Top 45 Lies in Obama’s Speech at the U.N.

Source

1. President Obama’s opening lines at the U.N. on Tuesday looked down on people who would think to settle disputes with war. Obama was disingenuously avoiding the fact that earlier this month he sought to drop missiles into a country to “send a message” but was blocked by the U.S. Congress, the U.N., the nations of the world, and popular opposition — after which Obama arrived at diplomacy as a last resort.

2. “It took the awful carnage of two world wars to shift our thinking.” Actually, it took one. The second resulted in a half-step backwards in “our thinking.” The Kellogg-Briand Pact banned all war. The U.N. Charter re-legalized wars purporting to be either defensive or U.N.-authorized.

3. “[P]eople are being lifted out of poverty,” Obama said, crediting actions by himself and others in response to the economic crash of five years ago. But downward global trends in poverty are steady and long pre-date Obama’s entry into politics. And such a trend does not exist in the U.S.

4. “Together, we have also worked to end a decade of war,” Obama said. In reality, Obama pushed Iraq hard to allow that occupation to continue, and was rejected just as Congress rejected his missiles-for-Syria proposal. Obama expanded the war on Afghanistan. Obama expanded, after essentially creating, drone wars. Obama has increased global U.S. troop presence, global U.S. weapons sales, and the size of the world’s largest military. He’s put “special” forces into many countries, waged a war on Libya, and pushed for an attack on Syria. How does all of this “end a decade of war”? And how did his predecessor get a decade in office anyway?

5. “Next year, an international coalition will end its war in Afghanistan, having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.” In reality, Bruce Riedel, who coordinated a review of Afghanistan policy for President Obama said, “The pressure we’ve put on [jihadist forces] in the past year has also drawn them together, meaning that the network of alliances is growing stronger not weaker.” (New York Times, May 9, 2010.)

6. “We have limited the use of drones.” Bush drone strikes in Pakistan: 51. Obama drone strikes in Pakistan: 323.

7. “… so they target only those who pose a continuing, imminent threat to the United States where capture is not feasible.” On June 7, 2013, Yemeni tribal leader Saleh Bin Fareed told Democracy Now that Anwar al Awlaki could have been turned over and put on trial, but “they never asked us.” In numerous other cases it is evident that drone strike victims could have been arrested if that avenue had ever been attempted. A memorable example was the November 2011 drone killing in Pakistan of 16-year-old Tariq Aziz, days after he’d attended an anti-drone meeting in the capital, where he might easily have been arrested — had he been charged with some crime. This weeks drone victims, like all the others, had never been indicted or their arrest sought.

8. “… and there is a near certainty of no civilian casualties.” There are hundreds of confirmed civilian dead from U.S. drones, something the Obama administration seems inclined to keep as quiet as possible.

9. “And the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction casts a shadow over the pursuit of peace.” In reality, President Obama is not pursuing peace or the control of such weapons or their reduction and elimination in all countries, only particular countries. And the United States remains the top possessor of weapons of mass destruction and the top supplier of weapons to the world.

10. “[In Syria, P]eaceful protests against an authoritarian regime were met with repression and slaughter. … America and others have worked to bolster the moderate opposition.” In fact, the United States has armed a violent opposition intent on waging war and heavily influenced if not dominated by foreign fighters and fanatics.

11. “[T]he regime used chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.” Maybe, but where’s the evidence? Even Colin Powell brought (faked) evidence.

12. “How should we respond to conflicts in the Middle East?” This suggests that the United States isn’t causing conflicts in the Middle East or aggravating them prior to altering its position and “responding.” In fact, arming and supporting brutal governments in Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Israel, etc., is behavior that could do a great deal of good simply by ceasing.

13. “How do we address the choice of standing callously by while children are subjected to nerve gas, or embroiling ourselves in someone else’s civil war?” That isn’t a complete list of choices, as Obama discovered when Russia called Kerry’s bluff and diplomacy became a choice, just as disarmament and de-escalation and pressure for a ceasefire are choices. Telling Saudi Arabia “Stop arming the war in Syria or no more cluster bombs for you,” is a choice.

14. “What is the role of force in resolving disputes that threaten the stability of the region and undermine all basic standards of civilized conduct?” Force doesn’t have a role in civilized conduct, the most basic standard of which is relations without the use of force.

15. “[T]he international community must enforce the ban on chemical weapons.” Except against Israel or the United States.

16. “… and Iranians poisoned in the many tens of thousands.” This was good of Obama to recognize Iran’s suffering, but it would have been better of him to recall where Iraq acquired some of its weapons of mass destruction.

17. “It is an insult to human reason — and to the legitimacy of this institution — to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack.” Really? In the absence of evidence, skepticism isn’t reasonable for this Colin-Powelled institution, the same U.N. that was told Libya would be a rescue and watched it become a war aimed at illegally overthrowing a government? Trust us?

18. “Now, there must be a strong Security Council Resolution to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there must be consequences if they fail to do so.” Meaning war? What about the U.N.’s commitment to oppose war? What about the United States’ violation of its commitments to destroy the chemical weapons sitting in Kentucky and Colorado? “Consequences” for the U.S. too?

19. “I do not believe that military action — by those within Syria, or by external powers — can achieve a lasting peace.” Yet, the U.S. government is shipping weapons into that action.

20. “Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine who will lead Syria … Nevertheless, a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a badly fractured country.” The Syrians should decide their own fate as long as they decide it the way I tell them to.

21. “[N]or does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-being of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons, and ensuring it does not become a safe-haven for terrorists.” That’s funny. Elsewhere, you’ve said that weakening Syria would weaken Iran.

22. “[W]e will be providing an additional $340 million [for aid].” And vastly more for weapons.

23. “We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil…” That first remarkably honest sentence is only honest if you don’t think about what “free flow” means. The second sentence points to a real, if slow, trend but obscures the fact that only 40% of the oil the U.S. uses comes from the U.S., which doesn’t count much of the oil the U.S. military uses while “ensuring the free flow.” Nor is switching to small domestic supplies a long-term solution as switching to sustainable energy would be.

24. “But when it’s necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attacks, we will take direct action.” In Libya? Syria? Where does this make any sense, as U.S. actions generate rather than eliminate terrorism? Michael Boyle, part of Obama’s counter-terrorism group during his 2008 election campaign, says the use of drones is having “adverse strategic effects that have not been properly weighed against the tactical gains associated with killing terrorists … . The vast increase in the number of deaths of low-ranking operatives has deepened political resistance to the US programme in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries.” (The Guardian, January 7, 2013.) Why is Canada not obliged to bomb the world to “defend against terrorist attacks”?

25. “Just as we consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a threat to our own national security …” We who? How? Congress just rejected this ludicrous claim. Ninety percent of this country laughed at it.

26. “[W]e reject the development of nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, and undermine the global non-proliferation regime.” By Israel which has done this, or by Iran which all evidence suggests has not?

27. “We deeply believe it is in our interest to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous,” we just choose to work against that deep belief and to sell or give vast quantities of weapons to brutal dictatorships and monarchies.

28. “Iraq shows us that democracy cannot be imposed by force.” This could have been true had the U.S. attempted to impose democracy.

29. “Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.” Iran’s what?

30. “Arab-Israeli conflict.” That’s a misleading way of naming the conflict between the government of Israel and the people it ethnically cleanses, occupies, and abuses — including with chemical weapons.

31. “[A]n Iranian government that has … threatened our ally Israel with destruction.” It hasn’t. And piling up the lies about Iran will make Iran less eager to talk. Just watch.

32. “We are not seeking regime change.” That’s not what Kerry told Congress, in between telling Congress just the opposite. Also, see above in this same speech: “a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy….”

33. “We insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and UN Security Council resolutions.” Among Iran, the U.S., and Israel, it’s Iran that seems to be complying.

34. “We are encouraged that President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course.” More moderate than what? Threatening to destroy Israel and creating nukes?

35. “[T]heir own sovereign state.” There’s nowhere left for Palestine to create such a separate state.

36. “Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state.” Both, huh?

37. “When peaceful transitions began in Tunisia and Egypt … we chose to support those who called for change” … the minute everyone else was dead, exiled, or imprisoned.

38. “[T]rue democracy as requiring a respect for minority rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, and a strong civil society. That remains our interest today.” Just not in our own country and certainly not in places that buy some of the biggest piles of our weapons.

39. “But we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of suppressing dissent,” and if you don’t believe me, ask the Occupy movement — Happy Second Birthday, you guys!  I SHUT YOU DOWN, bwa ha ha ha ha.

40. “This includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue to surface in places like Iraq, Syria and Bahrain.” One liberated, one targeted, and one provided with support and weaponry and former U.S. police chiefs to lead the skull cracking.

41. “[A] vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.” All criminal outrages should have a vacuum of leadership. “Who would bomb countries if we don’t do it?” is the wrong question.

42. “Some may disagree, but I believe that America is exceptional — in part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest, but for the interests of all.” When was that? The United States certainly comes in at far less than exceptional in terms of per-capita humanitarian aid.  Its humanitarian bombing that Obama has in mind, but it’s never benefitted humanity.

43. “And in Libya, when the Security Council provided a mandate to protect civilians, America joined a coalition that took action. Because of what we did there, countless lives were saved, and a tyrant could not kill his way back to power.” The White House claimed that Gaddafi had threated to massacre the people of Benghazi with “no mercy,” but the New York Times reported that Gaddafi’s threat was directed at rebel fighters, not civilians, and that Gaddafi promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.” Gaddafi also offered to allow rebel fighters to escape to Egypt if they preferred not to fight to the death. Yet President Obama warned of imminent genocide. What Gaddafi really threatened fits with his past behavior. There were other opportunities for massacres had he wished to commit massacres, in Zawiya, Misurata, or Ajdabiya. He did not do so. After extensive fighting in Misurata, a report by Human Rights Watch made clear that Gaddafi had targeted fighters, not civilians. Of 400,000 people in Misurata, 257 died in two months of fighting. Out of 949 wounded, less than 3 percent were women. More likely than genocide was defeat for the rebels, the same rebels who warned Western media of the looming genocide, the same rebels who the New York Times said “feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda” and who were “making vastly inflated claims of [Gaddafi’s] barbaric behavior.” The result of NATO joining the war was probably more killing, not less. It certainly extended a war that looked likely to end soon with a victory for Gaddafi.

44. “Libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed.” No, the war was ending, and Libya IS engulfed in bloodshed. In March 2011, the African Union had a plan for peace in Libya but was prevented by NATO, through the creation of a “no fly” zone and the initiation of bombing, to travel to Libya to discuss it. In April, the African Union was able to discuss its plan with Libyan President Muammar al-Gaddafi, and he expressed his agreement. NATO, which had obtained a U.N. authorization to protect Libyans alleged to be in danger but no authorization to continue bombing the country or to overthrow the government, continued bombing the country and overthrowing the government.

45. [S]overeignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder.”  Says a man who reads through a list of potential murder victims on Tuesdays and ticks off the ones he wants murdered.

USA once again violates International Law by refusing visa to Syria Foreign Minister

UAE Brokers US Visa Deal for Syrian Minister

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem meets on 9 September 2013 with his Russian counterpart in Moscow. Muallem visits Russia for talks with the top global ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as expectations grow of military action against the regime. (Photo: AFP -Yuri Kadobnov)

By: Nasser Charara

Published Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Al-Akhbar has learned that Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem’s bid to obtain a US visa to attend the 68th session of the UN General Assembly was rejected by the US State Department.
In principle, according to the law governing the relationship between the UN and the US as the host country of the UN headquarters, US authorities have no right to deny a visa to any official from a UN member state, if the visa is requested for the purpose of participating in a UN event. Nevertheless, there were previous cases where the US refused to grant – or delayed – a visa to certain officials from countries at odds with Washington for long enough to prevent their timely arrival to participate in UN meetings.According to reports, the US State Department exhausted the legal limit in this regard when it refused to issue a visa to Muallem. Muallem was scheduled to deliver Syria’s speech at the assembly on September 30.Washington has now reportedly reversed course on the visa issue following mediation by the United Arab Emirates. According to the same reports, after days of deliberate delays by the US State Department, the US authorities have now issued a conditional visa to Muallem that allows him to enter New York exclusively, but not the rest of the US.Damascus purportedly designed the itinerary of the Syrian delegation headed by Muallem in such a way as to avoid stopovers in certain European airports, as several countries in Europe have issued arrest warrants against Syrian regime figures, including the foreign minister. The UAE had a role in finding a solution to this problem, offering to allow the plane carrying the Syrian delegation to land in Dubai where the delegation would then fly nonstop to New York.Muallem and his delegation are expected to arrive today, September 25, in Beirut on a private Syrian plane, and then fly onwards to Dubai where the delegation is set to take an Emirates flight to New York City.

Some informed sources consider the UAE’s assistance in getting Muallem to New York a positive step that could signal a breakthrough in some of the Gulf countries’ attitudes regarding the best approach to resolve the Syrian crisis. As part of this emerging climate, the sources reveal that there are unpublicized efforts – including by the UAE – to broker a meeting between Muallem and US Secretary of State John Kerry on the sidelines of UN meetings in New York.

It is worth mentioning that the UAE, especially the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, had maintained a hardline policy toward the Syrian regime. The UAE toed the Saudi line in seeking to arm the opposition and provide it with logistical support through Turkish and Jordanian territories.

During the past two years, three liaison offices run by Qatar, Saudi, and the UAE operated out of the Turkish border region with Syria, supporting the Syrian opposition. Yet at the same time, Abu Dhabi gave the Syrian regime indirect positive signals, most notably by hosting Bushra al-Assad, the sister of President Bashar al-Assad, after the assassination of her husband Asif Shawkat during Ramadan last year.

Bushra’s stay in the UAE is not seen as political asylum or as something that can be interpreted as hostility to the regime. Bushra’s residence in the UAE has to do with special circumstances relating to her fear for her children and her desire to give them a peaceful setting for them to complete their education after their father’s death. Bushra and her children travel frequently to Beirut, where they are purportedly under Syrian protection.

Interestingly as well, Emirates Airlines was the only Arab carrier that continued to fly to Damascus, despite the Arab boycott. This continued until the airport became unsafe, when the fighting in the Damascus countryside drew close to the airport’s surroundings.

In addition, there have been reports that Emirates Airlines was helping move Syrian funds out of Damascus to Dubai. The aim was to bypass international sanctions on Syria, which prevent the fulfillment of the foreign currency-denominated commitments of the Syrian government and deals between Syrian companies and traders and their foreign counterparts.

The Syrian funds would be placed in Emirati banks and then converted to settle foreign currency payments. This practice has stopped recently for security – and not political – reasons.

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

Iran Unveils New Air-Launch Type anti-Ship, anti-Aircraft Missiles

Local Editor

Iran presented new, domestically made air-launch type anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles “Qader” and “Nasr”, IRIB News reported. The ceremony took place in presence of Iranian defense minister Hossein Deghan, who said that such missiles are manufactured in Iran for the first time. He went on to note that “Qader” missiles are capable of hitting enemy aircrafts within the 200 km range, while Nasr missiles have a 35 km range. According to Deghan, the main importance of these missiles is that they have a very short readiness time, and are able to hit targets on low altitude, while maintaining high target-hitting accuracy. Several days ago Iran showcased 18 ballistic missiles “Qader F” and 12 missiles “Sacil”, whose range can reach up to 2 thousand km, at the annual military parade. According to the report, Iran for the first time demonstrated such large missile arsenal, as during previous military parades, usually only 2-3 missiles were demonstrated.

Source: Websites 25-09-2013 – 18:06 Last updated 25-09-2013 – 18:06

Related Articles

Iran Military Parades Mark Sacred Defense Week Russia Will Supply S-300 Missiles to Iran, Build Another Nuclear Reactor Iran Commander: Quagmire Awaits Syria Aggressors Iranian Defense Minister: Syria Strike Would Threaten Regional Stability Iran Unveils Indigenous Tank Transporter, Dubbed Sayyad Iran Unveils Domestically Manufactured Drone Iran Commander: Tehran will Continue Sending Naval Fleets to Russia

ROCKETS USED IN DAMASCUS CW ATTACK FIRED FROM MAKESHIFT FLATBEDS, NOT MILITARY VEHICLES

Posted on September 25, 2013 by Alexandra Valiente

Video emerges of unmarked truck-mounted launcher surrounded by militants, firing same ordnance used in August 21 Damascus (and other) chemical attacks.

A note of clarification from the author:
The US maintains that the chemical weapons attack in Damascus in late August could only have been the work of the Syrian government because the militants do not possess the means to carry out such an attack. The report below proves that the technology used to fire the rockets allegedly used in the attack require nothing more than a modified flatbed truck, and that the militants on record have received training and are assisted by Western contractors specifically to handle weapons inside of Syria.
The very concept of a false flag attack is to use weapons that one’s framed enemy would have at their disposal. This report lays to rest the myth of exotic, inaccessible technology preventing US-backed terrorists from carrying out the Damascus attacks. Considering which party stood the most to gain from the attacks, and the amount of time that has passed with the West still unable to produce convincing evidence, it is clear America and its allies have failed (and will be unable) to make their case.

By Tony Cartalucci
In September 17, 2013′s article, “5 Lies Invented to Spin UN Report on Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack,” one fabrication used by the West was exposed in particular [emphasis added]:

Lie 1. Chemical weapons were delivered with munitions not used by rebels: This claim includes referencing “Syria watcher” Eliot Higgins also known as “Brown Moses,” a UK-based armchair observer of the Syrian crisis who has been documenting weapons used throughout the conflict on his blog.
While Higgins explains these particularly larger diameter rockets (140mm and 330mm) have not been seen (by him) in the hands of terrorists operating within and along Syria’s borders, older posts of his show rockets similar in construction and operation, but smaller, most certainly in the hands of the militants.
The Washington Post contends that somehow these larger rockets require “technology” the militants have no access to. This is categorically false. A rocket is launched from a simple tube, and the only additional technology terrorists may have required for the larger rockets would have been a truck to mount them on. For an armed front fielding stolen tanks, finding trucks to mount large metal tubes upon would seem a rather elementary task – especially to carry out a staged attack that would justify foreign intervention and salvage their faltering offensive.

Video has now emerged showing just the sort of unmarked improvised trucks predicted US-backed terrorists would use to carry out the attacks, surrounded by a combination of civilian-dressed and semi-uniformed individuals firing ordnance identical to those used during the Damascus chemical weapons attack. Western media sources are scrambling to explain how this is instead, the “smoking gun” proving the Syrian government was behind the attacks, and not the so-called “rebels.”

This tenuous argument is being spearheaded by the “Brown Moses Blog” run by UK sofa-based, self-taught “weapons expert” Eliot Higgins, which claims:

The following video was just sent to me by @Paradoxy13, showing the type of munition linked to alleged chemical attacks being loaded and fired by what appears to be Assad’s forces .

Unfortunately for Higgins’ credibility and objectiveness, the conclusion he jumps to (based apparently on the color hats everyone is wearing in the video) is based on “evidence” sent to him by Twitter user @Paradoxy13, an overt supporter of the armed militants operating in Syria. His Twitter timeline is proudly topped with the French-colonial flag now being used by the so-called “Free Syrian Army” and flooded with overtly biased propaganda backing both the terrorists in Syria, and their Western sponsors abroad.

The alleged footage Higgins posted on his blog comes from YouTube account, “Darya Revolution” – clearly belonging to militant supporters.

The video descriptions claims:

The moment of launching surface- to –surface missile from Mazzeh military airport — it could carry a chemical head- on the day of the “chemical massacre” in Eastern Ghouta. Darayya Media Centre shot the missile at the exact second it was launched from Mazzeh Military Airport towards Eastern Ghout at around 6 AM. Many soldiers were seen around the point of launching the missile with red caps, which indicates that they were presidential guards.

What serendipity to have both a massive chemical attack in Damascus just as UN monitors arrived in the Syrian capital, and now video shot by militants who claim they just so happened to have a camera ready to film the rockets as they were launched toward Eastern Ghouta in Damascus.

At face value, nothing about this points to the Syrian government – as Higgins claims. Higgins even has to remind readers that the chemical weapons attack allegedly took place at night, directly contradicting the description of the video he is citing as a “smoking gun.”

Image: After firing a single rocket, the truck is promptly covered and prepared for transit. The purpose of a national chemical arsenal is to provide a deterrence against foreign aggressors and for deployment in pitched, full-scale warfare. This modified truck was clearly designed for launching a single rocket, at a painfully slow rate of fire – not for tactical purposes. It is however, literally, the perfect vehicle for a false-flag attack, particularly the chemical attack carried out in Damascus in late August. 

….

The video shows two trucks surrounded by a motley crew of both uniformed and non-uniformed individuals carrying a variety of weapons – typical of “Free Syrian Army” formations, atypical of the Syrian Arab Army’s operations which include columns of tanks, clearly marked aircraft, camouflaged trucks, and soldiers in full battledress.

There appears to be one truck for carrying and loading the rockets, and another for launching them – the launcher can be seen at the end of the video being concealed under a tarp. Aside from this, there are no other military vehicles seen in the vicinity, and the trucks themselves are unmarked, converted civilian vehicles typical of the “technicals” (improvised fighting vehicles) used by terrorists both in Libya and now Syria. For trucks allegedly carrying “government” chemical weapons, or even large high-explosive rockets,  there is surprisingly lax security around them and a suspicious desire to conceal the improvised weapon system after use.

Image: Terrorists in Syria, and previously in Libya, with the exception of stolen military vehicles, rely on improvised fighting vehicles of varying sophistication called “technicals” like the one pictured above. The larger flatbed featured in a recent video, launching a rocket similar to those found at the scene of an alleged August chemical weapons attack in Damascus, is also clearly an improvised fighting vehicle.

….

The painstakingly slow process of loading and firing a single rocket would also negate any practical tactical advantage on the battlefield were this footage of another attack, on another day, using a conventional rocket for an artillery strike – as Higgins seems to suggest. The Syrian military possesses an extensive arsenal of artillery pieces and multiple rocket launchers that could easily bombard targets with better accuracy, increased frequency and effectiveness.

Additional “evidence” cited by Higgins of “regime use” of these rocket systems consists solely of militant footage of rocket impacts – not of Syrian troops actually firing the weapons. Higgins operates under the false assumption that previous chemical attacks showing up in militant videos depicting similar rockets could only be the work of the Syrian government, and not false flag operations carried out by an increasingly desperate West and their proxy forces inside Syria. Aside from this assumption, he provides no evidence to back up his claims.

Higgins was handed a “smoking gun” by the people most likely to have benefited from the crime, who claim they “found it” at the feet of the very government they are fighting. Without critical examination, and apparently based on the color hats several individuals were wearing, Higgins concludes that the footage portrays the Syrian government launching a single massive rocket from a modified flatbed.

In reality, we are most likely looking at the EXACT method the US-backed terrorists in Syria used to carry out the chemical weapons attack in Damascus in late August. Whether or not the rockets contained chemical weapons could be a matter of debate – as the rockets and other evidence were all clearly tampered with in the days before the UN investigated the site – this according to the UN itself. On page 18 of the UN’s report (22 of the .pdf), the UN states [emphasis added]:

The time necessary to conduct a detailed survey of both locations as well as take samples was very limited. The sites have been well travelled by other individuals both before and during the investigation. Fragments and other possible evidence have clearly been handled/moved prior to the arrival of the investigation team.

It is confirmed that the US has been training militants and providing “contractors” to accompany them into Syria where they have been operating specifically to handle chemical weapons. CNN reported in their 2012 article, “Sources: U.S. helping underwrite Syrian rebel training on securing chemical weapons,” that:

The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday.

The training, which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.

While the video above is claimed to be a “smoking gun,” it instead, under critical examination, illustrates the means with which the false-flag operation was carried out in late August – for the sole purpose of justifying direct Western military intervention to save a faltering proxy war.

That the same rocket used in Damascus has now been seen launched from makeshift flatbeds and not olive green military rocket launchers, along with answering the basic question of “to whose benefit?” and considering that militants are confirmed to have US training in handling of chemical weapons – all at the very least tear down the narrative that “only the Syrian regime” could have carried out the attacks.

Disarmament in Syria should initiate the Disarming of Israel

UN General Assembly: Ki-moon supports political solution to Syrian conflict.

While the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has repeated at the annual meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York that only a political and peaceful solution is able to resolve the crisis and conflict in Syria by the means of negotiations, a Green Party member of Los Angeles County Council said in an interview that the Russian-US deal on Syria’s chemical weapons and the willingness of the Syrian government to put its chemical weapons arsenal under an international supervision and to let them destroy later should also mean the beginning of the disarming of Israel and this sounds logical and valid. However, the Israeli regime in Tel Aviv will try everything to prevent an own disarmament.

The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in his speech at the meeting of the 68th session of the UN General Assembly in New York yesterday, that the diplomatic momentum achieved after the use of chemical weapons in Ghouta (Damascus countryside) would have created a chance to resolve the crisis and conflict in Syria after a long time.

Ban Ki-moon further underlined the importance to build upon this opportunity and to urge all sides and parties, which are involved in the Syrian conflict, to sit at the negotiations table and to find a political and peaceful solution to the conflict in the Arab country.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon added that all sides should support the planned international peace conference on the Syrian conflict in Geneva (Geneva-II) in order to make this happen soon and to accelerate the finding of a political and peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis and the ongoing conflict in the Arab country.

Afterwards, Ban Ki-moon stressed in his speech at the annual meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York that a so-called “military victory” would be nothing than a delusion and that the only answer to the Syrian conflict is a political and peaceful settlement of the crisis in Syria.

The UN General-Secretary then urged all involved sides, including the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad, the so-called “Syrian opposition” outside the country, and all other countries such as Russia and the United States to exert their influence in order to hold the planned Geneva-II conference on the Syrian conflict as soon as possible. The long-delayed international conference on Syria in Geneva should pave the path to find a political solution to the Syrian conflict. However, the so-called “opposition” has some preconditions which seem unfulfillable.

As expected, the UN General-Secretary Ban Ki-moon held a very long speech at the UN General Assembly meeting in New York and also said in his speech that the conflict and crisis in Syria is related to the security and collective peace in the world and that the disregard of the international community for the Syrian people “is unacceptable”.

Ake Sellstrom Hands UN Ban Ki Moon His Report

Ki-moon added that the “war is still going on in Syria” and that the most acts of crimes, murder, and brutality were committed by the use of traditional weapons. The UN Secretary-General urged all countries to stop the support of the bloodshed and violence in Syria and called upon them to also stop the sending of weapons and ammunition into the hands of any side in Syria.

Afterwards, UN Secretary-General Ki-moon spoke about the joining of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) by Syria and that the Syrian government of President al-Assad should comply with its new obligations in terms of the destruction of its chemical weapons arsenal and the end of the production of such chemical arms on Syrian soil. He added that the international community has to hold all those who have used chemical weapons in Syria accountable because the use of chemical weapons represents a crime against humanity.

In the meantime, after it seems clear that the Syrian government of President al-Assad meets its new obligations in terms of the planned destruction of the stockpiles filled with chemical arms in Syria, and after the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has received a detailed list of the chemical weapons program and chemical arms stockpiles in Syria by the Syrian governance in Damascus, a Green Party member of Los Angeles County Council stated in an interview with Press TV that the agreement by the government of al-Assad to place its chemical weapons under an international control should simultaneously mean the “beginning of the disarming of Israel.” As mentioned, it should but it won`t…

The member of the Green Party (Los Angeles County Council), Jack Lindblad, said in his interview with Press TV that it is about a year-long process for the processing of all the containers with chemical weapons, whether they’re hybrid or put together, and that this is a really lengthy process to disable the chemical substances harmlessly so that they also do not harm the environment when the chemical arms get destroyed. In terms of the detailed list by the Syrian government about its chemical weapons arsenal, the locations of the stockpiles, and its chemical arms program, Jack Lindblad added that the list from Syria comes at an early time and that this will make the disposal of all the chemical weapons in Syria more efficient.

Jack Lindblad called Syria’s chemical weapons an offset to the nuclear weapons of the Israeli regime in Tel Aviv and described Israel as a proxy of the United States in the Middle East and as “the man behind the curtain”, which is certainly a good description for the regime in Tel Aviv.

He added that he believes that the new dynamic in the Middle East in terms of the disarmament of Syria’s chemical weapons will bring Israel into negotiations about its weapons of mass destruction and a disarming. He believes that this situation can even be the beginning of the disarming of Israel. At least, there is hope but it seems sadly far-fetched that the Israeli regime is willing to negotiate about a disarmament when it’s about their own chemical and nuclear weapons.

Armed Groups in Syria Officially Defected from SNC, Tomeh’s Gov’t

Local Editor

The UK-based Syrian Observatory said that thirteen militant groups active in Syria have issued the statement No. 1 calling for all other armed groups and forces to unite under what they called  a ‘clear Islamic framework’. They declared the illegality of the opposition National Coalition and that “the interim government does not represent powers signed the statement.” The thirteen armed groups also considered that all formations set from abroad without reference to them do not represent the defected factions which in turn do not recognize such formations. “Therefore, the coalition and the putative government headed by Ahmad Tomeh do not represent us,” the statement read. The No. 1 statement was signed by: 1. Al-Nusra Front 2. Free of Levant Movement 3. Tawhid Brigade 4. Islam Brigade 5. Hawks of Levant Brigades 6. Dawn of Levant Movement 7. Al-Noor Movement 8. Noureddine al-Zenki Phalanges 9. Right Brigade – Homs 10. Forqan Brigades – Quneitra 11. ‘Upright as Ordered’ Gathering – Aleppo 12. The Nineteenth Division 13. Al-Ansar Brigade

Source: Al Manar TV 25-09-2013 – 12:37 Last updated 25-09-2013 – 12:37

Questions Plague UN Report on Syria

By Sharmine Narwani – Mon, 2013-09-23 15:57- Sandbox

By Sharmine Narwani and Radwan Mortada

A

 senior United Nations official who deals directly with Syrian affairs has told Al-Akhbar that the Syrian government had no involvement in the alleged Ghouta chemical weapons attack: “Of course not, he (President Bashar al-Assad) would be committing suicide.”When asked who he believed was responsible for the use of chemical munitions in Ghouta, the UN official, who would not permit disclosure of his identity, said: “Saudi intelligence was behind the attacks and unfortunately nobody will dare say that.” The offici

al claims that this information was provided by rebels in Ghouta.A report by the UN Mission to investigate use of chemical weapons (CW) in Ghouta, Syria was released last Monday, but per its mandate, did not assign blame to either the Syrian government or opposition rebels.

Media commentators and officials from several western countries, however, have strongly suggested that the Syrian government is the likely perpetrator of CW attacks in Ghouta and other locations.

But on Sunday, veteran Mideast journalist for The Independent Robert Fisk also reported that “grave doubts are being expressed by the UN and other international organisations in Damascus that the sarin gas missiles were fired by Assad’s army.”

The UN official’s accusations mirror statements made earlier this year by another senior UN figure Carla del Ponte, who last May told Swiss TV in the aftermath of alleged CW attacks in Khan al-Asal, Sheik Maqsood and Saraqeb that there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels had carried out the attack. Del Ponte also observed that UN inspectors had seen no evidence of the Syrian army using chemical weapons, but added that further investigation was necessary.

The UN Inquiry tasked with investigating chemical weapons use in Syria hastily dismissed del Ponte’s comments by saying it had “not reached conclusive findings” as to the use of CWs by any parties.
So why then are we getting these contradictory leaks by top UN officials?

The recently released UN Report on CW use in Syria may provide some clues. While it specifically does not assign blame for the use of CWs to either side, its disclosures and exclusions very clearly favor a rebel narrative of the Ghouta attacks. And that may be prompting these leaks from insiders who have access to a broader view of events.

Startling environmental evidence

The UN investigations focus on three main areas of evidence: environmental sampling, human sampling and munitions forensics.

The most stunning example of the UN’s misrepresentation of facts inside Ghouta is displayed in its findings on environmental samples tested for traces of Sarin nerve gas.

On page 4 of the Report, the UN clearly states that environmental “samples were taken from impact sites and surrounding areas” and that “according to the reports received from the OPCW-designated laboratories, the presence of Sarin, its degradation and/or production by-products were observed in a majority of the samples.”

The UN team gathered environmental samples from two areas in Ghouta: Moadamiyah in West Ghouta, and Ein Tarma and Zamalka in East Ghouta. The Moadamiyah samples were collected on August 26 when the UN team spent a total of two hours in the area. The Ein Tarma and Zamalka samples were collected on August 28 and 29 over a total time period of five and a half hours.
The UN investigators specify those dates in Appendix 6 of the Report.

But in Appendix 7, an entirely different story emerges about the results of environmental testing in Ghouta. This section of the Report is filled with charts that do not specify the towns where environmental samples were collected – just dates, codes assigned to the samples, description of the samples and then the CW testing results from two separate laboratories.

Instead, a closer look at the charts shows a massive discrepancy in lab results from east and west Ghouta. There is not a single environmental sample in Moadamiyah that tested positive for Sarin.
This is a critical piece of information. These samples were taken from “impact sites and surrounding areas” identified by numerous parties, not just random areas in the town. Furthermore, in Moadamiyah, the environmental samples were taken five days after the reported CW attack, whereas in Ein Tarma and Zamalka – where many samples tested positive for Sarin – UN investigators collected those samples seven and eight days post-attack, when degradation of chemical agents could have been more pronounced.

Yet it is in Moadamiyah where alleged victims of a CW attack tested highest for Sarin exposure, with a positive result of 93% and 100% (the discrepancy in those numbers is due to different labs testing the same samples). In Zamalka, the results were 85% and 91%.

It is scientifically improbable that survivors would test that highly for exposure to Sarin without a single trace of environmental evidence testing positive for the chemical agent.

I spoke with Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, former commander of the British military’s chemical defense regiment and CEO at CW specialists, SecureBio Ltd. “I think that is strange,” he admits, when told about the stark discrepancy between human and environmental test results in Moadamiyah.
“It could be significant. Nobody else has brought that point up,” says Bretton-Gordon, who has read the UN Report closely since he actually trains doctors and first-responders in Ghouta via an NGO.

“I think that it is strange that the environmental and human samples don’t match up. This could be because there have been lots of people trampling through the area and moving things. Unless the patients were brought in from other areas. There doesn’t seem another plausible explanation.”

Bretton-Gordon notes that while Sarin’s “toxicity” lasts only between 30-60 minutes when humans are directly exposed, it can remain toxic for many days on clothes (which is why medical workers wear protective gear) and lasts for months, sometimes years in the environment.

Why did the UN not highlight this very troubling result of its own investigations? The data had to be included in the Report since the two samplings – human and environmental – were core evidentiary components of the investigation. But it is buried in the small print of the Report – an inconvenient contradiction that was dismissed by the UN team. If anything, the UN blatantly claims on page 5 of its findings:

“The environmental, chemical and medical samples we have collected provide clear and compelling evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent Sarin were used in Ein Tarma, Moadamiyah and Zamalka in the Ghouta area of Damascus.”

There are several logical conclusions for the lack of environmental evidence and the abundance of human evidence of Sarin exposure in Moadamiyah:

One is that there was no Sarin CW attack in Moadamiyah. There can’t have been – according to this environmental data. A second explanation is that the samples from Moadamiyah were contaminated somehow, even though the human samplings showed no sign of this. This is an unlikely explanation since the UN went to great pains, explained in depth in several sections of the Report, to ensure the sanctity of the evidence collected.

A third explanation, mentioned by Bretton-Gordon, is that patients might have been “brought in from other areas.” All the patients were pre-selected by Ghouta doctors and opposition groups for presentation to the UN teams. And if this is the only plausible explanation for the discrepancy between environmental and human test results, then it suggests that “patients” were “inserted” into Moadamiyah, possibly to create a narrative of a chemical weapons attack that never took place.

This would almost certainly imply that opposition groups were involved in staging events in Ghouta. These towns are in rebel-controlled areas that have been involved in heavy battle with the Syrian government for much of the conflict. There is no army or government presence in these Ghouta areas whatsoever.

Human Testing

The UN team’s selection of survivors in Moadamiyah and Zamalka raises even more questions. Says the Report:

“A leader of the local opposition forces who was deemed prominent in the area to be visited by the Mission, was identified and requested to take ‘custody’ of the Mission. The point of contact within the opposition was used to ensure the security and movement of the Mission, to facilitate the access to the most critical cases/witnesses to be interviewed and sampled by the Mission and to control patients and crowd in order for the Mission to focus to its main activities.”

In short, opposition groups in these entirely rebel-held areas exercised considerable influence over the UN’s movements and access during the entire seven and a half hours spent gathering evidence. The Report continues:

“A prominent local medical doctor was identified. This medical doctor was used to help in preparing for the arrival of the Mission… Concerning the patients, a sufficient number was requested to be presented to the Mission, in order for the Mission to pick a subpopulation for interviews and sampling. Typically a list of screening questions was also circulated to the opposition contacts. This included the queries to help in identification of the most relevant cases.”

To be clear, doctors and medical staff working in rebel-held areas are understood to be sympathetic to the opposition cause. Shelled almost daily by the Syrian army, you will not find pro-government staff manning hospitals in these hotly contested towns. Bretton-Gordon, who trains some of the medical staff in Ghouta, acknowledges that this bias is “one of the weaknesses” of evidence compilation in this area.

“We’ve been helping doctors on the opposition side, so they tend to tell you things they want you to hear.”

The entire population of patients to be examined by the UN team were essentially selected and delivered to the inspection team by the opposition in Ghouta. This, of course, includes the 44% of “survivors” allegedly from Moadamiyah.

In a report on Thursday, American CW expert Dan Kaszeta raised further questions. While concluding that Sarin was used in Ghouta based on “environmental and medical evidence” produced by the UN team, Kaszeta notes that testing only 36 survivors “cannot conceivably be considered a scientifically or statistically accurate sample of the population of affected victims. It would be considered scientifically unsound to draw widespread conclusions based simply on this sample.”
Kaszeta also points out that the survivors’ “exact presentation of signs and symptoms seems skewed from our conventional understanding of nerve agent exposure.” He gives as example the relative lack of Miosis – “the threshold symptom for nerve agent exposure” – in Ghouta patients, which was found in only 15% of those tested compared to 99% of survivors in the 1995 Tokyo Sarin attack.
Other patient indications that appear out of proportion to Kaszeta were those who experienced convulsions (an advanced symptom) but did not concurrently display milder ones like excess salivation, excess tearing or miosis. “That is very strange to me,” says Kaszeta.

“Generally, loss of consciousness is considered to be a very grave sign in nerve agent poisoning, happening shortly before death. How is it 78% of the patients had lost consciousness?” he asks.

“Is it possible that we are looking at exposure to multiple causes of injury? Were some of the examined victims exposed to other things in addition to Sarin? I am not stating that Sarin was not used. It clearly was. My point is that it is either not behaving as we have understood it in the past or that other factors were at work in addition to Sarin.”

Munitions “Evidence”

Although the highest rate of Sarin-exposure was found in Moadamiyah “survivors,” the UN team found no traces of Sarin on the 140mm rocket identified as the source of the alleged CW attack – or in its immediate environment.

Moving to an adjacent apartment building where the initial debris from rocket impact was found: “the Mission was told that the inhabitants of this location were also injured or killed by a ‘gas.’” There was no evidence of Sarin there either.

The Report also notes: “The sites have been well-travelled by other individuals both before and during the investigation. Fragments and other evidence have clearly been handled/moved prior to the arrival of the investigation team.”

That theme continues in both Ein Tarma and Zamalka where UN inspectors observed:

“As with other sites, the locations have been well traveled by other individuals prior to the arrival of the Mission. During the time spent at these locations, individuals arrived carrying other suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and possibly manipulated.”

While Sarin traces were found on munitions in the latter two locations, the UN Report cannot identify the location from which these munitions were fired. The team studied five “impact sites” in total, only two of which provide “sufficient evidence to determine the likely trajectory of the projectiles.”
These two sites are in Moadamiyah (Site 1), where an 140mm M14 artillery rocket was investigated, and in Ein Tarma (Site 4), where a “mystery” 330mm artillery rocket was identified as the source of the CW attack.

The flight path (trajectory) of these munitions provided in the UN Report may be more or less accurate, but less so is the distance they traveled, for which the UN offers no estimates whatsoever. And in a large “range” area criss-crossed by pro-government and pro-opposition areas, both sets of data are critical in determining the source of the alleged attacks.

Maps currently being disseminated by the media that claim to identify the point of origin of the projectiles, are misleading. I spoke with Eliot Higgins, whose Brown Moses blog has kept a running video inventory and analysis of munitions used in the Syrian conflict and who has worked closely with Human Rights Watch (HRW), which produced one of these maps:

“Munitions have a minimum range as well as a maximum range so it gives you a zone of where they can be fired from. Problem with the mystery rocket (in Ein Tarma) is that data doesn’t exist so it’s harder to be sure. You can show the trajectories and if they intersect, it might suggest a common point of origin. While the M14 has a range of just under 10km, the other munition is harder to figure out, there’s a lot of factors, not least the type of fuel. And it’s impossible to know the type of fuel short of finding an unfired one.”

In short, the only one of the two munitions whose range we know is the one from Moadamiyah, which has an estimated range of between 3.8 and 9.8 kilometers, was not found to have traces of Sarin, and is therefore not part of any alleged CW attack.

On the map produced by HRW – which points specifically to the Syrian army’s Republican Guard 104th Brigade base as the likely point of origin – the distance from Moadamiyah to the base is 9.5km. But since this now appears to be a munition used in conventional battle, it can’t even legitimately be used by HRW in their efforts to identify an intersecting point of origin for CWs. It could have come from the military base, but so what?

The HRW map draws another line based on the trajectory of the Ein Tarma munition (the one with Sarin traces) to this Republican Guard base (9.6km), but we have no evidence at all of the range of this rocket. Its large size, however, suggests a range beyond the 9.8km of the smaller projectile which could take it well past the military base into rebel-held territory.
HRW has very simplistically assembled a map that follows the known trajectories of both munitions and marked X at a convenient point of origin that would place blame for CW attacks on the Syrian government.

It doesn’t at all investigate any evidence that the rockets could have come from more than one point of origin, and skirts over the fact that HRW doesn’t even know the distance travelled by either missile. As Higgins says: “the best you can do with the mystery munition is draw a straight line and see where it goes.”

But western media ran with HRW’s extrapolations, without looking at the evidence. “This isn’t conclusive, given the limited data available to the UN team, but it is highly suggestive,” says the HRW report. Not really. The case for culpability will need much tighter evidence than the facile doodling on this HRW map.

CWs were used, but by whom and how?

The discrepancies in the story of the Ghouta CW attacks are vast. Casualty figures range from a more modest 300+ to the more dramatic 1,400+ figures touted by western governments. The UN investigators were not able to confirm any of these numbers – they only saw 80 survivors and tested only 36 of these. They saw none of the dead – neither in graves nor in morgues.
While media headlines tend to blame CW attacks on the Syrian government – and US Secretary of State John Kerry now flat-out states it – on August 21 there existed little motive that would explain why the army would sabotage its military gains and invite foreign intervention for crossing CW “red lines.”

If anything, the more obvious motive would be for retreating rebels to manufacture a CW false flag operation to elicit the kind of western-backed military response needed to alter the balance of force on the ground in favor of oppositionists. Which as we all know, almost happened with a US strike.
Clearly, further investigation is needed to put together all these contradictory pieces of the Ghouta puzzle. And for that you need an impartial team of investigators who have complete access to randomly sampled witnesses, patients, impact areas, their surroundings and beyond. More importantly, you need time to conduct a thorough investigation.

It should be noted here that during the UN team’s visit to Moadamiyah on August 26, unknown snipers in the rebel-held area fired at the UN Mission, further limiting their time in the area for investigation.

This UN Report raises more questions than it answers. The entire population it interviewed – witnesses, patients, doctors – share a bias toward rebels. Almost all were pre-selected by the opposition and presented to the UN team for a rushed investigation. The munitions forensics provide little evidence as to their point of origin, which is critical to determine culpability. The human and environmental testing are inconclusive in that they don’t provide enough information to help us determine what happened – and even suggest tampering and staging. Why would evidence need to be manufactured if this was a chemical weapons attack on a grand scale?

At the end of the day, the UN Report does not tell us who, how or what happened in Ghouta on August 21. As the team prepares to head into Khan al-Asal for further investigations, one hopes that they will learn from these shortcomings and provide the conclusive findings needed to assign blame for war crimes. These missions are not merely an exercise. While the UN itself may not be allowed to point a finger at either side in this conflict, they must produce water-tight forensic conclusions that help the international community reach a decisive verdict based on evidence.
And all these leaks from UN officials will dissipate the moment there is internal confidence that the job is being done properly.

Nasser Kandil: On Syria and the new multipoles world order

حوار اليوم | ناصر قنديل 23-9-2013

NAJAH WAKEEM ON REGIONAL ISSUES

Another point of view was delivered today by Najah Wakeem head of the Al Sha’b party , Lebanon , who said that the Syrian situation is not close to be settled in any way and what is expected is that USA will not settle for a defeat and will escalate instead within view to undermine the Syrian society more and exhaust the army because US cannot afford to lose at this point and the proof is that the flow of criminals and weapons heading to Syria has not stopped yet . US is facing now great economic challenges and is being threatened by the rise of the BRICS countries- as an independent economical block – who are planning to start their own bank with 100 billions and to develop a currency of their own . Considering this state of things, US will try everything to maintain its position and presence in the region.

Wakeem revealed the fact that one of the major goals of the opposition is to succeed in reducing the Syrian army from 600 thousand soldiers who now constitute the Syrian Army , to 100 thousand soldiers which was one of the ten requests of the opposition in addition to the abdication of Assad and other demands . The direct foreign military intervention was supposed to achieve this goal whereby, and after shelling some important military targets that will inflict great losses on the Syrian Army , 30000 foreign soldiers will be introduced from Jordan to reach Damascus .. This is what was offered to the Iranians by the US administration, to allow a limited strike against Syria that will go without retaliation against giving some concessions on the nuclear issue, something that Teheran refused from the beginning.

As for the fighting happening now between the factions of the opposition , Wakeem said that all these factions are monitored by the US administration directly or indirectly through one of the affiliated countries and they are all the creation of USA and it seems that USA wants al Qa’ida to control the area of north Syria on the borders with Turkey for reasons that might have to do with the pipe line gas coming from the Gulf countries to Europe across Syria to spare Europe the trouble of buying gas from Russia. Wakeem said that delivering the Syrian chemical weapons to the International Community is considered a loss , especially that Israel has all kinds of strategic weapons , but having USA shell Syria by Tomahawk missiles is a greater loss so Syria had to choose between these two losses .

Wakeem praised the president of Syria saying that he has met him more than once and was impressed by his extreme politeness and as a president , he not only cares about providing the Syrians with what they need in these hard times but is worried about how the society as a whole will heal. Wakeem said that the president of Syria should never give up the presidency and will not give up and he is the sure winner of any presidential elections by the majority of voters. As for Lebanon , what is in store for Syria is also in store for Lebanon which is civil war and civil unrest and sectarian and religious warfare that seeks to draw the Resistance into local conflicts at the expense of the essential conflict with Israel and weaken thus the forces that will not pacify with Israel .

The president of Lebanon got- in NY at the UN General Assembly – the green light from Obama to start forming the new Lebanese Cabinet that has been waiting for months to be formed and this is where the conflict will start if the Resistance and the allies of the Resistance will not be given their due share in the new cabinet according to their actual size on the ground . This green light might be a set up that might start the whole thing and one has to be aware of the fact that what is sought is the liquidation of the Palestinian cause and this has already started by evicting Syria from the Arab League and having the other Arab foreign ministers reach an agreement -through the League, with the US administration- about the Palestinian land exchange that will legalize all Israeli settlements . This role assumed by the Arab League is liable to end the existence of the League as representing Arab interests . The war on Syria has for sole goal keeping the forces of the Resistance busy in local conflicts and getting all concessions one could get from Palestinians so that Israel acquires the legal permanent status it needs to keep on existing in this hostile area .

Turkey Stands With al-Qaeda Against the Kurds

Tear gas smoke rises during clashes between Turkish security forces and Kurdish protestors in Yuksekova in the province of Hakkari on 30 August 2013. (Photo: AFP – STR)

By: Youssef Sheikho

Published Monday, September 23, 2013

Turkey continues to support armed Islamist groups in their campaign against Kurdish militias along Syria’s northern front. Yet the growing body count of al-Qaeda fighters in the north suggests that Turkish efforts are not entirely successful.

Qamishli – The Turkish government is arguably the strongest backer of the armed Syrian opposition, especially the factions led by the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Turkey is also believed to be the main base for opposition fighters and their logistical and military supply lines. But while Turkish officials have no qualms about publicly acknowledging this direct support, Ankara denies it has any ties to al-Qaeda’s affiliates active in Syria.Turkey is also wary of seeing militants seize control of towns along the border with Turkey, such as Tall al-Abiad, Jarablos, and recently, Azaz, which is now settled by fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) following a ceasefire with the FSA’s Northern Storm Brigade. Nevertheless, it seems that the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan has found it necessary to provide military and logistical support to al-Qaeda’s affiliates to fight the Kurds.According to Kurdish sources in the Turkish border town of Ceylanpinar, it has become commonplace for the residents of border villages and cities to see Turkish ambulances near the areas where clashes take place between the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and radical Islamic brigades, to evacuate the latter’s casualties and wounded to Turkish hospitals.A video posted recently purports to show a Kurdish citizen in Turkey attacking wounded members of al-Nusra Front upon their arrival to a hospital in Ceylanpinar. Kurds in Turkey have also been staging protests against their government’s support for radical groups.It is also not odd to see the Turkish army supervising the transfer of al-Qaeda fighters across the border region in Turkey into the Kurdish areas on the Syrian side. A few days ago, the Turkish army allowed 150 fighters from ISIS and other Islamic brigades to cross to the village of Alouk, east of Ras al-Ayn (Serekani), along with six tanks and pick-up trucks equipped with machine guns. It appears that the goal of the move was to try to block the road between the cities of Derbassiyeh and Ras al-Ayn and cut off supplies to YPG fighters.

After four days of intense fighting, the Kurdish forces were able to take control of the village. Kurdish military sources told Al-Akhbar that more than 60 Islamic fighters had been killed in the fighting, including two commanders and 13 Kurdish fighters.

The opposition-aligned Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, quoting activists in the area, said that more than 39 bodies belonging to al-Qaeda fighters were spotted in the village. According to the Kurdish source, hundreds of al-Qaeda fighters flocked to the Hasakah governorate in early September to support the radical militants after they received heavy blows in Hasakah’s southern countryside.
Turkish support for radical brigades was not limited to Hasakah, but also played out equally in villages and towns close to Tall al-Abiad in the Raqqa governorate. In truth, the YPG have now accused the Turkish army of killing two of its fighters using snipers near an area where clashes were taking place between the Kurdish units and radical brigades in the Syrian border village of Sawsak, which was recently seized by Kurdish fighters after fierce clashes with jihadi groups.

For the first time since the start of the crisis in Syria, the YPG, which is affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), issued a statement warning the Turkish government against continuing to provide support for the radical groups, or otherwise “face dire consequences.” The statement called on Ankara “not to resort to dirty tactics that destabilize the region.”

Six Suicide Attacks

It is worth mentioning that over the past two months, al-Qaeda affiliates in Hasakah carried out six suicide attacks against Kurdish checkpoints near city entrances, killing 15 Kurdish fighters and two civilians. The YPG units have also captured Arab and foreign fighters, mostly from Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

Netanyahu Irked by Rouhani’s UN Landmark Speech

Local Editor

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was angered by the Iranian President Hasan Rouhani’s landmark speech at the UN General Assembly, saying the speech was a “cynical public relations ploy that presented a false picture of Iran’s nuclear program.”Netanyahu, who is to address the UN General Assembly next week, said the Iranian leader’s speech “lacked both any practical proposal to stop Iran’s military nuclear program and any commitment to fulfill UN security council decisions”.In a statement issued immediately after the speech on Tuesday, Netanyahu said the address was filled with “hypocrisy”. “Despite Iran’s charm offensive, the government’s policy in Tehran toward Israel has not changed,” Netanyahu said.“It’s a good thing the Israeli delegation wasn’t in the hall,” Netanyahu said, adding “I will not allow the Israeli delegation to be part of this cynical public relations…” Netanyahu’s office said that he had instructed the Israeli envoy to walk out of the assembly during Rouhani’s speech.“Iran thinks that soothing words and token actions will enable it to continue on its path to the bomb,” Netanyahu said after US President Barack Obama said at the United Nations that Washington was ready to engage diplomatically with Iran over its nuclear program. “I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road towards a different relationship; one based on mutual interests and mutual respect,” Obama said. Hours later, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, told the world that Tehran is ready for talks on its nuclear energy program with complete transparency. Rouhani urged Obama to reject “the short-sighted interest of warmongering pressure groups” if he wants “to manage differences” with Tehran. “Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran’s security and defense doctrine, and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions,” he said. Israeli analysts have expressed concern that Netanyahu’s hard-line approach towards Iran is leaving him isolated by allies who want to give diplomacy a chance. “It’s a very dangerous and very awkward situation for Netanyahu to be perceived as the only naysayer and warmonger,” Dan Gillerman, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, told the Times. Dan Meridor, a veteran Israeli minister, said Israel should “speak positively” about Iran’s new president, invoking a Hebrew phrase that means “respect him and suspect him.”

Source: Websites 25-09-2013 – 10:57 Last updated 25-09-2013 – 10:57

Related Articles

التقارب الأمريكي الإيراني مرعب ويثير قلق إسرائيل Rouhani: Accepting Iran’s Inalienable Nuclear Right Easiest Way to Resolve Issue Iran Sees ’Historic’ Chance to Resolve Nuclear Issue Hollande Wants “Coercive” UN Measures for Syria, “Concrete Gestures” by Iran Khatami: Rouhani’s Visit to UN Unique Chance for West, Iran Tunisia’s Marzouki Urges Iran to Help Find Solution to Syria Crisis US, Iran FMs to Meet for First Nuclear Talks Rouhani to Show the World Iran’s “Real Face”

Iran vs Israel: What The Media Wants You To Forget

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/IranvIsrael.php

The corporate media have been given their orders to throw the focus back on to Iran.

Here is a recap of what they are trying to make you forget.

1.  In 2009, Rose Gottemoeller, an assistant secretary of state and Washington’s chief nuclear arms negotiator, asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel refused.

2. In 2009. the United Nations passed a resolution calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. The UN General Assembly passed a similar resolution in 2012 calling for inspections. Israel refused.

3. The IAEA asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections.  Israel refused.

4. Iran’s formal notification to the IAEA of the planned construction of the backup fuel-rod facility underscores that Iran is playing by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has signed.

5. Iran allows IAEA inspections of all its facilities.

6. Contrary to face-saving claims, it appears that the US and Israel were both caught off guard by Iran’s announcement of a planned underground (to avoid being bombed) enrichment facility. The reasoning is simple. Had the US or Israel announced the existence of he new facility before Iran’s notified the IAEA, it would have put Iran on the defensive. As it is now, the US and Israel seem to be playing catch up, casting doubt on the veracity of Israel’s claims to “know” that Iran is a nuclear threat.

7. The IAEA and all 16 United States Intelligence Agencies are unanimous in agreement that Iran is not building and does not possess nuclear weapons.

8. In 1986, Mordachai Vanunu blew the whistle and provided photographs showing Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons factory underneath the reactor at Dimona.

9. Israel made the same accusations against Iraq that it is making against Iran, leading up to Israel’s bombing of the power station at Osirik. Following the invasion of 2003, international experts examined the ruins of the power station at Osirik and found no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the rubble.

10. The United Nations has just released the Goldstone Report, a scathing report which accuses Israel of 37 specific war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza earlier this year. Israel has denounced the report as “Anti-Semitic (even though Judge Goldstone is himself Jewish), and the United States will block the report from being referred to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague, thereby making the US Government an accessory after-the-fact.

11. Recently revealed documents prove not only that Israel has nuclear weapons, but actually tried to sell some to Apartheid South Africa. Who else Israel approached to sell nuclear weapons remains an unasked question.

12. In 1965, Israel stole over 200-600 pounds of weapons-grade uranium from the United States.

13. Declassified documents from the former South African regime prove not only that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, but has tried to sell them to other countries!

14: No less a source than the Jerusalem Post confirms that Israel has armed their German-supplied Dolphin submarines with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.

We all need to be Joe Wilson right now. We need to stand up and scream, “LIAR!” at every politician and every talking media moron that is pushing this war in Iran. And we need to keep dong it until they get the message that we will not be deceived any more.

Israel wants to send your kids off to die in Iran, and YOU are the only one that can stop them.

Please forward this comment to your social networks.

A Mean-Spirited Israel Rejects Iran’s Olive Branch

http://t.co/Syt9u3OHa4

Israel’s mean-spirited response to Iran’s olive branch actually illuminates its own aggressive posture. Along comes Hassan Rouhani, the new Iranian president, and instead of applauding his initiatives to meet with President Obama and resolve outstanding issues by diplomacy, Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz says “there is no more time for negotiations.”

And although Rouhani only just took office last month, his appeal for negotiations was dismissed by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu as a deceitful “charm offensive.” “One must not be fooled by the Iranian president’s fraudulent words,” Netanyahu said. “The Iranians are spinning in the media so that the centrifuges can keep on spinning.”

Yet, as Andrea Germanos of   Common Dreams   neatly summarized, “Iran has repeatedly said its nuclear program is for civilian purposes, and while the U.S. and Israel have repeatedly referred to Iran’s “nuclear weapons program,’ there is no proof that exists.”

Consequently, we have the spectacle of Israel, atop a veritable mountain of perhaps 300 nuclear weapons that it will not allow the International Atomic Energy Agency inspect, calling for the U.S. to escalate its threats against Iran, which has exactly zero nuclear weapons. We also have UN member Israel threatening, and urging the U.S. to threaten, another UN member with military force, a violation of the UN Charter.

Yet, Rouhani appears to be actively demonstrating he means what he says, and UN members are looking forward to his speech tomorrow. In an editorial,   The New York Times   noted Iran’s “recent flurry of remarkable gestures: Iran’s leadership has sent Rosh Hashana greetings to Jews worldwide via Twitter, released political prisoners, exchanged letters through the Swiss with President Obama, praised “flexibility’ in negotiations and transferred responsibility for nuclear negotiations from conservatives in the military to the Foreign Ministry.”

And Israel is not going to give him a chance? The man only just assumed office! Israel’s response shows how far it has strayed from its own philosophy of non-violence, which dates back to the Jerusalem Talmud of the third century A.D. As Wikipedia notes, under Jewish doctrine, “the requirement is that one always seek a just peace before waging war.” Not so today!

While President Obama maintains Iran’s unproven nuclear military buildup may threaten Israel, the fact is that, compared to Israel and America, Iran is a peace-loving society that has not attacked another nation in hundreds of years. Since WWII alone, the U.S. has struck militarily, or overthrown by force and violence, some 50 nations. One of them, of course, was our unprovoked CIA overthrow of Iran in 1953. And where the U.S. spends about $700 billion a year on the military and Israel spends $14 billion, Iran spends $9 billion, yet the U.S. and Israel, projecting their own warlike instincts, claim Iran is a military menace. A bit more objectively, Professor “Juan” Cole, the University of Michigan historian and Middle East authority, points out that Iran has not attacked another nation in modern times.

It is the U.S. today that has emerged as the world’s most dangerous country. What other nation is making drone strikes across the Middle East, Africa and even in the Philippines, killing  “terror suspects” and civilians alike without a pretense of legality? (President Obama openly says he takes responsibility for these atrocities as if this admission alone does not qualify him as a war criminal.) It is the U.S., that has surrounded Iran with 40 military bases, not the other way around, just as it is the U.S. that operates more than a thousand bases globally while Iran has none. It is the U.S. that has spread its atomic arsenal around the globe. It is the U.S. that used radioactive ammunition in its wars against Iraq, just as it used Agent Orange in its war against Viet Nam. And, according to recently declassified CIA files, the U.S. even played a role in Iraq’s chemical attacks on Iran during their bloody war.

The American public has a vital stake in the outcome of any peace negotiations that may follow President Rouhani’s UN speech Tuesday. Reducing tensions in the Middle East could deprive the Pentagon of the rationale for its horrendous spending spree and allow taxpayers to divert their money to their needed domestic agenda. Instead of senseless killing, it might even save some lives for a change. Fancy that!  #

Biden says that the Taliban is not our enemy in Afghanistan

JUST LIKE AL-QAEDA IN SYRIA AND OF COURSE THE TALIBAN HAS PROVIDED THE USA WITH AN EXCUSE TO STAY IN AFGHANISTAN

Get the Intellihub.com Official Newsletter HERE

Biden says that the Taliban is not our enemy in Afghanistan

Vice President Joe Biden and President Obama. (Photo: Wiki Commons)

By Anderew Freeman Intellihub.com September 24, 2013

One of the most interesting recurring themes in the book 1984 was the idea that the ruling political class would always be at war, but would constantly change who they were at war with to confuse the general population.  The books protagonist Winston Smith noticed that the government would constantly change their stance, one day they were at war with East Asia, and the next day they were not.

Like many situations described in 1984 this setup is eerily similar to what we see today, where the government is fighting Al-Qaeda in one country, but then fighting with them and supplying them with arms in other countries.  Recently, Joe Biden made a telling remark about the Taliban that is a perfect example of this confusing tactic that is used in 1984, and by today’s politicians.

In a recent interview, Biden said that:

“Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests. If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us. So there’s a dual track here:

One, continue to keep the pressure on al Qaeda and continue to diminish them. Two, put the government in a position where they can be strong enough that they can negotiate with and not be overthrown by the Taliban. And at the same time try to get the Taliban to move in the direction to see to it that they, through reconciliation, commit not to be engaged with al Qaeda or any other organization that they would harbor to do damage to us and our allies.”[1]

However, no one that was paying attention could forget about the fear mongering media campaign that was waged against the Taliban in the American mainstream media just years ago.  Additionally, there is another contradiction in this statement, because while the US government claims to be waging a “war on Terror” against Al-Qaeda, they have supported and supplied Al-Qeada in Libya, Syria and many other countries in the middle east.  To make matters even more confusing, the government in Afghanistan that Biden seems so interested in removing from power, is actually a puppet regime that was put into place by the US.

 

Sources:

[1] Joe Biden On Iraq, Iran, China and the Taliban – The Daily Beast

This article is brought to you by Intellihub.com, A.K.A. the “Civilian Intelligence Agency”.

Intellihub.com makes our content available and free for anyone to re-post it as the information is most important. However, we encourage you to donate as we are not funded by large corporate interests.

Note: Intellihub.com expressively grants permission to repost any article text on this site bearing the name “Intellihub.com” on the article’s byline header, attributing proper link-backs, keeping intact the article’s original byline header and writer bio. Images are subject to  copyright by other parties. Intellihub.com maintains a contract with Getty Images.

«Has Turkey Become The ‘Pakistan of the Middle East» «تركيا الباكستانية» التي سبقت «سوريا الأفغانية»

A fighter from the Islamist Syrian rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra rides a motorcycle along a deserted street in Deir al-Zor, Aug. 17, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi)

By: Kadri Gursel Translated from Milliyet (Turkey).

ORİJİNAL YAZIYI TÜRKÇE OKUYABİLİRSİNİZ

 

In an article in The Independent on Sept. 17, 2012, the veteran Middle East expert of the Western media, Robert Fisk, wrote that Turkey was becoming an arms funnel and rest-and-recreation center for Syrian jihadists, just as Pakistan is for the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. “Will Turkey turn out to be the Pakistan of the Middle East?” he asked.

A year later, has Fisk’s prediction materialized? Has Turkey become Syria’s Pakistan?

Pessimists would answer affirmatively to this question. Optimists, for their part, would not be telling the truth if they responded with something other than this: “We are not a Pakistan yet, but we are on the way to becoming one.”

Turkish territory in the border region that arches from Hatay to Gaziantep is on the way to becoming the “Peshawar of the Middle East,” that is, a region where the state has no control over the border and outlawed forces move as they like.

While we are Pakistanizing, our neighbor Syria — torn by a civil war — is in the grips of Lebanonization (ethnic and sectarian polarization), Somalization (collapse of public order and state) and Afghanization (dominance of al-Qaeda and jihadists), with all those processes intertwined and mutually exacerbating each other.

Syria’s Afghanization is seen predominantly in the area that extends from Idlib to Aleppo, meets with the Kurdish Rojava region and then stretches along the Euphrates Valley, via Deir el-Zour, all the way to Iraq’s Sunni region.

Those capable of reading the map of the Syrian civil war would also discern this: If Turkey had not been Pakistanizing, Syria would not have been Afghanizing. It means that the jihadists — mainly the al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra — could not have Afghanized Syria’s northern region bordering Turkey without logistical support from quarters in Turkey and easy access to Turkish territory and the Syrian border. Without using the Turkish town of Ceylanpinar as a rear base, Jabhat al-Nusra could not have fought the Kurds for months in Ras al-Ain, right on the other side of the border.

In December, the United States placed Jabhat al-Nusra on its list of terrorist organizations. In April, the group declared loyalty to al-Qaeda and its ideology.

When Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Washington in May, the United States conveyed to the Turkish side its discomfort over the support and mobility Jabhat al-Nusra enjoyed in Turkey. This, however, does not mean that US perception of the threat should be a prerequisite for Turkey to take action against al-Qaeda.

Now we have learned that Turkey, at long last, is also perceiving threats from al-Qaeda. A senior Turkish bureaucrat, who briefed a group of columnists in Istanbul in early September, made the following remark: “Jabhat al-Nusra is a threat for us, too, and the entire political quarter shares this view. It is out of the question for Turkey to support Jabhat al-Nusra in any way.”

“The political quarter” means the AKP [Justice and Development Party] and the government.
Well, if Jabhat al-Nusra is a threat for Turkey, too, then we are looking forward to see what Turkey will do.

Let’s continue. On Sept. 10, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said, “Turkey has no links” with Jabhat al-Nusra, which he described as a “radical group,” and accused those who claim otherwise of “spreading black propaganda.” As you may have noticed, Turkey defines Jabhat al-Nusra not as “terrorist” like the United States does, but rather as “radical” or “extremist.” Even if we assume that Jabhat al-Nusra is not called “terrorist” out of a well-meaning and pragmatic purpose such as maintaining public order, that purpose would have already become meaningless since the group’s declaration of itself as “al-Qaeda.”

The assessment in Ankara [at the beginning of the Syrian crisis] was that “radicals” would grow stronger if the crisis was not resolved in a short time. And that is what happened. The crisis could not be resolved and the “radicals” grew stronger. Jabhat al-Nusra currently has 7,000 to 8,000 militants and one-quarter of them are international jihadists. According to assessments in Ankara, dealing with Jabhat al-Nusra will not be difficult once a legitimate authority is established in Syria.

Certainly, this point of view has some justifiable basis. But only if a legitimate, Sunni-majority administration takes control of Syria as a whole. In that case, Jabhat al-Nusra would be unable to feed on Sunni wrath as it is doing at present.

Yet, the course of developments is not in that direction, and Jabhat al-Nusra is growing stronger by the day.

President Abdullah Gul, while on his way to New York, said, “We will not tolerate an organization that would be a threat to Turkey and the whole region.” Gul was referring to al-Qaeda, and thus he became the first Turkish statesman to go on record as defining the organization as a potential threat.
However, not backing Jabhat al-Nusra is not enough. Doing nothing to obstruct the group would amount to indirect support. Thus, it is high time to take action.

 

Read more:

«تركيا الباكستانية» التي سبقت «سوريا الأفغانية»

محمد نور الدين

حظيت الاشتباكات التي بدأت ولم تنته بين تنظيم «الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام» و«جبهة النصرة» من جهة و«الجيش السوري الحر» من جهة، على الحدود مع تركيا بتعليقات الصحافة التركية التي رأت فيها خطرا كبيرا داهما على تركيا.

ولعل من أبرز تلك المقالات ما كتبه قدري غورسيل في صحيفة «ميللييت»، الذي دعا «الحكومة التركية إلى التحرك لوقف خطر تنظيم القاعدة على تركيا».
وقال إن تحذير الصحافي البريطاني روبرت فيسك، في أيلول من العام الماضي، من تحول تركيا إلى باكستان أخرى كان في محله. ويقول غورسيل ان «خط الحدود من هاتاي الى غازي عينتاب قد تحول الى بيشاور تركيا حيث شريان الحياة والإمداد للجهاديين».
وأضاف «في ظل غياب رقابة الدولة فإن خيول القوى غير الشرعية تسرح هناك وتمرح». وتابع ان «تركيا تحث الخطى على طريق أن تكون باكستان أخرى ولبنان آخر (الخلاف الاتني والمذهبي) وصومالا أخرى (انهيار النظام العام والدولة) وأفغانستان أخرى (سيطرة القاعدة والجهاديين). لقد تحولت تركيا إلى أفغانستان أخرى من ادلب إلى حدود العراق، مرورا بالمناطق الكردية ووادي الفرات ودير الزور».
وتوقف الكاتب عند مقولة مهمة بقوله «الحقيقة الآن هي انه لو لم تتحول تركيا الى باكستان لما تحولت سوريا الى أفغاستان»، مضيفا «لولا خطوط الإمداد من تركيا الى المنظمات الراديكالية، ومنها القاعدة وجبهة النصرة، لما كان لهذه المجموعات ان تتحرك بسهولة ولما حوّلت المناطق السورية الشمالية الى أفغانستان جديدة، ولما استطاعت جبهة النصرة ان تحارب الأكراد في شمال سوريا. لقد نقلت الولايات المتحدة في اجتماع (الرئيس باراك) اوباما و(رئيس الحكومة التركية رجب طيب) اردوغان في ايار الماضي قلقها من الإمكانات التي توفرها تركيا للقاعدة».
وقال «لقد ادركت تركيا مؤخرا خطر جبهة النصرة. ولقد أبلغنا مسؤول كبير في لقاء معه ومجموعة من الصحافيين في مطلع ايلول الحالي ان جبهة النصرة باتت تشكل تهديدا لتركيا، وتركيا ليست في وارد تقديم الدعم لها. وقال ذلك المسؤول ان المسؤولية السياسية تقع على عاتق الجميع». واعتبر غورسيل ان «المسؤول كان يقصد هنا مسؤولية الحكومة وحزب العدالة والتنمية».
لكن غورسيل يشكك في «تصميم تركيا على وقف الدعم لجبهة النصرة، حيث ان وزير الخارجية أحمد داود اوغلو يصف النصرة بأنها منظمة راديكالية متطرفة وليست ارهابية، وهذا يتعارض مع الموقف الأميركي. وعدم اعلان تركيا جبهة النصرة على انها ارهابية شجع الرأي العام على التعامل معها بطريقة منفتحة وحمائية، وبالتالي فإن كلام المسؤول الكبير على وقف دعم تركيا لهذه الجبهة لا معنى له».
وقال غورسيل «عندما تريد تركيا إقامة سلطة شرعية في سوريا فستجد قبالتها جبهة النصرة التي تعدّ الآن اكثر من ثمانية آلاف مقاتل، ربعهم من الجهاديين، وتزداد قوة مع كل يوم يمر». وأضاف ان «كلام الرئيس التركي عبد الله غول ان تركيا لن تسمح بإقامة بنية ارهابية على حدودها في سوريا لا يكفي، إذ المطلوب إجراءات عملية».
وعبر غول، في نيويورك، عن قلقه من تقدم مجموعات جهادية في النزاع في سوريا إلى مناطق قريبة من الحدود التركية مقرا بتسلل «إرهابيين» إلى الأراضي التركية. وقال «لا نتمكن من منع تسلل إرهابيين رغم كل احتياطاتنا ونشر مدافع ودبابات» على الحدود التركية – السورية. وأضاف ان «المجموعات المتطرفة تشكل مصدر قلق كبيرا لأمننا»، قائلا انه حذر كل السلطات المختصة في تركيا حيال «مسألة الأمن الحيوي» هذه. لكنه اقر بان مهمة تركيا صعبة جدا بسبب الحدود البالغ طولها 910 كلم مع سوريا.
وفي صحيفة «خبر تورك» تناول صولي أوزيل وضع تركيا من الأزمة الكيميائية، متشائما من مستقبل الدور التركي. وقال «عندما يرسم الإطار العام للمطالب والخيارات في المنطقة فإن مطالب وخيارات تركيا كما يبدو مما يجري لن تؤخذ في الاعتبار. وبمقدار ما تبتعد تركيا في سياستها تجاه سوريا عن مفهوم السياسة الخارجية المترفع عن المذهبية، وتعجز عن اعطاء الانطباع انها لا تدعم الجهاديين، فإنها ستبقى خارج اللعبة. هذا الوهم الذي كان موجودا لدى الاتحاد والترقي قبل مئة عام كان نتيجة للسياسة الخارجية الذاهبة الى الأطماع التي تتجاوز الإمكانات ومصادر الدعم. ان انتهاك المعايير الديموقراطية قد اطاح بالادعاء الأهم لتركيا بعد الربيع العربي. كما ان الخطاب الذي استخدمته تركيا مؤخرا ألقى ظلالا حتى على علاقاتها مع حلفائها، خصوصا الولايات المتحدة. لقد كانت تركيا قبل 15 عاما أو عشر سنوات او حتى الى سنتين اكثر تأثيرا. لكن سوء ادارة الملف السوري وتصعيد خطابها الداخلي على اساس ديني ـ مذهبي أفقدها ذلك التأثير، وتحولت سوريا من مجال لترجمة احلام تركيا الى مقبرة لهذه الأوهام».
وتناول الباحث سادات لاتشينير، في صحيفة «ستار» الموالية لـ«حزب العدالة والتنمية» مسألة الاصطفاف المذهبي في تركيا، قائلا انه «كم هو مؤسف ان تكون تركيا قد انجرت الى اللعبة في سوريا، وتحولت المسألة المذهبية الى بطن تركيا الرخو. خطأ الحكومة التركية انها اختصرت القضية بشخص الرئيس بشار الأسد، وخطأ المعارضة التركية أنها خلقت الإحساس لدى بعض الفئات أنها قريبة من نظام الأسد».
وأضاف ان «جهود الاصطفاف على اساس مذهبي لن يأخذ مكانة حزب العمال الكردستاني. نشاط الكردستاني يتركز في الأرياف بينما المنظمة التي تحرك الاصطفافات المذهبية تنتشر في المدن. وهي ليست بحاجة لتكون ممثلة مهمة “للعلويين”، بل يكفي أن تصب الزيت على نار حراكات، مثل حراك تقسيم وجامعة الشرق الأوسط التقنية كي تدخل تركيا في حالة عدم الاستقرار».
السفير

Al Qaeda-Linked Syria Group Enjoying USAID? You’ve Got to See This to Believe It

Sep. 24, 2013 3:29pm

If this image is real, then it confirms the worst fears about U.S. aid to Syria falling into the hands of terrorists:

A photo circulating that purports to show Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) linked Commander Muhajireen Kavkaz wa Sham inside a USAID tent.

Recent images from the front line of the Syrian war suggest that terrorists are enjoying the small comforts of U.S. equipment and supplies that are meant to aide legitimate rebels, who are part of the Free Syrian Army. This appears to prove all the concerns among U.S. lawmakers and analysts that aid to the Syrian rebels could end up in the hands of Al Qaeda.

The photograph allegedly shows Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) linked Commander Muhajireen Kavkaz wa Sham, along with other rebels dawning battle-gear and an RPG, inside a USAID tent.

The terror group is known inside Syria by its acronym, ISIS. It is an Al Qaeda-linked jihad organization and recently it announced a campaign of “cleansing evil” at pro-Western opposition groups inside Syria.

The authenticity and location of this photo obtained by TheBlaze, which is circulating on the web, has not been officially confirmed. U.S. officials, however, told TheBlaze that this rebel commander is believed to be in Syria at this time.

40 Nuns, Orphans Trapped in Saint Takla Monastery in Syria’s Maloula

Local Editor

Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East for Greek Orthodox announced Tuesday that about 40 nuns and orphans are trapped inside the monastery of Saint Takla center of Maloula town in rural Damascus due to the ongoing clashes between the Syrian army and opposition fighters. The Damascus-based Patriarchate stated in a statement that “the Monastery of Saint Takla in the town of Maloula, which is a civilized milestone for all Syrian citizens and which is at the same time, a civilized heritage of the human society as a whole, lives difficult and painful days for being located at the crossroad of fire exchange, which makes providing support a difficult and risky process.” Patriarchate urged the Syrian Red Crescent, the International Red Cross and all the governmental and non-governmental organizations concerned with humanitarian affairs, to work for “providing the necessary supply for the monastery residents, nuns and orphans who are nearly forty people.” Maloula, known for ancient Christian monuments and cages hewn into the rock, located about 55 kilometers north of Damascus. It is one of the oldest Christian areas in the world and the only place where the inhabitants still speak Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ (as).

Source: Agencies 24-09-2013 – 20:21 Last updated 24-09-2013 – 20:21

Gunmen Kidnap Passenger Buses Northern Syria, FSA Declares War on ISIL

Local Editor

Gunmen in Syria abducted on Tuesday two passenger buses on their way from Nobbol and Zahraa in northern Aleppo towards Idlib. Russia Today website reported that clashes took place in the eastern front of Damascus countryside between the so-called Free Syrian Army and the opposition militiamen, along with continuous artillery shelling against opposition posts. Field developments also included sporadic clashes in the Zabadani and Bludan west of rural Damascus. Afrin environ in Aleppo countryside witnessed clashes as well between the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) militants and the Kurdish People’s Protection Units. In the meantime, Syrian opposition stated that a group of the free army declared the battle of Nahrawan in Aleppo and its countryside against ISIL militants. Moreover, the Storm of North of the free army accused ISIL of violating the truce agreed upon 48 hours before to put an end for the two-day clashes between both sides around the town of Aazaz, north of Aleppo. For its part, ISIL accused Tuesday Storm of North Brigade in Aazaz of adherence to U.S. and German intelligence. In a statement by the “Emirate of Aazaz in the state of Aleppo”, the ISIL accused the FSA of calling for ruling by other than what Allah had revealed through democracy and via official online websites. Other accusations include: Receiving the U.S. Senator John McCain and agreeing with him upon fighting ‘Islamists’. FSA adherence to the U.S. and German intelligence agencies, defending and housing their members. Several spies of Storm of North were arrested after their links with the U.S. intelligence proved. The confession claimed to be shot and will be posted online soon. The statement added that Storm of North has been expelled out of Aazaz “for their adherence to the Americans.” “Everyone who returns as repentant and hands his weapons over to us, his repentance will be accepted; otherwise we are determined to eradicate them,” ISIL statement read. Meanwhile, Storm of North Brigade issued a brief statement saying that meeting with McCain was with the knowledge of Omar Checheni, former leader of the ISIL organization. Recently, fierce clashes erupted between the ISIL, Al-Nusra Front and the free army in the wake of disputes on power and control sharing over areas not reclaimed so far by the Syrian army. The Syrian national military launched a wide-scale military operation in May 2013 in the country’s main provinces to restore security and release citizens from terrorist threats. Syria was hit by a violent unrest since mid-March 2011, where the Syrian governm ent accuses foreign actors of orchestrating the conflict by supporting the militant opposition groups with arms and money.

Source: Websites 24-09-2013 – 17:18 Last updated 24-09-2013 – 21:49

• الثورجيين” ..فلتان أمني ومحاكمات ميدانية ومعارك على السرقات …وعلى الزواج!
• تناحر الجماعات المسلحة في سورية..بين الخلفية والمتوقع؟… د. أمين محمد حطيط
• اللجان الشعبية الكردية تقتل 83 مسلحا للنصرة بينهم ليبيون وتونسيون
• فضائح استخبارية متبادلة: داعش تكشف عمالة ميليشيا الحر للاستخبارات الأمريكية و بلاك ووتر
• 130 ألف مقاتل اجنبي بسورية.. و تونس والعراق وفلسطين تتصدر أعداد القتلى الاجانب
• 6000 مقاتل أردني يقاتلون في سوريا سقط منهم 285 قتيلاً،و 120 في عداد المفقودين

President Obama’s speech at the U.N. General Assembly

President Obama’s speech at the U.N. General Assembly (LIES IN BOLD)

The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region. We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War.

We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends on the region’s energy supply and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy.

We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people. Wherever possible, we will build the capacity of our partners, respect the sovereignty of nations, and work to address the root causes of terror. But when it’s necessary, defend the United States against terrorist attack, we will take direct action.

And finally, we will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction. Just as we consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a threat to our own national security, we reject the development of nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region and undermine the global nonproliferation regime.

Now, to say that these are America’s core interests is not to say that they are our only interests. We deeply believe it is in our interests to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous. And we’ll continue to promote democracy and human rights and open markets because we believe these practices achieve peace and prosperity.

But I also believe that we can rarely achieve these objectives through unilateral American action, particularly through military action. Iraq shows us that democracy cannot simply be imposed by force. Rather, these objectives are best achieved when we partner with the international community and with the countries and peoples of the region.

So what does this mean going forward?

In the near term, America’s diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Arab- Israeli conflict. While these issues are not the cause of all the region’s problems, they have been a major source of instability for far too long, and resolving them can help serve as a foundation for a broader peace.

The United States and Iran have been isolated from one another since the Islamic revolution of 1979. This mistrust has deep roots. Iranians have long complained of a history of U.S. interference in their affairs and of America’s role in overthrowing the Iranian government during the Cold War. On the other hand, Americans see an Iranian government that has declared the United States an enemy and directly or through proxies taken American hostages, killed U.S. troops and civilians, and threatened our ally Israel with destruction.

I don’t believe this difficult history can be overcome overnight. The suspicions run too deep. But I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road toward a different relationship, one based on mutual interests and mutual respect.

Since I took office, I’ve made it clear in letters to the supreme leader in Iran and more recently to President Rouhani that America prefers to resolve our concerns over Iran’s nuclear program peacefully –– although we are determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

We are not seeking regime change, and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy.

Instead, we insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty and U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Meanwhile, the supreme leader has issued a fatwah against the development of nuclear weapons. And President Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the Islamic republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.

So these statements made by our respective governments should offer the basis for a meaningful agreement. We should be able to achieve a resolution that respects the rights of the Iranian people while giving the world confidence that the Iranian program is peaceful.

But to succeed, conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable. After all, it’s the Iranian government’s choices that have led to the comprehensive sanctions that are currently in place.

And this not — is not simply an issue between the United States and Iran. The world has seen Iran evade its responsibilities in the past and has an abiding interest in making sure that Iran meets its obligations in the future.

But I want to be clear. We are encouraged that President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course, and given President Rouhani’s stated commitment to reach an agreement, I am directing John Kerry to pursue this effort with the Iranian government in close cooperation with the European Union, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China.

The roadblocks may prove to be too great, but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested. That while the status quo will only deepen Iran’s isolation, Iran’s genuine commitment to go down a different path will be good for the region and for the world, and will help the Iranian people meet their extraordinary potential in commerce and culture, in science and education.

We are also determined the resolve a conflict that goes back even further than our differences with Iran, and that is the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.

I’ve made it clear that the United States will never compromise our commitment to Israel’s security, nor our support for its existence as a Jewish state.

Earlier this year, in Jerusalem, I was inspired by young Israelis who stood up for the belief that peace was necessary, just and possible. And I believe there’s a growing recognition within Israel that the occupation of the West Bank is tearing at the democratic fabric of the Jewish state.

But, the children of Israel have the right to live in a world where the nations assembled in this body fully recognize their country, and where we unequivocally reject those who fire rockets at their homes or incite others to hate them.

Likewise, the United States remains committed to the belief that the Palestinian people have a right to live with security and dignity in their own sovereign state.

On the same trip, I had the opportunity to meet with young Palestinians in Ramallah, whose ambition and incredible potential are matched by the pain they feel and having no firm place in the community of nations.

They are understandably cynical that real progress will ever be made, and they’re frustrated by their families enduring the daily indignity of occupation. But they, too, recognize that two states is the only real path to peace. Because just as the Palestinian people must not be displaced, the state of Israel is here to stay.

So the time is now ripe for the entire international community to get behind the pursuit of peace. Already, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks. President Abbas has put aside efforts to shortcut the pursuit of peace and come to the negotiating table. Prime Minister Netanyahu has released Palestinian prisoners and reaffirmed his commitment to a Palestinian state. Current talks are focused on final status issues of borders and security, refugees and Jerusalem.

So now the rest of us must be willing to take risks as well. Friends of Israel, including the United States, must recognize that Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state depend on the realization of a Palestinian state. And we should say so clearly. Arab states and those who support the Palestinians must recognize that stability will only be served through a two-state solution and a secure Israel.

All of us must recognize that peace will be a powerful tool to defeat extremists throughout the region and embolden those who are prepared to build a better future. And, moreover, ties of trade and commerce between Israelis and Arabs could be an engine of growth and opportunity at a time when too many young people in the region are languishing without work.

So let’s emerge from the familiar corners of blame and prejudice; let’s support Israeli and Palestinian leaders who are prepared to walk the difficult road to peace.

Now, real breakthroughs on these two issues — Iran’s nuclear program and Israeli-Palestinian peace — would have a profound and positive impact on the entire Middle East and North Africa.

But the current convulsions arising out of the Arab Spring remind us that a just and lasting peace cannot be measured only agreements between nations; it must also be measured by our ability to resolve conflict and promote justice within nations. And by that measure, it’s clear that all of us have a lot more work to do.

When peaceful transitions began in Tunisia and Egypt, the entire world was filled with hope. And although the United States, like others, was struck by the speed of transition, and although we did not, and, in fact, could not dictate events, we chose to support those who called for change.

And we did so based on the belief that while these transitions will be hard and take time, societies based upon democracy and openness and the dignity of the individual will ultimately be more stable, more prosperous and more peaceful.

Over the last few years, particularly in Egypt, we’ve seen just how hard this transition will be. Mohammed Morsi was democratically elected but proved unwilling or unable to govern in a way that was fully inclusive. The interim government that replaced him responded to the desires of millions of Egyptians who believed the revolution had taken a wrong term. But it, too, has made decisions inconsistent with inclusive democracy through an emergency law, and restrictions on the press and civil society, and opposition (inaudible).

Of course, America has been attacked by all sides of this internal conflict, simultaneously accused of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and engineering the removal of power. In fact, the United States has purposely avoided choosing sides. Our overriding interest throughout these past few years has been to encourage a government that legitimately reflects the will of the Egyptian people and recognizes true democracy as requiring a respect for minority rights and the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, and a strong civil society. That remains our interest today.

And so going forward the United States will maintain a constructive relationship with the interim government that promotes core interests like the Camp David Accords in (ph) counterterrorism, will continue support in areas like education that directly benefit the Egyptian people, but we have not proceeded with the delivery of certain military systems. And our support will depend upon Egypt’s progress in pursuing a more democratic path.

And our approach to Egypt reflects a larger point: The United States will at times work with governments that do not meet, at least in our view, the highest international expectations, but who work with us on our core interests.

Nevertheless, we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of suppressing dissent, or supporting the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We will reject the notion that these principles are simply western exports, incompatible with Islam or the Arab world. We believe they are the birthright of every person.

And while we recognize that our influence will, at times, be limited, although we will be wary of efforts to impose democracy through military force, and although we will, at times, be accused of hypocrisy and inconsistency, we will be engaged in the region for the long haul, for the hard work of forging freedom and democracy is the task of a generation. And this includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue to surface in places like Iraq, Bahrain and Syria.

We understand such long-standing issues cannot be solved by outsiders. They must be addressed by Muslim communities themselves. But we’ve seen grinding conflicts come to an end before, most recently in northern Ireland where Catholics and Protestants finally recognized that an endless cycle of conflict was causing both communities to fall behind a fast-moving world. And so, we believe those same sectarian conflicts can be overcome in the Middle East and North Africa.

To summarize, the United States has a hard-earned humility when it comes to our ability to determine events inside other countries. Now, the notion of American empire may be useful propaganda, but it isn’t borne out by America’s current policy or by public opinion. Indeed, as recent debates within the United States over Syria clearly show.

The danger for the world is not an America that is too eager to immerse itself in the affairs of other countries, or to take on every problem in the region as its own. The danger for the world is, that the United States after a decade of war, rightly concerned about issues aback home, aware of the hostility that our engagement in the region has engendered throughout the Muslim world, may disengage creating a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.

I believe such disengagement would be a mistake. I believe America must remain engaged for our own security, but I also believe the world is better for it. Some may disagree. But I believe America is exceptional. In part because we have shown a willingness through the sacrifice of blood and treasure to stand up not only for our own narrow self interest, but for the interest of all.

I must be honest though, we’re far more likely to invest our energy in those countries that want to work with us, that invest in their people instead of a corrupt few, that embrace a vision of society where everyone can contribute — men and women, Shia or Sunni, Muslim, Christian or Jew — because from Europe to Asia, from Africa to the Americas, nations that have persevered on a democratic path, have emerged more prosperous, more peaceful and more invested in upholding our common security and our common humanity.

I believe that the same will hold true for the Arab world.

This leads me to a final point. There will be times when the breakdown of societies is so great, the violence against civilians so substantial, that the international community will be called upon to act. This will require new thinking and some very tough choices. While the United Nations was designed to prevent wars between states, increasingly we face the challenge of preventing slaughter within states.

And these challenges will grow more pronounced as we are confronted with states that are fragile or failing, places where horrendous violence can put innocent men, women and children at risk with no hope of protection from their national institutions. I’ve made it clear that even when America’s core interests are not directly threatened, we stand ready to do our part to prevent mass atrocities and protect basic human rights. But we cannot and should not bear that burden alone.

In Mali, we supported both the French intervention, but successfully pushed back Al Qaida, and the African forces who are keeping the peace. In eastern Africa, we are working with partners to bring the Lord’s Resistance Army to an end. And in Libya, when the Security Council provided a mandate to protect civilians, America joined a coalition that took action. Because of what we did there, countless lives were saved and a tyrant could not kill his way back to power.

I know that some now criticize the action in Libya as an object lesson, that point to the problem that the country now confronts, a democratically elected government struggling to provide security, armed groups in some places, extremists ruling parts of the fractured land. And so these critics argue that any intervention to protect civilians is doomed to fail. Look at Libya.

And no one’s more mindful of these problems than I am, for they resulted in the death of four outstanding U.S. citizens who were committed to the Libyan people, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, a man whose courageous efforts helped save the city of Benghazi.

But does anyone truly believe that the situation in Libya would be better, if Gadhafi had been allowed to kill, imprison or brutalize his people into submission?

It’s far more likely that without international action, Libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed.

We live in a world of imperfect choices. Different nations will not agree on the need for action in every instance. And the principle of sovereignty is at the center of our international order.

But sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit one murder. Or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye.

While we need to be modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil, while we need to be mindful that the world is full of unintended consequences, should we really accept the notion that the world is powerless in the face of a Rwanda, or Srebrenica?

If that’s the world that people want to live in, they should say so, and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves.

But I believe we can embrace a different future. And if we don’t want to choose between inaction and war, we must get better, all of us, with (ph) the policies that prevent the breakdown of basic order; through (ph) respect for the responsibilities of nations and the rights of individuals; through meaningful sanctions for those who break the rules; through dogged diplomacy that resolves the root causes of conflict, not merely its aftermath; through development assistance that brings hope to the marginalized.

And, yes, sometimes although this will not be enough, there are gonna be moments where the international community will need to acknowledge that the multilateral use of military force may be required to prevent the very worst from occurring.

Ultimately, this is the international community that America seeks: one where nations do not covet the land or resources of other nations, but one in which we carry out the founding purpose of this institution and where we all take responsibility. A world in which the rules established out of the horrors of war can help us resolve conflicts peacefully and prevent the kind of wars that our forefathers fought. A world where human beings can live with dignity and meet their basic needs whether they live in New York or Nairobi, in Peshawar or Damascus.

These are extraordinary times with extraordinary opportunities. Thanks to human progress, a child born anywhere on Earth today can do things can 60 years ago would have been out of reach for the mass of humanity. I saw this in Africa, where nations moving beyond conflict are now poised to take off, and America is with them, partnering to feed the hungry and care for the sick, and to bring power to places off the grid.

I see it across the Pacific region, where hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty in a single generation. I see it in the faces of young people everywhere who can access the entire world with a click of a button and who are eager to join the cause of eradicating extreme poverty and combating climate change, starting businesses, expanding freedom, and leaving behind the old ideological battles of the past.

That’s what’s happening in Asia and Africa. It’s happening in Europe and across the Americas. That’s the future that the people of the Middle East and North Africa deserve as well, one where they can focus on opportunity instead of whether they’ll be killed or repressed because of who they are or what they believe.

And time and again, nations and people have shown our capacity to change, to live up to humanity’s highest ideals, to choose our better history.

Last month, I stood where 50 years ago Martin Luther King Jr. told America about his dream at a time when many people of my race could not even vote for president. Earlier this year, I stood in the small cell where Nelson Mandela endured decades cut off from his own people in the world.

Who are we to believe that today’s challenges cannot be overcome when we’ve seen what changes the human spirit can bring? Who in this hall can argue that the future belongs to those who seek to repress that spirit rather than those who seek to liberate it?

I know what side of history I want the United States of America to be on. We’re ready to meet tomorrow’s challenges with you, firm in the belief that all men and women are, in fact, created equally, each individual possessed with a dignity and inalienable rights that cannot be denied. That’s why we look to the future not with fear, but with hope, and that’s why we remain convinced that this community of nations can deliver a more peaceful, prosperous and just world to the next generation.

Thank you, very much.

SECURITY EXPERT A. NACCACHE ON SAYYED SPEECH AND REGIONAL ISSUES

Anis Naccache on al Manar TV considered Sayyed speech yesterday as an invitation to the countries involved in the Syrian conflict and supporting the opposition to acknowledge their defeat and to start thinking along another line . It is the first time that Sayyed mentions these countries by name and addresses them directly to deliver a clear message whereby the scheme to topple Assad and take over Syria has failed . According to Naccache- the expert in regional security matters- these countries are trying right now to pull out and stop their support to the various fighting factions of the opposition . Now after the conspiracy against Syria has failed, it is time to take care of the fighters who will NOT be allowed to return from where they came, and this is why they are left to kill one another on the battle and liquidate one another. This is the first step towards Geneva 2 conference where the opposition is supposed to be represented by the Coalition of the Opposition that has accepted to attend the conference for the first time without preconditions and to sit with the regime. The Turks have already taken measures and closed the borders with Syria and mobilized their armed forces near the borders and President Gul is now holding the Turkish PM Erdogan and the minister of Foreign Affairs Davutuglu accountable . Turkey faces two dangers now which are : the infiltration of terrorists fleeing the battle and the escalation on behalf of the Kurds. Syria has thus become the burial ground for the Turkish dreams according to Naccache.

As for the chemical weapons, which existence in the hands of the Resistance was categorically denied by Sayyed , they are being used – as usual –as a pretext to target the Resistance . These weapons are not only religiously banned , but the mere threat to use them is also banned . Not only the Gulf countries and Turkey lost the battle , but US also lost its betting on the Forces of the opposition and is backing off and has to retreat in order to face its two major problems that are the financial/economic problem which is threatening its unity and its very existence as a super power, and the threat represented by China regarding US hegemony over the far East . For this reason -according to Naccache – taking advantage of this retreat – Iran might sit directly with US at its own terms in NY to reach some sort of an agreement regarding Iran’s nuclear energy program that would be to the advantage of the Islamic Republic . Lately, the Russians have delivered the Bushehr plant to the Iranians and the Russian experts are still in Iran .

Russia is serious in building its military strength where by it is improving its military capacities by consecrating a great budget to the military and building the mightiest aircrafts and helping Syria build its military strength and promising to make up for Syria’s loss in chemical weapons by providing it with traditional weapons instead. Because of the fleet she sent to the area , Russia has become master of the Mediterranean. Still Russia would still be vulnerable because of the ethnic and religious variety it represents and China is also vulnerable for the same reason. US might take advantage of this and is already blackmailing Russia. As for Egypt, that has not been mentioned by Sayyed , Naccache said that the Muslim Brothers have lost because their betting was on the US and they thought they could build an Islamic rule by relying on the US without breaking up with Israel . According to the expert, such an endeavor cannot succeed. Naccache was brief on this topic and did not expand as usual.