) on Monday focused on explaining the mechanisms of supporting the water sector and promoting hygiene in Syria during the current crisis. Deputy Minister of Water Resources Osama al-Akhras pointed out that the workshop is part of the efforts exerted to alleviate Syrians' suffering under the shadows of the crisis, adding that cooperation between ministries concerned and the UN organizations which are interested in the water sector helped provide services to the citizens.

He said that the drinking water and sanitation sector suffered severe shortage due to the economic blockade imposed on Syria, affirming that cooperation with these organizations participated in obtaining a lot of operating and maintenance equipment.

Head of Organizations Management Department in the Ministry of Expatriates and Foreign Affairs, Abdul Moneim Annan pointed out that the current crisis in Syria has produced negative impacts on the Water Sector because the armed terrorist groups prevented the employees of the Water Resources and Health Ministries from reaching their work place, which caused some service centers to stop.

For his part, UNICEF representative in Syria Mark Ose hailed the work of the Water sector employees under the supervision of the Ministry of Water Resources and the participation of `Local Administration Ministry and Syrian Arab Red Crescent, affirming the commitment of UNICEF to support water sector in Syria.

B. Mousa / F. Allafi

http://sana.sy/eng/21/2013/06/24/489182.htm

23-06-13

Europe and World Governance

Romani.prodi.jpeg

Verhofstadt.demagoog.8.jpg

Jerzy Buzek.jpeg

davignon8.jpg

J.delors.jpeg

Joschka Fischer.jpeg

Paavo Lipponen.jpeg

Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa.jpeg

Reshaping EU-US Relations
A Concept Paper

The European Union and the United States are major players in the globalised world order: often they determine its course, sometimes they are adversely impacted and above all they are being profoundly transformed by its effects. But in the ten years since 2000, the foundations of American power (military force, technological excellence, economic success) have been severely shaken, as have the certainties of the European project (continuous prosperity, citizen support, the attraction of the European model).
As a result, Euro-American relations can no longer be approached and practiced in the way they were for more than half a century. A high-level European reflection group comprising former Ministers and Heads of Government was brought together by Notre Europe to review the future of the Euro-American partnership. It undertook a sober examination of the changes under way in the world and their effects on the European Union and the United States. Above all, the group proposes a new approach based on renunciation of EU national and US imperial illusions that could enable the Euro-American partnership to become a springboard for a global partnership.

Reflection Group: Romano Prodi, Guy Verhofstadt (co-chairs),
Jerzy Buzek, Etienne Davignon, Jacques Delors, Joschka Fischer,
Paavo Lipponen, Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa.

http://www.notre-europe.eu

http://www.notre-europe.eu/media/Etude75-EU-US_Relations-en_01.pdf

___

Guy Verhofstadt who pleads on a very fanatic way for weapon deliveries to the so called ‘Free Syrian Army’ and calls for a NATO intervention in Syria, is since 2012 a Board Member of the Brussels-based, Brussels-quoted Sofina holding (petroleum gas and oil platforms).

In 2004, Verhofstadt was suggested as a candidate to replace Romano Prodi as the next President of the European Commission. In the 2009 European Parliament election, he was elected a member of the European Parliament for the term 2009–2014. He also has been put forward as the possible candidate for replacing José Manuel Barroso as the president of the European Commission by a coalition of greens, socialists and liberals.
On July 1, 2009 he was elected President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe group in the European Parliament. Verhofstadt is also a member of the Club de Madrid, an organization of more than 80 former statesmen.

The Belgian industrialist Viscount Etienne Davignon is Honorary Director of Sofina.

One of the groups participating in Sofina is EXMAR Group. This group specialises in the transport of liquefied gas and was created following its breakaway from the maritime transport company CMB in 2003. The company owns a fleet of ships that are able to transport both liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), including propane, butane and ammonia, for which it is also the world leader in the midsize segment, and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). As part of the transport of LNG, EXMAR has developed, in partnership with its American partner Excelerate Energy, a technology that makes it possible to regasify the gas on board the ships (LNG RV, Liquefied Natural Gas Regasification Vessel). More recently, EXMAR has developed an offshore activity, which also offers services for oil platforms, such as storage, handling and unloading of oil and gas products. In addition, EXMAR also designs and installs new offshore structures, such as OPTI-EX, a semi-submersible platform designed to exploit oil and gas fields in deep waters. Based on its expertise in the field of maritime fleet management, EXMAR offers technical assistance and insurance services to maritime transport companies.

Davignon is the former president of the Bilderberg Group. He is also president of 'Friends of Europe (BP, BT, Cargill,The Coca Cola Group, Deutsche Post, Dow, Eni, EUGAO, Eurofuel, Europia, ExxonMobil, Facebook, First Solar, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), GIZ, Huawei, International Fragrance Association (IFRA), LM&CO, Merifin Capital, Microsoft, New Bulgarian Media Group Holding, Repsol, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, Schuttelaar & Partners, Shell International, Statnett, Statoil, TATA consultancy services, Telefónica, The Alliance for Beverage Cartons and the Environment (ACE), Total, Toyota Europe, United Technologies Corporation (UTC), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) European Policy Office (EPO) and Yara)

Current directorships and offices held by Davignon: Chairman of Compagnie Maritime Belge, Compagnie des Wagons-Lits, Recticel, Sibeka, SN Airholding, Palais des Beaux-Arts (Belgium) and CSR Europe. Vice-Chairman of SUEZ-TRACTEBEL (Belgium), Director of Accor (France), Cumerio, Real Software, SN Brussels Airlines (Belgium), and Gilead (United States).

19-06-13

Latest News Syria: Israel is an obstacle to peace

Israel.obama-israel-netanyahu

November 2, 2010

‘IDF intelligence chief: Israel’s next war will see heavy casualties’

'Syria is a military obstacle'...

In farewell meeting at the Knesset, Gen. Amos Yadlin says next conflict will hit Israel far harder than recent wars in Lebanon and Gaza – and hints for first the time at Israeli involvement in a 2007 strike on a nuclear plant in Syria…

In a final meeting at the Knesset, outgoing Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin warned on Tuesday that Israel’s next war would be fought on several fronts – causing far heavier damage and casualties than other recent conflicts. A new war would be far deadlier than Israel’s last two, relatively short, conflicts in Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2008-9. Syria, particularly, posed a greated military obstacle to Israel than at any time in the past three decades, Yadlin said, having amassed advanced Russian-built antiaircraft missiles that seriously limited the operational freedom of the Israel Air Force. Yadlin also hinted at Israel’s involvement in attacking a Syrian nuclear facility in September 2007. That strike has been widely attributed to Israel, but the government has never officially taken responsibility for the operation. The veteran soldier, who turns 60 next year, told the committee that during his position as MI chief he had contended with two enemy nuclear programs – apparently a reference to Iran and Syria. Yadlin also warned of a growing threat from the Iranian nuclear program, saying Iran now had enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb.

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-intelli...

---

May 6, 2013 - May 21, 2013


May 6, 2013 - 'Israel used depleted uranium in airstrike on Syria: Report':
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/05/06/302129/israel-hit-syria-using-depleted-uranium/
May 21, 2013  - ‘Israel forces fired at target in Syria’:
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/05/21/304611/israel-forces-fired-at-target-in-syria/

---

June 17, 2013

Israel's chemical weapons campaign - Google

UN believes chemical weapons used in Syria | JPost | Israel News
Israeli general: Syrian 'regime has used and is using chemical 
Israel preps for nationwide chemical warfare drill | The Times of Israel
Syria Has Used Chemical Weapons, Israel Says - NYTimes.com
Israel TV News | US considers no-fly zone in Syria after obtaining ...
Syria accused of chemical weapon use by Israel - World - CBC News
Israel Accuses Syria of Using Chemical Weapons - WSJ.com
Israel: Syria used chemical weapons, several times - CBS News
Israeli official says he believes Syria's Assad has used chemical ...
Israel says Syria has used chemical weapons - World News | Latest ...
Israeli military says Syria used chemical weapons | The Japan Times
Israeli Official Says Syrian Regime Used Chemical Weapons - US News
Israel says Syria used chemical weapons - World News | TVNZ
Israel: Syrian government used chemical weapons - Salon.com
Israel says Syria used chemical weapons - ABC News (Australian ...

___

Israel a Major Obstacle to Peace

May 23, 2009 - Syria: Israel A "Major Obstacle" To Peace
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-5035594-503543.html

May 23, 2009 - Associated Press - Syria's Assad: Israel Is 'Obstacle' to Peace
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521417,00.html

7.13.09 Syria to EU: Israel obstacle to peace - Israel News, Ynetnews
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3745949,00.html

May.23, 2009 - Assad: Israel is the major obstacle to peace
http://www.haaretz.com/news/assad-israel-is-the-major-obstacle-to-peace-1.276558

4 June 2008 - Normalizing occupation: Syria, Israel and "peace talks"
http://electronicintifada.net/content/normalizing-occupation-syria-israel-and-peace-talks/7543

MARCH 2005 - CAN ISRAEL AND SYRIA REACH PEACE?
OBSTACLES, LESSONS AND PROSPECTS
http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/wp_israelsyria.pdf

White House: Google campaign

obama-google.jpg

American war propaganda Google

'White House: Chemical weapons': About 65,800,000 results

White House statement on Syrian regime chemicals weapons - full text
White House says chemical weapons used against Syrian rebels - The Verge
White House plan to arm Syrian rebels raises fears of terrorist links - Fox News
White House: Syria crosses 'red line' with use of chemical weapons - CNN
White House: Syria Has Used Chemical Weapons - Yahoo! News
White House says chemical weapons used against Syrian rebels - The Verge
White House Says Syrian Regime Used Chemical Weapons, Military - buzzfeed
White House: Syria has used chemical weapons - Video on - video.msnbc.
White House: Assad used chemical weapons - Josh Gerstein - politico
White House plan to arm Syrian rebels raises fears of terrorist links - foxnews
White House: Assad Used Chemical Weapons in Syria - voanews
White House says Syria 'Used Chemical Weapons' | @pritheworld - theworld
White House statement on Syrian regime chemicals weapons - full text
WHITE HOUSE: Syria Has Been Using Chemical Weapons On Rebels - businessinsider
White House says Syria 'Used Chemical Weapons' | @pritheworld
White House: Assad Used Chemical Weapons in Syria - voanews
White House says Syria used chemical weapons, crossing Obama's - thehill
White House has proof of chemical weapons in Syria - Deutsche Welle
White House: Syria's Assad Regime Used Chemical Weapons - CNBC - video.cnbc
Daily Kos: White House: Syria has used chemical weapons
Red Line Crossed? White House Claims Chemical Weapons Used - theblaze
White House: Chemical Weapons Used in Syria | National Review - nationalreview
White house statement on syria's use of chemical weapons (full text) - huffingtonpost
Conclusive Evidence of Chemical Weapons in Syria: White House - abcnews
White House: Syrian Regime Has Used Chemical Weapons - cnsnews
White House Says They Have Proof Assad Used Chemical Weapons - crooksandliars
White House: Syria Crossed 'Red Line' By Using Chemical Weapons - www.ibtimes
Here we go: White House formally announces that Assad has used - hotair
White House: Syrian chemical weapons red line crossed - legalinsurrection
The White House Will Reportedly Arm the Syrian Rebels - Abby - theatlanticwire
Red Lined: White House Says It Knows For Sure That Assad Used - thecable.foreignpolicy
White House: Syria's Assad used chemical weapons against rebels - washingtonexaminer
The White House Is Now Sure Syria Used Chemical Weapons - slate
White House: US has conclusive evidence Assad used chemical - www.wjla
White House: Syria used chemical weapons on its people | KDVR.com - kdvr
White House estimates Syrian chemical weapons - Washington Post
White House estimates Syrian chemical weapons - Star Tribune
White House: Syria crosses 'red line' with use of chemical weapons - fox13now
'Red line' watch: White House confirms Syrian use of chemical - twitchy
White House: Syria chemical weapons kill up to 150- bigstory
Assad used chemical weapons on Syrian rebels: White House - www.thespec
White House: Syria chemical weapons kill up to 150 - Newsday
White House: Syria chemical weapons kill up to 150 | National - www.thenewstribune

On 3.14.2012, America's Defense Department’s best-known geek announced that she was leaving the Pentagon for a job at Google.  Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Larry Page of Google both strongly denied giving unfettered access to user data to U.S. officials, but it turns out both companies have, in fact, cooperated with governments requests.

media.manipulation.jpg

Some interesting links:

http://ruvr.co.uk/2013_06_17/Russia-no-fly-zone-over-Syria/
http://english.pravda.ru/
http://www.presstv.com/
http://sana.sy/eng/22/index.htm
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

18-06-13

Latest News Syria: President al-Assad’s interview Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

Image

President al-Assad gives interview to the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper

Jun 17, 2013

President Bashar al-Assad gave the following interview to the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper:

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.

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

Interview: 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.

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 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.

http://sana.sy/eng/21/2013/06/17/487994.htm

17-06-13

Latest News Syria: Israeli-American crap

Bilderberg.davignonwolfowitz.jpg

Who is Paul Wolfowitz ?

Päul Wolfowitz is born in Brooklyn, New York, into a Polish Jewish immigrant family, and grew up mainly in Ithaca, New York, where his father was a professor of statistical theory at Cornell University.

In 1961 he entered Cornell University and graduated in 1965 with a bachelor's degree in mathematics and chemistry. Then he dicided to go to graduate school to study politics.

From 1970 to 1972, Wolfowitz taught in the Department of Political Science at Yale University. 

In the 1970s Wolfowitz served as an aide to Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson, who influenced several neoconservatives, including Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. Jackson was a Cold War liberal supporting higher military spending and a hard line against the Soviet Union.

In 1977, during the Carter administration, Wolfowitz moved to the Pentagon. He was U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs for the U.S. Defense Department, under U.S. Secretary of Defense Harold Brown.

Following the 1980 election of President Ronald Reagan, offered Wolfowitz the position of Director of Policy Planning at the Department of State.

Wolfowitz demonstrated himself to be one of the strongest supporters of Israel in the Reagan administration.”

In 1982, the new U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz appointed Wolfowitz as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

From 1986 to 1989, during the military-backed government of dictator Suharto, Wolfowitz was the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Indonesia.

From 1989 to 1993, Wolfowitz served in the administration of George H.W. Bush as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, under then U.S. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Wolfowitz’s team co-ordinated and reviewed military strategy, raising $50 billion in allied financial support for the operation.

