Archive for the ‘Syria News’ Category
Last week at Camp David, they agreed to the lowest common denominator that could be found for Syria: It was announced again that there will be no military intervention in Syria like it has happened in Libya.
Thus, the Libyan model is sure off the table, but that does not mean that some Western governments and especially the U.S. administration are going to stop their “terror management” for a further destabilization of Syria.
The West calls for a peaceful transition, despite the latest leaks about the actions of some Western governments behind the curtains, and meanwhile, they also demand that the Syrian government and President al-Assad implement the six-point plan of UN envoy Kofi Annan.
That is the theory, which was again confirmed by NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). This theory and confirmation by NATO shows the ongoing conflict of the NATO and its use. It seems more and more that NATO became a tool of some Western interests and dubious Western intentions in foreign states.
The heads of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) also confirmed that their aim is no intervention in Syria with the role model of the intervention in Libya. Of course, such statements of these representatives of NATO and the United Nations (UN) doesn`t mean that people should buy it without to question it.
Considering these statements and the public rejection of the Libyan model for Syria, however, should rise the questions what kind of intervention is then prepared in the region? By watching all developments and activities in this region and the whole Middle East, there are some questions which have to appear. That the West is preparing for the worst, which does not only affect the Syrian developments, seems more and more obviously.
Although, the West outwardly always sells the desire, that they want and act for a peaceful solution for Syria, it remains doubtful that the United States, Turkey, Israel, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are really interested in peaceful negotiations and a peaceful solution for Syria. Not to mention that it seems to put into question when the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad may thus stay in office by these allegedly interests of the West.
The fact is that they have concluded with the Syrian President al-Assad and want him to be removed. In order to avoid an intervention with the role model Libya, some have tried a different strategy in Syria and so they sent mercenaries and weapons to this country. Some call this a typical strategy to destabilize a country, which is part of a so-called “regime change” and “terror management”, e.g. of the United States.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar openly provide money to the gunmen in Syria and are also likely to provide ammo and weapons to these armed groups which fight against the Syrian army and the Syrian government. At this point it has to be mentioned that these Western-backed gunmen, which receive more and more weapons to destabilize Syria, are also a threat for Syrian civilians and already have also murdered a lot normal Syrians, not only because these killed people supported the government, but also they had the “false religion” / “false sect” or just a different opinion.
From Tunisia to Syria, more and more religious fanatics come to Syria. There they are fighting against the President Bashar al-Assad and his entourage, but they are also a threat for Syrian civilians, of course. Not to mention the radical Salafists who also arrive in Syria to fight against the Syrian leadership. This has nothing to do with a real fight for democracy, positive developments and peace.
The rising of the Salafists in Tunisia should ring some alarm bells in Europe, considering that e.g. Salafists have a hard stand in Germany currently. But so far, Europe seems to be blind in that eye and it`s sure a good question, why.
While Germany has started to “debate and care” about the Salafists in Germany, they still support Salafists abroad. This two-sided policy is sure not in line with the democratic sense of the German people. Not to mention that the Western mainstream media only cover the things they “want” and on the way like they want it to cover, as long as this is possible and still to sell to their viewers and readers.
Journalism is a business and every editorial office tries to survive. But it is to put into question if that is really the base for free press and objective reports. Some would also say that the Western media is brought into line and became a propaganda tool for questionable intentions.
Furthermore, one was able to read about a new Union of the Gulf States, the first, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was established in 1981, in order to protect against the upheavals in Iran and before the first Gulf War. Now, first of all, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are new allies in this new Union of Gulf States. Does this suggest an impending war with Iran or against Syria, or perhaps even against the two countries?
The situation in the Middle East becomes more and more unmanageable and dangerous. While the conflicts in Syria have now also reached Lebanon, whether the conflicts are a self-runner or instigated from outside, remains open.
Not to mention that the U.S. is already making preparations for a war against Syria for a long time and has united with its allies in the Middle East. Evidence was already leaked in February this year, when Israel has warned with military actions against Syria should chemical weapons get delivered to Hezbollah by Lebanon and Syria.
Indeed, there is a great debate within the Intelligence Services about the (allegedly) production and storage of chemical weapons in Syria. There is no clear evidence and therefore, they speculate about this, even openly. Of course, on the one hand it`s war propaganda to influence the opinions of Western people, on the other hand, it is probably an open secret that Syria has some chemical weapons.
The fact that Syria is among the countries, which did not sign the treaty in 1993 to ban the production, stockpiling and the use of chemical weapons, by the way just as Israel, seems to be enough to accuse the Syrian government that it possesses chemical weapons and could use these chemical weapons. The presentation is somewhat reminiscent of the preparations for the invasion of Iraq, and should lead to the fact that more and more people are hopefully aware of this.
Another indication that the talk and promises at the G8 summit to seek a peaceful solution for Syria are just hypocritically, is the mission of “Eager Lion”, which has started in the Kingdom of Jordan on May 15th. Of course, it`s not the only indication. For example, even some UN observers in Syria are acting strange.
“Eager Lion” is a training maneuver with 12,000 soldiers from 19 different countries in Jordan, where it is about to present scenarios that are designed to represent realistic, current security challenges. The West is trying to not arouse the suspicion that this training mission “Eager Lion” in Jordan is not an exercise for a possible use in Syria. But how credible are these claims? Not really credible.
Even the Washington Post reports a little differently about the maneuver “Eager Lion” in Jordan. While the Washington Post published articles which said that the “Eager Lion” maneuver in Jordan should not be a threat to Syria, the article published on May 19th sounds a little bit different.
The U.S. intends to be able to accelerate a possible military intervention in Syria, and thus they are happy to have more and more soldiers in Jordan. Jordan, of course, is a known “client state”. The preparations for this purpose of the U.S. Administration are currently implemented.
Apparently, there are long discussions about the establishment of an American military base in Jordan between the leadership of Jordan and the U.S. administration. This explains probably that the King of Jordan is able to stay in power and that the riots and demonstrations in Jordan were quickly brought under control and that the United States were not interested to condemn the Jordan King or to promise help for the protesters.
At the moment, the relaxed situation within Jordan is just a simulation for the outside. The United States want to be able to react to any crisis as soon as possible by deploying troops and soldiers in Jordan. One propaganda scenario, which is currently being played more and more, is that the Syrian government in the capital Damascus could lose its control over the chemical weapons in Syria.
That the arming and financing of mercenaries who are clearly Islamist fighters, is in conflict with the allegedly protection of the occurrence of chemical weapons in Syria, but as usually, nobody cares about these logical questions in the West. Not to mention that the support of the armed gangs with weapons and ammo in Syria by the West is a clear violation of the six-point plan by Kofi Annan.
At least, if the West just coordinates it, Qatar and Saudi Arabia violate the peace plan for Syria openly and there is already much evidence. The hypocritically policy of the United States is conspicuous by its double-edged policy for decades.
It should be pointed out once more, that there are still terror subjects in Guantanamo, who are waiting for their process and that the drone strikes by America have increased in e.g. Yemen. The drones are allegedly used against al-Qaeda fighters, while the United States financial (at least) supports terrorists in Syria. While America has declared the Taliban as moderate, and wants to negotiate with them now.
The fact is that the situation is quite dangerous at the moment and that war threatens, when nobody is able to use the emergency brake. It is no solution for peace to support terrorism in Syria and to close the eyes before the growing power of the Salafists in some Arab countries.
These Salafists, just like the Muslim Brotherhood, are currently able to infiltrate the Arab population by using the social ills in the most Arab states. By the social need that has been reinforced by the so-called “Arab Spring” (the “revolutions” in some Arab countries…) in Egypt, Yemen, Libya and even Tunisia, they are able to catch the people and to use them for their purposes. Religious reasons could even play a smaller role than socio-economic reasons.
Of the 26 foreign mercenaries, which were recently captured in Syria, came 19 from Tunisia. This is a dangerous tendency. Nothing more, nothing less.
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/syrianews/articles/~3/HHJ0Yrvkyzw/syria-nato-hypocrisy-war-preparations-in-jordan-660.html
The Arab League Chamber in Cairo remained empty during a scheduled Syrian opposition meeting on May 16. However, this is neither a setback nor a deviation from the process of change in Syria. In fact, for Syria, it will most likely be a new impetus toward the unknown.
No one was surprised by the cancelation of the Syrian opposition meeting at the Arab League headquarters. In fact, no one even noticed. The cancelation actually painted a very realistic portrait of the state of the Syrian opposition. For its part, the media has been putting the spotlight on the popular movements, thereby endowing them with a level of significance that does not represent their true situation. These attributes are rooted in the past, back when Syrian society used to, and it still does, oppose both loyalist and opposition figures alike.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Syrian opposition was created to speak for the popular majority and for the revolution. The regime, which is the opposition’s source of strength and mission, has led this revolution. Clearly, this will continue to be the case despite all of the attempts to seize the initiative and the leadership from the regime. The meeting in Cairo May 16 was part of these attempts.
The cancelation of the meeting did not disappoint anyone. The Syrian opposition seems to disagree with itself more than it does with the regime it is opposing. History has shown how even the Syrian Ba’ath Party has been unable to silence political activity, whether by force or by chance, over the past five decades.
Syrian politics are characterized by individualism, a sense of superiority in dealing with the public, creating deceptive labels for Syrian society, and suggesting impossible solutions for its problems.
Furthermore, a long period of time disconnected from events on the ground and exile have prevented the opposition from reaching Syrian society. As a result, members of society view each and every opposition figure with a great deal of suspicion. What caused this rift was the opposition’s failure to speak the public’s language. Syrian society is following the example of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, whose experiences are not compatible with the agendas of oppositional political parties, movements or figures.
The emptiness of the Chamber further proves that the invented opposition’s message for the past 14 months is overused and no longer relevant for live TV broadcasts. Air time for “traditional” opponents has been reduced to make room for the extensive network of field reporters who cover today’s events, analyze the facts, and put them in their own words.
The invented opposition’s time is up, and good riddance. They were undeniably one of the culprits behind the fragmentation of the military and Islamist terrorism, and they are a major hindrance to both Syrian society and its hope for change without a civil war.
Sateh Noureddine
Assafir Newspaper
Source:
English: http://www.assafir.com/MulhakArticle.aspx?EditionId=2156MulhakArticleId=407367MulhakId=3526
Arabic: http://www.assafir.com/Article.aspx?EditionId=2151ChannelId=51431ArticleId=1513Author=
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/syrianews/articles/~3/FUw3WfSKhsA/open-letter-syrian-opposition-time-is-up-662.html
The Austrian Defense Minister Norbert Darabos (SPÖ) has made some statements in an interview with the newspaper “Die Presse” at last Sunday, and some of his statements are remarkable for a Western politician…
He warned against an attack on Iran, he criticized the NATO missile shield and he has also attacked the Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman. So much courage, honesty and common sense are rare, as most politicians are opportunists, corrupt and totally brainwashed.
Darabos (Austrian Defense Minister) is known for his controversial statements about military concerns, and he sees himself not as a militarist, though he is responsible for the national defense.
He said this on the question concerning the establishment of the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) missile shield:
“I think it is important that Russia is involved … The negotiations so far have not been carried out so that Russia is able to enter. In addition, certain information, which were published, are not true, and were just made to indicate the urgency of the missile defense shield … The Iranian missiles are not yet able to threaten central Europe. There would be (still) enough time to reach out to the Russians.”
About a preventive attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities by Israel, he said:
“Iran is not ready to build the bomb. Israel’s threats are therefore unnecessary. An Israeli attack on Iran would trigger a conflagration in the region, which would no longer be able to control … One must increase the pressure diplomatically and economically. ”
Then a question about his attitude towards the Israeli government:
“I am glad that the Kadima party has entered the Israeli government. This could mitigate the radicalization. Overall, it’s difficult for me to comprehend the Israeli policy… I see potential for improvement in the settlers’ policy.
In addition, Israel clearly tries to put outside enemies such as Iran or the Palestinians in the foreground to distract attention from internal social problems … And if you ask me so openly: A Mr. Lieberman is unbearable for me as a member of the Israeli government.”
Then about the conflict in Syria and the Western instigated regime change, he said:
“The only question is what will come after Assad. It is now clear that the Arab Spring does not necessarily lead to democratization and stability. In Libya, the militias, which have eliminated Gaddafi, are now fighting against each other.
The Syrian opposition is not really a democratic alternative. Minorities such as Christians would be at highest risk after a fall of (Syrian President) al-Assad. Even now, as I have been told by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, the terrorist network al-Qaeda has already infiltrated in Syria.”
Sure, there was a lot of criticism by the Austrian opposition afterwards:
The Austrian Freedom Party leader Heinz-Christian Strache said on Monday: “The only one, who is unbearable here, is Darabos (Defense Minister) itself.” Strache criticized that a civil servant as Darabos has no rights to judge about the defense of Israel. His remarks are an affront to a friendly state that is threatened by external enemies of its existence.
So, so, if one has not “served”, then he is not allowed to say something about the threat of war. That is, that the most women also have to keep their mouth closed, or what? Strache is thus disqualified himself. Also ridiculous is his statement about an “existential threat” (of Israel). The only ones that are probably not really allowed to exist as full human beings and as nation are the Palestinians.
Even from his own government circles in Austria, the criticism was voiced: “The statements do not in any way represent the attitude of the State Department or the federal government,” a spokesman for the Ministry has already communicated. Moreover, they do not comply with the State of bilateral relations between Israel and Austria.
Who defends such a racists and fascists like Lieberman, who practically is not liked in Israel itself, no one wants and where everybody finds him impossible, this person has the wrong position and should resign.
For example, even Obama has never met Lieberman and boycotted him.
The Jerusalem Post picked up on the statements of Darabos and described Austria as “one of the sharpest critics of Israel in the EU.”
And? What does this mean? No criticism of an unjust regime allowed?
Yes I’m curious, how long it will last till Darabos has an “accident”.
——————————————–
The following report from Chicago shows how U.S. veterans, who were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, speak against NATO, against the occupation and war, and throw their medals in the direction of the meeting area of the war criminals:
Source: Österreichische Verteidigungsminister sagt wie es ist
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/syrianews/articles/~3/KHsR-yvVeag/syria-libya-and-nato-austrian-defense-minister-tells-it-like-it-is-663.html
NATO’s alleged “concerns” over Syria and its anticipated military intervention in that country seem to multiply and interchange like an alchemist’s brew. From human rights and democratic reforms, to the latest alleged concern of a takeover in Syria by Al Qaeda militants and the theft of chemical weapons of mass destruction.
The seeming mercurial nature of US and Western apprehensions about Syria, driving a relentless focus on that country, is not because of any real complex of genuine concerns. It is more a reflection of the Western powers’ inability to come up with a credible pretext for their unwarranted intervention in Syria’s internal affairs.
The real goal for Western powers and their Middle Eastern allies is regime change in Damascus as a precursor to stepping up aggression toward Iran. This, in turn, is an integral part of Washington’s permanent war agenda for hegemony in the world’s oil-rich region, an agenda that began with Afghanistan and Iraq and which will not end with Syria and Iran – Russia and China being the ultimate rivals that need to be subjugated.
But getting back to Syria. While Washington, London and Paris have barely concealed their underlying aim of regime change in Damascus, they can’t state this objective in unvarnished terms. That would incur all sorts of political problems, from illegality to moral unacceptability among their publics. Hence a brew of pretexts for intervention has been concocted to obfuscate what is otherwise naked imperialism.
Initially, Washington and its allies were “abhorred” by the Syrian government’s alleged “crackdown on small, peaceful protests”… and “the brutality” of state forces. In the early weeks of the supposed Syrian uprising in March 2011 as part of the Arab Spring, there was much talk by the Western powers of the vaunted “responsibility to protect” doctrine. R2P had been invoked to justify NATO’s no-fly zones in Libya in the same month, which quickly turned into an all-out aerial bombing campaign of the North African country. Perhaps fearing the more formidable Syrian air defences and the explosive repercussions for the Middle East region, the NATO powers shelved the R2P line with regard to Syria.
Then Western government and media apparent vexation shifted to President Bashar Al Assad’s reluctance to “implement political reforms”. That “concern” no longer quite convinced after the Syrian government introduced a new constitution at the beginning of this year that was popularly backed in a referendum, and culminated in parliamentary elections this month.
Also, the “democratic deficit” complaint by Western powers promptly tanked when the Western-backed Arab dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Qatar weighed in with ill-advised exhortations for Assad to “speed up political reforms”.
A variation on the R2P re-emerged when European foreign ministers targeted the financial assets of Asma Al Assad, the wife of President Assad, over alleged spendthrift shopping habits in the midst of her country’s violent turmoil. That outlandish high-profile “concern” has since petered out, as if it was never an issue. A case of Shop Till We Drop… our faux indignation?
Now the terrain of pretexts for Western interference in Syria has noticeably transformed from “soft power” issues of democratic and human rights to “hardcore fears” of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. A reason for this paradigm shift is that the Western subterfuge in Syria has itself led to much sharper violence with the increased deployment by Western powers and their Arab proxies of more and better armed militants from neighbouring countries. The increasing covert militarist involvement has been necessitated because Syrian government forces were gaining the upperhand against the Western-backed mercenaries. In the grip of terrorism by so-called oppositionists, it is no longer plausible for Western governments and media to espouse concern for human rights of “small, peaceful protests”.
In a report earlier this week, the Washington Post says that the US and its allies are drawing up contingency plans to intervene in Syria on the back of fears that the country could come under control of Al Qaeda terrorists [1]. Of most concern is that Syria’s “arsenal of chemical weapons” may fall into the hands of these terrorists or some other militant group.
The paper quotes, as usual, unnamed Western security officials who are “increasingly concerned that Islamic extremists could attempt to seize control of whole towns and districts if the country slides into full-scale civil war”. One former US intelligence source says: “There’s a big worry that things could fall apart [in Syria] quickly… A big problem can turn up on your doorstep overnight.”
Indeed. A big problem can turn up on your Syrian doorstep overnight – especially when NATO powers and their Arab allies have been training, funding and directing terrorist mercenaries to destabilise that country over the past 14 months. The campaign of violence in Syria, involving kidnappings, shootings and no-warning car bombs, has gained greater killing power in recent weeks – in spite of and in contradiction to the Annan Peace Plan – as a result of heavy weaponry supplied to Western-backed armed groups from the $100 million war chest set up by the Persian Gulf Arab states and coordinated by Washington [2].
As for the “threat of Al Qaeda”, the Western-backed mercenaries running amok in Syria are made up of Islamic extremists recruited from Libya, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Iraq, as well as from within Syria. Contrary to the Global War on Terror misconception, the US and its Western allies are more often than not working in violent collaboration with Islamists, whether Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Wahhabists or Al Qaeda jihadists, to project Western imperialist interests. These jihadists are operating in Syria with the full knowledge and support of Western powers to wage a campaign of terror and destabilisation against the secular Assad government. That is largely why these so-called oppositionists have failed to garner any substantial support from Syria’s co-existing Sunni, Druze, Christian or Alawite communities, even if some of these groups possess dissenting views towards the Assad government.
Middle East commentator Ralph Schoenman points out: “Such Al Qaeda operatives as there may be in Syria are figures serving the CIA and introduced by the US, Saudi Arabia and Qatar – much as they were so deployed in Libya to destabilise that country and to create conditions of conflict to justify NATO intervention.”
The same noxious formula of NATO alchemy is being applied to Syria. Only in Syria there is now the added compound of international terrorism and chemical weapons of mass destruction. Under the guise of protecting the international community from chemical weapons falling into the hands of (Western-backed) terror groups, the US and its NATO allies are creating a new potent pretext for overt military intervention in Syria.
Note too that with such a pretext, there is plenty of scope for false flags and manufactured evidence.
The Washington Post tells us: “The contingency planning for securing Syrian chemical weapons relies on early warning from US spy agencies”. So, the need for security derives from the activities of armed mercenaries that are supported and directed by Western powers. Furthermore, the “warning” of them gaining access to chemical weaponry will be given by US spy agencies – probably the most unreliable agencies in the world given their track record on non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and a wide range of other nefarious propaganda stunts.
The danger, in case you missed it, is amplified because “Syria possesses one of the world’s largest arsenals of chemical munitions, including tons of nerve gases, such as VX and Sarin, as well as artillery shells and missile warheads for delivering them,” claims the Washington Post, without any substantiation.
This is a new dimension to the demonisation of Syria by Western media. Seasoned Middle East commentator Ralph Schoenman says: “I have seen no prior literature or citation for the claim that ‘Syria has one of the biggest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world’. This claim has not been advanced before. Besides, that distinction of the having the world’s biggest arsenal of chemical weapons belongs to the Pentagon.”
The new claim of Syria’s chemical weapons of mass destruction is also disputed by political analyst Christof Lehmann who says: “I have not seen any credible information that Syria should have any larger stockpiles of chemical weapons than any other country like Germany and the USA. This can be corroborated in the annual reports of the respected Stockholm International Peace Research Institute over the past decade.”
Lehmann adds: “Of more concern for world security are the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons stockpiles in the US and US military bases around the world, as well as nuclear weapons in Israel. It is not unlikely that the same Western intelligence agencies who play an active role in the attempted armed subversion of Syria are creating anxieties about putative chemical weapons stockpiles to create a pretext for NATO’s use of ‘the right to protect’ for justifying a military attack on Syria in the near future – with or without the UN Security Council mandate.”
Ever since the collapse of the “evil Soviet empire” and the end of the Cold War, the US and its Western allies have been thrashing around for pretexts to justify their imperialist adventures around the world. Such adventures are a necessary part of control over natural resources, mainly oil and gas, in a world run by and for capitalist powers.
The “global war on terror”, “weapons of mass destruction” and “responsibility to protect” have emerged in various guises as the replacement pretexts for “defending the free world”. From Afghanistan to Iraq, former Yugoslavia to Libya, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, among others, we have seen these various pretexts applied to justify US or NATO intervention.
