Friedensbewegung fordert eindeutige Distanzierung der deutschen Bundesregierung !

Keine Militärintervention in Syrien! 

An die Presse 09. September 2013

Die Kooperation für den Frieden, ein Zusammenschluss von 57 Organisationen und Initiativen aus der Friedensbewegung, lehnt eine Militärintervention in Syrien ab. Die Kriegsvorbereitungen müssen sofort gestoppt werden! 

Wir fordern Bundeskanzlerin Merkel auf, die Unterschrift unter die Petersburger Erklärung zurück zu nehmen und  jede Beteiligung an einer militärischen Intervention in Syrien öffentlich auszuschließen, keine weiteren Waffen in das Konfliktgebiet Naher und Mittlerer Osten zu exportieren und sich für einen Waffenstillstand einzusetzen. Es kann nur eine politische Lösung geben!

Die Bilder der Giftgasopfer in Syrien haben weltweit Entsetzen ausgelöst. Jetzt müssen die Untersuchungen der UN-Inspektoren abgewartet werden.

  Es muss geklärt werden, wer für diese Verbrechen verantwortlich ist. Das Völkerrecht sieht vor, dass die Verantwortlichen durch den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof verurteilt und bestraft werden. 

Eine kriegerische Strafaktion, wie sie von den USA geplant ist und aktuell auch mit der Petersburger Erklärung  von EU-Außenministern und der deutschen Bundesregierung getragen wird, wäre ein Bruch des Internationalen Rechts. Ein militärischer Angriff bedeutet zudem eine weitere Eskalationsstufe in diesem Krieg. Die Folgen sind nicht kalkulierbar. Ein gewaltsamer Regimechange, noch dazu von außen, wird möglicherweise zum Staatszerfall führen und keine nachhaltige friedliche Entwicklung Syriens ermöglichen.

Wir lehnen Gewalt als Mittel der Politik ab. Eine als humanitär begründete  militärische Maßnahme nach der UN-Konzeption „responsibility to protect“ ist abzulehnen. Sie kann weder verletzte Menschenrechte wiederherstellen noch die Lage der Zivilbevölkerung in Syrien verbessern. Im Gegenteil, eine Militärintervention führt zu noch mehr Toten, Verletzten und Flüchtlingen.

Mit der Petersburger Erklärung  unterstützt die Bundesregierung ein Vorgehen, das eine Militärintervention in Syrien im Bündnis mit der Kriegspolitik der USA nicht ausschließt.

•     Wir appellieren mit Nachdruck an Bundesregierung und Parlament, einer Militärintervention in Syrien eine Absage zu erteilen.
•     Wir fordern die Bundesregierung auf, den Luftraum für Militärflugzeuge mit dem Ziel Syrien zu sperren (wie schon von der österreichischen Regierung angekündigt).
•      Wir fordern die Bundesregierung auf, die in der Türkei bereits stationierten Patriot-Raketen abzuziehen.
•     Wir fordern die Bundesregierung auf, sich auf diplomatischem Weg für Verhandlungen mit allen Konfliktparteien einzusetzen und auf die lang geplante Genfer Friedenskonferenz zu drängen.
•   Wir fordern die Bundesregierung auf, die Arbeit der internationalen Hilfsorganisationen im Kriegsland Syrien stärker zu unterstützen und einen weit größeren Teil der 4 bis 6 Millionen Flüchtlinge in Deutschland aufzunehmen.

Es kann nur eine politische Lösung geben! Damit diese gelingen kann, müssen alle am Konflikt beteiligten Parteien ohne Vorbedingungen an den Verhandlungstisch kommen.

Wir appellieren zudem an die friedensbewegten Menschen in Deutschland, die mehrheitlich ein militärisches Eingreifen ablehnen, sich an den Aktivitäten gegen eine militärische Intervention in Syrien zu beteiligen und die vielfältigen Erklärungen aus der Friedensbewegung zu verbreiten.

Renate Wanie, Philipp Ingeneuf, Susanne Grabenhorst (SprecherInnen der Kooperation für den Frieden)

Kooperation für den Frieden, Römerstr. 88, 53111 Bonn; Tel.: 0228/ 692904, Fax: 0228/ 692906
Email: info@koop-frieden.de, www.koop-frieden.de 

-- 

Hat John Kerry einen Freudschenfehler begangen ? Kriegstreiber in der Defensive - nutzen wir die Chance zur Aufklärung und Mobilisierung gegen den Krieg!

UPDATE 18:00 - Der syrische Aussenminister Walid al-Muallem hat in Moskau den Vorschlag begrüsst, die Chemiewaffen unter internationaler Kontrolle zu bringen. Er sagte aber, der Vorschlag wäre von Russland gekommen. "Ich betone, Syrien begrüsst die russische Initiative die auf die syrische Führung ihrer Sorge über das Leben der Bürger und Sicherheit des Landes beruht." 

Der russische Aussenminister Lawrow sagte, so ein Plan würde helfen, "einen Militärangriff zu vermeiden", den die Vereinigten Staaten und seine Alliierten beabsichtigen. Das US-Aussenministerium sagte später, Kerry hätte nur einen rhetorischen Vorschlag gemacht, über die Möglichkeit die Chemiewaffen zu übergeben, um einen Abgriff zu vermeiden. Der wäre nicht ernst gemeint.

Es sieht so aus, wie wenn Kerry einen Freudschenfehler begangen hat, in dem er auf die Frage eines Journalisten, wie Assad den Angriff vermeiden könnte, mit dem Übergabevorschlag kam. Das war gar nicht seine Absicht, aber al-Muallem und Lawrow haben sofort mit ihrem Einverständnis zugeschlagen und damit die US-Regierung festgenagelt und ausgetrickst. 

Klever von den Russen, Kerry beim Wort zu nehmen. Jetzt ist den Kriegshetzern durch einen Ausrutscher der Krieg vorläufig vermiest worden. Bin gespannt wie heute Abend Obama bei den Interviews und am Dienstag bei seiner Rede darauf reagiert.

Hier weiterlesen: Alles Schall und Rauch: Sarin haben andere Terroristen schon eingesetzt http://alles-s

Prof. James Petras "Limits of Mass Media Manipulation" - Wanted an Alternative!

Obama with Israel and Against the World

Posted by: M. Klostermayr September 9, 2013 in Israel, USA 1 Comment

As President Obama announces plans for another war, adding Syria to the recent and ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and elsewhere, a profound gap has emerged between the highly militarized state and US public opinion.

A Reuters/IPSOS poll taken August 19-23 (2013) revealed that 60 percent of Americans surveyed were against the United States intervening in Syria, while 9 percent said President Obama should act.  Even when the question was ‘loaded’ to include Obama’s bogus and unsubstantiated claim that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces ‘used nerve gas to massacre civilians’, almost twice as many Americans oppose US military intervention (46 percent to 25 percent).

In panic several pro-Administration media outlets hastily conducted new polls to try to’ improve the results’ in ‘favour’ of the White House desire to attack Syria.  What is striking about these finding is that, despite the mass media and the Obama spokespeople’s saturation of the airwaves with lurid images of ‘victims’, the US public has become more vehemently opposed to another imperialist war.

Reuters/IPSOS poll of August 13 found 30.2 percent of Americans supported intervention in Syria if it were proved that nerve gas had been used by President Assad against civilians, while 41.6 percent wanted no part of the conflict.  In other words, as the Obama regime intensified its preparations for war, American public opposition increased by over 16 percent.

A growing number of polls and studies show that a substantial well-entrenched majority of Americans are opposed to the current war in Afghanistan, even as the President and Congress continue to finance and dispatch US troops and engage in aerial assaults in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere.

Across the world huge majorities oppose Obama’s war:  Two thirds of the French and German public oppose the US bombing Syria,  not to mention of the hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics responding to Pope Francis’s passionate anti-war message delivered on September 7 to over 100,000 worshipers in St. Peter’s Square.  It is only in Israel a majority of Jewish Israelis support Obama’s push to war.

If, as some scholars argue, militarism and ‘national security’ (and the police state) have become the secular religion of the State, it is clear that the majority of civil society are ‘non-believers’.  The ‘true believers’ of militarism as the road to empire building are firmly ensconced in Washington’s political establishment, especially among the powerful lobbies and propaganda mills known as ‘think tanks’.  Militarist beliefs are widely embraced by strategically-placed officials with deep and long-standing ties to the Israeli power structure.

The two major myths, propagated by cynical political pundits, that “the US public opinion gets the elected officials it deserves” and that “Congress and the President reflect the values and sentiments of the electorate” are contradicted by the divergent attitudes and interests showing up in repeated public opinion polls.

The vast majority of Americas are concerned with domestic economic issues, such as unemployment, the steep decline in living standards, growing inequalities, the growing concentration of wealth (the ‘Wall Street 1% versus the 99%’ issue of the ‘Occupy Movement’), the grotesque and inescapable debt among students and graduates, the savage cuts in social programs (education, health, housing and infrastructure) in the face of soaring military expenditures and stratospheric government subsidies to bailout the banks and speculators.  In other words, the values, attitudes and interests of the vast majority of Americans diverge sharply from those of the Washington establishment, the mass media and the power brokers who penetrate and surround the political elite.

  War and Peace:  Oligarchy and Democracy

This divergence raises fundamental questions about the nature of the American political system, the role and influence of the mass media and the power of minorities against the interests of the majority.  Divergences and deep differences between rulers and ruled have become the norm in the United States on all the major domestic and foreign issues of our day.

As the differences accumulate, deepen and fester, they ‘grind’ on our public.  Political ‘differences’ turn into outright personal animosities, citizen disagreement is transformed into anger and even hatred of the ‘O-man’.  Obama’s deceptions, the very words he mouths, are repeated and mocked.  Nothing is more irritating than to have to listen to an unmasked confidence man as he still tries to bamboozle a disenchanted public.  Americans are not fooled anymore.

Obama’s newly recruited Cabinet members of all genders and ethnicities are viewed as mere peddlers of  toxic lies trying to justify ongoing war crimes via moral ejaculations that resonate in their own echo chambers and with their President, but not very far beyond the palace grounds.

Executive Prerogatives as Dictatorial Rule

The Presidential declarations of  war  against the will and opinion of the vast majority of citizens; the  decision to finance massive bank bailouts with public funds behind the backs of ‘the 99%’; the shallow proclamations  ‘ending’ ongoing wars which  still continue under other guises;  and the transparent fabrications serving as pretexts for dragging the country into new wars by trotting out the same lies recycled from the previous wars…all undermine any notion of a constitutional democracy in the United States.

It’s a dictatorship stupid!  There is nothing ‘constitutional’ here.  That abused document has become presidential toilet paper! Legal hacks and whores scratch their backsides and regurgitate the previous illegal executive orders in order to ‘legitimize’ new arbitrary powers to declare war.

The voters of thousands of local, state and federal officials are ignored.  Who even bothers to describe the US as a democracy except during the theatre of elections?  War has become the ‘prerogative’ of the President, we are told by the propagandists.  Waging sequential wars is the favoured alternative to building a national health system for the scores of millions of Americans without access to adequate medical care. When the President mouths his moral platitudes most Americans ignore him, while others jeer, curse and wish he would choke on his rank hypocrisy.

Obama & AIPAC

The Case for Impeachment

When in the course of human history an elected US President perpetuates and extends his power beyond the restraints of the constitutional order, and wilfully commits the American people to endless suffering, emptying the public treasury of its citizens’ wealth, the question of impeachment must be addressed.  And it ill behoves the ‘climbers and clamourers’ serving foreign lands, to flatter, manipulate and blackmail the President whose own imperial pretensions further fuel the ambitions of their ‘Chosen State ’.

Profound and lasting divisions between the rulers and the ruled, burdened by long-standing hardships at a time when they lack redress in petition and protest, will eventually lead the American people to demand their President’s impeachment – for high crimes and misdemeanours against the constitution and citizenry.  What they demand would be a trial by jury, conviction and incarceration for multiple and grave violations against the constitutional order and dereliction of the President’s duty to safeguard the nation from enemies, foreign and domestic.

When the executive has usurped the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of the American people at the service of an empire and their foreign and domestic collaborators with traitorous intent, he must be impeached and brought to justice.

Why and How the American Public was Disenfranchised:  the Tyranny of the Minority

It is not the members of the US military who choose to disenfranchise and ignore the vast majority of Americans overwhelmingly opposed to new Middle East wars.  The usurpers are mostly civilians, some of whom had formerly carried weapons for a foreign nation and still carry dual citizenship while plying our President with calls for military expansionism.

Nor is the exclusion of the majority of Americans part of some hidden conspiracy by the oil companies; in fact, they have lost hundreds of billions of potential profits to wars, which were not of their making and which now disrupt access to oil fields, trade, production and shipping.

Idle chatter, flowing from ‘leftist’ or ‘progressive’ monthlies, liberal weeklies and a multitude of pundits, academics and ‘critical’ public intellectuals, decry the ‘military-industrial complex’ as the movers behind the wars in the Middle East.  True, their lobbyists seek fat military contracts, but they were not the ones to formulate ‘position papers’ for the invasion of Iraq, nor secure sanctions, and bellicose Congressional resolutions against Iran.

If we want to identify and understand the minority, which secures its own militarist agenda in the White House and Congress against the majority of Americans, it is clearly marked by its swaggering, consistent and intrusive presence.  It is a smaller, more cohesive new version of the’ 1%’– and best described as the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC).

One can be 99% sure that among the scant 11% of Americans who ‘support’ US military intervention in Syria, the ‘pro-Israel crowd and its acolytes’ are overwhelmingly represented.  The evidence is clear:  They are the most actively engaged in propagandizing and pushing for war with Syria at the national and local levels throughout the country.

They are the ever-present bullying pundits’ and news commentators  lying about the Syrian government’s exclusive use of chemical ‘weapons of mass destruction’ in a horrific civil war riddled by foreign mercenaries.  They and other mass media pimps, pundits and publishers have totally buried a major the Associated Press  report from Syria which quotes members of the armed Syrian  opposition who admit they had ‘accidentally released stores of chemical weapons, supplied by Saudi Arabia’ (their sponsor)..

Israel’s semi-official web site,Ynet.com, published a lead article by Yitzhak Benhorin, entitled  “AIPAC to Lobby Congress for Syrian Strike”.  The article reveals the leading role of the Israeli-directed Zionist war effort:  “After Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren and AIPAC noted that military action would send a message to Assad’s supporters …some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists ..intend to storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week (September 9-13) to persuade(sic)lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution authorizing US strikes against Syria”(9/6/13).

To counter Pope Francis’ plea to the world for peace and opposition to Obama’s threats to bomb Syria before 100,000 people of faith in front of St .Peter’s Basilica, the Cleveland Jewish News(9/6/13) reported that, “leading rabbis covering the religious and political spectrum (sic)urged lawmakers in Congress to support President Obama’s plans to strike Syria..”

Every day since Obama called for a Congressional vote, the Daily Alert, publication of the 52 Presidents of the Leading American Jewish Organizations, has published only articles and statements promoting war and urged its supporters to round up Congressional votes for Obama and counter and undermine the pro-peace sentiments of the majority of Americans.

To the degree that we have moved from democracy to oligarchy, from a democratic republic to a militarist empire engaged in foreign wars of occupation, the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) has accumulated enormous influence in the government and, in turn, has furthered the tyranny of the minority over the majority.  They are not alone, but certainly domestic tyranny against the majority of the citizens has been to their advantage; the ZPC has marginalized Americans of all creeds, races and religions (including the majority of American Jews and seculars) – especially those who would oppose their agenda.

The nature of oligarchy facilitates the minorities’ access to power against the majority of citizens:  it is far easier for them to buy and blackmail a handful of venal, wealthy legislators and a coterie of narcissistic senior administration officials, than peddle their agenda to the millions of citizens suffering the double onus of perpetual foreign wars and sharply declining domestic living standards.

Limits of Mass Media Manipulation

The arbitrary power of the oligarchy, with its domestic and foreign collaborators, and their growing distance from the ruled is no longer bridged by mass media propaganda.  The Obama regime and the Washington ‘think tanks’ have repeatedly saturated print and electronic media with the lurid images of little children suffering from the Syrian government’s ‘war crimes’ in order to browbeat the American people into supporting another US military intervention.

There are daily reports in the New York Times, Washington Post, Financial Times, and all the major and minor television networks, which endlessly repeat the ‘need for war’ and ‘our humanitarian obligation to bomb Damascus ’ – to no avail.  The mass media and the high powered propaganda campaign, run by and for the war mongers in Washington and Tel Aviv, have failed to gain no more than 10% of the US citizenry – despite a near-total black-out of any alternative news or debate.

For years we have been told by ‘media experts’ about the power of the mass media to manipulate the US public, as if the people were a blank sheet of paper with the media writing the script for the oligarchy and the masses repeating it on ‘blind faith and the flag’.  In fact, time and time again, a majority of US citizens have rejected ‘the line’ peddled by the mass media, especially on questions of peace and war, their living standards and the grotesque bankers’ bailouts.  The credibility of the US mass media is now minus zero!

The public’s rejection of the Obama’s push for war against Syria is another example of the growing limits of mass propaganda.  In the wake of the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the US public supported the invasion of Afghan and, to a less extent, the war in Iraq – once troops were sent.  But as the costly, endless wars and occupation ground on, and new wars spread; and as the police state (and abuses) expanded and domestic living standards plunged, the public drew back and became wary.

The domestic economic and social crisis drove the message home:  domestic decay results from imperial wars.  No amount of empty rhetoric or high powered Zionist lobbying for more wars on behalf of the state of Israel will convince Americans to continue sacrificing their lives and treasure and their children’s and grandchildren’s future living standards to this endless bloodletting, spiraling costs and devastating political and economic consequences.

The Quiet Rebellion of the Democratic Majority

It has been hard to black out all the news:  Throughout Europe, vast majorities reject their rulers’ participation in more imperial wars, particularly the push for war in Syria.  Even the usually servile British Parliament rose up on its hind legs and bleated ‘no’ to bombing Damascus.

Only, the decrepit French regime under the ‘socialist-imperialist’  President Hollande, a most ‘humanitarian’ colonial whore master, has expressed unconditional  support Obama- at least for a few days until the French Parliament has a chance to finally bark out its disapproval.  The editorial writers of the imperial ‘mass media’ smell ‘trouble in the empire’.  They have started to quote sceptical military officers and experts… who have posed a few rather timid questions, including retired Generals who ask, “What will be the consequences of bombing the al-Assad government and aiding al Qaeda in the region?”.

Chastened by the opposition, Obama now has to face the jeers of his Zionist backers… “Not to back down from the Administration’s ‘red line’ …”  White House  Propaganda Office parrots Israeli reports of ‘intercepted Syrian military directives ordering the use of chemical weapons’ and those provided by  ‘rebel’ sources based in Turkey and Saudi Arabia – but no credible documents have been given to the UN or the sceptical world public.

When Obama declares his ‘red line’: the American public senses the ‘big lie’!  Deception by the mass media and White House is losing its force.  The majority of Americans are fed up with the fabrication of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ that provided a pretext for the invasion of Iraq, the phony ‘mass rapes (the obscene and racist reports of Gaddafi handing out tons of Viagra to his black “African mercenaries”) and other fake atrocities’ in Libya and the blatant cover-up of Israeli land grabs and ethnic cleansing against the native Palestinian population.

The spectre of economic insecurity, of life-long debts and precarious employment stalks the cities and towns of America. A whole generation will be lost.  There is anger and fear at home directed against the current push for new wars abroad and their most visible propagandist: President Barack Obama.  The Obama regime is facing ‘a fall’ in this groundswell of disgust among the people. Will Obama’s handlers and willing accomplices crawl back to their Washington think tanks?

Will the oligarchs decide the Obama ‘product’ has exceeded its ‘shelf life’, is no longer useful, has lost its appeal to the public, and is too narcissistic?  Will the oligarchs decide that there have been… one too many ‘wars for Israel ’? (Oh, my god, how did that one slip in?)  Will they realize that their puppet has not focused enough attention on ‘rebuilding America ’?  Soon there will be a new election:  All aboard!  The people have spoken!  It’s time to trot out the special new presidential product – one less effusive and more mainstream – on order from the oligarch’s puppet factory!

