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

The Syria Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Assad: You are most welcome in Syria.

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

President Assad: Every question, without exception.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Assad: Of course, that’s why-

Journalist: Will you do that?

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

Question 12: May I show you a picture?

President Assad: Of course.

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

President Assad: Of course I saw it.

Journalist: His name is Omran. Five years old.

President Assad: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question 16: You still believe in a diplomatic solution?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Journalist: But the UN report is not a fiction.

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

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

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

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

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

Journalist: ICRC?

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

Journalist: But there are a lot of eyewitnesses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Assad: Thank you for coming to Syria.

Related Videos

Related Articles

• “Will my foot grow back?” ~ Aleppo kids, mutilated by Obama’s cannibal shelling, tell their stories: stories for which Kerry and cronies are not ‘disturbed’ [Graphic]
• Syrian Arab Army troops and Russian Air Force successfully regained Ma’ardas in north-Hama, mercenaries-terrorists fall like flies in winter, one after the other
• Pro-Syrian government rally in Qudsaya after terrorist gangs were kicked out and fled from the area
• Daesh moves to Syria where Erdogan still aims for Aleppo
• Syrian army: “U.S. tries to secure safe routes for Daesh terrorists fleeing Mosul for Syria”
• Russia move to restore former Soviet military bases abroad
• U.S. [toward the final defeat] pleads Russia for ‘mercy’, gives up on Aleppo, admits Syrians will win
• John Kohn Kerry accuses Russia of war crimes while U.S.-supported ‘moderate-terrorists’ shell civilians daily ~ [Graphic Report]
• Russian Authority’s Statements ~ Sergei Shoigu: “Strikes on Aleppo have stopped” ~ Vitaly Churkin: “Permanent ceasefire in Aleppo is possible if al-Nusra terrorists are taken out” ~ Sergey Rudskoy : “Terrorists in Aleppo still receiving U.S.-made TOW missiles”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Eve of Destruction? A Sobering Look at How Dangerous the US-Russia Conflict Now Is

Posted on October 19, 2016

by Richard Edmondson

[ Ed. note – Recently a small group of House members sent a letter to Obama asking him to adopt a clearly-stated policy of no first-use of nuclear weapons. It is perhaps a sign of the times, and of how oblivious to rational thinking our leaders have become, that out of 435 members of the House, only  22 signed onto the letter. (H/T Ariadna).

Cited by the signatories as one of the reasons for adopting a no-first-use policy is that it would reduce “the risk of miscalculation by adversaries.” And this, as we see from the article below, is a very key consideration. The article, which may cause you to lose sleep tonight, deals with a study recently published by Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, a German think tank. The study analyzes, from a largely neutral perspective, the prospects of a nuclear war between the US and Russia, observing, among other things, that missiles launched by either side could arrive at their targets in a very short period of time–theoretically as little as 11 minutes if launched from sea.

What this means is that the “response time” to a perceived threat–whether real or imagined–is so short that both sides are now essentially on hair-trigger alert. In other words, the odds of a nuclear war are roughly around that of a $10 payoff on an instant-win lottery ticket.

The article below was published a few days ago at the World Socialist Web Site. As is often the case with articles at WSWS, I have a few issues with it, one of which is the characterization of Donald Trump as “semi-fascist.” It may or may not be an accurate delineation of his worldview, but with corruption so pervasive among ruling elites, why waste breath attacking the one person on the political scene feared and loathed by those same elites perhaps more so than anyone else? Given all the media attacks on Trump at the moment, similar attacks from the left sound like nothing more than cant.

The other issue is the trademark final paragraph–common to all WSWS articles. I really have to say, the expectation that there is someday going to be an “international movement”  of workers overthrowing the capitalist oligarchs seems pretty naive at this point, but the dedicated socialists at WSWS have been hawking that tired idea for more years than I can count, and I guess they’re not going to change.

Otherwise, though, it’s a very informative article, and a rather sobering and hair raising, one at that. (Hat Tip George) ]

German Think Tank Warns of Growing Nuclear War Danger

By Peter Schwarz

In September, the German pro-government think tank “Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik” (SWP) published a study on the implications of US policy towards Russia and European security. [1] The 28-page document is aimed at a professional audience and is written in political and military jargon that couches the annihilation of millions of human lives in matter-of-fact terms, as if dealing with the solution to a technical problem.

But this prosaic language conceals a nightmare scenario. American policy towards Russia, as described by the SWP study, focuses primarily on preparation for a nuclear war, which would involve large parts of Europe. If the results of the study are to be taken seriously, then the risk for the present generation of dying in a violent atomic storm is alarmingly high.

The study’s author, Dr. Peter Rudolf, an SWP employee, not only provides his own assessment, but references every paragraph with other sources. The text contains 118 footnotes, each of which refers to multiple articles in foreign policy and military journals and statements by leading politicians. The study summarizes the debate that is currently taking place in leading circles of the military and political establishment.

At its very beginning, the study stresses that the nuclear war danger is not an abstract, hypothetical risk. As “the first and most important structural feature” of US-Russian relations, the study names the “mutual nuclear annihilation capability.”

Even 25 years after the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia, who together possess “approximately 90 percent of all nuclear weapons in the world,” maintain their strategic nuclear weapons “in constant combat readiness.” “They want to guarantee,” the study says, “if necessary under extreme time pressure, that they are able to make the decision to use nuclear arsenals… This is to prevent one’s own nuclear weapons being eliminated by a first strike.”

The study points to the very short time frame for decisions as “anything but conducive” to “crisis stabilization.” The flight times of ballistic missiles between the two countries run to “11 minutes for sea-based and 30 minutes for land-based missiles.”

The risk that a political crisis could “accidentally” result in a nuclear exchange due to these short reaction times is thus extremely high. This risk is further elevated by the ruthlessness with which the US and its NATO allies are escalating the conflict with Russia in Eastern Europe and Syria, and by the advanced planning for a nuclear war.

According to the SWP study, “a reinvigorated Russia, at least from the perspective of military planners in the Pentagon,” is regarded “as a potential enemy in a time of newly unfolding great power conflicts, as an enemy who—like China—needs to be deterred by the capacity for conflict dominance.” For this deterrent, according to the study, there are three strategic approaches in the US.

The first school of thought, which the study refers to as “confrontational, ’Neo-Containment,’” focuses on unconditional confrontation. It regards “consideration of alleged or actual Russian security interests” to be inappropriate. “Rather, external pressure should be increased and Russia forced into an arms race, in the opinion of this school.”

The second school advocates a “realpolitik approach to the management of US-Russian relations.” It proposes to recognize Russia’s claim to spheres of influence on its periphery, “in the interests of a regulated power rivalry,” while “at the same time signaling clearly that any aggression against a NATO member would be answered militarily.”

And finally, there is the school of thought that takes a “cooperative and inclusive approach.” It postulates self-critically “that the US bears a share [of the blame] in the deterioration of bilateral relations, especially through the expansion of NATO in a period of Russian weakness, and by promoting missile defence,” and advocates “a differentiated approach, combining a readiness to cooperate and risk mitigation.”

The study counts the Obama administration as part of this third, “cooperative-integrative,” school. This is remarkable, when one considers that Barack Obama is the first American president during whose entire eight years in office the country has continuously waged war. Obama’s political record includes: supporting the right-wing coup in Kiev directed against Russia; the massive deployment of NATO troops to Russia’s western border; the unconditional guarantee of military assistance to the aggressive Baltic states, and the escalation of the Syrian war, which could provoke a direct confrontation between the Russian and American military.

One can easily imagine, therefore, what would happen if one of the two other, more confrontational schools of thought prevailed, within which the leading contender for the American presidency, Hillary Clinton, holds considerable sway. On this question, Clinton attacks her semi-fascist challenger Donald Trump from the right by accusing him of weakness towards Russia.

How far the plans and preparations for a nuclear war against Russia (and China) are already advanced in the strategic think tanks and leading military circles is made clear in the SWP study’s chapter, “New confrontation and its consequences.” The risks of a nuclear escalation of the conflict with Russia are now higher than during the Cold War, and continue to increase.

The “informal rules and regimes” that could moderate the ever-present risk of a military escalation of the East-West conflict at that time have been lost, according to the study. “What has disappeared is also the political sensitivity in dealing with military risks, and precisely the risk of a potential nuclear escalation, should deterrence fail.”

The study comprehensively shows how “the strengthening of conventional deterrence” by NATO–i.e., the stationing of troops on the Russian border, the plans for bringing in reinforcements, etc.—sets in motion an arms dynamic that inevitably leads to nuclear escalation. “The new policy of deterrence in Europe will hardly, as is sometimes assumed or hoped, be restricted to the conventional level,” it states. “The credibility of extended deterrence always rested on the nuclear escalation option.”

It is in this context that the final document of the Warsaw NATO summit in July 2016 should be understood. “It says, NATO remains a ‘nuclear alliance,’ and in the case of a threat to the fundamental security of a member state, has the capability and determination to impose unacceptable costs on an opponent.”

“For the first time since the end of the East-West conflict,” the study continues, “there are again in NATO considerations to conduct exercises with a view to scenarios where there could be a nuclear escalation. The danger of nuclear war in Europe as a result of an escalating crisis threatens to return.”

Among the texts to which the study refers on this issue is the essay, “Why a nuclear war would most likely begin in the Baltic states,” [2] which appeared in the conservative US foreign policy journal the National Interest on July 20, 2016.

The article accuses the US government of not taking the possibility of a nuclear war between America and Russia seriously enough following the end of the Cold War, and of having neglected atomic weapons capabilities. In reality, it says, such a possibility not only exists, but is becoming more likely. Then the article lists eight reasons why the greatest danger for such a war exists with regard to the three Baltic states.

It refers to the statement of President Obama during a visit to Estonia two years ago that the defence of the capitals of the three countries was “just as important as the defence of Berlin and Paris and London.” This is “an extraordinary assertion,” when one considers that “the population of metropolitan London (about 8 million) is greater than that of all three Baltic states combined (about 6 million), and that the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea is so close to the Russian heartland.”

It then argues that, due to the superiority of conventional Russian forces in the region, compliance with the guarantee of security for the Baltic states would almost automatically lead to a nuclear escalation.

“The bottom line is that all the ingredients are present in the eastern Baltic area for an East-West conflict escalating to nuclear weapons use,” the article concludes. This is a “prescription for catastrophe.”

The study of the SWP, which generally promotes a pro-US line, does not delve into the causes and the background of the US drive towards war. Only at one point does it hint that it has to do with the quest for world domination. The US sees itself “in a time of renewed great power conflict,” it says. “Russia and China are the potential enemies that must be deterred by superior military power—and through the ability for conflict dominance.”

The changes in the international security situation have “activated the old, never vanished but seldom openly articulated core power interests of the USA, which, in the 1940s, under the influence of geo-political thinking… developed and were since followed: namely, to prevent one or more hostile great powers controlling the resources of Eurasia and acquiring a power potential that could endanger American supremacy.”

The SWP study does not deal with European reactions, although the openness with which it addresses the danger of a nuclear war expresses a certain concern regarding the consequences of America’s Russia policy. One might have expected the European governments to show more restraint in face of this imminent danger threatening to incinerate large parts of Europe. However, the opposite is the case.

While Germany and France refused to actively support the Iraq war in 2003, and Germany stood aside in the 2011 Libyan war, Paris and Berlin, like London, are now participating in both the escalation of the conflict with Russia in Syria and the NATO deployment to the Russian border.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault has publicly accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of war crimes. President François Hollande has cancelled a meeting with Putin in Paris. British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson is calling for demonstrations outside the Russian embassy. Berlin has increased its troop contingent in the Middle East. And the German media are full of inflammatory articles against Russia.

That does not mean that political agreement exists between Europe and the United States—in fact, political and economic tensions are growing. But Europe’s ruling classes are reacting to the same objective developments that prevail in the US. In response to the global financial and economic crisis, unresolved since 2008, growing social tensions at home and the risk of violent class struggles, they react by turning to militarism, war and authoritarian forms of rule.

The danger of nuclear annihilation will not deter them from this course, just as the foreseeable catastrophe did not stop them in 1914 and in 1939 from plunging humanity into the inferno of the First and the Second World Wars. Only an independent, international movement of the working class against war and its cause, capitalism, can prevent a nuclear catastrophe.

Notes:

[1] Peter Rudolf, “Amerikanische Russland-Politik und europäische Sicherheitsordnung” (“American policy on Russia and European security order”), SWP Research Paper September 2016

[2] Loren B. Thompson, “Why the Baltic States Are Where Nuclear War Is Most Likely to Begin”, The National Interest, 20.7.2016

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

New Evidence Condemns Saudi Arabia, ’Israel’ for Hariri Assassination

Local Editor

In an interview with Politico news, Chuck Grassley the senior United States Senator from Iowa stated that he obtained some definite evidence for supporting 9/11 bill.

While top Obama administration officials are still trying to exert last-minute pressure on lawmakers to help sustain Obama’s veto of legislation that would allow families of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia, Grassley voiced Senate serious support for 9/11 bill.

He stated that some newly obtained documents showed that the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanon Prime Minister, was carried out by “Israel” and the help of Saudi Arabia.

“In the Congress, some definite evidence proposed by a retired pentagon member proving Saudi Arabia’s direct role in other terrorist operations including Hariri’s assassination. I’ll firmly back the legislation”, Grassley said.

For his part, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn [R-Texas] also in a private meeting with 9/11 families in his office pointed out to the lately revealed evidence and said he will continue to work with colleagues in the Senate to back the legislation.

“It should be 100-0, but I don’t expect that it will be,” Grassley said of a vote to override a veto of the 9/11 bill. “If people don’t want to override the veto, they should’ve expressed their opposition earlier.”

Rafik Hariri the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, was assassinated along with 21 others in an explosion in Beirut on 14 February 2005.

Along with submitting 9/11 bill allowing families of victims to sue Saudi Arabia, voices came out that Saudi Arabia was also involved in Rafik Hariri’s assassination planned by “Israel” in 2005 and also it had role in promoting terrorism in the United states and Europe.

For this reason, the senators are vowing to decisively support 9/11 bill and override President Obama’s veto.

Source: Politico, Edited by website team

21-10-2016 | 10:06

New evidence for condemning Saudi Arabia in favor of 9/11 bill

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

What Washington Really Wants in Syria

October 19, 2016 (Joseph Thomas – NEO) – When the United States announced that it would be abandoning “peace talks” with Russia regarding the ongoing conflict in Syria, many had already dismissed them as disingenuous.

The Washington Post in an article titled, “U.S. abandons efforts to work with Russia on Syria,” would claim:

U.S.-Russia relations fell to a new post-Cold War low Monday as the Obama administration abandoned efforts to cooperate with Russia on ending the Syrian civil war and forming a common front against terrorists there, and Moscow suspended a landmark nuclear agreement.

The Washington Post would also admit however, in regards to Russian allegations that the US categorically failed to separate militants it has been backing in the 5 year long conflict and universally-designated foreign terrorist organisations, that:

Russia’s version of the sequence of events mandated by the deal is “explicitly not true,” a senior administration official said. “Separation was not step one,” but was supposed to occur after seven days without major violence. The Russians, the official said, have “constantly tried to move the goal posts.”

This admission made by US policymakers, politicians and the Western media all but admits that the US has never prioritised confronting terrorism in Syria and has been using the presence of terrorist organisations merely as a pretext for more direct Western military intervention. In fact, by acknowledging that Western-backed militant groups are indistinguishable and inseparable from designated terrorist organisations including Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, Jabhat Al-Nusra, the US is all but admitting it is intentionally arming and equipping the terrorists themselves.

This explains the apparently inexhaustible resources terrorist organisations like Al-Nusra possess and why they have risen to prominence above so-called “moderate rebels” the US and its allies have repeatedly claimed they were funding hundreds of billions of dollars throughout the conflict.

It appears that the answer to the question as to how Al-Nusra could rise to prominence in Syria despite “moderates” receiving hundreds of billions in aid from the US and its allies is that there were never any moderates to begin with, and that the US and its allies were arming and funding terrorist organisations, including Al-Nusra, since the conflict began.

It also appears to be no coincidence that this scenario now openly unfolding in Syria fulfils warnings published by Western journalists as early as 2007 (Seymour Hersh, The Redirection) in which it was revealed that the US was already at that time providing material support to extremist organisations“sympathetic to Al Qaeda” toward the end goal of overthrowing the governments of both Iran and Syria.

While the US now claims Russia has sabotaged US efforts to bring an end to hostilities in Syria, Washington is also illogically attempting to argue that the failure of its feigned “peace talks” has also somehow prevented the US from targeting terrorists organisations in Syria, the alleged pretext of America’s presence in Syria to begin with.

Despite strained relations with Russia, the US is still cooperating with Moscow regarding the use of Syrian airspace to avoid unintentional confrontations. While the cessation of hostilities may have collapsed, is there really any excuse as to why separating designated terrorist organisations from militant groups the US and its allies are providing billions in weapons and equipment to is still not an absolute and urgent priority?

The answer is, no — there is no excuse. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say, it is simply an excuse for the US to continue funnelling men and materiel into Syria Washington knows with absolute certainty will end up in the ranks of Al Qaeda, whom the US admittedly intended to use as early as 2007 to overthrow the Syrian government with.

What Washington Really Wants in Syria 

Beginning in 2001, the United States has systematically destroyed the nations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, while either directly or indirectly laying waste to the nations of Sudan and Somalia. The nation of Iran was also subjected to multiple attempted provocations and US-driven subversion since 2001.

While the United States has created narratives for the public to serve as apparently “unique” and independent justifications for each and every one of these conflicts, often predicated on averting a “humanitarian disaster” or pursuing “terrorists” and even preventing “weapons of mass destruction” from being used against the West and its allies, America’s serial blitzkrieg across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia are part of a singular, admitted agenda.

US Army General Wesley Clark, in a 2007 Flora TV talk titled, “A Time to Lead,” would reveal this singular agenda by relating a conversation he had as far back as 1991 with then US Under Secretary of Defence for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz, by stating (our emphasis):

I said Mr. Secretary you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm. And he said, well yeah, he said but but not really, he said because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and we didn’t. And this was just after the Shia uprising in March of 91′ which we had provoked and then we kept our troops on the side lines and didn’t intervene. And he said, but one thing we did learn, he said, we learned that we can use our military in the region in the Middle East and the Soviets wont stop us. He said, and we have got about five or ten years to clean up those all Soviet client regimes; Syria, Iran, Iraq, – before the next great super power comes on to challenge us. 

And indeed, even from 1991 onward, the goal of US intervention across the planet has been to establish deeply-entrenched global hegemony before another rising world power could balance American geopolitical domination.

Fast forward to today, with the US on the brink of war with Russia in Syria, and with China in the South China Sea, the United States has run out of time and finds the leading edge of its hegemonic ambitions chaffing against a reemerging Russia and a rising China.

So while Washington has concocted an array of excuses as to why it is involved in Syria’s conflict, running the full gambit from  fearing “weapons of mass destruction” to fighting terrorists to addressing humanitarian concerns, the reality of America’s involvement in Syria boils down to the pursuit of the latest and most desperate leg of its rush to dominance before emerging world powers reintroduced balance and limits to Western hegemony.

It is therefore incumbent upon the world to reject Washington’s various excuses for intervening in Syria, expose the truth driving its involvement in (and responsibility for) the conflict, confront Washington regarding its state sponsorship of terrorist organisations it itself has designated as such and bring the Syrian conflict as well as America’s latest “growth spurt” to an abrupt end.

Global peace and stability depends on bringing this decades-long global power-grab to an end, in an atmosphere of conflict and confrontation many fear may even lead to a direct confrontation between nuclear-armed states.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

لعنة المخمل الأحمر .. هل تقرر حلب والموصل هوية الرئيس الاميركي القادم؟؟

 

بقلم نارام سرجون

دمي ليس قطعة قماش من مخمل أحمر يهدى لامرأة انكليزية أو فرنسية لتصنع منه وشاحا أحمر على كتفيها في الحفلات .. وقلب أمي ليس ريشة وردية كبيرة تضعها سيدة أوروبية على قبعتها ..

والأشجار التي زرعها أبي ليست أخشابا لتصنع منها أراجيح الأولاد في أوروبة والمشانق لأطفال الشرق .. ولكن هذا الغرب يصنع من دمنا مخملا أحمر وسجادا للحفلات الديبلوماسية والاستقبالات .. ويسحق مدننا ويصنع من جدران بيوتنا ومزق شوارعنا بطاقات انتخابية كي تكتمل الدورة الديمقراطية الغربية ..

الانتخابات الاميركية التي هي أيقونة الحرية وخلاصة التجرية الديمقراطية الغربية ومصدر فخرها انتخابات لاتجري في واشنطن أو نيويورك أو فلوريدا أو في أي مدينة أميريكية .. فالانتخابات الأميركية تخاض في مدن العالم قبل مدن أميريكا .. ويطحن المتنافسون المدن البائسة وبعجنونها بدم أبنائها ويصنعون من غبارها بطاقات الانتخاب للحزبين الجمهوري والديمقراطي .. فالصراع بين الديمقراطيين والجمهوريين كان يخاض في كوريا وكمبوديا .. ثم في فييتنام .. وفي السبعينات حط رحاله في الشرق الأوسط ولم يرحل عنه منذ ذلك الوقت .. فكل حزب أميريكي يعتبر الشرق الأوسط مصنعا للأوراق الانتخابية .. ولذلك يبدأ التصويت الاميريكي في تل أبيب قبل أي مدينة أخرى .. وفي عصر القاعدة خاض الاميريكون الانتخابات في أفغانستان وكابول .. ثم خاضوها في بغداد والفلوجة .. وكان كلا الحزبين يقدم عروضه المجانية بالقتل والمجازر على حساب العراقيين وحريتهم وحياتهم ..

اليوم في زمن داعش والنصرة والاسلاميين العرب شاءت الأقدار أن الانتخابات الامريكية حاول الاميركيون أن يخوضوها من حلب .. الا أن معركة حلب صارت في نهاياتها ولاأفق ولاأمل في انتصار غربي فيها .. والحزب الديمقراطي الاميريكي يرى في خروج الاميريكان من حلب هزيمة لمشروعهم وخطوطهم الحمر وانهيار الردع الاميريكي وسمعة أميريكا التي سيعكسها خصومهم في الدعاية الانتخابية.. وقد حاولوا التلاعب بالوقت والاعصاب عبر مسرحيات التلويح بالغضب وتزويد الارهابيين بالسلاح ولكنهم وجدوا أن المطرقة الروسية والسورية قد هوت على مقاتلي النصرة في حلب ولم يعد بالامكان ايقافها .. وهذا مايفسر الاسراع في اطلاق معركة الموصل .. وتسابق الاتراك مع الامريكان للقفز من حلب الى الموصل .. لأن حلب خرجت من السباق الرئاسي الاميريكي .. لأن الديمقراطيين سلّموا انهم لم يعد بمقدورهم الاحتفاظ بحلب وتحويلها الى أيقونة الردع الاميركية في وجه بوتين والاسد لتقول هيلاري كلينتون أمام ترامب الذي يوبخها: اننا لجمنا بوتين وأرغمنا الأسد على أن يتوقف عن ابادة السكان في حلب وأنقذنا مشروع الحرية في حلب .. وسنكمل المشروع في الرقة بعد وصول هيلاري الى السلطة ..

تقديرات العسكريين والخبراء الاميركيين ان خطة بوتين والأسد تسير وفق ايقاع ثابت في حلب بشكل دقيق وأن اذلال أميريكا في حلب سيكون له تأثير كبير على حملة هيلاري كلينتون التي سينظر اليها على أنها مرشحة البيت الديمقراطي الذي فشل في تحدي روسيا في مدينة تحولت في اعلام اميريكا والغرب الى مدينة تعهدت أميركيا برسم خطوط حمر حولها .. ولكن لم يتمكن كل الغرب الطيب من انقاذها وتراجع أوباما عن مواجهة أخلاقية أمام روسيا كانت ستقدم أميريكا على أنها أمة تنتصر للأخلاق وتمنع الجرائم وتعزز حقوق الانسان والحرية ..

التراجع في حلب يجب أن يعوضه انتصار معنوي أخلاقي من نوع آخر وهو التقدم في أرض داعش للرد على ترامب الذي يصر على أنها من دمى هيلاري كلينتون وصناعتها .. و الانتصار على داعش على الطريقة التركية سهل جدا ومضمون حيث تأتي أوامر غامضة للدواعش للانسحاب والتقهقر .. وكأن الانسحاب يأتي برسالة لاترد من السماء يحملها جبريل .. فيتحول الدواعش التواقون الى الموت والانتحار في سبيل الحوريات الى حملان وديعة تنسحب بهدوء دون أن تطلق رصاصة ودون الرغبة في رحلة الى السماء للعشاء مع النبي ولا لمضاجعة الحوريات ..

وربما تكون الرقة أفضل الخيارات لمثل هذه المسرحيات الأميركية الهزلية .. لكن تحرير الرقة يواجه مشكلة كبيرة وهي أنها تحتاج أيضا موافقة روسية سورية لأن الروس والسوريين لن يقبلوا بأن تضع أميريكا قدمها وثقلها في شرق سورية تحت اية ذريعة وخدعة ومسرحية .. وقد يتكرر مشهد حلب في الرقة حيث تذل أميريكا أمام تحد روسي سوري جديد ليست أميريكا في وارد تجربته .. ولذلك كانت الموصل هي البديل عن الهزيمة في حلب .. كما أن دفع داعش نحو شرق سورية سيجعل مهمة بوتين والأسد صعبة أكثر في قطف الانتصارات .. فالموصل عراقية وكلمة أميريكا في العراق أقوى من كلمة روسيا بحكم الاتفاقات الامنية والتواجد العسكري للخبراء والطيران .. اضافة الى أن جبريل سيهبط من السماء في الموصل كما هبط على جرابلس وأبلغ رسالة السماء الى الدواعش بأنه أذن للذين يقاتلون ألا يقاتلوا (تركيا) !! .. وستسقط الموصل سقوطا سينمائيا كالعادة ويحتفل العالم بمساعدة اميركيا للعراق لقهر داعش .. وتصل الاخبار الى أميريكا عن تحرير الموصل وهزيمة داعش وقطع أحد رأسيها في الموصل حيث سيعد الديمقراطيون بعملية بتر الرأس الثاني في الرقة بعد الانتخابات .. وهذه مسرحية ثانية منتظرة حيث تخرج داعش لتثبت أميريكا قوى أخرى موالية لها تنتشر على امتداد خط الفرات وتكمل عملية فصل سورية والعراق .. على مسار النهر .. وهذا مايفسر محاولة تكثيف داعش في الرقة واسقاط دير الزور .. حتى البوكمال..

وبدأنا نرى أن فصول هذه المسرحية تتكشف عبر انفلات أعصاب أردوغان حيث ان رائحة الطبخة الأميريكية قد وصلت الى أردوغان الذي تشممها بأنفه السلجوقي وتنبه الى سرعة رفع الفيتو الذي كان مفروضا على تحرير الموصل والزخم الذي تدفق فجأة في أعصاب السياسيين العراقيين بعد طول انتظار .. وعرف أن داعشه العثمانية القلب التي أحبها وأنفق عليها مشروع عمره العثماني ستصبح في وضع مختلف وأن الموصل ستصير ملكا للعراقيين بمساعدة الاميركيين وحلب ستعود للسوريين بمساعدة الروس .. وقد جن جنونه وهو يتحدى العراقيين أن يمنعوه من دخول الموصل لأنه يعرف ان النصر فيها محسوم ضمن اللعبة الاميركية التي لعبها باتقان مع الاميركيين في جرابلس ودابق السوريتين .. وهو يريد أن يشترك في مسرحية جرابلس الشهيرة في الموصل لا أن يكون بعيدا عنها .. أردوغان يبتز أصدقاءه الامريكان بأنه لن يقبل الا أن يحل محل داعش في الموصل أي يتم تغيير ثياب داعش الى ثياب ميليشيات أثيل النجيفي .. فقلبه يتحطم وهو يرى حلب تنزلق من بين يديه حيث لم يتمكن من دفع قواته الى حلب كما كان يخطط لسنوات .. وهو يريد أن يفعها اليوم الى الموصل اذا أخرج من حلب ..

معركة الموصل اذا في توقيتها هي في الغالب اعلان غير رسمي على أن معركة حلب في خواتيمها وأن الاميريكيين قرروا ألا تكون حلب حاضرة في الانتخابات الاميركية كهزيمة سياسية مجلجلة حيث يظهر بوتين العظيم كالقيصر الذي أخذ حلب عنوة من مخالب النسر الاميركي بعد كل المناورات واللقاءات والألاعيب والاستعراضات .. لكن ضجيج النصر السهل و(الممسرح) في الموصل سيخفي الهزيمة المنتظرة في حلب ويخفي حقيقة أن الاميركيين قد تبولوا في ثيابهم عندما أعلن الروس أن صواريخهم لن تنتظر لتعرف وجهة الصواريخ الأميركية اذا هاجمت أهدافا سورية وستعتبر الهجوم على الجيش السوري هجوما على القوات الروسية في سورية .. كما أن السلاح النوعي المضاد للطائرات سيكون خطا أحمر لن تغفره روسيا لمد يتجرأ عليه ..

للاسف تبدو معركة حلب تخاض في الموصل .. فيما معركة الموصل تخاض في واشنطن .. فنحن في المماحكات بين الأحزاب الغربية المتصارعة على الفوز بالسلطة أشبه مانكون بالطفل في دائرة الطباشير التي تحكي عن نزاع بين أم حقيقية ومزيفة تدعي كل واحدة أن الطفل في الدائرة طفلها وتريد شد ذراعه اليها .. الا أننا لسنا في دائرة الطباشير التي حكت عنها الحكايات بل نحن في دوائر الطباشير الانتخابية الغربية تحشر فيها مدننا كالأطفال بلا حول ولاقوة .. وفي دائرة الطياشير الانتخابية لسنا بين أمّ حقيقية وأمّ مزيفة تشد كل واحدة ذراع الطفل الى جهتها .. بل نحن بين امرأتين مزيفتين وقاض مزيف (هو ديمستورا) يشد بنفسه الطفل الى جهته .. وتشد كلتا المرأتين ذراع الطفل نحوها والقاضي المزيف يشده أيضا .. ولايعني أيا منهم ان تمزق الطفل أم لم يتمزق .. المهم أن تكسب الجولة السياسية وتصرفها في بضع بطاقات انتخابية ..

الموصل وحلب .. ذراعا الشرق المتمددتان بين سورية والعراق في دائرة الطباشير الانتخابية الاميركية .. والحزبان المتنافسان على الانتخابات الاميركية يتنازعان السيطرة عليهما لأن جدران حلب وشوارع الموصل تحولت الى بطاقات انتخابية بيد الشعب الاميركي .. ودماء السوريين والعراقيين وكل العرب تصنع منها وشاحات حمراء مخملية تناسب الأكتاف البيضاء .. وربطات عنق وسجاد أحمر يسير عليه الرئيس الاميريكي المنتخب ..

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Picture of Bloodied Syrian Boy Cited by Clinton at Final Debate Is Fake

Source

by Joseph Jankowski

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad claimed on Wednesday that the viral photo of a 5-year-old Syrian boy in an ambulance after being pulled out of rubble in the war-torn city of Aleppo is fake.

That same photo was cited by Hillary Clinton during the last presidential debate on Wednesday night when she was defending her policy on immigration.

“We have real pictures of children being harmed, but this one specifically is a forged one,” Assad told Swiss TV SRF1.

The Syrian president said that there is evidence that the young boy, Omran Daqneesh, and his sister were rescued on two separate occasions by a U.S. & NATO funded nongovernmental organization known as the White Helmets, in what he called “part of the publicity of the White Helmets.”

The image of the bloodied young boy went viral in August, and has become a symbol in the west for the suffering of those who are tied up in the violence in Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria.

Assad described the White Helmets as a “facelift” of the Al-Nusra terrorist organization and that none of the incidents where Omran Daqneesh and sister were rescued were true.

21st Century Wire contributor Vanessa Beeley wrote about the White Helmets in September:

With over $60 million in their back pocket courtesy of USAID, the UK Foreign Office and various EU nations like the Netherlands, this group is possibly one of the most feted and funded entities within the west’s anti-Syrian NGO complex, a pivotal part of the clandestine shadow state building enterprise inside of Syria.

Like many other ‘NGOs’, the White Helmets have been deployed by the west to derail the Syrian state, first  by undermining existing civic structures and by disseminating staged PR to facilitate regime change propaganda, through western and Gulf state media outlets. Despite the fact that they were started, and are still generously funded by NATO members states, particularly from the US and UK, the White Helmets’ official statement still claims categorically that they are somehow “fiercely independent” and “have accepted no money from governments, corporations or anyone directly involved in the Syrian conflict“. This is both farcical and deeply misleading.

As analyzed by Melissa Dykes of TruthsteamMedia.com, the video where the photograph of the Syrian boy comes from was produced by the Allepo Media Center, a group that has been long outed as a pro-al Nusra source of war propaganda.

Watch Melissa’s analysis of the origins of the boy’s photo below:

During the Presidential debate on Wednesday night, Hillary Clinton used the image of the boy as a way to push her immigration agenda.

“I am not going to let anyone into this country who is not vetted, who we do not have confidence in. But I am not going to slam the door on women and children. That picture of that little 4-year-old boy in Aleppo, with the blood coming down his face while he sat in an ambulance, is haunting. And so we are going to do very careful, thorough vetting,” Clinton said.

Clinton is either totally unaware how the picture of the Syrian boy was produced or was demagoguing in order to make her proposals more appealing.

Assad went on to tell Swiss TV SRF1 on Wednesday that there is only one reason why western media has been highlighting Aleppo in its coverage of Syria, and that is because the western-backed rebels are losing ground inside the city against the Syrian Army.

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

Read Also:

Assad Interview: US Airstrikes on Syrian Troops Not a Mistake, “You Cannot Commit a Mistake for One Hour”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!