After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Wolfowitz and his then-assistant Scooter Libby wrote the “Defense Planning Guidance of 1992,” which came to be known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine, to “set the nation’s direction for the next century .

Wolfowitz: “ With an eye toward deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role, the United States would maintain unquestioned military superiority and, if necessary, employ force unilaterally .

Many of the ideas in the Wolfowitz Doctrine later became part of the Bush Doctrine. He left the government after the 1992 election.

Wolfowitz was associated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

In September 2000 the PNAC produced a 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century, advocating the redeployment of U.S. troops in permanent bases in strategic locations throughout the world where they can be ready to act to protect U.S. interests abroad.

From 2001 to 2005, during the George W. Bush administration, Wolfowitz served as U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense reporting to U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Wolfowitz was "a major architect of President Bush's Iraq policy. In the first emergency meeting of the National Security Council on the day of the September 11 attacks in 2001, Rumsfeld asked, “Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just al-Qaeda?” with Wolfowitz adding that Iraq was a “brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily—it was doable.”  

On April 16, 2002 the National Solidarity Rally for Israel was called in Washington to promote US support and collaboration with Israel. Wolfowitz was the sole representative of the Bush administration to attend, speaking alongside Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. As reported by the BBC, Wolfowitz told the crowd that US President George W. Bush “wants you to know that he stands in solidarity with you”.

Following the declaration of 'victory' in Afghanistan the Bush administration had started to plan for the next stage of the so called War on Terror. According to John Kampfner, “Emboldened by their experience in Afghanistan, they saw the opportunity to root out hostile regimes in the Middle East and to implant very American interpretations of democracy and free markets, from Iraq to Iran and Saudi Arabia. Wolfowitz epitomised this view.” Wolfowitz “saw a liberated Iraq as both paradigm and linchpin for future interventions.” The 2003 invasion of Iraq began on March 19.

Prior to the invasion, Wolfowitz actively championed it, as he later stated: “For reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason”.

The job of finding WMD and providing justification for the attack would fall to the intelligence services.

Kampfner and Wolfowitz, they set up what came to be known as the ‘cabal’, a cell of eight or nine analysts in a new Office of Special Plans (OSP) based in the U.S. Defense Department.” According to an unnamed Pentagon source quoted by Hersh, the OSP “was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States.”

Within months of being set up, the OSP “rivaled both the CIA and the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA, as President Bush’s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq’s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda.” 

The actions of the OSP have led to accusation of the Bush administration “fixing intelligence to support policy” with the aim of influencing Congress in its use of the War Powers Act.

Kampfner outlined Wolfowitz’s strategy for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which “envisaged the use of air support and the occupation of southern Iraq with ground troops, to install a new government run by Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress.” Wolfowitz believed that the operation would require minimal troop deployment, Hersh explains, because “any show of force would immediately trigger a revolt against Saddam within Iraq, and that it would quickly expand.” The financial expenditure would be kept low, Kampfner observes, if “under the plan American troops would seize the oil fields around Basra, in the South, and sell the oil to finance the opposition.”

During Wolfowitz’s pre-war testimony before Congress, he dismissed General Eric K. Shinseki’s estimates of the size of the post war occupation force and estimated that fewer than 100,000 troops would be necessary in the war.

In March 2005, Wolfowitz was nominated to be president of the World Bank by U.S. In the U.S. there was some praise for the nomination. An editorial in The Wall Street Journal states: “Mr. Wolfowitz is willing to speak the truth to power … he saw earlier than most, and spoke publicly about, the need for dictators to plan democratic transitions

World Bank Group’s board of executive directors and staffers complained that Wolfowitz was imposing Bush Administration policies to eliminate family planning from World Bank programs.

On May 17, 2007 the World Bank Group’s board of Executive Directors announced that Paul Wolfowitz would resign as World Bank Group president at the end of June 2007.

Wolfowitz is a former steering committee member of the Bilderberg group.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz

Photo: Etienne Davignon, former president of the Bilderberg Group, and Wolfowitz - Germany 2005 

===

Verhofstadt.Guy.davignon.Sofina

Idris.Verhofstadt2

Photos:

1. Guy Verhofstadt, MEP and President of ALDE Group; Mr Jacques Delors, Founding President of 'Notre Europe' and Etienne Davignon, former President of the Bilderberg Group

2. Chief of Staff of the so called ‘Free Syrian Army’ Gen. Salim Idris addresses the media after he discussed the situation in Syria with Guy Verhofstadt, right, at the European Parliament in Brussels, March 6, 2013. Idris said that his army needed the West to supply “weapons and ammunition” so that his forces can “defend themselves.” Verhofstadt: “The time for peace talks is over, we need action now. If the UN doesn’t react, then NATO should.”
The so called ‘Free Syrian Army’ always has rejected any proposal for peace talks and since 2 years, the U.S. and its satellite states provide Idris and all kind of terrorist groups continuously with weapons wich are also used for terrorist attacks on Syrian civilians.

