Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Syrian National Coalition

Another “Red Line” for the desolate people in the Middle-East?
Chemical attacks in Syria?
And it turned out that the chemical gas was fluoride?
US considering a military response? Supported by the French President Holland without the backing of the parliament and people?
What? France has no idea of what to do with its soldiers returning from Mali and western Africa?
France of Holland was fighting Jihadist terrorists in Mali, the same kinds of terrorists it wants to defend in Syria?
A fresh war territory is to be created to amuse the French generals and testing new aircrafts and missiles…?

The desolate people in the Middle-East (ME) have no strong relations with any superpower, just clients for useless preconditions attached to weapons exported at ludicrous price tags….

Even Russia has much stronger relations with Israel than Syria and Egypt combined, and even at the peak of the Soviet Union alignment…

The Soviet Union was the first superpower to recognize Israel State at the UN, and expected Israel to become the first Communist State in the ME…

The Zionist Lobby in current Russia is by far more dynamic and influential than all the “non-existent” Arabic lobbies in Russia…

And Israel bombed Syria 3 time this year, with Putin green lights.

No, no one is coming to the rescue of the desolate people in the ME and North Africa: The only aid is military strikes to humiliate the people even further… into total submission to the eternal colonial powers

The editorials in the US dailies are not meant to educate and inform the US citizens on the problems of the people in the ME: The role of the editorials is to warn the US citizens of the recurring decisions of the US government for impending military strikes on the desolate people in the ME

Obama weighs possible military response after Syria chemical attack?

Oliver Holmes and Roberta Rampton published in Reuters this August 24, 2013

WASHINGTON/BEIRUT (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama considered options on Saturday for a possible military strike on Syria in response to a nerve gas attack that killed hundreds as Syria sought to avert blame by saying its soldiers had found chemical weapons in rebel tunnels.

A senior U.N. official arrived in Damascus to seek access for inspectors to the site of last Wednesday’s attack, in which opposition accounts say between 500 and well over 1,000 civilians were killed by gas fired by pro-government forces.

In the most authoritative account so far, the medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) said 3 hospitals near Damascus had reported 355 deaths in the space of three hours out of about 3,600 admissions with nerve gas-type symptoms.

The accounts and video footage of the victims – men, women and children – have heightened Western calls for a robust, U.S.-led response after 2-1/2 years of international inaction on a conflict that has killed 100,000 people.

U.S. military and national security advisers met Obama at the White House on Saturday to consider options for a response, the day after Washington said it was realigning forces in the Mediterranean to give him the option of attacking Syria.

Obama, long hesitant to intervene, said in a CNN interview broadcast on Friday that the United States was still gathering information about the attack.

He noted, however, that chemicals weapon use on a large scale would start “getting to some core national interests that the United States has, both in terms of us making sure that weapons of mass destruction are not proliferating, as well as needing to protect our allies, our bases in the region“.

In a development that could raise pressure on him to act, American and European security sources said U.S. and allied intelligence agencies had made a preliminary assessment that chemical weapons had been used by pro-Assad forces this week.

MILITARY OPTIONS

Among the military options under consideration are missile strikes on Syrian units believed to be responsible for chemical attacks or on Assad’s air force and ballistic missile sites, U.S. officials said. Such strikes could be launched from U.S. ships or from combat aircraft capable of firing missiles from outside Syrian airspace, thereby avoiding Syrian air defenses.

Major world powers – including Russia, Assad’s main ally which has long blocked U.N.-sponsored intervention against him – have urged the Syrian leader to cooperate with U.N. chemical weapons inspectors already in Damascus to pursue earlier allegations.

Syria accuses rebels of staging the attack to provoke intervention. State television said soldiers had found chemical weapons on Saturday in tunnels that had been used by rebels.

A presenter said 5 blue and green plastic storage drums shown in video footage, along with rusty mortar bombs, grenades, domestic gas canisters and vials labeled “atropine“, a nerve gas antidote, were proof that rebels had used chemical weapons.

Separately, the state news agency SANA said soldiers had “suffered from cases of suffocation” when rebels used poison gas “as a last resort” after government forces made “big gains” against them in the Damascus suburb of Jobar.

It said clashes were still raging in the area but that the army had advanced and found “chemical agents” in rebel tunnels.

The leader of the opposition Syrian National Coalition, Ahmad al-Jarba, and the head of the rebel Free Syrian Army, General Salim Idriss, denied on Saturday that rebels had used chemical weapons.

At a press conference in Istanbul, Idriss said the rebels would respond, but not with “similar crimes”.

Jabra said the “most important cause” of the attack was the silence and inaction of the international community, especially the West.

A scheduled August 25-27 conference of military chiefs of the United States, Jordan, its main Western allies and Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, intended to help contain the fallout of a war spilling beyond Syria’s borders, has been given added urgency by the gas attack.

WAITING FOR OBAMA

“We had been expecting to talk mainly about stabilizing Jordan,” said a European defense source. “Instead, it will be dominated by Syria. It’s all really waiting on the Americans and what they decide they want to do …

“There have been discussions, but so far they have been very inconclusive. As the scale of what happened in Damascus becomes clear, that may change.”

U.N. High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Angela Kane arrived in Damascus to press for access to the scene.

“The solution is obvious. There is a United Nations team on the ground, just a few kilometers away. It must very quickly be allowed to go to the site to carry out the necessary tests without hindrance,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said during a visit to the Palestinian territories.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Berlin expected Russia to “raise the pressure on Damascus so that the inspectors can independently investigate”.

While some of the United States’ NATO allies, including France, Britain and Turkey, have explicitly blamed Assad’s forces for the chemical attack, Russia said the rebels were impeding an inquiry and that Assad would have no interest in using poison gas for fear of foreign intervention.

“Assad does not look suicidal,” senior pro-Kremlin lawmaker Igor Morozov told Interfax news agency. “He well understands that in this case, allies would turn away from him and … opponents would rise. All moral constraints would be discarded regarding outside interference.”

Alexei Pushkov, pro-Kremlin chairman of the international affairs committee in Russia’s lower house of parliament, said: “In London they are ‘convinced’ that Assad used chemical weapons, and earlier they were ‘convinced’ that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It’s the same old story.”

Russia said last month that its analysis indicated a projectile that hit the city of Aleppo on March 19 contained the nerve agent sarin and was most likely fired by rebels.

President Hassan Rouhani of Iran, Assad’s most powerful Middle Eastern ally, acknowledged for the first time on Saturday that chemical weapons had killed people in Syria and called for the international community to prevent their use.

(Additional reporting by Megan Davies in Moscow, John Irish in Paris, Madeline Chambers in Berlin, Yeganeh Torbati in Dubai, Asli Kandemir and Dasha Afanasieva in Istanbul and Washington bureau; Writing by Kevin Liffey; Editing by Louise Ireland)

Note 1:

President Barack Obama said, "The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are [inaudble] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war." </p><br /><br /><br />
<p>I guess this doesn't apply to the Israeli's. </p><br /><br /><br />
<p>GOD BLESS HYPOCRISY!
Shared by Ryan Ghandour
Phosphorous munitions is also banned by 98% of the world communities, except the 5 superpowers and Israel refused to sign on.
President Barack Obama said,
“The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world’s population said the use… of chemical weapons are inadmissible and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war.”
Can we deduce that world conventions in periods of war do Not apply to Israeli? Political HYPOCRISY at its best application?

Note 2: I am under the impression that the Syrian army was hitting Jorba and the nerve gas stored in tunnels by the rebels detonated. Probably the Syrian government knew about the Saudi Arabia intelligence services shipping chemical gas to the rebels and wanted the world community to take notice of this escalation.  The US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and France are trying to throw smokescreens and defuse the responsibility toward the Syrian regime.

Note 3JP Chevenement wrote:

“With respect to the Convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons signed at Paris on 13 January 1993… Syria and Egypt were Not among the signatories. Why?

The Egyptian negotiator Amr Moussa explained that his country would adhere to this convention when weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, bacteriological and chemical would have eliminated the Middle East…

The NPT Review Conference [2] may 2010 aims to create a nuclear-free Middle East.

It is in this general framework that should be taken to preserve the balance of security in this region. ”

JP Chevenement

What Israel did bomb lately in Syria? And How to stop the bloodshed in Syria?

The motives behind Israel’s attack on Syria on Wednesday are still as obscure as the nature of the target.

Did Israel destroy a research scientific institution?

Did Israel bomb a chemical infrastructure?

Did Israel target a convoy of missiles to be delivered to Hezbollah?

Did Israel wiped out a battery of ground to air sophisticated missiles?

As the smoke is lifted, it turned out that Syria outsmarted Israel’s operation of  the “Deadly Mirage“.

Syria brought in 14 containers to the reseach center in Hemraya, accompanied by military convoys and flying aircraft to convince Israel that chemical weapons are being displaced. Hezbollah was also participating in that deceitful maneuvering, which prompted Israel to issue gas masks.

At midnight, Israel military jets launched 8 special missiles on these containers with the intention of spreading the deadly gas to the western sections of Damascus.

Syria managed to catch Syrian Generals and high ranking officers who were in close connection with Israel operation and dismantled old spy rings.

And yet, western analysts claim that this bombing was related to Israel’s long war with Hezbollah in Lebanon rather than any desire to intervene in the fighting in Syria.

What is clear is that Israel has further alienated the people in the Arab world by reminding them of its old habit of humiliating their national pride.

Even Turkey Erdogan lambasted Israel action.

Yet the attack was also a reminder that Syria’s turmoil is having dangerously unpredictable consequences across the region.

Jonathan Steele published on Jan. 31, 2013 in The Guardian

Finding a viable political solution is all the more urgent. So it was good to hear that Moaz al-Khatib, who leads the Syrian National Coalition – the group of exiles who support armed intervention against the Syrian government and are backed by western and Gulf Arab states – now advocates talks with Basher al-Assad’s people.

This is not the view of French, British and US leaders or most of Khatib’s Syrian colleagues, who talk vaguely of a political outcome but only mean Assad’s unilateral surrender.

The former colonial powers in the region unrealistic line was on display again on Monday, when France hosted the so-called Friends of Syria.

Its analysis was gloomy. State institutions are collapsing, Islamist groups are gaining ground, more and more Syrians are dying, and there is no breakthrough in sight. “We cannot let a revolution that started as a peaceful and democratic protest degenerate into a conflict of militias,” said Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, even as he talked of more aid on the battlefield.

Several civic groups that reject the armed struggle were equally pessimistic at a meeting in Geneva. Theirs is the voice of Syria’s secular intelligentsia, who oppose foreign military intervention and favour a ceasefire and a negotiated solution on the lines like that of Lakhdar Brahimi,

The UN/Arab League mediator, Lakhdar Brahimi is trying to broker. Because they do not support the western line, they tend to be ignored by foreign politicians.

Many live in Syria. Indeed, their contingent in Geneva would have been more impressive if the Swiss had not denied visas for almost 60 people.

Rajaa al-Nasser, a Syrian lawyer from the National Co-ordination Body for Democratic Change, says a Swiss official told him the reason was political.

Haytham Manna, (manaa3) the leader of the NCB’s foreign wing, believes France asked the Swiss to block insiders who might puncture the myth that the west’s clients represent all Syrian opinion. The Swiss foreign ministry was not available for comment.

Assad’s non-violent opponents agonise most over whether to accept his recently renewed offer of a “national dialogue”.

Several have spent years in prison and distrust the government. But as casualties go on rising, those oppositionists who favour negotiations won out in Geneva, calling for talks on a new constitution and a transitional government.

Meanwhile to everyone’s surprise, on Wednesday, the Gulf states – not normally big aid-givers – came up with most of the cash to fund a UN appeal for $1.5bn to help homeless Syrians in the country and in refugee camps abroad. Britain added $50m.

Important though this is, British ministers have been as silent as their friends in the Gulf on the real cause of the humanitarian disaster. To listen to them one would think the Syrian government bears all the blame.

In 2011, Syrian forces fired live ammunition at unarmed demonstrators, and their use of artillery and aerial bombing has frequently been disproportionate, as Russian ministers have also said. But the crisis has deepened because of the weapons and logistical help given by Arab and western governments.

William Hague may proclaim that Britain only supplies “non-lethal equipment“, but this is sophistry. By supporting one side in an armed uprising and aiding militarisation through field radios and satellite equipment, Britain has blood on its hands.

Giving generously to feed and house homeless civilians will help, but Syrians would be better served by intelligent politics than charity – an embargo on arms to either side, and serious efforts to persuade rebels and government that military victory is a delusion. The Syrian National Coalition depends on foreign support.

Isn’t it about time for the Western States to tell its friends to work with Brahimi on a ceasefire, and for Russia and Iran to make the same case to Assad?

Two ceasefire attempts made little headway last year because the rebels and their sponsors did not take them seriously. A far more sustained effort is needed now.

For example,  the latest floods that hit the Syrian refugee camp near the Lebanese town of Al-Faour on 8 January, 2013, and in Jordan pressured the Arab Gulf Emirates and Saudi Arabia to extend  the cash to fund a UN appeal for $1.5bn to help homeless Syrians. Britain added $50m …

The Syrians would be better served by intelligent politics than charity.

Note: What do you think is happening in Aleppo, the sectors under the foreign jihadist Wahhabi Nusrat Front?

A mother of 7 children had her husband killed fighting with the Nusrat, and she had no grown up girls or boys. She demanded her ration for food and was denied, on account that she does not fulfill the conditions. She was not appealing enough for sex and had no girls to satisfy the libido of the “moujahideen”

After Bashar Assad falls, what then for the Syrians?

The alliance between foreign jihadists and some Syrians shows the fight for Syria will not end with the fall of the regime.

It is no secret that the entry of the armed opposition into the city of Aleppo was co-ordinated by  the jihadist wahhabi movements of al-Nusra, an al Qaeda front of foreign jihadists at the command of foreign leaders. The al-Tawhid brigade is also Islamist but of Syrian fighters

Smoke rises in the Hanano and Bustan al-Basha districts in the northern city of Aleppo

 City of Aleppo in flame and ruin. Photograph: Javier Manzano/AFP/Getty Images

The Guardian on Dec. 18, 2012 under: Syria: after Assad falls, what then?

“It was not the supposed imminent collapse of the Syrian regime that dominated the recent meeting of the Friends of Syria in Marrakech but the thorny subject of al-Nusra, one of the armed resistance groups operating in the country, which the US has just classified as a “foreign terrorist organisation”.

The chairman of the Syrian National Coalition called for the US to reconsider its decision; the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamad Tayfur condemned it as wrong and hastily made. Many other statements of support for al-Nusra followed, most notably from non-Islamist members of the coalition.

It is no secret that the entry of the armed opposition into the city of Aleppo was co-ordinated by al-Nusra and the al-Tawhid brigade, part of the Syrian Free Army, and that al-Nusra remains an effective fighting force.

But who are they?

Though the al-Tawhid brigade is Islamist, its members are exclusively Syrian. Al-Nusra’s fighters, on the other hand, are mainly foreign, and its emir (leader) is appointed from outside Syria.

What accounts for the support by so many of those attending the Friends of Syria conference for an organisation the US believes to be an al-Qaida front?

From the moment al-Nusra issued its first statement in December 2011, after a suicide bombing in Damascus, both Syria’s armed opposition and the opposition in exile expressed concern about this mysterious new organisation.

The Syrian National Council claimed al-Nusra had been formed by Syrian intelligence to tarnish the image of the Free Army. Syrian human rights defenders spoke out, too, warning of al-Qaida links. Many feared the organization was fast becoming the most attractive group for foreign jihadists in a sectarian war against Alawites, Shias and secular Syrians.

In January, the National Co-ordination Committee asked Turkey to stop letting foreign fighters enter Syria.

In February, the Syrian National Council issued a statement rejecting “all attempts to exploit the uprising by foreign jihadi and sectarian fighters”. Why the apparent shift of opinion within Syria’s opposition groups?

Al-Nusra has indiscriminately targeted non-Sunni people, and in all parts of the state. In this military strategy one can see a point of convergence between the Muslim Brotherhood, the salafists, and al-Nusra: all three groups reject the idea that Assad’s regime and the apparatus of the state are distinct.

The reasons are historical:

Since a 1980 decree sentencing any member of the Muslim Brotherhood to death, there has been no Brotherhood presence in the state. Because of this, the Syrian Islamist movement has long considered the state as inherently alien. This view is not held by all Syrians, however, almost eight million of whom work for the state in various capacities.

The Muslim Brotherhood targeted the military institutions as if they were Assad’s own army. Similarly, al-Nusra considers them to be the Alawite army. This intersection of views explains the lack of support shown by minorities and secular Syrians for the armed opposition groups, which were dominated by Sunni Islamists. The role of secular democrats was marginalised, and the emphasis placed on funding armed action.

Various interested parties have supported the armed opposition.

The Gulf states consider Islamisation as a protection against genuine democracy in Syria, which would pose a threat to their own regimes.

The Turkish government considers Islamisation necessary for the isolation of the Syrian Kurds.

The west, meanwhile, was happy to simply monitor the scene, hoping armed opposition would result in the overthrow of the Syrian regime.

The Syrian National Council, too, co-operated both financially and militarily with al-Nusra, as did the leaders of various armed groups in northern Syria. Despite all the promises made to the US delegation in Tunisia to break with them, co-ordination continued on the ground.

This is why the US deputy secretary of state found himself isolated in Marrakech when he classified al-Nusra as a terrorist organisation.

The British and French remained silent, as did the EU, this year’s Nobel peace prize winner.

This was met with horror by many Syrians, the vast majority of whom reject al-Nusra. When the Syrian army attacks al-Nusra it is not as the suppressor of the popular movement, but the guarantor of the unity of Syria’s diverse society.

It is the alliance between foreign jihadists and some Syrians that risks tearing the country apart, leading to religious extremism, long-term sectarian war, and the persecution of minorities and various civilian groups.

Support for al-Nusra can be seen as both a symptom of the drunkenness of anticipated military victory, prematurely proclaimed, and an attempt to further undermine the political solution the UN still seeks.

What happens as a result will not be decided by a conference in Marrakech, but on the ground.

One thing is certain: the fight for Syria will last a long time, and will not end with the fall of the regime.

Note 1: https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/war-of-lies-and-hypocrisies-in-syria-robert-fisk/

Note 2: https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/syria-fundamental-and-pragmatic-discussions-during-and-after-the-assad-


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

January 2021
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Blog Stats

  • 1,459,731 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 801 other followers

%d bloggers like this: