How will foreign powers determine Syria's future.
They will enable the democratic uprising to be crushed, and ordinary people will continue to live in a dictatorship. This will happen in these stages 1. The Shia and Sunni dictatorships with the aid of their superpower supporters will decide on a new dictatorship for Syria with a better sectarian balance (ie more wealthy Sunni business clans). 2. Military support for the rebels by the Sunni dictatorships will stop. 3. The new government will continue to receive outside help to murder and torture the uprising into submission. 4. Key figures in Assad's murder machine will retire in comfort and safety.
If you doubt this then consider that 1. The Middle East is really one interconnected dictatorship, the rivalries provide excuses to discredit or oppress internal opposition, the last thing they want is to defeat their enemies (ie Israeli elite need the Iranian elite, Iranian elite needs the Israeli elite, Saudi elite needs the Iranian elite.... ). 2. The real conflict in the Middle East as elsewhere is between powerful minorities and powerless majorities. 3. Ordinary people in Western countries sympathize with calls for democracy, but do not really understand how lack of democracy and economic distribution abroad is eating away their own political systems from the inside at home (in the last four decades power has been transferred from ordinary people and their democratic governments, to international financial organizations and economically powerful authoritarian governments).
Should also mention that Western governments (and Syrian apologists for oppression) will sell this betrayal as an humanitarian act to end suffering by civilians. I will ask them: Before the uprising did ordinary Syrians suffer? What has the sacrifice by tens of thousands of people achieved in the last forty years of Assad rule? Will the Syrian people ever get another chance to take back their rights? (answers Yes, Nothing, No)
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Egomaniacal Robert Fisk Talks Down Syria Democratic Struggle
Found this comment about Robert Fisk by Jazmin Medina on Al-Jazeera ( http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/empire/2012/03/201232212838378880.html ). I expanded links so you can see the disappointing truth about Robert Fisk.
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Well said !!!!!!
--------------------------------------------
Do not know if anyone will read this now. I was deeply disappointed and honestly disgusted by = Robert Fisk =. As a postscript to the comment above I should say why. He appeared to treat the immensely painful and often heroic struggle against the criminal armed gang lead by Bashar al-Assad that is running Syria , as if it was some kind of cafe discussion session, in which he was delighted to show, in his own egomaniacal estimation, how knowledgeable he was about the strange ways of the Middle East and it's people.
His status as a western reporter unafraid to report Israel-Palestine without the usual Zionist distortions, has given him cover, for his corrupt journalistic practices ( see www.hughpope.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/i-dont-read-hugh-pope-robert-fisk ). Most of his critics have been right wing fanatics with a moral blindness about apartheid in Israel. A catalog of Fisk's crimes against journalistic standards are in the March issue of well known the British investigative magazine "Private Eye" ( see www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=street_of_shame ).
Looking back at Fisk articles on Syria he was a believer back in 2000 that Bashar was a reformer. Then when the Damascus Spring ended after a year, he claimed that Bashar was still a reformer but he a powerless figure head who was being forced away from reform. The recent leaked emails and documents reveal this view to be false. Bashar and his clan have learnt well from [neighbor] Israel about the power of propaganda. Bashar's public face is just that.
Robert Fisk now expects us to believe him, when he says the Syrian Democratic Uprising is going to be crushed like the Islamist uprising in Hama in 1982 was (by Hafez Assad), and Syria is not going to end up as a war of mass murder "against the people" as waged by the Algerian government in the 1990s. Fisk has suggested in other articles that revolutions do not work, and the "Arab Spring" will be a very slow process of incremental change. If the people are patient enough not to ask for too much change too quickly, then decent rulers like Bashar will trickle out their rights over time.
This is utter unhistorical nonsense. Europe won it's democracy when autocratic regimes felt threatened by the people and needed their support to survive. The threat of the French Revolution being repeated lead to reform throughout Europe. The division of power between land owners and new industrialists, lead to restrictive parliamentary democracies extending the electoral franchise to recruit more supporters. The threat of the European revolutions of 1848 lead to further reforms. The struggle between European nations for military supremacy eventually (after WW1 and WW2) lead to governments implementing fully the rights of the people, in an effort to mobilize the masses behind government war efforts. Since the C18 and C19 there has been a revolution in armed conflict in which technology has overtaken numbers. This means dictatorships can subdue their populations will smaller armies. Consequently the threat of the "people" has diminished.
There is no way Middle Eastern dictatorships are going to evolve into democracies without the active support of outside democracies. People in Syria know that if they give up the struggle there is not going to be a better opportunity to oust the internal colonization of the Assads.
Robert Fisk needs a long holiday. Nickolas Van Dam like his inspiration Patrick Searle is an academic and lobbyist in too closely a dependent relationship with his subject. Apologist in other words.
His status as a western reporter unafraid to report Israel-Palestine without the usual Zionist distortions, has given him cover, for his corrupt journalistic practices ( see www.hughpope.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/i-dont-read-hugh-pope-robert-fisk ). Most of his critics have been right wing fanatics with a moral blindness about apartheid in Israel. A catalog of Fisk's crimes against journalistic standards are in the March issue of well known the British investigative magazine "Private Eye" ( see www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=street_of_shame ).
Looking back at Fisk articles on Syria he was a believer back in 2000 that Bashar was a reformer. Then when the Damascus Spring ended after a year, he claimed that Bashar was still a reformer but he a powerless figure head who was being forced away from reform. The recent leaked emails and documents reveal this view to be false. Bashar and his clan have learnt well from [neighbor] Israel about the power of propaganda. Bashar's public face is just that.
Robert Fisk now expects us to believe him, when he says the Syrian Democratic Uprising is going to be crushed like the Islamist uprising in Hama in 1982 was (by Hafez Assad), and Syria is not going to end up as a war of mass murder "against the people" as waged by the Algerian government in the 1990s. Fisk has suggested in other articles that revolutions do not work, and the "Arab Spring" will be a very slow process of incremental change. If the people are patient enough not to ask for too much change too quickly, then decent rulers like Bashar will trickle out their rights over time.
This is utter unhistorical nonsense. Europe won it's democracy when autocratic regimes felt threatened by the people and needed their support to survive. The threat of the French Revolution being repeated lead to reform throughout Europe. The division of power between land owners and new industrialists, lead to restrictive parliamentary democracies extending the electoral franchise to recruit more supporters. The threat of the European revolutions of 1848 lead to further reforms. The struggle between European nations for military supremacy eventually (after WW1 and WW2) lead to governments implementing fully the rights of the people, in an effort to mobilize the masses behind government war efforts. Since the C18 and C19 there has been a revolution in armed conflict in which technology has overtaken numbers. This means dictatorships can subdue their populations will smaller armies. Consequently the threat of the "people" has diminished.
There is no way Middle Eastern dictatorships are going to evolve into democracies without the active support of outside democracies. People in Syria know that if they give up the struggle there is not going to be a better opportunity to oust the internal colonization of the Assads.
Robert Fisk needs a long holiday. Nickolas Van Dam like his inspiration Patrick Searle is an academic and lobbyist in too closely a dependent relationship with his subject. Apologist in other words.
--------------------------------------------
Well said !!!!!!
Monday, November 7, 2011
Alastair Crooke's Pro Syrian Government Propaganda Echoes The Tactics Of The Corrupt Algerian FLN.
"goldenruleapplies" on the Guardian "Comment Is Free" website..................
Alastair Crooke's thesis is that the Arab Democratic Uprising is a game instigated by foreign powers and local elites to control the Middle East. All this sounds like the racist notion that people in the Middle East are fundamentally different to us. The truth is that the Middle East has been extensively internally colonized by regimes which do not represent their people or Islam. The people especially the youth are sick of it, and shout loudly a plague on all your houses.
The real parallel here is not Afghanistan as Crooke claims but the Algerian Civil War of the 1990s. In 1988 the ruling FLN (that ousted the French in the 1960s) allowed multi party elections. When the fairly moderate Islamic Salvation Front (in French "Front Islamique du Salut" or FIS) were about to win elections in 1992, the ruling FLN cancelled elections. The result was a radicalization of the regime's opposition with the creation of armed guerrilla groups. The resulting "dirty" civil war, lead to 200,000 deaths, 15,000 disappeared and the extensive use of extreme torture as an instrument of intimidation. The conflict only wound down after eight years.
The FLN created a propaganda campaign to try to persuade Western governments that the opposition to their rule came from foreigners, rather than a popular rejection of their corrupt rule.
"Within months of the latest insurgency, the Algerian government, in effect run by a coterie of privileged and immensely powerful army officers, cast around the Middle East for inspiration in their struggle against 'fundamentalist terrorism'. They produced books and pamphlets on the roots of Islamic revivalism in an effort to persuade diplomats and foreign journalists that the roots of Algerian 'terrorism' lay in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, in Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia ..... The Algerians searched everywhere - anywhere - for some way of proving that the Algerian insurgency was not Algerian."
[pp649 Robert Frisk " The Great War For Civilization." 2005]
This is exactly what Bashar al-Assad is dong. He is paying foreign public relations companies to do the work. What is Beirut based "Conflicts Forum" and what previous statements have they made? They claimed for example that the Iranian government did not steal the 2009 election.
I assume Bashar is hoping to be like the FLN who clung to power, and continue to have Syria run by the same corrupt elite. The difference is that in Syria, it has been and will be, mostly Shia Alawites killing and torturing mostly Sunnis. If there is no intervention then Assad will create the regional conflict that he is warning will be created if there is intervention. Iran will be drawn in further as the self declared defender of Shia Islam, while Saudi Arabia will be arming Sunnis some of whom will be foreign radical salifists.
We must trust in the ordinary people in Syria who are putting everything on the line for their human rights. We must support them now. They are calling to us directly.
Alastair Crooke's thesis is that the Arab Democratic Uprising is a game instigated by foreign powers and local elites to control the Middle East. All this sounds like the racist notion that people in the Middle East are fundamentally different to us. The truth is that the Middle East has been extensively internally colonized by regimes which do not represent their people or Islam. The people especially the youth are sick of it, and shout loudly a plague on all your houses.
The real parallel here is not Afghanistan as Crooke claims but the Algerian Civil War of the 1990s. In 1988 the ruling FLN (that ousted the French in the 1960s) allowed multi party elections. When the fairly moderate Islamic Salvation Front (in French "Front Islamique du Salut" or FIS) were about to win elections in 1992, the ruling FLN cancelled elections. The result was a radicalization of the regime's opposition with the creation of armed guerrilla groups. The resulting "dirty" civil war, lead to 200,000 deaths, 15,000 disappeared and the extensive use of extreme torture as an instrument of intimidation. The conflict only wound down after eight years.
The FLN created a propaganda campaign to try to persuade Western governments that the opposition to their rule came from foreigners, rather than a popular rejection of their corrupt rule.
"Within months of the latest insurgency, the Algerian government, in effect run by a coterie of privileged and immensely powerful army officers, cast around the Middle East for inspiration in their struggle against 'fundamentalist terrorism'. They produced books and pamphlets on the roots of Islamic revivalism in an effort to persuade diplomats and foreign journalists that the roots of Algerian 'terrorism' lay in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, in Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia ..... The Algerians searched everywhere - anywhere - for some way of proving that the Algerian insurgency was not Algerian."
[pp649 Robert Frisk " The Great War For Civilization." 2005]
This is exactly what Bashar al-Assad is dong. He is paying foreign public relations companies to do the work. What is Beirut based "Conflicts Forum" and what previous statements have they made? They claimed for example that the Iranian government did not steal the 2009 election.
I assume Bashar is hoping to be like the FLN who clung to power, and continue to have Syria run by the same corrupt elite. The difference is that in Syria, it has been and will be, mostly Shia Alawites killing and torturing mostly Sunnis. If there is no intervention then Assad will create the regional conflict that he is warning will be created if there is intervention. Iran will be drawn in further as the self declared defender of Shia Islam, while Saudi Arabia will be arming Sunnis some of whom will be foreign radical salifists.
We must trust in the ordinary people in Syria who are putting everything on the line for their human rights. We must support them now. They are calling to us directly.
Pro Syrian Government Propoganda In Guardian From Lobbyist Alastair Crooke Of "Conflicts Forum".
Transcript of Article In British Newspaper: "Guardian" Saturday 5th November 2011 by Alastair Crooke.
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/04/syria-iran-great-game )
Syria and Iran: the great game.
Regime change in Syria is a strategic prize that outstrips Libya – which is why Saudi Arabia and the west are playing their part.
This summer a senior Saudi official told John Hannah, Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, that from the outset of the upheaval in Syria, the king has believed that regime change would be highly beneficial to Saudi interests: "The king knows that other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself, nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria."
This is today's "great game" – losing Syria. And this is how it is played: set up a hurried transitional council as sole representative of the Syrian people, irrespective of whether it has any real legs inside Syria; feed in armed insurgents from neighbouring states; impose sanctions that will hurt the middle classes; mount a media campaign to denigrate any Syrian efforts at reform; try to instigate divisions within the army and the elite; and ultimately President Assad will fall – so its initiators insist.
Europeans, Americans and certain Gulf states may see the Syria "game" as the logical successor to the supposedly successful Libya game in moulding the Arab awakening towards a western cultural paradigm. In terms of regional politics however, Syria is strategically more valuable, and Iran knows this. Iran has said that it will respond to any external intervention in Syria.
It is already no "game", as the many killed by both sides attests to. The radical armed elements being used in Syria as auxiliaries to depose Assad run counter to the prospect of any outcome emerging within the western paradigm. These groups may well have a bloody and very undemocratic agenda of their own. I warned of this danger in connection to Afghanistan in the 80s: some of the Afghan mujahideen had real roots in the community, I suggested, but others posed a severe danger to people. A kindly American politician at the time placed his arm around my shoulder and told me not to worry: these were the people "kicking Soviet ass". We chose to look the other way because kicking the Soviets played well to US domestic needs. Today Europe looks the other way, refusing to consider who Syria's combat-experienced insurgents taking such a toll of Syrian security forces truly are, because losing Assad and confronting Iran plays so well, particularly at a time of domestic difficulty.
Fortunately, the tactics in Syria, in spite of heavy investment, seem to be failing. Most people in the region believe that if Syria is pushed further into civil conflict the result will be sectarian violence in Lebanon, Iraq and more widely too. The notion that such conflict will throw up a stable, let alone western-style, democracy, is fanciful at best, an act of supreme callousness at worst.
The origins of the "lose Assad" operation preceded the Arab awakening: they reach back to Israel's failure in its 2006 war to seriously damage Hezbollah, and the post-conflict US assessment that it was Syria that represented Hezbollah's achilles heel – as the vulnerable conduit linking Hezbollah to Iran. US officials speculated as to what might be done to block this vital corridor, but it was Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia who surprised them by saying that the solution was to harness Islamic forces. The Americans were intrigued, but could not deal with such people. Leave that to me, Bandar retorted. Hannah noted that "Bandar working without reference to US interests is clearly cause for concern. But Bandar working as a partner … against a common Iranian enemy is a major strategic asset." Bandar got the job.
Hypothetical planning, however, only became concrete action this year, with the overthrow of Egypt's President Mubarak. Suddenly Israel seemed vulnerable, and a weakened Syria, mired in troubles, had heightened strategic allure. In parallel, Qatar had stepped to the fore. Azmi Bishara, a pan-Arabist who resigned from the Israeli Knesset and self-exiled to Doha, was according to some local reports involved in a scheme in which al-Jazeera would not just report revolution, but instantiate it for the region – or at least this is what was believed in Doha in the wake of the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. Qatar, however, was not merely trying to leverage human suffering into an international intervention, but was also – as in Libya – directly involved as a key operational patron of the opposition.
The next stages were to draw France's President Sarkozy – the arch-promoter of the Benghazi transitional council model that had turned Nato into an instrument of regime change – into the team. Barack Obama followed by helping to persuade Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan – already piqued at Assad – to play the transitional council part on Syria's border, and lend his legitimacy to the "resistance". Both of the latter components, however, are not without challenges from their own security arms, who are sceptical of the efficacy of the transitional council model, and opposed to military intervention. Even Bandar is not without challenges: he has no political umbrella from the king, and others in the family are playing other Islamist cards to different ends. Iran, Iraq and Algeria – and occasionally Egypt – co-operate to frustrate Gulf manoeuvres against Syria at the Arab League. The transitional council model, which in Libya has displayed the weakness of leveraging just one faction as the government-in-waiting, is more starkly defective in Syria. Syria's opposition council, put together by Turkey, France and Qatar, is caught out by the fact that the Syrian security structures have remained near rock solid through seven months – defections have been negligible – and Assad's popular support base are intact. Only external intervention could change that equation, but for the opposition to call for it would be political suicide, and they know it.
The internal opposition gathering in Istanbul demanded a statement refusing external intervention and armed action, but the Syrian national council was announced even before the intra-opposition talks had reached any agreement – such was the hurry on the part of external parties.
The external opposition continues to fudge its stance on external intervention, and with good reason: the internal opposition rejects it. This is the flaw to the model – for the majority in Syria deeply oppose external intervention, fearing civil conflict. Hence Syrians face a long period of externally mounted insurgency, siege and international attrition. Both sides will pay in blood.
But the real danger, as Hannah himself noted, is that the Saudis might "once again fire up the old Sunni jihadist network and point it in the general direction of Shiite Iran", which puts Syria first in line. In fact, that is exactly what is happening, but the west, as before in Afghanistan, prefers not to notice – so long as the drama plays well to western audiences.
As Foreign Affairs reported last month, Saudi and its Gulf allies are firing up the radical Salafists (fundamentalist Sunnis), not only to weaken Iran, but to do what they see is necessary to survive – to disrupt and emasculate the awakenings that threaten absolute monarchism. This is happening in Syria, Libya, Egypt Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq.
This Islamically assertive, literalist orientation of Islam may be generally viewed as nonpolitical and pliable, but history is far from comforting. If you tell people often enough that they can be king-makers and throw buckets of money at them, do not be surprised if they metamorphose – yet again – into something very political. It may take some months, but the fruits of this new attempt to use radical forces for western ends will yet again backfire. Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, recently warned that the Hillary Clinton-devised response to the Arab awakening, of implanting western paradigms, by force if necessary, into the void of fallen regimes, will be seen as a "cultural war on Islam", and will sow the seeds of a further round of radicalisation.
One of the sad paradoxes is the undercutting of moderate Sunnis, who now find themselves caught between the rock of being seen as a western tool, and the hard place of radical Sunni Salafists waiting for the opportunity to displace them and to dismantle the state. What a strange world: Europe and the US think it is OK to "use" precisely those Islamists (including al-Qaida) who absolutely do not believe in western-style democracy in order to bring it about. But then, why not just look the other way and gain the benefit of the public enjoying Assad's kicking?
Comment On Article By "goldenruleapplies" ..............................
This article by Crooke is rubbish on so many levels, it hardly seems worth mentioning. This ex MI6 30 yr career spy has form see the extract below.
"Remaking the Middle East in Syria's Image." Huffingtonpost, 9th September 2010.
Syria's vision of a New Middle East made its way to Foreign Policy magazine, months after being printed in the Washington Post by the same authors.
The vision echoes what was put out by a Hezbollah friend, former MI6 agent Alistair Crooke. In a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) publication, Crooke argued that Washington should replace its current alliance with the Saudi-Egyptian-Jordanian coalition with another consisting of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Iran-dominated Iraq and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon.
The Middle East might not be changing as fast as Malley, Harling or Crooke suggest. It is Washington, however -- where "unfriendly" countries have finally learned how to lobby the administration to their own advantages -- that has changed.
( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hussain-abdulhussain/remaking-the-middle-east-_b_709060.html )
His Conflicts Forum lobby organization is based in Beirut. Most western ex-government people end up working as paid lobbyists for the Saudi "proud desert kingdom" brigade. Mr Crooke is a lobbyist for the Iran-Syria-Iraq lobby.
I say it is these conflicts of Sunni v Shia, Islam v Secular, Left v Right that has traditionally allowed external forces to encourage elites to internally colonize the Middle East. This time the ordinary people of the region are standing up for their rights. The self serving conflicts have been seen through, by the people who are not stupid.
For more information on Mr Crooke see ....
http://www.ibishblog.com/article/2011/08/01/alastair_crooke_ex_spy_who_stepped_cold_authored_michael_weiss
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Essay-response-How-not-to/
In the spirit of the Gaza youth statement, f**k off Israel, US, Hamas, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran .... It is about REAL PEOPLE, please support the Syrian Democratic Uprising.
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/04/syria-iran-great-game )
Syria and Iran: the great game.
Regime change in Syria is a strategic prize that outstrips Libya – which is why Saudi Arabia and the west are playing their part.
This summer a senior Saudi official told John Hannah, Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, that from the outset of the upheaval in Syria, the king has believed that regime change would be highly beneficial to Saudi interests: "The king knows that other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself, nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria."
This is today's "great game" – losing Syria. And this is how it is played: set up a hurried transitional council as sole representative of the Syrian people, irrespective of whether it has any real legs inside Syria; feed in armed insurgents from neighbouring states; impose sanctions that will hurt the middle classes; mount a media campaign to denigrate any Syrian efforts at reform; try to instigate divisions within the army and the elite; and ultimately President Assad will fall – so its initiators insist.
Europeans, Americans and certain Gulf states may see the Syria "game" as the logical successor to the supposedly successful Libya game in moulding the Arab awakening towards a western cultural paradigm. In terms of regional politics however, Syria is strategically more valuable, and Iran knows this. Iran has said that it will respond to any external intervention in Syria.
It is already no "game", as the many killed by both sides attests to. The radical armed elements being used in Syria as auxiliaries to depose Assad run counter to the prospect of any outcome emerging within the western paradigm. These groups may well have a bloody and very undemocratic agenda of their own. I warned of this danger in connection to Afghanistan in the 80s: some of the Afghan mujahideen had real roots in the community, I suggested, but others posed a severe danger to people. A kindly American politician at the time placed his arm around my shoulder and told me not to worry: these were the people "kicking Soviet ass". We chose to look the other way because kicking the Soviets played well to US domestic needs. Today Europe looks the other way, refusing to consider who Syria's combat-experienced insurgents taking such a toll of Syrian security forces truly are, because losing Assad and confronting Iran plays so well, particularly at a time of domestic difficulty.
Fortunately, the tactics in Syria, in spite of heavy investment, seem to be failing. Most people in the region believe that if Syria is pushed further into civil conflict the result will be sectarian violence in Lebanon, Iraq and more widely too. The notion that such conflict will throw up a stable, let alone western-style, democracy, is fanciful at best, an act of supreme callousness at worst.
The origins of the "lose Assad" operation preceded the Arab awakening: they reach back to Israel's failure in its 2006 war to seriously damage Hezbollah, and the post-conflict US assessment that it was Syria that represented Hezbollah's achilles heel – as the vulnerable conduit linking Hezbollah to Iran. US officials speculated as to what might be done to block this vital corridor, but it was Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia who surprised them by saying that the solution was to harness Islamic forces. The Americans were intrigued, but could not deal with such people. Leave that to me, Bandar retorted. Hannah noted that "Bandar working without reference to US interests is clearly cause for concern. But Bandar working as a partner … against a common Iranian enemy is a major strategic asset." Bandar got the job.
Hypothetical planning, however, only became concrete action this year, with the overthrow of Egypt's President Mubarak. Suddenly Israel seemed vulnerable, and a weakened Syria, mired in troubles, had heightened strategic allure. In parallel, Qatar had stepped to the fore. Azmi Bishara, a pan-Arabist who resigned from the Israeli Knesset and self-exiled to Doha, was according to some local reports involved in a scheme in which al-Jazeera would not just report revolution, but instantiate it for the region – or at least this is what was believed in Doha in the wake of the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. Qatar, however, was not merely trying to leverage human suffering into an international intervention, but was also – as in Libya – directly involved as a key operational patron of the opposition.
The next stages were to draw France's President Sarkozy – the arch-promoter of the Benghazi transitional council model that had turned Nato into an instrument of regime change – into the team. Barack Obama followed by helping to persuade Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan – already piqued at Assad – to play the transitional council part on Syria's border, and lend his legitimacy to the "resistance". Both of the latter components, however, are not without challenges from their own security arms, who are sceptical of the efficacy of the transitional council model, and opposed to military intervention. Even Bandar is not without challenges: he has no political umbrella from the king, and others in the family are playing other Islamist cards to different ends. Iran, Iraq and Algeria – and occasionally Egypt – co-operate to frustrate Gulf manoeuvres against Syria at the Arab League. The transitional council model, which in Libya has displayed the weakness of leveraging just one faction as the government-in-waiting, is more starkly defective in Syria. Syria's opposition council, put together by Turkey, France and Qatar, is caught out by the fact that the Syrian security structures have remained near rock solid through seven months – defections have been negligible – and Assad's popular support base are intact. Only external intervention could change that equation, but for the opposition to call for it would be political suicide, and they know it.
The internal opposition gathering in Istanbul demanded a statement refusing external intervention and armed action, but the Syrian national council was announced even before the intra-opposition talks had reached any agreement – such was the hurry on the part of external parties.
The external opposition continues to fudge its stance on external intervention, and with good reason: the internal opposition rejects it. This is the flaw to the model – for the majority in Syria deeply oppose external intervention, fearing civil conflict. Hence Syrians face a long period of externally mounted insurgency, siege and international attrition. Both sides will pay in blood.
But the real danger, as Hannah himself noted, is that the Saudis might "once again fire up the old Sunni jihadist network and point it in the general direction of Shiite Iran", which puts Syria first in line. In fact, that is exactly what is happening, but the west, as before in Afghanistan, prefers not to notice – so long as the drama plays well to western audiences.
As Foreign Affairs reported last month, Saudi and its Gulf allies are firing up the radical Salafists (fundamentalist Sunnis), not only to weaken Iran, but to do what they see is necessary to survive – to disrupt and emasculate the awakenings that threaten absolute monarchism. This is happening in Syria, Libya, Egypt Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq.
This Islamically assertive, literalist orientation of Islam may be generally viewed as nonpolitical and pliable, but history is far from comforting. If you tell people often enough that they can be king-makers and throw buckets of money at them, do not be surprised if they metamorphose – yet again – into something very political. It may take some months, but the fruits of this new attempt to use radical forces for western ends will yet again backfire. Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, recently warned that the Hillary Clinton-devised response to the Arab awakening, of implanting western paradigms, by force if necessary, into the void of fallen regimes, will be seen as a "cultural war on Islam", and will sow the seeds of a further round of radicalisation.
One of the sad paradoxes is the undercutting of moderate Sunnis, who now find themselves caught between the rock of being seen as a western tool, and the hard place of radical Sunni Salafists waiting for the opportunity to displace them and to dismantle the state. What a strange world: Europe and the US think it is OK to "use" precisely those Islamists (including al-Qaida) who absolutely do not believe in western-style democracy in order to bring it about. But then, why not just look the other way and gain the benefit of the public enjoying Assad's kicking?
Comment On Article By "goldenruleapplies" ..............................
This article by Crooke is rubbish on so many levels, it hardly seems worth mentioning. This ex MI6 30 yr career spy has form see the extract below.
"Remaking the Middle East in Syria's Image." Huffingtonpost, 9th September 2010.
Syria's vision of a New Middle East made its way to Foreign Policy magazine, months after being printed in the Washington Post by the same authors.
The vision echoes what was put out by a Hezbollah friend, former MI6 agent Alistair Crooke. In a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) publication, Crooke argued that Washington should replace its current alliance with the Saudi-Egyptian-Jordanian coalition with another consisting of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Iran-dominated Iraq and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon.
The Middle East might not be changing as fast as Malley, Harling or Crooke suggest. It is Washington, however -- where "unfriendly" countries have finally learned how to lobby the administration to their own advantages -- that has changed.
( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hussain-abdulhussain/remaking-the-middle-east-_b_709060.html )
His Conflicts Forum lobby organization is based in Beirut. Most western ex-government people end up working as paid lobbyists for the Saudi "proud desert kingdom" brigade. Mr Crooke is a lobbyist for the Iran-Syria-Iraq lobby.
I say it is these conflicts of Sunni v Shia, Islam v Secular, Left v Right that has traditionally allowed external forces to encourage elites to internally colonize the Middle East. This time the ordinary people of the region are standing up for their rights. The self serving conflicts have been seen through, by the people who are not stupid.
For more information on Mr Crooke see ....
http://www.ibishblog.com/article/2011/08/01/alastair_crooke_ex_spy_who_stepped_cold_authored_michael_weiss
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Essay-response-How-not-to/
In the spirit of the Gaza youth statement, f**k off Israel, US, Hamas, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran .... It is about REAL PEOPLE, please support the Syrian Democratic Uprising.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Today Tripoli, Next Stop Damascus
Marvelous news from Libya. Abdel Jalil of the Transitional National Council is speaking on Al Jazeera; stating that the New Libya will be a country based on a "moderate" Islamic framework, where all Libyans regardless of religion or ethnicity will be equal, and people from all areas of Libya will live in freedom and respect. This is what the TNC have been saying since the start of the revolution six months ago. Gaddafi's hold on Tripoli has largely fallen apart in a few days, showing that he ruled mainly by fear and bribery. His power is now evaporating, although some will still be connected to him by the stain of their past crimes.
Let us give thanks to God , the courage of mainly ordinary people fighting Gaddafi's mercenary army and the skill of Nato's armed forces (who in this case) have given the Libyan people the military space to shake off the internal colonisation of the Gaddafi family. One citizen soldier said early in this conflict that this was a "revolution of common sense." This summed up for me the madness of the Gaddafi regime, the maturity of politics in the Middle East especially amongst young people and the popular realization that time is running out for a new approach to change in this crucial region.
Now the question is, how many powerful authoritarian regimes outside Libya will want the New Democratic Libya to fail (Iran? Saudi Arabia? Bahrain? Algeria? and even some right wing American and European elites?). Let us therefore pray that God will give the Libyan people the strength of purpose to overcome the obstacles of the near future, when others will be tempted to privately exploit their weaknesses. More importantly pray that God will speak to ordinary people in outside countries that the success of Libya and the Arab Democratic Uprising is in our continuing common interest.
Remember that Iraq was a disaster because the authoritarian regime of Saddam Hussien gave way to sectarian strife. The Sunni versus Shia versus West conflict was fought out in Iraq. This was fueled by Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sunni Fundamentalists in general. On top of this the United States pursued the policies that encouraged a vacuum for the Iraqi civil war to take off.
Next let us pray that Muammar Gaddafi and his sons will appear in the International Criminal Court in the Hague or a similarly constituted tribunal in Libya. This will be right in itself, and the right start for the New Libya.
The next problem is to :
1. Remove Bashir al-Assad from control of Syria. To put at the very heart of the projected "Transitional Council of Syria", the truth that common humanity and a shared believe in the one God, rises many times above smaller differences of Sunni, Shia, Christian and Jew.
2. Prevent the governments of Israel and Iran from derailing the Arab Democratic Uprising (which is not in the interests of either of these countries elites) by genocide in Gaza.
3. Of critical and urgent importance to put pressure on the Egyptian military council, to change the current plan, so that international observers will be present to ensure fairness in the upcoming elections in Egypt in November this year.
If it is right that Gaddafi has gone, then is many times more right that Bashar al-Assad goes. I say as a Christian, but more importantly as a believer in God and his kingdom in this world, “Next Stop Damascus God Willing”.
(see Winning the battle of Libya after Gaddafi.)
Let us give thanks to God , the courage of mainly ordinary people fighting Gaddafi's mercenary army and the skill of Nato's armed forces (who in this case) have given the Libyan people the military space to shake off the internal colonisation of the Gaddafi family. One citizen soldier said early in this conflict that this was a "revolution of common sense." This summed up for me the madness of the Gaddafi regime, the maturity of politics in the Middle East especially amongst young people and the popular realization that time is running out for a new approach to change in this crucial region.
Now the question is, how many powerful authoritarian regimes outside Libya will want the New Democratic Libya to fail (Iran? Saudi Arabia? Bahrain? Algeria? and even some right wing American and European elites?). Let us therefore pray that God will give the Libyan people the strength of purpose to overcome the obstacles of the near future, when others will be tempted to privately exploit their weaknesses. More importantly pray that God will speak to ordinary people in outside countries that the success of Libya and the Arab Democratic Uprising is in our continuing common interest.
Remember that Iraq was a disaster because the authoritarian regime of Saddam Hussien gave way to sectarian strife. The Sunni versus Shia versus West conflict was fought out in Iraq. This was fueled by Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sunni Fundamentalists in general. On top of this the United States pursued the policies that encouraged a vacuum for the Iraqi civil war to take off.
Next let us pray that Muammar Gaddafi and his sons will appear in the International Criminal Court in the Hague or a similarly constituted tribunal in Libya. This will be right in itself, and the right start for the New Libya.
The next problem is to :
1. Remove Bashir al-Assad from control of Syria. To put at the very heart of the projected "Transitional Council of Syria", the truth that common humanity and a shared believe in the one God, rises many times above smaller differences of Sunni, Shia, Christian and Jew.
2. Prevent the governments of Israel and Iran from derailing the Arab Democratic Uprising (which is not in the interests of either of these countries elites) by genocide in Gaza.
3. Of critical and urgent importance to put pressure on the Egyptian military council, to change the current plan, so that international observers will be present to ensure fairness in the upcoming elections in Egypt in November this year.
If it is right that Gaddafi has gone, then is many times more right that Bashar al-Assad goes. I say as a Christian, but more importantly as a believer in God and his kingdom in this world, “Next Stop Damascus God Willing”.
(see Winning the battle of Libya after Gaddafi.)
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Short history of Syria, Chapter 1: Until 1946.
The essential prerequisite to civilization is agriculture. This was invented in Syria around 10,000 BC. In Roman times Antioch (1938 annexed into Southern Turkey) was the capital of Syria, and was one of the largest cities in the ancient world. Later Saint Paul after his conversion on the road to Damascus, became an important figure in the early Christian Church based in Antioch. With the rise of Islam in the 7th Century Damascus became the capital of the mighty Umayyad Empire, that stretched from what is now Spain to Pakistan. This lasted until the 10th century when Syria was taken over by the Islamic Abbasid dynasty based in Baghdad. Then the Christian Byzantine Empire, then the Crusaders and by the 13th Century it was on the western edge of the Mongol Empire. Then from the 16th to the 20th centuries Syria became part of the huge Turkish Ottoman Empire.
A map is needed to understand what has happened to Ottoman Syria since the end of the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Syria was an area bordered to the west by the Mediterranean and to the east the Syrian Desert (a continuation northwards of the Arabian Desert). It ended in the south with the Sinai desert and the Red Sea, and in the north with the slopes of the Tauras Mountains. The fertile areas of this region are shown in green above. This area forms the western arm of the "Fertile Crescent". The eastern arm "Mesopotamia" follows the Euphrates and Tigris rivers as they flow south east from the Tauras Mountains to the Persian Gulf.
Britain and France cheated the Arabs out of independence after the First World War, with the creation by the League of Nations of the British and French Mandates. King Faisal's brief reign in Syria (1918–1920) was ended by the French deposing him. He had wanted to unite Syria and Mesopotamia into one nation, and bridge the divisions between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
Control of Southern Syria (Palestine and Transjordon) was given to the British. After the Second World War this area became Israel and Jordon. The map above shows the Israeli Occupied Territories as part of Israel (going north to south .... Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza) because unfortunately the chance of anyone forcing Israel to give any of them up is about nil. It should be noted that water supply is a key strategic asset in this semi arid region, and not sharing this resource fairly from the Golan Heights, Jordan River and the aquifers of the West Bank are seen by the Israeli establishment as essential.
In addition the British were given control of the Ottoman Mesopotamian provinces (now modern day Iraq). Kuwait (a semi independent emirate on Iraq's Persian Gulf coastline) had been under British protection since 1899. In the late nineteenth century the Ottomans were attempting to consolidate the outer reaches of their Empire, which threatened British interests and the autonomy of local rulers. The deposed King Faisal was installed by the British as King of Iraq in 1921, although they kept effective control. The King had enough authority among the diverse tribes of Iraq to help keep control, while still being vulnerable enough to be dependent [the classic definition of a good proxy colonial ruler or "satrap"]. The British also sowed the seeds of tragedy after independence by encouraging Sunnis to become the officer class of the new Iraqi army they formed. It should be noted that Faisal and his descendants failed to rule Iraq effectively, due to their feudal beliefs leading to a failure to distribute wealth to the majority of the poverty stricken population.
From 1920 France ruled the Northern part of Syria. They controlled their area by favoring minorities over the majority Sunni population. The country was divided into a number of statelets, such that in many cases minorities gained more local autonomy. After the Second world War this area became modern day "Syria" and "Lebanon".
The country of "Lebanon" (like the other fragments of Ottoman Syria) was created by foreign interests. In 1860 the French under Napolean III had already intervened in Ottoman Syria when fighting broke out between Shia Druzes and Catholic Maronites, resulting in a very large massacre of Maronites. The Sultan was forced to change the administration of the area and provide an enclave "Mount Lebanon" for the Maronites. In 1920 France created the Statelet of "Greater Lebanon" by expanding on the enclave, which eventually became modern day "Lebanon". This new state incorporated many Muslims and Orthodox Christians, creating the tensions which together with external influences from the Israel-Palestine conflict lead to the disastrous 1975-1990 civil war.
In modern "Syria" the Aliwi are now a powerful minority, from which has come the current ruling Assad dynasty. Before the French Mandate they were seen as heretics and often discriminated against, by the Sunni majority and their religious leaders. The Aliwite promotion of the fourth caliph Ali into a deity, went beyond mainstream Shia Islam, into something that contradicted the orthodox Islamic idea that Mohammed was the “last” messenger from God. [Personally I do not hold with any Jewish, Christian or Islamic religious ideas that seek to limit God to how many messengers, prophets, saviors etc…. he can send to show us the way. We should only be interested in knowing and following the way.]
The Ismaili Shia sect and it’s esoteric offshoot the Druzes were also discriminated against, but the Alawis were singled out because of their perceived total lack of orthodoxy and their obsessive secrecy which encouraged the creation of myths about them. I find it difficult not to see the comments of previous writers on the Alawi and their religious believes, as being motivated mainly by prejudice and rumour rather than truth. It should also be noted that since the French Mandate and particularly since the1970s the religious position of the Aliwites has moved significantly towards mainstream Shia Islam.
The French created the “State of Latakia” for the Alawi in July 1922. This statelet was then granted low taxation and a generous French subsidy. In return Alawites formed about half of the French controlled colonial “Troupes Spéciales du Levant” army units , as well as serving in the colonial police. Nearly all Alawites lived in the countryside, and they were used by the French to control uprisings and strikes by Sunnis in the cities.
It is true in 1921 that the Alawis under the leadership of Salih al-‘Ali did revolt against the French. This stopped as soon as the French gave them autonomy in their own statelet, and from then on they supported the continuation of French colonialism. In truth it is difficult to blame them given their previous conditions.
The French continued the process of division of "Ottoman Syria" started with the creation of French and British Mandates. The French Mandate was further divided into a number of "statelets". This created new minorities within these statelets, which encouraged sectarian strife. Obviously colonial powers need to dominate colonies by encouraging divisions between indigenous groups, which in theory prevents them making common cause against the colonialists. This also creates a number of local elites with limited powers, who can be held responsible for disobedience of the people in their areas, and if necessary threatened with replacement.
Having created this corrupt colonial system the French, also sought to then improve Syrian society by weakening the power of feudalism. Clearly a noble aim in other circumstances. The humiliation of the Druze nobility backfired with a revolt in 1925 in the "Jabal Druze" statelet led by Sultan Pasha el Atrash. The Syrians overcame sectarian differences, and the revolt spread to many other statelets. After many victories against the French, they sent in thousands of colonial troops from Morocco and Senegal. Modern weapons eventually overcame the less well equipped rebels.
Even after the rebellion was crushed the French had the common sense to realize they had underestimated their Syrian subjects, and the harsh tactics of the early years were softened. On 27th September 1941 Syria was granted token independence. However the French were reluctant to leave. On 29th May 1945 they bombed Damascus from the air, and tried to arrest its new democratically elected leaders. Only pressure from Syrian Nationalists and the British lead to the last French troops leaving on April 17th 1946.
A map is needed to understand what has happened to Ottoman Syria since the end of the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Syria was an area bordered to the west by the Mediterranean and to the east the Syrian Desert (a continuation northwards of the Arabian Desert). It ended in the south with the Sinai desert and the Red Sea, and in the north with the slopes of the Tauras Mountains. The fertile areas of this region are shown in green above. This area forms the western arm of the "Fertile Crescent". The eastern arm "Mesopotamia" follows the Euphrates and Tigris rivers as they flow south east from the Tauras Mountains to the Persian Gulf.
Britain and France cheated the Arabs out of independence after the First World War, with the creation by the League of Nations of the British and French Mandates. King Faisal's brief reign in Syria (1918–1920) was ended by the French deposing him. He had wanted to unite Syria and Mesopotamia into one nation, and bridge the divisions between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
Control of Southern Syria (Palestine and Transjordon) was given to the British. After the Second World War this area became Israel and Jordon. The map above shows the Israeli Occupied Territories as part of Israel (going north to south .... Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza) because unfortunately the chance of anyone forcing Israel to give any of them up is about nil. It should be noted that water supply is a key strategic asset in this semi arid region, and not sharing this resource fairly from the Golan Heights, Jordan River and the aquifers of the West Bank are seen by the Israeli establishment as essential.
In addition the British were given control of the Ottoman Mesopotamian provinces (now modern day Iraq). Kuwait (a semi independent emirate on Iraq's Persian Gulf coastline) had been under British protection since 1899. In the late nineteenth century the Ottomans were attempting to consolidate the outer reaches of their Empire, which threatened British interests and the autonomy of local rulers. The deposed King Faisal was installed by the British as King of Iraq in 1921, although they kept effective control. The King had enough authority among the diverse tribes of Iraq to help keep control, while still being vulnerable enough to be dependent [the classic definition of a good proxy colonial ruler or "satrap"]. The British also sowed the seeds of tragedy after independence by encouraging Sunnis to become the officer class of the new Iraqi army they formed. It should be noted that Faisal and his descendants failed to rule Iraq effectively, due to their feudal beliefs leading to a failure to distribute wealth to the majority of the poverty stricken population.
From 1920 France ruled the Northern part of Syria. They controlled their area by favoring minorities over the majority Sunni population. The country was divided into a number of statelets, such that in many cases minorities gained more local autonomy. After the Second world War this area became modern day "Syria" and "Lebanon".
The country of "Lebanon" (like the other fragments of Ottoman Syria) was created by foreign interests. In 1860 the French under Napolean III had already intervened in Ottoman Syria when fighting broke out between Shia Druzes and Catholic Maronites, resulting in a very large massacre of Maronites. The Sultan was forced to change the administration of the area and provide an enclave "Mount Lebanon" for the Maronites. In 1920 France created the Statelet of "Greater Lebanon" by expanding on the enclave, which eventually became modern day "Lebanon". This new state incorporated many Muslims and Orthodox Christians, creating the tensions which together with external influences from the Israel-Palestine conflict lead to the disastrous 1975-1990 civil war.
In modern "Syria" the Aliwi are now a powerful minority, from which has come the current ruling Assad dynasty. Before the French Mandate they were seen as heretics and often discriminated against, by the Sunni majority and their religious leaders. The Aliwite promotion of the fourth caliph Ali into a deity, went beyond mainstream Shia Islam, into something that contradicted the orthodox Islamic idea that Mohammed was the “last” messenger from God. [Personally I do not hold with any Jewish, Christian or Islamic religious ideas that seek to limit God to how many messengers, prophets, saviors etc…. he can send to show us the way. We should only be interested in knowing and following the way.]
The Ismaili Shia sect and it’s esoteric offshoot the Druzes were also discriminated against, but the Alawis were singled out because of their perceived total lack of orthodoxy and their obsessive secrecy which encouraged the creation of myths about them. I find it difficult not to see the comments of previous writers on the Alawi and their religious believes, as being motivated mainly by prejudice and rumour rather than truth. It should also be noted that since the French Mandate and particularly since the1970s the religious position of the Aliwites has moved significantly towards mainstream Shia Islam.
The French created the “State of Latakia” for the Alawi in July 1922. This statelet was then granted low taxation and a generous French subsidy. In return Alawites formed about half of the French controlled colonial “Troupes Spéciales du Levant” army units , as well as serving in the colonial police. Nearly all Alawites lived in the countryside, and they were used by the French to control uprisings and strikes by Sunnis in the cities.
It is true in 1921 that the Alawis under the leadership of Salih al-‘Ali did revolt against the French. This stopped as soon as the French gave them autonomy in their own statelet, and from then on they supported the continuation of French colonialism. In truth it is difficult to blame them given their previous conditions.
The French continued the process of division of "Ottoman Syria" started with the creation of French and British Mandates. The French Mandate was further divided into a number of "statelets". This created new minorities within these statelets, which encouraged sectarian strife. Obviously colonial powers need to dominate colonies by encouraging divisions between indigenous groups, which in theory prevents them making common cause against the colonialists. This also creates a number of local elites with limited powers, who can be held responsible for disobedience of the people in their areas, and if necessary threatened with replacement.
Having created this corrupt colonial system the French, also sought to then improve Syrian society by weakening the power of feudalism. Clearly a noble aim in other circumstances. The humiliation of the Druze nobility backfired with a revolt in 1925 in the "Jabal Druze" statelet led by Sultan Pasha el Atrash. The Syrians overcame sectarian differences, and the revolt spread to many other statelets. After many victories against the French, they sent in thousands of colonial troops from Morocco and Senegal. Modern weapons eventually overcame the less well equipped rebels.
Even after the rebellion was crushed the French had the common sense to realize they had underestimated their Syrian subjects, and the harsh tactics of the early years were softened. On 27th September 1941 Syria was granted token independence. However the French were reluctant to leave. On 29th May 1945 they bombed Damascus from the air, and tried to arrest its new democratically elected leaders. Only pressure from Syrian Nationalists and the British lead to the last French troops leaving on April 17th 1946.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Why Assad's Regime Is Over.
" Hamza al-Khateeb used to love it when the rains came to his small corner of southern Syria, filling up the farmers' irrigation channels enough so that he and the other children could jump in and swim. But the drought of the last few years had left the 13-year-old without the fun of his favourite pool.
Instead, he'd taken to raising homing pigeons, standing on the roof of his family's simple breeze-block home, craning his neck back to see the birds circling above the wide horizon of fields, where wheat and tomatoes were grown from the tough, scrubby soils. "
He was arrested during a protest near Daraa on the 29th April. The scars on his body showed that the Syrian "security" forces attacked this thirteen year old boy during the month he was in their care, with electric shocks and by whipping him with wire cables. Even in his death they degraded themselves by shooting him through the arms into his stomach, breaking his neck, and cutting off his genitals. His mother was only allowed to see his face, while his father looked on his son's body and fainted.
According to Ricken Patel of Avaaz (the international rights and advocacy group) " This is a campaign of mass terrorism and intimidation: Horribly tortured people sent back to communities by a regime not trying to cover up its crimes, but to advertise them. "
The treatment of Hamza al-Khateeb is not an isolated incident but part of a campaign. The aim is to intimidate some of the Syrian population. While others will be driven to such rage that they will try to take revenge against the armed forces, the security forces or the Alawite minority. This would then allow Assad to claim he was fighting a civil war.
The unrest started in Deraa on the 6th March, when 15 boys between the ages of 10 and 15 were arrested by the security forces for painting "The people want to topple the regime!" on the walls. They were beaten, burned with cigarette ends and then had their fingernails removed. Only after two weeks of protests were the boys released. By this time three people had been shot dead by the security forces, and many others wounded. After this there was a spiral of violence with each protest by the people of Deraa being met with increasing violence by the security forces. The city has now been under siege by the army since the 25th April.
According to the Humans Rights Watch report “We’ve Never Seen Such Horror, Crimes against Humanity by Syrian Security Forces." published on the 1st June 2011. " The security forces have killed at least 418 people in the Daraa governorate alone, and more than 887 across Syria.... "
There have also been around 10,000 people arrested in Syria by the security forces since the protests began, with all the terrible suffering that this involves.
See: "We are all Hamza al-Khateeb." https://www.facebook.com/hamza.alshaheed?sk=wall
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)