With Obama’s fall, we learn that the mass media are not all powerful and that Israel’s smiling well-wishers among the elite will not cool their insatiable appetite for power even though they comprise a tiny 1% minority.  The majority can bring down the regime.  The question is: Can they create an alternative?

Author: Prof. James Petras
Source: Global Research

"Wie Assad den Angriff vermeiden könnte" US- Kerry - Der Nervenkrieg muss von Friedenskräften entschärft werden: Solidarität mit Syrien und seiner tapferen Regierung dringend geboten!

siehe unten update 18 uhr Montagabend/
DAS IMPERIUM  BRAUCHT KEINE BEWEISE FÜR SEINE KÜHNEN ANSCHULDIGUNGEN, IHM GENÜGT DER MENSCHENVERSTAND EINES US-SENATOR

SBeweisesiehearin haben andere Terroristen schon eingesetzt

Montag, 9. September 2013 , von Freeman um 14:00

Der Stabchef des Weissen Haus, Denis McDonough, hat in einem TV-Interview am Sonntag auf die Frage, wo sind die Beweise, welche die direkte Verbindung von Assad zum Einsatz von Chemiewaffen aufzeigen, gesagt: "Haben wir Fotos oder unwiderlegbare Beweise ohne begründete Zweifel? Es handelt sich nicht um eine Gerichtsverhandlung. So arbeiten Geheimdienste nicht. Was uns der Test unseres Menschenverstandes sagt, er sollte dafür zur Verantwortung gezogen werden." 

McDonough sagt damit, Nein, die US-Regierung hat keine Beweise, sondern nur Vermutungen. Dann, eine absolute Frechheit ist seine Aussage, es handelt sich nicht um eine Gerichtsverhandlung, wo man den Beschuldigten ohne jeden Zweifel die Schuld nachweisen muss. Obama hat selbstherrlich entschieden, Assad ist schuldig und er will ihn mit einem Angriffskrieg bestrafen. Obama ist Ankläger, Richter und Henker in einem. Und die Vereinigten Staaten sollen ein Rechtsstaat sein?

Auf unbewiesene Behauptungen und Lügen hin könnten bald Tausende syrische Zivilisten durch amerikanische Bomben und Raketen getötet werde. Obama sagt damit, weil Assad angeblich Syrer getötet hat, wird Obama als Strafe Syrer töten. Wie völlig menschenverachtend und verbrecherisch ist das denn? Nur Psychopathen kommen auf so eine Denkweise.

Laut neuesten Nachrichten hat John Kerry dem syrischen Präsidenten einen "Ausweg" aufgezeigt, wie er den amerikanische Angriff auf Syrien verhindern kann. Assad muss binnen einer Woche alle Chemiewaffen seiner Armee an die internationale Gemeinschaft übergeben. So könnte die Krise einfach gelöst werden, sagte Kerry heute in London. In anderen Worten, eine Woche sonst knallts.

Wie durchsichtig und unverschämt ist diese Forderung? Kerry räumte nämlich gleich selber ein, "aber er wird es nicht machen und es wird nicht gemacht." Washington unterbreitet einen scheinheiligen Vorschlag, bei dem sie von vorneherein wissen, er ist nicht erfüllbar. Warum sollte Assad es auch tun? Woher nimmt das Obama-Regime sich die Anmassung her, einer Regierung ein Ultimatum zu stellen, entweder macht sie was man ihr befiehlt und entwaffnet sich, oder es wird ein Angriffskrieg gegen das Land gestartet?

Präsident Assad hat nie bestätigt, die syrische Armee hätte überhaupt Chemiewaffen. Das sind doch nur wieder unbewiesen Behauptungen und Unterstellungen der Kriegshetzer im Westen. Genau wie man behauptet hat, Saddam Hussein hätte auch solche Waffen. Wie sich nach der Invasion des Irak herausstellte, wurde nichts, aber auch gar nichts davon gefunden. Alles erstunken und erlogen!

Wenn ich Präsident Assad wäre würde ich jetzt mit der Gegenforderung antworten, zuerst sollen die USA ihre Chemiewaffen der internationalen Gemeinschaft übergeben, dann kann man darüber reden. Oder Israel und die NATO-Staaten. Die haben sie doch in ihren Kriegen eingesetzt, gegen den Irak und Gaza zum Beispiel. Sind Phosphorbomben keine verbotenen Chemiewaffen?

Israelische Phosphorbomben gegen die Zivilbevölkerung in Gaza 2009

Was ist mit den 100 Milionen Liter an Chemikalien (Agent Orange) die über Vietnam und den Nachbarländern vom amerikanischen Militär versprüht wurden? Laut einer Untersuchung wurden 400'000 Menschen dadurch getötet, 500'000 Babys sind mit Schäden geboren worden und 2 Millionen Menschen haben deshalb unter Krebs und andere schlimme Krankheiten gelitten. Ja wenn "wir" das machen ist das erlaubt.

Was in der ganze Medienberichterstattung bewusst weggelassen wird ist, wer zum letzten Mal Sarin gegen Zivilisten eingesetzt hat. Als ich gestern hörte, das Internationale Olympische Komitee hätte die Spiele für 2020 an Tokyo vergeben und der Hauptgrund wäre, weil Tokyo die sicherste Stadt der Welt sei, musste ich laut lachen. Von wegen sicherste Stadt der Welt. Haben alle schon vergessen, 1994 und 1995 fanden dort mehrere Terroranschläge in der U-Bahn mit Sarin statt? Dabei wurden 13 Menschen getötet und 5'000 verletzt.

Die U-Bahn von Tokyo wurde nach dem Terroranschlag vom Sarin gesäubert

Als Täter wurden Mitglieder der Aum Shinrikyo identifiziert, verhaftet und vor Gericht gestellt. Sie hatten in einem primitiven Labor das Sarin aus den frei erhältlichen Zutaten zusammengebraut. Sie brachten es in 11 Plastiksäcken als Passagiere in die U-Bahnwaggons, warteten bis der Zug an einem Bahnhof hielt und die Türen offen standen, stachen die Säcke mit einem Regenschirm mit Metallspitze auf und rannen davon. So einfach war das.

Die Terroristen der Aum Sekte hatten bereits vor den U-Bahnanschlägen schon Morde verübt, in dem sie das Sarin in Spray-Behälter abfüllten und damit einzelne Personen angriffen. Den Sprühnebel haben die Opfer eingeatmet und sind daran gestorben. Das zeigt doch wie einfach dieses Gift angewendet werden kann.

Das Sarin haben die Terroristen hergestellt, in dem sie Isopropylalkohol zu einer Mixtur aus Methylphosphonsäuredifluorid und Methylphosphon- säuredichlorid hinzufügten. Die beiden Stoffe hatten sie durch eine Reihe von chemischen Reaktion schrittweise zusammengekocht.

Sarin wurde übrigens 1938 von deutschen Chemikern der IG Farben Leverkusen (heute Bayer) entdeckt, als sie nach einem starken Pestizid forschten. Der Name Sarin besteht aus den Namen der Entdecker Schrader, Ambros, Rüdiger and Van der Linde.

Die Medien und Politiker die den Angriff auf Syrien vehement fordern tun aber dauernd so, wie wenn nur ein Staat Sarin herstellen kann, weil es so schwierig wäre. Sie unterstellen, nur die syrische Armee kann die Chemiewaffe deshalb anwenden. Das Terroristen das sehr leicht selber basteln und einsetzen können und bereits getan haben erwähnen sie nie.

Die Zutaten um Sarin herzustellen wurde in den Verstecken und behelfsmässigen Labors der Terroristen in Syrien mehrmals schon gefunden. Auf den Fässern und Säcken mit den Chemikalien wurde die Aufschrift "Made in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" entdeckt. Man kann deshalb davon ausgehen, der saudische Geheimdienst hat die Ware an die Terroristen geliefert, mit dem Rezept wie man Sarin zusammenbraut.

Jeder kann mit etwas Wissen über Chemie den giftigen Stoff herstellen. Man füllt die Flüssigkeit in den Gefechtskopf einer Mörsergranate oder Rakete und schiesst sie ab. Sehr einfach. Das ist dann eine Chemiewaffe und wie Tokyo zeigt, gerne von Terroristen benutzt.

---------------------------------

UPDATE 18:00 - Der syrische Aussenminister Walid al-Muallem hat in Moskau den Vorschlag begrüsst, die Chemiewaffen unter internationaler Kontrolle zu bringen. Er sagte aber, der Vorschlag wäre von Russland gekommen. "Ich betone, Syrien begrüsst die russische Initiative die auf die syrische Führung ihrer Sorge über das Leben der Bürger und Sicherheit des Landes beruht." 

Der russische Aussenminister Lawrow sagte, so ein Plan würde helfen, "einen Militärangriff zu vermeiden", den die Vereinigten Staaten und seine Alliierten beabsichtigen. Das US-Aussenministerium sagte später, Kerry hätte nur einen rhetorischen Vorschlag gemacht, über die Möglichkeit die Chemiewaffen zu übergeben, um einen Abgriff zu vermeiden. Der wäre nicht ernst gemeint.

Es sieht so aus, wie wenn Kerry einen Freudschenfehler begangen hat, in dem er auf die Frage eines Journalisten, wie Assad den Angriff vermeiden könnte, mit dem Übergabevorschlag kam. Das war gar nicht seine Absicht, aber al-Muallem und Lawrow haben sofort mit ihrem Einverständnis zugeschlagen und damit die US-Regierung festgenagelt und ausgetrickst. 

Klever von den Russen, Kerry beim Wort zu nehmen. Jetzt ist den Kriegshetzern durch einen Ausrutscher der Krieg vorläufig vermiest worden. Bin gespannt wie heute Abend Obama bei den Interviews und am Dienstag bei seiner Rede darauf reagiert.

Hier weiterlesen: Alles Schall und Rauch: Sarin haben andere Terroristen schon eingesetzt http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2013/09/sarin-haben-andere-terroristen-schon.html#ixzz2eQmM3o3J

Us-Imperialism: Hands off Syria - no more imperialist wars!

 International Action Center

WALL STREET PROFITS FROM WAR

THE PEOPLE PAY THE PRICE

EMERGENCY CALL FOR NATIONWIDE PROTESTS AGAINST WAR PROFITEERS THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 12

NOT ANOTHER WAR FOR THE 1%!

IN NYC, PROTEST @NY STOCK EXCHANGE

WALL AND BROAD STREETS, 4 PM TO 6 PM

CLICK HERE to ENDORSE, VOLUNTEER OR LIST A LOCAL ACTIVITY

Cruise missile-maker Raytheon’s profits may be up, but our cities are crumbling. Food stamps are being cut, people are losing their pensions, workers are being furloughed by the sequester. The resources of society are being dedicated to another war while the people suffer.

Meanwhile the war profiteers and other members of the 1% are getting richer. The International Action Center, which in New York will protest in front of the Stock Exchange on Thursday, September 12, is issuing a call for nationwide local actions at military contractors, weapons makers and other corporate war profiteers.

This weekend saw a massive outpouring of anti-war action which only was the tip of the iceberg when it comes to mass sentiment against this war. While Congress deliberates, let's hit the warmakers with mass action! Hands Off Syria!

CLICK HERE to ENDORSE, VOLUNTEER OR LIST A LOCAL ACTIVITY

International Action Center
c/o Solidarity Center
147 W. 24th St., FL 2 • New York, NY 10011
212-633-6646
www.iacenter.org
iacenter@iacenter.org

"Der Zionismus ist der Feind des Judentums"/dt. Fassung eines Beitrag vom 27. 11. 2012

Im November 2012 wurde des Gründungskongresses der Welt-Zionistenbewegung  gedacht. Dieser fand 1897 in Basel statt.

Wenn wir um Frieden und für ein menschheitliches und humanes Überleben als Gattung ringen, dann müssen wir zu einem wahrheitsgemäßen Verständnis dessen gelangen, welche Kräfte hinter dem Zionismus stehen.

"Zionismus und Judaismus widersprechen einander" (Schlomo Sand)

Der Zionismus ist nicht mit dem Judentum identisch - im Gegenteil.

Der Judaismus als die älteste monotheistische Religion hat die Grundlagen geschaffen, auf denen auch das Christentum und der Islam aufbauen. Wie alle Religionen so strebt auch der Judaismus im universellen Sinne für eine Verbesserung menschheitlicher Lebensbedingungen auf Erden. Der Judaismus ist so universell wie die Religionen, die  in seine Fußstapfen getreten sind. Deswegen ist er besorgt um das menschliche Miteinander. Er hegt Respekt für die Menschenrechte und für das Völkerrecht. Die UN-Charta ist heute  die Verkörperung von solch universalen Moralgrundsätzen wie sie den Religionen zugrunde liegen. Deswegen  wird die Charta von allen Nationen, von allen Völkern  geschätzt ungeachtet  der Tatsache wie manches Führungspersonal  mit diesem kostbaren Dokument zeitweilig umspringt.

Der Zionismus aber ist eine nationalistische, ja sogar chauvinistische und rassistische Weltanschauung. In seinem Kerngehalt verkörpert  sie ebenso  eine Verzerrung  des Judaismus wie der Islamismus dies in Bezug auf den Islam tut. Solche verqueren Ideologien führen zum Terrorismus.

Der Zionismus, der Islamismus, ebenso wie der chauvinistische Hinduismus der Hindutva-Bewegung und der christliche Fundamentalismus  und alle anderen Fundamentalismen stehen im Widerspruch zu einer humanistischen Haltung. Solche fundamentalistischen Ideologien verletzen ihre Anhänger, ihre Familien und deren Freunde ebenso wie sie  in Konsequenz fortgeführt die Nachbarvölker bedrohen und verletzen.

Der "Nationalsozialismus" befand sich in einem genau solchen Widerspruch zu allem, was der Sozialismus verkörpert hat. Diese Ideologie hat das deutsche Volk in einen katastrophalen Krieg geführt und die Welt an den Rand der Zerstörung.  Es handelte sich um eine Ideologie, die für das jüdische Volk tödlich war und auf lange Sicht wäre die Vorherrschaft einer solchen  Ideologie tödlich für den Rest der Menschheit, da sie kein Verbrechen kennt, vor dem sie zurückschreckt.
Der Nationalsozialismus war  die extremste Form des deutsche Faschismus. Es ist dies aber nicht die einzige und auch nicht die finale  Form von Faschismus überhaupt. Für eine tief- und weitgreifende Faschimusdefinition lese man nach bei Georgi Dimitrov (1935).

Der Zionismus ist heutzutage eine der gefährlichsten Ideologien weltweit. Der Islamismus in der Form des Wahabismus oder Djihadismus sind nicht viel besser. Sie alle aber sind Erfindungen des westlichen Kolonialismus. Ihnen liegen  brutale, aggressive Denkmuster zugrunde, die basiale menschliche Werte, die die Substanz  aller Weltreligionen  darstellen, vergewaltigen.

Wenn solche Ideologien in politische Praxis umgesetzt werden, dann bedrohen sie die Nachbarn mit Krieg. Selbst Atomkriegs-Szenarien gehören zu ihren Möglichkeiten. Allerdings wurde der Zionismus genauso wenig wie die anderen genannten religiös daherkommenden Ideologien nicht von religiös oder sozial bewussten  Juden ins Leben gerufen. Vergessen wir niemals, dass imperialistische Kolonisatoren diverser  Nationen  Pate an der Wiege des Zionismus standen. Solch eine gefährliche Sicht auf die Welt,  eine Zwillingsschwester des Faschismus, die  entwickelt  wurde von gekauften Intellektuellen, bringt aber fast zwangsläufig wiederum  eine gefährliche  neue Woge von Antisemitismus mit sich.  Daher ist eine solche Ideologie nicht im Dienste der israelischen Nation, noch ist sie im Interesse der Juden irgendwo auf der Welt. Wir müssen lernen, ihre wahre Natur zu erfassen und erkennen, wer sie immer aufs Neue  hätschelt und tätschelt. Wir müssen an  einer friedvolle Zukunft bauen, einer Zukunft ohne fundamentalistische Ideologien und ihre terroristischen Folgen.

President Bashar al-Assad's interview with Le Figaro

Local News>>President Bashar al-Assad's interview with Le Figaro

President Bashar al-Assad's interview with Le Figaro Sep 04, 2013 Damascus, (SANA)_ President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to the French daily Le Figaro. Following is the full text: Malbrunot: Mr. President, the Americans and the French have accused you of perpetrating a chemical attack on the 21st of August in Ghouta, which led to the death of hundreds. Do you have evidence to suggest that your army did not launch the attack? The situation on the ground is much better now than it was a year ago  President al-Assad: First of all, anyone making such an accusation is also responsible for providing the evidence to substantiate the allegation. We have challenged them to present a shred of legitimate evidence, which they have not been able to do. Since their foreign policy should be tailored to suit the interests of their own people, we have challenged them to present legitimate evidence to their own public opinion to substantiate their claims; again they have not done so. Secondly, where is the logic in us carrying out an attack of this nature: two years into the crisis I can confidently state that the situation on the ground is much better now than it was a year ago; how is it conceivable then that an army making significant advancements on the ground through conventional armament would resort to using weapons of mass destruction? I am neither confirming nor denying that we possess such weapons – this is not a matter for discussion. For the sake of argument, if the army had such weapons and decided to use them, is it conceivable that it would use them in areas where its own troops are deployed? Where is the logic in that? Additionally is it really plausible that the use of these weapons in a heavily populated area in the suburbs of the capital did not kill tens of thousands; these substances travel in the air. Malbrunot: Were soldiers from the Syrian Army injured by the weapons? President al-Assad: Yes, in the ‘Baharia’ area, in the suburbs of Damascus; the inspectors from the UN team met with them in hospital. Malbrunot: Some do acknowledge that there has been some advancement by the army on the ground; however in other areas the rebels have also advanced and you are looking to wipe them out. President al-Assad: Again, the areas in question are residential areas. The use of chemical weapons in these areas would result in the deaths of tens of thousands. All the accusations are based on unsubstantiated claims made by the terrorists and random pictures and videos posted on the Internet. Malbrunot: The Americans have stated that they have intercepted a telephone conversation between an executive in you inner circle and officers in the Army giving the order to use these weapons. We will only discuss substantiated truths President al-Assad: If the Americans, the French or the British had a single shred of evidence they would have disclosed it from day one. We will not contest rumours and dubious allegations; we will only discuss substantiated truths – if they have any, they should present them. Malbrunot: Is it possible that someone from your inner circle or officers in the Syrian Army took the decision without your knowledge? President al-Assad: Again - regardless of whether we do or do not possess such weapons, in any country that does posses these weapons, the decision to deploy is usually centralized. Either way, this is classified military information. Malbrunot: But this is what Jihad Makdissi stated. President al-Assad: No, at the time, Jihad said that should we possess these weapons, we would not use them. Whether we do or do not possess them is an entirely Syrian affair. Malbrunot: President Obama has postponed a military strike on Syria, how do you explain this? President al-Assad: Some have seen Obama as weak because of his decision to withdraw or delay a possible strike by days or weeks; by waging a war on Syria, others have seen him as a strong leader of a powerful country. From my perspective, power lies in your ability to prevent wars not in igniting them. If Obama was strong, he would have stood up and said that there is no evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons, he would have stood up and said that the right way forward is to wait for the results of the UN investigations and work through the UN Security Council. However, as I see it, he is weak because he succumbed to internal pressure and threatened military action. As I said strong leaders are those who prevent wars not those who inflame them. Malbrunot: What do you say to members of congress whose vote will determine whether or not there will be any military action? President al-Assad: Before they vote, they should ask themselves a simple question: What have previous wars achieved for America, or even for Europe? What has the world achieved from the war in Libya and the spread of terrorism in its aftermath? What has the world achieved from the wars in Iraq and other places? What will the world achieve from supporting terrorism in Syria? Members of congress are entrusted to serve in the best interests of their country. Before they vote, they need to weigh up their decision in the interests of their own country. It is not in the interests of the US to perpetuate instability and extremism in the Middle East. It is not in their interests to continue – what George Bush started – spreading wars in the world. If they think logically and in the interests of their country, they will not find any benefits to these wars. However many of them they have not mastered the art of logic in their political decision-making. Malbrunot: How will you respond to these strikes, should they happen? President al-Assad: If we think of the Middle East as a barrel of explosives close to a fire that is coming ever closer, then it becomes clear that the issue is no longer contained to a Syrian response, but rather what will happen after the first strike. The architects of the war can define the first strike – in other words they can determine what they will do, but beyond that it is impossible for anyone to predict what will follow. Once the barrel explodes, everyone loses control; nobody can determine the outcome, however what is certain is the spread of chaos, wars and extremism in all its forms everywhere. Malbrunot: Is there a danger that it will spill into a regional conflict? The issue today is no longer just about Syria, but about a whole region that is interlinked President al-Assad: Of course, this is the first and most dangerous risk. The issue today is no longer just about Syria, but about a whole region that is interlinked, socially, politically and militarily; the resulting challenges are regional, not just Syrian. Malbrunot: So is it likely that Israel would be one of your targets? President al-Assad: You don’t really expect me to announce how we will respond?! It is not realistic that we would announce our plans, but as I said there are many players involved and narrowing the conversation to just one player diminishes the significance of what will happen. Malbrunot: What do you say to Jordan who is known to be training the rebels on the ground? What is at risk for Jordan should the strike occur in favour of the rebels and terrorists? President al-Assad: Our policy has always been to not export our problems to neighbouring countries. We have been striking the thousands of terrorists that have entered Syria via Jordan, and Jordan has announced that it would not provide a base for any military strikes against Syria. However, should we not succeed in fighting terrorism in Syria, we can only expect that it will spread to other countries along with the ensuing chaos and extremism. Malbrunot: So are you warning Jordan and Turkey? Our priority is to fight terrorism within Syria President al-Assad: We have said this before and we have communicated this to them directly and indirectly. I believe Jordan is fully aware of the situation, despite the pressure on it to continue to be a route for this terrorism. As for Erdogan, I don’t think he has a clue of what he is doing. Our priority is to fight terrorism within Syria. Malbrunot: How will your allies – Hezbollah and Iran – respond to any strike? Are you counting on their support should you be attacked? President al-Assad: I do not wish to speak on their behalf, their statements have been very clear. We are all aware that this is a regional issue and as such it is impossible to separate the interests of Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and other countries that are supporting us. Today, stability in the region depends on the situation in Syria; Russia fully fathoms this. Russia is neither defending the President nor Syria, but rather it is defending stability in this region knowing all too well that otherwise it will also be affected. To assess the situation through the narrow lens of a Syrian-Iranian alliance is a naïve and over simplistic view; we are dealing with a situation of far greater significance. Malbrunot: Have the Russians reassured you that they will reach out to the Americans to try to attenuate the strike? President al-Assad: I don't think anyone can trust the Americans; I don't think there is a country in the world that can guarantee that the Americans will or will not take any form of action towards another country, so it is pointless to look for such reassurances. The Americans adopt one position in the morning, only to endorse the complete opposite in the evening. As long as the US does not comply with or listen to the UN, we should not be reassured. Malbrunot: How can we stop the war, the crisis in Syria has been on going for more than two-and-half years? You have suggested a National Unity government, the international community has suggested Geneva II, how can we stop the blood bath in Syria? Solution lies in stopping the influx of terrorists into Syria, stopping financial and military support to them President al-Assad: Discussing a solution at the beginning of the crisis is very different to discussing it today. From the beginning I have emphasised that a resolution can only be achieved through dialogue, which would lead to solutions that can be implemented through political measures. The situation today is different; today we are fighting terrorists, 80-90% of them affiliated to Al-Qaeda. These terrorists are not interested in reform, or politics, or legislations. The only way to deal with the terrorists is to strike them; only then can we talk about political steps. So in response to your question, the solution today lies in stopping the influx of terrorists into Syria and stopping the financial, military or any other support they receive. Malbrunot: Who is supporting them? President al-Assad: Primarily Saudi Arabia, followed by Turkey and Jordan by streaming the militants into Syria, as well as France, America and Britain. Malbrunot: Do you have proof that France has provided arms to the terrorists? President al-Assad: It is evident enough through France’s political stance and its provocative role in the situation as dictated to it by Qatar and other countries. Malbrunot: Mr. President, are you willing to invite the opposition to come to Syria, to guarantee their safety in order for you all to sit around a table and find a solution? President al-Assad: In January of this year we launched an initiative that addresses the points you raised and others in order to move forward with a political solution. However, this opposition that you refer to was manufactured abroad – manufactured by Qatar, France and others – it is not a Syrian opposition, and as such it takes orders from its masters who have forbidden it from engaging with this initiative. In addition to the fact that since they were manufactured abroad they lack local public support. Despite all their shortfalls, we did invite them but they did not respond. Malbrunot: However some did not respond for fear of their security, they fear being imprisoned like Abdul Aziz al-Khayer. Can you provide them with guarantees? President al-Assad: We have provided guarantees and I have spoken of these political points including guarantees of security to any member of the opposition wanting to come to Syria for the purpose of dialogue. However, they were either not willing to come or maybe they weren’t given permission to come. We have not killed or captured any member of the opposition. Abdul Aziz al-Khayer’s friends are all in Syria – you can see for yourself. Why would we target one of them and ignore the rest? Where is the logic in that? Malbrunot: How do you explain the French position towards you today, you were once friends with Sarkozy and you enjoyed a friendly relationship with France and visited several times? How do you explain this U-turn? French policy towards Syria is entirely based on American and Qatari desires President al-Assad: It wasn’t a friendly relationship. It was clear from the beginning that France, at the request of the Americans, was trying to manipulate Syrian policy. Even the positive shift towards Syria in 2008 was due to Qatari influence, and so was the negative U-turn in 2011. It is very clear that French policy towards Syria is entirely based on American and Qatari desires. Malbrunot: French Parliamentarians will meet on Wednesday. There is a big debate in France now, with some believing that Hollande has gone too far on this issue. What is your message to the French Parliamentarians before they convene and vote on the strike? Go back to the principles of the French Revolution: Liberty, Justice, Equality  President al-Assad: A few days ago the French Interior Minister was quoted as saying that “France’s participation is dependent on the US congress,” with no mention to the French Parliament. Allow me then to pose this question to you: To whom does the French government answer to - the French parliament or the US congress? Since 2003, on the back of the invasion of Iraq and its earlier position before the war, France has relinquished its independence and has become a part of American foreign policy. This applies to Chirac after the war on Iraq, to Sarkozy, and today to Hollande. So the question really is: will the meeting of the French parliamentarians return the independence of France’s decisions back to the French? We hope that this would be the case. Since they will be working in the interests of France, will the representatives of the French people take the side of extremism and terrorism? Will they support those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks in New York, or those who bombed the Metro in Spain? Will the representatives of the French people support those who killed the innocents in France? How is it possible for them to stand against individuals like Mohammed Merah in France and yet support others like him in Syria? How can France fight terrorism in Mali and support it in Syria? Will France adopt the American model of double standards? How can the parliamentarians convince the French public that their country is secular, yet at the same time it supports extremism and sectarianism in other parts of the world? How can France advocate for democracy but yet one of its closest allies – Saudi Arabia – is still living in medieval times? My message to the French Parliamentarians is: go back to the principles of the French Revolution that the whole world is proud of: Liberty, Justice, Equality. Malbrunot: You cited French national interests; if France intervened militarily, would their interests in Syria or the region be targeted? President al-Assad: I do not know if your interests will be targeted or not, this will depend on the consequences of the war. But most certainly, France will lose its interests. There is hatred and contempt towards French policy, which would inevitably directly affect French interests in the region. In addition, unlike previous times, significant countries in the region have started to look away from Europe towards the East for alternative partnerships where there is mutual respect between countries. Malbrunot: So you are calling out for rationality and reason? President al-Assad: For rationality and ethics. Malbrunot: Are you planning to run for office in the next presidential elections? President al-Assad: This really depends on the will of the Syrian people at the time. If I feel that there is a strong public desire for to me to run, I will not hesitate and vice versa. We may not have accurate measures at the moment, but we do have strong indications. The strongest indicator is that when you are fighting terrorists from over 80 countries who are supported by Western and Arab states, if your people do not embrace you, you simply cannot carry on. Syria has been resilient for two-and-a-half years this is an important indication of strong public support. Malbrunot: Mr. President how much are you prepared to fight in this crisis? President al-Assad: We have two options: we either defend our country against terrorism or we surrender. The history in this region has never known surrender; it has seen many wars, yet it has never and will never surrender. Malbrunot: So will fight and sacrifice your life for Syria? We all, President and citizens, will fight to defend our country   President al-Assad: When it becomes a matter of patriotism, we will all fight to defend our country – whether we are citizens or the president, it is not about the individual but rather about the whole nation. What is the point in living if your country is dead? Malbrunot: Mr. President, do you take responsibility for the mistakes that have been committed including those by the army and the security forces? Do you accept that mistakes have been made? President al-Assad: Any human being makes mistakes in their work. If you do not make mistakes you are either not human or you do not work. I am a human being and I work. However, when you want to evaluate your mistakes you need to do so in hindsight when the events are behind you and you are able to see the results of your actions. We are currently in the heart of the battle; when it is over, we can assess the results and determine whether we were right or wrong on particular matters. Malbrunot: Are you confident of winning the battle? President al-Assad: The history of our region teaches us that when our people defend themselves, they inevitably win. This is not a war against the President or the Government alone, it is a war against the entire country, and we shall be victorious. Malbrunot: Having said this, your army has lost control over certain areas in the North, East and South. Do you believe that you can regain these areas? President al-Assad: The issue is not about labeling areas as being under our control or under the control of the militants; there isn’t a single area that the army has planned to enter and not been able to do so. The real challenge is the continuous influx of terrorists from across the borders and the acts they have perpetrated at a social level in the areas they have infiltrated. Malbrunot: Moratinos, a previous friend of yours, told me few days ago that he cannot understand what is in Bashar al-Assad’s mind, how could he possibly commit such violence in his country. President al-Assad: There is an analogy that can also be asked here: how could France allow the killing of the terrorists who terrified French citizens? How did the British deal with the riots in Britain last year? Why was the army deployed in Los Angeles in the nineties? Why are other countries allowed to fight terrorism and Syria isn’t? Why is it forbidden for Mohammed Merah to stay alive in France and to kill civilians and yet terrorists are allowed to remain alive in Syria and kill innocent people? Malbrunot: Mr. President, how has your daily routine changed in terms of leading the country since the beginning of the crisis? Some suggest that after two-and-a-half years Bashar al-Assad is leading the country alone. President al-Assad: This is what I meant earlier, if the West is against me and so were the Syrian people, if I was alone, how could I conceivably be leading the country? This is illogical. I can continue to lead because of the strength of public support and the strength of the Syrian state. Unfortunately, those in the West do not view this reality objectively. Malbrunot: Mr. President, a number of French journalists have been held in Syria. Do you have any idea of their situation? Are the Syrian authorities holding them? President al-Assad: Do you mean that we are holding them? Malbrunot: They were taken hostage in the North of Syria; do you have information on their fate? President al-Assad: If they were taken hostage by the terrorists, you will have to ask them. If anyone is arrested by the government for entering the country illegally, they will be taken to court rather than being held in jail. They would face charges according to Syrian law and this would be public knowledge. Malbrunot: Are you looking to cooperate with France on security issues? This was an area that went well in the past. President al-Assad: Any cooperation, be it security, military or economic requires political consensus. You cannot maintain security cooperation with any country when there is a conflict of interests. Malbrunot: When your father passed away, you visited France and were received by President Chirac. Everyone viewed you as a youthful and promising president and a successful ophthalmologist. Today, since the crisis, this image has changed. To what extent have you as a person changed? President al-Assad: The more imperative question is: has the nature of this person changed? The media can manipulate a person’s image at a whim, yet my reality remains the same. I belong to the Syrian people; I defend their interests and independence and will not succumb to external pressure. I cooperate with others in a way that promotes my country’s interests. This is what was never properly understood; they assumed that they could easily influence a young president, that if I had studied in the West I would lose my original culture. This is such a naïve and shallow attitude. I have not changed; they are the ones who wished to identify me differently at the beginning. They need to accept the image of a Syrian president who embraces his country’s independence. Malbrunot: Has France become an enemy of Syria? All those who support the terrorists are enemies of the Syrian people President al-Assad: All those who support the terrorists financially or militarily are enemies of the Syrian people. Anyone who facilitates the killing of a Syrian soldier, or works against the interests of Syria and her people is an enemy of Syria. I am not referring to the French people since I believe that the French government is working against the interests and will of its people. There is a difference between the concepts of adverse government and adverse nation. The French people are not our enemy but the policy of their government is one that is adverse to the Syrian people. Malbrunot: Is the French government an enemy of Syria? President al-Assad: The more adverse the policies of the French government are to the Syrian people, the more the government is an enemy to the Syrian people. The current policies, that we mentioned earlier, adopted by the French leadership are hostile towards Syria. This hostility can only end when the French government readdresses its policies.