PRESIDENT ASSAD BIDS A FOND FAREWELL TO WAR CRIMINAL OBAMA

Ziad Fadel

Image result for bashar al assad

With a big heave-ho and a blowing of a big Bronx cheer, Dr. Bashar Al-Assad, gave the boot to the noisome and leprotic former president of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama.

He was the U.S. leader who always confidently stated that “Assad has no place in Syria’s future”.  Well, nimrod, where is your future?  Other than scamming institutions for speeches filled with empty platitudes, where is your place in Chicago’s sewers?  Obama has just joined the list of war criminals, imbeciles, genocidal freaks of nature – and with his entourage of inept spokesmen, “advisors”, secretaries and sycophants – in the twilight world of the accursed naysaying nihilists who populate that dimension of perjury somewhere in a sphincter that opens only for them.

Au revoir Sarkozy.  Arrivederci, Berlusconi.  Ta-ta, Cameron and Blair.  Auf Wiedersehen, Westervelle. Ma’ Al-Salaama ‘Abdullah, Hamad and Madame Banana.

And a good, rousing Bye to Rasmussen, George Sabra, Ghassan Hitto, Burhan Ghalyoon, Khaled Khoja, the ‘Alloosh Brothers, Zahraan and Muhammad, Ban Ki-Myun.  Hasta la vista, Zapatero.

And let’s not forget Mark Toner, Kirby, John Kerry and that nincompoop par excellence, Josh Earnest.

Fare thee well, Morsi, enjoy oblivion in an Egyptian prison.  Sayonara, Davutoghlu.  And, not to forget, Khalomoot Paaz, Simon Perske (Peres).

Image result for flipping the bird

And now, A BIG MIDDLE FINGER UP FOR THAT PSYCHOPATH WHO INFESTED THE WHITE HOUSE FOR 8 YEARS: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.  Good riddance to bad rubbish, we always say.  Burn in Hell!  Grrrrrrrrr. You swine.

___________________________________________

NEWS AND COMMENT:

Curious article by MIri Wood from Waf Halabi describing the odd coverage of Trump’s presidency in the Zionist Apartheid State and an historical list of Zionist misdeeds for those of you who are archivists:

http://www.syrianews.cc/israel-media-hype-trump-dangerous

Long, but excellent analysis of the brain-freeze in the MSM, the opponents of Syria and the established imperialist network.  Sent by Alexander Ajay, it Is a compelling and articulate analysis by Louis Allday:

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2016/allday131216.html
Read more

Related Picture

 

Related Videos

Assad speaking to Arab Leaders before the invasion of Iraq

Clinton: Assad must go

Aug 18, 2011

Related Articles

President Assad’s Swiss SRF 1 TV Interview, October 19, 2016

 

The Syria Times

President Assad’s Swiss SRF 1 TV Interview, October 19, 2016

H.E. President Bashar Al-Assad stressed that protecting civilians in Aleppo necessitates getting rid of the terrorists.

Speaking in an interview with the Swiss SRF 1 TV channel, President Assad said “Of course, it’s our mission according to the constitution and the law. We have to protect the people, and we have to get rid of those terrorists in Aleppo. That’s how we can protect civilians.”

He added that it goes without saying that the way to protect the civilians in Aleppo is to attack the terrorists who hold the civilians under their control and are killing them.

 Following is the full text of the interview, as published by SANA:

Journalist: Mr. President, thank you very much for having welcomed Swiss Television and our program Rundschau here in Damascus.

President Assad: You are most welcome in Syria.

Question 1: First, please, allow me to clarify one thing: may I ask you every question?

President Assad: Every question, without exception.

Question 2: I’m asking because one of your conditions is that interview is being broadcast in its full version. Are you afraid that we might manipulate your statements?

President Assad: You should answer that question, but I think we should build this relation upon the trust, and I think you are worried about the trust of your audience, so I don’t think so. I think you have good reputation in conveying the truth in every subject you try to cover.

Question 3: Do you see it as a lie, that the world considers you as to be a war criminal?

President Assad: That depends on what the reference in defining that word. Is it the international law, or is it the Western agenda or the Western political mood, let’s say, that’s being defined by vested-interests politicians in the West? According to the international law, as a President and as government and as Syrian Army, we are defending our country against the terrorists that have been invading Syria as proxies to other countries. So, if you want to go back to that word, the “war criminal,” I think the first one who should be tried under that title are the Western officials; starting with George Bush who invaded Iraq without any mandate from the Security Council. Second, Cameron and Sarkozy who invaded and destroyed Libya without mandate from the Security Council. Third, the Western officials who are supporting the terrorists during the last five years in Syria, either by providing them with political umbrella, or supporting them directly with armaments, or implementing embargo on the Syrian people that has led to the killing of thousands of Syrian civilians.

