US upset about Iran-Iraq-Syria alliance-US meddling fuels violence in Syria

Hezbollah Secretary-General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah confirms the Lebanese resistance movement has sent a drone deep into the Israeli airspace evading radar systems.

The operation code-named Hussein Ayub saw Hezbollah’s drone fly hundreds of kilometers into the Israeli airspace and getting very close to Dimona nuclear plant without being detected by advanced Israeli and US radars, Nasrallah said during a televised speech late on Thursday.

“This is only part of our capabilities,” he stressed, adding that Israelis have admitted to their security failure despite being provided with the latest technologies by Western powers.

 

 

Hezbollah secretary-general stated that Hezbollah’s drones are made in Iran but assembled by the resistance movement.

Rights Group Maps Out Syrian Government’s ‘Archipelago Of Torture Centers’- pdf in russian-

 

With a growing civil war in Syria, Bashar al-Assad’s notorious police state only increases repression and human rights violations against its own people.

A new report from New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) demonstrates just how prolific these violations of basic human rights have become in Syria. The group interviewed more than 200 Syrians and used the information to identify at least 27 detention centers where torture is used. The “archipelago of torture centers,” said HRW, “clearly point to a state policy of torture and ill-treatment and therefore constitute a crime against humanity.”

Syria’s four intelligence agencies, known together as the mukhabarat, employed a variety of torture methods against civilians and anti-government actors. One 31-year-old described the methods used against him:

They forced me to undress. Then they started squeezing my fingers with pliers. They put staples in my fingers, chest and ears. I was only allowed to take them out if I spoke. The staples in the ears were the most painful. They used two wires hooked up to a car battery to give me electric shocks. They used electric stun-guns on my genitals twice.

HRW detailed the methods and published sketches depicting their use. The group also published diagrams showing that, based on the interviews, Syrian authorities were putting up to 70 people in cells that European standards for detention would limit to five occupants.

When two or more interviewees identified a detention center, HRW added the location to an interactive map. Here’s a screen capture of the map showing the ten detention centers HRW identified in the capital Damascus (click here for the full interactive map):

HRW Emergencies researcher Ole Solvang said in a release: “By publishing their locations, describing the torture methods, and identifying those in charge we are putting those responsible on notice that they will have to answer for these horrific crimes.”

The group said that because Syria is not party to the Rome Statute, International Criminal Court proceedings against officials ordering and carrying out the torture would need to be mandated by the U.N. Security Council. Russia and China have so far blocked such measures. Clearly aiming to pressure Russia — Assad’s top international backer — HRW published its findings and recommendations (PDF) in Russian.

View this document on Scribd

 

Syria:Detainee says officers threatened to rape his family

A Human Rights Watch report issued on July 3, 2012, documents cases of torture used in Syrian detention centers since March 2011. The cases were ascertained through face-to-face interviews with the former detainees.

According to the report, a man named Fawzi was “detained for the second time on August 6 and spent about 70 days in detention, including about 40 days in Branch 291” in Damascus. He told HRW he was tortured and that detention officers threatened to rape his family members:

“After the first week they took me for questioning,” he said. “They read to me what they said I had confessed to while in the Military Intelligence branch in Aleppo. But the information was completely different [from what I told the interrogators there]. It said that I had confessed to carrying weapons, that I was part of gangs, that we communicated with other gangs and so on. I denied everything for three hours. Then they placed me facing a wall with my hands cuffed behind my back for seven or eight hours.

“The next day the interrogation continued. They started threatening me and my family. They said that if I don’t confess they would bring in my mother and siblings and rape and abuse them. He was going through my phone, asking about names.

“They beat me with batons and electric cables before they again made me stand for three, four hours before they brought me back to the cell. The same routine took place three, four days in a row.

“We could hear people from other cells being tortured, including women who were screaming when they slapped them.

“Some people were held standing against the wall deprived of sleep for up to seven days. They would just lose it and started confessing to everything without even being asked.”

Other cases from the HRW report can be found by searching “HRW” on our crowdmap.

The dates of the reported assaults and torture are unknown. Because Syrian government officials currently refuse to allow access to journalists, researchers, and aid workers, Women Under Siege cannot independently verify this report of sexualized violence in Syria.

Human Rights in Syria-Annual report 2011

SHRC Tenth Annual Report on Human Rights in Syria 2011

Contents

2.Preface
3.Death under Torture
4.Missing Persons in Sednaya Prison Massacre
5.Missing Persons in Sednaya Prison Massacre
6.Human Rights’ Activists and the Civil Society
7.The Forced Exiled and the Portfolio of Law 49/1980 … The Forced Exiled and Documentation .. Asylum to the West .
Documentation of Missing Persons … Arrests, Trials & Releases ….
8.Examples of the State’s Security Court’s Rulings for 2010

9.Examples on the State’s Military Tribunals’ Sentences for 2010

10.Kurds
11.The Portfolio of Arbitrary Arrest
12.Examples on those Released
13.Persons Prevented from Travelling
14.Violating the Rights of Students and Teachers at theMinistry of Education & Higher Education and PrivateSchools
15.The General Situation of Media in Syria – Status Quo
16.Syrian Human Rights Committee in Brief

View this document on Scribd

Houla Massacre Update – The UN Report

In two alerts on May 31 and June 13, we noted how the UK corporate media system instantly found, not just the Syrian government, but its leader Bashar Assad, responsible for the May 25 massacre of 108 people, including 49 children, in Houla, Syria.

Numerous cartoons depicted Assad smeared with blood or bathing in blood. Just two days after the massacre, the Independent on Sunday’s front cover wanted to know what its readers were going to do about it:

‘There is, of course, supposed to be a ceasefire, which the brutal Assad regime simply ignores. And the international community? It just averts its gaze. Will you do the same? Or will the sickening fate of these innocent children make you very, very angry?’ (Independent on Sunday, May 27, 2012)

Quite what readers were supposed to do, other than gaze, was unclear. After all, one of the great triumphs of modern politics is the near-complete insulation of US-UK foreign policy against democratic pressures.

Inside the paper, David Randall wrote these bitter words:

‘He is the President; she is the First Lady; they are dead children. He governs but doesn’t protect; she shops and doesn’t care… And one hopes that those on the United Nations Security Council, when it reconvenes, will look into the staring eyes of these dead children and remember the hollow words of Assad’s wife when she simpered that she “comforts the families” of her country’s victims.’

This was standard for political commentary and media coverage right across politics and media. Houla was not reported as just one more ugly event in world news. It was sold to the British public as an historic ‘something must be done’ tipping point on a par with the contested Racak and hypothetical Benghazi massacres used to justify the West’s attacks on Serbia in 1999 and Libya in 2011, respectively.

US and UK politicians were clearly desperate to use Houla to stoke their regime-change agenda. Rehearsing the crude tactics of the Bush-Blair era, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UK Foreign Secretary William Hague endlessly repeated their damning judgements: facts were irrelevant, propaganda stunts everything. No holds were barred. The media, as ever, were happy to go along for the ride.

If the US-UK alliance was to succeed in justifying externally-imposed regime change, then the Assad government had to be declared responsible – certainly, solely, unforgivably. And that indeed was the message supplied by the media.

However, as we explained in our June 13 alert, cracks in the story quickly began to emerge. It turned out that women and children had not had their throats cut, as had been universally asserted. Moreover, the BBC’s World News editor Jon Williams commented:

‘In Houla, and now in Qubair, the finger has been pointed at the shabiha, pro-government militia. But tragic death toll aside, the facts are few: it’s not clear who ordered the killings – or why.’

But these and a handful of other comments – and the sources informing them – were kept low-profile and did not become part of the media discussion. Inexplicably, the implications for earlier media claims went unexamined, undiscussed.

 

The UN – ‘Unable To Determine The Identity Of The Perpetrators At This Time’

Last week, on June 27, a UN Commission of Inquiry delivered its report on the massacre. In considering those responsible, the UN described the three most likely possibilities:

‘First, that the perpetrators were Shabbiha or other local militia from neighbouring villages, possibly operating together with, or with the acquiescence of, the Government security forces; second, that the perpetrators were anti-Government forces seeking to escalate the conflict while punishing those that failed to support – or who actively opposed – the rebellion; or third, foreign groups with unknown affiliation.’

The report’s assessment:

‘With the available evidence, the CoI [Commission of Inquiry] could not rule out any of these possibilities.’

The UN summarised:

‘The CoI is unable to determine the identity of the perpetrators at this time; nevertheless the CoI considers that forces loyal to the Government may have been responsible for many of the deaths. The investigation will continue until the end of the CoI mandate.’

A remarkably cautious conclusion, given that it was produced in the face of intense Western political and media pressure (no doubt also behind the scenes) to blame the Syrian government.

So how did the media react to this high-profile report starkly contradicting its consensus on Houla? An honest media would have headlined the UN’s doubt, alerting readers to the earlier baseless assertions and misreporting.

Instead, the LexisNexis media database search engine finds (July 5) just six articles mentioning the report in UK national newspapers and their websites, with only five of these mentioning Houla. An astonishingly low level of coverage given the massive media attention that preceded it. LexisNexis records 1,017 print and online articles mentioning Houla in all UK newspapers since the massacre on May 25.

The Independent, which, as discussed, initially led the field in Houla hype, described the UN findings thus:

‘Gunmen raided the headquarters of a pro-government Syrian TV station yesterday, killing seven employees, kidnapping others and demolishing buildings. The government described the killings as a “massacre,” just as the UN was blaming state forces for the Houla massacre.’

If this was a gross misrepresentation of the UN’s findings, it was rendered absurd by clicking an online link to ‘More’, which took readers to these words from Patrick Cockburn:

‘The UN report on last month’s massacre at Houla, near the northern city of Homs, does not name those responsible, saying only that forces loyal to the government “may have been responsible” for many of the deaths.

‘It does not name the Alawite militia – the Shabiha – as being responsible, as has been widely reported, but said they had easiest access to Houla.’

That indeed was the news – the UN report had starkly contradicted the ‘widely reported’ but false certainty.

In similar vein, a Guardian piece was titled: ‘Syrian government loyalists “may be responsible” for massacre – UN report.’

A separate Guardian headline bullet point read: ‘Assad forces may be to blame for many Houla deaths – UN.’

By contrast, more accurately, Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News tweeted:

‘UN Syria report: says al-Houla massacre of 108 could have been done by either pro or anti Assad militias’

We wrote to Thomson: ‘Interesting, the Guardian is reporting it thus: ‘Syrian government loyalists “may be responsible”‘ UN report.’

Thomson replied: ‘true but UN equally saying anti-govt militia could have done it. And I speak as someone interviewed by UN on this.’

The former Guardian and Observer journalist, Jonathan Cook, emailed us:

‘Yes, in fact, the Guardian’s headline stating that Syrian government loyalists “may have been responsible” for the Houla massacre is simply preposterous. The narrative already promoted by the Guardian (and everyone else) is that they *were* responsible. So it should be blindingly obvious to the editors that the only *news* in this UN report is that the government loyalists may *not* have been responsible. Jonathan’ (Email to Media Lens, June 27, 2012)

Just three days after the UN report was published, Martin Chulov wrote in the Guardian:

‘In the Syrian village of Qatma, not far from the Turkish border, a family from the town of Houla, where a massacre widely blamed on regime backers took place in late May, has taken refuge.’

In the article, which focused solely on the perspective of Syria’s armed opposition, Chulov made no mention of the UN report or the fact that it had challenged the ‘widely’ circulated claims. Instead, he concluded:

‘Where the UN and the international community may have been seen as ponderous in the Balkans, they are viewed in a worse light through a Syrian opposition lens – impotent.

‘”What they are talking about [in Geneva] is meaningless,” said Idris [a Syrian exile]. “It won’t change things.”’

Seen as ‘ponderous’ by whom? Presumably not the current Syrian opposition. And presumably not by those of us appalled by the mendacious propaganda used to justify Nato’s war on Serbia in 1999. Chulov meant, of course, right-thinking people. The comment recalled Chulov’s earlier response on Twitter:

‘Took a v long time to muster support for a response in Bosnia and Kosovo. Syria will be even more difficult.’

Even The Times did better than the Guardian:

‘The [UN] authors said that they were unable to determine who carried out a massacre of more than 100 people in Houla last month but added that forces loyal to Mr Assad may have been responsible for many of the killings.’ (Janine di Giovanni, ‘Assad and rebels think they have more to gain from violence, UN general says,’ The Times, June 28, 2012)

The BBC website initially commented:

‘UN investigator and author of the report Karen Abuzayd told the BBC that “there is the possibility of three different groups who may have done this”.

‘She said that government forces were responsible for the initial shelling in which some people died. But what she called the “massacre” afterwards in people’s homes was done either by militiamen from Alawite villages – known as shabiha – or possibly by armed opposition groups.’

As the News Sniffer website recorded, these words were quickly edited out. Similar comments were later restored.

Media response to the UN report on Houla is a striking example of how the corporate system has evolved to channel and boost government propaganda claims on demand. As ever, counter-evidence, even from highly-respected sources, struggles to make any headway against this ‘babbling brook of bullshit’.

One might think that the primary concern of editors and journalists would be to provide media consumers with accurate, comprehensible information, not least by correcting earlier high-profile errors. But not a single editorial or comment piece examining the implications of the UN report on Houla has sought to do this. Most readers and viewers will continue to believe that women and children had their throat cuts, certainly on the orders of the Syrian government. Others will be simply bewildered by an overwhelming consensus punctuated by odd, apparently credible, but unexplored contradictions.

Source

Al-Qaeda Inspired Group Claims Syria Attacks

An Al-Qaeda-inspired group has claimed responsibility for dozens of attacks across Syria, The Associated Press reported Wednesday.

The report cited the SITE monitoring group, which tracks jihadist chatter on the Internet and which said the Al-Nusra Front released statements on extremist websites in late June claiming the attacks were to avenge the killings of Syrians by the government.

One of the attacks targeted a pro-regime television station in the town of Drousha, south of Damascus, on June 27. Seven people were killed in the attack on Al-Ikhbariya TV.

Al-Nusra said, according to SITE, that the station is an arm of the regime and the attack sought to make the station “taste from the cup of torture” and force every member of the regime to wonder: “When will my turn come?”

The statement included photos of 11 men it said were kidnapped in the attack.

Al-Ikhbariya is privately owned but often acts as a regime mouthpiece.

Other attacks in the latest claim of responsibility include dozens of armed raids and bombings, including suicide bombings, in Syrian cities.

AP noted that Western intelligence officials say Al-Nusra could be a front for a branch of Al-Qaeda militants from Iraq operating in Syria. The group has claimed responsibility for a string of attacks in Syria in the past.

The Syrian regime has long blamed terrorists for the 16-month-old revolt in the country, but the opposition and the rebel Free Syrian Army deny having any links to terrorism, and say they do not have the desire or the capabilities to carry out massive suicide bombings and other Al-Qaeda-style attacks.

Last Saturday, major world powers approved a plan for a government transition which may allow President Bashar al-Assad to remain as leader of Syria.

The U.S., Russia, and officials of other governments met in Geneva to discuss the plan authored by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Under Annan’s plan, members of Assad’s current administration, as well as of his family, could remain in power under a new administration. It would be up to the Syrian people if they wanted Assad himself to remain in power.

However, Annan said after the meeting, “I will doubt that the Syrians who have fought to hard for their independence will select people with blood on their hands to lead them.”

Syrian opposition leaders have dismissed the agreement as being useless. The violence stemming from Assad’s brutal 16-month crackdown on a popular uprising cum civil war against his 11-year rule has resulted in at least 16,500 deaths, rights officials say.

Annan’s office said Tuesday that a real ceasefire is imperative in Syria. A ceasefire brokered by Annan was supposed to have gone into effect in April, but the violence has continued.Source

Syria : NATO's next "humanitarian" war

A report recently released by DEBKAfile, an Israeli military intelligence website, which is believed to have close links to Israeli intelligence sources, has shown that the UK is providing logistical support to armed terrorist groups in Syria.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Michel Chossudovsky, the director of the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal, Canada, to further discuss the issue.

The video offers the opinions of two additional guests: Sukant Chandan, a filmmaker and political commentator in London and Hisham Safiedding from Al Akhbar, a Lebanese daily published in Beirut.

The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Doesn’t this undermine the United Nations and its role, by the UK and Qatar, if this is true?

Chossudovsky: Well, I should disclose the fact that this news concerning British special forces is nothing new. There’s evidence of foreign interference in affairs of Syria, going back right to the beginning, when you know the… started in Dara’a, in southern Syria in March of 2011. We know, that these armed groups, which were recognized in fact in the Arab League report, are all supported by foreign powers, and they are operatives of those foreign powers on the ground inside Syria. We know that Turkey is involved, and we know that they are supporting those groups.

So in effect, what the report published by Debka, the intelligence news agency or related to the Israeli intelligence is suggesting is something we know already, that this insurrection, this armed insurrection, is supported by foreign powers. And in fact, we have previous reports to the fact that both NATO and Turkey are not only recruiting fighters to go in, mercenaries, but they are also training them…

Press TV: If they had been on a patch in terms of interference, their assistance and arming, was going to the UN then only a face-saving show for the world?

Chossudovsky: Well, it’s a face-saving show that had unexpected results. Because as you recall, the Arab League commissioned a mission to go into Syria, with a view of establishing the nature of this insurrection and the nature of the protest movement.

The assumption was that the Arab League would instruct its mission to toe the line of media disinformation and come up with a report saying, blaming the government for the civilian deaths, when in fact what they presented was a much more balanced report, where they said there is an armed entity, and that armed entity is committing crimes against the civilian population, killing people and involved in terrorists acts. And consequently it’s not an issue of blaming the Syrian authority, but one of acknowledging the existence of an armed insurrection.

And of course they didn’t mention who was behind it, but it ties in with other reports that we have that this armed insurrection is supported by foreign forces. I think that the issue of resolution between the government and the opposition is a red herring, because it can only proceed if these armed gangs are neutralized and that foreign forces withdraw from the country.

Source

There is an opposition within Syria, but what is at stake, in this insurrection is not an opposition, these are mercenary forces. These are trained paramilitary, they are equipped with heavy machine guns and so on, but they’re not protesters.

The “protests” did not emanate from internal political cleavages as described by the mainstream media. From the very outset, they were the result of a covert US-NATO intelligence operation geared towards triggering social chaos, with a view to eventually discrediting the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad and destabilizing Syria as a Nation State.

Since the middle of March 2011, Islamist armed groups –covertly supported by Western and Israeli intelligence– have conducted terrorist attacks directed against government buildings including acts of arson. Amply documented, trained gunmen and snipers including mercenaries have targeted the police, armed forces as well as innocent civilians. There is ample evidence, as outlined in the Arab League Observer Mission report, that these armed groups of mercenaries are responsible for killing civilians.

While the Syrian government and military bear a heavy burden of responsibility. it is important to underscore the fact that these terrorist acts –including the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children– are part of a US-NATO-Israeli initiative, which consists is supporting, training and financing “an armed entity” operating inside Syria.

The evidence confirms that foreign intelligence operatives, according to reports, have integrated rebel ranks:

“As the unrest and killings escalate in the troubled Arab state, agents from MI6 and the CIA are already in Syria assessing the situation, a security official has revealed. Special forces are also talking to Syrian dissident soldiers. They want to know about weapons and communications kit rebel forces will need if the Government decides to help.

“MI6 and the CIA are in Syria to infiltrate and get at the truth,” said the well-placed source. “We have SAS and SBS not far away who want to know what is happening and are finding out what kit dissident soldiers need.” ” Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star). (emphasis added)

The Free Syrian Army (FSA) is a creation of the US and NATO. The objective of this armed insurrection is to trigger the response of the police and armed forces, including the deployment of tanks and armored vehicles with a view to eventually justifying a military intervention, under NATO’s “responsibility to protect” mandate.

A NATO-led intervention is on the drawing board. It was drafted prior to the onset of the protest movement in March 2011. According to military and intelligence sources, NATO, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been discussing “the form this intervention would take”.

US, British and Turkish operatives are supplying the rebels with weapons. Britain’s Ministry of Defence confirms that it “is drawing up secret plans for a NATO-sponsored no-fly zone [in coordination with its allies] “but first it needs backing from the United Nations Security Council.” (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star). According to these secret plans: “fighting in Syria could be bigger and bloodier than the battle against Gaddafi”.(Ibid ).

A “humanitarian” military intervention modeled on Libya is contemplated. NATO Special Forces from Britain, France, Qatar and Turkey are already on the ground inside Syria in blatant violation of international law. Reports from British military sources (November 2011) confirm that:

“British Special forces have met up with members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA)… The apparent goal of this initial contact was to establish the rebel forces’ strength and to pave the way for any future training operations. … More recent reports have stated that British and French Special Forces have been actively training members of the FSA, from a base in Turkey. Some reports indicate that training is also taking place in locations in Libya and Northern Lebanon. British MI6 operatives and UKSF (SAS/SBS) personnel have reportedly been training the rebels in urban warfare as well as supplying them with arms and equipment. US CIA operatives and special forces are believed to be providing communications assistance to the rebels.” Elite Forces UK, January 5, 2012 (emphasis added)

The Social and Political Context in Syria

There is certainly cause for social unrest and mass protest in Syria: unemployment has increased in recent years, social conditions have deteriorated, particularly since the adoption in 2006 of sweeping economic reforms under IMF guidance. The later include austerity measures, a freeze on wages, the deregulation of the financial system, trade reform and privatization. (See IMF Syrian Arab Republic — IMF Article IV Consultation Mission’s Concluding Statement, 2006).

Moreover, there are serious divisions within the government and the military. The populist policy framework of the Baath party has largely been eroded. A faction within the ruling political establishment has embraced the neoliberal agenda. In turn, the adoption of IMF “economic medicine” has served to enrich the ruling economic elite. Pro-US factions have also developed within the upper echelons of the Syrian military and intelligence.

But the “pro-democracy” movement integrated by Islamists and supported by NATO and the “international community” did not emanate from the mainstay of Syrian civil society.

