Media review: Libération, accounts of the beheading of children, rape and burning by Hamas fighters are false and aimed at garnering support for revenge against Gaza

Media review: Libération, accounts of the beheading of children, rape and burning by Hamas fighters are false and aimed at garnering support for revenge against Gaza

    Tuesday, December 12, 2023   No comments

The French newspaper “Libération” published a lengthy investigation into the stories circulated by the Israeli authorities about cutting off the heads of children, raping women, and tearing open the stomachs of pregnant women. The newspaper’s fact-finding team concluded that most of these stories were false and were aimed at inciting international public opinion and gathering support for a revenge operation against Gaza. Here are some excerpts, translated from the French  report:

 

On October 7, Hamas, and later other Palestinian factions, killed more than 1,200 people, including about 800 civilians, including the elderly, families, women, and children. The newspaper's investigative team returned in detail, on numerous occasions, to these documented and often photographed acts, which Hamas continues to deny, despite countless evidence.

...

However, over the past two months, the investigation team has also noted numerous unconfirmed or inconsistent stories and testimonies. Today, the final results of the attack are almost known. And also for the many civilians who were killed, and the circumstances of their deaths. However, available data confirms that some of the atrocities initially described did not happen, and these false testimonies relate almost exclusively to allegations of child abuse, which were at the heart of the media war that began two months ago and have been relayed for weeks by volunteer rescuers, soldiers or Israeli army officials, but also by the head of state and Israeli diplomacy. It was rich material for the international press, as well as Western political leaders.

 ... 

Did Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Foreign Ministry, or even Michal Herzog, wife of President Isaac Herzog, deliberately spread lies, sometimes in diplomatic talks at the highest levels, with the aim of garnering support from international public opinion? October 7 was a real massacre, but it was also the subject of war propaganda.

The lie of forty children and beheadings
 

On Tuesday, October 10, the Israeli army allowed two foreign press journalists to enter Kibbutz Kfar Azza, located less than one kilometer from the Gaza Strip. One of the testimonies stands out: Nicole Zedek, a correspondent for the English-language Hebrew channel i24News, who reported: “One of the commanders here said that at least 40 children were killed,” adding that “some of them were beheaded.” He said he had never seen such atrocities before.

 ...

This statement will be repeated by the media around the world, but also by the Israeli authorities, for several weeks. The next day, the official Twitter account of the State of Israel published a video clip from the i24 channel recalling the Kafr Azza massacre, accompanied by the phrase: “40 children were killed.” The statement then found itself prominently among the videos that flooded Israel's Internet in October denouncing Hamas' crimes.

 ...

In particular, a clip from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs highlighted the “forty children” who were killed, in imitation of children’s programs, against a backdrop of unicorns and rainbows.

 ...

This assertion is now contradicted by the numbers. As of December 5, the Israeli police had notified the Israel National Insurance Institute, whose statistics serve as today's reference, of the names of 789 identified civilian casualties (excluding security forces), and published 686 of them, and the Foreign Ministry told us that only ten were civilian casualties. Their identities have not been established, and among the 100 unpublished names, a very large number are known thanks to the systematic collection work carried out by numerous media outlets (including Haaretz) and Israeli associations, in particular on the basis of reports submitted by the families of the victims, and as It is highly unlikely that the existence of other young victims remains unknown two months after the events, as internal sources from the Israeli forensic medical institutes that received the bodies confirmed to us that “the official assessments are correct,” a journalist from the Israeli daily Haaretz reported.

 ...

According to medical institutes, only one child was found among the civilians killed on October 7. They are Mila Cohen, 10 months old, who was shot and killed in Be'eri along with her father. But according to our information, there is a second child: Omer Kedem Siman Tov, who died in his burning house in Kibbutz Nir Oz, along with his 5-year-old sisters, after their parents were shot. Omer Kedem Siman Tov appears in the institute's file as 4 years old, but

 ...

Several consistent items consulted by our investigation team, and privately available on the social networks of the deceased family, indicate that he was in fact two years and three months old at the time of his murder, and other than these two cases, no other children were killed on October 7 in The kibbutzim, and there was no “headless” child, contrary to what was widely reported. 

Yossi Landau told several international media outlets that he discovered the body of a pregnant woman with a bullet wound to her head, and her abdomen was cut open to remove the fetus that had been stabbed.

 ...

Haaretz newspaper indicates that Yossi Landau confirmed that the pregnant woman was found dead near House 426, which consists of two apartments and is located in a neighborhood where mainly elderly people live. According to the survivors of the building who were interviewed by the Israeli newspaper, there was no pregnant woman.

 ...

However, the Israeli authorities have highlighted this horrific testimony, for example in a message posted by the Israeli Embassy in the United States on Twitter (now X) and Instagram, on October 27. In a recent column published in the American magazine Newsweek, entitled “‘The silence of international authorities in the face of mass rapes committed by Hamas is a betrayal of all women,’” lawyer and First Lady of Israel, Michelle Herzog, also referred to this act and stated: “A Hamas videotape shows One of the kibbutzim terrorists tortured a pregnant woman and extracted her fetus.”

 ...

Our investigative team was able to view a video being circulated that claims to provide evidence of this abuse, and since this has been specifically corrected by the Anti-Defamation League, a leading US NGO in the fight against anti-Semitism, the images were in fact taken. From a video shared in 2018, which allegedly shows abuses committed by a Mexican cartel and is not there.

 ...

These atrocities, initially described by Landau, were reported verbatim on October 31 to the US Senate by Antony Blinken, US Secretary of State: “A little boy and a little girl, ages 6 and 8, and their parents were around the breakfast table, Where the father’s eye was gouged out in front of his children, the mother’s breast was cut off, the girl’s foot was amputated, and the boy’s fingers were cut off before they were executed...and after that their tormentors sat and ate a meal...this is what this society faces.”

 ...

According to our investigations, no child between the ages of 6 and 11 years old died in Be’eri, according to available reports, and the only family that witnessed the death of two children of different genders in Be’eri is the Hatsroni family, whose circumstances of death, previously mentioned, do not match Landau’s account. It is impossible to know whether the elements reported by the head of the relief organization are a distortion of the facts of an event or an invention.

 

The goal is to obtain American and international support to take revenge on Gaza

 This campaign, launched in the ears of political leaders and promoted on social media and among journalists, was intended to mobilize, and then consolidate, Israeli and international public support for the violent reprisals in Gaza, and had the side effect of fueling strong denial. of the October 7 crimes on social media, casting doubt on the true accounts of the attack that killed about 800 civilians.

 

source: https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/israel-7-octobre-un-massacre-et-des-mystifications-20231211_A7QBBETYDRDERFAQINGA66ZAR4/

Police arrest former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan

Police arrest former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan

    Tuesday, May 09, 2023   No comments

Pakistani police on Tuesday arrested former Prime Minister Imran Khan in Islamabad on the background of his corruption trial, police said.

A large number of policemen appeared surrounding Imran Khan during his arrest, in an atmosphere of screams and chaos in a dramatic scene, where he was taken and placed in a military vehicle, under a great security alert.

His lawyer said in a video posted on Twitter that he was detained outside the Islamabad High Court, and was "severely injured" in the process.

In turn, the deputy head of the "Tehreek-e-Insaf" party, Fouad Chaudhry, announced that Khan had been kidnapped, and Chaudhry wrote in a tweet on "Twitter": "Former Prime Minister Imran Khan was kidnapped from the court building, and dozens of lawyers and ordinary people were tortured, and transferred Imran Khan to an unknown direction.

At the end of last month, a Pakistani court issued an arrest warrant against Khan on the grounds of the "threat" case against a female judge in a criminal court.

And the media reported that "the court issued its decision due to the repeated absence of Imran Khan from attending the trial session," noting that the decision came after the rejection of a petition submitted by Imran Khan's lawyer to exclude him from attending the trial, due to what he described as "threats on his life."

Khan's supporters confronted the police with stones and petrol bombs, after attempts to arrest him, last week, and 100 police officers were injured.

In March, the Islamabad High Court ruled that former Prime Minister Imran Khan would be granted protection from arrest as lawsuits against him increased.

The court's decision stipulated that Khan could not be detained for at least another week in seven separate cases related to clashes that erupted on March 18 between his supporters and police outside a court in Islamabad, where Khan was due to appear on corruption charges.

Khan was ousted by a no-confidence vote in parliament last April, and more than 100 lawsuits have since been filed against the 70-year-old opposition leader, including charges of terrorism, incitement to violence and graft.

Since his overthrow, Khan faces several legal measures, knowing that he is still very popular, and hopes to return to power in the legislative elections, which are scheduled to be held next October.

Federal Supreme Court of Iraq Ruling: Oil and Gas Law is unconstitutional

Federal Supreme Court of Iraq Ruling: Oil and Gas Law is unconstitutional

    Wednesday, February 16, 2022   No comments

On Tuesday, the Federal Supreme Court of Iraq issued several rulings regarding the export of oil in the Kurdistan region of Iraq outside the approval of the federal government.

 The court decided the following:

Ruling that the Oil and Gas Law is unconstitutional and repealed it for violating the provisions of the constitutional articles.

- Obligating the region to hand over oil to the federal government, specifically the Ministry of Oil.

The plaintiff has the right to pursue the nullity of the oil contracts that the regional government concluded with foreign parties regarding oil.

- Obligating the two parties to review all contracts concluded for auditing to ensure the region’s share of the budget.

Charge the defendant with fees and expenses.

The decision was passed by a majority, with only two members dissenting.

It is noteworthy that the Federal Court held, earlier Tuesday, the hearing of the case (59 federal) regarding the export of oil in the Kurdistan region of Iraq outside the approval of the federal government.

Is the the presence of and military operations of Russia, the United States and Israel in Syria Legal?

Is the the presence of and military operations of Russia, the United States and Israel in Syria Legal?

    Wednesday, July 11, 2018   No comments

That question was asked The scientific in the German Bundestag. The answer was released and found that, while Russia's presence may be legal because it was operating per request of the Syrian government, the presence of and operations carried out by others is illegal. 

The 13-page report was released Tuesday as reported by Germany based AWDNEWS. The summary and the report are made available below.

The scientific services of the German Bundestag

English summary as provided by AWDNEWS:


The Scientific Services of the German Bundestag are the equivalent to the Congressional Research Service in the United States. Members of Parliament can ask the services to give their neutral expert opinions on legal questions and other issues. Opinions by the Scientific Services are held in high regard.

Alexander Neu, a Member of Parliament for the Left Party in Germany, requested an opinion on the legality of the military presence and operations by Russia, the United States and Israel in Syria.

The result (pdf, in German) is quite clear-cut:

- Russia was asked by the recognized government of Syria to help. Its presence in Syria is without doubt legal under International Law.

- U.S. activities in Syria can be seen as two phases:

Regime Change

The provision of arms to insurgents in Syria by the U.S. (and others) was and is illegal. It is a breach of the Prohibition on the Use of Force in international law specifically of the UN Charter Article 2(4):

    All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Fight against ISIS

The U.S. argues that its presence in Syria is in (collective) self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter because the Islamic State in Syria threatens to attack the United States. That, in itself, would be insufficient as Syria is a sovereign state. The U.S. therefore additionally claims that the Syrian state is "unwilling or unable" to fight against the Islamic State.

The Scientific Services says that the claim of "unwilling or unable" was already dubious when the U.S. operation started. This for two reasons:

    It is not law or an internationally accepted legal doctrine. (The 120 members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and others have argued strongly against it.)
    The Syrian government itself was fighting ISIS, but it could not operation in large parts of its territory where the Islamic State had taken control. Some argue that this justified the "unable" argument. But ISIS is largely defeated and it no longer has any significant territorial control.

The already dubious legal case for the presence of U.S. (and other 'coalition' troops in Syria) can thus no longer be made. The U.S. presence in Syria is illegal.

- Israel's attacks on Hizbullah and Iranian units and installations in Syria, as well as against Syria itself, are claimed by Israel to be 'anticipatory self-defense' under UN Charter Article 51. But 'anticipatory self-defense' could only be claimed when attacks against Israel were imminent. That case has not been made. The Israeli attacks are thus 'pre-emptive self defense' which is not an accepted doctrine of International Law.

The service was not asked for an opinion on Turkey's incursion into Syria but it notes that claims of 'self defense', as Turkey makes in its fight against Kurdish entities in Syria, are often abuses for Geo-strategic purposes.
____________

Facts and Biases: "Mass shootings are terrorism when perpetrated by Muslims"

Facts and Biases: "Mass shootings are terrorism when perpetrated by Muslims"

    Sunday, June 18, 2017   No comments

...
Legally and morally, we see intent as the best way to distinguish terrorism from mass murder. Federal law defines terrorism as certain violent acts “that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government.”

But because Hodgkinson is dead and did not declare an aim to dethrone the House majority to which his victims belong, we can only speculate about his motives. Like so many other killers in recent years, it’s impossible to know what his specific goals were, because he didn’t tell anyone. We know that these people intended to commit murder, but not why. And if we assume we know — as in the case of Syed Rizwan Farook in San Bernadino or Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson — it’s probably because of our preexisting stereotypes or our partisanship. Mass killings look the most like terrorism when their perpetrators seem the most alien from the Judeo-Christian, white majority. That’s no way to judge a crime. We need a new way to classify these attacks.
...
This discrepancy poses two dangers. First, the assumption that mass shootings are terrorism when perpetrated by Muslims but not by others may lead law enforcement and the public to overlook threats posed by non-Muslims. For instance, civil rights lawyer and former FBI agent Mike German, who infiltrated white supremacist groups, has argued that the domestic threat posed by right-wing extremist groups is as great as, if not greater than, that posed by Arab or Muslim terrorists, and yet has been largely ignored by the FBI. A report by the Government Accountability Office tallied 106 killings perpetrated by right-wing extremists in the United States from Sept. 12, 2001, to the end of 2016, more or less equal to the 119 by Muslim extremists in that time. While the exact number in each category may change slightly depending on how we classify individual attacks, the point is that there’s close to parity in the danger posed by each group.

Second, it’s possible that law enforcement and other decision-makers will acknowledge and respond to this singular focus on Muslims by overcompensating in the opposite manner so as to appear nondiscriminatory. The Fort Hood shooter, for example, had repeatedly drawn complaints from fellow soldiers for appearing to justify terrorist attacks against Americans in the Middle East. The FBI was even aware that Hasan had been in email contact with al-Qaeda provocateur Anwar al-Awlaki. It is one thing to avoid racial or religious stereotyping but another to ignore red flags for fear of being perceived as bigoted, as appears to be the case with Hasan. Yet this tension is inherent in stereotype-based law enforcement.

One first step toward resolving the question of “what is terrorism?” — at least in the colloquial sense — is to stop focusing so much on the perpetrator’s perceived intent and to look more at the effects of the violent act. Today, attackers such as Hodgkinson, Hasan, Rizwan, Malik, Loughner and Roof have one thing clearly in common: Even if it’s not clear why, they want to kill as many people as possible. That should be enough to call them all terrorists.

source
James T. Hodgkinson, the man who shot five people at a Republican baseball practice Wednesday, including a member of Congress, harbored ill will toward President Trump and the GOP. So was Hodgkinson a terrorist?

Dissent is haram in Gulf Nations: Sympathizing with Qatar will cost people living in UAE up to 15 years in prison

Dissent is haram in Gulf Nations: Sympathizing with Qatar will cost people living in UAE up to 15 years in prison

    Wednesday, June 07, 2017   No comments

The United Arab Emirates tightened the squeeze on fellow Gulf state Qatar on Wednesday, threatening anyone publishing expressions of sympathy towards Doha with up to 15 years in prison and barring entry to Qataris.
...
The UAE-based newspaper Gulf News and pan-Arab channel Al-Arabiya reported the crackdown on expressions of sympathy with Qatar.

"Strict and firm action will be taken against anyone who shows sympathy or any form of bias towards Qatar, or against anyone who objects to the position of the United Arab Emirates, whether it be through the means of social media, or any type of written, visual or verbal form," Gulf News quoted UAE Attorney-General Hamad Saif al-Shamsi as saying.

On top of a possible jail term, offenders could also be hit with a fine of at least 500,000 dirhams ($136,000), the newspaper said, citing a statement to Arabic-language media.

Slogans against and in support of Qatar have dominated Twitter in Arabic. Newspapers and television channels in the region have also been engaged in a war of words.

source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gulf-qatar-idUSKBN18Y0DH

#MuslimBan: Trump justifies his anti-Muslim views and actions by the fact that his rhetoric won him “standing ovations”

#MuslimBan: Trump justifies his anti-Muslim views and actions by the fact that his rhetoric won him “standing ovations”

    Tuesday, February 07, 2017   No comments

 

Throughout Donald Trump’s campaign and now into the first weeks of his presidency, critics suggested that he cool his incendiary rhetoric, that his words matter. His defenders responded that, as Corey Lewandowski said, he was being taken too “literally.” Some, like Vice President Pence, wrote it off to his “colorful style.” Trump himself recently explained that his rhetoric about Muslims is popular, winning him “standing ovations.”

No one apparently gave him anything like a Miranda warning: Anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law.

And that’s exactly what’s happening now in the epic court battle over his travel ban, currently blocked by a temporary order set for argument Tuesday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The states of Washington and Minnesota, which sued to block Trump’s order, are citing the president’s inflammatory rhetoric as evidence that the government’s claims — it’s not a ban and not aimed at Muslims — are shams.

In court papers, Washington and Minnesota’s attorneys general have pulled out quotes from speeches, news conferences and interviews as evidence that an executive order the administration argues is neutral was really motivated by animus toward Muslims and a “desire to harm a particular group.” source

____________

The case for and against the Muslim Ban: the argument of the states of Washington and Minnesota



____________________

The case for and against the Muslim Ban: Trump's lawyers argument

German international magazine, der spiegel, publishes a dossier about Trump's presidency, the illustrative image is astounding

German international magazine, der spiegel, publishes a dossier about Trump's presidency, the illustrative image is astounding

    Saturday, February 04, 2017   No comments

 ISR comment: The image illustrating the cover dossier of “Der Spiegel,” a leading magazine out of Germany, a country that knows firsthand the consequences of being ruled by populist authoritarians, is astounding. It speaks to the power of art in capturing the moment. Its selection for the cover of the magazine underscores the role of the media and journalism in society during challenging times.
__________________

Donald Trump has now been president of the United States for two weeks. It literally pains me to write about all that has happened in these first days. The president of the U.S. is a racist. He is attempting a coup from the top; he wants to establish an illiberal democracy, or worse; he wants to undermine the balance of power.

With his style of rule -- his decrees, his appointments and his firings -- he is dividing Washington and the rest of the country. Our cover story this week, which will be published in English on Monday, describes how Trump's inner circle works and how insecurity has grown among government officials. It sheds light on the role of Stephen Bannon, the former head of the right-wing news portal Breitbart News, who has become Trump's Faust, his chief ideologue and the man pulling the strings in the White House. Bannon is also a man who loves wars -- he sees them as being thoroughly advantageous.


During the course of his reporting on the cover story, SPIEGEL Washington correspondent Gordon Repinski met with government officials who spoke of their worries and their pangs of guilt. "They are considering whether the right thing to do would be to leave the government or to put up resistance from within," says Repinski. In London, my colleague Peter Müller spoke with Ted Malloch, who is considered Trump's favorite for the post of ambassador to the European Union -- a man who has praised Brexit and predicted the collapse of the euro.

  

The problem will not resolve itself. German business is the opponent of American trade policy, the German democracy is the ideological opponent of Donald Trump, but even here, in the middle of Germany, right-wing extremists are trying to give him a helping hand. It is high time that we stand up for what is important: democracy, freedom, the West and its alliances. Germany, of all countries, the economically and politically dominant democracy in Europe, will have to form the alliance against Trump, because it won't otherwise take shape. It is, however, absolutely necessary.


  

The image for this week's cover was created by the artist Edel Rodriguez. Edel was nine years old when, in 1980, he came to the U.S. with his mother -- two refugees, like so many others. "I remember it well, and I remember the feelings and how little kids feel when they are leaving their country," he told the Washington Post on Friday night.

The newspaper wrote: "This DER SPIEGEL Trump cover is stunning." It wasn't the first time Edel has drawn Trump. He usually portrays him without eyes -- you just see his angry, gaping mouth and, of course, the hair. "I don't want to live in a dictatorship," he says. "If I wanted to live in a dictatorship, I'd live in Cuba, where it's much warmer."

In other vital coverage this week, New York correspondent Philipp Oehmke met up with Dave Eggers and Wolfgang Höbel interviewed T.C. Boyle. Both American authors spoke about the issue gripping the entire world right now: Trump's America. "The world must be shaking," says Boyle.

Finally, in a SPIEGEL interview, my colleagues Horand Knaup, Markus Feldenkirchen and I asked Martin Schulz, the center-left Social Democratic Party's candidate challenging Angela Merkel in this year's chancellor race, what he thought of Trump. "Contemptible. He crosses the boundaries of every basic consensus that a democracy needs! It's staggering."

 A selection of stories from the issue will be published in English this week at
Spiegel.de/international.

 

Disturbing video out of Mosul, Iraq, raises concerns: charred bodies suggest use of illegal weapons or abuse of human dignity

Disturbing video out of Mosul, Iraq, raises concerns: charred bodies suggest use of illegal weapons or abuse of human dignity

    Monday, November 21, 2016   No comments

A video submitted to sites documenting human rights abuses shows burnt bodies of "hundreds of Daesh fighters", as suggested by the videographer, laying on top of the rubble. The charred bodies suggest that the dead were either burnt after they were killed or killed by some incendiary weapon. The video was not shown because of its graphic nature, but pictures, censored still, show the charred bodies. Since there are so many actors in this war theater, U.S., Kurdish fighters, Hashd fighters, Iraqi military, Turkish trained Sunni fighters, and Iraqi security forces, the UN is called upon to investigate.
In 2014, it was reported that ISIL burned the bodies of its dead foreign fighters in Syria, but no such claims emerged this time to suggest the same practice.

The graphic images are commonly associated with ISIL's practices who burned people alive. But ISIL's cruelty cannot be adopted by those who claim that they are repulsed by its practices, justifying their war of the terror group. All human beings, including ISIL fighters, need to be treated with dignity in life and death.

Transcript of Assad's interview with Portuguese RTP TV

Transcript of Assad's interview with Portuguese RTP TV

    Wednesday, November 16, 2016   No comments

President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to the Portuguese RTP TV channel. Following is the Full Video and Full Transcript of the interview.

Full Video-Interview in Damascus, 16 November 2016


Question 1: Mr. President, let’s start with Aleppo if you don’t mind. There are still thousands of civilians trapped, trying to survive in a sort of sub-human conditions in the middle of a deluge of bombs. Why do you think that they refused to get out?

President Assad: The part that you mention in Aleppo, what they call it the eastern part, is occupied by the terrorists for the last three years, and they have been using the civilians as human shields. From our side, from our part as government, we have two missions: the first one is to fight those terrorists to liberate that area and the civilians from those terrorists, and at the same time to try to find a solution to evacuate that area from those terrorists if they accept, let’s say, what you call it reconciliation option, in which they either give up their armaments for amnesty, or they leave that area. The other thing we did as government is to open gates for the civilians to leave that area, and at the same time for the humanitarian convoys and help to go through those gates inside that part of Aleppo, but the terrorists publicly refused any solution, so they wanted to keep the situation as it is.

Question 2: But Mr. President, aren’t you using the jihadists to discredit all the oppositions at the eyes of the national and international public opinion, and in the end to try to wipe them all out?

President Assad: No, we cannot do that for a very simple reason: because we’ve been dealing with this kind of terrorism since the fifties, since the Muslim Brotherhood came to Syria at that time, and we learned that lesson very well, especially in the eighties, that terrorists cannot be used as a political card, you cannot put it in your pocket, because it’s like a scorpion; it will bite you someday. So, we cannot use jihadists because it’s like shooting yourself in the foot. They’re going to be against you sooner or later. This is in a pragmatic way, but if you think as value, we wouldn’t do it. Using terrorism or jihadists or extremists for any political agenda is immoral.

Question 3: But Mr. President, the people, the civilians inside Aleppo, couldn’t we assume that they probably don’t trust the government, they don’t trust the army, that they just want democracy, dignity, freedom? Can you give that to them?

President Assad: Let’s talk about this point, regarding the reality; since the beginning of the crisis, since the terrorists started to control some areas within Syria, the majority of the Syrian civilians left that areas to join the government areas, not vice versa. If the majority of the Syrians don’t trust the government, they should go the other way.

Let me tell you another example, which is a starker example. You were in Daraya, al-Muadamiya, a few days ago, when you came here, and the terrorists and militants who left that area to Idleb in the northern part of Syria to join their fellow terrorists, they left their families under the supervision of the government, and you can go and visit them now, if you want.

Question 4: Mr. President, I’ve been here first four years ago, and now. Are you winning the war, this war in Syria?

President Assad: We can say, you can win the war only when you restore stability in Syria. You cannot talk about winning the war as long as there’s killing and destruction on daily basis. That doesn’t mean we are losing the war; the army is making good advancement on daily basis against the terrorists. Of course, they still have the support of Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and some Western countries including the United States, but the only option that we have in that regard is to win. If you don’t win and the terrorists win, Syria wouldn’t exist anymore.

Question 5: But would you have done that also without Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia?

President Assad: They are here because they could offer very essential and important help, because the situation that we are facing now is not only about a few terrorists from within Syria; it’s like international war against Syria. Those terrorists have been supported by tens of foreign countries, so Syria alone wouldn’t be able to face this kind of war without the help of its friends. That’s why their existence and their support was very essential.

Question 6: Isn’t Mr. Putin your most important ally?

President Assad: Russia is very important, Iran is very important, Hezbollah is very important. All of them are important. Each one made important achievements against the terrorists in Syria, so it’s difficult to say who is more important than the other.

Journalist: But what’s the role of Russia in Syria nowadays?

President Assad: The most important part of their support is the aerial support, which is very essential, they have very strong firepower, and at the same time they are the main supply of our army for more than sixty years, so our army depends on the Russian support in different military domains.

bashar-al-assad-interview-to-rtp-tv-channel-3-1200

Question 7: But are you free to decide the future of Syria, or are you dependent on Vladimir Putin’s strategies?

President Assad: No, first of all, we are fully free, not partially, fully free, in everything related to the future of Syria. Second, which is more important or as important as the first part or the first factor, that the Russians always base their policies on values, and these values are the sovereignty of other countries, the international law, respecting other people, other cultures, so they don’t interfere in whatever is related to the future of Syria or the Syrian people.

Question 8: But they have helped you quite a few times in the United Nations. They have vetoed a few resolutions condemning your government, and the Syrian Army. There are several reports regarding Syria for use of chemical weapons, human right abuses, war crimes. All of this in the framework of the United Nations.

President Assad: And many ask “what for?” I mean, what’s in return, what did they ask in return, that’s the question, actually, that’s the content of your question, because we heard it many times, whether in the media or directly. Actually, first of all, for their values, because in these values that I’m talking about, the value of international law, and they have their interest as well. I mean, fighting the terrorists in Syria is not only in the interest of Syria or the Syrian people; in the interest of the Middle East, of Europe itself – something that many officials in the West don’t see or don’t realize or don’t acknowledge – and in the interest of the Russian people, because they have been facing terrorists for decades now. So, the Russians are fighting for us, for the world, and for their self.

Question 9: But when you speak about values, democracy is a value.

President Assad: Of course.

Journalist: Freedom is a value.

President Assad: Of course.

Question 10: Can you say that Syria is a democracy, like the Western standards?

President Assad: The only one who can fight for these values like democracy and freedoms are the people of any country or any society, not the foreigners. Foreigners cannot bring freedom, cannot bring democracy, because this is related to the culture, to the different factors that affect or influence that society. You cannot bring it, you cannot import it. You cannot import anything from outside your country regarding the future of your country.

bashar-al-assad-interview-to-rtp-tv-channel-4-1200

Question 11: But would you define Syria as a democracy?

President Assad: No, we were on the way to democracy. We didn’t say that we are fully democratic, we were on the way, we were moving forward. Slowly or fast, that’s subjective, cannot be objective, that’s always subjective. But we’re moving forward in that regard, of course. But the criteria or the paradigm for us is not the West, not the Western paradigm, because the West has its own culture, we have our own culture, they have their own reality, we have our own reality. So, our democracy should reflect our culture and our habits and our customs and our reality at the same time.

Question 12: I’m sure that you know that there is a new Secretary-General of the United Nations. How do you look at him, Mr. Guterres, taking into the account his well-known humanitarian approach to the situation?

President Assad: Of course, I agree about the headline of this approach. I say “headline” because you always – under the headline, you have many sub-headlines or different titles. When you talk about humanitarian, it doesn’t only mean to offer the people the help, the food, their necessary needs for their life. The first thing, if you ask the Syrian refugees, for example, the first thing they want is to go back to their country. The first thing they want is to be able to live within Syria. That means help, humanitarian help, the way we understand it, food, medical care, any other, let’s say, basics for the daily life. The second one is to have stability and to have security, which means humanitarian equals fighting terrorists. You cannot talk about humanitarian aid and supporting the terrorists at the same time. You cannot, you have to choose. And of course, I’m not talking about him; I’m talking about the countries that go to support his plan, because he needs the support of other countries, he cannot achieve that plan while many countries in the world are still supporting the terrorists in Syria. So, of course we support it, whether helping the people to live, to go back to their country, and to live in security without terrorists.

Question 13: He said already that peace in Syria is a priority. Are you available to talk with him, to work with him, for that purpose?

President Assad: Definitely, of course. It’s his priority, and of course it’s our priority, that’s self-evident. It’s not only our priority; it’s a Middle Eastern priority, and when the Middle East is stable, the rest of the world is stable, because the Middle East is the heart of the world geographically and geopolitically, and Syria is the heart of the Middle East geographically and geopolitically. We are the fault line; if you don’t deal with this fault line, you’re going to have an earthquake, that’s what we always said. That’s why this priority is a hundred percent correct from our point of view, and we are ready to cooperate in any way to achieve stability in Syria, of course taking into consideration the interest of the country, and the will of the Syrian people.

Question 14: You said when we spoke that the United Nations are biased. You think with Mr. Guterres that can change a little bit?

President Assad: Everybody knows that the United Nations is not the Secretary-General; he has an important position, but the United Nations is the states within this organization, and to be frank, most of the people say only the five permanent members; this is the United Nations because they have the veto, they can do whatever they want and they can refuse whatever they want, and if there’s a reform that is very much needed for this organization, they can make veto or they can move forward in that regard. But at the same time, the way he presented himself as Secretary-General is very important. If you ask me “what do you expect from such a new official in that important position,” I would say I need two things: the first one is to be objective in every statement he could make regarding any conflict around the world, including Syria. The second one, which is related and complimentary with the first one, is not to turn his office into a part or branch of the State Department of the United States. That’s what we expect now. Of course, when he’s objective, he can play an important role in dealing with different officials in the United Nations in order to bring the policies of the different states – mainly Russia and the United States – toward more cooperation and more stability regarding Syria.

Question 15: But regarding Syria, there are a lot agendas: Qatar, Turkey, Russia, United States, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. How is it possible to try to find that peace process with so many agendas?

President Assad: Without bringing all those countries and the different factors in one direction, of course it’s going to be difficult. That’s why I always say the Syrian problem as isolated case, as Syrian case, is not very complicated. What makes it complicated is the interference from the outside, especially the Western interference because it’s against the will of the Syrian government, while the intervention of the Russians, Iranians, and Hezbollah is because of the invitation of the Syrian government. So, his role as Secretary-General in bringing all these powers together is very essential` and we hope he can succeed, it’s not easy of course.

Question 16: Let me pick out Turkey; their army is in your country, their President said last week that their interests lies beyond the natural borders; he referred to Mosul and Aleppo. Do you accept this?

President Assad: Of course not. You’re talking about sick person; he’s megalomaniac President, he is not stable. He lives during the Ottoman era, he doesn’t live in the current time. He’s out of touch with the reality.

Question 17: But how you are going to do with their army inside your country?

President Assad: It’s our right to defend it; it’s invasion. It’s our right to defend our country against any kind of invasion. But let’s be realistic, every terrorist came to Syria, he came through Turkey with the support of Erdogan. So, fighting those terrorists is like fighting the army of Erdogan, not the Turkish army, the army of Erdogan.

Question 18: But it’s a NATO country, are you aware of that?

President Assad: Yeah, of course. Whether it is a NATO country or not, it doesn’t have the right to invade any other country according to the international law or to any other moral value.

Question 19: Mr. President, America’s new elected President, what do you expect of Donald J. Trump?

President Assad: We don’t have a lot of expectations because the American administration is not only about the President; it’s about different powers within this administration, the different lobbies that they are going to influence any President. So, we have to wait and see when he embarks his new mission, let’s say, or position within this administration as President in two months’ time. But we always say we have wishful thinking that the Unites States would be unbiased, respect the international law, doesn’t interfere in other countries around the world, and of course to stop supporting terrorists in Syria.

Question 20: But he said in an interview that he seems to be ready to work with you in the fight against the Islamic State or ISIL, are you ready for such a move?

President Assad: Of course, I would say this is promising, but can he deliver? Can he go in that regard? What about the countervailing forces within the administration, the mainstream media that were against him? How can he deal with it? That’s why for us it’s still dubious whether he can do or live up to his promises or not. That’s why we are very cautious in judging him, especially as he wasn’t in a political position before. So, we cannot tell anything about what he’s going to do, but if, let’s say if he is going to fight the terrorists, of course we are going to be ally, natural ally in that regard with the Russian, with the Iranian, with many other countries who wanted to defeat the terrorists.

Question 21: So, you will cooperate with the Americans in the fight against terrorists?

President Assad: Of course, definitely, if they are genuine, if they have the will, and if they have the ability, of course we are the first ones to fight the terrorists because we suffered more than any other one in this world from terrorists.

Question 22: So, cooperate with the Americans that are now supporting the Kurds, the YPG that are trying to get into Raqqa?

President Assad: When you talk about cooperation, it means cooperation between two legal governments, not cooperation between foreign government and any faction within Syria. Any cooperation that doesn’t go through the Syrian government is not legal. If it’s not legal, we cannot cooperate with, and we don’t recognize and we don’t accept.

Question 23: Anyway, the Vice President, Mr. Pence, said that he has admitted the use of military force to prevent your military force from a humanitarian crisis in Aleppo, how do you look at it?

President Assad: This is against the international law again, and that’s the problem with the American position; they think that they are the police of the world. They think they are the judge of the world; they’re not. They are sovereign country, they are an independent country, but this is their limit; they don’t have to interfere in any other country. Because of this interference for the last fifty years, that’s why they are very good only in creating problems, not in solving problems. That’s the problem with the American role. That’s why I said we don’t pin a lot of hopes of changing administrations because that context has been going on for more than fifty years now, and that’s expected. If they want to continue in the same position of the United States creating problems around the world, that’s what they have to do: only interfering in the matters of other nations.

Question 24: But returning to what the President, the newly elected American President said about cooperating with your government in the fight against Islamic State, do you expect a change also within European countries?

President Assad: Regarding fighting terrorism, we are ready to cooperate with anyone in this world with no conditions. That’s crux of our policy, not today, not yesterday; for years, even before the war on Syria, we always said that. In the eighties, we asked for international coalition against terrorism after the Muslim Brotherhood crisis in Syria when they started killing, of course they were defeated at that time. We asked for the same thing. So, this is a long-term policy that we base our policy on for years now.

Question 25: One last question. Mr. President, I need really to ask you this, because after all these years, do you still reject any responsibility for what happened in your country?

President Assad: No, I never rejected any responsibility, but that depends on the decision. When you talk about responsibility, you ask yourself what are the decisions that you take in order to deal with the crisis. Did the President order anyone to kill civilians, did he order the destruction, did he order supporting terrorism in his country? Of course not. My decision was, and the decision of the different institutions, and the decision of the different officials in Syria – I’m on top of them – was to have dialogue, to fight terrorists, and to reform as a response at the very beginning, response to the allegations, let’s say, at that time, that they needed reform in Syria, we responded. So, that’s the decision that I took. Would you say, or would anyone say that fighting terrorism is wrong? Making dialogue is wrong? Making reform is wrong? Protecting the civilians and liberating areas from terrorists is wrong? Of course not. So, there’s a difference between responsibility of the policy and responsibility of the practice. In any practice, you have malpractice, that’s another issue. When you talk about state and President, you always talk about the decisions and the policy.

Journalist: Thank you for being with RTP Mr. President.

President Assad: Thanks for you.

Is Erdoğan creating a powerful presidential system that will be used against him and his party?

Is Erdoğan creating a powerful presidential system that will be used against him and his party?

    Sunday, October 23, 2016   No comments

ISR comment:  The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, may get his wish and transform the Turkish parliamentarian governing system into a presidential system. His campaign to do so was not motivated by the virtues of the presidential system more than by personal ambitions. He has been the most powerful and consequential president since the founding years of the republic. He has been acting as the executive president without the constitutional authority already. His problem is that, there is a good chance that he may never serve as the first legitimate executive president. In fact, it is possible that an opponent could be elected under and amended constitution, not Erdoğan, and with the consolidated power Erdoğan has built for himself, the new president could end up throwing Erdoğan in prison for many of the unconstitutional and illegal acts he carried inside and outside Turkey. That would be an example of the Islamic proverb: whoever digs a trap-hole for his brother is bound to fall in it himself.

Erdoğan has made many fatal mistakes in the past five years and he is making even more in recent months. He created enemies out of old friends and and never reconciled with old enemies. He is fighting with the U.S. against ISIL, but fighting with ISIL against Iraqi government. He is with the U.S. in its campaign to overthrow Assad but against it in its support for the Syrian Kurds. He made friends with Russian president, Putin, but he continued to antagonize Russia's allies, Iran and Iraq. His is friends with Iraqi Kurds, but considers Turkish Kurdis terrorists. His circle of friends is shrinking and his front of enemies is swelling. All these foreign affairs problems are putting the Turkish economy under extreme stress. His party was accepted by Turkish voters because of the prosperity and peace it brought them. If peace and prosperity are threatened, Turkish voters will vote him and his party out. But he and his party would leave behind a very powerful presidential institution, should it fall in the hands of his adversaries, his legacy would be reduced to a catalog of failures. Strangely, Erdoğan could be creating his dream job for someone else.

 

___________

The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has finalized preparations for a draft of a constitutional amendment, which will change the country’s parliamentary system to an executive presidency, Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım said on Oct. 23.
“We have finalized our work on both the new constitution and on the presidential [system]. We have made sufficient discussions both in parliament and by the public. We’ll bring our proposal to parliament as soon as possible,” Yıldırım said addressing the deputies in his closing speech at the AKP camp.

The government will go to a popular referendum on whether the parliament should adopt new charter draft with 367 votes or agrees to go for public opinion on 330 votes, he said.

So that Turkey will end “system debate and use its energy for its future,” Yıldırım said.

...
After the consultation camp in Afyon, the charter will be introduced to two of the opposition parties in parliament, the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), as the AKP has refused to work with the third largest party in parliament, the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP).

After the bilateral discussions with the two opposition parties, AKP will submit the draft to parliament. The AKP officials have indicated that the party anticipates a referendum on the draft in April following an approval in parliament set to be done in January.

The draft will include 12 to 15 articles outlining the presidential model that the party will present to the public.

Constitutional change, in particular, the call for a presidential system, has been on the political agenda since President Erdoğan, the former prime minister, was elected as Turkey’s president in August 2014.

The 2014 election was the first time a Turkish president, whose role is officially defined as symbolic, was directly chosen by popular vote.

The discussion on the presidential system was revived after Bahçeli suggested going to a referendum, to let the people decide if Turkey should change its administrative model.

Changing to a presidential system is opposed by Turkey’s two other parliamentary parties, CHP and HDP, and the AKP lacks the super-majority in parliament needed to make the change without submitting it to a referendum.

The AKP, with 316 seats in parliament, needs the support of the 40-seat MHP to take any constitutional amendment to a referendum. source

U.S. ally, Bahrain, rearrests top human rights activist Nabeel Rajab

U.S. ally, Bahrain, rearrests top human rights activist Nabeel Rajab

    Monday, June 13, 2016   No comments

DM, UK: Bahraini security forces on Monday rearrested leading human rights activist Nabeel Rajab in a dawn raid in the Gulf kingdom, his family said on Twitter.

Rajab, 51, who was detained in 2014 for tweets deemed insulting to the authorities before his release on health grounds, was apprehended at his home in the mainly Shiite village of Bani Jamra near Manama, his family said.

"Rajab was arrested from his house and his house was searched," tweeted his wife Sumaya Rajab.

There was no immediate clarification on the reason for his latest arrest.

Rajab, who has led anti-government marches and heads the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, had previously served two years in jail for taking part in unauthorised protests.

He was sentenced to six months in jail for his tweets but pardoned in July 2015 after King Hamad issued a royal pardon "for health reasons".

Bahrain, home to the US Navy's Fifth Fleet, has been rocked by unrest since security forces crushed Shiite-led protests in 2011 demanding a constitutional monarchy and an elected prime minister.

Washington had previously called for Rajab's release, and international rights groups have condemned trials against opponents of the Sunni regime.

His arrest comes a week after another leading opposition activist, Zeinab al-Khawaja, fled Bahrain following her release from jail on "humanitarian grounds".

"It pains me to leave, but I leave carrying our cause on my back, and my love for my country in my chest," Khawaja, who left for Denmark where she also holds nationality, said on Twitter.

The Gulf Centre for Human Rights has said Khawaja was jailed for three years and one month on charges including tearing up the monarch's picture and insulting a police officer.

Amnesty International's deputy MENA director James Lynch said Rajab's arrest "appears to be another alarming example of Bahrain's zero-tolerance stance towards peaceful dissent and activism, which it enforces through arbitrary measures including revolving-doors detention".

Saudi Arabia threatens U.S. over 9/11 legislation: will sell $750 billion worth of assets held inside U.S.

Saudi Arabia threatens U.S. over 9/11 legislation: will sell $750 billion worth of assets held inside U.S.

    Saturday, April 16, 2016   No comments

Saudi Arabia threatens to sell off US assets if Congress passes 9/11 bill
Officials in Saudi Arabia have reportedly told the Obama administration they will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars of American assets if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible for any role in the September 11 attacks.

On the eve of President Barack Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia, the New York Times said the White House had been lobbying Congress to block the bill’s passage and that the threat from Saudi Arabia had been the subject of intense talks.

It said that Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message last month during a trip to Washington, telling legislators that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750bn in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.
 source

Hiroshima survivors look to Obama visit for disarmament, not apology

Hiroshima survivors look to Obama visit for disarmament, not apology

    Thursday, April 14, 2016   No comments

Progress on ridding the world of nuclear weapons, not an apology, is what Hiroshima would want from a visit by U.S. President Barack Obama to the Japanese city hit by an American nuclear attack 71 years ago, survivors and other residents said.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said during a visit to the city on Monday that Obama wanted to travel there, though he did not know if the president's schedule would allow him to when he visits Japan for a Group of Seven summit in May.

No incumbent U.S. president has ever visited Hiroshima.

A presidential apology would be controversial in the United States, where a majority view the bombing of Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and of the city of Nagasaki three days later, as justified to end the war and save U.S lives.

The vast majority of Japanese think the bombings were unjustified.

"If the president is coming to see what really happened here and if that constitutes a step toward the abolition of nuclear arms in future, I don't think we should demand an apology," said Takeshi Masuda,
a 91-year-old former school teacher. source

Military Historian Agrees with Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton is an Unreconstructed Hawk

Military Historian Agrees with Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton is an Unreconstructed Hawk

    Sunday, April 10, 2016   No comments

Military Historian Agrees with Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton is an Unreconstructed Hawk
In the Democratic presidential race, Senator Bernie Sanders has often clashed with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about U.S. policy in the Middle East. At one debate, he accused Clinton of being "too much into regime change." We ask military historian Andrew Bacevich for his assessment.

TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Colonel Bacevich, we are in New York right now, though we’re headed out on a 100-city tour around the country. But right now New York is ground zero for the presidential race, both for the Republicans and for the Democrats. The Democrats—Sanders, Clinton—the big debate right now over these days is each of them are saying the other is not qualified. I want to go back to the Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire last year, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders accusing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of being, quote, "too much into regime change."


    SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: But I think—and I say this with due respect—that I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be. Yes, we could get rid of Saddam Hussein, but that destabilized the entire region. Yes, we could get rid of Gaddafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS. Yes, we could get rid of Assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS. So I think, yeah, regime change is easy, getting rid of dictators is easy. But before you do that, you’ve got to think about what happens the day after.

    HILLARY CLINTON: Now, with all due respect, Senator, you voted for regime change with respect to Libya. You joined the Senate in voting to get rid of Gaddafi, and you asked that there be a Security Council validation of that with a resolution. All of these are very difficult issues.

AMY GOODMAN: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders says Hillary Clinton, among other things, is not qualified simply because she voted for the Iraq War. Colonel Bacevich?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I don’t know that I would judge somebody’s qualifications simply on one particular vote, but I have to agree with the basic argument that Senator Sanders is making, that Secretary Clinton is an unreconstructed hawk. Now, in terms of the rhetoric, she comes across as more reasoned than the Republican opposition, but the fact of the matter is, if we elect her to be our next commander-in-chief, we are voting for the continuation of the status quo with regard to U.S. national security policy, and specifically U.S. national security policy in the Greater Middle East. So, for people for whom that is an important issue, who want to see change in U.S. policy, she’s not going to be the vehicle for change.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you—you’re a veteran of Vietnam. After Vietnam, the United States got rid of its citizen or volunteer—its drafting of soldiers into the military, and created a volunteer army. You’ve been a critic of that. Why?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I think that one of the unintended consequences of ending the draft, creating a professional military, was to create a gap between the military and society. Now, we don’t acknowledge that gap. Matter of fact, we deny the existence of that gap by all of the rhetorical tributes that are paid to the troops and the obligation that we all have to, quote-unquote, "support the troops." The reality, I think, is that when it really comes down to it, the American people don’t pay much attention to how the troops are being used. And because they’re not paying attention, the troops have been subjected to abuse. That is to say, they’ve been sent to fight wars that are unnecessary. The wars have been mismanaged. The wars go on far longer than they ought to. And we respond by letting people in uniform be the first to board airplanes. And I think, frankly, that that is disgraceful and that it actually ought to be one of the things that gets discussed in a presidential campaign, but tends not to, sadly.

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, what do you want these presidential candidates to say to—well, we’ve introduced you as a retired colonel, as a Vietnam War veteran, as a professor emeritus, but you’re also a dad, and you lost your son in Iraq in 2007, like so many parents in this country, also like so many Iraqis who lost family members. What do you want these presidential candidates—what do you want to hear from them? What do you want them to say to you?

ANDREW BACEVICH: What they ought to say to us, not simply to me because of my personal circumstances—what they ought to say is: "I understand that we, as a nation, have been engaged in this war for going on four decades now, and I have learned something from that experience. I have taken on board what the United States tried to do militarily and what it actually ended up doing and what the consequence is that resulted. And here’s what I’ve learned, and here’s how I’m going to ensure, if you elect me commander-in-chief, that we will behave in ways that are wiser and more prudent and more enlightened in the future." In other words, they have to look beyond simply the question of how many more bombs are we going to drop on ISIS. That is a secondary consideration. They have to have some appreciation of the history, that I try to lay out in this book.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you so much for being with us, Andrew Bacevich, retired colonel, Vietnam War veteran. His latest book, America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History. He’s professor emeritus of international relations and history at Boston University and is traveling around the country, will be in Providence, is going to Washington, D.C., is going to be speaking at the naval—a naval conference and many other places. You can go online. We’ll link to his website at democracynow.org. This is Democracy Now! Stay with us.
Source

#ISR: Chemical weapons had been used by ISIL (#daesh) fighters

#ISR: Chemical weapons had been used by ISIL (#daesh) fighters

    Monday, February 15, 2016   No comments

Islamic State militants attacked Kurdish forces in Iraq with mustard gas last year, the first known use of chemical weapons in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein, a diplomat said, based on tests by the global chemical weapons watchdog.

A source at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) confirmed that laboratory tests had come back positive for the sulfur mustard, after around 35 Kurdish troops were sickened on the battlefield last August.

The OPCW will not identify who used the chemical agent. But the diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because the findings have not yet been released, said the result confirmed that chemical weapons had been used by Islamic State fighters.

The samples were taken after the soldiers became ill during fighting against Islamic State militants southwest of Erbil, capital of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region.

The OPCW already concluded in October that mustard gas was used last year in neighboring Syria. Islamic State has declared a "caliphate" in territory it controls in both Iraq and Syria and does not recognize the frontier.

Experts believe that the sulfur mustard either originated from an undeclared Syrian chemical stockpile, or that militants have gained the basic know how to develop and conduct a crude chemical attack with rockets or mortars. source

Showing the growing strategic difference with the US and converging interests with Saudi Arabia: Israeli DM declares that he prefers ISIS to Iran

Showing the growing strategic difference with the US and converging interests with Saudi Arabia: Israeli DM declares that he prefers ISIS to Iran

    Wednesday, January 20, 2016   No comments

Evidence is mounting that the Middle East is entering a new era. Days after the Iran Deal, which mainly ended the US-Iran nuclear dispute, Israeli leaders are now taking public steps to align themselves with Saudi Arabia and the groups that country supports and distancing itself from the U.S. 

Speaking today at a security conference in Tel Aviv, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon declared that he “prefers ISIS” over Iran, and does not consider ISIS to pose a serious threat to the Israeli state, saying Iran will always remain “the main enemy.”

Ya’alon insisted that he believes ISIS will be defeated at any rate, what with the US launching strikes on their oil supplies, but that he’d much rather see ISIS rule all of Syria, and consequently be directly on Israel’s border, than have the pro-Iran government remain in power.

Ya’alon’s declaration was a lot more public than most, but not really outside of long-standing Israeli policy, and the defense minister laid out a similar argument around the notion of an apocalyptic “clash of civilizations” between Israel and the Shi’ite world, believing that the Sunnis, like ISIS, are practically on their side.

Not that ISIS sees it that way. While they’ve been more focused on attacking Shi’ites than attacking Israel so far, they’ve made multiple statements about their plans to expand into Palestine and fight against Israeli forces. Israel’s military chief warned only yesterday that ISIS may soon turn its focus to attacking Israel and Jordan.

source: www.ynetnews.com

U.S. and Iran release Iranian and American prisoners, Obama pardons Iranians charged with sanctions violations

U.S. and Iran release Iranian and American prisoners, Obama pardons Iranians charged with sanctions violations

    Sunday, January 17, 2016   No comments

An Iranian analyst said the US was mainly seeking to free Jason Rezaian through its Saturday prisoners swap deal with Iran that also included freedom of three other US citizens in Iran and 7 Iranian inmates in the United States.

Mehdi Mohammadi wrote on his Instagram page on Sunday that 4 US inmates were freed yesterday in exchange for a package of concessions by the American side.

According to him, Jason Rezaian was the main person who was freed on Saturday and the US agreed to make the concessions for his sake and not the three other inmates.

Mohammadi said the day when Rezaian was detained, many in the West complained that he was a simple journalist and shouldn’t have been arrested, "but the US non-stop efforts to free Rezaian showed that he wasn’t just a journalist".

He appreciated the Iranian security forces for their timely reaction to threats, and said the prompt action of the Iranian intelligence forces provided Iran with a major chance "to force the enemy to make concessions".

4 Iranian-American nationals who were held for various charges in Iran were freed under a prisoners swap deal on Saturday. A fifth inmate was also released separately.

"Based on an approval of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and the overall interests of the Islamic Republic, four Iranian prisoners with dual-nationality were freed today within the framework of a prisoner swap deal," the office of Tehran prosecutor said.

The four Iranian-Americans, Jason Rezaian, Amir Hekmat, Saeed Abedini and Nosratollah Khosrawi Roudsari who were jailed in Iran on various charges in recent years, have all been released.

Some English and Persian websites have wrongly named Siamak Namazi as the fourth inmate freed under the deal today. Namazi remains in jail for his charges are financial, and not political. The freed prisoners are due to fly to Switzerland from Iran on a Swiss flight.

Meantime, a US official said a fifth dual nationality prisoner would also be released by Iran separate from the swap deal. Later reports named this fifth prisoner as Mathew Trevithick.

According to the swap deal, the US has also freed 7 Iranian-Americans who were held for sanctions-related charges and demanded the Interpol to stop prosecution of 14 other Iranian nationals.

The 7 Iranian inmates freed by the US have been named as Nader Modanlou, Bahram Mechanic, Khosrow Afqahi, Arash Ghahreman, Touraj Faridi, Nima Golestaneh and Ali Sabounchi.

The 14 Iranians who were accused in the United States of sanctions violations and had charges dropped on Saturday under the prisoner deal include Saeed Jamili, Jalal Salami, Matin Sadeqi, Alireza Moazzemi Goudarzi, Mohammad Abbas Mohammadi, Kourosh Taherkhani, Sajjad Farhadi, Seyed Ahmad Abtahi, Gholamreza Mahmoudi, Hamid Arabnejad, Ali Moattar, Mohammad Ali She'rbaf, Amin Ravan and Behrouz Dolatzadeh.

A senior Iranian legislator citing an IRGC report on Rezaian's case said in October that he had been imprisoned for his attempts to help the US Senate to advance its regime change plots in Iran.

In late July 2014, Iran confirmed that four journalists, including Washington Post correspondent Jason Rezaian, had been arrested and were being held for questioning.

Rezaian's wife Yeganeh Salehi, a correspondent for the United Arab Emirates-based newspaper, the National, was also arrested at that time, but she and two others were released later.

According to the Constitution, the Judiciary is independent from the government in Iran.

Some reports earlier this year had spoken of a potential prisoner swap between Iran and US following the Vienna nuclear deal in July. source

...

Obama pardons Iranians charged with sanctions violations

President Barack Obama pardoned three Iranians charged with sanctions violations as U.S. authorities moved to drop charges or commute prison sentences on Saturday for five other men, part of a stunning and secretly negotiated deal that saw four Americans freed by Iran.

The deal removed a major source of acrimony standing in the way of further rapprochement between the long-time foes, but opened the Obama administration to immediate criticism that it had agreed to a bad deal that would set a dangerous precedent.

It also represented a reversal of the past five years of U.S. policy, during which U.S. law enforcement prosecuted illicit trade with Iran, even in common consumer items, as a threat to national security.

The prisoner deal with Iran came the same day major powers began to lift economic sanctions against Tehran in exchange for steps to curb its nuclear program, implementing an international nuclear agreement.  source

ISIL assembling chemical weapons team, preparing for attacks with chemical weapons

ISIL assembling chemical weapons team, preparing for attacks with chemical weapons

    Sunday, November 22, 2015   No comments

The Islamic State is putting together a team of scientists to produce chemical weapons, raising concerns that they could be used against the West like last week's deadly attacks in Paris, according to a published report.

The new branch of the terrorist group will consist of scientists from the region, including Iraq and Syria, and will conduct research and experiments to develop chemical weapons, U.S. and Iraqi intelligence officials said. Some of those working on the team once worked for Saddam Hussein's former Military Industrialization Authority.

The team also includes foreign experts from Chechnya and southeast Asia, according to the Associated Press.

Also, Kuwait official news agencies reported (11/22/2015) that interrogation of members of an ISIL cell revealed that ISIL, also known as Daesh, is buying chemical protective gear, which might suggest that ISIL is preparing for chemical attacks in Syria and Iraq.