The problem with the Geneva Communique from the first Geneva round on Syria is that the government of Syria never subscribed to it. It was jointly chaired by the League of Arab States for Syria, whatever that may mean. Another problem is that it is, as so many diplomatic documents are, highly ambiguous. It plainly advocates a power sharing executive formed by some of the current government plus the opposition to oversee a transition to democracy. But it does not state which elements of the current government, and it does not mention which elements of the opposition, nor does it make plain if President Assad himself is eligible to be part of, or to head, the power-sharing executive, and whether he is eligible to be a candidate in future democratic elections.
Doubtless the British, for example, would argue that the term transition implies that he will go. The Russians will argue there is no such implication and the text does not exclude anybody from the process. Doubtless also diplomats on all sides were fully aware of these differing interpretations and the ambiguity is quite deliberate to enable an agreed text. I would say that the text tends much more to the “western” side, and that this reflects the apparently weak military position of the Assad regime at that time and the then extant threat of western military intervention. There has been a radical shift in those factors against the western side in the interim. Expect Russian interpretations now to get more hardline.
Given the extreme ambiguity of the text, Iran has, as it frequently does, shot itself in the foot diplomatically by refusing to accept the communique as the basis of talks and thus getting excluded from Geneva. Iran should have accepted the communique, and then at Geneva issued its own interpretation of it.
But that is a minor point. The farcical thing about the Geneva conference is that it is attempting to promote into power-sharing in Syria “opposition” members who have no democratic credentials and represent a scarcely significant portion of those actually fighting the Assad regime in Syria. What the West are trying to achieve is what the CIA and Mossad have now achieved in Egypt; replacing the head of the Mubarak regime while keeping all its power structures in place. The West don’t really want democracy in Syria, they just want a less pro-Russian leader of the power structures.
The inability of the British left to understand the Middle East is pathetic. I recall arguing with commenters on this blog who supported the overthrow of the elected President of Egypt Morsi on the grounds that his overthrow was supporting secularism, judicial independence (missing the entirely obvious fact the Egyptian judiciary are almost all puppets of the military) and would lead to a left wing revolutionary outcome. Similarly the demonstrations against Erdogan in Istanbul, orchestrated by very similar pro-military forces to those now in charge in Egypt, were also hailed by commenters here. The word “secularist” seems to obviate all sins when it comes to the Middle East.
Qatar will be present at Geneva, and Qatar has just launched a pre-emptive media offensive by launching a dossier on torture and murder of detainees by the Assad regime, which is being given first headline treatment by the BBC all morning
There would be a good dossier to be issued on torture in detention in Qatar, and the lives of slave workers there, but that is another question.
I do not doubt at all that atrocities have been committed and are being committed by the Assad regime. It is a very unpleasant regime indeed. The fact that atrocities are also being committed by various rebel groups does not make Syrian government atrocities any better.
But whether 11,000 people really were murdered in a single detainee camp I am unsure. What I do know is that the BBC presentation of today’s report has been a disgrace. The report was commissioned by the government of Qatar who commissioned Carter Ruck to do it. Both those organisations are infamous suppressors of free speech. What is reprehensible is that the BBC are presenting the report as though it were produced by neutral experts, whereas the opposite is the case. It is produced not by anti torture campaigners or by human rights activists, but by lawyers who are doing it purely and simply because they are being paid to do it.
The BBC are showing enormous deference to Sir Desmond De Silva, who is introduced as a former UN war crimes prosecutor. He is indeed that, but it is not the capacity in which he is now acting. He is acting as a barrister in private practice. Before he was a UN prosecutor, he was for decades a criminal defence lawyer and has defended many murderers. He has since acted to suppress the truth being published about many celebrities, including John Terry.
If the Assad regime and not the government of Qatar had instructed him and paid him, he would now be on our screens arguing the opposite case to that he is putting. That is his job. He probably regards that as not reprehensible. What is reprehensible is that the BBC do not make it plain, but introduce him as a UN war crimes prosecutor as though he were acting in that capacity or out of concern for human rights. I can find no evidence of his having an especial love for human rights in the abstract, when he is not being paid for it. He produced an official UK government report into the murder of Pat Finucane, a murder organised by British authorities, which Pat Finucane’s widow described as a “sham”. He was also put in charge of quietly sweeping the Israeli murders on the Gaza flotilla under the carpet at the UN.
The question any decent journalist should be asking him is “Sir Desmond De Silva, how much did the government of Qatar pay you for your part in preparing this report? How much did it pay the other experts? Does your fee from the Government of Qatar include this TV interview, or are you charging separately for your time in giving this interview? In short how much are you being paid to say this?”
That is what any decent journalist would ask. Which is why you will never hear those questions on the BBC.
BrianFujisan
First, let me apologise for my disgusting remarks earlier, but feelings are running very high about Assad when diplomats are threatening to keep Assad in place. Please forgive me.
We all know that the present atrocities committed by AlQaida in Syria are part of a continuum of the relationship between the pro-Zionist West and political Islam: The destruction of the Ottoman caliphate and the release of land to the state of Israel, the British/Zionist foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood, the spread of MB political strategy, the coalition of AlQaida and the West against the Soviet Union, and the false-flag operation of 9/11 and the War on Terror and Arab Spring are the main landmarks.
The basis of this evolving process is a false religious doctrine which is specifically forbidden in the Qur’an: 1/ Joining politically with the Jews and Christians. 2/ Creating divisions and suspicions between Muslims. 3/ Trying to disguise the political friendship between political Islam and the West by trying to conflate individual questioning of the policy with spying, so that the leaders can keep their haram alliances under wraps.
There is an essay by Aiman Al Zawahiri on Spying, which gathers this Muslim Brotherhood offshoot sect’s main components from which I quote:
“We would not be exaggerating if we said that the frontline of the Crusader’s campaign, which is carried out by the US and its allies against the Muslims and their lands, is the spying networks in all its types, shapes, and forms. These networks are the basic resource that the enemy relies on for its small and large military operations. The spying networks are their eyes to see the hidden things that they cannot see and are their hands that are still extending inside the houses, in the forests, up the mountains, into the valleys, and inside the dark caves in order to catch a target that their developed technology was not able to reach. The spies arethe brigades, the soldiers, and they are present and absent at the same time. They were sent to penetrate the ranks of the Muslims generally, and the mujahidin specifically, and spread all over the lands like locusts.
“Although the spies are busy day and night carrying out their duties in an organized and secret manner and taking directions, even orders like soldiers, still you never feel their presence. You can see their influence like killing, destroying, imprisoning, and tracking,but you do not see them. They are like Satan and his followers; they see us but we can never see them. How many heroic leaders have been kidnapped at their hands? How many houses have been destroyed by planes that do not know anything except the information and the directions of the spies? How many major mujahid were surprised to be imprisoned or traced? ‘Even the military and financial supply roads of the mujahidin, which are far from the enemy’s surveillance, were found by the spies. They even reported the mujahidin’s movements, times, number, and equipment.
“The danger of these brigades is not limited to their ability to penetrate the people, but it exceeded that to reach the variety of nationalities, types, and descriptions of these hidden aggressive soldiers. They have among them old hunchbacked men who cannot even walk, strong young men, weak women inside their house, young girls, and even children who did not reach puberty yet.
“Among those listed, the spy might be a doctor, nurse, engineer, employee, student, preacher, scholar, runner, or a taxi driver. The spy can be anyone because there is no limitation or conditions to choose a spy. He should only be able to deliver the information to the people with whom he is working.”
What has changed since this was written is that we now know for certain that the Zionist West is bosom darling best friends of political Islam, and so we now know why we have been deluded by this coalition for so long, so that Al Qaida can assist the Zionist West supposedly against the interests of bogeyman Russia, but actually to serve the state of Israel, which controls both Russia and the West. ( and China and Australia and the rest.)
In order to support this secrecy Al Qaida created suspicions about betrayal by fellow Muslims, which led to denouncements, Takfir, and vast intercommunal strife. The Muslims of the satellites of the former Soviet Union were sacrificed like sheep in revenge for the victories the AlQaida – NATO alliance won over them and the peoples of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria were sacrificed in exchange for the removal of the tyrants, whom the West no longer needs anyway to spy on and control the Muslims because they do it by IT and soft alliances with client states.
Of course, as a Muslim I support my elders in their wisdom. They are accountable for the consequences of their actions. Allah is judge over them and I am not their judge. But of one thing I am certain. Zawahiri states that Hassousiya/ trying to work out what’s going on and Jassousiya/investigating and passing on information, are one and the same process.
If I had not questioned the world around me I would not have found the truth of Islam. Islam commands us to use our intelligence. Politics in my opinion is lying, which I detest, and is forbidden in Islam. Therefore if the process of taking power from an alliance with the Zionist West confused the Muslims and non-Muslims about what Islam means and of what it consists, they may have unintentionally damaged Islam in spite of the benefits. That would be the calculation of the West/Zionists.
There is an old Sufi saying that if I tell yiou the truth you benefit and if I lie, it makes you think harder so you benefit. Yes, the strategy of political Islam is based on Sufism, not the ways/sunnah of the prophet SAW. Neither you nor I can do much about others, but the Qur’an and Gospel tell us that what is in the heart comes out in the deeds. If you put in your heart that the Zionist West is in charge of everything, you will get the deeds which we have witnessed. There is no God but Allah means there is no power or judge or knower except God.
Just trying to give you a logical explanation. Political Islam hates blogs like Craig Murrays at the best. In my opinion it was political Islam, conspiring with the British against their own Caliphate rulers in Turkey that got Islam into this mess. In my opinion politics is about the self and power under the empty slogans of truth and justice.
The quality of debate here is utter crap.
Ideally, there should be no question of whether Assad “stays or goes”. Rightly, that decision should belong to the people of Syria, and no one else.
But there is Russia, and whatever criticism there is of Putin, Russia is not going to abandon its Syrian naval base, the only Russian naval base on the Mediterranean, I think. That would remain true no matter who was in power in Russia, just as the US would not abandon its base for the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain no matter who wins elections in the US.
So any “Good Guy / Bad Guy” argument about Putin and Assad is utterly irrelevant.
For Russia to support free and fair elections in Syria, Russia would have to be sure that whoever got elected would permit that base to remain.
So what to do? If the Western powers are serious about helping the people of Syria, there will need to be some sort of guarantee that the Russian base can stay. But of course the Western/NATO powers want rid of that base. Every damn Syrian can die for all the superpowers care; each side is as hypocritical as the other.
Would it be a good thing if the West/NATO powers succeeded in ousting Russian naval power from the Mediterranean? Personally, I simply don’t know. Large shifts of power carry inherent dangers, and some sort of balance of power is generally the least bad alternative.
There is an interesting parallel with Scottish independence here. An independent Scotland would probably tell Westminster that the nuclear submarines are no longer welcome in Faslane. Would a Westminster government be able to re-deploy those submarines somewhere on the English coast? The US would not accept UK (or rUK) nuclear disarmament.
Disclaimer – wild speculation on my part: could the two problems be solved with a deal? Russia abandons its Mediterranean base in exchange for UK/rUK nuclear disarmament? Could this even mean that the atrocity in Syria can’t be ended until after the Scottish independence referendum?
Oh, and just to save Habbabkuk the trouble, I’ll call myself a fucking idiot. I’m a fucking idiot, and everything I’ve written is the ramblings of a fucking idiot. OK?
Now, let’s get back to discussing each other’s personalities, yes?
@ Clark,
Q: But there is Russia, and whatever criticism there is of Putin, Russia is not going to abandon its Syrian naval base, the only Russian naval base on the Mediterranean, I think.
R: Russia has a plan B Russia’s Airbase Requests in Cyprus Causes Conflict with U.S., because Russia Sending Permanent Warship Fleet To Mediterranean and Russia to create Mediterranean fleet to protect Syria.
According to HUMINT the naval base in Tartus has not been ‘left to rot,’ although some news outlets did run that kind of stories.
Someone who has watched ‘Behind Closed Doors’ is in no way a historical [WWII] expert.
It seems common sense can be found amongst all the destructive emotions which accumilate in the western hemisphere.
“Politics is lying” and the truth and sensibilities are suppressed.
@Guano
What is your opinion on the Syrian diplomats opening speech at the recent gathering, a speech which I beleive has been suppressed?
The eyes can see but the mind is blind!
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.co.uk/
Bashar Jafari says suggestions that discussions will include talking about President Assad’s future are “a big lie”
Syria talks: Assad’s future not on agenda, says Jafari25 January 2014 Last updated at 12:16 GMT
Syria’s opposition and government have met face to face in Geneva for talks aimed at “saving Syria”.
Syria’s Ambassador to the UN, Bashar Jafari – part of the government delegation – told the BBC’s Lina Sinjab that his priority was “putting an end to the terrorism and the violence”.
He said that President Bashar al-Assad’s future was not up for discussion.
Including short video http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25893408
Thought I should reprint this from the Medialens editors –
‘Blair on killing as a ‘perversion of faith’
Posted by The Editors on January 26, 2014, 8:25 am
Blair, writing in the Observer, argues that “there is one thing self-evidently in common: the acts of terrorism are perpetrated by people motivated by an abuse of religion. It is a perversion of faith.”
http://tinyurl.com/obg8gyx
Says Blair, the illegal war-fighting, mass-murdering ‘Christian’.
DE
As is said. Where is the tipping point?
So far there is no equilibrium. Isn’t justice waiting for Tony Blair and other administrators of illegal wars in Malaysia?
Jay
As I said previously, that introductory was equivalent to a paedophile arguing for his human rights. ‘Nobody can interfere with my completely loving abuse which isn’t harmful.’ Fat git with a brain problem. Shit happens, but fortunately there are outsiders to intervene in Syria and help the Syrians to put things right.
“As I said previously, that introductory was equivalent to a paedophile arguing for his human rights. ‘Nobody can interfere with my completely loving abuse which isn’t harmful.’ Fat git with a brain problem. Shit happens, but fortunately there are outsiders to intervene in Syria and help the Syrians to put things right.”
One of the things common to both Christianity and Islam is the story of Moses. He brought law and order to the people of Israel when they left the laws of Egypt behind. Made them civilised.
In this world we are trying to be civilised internationally now as well, making laws all sovereign states must abide by and one of those laws is quite explicit, people from one sovereign state are not allowed to use violence to make changes to another sovereign state.
No amount of character assassination by comparing people to paedophiles can change that or justify those who flaunt the law and hence wound civilisation.
CNBC
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101353168
Talking about endtimes, has anyone come across this guy, Prof Guy McPherson.
He reckons we’re heading for near term extinction in a matter of decades, that the earth is heating up on its own now which will destroy our habitat and that the erosion of industrial civilization will render us incapable of maintaining and servicing the world’s nuclear power plants.
When you add in the economic collapse we see all around us and the proxy wars in ME and up to the Russian and Chinese borders it is certainly not unreasonable that those who present a more sanguine take on these signal events are asked to explain how they see these many crises unfolding in a more positive fashion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEGlYXumguI
Mary, 25 Jan 3.01pm
I read a very good analysis in the Asia Pacific forum of similar underlying themes in the Thailand “democracy” protests.
Middle class rage threatens democracy:
http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2014/01/21/middle-class-rage-threatens-democracy/
“Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!”
http://japanfocus.org/-Mark-Selden/4065
Thanks form that great link, Arbed, leaves us to wait for the middle classes to realise that they have to connect with the working classes to achieve their aim of change.
Corruption is also a massive problem here, not just in FIFA or the FA, but with the corrupt practises and sole adherence to the City’s excesses. By the end of the month Osborne might want to eat his ‘the economy is improving’ BS and regurgitate it somewhat different, i.e inflation will eat us all.
meanwhile in a once bright and multicultural corner of Haifa its residents are faced with eviction from and the demolition of their ancestral family homes, because the fascist rulers decreed it to happen.
The drip drip of Apartheid and racialism some here excuse.
http://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-destroy-another-haifa-neighborhood-evict-palestinian-residents/13072
And why is it tennable that Syrian territory, the Gholan, is being exploited by resource raiders seeking to steal its oil and gas, if that would happen here, i.e US companies invading parts of Scotland to explore and steal gas/oil, all hell would break loose.
Herbie @ 26 Jan, 2014 – 11:53 am
The prof is an engaging speaker. He describes human extinction arising inevitably from his premise of global warming as an established fact. He begins …..
Everything he then goes on to say over the next hour follows from that opening statement.
His premise may well be true, but I and many others are not convinced it is an established fact. If he had begun with “If it is the case that climate chaos is well under way ….”, I would have no problem with his lecture, but by denying the existence of another viewpoint, he shows blinkered vision. In fact his choice of words throughout seemed designed to defy the sceptics, for example he describes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as “among the most conservative scientific bodies on the planet.” You might as well claim that Christianity is the only true religion and expect no dissenters.
Which ever side of the fence you stand, or even if you’re sitting on it like me, the prudent course is for mankind to get its act together and live sustainably. There are, however, a few who would put short term greed before prudence. McPherson pretending the fence is all-encompassing makes it easy for
those people to ignore the warning alarms.
Hi A Node
I’m not sure what the other viewpoint is. We’ve been living a big lie for ages now and we continue day and daily to live the lie of growth.
Politicians, Corporations and mainstream media talk on and on about growth at the same time as they acknowledge the problems for climate. These two positions are clearly incompatible, but it doesn’t seem to bother them much, so they’re clearly deluded and deluding everyone else, apart from those who look at the dataset.
It’s a bit like the public myths that Chomsky exposes when he explains what the official record has to say.
Anyway, here’s Prof Al Bartlett explaining, in simple terms, other of the public illusions we’ve created for ourselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8ZJCtL6bPs
Prof Guy McPherson lives sustainably and has done for some years now. His fallout with his university began when he asked that they implement more eco-friendly measures on campus. They paid lip service to such issues but refused the implications of them. You see. There it is again. Saying one thing but doing another. We’re all doing that now and on a massive scale.
The point is that neither mainstream media nor politicians etc have the faintest strategic idea for dealing with any of the big issues facing us. They plough their own narrow little furrows paying no attention to the bigger picture, so we shouldn’t expect that the crises facing us will be telegraphed to all and sundry.
The killing continues.
Israeli troops shoot dead Palestinian in north Gaza
Israeli forces have shot dead a Palestinian man and wounded another in a cross-border incident in the north of the Gaza Strip.
/..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25887076
Herbie
You point out that ever-increasing growth is incompatible with sustainability. I agree, of course, and I also agree with the implication that we should therefore adapt our lifestyles accordingly.
The question is whether we have yet reached a point where human behaviour is significantly affecting the climate, or whether our influence is dwarfed by natural climate cycles. There is legitimate cause for debate on this matter, and you and the prof declaring that the argument’s over doesn’t make it so.
Here’s just one reason why the question is important: If we take Guy McPherson at his word, humans have set the climate on an irreversible course and it is too late to change our ways, we are doomed regardless, so we might as well continue on our profligate way, fiddling while Rome burns.
I agree we need to urgently address humanity’s place in the global ecology, but I think oversimplifying the issues is counter-productive.
Fred
Use the cat flap please.
“Prof Guy McPherson lives sustainably and has done for some years now. His fallout with his university began when he asked that they implement more eco-friendly measures on campus. They paid lip service to such issues but refused the implications of them.”
Well said Herbie and A Node, the global equilibrium has been very disturbed to find that their unemployment is going down, but their output and productivity has not, schocks, no growth? what calamity for these annuity addicts who can’t live without their annual appanage.
The same situation exists at the ever expanding and unsustainable UEA, who’s env. school has provided many a blueprint for sustainable living to the world over the years. Its Tyndal centre is wholly unsustainable they don’t even measure their own ecological footprints within the different faculties.
UEA is surrounded by three massive schools and twice daily the whole area is in deep traffic doodoo, UEA needs more than buses and cycles, its car park is bursting with cars from staff and students.
UEA’s recycling policy is quaint and outsourced when this money should be returned and aid students. The student union is run like a businerss now and it has some 6 million profits at anyone time, not that this has much improved their Waterfront venue, only the student bars on campus get regular makeovers to the tune of hundreds of thousands.
all in all, could do as they say others should do. UEA is not working up to its motto ‘Doing different’!
“A rich man, a middle class man and a poor man beside a plate of 10 biscuits.
The rich man takes 9 of the biscuits, and says to the middle class man “look, that poor guy is trying to take all of your biscuit”.
“20. Liam Fox – Former Conservative MP – became shadow health secretary in 1999 – employs Adam Werrity as a paid intern in 2004 – by this time Adam Werrity becomes a director of health consultancy firm ‘UK Health Ltd’ (now dissolved), while Liam Fox was shadow health secretary of which he and Liam Fox were shareholders. Werrity owned 11.5% of UK Health Group and Fox owned 2.3%. In 2005 a researcher based in Mr Fox’s office worked ‘exclusively’ for the now closed Atlantic Bridge ‘charity’, which Liam Fox was the founding member; Mr Werrity became director, and which had links to radical right-wing neocons in the U.S. The researcher received funding from Pfizer Inc. He claimed ‘she has no function in any health role.’ The researcher was Gabby Bertin, who is now David Cameron’s press secretary. Received £5,000 to run his private office in October 2012 from investment company IPGL limited, who purchased healthcare pharma”
http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/p/mps-with-or-had-financial-links-to.html
January is a favourite month for booking holidays so here some suggestions.
Why PEACE TALKS ARE GOOD for Apartheid Adventures – Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEOpL7CerIs&feature=youtu.be
Some background on the tour company.
http://apartheidadventures.com/tours/HOME.html
Afterwards, if you click on “See what we have to offer” and you have a choice of more Apartheid Tours videos.
A Node
I understand your point, but still I find McPherson’s argument and data quite compelling. There doesn’t seem to be anyone seriously challenging his argument, and how could they. He’s just presenting the official data, the public record, much as Chomsky does.
They bring it together in one place so that people can see the big picture, and funnily enough that big picture is at variance with what is deemed to be publicly understood, through media and so on.
I think a good rule of thumb is, if media are pushing it, it’s probably bullshit and fairy tales.
Anyway, McPherson goes into much more depth here:
http://www.carolynbaker.net/2013/11/25/video-guy-mcphersons-climate-change-presentation-depauw-university-indiana-october-2013/
He says that the movers and shakers know all this stuff. Why wouldn’t they. It’s on the public record.
If you were a mover and a shaker and knew all this stuff, what would you do?
I suppose some might just decide to have the greatest party ever…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbBYzuxyNuk
Having Read many times, and with ongoing terrorist butchery in Syria… The Russians are taking the lead at G2..why should anyone be talking to the evil terrorists committing horrendous acts in Syria –
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at G2 conference, stated that no talks will take place with terrorists in Syria. Meanwhile, “We refuse to have talks and do not recommend other parties to hold talks with them over principled considerations,” Lavrov said in an interview with Russia’s NTV on Sunday
.
The minister noted that Jebhat an-Nusra, the Islamic state of Iraq and Levant, and other Al-Qaeda branches cannot be involved in the peace process while militants “rampage and commit terrorist acts [in Syria].”
Lavrov has expressed doubts about including the recently established Syrian Islamic Front – a Sunni Muslim organization of Islamist rebel groups fighting against the Assad government – in the peace process.
The Islamic Front includes organizations that were directly involved in a massacre that killed at least 32 civilians in Adra, Lavrov said, and “some or another structure can hardly be imagined to be a partner in peace talks.”
“Militants are flowing like communicating vessels between the Islamic Front, Javhat al-Nusra, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – they go to where more money is paid,” Lavrov said….more on this @ –
http://rt.com/news/syria-talks-lavrov-terrorists-219/
Fred makes a point about arguing for human rights. If it is a human right then it exists without the need to present a case other than to prove you are human. However abhorrent the behaviour, to suggest that human rights do not apply devalues the currency. If you want to start calling people beasts, whether it may be war criminals, sex offenders or people you just don’t like, do not debase what we have by importing your own value judgments. JM
“Fred makes a point about arguing for human rights.”
Actually I didn’t, I was quoting another poster.
My point was about rule of law.
I agree with you entirely.
Thanks Guano for your response.
How will these changes likely to transcend the Syrian people in terms of jobs, education, land ownership.
What will happen to Syria’s resources.
Where does the money go at present. Into government?
Who’s looking at the accounts…. It’s government run.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviews Syrian senior adviser to President Assad, Bouthaina Shaaban
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2014/01/25/401930cnns-blitzer-interviews-syrian-senior-adviser-to-president-assad-bouthaina-shaaban/
‘You have to be in Syria to know who’s doing what. One can’t be in Washington [like] Christiane Amanpour or in New York and then decide who is doing what. Remember the chemical [attacks]? Massachusetts [MIT] has announced the study that all that has been circulated about the chemical [attacks] was absolutely unfounded about the Syrian government. We have to acknowledge that there is a huge campaign against the Syrian Government for the last three years, and the aim is not the Syrian Government, the aim is the destruction of Syria, the destruction of the Syrian people for only the benefit of Israel. That is the true story that is happening in Syria.’
Watch the full interview.
~~~~~
Ms Shaaban was also interviewed by the BBC but for balance, they had an American woman, Ms Ratif Jouejati ‘shilling’ for the Syrian National Coalition. ie the Saudi and Qatari funded rebel rabble.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25883729
I see Ms Jouejati is very keen on ‘Waging Non-Violence’. http://wagingnonviolence.org/?s=jouejati No irony.