The wave of violent protests represents a very small fraction of Syrian public opinion. They are terrorist acts of a sectarian nature. They do not in any way address the broader issues of social inequality, civil rights and unemployment.

The majority of Syria’s population (including the opponents of the Al Assad government) do not support the “protest movement” which is characterised by an armed insurgency. In fact quite the opposite.

Ironically, despite its authoritarian nature, there is considerable popular support for the government of President Bashar Al Assad, which is confirmed by the large pro-government rallies.

Syria constitutes the only (remaining) independent secular state in the Arab world. Its populist, anti-Imperialist and secular base is inherited from the dominant Baath party, which integrates Muslims, Christians and Druze. It supports the struggle of the Palestinian people.

The objective of the US-NATO alliance is to ultimately displace and destroy the Syrian secular State, displace or co-opt the national economic elites and eventually replace the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad with an Arab sheikdom, a pro-US Islamic republic or a compliant pro-US “democracy”.

Pro-government rally, Damascus, March 2011

The Insurgency: The Libya Model

The insurgency in Syria has similar features to that of Libya: it is integrated by paramilitary brigades affiliated to Al Qaeda, which are directly supported by NATO and Turkey.

Reports confirm that NATO and Turkey’s High Command are providing the rebels with weapons and training: “NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers for beating back the government armored forces.” (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011)

Military sources also confirm that Syrian rebels “have been training in the use of the new weapons with Turkish military officers at makeshift installations in Turkish bases near the Syrian border.” (DEBKAfile, Ibid). Recent reports confirm that British and Qatari Special forces are on the ground in the city of Homs, involved in training rebel forces as well as organizing the supply of weapons in liaison with the Turkish military.

As in the case of Libya, financial support is being channelled to the Syrian rebel forces by Saudi Arabia: “Ankara and Riyadh will provide the anti-Assad movements with large quantities of weapons and funds to be smuggled in from outside Syria” (Ibid). The deployment of Saudi and GCC troops is also contemplated in Southern Syria in coordination with Turkey (Ibid).

NATO’s activities are not limited to training and the delivery of weapons systems, the recruitment of thousands of “freedom fighters”` is also envisaged, reminiscent of the enlistment of Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:

This recruitment of Mujahideen was part of NATO`s strategy in Libya, where mercenary forces were dispatched to fight under the helm of “former” Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj.

The Libyan model of rebel forces integrated by “Islamic brigades” together with NATO special forces has been applied to Syria, where “Islamist fighters” supported by Western and Israeli intelligence are deployed. In this regard, Abdel Hakim`s LIFG brigade has now been dispatched to Syria, where it is involved in terrorist acts under the supervision of NATO Special Forces.

The Central Role of US Ambassador Robert S. Ford

US Ambassador Robert S. Ford was dispatched to Damascus in late January 2011 at the height of the protest movement in Egypt. (The author was in Damascus on January 27, 2011 when Washington’s Envoy presented his credentials to the Al Assad government).

At the outset of my visit to Syria in January 2011, I reflected on the significance of this diplomatic appointment and the role it might play in a covert process of political destabilization. I did not, however, foresee that this destabilization agenda would be implemented within less than two months following the instatement of Robert S. Ford as US Ambassador to Syria.

The reinstatement of a US ambassador in Damascus, but more specifically the choice of Robert S. Ford as US ambassador, bears a direct relationship to the onset of the protest movement in mid-March against the government of Bashar al Assad.

Robert S. Ford was the man for the job. As “Number Two” at the US embassy in Baghdad (2004-2005) under the helm of Ambassador John D. Negroponte, he played a key role in implementing the Pentagon’s “Iraq Salvador Option”. The latter consisted in supporting Iraqi death squadrons and paramilitary forces modelled on the experience of Central America.

It is worth noting that Obama’s newly appointed CIA head, General David Petraeus played a key role the organization of covert support to rebel forces and “freedom fighters”, the infiltration of Syrian intelligence and armed forces, etc. Petraeus led the Multi-National Security Transition Command (MNSTC) “Counterinsurgency” program in Baghdad in 2004 in coordination with John Negroponte and Robert S Ford at the US Embassy in Baghdad.

Ambassador Ford in Hama in July 2011

The Insidious Role of the Western media

The role of the US-NATO-Israel military alliance in triggering an armed insurrection is not addressed by the Western media. Moreover, several “progressive voices” have accepted the “NATO consensus” at face value. The role of CIA-MI6 covert intelligence operations in support of armed groups is simply not mentioned. Salafist paramilitary groups involved in terrorist acts, are, according to reports, supported covertly by Israeli intelligence (Mossad). The Muslim Brotherhood has been supported by Turkey, as well as by MI6, Britain’s Secret Service (SIS) since the 1950s

More generally, the Western media has misled public opinion on the nature of the Arab protest movement by failing to address the support provided by the US State Department as well as US foundations (including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)) to selected pro-US opposition groups.

Known and documented, the U.S. State Department “has been been funding opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad, since 2006. (U.S. admits funding Syrian opposition – World – CBC News April 18, 2011).

The protest movement in Syria was upheld by the media as part of the “Arab Spring”, presented to public opinion as a pro-democracy protest movement which spread spontaneously from Egypt and the Maghreb to the Mashriq. There is reason to believe, however, that events in Syria, however, were planned well in advance in coordination with the process of regime change in other Arab countries including Egypt and Tunisia.

The outbreak of the protest movement in the southern border city of Daraa was carefully timed to follow the events in Tunisia and Egypt.

In chorus they have described recent events in Syria as a “peaceful protest movement” directed against the government of Bashar Al Assad, when the evidence amply confirms that Islamic paramilitary groups are involved in terrorist acts. These same Islamic groups have infiltrated the protest rallies.

Western media distortions abound. Large “pro-government” rallies (including photographs) are casually presented as “evidence” of a mass anti-government protest movement. The reports on casualties are based on unconfirmed “eye-witness reports” or on Syrian opposition sources in exile. The London based Syria Observatory for Human Rights are profusely quoted by the Western media as a “reliable source” with the usual disclaimers. Israeli news sources, while avoiding the issue of an armed insurgency, tacitly acknowledge that Syrian forces are being confronted by an organized professional paramilitary.

The absence of verifiable data, has not prevented the Western media from putting forth “authoritative figures” on the number of casualties. What are the sources of this data? Who is responsible for the casualties?

Dangerous Crossroads: Towards a Broader Middle East Central Asian War

Escalation is an integral part of the military agenda. Destabilization of sovereign states through “regime change” is closely coordinated with military planning. There is a military roadmap characterised by a sequence of US-NATO war theaters.

War preparations to attack Syria and Iran have been in “an advanced state of readiness” for several years.

US, NATO and Israeli military planners have outlined the contours of a “humanitarian” military campaign, in which Turkey (the second largest military force inside NATO) would play a central role.

We are at dangerous crossroads. Were a US-NATO military operation to be launched against Syria, the broader Middle East Central Asian region extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with China would be engulfed in the turmoil of an extended regional war.

There are at present four distinct war theaters: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya.

An attack on Syria would lead to the integration of these separate war theaters, eventually leading towards a broader Middle East-Central Asian war.

In Part I of the online interactive I-Book, an introductory essay is presented.

Part II examines the nature of the US-NATO-Israel sponsored insurgency, including the recruitment of terrorists and mercenaries. It also includes an examination of a 1957 Anglo-American covert intelligence plan to destabilize Syria and implement “regime change”. The 1957 plan envisaged the triggering of “internal disturbances as well as the mounting of “sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents” by the CIA and MI6. What this essay suggests is continuity, i.e. today’s Intel. Ops, while more sophisticated than those of the Cold War era, belong to realm of DÉJÀ VU.

Part III examines the complicity of the “international community” focussing respectively on the role of non-governmental organizations, the dynamics within the United Nations Security Council and role of the Arab League, acting on behalf of Washington.

Part IV centers on the insidious role of the corporate media, which has carefully distorted the facts, providing systematically a biased understanding of the causes and consequences of the Syrian crisis.

Part V focusses on the broader military agenda and the process of military escalation in the Middle East.

The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign (“regime change”) including covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed against the Syrian government.

A war on Syria could evolve towards a US-NATO military campaign directed against Iran, in which Turkey and Israel would be directly involved. It would also contribute to the ongoing destabilization of Lebanon.

It is crucial to spread the word and break the channels of media disinformation.

A critical and unbiased understanding of what is happening in Syria is of crucial importance in reversing the tide of military escalation towards a broader regional war Source

Contact Group To Focus On Syrian Political Transition

RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST:

The Supreme Court has upheld the health care law. That is the headline news this morning. The court said the so-called individual mandate virtually is constitutional. That’s the provision that requires virtually all Americans to buy health insurance. The high court majority put some restrictions on the federal government’s ability to control Medicaid funds for states. But most of the health care law stands. We have more coverage later in the program and in the day. For the next few minutes we’ll turn to another story – Syria and efforts to stop the bloodshed there.

LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST:

This weekend, Hillary Clinton will travel to Switzerland, where former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan is shifting his efforts on Syria. His peace plan has so far failed to quell escalating violence there. Now he’s asking permanent U.N. Security Council members, and some of Syria’s neighbors, to come together and endorse a political transition plan.

MONTAGNE: Annan agreed to drop Iran from the invitation list for Saturday’s meeting in Geneva.

As NPR’s Michele Kelemen reports, with that change Secretary of State Clinton agreed to attend the meeting.

MICHELE KELEMEN, BYLINE: Secretary Clinton says Annan has been circulating a concrete roadmap for a political transition in Syria – one the U.S. supports – and she’s hoping this Geneva meeting could be a turning point in diplomatic efforts to resolve what looks increasingly like a civil war.

SECRETARY HILLARY CLINTON: Painful, tragic, dangerous, difficult – we know that. But we are moving with as much deliberation and speed as we can, given the circumstances.

KELEMEN: Clinton blames Russia and China for shielding Bashar al Assad at the United Nations Security Council. And she says the meeting Saturday in Geneva will only work if they and others come to endorse Annan’s latest plan.

CLINTON: If he’s able to pull off such a meeting and if he’s able to get people there who up until now have either been on the sidelines or actively supporting and protecting the Assad regime, then that gives heart to the opposition. It also disheartens a lot of the regime insiders.

KELEMEN: Annan has often said that Iran should be part of the solution for the Syrian conflict, but Clinton balked at that idea and Iran was dropped. In what looked like a concession to Russia, Saudi Arabia, which has been supporting the Syrian opposition, was also dropped from the invitation list.

Kofi Annan has invited just the veto holders on the U.N. Security Council, as well as Turkey and the European Union’s foreign policy chief. The Arab League will be represented by Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar. Kofi Annan is calling it an action group.

KOFI ANNAN: The action group for Syria should agree on guidelines and principles for a Syrian-led political transition that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people, and to agree on actions that will make these objectives a reality on the ground.

KELEMEN: His language was cautious and in line with what Russia has always said, that this should be a Syrian-led political process. While Russian officials have made clear they’re not wedded to President Assad, they have not called him to leave, as the U.S. often does.

But Clinton says the idea of Annan’s transition plan is to prepare for a post-Assad Syria. And she’s clearly hoping Russia can use whatever influence it has to help. Clinton is to meet Friday evening with her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in Saint Petersburg before both head to Geneva for Annan’s action group meeting.

Source

 

 

Here was an irony that only a Syrian nationalist could appreciate. This week it was reported that some 200 Syrians had crossed into Turkey’s Hatay province to escape the regime of President Bashar Al Assad. The group included a general, two colonels, two majors and about 30 other soldiers. The province was once a part of Syria, before being occupied by Turkey in 1938 and annexed. For decades, Syrian nationalists have considered Hatay stolen territory.

Now it has become a place of salvation for many Syrians, but also a focal point of the growing tension between Damascus and Ankara – exacerbated in recent days by Syria’s downing of a Turkish warplane. On Tuesday, Nato met to discuss the incident, and the signs are that Turkey is moving towards further military involvement in Syria, even as all countries along Syria’s border are looking for ways to shield themselves from the fallout of the escalating conflict there.

The destruction of the aircraft came after less publicised antagonistic measures by Syria and Turkey, each of which constituted a casus belli. The Syrian regime has allowed the Kurdistan Workers Party, which has long been engaged in an armed insurgency against Ankara, to set up bases along Syria’s border with Turkey. The Turkish government, in turn, has permitted the transit of weapons through its territory to the Syrian opposition, and hosts numerous opposition figures.

After the Nato meeting, Turkey amended its rules of engagement along its southern frontier, announcing that if Syrian troops approached the area, they would be considered a threat. This probably means the Turkish army will set up a de facto safe haven inside Syrian territory, under the umbrella of its guns, in which the opposition will be free to act. For now, this avoids a ground offensive that would alarm Syria’s Kurds and most probably bring Ankara into direct confrontation with Iran, a leading backer of Mr Al Assad.

The Syrian regime has tried to destabilise the countries across its borders, particularly Turkey and Lebanon, to protect itself. From Mr Al Assad’s perspective, if the international community comes to view the end of his regime as the precursor of a regional explosion, then outside states will back off from pushing for his departure.

This strategy has elicited international anxiety, but it is already turning into a game of diminishing returns. The dynamics of the emerging war in Syria are primarily internal, even if external actors are seeking to protect their stakes in the country. In other words, whatever Mr Al Assad does is only heightening the animosity to his leadership at home, even as his forays into destabilising the region will only confirm that he is a menace who must be toppled.

If there is any international consensus over the Syrian situation, it is that the conflict should not spill over into Syria’s neighbourhood, particularly Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq, which are vulnerable because they are all religiously and ethnically mixed.

The state of affairs in Lebanon has well illustrated the dangers of a breakdown, but also the unexpected defence mechanisms guarding against this. Syria was almost certainly involved, through its Lebanese partners, above all Hizbollah, in creating a political stand-off that led to armed clashes in the northern city of Tripoli several weeks ago. Yet Hizbollah, even as it has backed Mr Al Assad in line with its Iranian patron, is also keen to avert a sectarian confrontation in Lebanon, which might ultimately swallow the party.

Source

Related articles

• Exclusive: Russia backs Annan idea of Syria unity government – envoys – Reuters UK (uk.reuters.com)
• Russia Favors Syrian Solution to Political Crisis – Voice of America (voanews.com)
• Annan proposes power-share deal for Syria (nzherald.co.nz)

Special Report: Need for oil routes buys time, claims key Damascus figure

President Bashar al-Assad of Syria may last longer than his opponents believe – and with the tacit acceptance of Western leaders anxious to secure new oil routes to Europe via Syria before the fall of the regime. According to a source closely involved in the possible transition from Ba’ath party power, the Americans, Russians and Europeans are also putting together a deal that would permit Assad to remain leader for at least another two years in return for political concessions to Iran and Saudi Arabia in both Lebanon and Iraq.

For its part, Russia would be assured of its continued military base at Tartous in Syria and a relationship with whatever government in Damascus eventually emerges with the support of Iran and Saudi Arabia. Russia’s recent concession – that Assad may not be essential in a future Syrian power structure – is part of an understanding in the West which may accept Assad’s presidency in return for an agreement that stops a further slide into civil war.

Information from Syria suggests that Assad’s army is now “taking a beating” from armed rebels, who include Islamist as well as nationalist forces; at least 6,000 soldiers are believed to have been killed in action since the rebellion against Assad began 17 months ago. There are unconfirmed reports that during any one week up to a thousand Syrian fighters are being trained by mercenaries in Jordan at a base used by Western authorities for personnel seeking “anti-terrorist” security exercises.

The US-Russian negotiations – easy to deny, and somewhat cynically hidden behind the mutual accusations of Hillary Clinton and her Russian opposite number, Sergei Lavrov – would mean the superpowers would acknowledge Iran’s influence over Iraq and its relationship with its Hezbollah allies in Lebanon, while Saudi Arabia – and Qatar – would be encouraged to guarantee Sunni Muslim rights in Lebanon and in Iraq. Baghdad’s emergence as a centre of Shia power has caused much anguish in Saudi Arabia whose support for the Sunni minority in Iraq has led to political division.

But the real object of talks between the world powers revolves around the West’s determination to secure oil and gas from the Gulf states without relying upon supplies from Moscow. “Russia can turn off the spigot to Europe whenever it wants – and this gives it tremendous political power,” the source says. “We are talking about two fundamental oil routes to the West – one from Qatar and Saudi Arabia via Jordan and Syria and the Mediterranean to Europe, another from Iran via Shia southern Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean and Europe. This is what matters. This is why they will be prepared to let Assad last another two years. They would be perfectly content with that. And Russia will have a place in the new Syria.”

Diplomats who are still discussing these plans should, of course, be treated with some scepticism. It is one thing to hear political leaders excoriating the Syrian regime for its abuse of human rights and massacres – another to realise that Western diplomats are prepared to put this to one side for the “bigger picture” which, as usual in the Middle East, means oil and gas. They are prepared to tolerate Assad’s presence until the end of the crisis, rather than insisting his departure is the start of the end. The Americans apparently say the same. Now Russia believes that stability is more important than Assad himself.

It is clear that Assad should have gone ahead with extensive reforms when his father Hafez died in 2000. At that stage, say Syrian officials, Syria’s economy was in a better state than Greece is today. And the saner voices influencing Assad’s leadership were slowly deprived of their power. An official close to the president called him during the height of last year’s fighting to say that “Homs is burning”. Assad’s reaction was to refuse all personal conversation with the official in future, insisting on only text messages. “Assad no longer has power over all that happens in Syria,” the informant says. “Not because he doesn’t want to – there’s just too much going on across the country.”

What Assad is still hoping for, according to Arab military veterans, is an Algerian solution. After the cancellation of democratic elections in Algeria, its army and generals fought a merciless war against rebels and Islamist guerrillas across the country throughout the 1990s, using torture and massacre to retain government power but leaving an estimated 200,000 dead.

Amid this crisis, the Algerian military sent a delegation to Damascus to learn from Hafez al-Assad’s Syrian army how it destroyed the Islamist rebellion in Hama – at a cost of up to 20,000 dead – in 1982. The Algerian civil war – remarkably similar to that now afflicting Assad’s regime – displayed many of the characteristics of the current tragedy in Syria: babies with their throats cut, families slaughtered by mysterious semi-military “armed groups”, whole towns shelled by government forces.

And, more interesting to Assad’s men, the West continued to support the Algerian regime with weapons and political encouragement during the 1990s while huffing and puffing about human rights. Algeria’s oil and gas reserves proved more important than civilian deaths – just as the Damascus regime now hopes to rely upon the West’s desire for via-Syria oil and gas to tolerate further killings. Syrians say Jamil Hassan, the head of Air Force intelligence in Syria is now the “killer” leader for the regime – not so much Bashar’s brother Maher whose 4th Division is perhaps being given too much credit for suppressing the revolt. It has certainly failed to crush it.

The West, meanwhile has to deal with Syria’s contact man, Mohamed Nassif, perhaps Assad’s closest political adviser. The question remains as to whether Assad – however much he fails to control military events on the ground – really grasps the epic political importance of what is going on in his country. Prior to the rebellion, European and Turkish leaders were astonished to hear from him that Sunni forces in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli were trying “to create a Salafist state” that would threaten Syria. How this extraordinary assertion – based, presumably on the tittle-tattle of an intelligence agent – could have formulated itself in Assad’s mind, remained a mystery.

Don’t ban Assad from new deal, says Russia

A plan for a transitional unity government to bring an end to the bloodshed in Syria yesterday hit its first stumbling block before even reaching the negotiating table as Russia said the international community had no right to exclude President Bashar al-Assad from the body, a key demand of the opposition.

The leaked new initiative by UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan, expected to dominate key talks in Geneva tomorrow, came as tensions continued to escalate, with Turkey amassing military hardware including anti-aircraft guns at its border. Saudi troops were also reported to be on high alert as yet another large explosion rocked Damascus.

Syrian state television blamed yesterday’s blast outside the capital’s Palace of Justice, the country’s highest court, on “terrorists”. Footage showed scorched cars and at least three were reported injured.

Source

Related articles

• Syrian violence escalates as UN prepares for conference (guardian.co.uk)
• Annan Convenes Meeting on Syria – Minus Iran and Saudi Arabia (nytimes.com)
• What war in Syria looks like: journalist killings, deadlier IEDs – Christian Science Monitor (csmonitor.com)
• Gunmen attack Syrian TV station; 7 killed (thehindu.com)
• Syria and the Phantom (counterpunch.org)
• You: Saudi Arabia plans to fund Syria rebel army (guardian.co.uk)

Blasts rock central Damascus close to Palace of Justice

Two large bomb explosions have shaken the Syrian capital, striking close to a government building, reports state news. Syrian TV says a third explosive device that did not detonate has been discovered.

RT’s Maria Finoshina, currently in Damascus reports hearing a loud blast and plumes of black smoke rising from nearby the Palace of Justice. She says that local news agencies report no damage to the surrounding area.

State television has claimed that terrorist groups are to blame for the explosion.

Bombs were reportedly planted in a garage behind the Palace of Justice in the old part of Damascus.

Syria has seen a wave of deadly bombings strike at government compounds recently.

Last month, an explosion targeted a military intelligence compound south of Damascus killing 55 people. It was Syria’s deadliest blast to date.

Assad’s government blames armed terrorist groups for the insurgent attacks, while the opposition says the government purposely orchestrates them to discredit the rebels.

Source

Related articles

• Free Syrian Army Attacks Elite Damascus Guards (nytimes.com)
• Clashes at Republican Guards HQ near Damascus, reports of British forces in Syria (rt.com)
• Gunmen storm Pro-Assad Syrian TV channel – Reuters (reuters.com)
• Turkish jet clearly violated Syria’s sovereignty – Damascus (insomniacanonymous.wordpress.com)
• Damascus blast kills 5 (nation.com.pk)
• Syria crisis: Nato talks on downing of Turkish jet – live updates (guardian.co.uk)