But, presently, Syria perhaps holds the distinction of having had all these US/NATO pseudo pretexts applied. In that way, R2P in Syria takes on a new meaning – “responsibility to pretext”.
Written by: Finian Cunningham.
Finian Cunningham is Global Research’s Middle East and East Africa Correspondent.
cunninghamfinian@gmail.com
Notes:
[2] http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vaaid=30875
Source: GlobalResearch
Image: taoty / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/syrianews/articles/~3/bQ_-f8HKfCE/syria-natos-growing-list-of-excuses-for-intervention-659.html
In Egypt, the countdown for the presidential elections is running. The presidential elections in Egypt are scheduled for May 23 and 24.
However, the first ballots for the presidential elections have already arrived in the capital Cairo. These ballots are from the Egyptians living abroad, which are able to vote at the Egyptian embassies since the 11 of this month.
A total of 13 candidates are standing for election. The candidates for the Egyptian presidential elections were published on a list on April 26. The choice of conditions for the upcoming presidential elections made it impossible for some candidates to compete, because, due to the citizenship of their parents or because of a stay in a prison, they were finally not allowed to run for this office.
Especially the leading candidate of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was therefore ineligible for the presidential elections, because in the times of Mubarak, he was imprisoned and was released from prison only some time ago.
The provisions for the Egyptian presidential elections make it clear that a stay in a prison has to be at least six years ago, to be able to candidate for this high office in Egypt. It seems that the Muslim Brotherhood has shot oneself in the foot with the list of order of the political changes in Egypt.
In Tunisia, for example, there was first a convened of a constitutional convention, which has delivered the political framework for the future of Tunisia, before the elections were finally scheduled.
In Egypt, they bridled the horse on the other way around, and started with the Parliamentary elections already in 2011, followed by the elections to the Shura Council in early 2012. And now are the Presidential elections before a new Constitution for Egypt will be drafted.
The Muslim Brotherhood, who wants to secure a say in work for the Constitution, had to bite the bullet and to withdraw its top candidate for the presidential elections. Of course, that does not mean that they are not able to win the upcoming presidential elections in Egypt. Although it is still hard to predict which party and presidential candidate will win these elections, it seems clear that the Islamist forces should be able to prevail.
Although the Muslim Brotherhood is sold as “moderate” since the beginning of the so-called “Arab Spring” by Western media and some Western politicians, but there are serious doubts that this is really the fact. Not only have some said that this is nothing more than a fairy tale.
It seems that some in the West are only searching for a definition that justifies the work with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists. Considering Germany and perhaps Australia, it seems that these Governments do not like Salafists in their own country, but still support these radical powers abroad. Of course, for own interests in foreign countries.
Among the votes that were already collected by the Egyptians abroad, it seems that the former Muslim Brotherhood member Abul Futuh leads the run at the moment, but also the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mursi was already able to collect many voices, especially by the Egyptians in Sudan and Yemen.
It appears that the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic forces are actually able to expand and strengthen their power. Whether Egypt is then routed through to a Islamic state is difficult to predict. The religion will have an important role to play, for sure (perhaps even more intense than before).
Whether the religious guidelines then tilt into Islamists guidelines is difficult to anticipate, because the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists do not proceed indiscriminately. The Salafists and Muslim Brotherhood are calculating very well, what they are doing.
One should be carefully to prevent a misjudgment of Muslim Brotherhood and Salafism / Salafists, even when both currently present an open and tolerant behavior. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists are Islamist groups that have as objective the establishment of a Theocratic State under an Islamic model. Anyone displaced or downplays this danger, as it is currently happening, goes on very thin ice.
It is questionable whether a presidential candidate is really able to improve Egypt and able to lead it in a modern state after his election. Whether he is able to bring hope and courage back to the Egyptians is also questionable. It stands well in the stars if he will be able (and even interested) to fulfill those hopes. Not to mention the general development of Egypt.
So far, the general situation in the country is very unstable. The country is still in a downward spiral, which was not stopped until now; there were no defined policy framework for changes. The Muslim Brotherhood, who have a majority in the Egyptian parliament, and the Military Council in Egypt are currently trying to negotiate a course, but both are not taking actions against the further poverty and discontent of the Egyptian people. Hopefully, this will happen soon.
It there are no solutions soon, that benefit the Egyptians and which ensure that poverty and unemployment and other social problems can be really addressed, the problems and the violence will escalate in Egypt again, at least, in the capital Cairo.
All Egyptian Presidential candidates speak about Israel in their election platform. All these candidates promise to revise the peace of Camp David. Some of the candidates even speak about the enemy Israel. But they have to do it carefully, because nobody wants to really totally annoy the Americans, so that suddenly the “needed” money tap is getting turned off by the United States.
Instead of focusing on domestic (political) issues, all the candidates focus on foreign policy. The allegedly change of Camp David and the harsh tones against Israel are no benefit for Egypt`s economic and social progress, not an inch.
One can only hope that this will not distract from the real domestic problems in Egypt and the actual inability of the most candidates to tackle these political and social problems within Egypt.
Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/syrianews/articles/~3/EeZaPDoZN_0/egypt-presidential-elections-soon-situation-is-in-general-unstable-656.html
In Egypt, the countdown for the presidential elections is running. The presidential elections in Egypt are scheduled for May 23 and 24.
However, the first ballots for the presidential elections have already arrived in the capital Cairo. These ballots are from the Egyptians living abroad, which are able to vote at the Egyptian embassies since the 11 of this month.
A total of 13 candidates are standing for election. The candidates for the Egyptian presidential elections were published on a list on April 26. The choice of conditions for the upcoming presidential elections made it impossible for some candidates to compete, because, due to the citizenship of their parents or because of a stay in a prison, they were finally not allowed to run for this office.
Especially the leading candidate of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was therefore ineligible for the presidential elections, because in the times of Mubarak, he was imprisoned and was released from prison only some time ago.
The provisions for the Egyptian presidential elections make it clear that a stay in a prison has to be at least six years ago, to be able to candidate for this high office in Egypt. It seems that the Muslim Brotherhood has shot oneself in the foot with the list of order of the political changes in Egypt.
In Tunisia, for example, there was first a convened of a constitutional convention, which has delivered the political framework for the future of Tunisia, before the elections were finally scheduled.
In Egypt, they bridled the horse on the other way around, and started with the Parliamentary elections already in 2011, followed by the elections to the Shura Council in early 2012. And now are the Presidential elections before a new Constitution for Egypt will be drafted.
The Muslim Brotherhood, who wants to secure a say in work for the Constitution, had to bite the bullet and to withdraw its top candidate for the presidential elections. Of course, that does not mean that they are not able to win the upcoming presidential elections in Egypt. Although it is still hard to predict which party and presidential candidate will win these elections, it seems clear that the Islamist forces should be able to prevail.
Although the Muslim Brotherhood is sold as “moderate” since the beginning of the so-called “Arab Spring” by Western media and some Western politicians, but there are serious doubts that this is really the fact. Not only have some said that this is nothing more than a fairy tale.
It seems that some in the West are only searching for a definition that justifies the work with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists. Considering Germany and perhaps Australia, it seems that these Governments do not like Salafists in their own country, but still support these radical powers abroad. Of course, for own interests in foreign countries.
Among the votes that were already collected by the Egyptians abroad, it seems that the former Muslim Brotherhood member Abul Futuh leads the run at the moment, but also the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mursi was already able to collect many voices, especially by the Egyptians in Sudan and Yemen.
It appears that the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic forces are actually able to expand and strengthen their power. Whether Egypt is then routed through to a Islamic state is difficult to predict. The religion will have an important role to play, for sure (perhaps even more intense than before).
Whether the religious guidelines then tilt into Islamists guidelines is difficult to anticipate, because the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists do not proceed indiscriminately. The Salafists and Muslim Brotherhood are calculating very well, what they are doing.
One should be carefully to prevent a misjudgment of Muslim Brotherhood and Salafism / Salafists, even when both currently present an open and tolerant behavior. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists are Islamist groups that have as objective the establishment of a Theocratic State under an Islamic model. Anyone displaced or downplays this danger, as it is currently happening, goes on very thin ice.
It is questionable whether a presidential candidate is really able to improve Egypt and able to lead it in a modern state after his election. Whether he is able to bring hope and courage back to the Egyptians is also questionable. It stands well in the stars if he will be able (and even interested) to fulfill those hopes. Not to mention the general development of Egypt.
So far, the general situation in the country is very unstable. The country is still in a downward spiral, which was not stopped until now; there were no defined policy framework for changes. The Muslim Brotherhood, who have a majority in the Egyptian parliament, and the Military Council in Egypt are currently trying to negotiate a course, but both are not taking actions against the further poverty and discontent of the Egyptian people. Hopefully, this will happen soon.
It there are no solutions soon, that benefit the Egyptians and which ensure that poverty and unemployment and other social problems can be really addressed, the problems and the violence will escalate in Egypt again, at least, in the capital Cairo.
All Egyptian Presidential candidates speak about Israel in their election platform. All these candidates promise to revise the peace of Camp David. Some of the candidates even speak about the enemy Israel. But they have to do it carefully, because nobody wants to really totally annoy the Americans, so that suddenly the “needed” money tap is getting turned off by the United States.
Instead of focusing on domestic (political) issues, all the candidates focus on foreign policy. The allegedly change of Camp David and the harsh tones against Israel are no benefit for Egypt`s economic and social progress, not an inch.
One can only hope that this will not distract from the real domestic problems in Egypt and the actual inability of the most candidates to tackle these political and social problems within Egypt.
Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/syrianews/articles/~3/EeZaPDoZN_0/egypt-presidential-elections-soon-situation-is-in-general-unstable-656.html
Yossef Bodansky, the U.S.-Israeli expert who wrote the official history of Al Qaeda, is back. The one who had explained with a straight face that bin Laden was both an Iraqi and Iranian agent, and that Saddam Hussein had financed the attacks of September 11, no longer works for the U.S. Congress and the Defense Department, but for the Institute Strategie für Politik-und-Sicherheits-Wirtschaftsberatung (ISPSW) in Berlin, a, Atlanticist think tank.
He has just published a paper soberly titled “A Heretic’s Up-Dated Musings on Syria” [1]. This document should not be taken literally, because his arguments are rooted in baseless accusations. However, it is very instructive in the figurative sense when understood as a “Storytelling” endeavor. Yossef Bodansky has nothing of an investigator and everything of a scriptwriter. His purpose is not to analyze what is happening in Syria, but to invent a new narrative that can justify NATO policies in the eyes of public opinion.
These are the storyteller’s two main feckless inventions: • Tehran is already in possession of the nuclear bomb and is deploying a strategy to take over Jerusalem and Mecca, and then seize control of the Muslim world. Conducting a shadow war, Iran is supposedly manipulating Hezbollah, Hamas and the jihadists against the Muslim Brotherhood.
• Syria’s domestic policy is a game of fluctuating alliances of two against one, (1) the Alawites, Druze and Kurds, against (2) Westernized Sunnis, and Armenian Orthodox Christians, or (3) extremist Sunnis from rural areas and poor suburbs. These populations have distinct activities and live in separate areas. Damascus is implementing a policy of ethnic cleansing by expelling or exterminating Sunni extremists from areas where they represent minority, as is allegedly the case in Hama and Homs.
Yossef Bodansky’s fiction meets a strategic need for the Tel Aviv-Washington alliance. The anti-Syrian coalition was built around a dual objective: regime change to shatter the Axis of Resistance (in Israel’s interest) and to fragment the country to carry forward the reshaping of the broader Middle East (in the Pentagon’s interests).
Now, after a year of fighting, developments on the ground indicate that a reversal of Bashar al-Assad would not benefit a pseudo-parliamentary democracy, but a Sunni religious dictatorship. The downfall of the Syrian President would set off a chain of usurpation of power by Sunni extremists throughout the region. Ultimately, Israel—now rid of the Axis of Resistance—and the United States would each have to face a mass population of Sunnis having reached a critical volume.
Accordingly, the author recommends the continued military support of the Free Syrian Army rebels with a view to their weakening Damascus, but rationed so as to ensure they will never be in a position to overthrow the Assad government (not the person of Bashar Assad, but the forces he stems from). Yossef Bodansky’s false scholarly analysis is solely designed to justify this level of support while hiding its real strategic motives: we must arm the Free Syrian Army (to stop the killings), but we can not do more (because the situation is too complex and Iran could make use of the atomic bomb).
[1] A Heretic’s Up‐Dated Musings on Syria, par Yossef Bodanski, Institut für Strategie- Politik- Sicherheits- und Wirtschaftsberatung (ISPSW), April 2012, 14p. 257 Ko.
Source : “Storytelling: NATO rewrites the Syrian conflict”, Voltaire Network, 20 May 2012, www.voltairenet.org/a174237
Image: Stuart Miles / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/syrianews/articles/~3/VigGJRYwHxQ/storytelling-nato-rewrites-the-syrian-conflict-655.html
To Iranians, Persian Gulf is not simply a name referring to a geographical region on the world map. To Iranians, the name of Persian Gulf is interwoven with a sense of national dignity and honor which makes them a united and powerful troupe against the relentless attacks of the enemy. The name of Persian Gulf resembles a feeling of pride and decorum for them which cannot be replaced by any other gift or reward. It reminds them of the impressive days when the flag of ancient Persian Empire honorably fluttered and waved in the sky and there was no other competitor to supersede this mighty empire.
Of course Iranians’ attachment to Persian Gulf and the cultural heritage which it carries does not emanate from blind nationalistic sentiments. Iranians know well that today, they are the representative of a greater, broader union that is the Islamic Ummah. They know that it’s with the blessing of Islam that they can still take pride on being an unrivaled superpower in such a tumultuous and restless region as the Middle East. However, Iranians are extremely sensitive about those vicious, brutal powers who intend to undermine their national honor and solidarity by encroaching on their national belongings, including the Persian Gulf.
The American web giant Google has recently fueled an anti-Iranian campaign by removing the name of Persian Gulf from its online maps and Google Earth plans. No Google official was ready to give comments on this questionable move, and Iranians are still wondering what motives have caused the American company to take such a thoughtless action.
Albeit if we take a look at the documents and evidence which point to the fact that Google is in actuality a CIA subsidiary that takes orders from the White House and operates under the guise of a technology firm while serving the long-run interests of a circle of American policymakers, it will be no surprise that by removing the name of Persian Gulf from its maps, Google intends to contribute to the anti-Iranian agenda of the United States and Israel which are vehemently underway these days.
In a 2006 interview with “Alex Jones show,” Robert David Steele, a 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer and a former clandestine services case officer with CIA said that he had credible information attesting to the fact that Google was assisted and funded by CIA. “Google took money from the CIA when it was poor and it was starting up and unfortunately our system right now floods money into spying and other illegal and largely unethical activities, and it doesn’t fund what I call the open source world,” said Steele, citing “trusted individuals” as his sources for the claim.
“Let me say very explicitly – their contact at the CIA is named Dr. Rick Steinheiser, he’s in the Office of Research and Development,” said Steele.
And now that the United States is doing its best to convince Iran’s trade partners in Asia, Africa and Europe that they shouldn’t buy Iran’s crude oil anymore, launch chained covert cyber operations against Iran’s state-owned companies, facilitate the assassination of Iran’s nuclear scientists and impede the route of diplomacy for finding a solution to Iran’s nuclear standoff, asking Google to erase the name of Persian Gulf which is a tremendously strategic waterway in the Middle East and a symbol of Iran’s regional domination can be interpreted as a new phase of this complicated anti-Iranian plot.
But such unprofessional actions which are in sharp contrast to all the proclaimed principles and policies of companies like Google, including non-alignment to governments and independence in action, will do no harm to the regional superiority of Iran but give rise to anti-American sentiments among Iranians, discredit and bring into disrepute their fame and strengthen the national solidarity and unity of Iranians.
University professor and author Dr. Kevin Barrett believes that Google’s removal of the Persian Gulf name is part of a Zionist-directed plot against Iran: “Google’s idiotic removal of the Persian Gulf from its maps is part of a coordinated strategy by Zionist-dominated American policy-makers. Google is a CIA subsidiary. They are trying to foment hatred, strife, and violence between Iranian and Arab Muslims, as part of their imperial divide-and-conquer strategy.”
“This is part of what the US military calls its “total war,” meaning a genocidal war of extermination, against the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims. Their goal is to provoke Muslims to fight and kill each other. That way, the Israelis and Americans won’t have to suffer the blowback from committing genocide directly,” he added.
“This is only one example of the Zionist West’s genocidal efforts to provoke bloodshed between different groups of Muslims. The February, 2006 terrorist attack on the Golden Dome al-Askari mosque in Samarra by the U.S. forces is an example of the numerous false-flag attacks by Zionist-controlled terrorists designed to destroy Islam by fomenting schism and bloodshed (what Muslims call fitna),” wrote Barrett.
American journalist and radio host Stephen Lendman similarly believes that Google’s decision in removing the name of Persian Gulf from its maps is dictated from above: “Google is connected to the CIA. The agency provided startup funding. Its “mischievous attack” had to be CIA or political Washington connected. Why else would they do it? It provides Internet searches and other online related products and services. It’s a profit making business, not a political instrument unless directed to perform this type service.”
Famous British TV journalist and political commentator Yvonne Ridley is also against the seditious action of Google; however, she says that having a black record of mischievous actions by Google in mind, it would be no surprise that the American firm has removed the name of Persian Gulf from its maps: “Google has Jerusalem down as the capital of Israel so I wouldn’t get too upset by seeing this. It has its own political agenda and it is obviously under the thumb of the foreign policymakers in the United States.”
Ridley believes that Google is establishing a dangerous tradition by removing the name of Persian Gulf from its maps. She recommends Iranians to get united and take action against Google: “it might be worth Iranians mounting a campaign with online petitions, using the social networks and ridiculing Google for its silly attempt to erase the Persian influence in the region. If you stand by and let a search engine like Google erase your country’s history and culture it will set a dangerous precedent. Iranians should put up a resistance from the highest echelons of government to the kids in the street.”
Tim King, a former U.S. mariner and veteran journalist also believes that Google’s action is not justifiable by any standards and nothing but a political game: “In my mind, there is no question that we are watching the Google political, technical arm undermine and attempt to erase ancient history. I believe the U.S. and Israeli governments are absolutely carrying out another campaign against Tehran and this one is more shameful than most, as Americans are painfully unaware of world geography and the real history relating to the US, the UK and Persia. This is a Zionist program without question, we all know that.”
King believes that Google questions its already stained reputation with such moves: “I don’t see how this type of move will do anything but harm the reputation of Google, a company already known for its pro-Israel bias and its refusal to speak out over Israeli war crimes and apartheid politics. It is sad, I know so many Iranians who continually and expressly wish the war drums would die down.”
Nima Shirazi, Iranian political commentator and author says that there’s no dispute over the naming of Persian Gulf and that Google has started a political game over a scientific issue: “My impression is that Google’s decision to leave the Persian Gulf as an unnamed body of water on its maps is an example of a bad decision made in a misguided and misinformed effort to remain neutral on an issue that isn’t actually controversial or in dispute. Through its own ignorance and naïveté, Google made a decision that, in the absence of labeling the Persian Gulf by its historical and centuries-old internationally-accepted name, is actual a very political one.”
He further referred to the Iranian President’s visit to the Iranian island of Abu Musa which was widely protested by the Arab states of the Persian Gulf and also cited the example of the Gulf of Mexico, raising the question that what would happen if the Gulf’s name was changed to the Gulf of Cuba or Gulf of Texas: “additionally, coming on the heels of the absurd and manufactured outrage over Ahmadinejad’s recent visit to the Iranian island of Abu Musa, this is yet one more example of the deliberate disrespecting of Iranian sovereignty and recognition. Of course, no one would begrudge Mexicans for being confused and upset if “The Gulf of Mexico” were renamed “The Gulf of Cuba” or “The Gulf of Texas” or “The American Gulf.” And yet, Iranians are supposed to accept a similar offense without reaction.”
Shirazi believes that Google has showed its naiveté and ignorance by leaving the Persian Gulf unnamed on its maps: “first and foremost, I think it demonstrates Google’s ignorance and naïveté. Sometimes the attempt to remain “neutral” is itself a political act. By leaving the Persian Gulf unnamed on its maps, Google is essentially giving credence to the claim that such a title is disputed when, in fact, it is not. The United Nations, UNESCO, United States, United Kingdom and most other countries on the planet recognize the Persian Gulf as the accepted name of that body of water. The Persian Gulf has been so-called since antiquity. The Greek historian Herodotus utilized the term “Arabian Gulf” only in reference to what is now known as The Red Sea. The Greek travel writer and geographer Strabo repeatedly referred to the Persian Gulf in his seminal work Geographica.”
Persian Gulf’s legacy remains Iranian forever. By removing its name from the maps or faking other names for it, its reality cannot be changed.
Written by: Kourosh Ziabari | 19.05.2012
Source: Google following CIA’s path in confronting Iran
Image: nuttakit / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/syrianews/articles/~3/4QhzbOPJkro/google-following-cias-path-in-confronting-iran-652.html
The leaders of the G8 countries debate at the meeting at Camp David since last Friday, and they also discuss about Iran and Syria, of course. Before the leaders of the G8 countries have started to debate about the world economic crisis and the Euro issues, they spoke about Syria and Iran at a dinner.
The views of representatives of the G8 states were largely identical, of course. Many details of this meeting at Camp David were not yet published, but short statements made it clear that the representatives of the G8 states want to keep the pressure on Iran regarding its nuclear program. Here, nothing at all will change in the approach of the West against Iran. This should also count for the hypocritically stance of the West against Syria.
When it comes to Syria, the leaders of the G8 countries have already agreed to the point that the problems in Syria have to be solved politically, which means, a political change has to be implemented.
Russia, which was represented only by the Prime Minister Medvedev, and not by Putin at the G8 summit in Camp David, has tried to soften the more vigorous actions against the Syrian government in Damascus.
Russia actually sticks to the implementation of the six-point peace plan by Kofi Annan for Syria and has already insisted several times that all sides have to be taken equally to account. Although the other participants of the G8 summit expressed that only political solutions can solve the situation in Syria, the actual actions of some of these governments are, however, contradictory to their phrases.
It is also unanswered by the G8 leaders at Camp David, how they do imagine the so-called political changes for Syria. Probably, all will continue as before: arming the rebels and religious fanatics, accusing the Syrian government and strengthen the pressure on Damascus and the Syrian President al-Assad. Not to mention that they will further stick to the propaganda against the Syrian government.
For example, America, which supports the so-called “Syrian rebels” with civilian tools such as communication equipment and covers the back of Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Both Gulf States are arming the Syrian terrorists and rebels since weeks, even since months. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are also financial supporting these armed groups in Syria.
By active supporting the armed insurgents in Syria with funds, weapons and ammo, America and these Gulf States are violating the peace plan by the UN envoy Kofi Annan. The arming of violent groups in Syria does absolutely not help to end the violence and bloodshed in Syria. In contrary, the upgrading of armed groups with more and better weapons boosts the level of violence in this country of the Middle East and is contrary to find a base for political solutions.
The so-called “international community”, which favors democratic values, should also act this way. This would also mean that the “international community” has to condemn all support for armed groups in Syria by foreign powers and it would be the duty of the “international community” to use all levels to stop this arms smuggling and to end the direct support of Islamists and criminals with weapons, ammo and money.
Not to mention that the support with weapons for armed people cannot be a base to bring peaceful solutions to Syria. After the last week, it became obvious, that some states are willfully violating the peace plan by Mr. Kofi Annan. As already mentioned since weeks, the violation of the six-point plan favors the goal of the so-called Syrian opposition, e.g. based in Turkey, and also the questionable goal of the West, especially of the United States. A real ceasefire and political solutions for Syria would not help these sides to achieve their real goal(s) for and in Syria.
The dangerous situation in Syria is boosted again and again by some Western governments. The will to dialogue is an empty phrase by the West and just used for propaganda purposes and also, of course, to brainwash Western civilians, thus they agree on another war against Syria and later against Iran. At least about a so-called military intervention in Syria. Western civilians are just informed with one-sided reports and have no real chance to make up their minds, based on real facts and a objective coverage of the situation in Syria.
When the West does not start to show intentions to negotiate and does not stop to only take the Syrian government in Damascus to account for every violence in this country, the situation will sure not relax in Syria. Thus, the Russian stance and statements show more democratic values than the empty phrases of the West and Gulf States like Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Surprisingly enough.
Of course, not only because Moscow is a good friend of Damascus, that is not really true. But Russia has own interests and seems to be pissed about what really happened in Libya and why it was and is still happening. That is only one of the reasons for the Russian stance on Syria. Not to mention the Russian port in the Syrian city of Tartous (Tartus), economic interests and also regional intentions.
On Friday, the Norwegian General Robert Mood has also spoke about the fact that all sides should finally proceed to a dialogue at a press conference in the Syrian capital Damascus. General Mood has also said that violence is by no means able to solve the problems in Syria. However, as long as weapons and mercenaries are smuggled across the border(s) to Syria, there will be no dialogue.
Even if the Syrian government continuously agrees on steps towards the implementation of a dialogue, their steps are not really convincing. Even less convincing, however, is the side of the external opposition, e.g. the “Syrian National Council” (SNC), based in Istanbul, Turkey. This so-called opposition does not want to sit at the same table as the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and only wants to stop the fighting when the Syrian President al-Assad is overthrown.
There is a stalemate in Syria, which is hardly dissolvable. The UN observers cannot change the situation. Since the arrival and positioning of the UN observers, a decline in violence is indeed reported, but still, all sides constantly break the ceasefire (truce) in Syria.
The UN observers became repeatedly witnesses of the violence and the shattered situation in Syria. Whether the UN observers can actually accomplish something, or whether they should give the UN Security Council (UNSC) only time, to find new ways and methods to achieve their dubious interests and questionable goals in Syria, is unclear.
What is clear is that foreign powers meddle in Syria and that they fight a proxy war in this country. That the violence of Syria spills over to Lebanon is hardly surprising. Lebanon is in itself also a divided country, whose conflicts break out every now and then. Even in Lebanon, the religious conflict and the struggle for power and for the supremacy of religious communities plays a major role.
Currently, the Lebanese Interior Minister negotiates with Islamic preachers in Lebanon to find a solution which guarantees the security of the country. This solution shall not be only a compromise which delivers security only for some time.
Indeed, it is to observe in Lebanon, that the number of Islamists, of Salafists, has risen steadily since the outbreak of the crisis in Syria and that the Salafists are now looking for mercenaries that can be sent to Syria, under the guise of humanitarian aid. In Lebanon there is a large gap between Sunnis and Shiites that could lead to a divided Lebanon. Lebanon would be divided in separate parts and it is already spoken about it.
Compared to last Friday, the situation in Syria was pretty quiet yesterday, although it again came to some attacks. Of course, opponents of the Syrian government and President al-Assad took advantage of the afternoon, after the Friday sermon, to take to the streets and to demonstrate. Again, the numbers, which are cited by Western media, are not really correct.
One should really not assume that thousands took to the streets in the Syrian city of Aleppo (Halab). The number could only be correct, if one adds all villages around Aleppo and even parts of other districts. The city itself was largely peaceful. There are still protests at the University of Aleppo, but these protests are mainly instigated by students from other districts and suburbs. Just as in Damascus.
Another example of Western propaganda are the headlines in German newspapers. The German newspaper “Welt” reports that the demonstrations in Syria were used in order to show solidarity with the (allegedly) killed students, which were shot dead during a raid by Syrian security forces at the University of Aleppo.
The German mainstream withheld their readers the information, that the people who were reported as dead, are finally alive. Thus, German newspapers should start to check their sources again. But more and more people know, that Western mainstream publishes the propaganda and false information of the Syrian opposition without any check of the information. It is willfully used by Western media, even if some of the “sources” have already lost all credibility.
Syria is facing a huge media campaign which distorts the real situation completely. Although that does not mean that there are no problems in Syria and that e.g. SANA is better than Western media, but the coverage of Western mass media is willfully one-sided and often just false.
In some small regions of Syria, one can now speak of civil war-like conditions; which is also related to the fact, that the Syrian army is still not using full forces against the armed groups. More and more people in Syria are asking, why not. More people fear about their lives, because the armed insurgents, which are still celebrated as “Syrian rebels” for a democratic country in Western media, are a threat for every Syrian civilian.
Not only for Syrian soldiers and security forces. This opposition is no real opposition and no option for a better Syria tomorrow. To refer to the demonstrations in the Syrian city of Aleppo (Halab) as mass protests is smooth away a lie. Of course, Western media does it. As usually, false information for Western civilians to prepare them for another false war.
This has nothing to do with objective journalism and shows the lack of journalism, even in Western states with the so-called freedom of press. These journalists and students in Western editorial offices help to spread lies and false information. Willfully or not, it is to condemn what they have already done to journalism. The once good values of journalism are killed by economic interests.
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/syrianews/articles/~3/RofSSxhO0Dk/g8-summit-pressures-iran-political-syria-653.html
It seems that the Syrian government does no good public work, which is able to expose the propaganda (and lies) of the Western media whores. Just as in the war of Libya, the destruction of a state that does not submit to the dictates of London is presented as a humanitarian war and this also gets accepted as such by the people.
The average citizen has really no idea to what extent the “quality media”, such as (not to mention all the private channels), for example, the ARD and ZDF (German State media) are subverted and what incredible lies are served to them by these media stations day after day.
Without the efficient propaganda apparatus of the history, which was built up by the oligarchs since the fall of the Berlin Wall and also brought into line systematically, neither the war against Libya nor the proxy / covert war against Syria would have taken place.
The masterminds behind the stage still need the consent or at least the passive acquiescence of the people in the West to carry out their murderous wars. And their money, too.
The secret lies in the concentration of the media in few hands, which control the media operate and stick to the worst brainwashing of viewers and readers. Distraction from the dreary and stressful working in a decaying society is provided with sex, so-called talk shows and, in general, with idiotic television series and disinformation.
They keep the people away from really bad news (about the non-democratic behavior of own governments e.g.) and, instead, lie to them like a trooper.
Even the coverage of the Iraq war, with its “embedded” journalists, was the premise that the U.S. and its allies were able to perform this murderous nuclear war. The people in the West – thanks to the same, connected media – have no idea about the incredible crimes that have taken place there, to this day. They were not able to notice it. Of course, how should they be able to when media was already brought into line.
An objective coverage of the Western press, even before the war, would have been able to prevent such a huge catastrophe. And one is able to continue the chain of reasoning backwards. Afghanistan, 9/11… …the mainstream media are just telling us nothing but lies and delude us from the world by delivering a world of illusion, which conceals the crimes of murderous systems.
The German Foreign Minister Mr. Westerwelle has once refused to take part directly in the Libyan conflict; he is no more able to afford such a stance anymore. Bernard Levy has actually overthrown the German Foreign Minister, and the chair, on which he sits, has only one sawed leg.
You are able to say it with complete justification, that Western mass media are shooting Syria ready for a war. The importance of mass media is totally underrated in the whole game. Without the desk workers of the corporate media, there would be no conflict of Syria, at least not on the plane and in the bloody proportions, as it stands now. At least the alternative media have to try to unmask the lies of the West apparatus.
Here’s the appeal of Christoph R. Hörstel about Syria.
Extraordinary situations require extraordinary measures – Urgent appeal at the last minute
Christoph R. Hörstel
In Syria, the clear stance, especially by Russia with its aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean port of the Syrian city of Tartus, forces the United States to give up open military attacks and to instead operate a secret service organized terrorist war (“terror management”) in Syria. (E.g. to destabilize the country)
Syria has the time to deal with comparatively small means to build very strong public relations activities (media relations, PR, public relations) – and is not doing this! One can hardly understand at first – but the attempt not only seems helpful, but also necessary for the serious and dangerous situation:
- Syria does not know any free media for decades. Consequently, there is a huge lack with the expertise and the experience in dealing with it. The most corrupt Western media landscape is a wonderful piano – but Syria was never given a chance to learn to play it. And the PR professional says: they are therefore not even able to control agencies. In German: they are not even professional in a position to use a good PR agency so that it makes sense.
- Syria’s main ally, Iran, Russia, China, also have little expertise background in PR; Russia perhaps could have the most experience with it. All three countries have their own representation problems in the West, which they clearly structurally do not cope better than it was and is done in Syria. Of these countries, only China is therefore not suffering as strong as the other two because China is courted as a major economic power; this makes it less vulnerable to attacks – and China is also the largest U.S. creditor…
- About Syria`s public relations experiences in the recent past: Syria has made attempts to get rid of the lousy image in the West, especially in Europe, but Syria has failed because of the mentioned reasons. The two Syrian ministries, which were mainly personally involved in that failure, and which are still involved, are the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Information in Syria. Both ministries are now just able to react defensively when a European comes along and claims that the situation can be changed and that he can do it. Just such a proposal is able to let some Syrian officials fear for their jobs. Nobody hears these claims without a fight, especially not in these times of crisis in Syria.
- About the case of the author: In May 2011, the General Secretary of the “German-Syrian Society” has asked the question how the PR deficit of Syria can be really addressed, to solve this deficit. After several hours of personal conversation, it was agreed on, that the author should submit a proposal to the Syrian ambassador. This was done. The General Secretary and the Syrian Ambassador were satisfied. The Syrian Ambassador took the paper with a proved and suitable “starter program” to the Syrian capital Damascus and got a resounding rejection. Afterwards it was revealed that the case was even passed to the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian President al-Assad has selected the internally much criticized Information Minister, Dr. Hassan Adnan Mahmoud, for this job in April. Dr. Hassan Adnan Mahmoud, Syrian Minister of Information, has no experiences with the West and no “West experiences”. And this at a time when it was clear that the whole trouble (in Syria) is a Western production.
- The author was shocked by the rejection because of the harsh and historical consequences for the country and people of Syria. With continuing commitment for Syria, the author has met with Germans from Syria, which supported his proposals. This has led, almost by pressure of the civil society from the Syrian population, to a invitation by the government in Damascus. This “fight” of forces between the Syrian government and the Syrian supporters of the proposals by Christopher Hörstel still continues. Therefore, the author asks anyone, who can politically think for itself, to participate politically and to support this cause. It is here not about persons or nationalities – the point is that public relations work is tried on a professional and larger scale, before it`s too late.
After all, the current unarmed UN military observer mission (UNSMIS) will not be renewed, in accordance with the United States, when the observer mission does not bring peace to Syria. While the U.S. and its accomplices try in secret missions and by terror, that nobody is able to succeed in bringing peace to Syria.
Afterwards, the official U.S. threat should be implemented: “robust mandate”. If Syria is fallen, the war of Iran will follow, because then, nobody is able to prevent the Iran war anymore; integral to the author`s view, because of the irrational U.S. policy: In Public Relations issues, the Iran is perhaps even more clueless and more careless as Syria.
Therefore, a peaceful solution can only be saved if many support this current appeal: First, in three European countries, but also from the USA, we want to counter the attacks against Syria, controlled by Washington.
A Media campaign in Europe not only benefits the peace, but also the peoples concerned, which are never really in a position to go against their governments and their restless political corruption, not even at the compulsory purchase by the Fiscal Pact, nor in the case of ESM-dictatorship. This gives the people of Syria and Germany suddenly common interests – and the chance for an opportunity to implement this!
This vision is historically new, it has never seen before: people join together across national boundaries and distances of time for common policies in order to get their governments to act reasonably. The author believes unconditionally that this is the last real opportunity to receive significant funding for meaningful public relations. For peace.
Moreover, this international action could be the only way against global imperialists, banksters, energy companies, pharmaceutical giants, and other dubious organizations and associations. Also this needs to be practiced…
The good thing about this challenge without your / your involvement, it must fail.
On the positive side it also means we can be our own fortune.
Website: http://syria-help.blogspot.de/
Source: http://www.politaia.org/terror/syrien-wird-von-den-westmedien-sturmreif-geschossen-appell-von-christof-horstel/
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/syrianews/articles/~3/9bb5pHzEF9I/syria-western-media-propaganda-war-christoph-horstel-654.html