Question 4: But we are here to talk about your role in this war, and the US

Secretary of State John Kerry called you “Adolf Hitler” and “Saddam Hussein” in the same breath. Does it bother you?

President Assad: No, because they don’t have credibility. This is first of all. Second, for me as President, what I care about first and foremost is how the Syrian people look at me; second, my friends around the world – not my personal friends as President, I mean our friends as Syrians, like Russia, like Iran, like China, like the rest of the world – not the West, the West always tried to personalize things, just to cover the real goals which is about deposing government and getting rid of a certain president just to bring puppets to suit their agenda. So, going back to the beginning, no I don’t care about what Kerry said, at all. It has no influence on me.

 

Question 5: You’re the President of a country whose citizens are fleeing, half of your fellow citizens. The people are not only fleeing because of the terrorists, of ISIS, or the rebels, but also because of you.

President Assad: What do you mean by me? I’m not asking people to leave Syria, I’m not attacking people; I’m defending the people. Actually, the people are leaving Syria for two reasons: first reason is the action of the terrorists, direct action in killing the people. The second one is the action of the terrorists in order to paralyze the life in Syria; attacking schools, destroying infrastructure in every sector. Third, the embargo of the West that pressed many Syrians to find their livelihood outside Syria. These are the main reasons. If you can see that the second factor and the third factor are related, I mean the role of the terrorists and the West in undermining and hurting the livelihoods of the Syrians, is one and, let’s say, is commonality between the terrorists and Europe.

Question 6: When you speak of terrorists, who do you mean by that? Surely ISIS, but also the “Free Syrian Army” or the Kurds?

President Assad: What I mean is like what you mean as a Swiss citizen, if you have anyone who carries machineguns or armaments and killing people under any titles, and committed vandalism, destroying public or private properties; this is a terrorist. Anyone who adopts a political way in order to make any change he wants, this is not a terrorist. You can call him opposition. But you cannot call somebody who is killing people or holding armaments, you cannot call him opposition, in your country, in my country as well.

Question 7: Well, you don’t have any free opposition in your country.

President Assad: Of course we have, of course we have. We have real opposition, we have people who live in Syria, whom their grassroots are the Syrian people, they’re not opposition who were forged in other countries like France or UK or Saudi Arabia or Turkey. We have them, and you can go and meet them and deal with them with your camera. You can do that yourself.

Question 8: How do you explain to your three children what is happening in

Aleppo? I’m sure that you are discussing about it at the family table.

President Assad: Yeah, of course if I’m going to explain to them, I’m going to explain about what is happening in Syria, not only in Aleppo, taking into consideration that my children are full-grown now, they understand what is going on Syria. But if you want to explain to them or to any other child what is happening, I’m going to explain about the role of the terrorists, about the role of Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia in supporting those terrorists with money, with logistic support, and the role of the West in supporting those terrorists either through armament or through helping them with the propaganda and the publicity. I’m going to explain to them in full what’s going on.

Question 9: Do you, as a father, also say that you have nothing to do with the bombardments of the hospitals in Aleppo?

President Assad: Look, when they say that we are bombarding the hospitals, it means that we are killing civilians. That is the meaning of the word. The question is why would the government kill civilians, whether in hospitals or in streets or schools or anywhere? You are talking about killing Syrians. When we kill Syrians, as a government, or as army, the biggest part of the Syrian society will be against us. You cannot succeed in your war if you are killing civilians. So, this story, and this narrative, is a mendacious narrative, to be frank with you. Of course, unfortunately, every war is a bad war, in every war you have innocent victims, whether children, women, elderly, any other civilian, any other innocent who is not part of this war, he could pay the price, this is unfortunately. That’s why we have to fight terrorism. When we don’t say that, it’s like saying – according to that question or that narrative, that you may reflect in your question – that the terrorists, Al Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS, are protecting the civilians, and we as government are killing the civilians. Who can believe that story? No one.

Question 10: But who else got airplanes or bunker-busting bombs besides your army?

President Assad: It’s like you’re saying that everyone who is killed in Syria was killed by the airplanes or aircrafts, military aircrafts! The majority of the people were killed by mortars shelled by the terrorists on them while they’re at schools, in their hospitals, in the streets, anywhere. It’s not related to the aerial bombardment. Sometimes you have aerial bombardment against the terrorists, but that doesn’t mean that every bomb that fell somewhere was by airplane or by the Syrian Army. If you are talking about a specific incident, let’s say, we have to verify that specific incident, but I’m answering you in general now.

Question 11: But you have the power to change the situation also for the children in Aleppo.

President Assad: Of course, that’s why-

Journalist: Will you do that?

President Assad: Exactly, that’s our mission, according to the constitution, according to the law; that we have to protect the people, that we have to get rid of those terrorists from Aleppo. This is where we can protect the civilians. How can you protect them while they are under the control of the terrorists? They’ve been killed by them, and they’ve been controlled fully by the terrorists. Is it our role to sit aside and watch? Is that how we can protect the Syrian people? We need to attack the terrorists, that’s self-evident.

Question 12: May I show you a picture?

President Assad: Of course.

Journalist: This young boy has become the symbol of the war. I think that you know this picture.

President Assad: Of course I saw it.

Journalist: His name is Omran. Five years old.

President Assad: Yeah.

Journalist: Covered with blood, scared, traumatized. Is there anything you would like to say to Omran and his family?

President Assad: There’s something I would like to say to you first of all, because I want you to go back after my interview, and go to the internet to see the same picture of the same child, with his sister, both were rescued by what they call them in the West “White Helmets” which is a facelift of al-Nusra in Aleppo. They were rescued twice, each one in a different incident, and just as part of the publicity of those White Helmets. None of these incidents were true. You can have it manipulated, and it is manipulated. I’m going to send you those two pictures, and they are on the internet, just to see that this is a forged picture, not a real one. We have real pictures of children being harmed, but this one in specific is a forged one.

Question 13: But it’s true that innocent civilians are dying, in Aleppo.

President Assad: Of course, not only in Aleppo; in Syria. But now you are talking about Aleppo, because the whole hysteria in the West about Aleppo, for one reason; not because Aleppo is under siege, because Aleppo has been under siege for the last four years by the terrorists, and we haven’t heard a question by Western journalists about what’s happening in Aleppo that time, and we haven’t heard a single statement by Western officials regarding the children of Aleppo. Now, they are talking about Aleppo recently just because the terrorists are in a bad shape. This is the only reason, because the Syrian Army are making advancement, and the Western countries – mainly the United States and its allies like UK and France – feeling that they are losing the last cards of terrorism in Syria, and the main bastion of that terrorism today is Aleppo.

Question 14: Everything is allowed in this war for you.

President Assad: No, of course, you have the international law, you have the human rights charter, you have to obey. But in every war, every war in the world during the history, you cannot make sure a hundred percent that you can control everything in that direction. You always have flaws, that’s why I said every war is a bad war. But there’s difference between individual mistakes and the policy of the government. The policy of the government, to say that we are attacking civilians, we are attacking hospitals, we are attacking schools, we are doing all these atrocities, that’s not possible, because you cannot work or go against your interests. You cannot go against your duty toward the people, otherwise you are going to lose the war as a government. You cannot withstand such a ferocious war for five years and a half while you are killing your own people. That’s impossible. But you always have mistakes, whether it’s about crossfire, it’s about individual mistakes… bring me a war, a single war in the recent history, that it was a clean war. You don’t have.

Question 15: Do you have made any mistakes too in this war?

President Assad: As President I define the policy of the country, according to our policy, the main pillars of this policy during the crisis is to fight terrorism, which I think is correct and we will not going to change it, of course, to make dialogue between the Syrians, and I think which is correct, the third one which is proven to be effective during the last two years is the reconciliations; local reconciliations with the militants who have been holding machineguns against the people and against the government and against the army, and this one has, again, proven that it’s a good step. So, these are the pillars of this policy. You cannot talk about mistakes in this policy. You can talk about mistakes in the implementation of the policy, that could be related to the individuals.

Question 16: You still believe in a diplomatic solution?

President Assad: Definitely, but you don’t have something called diplomatic solution or military solution; you have solution, but every conflict has many aspects, one of them is the security, like our situation, and the other one is in the political aspect of this solution. For example, if you ask me about how can you deal with Al Qaeda, with al-Nusra, with ISIS? Is it possible to make negotiations with them? They won’t make, they’re not ready to, they wouldn’t. They have their own ideology, repugnant ideology, so you cannot make political solution with this party; you have to fight them, you have to get rid of them. While if you talk about dialogue, you can make dialogue with two entities; the first one, political entities, any political entities, whether with or against or in the middle, and with every militant who is ready to give in his armament for the sake of the security or stability in Syria. Of course we believe in it.

Question 17: There are news from Russia about a short humanitarian pause in Aleppo on Thursday, what does it mean this humanitarian pause, can you explain?

President Assad: It’s a short halting of operations in order to allow the humanitarian supply to get into different areas in Aleppo, and at the same time to allow the civilians who wanted to leave the terrorist-held areas to move to the government-controlled area.

Question 18: This is really a step, an important step?

President Assad: Of course, it is an important step as a beginning, but it’s not enough. It’s about the continuation; how can you allow those civilians to leave. The majority of them wanted to leave the area held by the terrorists, but they won’t allow them. They either shoot them or they kill their families if they leave that area.

Question 19: Russia is on your side, what does it mean for you?

President Assad: No, it’s not on my side. It’s on the international law’s side. It’s on the other side which is opposite to the terrorists’ side. This is the position of Russia, because they wanted to make sure that the international law prevails, not the Western agenda in toppling every government that doesn’t fit with their agendas. They wanted to make sure that the terrorism doesn’t prevail in that area, that would affect negatively the Russians themselves, Russia itself as a country, and Europe and the rest of the world. That’s what it means for Russia to stand beside the legitimate Syrian government and the Syrian people.

Question 20: Mr. President, you use chemical weapons and barrel bombs in Syria against your own population, these are UN reports, you can’t ignore it.

President Assad: You are talking about two different issues. The chemical issue, it was proven to be false, and they haven’t a shred of evidence about the Syrian Army using chemical weapons, particularly before we give up our arsenal in 2013, now we don’t have it anyway. Before that, it was fiction because if you want to use such mass destruction armaments, you’re going to kill thousands of people in one incident, and we didn’t have such incidents. Beside that, we wouldn’t use it because you’re going to kill your own people, and that’s against your interest. So, this is a false allegation. We don’t have to waste our time with it. You live in Syria, there is a traditional war, but there is nothing related to mass destruction armaments.

Journalist: But the UN report is not a fiction.

President Assad: The UN report never has been credible, never, and because they put reports based on allegations, based on other reports, on forged reports, and they say this is a report. Did they send a delegation to make investigation? They sent one in 2013, and it couldn’t prove at all that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons. This is first. The second, which is more important, the first incident happened at the beginning of 2013 in Aleppo, when we said that the terrorists used chemical weapons against our army, and we invited the United Nations to send a delegation. We, we did, and at that time, the United States opposed that delegation because they already knew that this investigation – of course if it’s impartial – is going to prove that those terrorists, their proxies, used chemical armaments against the Syrian Army. Regarding the barrel bombs, I want to ask you: what is the definition of barrel bomb? If you go to our army, you don’t have in our records something called “barrel bomb,” so how do you understand – just to know how I can answer you – what a barrel bomb is? We have bombs.

Journalist: The destruction… it’s the destruction, and it is against humanitarian law.

President Assad: Every bomb can make destruction, every bomb, so you don’t have bomb to make nothing. So, this is a word that has been used in West as part of the Western narrative in order to show that there is an indiscriminate bomb that has been killing civilians indiscriminately and that opposes the Western narrative, I’ll show you the contradiction: in other areas they say that we are bombarding intentionally the hospitals, and you mentioned that, and they are targeting intentionally the schools, and we targeted intentionally the convoys to Aleppo last month, those targets need high-precision missiles. So, they have to choose which part of the narrative; we either have indiscriminate bombs or we have high-precision bombs. They keep contradicting in the same narrative, this is the Western reality now. So, which one to choose? I can answer you, but again, we don’t have any indiscriminate bombs. If we kill people indiscriminately, it means we are losing the war because people will be against us; I cannot kill the Syrian people, either morally or for my interest, because in that case I’m going to push the Syrian community and society towards the terrorists, not vice versa.

Question 21: I would like to mention the subject of torture prisons, Mr. President. Amnesty speaks of seventeen thousands dead. Regarding the prison of Saidnaya, there are still horrible reports. When will you allow an independent observer into that prison?

President Assad: Independent, and Amnesty International is not independent and it is not impartial.

Journalist: ICRC?

President Assad: We didn’t discuss it with the Red Cross, we didn’t discuss it. It should be discussed in our institutions, if you want to allow… if there is allegation, it could be discussed. We don’t say yes or no, but the report you have mentioned, it was a report made by Qatar, and financed by Qatar. You don’t know the source, you don’t know the names of those victims, nothing verified about that report. It was paid by Qatar directly in order to vilify and smear the Syrian government and the Syrian Army.

Journalist: But there are a lot of eyewitnesses.

President Assad: No one knows who are they. You don’t have anything clear about that. It’s not verified. So, no.

Journalist: Then open the door for organizations like Red Cross.

President Assad: It’s not my decision to tell you yes or no. We have institutions, if we need to discuss this part, we need to go back to the institutions before saying yes or no.

Question 22: Why are you sure that you are going to win this war?

President Assad: Because you have to defend your country, and you have to believe that you can win the war to defend your country. If you don’t have that belief, you will lose. You know, part of the war is what you believe in, so, it’s self-evident and very intuitive that you have to have that belief.

Question 23: If you walk through Damascus, your picture is everywhere, in every shop, in every restaurant, in every car, a symbol for a dictator, is this your way to fix your power?

President Assad: There is a difference between dictator and dictatorship. Dictator is about the person. I didn’t ask anyone to put my picture in Syria, I never did it. This is first. Second, to describe someone as a dictator, you should ask his people, I mean only his people can say that he is a dictator or he is a good guy.

Journalist: Thank you Mr. President for having answered our questions for Swiss Television and the Rundschau.

President Assad: Thank you for coming to Syria.

Related Videos

Related Articles

UK’s actions over Syria as illegal as Iraq invasion, ‘Momentum’ backs wrong side & Corbyn is as quiet as a church mouse

Syria, WW3 and the Silence of Jeremy

Nick Kollerstrom — Terror on the Tube Oct 15, 2016

boris-johnsonFor the first time, Britain has produced an utterly clueless Foreign Secretary.
Maybe, Boris was OK as Mayor of London.
Not surprisingly, he concurs with what Kerry tells him, and is now calling for a more ‘kinetic’ approach to the Syrian conflict – i.e., to threaten war with Russia.
Its all so exciting isn’t it Boris?
This is a golden opportunity for Our Jeremy. The Lion-hearted Jeremy. All those years we’ve heard his roar on the anti-war demos…. but now, is he entrapped by his own party? We are hurt by his terrible silence.
Boris Johnson has called for demonstrations outside the Russian embassy. Is that how a Foreign Secretary should behave? Where does this leave Russian diplomats in London?  That is encouraging race hate – Russians are Slavs. Isn’t that a crime? Jeremy, speak up!
As Wikileaks has revealed, for years the US has aggressively pursued regime change in Syria, which has ignited the present bloodbath.

Here is a fine summary of the crisis over Aleppo, as reported in the Boston Globe:

‘For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: “Don’t send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin.” Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.
This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular electricity may soon be restored. The militants’ hold on the city could be ending.
Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. “Turkish-Saudi backed ‘moderate rebels’ showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars,” one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, “The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS — so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?”
This does not fit with Washington’s narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a “liberated zone” for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.
Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the “moderate opposition” will win.
This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.
Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, and think tank “experts.” After a spin on that soiled carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for news about Syria.
Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.
Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of “rebels” or “moderates,” not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for years been running a “rat line” for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but because the United States wants to stay on Turkey’s good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who are doing it — and because that is the official line in Washington.
UK citizens are being given a wholly untruthful storyline here, as if trying to stimulate WW3. What a golden opportunity for Jeremy to speak out, against the war-hawks!
But wait, The hard-left group ‘Momentum’ are trying to pressure Jeremy to speak out – condemning Putin and Assad!  They, it claims, have caused  ’the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths.’ Their letter to him spoke of the ‘horrific crimes’ of Assad.
Erm, no.
The letter to Corbyn from Momentum is totally Blairite! A ‘hands off Syria’ policy, it says, will only give Assad carte blanche to continue slaughtering his own people. We heard that crap from Blair when he was starting the Iraq war – Saddam Hussein is so evil, he even gasses his own people. Then we heard it about Ghadaffy – he keeps bombing his own people, we’ve got to stop it. So Libya was destroyed. Now its Assad’s turn.

Stop the War loonies

Last Weekend Our Jeremy was heckled at a Stop the War, for failing to call for regime change! But, did not Assad just recently win a fair election with around 70% of the vote? Why do Britons believe they have a right to call for other countries’ ‘regime change’?
Here are some comments on the Mail’s article about this Stop the War meeting, the ‘best rated’:
There would be no war in Syrian if America and UK never went in with the bombs, and protected, funded, supported, trained and supplied….I* S* I* S rebels!
Do they want to see Assad suffer the same fate as Iraqi and Libyan leaders. Assad is still the Syrian President, world leaders should be talking to him, not trying to kill him.
Syria regime change is for the Syrians to decide. You don’t arm rebels and mercenaries from all over the world and send them to Syria to change the regime.
Peace activists! What kind of peace activist would demand regime change after catastrophes in Iraq and Libya? These are infiltrators and that was so obvious.
The sort who are bankrolled by Globalist Billionaires, intent on flooding Europe with migrants.
     C’mon Jeremy, speak for the Peace Movement – not the Other Side.
 Alas, Jeremy has now thrown Red Ken to the wolves, chuckled him off Labour’s NEC because of some whining Jews, after Ken had made a totally historically-correct statement about the Hasbara agreement between Jews and Nazis in the 1930s. (Ken also added, ‘The creation of the State of Israel was a great catastrophe’) Jeremy and Red Ken had been together for decades, always part of the same anti-war struggle. This is a moment when Jeremy would really need advice, guidance and support from his old friend Ken Livingstone.
Labor needs a policy in accord with international law – not piracy.

The Voice of Reason

And this – every Labour MP needs to view this:

RAF in Syria

What the hell are RAF planes doing, flying over Syria? Its a sovereign state and they have no right under international law to do this. The RAF calls this ‘Operation Shader’ and say its for ‘anti-ISIS work in Iraq and Syria.’ Will they attack Russian planes? A pilot may do so: “if a pilot is fired on or believes he is about to be fired on, he can defend himself. ” So RAF Tornado pilots illegally flying over Syria can now start WW3.
Presumably this is the ‘kinetic’ approach to the crisis that Boris Johnson has called for.

 

Source

The Killings of Tony Blair

Watch the trailer for George Galloway’s film about the former Bitish  PM

 

Chilcot Inquiry: the Evidence of the Collapse of the American Empire

Syrian Free Press

In the UK, the official report of the government commission headed by Sir John Chilcot on the Iraq war was published. The Chilcot inquiry demonstrated officially that the UK’s invasion of Iraq was conducted under US pressure and was contrary to the national interests of the country.

Chilcot Inquiry-Evidence Collapse American Empire

By Katehon

There was no reason to invade Iraq

The Chilcot inqury notes that there was no real reason for the invasion in Iraq.

It clearly says:

The decision to use force – a very serious decision for any government to take -provoked profound controversy in relation to Iraq and became even more controversial when it was subsequently found that Iraq’s programmes to develop and produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons had been dismantled

In the inquiry’s view, diplomatic options had not at that stage been exhausted.

Iraq was not linked with international terrorist networks. The country did not possess weapons of mass destruction that could be used in terrorist acts and posed no threat to the UK. Such was the view of the UK intelligence community:

Sir David Omand, the Security and Intelligence Co ordinator in the Cabinet Office from 2002 to 2005, told the Inquiry that, in March 2002, the Security Service judged that the “threat from terrorism from Saddam’s own intelligence apparatus in the event of an intervention in Iraq … was judged to be limited and containable “.

Saddam’s “capability to conduct effective terrorist attacks” was “very limited”. Iraq’s “terrorism capability” was “inadequate to carry out chemical or biological attacks beyond individual assassination attempts using poisons”.

Britain did not consider Iraq as a threat to its national security.


The UK’s leadership knew all about the consequences

The report confirms that the UK intelligence community presented the Prime Minister with all the necessary analytics about the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq.

In particular, it was noted that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein could lead to a sharp increase in Islamic extremists, transforming the kingdom into a priority for their purpose, mass casualties, and the fragmentation of Iraq.

Mr Blair had been advised that an invasion of Iraq was expected to increase the threat to the UK and the UK’s interests from Al Qaeda and its affiliates:

Addressing the prospects for the future, the JIC Assessment concluded:

“… Al Qaeda and associated groups will continue to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat will be heightened by military action against Iraq. The broader threat from Islamist terrorists will also increase in the event of war, reflecting intensified anti US / anti Western sentiment in

the Muslim world, including among Muslim communities in the West. And there is a risk that the transfer of CB [chemical and biological] material or expertise, during or in the aftermath of conflict, will enhance Al Qaeda’s capabilities. “


The invasion was an act of aggression based on deliberately lies

The invasion was based on deliberate lies and manipulation of public opinion. Sir John Chilcot declared while presenting the results of inquiry that the UK’s policy was based on “flawed intelligence and assessments,” they were not challenged and they should have been. “

The UK deliberately distorted facts about the alleged threat posed by Iraq. In particular, Jack Straw, British Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, insisted on the distortion of information in official documents, in order to convince other policy-makers and the public of the need for action in Iraq:

When he saw the draft paper on WMD countries of concern on March 8, Mr Straw commented:

“Good, but should not Iraq be first and also have more text? The paper has to show why there is an exceptional threat from Iraq. It does not quite do this yet. “

On 18 March, Mr Straw decided that a paper on Iraq should be issued before one addressing other countries of concern.

On March 22, Mr Straw was advised that the evidence would not convince public opinion that there was an imminent threat from Iraq. Publication was postponed.


The US’ puppets

The only reason to invade Iraq was the strong commitment to the US to do so. The report clearly shows how the rhetoric and the view of the British leadership on Iraq changed – the strategy called for smart sanctions before the invasion under the influence of the American side. At the same time, British Intelligence reported that Iraq poses no real danger or supports terrorists. Blair’s decision to invade Iraq was influenced by his interest in protecting the UK’s relationship with the United States, Chilcot said. The unconditional support was justified by:

Concern that vital areas of co operation between the UK and the US could be damaged if the UK did not give the US its full support over Iraq.

The belief that the best way to influence US policy towards the direction preferred by the UK was to commit full and unqualified support, and seek to persuade from the inside.

Thus, officially the main reason for the British invasion of Iraq was the dependence on the United States by the United Kingdom. The Commission does not oppose a pro-American orientation, but contrary declaratively supports it. However, it noted that relations with the US “do not require unconditional support where our interests and judgments differ,” said Chilcot.


The winds of change

Formally, the Chilcot inquiry should have been made public seven years ago. Its publication was postponed several times because of the position of the United States. And now it became public. Thus, it reflects the decline of US hegemony: the most loyal ally – the UK – the last two years shows that the collapse of the US-based system is a question of time and prepares for a new world.

The publication of the official report, the commission established by the initiative of Gordon Brown’s government, in which the argument of the opponents of the invasion of Iraq 13 years ago (primarily Russia) is openly repeated, became only possible in one case – if a part of the British elite is eager to distance themselves from the United States, their policies, and those inside the elite who have too close ties with the United States. The fact that in the UK there are those who look towards a post-American future demonstrates the tight integration of the owners of the British Rothschild finance with China, and Britain’s decision to participate in the Chinese project of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, contrary to the will of the United States.

This is also evidenced by the results of the referendum on EU membership. Brexit and the honest counting of votes would not have taken place without the support of the elites. At the same time, the US openly opposed Brexit. Now the UK referendum and the uncertainty after it freezes the establishment’s Transatlantic Free Trade Area. At the same time the United Kingdom is excluded from the negotiations on the agreement the entire time it is still in a state of transition. Paradoxically, the United Kingdom has consistently implemented steps to turn it away from the US-centric world. However this does not reflect the whole picture, officially it is the biggest American ally, but it seems to be an important trend. The most plausible explanation is the desire to be buried under the rubble of the American empire.

It should be recalled that the United Kingdom voluntarily became a satellite of the United States, handing to the Americans the role of the Sea Power. So nothing will prevent it from leaving the US when it deems it necessary. The weakening of the United States is the introduction of new rules of the game. And these rules are best created when the process only becomes irreversible. And changes in Britain demonstrate this irreversibility. Brexit, and the very course of the discussion around it, the ambiguous position of London in relations between Washington and Beijing, and now the report on the Iraq war, which may be followed by the trial of Tony Blair, gives London an array of new opportunities to influence policies in Europe and globally.


war-criminals-rid

~ WHEN THEY’LL PUT ON TRIAL AS A WAR CRIMINAL CAMERON AND ALL THE ROYAL FAMILY?

~ AND WHEN BUSH (FATHER AND SON), OBAMA AND THEIR ADMINISTRATIONS, AND THE ZIONIST MASS MURDERERS?

~ 20 YEARS FROM NOW? WHEN THE WORLD WILL BE ALREADY PERMANENTLY DESTROYED?

(questions by SFP-WP)

war-criminals-rid-2

bibi-war-criminal


SOURCES:
By Katehon
Submitted by SyrianPatriots 
War Press Info Network at:
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/chilcot-inquiry/
~

Chilcot Report on Iraq War: Whitewashes Jewish Lobby

On July 6, UK’s five-member panel headed by Sir John Chilcot admitted after seven years what most political-aware people knew by the end of 2003 that former prime minister Tony Blair’s joined American invasion of Iraq in 2003 on Purim night which was totally wrong as Saddam Hussein didn’t possessed WMDs or threatened to invade United Kingdom.

Tony Blair who made tens of millions of dollars after the Iraq War, was rewarded by heading several international forums and lately appointed by Europe’s Organized Jewry to fight anti-Semitism in Europe has refused to show remorse for killing over one million Iraqi civilians. He insists that he did it to save Brits from their own 9/11.

Tony Blair had always insisted that the on-going bloodshed in Iraq had nothing to do with US-UK invasion of the country, and that it was making of Arabs themselves. British veteran reporter and author Alan Hart wrote in January 2010:

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s testimony before the Chilcot inquiry into the 2003 Iraq war marks him down once more as a war criminal. His testimony made clear that he collaborated in preparing an illegal war of aggression, in line with the policy of pre-emptive war elaborated by the Bush administration in the United States (here).”

The Chilcot report’s while accused Tony Blair and UK’s military brass, ignored the major part played by the country’s powerful Jewish Lobby and the Zionist regime to push Britain into Iraq War based on lies cooked-up by Israel’s intelligence agencies (here). In 2003 some intelligence experts insisted that the Iraq’s WMD dossier was initially produced in Tel Aviv and only ‘sexed up’ in London.

The Jewish criminals behind Tony Blair’s Middle East policy were billionaire Lord Michael Levy, Peter Henry Goldsmith, Blair’s Attorney General, and Israel’s main propaganda outlet Jewish Chronicle’s David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen. In addition to that, two members of the Chilcot inquiry, Sir Martin Gilbert (met Lucifer in course of inquiry), and Sir Lawrence Freedman are Israel-First Zionist Jews filled with hatred toward Muslims. Baroness Usha Kumari Parashar, a third member of inquiry, doesn’t care how many Iraqis died as long as they’re not Hindus. Same could be said about the fourth member, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, and Sir Roderic Lyne, the vice-president of Chatham House, an Israeli advocacy think tank.

They’re all handpicked by Crypto-Jew Gordon Brown.

The Chilcot Report gave the British public what it wanted. It blamed Blair for failing in his responsibilities to them. But the report’s focus on Blair, diplomacy, the military and  intelligence failures concealed the Jewish Lobby that was pulling the strings. Since the Iraq war, the same Jewish Lobby has mounted enormous pressure on western governments, promoting more Zio-centic interventionist wars in Syria, Libya and Iran,” Gilad Atzmon wrote on July 7, 2016.

Iraq War Report Whitewash: No War Crime Charges against Bush and Blair in The Hague

Chilcot, Israel and the Lobby

July 07, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

It took seven years for Sir Chilcot and his team to reach a set of conclusions that every Brit capable of thought understood back in November, 2003.

The inquiry produced a damning assessment of Blair’s conduct as well as the British military. But the Chilcot Inquiry failed to expose the crucial close ties between Blair’s criminal war, the Jewish Lobby and Israel.

At the time Britain entered the criminal war against Iraq, Blair’s chief funders were Lord ‘cashpoint’ Levy and the LFI (Labour Friends of Israel). The prime advocates for the immoral interventionist war within the British press were Jewish Chronicle writers David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen. The attorney general that gave the green light for the war was Lord Goldsmith.

In 2008 The Guardian revealed that the “Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) successfully fought to keep secret any mention of Israel contained on the first draft of the controversial.” Israel was conspicuously engaged in the vast production of WMDs. If Britain and America had any genuine concerns about WMDs, bombing Tel Aviv would have been the way to go.

In 2003 some intelligence experts insisted that the Iraq’s WMD dossier was initially produced in Tel Aviv and only ‘sexed up’ in London.

Since the Iraq war, the same Jewish Lobby has mounted enormous pressure on western governments, promoting more Zio-centic interventionist wars in Syria, Libya and Iran. So why did the Chilcot Inquiry fail to address this topic?

This crucial failure by Chilcot was to be expected. In 2010, highly respected veteran British diplomat Oliver Miles had something to say about the Jewish make-up of the Chilcot Inquiry. Two out of the five members of the inquiry were Jews, pro war and Blair supporters.

This is what Miles wrote in the Independent:

 “Rather less attention has been paid to the curious appointment of two historians (which seems a lot, out of a total of five), both strong supporters of Tony Blair and/or the Iraq war. In December 2004 Sir Martin Gilbert, while pointing out that the “war on terror” was not a third world war, wrote that Bush and Blair “may well, with the passage of time and the opening of the archives, join the ranks of Roosevelt and Churchill” – an eccentric opinion that would seem to rule him out as a member of the committee. Sir Lawrence Freedman is the reputed architect of the “Blair doctrine” of humanitarian intervention, which was invoked in Kosovo and Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism. Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media, but The Jewish Chronicle and the Israeli media have no such inhibitions, and the Arabic media both in London and in the region are usually not far behind.”

Oliver Miles point was valid, and proved correct. The Chilcot Inquiry wasn’t just destined to fail. It was designed to subvert any scrutiny of Israel and its hawkish pro war lobby.

The Chilcot Report gave the British public what it wanted. It blamed Blair for failing in his responsibilities to them. But the report’s focus on Blair, diplomacy, the military and  intelligence failures concealed the Lobby that was pulling the strings.

%d bloggers like this: