Syria - Bashar al-Assad - Interview - Sunday Times

ꕤ Article SOURCE Syria President Bashar al-Assad INTERVIEW - Sunday Times - 6 Dec 2015 ENGLISH - 37 questions answered: http://sana.sy/en/?p=63558 President al-Assad: Britain and France have neither the will nor the vision on how to defeat terrorism 6 December، 2015 Damascus, SANA – President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to The Sunday Times in which he said Britain and France have neither the will nor the vision on how to defeat terrorism and their airstrikes against ISIS will yield no results, but will rather be illegal and harmful in that they will help in spreading terrorism. The following is the full text of the interview: Question 1:  Thank you for seeing us Mr President.  As you know, the British government today will be voting on whether it will join the coalition airstrikes against ISIS. Is Britain right to join airstrikes against ISIS in Syria? And do you welcome its involvement; and will it make things worse or not make a change? President Assad:  If I want to let’s say, evaluate a book, I cannot take or single out a phrase from that book to evaluate the whole book.  I have to look at the headlines, then the titles of the chapters and then we can discuss the rest of the book.  So, what we are talking about is only an isolated phrase.  If we want to go back to the headline, it is “the will to fight terrorism.”  We know from the very beginning that Britain and France were the spearheads in supporting the terrorists in Syria, from the very beginning of the conflict.  We know that they don’t have that will, even if we want to go back to the chapter on military participation with the coalition, it has to be comprehensive, it has to be from the air, from the ground, to have cooperation with the troops on the ground, the national troops for the interference or participation to be legal.  It is legal only when the participation is in cooperation with the legitimate government in Syria.  So, I would say they don’t have the will and they don’t have the vision on how to defeat terrorism. And if you want to evaluate, let’s evaluate from the facts.  Let’s go back to the reality on the ground.  Since that coalition started its operation a year or so, what was the result? ISIS and al-Nusra and other like-minded organizations or groups, were expanding, expanding freely.  What was the situation after the Russians participated in fighting terrorism directly?  ISIS and al-Nusra started shrinking.  So I would say, first they will not give any results.  Second, it will be harmful and illegal, and it will support terrorism as what happened after the coalition started its operation a year or so, because this is like a cancer.  You cannot cut the cancer.  You have to extract it.  This kind of operation is like cutting the cancer that will make it spread in the body faster. Question 2:  Are you saying, just to clarify two things, are you saying that the British, if the British join the intervention, that includes also the other coalition, with that intervention you see that is illegitimate from an international-law perspective? President Assad:  Definitely, definitely, we are a sovereign country.  Look at the Russians, when they wanted to make this alliance against terrorism, the first thing they did was they started discussions with the Syrian government before anyone else.  Then they started discussing the same issue with other governments.  Then they came.  So, this is the legal way to combat any terrorist around the world. Britain and France helped in the rise of ISIS and al-Nusra in this region Question 3:  You say that France and Britain are responsible for the rise of terrorism here. But they were not responsible for the rise of ISIS, for example, is not that a little bit a harsh accusation? President Assad: Let’s start from what Blair said.  He said that invading Iraq led to the rise of ISIS.  And we know that ISIS started publically, announcing itself as a state in Iraq in 2006, and the leader was Abu Mosaab al-Zerqawi.  He was killed by American strikes; and they announced that they killed him.  So, they know he existed and they know that IS in Iraq at that time had existed; and that it moved to Syria after the beginning of conflict in Syria because of the chaos that happened.  So, they confess.  British officials confessed, mainly Blair; and the reality is telling, that they helped in the rise of ISIS and al-Nusra in this region. President al-Assad-Sunday Times-interview 3 Question 4:  In your view, does al-Qaida’s branch in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, pose an equal or a greater long-term threat to the West than ISIS? And as such, is Britain’s Prime Minister, Cameron, going after the wrong enemy? I.e. he is going after ISIS instead of going after al-Nusra. President Assad: The whole question is about the structure, and the problem is not about the structure of the organization.  It is about their ideology.  They do not base their actions on the structure, they base them on their dark, Wahhabi deviated ideology.  So, if we want to evaluate these two, the difference between the two, there is no difference because they have the same ideology.  This is one aspect.  The other aspect, if we want to talk about their grassroots, their followers, their members, you cannot have this distinction, because they move from one organization or one group to another.  And that is why sometimes they fight with each other, for their vested interests, on a local and small scale.  But in reality they are cooperating with each other on every level.  So, you cannot tell which is more dangerous because this is one mentality.  It is like if you say the first one is al-Qaida and the second one is al-Qaida.  The difference is the label, and maybe some other trivial things. Question 5:  Last week, a key part of Cameron’s argument for extending UK airstrikes to Syria was a number that he used – 70 thousand moderate rebels – that he mentioned “don’t belong to extremist groups”, but are already on the ground, who the west can use to help them in the fight of ISIS. As far as you know, which groups are included in the 70 thousand? Are you aware of 70 thousand moderate rebels in Syria? President Assad: Let me be frank and blunt about this.  This is a new episode in a long series of David Cameron’s classical farce, to be very frank.  This is not acceptable.  Where are they?  Where are the 70 thousand moderates that he is talking about?  That is what they always talk about: moderate groups in Syria.  This is a farce based on offering the public factoids instead of facts. The Russians have been asking, since the beginning of their participation two months ago.  They have said: where are those moderates?  No one gave them an answer.  Actually, since the beginning of the conflict in Syria, there were no moderate militants in Syria.  All of them were extremists.  And in order not to say I am just giving excuses and so on, go back to the internet, go back to the social networking sites.  They uploaded their atrocities’ videos and pictures, with their faces and their rhetoric.  They use swords, they do beheadings; they ate the heart of a dismembered innocent person and so on. And you know, the confession of a criminal is the incontrovertible fact.  So, those are the 70 thousand moderates he is taking about.  It is like if we describe the terrorists who committed the attack in Paris recently, and before that in Charlie Hebdo, and before that in the UK nearly ten years ago, and in Spain before that, and the 11th of September in New York, to describe them as moderate opposition.  That is not accepted anywhere in this world; and there is no 70 thousand, there is no 7 thousand, he does not have, maybe now ten of those. Question 6:  Not even the Kurds and the FSA for example, the free Syrian army? President Assad: The Kurds are fighting the terrorists with the Syrian army, in the same areas. Question 7:  But they are also being supported and armed and trained and backed by the Americans to also launch, to fight … President Assad:  Mainly by the Syrian army, and we have the documents.  We sent them armaments, because they are Syrian citizens, and they want to fight terrorism.  We do the same with many other groups in Syria, because you cannot send the army to every part of Syria.  So, it is not only the Kurds.  Many other Syrians are doing the same. Question 8: U.S. Secretary of state John Kerry said last Friday that the Syrian government could cooperate with the opposition forces against the ISIS even if president Assad is still in office, but he said that this would be so difficult if the opposition fighters, who have been fighting the Syrian president, don’t have a faith that the Syrian president will eventually leave power.  [comment:  'Opposition forces'?  WTF, they're radical insurgents trying to bring down the legitimate Syrian govt.] Kerry also said that concerning the timing of leaving office, the answer is it is not obvious whether he will have to leave. Meanwhile, the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told Le Progres Newspaper on Saturday that he no longer believes that President Assad’s departure is essential to any political transition in Syria, adding that the political transition does not mean that President Assad should step down before it but there should be future insurances. My question: Do you intend to complete your presidential term until 2021 or do you expect a referendum or presidential elections prior to that date? And if so, when can these elections be held? And what can make you decide to hold them? And if they are held, is it certain that you will be running for election? What can influence your decision? President Assad: The answer depends on the context of the question. If it is related to a settlement in Syria, then early elections have nothing to do with ending the conflict. This can only happen by fighting terrorists and ceasing Western and regional support for terrorists…Early elections will only be held as part of a comprehensive dialogue about future by the political powers and the civil society groups in Syria. Thus, it is not about the will of the President, but rather the will of the Syrian people…It is about a political process. If this process is agreed on, then I have the right to run for elections like any other Syrian citizen…My decision in this case will be based on my ability to deliver on my commitments…and on whether I have the support of the Syrian people or not….Anyway, It is early to talk about this, because as you know, this process was not agreed upon yet. President al-Assad-Sunday Times-interview 2 Question 9:   Do you think ISIS can be defeated by airstrikes alone? You cannot defeat ISIS through airstrikes alone without cooperation with forces on the ground President Assad:  Did the coalition defeat them by airstrikes during the last year or so?  It didn’t.  Did the Americans achieve anything from the airstrikes in Afghanistan?  They achieved nothing.  Did they achieve anything in Iraq since the invasion in 2003?  Nothing.  You cannot defeat ISIS through airstrikes alone, without cooperation with forces on the ground.  You cannot defeat them if you do not have buy-in from the general public and the government.  They cannot defeat ISIS by airstrikes; they are going to fail again.  The reality is telling. Question 10:     If the international coalition refuses, as it has so far, to coordinate with the Syrian Army, or with the local troops on the ground, what is your next plan?  I mean do you have a plan B beyond what is going on?  How do you plan to end this war? President Assad:  This coalition is illusive, it’s virtual, because it has not made any achievements in fighting terrorism on the ground in Syria.  Since an illusion doesn’t exist, let’s not waste time with the ‘before and after.’  From the very beginning we started fighting terrorism irrespective of any global or world powers.  Whoever wants to join us is welcome, and whether they join us or not, we are going to continue.  This is our plan. It is the only plan we have and we will not change it. Question 11:  Are you calling on them to ask the Syrian government to coordinate and cooperate with the Syrian army and the Syrian air force in the fight against terrorists? President Assad:  We are very realistic.  We know that they are not going to do so and that they don’t have the will.  This is more about international law than anything else.  Is it possible that western governments, or regimes, don’t know the basics of international law, that they don’t understand the meaning of a sovereign state or that they haven’t read the UN Charter?  They have no respect for international law and we didn’t ask for their cooperation. Question 12:  But would you like them to? President Assad:  If they are ready – serious and genuine – to fight terrorism, we welcome any country or government, any political effort.  In that regard we are not radical, we are pragmatic.  Ultimately, we want to resolve the situation in Syria and prevent further bloodshed.  That is our mission.  So, it’s not about love or hate, accepting or not, it is about reality.  Are they truly ready to help us fight terrorism, to stop terrorists coming into Syria through their surrogate governments in our region, or not?  That is the real question.  If they are ready, we will welcome them.  This is not personal. Question 13:  Do you think it is possible for you, in Syria, and for your allies – Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and other allies – to defeat ISIS militarily; and if so, how long do you think it might take? President Assad:  The answer is based on two factors: our capabilities on the one hand, and the support the terrorists receive on the other.  From our perspective, if you were to remove the support these groups get from various countries in our region and the West in general, it will take a matter of months to achieve our mission.  It is not very complicated, the solution is very clear to us.  However, these groups have unlimited support from these countries, which makes the situation drag on, makes it more complicated and harder to resolve.  This means our mission will be achieved at a much higher price, which will ultimately be paid by Syrians. Question 14:  But there has already been a high price: over 200,000 people have been killed. President Assad:  You are right, and that is a consequence of the support I referred to. Question 15:  But a lot of it is also blamed on the Syrian government and the Syrian use of force, sometimes indiscriminate or unnecessary force in certain areas that has brought about a large number of people killed.  How do you respond to that? President Assad:  First, all wars are bad.  There is no such thing as a good war.  In every war there are always too many innocent casualties.  These are only avoidable by bringing that war to an end.  So it is self-evident that wars anywhere in the world will result in loss of life.  But the rhetoric that has been repeated in the West for a long time ignores the fact that from day one terrorists were killing innocent people, it also ignores that fact that many of the people killed were supporters of the government and not vice versa.  As a government, our only countermeasure against terrorists is to fight them.  There is no other choice.  We cannot stop fighting the terrorists who kill civilians for fear of being accused by the West of using force. Question 16: Let us talk about the role of Russia.  How important has the role of Russia been?  Was Syria about to fall had Russia not intervened when it did at the time? Russia and Iran’s support played important part in Syria’s steadfastness against terrorism President Assad: The Russian role is very important.  It has had a significant impact on both the military and political arena in Syria.  But to say that without this role, the government or the state would have collapsed, is hypothetical.  Since the very beginning of the conflict in Syria, there were bets on the collapse of the government.  First it was a few weeks, then it was a few months and then a few years.  Every time it was the same wishful thinking.  What is definite is that the Russian support to the Syrian people and government from the very beginning, along with the strong and staunch support of Iran, has played a very important part in the steadfastness of the Syrian state in the fight against terrorism. Question 17: You mean the previous one, or the recent military intervention? President Assad:  No, the whole support; it is not only about their participation.  Their support from the very beginning in all aspects: political, military and economic. Question 18: How and why did Russian involvement come about now?  And can you give us some details of the discussions between you and President Putin that brought it about?  Who took the first step?  Did you ask, or did they offer? The Russians want to protect Syria, Iraq, the region, themselves and even Europe President Assad:  You will have to ask the Russians why they got involved.  But from our perspective, since the Western coalition started in Syria, ISIS has expanded, al-Nusra has expanded and every other extremist and terrorist group has expanded and captured new territory in Syria and Iraq.  The Russians clearly saw how this posed a threat to Syria, Iraq and the region in general, as well as to Russia and the rest of the world.  We can see this as a reality in Europe today.  If you read and analyse what happened in Paris recently and at Charlie Hebdo, rather than view them as separate incidences, you will realize something very important.  How many extremists cells now exist in Europe?  How many extremists did you export from Europe to Syria?  This is where the danger lies.  The danger is in the incubator.  The Russians can see this very clearly.  They want to protect Syria, Iraq, the region, themselves and even Europe.  I am not exaggerating by saying they are protecting Europe today. Question 19: So, did they come to you and say we would like to be involved? Or did you ask them: could you help us? President Assad:  It was an accumulative decision; it didn’t happen by me having this idea or them having another.  As you know, our relationship with the Russians goes back more than five decades, and they have always had military staff in Syria: call them experts or by any other name.  This cooperation accelerated and increased during the crisis.  Their teams are here and can see the situation real-time with us.  This kind of decision doesn’t start from the top down, but rather from the bottom up.  There is a daily political and military discussion between our two countries.  When it reached a presidential level, it was mature enough and ready for the decision to be made quickly. Question 20: But there must have been a point when they said: we think, or with your agreement, we think that we should actually now physically get involved. President Assad: Again, this was started at the lower levels.  These officials jointly agreed that it was necessary to get involved and each party discussed it with their leaders.  When it reached the stage of discussion between us, I mean between President Putin and I, we focused our discussions on the how.  Of course this did not happen directly as we had not yet met and it’s impossible to discuss these issues on the phone.   It was mediated through senior officials from both sides.  That is what happened.  In terms of procedure, I sent a letter to President Putin which included an invitation for their forces to participate. Question 21:  So you asked president Putin having been advised by your officials. President Assad:  Exactly, after we reached that point I sent President Putin a formal letter and we released a statement announcing that we had invited them to join our efforts.  Let’s not forget that President Putin had already taken the step when he said he was willing to create a coalition.  My response to this was that we are ready if you want to bring your forces to participate. Question 22:  So, what forces have been deployed? I am talking about Russian forces. There have been reports, for example, of a thousand ground troops plus Special Forces, is this correct? Is there anytime when you think that the Russians will be involved in Syria, not just by air but with ground troops as well? President Assad:  No, so far there is no such thing.  There are no ground troops except for the personnel that they send with their military staff and airplanes to guard the airbase, and that is natural.  They don’t have any ground troops fighting with Syrian forces at all. Question 23:  And there is no plan for that? President Assad:  We have not discussed that yet, and I don’t think we need it now, because things are moving in the right direction.  The Russians may consider it with time or under different circumstances, but for the moment, this has not been discussed. Question 24: There was a report, or a hint, that Syria might be receiving S-300 from the Russians, and the S-300 will allow Syria to protect its airspace. Is this something, for example, that Syria will use against the US-led coalition’s air force, even if Britain was involved, since their warplanes are in Syrian skies, as you said earlier, without official or sovereign permission. As Syria will receive S-300, then will it use this to impose, if you want, protection of its skies and impose a way to tell the coalition that you have to actually directly deal with us, or coordinate with us on the ground? We will use any means available to us to protect our airspace President Assad:  That is our right and it is only to be expected that we prevent any airplane from violating our airspace.  That is completely legal.  We are going to use any means available to us to protect our airspace.  It is not about that armament in particular.  Any air defense we have is for that reason. Question 25:  Do you have that defense at the moment? President Assad:  No. So far we don’t have it. Question 26:  If you get that defense? President Assad:  Any defense systems we are going to have are for that purpose.  If we are not going to protect our airspace, then why buy such armaments in the first place?  That is self-evident. Question 27:  And if you get it … President Assad: Not at the moment; it is not our priority now.  Our priority is fighting the terrorists on the ground.  This is the most important danger now.  Of course we are keen to protect our airspace and prevent foreign interference in our internal affairs, militarily or other.  But the priority now is to defeat the terrorists.  By defeating the terrorists, some of whom are Syrians, we can move further in protecting the whole country from foreigners.  It is a matter of priorities. Question 28:  But I meant about the actual coalition airplanes that are actually flying over Syria. So, that is not a priority either at the moment? President Assad:  No, not at the moment.  At the moment the priority is fighting terrorism. Question 29:  If Saudi Arabia were to invite you for serious discussions on the future of Syria, would you accept such an invitation? Or have relations between Syria and Saudi Arabia been severely severed that you would never consider that? President Assad:  No, there is nothing impossible in politics.  It is not about whether I accept or not, but rather about the policies of each government.  What are their policies towards Syria? Are they going to keep supporting the terrorists or not? Are they going to continue playing their dangerous games in Syria, Yemen and other places?  If they are ready and willing to change their policies, especially with regard to Syria, we don’t have a problem meeting with them.  So it is not about the meeting or whether we go or not, the issue is their approach to what is happening in Syria. Question 30:  Do you expect any results from the talks in Vienna?  And what would be the shape of any possible deal that you see coming out of Vienna? President Assad:  The most important clause in the Vienna communique is that the Syrians should come together to discuss the future of Syria.  Everything else is an accessory.  If you don’t have that main part, the accessories are of no use.  So, the only solution is for us to come together as Syrians.  Vienna itself is a meeting to announce intentions; it is not the actual process of sitting down and discussing the future.  So, the question is not what results from Vienna, but rather what we Syrians are able to achieve when we sit down together. Question 31:  But do you realize that some of the opposition’s leaders, and I’m talking about opposition figures who have been against taking up arms and what have you, but are also afraid of coming to Syria, because the moment they land in Syria, they will be arrested by the security officers and put in prison. And it has happened to others. President Assad:  No, it has never happened.  There is an opposition in Syria, and they are free to do whatever they want. Question 32:  No, I mean the external opposition. For example, somebody like Haitham Mannaa, cannot come back. President Assad:  We have clearly stated that when there is a gathering in Syria, which they want to attend, we guarantee that they will not be arrested or held.  We have said this many times.  We don’t have any problems in this regard. President al-Assad-Sunday Times-interview 1 Question 33:  Now, Saudi Arabia invited 65 figures, including opposition leaders, even rebel commanders, businessmen, religious figures for a meeting in Saudi Arabia to present a united front in preparation for the January Vienna talks. Yet, the Syrian government, which is the other major element in this whole thing for the future of Syria, has not been seen to be involved with the opposition. Are you conducting any talks with the opposition? Have you reached any consensus with them? President Assad:  We have direct channels with some opposition groups; but others cannot communicate with us because they are not allowed to do so by the governments that control them.  From our perspective, we are open for discussions with every peaceful opposition party.  We don’t have any problems.  With regards to the meeting in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi’s have been supporting terrorism directly, publically and explicitly.  That meeting will not change anything on the ground.  Before the meeting and after the meeting Saudi Arabia has been supporting terrorists and will continue to do so.  It is not a benchmark or a critical juncture to discuss.  It will not change anything. Question 34:  Do you see that anytime, in the future, that in order to protect Syria, or in order to save Syria, or to get the Syria process moving, that you might see yourself sitting with certain groups, one group, or certain groups, that perhaps now you deem terrorist, but in the future, it might be feasible that you would agree to negotiate with them because it would do well for the future? President Assad:  We already have; since the very beginning one of the pillars of our policy, was to start a dialogue with all parties involved in the conflict, whether they were in Syria or not.  We negotiated with many terrorist groups, not organizations – to be very precise, who wanted to give up their armaments, and return to normal life.  These negotiations led to many amnesties being issued and has proven to be very successful in several areas.  Furthermore, some of these fighters have joined the Syrian Army and are now fighting with our forces.  So yes, we are sitting down with those who committed illegal acts in Syria, whether political or military, to negotiate settlements on the condition that they give up their arms and return to normal life.  This doesn’t mean that we negotiate with terrorist organizations like ISIS, al-Nusra and others. This is what I meant by groups, those who want out of the fight, regret their choices and want to have their lives back. Question 35:  The rebels call them barrel bombs. You refuse to refer to them as barrel bombs. Irrespective of the name, these were indiscriminate. Do you accept that Syria used indiscriminate bombs in some areas, which resulted in the death of many civilians? President Assad:  Let us suppose that this part of the propaganda is true, which it isn’t.  But for the sake of argument, let us ask the same question regarding the different attacks committed by the Americans and the British with their state-of-the-art airplanes and missiles in Afghanistan and in Iraq, not only after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but also during the first Gulf war in 1990.  How many civilians and innocent people were killed by those airstrikes with these very high precision missiles?  They killed more civilians than terrorists.  So, the issue is not these so-called barrel bombs and this evil president killing the good people who are fighting for freedom.  This romantic image is not the case.  It is about how you use your armaments, rather than the difference between so called barrel bombs and high precision missiles.  It is about how you use these weapons, what kind of information you have and your intention.  Do we have the will to kill innocent people?  How is that possible when the state is defending them?  By doing so, we are pushing them towards the terrorists.  If we want to kill people, for any reason, innocent people or civilians, that will play directly into the hands of the terrorists.  And this is against our interests.  Are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot? That is not realistic and not logical.  This propaganda cannot be sold anymore. Question 36: Mr President, the final question. As president of the country, and you always lead the military and everything. Do you, even if by default, not bear responsibility for some of the things that happened in Syria? President Assad: I’ve been asked this question many times especially by western media and journalists.  The aim of the question is to corner me between two answers: if I were to say I was responsible, they would say look the President bears responsibility for everything that happened, if I were to say I am not responsible, they would say this is not true, you are the president, how can you not be responsible. Question 37:  Because you are the head, like in a family … President Assad:  Let me continue, that was only an introduction to my answer.  It is very simple.  Since the very beginning, we built our policy around two pillars, engaging in dialogue with everyone, and fighting terrorism everywhere in Syria.  Now, if you want to talk about the responsibility, you have to discuss many aspects of the conflict, and the reason why we are here today in this difficult and dire situation in Syria.  If I am to claim responsibility, do I also claim responsibility for asking the Qataris to pay the terrorists money?  Or for the Saudis to fund their activities?  Or for western governments allowing their terrorists to come to Syria?  Do I claim responsibility for asking western governments to offer a political umbrella to those terrorists and label them as moderates?  Or for the western embargos on the Syrian people?  This is how we have to discuss it.  We cannot simply say, that he takes responsibility or not.  We have to talk about every part; we have to differentiate between the policy decisions and the practices, between the strategy and the tactics.  So, it is very complicated to evaluate it.  Additionally, if you want to evaluate who bears responsibility in Syria, it could happen at the end of the war, when you can investigate the whole story before, during and after. Interviewer:  Mr President, thank you very much. http://sana.sy/en/?p=63558 ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT What is being done to Syria by the Gulf Arabs and the West is disgusting beyond belief.  And Western journalism sucks.   Don't know how Assad puts up with these insulting Western propaganda pieces. The Saudis hosting the 'opposition' of their creation is some insane joke.  And so is the Vienna talks crap.  Syria is a sovereign state.  This is wrong. I'd have nothing to do with the Saudis or any of the other Gulf creeps that are buddies with Americans and others who have installed and kept Gulf creeps in power. Saudis, Qatar and the West are responsible for 200,000 dead in Syria and they are punishing the Syrian people in a protracted war, trying to destroy Syria as a nation, by arming, shielding and otherwise supporting terrorists. Video BARREL BOMB SONG Featuring MC Kenneth Roth LINK | here ꕤ

Totalitarian American Domestic Surveillance

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/12/02/the-spies-who-ruin-us/ December 2, 2015 By Judge Andrew Napolitano 'The Spies Who Ruin Us' SUMMARY Post 9/11 intelligence failure to protect: --> principle target 4th Amendment right to privacy -->  Patriot Act 2001 Unread & undebated legislation -->  US Congress unaware re liberties they were sacrificing --> US domestic spying unleashed USG secret mass data gathering + warrants not based on probable cause Lapsed law ... but: USA telecoms + Internet service providers to retain records for five (5) years --> NSA instant access. Patriot Act + USA Freedom Act: unconstitutionally do away with probable cause requirement for warrants USA Freedom Act warrants: unconstitutionally do away with probable cause requirement -->  based on standard of “govt'l needs” Reality:  “governmental needs” = no standard whatsoever, as USG will always claim that it needs what it wants. USG using same basis for warrants as British colonialists for raids that provoked Revolution & 4th Amendment. propaganda that NSA have been shut down is false / operate remotely --> telecoms & ISPs s.702 FISA & EO is valid s.702 FISA & Bush EO both bypass US Constitution & continue to permit mass #surveillance data collection s.702 FISA --> permits warrantless surveillance of Americans speaking to foreigners. --> FISA court issues warrants / intercept FISA court: --> issue warrants to intercept calls of third parties (to Americans speaking to foreigners) ... encompasses all. Bush Executive Order (EO) to military intelligence (NSA is one of more) --> to intercept calls of anyone - NO WARRANT. Andrew Napolitano asserts that secret USA spying: produces too much material for the government to evaluate / Paris failure eg. General warrants: =  hallmark of totalitarian government {article US example} http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/12/02/the-spies-who-ruin-us/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Good overview. As Napolitano said, with all of France's surveillance capabilities (and infringements of civil liberties that accompany these capabilities), both France and America, who spy on France, missed the opportunity to prevent the Paris attacks -- because they are not conducting target-specific surveillance, and their manpower is bound up in blanket surveillance of entire populations. What goes on in the US pretty much goes on elsewhere.  The same principles apply, save for the lack of constitutional protections that are supposed to be in place for Americans. The mention of British colonialists raiding homes on basis of warrantless searches ahead of the American Revolution, is an interesting detail I wasn't aware of.  Ironically, what led to revolution and Fourth Amendment rights being enshrined in the American Constitution, is present day state totalitarianism being repeated by those that exercise behind-the-scenes control of the usurped American state. ꕤ

Western Energy Vultures Hover Over Syria - Cameron's Deceit re Syria & Criminal Negligence - Russia Reveails ISIS-Turkey Oil Smuggling

ꕤ Article SOURCE as marked Western firms plan to cash in on Syria’s oil and gas ‘frontier’ by Nafeez Ahmed US, British, French, Israeli and other energy interests could be prime beneficiaries of military operations in Iraq and Syria designed to rollback the power of the ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS) and, potentially, the Bashar al-Assad regime. A study for a global oil services company backed by the French government and linked to Britain’s Tory-led administration, published during the height of the Arab Spring, hailed the significant “hydrocarbon potential” of Syria’s offshore resources. The 2011 study was printed in GeoArabia, a petroleum industry journal published by a Bahrain-based consultancy, GulfPetroLink, which is sponsored by some of the world’s biggest oil companies, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Total, and BP. CONTINUED https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/western-firms-plan-to-cash-in-on-syria-s-oil-and-gas-frontier-6c5fa4a72a92#.48jn1q8wq 'Britain is on the verge of entering into a long war in Syria based on wishful thinking and poor information...' Patrick Cockburn was invited by Jeremy Corbyn to brief MPs on the facts about today’s Common’s vote on air strikes in Syria. This is his briefing to you     Patrick Cockburn     @indyworld     31 minutes  ago Britain is on the verge of entering a conflict in Syria in which its political and military strategy is based on wishful thinking and poor information. British air strikes in Syria will be too few to make much difference to Isis, but are important because they signal Britain’s entry into what may be a long war. In one crucial respect, David Cameron’s approach is similar to that which saw Britain fight two small but unsuccessful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003, in both cases without an effective local partner on the ground. Similarly in Syria, Britain will be at the mercy of events which are being shaped by the numerous other players in the conflict, all of whom have their own highly contradictory agendas. Much of the debate around the feasibility of the British strategy has focused on Mr Cameron’s statement that we do indeed have a partner, of whose existence few were previously aware. He said that there are 70,000 “Syrian opposition fighters on the ground who do not belong to extremist groups”. The impression given is that there is a “third force” in Syria which will provide a powerful ally for the US, France and Britain. This would be very convenient but, unfortunately, its existence is very debatable. “The notion that there are 70,000 moderate fighters is an attempt to show that you can fight Isis and [President Bashar al] Assad at the same time,” says Professor Joshua Landis, the director of the Centre for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and an expert on Syrian politics. But he is dismissive of the idea that such a potential army exists, though he says there might be 70,000 Syrians with a gun who are fighting for their local clan, tribe, warlord or village. “The problem is that they hate the village down the road just as much they hate Isis and Assad,” he said. The armed opposition to President Assad is dominated by Isis, the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and the ideologically similar Ahrar al-Sham. Some of the smaller groups, once estimated by the CIA to number 1,500, might be labelled as moderate, but only operate under license from the extreme jihadists. Aymenn al-Tamimi, a fellow at the Middle East Forum and an authority on the Syrian armed opposition, says that these groups commonly exaggerate their numbers, are very fragmented and have failed to unite, despite years of war. He recalls that one group he met during a recent visit to Latakia province in north-west Syria claimed to have 2,000 fighters, but probably numbered only 500. He warns that they pretend to the outside world that they are more moderate than they really are, speaking of “the equality of all Syrians before the law” when they are outside Syria or communicating with people who have never been to the country, but express “hatred for Shia and Allawites” on all other occasions.  Mr Tamimi says that the smaller armed groups, which sometimes have good weapons supplied by the Americans, had acted as auxiliaries to Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham when they captured Idlib City in fierce fighting with the Syrian army in May. Even if such groups are not extreme Islamists, they do not have the strength to refuse to cooperate. This will make any ceasefire very difficult to arrange because such moderate fighters as there are who might be willing to accept a truce, are intermingled with powerful Nusra forces which will not do so. Moreover, radical Islamic ideology has been gaining ground in all parts of the Syrian opposition. James Harkin, the author of Hunting Season about the kidnapping of foreigners in Syria and a frequent visitor to opposition-held areas, says that it is important to grasp that “none of these people [the armed opposition inside Syria] like us”. They see the US, Britain and France as enemies. This  includes the non-jihadists, whom the West hopes to enlist, who suspect they will be used as cannon fodder and then discarded. The one group that has some claim to be non-sectarian, secular and a powerful fighting force is the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) who claim to number 50,000, but probably total half that. It has been the most effective anti-Isis ground force and, heavily supported by US air strikes, its territory now stretches across northern Syria between the Tigris and Euphrates. It claims to be non-sectarian and that it does not persecute Sunni Arabs, but sectarian fear and hatred is today so deep in Syria – partly but not entirely because of the atrocities of Isis – that people flee the attack of every other sectarian or ethnic group different from themselves. The Sunni population in Raqqa, Isis’s Syrian capital, or in Mosul in Iraq, may dislike Isis, but they are even more terrified of the Kurds or the Shia militias. Britain is entering a war against the self-declared “Islamic State”, probably the most dangerous and violent organisation in the world, but without a realistic policy to win that war. Mr Cameron stresses the limited nature of the engagement, but Britain will be fighting a state that is also a ferocious sect, does not negotiate and may well retaliate with some atrocity similar to Paris. This is not an argument for rejecting military action against Isis, but it is one for thinking very carefully what we are doing because the only exit strategy will be military victory. It is not only in Syria that Britain lacks a powerful local partner. In Iraq, its ally will be the Iraqi government and army, neither of which has recovered from their defeats by Isis over the past two years. “Syria is a nightmare and Iraq is becoming a nightmare,” said the Iraqi political scientist and activist Ghassan al-Attiyah. If the present government of Haider al-Abadi falls it is likely to be replaced by one closer to the Iranian-backed Shia militias that are more numerous and better armed than the Iraqi army. The US-led air campaign has already launched around 8,300 air strikes against Isis which have slowed up its advance, but without bringing it to its knees. Professor Landis says that the difficulty is that the three powers in Syria capable of winning the war are Isis, a Jabhat al-Nusra led alliance or Mr Assad but “the US doesn’t want any of these to win”. He cites three attempts by the US to create a moderate armed opposition which have humiliatingly failed and, on each occasion, extreme jihadists have captured quantities of modern American weapons. The British Government has shared in a widespread but ill-founded belief over the past four years that the Assad government was about to collapse. But of the 22 million Syrian population, 4 million have fled abroad and are refugees, and about 12 million are in government-controlled areas. Though exhausted and after suffering heavy casualties, including 47,000 dead, the Syrian army is still the largest military force in the country. It now has the support of the Russian air force and is not going to lose the war, though it is not strong enough to win it. This is the terrible conflict in which Britain is about to engage, but with only limited understanding of the dangers that lie ahead. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-is-on-the-verge-of-entering-into-a-long-war-in-syria-based-on-wishful-thinking-and-poor-a6756476.html PETER FORD Former UK ambassador to Syria David Cameron Syria spin described as deceitful & promoting a course amounting to criminal negligence  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh1BbvbMOp4  Russian Military Reveals ISIS-Turkey Oil Smuggling Details https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMA4B2ZnQ2o&feature=youtu.be ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Mass media briefing “Russian Federation Armed Forces fighting against international terrorism. New data” http://eng.syria.mil.ru/en/index/syria/news/more.htm?id=12070726@cmsArticle ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT US  isn't bombing ISIS; it's dropping weapons. I had no idea that there were so many killed in Syria -- 47k dead. It's frustrating seeing this happening and being unable to do anything but watch what happens next. What the West has done is disgusting.  A functioning state has been overrun by terrorists armed and backed by the West, a country has been ripped to bits, 47,000 people are dead -- and it looks like the Shia and Allawite populations will be slaughtered if Assad and Russia don't prevail. The West doesn't care what happens.  The more destruction the more profitable it will be rebuilding the place and they probably figure that whoever eventually prevails will be desperate and ready to cooperate with Western interests. This is unbelievable.  --------------- It took me forever doing my own lame notes about the video.   Tired so I kind of zoned out here and there. It's funny how I didn't really connect the oil with the terrorism.  I think it was mentioned in the news, but it didn't mean anything to me.  It was just like, yeah, that's what they do.   But it's mind-blowing knowing that Turkey, Syria's neighbour, is actually responsible for financing terrorism and that the European Union (who would be aware of Turkey's terrorist sponsoring activities, seeing both the US and Germany spy on Turkey) has given Turkey $3.2 billion to supposedly keep Middle Eastern invasion/immigration at bay. So what's going on here?  Why not walls and military response instead?  Is the EU laundering money via Turkey to fund Middle Eastern terrorism? Although I'm forever looking at news, until Turkey shot the Russian bomber down, I wasn't aware how messed up Turkey is.  I thought their messed up is limited to imprisoning journalists (wholesale), and killing Kurds.   Turkey: imprisons journalists oppresses Kurdish minority bombs Kurds (who are fighting ISIS) likely killed Serena Shim, journalist shot down Russia bomber & killed Russian pilot has armed, trained & supported jihadists in Syria  has trained the chemical attackers in Ghouta, Syria buys stolen oil finances international terrorism (via buying stolen oil) is rewarded by the EU @ $3.2-billion PS -  I was inclined to believe ISIS was fake (Hollywood, US-CIA production), until the Russians confirmed they're real & terrorism is real. ꕤ

Qatar Buys Military Equipment from Ukraine For Shipment to ISIS - US Approves

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.voltairenet.org/article189366.html In Brief UKRAINE supplying #ISIS via #Qatar -->  through #Bulgaria + #Turkey UkrOboronProm http://www.voltairenet.org/article189366.html Qatar and Ukraine come to deliver Pechora-2D to ISIS   by Andrey Fomin Qatar has bought sophisticated military equipment from Ukraine on behalf of ISIS. The operation took place in late September 2015, just before the Russian military action against the terrorist organization. It was approved by the US embassy in Doha. Officially, the new emir is not involved in the war in Iraq and Syria.  Voltaire Network | Moscow (Russia) | 22 November 2015 The fact that the ISIS infrastructure in Syria and Iraq is absolutely vulnerable to the airstrikes of the international coalition is undoubtful. During the last week only the Russian Air Force and Navy hit around 826 ISIS targets (training camps, munition and explosives plants, depots, oil refinery and transport objects) causing critical damage to the terrorist groups and its revenue sources. The sponsors of the ISIS are certainly committed to acquire and supply to the jihadist brigades the air defense systems efficient enough to at least hamper the activities of the coalition in the Syrian sky. Back in September 2015, being aware of the Russian plans to launch anti-terrorist air campaign, a Qatari delegation from the Ministry of Defense came to Kiev to take part in the Arms and Security Expo, September 22-27, 2015: *** [IMAGE ] *** They reached a deal with UkrOboronProm (a state-run Ukrainian arms trader) to purchase the modernized Air Defense Missile Complex “Pechora-2D” *** [IMAGE ] *** On Sept. 30 Volodimir Kuruts, the Trade Councellor of the Ukrainian Embassy in Qatar, writes to his business contact in Cyprus Vasyl Babytskiy, director of the Blessway Ltd: Take note that it is the same Vasyl Babitskiy who resold 265 outdated Poland-made anti-aircraft autocannons to Saudi Arabia (eventually to the same ISIS), originally dedicated for the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior. The revealed information clearly indicates that the Qatar Ministry of Defense is arranging supplies of the Ukrainian air defense systems to Syria-based terrorist organizations via Bulgaria and Turkey. The US officers in Qatar have approved the deals. Taking into account that “Pechora 2D” system is able to strike the aircrafts at the heights up to 21 km, the investigation of the A321 Metrojet downfall over Sinai may receive an unexpected turn…   Andrey Fomin Founding editor of the online political analysis journal Oriental Review. He holds a Masters in Russian History (Lomonosov Moscow State University). http://www.voltairenet.org/article189366.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT This are much nastier and dirtier than I imagined: 1) savages for a proxy army against Assad. 2) Russian passenger plane blown up. 3) Paris shot up. 4) Russian bomber shot down. 5) Libya in ruins. 6) Syria in ruins. 7) a lot of Africa getting bombed. 8) Middle East in Ruins. 9) Saudis or ISIS sending Middle East & Africa to Europe -- Europe in ruins. It is the death of Europe. And European politicians are instrumental in this. ꕤ

CNN's 'ISIS Officials' - Savages Beheading Syria Army Personnel - Nukes, Please!

ꕤ Video SOURCE LiveLeak WARNING -  GRAPHIC WARNING - EXTREMELY GRAPHIC CONFLICT ZONE SAVAGES BEHEADING SYRIA ARMY PERSONNEL Location: Syria http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e96_1448549489 VIDEO FOOG (ADULTS ONLY) FSA capture SAA member Part of channel(s): Syria (current event) Added: 11 hours ago Tags: daesh, fsa, saa, RT News Spokesman? Defense Minister? CNN brands ISIS terrorists as ‘officials’ Published time: 24 Nov, 2015 06:48 https://www.rt.com/news/323211-cnn-calls-isis-officials/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT I couldn't finish watching this. Even though the victim is already dead, it's sickening watching them hacking away at his neck. These people are savages.   Europe is finished.  And we're all f*cked. Oh, and CNN (as well as FoxNews - mentioned elsewhere) is promoting these Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and Western supported savages as 'ISIS officials'. The 'FSA' are those the US and the Anglo-US NATO & European Union alliance are training, arming and protecting, and their intermediary is Turkey, who shot down a Russian jet in the process of eradicating this filth that's attacking the legitimate government of Syria on behalf of their Western masters. It's these savages that the West has unleashed and is calling the 'moderate rebels.' And European and Western governments are letting these savages cross borders, while the deluded sing and wave 'refugees welcome' banners. Someone, please deploy nukes. ꕤ