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

Syria - British Airstrkes & Dodgy Dave's Lies

ꕤ Article SOURCE as marked SYRIA SUMMARY UK MoD report disputed David Cameron lies re 70,000 'moderate rebels' -->  “misleading” MoD OVERRULED @ meeting -->  Joint Intelligence C'ttee incl. heads: MI6, MI5 & GCHQ + senior military & Foreign Office staff Dodgy Dave's lies:  like Tony Blair’s “dodgy dossier” on #Iraq WMD Cameron / British claim to: Target Islamic State Oil Assets in #Syria --> over 380 UK targets, in over 1yr   [Comment: bet they're Bullsh*t claims.  Must have been targeting Assad for over a year, because ISIS went on selling oil to Turkey & whoever else is in on the finance-the-terrorists scheme to take down Syria] http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-joins-airstrikes-in-syria-against-isis-1449131829 NOTE this is 2013 Article WikiLeaks cables have since revealed 2006 Israel-US plan to take down Syria Note also:  oil reserves Golan Heights SOURCE http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines SUMMARY Scumbag Hollande - 2013 welcomed the UK air force strikes in #Syria --> Syria intervention plan fuelled by oil interests Backers of attack on Syria: US, UK, Israel + France -  cooperation w/ Saudi Arabia --> 2007 CIA anti-Syria ops {Seymour Hersh} deploy:  al-Qaeda w/ US approval Saudi Arabia bankroll + give logistical aid to Sunni radicals hostile to US & al-Qaeda linked to attack #Syria #Syria Covert US political + financial support -- via Saudi Arabia -- given to:  exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood former French foreign minister Roland Dumas: -->  Britain planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009 Former French foreign minister Roland Dumas stated on TV that:   Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria --> in 2009 Syria 2011 uprisings -- domestic energy shortages + climate-induced droughts -->  massive food price hikes --> EXPLOITED WikiLeaks Stratfor e-mails --> CONFIRM US-UK training of Syria 'opposition' since 2011 to collapse ASSAD govt from within. US General Wesley Clark (Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000) --> confirms serial conquest =  strategy for control of region's vast oil & gas resources. 2008 US Army-funded RAND report: --> industrialized states to continue to rely heavily on oil --> oil production:  Middle East #Syria proven oil reserves Persian Gulf coincide w/ power base of Salafi-jihadist network oil supplies / linked w. 'long war' Regional policy trajectories: 1. divide & rule (salafists-jihadists) 2. exploit sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict West policy (1) divide & rule (salafists-jihadists) turn groups against each other / covert action, info ops  divide & rule (salafists-jihadists) discredit transnational jihadist in local eyes divide & rule (salafists-jihadists) support indigenous security forces / local allies West policy (2) exploit sustained Shia-Sunni conflict --> side with:  conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment -> USA to shore up Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia #Egypt & #Pakistan -> to containing #Iran power in ME & Gulf USA aware backing Sunni regimes --> result:  empowering al-Qaeda jihadists BUT this to advantage of West. Support Sunni & exploit: bogging down jihadi activity w. internal sectarian rivalry {rather than targeting US} American Saudi Arabia allies Salafi-jihadist --> afraid of upsurge in Shia identity --> to want to target #IRAN vs #USA Following vulnerable to internal destabilisation: 1) Saudi Arabia 2) Gulf States 3) Egypt 4) Syria 5) Iran Internal destabilisation factors - multiple, converging: a) rapid population growth b) 'youth bulge' c) internal economic inequalities d) political frustrations e) sectarian tensions f) water shortages - environment Syria = pipeline geopolitics / Assad refused to sign Qatar pipeline deal 2009 re supply Europe via Syria ie.  bypassing Russia Note that British plan for invasion Syria 2009 coincides w/ Assad refusal of Qatar pipeline deal to supply gas to Europe Nabucco pipeline backed by USA & European Union          parties:             Austria-UAE             Hungarian             Romania             Bulgaria             Turkey             Germany*         --------------------    ie                 OMV - Austria-UAE                       {Romania Turkey Hungary interests}                 MOL - Hungarian                 Transgaz - Romania                 Bulgargaz - Bulgaria                 BOTAS - Turkey                 RWE - Germany, big / largest investor Egypt                 -- 2015 sale oil & gas unit to:         Russian billionaire Mikhail Fridman                 RWE operates:  Europe, Middle East & Africa                 RWE partnership w/ British & Netherlands                 re Urenco Group uranium enrichment plants:                  in Germany, Netherlands,USA & UK                 -- supplies nuclear power stations in 15 countries                 -- sale of depleted uranium tails                 -- Russia owns radioactive waste                 -- waste transported to Seversk             [wikipedia] Middle East interests in the Nabucco Qatar LNG pipeline     proposed route:     -Qatar     -Saudi Arabia     -Kuwait     -Iraq     -Turkey     -Jordan http://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/qatar-seeks-gas-pipeline-to-turkey#full  [link as above]   Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan -->  attempt to bribe Russia to dump Syria w/ Saudi 'block of gas' to Europe assurances Russia wasn't buying what assurances of the Saudi / stuck w. #Syria Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan = slap in face of #Qatar Putin refusal to take bait & sell out #Syria Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan vowed military action. Saudi Arabia Intelligence Agency Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan director general:  Saudi Intelligence Agency 2012 to 2014 --> supporters: Chechen terrorists Bandar bin Sultan confrontational re USA --> Replaced by:  Prince Muhammad bin Nayef head Saudi intel Muhammad bin Nayef Head of Saudi Arabia Intelligence --> escaped x4 assassination attempts --> incl. rectum bomb  { ... lol, always get a laugh out of that detail } ALSO pulling strings in Middle East oil-focused US policy in Syria: Qatar +  Saudi Arabia aim: pliable Syria opposition Writer concludes Assad is 'war criminal' [comment:  --> but  USA a pre-eminent war criminal & Ghouta was a false flag by USA-Gulf proxies.] SOURCE http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines SUMMARY British Airstrikes on Syria UK Tornado attack planes deployed to:  Akrotiri, Cyprus - first raid 3 Dec. support:  Voyager tanker + Reaper drone variable payload The Brimstone automated anti-armour missile for use re fast-moving platforms first fielded #Afghanistan 2008 The Brimstone light warhead - 9 kg /  a range of 7.5 miles -->  can be used on fast jets, helicopters & UAVs The Brimstone laser-guided missiles UK  RAF weapons of choice since #Libya in 2011 UK RAF Tornados - transit from Cyprus to #Iraq: --> via Israel --> via Jordan --> Voyager tanker accompanies British airstrikes covering #Iraq + #Syria --> 10 Tornados -->   9 Eurofighter Typhoon reinforcement. The Brimstone automated anti-armour missile for use re fast-moving platforms first fielded #Afghanistan 2008 The Brimstone light warhead - 9 kg /  a range of 7.5 miles -->  can be used on fast jets, helicopters & UAVs The Brimstone laser-guided missiles UK  RAF weapons of choice since #Libya in 2011 #Syria UK RAF Tornados - transit from Cyprus to #Iraq: --> via Israel --> via Jordan --> Voyager tanker accompanies British airstrikes covering #Iraq + #Syria --> 10 Tornados -->   9 Eurofighter Typhoon reinforcement. http://theaviationist.com/2015/12/04/raf-tornados-first-air-strike-in-syria/ AUDIO Syria / Libya / Refugee Crisis / Turkey Scott Bennett former US Army officer counter-terrorism analyst 'Impeach Obama' / 'Arrest Carter' https://soundcloud.com/radiosputnik/goes-against-no-boots-on-the-ground-scott-bennett ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Some of what I've enjoyed looking at today. The stakeholders in the Nabucco pipeline gets complicated, once you start looking at the companies.  eg.  Austrian stakeholder itself has a United Arab Emirates stakeholder.  So working out who's really who would take more time, patience and focus than I have.  Above is just a rough, surface sketch re the companies. The US military guy's audio was kind of cool.  He's anticipating a Turkey military coup against Erdogan.  I don't know if he might be a bit melodramatic there or not, as I'm not that knowledgeable or experienced.  At this stage, it sounds good but far-fetched to me. Key info re Syria (now superseded by further info indicating 2006 planned attack):     Former French foreign minister Roland Dumas     Britain planning covert invasion / attack on Assad     as early as 2009     WikiLeaks Stratfor e-mails     confirm US-UK training Syria 'opposition' since 2011     to collapse Assad from within     British attack     coincides w. Assad rejection of     Qatar pipeline deal 2009     in favour of Russian interests     NB   Qatar pipeline deal 2009     benefits USA & European Union US 4-Star General, General Wesley Clark (Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000) confirms a serial conquest strategy for region (7 countries). NOTE ALSO: Julian Assange: US & Israel Planned To Overthrow Assad In 2006 Cables reveal that before the beginning of the Syrian revolt and civil war, the United States hoped to overthrow Assad and create strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. By Kit O'Connell @KitOConnell | September 14, 2015 LONDON — Speaking from Ecuador’s embassy in London, Julian Assange revealed that the United States planned to overthrow the Syrian government as far back as 2006, several years before the start of the current crisis. ... The ongoing threat to his freedom hasn’t kept Assange from continuing his work revealing the dirty secrets of world governments. His latest revelations come in a Wednesday interview with RT in support of his new book, “The WikiLeaks Files,” published late last month. The United States and its allies in the Middle East, including Turkey and Israel, have been frequently accused of contributing to the ongoing destabilization of Syria in the wake of the uprising and subsequent civil war which began in 2011. But according to cables from the WikiLeaks archive, discussed in the Syria chapter of Assange’s book, plans to deliberately destabilize the region go back at least five years further. “In that chapter is a cable from US Ambassador William Roebuck, who was stationed in Damascus, which apparently discusses a plan for the overthrow of the Assad government in Syria,” RT reported. [ ... ] The cable also details plans to foster sectarian strife in the region and make Iran appear like a larger threat to Assad than it really was, Assange continued: “In particular, to take rumors that are known to be false … or exaggerations and promote them – that Iran is trying to convert poor Sunnis, and to work with Saudi and Egypt to foster that perception in order to make it harder for Iran to have influence, and also harder for the government to have influence in the population.” WikiLeaks cables reveal that these plans came from the Israeli government, and show that the U.S. government intended to work with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt to encourage the breakdown of the Assad regime as a way of also weakening Iran and Hezbollah. “[I]f Syria sufficiently destabilized, it might be in a position where it can keep the Golan Heights forever, or even advance that territory,” Assange said. According to Assange, the cable illuminates how the current Syrian crisis reflects U.S. influence on the Middle East, particularly the ways it has used its allies to put pressure on the country. “Part of the problem in Syria is that you have a number of US allies surrounding it, principally Saudi and Qatar, that are funneling in weapons,” Assange noted, adding that it shows how the U.S. uses its over 100 army bases and network of embassies to further its imperialist interests. CONTINUES http://www.mintpressnews.com/julian-assange-us-israel-planned-to-overthrow-assad-in-2006/209493/ As the article re the WikiLeaks cable indicates, the plan to take down Syria began even earlier than indicated by the former French Foreign Minister:  it was outlined in 2006 US cables. Israel could be a driving force in for US foreign policy in the Middle Eastern region.  As in, the article states: "WikiLeaks cables reveal that these plans came from the Israeli government." Maybe this has something to do with it: Huge oil discovery in Golan Heights - Israeli media https://www.rt.com/business/317906-oil-golan-heights-israel/ ---------------------- ꕤ --------------------- PS ... Think I might simplify things too much.  There's a combination of things going on.  It's not just a single driving factor. I'll probably never understand what's going on. Just read some Forbes article on Russian billionaires having been bought out of Russia's Rosneft (state oil company), and it's a struggle to understand how anyone can have so much money and how the entire thing works, so what hope is there of understanding politics without understanding of the money men?  lol I'm really disheartened  ... and I can't comprehend why anyone would spend $14 million on a frigging mammoth.  Apparently, it's a gilded skeleton.  Intended as a good deed for an AIDS charity.  Just looked up the artist: won the Turner Prize. New York public health officials banned Two Fucking and Two Watching featuring a rotting cow and bull, because of fears of "vomiting among the visitors" [here] Well, now I'm sure I'll never understand anything on this planet.  Who the f*ck considers a rotting cow art?  This hilarious.  The fellow behind this is the "richest living artist to date."  Guess the 'Virgin Mother' would have taken some effort and talent to produce.  That anyone actually bought the finished product is mind-boggling.  I'd definitely go the mammoth.  ;) ꕤ

Syria Under Attack - the Great Satan & the Little Imp, Turkey - Plus their al-Qaeda Proxies - Mayhem in the Middle East

ꕤ Article SOURCE https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/04/07/syri-a07.html New exposé by Seymour Hersh: Turkey staged gas attack to provoke US war on Syria By Patrick Martin 7 April 2014 In a lengthy article published Sunday by the London Review of Books, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports that the sarin gas attack on a Damascus suburb on August 21, 2013 was actually carried out by Syrian “rebel” forces acting at the behest of Turkey, for the purpose of providing a pretext for a US attack on Syria. The gas attack killed many hundreds of people in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, and the Obama administration and the corporate-controlled US media immediately blamed the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad for the atrocity. The New York Times, in particular, published a lengthy analysis by its military “expert,” C. J. Chivers, which purported to show, based on rocket trajectories, prevailing winds and other technical factors, that the gas shells could only have been fired from Syrian army artillery positions. For several weeks, the Ghouta attack became the pretext for a warmongering campaign by the White House and the US and European media. Obama threatened immediate air strikes, claiming that the Syrian government had crossed a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons, which he had laid down in 2012. The US president then abruptly reversed himself and announced he would seek congressional approval first, only to call off any overt military action in favor of a deal brokered by Russian President Vladimir Putin in which Assad agreed to the supervised dismantling of his chemical weapons stockpiles. By Hersh’s account, “Obama’s change of mind had its origins at Porton Down, the defence laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal. The message that the case against Syria wouldn’t hold up was quickly relayed to the US joint chiefs of staff… As a consequence the American officers delivered a last-minute caution to the president, which, in their view, eventually led to his cancelling the attack.” The US military leadership also knew that White House claims that there could be no other source for the sarin gas than the Syrian army were false. “The American and British intelligence communities had been aware since the spring of 2013 that some rebel units in Syria were developing chemical weapons,” Hersh reports. “On 20 June analysts for the US Defense Intelligence Agency issued a highly classified five-page ‘talking points’ briefing for the DIA’s deputy director, David Shedd, which stated that al-Nusra maintained a sarin production cell…” Hersh quotes extensively from this US government document, which the office of the US director of national intelligence now denies ever existed: “Al-Nusrah Front’s relative freedom of operation within Syria leads us to assess the group’s CW [chemical weapons] aspirations will be difficult to disrupt in the future… Turkey and Saudi-based chemical facilitators… were attempting to obtain sarin precursors in bulk, tens of kilograms, likely for the anticipated large scale production effort in Syria.” Hersh notes that members of al-Nusra were arrested in Turkey last May in possession of two kilograms of sarin. They were charged in a 130-page indictment with “attempting to purchase fuses, piping for the construction of mortars, and chemical precursors for sarin.” All have since been released pending trial, or had charges dropped altogether. Those arrests followed chemical weapons attacks in Syria in March and April 2013, where a UN investigation found evidence implicating the Syrian “rebels.” One source told Hersh, “Investigators interviewed the people who were there, including the doctors who treated the victims. It was clear that the rebels used the gas. It did not come out in public because no one wanted to know.” The “no one,” of course, was the US government, its European allies, and its UN stooges—as well as their political apologists in the media and the pseudo-left groups such as the International Socialist Organization that were either openly campaigning for military intervention in Syria or justifying it by portraying the US-financed “rebels” as the bearers of a democratic revolution. When the August 21 attack took place, Obama ordered the Pentagon to draw up plans for bombing Syria, and, as a former intelligence official told Hersh, “the White House rejected 35 target sets provided by the joint chiefs of staff as being insufficiently ‘painful’ to the Assad regime.” The US bombing plan ultimately envisioned “a monster strike” involving two wings of B-52 bombers equipped with 2,000-pound bombs, as well as Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from submarines and surface warships. Hersh continues: “The new target list was meant to ‘completely eradicate any military capabilities Assad had,’ the former intelligence official said. The core targets included electric power grids, oil and gas depots, all known logistic and weapons depots, all known command and control facilities, and all known military and intelligence buildings.” The bombing attack drawn up at the direction of the Obama White House would have itself constituted a war crime, causing thousands if not tens of thousands of casualties and crippling Syria as a functioning society. Hersh then passes on to his most important revelation: that US officials believed the Turkish government, or its intelligence agencies, had instigated the gas attack in Ghouta. He cites concerns among US military and intelligence leaders that “there were some in the Turkish government” who supported “dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria—and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.” This was reinforced by the British military intelligence finding on the type of gas used in Ghouta. This included a message to the Americans: “We’re being set up here.” This was followed by a further message about the Ghouta attack that “a senior official in the CIA sent in late August: ‘It was not the result of the current regime [i.e., Assad]’. UK & US know this.” Hersh suggests that the bitter controversy over the attack on a US consulate and CIA mission in Benghazi, Libya in 2012, which killed four Americans including the ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, is directly linked to the infighting over Syria. It has been widely reported that the CIA organized the shipment of Libyan weapons stockpiles from Benghazi to the Syrian rebels. Hersh cites a “highly classified annex” to the report of the Senate committee that investigated the Benghazi attack. This document “described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and [Turkish] Erdogan administrations… By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.” According to Hersh, after the Benghazi fiasco, the CIA was pulled out, but the Libya to Turkey to Syria pipeline continued, possibly including “manpads”—portable surface-to-air missile launchers, which the Obama administration had opposed supplying the rebels out of concern that they would be used to attack civilian airliners.   Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan tasked Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MIT) with engineering a provocation that would give a pretext for direct US military intervention. Hersh quotes his source: “‘The MIT was running the political liaison with the rebels, and the Gendarmerie handled military logistics, on-the-scene advice and training—including training in chemical warfare,’ the former intelligence official said. ‘Stepping up Turkey’s role in spring 2013 was seen as the key to its problems there… Erdogan’s hope was to instigate an event that would force the US to cross the red line. But Obama didn’t respond in March and April.’” Two sources described to Hersh a working dinner during Erdogan’s visit to Washington in May 2013 in which Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon met Erdogan, foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu and MIT chief Hakan Fidan. Erdogan appealed for Obama to attack Syria, telling him “your red line has been crossed.” Obama then pointed at Fidan and said, “We know what you’re doing with the radicals in Syria.” Hersh cites a “US intelligence consultant” who describes a classified briefing for Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, prepared before the August 21 gas attack. The briefing noted “the acute anxiety” in the Erdogan regime over the military setbacks for the Syrian rebels and warned that the Turkish leadership felt “the need to do something that would precipitate a US military response.” In the period following the gas attack, Hersh’s former intelligence official source explained, communications intercepts and other data supported the suspicion that Turkey had organized the Ghouta attack. “We now know it was a covert action planned by Erdogan’s people to push Obama over the red line,’ the former intelligence official said. ‘They had to escalate to a gas attack in or near Damascus when the UN inspectors’—who arrived in Damascus on 18 August to investigate the earlier use of gas—‘were there. The deal was to do something spectacular. Our senior military officers have been told by the DIA and other intelligence assets that the sarin was supplied through Turkey—that it could only have gotten there with Turkish support. The Turks also provided the training in producing the sarin and handling it.’” Only a week ago, evidence surfaced that supports the credibility of Hersh’s report. A video was posted on YouTube of a meeting of Turkish officials, including Fikan, in which the intelligence chief suggests that Turkish agents should mount an attack on a Muslim shrine inside Syria to provide a pretext for a Turkish invasion of the country. Hersh’s account is his second long exposé in four months of the “false flag” gas attack in Damascus. Both articles were published in the British journal because no major US newspaper or magazine will any longer publish material from the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. Beginning with his reporting of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam for the New York Times, Hersh has specialized in developing sources in the US military and intelligence apparatus, frequently those with policy differences with the current administration in Washington. Hersh left the Times for Newsday, and then wrote for the New Yorker for many years. Both the New Yorker and the Washington Post refused to publish his first report on the Ghouta gas attack, which charged that the sarin attack had been carried out by Syrian rebels in the al-Nusra Front, forcing Hersh to find a British publisher for his account. The US press was largely silent on that report, and it has so far blacked out the latest exposure. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/04/07/syri-a07.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Wow, this is good stuff. Hersh sounds like a hero ... but he's also a conduit for factions within the US government (via inside sources), so I don't know that this is a fully-fledged hero, or if it is just another establishment voice.  *Discovered he's 'blacklisted' by major US media, as they refuse to publish him.  So Hersh's probably cool.  What Turkey is capable of is mind-blowing. I don't mind the PKK giving it to them, now. US media refusing to publish Hersh, and Hersh having to publish outside the country shows us just how controlled the media is in the land of the 'free'. CIA strikes again.  That David Petraeus guy played a part, as well. I'm not sure if that UK analyist has anything to do with David Kelly, who was killed, probably by UK intelligence (I'm guessing). Daily Mail UK 22 April 2012 Suicide riddle of weapons expert who worked with David Kelly: Scientist tells wife he is going for a walk, then takes his life in a field... just like his friend A weapons expert who worked with Dr David Kelly at the Government’s secret chemical warfare laboratory has been found dead in an apparent suicide. In circumstances strongly reminiscent of Dr Kelly’s own mysterious death nine years ago, the body of Dr Richard Holmes was discovered in a field four miles from the Porton Down defence establishment in Wiltshire. It is not yet known how he died. Mr Holmes, 48, had gone missing two days earlier after telling his wife he was going out for a walk – just as Dr Kelly did before he was found dead at an Oxfordshire beauty spot in July 2003. Police said there were no suspicious circumstances in the latest case but revealed that Dr Holmes  had ‘recently been under a great deal of stress’. He resigned from Porton Down last month, although the centre yesterday refused to explain why. Inevitably, the parallels between the two cases will arouse the suspicions of conspiracy theorists. Despite Lord Hutton’s ruling eight years ago that Dr Kelly committed suicide, many people – among them a group of doctors – believe his inquiry was insufficient and have demanded a full inquest. Some believe Dr Kelly, who kept an office at Porton Down right up until his death, was murdered. He was outed as being the source of a BBC report that Downing Street ‘sexed up’ evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction to justify going to war. Although it is not clear if the two scientists were close, one source told The Mail on Sunday that they were friendly when they worked at Porton Down in the Nineties. At the time, Dr Holmes ran a project organising the installation of chemical protection equipment in RAF Sentinel spy planes, while Dr Kelly was head of microbiology and frequently toured the former Soviet Union as a weapons inspector. After the first Gulf War, Dr Holmes is also thought to have worked on the production of chemical protection suits for troops. In 1991 he was the joint author of a scientific paper about an RAF chemical and biological protection system. Yesterday, a Porton Down spokesman confirmed Dr Holmes had quit his job but declined to comment further. ‘It is not our policy to speak openly about any individual who works for us,’ she said. Before finding his body, Wiltshire Police made a public appeal for information but warned people not to approach Dr Holmes for their own safety because they believed he had been ‘looking at information on the internet regarding self-harm and the use of toxic substances’.  [Wiltshire Police spin-doctoring to shape public perceptions?  Hard to say what's going on here.  British scientists and intelligence officers seem to die frequently and suspiciously (think of the one found dead in the zipped up bag in a bath).  Whatever this is, it's occurred before the sarin attack in Ghouta.] Friends of Dr Holmes say this disclosure irritated his family, who questioned why a scientist engaged in chemical warfare research would ‘need to Google toxic substances’. Dr Holmes’s widow, Susan, is  a chemist who also works at  Porton Down as head of business administration. One of the Government’s most sensitive and secretive military facilities, the site has long been the focus of controversy. Three years ago hundreds of ex-servicemen who were used as chemical warfare guinea pigs there between 1939 and 1989 were given compensation and an apology from the Ministry of Defence. They were tested with the nerve agent sarin, but some of those involved claimed they had been  told they were taking part in cold-remedy trials. Many suffered serious illnesses after exposure to the gas, which was developed by the Nazis during the Second World War. An inquest into Dr Holmes’s death was opened and adjourned by Wiltshire Coroner David Ridley last week. Coroner’s officer Paul Tranter said Dr Holmes’s family had grown concerned for his wellbeing after  he failed to return from a walk on April 11. A search party involving police and members of the other emergency services began combing waste ground close to his home in the Bishopsdown area of Salisbury. Police discovered his body half a mile away in a field used regularly by dog-walkers and joggers in the village of Laverstock. Mr Tranter said the results of tests carried out to establish the cause of death would not be known for several weeks. He added: ‘Police do not consider this death to be suspicious in any way, nor do they believe there was any third-party involvement.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133201/Dr-Richard-Holmes-Suicide-riddle-weapons-expert-worked-David-Kelly.html Recapping Sarin gas attack, Ghouta  (suburb Damascus, Syria) - 21 Aug 2013 carried out by al-Nusra Front al-Qaeda linked 'rebel' Western proxy opposition as pretext for US attack on Syria killed hundreds compliant corporate US media points at Assad New York Times is big-time US foreign policy shill publishes report of CJ Chivers purporting to show gas shells could only have been fired by Syrian Army (Assad's) Porton Down Defence lab in Wiltshire, UK analysis sample sarin {obtained by British Intel} demonstrated gas used in Ghouta attack did not match existing Syrian batches case against Assad/Syria could not hold Obama cancels well-planned attack aiming to totally wipe out Syria govt military [reported by Patrick Martin, WSWS, 7 April 2014] Days later TWO YEARS EARLIER 22 April 2012 - Daily Mail UK Dr Richard Holmes head of microbiology {who worked with murdered (2003) Dr David Kelly} Porton Down Defence lab in Wiltshire, UK ... just happens to 'commit suicide' ... just like Dr David Kelly happened to  *bullshit* Dr David Kelly revealed UK intelligence report re illegal attack on Iraq 'sexed up' Dr David Kelly Died:  2003 Dr Richard Holmes head of microbiology Dr Richard Holmes Died:  2012 Porton Down lab no match Ghouta attack with Syria / Assad govt NOTE 21 Aug 2013 = Sarin attack, Ghouta, Syria Dr Richard Homes died year prior presumably no link to Sarin  More on Dr David Kelly: Ten Years Ago: The Death of Dr. David Kelly. Murdered on the Orders of Her Majesty’s Government? By Dr. David Halpin and James Corbett Global Research, July 19, 2013 GRTV 13 October 2011 http://www.globalresearch.ca/ten-years-ago-the-death-of-dr-david-kelly-murdered-on-the-orders-of-her-majestys-government/5343229 White House lied that sarin source was Syrian army / Assad & US military leadership knew it Both American & British intel knew 'rebels' (ie proxies) in Syria were developing chemical weapons Evidence Seymour Hersh (journalist) relies on US Defence Intel - 5-page briefing proves this DIA Dep. Dir, David Shed states al-Nusra maintained sarin production cell Turkey & Saudi-based chemical facilitators --> US government denied existence of document Not brought to public attention Kept hushed by: US govt European allies UN stooges political apologists media pseudo-left groups Obama had Pentagon draw attack plans re Syria 35 such plans rejected - not sufficiently destructive monster strike planned - 2,000 pounds bombs intended to completely destroy Assad military US attack on Syria would have: constituted another US war crime (like Iraq) killed thousands crippled Syria as functioning society produced another Libya (civil war 4 years) Hersh reports: Turkish government or its Intelligence (comment:  which is partner & co-conspirator of Turkish govt as evidenced by leaked audio - Syria false flag plot) INSTIGATED SARIN GAS ATTACK IN GHOUTA This assertion is reinforced by British Porton Down lab finding that Ghouta sample is NO match for Syria government & UK & US know this Infighting re Syria linked to Benghazi, Libya US Consulate & CIA Mission Attack 4 dead Americans incl. Ambassador to Libya CIA was arranging shipments  of Libya weapons stockpiles from Benghazi to Syria proxies 2012 secret agreement b/w Obama & Turkey funding for weapons from: TURKEY, SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR CIA + MI6 running arms from Gadaffi arsenals Libya to Syria al-Qaeda linked 'rebel' proxies attacking Syria govt front companies set up for cover, incl. Australian entities retired US military hired to manage procurement & shipping op run by Gen David Petraeus, CIA Director CIA reportedly pulled out post Benghazi LIBYA to TURKEY to SYRIA weapons rat run continues manpads / portable SAM launchers supplied to al-Qaeda linked 'rebel' proxies capable of air attacks MIT tasked by Erdogan to stage provocation, as pretext for US intervention MIT runs liaison w/  al-Qaeda linked 'rebel' proxies gendarmerie (military that is policing civilian sector) handled logistics, training etc on site gendarmerie (ie Turk military) training incl. chemical warfare leaked Turkish authorities + intel audio supports suspicion Turkey arranged Ghouta attack Sarin supplied via Turkey w/ Turkish support + handling training No major US newspaper or US magazine will publish any material from Seymour Hersh any longer -- ie he must be blacklisted New Yorker & Washington Post refused to publish Seymour Hersh Ghouta gas attack first report that indicated al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda linked, Turkish & Western backed 'rebel' proxy) linked to Ghouta chemical attack Original Seymour Hersh Article The Red Line and the Rat Line Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels Vol. 36 No. 8 · 17 April 2014 pages 21-24 | 5870 words http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line David Cameron's Shameless Attack on Russia http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/russia-west-gas-attack-syria Is Dave aware that Hersh has exposed the lot of them? ꕤ