Bilderberg Group:
Official Bilderberg Attendee List and Agenda Released
Bilderberg 2013 (video)
Bilderberg 2013 – Your guide to ‘The Bilderberg Group’ (video)
Why don’t the mainstream media report on Bilderberg meetings? – Gerard Batten MEP (video)
Italian Supreme Court President Blames Bilderberg For Terrorist Attacks
Bilderberg Feast (video + update)
Bilderberg Conference (video)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/05/bilderberg-2013-goldman-sachs-watford
http://www.bilderberg.org/2005.htm
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/100407_wolfowitz_istanbul_bilderberg.html

16-06-13

Latest News Syria: Israeli ‘chemical weapons’ campaign

Israel.obama-israel-netanyahu

November 2, 2010

‘IDF intelligence chief: Israel’s next war will see heavy casualties’

In farewell meeting at the Knesset, Gen. Amos Yadlin says next conflict will hit Israel far harder than recent wars in Lebanon and Gaza – and hints for first the time at Israeli involvement in a 2007 strike on a nuclear plant in Syria.

In a final meeting at the Knesset, outgoing Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin warned on Tuesday that Israel’s next war would be fought on several fronts – causing far heavier damage and casualties than other recent conflicts. A new war would be far deadlier than Israel’s last two, relatively short, conflicts in Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2008-9. Syria, particularly, posed a greated military obstacle to Israel than at any time in the past three decades, Yadlin said, having amassed advanced Russian-built antiaircraft missiles that seriously limited the operational freedom of the Israel Air Force. Yadlin also hinted at Israel’s involvement in attacking a Syrian nuclear facility in September 2007. That strike has been widely attributed to Israel, but the government has never officially taken responsibility for the operation. The veteran soldier, who turns 60 next year, told the committee that during his position as MI chief he had contended with two enemy nuclear programs – apparently a reference to Iran and Syria. Yadlin also warned of a growing threat from the Iranian nuclear program, saying Iran now had enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb.

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-intelli...

---


Israel.obama-israel-netanyahu

May 6, 2013 - May 21, 2013

May 6, 2013 - 'Israel used depleted uranium in airstrike on Syria: Report':
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/05/06/302129/israel-hit-syria-using-depleted-uranium/
May 21, 2013  - ‘Israel forces fired at target in Syria’:
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/05/21/304611/israel-forces-fired-at-target-in-syria/

---


Israel.obama-israel-netanyahu

June 17, 2013

Google results 'Latest News: Israel used chemical weapons'

UN believes chemical weapons used in Syria | JPost | Israel News
Israeli general: Syrian 'regime has used and is using chemical 
Israel preps for nationwide chemical warfare drill | The Times of Israel
Syria Has Used Chemical Weapons, Israel Says - NYTimes.com
Israel TV News | US considers no-fly zone in Syria after obtaining ...
Syria accused of chemical weapon use by Israel - World - CBC News
Israel Accuses Syria of Using Chemical Weapons - WSJ.com
Israel: Syria used chemical weapons, several times - CBS News
Israeli official says he believes Syria's Assad has used chemical ...
Israel says Syria has used chemical weapons - World News | Latest ...
Israeli military says Syria used chemical weapons | The Japan Times
Israeli Official Says Syrian Regime Used Chemical Weapons - US News
Israel says Syria used chemical weapons - World News | TVNZ
Israel: Syrian government used chemical weapons - Salon.com
Israel says Syria used chemical weapons - ABC News (Australian ...

Image

Vietnamese victims of American chemical warfare (Agent Orange, Monsanto)

Israel.use.white.fosfor.Gaza.2009.2.jpg

Gaza 2009 - Victim of Israel's use of white fosfor bombs


Latest News Syria: 'Chemical weapons' - Bilderberg Group

Bilderberg.president.Étienne.Davignon.2011 .jpg

Verhofstadt.Guy.davignon.Sofina.jpg

Bilderberg.Reynders.davignon.Egmont06022012.jpg

Verhofstadt.Salim Idris.jpg

Photos: 1. Etienne Davignon, president of the Bilderberg Group and 'Friends of Europe'/ 2. Guy Verhofstadt, MEP and President of ALDE Group; Mr Jacques Delors, Founding President of 'Notre Europe' and Etienne Davignon, President of Egmont Institute (Belgian Royal Institute for International Relations / 3. Etienne Davignon and Didier Reynders. Reynders is currently Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, after serving as Finance Minister since 1999 and Deputy Prime Minister since 2004 / 4. Chief of Staff of the so called ‘Free Syrian Army’ Gen. Salim Idris addresses the media after he discussed the situation in Syria with Guy Verhofstadt, right, at the European Parliament in Brussels, March 6, 2013. Idris said that his army needed the West to supply “weapons and ammunition” so that his forces can “defend themselves.” Verhofstadt on Lybia: “The weak position of the EU makes me sick” – Verhofstadt on Syria: “The time for peace talks is over, we need action now. If the UN doesn’t react, then NATO should.” It proves once again that the whole current debate about the 'use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army', was set up to deliver weapons to the so called Free Syrian Army and some terrorist groups.

Bilderberg Group:
In England (video)
Official Bilderberg Attendee List and Agenda Released
Bilderberg 2013 (video)
Bilderberg 2013 – Your guide to ‘The Bilderberg Group’ (video)
Why don’t the mainstream media report on Bilderberg meetings? – Gerard Batten MEP (video)
Italian Supreme Court President Blames Bilderberg For Terrorist Attacks
Bilderberg Feast (video + update)
Bilderberg Conference (video)

15-06-13

Latest News Syria: The American crap about chemical weapons

Vietnam.victims.agentorangewheelchair.jpg

On March 21, 2013, American President Barack Obama said the U.S. was “deeply skeptical” of Syrian government claims that rebel forces had used chemical weapons as the United Nations faces calls to investigate possible use of deadly gas.

Obama also made clear that while he had serious reservations about the regime’s charges, the use of chemical arms in the conflict would be a “game changer” and required fact-gathering. The UN has been asked by Syria and Western nations to investigate conflicting accounts of two attacks.

Clouding the UN’s decision-making is a chorus of divergent versions of events. Syrian authorities blame the so called rebels for launching a rocket laden with chemicals in the Khan al-Assal area in Aleppo province, killing 25 people. The opposition said government forces were responsible and accused Assad’s forces of a second chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus.

Both sides called on UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to send a team of investigators. Western governments including the U.S., the U.K. and France are backing the so called rebels.

On March 26, 2013, Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has called on the UN chief to dispatch an investigation team to probe the use of chemical arms by foreign-backed militants in Syria.

In a letter to the UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon, Salehi emphasized that the terror act represents a major threat to international peace and security and an open violation of global norms, particularly the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). 

While calling on the UN to adopt deterrent measures to avert reoccurrence of such events, the Iranian foreign minister reiterated that the Islamic Republic, as the greatest victim of chemical weapons, censures “this inhumane crime” and expects “all governments and international organizations, including the UN, to quickly and clearly condemn this inhumane atrocity.”

In the letter, a copy of which has also been forwarded to the UN Security Council, Salehi further urged the launch of an objective probe into the incident and the sources of the chemical weapons and agents to the terrorist gangs in Syria, making certain that they are identified and brought to justice.

He noted that the terrorist use of chemical weapons in Syria comes just prior to holding the third conference on reconsideration of chemical weapons, reiterating the need for indiscriminate and effective execution of all CWC regulations, particularly the total abolition of such weapons of mass destruction by those that still possess them. 

Salehi concluded his letter to the UN head by expressing confidence that the world body would strongly condemn the criminal use of chemical weapons against the innocent people of the Syrian city of Aleppo. 

The development comes as the Syrian official TV network quoted Russian Permanent Representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin as demanding that the UN’s fact finding committee for probing the use of chemical weapons in Syria must not include members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which has engaged in supporting and arming terrorist and militant gangs in Syria.

NATO members, particularly the US, Turkey, Britain, Germany and France, have played an active role in supporting the anti-Damascus militant gangs with military hardware, in addition to what they have referred to as "nonlethal" aid. 

At least 25 people were killed and 86 others injured after militants fired missiles containing poisonous gas into Aleppo’s Khan al-Assal village on March 19. Women and children were among the victims. 

The attack came after Syria’s opposition coalition, known as the Syrian National Coalition, selected a Syrian-born American citizen, Ghassan Hitto, as the prime minister of the so-called interim government.

In late April 2013, one US intelligence official told the McClatchy news agency that they had "low or moderate confidence" that the Assad regime had used sarin gas on a small scale. Not only did the plethora of US intelligence agencies differ in their assessments, but the White House itself acknowledged that "the chain of custody [of samples] is not clear, so we cannot confirm how the exposure occurred and under what conditions".

Two months on, the US intelligence community believed that the Assad regime "used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times over the last year", and that intelligence officials had "high confidence" in this finding.

So, it is clear that the White House has simply pressured its intelligence community to produce a new assessment, not on the basis of new evidence, but in response to the shifting military balance within Syria, the greater involvement of Iran and Hezbollah in key battles such as that at Qusair, and pressure from European allies like France and Britain (and from Israel).

If western powers want to send arms to Syria to counteract Iranian influence as part of a wider strategic war, they should simply say so. Couching this policy shift in terms of chemical weapons could have pernicious long-term consequences. It is clear that the Iraq war did irreparable damage to public confidence in intelligence assessments and policymaking, to the point where it constrained future decision-makers and dealt an enduring moral blow to the global standing of western foreign policies. It is incumbent on this generation of policymakers that they demonstrate the transparency and honesty that was so lacking a decade ago.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/us-evidence-syria-chemical-weapons 

Photo: Victims of american chemical warfare in Vietnam

Latest News Syria: Anders Fogh Rasmussen's doublespeak

NATO.Anders Fogh Rasmussen .jpg

As a reminder: 

March 27, 2013

'NATO head urges Syria political solution, rules out intervention'

(Reuters) - NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen called for a political solution to the Syrian crisis on Wednesday, ruling out Western military intervention despite a plea for U.S. protection by a foe of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Opposition leader Moaz Alkhatib said on Tuesday he had asked U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry for American forces to help defend rebel-controlled northern parts of Syria with Patriot surface-to-air missiles now based in Turkey.

But NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen stuck firmly to his insistence that the 28-nation alliance would not play a military role in the two-year-old Syrian conflict, which has claimed an estimated 70,000 lives.

"We don't have any intention to intervene militarily in Syria," he said, speaking to Russian students in Moscow via a video link from Brussels.

"I do believe that we need a political solution in Syria and I hope the international community will send a unified and clear message to all parties in Syria that we need a political solution," Rasmussen said.

Divisions between the Western powers and Russia and China have prevented decisive action on Syria at the United Nations.

Three NATO countries - the United States, the Netherlands and Germany - sent Patriot missiles to Turkey early this year to protect Turkish cities from possible attack from Syria.

Alkhatib told Reuters on Wednesday that the refusal by international powers to provide Patriot missile support sent a message to Assad to "do what you want".

Rasmussen said there was a clear difference between Syria and Libya, where NATO air strikes helped topple Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

"In Libya we took responsibility for the operation based on a United Nations mandate to protect the Libyan population against attacks from its own government...and we had active support from the countries in the region," he said.

"None of these conditions are fulfilled in Syria, there is no United Nations mandate, there is no call on NATO to intervene in Syria, even the opposition in Syria does not ask for a foreign military intervention," he said.

The six Patriot missile batteries dispatched by the NATO allies are stationed around three Turkish cities.

They have a short range - they can defend an area of just 15 to 20 km (10 to 13 miles) against a ballistic missile, according to NATO - and in their current positions are too far away to provide an effective shield for northern Syria.

The U.S. missiles, deployed around the city of Gaziantep, are closest to the Syrian border, about 60 km (37 miles) away, but the German and Dutch batteries are 100 km (60 miles) or more from the Syrian border.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/27/us-syria-crisis...

===

June 15, 2013

US Senator John McCain, a hawk on Syria, said America needed to neutralize Assad’s air power: “They (rebels) have enough light weapons. They’ve got enough AK-47s. AK-47s don’t do very well against tanks,” McCain told CNN. “They need anti-tank weapons and they need anti-air weapons.”

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen welcomed what he said was a “clear US statement”. “The international community has made clear that any use of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable and a clear breach of international law,” Rasmussen told reporters in Brussels.

Latest News Syria: Russia and Italy plead for political solution

Syria.Minister, Sergey Lavrov.conference.Italian.minister.Emma Bonino.jpg

Russia, Italy: No preconditions for international conference on Syria 

Jun 15, 2013

Russian and Italy on Saturday said they share the position that there is no alternative to the political solution in Syria and they support holding the international conference on Syria due in Geneva to implement what was agreed upon in Geneva communiqué issued on June 30th of last year.

"Our joint stance is that there is no alternative to the political solution to the crisis in Syria," Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, told a joint press conference with his Italian counterpart, Emma Bonino, in Moscow.

He pointed out that last year "everybody agreed on taking part in the international dialogue process in which all segments of the Syrian society are to participate," expressing thanks for the Italian Foreign Minister's support to holding the international conference.

Bonino, for her part, stressed the importance that the upcoming international conference on Syria be based on what last year's Geneva meeting agreed upon.

"This process should be carried out without preconditions…and the decisions should be taken at the end of the process," she said.

She indicated a difficulty in getting this mission done, saying "We know how hard this is, and usually the outcomes of such conferences depend on the parties' readiness for compromises."

Lavrov indicated in this context to the preconditions set by certain groups of the "Syrian opposition", namely those demanding the "departure" of President Bashar al-Assad.

He criticized Russia's Western partners' commitment to the opposition's logic on the need to "remove the regime from power" and take over some cities as prerequisites to start dialogue.

"In that case, it wouldn't be possible to start the dialogue," said Lavrov.

Lavrov: Syrian regime is not in dilemma

The Russian Foreign Minister slammed the West's "conflicting statements" on the issue of using chemical weapons as being among the factors which hinder the international efforts to hold the international conference on Syria.

Lavrov recalled the previous Western statements which said that the "regime" was likely to use chemical weapons in case it found itself in a dilemma, stressing that the "regime" in Syria is not in a dilemma.

"On the contrary, the Syrian opposition says the regime is making great military achievements on the ground," said Lavrov, wondering "What is the use of the [Syrian] government using chemical weapons?…It's useless."

The Russian Foreign Minister stressed the absence of any reliable evidence that could prove that the Syrian government did use chemical weapons.

"The information and evidence which our American, British and French colleagues presented don't meet the standards of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons," said Lavrov, adding that this information has not been under continuous scrutiny and could not be confirmed.

Lavrov pointed out that the chance to conduct an international inquire into the use of chemical weapons in Syria upon the Syrian government's request was missed because of the steps which were taken by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

He clarified that Ki-moon failed to respond to Syria's request for an inquiry into the incident of chemical weapons use which took place last March 19th in Khan al-Assal in Aleppo countryside.

"Instead of sending a mission to that place, Ki-moom sent a message to Syria demanding to be allowed visits to all areas in Syria," Lavrov continued.

"We see in this a repetition of the Iraqi scenario, and everybody knows the consequences of implementing such a scenario," he warned.

The Russian Foreign Minister expressed his country's concern over the news and information on chemical weapons smuggle by the armed terrorist groups and the Turkish police's arrest of members from Jabhat al-Nusra with sarin gas in their possession, wondering how "we didn't notice any concern on the part of our Western partners regarding this issue."

Asked a question about the US's supplying the "opposition" in Syria with heavy weapons, Lavrov said "I haven't heard news about the U.S. government's desire to supply the Syrian opposition with heavy weapons…and according to our assessment, the Syrian regime didn't cross the red line."

Lavrov: Deployment of F-16 jets and Patriot missiles in Jordan is against international law

Lavrov referred in this context to the information provided by the Wall Street Journal deployment of U.S. F-16 fighter jets and Patriot missiles in Jordan, stressing that this issue is a violation of the international law.

"This equipment was deployed on the Jordanian territories and these missiles would fall the Syrian aircrafts from the Jordanian territories, and this is a violation of the international law," said Lavrov, voicing hope that "Our American colleagues participate more effectively in the preparations for the international conference on Syria."

Russian Foreign Ministry: UNHRC resolution on Syria biased, ignores crimes of extremists

The Russian Foreign Ministry stressed that the resolution of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on Syria is biased, unfruitful and addressed against the Syrian government while it ignores the crimes committed by the extremist opposition.

"The new biased resolution against Syria was initiated by the US, Britain, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey… some Arab states which preliminary backed the decision have eventually abstained from taking part in making this resolution," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Saturday.

The resolution includes a bid to legitimize the Doha Coalition while it ignores several moderate opposition groups which pledged commitment to human rights, the statement added.

Syria's permanent representative to the UN in Geneva Fayssal al-Hamwi said that the UNHRC draft resolution on human rights conditions in Syria is biased and full of lies and fabricated events, and claims of massacres in al-Qseir have never taken place.

H. Said/ F.Allafi

http://sana.sy/eng/22/2013/06/15/487598.htm

Latest News Syria: Anniversary Sawt al-Shaab radio

Syria.anniversary of launching Sawt al-Shaab .Sound of People.radio.jpg

Al-Zoubi: National media is media of people

June 15, 2013

Information Minister, Omran al-Zoubi said that the national media is one of a state, not an authority, government or sect, but ''is the media of the Syrian people and state which has to be open to all viewpoints.''

Marking the 35th anniversary of launching Sawt al-Shaab (Sound of People) radio, al-Zoubi congratulated the radio which decided to extend its broadcast hours to be 24 hours a day, which, he said, would be an extra burden amid the current conditions in Syria.

Al-Zoubi indicated that big strides were achieved towards a responsible national media, pointing out that ''there is no private media in the narrow sense of the word, as even the parties' newspapers won't have readership unless they address all social components.''

''Our responsibility is no less than that of the army and the armed forces…We are standing behind them as they are a symbol of the country, its unity and sovereignty,'' al-Zoubi affirmed.

He added that the mission of media is to form public opinion that is based on the concepts of loyalty to the homeland.

''The homeland is invincible, thanks to the sacrifices of the armed forces and our martyrs…their blood will not go in vain,'' said al-Zoubi.

Moussa Abdulnour, Director-General of Sawt al-Shaab radio said that ''the radio's work is based on the relationship with citizens that we seek to keep strong.'' Abdulnour elaborated on the technical development in the work of Sawt al-Shaab work, in addition to enriching it with a trained and experienced cadre.

Abdulnour said ''We have expanded the space of dialogue between citizens and officials, and increased the live broadcast hours.'' ''Hopefully, the radio will assume its role in combating the global conspiracy against Syria and we aspire for a wider communication with all provinces,'' he added.

The radio cadre was honored during the ceremony. Sawt al-Shaab radio went on the air in 1979 as a response to public needs to keep the flag of the Syrian national media flying.

M. Ismael

http://sana.sy/eng/21/2013/06/15/487669.htm